ML20154R641

Requests That Util Inform NRC Promptly of Any Change to Plans to Proceed W/Pending Application for License to Operate Plant.Any Transfer of Plant Subj to Prior Review & Approval to NRC,10CFR50

ML20154R641
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	06/01/1988
From:	Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To:	Catacosinos W LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
Shared Package
ML20154P084	List: ML20154P080 ML20154R641 ML20154R647 ML20154R682 ML20154R704
References
NUDOCS 8806080091
Download: ML20154R641 (1)

Text

.

[T S0" YZ L 4 / o,, UNITED STATES

! o, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5  ! WASHING TON, D. C. 20655

\>..... w. . .

Mr. Williain J. Catacosinos Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Long Island Lighting Company 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, NY 11801

Dear Mr. Catacosinos:

It is our understanding from the media reports that Long Island Lighting Company and the State of New York have reached an agreement, at least in principle, which, if finalized would effect the transfer of the Shoreham plant to a state agency for shutdown and perhaps deconnissioning.

As the penultimate paragraph in the enclosed FEMA letter of May 31, 1988 to me indicates, it is important that LILCO inform the NRC promptly of any change to its plans to proceed with its pending application for a license to operate the Shoreham plant. It is important that you provide this information to the NRC at the earliest possible time.

You understand, of course, that any transfer of the Shoreham plant is subject to the prior review and approval of the NRC in accordance with tile provisions of 10 CFR Part 50.

Sincerely,

,O V ctor St o Executive Director for Operations

Enclosure:

FEMA 5/31/88 Letter t

i

)

STolo20011)(A x -

y

e .

, ,s J '

y Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 MAY 31 1988 Mr. Victor Stello, Jr.

Executive Director for Operations Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Stello:

On January 27, 1988, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requested the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to review Revision 9 of Long Island Lighting Company's (LILCO) offsite emergency plan for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, under the provisions of the April 1985 NRC/ FEMA Memorandum of Understanding and certain criteria and assumptions, as indicated below. FEMA was also requested to provide a finding, i.e.,

indicate whether in the framework of those criteria and assumptions, FEMA has reasonable assurance that the plans can protect the health and safety of the public living in the vicinity of the plant.

We were requested to review the plan under the criteria of the interim-use document entitled Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants (Criteria for Utility Offsite Planning and Preparedness). That document has been published as Supplement 1 to NLREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1.

As requested by NRC, FEMA also used 3 assumptions 5n reviewing and evaluating the LILC0 plan. Those assumptions are that in an actual radiological emergency, State and local officials that have declined to participate in emergency planning will:

1) Exercise their best efforts to protect the health and safety of the public,

2) Cooperate with the utility and follow the utility plan, and 3)Have the resources sufficient to implement those portions l of the utility offsite plan where State and local response is necessary.

It is further understood that in any subsequent hearings or litigation related to the plan review or exercise, NRC will defeno the above assumptions.

l Enclosed is a report on the results of a full review of Revision 9 of the j LILC0 plan, conducted by FEMA Region 11 and the Regional Assistance Committee (RAC), using the criteria and assumptions specified by NRC. Based on 7~g

'U- 6 _.t . f g

? ? fl 000  ?? X4. Cy l

2 that evaluation, Revision 9 contains 17 inMequacies. More detail on the review process and the inadequacies is contained in the enclosed report from FEMA Region 11 to FEMA Headquarters. Based on these inadequacies, and the recommendation of FEMA Region 11, FEMA does not have reasonable assurance under Revision 9 that the public health and safety can be protected in the vicinity of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.

However, planning for the exercise may go forward for the reasons noted bel ow. First, the utility has already provided FEMA Region 11 and the RAC with proposed plan changes to address these inadequacies. We understand that these changes were incorporated into Revision 10 of the plan. Elewen of the inadequacies in Revision 9 required relatively minor changes and the utility's proposed changes were responsive to the RAC/ FEMA concerns. For the six inadequate elements requiring more substantive revision, five of these [(i.e.,

provisions for communication with New York State (F.1.b), the public infomation program for residents, transients, and the agricultural community (G.1.a-e, G.2, and J.11), and written agreements for "first-call" commitments with companies supplying supplementary buses for a "one-wave" evacuation of school (J.10 9)], will not affect the conduct of the exercise. With regard to the remaining inadequacy that must be evaluated at the exercise [i.e., planning l

for the monitoring and decontamination of school children evacuated after a release (J.12)], FEMA Region !! provided technical assistance to the utility to expedite the resolution of this issue for its inclusion in Revision 10.

On May 23,1988, NRC requested FEMA to conduct a full RAC review of Revision 10 of the plan and provida a finding by July 29, 1988. NRC has also requested that the Rev$sion 10 changes be incorporated into the exercise play of the upcaming Shoreham exercise, now scheduled for the week of June 6,1988.

