ML20151A573
| ML20151A573 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/11/1988 |
| From: | Latham S, Mark Miller, Palomino F KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NEW YORK, STATE OF, SOUTHAMPTON, NY, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY, TWOMEY, LATHAM & SHEA |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#388-6730 OL-5, NUDOCS 8807200045 | |
| Download: ML20151A573 (61) | |
Text
%
/s73d p v
~
py:ato ,
- i uuu6**" E 5 $
po,ct,E(),G[ca UNITED STATES OF AMERICA sV, LEh,$c'YWO '
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSI N f g
- 3 co Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Acceal Board
)
In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
) (EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
) ,
BRIEF OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND THE TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON CONCERNING THE DISPOSITIC:2 OF LILCO'S APPEALS OF THE PARTIAL INITIAL DECISIONS REGARDING THE FEBRUARY 13, 1986' EXERCISE KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART TWOMEY, LATHAM & SHEA 1800 M Street, N.W. 33 West Second Street Washington, D.C. 20036 Riverhead, New York 11901 Attorneys for Suffolk County Attorneys for the Town of Southampton Fabian G. Palomino Richard J. Zahnleuter Executive Chamber, Room 229 Capitol Building Albany, New York 12224 Attorneys for Mario M. Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York July 11, 1988 8807200045 880711 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G PDR )l b
TABLE OF CONTENTS Pace I. Introduction .......................................... 1 II. Background ............................................ 2 III. LILCO's Appeals Should Not Be Dismissed Nor the Challenged Decisions Vacated on the Ground of Mootness ................................ 6 A. "Compelling Circumstances" Warrant the Board's Issuance of Advisory opinions in this Case ............................ 7 B. Dismissal of the LILCO Appeals Would Not Compel Vacating the Licensing Board's Partial Initial Decisions ................ 9 C. The Licensing Board's Decisions Should Not Be Vacated Because They Were Relied Upon in the June 1988 Exercise ......................................... 12 D. Dismissal of the LILCO Appeals and Vacating the Challenged Partial Initial Decisions Would Be Premature ............ 14 IV. Conclusion ....................... .................. 15
H o
Table of Authorities Pace Nuclear Reculatory Commission Decisions Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2), ALAB-656, 14 NRC 965 (1981) ........... 9 p,qtmonweal.th_ Edison Co. (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-874, 26 NRC 156 (1987) .......................................... 9, 10 Lono Island Lichtino Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-87-32, 26 NRC 479 (1987) .................................................. 2, 3, 4 Lono Island Lichtino Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-88-2, 27 NRC 85 (1988) .................................................. 2, 5 Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2),
- ALAB-455, 7 NRC 41 (1978) ............................... . 7 Philadelphia Electric Co x (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-85-16, 22 NRC 459 (1985) .................................................. 9, 10 Pucet Sound Power and Licht Co. (Skagit Nuclear ?ower Project, Units 1 and 2),
CLI-80-34, 12 NRC 407 (1980) ............................ 9, 11 Rochester Gas and Electric Coro. (Sterling Power Project, Nuclear Unit No. 1), ALAB-596, 11 NRC 867 (1980) ....................................... 9 Texas Utilities Generatino Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-714, 17 NRC 86 (1983) ................................... 7 United States Decartment of Enerov Proiect Manacement Corooration Tennessee Vallev Authority (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant), LBP-84-4, 19 NRC 288 (1984) ..................... 7 ii -
,'o Pace Reaulations '
10-CFR Part 50, Appendix E S IV.F.1 .......................................... 2, 3, 6 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E S IV.F.3 ........................................... 3 Oth~er Authorities
. Memorandum, ASLB No. 50-322-OL-5 (May 25, 1988) ..................................... 6, 8, 11 Order, AGLB No. 50-322-OL-5 l (June 27, 1988) .................................... 1, 6, 9 l Transcript of the Oral Argument Concertting the Appeal of LBP-87-32 ............................ 6, 8, 11, 12 l
l l
- lii -*
\
i 1
l
July 11, 1988 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Acceal Board
)
In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
) (EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Praer Station, )
Unit 1) )
)
BRIEF OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND THE TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON CONCERNING THE DISPOSITION OF LILCO'S APPEALS OF THE PARTIAL INITIAL DECISIONS REGARDING THE FEBRUARY 13, 1986 EXERCISE T. Ir.troduction Pursuant to the Board's June 27, 1988 Order ("June 27 Order"), Suffolk County, the State of New York and the Town of Southampton (the "Governments") hereby submit their views on the disposition of LILCO's two appeals of the OL-5 Licensing Board's partial initial decisions concerning the adequacy and results of the February 13, 1986 exercise at Shoreham (the "Exercise").
The Governments submit that while LILCO's two appeals may be ta',hnically moot, NRC precedent dictates that the Licensing I
- , a _ 5
... .s Board's partial initial decisions should not be vacated.
Moreover, vacating the challenged decisions at this time would be premature. These views are discussed below.
I7. Backcround The issues identified by the Board arise out of the lengthy litigation concerning the adequacy and results of the February 13, 1986 Exercise of the LILCO Emergency Plan (the "Plan") for the Shoreham plant. Upon consideration of the entire record, consisting of over 12,000 pages of transcript and prefiled testimony, exclusive of exhibits, the OL-5 Licensing Board issued two partial initial decisions regarding the Exercise. Egg Lono Island Lichtino Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),
LBP-87-32, 26 NRC 479 (1987) (hereafter, "LBP-87-32"); Lono Island Lichtino Co. (Shorenam Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1),
LBP-88-2, 27 NRC 85 (1988) (hereafter, "LBP-88-2").
Both LBP-87-32 and LBP-88-2 substantially held for the Governments. The first decision, LBP-87-32, concluded that because the Shoreham Exercise failed to test certain portions of the LILCO Plan, the Exercise did not satisfy the criteria for a "full participation" exercise for a near term operating license
("NTOL") plant, as set forth in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, S IV.F.1. 26 NRC at 480-81.
J
i J. '
o LBP-87-32, therefore, essentially sustained the Governments' 1 position on Contentions EX 15/16. Those contentions had alleged that there was no basis upon which reliable conclusions could be drawn about the implementability of the LILCO Plan, because during the Exercise neither major portions of the Plan and LILCO's auility to implement it, nor the response capabilities of personnel and entities essential to Plan implementation, were demonstrated or evaluated. Taken together, Contentions EX 15/16 alleged that given the inadequate and deficient scope of the February 13 Exercise, chere was no basis for the requisite "reasonable assurance" finding required by 10 CFR S 50.47(a)(1).
In deciding Contentions EX 15/16 in favor of the Governments, the Licensing Board rejected LILCO's argument that the Exercise met the Appendix E requirements for a "full participation" exercise, which tests as much of the licensee's emergency plan as is reasonably achievable without mandatory public participation. Egg 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, S IV.F.1.
Simply put, the Board determined that Appendix E clearly requires that the initial exercise at an NTOL site must be more comprehensive in scope than is the case (under Section IV.F.3 of Appendix E) for subsequent biennial exercises at sites with operating plants. Egg 26 NRC at 488-89.
The Licensing Board identified four material defects or omissions,which necessitated the finding that:the Exercise was 3-
inadequate in its scope. =First, the Board determined that the Exercise should have-included participation by WALK Radio,
, LILCO's lead emergency broadcast system ("EBS") station under the-then-existing Plan, as well as authentication'by WALK of the LILCO-drafted EBS messages. Egg 26 NRC at 492. Second, the Board found that LILCO, despite a specific FEMA request to seek the participation of more school districts, asked only one school district to participate in the Exercise, and failed to demonstrate that greater participation was not possible. Egg id.
at 497. Third, the Board found that LILCO had failed to test-the ingestion exposure pathway capabilities during the Exerciso. Id.
at 499. Fourth, the Board determined that the LILCO Plan provisions pertaining to special facilities had been inadequately tested during the Exercise. Id. at 501.
In sum, LSP-87-32 sustained the Governments' primary argument in Contentions EX 15/16 that the inadequate scope of the February 13 Exercise itself constituted a fundamental flaw in LILCO's emergency planning, since the results of the Exercise were necessarily too limited to provide a basis for a "reasonable assurance" finding. igg 26 NRC at 502.
On February 1, 1988, the OL-5 Licensing Board issued LBP-88-2, the second partia.1 initial decision challenged by LILCO.
In this second decision on tra Exercise, the OL-5 Licensing Board essentially disregarded the holdings in LBP-87-32 and critically
s i examined the imp,lementation capabilities which were tested during the Exercise. The Licensing Board determined that even if the Exercise had met the Appendly E scope requirements for an NTOL exercise, the Exercise revealed fundamental flaws in LILCO's Plan and LILCO's capability to implement that Plan. The chief flaws identified involved communications, prompt staffing of traffic control points, and training. Eeg 27 NRC at 89.
Either LBP-87-32 or LBP-88-2 is sufficient to resolve conclusively that the l'ebruary 13 Shoreham Exercise revealed fundamental flaws in LILCO's planning and capabilities sufficient to deny LILCO's application for an operating license. LILCO timely noticed appeals from both decisions and has briefed both appeals. The Governments, while expressing disagreement with certain adverse rulings contained in LBP-87-32 and LBP-88-2, have filed briefs opposing LILCO's appeals of both decisions.
l At the request of LILCO and the NRC, a new exercise of the LILCO Plan was conducted on June 7-9, 1988. In its June 27 Order, this Board noted that the June exercise had been l conducted, and requested the parties to brief the issue of the l-disposicion of LILCO's two appeals from the OL-5 Licensing Board's partial initial decisions. In particular, the Board requested that the parties address whether the appeals should be
dismissed and the two challenged partial initial decisions vacated on the ground of mootness. June 27 Order, at 3.1/
III. LILCO's Appeals Should Not Be Dismissed Nor the Challenged Decisions Vacated on the Ground of Mootness This Board has already determined that LILCO's appeal of LBP-87-32 is "technically moot,"2/ and the Governments do not dispute this finding. Nonetheless, under the circumstances of this case, NRC precedent establishes that LILCO's appeals should not be dismissed. Nor should the OL-5 Licensing Board's decisions challenged by LILCO be vacated on the ground of mootness. Rather, the Board should, at a minimum, render 1/ In responding to the Board's June 27 Order, the Governments do not address the merits of LILCO's two appeals from the OL-5 Licensing Board's decisions, since the Governments' views on the merits of LILCO's two appeals have already been briefed. Egg Governments' Brief in Opposition to Appeal of LILCO from LBP 32 (February 26, 1988); Governments' Brief in Opposition to LILCO Appeal from LBP-88-2 (April 18, 1988).
