ML20154N601
| ML20154N601 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/13/1986 |
| From: | Reveley W HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#186-403 OL-3, NUDOCS 8603170366 | |
| Download: ML20154N601 (26) | |
Text
-
~
, ,46 3' cs LILCO, March 13, 1986 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00CKEIED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USNHC 16 MNf13 P4:52 Before the Commission 0FFICE OF Etu : r.
00CKEllE A M r 51
) BRANCH In the Matter of
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning Proceeding)
'(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) ) -
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY'S MOTION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF LICENSING BOARD AND INSTITUTION OF EXPEDITED PROCEDURES FOR LITIGATION OF SHOREHAM EMERGENCY PLANNING EXERCISE ISSUES, AND RESPONSE TO INTERVENO'.1';' MARCH 7, 1986
" MOTION CONCERNING PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO I'HE SHOREHAM EXERCISE" Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) hereby moves that the Commission establish a Licensing Board to hear issues properly arising out of the February 13, 1986 offsite emergency planning exercise for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, and that it pro-vide that Board with initial guidance, as set out below, on defi-nition of issues and expedition of procedures for their resolu-tion. LILCO also responds to the related motion filed on March 7 by inte.venors Suffolk County, the State of New York, and the Town of Southampton (hereinafter, "Intervenors").
I.
Factual and Procedural Background Since 1980 the Commission's regulations have required the conduct of as full-scale an emergency planning exercise as is rea-sonably achievable without mandatory public participation, within 9603170366 B6031332 i
PDR 0
ADOCK 0 y E
f a year before initial issuance of a full power operating license.
10 CFR S 50.47(a)(1). Pursuant to that requirement, a full-scale e.nercise of the radiological emergency response plan for Ehoreham was conducted under FEMA's supervision on February 13, 1986.1/
Intervenors, who have adamantly refused to participate in emergency planning for Shoreham in recent years, attempted by mo-tion filed on December 24, 19852/ to persuade this Commission to rescind its then-pending request to FEMA to conduct the Shoreham exercise. Intervenors argued, inter alia, that the exercise would be a futility since a Licensing Board and an Appeal Board had held that LILCO lacked the legal authority to implement its emergency plan over the objection of Suffolk County and New York State, and that they had, in Intervenors' misleading terms, " denied LILCO a full power license." December 24 Motion at 6. The Commission re-jected this argument in a January 30 Memorandum and Order denying 1/ Intervenor Suffolk County attempted to prevent the conduct of that exercise by enactment of a criminal statute in early January, which would have made it a crime in Suffolk County punishable by up to a year in prison and a $1000 fine to conduct or participate, without the Suffolk County Legislature's advance approval, in an emergency planning exercise in which the roles of Suffolk County officials were " simulated." The Local Law was held to conflict unconstitutionally with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and was preliminarily enjoined on February 10, 1986 by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. Lona Island Lichtina Co. v. County of Suffolk, Civ. Act. No. 86-0174, F. Supp.
(1986).
2/ Suffolk County, State of New York and Town of Southampton Mo-tion for Cancellation of Emergency Planning Exercise, December 24, 1985.
f the motion, pointing out that it has not yet reviewed the emergen-cy planning record at Shoreham and thus there is no final agency action denying LILCO an operating license. Id. at 6 note 1.E/
Intervenors were enabled to observe the February 13 exercise in depth and detail. By pre-agreement with LILCO, 19 designated representatives of Intervenors were permitted access to all 9 offsite facilities manned by LERO personnel and one onsite facili-ty in the exercise, as well as to the 12 LILCO-controlled bus transfer points and the facilities of the participating school district. Intervenors' observers at the exercise's nerve center, the EOC, .are provided with all exercise controllers' messages (including free play messages) at the same time that players re-ceived them. In addition, telephones were made available to the Intervenors at the EOC and at two of the three staging areas (In-tervenors used a mobile telephone at the third staging area).
Suffolk County police observers were also discernible in quantity on the public roads and streets of the Shoreham EPZ on exercise 3/ Only the refusal of New York State and Suffolk County to com-mit in advance to do that which they admit they are required to do, and in reality would do, in a real emergency -- respond to protect their citizens -- stands in the way of completion of this proceeding. Of course, the February 13 exercise was structured so as to permit evaluation of this " realism" argument, by the use of federal officials simulating Suffolk County and New York State personnel. Consequently, the litigated results of this facet of the exercise should be of great value to the Commission in evaluating the consistency of LILCO's " realism" legal-authority argument with the compensating-measures rationale and the other rationalia of 10 CFR S 50.47(c)(1).
day, and police helicopters made fly-overs of various exercise fa-cilities. Thus, Intervenors were enabled to observe the exercise in detail, with timely information about exercise events, and to communicate with one another.
In the days immediately following the exercise, FEMA observ-ers delivered preliminary oral critiques of the exercise.1/ FEMA is currently in the process of preparing its exercise report, which is expected to be provided to the NRC approximately 60 days after the exercise, or in mid-April. However, there is no guaran-tee of this schedule and FEMA has encountered delays in completion of exercise reports in previous cases.
There are not at present any formal proceedings in progress with respect to litigation of the results of the exercise, and ;
thus definitionally no contentions admitted or formal discovery 1/ Intervenors note that they were also permitted to " witness" ,
an informal February 14 meeting between LILCO and FEMA concerning the previous day's exercise, but appear to complain that they were j forbidden to " question FEMA or otherwise interject themselves into '
this meeting." Intervenors' March 7 Motion at 4 note 5. Interve- ,
nors' complaining on this score only illustrates the Orwellian i character of the situation they have created on Long Island, in l which each grant to them of unprecedented privileges becomes a new starting point for their claims that their rights are being in- r fringed because they have not been granted still greater privileg es. Their very presence at this informal meeting, which is in- '
tended to prov:,de an informal opportunity for FEMA and the ,
exercise participants to exchange observations on the exercise, was extraordinary: LILCO knows of no other case in which a t
nonparticipant in an exercise has-been permitted to attend this informal meeting; nor did any FEMA personnel whom LILCO asked know :
of any precedent for such attendance.
j l
- 1
-S-rights available. Nevertheless, as is evident from Attachments 2-4 to their March 7 Motion, Intervenors have already commenced pep-pering the other parties with extremely broad requests for docu-ment discovery, not focused on any particular theories or aliagations about the exercise but predicated, rather, upon the proposition that they are entitled to conduct their owr. plenary review of the complete documentation associated with the exercise.