Since FEMA would not be able to ccaplete a full RAC review in that short tine frame, FEMA Region 11 has agreed to review the changes, coordinate with the RAC where necessary, and incorporate them into the evaluation of the exercise.

A cursory review has been perfomed by FEMA Region 11 of the sections of Revision 10 relating to the inadequacy concerning the monitoring and decon-tamination of school children mentioned above in connection with element J.12. Based on that review, we have concluded that the inadequacy has been addressed in a mannar sufficient to permit an adequate demonstration of the l

monitoring and decontamination function in the exercise.

We note also that on April 27, 1988, the Director of the Connecticut Office of Civil vreparedness notified LILC0 that his office "would participate in an interstate exercise only in full coordination with the participating states and local governments. We have received no such coordination."

He further indicated that his office will not "conduct any exercise evaluation I activities or any simulation activities during the proposed exercise conducted -

by LILCO. " This was fully discussed by members of our staffs on May 3,1988.

As discussed at the meeting, although the State of Connecticut has not withdrawn from participation in offsite emergency planning for the Shoreham plant, it l

will be considered by NRC as a non-participating government for purposes of l

the exercise. As a consequence, as stated in NRC's memorandum of May 26, 1988, l NRC staf f finds appropriate that the role of the State will be simulated through the use of a control cell, since the participation of the State is not reasonably achievable.

x 3

We have also received the May 26, 1988 confirmation from NRC staff that the May 25,1988 advisory opinion from the Atomic Safety Licensing and Appeal Board does not change NRC staff's view that the current objectives for the exercise would constitute a qualifying exercise under NRC regulations. It is also our understanding that this confirmation P ', the concurrence of the NRC Of fice of General Counsel.

The above pre-exercise arrangements notwithstanding, we think it only prudent to raise the question of whether the planned FEMA-evaluated exercise should proceed at this time. It is our understanding that only recently, LILC0 and the State of New York reached agreement in principle which will allow for the closing of the Shoreham plant. While it is possible that final agreement may not be reached, there is also the probability that Shoreham will not continue to operate. In light of the additional exper.diture of funds about to be spent related to the Shoreham exercise, it would be more judicious, in FEMA's view, to postpone a FEMA-evaluated exercise at least until further

.esults from the negotiations between LILC0 and N(.< York are made public. Of course, postponement of the exercise would not prohibit continued planning and plan review litigation. Since there are only 4 working days left before the scheduled start of the exercise activities, please let us know in writing by COB June 1,1988, of your position on this matter. If you agree with FEMA's position, we would also ask you to advise LILCO. If you disagree, please include your full rationale.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or Dave McLoughlin at 646-3692.

Si arely ,

1

< #/

Grant C. Peterson Associate Director f State and Local Programs and Sapport Enclosure As Stated

., s Federal Emergency Management Agency New York, New York 10278 Region 11 26 Federal Plaza May 6, 1988 MEMORANDUM FOR: Grant Peterson Associate Director.

State and Local Programs and Support Jack Sable M' FROM:

Regional Director

SUBJECT:

RAC Review Comments for the LILCO Local Offsite Radiological Emergency Respense plan for Shorehnm, Revision 9 Per your request of February 16, 1988 attached isthe theRegion reviewII of the referenced plan which has been conducted by As referenced on each page Regional Assistance Committee (RAC).

of the document, this review has been conducted document in developed

.iointly scenroance by with the interim-use and comment for Preparation and Evaluation of FEMA and NRC entitled: Criteria in Support Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness of Nuclear Power Plants (Criteria for Utility Offsite Planning

1. Supp. 1. In and Preparedness): NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.

reviewing this pl.n. FEMA and the RAC have assumed that in an actual radiological emergency,in State and local emergency officials planning for that the have declined to participate Shoreham plant will:

(1)

Exercise their best efforts to protect the health and safety of tne public; the utility (2) Cooperate with the utility and follow offsite plan; and to implement those (3) Have the resources sufficient portions of the utility offsite plan whare State and local response is necessary.

affecting more Although Revision 9 constitutes a the ma.ior Localrevision, Emergency Response than 1000 pages of ',ILCO's plan, Organization's ( LEF >'s ) concept of operations remains essentially unchanged frou previous versions of the plan that have been this review builds upon RAC comments reviewed. Therefore, 6, 7, and 8) of developed for previous revisions (Revs. 1.

3, 5, the plan and this updated review reflects current operations, resources and status of the utility's offsite emergercy planning effort.