2/ Egg Memorandum, dated May 25, 1988 (hereafter, "May 25 Memorandum"), at 1. Although the Board did not identify its rationale for the finding of mootness, it appears that it relied upon the fact that more than two years had passed since the conduct of the February 13, 1986 Exercise, in contravention of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, S IV.F.1. Indeed, the Board questioned counsel for LILCO and Suffolk County at the oral argument before l
it on the appeal of LBP-87-32 as to whether the passing of two years since the February 13 Exercise had rendered the appeal moot. Egg Transcript of the Oral Argument Concerning the Appeal of LBP-87-32 (hereafter, "Tr."), at 12 (Judge Kohl); Tr. 78-80 (Judge Rosenth'al).
l The Board's June 27 Order appears to suggest a second basis l for mootness; that is, that the mere fact that a new exercise was held in June of this year may render the February 13 Exercise a nullity, thereby mooting LILCO's appeals. Egg June 27 Order, at 2-3.
1 1 l l
/
i advisory opinions addressing the adequacy and results of'the February 13 Shoreham Exercise.
A. "Compelling Circumstances" Warrant the Board's Issuance of Advisorv Ooinions in this Case NRC precedent establishes that advisory opinions may'be rendered whenever "compelling circumstances" suggest that such .
opinions are warranted. Sag United States Department of Enerov Proiect Manacement Corporation Tennessee Vallev Authority (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant), LBP-84-4, 19 NRC 288 (1984); Texas Utilities Generatino Co. (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2),'ALAB-714, 17 NRC 86, 93 (1983). geg also Northern States Power Co, (Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-455, 7 NRC 41, 54 (1978) ("no insuperable barrier to our rendition of an advisory opinion on issues which have been indisputably mooted by events occurring subsequent to licensing board decision"). Here, the facts of the unprecedented Shoreham Exercise litigation more than sufficiently document the compelling circumstances necessary to the issuance of advisory opinions on LILCO's appeals from the OL-5 Licensing Board's partial initial decisions regarding the February 13, 1986 Exercise.
First, this Board has previously determined that the circumstances of the Shoreham Exercise litigation require the rendering of an advisory opinion on the question of LILCO's m ,_ ,
L appeal of LBP-87-32. Sag May 25 Memorandum, at 1. That
. determination is even more true with respect to LILCO's challenge to the comprehensive legal and factual determinations rendered in LBP-88-2. For example, the definition of "fundamental flaw" adopted by thr OL-5 Licensing Board in LBP-88-2 resolves a 9
seminal matter of first impression which will likely figure prominently in all future exercise litigation. It would make no sense to vacate LBP-88-2 and thereby require relitigation of the fundamental flaw legal issue in future Shoreham or other plant litigation. Rather, it maken far more sense to have Appeal Board guidance issued now in the context of a carefully developed record and appeal briefs that present the issue for decision.
Moreover, even in the absence of the Board's prior determination that an advisory opinion is warranted in this case, the unique circumstances of the Shoreham Exercise litigation themselves speak to the compelling need for resolution of LILCO's appeals. That litigation represents the only fully litigated exercise in the history of NRC licensing proceedings. There is simply no other guidance in the body of NRC case law addressing the standards for litigating a completed exercise. As this Board has already recognized, resolution of LILCO's appeals is essential, if only in order to provide guidance by which the June 1988 exercise can be evaluated. Egg May 25 Memorandum, at 1; Tr.
at 78-80 (Judge Rosenthal).3/ In addition, however,' there is the 3/ The discussion at pages 78 through 80 of the transcript of the oral argument is reproduced here as Attachment 1.
l
matter of guidance for future litigants who may contest or nave 1
.to defend the adequacy and results of FEMA graded exercises. The l l
recently-completed Seabrook exercise is one such example.
B. Dismissal of the LILCO Appeals Would -
l Not Compel Vacating the Licensing ;
Board's Partial Initial Decisions '
In its June 27 Order, the Board requested the parties to address whether LILCO's appeals should be dismissed and the challenged decisions vacated in light of the authority of Philadelohia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI 85-16, 22 NRC 459 (1985) and Commonwealth Edison Co.
(Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-874, 26 .
NRC 156 (1987). Egg June 27 Order, at 3. Presumably, the Board's request reflects its concern that the cited authority may require dismissal of LILCO's appeals. That is not the case, however. In fact, the decisions cited by the Board, as well as the line of decisions upon which they rest, agg Puaet Sound Power and Licht Co. (Skagit Nuclear Power Project, Units 1 and 2),
CLI-80-34, 12 NRC 407 (1980); Boston Edison Co. (Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Unit 2), ALAB-656, 14 NRC 965 (1981) (order granting construction permit vacated after project cancelled);
Rochester Gas and Electric Coro. (Sterling Power Project, Nuclear Unit No. 1), ALAB-596, 11 NRC 867 (1980) (order authorizing construction permit vacated and permit revoked after applicants moved to abandon project), support the Governments' view that the J
challenged partial initial decisions should not be vacated; nor should-LILCO's appeals be dismissed.
Unlike the cases cited above, the Shoreham litigation presents compelling circumstances warranting the rendering of advisory opinions on the adequacy and results of the February 13 Exercise.d/ Specifically,.the 1986 Shoreham Exerciso is the only fully litigated exercise in the history of NRC licensing proceedings. The comprehensive legal and factual findings of the OL-5 Licensing Board are the only precedents in NRC case law for measuring the adequacy of future NTOL plant exercises at Shoreham
-- or elsewhere. Thus, the challenged decisions are the law of A/ No such compelling circumstances were present in the cases cited in the June 27 Order. In the Higidwood decision, the vacated order was one affirming the denial of the intervenors'
, motion to file a late contention regarding the licensee's application for a licensing amendment. The Braidwood Board vacated the order after the licensee's withdrawal of the amendment application mooted the controversy. Egg ALAB-874, 26 NRC at 157-58.
Similarly, in the Limerick decision, the vacated order in question was one granting the licensee an exemption from certain requirements of 10 CFR 55 50.47(a) and (b) challenged by prison inmates. The Commission vacated the order in question only after the Licensing Board's completion of consideration of emergency planning issues related to the contentions raised by these prisoners mooted the need for the exemption. Egg CLI-85-16, 22 NRC at 460. As the Board stated, the decision to vacate was appropriate on the facts of the case because "issuance of the full-power license does not depend in any way on the grant t the exemption at issue in these decisions." Id.
The same cannot be said on the facts of the case at hand.
The ultimate resolution of litigation concerning the adequacy and results of whatever exercise LILCO seeks to rely upon in fulfillment of Appendix E's requirements depends upon conclusive determination of the questions raised by LILCO's appeals of the OL-5 Licensing Board's partial initial decisions.
the case and the only NRC precedent by which the June 1988 Shoreham exercise can be judged.
Moreover, in applying the general principle that the dismissal of an appeal for mootness typically requires the vacating of the underlying order or decision from which the appeal is taken, the Commission has recognized that where the matters in question appear likely of repetition between the parties and proceedings in question,.then the general rule should be suspended. Egg Pucet Sound Power and Licht Co., CLI-80-34, 12 NRC at 408 (administrative orders vacated solely "[blecause the underlying administrative proceeding has been terminated and because the matter acoears unlikely of recatition as it affects these carties and these croceedinas") (emphasis added).
On the facts at hand, the very conduct of the June 1988 exercise demonstrates the necessity of resolution of the substantial questione raised concerning the adequacy and results of the February 13, 1986 Exercise, as well as the standards by which the June 1988 exercise is to be judged. This Board has itself recognized the need to render an advisory opinion as to the Licensing Board's review of the February 13, 1986 Exercise, if only to make effective review of the June 1988 exercise possible. Egg, e.o., May 25 Memorandum, at 1; Tr. at 78-80 (Judge Rosenthal).
.o The issues at the core of LILCO's appeals - particularly, the matters of the requisite scope of a "full participation" exercise, the propriety of the Licensing Board's examination into the itnplementability of LILCO's Plan (rather than simply the adequacy of the Plan), and the Licensing Board's construction and interpretation of what constitutes a "fundamental flaw" -- are very much live controversies between the Shoreham parties and must be resolved in order to determine the appropriate manner of review of the June 1988 Shoreham exercise. In fact, this Board has expressed concerns that the fal. lure to resolve LILCO's appeals may render the Commission incapable of completing review of the June 1988 Shoreham exercise -- or, for that matter, any other litigated exercise -- within the two-year period specified in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, S IV.F.1. Egg Tr. 78-80 (Judge Rosenthal).
C. The Licensing Board's Decisions Should Not Be Vacated Because They Were Relied Uoon in the June 1988 Exercise There is a further practical -- and compelling --
reason why the Licensing Board's partial initial decisions on the February 13 Exercise must not be vacated: the June 1988 exercise was designed to respond to the OL-5 Board's decisions. If those decisions are vacated, the bases for judging the scope of the June 1988 exercise will no longer exist.
.e -
The Governments are not yet.in possession of all documents relating to preparation for the June 1988 Shoreham exercise.
However, documents which have been obtained thus far indicate that FEMA and the NRC appear to have attempted to structure the 1988 exercise to comply with Appendix E's requirements as construed by the OL-5 Licensing Board. Some documents reflecting such consideration are attached to this brief. Egg Attachments 2-9. While the Governments do not concede that the NRC and FEMA succee,ded in structuring the June 1988 exercise to comply with Appendix E, their efforts focus the fact that the OL-5 Licensing Board's prior decisions will be a critical factor in assessing the adequacy of the June 1988 exercise. If those prior decisions are vacated, then an important decisional standard by which to B
test the adequacy of the June 1988 exercise will have been ,
eliminated. That'would make no sense.
Further, it is again the Governments' understanding that the June 1982 exercise was evaluated to test fixes for deficiencies j which were identified in the February 1986 Exercise. Without conceding whether LILCO has either corrected those deficiencies or whether FEMA has correctly evaluated the "fixes," the fact j nevertheless remains that the OL-5 Licensing Board's prior decisions remain an important standard in evaluating the results of the June 1988 exercise.