Indeed, their assumptions about what they are entitled to are not limited to the exercise, but apparently extend even to " documents concerning how the exercise scenario tras ' negotiated'". March 7 Motion, Attachment 2, at 1.E/
II.
Lecal Back.,round In 1982, the Commission amended S 50.47(a)(2) of its emergency planning regulations to make clear that, while it con-sidered the results of emergency planning exercises to be material to its ultimate decision on issuance of a full power license, they should not be routinely subject to litigation in licensing cases.
47 Fed. Reg. 30,232 (July 13, 1982). The Commission based its de-termination on three basic rationalia: (1) the predictive nature 1/ Although these issues will no doubt become the subject of discovery proceedings in due course if they are formally pursued, they would appear presumptively outside the definition of permis-sible " contested issues" relating to the exercise under the Com-mission's February 13 Memorandum and Order in this proceeding, relating to exercise discovery. Id. at 3 and note 1.
l of emergency planning findings; (2) the availability of hearings, either by reopening a closed record or by filing a show cause re-quest under 10 CFR S 2.206, to convene a hearing with respect to truly significant issues suggested for the first time by an exer-cise;I/ and (3) the concern that exercises, if routinely
. litigable, either would have to be conducted prematurely or their.
litigation would risk delaying license issuances. See id. The Commission reaffirmed these rationalia the next year in denying a petition by the Union of Concerned Scientists that it rescind its 1982 amendment to the regulations. 48 Fed. Reg. 16,691 (April 19, 1983).
1/ The Commission noted at that time the relationship between predictive findings and limitation of exercise-related litigation to fundamentally significant issues:
Moreover, if the actual conduct of an exercise should identify fundamental defects in the way that the emergency plan is conceived such that it calls into questiop whether the require-ments of 10 CFR 50.47 can or will be met, a party to a license proceeding may seek to re-open a concluded hearing or file a petition for action pursuant to 10 CFR 2.206 as appro-priate. This is distinct from deficiencies identified by an exercise which only reflect the actual state of emergency preparedness on a particular day in question but which do not represent some basic flaw in emergency plan-ning.
47 Fed. Reg. 30,232, 30,233 (col. 3).
r Upon review of the 1982 amendment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit vacated the rule and held that the results of exercises could not be routinely excluded from otherwise available prelicensing litigation under Atomic Energy Act 5 189(a) so long as the NRC believed -- as the court concluded it did -- that exercise results were material to its ultimate li-censing decision. Union of concerned Scientists v. NRC, 735 F.2d 1437 (D.C. Cir. 1984). However, the Court of Appeals did not throw open exercise results to indiscriminate litigation. Rather, it repeatedly indicated its deference, within only very broad bounds, to the Commission's implementation of its statutory
-duties. Two examples are particularly pertinent.
First, the court noted and accepted the Commission's argument about the significance of exercise results, as follows:
(W]e find that (AEA) section 189(a)'s hearing requirement does not unduly limit the Commis-sion's wide discretion to structure its licens-ing hearings in the interests of speed and ef-ficiency. For example, the Commission argues throughout its brief that the exercise is only relevant to its licensing decision to the ex-tent it indicates that emergency preparedness plans are fundamentally flawed, and is not rel-evant as to minor or ad hoc problems occurring on the exercise day. Today, we in no way re-strict the Commission's authority to adopt this as a substantive licensing standard.20/
20/ Of course, if such a standard were chal- r lenged in court, the NRC might still have to defend itself against allegations that it had acted arbitrarily and capriciously.
1
i 735 F.2d 1437, 1448 (emphasis added) (statutory citation in foot-note omitted). f Second, the Court of Appeals was mindful of the undesirable potential, pointed out by the Commission, that routine litigation of exercise results might either compel exercises to be held pre-maturely or delay issuance of licenses. Here again, the court de-ferred to the Commission's concern and even went so far as to make suggestions for expediting review and avoiding delay. The court noted: :
(W]e see nothing to prevent the Commission from holding a special supplementary hearing solely on issues raised by the emergency exercises closer to the date of full power operation.
And, certainly the Commission can limit that hearing to issues -- not already litiaated --
that it considers material to its decision.
- 14. at 1447-48 (emphasis added) (footnote omitted).
Even more telling, the court went on to suggest specific ex-pedited procedures of ahich the Commission or its licensing boards could avail themselves in tandem with a threshold pleading stan-dard requiring any admissible contention to demonstrate a "funda-mental flaw" with the plan. Under this standard, according to the Court of Appeals,
- 1. "[T]he NRC could summarily dismiss any claim that did not raise genuine issues of material fact about the fundamental nature of the emergency preparedness plans. Sge 10 CFR S 2.749 (1983)."
id. at 1448.1/
2/ A recent licensing board decision has construed this passage in the Court of Appeals' opinion to permit contentions not only to (footnote continued)
_ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ , . ~ . .
i
- 2. "To survive summary disposition, a party would have to identify and support specific facts upon which a reasonable infer- l ence could be drawn that the plan provided inadequate assurances of safety." Id. (citations omitted). !