The fellowing steps were taken in completing this review:

y . . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _

y.

r G. Peterson May 6, 1988 Page 2 of 3 (1) RAC comments for Revisions 56, ana i heretofore

. detailed in separate documents, and comments on Revision l

8, were consolidated into one document dated 2/11/88 and I was distributed to the RAC members.

(2) A preliminary review dated 3/17/88 of Revision 9 was

,, conducted by FEMA Region II and contractors to the REP W program. This preliminary review was distributed to the [

RAC, FEMA Headquarters and LII.co on :tarch 18, 1988.

(3) Region 11 met with LILCO representatives an April 8, 1988 and received the utility's proposed actions to resolve items rated Inadequate (I) 2n the 3/17/88 preliminary review comments.

(4) Detailed review comments on Revision 9 of the pian were received from RAC member agencies and were consolidated into an updated review document dated 4/21/08.

(5) A RAC meeting, chaired by FEMA Region II was held in our offices to finalize the attaened comments on Revision 9 of the plan. A record ot' this meeting was transcribed.

In the course of developing the attached updated review, the following nomenclature has 'een n adapted from previous reviews:

A (Adequate) The element is adequately andressed in the plan. Recommendations for improvement shown in italics are not mandatory, but their consideration would further improve the utility's offsite emergency response plan.

I (Inadequate) The element is inadequately addressed in the plan for the reason (s) stated in bold type.

The plan and/or procedures must be revised before the element can be considered adequate.

For ease of understanding, the reason (s) an element has been rated inadequate is, unere possible, stated first.

As a means of summarizing this rather lengthy review and for ease in understanding abbreviations used, an Element Rating Summary and List of Acronyms are provided at t' end of the document.

Seventeen (17) elements are currently rated inadequate (Il and, in accordance with your request, Region II recommends a negative finding that the plan does not presently provide reasonable

+ ,.

,G. Peterson May 6, 1988 Page 3 of 3 assurance that adequate protective measures can be taken in the of a radiological emergency at Shoreham.

event Planning for the exercise can go forward for two reasons.

First, the utility has provided Region II and the RAC with to address these inadequacies that would be proposed plan changes incorporated, prior to the exercise, into Revision 10 of the plan. Eleven (11) of these inadequacies require relatively minor changes, and the utility's proposed changes are responsive to the RAC/ FEMA concerns. Second, for the six (6) inadequate elements (i.e.,

requiring more substantive revision, five (5) of these element provisions for communications with .Newfor York State, f

I residents, transients F.).b; the-public information program elements G.1 a-e, G.2 and J.11; and the agricultural community, and writcen agreements for "first-call" commitments with for a "one-wave" companies supplying supplementary buses evacuation of schools, element J 10.g) will not be exercised.

With regard to the remainint inadequacy that must be evaluated at the exercise (i.e., planning for the monitoring and release, decontamination element J.12), FEMA of school childrentechnical is providing evacuated after a to th-assistance utility to expedite the resolution of this issue for its inclusion in Revision 10. >

Wir.h respect to LILCO's submission of Revision 10, F EM.: will review the plan changes, coordinate with the RAC, and Should any incorporate them in the evaluation of the exercise.

additional changes be forthcoming, every effort will be made to incorporate them in the exercise as well.

Based on all of the above, I recommend that the exercise proceed as planned. If you have any questions, please contact Mr.649-at FTS Ihor W. Husar, Chairman, Regional Assistance Committee, 8203.

Attachment I

. ____._-__m_ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

1. ' MAY 6 1988 TELEFAX MEMORANDUM FOR: Distribution List rROM:

Vemon Adler, Wer s,Cpger,a n Federal Radiologicai Emergency Response Plan (TRERP)

SUBJECT:

Revisien Work Group Meeting - May 12, 1988 4

Tre people named on the distribution list either attended or were iavited tc attend neetings of the Work Group draf ting changes to tne Federal (FRERP) Plan. At the last meeting ( April 18), the Work GroJn agreed to meet again on May I?,1988, to discuss 21, 1957. theThat results of their n'esting wi'.irespective de a;ency s full review o' the December "A".

ccnvened at 9:00 am in the FEMA ElCC, Task Force Area The objective of the discussion on changes to the FRERP is to arrive at definitive Governnent guidance for drafting tht next iteration.. I encoarage you to prepare your cor.unts in writing, to the extent practicable, '

to f acilitate mutual understanding of each agency's concerns.