+ - , . - - , .n,,e.,
J D. Dismissal of the LILCO Appeals and Vacating the Challenged Partial Initial Decisions Would Be Premature r
In any event, it would be premature for the Board to vacate the challenged partial initial decisions as moot solely on :
the basis of the mere conduct of the June 1988 exercise. The t
February 13, 1986 Exercise results stand as an important fact in this proceeding: even though the Exercise was deficient in scope, LILCO's performance was still so' deficient that a "no-reasonable-assurance" finding was required. This fact cannot --
end should not -- be "eliminated" by vacat'ing the OL-5 Licensing Board's decisions. Rather, those are the realities -- the litigated results -- by which the June 1988 exercise must be evaluated.
Thus far, there have been no findings of any kind with respect to the adequacy of the June 1988 exercise. In fact, FEMA has not yet completed its review of this exercise; nor have the Governments had an opportunity to determine whether contentions challenging the exercise results should be filed. Thus, the only definitive results regarding the adequacy of LILCO's Plan and LILCO's capability to implement that Plan are the results from the February, 1986 Exercise: LILCO failed. These results cannot be eliminated by the legal "device" of vacating the OL-5 Licensing Board's decisions. Rather, as long as LILCO seeks to pursue a license for Shoreham -- and unless the OL-5 Licensing
1.n b :
Board's results are reversed.or a new exercise provides a basis to disregard the 1986 Exercise's results -- the facts remain as before,;and LILCO's Plan and its capabilities to implement that Plan must be judged to be inadequate. ,
Thus, while no considerations counsel in favor of vacating the OL-5 Licensing Board's partial initial decisions at this stage of the proceeding, compelling circumstances dictate the need to leave in place the only NRC precedents in existence concerning the litigation of a FEMA graded exercise.
IV. Conclusion Based'on,the foregoing, the Governments submit that LILCO's appeals should either be decided on the. merits or advisory opinions rendered, and accordingly, the challenged partial initial decisions should not be vacated.
Respectfully submitted, E. Thomas Boyle Suffolk County Attorney Building 158 North County Complex Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 l
j f
y i
,e I
\
vA . -
Michael S. Miller Ronald R. Ross KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 Attorneys for Suffolk County
< A% Q-J.
g i I R%)
Fabian G. Palomino Richard J. Zahnleuter 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 hU Stephen B'. Latham t$kw 0N Twomey, Latham & Shea P.O. Box 398 33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Attorney for the Town of Southampton 16 -
\
ATTACH!!ENT 1 ;
i O UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a
..........................................=..................
In the Matter of: )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING, COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
) (EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 )
/
O t .
LOCATION: Bethesda, Maryland PAGES: 1 through 94 DATE: April 28, 1988 t
-==....=.-....============ ... -=.m================= =====
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION oskw R,=*rr 1120 L Strwt, N.W., Sake 646 Waddastos, D.C. 20005 (242) 628-4888
] .
i I
78 I
f h 1 MR. LANPHER: I want to get back to a couple of
)
l 2 other items that were mentioned this morning, or questioned 3 this morning. And one is really one of the fundamental 4 questions,,I-guess, of Judge Kohl, as to why are we here, is 5 this moot.
6 Mr. Irwin said that he does not believe that it is s
7 moot. I think that it clearly is calling for an advisory 8 opinion, because the two year _ period has expired. I can l 9 understand why LILCO would want guidance, because another I
- 10 exercise apparently has been or is being scheduled.
11 JUDGE KOHL: Is there anything.to prevent us from 12 providing that guidance?
13 MR. LANPHER: My understanding is that you are not
- 0 i
' 14 limited to a strict case or controversy type of limitation in 15 terms of your jurisdiction.
16 JUDGE ROSENTHAL: That is what we have said on 17 several prior occasions.
18 MR. LANPHER: That is right. But in terms of whether 19 this past exercise is going to form the basis for anything, I 20 think that it is passe right now.
21 JUDGE ROSENTHAL: Does it not trouble you that an 22 exercise takes place and some two years and several months 23 thereafter that the question of the scope of that exerciso is 24 still in litigation. There must be some better way of handling 25 matters such as this than the course that was followed in this IU Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
9F '
1 instance.
2 It seems to me that if an exercise is good.for two 3 years, to have that exercise still a litigated matter some two 4 years and two months, or whatever it is, after*the exercise 5 took place does not speak very well for the process.
6 MR. LANPHER: Well, you know, your question is just 7 too broad to be capable of being answered, Judge Rosenthal.
8 JUDGE ROSENTHAL: Well, I guess that my question is 9 broad. But if they are broad, they are capable I think of some 10 answet.
11 JUDGE KOHL: He wants a specific answer to his broad 12 question.
13 JUDGE ROSENTHAL: You talk about this as all being 14 sort of water over the dam at this point because another 15 exercise is scheduled, and I guess that that is right. But it 16 sort of troubles me. This is the first opportunity that this 17 Applicant has to had to obtain at least an appellate review on 18 the question of whether contrary to the view of the Licensing 19 Board that the scope of this exercise was adequate.
20 MR. LANPHER: And Judge Rosenthal, that is why we did 21 not move to dismiss the appeal as moot, knowing your prior case 22 and controversy type of decisions. However, I think that it is 23 clear that there has to be another exercise before there can be 24 any licensing. And that is my only point. If you want to go 25 ahead and decide the case, that is your prerogative.
O i Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888
80
) h 1 JUDGE ROSENTHAL: If we did not decido the cc.se and 2 went forward, then two years from now perhaps the same 3 questions would be up again, on whether the scope of the coming 4 oxercise was adequate.
5 MR. LANPHER: Well, you are asking me to speculate.
6 I cannot say. My. understanding is what whatever FEMA is doing 7 now in terms of structuring an exercises is somewhat different 8 in what they did before.
9 JUDGE JOHNSON: Would you like to estimate the 10 likelihood that yotar client will find that the scope of that 11 second exercise is sufficient?
12 MR. LANPHER: Not at this point, I certainly would 13 not.
14 A frequent refrain in both the NRC and LILCO's 15 pleadings and their argunents here has been that there has been 16 a consistent practice by FEMA and the NRC staff in conducting 17 exercises of particular scope. And that for that reason, that 18 the OL-5 Licensing Board should have shown great deference to 19 that scope.
20 Now as a general proposition, we do not argue with 21 the idea that FEMA's determination as to a scope of an exercise 22 in the abstract might be due substantial deference. And I 23 believe that a footnote in ALAB A-61 where this was touched on 24 by at least you, Judge Rosenthal, and two other members of the l
25 Board as then constituted goes to that point.
!0 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.." . ATTACi!T:"O 2 c .r$
, , jW g Federal Emergency Management Agency
'g Washington, D.C. 20472 l
MAY I 91988 MEMORANDUM FOR: Edward A. Thomas, Chief Natural and Technological Hazards FEMA e ion I ,
FROM: Richard W. Krim,.
Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs
SUBJECT:
Guidance for the Qualifying, Full-Participation Exercise at Seabrook (Also Addresses the ShorehamExercise)
This responds to your request of March 15, 1988, on guidance for use in the upcoming Seabrook qualifying, full-participation exercise. This confirms the guidance provided to you in a conference call with Joan Hock, Marshall Sanders and Craig Wingo for the four issues raised.
Because of the relevance of this guidance to the Shoreham exercise, our response is applied t'o both the Seabrook and Shoreham exercises.
Issue 1. With respect to 'the participating State and local governments (i.e., New Hampshire and Maine), guidance should be developed along the lines of that distribute' by memorandum dated March 7,1988, f rom Grant PetersontotheRegional71rectorsforevaluatingexerciseswhereState and/or local governments c cline to participate.
Response. The same scope of exercise objectives delineated for utility offsite response organizations in the referenced March 7, 1988, memorandum applies to participating State and local governments. As set forth in this memorandum, 35 of the 36 exercise objectives of Guidance Memorandum (GM)
EX-3 apply, the only exception being objective 36. Of course, the new objective contained in the "Guidance Memorandum (GM) EX-3 Amendment" does not apply as it pertains only to utility offsite response organizations.
We understand that the State of New Hampshire has agreed to this extent of play in order to be consistent with the extent of play on the Massachusetts side. You should secure this understanding in writing, if you do not have it already. The specific objectives of the 35 that would need to be demonstrated by participating State and local governments are, of course, .
dependent upon their emergency functions as documented in their emergency response plans and procedures for the'Ir respective plume and ingestion exposure pathway roles and responsibilities. The use of the exercise objectives in conjunction with the testing of ple.,e and ingestion measures should be implemented in accordance with the guidance on pages 14,15 and 16 of GM IN-1 for the Seabrook and Shoreham exercises.
.s 2
Issue 2. With respect to qualifying exercises involving eithe_r_ ,
participating or non-particip? ting governments, guidance should be developed on how to properly evaluate the. availability and trainfng oT~ bus drivers and the availability of .5 Uses.
Response. The focus of this issue is pre-exercise evaluation of the availability of buses and training of bus drivers. Such an evaluation can be accomplished by exsmining the training component of the organization's emergency plans, examining letters of agreements (LOA) for buses and bus drivers and by making telephone calls to LOA providers to confirm capability to provide specified resources. Guidance for determining the extent of exercise demonstration and evaluation for bus drivers and buses (and route guides) is provided in the attachment.
I,ssue 3. With respect to the evaluation of decontamination and relocation facilities, we believe that procedures for properly choosing the nun.ber of decontaminatlon teams and registrars should be developed.
Response. Functions associated with relocation facilities include reception centers for registration and monitoring, decontamination centers and congregate care facilities. These functions may be integrated into the operations of a single facility or cay carried out in physically separate facilities and locations. Guidance for determining the extent of demonstration and evaluation of thes'e functions is provided in the attachment.
Issue 4. Finally, with respect to the New Hampshire portion of the exercise, a decision must be made at to whether correction of the deficiencies and ARCA's identified in the February 1986 exercise should be an objective of the next Seabrook exercise.
Response. All identified deficiencies from previous Seabrook and Shoreham exercises should have already been corrected prior to the upcoming exercises. If they have not, they should be demonstrated during these exercises. Likewise, any ARCA's from the 1986 exercises that have not been corrected should be redemonstrated, and if plan corrections are required, they too should be demonstrated at the upcoming exercises.
Any questions about this memorandum should be referred to Vern Wingert at 646-2872.
Attachment cc: All Regional ONTH Chiefs
.o .
Attachment May 9, 1988 GUIDANCE FOR DETERMINING THE EXTENT OF DEMONSTRATION AND EVALUATION REQUIRED FOR QUALIFYING, FULL-PARTICIPATION EXERCISES The following guidance is provided for determining the extent of demonstration and evaluation required for all organizations, facilities and field activities in exercises. An objective of this guidance is to provide a framework for ascertaining the level of exercise demonstration that is "reasonably achievable" in order to assure an adequate demonstration of organizational planning and preparedness. This guidance is applicable to only qualifying, full-participation exercises. Guidelines are provided below for making the determination of the extent of exercise denonstration and evaluation.