- 3. "If a party's claim survived summary disposition, the Commission might then use expedited procedures to shorten the pe-riod between the exercises and the date of license." Id. (foot-note omitted).E/
i I
(continued from previous page) be dismissed on summary disposition, but also to be dismissed at l the very threshold. The licensing board noted that the Court of Appeals had, at this point, cited with approval 8PI v. AEC, 502 ;
F.2d 424 (D.C. Cir. 1974), which approved threshold exclusion of l contentions. Carolina Power & Licht Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Plant), LBP-85-49, NRC , slip op. at 16 note 1 (December 11, 1985). This decision, which is the only case dis-closed by research to construe the UCS case, also endorses the use of the " fundamental flaw" pleading threshold in emergency planning t exercise litigation. Id. at 16.
1/ In the omitted footnote, the court noted various existing provisions in NRC regulations permitting licensing boards to expe-dite proceedings by " focusing the proceeding on key contested is-sues" and by " strictly limiting the presentation of evidence and cross-examination to relevant and non-repetitive material." While the court declined to express any opinion about expedited proceed-ings on emergenc:t planning exercises, it noted "past criticisms that the Commiss:,on has overformalized its procedures." id. at 1448 note 21. It also rejected'the dissent's criticism based on the delay potential inherent in litigation, stating that the dis-sent " ignores the potential for time savings by use of expedited procedures." 14 e
h.
III.
Recommendations for Commission Action It scarcely bears repeating that the Shoreham plant has been-physically complete for over a year and that it successfully com-plated its low power testing program in October 1985. Litigation of the results of the February 13 emergency planning exercise is
'the final matter to be tried before Shoreham can be released from four continuous years of thralldom and allowed, assuming the mer-its justify, to commence its ascent toward commercial operation.
Those four years and their untold grinding trials have taught man'y hard lessons, one of the clearest of which is that the com-mission cannot trust any potentially litigable situation to sort itself out. Intervenors have, indeed,.already made clear that if they disagree with FEMA's exercise report they will want to liti-gate those disagreements. March 7 Motion at 5. Conversely, in the event that aspects of FEMA's report, if accepted, would pre-vent LILCO from being able to obtain a license, LILCO will be forced to test those aspects.
FEMA's report is not the only datum point for information
. underlying potential litigation of the exercises the exercise itself affords the primary raw material, and Intervenors were present in force for it. Though their extensive document requests have not been fully satisfied they have already a wealth of infor-mation available. Certainly the publicly reported remarks of their principal attorneys in the days immediately surrounding the
O o >
exercise suggest that they had reasonably well developed theories about it, at least at that point. Egg Attachments 1 to 4. Thus there are various present bases to begin framing and resolving po-tentially litigable issues.
LILCO believes that the sconer the process is begun the bet-
,ter, and moves the Commission to set in motion the inevitable .
trial of issues on the February 13 exercise forthwith. LILCO makes the following suggestions for the Commission's considera-tion:
- 1. The Commission should appoint a licensing board, pre-ferably consisting of members who have participated in the earlier Shoreham emergency planning proceedings and thus have knowledge of the LILCO Plan and the mammoth record in this case, and issue an appropriate notice of hearing at the earliest convenient date.
- 2. The Commission should instruct the licensing board how to proceed, consistent with the guidance of the MCS case. As indi-cated above, that case would permit, LILCO believes and advocates, the following guidance to the Board: ,
- a. That no contention will be admitted if it in-volves issues which were or could have been litigated earlier.
- b. That contentions which, as pleaded, do not dem-onstrate with adequate specificity and basis a fundamental flaw in the Shoreham Offsite Ra-diological Emergency Response Plan sufficient to prevent compliance with the requirements of 10 CFR 5 50.47 shall be rejected by the Board at the threshold, without the need for summary disposition proceedings.
f
.o . l i i c.
That contentions which survive at the threshold !
pleading stage shall be subject to summary dis- i position on an expedited basis. '
i d. That discovery and preparation of testimony on admitted dited basis. contentions shall proceed on an expe- i i
i
- e. That the Board is empowered and expected to use !
the full range of powers granted it under the regulations to expedite progress toward hear- 1 ings, conduct them with maximum focus, effi- !
ciency and dispatch, and produce post-hearing i papers for submission on an expedited schedule. }
- 3. :
The Commission should instruct the Board to convene a prehearing conference immediately, not awaiting the issuance of L the FEMA report.
At that prehearing conference (or even earlier, by order)-the Board should set a schedule for filing, on the basis l
of the parties' present knowledge, of all contentions excent those t which cannot be known until the issuance of the FEMA report. All -
i contentions arising out of the basic concept or structure or, to t l
the extent observed, the conduct of the February 13 exercise -- in i
short, all contentions based on knowledge or information other than that uniquely dependent on the forthcoming FEMA report --
should be filed now. Upon those contentions' survival of thresh-
}
i old pleading and expedited summary disposition processes, discov- i ery with respect to them should start promptly, and should be lim-ited in time.
L l
.4.
l A second round of contention filing, for issues alleged to arise uniquely out of the FEMA report, should be permitted !
promptly following its issuance. Threshold dismissal and summary i l
i i I 1 t i i I
disposition processes, followed by discovery limited to surviving issues and limited in time, should commence with respect to these issues.2/
- 5. The commitment of FEMA personnel, and of all federal em-ployees and contractors associated with them, to the timely com-pletion of the FEMA report should take short-term precedence over their being burdened by discovery until the FEMA report has been issued. No such personnel should be forced to testify in deposi-tions or to engage in major document searches until after comple-tion of their report.