- 1. Because of the site-specific nature of organizational planning and preparedness, decisions on the extent of offsite demonstration and evaluation of exercise functions and activities should be made by FEMA Regional staff in consultation with FEMA Headquarters.
- 2. For exercise demonstration and evaluation purposes, the extent of activation and staffing for all types. of facilities, field teams (e.g., radiological monitoring) and field activities (e.g., traffic control) should be determined on the basis of a representative number of facilities, staff and functions. A representative number may vary from 100% to a portion of the total activity. The basis for determining a representative number is the documentation of organizational planning and preparedness, the type and level of participation required by scenario events and other relevant factors such as Federal evaluator resources.
- 3. The type and extent of additional documentation required to support limited demonstrations of exercise activities and functions may be addressed through such means as providing rosters of trained personnel and inventories of available equipment and instruments.
This guidance supersedes that contained in one part of section 3 of the attached January 5,1988, guidance on "Radiological Monitoring" as follows: "At least one monitor with a survey instrument should be present at each activated reception center to demonstrate his/her monitoring capability."
.-..-6 : ' '
.s.w T.
% 3 . r. . . , ..... ' ..-i n N b e n - . U i "i w r'.UU l ATTACHMENT 3 p aseg% UNITED STATE: .
! .. a NUC'. EAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'E{
- j. wAspectow, o. c. sosss h.C/)
e ...
May 20,1988 1
NENORANDUM FOR: Richard W. Krirrn Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Technological Hazt.eds programs '
I Federal Energency Nanagement Agency FROM: Frank J. Conge1, Director 1 Division of Radiation Protection !
and Energency preparedness
{
Office of nuclear Reactor Regulation l i
SUBJECT:
- OBJECTIVES FOR THE SHOREHAM EXERCISE i This responds to your May 13, 1988 meno requesting guidance concerning the propowd objectives for the upcoming Shorehas emergency prepar edness exercise.
We agree that the proposed objectives are sufficient to de:nonstrate the capa-bilities of the Long Island Lighting Company Local Emergency Response Organiza- !
tien (LERO) in a full-participation exercise. Sgecifically, we believe that !
these objectives are sufficient to constitute a qualifying" exercise under 10 CFR Part 50 amenancy plaas,asAppendixis nasonably E, Section IV.F.1without achievable in that sandatory it should test as inuch public participation. of the Regarding the deletion of Objective 22 (FEM Guidance Memorandum EX-3) because of the non participa*fon of the American Red Cross, we believe that this is appropriate. In a Any 11, 1988 letter from Edwin Reis, Deputy Assistant General I
Counsel, stated t hat the Commission had prevtously found that'the American Red Cr l charter from Congress and its naticesi policy require it to provide aid in "any 4diological er natural disaster," shether or not there are letters of agreement l in connection with a particular escogency plan. We will support the position t'6et the American Red Cross responds to natural and technological disasters as a routine and that it is not necessery to demonstrate this capability in a l radiological esorgency preparedness exercise if they decline to particf oate.
In this case we believe it is not reasonably achievable to gain their participa-tion in the Shorehan exercise.
C3WTACT:
Eesard M. Podelak, Jr., nRR )
492-3167 l
l
- - - . - . . _ _ + . , . . , , , . _ . _ _ - - . , ---- y
._,_,y.,,._._,.m
" ' Richard W. Krim ' '
If you have any questions or cor,ments, please call me at 492-1088. We appreciate FD% Headquarters in preparing for the Shoreham exercise.the int
~,
I f
Frank J. Co gel, Direc r Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness off1ce of Nuclear Reactor Regulation g
f e
G
ATTACHMENT 4
- D$h 6
f vfi
(@g 8 F ederal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 MaY 23kPo MEMORANDUM FOR: Ihor W.- Husar, Chaiman, Regional Assistance Committee FROM: R a mm Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Tech'nological Hazards Programs
SUBJECT:
Objectives For The Shoreham Exercise On May 5,1988, you forwarded to me a' set of objectives for the upcoming Shoreham exercise. You also re Nuclear Regulatory Commission (quested that they be submitted to theNRC) for a detemina' objectives are sufficient to constitute a qualifying exercise under NRC r egulations. .W e submitted the objectives to NRC on May 13, 1988.
Attached is NRC's May 20,1988 response to our memorandum. NRC staff believes that the objectives are sufficient to constitute a qualifying exercise under 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.1 in that it should test as much of the emergency plans as is reasonably achievable without mandatory public participation.
We also consulted with the NRC staff on an acceptable approach to demonstra-tions under Objective C. in light of the fact that the American Red Cross till not participate in the Shoreham exercise. The NRC staff believes that it would be acceptable to delete the objective, for.the reasons set forth in their memorandum. We also accept NRC's position on that issue.
If you have any additional questions, please feel free to call me at 646-2871.
Attac hment As Stated N
.. .a
- sg
, ATTACHMENT 5
~
' 'qg.y
,7 7i Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 May 25, 1988 MEMORANDUM FOR: Richard S. Krimm Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Division ,
/
FROM: George Watson 3/
A: ting General Counsel
SUBJECT:
New York School Districts Your memorandum of May 2, 1988, asked whe'.aer school districts in New York are governmental entities, units of 'oc.a government, or units of State government.
We conclude that school districts in New York are governmental entities, but are not units of the State government. The primary basis for this conclusion is a December 30, 1980, Opinion of the New York Attorney General, 1980 Op. Atty. Gen. N.Y. 19 (copy of relevant pages attached). That opinion stated in pertinent part that "Although Article 2-B (of the New York Executive Law) does not define a political subdivision, we believe that a school district is a political subdivision (of New York)...." By definition, if a' school district in New York is a political subdivision of the State, it is not a unit of the State government. ,
In addition, the attached May 11, 1988, letter to Bill Cuming from Edwin J. Reis, the NRC's Deputy Assistant Ceneral Counsel, indicates that the NRC believes the school districts are governmental organizations.
Enclosures cc: Dill Cumming i
i l
/9 PAGE 9
,/ .
47H CASE of Level 1 printed in FULL format.
0FFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW YORK
/ 1980 Op. Atty Gen. N.Y.19 December 30, 1980 )
1 SYLLABUS:
EXECUTIVE LAW, Art 2-B, 55 20-29-b; PUBLIC HEALTH LAW, 5 20,1(1) .
The _ chief executive of a local government may declare a state of emergency with respect to state-owned property in his locality. He is school also authorizeo to d is trict use school buses to cope with a disaster as long as the l l
agrees.
Section 201(1) of the Public Health Law gives neither the State Health Commissioner nor the County Health Commissioner sole legal respons1btlity to initiate action at the county level during a nuclear- disaster.
OPINION:
Hon. Vito J. Castellano Major General Chief of Staf f to the Governor State of New York Division of Military and Naval Affairs You have asked wnether the chief executive of a county, city, town or village may, pursuant to section 24 of the Executive Law, "State and Local Naturalinand the Man-Made Disaster Preparedness", proclaim a local state of emergency event of disaster, rioting, catastrophe or similar public emergency in regard to a State university f acility or other State-owned property that 15 within the territorial limits of the local government.
Section 24(1) of the Executive Law provides in pertinent part:
"(I]n the event of a disaster, rioting catastrophe, or similar public emergency within the territorial limits of any county, city, town or village,
,' or in the event of reasonable apprehension of immediate danger thereof, and upon
- a finding by the chief executive thereof that the public sefety is imperiled thereby, such chief executive may proclaim a local state of emergency within any part or all of the territorial limits of such lecal government." (Emphasis added.)
i The sectton makes no distinction with regard to the ownership of property.
As long as the property is within the territorial limits of the locality and the are met, the local chief executive may l
other requirements of section 24(1)with respect to State-owned property, including a declare a state of emergency g
State university facility in his locality.
You also ask whether and under what circumstances the chief executive of a political subdivision is authorized, pursuant todisaster section or25 resulting of Article 2-B, to i
utilize school buses in order to cope with a emergency.
Section 25 (3) provides that a chief executive may request and accept f assistance f rom any other polf tli al subdivision and may utilize any real or g
I KWIR AIGXUS LEXIS NEXIS
' PAGE 10
- December 30, 1980 personal property or personnel on such terms and conditions as may agreed to by the chief executives provides that of thereceipt upon requesting andfor of a request assisting politi subdivisions. Section 25(4) assistance, the chief executive of any political subdivision may g!ve, lend o lease any services, equipment, facilltles, supplies or other resources of his political cubdivision on such terms as he may deem 1ecessary The to prom public welf are and protect the interests of his political subdivision.
chief executive may lease or lend propertyemergency or transfer personnel only for thel relief, .
purpose of assisting a political subdivisiondisaster. inreconstruction or reh l l
Although school Article 2-B does not define a political subdivi th'dt a There is no uniform definition of aThe polit! calis not term 233, 234).
pe suant to section 25. subdivision in New York State However, a (1977 school Op Atty Gen district is defined in the General Construction Law (id. (See, ) . e.g. , section 100(1) of often considered to be a political subdivision.Moreover, prior provisions which were repe the General Municipal Law.) school district.
Article 2-B defined a political subdivision to include a l school districts I
Section 10 of the Executive Law and sections 60 and 209 Municipal Law, which were repealed by Article 2-B, includedIt is unlikely that the l 2-C, within the definition of a political subdivision. Legislature, disaster planning by school districts from participating in intended to exclude and relief.
district is a political subdivlston within the meaning of If a s c'hool a chief executive may request and accept. property or personne section 25(3),
such terms and conditions as may be mutuallybuses agreed owned by a to by th and the school district. utilize school with a disaster or a resulting emergency, district agrecs.
school district if the school S 201(11 gives either Finally, you have asked whether the Public Health Law, ity to 8
the Count / or State disaster Health Commissioner legal re
~
incident that results in a Executive Law.
of the Public Health Law enumerates the functions, State powers and i
Section 201(1) 11 j duties of the New York State Department of Headisaster, radiation. In the event of a nuclear However, section 201 does not give the l is required to respond appropriately. disasters.
I State exclusive jurisdiction to respond to nuclear h Article 2-B is predicated on the 015 principle aster.
that local governments are t i to initiate first line2-B, Article of defense in the for either theevent Countyof aor the State Health Commissioner It is quite disaster.