9/ The concept of time limits on discovery is essential to forcing the parties to draw meaningful priorities rather than per-mitting them to continue litigating on the basis of the scorched-earth policy which has, over the past four years, merely produced untold misery and resulted in the expenditure of literally tens of millions of dollars in litigation costs,.without disclosing a sin-gle major flaw in the Shoreham plant. The emergency planning ex-ercise involved on the order of 1500 players from LILCO plus sev-eral hundred supporting personnel. While LILCO does not know the exact extent of the federal commitment, it is not unreasonable to imagine that it involved at least 100 to 200 personnel. In the past Intervenors have shown a desire to depose everyone, from the top of an organization to the bottom, who could not.be protected somehow. It is not intuitively obvious that any depositions would necessarily be warranted in connection with litigation of exercise-related issues sufficiently major to raise " fundamental flaws" in an emergency plan. Whether they are or not, however, it is clear that massive deposition discovery, if permitted, could go on virtually endlessly, and without productive purpose.
IV.
Miscellaneous Remaining Observations on the Intervenors' March 7 Motion While LILCO believes that the preceding discussion has cov-ered most of the issues relevant to prompt, effective litigation of the results of the February 13 exercise, it is useful to re-spond briefly to miscellaneous. arguments advanced by Intervenors in their March 7 Motion.
- 1. Intervenors misapprehend the nature of their contribution to the current discourse by suggesting (March 7 Motion at 3) that they "have attempted to determine the procedural rights and duties which arise from the February 13 exercise and the time that those rights and duties should properly be pursued." They have done no such thing. Rather, they have (a) tried to pursue informal dis-covery against the other parties on unspecified issues, while trying before the Commission to (b) defer the start of any pro-ceedings and (c) cast aside the perfectly applicable structure of the Commission's Rules of Practice and, if possible, shift the burden of going forward to LILCO.
- 2. Intervenors' suggestion that all proceedings should await completion of FEMA's report (March 7 Motion at 4-6) is ill-taken, for the reasons outlined above. Enough is known now to get pro-ceedings underway. Contentions can be supplemented later, with respect to issues disclosed only by the FEMA report. Particularly since there is no guarantee when FEMA's report will issue, doing
. l nothing before its issuance will lead only to unnecessary and wasteful delay, while Shoreham continues to incur huge carrying charges. l
- 3. Intervenors' discussion of the Mgg case (March 7 Motion at 5) cannot be taken literally in its focus on the FEMA report's significance for the exercise litigation, unless Intervenors are indicating that they intend to limit the scope of litigation to fundamental flaws disclosed by that report and not observable ear-lier from other sources. Their pleadings and discovery requests to.date do not appear consistent with such a voluntary restriction on the scope of their inquiry.
- 4. Intervenors' omission of the Court of Appeals' emphasis in the ggg case on limitation of the scope and on expedition ,of the conduct of post-exercise litigation, see pages 7-9 above, sub-stantially limits the value of their treatment of that case.
- 5. Intervenors' argument (March 7 Motion at 6-8) that the legal-authority holdings of the Licensing and Appeal Boards mean that they have " won" this proceeding and that the burden is on LILCO to justify, on the basis of the FEMA report, any " basis for chancina the ASLB decision which denied a license to LILCO," mere-ly reclamors old arguments and ignores the structure of the Com-mission's Rules of Practice. The only basis for this argument is that the Licensing and Appeal Boards did not accept LIILCO's legal-authority arguments. However, the Commission has expressly
l i
i agreed to take review of this issue in order to determine whether any complications caused by the County's and New York State's re-fusal to participate in emergency planning are either not signifi-cant for Shoreham, as permitted under 10 CFR S 50.47(c)(2), or are adequately compensated for by LILCO's LERO organization and the
. reality of the County's and State's response in an actual emergen-cy, as contemplated by 10 CFR S 50.47(c)(1).1S/ The commission is free to either accept or reject Intervenors' argument at that time. Meanwhile, as the Commission noted in rejecting this argu-ment in its January 30 Memorandum and Order at 6 note 1, there is simply no final agency action on this issue, and thus no basis for arguments which presume that there has been.11/
12/ As noted in footnote 3 above, the Commission's consideration of these issues may be aided by the results of the February 13 ex-erC1se.
11/ While the emergency planning factual issues stand in no more conclusive shoes at this point than the legal authority issues (except for the presumption of validity given to the factual find-ings of the trier of fact), it is worth noting that LILCO has pre-valled on substantially all of the material factual issues brought out in the emergency planning litigation to date. The appeal of those factual issues was argued to the Appeal Board on February
- 12. The Commission has indicated its intent to take up review of the legal authority issues simultaneously with its review of any factual issues whose review it accepts. And, of course, LILCO has prevailed in the litigation of the innumerable non-emergency is-sues in this proceeding; the quality assurance, diesel, low power and hundreds of other health and safety issues litigated at length in the Shoreham docket have, with no significant exception, all been resolved in LILCO's favor. Far from " winning" below, the In-tervenors have almost always lost.
I.
- 6. Intervenors' open-ended request to the Commission for a declaration of how the apparently unavoidable litigation on the February 13 exercise should be structured fails to allege, much less demonstrate, any basis why the Commission should effectively scrap the procedural format of its Rules of Practice as they may be expedited in conformity with the UCS case. While LILCO agrees with the Intervenors that the Commission's attention is necessary to initiate these proceedings, LILCO believes that its sugges-tions, on pages 10-13 above, outline the proper direction for the .
proceeding.
v.
Conclusion For the reasons stated above, LILCO requests that the Commis-sion promptly initiate proceedings on the February 13 exercise re-quired by the UCS case as implemented by the guidelines proposed on pages 10-13 above. LILCO also urges the Commission to deny In-tervenors' March 7 Motion to the extent that it is inconsistent with this request.
Respectfully submitted, h 'h O b[ h w, W. Taylor Reveley, III "7 Donald P. Irwin James N. Christman Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: March 13, 1986
LILCO, March 13, 1986
\s CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 00LMETED USNRC In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY W MAR 43 P4 :52 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 QFFICE 0f u ,n 3pv DOCKEilNG A H,; /g' BRANCH I hereby certify that copies of Long Island Lighting Com-pany's Motion for Establishment of Licensing Board and Institution of Expedited Procedures for Litigation of Shoreham Emergency Plan-ning Exercise Issues, and Response to Intervenors' March 7, 1986
" Motion Concerning Proceedings Relating to the Shoreham Exercise" were served this date upon the following by hand as indicated by an asterisk, by telecopier as indicated by two asterisks, by Fed-eral Express as indicated by three asterisks, or by first-class mail, postage prepaid.
Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman
- Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq.,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Chairman 1717 H Street, N.W. Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, DC 20555 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts
- Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fifth Floor (North Tower) 1717 H Street, N.W. East-West Towers Washington, DC 20555 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Commissioner James K. Asselstine
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commisison Gary J. Edles, Esq.
t 1717 H Street, N.W. Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington, DC 20555 Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal
- Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fifth Floor (North Tower) 1717 H Street, N.W. East-West Towers Washington, DC 20555 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Commissioner Lando W. Zech, Jr.
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dr. Howard A. Wilber ~
1717 H Street, N.W. Atomic Se#ety and Licensing Washington, DC 20555 Appeal soard U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fifth Floor (North Tower)
East-West Towers 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 m
'Y
- Secretary of the Commission
- MHB Technical Associates U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1723 Hamilton Avenue Commission Suite K Washington, D.C. 20555 San Jose, California 95125 Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Appeal Board Panel New York State Energy Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency Building 2 Commission Empire State Plaza Washington, D.C. 20555 Albany, New York 12223 Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
- Stewart M. Glass, Esq. ***
Oreste Russ Pirfo, Esq. Regional Counsel Edwin J. Reis, Esq. Federal Emergency Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency Commission 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 7735 Old Georgetown Road New York, New York 10278 (to mailroom)
Bethesda, MD 20814 Stephen B. Latham, Esq. ***
Twomey, Latham & Shea Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
- 33 West Second Street Karla J. Letsche, Esq. P.O. Box 298 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Riverhead, New York 11901 Eighth Floor 1900 M Street, N.W. Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
Washington, D.C. 20036 New York State Department of Public Service, Staff Counsel Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. ** Three Rockefeller Plaza Special Counsel to the Albany, New York 12223 Governor Executive Chamber William E. Cumming, Esq.
Room 229 Associate General Counsel State Capitol Federal Emergency Management Albany, New York 12224 Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
Mary Gundrum, Esq. Room 840 Assistant Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20472 2 World Trade Center Room 4614 Ms. Nora Bredes New York, New York 10047 Executive Coordinator Shoreham Opponents' Coalition Spence W. Perry, Esq. 195 East Main Street Acting General Counsel Smithtown, New York 11787 Federal Emergency Management Agency Gerald C. Crotty, Esq.
501 C Street, S.W. Counsel to the Governor Washington, D.C. 20472 Executive Chamber State Capitol Albany, New York 12224
4 k..
- Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq. Dr. Monroe Schneider Eugene R. Kelly, Esq. North Shore Committee Suffolk County Attorney P.O. Box 231 H. Lee Dennison Building Wading River, NY 11792 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11787 b().Mc(kV b L/ 3 W. Taylor Reveley, III gg4 gg/
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 -
Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: March 13, 1986
, . NEk'SPAPER /1) Oh DATE N PAGE 43 I
^""""'
THE SHOREHAM DRILL LII *O Goes It Alone, Stages Zock Evacuation of138p 000
~
LILCO. nilds N-Plant =
- aa.w . ..
Cuomo CallsIt Drill l h .
a CharadeP ally tweken'down d'hal eal b"* ofnetals ofsuneik County and New i
! By Ricit Brand and Rex Smith stripted te de es."Ihla le met 'real York State,who soughtunmWy i Imag taland 1lghting Co. simulated world - this le an esercise,,, said to Weekthe drill boymetedit. ,
a mador accident at the Shoreham nu. Frank Perene,the agionalditater d 'Ibestate andEussikhave reamedto I clear power plant yesterday following
- 884 tenNag er e tien a 000 this
" **' ***I '"# e"nt neear dent. As a
- I'd*S testere at L1140's Brentweed oper. LI140 submitted an emergency plan gen n 1* O workers was stione senter were arrested in a tatheNRC thatusescompany empler-Participated in the drill,w ernment werkere in served by sederal officials as part of planned esereise ef eivil disobediense, ese instead of relm. Deep deciolonsse that the utilltfs effort to win an operettas FEMA offletals are to meet with liessee arr the sentroverelat plant. LD40 todev for a preliminary aseene. he[40 Lg dose nu han h au meat and plan to release these And* Impleasent (se plan FEMA, at Ll!40 employen eenducted meek >~RC's roeuset, sabeduled yesterday's news eenforenees, drove enre along bus ings temorreiw, A esoplete report is to be sent to the Nulear RegulaterF drill,la which the roles of eene mate evaeustion routes, pretended to motiff andeeustyefficiale inciudingCoha. ,
Counmieslonla about ein wesha.
13 enheel distriots to enll et elaesse '~"*" ' '
to einse I gh a statemen tl eternas
, lauding '%e tremendous ofert" and . Althoush it wee the Aret thne that N.000evecuess. " quick, reopensive turnout" of L1140 federal elfletale had been asked te Butno warning sirene rodily sound-workers partielpating la the drill. .evatuate a drillin which no local edR.
ed, no homeownere were setually ekts had participated, LILCO ernetale But Gov. Mario Cueene enlied the eveemated and no scheelchildren were *"'* -
a *cirrJef'i:"No'ca f5thCounth.E; esereise to ;u"""as
-' t"Ethroughout h the day leeued
, F.Cohalan likened en.oroad.a,,ia, .t "aa terer .
statemente about . i.agan,, asti. ' absurd," and added "1%e dian dont but refheed to answer questione about what LILCO workers were actu- eeneern thatIhaveis that this emercieswillbeused thefbderalgov-ally delag. At one pelat, $st lastance, eeurts as as os.
were ernment erthe sum to tienes the p.iant.-
"Ep'left eenfused as to w servise huween '
Diastittyi n'*eu Nesa"me.