},
- action at a county level in the event of a nuclearposs nuclear incident in the affected locality.2-B of the Executive La i.{
'I RM9 AIEXIS LEXIS NEXH
) Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 MAY 2 - l988 MEMORANDUM FOR: George W. Watson Associate General Counsel Of ic of ene , Counsel PROM: ar W. Nr am Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Division
SUBJECT:
Legal Question The question has been raised by FEMA Region II on the "governmental status" of school districts in the State of New York. Are school districts independent governmental entities, units of local government or units of the State government? Because of the possible impact of this issue to the Shoreham exercise, your immediate attention to this is greatly appreciated.
f 8
0
..
- ATTACHMENT 6 f* *%e4
.f -,
(
U a
UNITED 57ATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
. W ASHINO10N,0. C. 20$$5
% , , , , , **'! May 26,1988 l
MEMORANDUM FOR: Richard W. Krim Assistant Associate Director 4
Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs Federal Emergency Management Agency 4
FROM: Frank J. Congel, ' Director Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
OBJECTIVES FOR THE SHOREHAM EXERCISE This documents a telephone conversation with your staff on May 25, 1988:
- 1. We have reviewed the May 25, 1988 memorandum from the Appeal Board regarding the scope of the February 1986 emergency preparedness exercise at Shoreham.
- 2. The view expressed in my May 20, 1988 memorandum to you regarding the completeness of the present objectives for the June 1988 Shoreham exercise has not changed; 1.e., we belieYe that these objectives constitute a "qualifying" exercise under 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E Section IV.F.1,
- 3. The view expressed by NRC in the May 3, 1988 meeting in your office regarding the handling of the State of Connecticut's non-participation has not changed; i.e., their participation is not reasonably achievable and the use of a control cell is appropriate.
I believe that the Licensing Board's memorandum supports the NRC and FEMA judgement that the Shoreham exercise test as much of the ec.argency plans as is reasonably achievable. If you have any questions please call me at 492-1088.
Frank J. Congel, Director Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation CONTACT:
Edward M.Podolak, Jr. , NRR 492-3167
~
a~
t.
I v. V ls. %
-. January 14. 1988 e
~SHOREHAM S TUS -
m J3 r1 9'::
- 1. Current NRC Posture of Licensing (Note that plant currently has Low- vefi cN license (1984)): t' J$CD sA. Federal Courts: E$ c)fE c[c3 l.
January 25, 1988.ChallengetoNRCutilityrule(Certificationoftherecordd@@bf5 Briefing schedule to follow as established by United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (normally 30 days for appellant (Intervenors) followed by 30 days for appellee (NRC)).
B. State Courts:
- 1. Lilco's appeal to the highest court in New York State of adverse decision on whether corporations can exercise, even on a delegated basis, state pollce power authority.
- 2. State Court challenge as to whether Lilco's designation of three of laws.
its own facilities as reception centers violates state and local zoning C. Full Commission:
~
- 1. Whether doctrine of federal preemption empowers Lilco to surmount absence of state and local participation. This issue was specifically reserved for decision by the Commission in CLI-86-13, July 1986. (In my judgement, the Commiscion will not reach a decision on this issue unless the new rule is struck down by the federal courts.)
D. Appeal Board:
- 1. Appeal ~ of Decer.* er 7,1986, Order of the OL-5 Board ruling that the February 13, 1986, exe cise evaluated by FEMA did not qualify under NRC regulations as the full pc er prerequisite exercise.
E. OL-5 Board:
- 1. Awaiting Concluding Initial Decision on February 13, 1986, exercise. (Essentially, this decision will define what "reasonable assurance" means to URC and whether the exercise demonstrated that the Lilco emergency plan is "fundamentally flawed." The hearing closed on June 19, 1987, and the decision could appear at any time.
1 ,
l
\' )
r
~~
F. OL-3 Board:
1.
Awaiting Initial Decision on whether Lilco's three reception centers are adequate for planning purposes. the hearing on this issue closed on July 29, 1987, but entry of an opinion was delayed by appointment of a new NRC Chief Judge in December due to the resignation from the Board for health reasons of the former Chief Judge.
- 2. Lilco on December 18, 1987, filed eight separate motions for summary disposition with the OL-3 Board. The filing exceeded over 550 pages.
Unless nxtended, the Intervenors response is due January 11, 1988. The NRC staff response is due ten days later.
3.
On December 21,1987, the OL-3 Board ruled adversely to Lilco on its motion for summary disposition of the so-called WALK radio contention. In doing so the Board gave Intervenors 20 days to file new contentions on this issue which concerns the EBS systems integration into Lilco's emergency response plan.
4.
The Board still has before it the Lilco request to go to 25% power filed Board.
originally with the full Commission in February 1987 and remanded to the On January 7,1988, the ASLB ordered staff to proceed with review of the 25% power request, but also allowed Intervenors to be given a hearing on the relationship of all open Shoreham contentions to the 25% power request.
5.
The Board on December 30, 1987 denied a motion by Lilco to dispose on summary disposition the remanded issue of whether the bus drivers utilized in Lilco's newly submitted (to NRC) plan for a single wave evacuation are e subject to "Role Conflict".
a formal hearing on the issue.The Board allowed 30 days for discovery pprior to II. Current FEMA posture on Licensing:
A. Plan Review. FEMA has reviewed eight versions of the Lilco plan.
Revision 9 is expected to be sent to NRC and non to FEMA within the next 30 days.
In the most recent plan review FEMA found fif teen (15) Inadequacies, not including any related to the EBS system. These were reserved for future review.
B.
Lilco plan Exercise based onevaluation:
the FebruaryFEMA foundexercise.
13, 1986, a total of five "deficiencies" in the Later one of these deficiencies was corrected post-exercise submission. to the satisfaction of FEMA based on a Lilco FEMA has stated that a new exercise or other appropriate remediation will be required prior to giving reasonable assurance.
C. Federal and State Courts: FEMA is not currently involved in any litigation in federal or state courts on the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
D. NRC Appeal Board: FEMA has been given the opportunity if it so wishes to file an amicus brief by the Appeal Board in its December 23, 1987, order denying expedited consideration or certification to the Commission of the December 7, 1987, OL-5 order on the exercise. (Note that under NRC regulations and the FEMA /NRC MOU FEMA has no rights in the NRC adjudicatory s process except by leave of the Boards. )
2
,. - . i (
+ .
SF.ABROOK STATUS I.
haveCurrent a low-powerNRC Posture license):of Licensing (Note that Seabrook does not presently A. Federal Courts:
1.
January 25, Challenge 1988. to URC utility rule (Certification of the record due by Briefing schedule to follow as established by United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (normally 30 days for appellant (Intervenors) followed by 30 days for appellee (NRC)).
2.
Intervenors are considering filing suit to prevent licensing based on NRC noncompliance with National Environmental Policy Act. (This suit is in the wings awaiting the granting of a low power license in my judgment).
B. State Courts:
- 1. .The applicants have sought review by the the highest court in New Hampshire of the decision upholding the right of several New Hampshire towns to remcVe sirens, thereby disabling the ANS. (As noted below, the applicant has already submitted to NRC for approval an airborne alerting system.)
C. Full Commission:
- 1. Intervenors have appealed ALAB-879 to the Commission. The Appeal Board order concerned the principle issue of a failed siren test and the impact of that failure on a low-power license.
- 2. The time for the full Commission to' review ALAB-875 expired on January 11, 1988 making the decision effective as final agency action for purposes of judicial review on December 30, 1987.
1, The Appeal Board has requested briefs (Briefs to be completed by January 8,1988) on the issue of whether the removal of sirens in Newburyport, Massachusetts, should cause the record to reopened, including the filing of new contentions by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This is labeled an onsita issue.
- 2. For a second time, on January 8,1988, the Appeal Board in ALAB-882 has remanded to the Licensing Board for decision the issue of whether certain coaxial cables meet NRC standards. The Appeal Board overturned a prior Licensing Board decision on this issue once before (ALAB-875), and the Appeal Board has prohibited the Licensing Board from granting a Low-Power license without first allowing a ten-day period for appeals back to the Appeal Board on this issue. '
- 3. The Appeal Board heard oral argument on December 8,1987, as to whether despite the NRC's rule restricting their authority to review financial responsibility of applicants (Based on other state or federal regulation), the stated potential insolvency of the applicant before the SDC should prohibit .
NRC from conducting further licensing activities on Seabrook.
\
l 3
n.'
- I.
o I l
l l
t 4.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts moved the Appeal Board on January 7, 1988, to admit a late-filed contention and reopen the record in light of the fact that all sirens in the Massachusetts portion of the EPZ have been ordered removed by the Tows of Amesbury, Meerimac, Newbury and Salisbury, and PSNHhas lost its apptempt to stay that removal in both the Federal District Court and the Nited States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (Public Service Co. of.New Hampshire v. Town of West Newbury, 87-1395) (1st Cir. December'16, 1987). ______F. 2d (No.
'E. Licensing Board:
1.
The Licensing Board presently is awaiting briefs on the Coaxial Cable issue. This is an onsite issue.
2..
The Licensing Board is presently conducting hearings on the New Hampshire emergency plan. The Hearings resume January 11, 1988.
II. Current FEMA posture on Licensing:
A. Exercise Evaluation: FEMA evaluated an exercise in February 1986 and found 58 deficiencies. The plan exercised has been substantially superceded.
FEHA bas taken no position on the need for a futher exercise except to state in the FC3A/NRC/ Applicant public meeting on December 22, 1937, that scheduling of an exercise must await further plan review.
B. Plan Evaluation: FEMA has evaluated the New Hampshire plan and did not give a finding of "reasonable assurance". That pian is currently in hearing. The Massachusetts Utility plan will undergo plan review beginning January 4,1988, per statement of Richard Krimm in FEdA/MRC/ Applicant public meeting on December 22, 1987.
(It should be noted that FEMA in internal documents has adopted the policy that. the next exercise must include both the New Hampshire and Massachusettes portions of the EPZ.
The December 7, 1987, ruling of the Shoreham OL-5 Board requires implementation of Ingestion Pathway protective actions by the plume exposure states which would include Maine and Massachusetts.)
C. Federal and State Courts: FEMA is not currently involved in any litigation in federal or state courts on the Seabrook Nuclear Station.
l 4
'e ss . g A1l'ACilNEWT d
" 1' dh,Dw t, i Wt Federal Emergency Management Agency '
. C ll Washington, D.C. 20472 MAR T 1988 MEMORANDUM FOR: Regional Directors .