I h
Wo 3 vsu,,.a )bdaV ars allV/tb nos __
s' lll=*"h.!'td i
""t"e.*.'gl7'9 c,g;:.,f*'*sAght2e't:g"luk Jt"s te p
m e:n w -
lag wident ee- handling Suse
- ,:www,:,:r.st,e =5 e,=l:llf# rim.anda *' -*3:ts
" "w reed- aasl,, :! ':' l N a.
a*d eg ,,ete:Jin':!%- -
e-*
m,ed I,,,e we.idis sensern.d vos .ts.en t. m - e Town ne.la the esatmg Southam NRCbroke withtradities andlessed witheet seek a Pe- a Shoreham a last @
use treme said,"rd be soneerned.
that 1240 at Ina su m scenarmhethe drillweeabaped aspeet of.the drin - the ohnelandnu. In see som. b d a committee of hderal emelain and reed see employees,but wee eb b.esti,e uwamana.orebeser*L es r eeuJnt we.eervere ar iaya.d
~ ra notedd = that es Asiale said. it wee esatrolled by 11 fed- eesident vietta te two hours hr written then SanHy i eral "simulaters" who inkraia8 1ACO to abow up,d 1A40 i
to1A40 u and len." He esi N. eM.ac.a tr
. _m h beer,
.d - wee you how do.te at 5:40 a.m. when thle seuld be a estastrophe,",hye The drin hereham plant operstars were mel- 1240 syawa= George gees said Sed by a suaalster that a puse wee the som "wtu metsomment atthle .
abowing aleekin the g gges its perhrmanos la st, sentainmentbuildlas. ,,,,en te parmefthescenarla esloted y< = led u a In addit
- e a'"'*'"==,,,,- .
t,s.e ase.ies to the two.te written .se .e "s*,4o.edusd of .e e
,eti.ed .t home
. drui -r~2d ,,
,r.st - af,,2 we ma
- g Sm- c -
1
- s. I totra.esentrei-in.ese =
. Th g
w y part
,ew
= as a eSelal d .e4 8eselk Ceanty pelles, who wm he- hislag at Nemeev bidden hem eseperating by a neste-tien of the eeunty legleistum-d-w Asti.shereham activiste domes-e aevant heelses. En pen-the "* **""* 7 as arreams the t"ne2:
i
"-"*:tll: e iseum, where they w-t W a--~'ta-=
es*#' -
drtwway and b sa :n="r!
1240 trusha.
radiation screening. De- damed was* earried to a polise eestandmated wwe seat to one et 14 m i e-.re.em - h a ~ wi.tres,se dr aur andbe 1 1A40_- thattheinsglaarytrsEs
' _ c-- Elaine adia- eeurt appeareasse. At the plant alas, een 4,,,,,, ters released essess of bleek l wee " .swvias but it ne,es hirty bellem.alled balleens non-steadily
- and that then ,wn "aben - secos a warn Andere that there .
lutely no reports of psale. In es son- han been eestaalasted as only attisses who unomstany een a radiaties relenes en this day."
u c asuste did .ehe ontd. .
eentending est es mm M d n ) ,, , ,,,gg ,, ,g y ,g,,pg,g, men a ^"2M se ab esery.
, p sammet he ently eveemsted,
. and the state malatein est e seed network eemid met b 4 die a mese eveenseles, espetany he-onese many people gutende the
~
pesantism area slee wouldleen.
l and state eSelale who ab-ser,,d detu at the 10 Saad sites used by the stility were arttiaal. Febe ,
as Palomina, spesial sammel # .
i
- 7 ~,-_=~n w - - ~.-- _-.~ ...m. .
...? * :-
_ _ _ ~ _ _z ~r.- ._o ;
_~**l -
ATTACIDENT 2
\ h-NEWSPAFER ~
~
~
LILCO Drill Ra,,ted Mossy Good Al**** Wdmasti mid' aat ByJohn McDonaW -
FEMA IJI40 he its laterne.
N Federal Emger Manage- g, ,g g ,,g,,g g ,g ,,g )
T ^'e",af *iese <3"f..m. '
- 5T"y,"lL"'!"C: 3
- lllll:h. ==
T.u.e.m",l pl g itd_. m .i.
u
- esE_J6;'=ma*m.*EG.e h.ta,, .
2 lta m rwaeverall "It woe ,
s,.Jeha . ,r- s.to and h co.aisesar Weisentle, O's plan have renaea h F#- M la ame.
plasming Air tim phat.esatsad-director said aner eat to public seuil met be briend tbassapany and tapeslawyers -
la a redselegicalemergang.
for Sherdam opgeneste se ti" and hderal eeures, a Mustuer ey's preliminary nadings " FEMA 3,,,gg,y e-w u massa,
- '"3 reused LIII e.n., <
duria. dr.
. Wesemantle askaewledged that
>i p*ayg awaam **- %,,gg,,,g,,,; r FEMA erttielsed LI!40 krseverales. by tin - - w a= whish j eurronese during the drm, lastading asked to embedule the dr5.
. as insiddet la whiek utilky workere .
Was doenribed fella't telsdag a
' appeared to take as sneessive assount " super 6eial and l ef time to reagend to one of the drGl's 'Ibst dessed a.
e,er what with turne like two doulated highway assidente. 'essessive response tiene I j Fabian Phleadas,spesial senseelto
' me i ingedhneetY,/r hu}en -
oe,. Marie enese, who 7'a"n"Fs. - - -
gi.ese,.eas, seas , ;; hat s .4 u a. ,,se a to m e.a.
to ut we utsted true that FEMA i 4
la wiush IJ140 workers and esmarse., ,,,to i toreplayed the ofstate and seus. , ,,14 Lgg4o seek gee lesy to respeed, ty_--- "Wo are shoeklag late this sees. Weimantle
- takesasbeak esid. "bre was a response, but we think there to the Ar_e_M Mlle Island. may have been a line of eight problem that h Nuclear asculatory ch eeused the FEMA perses met to see the . . . ;
hund that the roasties to'11ues Mlle [LI140] . . . A tow truck res Island was heesume elses
- eaa's now howlessit took.gended,but!
was no esordine between the util- N wee hew etthout LII40 e,t.,
.te ,11e er
,,or.ma"'
es % E^- ::l2'em!'.*e*eti:ftreme.L
- -- -~
Fi m and
- whowm m.no ,*..
lie thsh-et a gg::r ia ,aw % n .,.,hhn the seereise of lesal'aut6ertty. FEMA dr
" 's to -
som ment sa - _, _._s, teleang. have enid th.ey atthewill be unable to give *pensseable .
Phleadae wee e6ewed h attend
- assurnees" seabe protested bythe !
wie Herbert Bewa,a nswyw de$ plan heesues of the elindeed astuso, LI140 kwyer DemW 3rwin enW tant degene '
hik county, and Jeha Ehes,a lawyer commiseen een i tr Southam Town. N esenti FEMA's a putties. the .;.eing1 it-[sease hr Esse- !
. g g ,il::: wr- e * .esemordal e -sa ._ . . . . . . . .
l .
7 ATTACHMENT 3 NEWSPAPER -
- 4. -
o DATE of-/I-/d , ,
PAGE d42.
- Lilco Stages Shoreham Drill, og State and County Refuse to Attedf By CIJFFORD D. MAY s.ggy
re atest.sP=* ,. .re I
RONKONMOMA. LI Feb.13 - Suffolk Count tned to hisch After swems of centention totween the dell!but a F tang !aland Upting and that the county set intertere i state andleest governemente, offt- a" pted Federal area."
etels and maployees toda sendtseted a dret begasat e4.0 A M. sph.en.as <
a.es
! aa - e - ,.es
.here am i e,,es.s ia i. w.5: .to,. a.s.e
- mia= = . i.
as f*=ir -per.a. ed toto. e e, dese,.e. s r.
ene the $the W the et
- '""heie.e,odT;".'"le a= "- g m,=e By seg afternmen,IJies se set -
after a ear ede.of ,
that afbetale l menthe it had he held eines toe JT_ f n mesh a test elated a " ." and New Yest $ tate and gefeugi Red company
'Well oppene licenshg the pleet, um propersusse prescreed in ahead fivwehasmo esmorgency By i But the Nur'tane Regulator, people l i ,andof thedaymorethes Ceauelseien and a Federal W af. ,
W been seesunted giesE.'
lowed Ulos toesadeses test using fee
- ar=
- pines. :
e.a em as me +ine nr an As m aiminar dane a aber amen: er andcounty .manemumaensh facimtes, as civilians were assuany
- t a den hoe been head h de Uesteg enewed. Other snesseret, gash as Ihr*
States without the of e6 use of sirene and goes
, ther state er enesty
" * "g h'""*' " % "eIslee w .. .
-o - ah .t.ed.
- L. e.n % - -e==ed ed Fe..der -
ll"!".e'afei, .ess.,
ere are fow ,ee e hamplant and toregen. i Emeg leised.
the opm pushness Lum'spehemse repend est t
' wand am he to move off the soland. Fedessi ,
p idesines, m ay ledsetism weste 1
, pose an arest to en haank w esse emere than 18 ause tres the piesL
- tiens ase mamanweddheai. w % ,es S .
o e l
l l .
- - - - - - - - - .mm_. - . - - . . . . - - w_--
NEWSPAPER NM M DATE N '" NP- 8d3 FAGE h
......; 4. . . . . . , . . . . . . . . .
l\ .
^-"-""
LILCO to Cite Drill ..
in License Pugh .
m.
By John Mcdonald - .
- e w utco a-sa.ide the, ing nosase be.ed poeme wiii ,re.e he am e,. ret. m *u : =ese*'s we t e g t ; = ;
eiwe leed to ,,a most of the Simreham .drilrrousinar,- lesmed publiely best, and esses at worst and maammarGy '
l
.! . by hderaledBelais. .
- plass the lives es' a setetantial member et '
But F. '/etrone, regional dinster of the la jeopardy' Federal Eawegency Management Ageney, nitorat. the lawyer ed that the lack of stak and local participaties la Sewthamptea la appening a last week's paquatica #iu br the awlear plant enid Petrome's statemsos est en-meant that"the plan saanet be iseplenosted and we sammet be implemssted anrewee ut,.
enanet give ' reasonable assurance' that pahlie chases of getting a lisease weshaus easte or lesal eseperaties. But Peerums said he had
- health and safety ans he protesteL' . ,
l Federal waluatero yesterday alas son examples only regnated what had been enM heten by-him ame other FEMA eSeisle. ,
- et prehlema durin.g breday's esercies, when the NRC adRdata have eaM that they, met Imag tetang r u <.. ~Co. simulated ten weeusties FEMA have werd en whether the plan
, of 188.000 resi3ests tous the 10.enile esse areemd **"*** l l .
the moreham plant dertas a meek veester assWeas. 8"FEntA's dr(Il malanter was The tems ranged essa a pe=or. plant werher Rowleleki, who wee la sharge of wbe a the drill by taking e seda break to photo. *Ed . W we eGur ese sepyl Mr bus drg,.
aretagk as teelesgachises breaking and emergency j
plek up simulated evmouses. imenselene. . .essallnamag>d' ste l None of the ese wastermed serious and all % 88889"I* k'ly !
ena be . FEMA and Noelear Regulatory , ties,.KowlelekisaM. .
rs. a.a ,,aluatoresaid. .