Acting Regional Director FROM:
fjp//7 Grant C. Peterson Associate Director State and Local Programs and Support i
SUBJEC T: Guidelines for Regions to Use in Implementing NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1 Suppl ement 1 With Qualifying Exercises The attached guidelines are provided for comment and interim use in preparing for and evaluating qualifying exercises where State and/or local governments decline to participate in emergency planning and exercises. .They are in the fom of an Amendment to Guidance Memorandum EX-3, issued February 26, 1988. This guidance should be used in conjunction wi th NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1, Suppl ement 1.
The existing modular format should continue to be used in conjunction with the evaluation criteria of Supplement 1 until the modular fomat is revised by Headquarters to incorporate the use of Supplement 1 and this-amendment.
This guidance has been developed jointly with Nuclear Regulatory Commission staf f and has been approved by Mr. Thomas E. Murley, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
Comments should be provided to FEMA Headquarters, attention Technological Hazards Division, by March '31,1988. Any questions concerning this matter should be addressed to Vern Wingert at 646-2872.
Attachment cc: Thomas E. Murley, Director, Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Regulatory Commission L_._ -
M1
' g 'ec Federal Emergency Management Agency y Washington, D.C. 20472 MAR 7 1938 Attachment Guidance Memorandum (GM) EX-3 Amendment Purpose
- 1. This document amends the guidance in GM EX-3 to accomodate the testing of utility offsite plans in qualifying exercises.
This amendment addresses the application of exercise objectives '
of GM EX-3 to exercises in which State and/or local governments decline to participate with the utility. It also specifically delineates what constitutes an adequate demonstration of 'those exercise objectives pertaining to functions for which utilities are dependent upon State and/or local governments for legal authority to carry out their emergency responsibilities.
- 2. This amendment will assist evaluators in determining the knowledge and capability of the utility of fsite response organization personnel to advise and assist State and local officials in implementing those portions of the offsite plan where State and local response is id enti fi ed .
- 3. This amendment is intended to facilitate the implementation of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulation,10 CFR Part 50.47(c)(1) and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E.Section IV.F. , dated November 3, 1987, (52 FR 42078) and the planning standards and evaluation criteria in NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1, Suppl ement 1.*
Guidance
- 1. The nature of the qualifying exercise is stated in 10 CFR 50, App.E.IV.
F.(1): "A full participation exercise which tests as much of the licensee, State and local emergency plans as is reasonably achievable without mandatory public participation shall be conducted for each site at which a power reactor is located for which the first operating license for that site is issued after July 13, 1982. This exercise shall ba conducted within two years before the issuance of the first operating license for full power (one autnorizing operation above M of rated power) of the first reactor, and shall include participation by each State and local government within the plume exposure pathway EPZ and each State within the ingestion exposure pathway ,EPZ..."
- 2. The amended NRC regulation in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.6.
l provides that: "The participation of State and local governments in an emergency planning exercise is not required to the extent that the
- The guidance herein may be amended as the law develops and requirements or the evaluation criteria are changed or modified.
2 l
' applicant has identified those governments as refusing to participate f urther in emergency planning activities pursuant to 10 CFR 50.47(c)(1). !
In such cases, an exercise shall be held with the applicant or licensee l and suCn governmental entities as elect to participate in the emergency planning process."
- All qualifying exercises should have ingestion pathway demonstration including the activation and operation of emergency operation facilities, field team functions (e.g., sampling and laboratory analysis) and the dissemination of agriculturally-related.
infomation and instructions. It may be necessary to have a separate scenario to drive sufficient ingestion pathway exercise play.
"The offsite response organization shall attempt to involve the non-participating State and local government in the exercises and drills, but their participation is not required." (Supplement 1, evaluation criterion N 6.) This provision also applies to ingestion-only exposure pat-hway states.
- 3. Since the purpose of this qualifying exercise is to test as much of the emergency plans and preparedness as is reasonably achievaole, without State and/or local participation, under Supplement 1, the utility should demonstrate a total of 36 exercise objectives. This consists of 35 of the 36 existing exercise objectives in GM EX-3, plus an additional objective that incorporates evaluation criteria of Supplement 1.
- Objective 36, unannounced and of f-hours exercises and drills, does not apply to a qualifying exercise.
- While implementation guidance in GM EX-3 pemits State and local governments to delay demonstration of exercise objective 9 until calender year 1989, it is necessary for utility of fsite response organizations to test this objective for qualifying exercises held in calender year 1988. Objective 9 states, "Demonstrate the ability to obtain samples of particulate activity in the air-borne plume and promptly perfom laboratory analyses." (I.10. )
- The following is a new exercise objective that parallels the Suppl ement 1 guidance. This objective is as follows: "Demonstrate the capability of utility offsite response organization personnel to interface with non-participating State and local governments through their mobilization and provision of advice and assistance."
(N.1. b. , E. 6. a nd C. S. )
4 The following is a subset of the 36 exercise objectives in GM EX-3 i
that may be legal authority-sensitive and which should be demonstrated in quali fying exercises. They may be authority-sensitive because sone aspect of their implementation in an actual radiological emergency l
l w
3 raay be dependent upon the authority of the non-participating State and local governments. Thus, the demonstration of these objectives in an exercise could be dependent upon how authority-related issues are addressed in the utility of fsite response organization plan. (See item 6 below. ) Depending upol the provisions of the plan, demonstration i of these objectives might be limited to. the of fsite response organization providing advice and assistance to controllers and evaluators who will afford appropriate opporturiities for the players to demonstrate their knowledge and interf ace capabilitie~s.
- a. Objective 11. Plume Protective Action Decisionmaking (J.10.m.);
- b. Obj ectives 12, 13, 14 and 15. Alert, Notification and Emergency In forTaation (E.5. , E,6. and J 10.c.);
- c. Objectives 16,17. Use of K: (J.10.e. f . );
- d. Objectives 18,19. Implementation of Protective Actions (J.9. ,
J.10.d .g . );
- e. Objective 20. Traf fic Control (J.10.j.k.);
- f. Objectives 21, 22. Registration, Monitoring, Decontamination and Congregate Care (J.10.h. , J.12. );
i.
Objectives 23, 24. Medical Services (Transportation and Facilities)
(L.1,L.4.);
- j. Objective 25. Decontamination (K.5.a.b.);
- k. Objective 25. Supplementary Assistance (Federal /0ther) (C.l.a.b.);
- 1. Objective 30. Ingestion Exposure Pathway (J.9., J.11) and
- m. Objectives 32, 33. Recovery, Reentry and Relocation (M.l.).
- 5. The scope of the demonstration of the exercise objectives should include emergency personnel, facilities and resources required by the scenario and exercise play, keeping in mind that the purpose of the qualifying exercise is to test as much of the emergency plans and preparedness as is reasonably achievable, without State and/or local participation. The degree of demonstration of individual exercise objectives should test the workability of that aspect of the pl an. For example, it will be only necessary to activate thoso relocation centers that are dictated by the scenario and exercise play and, therefore, not necessarily all other relocation centers.
4
- 6. The demonstration and evaluation of the objectives should follow the specific provisions of the plan being tested. For example, the activation and deployment of utility of fsite response organization personnel should be perfonned at the emergency classification level designated in the plan, if the plan requires the utility offsite response organization to secure legal authority to carry out necessary functions, they should follow the proceoures contained in the plan that would be used in the event of an emergency. Actions in an exercise simulating the securing of appropriate legal authority may include the following: A simulation of the general deputization of utility offsite response organization personnel, a simulation of the ad hoc securing of authority on a case-by-case basis or a -
simulation of the direct assumption of responsibility by State and local governments.
- 7. Consistent with the guidance in Supp.1, evaluation criteria N.I.D.,
"An exercise shall include mobilization of of fsite response organiza-tion resources adequate to verify the capability to respond to an accident scenario requiring response.
This includes the demonstration of of fsite response organization capabilities to interface with non-participating State and local government, but does not include the use of stand-ins for the anticipated State and local response."
- 8. FEMA will evaluate the timeliness, completeness and ef fectiveness of interfaces between utility of fsite response organization personnel through interactive communications and exchanges with controllers and evaluators. While the controllers will not function as stand-ins, they will provide appro'priate opportunities for the players to demonstrate the knowledge and interface capabilities of utility offsite response organization personnel. The utility offsite response organization personnel in facilities will be expected to make telephone calls and forward infornation to control cells. For utility of fsite response organization personnel in the field, evaluators will use directed questions to deternine their ability to carry out their interface capabilities. Thus, FEMA will use infonnation secured by both exercise controllers and evaluators to assess the utility of fsite response organization's interface and liaison capabilities.
- 9. This guidance has been jointly developed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency staff and has been approved by the Director of the NRC Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
/
fh7)_ Federal Emergency Management Agency
- g f Washington, D.C. 20472 MAY I 31988 i MEMORANDUM FOR: Frank J. Congel Director, Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation C "ission FROM :
-da A2>,dA . k(&
Nuclear Regulaftor Ricnard W. Krimm Assistant Associate Director ,
Of fice of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs
SUBJECT:
Objectives For The Shoreham Exercise On February 8,1988, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requested that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conduct a full-participation exercise of Long Island Lighting Company's (LILCO) of fsite preparedness plan for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
Attached are the proposed objectives for the Shoreham exercise now scheduled for June 7-9, 1988. They have been reviewed by FEMA Region II, the Regional Assistance Committee, and FEMA Headquarters. Of the objectives identified in FEMA Guidance Memorandum EX-3 and its March 7,1988 Amendment, all objectives', except as noted below are proposed for demonstration, as shown in the attachment to this memorandum. The exceptions are:
Objective 17 - This is consistent with New York State Public Health law, New York State Radiological Emergency Preparedness practices and the Shoreham Radiological Emergency Response Plan, in that the distribution and administration of potassium iodide to the general public is not a protective action option in the State of New York.
Ubjective 36 - This is consistent with the Amendnent to Guidance Memorandum EX-3 which states that an of f-hours unannounced exercise is not a requirement for a qualifying exercise.
Objective 22 - The approach to demonstrations associated with this objective is now under discussion between FEMA and NRC staff, due to the non-participation of the American Red Cross in the upcoming Shoreham exercise. We request your written advice as soon as possible on how the utility should handle these demonstrations so that we can make appropriate arrangements for their evaluation.
It is our position that the proposed objectives are sufficient to demonstrate the capabilities of the Long Island Lighting Company Local Emergency Response Organization in a f ull-participation exercise. We hereby request NRC to inform us as soon as possible whether these objectives are sufficient to constitute a qualifying exercise under NRC's regulations and give us specific advice on Objective 22.
If you have any questions or canments, please feel free to call me at 646-2871.
Attachment As Stated
4 Federal Emergency Management Agency Region 11 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 Hay 5, 1988 HEMORANDUM FOR: Richard W. Krimm Assistant Associate Director
- Natural and Technological Hazards Programs il g ! t k A). L' h FROM: Ihor W. Husar, Chairman Regic'aal Assis tance Committee SUEJECT: Objectives for Shoreham Exercise The proposed exercise objectives for the June 7-9, 1988 Shoreham exercise have been reviewed by FEMA Region II, and the RAC members. Of the 36 objectives identified within EX-3, and the required objective for qualifying exercises described in NUREG 0054/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1. Supplement 1 the Long Island Lighting Company has cubmitted its intent to test 34 objectives during the June exercise. The only three objectives which will not be demonstrated are:
objective 17 This is consistent with New York State Public Health Law. New York State Radiological Emergency Preparedness practices and the Shoreham Radiological l Emergency Response Plan, that the distribution and l administration of potassium iodide to the general public is not an acceptable protective action.
Objective 22 - This objective will not be demonstrated due to the refusal of the American Red Cross refusal to participate in the upcoming Shoreham exercise.
Objective 36 - This is consistent with Guidance Memorandum EX-3 which states that an off-hours unannounced exercise is not a requirement for a qualifying exercise.
Our review indicates that the 34 objectives submitted are sufficient to amply demonstrate the capabilities of LILCO. It is our request that these off-site objectives be submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for determination for "qualifying exercise" under NRC rules.
Attachment 20'd I adOA M3H 1: HOID33 YA3J 95 WI E8, SO' WW
~
deral Emergency Management Agency Region !! 26 Federal Mase New York, New York 10278 1
1 i
May 4, 1988 Mr. Douglas M. Crocker, Manager Nuclear Emergency Preparedness Long Island Li Central Islip,ghting N.Y.Company 11722 l
Dear Mr. Crockert t .
As a result of you and your concurrence,r April 29th meeting with Gary Seidenfeld we have refor atted your revised objectives
- which you submitted in your corresp=ondence of April 19, 1988 to i coincide with the 26, 3, dated February language 1988. ofThe the objectives specified within Ex-attached objectives have been
' divided into two components (plume pathway, and ingestion pathway) for the scheduled June 7-9, 1988 exercise. Objectives l have beenforfurther activated identified within each location which will be the exercise.
1 i Per your request, the following changes have been incorporated into the attached objectives l The demonstration of objective 7 has been addad to the Brookhaven Area office location.
I I
The demonstration of objective 22 is being been removed.
i This is the in participate result of the American the upcoming Shorehan Red Cross refusal to exarcise.
FEMA objectives 17 and 36 are the onl be demonstrated during the exercise. The y objectives whichfor justification willthis not
- is as follows
! objective 17 - This is consistent with New York State Public Health Law, New York State Radiological Emergency Preparedness practices and the Shoreham Radiological Emergency Response Plan, that the distribution and administration of potassium iodide to the general public is not an acceptable protective action.
Objective 36 - This is consistent with Guidance Memorandum EX-3 which states that an off-hours unannounced exercise is not a requirement for a qual'ifying exercise, go d 2 2^ M3J II TJID3d W3d dC *I E SO ' AW
,l .
,e,
- I vich to confira your intent to incorporate all of the sub-objectives identified within your revised submission into the
- exercise "extent of play" and they will be evaluated by FEMA during the upcoming exercise. Additionally, l' vish to assure you
' that PEMA evaluators vill verify the status of all previous deficiencies, and areas requiring corrective action during the
- Shoreham exercise.
I will be requesting to FEMA Headquarters that the attached objectives be forward to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for determination for "qualifying exercise a under NRC rules.
Your cooperation throughout the plan review and exercise i
'. process has been greatly appreciated 4
sincere ,
by hhorW.Husar V Chairman, Regional 1.
Assistance committee I
1 1
1
.I i
I i
I J
- A"4
Id PLUME PAmAY OMECTIVES
!" A.
LERO EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER (EOC)
- 1. ONECTIVE 1 Demonstrate the ability to monitor, understand and use emergency classification levels (ECL) through the appropriate implementation of emergency functionsby required and theactivities scenario.corresponding to ECL's as The four ECL's are Notification of unusual event, alert, site area emergency and general emergency.
- 2. OMECTIVE 2:
mobilize and activate personnel for both facility andDemo field-based emergency functions.
- 3. OMECTIVE 3:
coordinate and control emergency activities. Demonstrate the a
- 4. OMECTIVE 4:
Demonstrate the ability to communicate with all appropriate locations, organizations and field personnel.
- 5. OBJECTIVE 5:
equipment, displays and other materials to supportDemons emergency operations.
- 6. OMECTIVE 71 Demonstrate the appropriate equipment and procedures for determining field radiation measurements.
- 7. OMECTIVE 91 of particulate activity in the airborne plume andDemonstrate th promptly perform laboratory analyses.
- 8. 0%7ECTIVE 10t exposure pathwa Demonstrate tho' ability, within the plume plume exposure,y, to project based on plantdosage and field to the data. public via
- 9. OMECTIVE 11: Demonstrate the ability to make appropriate protective actions decisions, based on
, projected or actual dosage, EPA PAG's, availability of adequate shelter, evacuation time estimates and other relevant factors..
- 10. OMECTIVE 12!
Demonstrate the ability to initially alert the public within the 10-mile EPZ and begin dissemination of an instructional message within 15 minutes of a decision by appropriate State and/or local officials.
1 30 d I 180^ n39 II u0193 w.y gg &T 68, 50 *AW
- 11. Ca7ECTIVE 13: Denonctrato the cbility to coordinate tho formulation and dissemination of accurate internation and instructions to the public in a timely fashion after the initial alert and notification has occurred. 3
- 12. {
C&7ECTIVE 16: Demonstrate the ability to make the '
decision to recommend the use of KI to emergency workers and institutionalized persons, based on predetermined criteria, as well as to distribute and administer it once the decision is made, if necessitated by radiciodine releases.
- 13. C&7ECTIVE 18: Demonstrate the ability had resources necessary.to implement appropriate protective actions for the impacted permanent and transient plume EPZ population (including transit-dependent persons, special needs population, persons).
handicapped persons and institutionalized
- 14. OBJECTIVE 19: Demonstrate the ability and resources necessary to implement appropriate protective actions for school children within the plume EPZ.
- 15. C&JECTIVE 20: Demonstrate the organizational ability and resources necessary to control access to evacuated and sheltered area.
- 16. C&JECTIVE 26: Demonstrate the ability to identify the need for and call upon Federal and other outside support agencias' assistance.
- 17. OBJECTIVE 34 : Demonstrate the ability to maintain staffin change.g on a continuous 24-hour basis by an actual shift
- 18. OE7ECTIVE 35: Demonstrate the ability to coordinate the evacuation of onsite personnel.
- 19. C&7ECTIVE 37: Demonstrate the capability of utility offsite response organization personnel to interface with non-participating State and local governments through their mobilization and provision of advice and assistance.
- FEMA HQ (SLPS) memorandum, subject: Guidelines for Regions to Use in Implementing NUREG 0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1, Supplement 1 with Qualifying Exercises, dated March 7, 1988.
l 2
(
I0*d ,
I 9:0A IGl II tOI!;3:f W3.1 EE:M 23, SO'M
C.
EMERDENCY NEWS CENTER (ENC)
- 1. OMECTIVE 2: Demonstrate the ability to fully alert, mobilize and field-based emergency functions.
activata personnel for both facility and
- 2. OBJECTIVE 4 Demonstrate the ability to communicate with all appropriate locations, organizations and field personnel.
- 3. OBJECTIVE 5:
, Demonstrate the adequacy of facilities, equipment, emergency operations.
displays and other materials to support
- 4. OMECTIVE 13 Demonstrate the ability to coordinate the formulation and instructions to the dissemination public in aoftimely accurate information fashion and after the initial alert and notification has occurred.
- 5. On7ECTIVE 14: Demonstrate the ability to brief the media in an accurate, coordinated and timely manner.
- 6. OMECTIVE 15: Demonstrate the ability to establish and operate fashion. rumor control in a coordinated and timely
( 7. OBJECTIVE 34:
l Demonstrate the ability to maintain staffing change.
on a continuous 24-hour basis by an actual shift D.
STAGING AREAS (SA)
- 1. OBJECTIVE 1: Demonstrate the ability to monitor, understand and use emergency classification levels through the appropriate implementation of emergency (ECL) functions and activities corresponding to ECL's as required by the scenario. The four ECL's are Notification and general emergency.
of unusual event, alert, site area amergency
- 2. OBJECTIVE 2:
Demonstrate the ability to fully alert, mobilize and activate personnel for both facility and l
field-based emergency functions.
4 OMECTIVE 31 Demonstrate the ability to direct, l coordinate and control emergency activities.
4 60'd E MdOA tG1 II NCIMM W3J Ir:pi ES , SO ' AW
- 4. OMECTIVE 4:
Demonctrato tho ability to communicate I with all appropriate locations, organizations and field personnel.
- 5. OBJECTIVE 5:
equip =ent, Demonstrate the adequacy of facilities, displays and other materials to support emergency operations.
- 6. OBJECTIVE 6: Demonstrate the ability to cont monitor and control emergency worker exposure.inuous1y' 7
Ca7ECTIVE 34:
staffin Demonstrate the ability to maintain change.g on a continuous 24-hour basis by an actual shift E.
EMERGENCY WORKER DECONTAMINATION FACILITY (EWDF)
- 1. OBJECTIVE 2:
mobilize and activate personnel for both facility andDem field-based emergency functions.
24 OBJECTIVE 6: Demonstrate the ability to cont monitor and control emergency worker exposure.inuously
- 3. OBJECTIVE 25:
equipment, Demonstrate the adequacy of facilities, supplies, procedures and personnel for decontamination of emergency workers, equipment and vehicles and for waste disposal.
- 4. C&7ECTIVE 34:
staffin Demonstrate the ability to maintain change.g on a continuous 24-hour basis by an actual shift F.
FIELD ACTIVITIES (FA)
- 1. C&7ECTIVE 2: i mobilize and activate personnel for both facility andDemons field-based emergency functions.
- 2. OBJECTIVE 6:
monitor and control amergency worker exposure. Demonstrate t
- 3. OBJECTIVE 7:
Demonstrate the appropriate equipment and i procedures for determining field radiation measurements.