Rowleidd,who seuthe Gael wighe i LIIr0 attermey Anthony Early eaW the'utGity' l medy la sis wake, used that wul move quishly to held heartage en the drill be. j "*4**
hre en NRC lisensing board.
- - - ""I'8"*ehaald how j
'It wul take eheut es days br FEMA's Saal re.
eheded - esse le a
- '8["
1 port." Early anW.* bat la the meantisme we saa clear .
He FEMA W a thes up aromedural m.attere auch as setting a timetable these wee sa overemrand prevel and Airb * - wee some delay la sospaans *. . . en '
N esereise wee oppeesd by'the state.
SuGbik County and Southampton Town, whiek all Nepense was only awe to handle p- ' of GE j ' maintala that public saflety enanot be der. Impedissat due to a "-
peeb.
te leen?
las a radielegien! aseident at .
l .that oppeelties, the NRC enlled he the drut to - u!40 has malatained eat to them deelde whether the plant saa he liesmand.
impediment delay was a Although U140 has no legal authertty to imple. "lias of t* that the plan without state andlocalan. 8'883e aestasthe meatits -
ter. e,sheetse tEs peepenen le arguing ta a real state therity, the plant site. At the and lessi to wul aspeed. aise p unties is done by the NiE"' plana,to l maintaine 7the Nac som empower utro te in. '
l plement the emergensy plan. b NRC's shief evaluator *' David " .J. Y.tto on.umw C=a=,notinginasawassat,oner. ala ' h :
est as maw dem -t have m .magem, pian w= @>iimentasuncoo e. est es.
g 8h*"'==
. ."'* Y=d=' .*e= dm==a==, M.*r = 3as u==,es,1l"ha,"e
... m y e. won .
h,,"!
I .
1 .
1 .
- \
fay \ OD l
. - ~ , - - _ - _ - - _ , . _ , _ - . . _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . , _ - _ _ _ - _ - _ - _ __ --.
r g-4 NEWSPAPER U) h e
___ DATE M'" / b ~ b PAGE Vlte%aold anethis wee able? Es aseed that, shows up (M es 0 J H Can.
terl se6 e sees and task a husek af easting up ognipment er the conner?
vleesaid westas aloe need Lnmo
.does en redleelen minasse tesaned af esen.
.oble.e .e date-temeAnde.ra.l e memberlag - teenne and .
, ,,,,ses.som.d e to. . .
.- 1 2 4 0 vise ,
wes ,ienced .mt:ube Padioher ='Lhe, .
s E r ".sa.8e d M Mam,wee U m. gAbe
. . . tame .,b,ei.n, s --
haplesse.t she= thee!alas Today't- head.ea st
. ..ee-a.di.eez: that the 6eer. .
LT~ w r a m m ' D . 0 (.,W ( "' ) I
.., i r' ap .
! . smweener eroedoest r veemese and sessumes. way
- U N L mesessee should snesude eensirde n sden coseye m ease.2 er pod .smegeney neshomson et
,utoo smagency organisaden] 3"T d4'7
- r* .j
.7 '
ing impeemens to wefe-pweennel good insemel commu. f.' howses renamene, eteer and emotent Cteer ..I
- N. ' ' es Onebueenvertookget to the leddle lela
-,j
'and
< ove, se.nsies menagemeni.gew.- betofines conducted g ,lll'"4' s
e^sgs.econd urgmge aMver eerg lheur seehbu.sheimen adhenne dreseensedtonei st RidA's Regional bemer Weined." " Wo ' t *t Aselstenes Commmes.
. . .. . . . .. P""" - . . . , ":
- t
- c?) 8
('.'.'i.
- . ... '. .4'".'4
.. .. '.'- l. 4 F,
. y , fe,, T,,,,wee,nneilnmeteergency@.,a
! "In overes tems.me ULCO team' Portened very wet during'the eret.
7 .[d , '1
- h. ..seen does Miermemen of keep.7
- x is obvious that these peepio have . *
). medenganheredbygashhevenLet s been doing theirjoes for along sme. . ? t A.A - *! -
- pereennsL.At the cup. -
Q. ti;u ri - part Center..the guy w e i
- They em we reined. Them em a * ,-
tour ilome that end for improvemere t*
.,, showed up get a Cohe end task a Y but these are elemellyconscued." v ./*
' . .k- ' break. The assistent to me fee.
egense nannage
... ..e. . . r.. , ..
Sueld A Vte,ehet NRG mtemer tenia?,t wee. .puted
- . esey .
steefter et Shoreham dre
- s. ......e-.;...,.,....., .. ,,:-- ,n v e ,,......
.c.... r.
u -- ..x.
,. ,- a ., ., .
s ..m. n..,.
..t 1 . ..
p .a u m;;ged,,. ,:..n t, :. .t ., .,
v .
."7No anomlee wee aimed esses t
. ."1 monk overyone termeir esepe,.
y and losed govemment perceipe. ' .
, seen and i ener my eengvesuiseene % eart We sannot measure me ads. -
m(ULCO Smergeasy Organieemen} ' '*J % queer et state .end Issef '
- for meir domessed week to
~*
t ruskenes. Our repost we he en
. dem We feelmet bre e ' $ '. .
. sphatassusp y happened Wesonnet ;
' stole and leoel gewomment we m. '
. gM a Andirg er syneenabst steup. v enee met the pubic heeNh and seAD. *
. spendin a sealemogeney."
y;yjf'.f t.T
, prest P.pttene, S *;1J2,:::*.,..' W)!3 T*.',h E 'I
' y een be ppsessess * . ar . * * -- e regionalcuester .
Sog 2 o F 2