- 4. OBJECTIVE 8:
Demonstrate the appropriate equipment and I procedures for the measurement of airborne radiciodine concentrations presence of nobleasgases.
low as 10 7 microcurie per cc in the 5
Wd 2 ;20^ tG 1 I I NOI D3 d W3J T r ' P I 59, SO ' WJ
' 5. OBJECTIVE 9:
of particulato activity in the airborne plume andDemonstrato t promptly perform laboratory analyses.
6.. OBJECTIVE 12:
Demonstrate the ability to initially alert' the public within the 10-mile EPZ and begin dissamination of an instructional message within 15 minutes of a decision by appropriate state and/or local officials. <
- 7. OBJECTIVE 13: Deacnstrate the ability to coordinate the formulation and instructions dissemination to the public in aoftimely accurate fashioninformation and after the initial alert and notification has occurred.
- 8. O&7ECTIVE 16: Demonstrate the ability to make the decision to recommend the use of KI to emergency workers and institutionalized persons, based on predetermined criteria, the as is decision well as toif distribute made, necessitated andby administer radioiodine it once releases.
- 9. OBJECTIVE 18: Demonstrate the ability and resources necessary to implement appropriate protective actions for the impacted permanent and transient plume EPZ population (including transit-dependent persons, special needs population, personr.). handicapped persons and institutionalized
- 10. OBJECTIVE 19: Demonstrate the ability and resources necessary to implement appropriate protective actions for
, school children within the plume EPZ.
- 11. CMECTIVE 20: Demonstrate the organizational ability and resources necessary to control access to evacuated and sheltered area.-
- 12. OBJECTIVE 21 Demonstrate the adequacy of procedures, facilities, equipment and personnel for the registration radiological monitoring and decontamination of evacuees.,
- 13. OBJECTIVE 23: Demonstrate the adequacy of vehicles, equipment, procedures and personnel for trans contaminated, injured or axposed individuals. porting
- 14. OBJECTIVE 24 Demonstrate the adequacy of medical I facilities equipment, procedures and personnel for !
handling contaminated, injured or exposed individuals.
- 15. OBJECTIVE 341 Demonstrate the ability to maintain staffing change.
on a continuous 24-hour basis by an actual shift 6
Ol'd I MM M3M II HOID3d W3J 2?:PtEL GO'AW
I G.
DISTRICT OFFICES (DC)
- 1. OBJECTIVE 15: Demonstrate the ability to establish and operate fashion. rumor control in a coordinated and timely 7
l It a 2 ;tdoA ti3H II ICID33 W3J EP:PI ES GO' AY 3
\ ^
, IIo 4
INGESTION PATHWAY / RECOVERY RE-ENERY 0&7ECTIVES A.
LOCAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE ORGANIZATION (I2RO)
- 1. OBJECTIVE 3 coordinate and control amargency activities. Demonstrate t
- 2. OBJECTIVE 4 Demonstrate the ability to communicate with all appropriate personnel. locations, organizations and field
- 3. OBJECTIVE 6:
Demonstrate the ability to cont i monitor and control 'amargency worker exposure. inuously
- 4. OBJECTIVE 8:
procedures concentrations as low as for the measurament of airborne radiciodin presence of noblo gases.10~7 microcurie per cc in the
- 5. OBJECTIVE 13:
Comonstrate the 'bO.it'; to coordinate the '
formulationtoand instructions dissemination the public in a cisely ae tecurate fashion information after th e 6.
initial alert and notification has occurred.
OBJECTIVE 25 equipment, supplies Demonstrate the adequacy of facilities, procedures and personnel for decontamination o; a,margency workers, equipment and vehicles and for vaste disposal.
- 7. OBJECTIVE 26 Demonstrate the ability to identify.the need for and agencies' assistance. call upon yederal and other outside support
- 8. OBJECTIVE 27:
Demonstrate the appropriate use of equipment and procedures for collection and transport of samples of vegetation, food crops water and animal feeds (indigenous, milk, meat, poultry, stored). to the area and
- 9. OBIECTIVE 28:
and procedures for measuring and analyzing samples ofD vegetation, food crops, milk, meat, poultry, water and animal feeds (indigenous to the area and stored).
- 10. OBJECTIVE 29 to the public for ingestion pathway exposure andDemonstrat data, FDA PAG's and other relevant factors. determin 8
g .d 3 *0^
- II
. ~ - _ . _ - _ .
' 11. Oh7ECTIVE 30:
.. Deacnotrato the ability to implemant both s pathway hazards.preventivo and emergency protective actions for ingestion
- 12. OBJECTIVE 31: Demonstrate the ability to estimate total t populatien exposure.
- 13. OBJECTIVE 32:
- Demonstrate the ability to determine appropriate measures for controlled reentry a based on estimated total population exposure,nd recovery available EPA PAG's and other relevant factors.
- 14. OBJECTIVE 33 : Demonstrate the ability to implement
- appropriate measures for controlled reentry and recovery.
B.
DOE-RAP BROOKHAVEN AREA 0FFICE (BHO)
- 1. OBJECTIVE 2:
Demonstrate the ability to fully alert, mobilize and activate personnel for both facility and field-based emergency functions.
! 2. OBJECTIVE 3: Demonstrate the ability to direct, coordinate and control emergency activities.
- 3. OBJECTIVE 4: Demonstrate the ability to communicate with all appropriate locations, organizations and field perse mel.
- 4. Ch7ECTIVE 9: Demonstrate the ability to obtain samples of particulate activity in the airborne plume and promptly perform laboratory analyses.
- 5. OBJECTIVE 27: Demonstrate the appropriate use of equip:ent and procedures for collection and transport of samples of vegetation, food crops water and animal feeds (indigenous,tomilk, meat,and the area poultry, stored).
- 6. OBJECTIVE 29:
1 Demonstrate the ability to project dosage to the public for ingestion pathway exposure and determine appropriate protective asasures based on field data, FDA PAG's and other relevant factors.
9
/ e op
i c.
t EMERGENCY NEWS CENTER (ENC) l O
- 1. OMECTIVE 4 :
Demonstrate the ability to communicate with all s.ppropriate locations, organizations and field personnel. l
- 2. OMEcr1VE 13 Demonstrate the ability to coordinate the formulation and instructions dissemination to the public in a of accurate timely information fashion and after the initial alert and notification has occurred.
.1 .
omECTIVE 14:
in an e.ccurate, Demonstrate the ability to brief the media coordinated and timely =anner.
- 4. OBJECTIVE 15:
Demonstrate the ability to establish and operate fashion. rumor control in a coordinated and timely l
l
. 10
! et.g 2 .w nau II t.oteas maa o m sa, e m l
I 9
Jyl ll3119'8'8 /
y 9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA / , .
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION J_
g\$h>grr [g Atomic Safety and Licensina Acceal Board 15 #Nc6 zAV M" 9 G es is'
)
In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5
) (EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of BRIEF OF SUFFOLK COUNTY, THE STATE OF NEW YORK AND THE TONN OF SOUTHAMPTON CONCERNING THE DISPOSITION OF LILCO'S APPEALS OF THE PARTIAL INITIAL DECISIONS REGARDING THE FEBRUARY 13, 1986 EXERCISE have been served on the following this lith day of July, 1988 by U.S. mail, first class.
Christine N. Kohl, Chairman */ Dr. W. Reed Johnson Atomic Safety and Licensing 1*_5 Falcon Drive, Colthurst Appeal Board Charlottesville, VA 22901 C.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Alan S. Rosenthal*/ Dr. W. Reed Johnson */ (
Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing
! Appeal Board Appeal Board
! U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 John H. Frye, III, Chairman Dr. Oscar H. . Paris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l' Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 '
m
e
, p. s.
Mr. Frederick J. Shon Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licens!.ng Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N,W.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers Commissioner Kenneth M. Carr U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Pegulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W. 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W. 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 James P. Gleason, Chairman Dr. Jerry Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 513 Gilmoure Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 Washington, D.C. 20555 James P. Gleason, Chairman Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel
'.717 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 William C. Parler, Esq. Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq.
U.S. Nuclear ~ Regulatory Commission General Counsel loth Floor Long Island Lighting Company 1717 H Street, N.W. 175 East Old Country Road Washington, D.C. 20555 Hicksville, New York 11801 William R. Cumming, Esq. W. Taylor Revaley, III, Esq.
Spence W. Perry, Esq. Hunton & Williams Office of General Counsel P.O. Box 1535 Federal Emergency Management Agency 707 East Main Street 500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Washington, D.C. 20472 Elisabeth Talbbi, Clerk Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Suffolk County Legislature Twomey, Latham & Shea Suffolk County Legislature 33 West Second Street Office Building Riverhead, New York 11901 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Mr. L. F. Britt Docketing and Service Section Long Island Lighting Company Office of the Secretary Shoreham Nuclear Power Station U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission North Country Road 1717 3 Street, N.W.
Wading River, New York 11792 Washington, D.C. 20555 L.
^^
, g, . .
Ms. Nora Bredes Hon, Patrick G. Halpin Executive Director Suffolk County' Executive Shoreham Opponents Coalition H. Lee Denn!.non Building 195 East Main Street Veterans Memorial Highway Smithtown, New York 11787 Hauppauge, New York 11788 Alfred L. Nardelli, Esq. Dr. Monroe Schneider New York State Department of Law North Shore Committee.
120 Broadway, 3rd Floor. P.O. Box 231 I Room 3-118 Wading River, New York 11792 :
New' York,.New York 10271 l l
MHB Technical Associates Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. I 1723 Hamilton Avenue Richard J. Zahnleuter, Esc.
Suite K Special Counsel to the Gov'ernor San Jose, California 95125 Executive Chamber, Rm.-229 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 E. Thomas Boyle, Esq. Mr. Stuart Diamond Suffolk County Attorney Business / Financial Bldg. 158 North County Complex NEW YORK TIMES Veterans Memorial Highway 229 West 43rd Street Hauppauge, New York 11788 New York, New York 10036 Mr. Jay Dunkleburger David A. Brownlee, Esq.
New York State Energy Office Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Agency Building 2 1500 Oliver Building Empire State Plaza Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 Albany, New York 12223 Mr. Philip McIntire Adjudicatory File Federal Emergency Management Agency Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 26 Federal Plaza Panel Docket (ASLBPD)
New York, New York 10278 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washingtoh, D.C. 20555 6 - . --
Ronald R. Ross KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C. 20036-5891
- / Additional copy served by hand on July 12, 1988.