1 look forward to a productive meeting with the Work Group next Thursday, o

Distribution

. Earl Ashworth DNA Bill Belford W60ANCS George Bickerton USDA Bruce Blanchard 001 6 Sam Boazman HUD Gerald Boyd FEMA Larry Burt CDC Harry Calley EPA Wendell Carriker DOT Frank Congel NRC Robert Conley USDA Grant Dillon VA Dick Gardner DOC (NOAA)

Kathy Gant 00E-0RNL Kent Gray CDC Leven Gray MASA Dave Johnson NCS Ed Jordan MRC Walter Kordek B0H Ray Kulbitskas NSSC Lt. Col. Larson D00 Alex Martin HHS

• Allen Nash FBI Pat Payne DOS Tom P.eutershan HMS Al Seddon FBI ,

Pete Sill D0T s '

John Steiner DNA -

tillian Stone 001 Gordon Tassi GSA h"T - 'd'?d I d ? O / b@N/

- . nBernie a *-Weiss NRC .-, ,-... m . - ~ . -

- m ______ __ . ... --.... .

(.-.

6 l

4 May 26, 1988 I MEMORANDUM FOR: Richarc W. Krinen Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs Fedaral Emergency Management Agency t'

FROM:

Frank J. Congel, Director .

Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation I

SUBJECT:

OBJECTIVES FOR THE SHOREHAM EXERCISE 25, 1986- I This documents a telephone conversation with your staff on May i 1.

We have reviewed the May 25, 1988 memorandum from the Appeal Board ,

regarding the scope of the February 1986 emergency preparedness exercise '

t at Shorehani. i

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

1. has not changed; i.e., we believe 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.

1 believe that the Licensing Board's memorandum If you have any ques..ons please call me at 492-1088. supp reasonably achievable.

Originalsigned by Phrd L bre Frank J. Congel, Director Division of Radiation Protection and Emergency Preparedness Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation CONTACT:

Edward M. Podolak, Jr., NRR 492-3167 DISTRIBUTION:

5ee attached

• $EE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE OGC* D/DR RR SC/PEPB/NRR* C/PEPB/NRR* FJCongel PEPB/NRR* WDTravers EJReis EMPodolak:1r CRVan Niel 5/ 24'88 5/26/88 5/26/88 5/26/88 5/26/88 N 5 & O 3 72 N ,Q 3y

Mr. John 0. Leonard, Jr. Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Long Island Lighting Company (list 1)

CC:

Stephen B. Latham, Esq. Gerald C. Crotty, Esq.

John F. Shea, III, Esq. Ben Wiles, Esq Twomey, Latham & Shea Counsel to the Go'ernor Attorneys at Law Executive Chamber Post Office Box 398 State Capitol 33 West Second Street Albany, New York 12224 Riverhead, New York 11901 Herbert H. Brown , Esq.

Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq. , Chairman Lawrence Coe Lancher, Esq.

Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Karla J. Letsche, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Kirkpatrick & Lockhart W.nshington, D.C. 20555 South Lobby - 9th Floor 1800 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036-5891 W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.

Hunton & Williams Dr. Monroe Schneider Post Office Box 1535 North Shore Committee 707 East Main Street Post Office Box 231 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Wading River, New York 11792 Howard A. Wilber Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.

Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board Special Counsel to the Governor U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Executive Chamber - State Capitol Washington, D.C. 20555 Albany, New York 12224 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Anthony F. Earley, Jr. , Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20555 Long Island Lighting Company 175 East Old County Road Atomic Safety & Licensing Apoeal Board Hicksville, New York 11801 Panel l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Mr. Lawrence Britt Washington, D.C. 20555 Shoreham Nuclear Power Station l

Post Office Box 618 i Gary J. Edles, Esq. Wading River, New York 11792 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.

Washington 0.C. 20555 Suffolk County Attorney H. Lee Dennisca Building Richard M. Kessel Veteran's Memorial Highway Chairman & Executive Director Hauppauge, New York 11788 l New York State Consumer Protection Board Room 1725 Resident Insoector 250 Broadway Shoreham NPS New York, New York 10007 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Post Office Box B Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq. Rocky Point, New York 11778 New York State Department of Public Service Regional Administrator, Region I Three Empire State Plaza U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Albany, New York 12223 475 Allendale Road King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406 l

+

A Long Island Lighting Company -?- Shoreham (1) cc:

Robert Abrams, Esq. Town Attorney Attorney General of the State Town of Brookhaven of New York 3232, Route 112 ATTN: John Corwin, Esq. Medford, NY 11763 New York State Deoartment of Law Consumer Protection Bureau 120 Broadway 3rd Floor New York, New York 10271 Mr. William Steiger Diant Manager Shoreham Nuclear Power Station post Office Box 628 Wading River, New York 11792 MHR Technical Associates 1723 Hamilton Avenue - Suite K San Jose, California 95125 Honorable Peter Cohalan SuffC k County Executive County Executive / legislative Building Veteran's Memorial Highway Hauopauge, New York 11788

[ Ms. Donna Ross New York State Energy Office Agency Buildina ?

Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 1?223 l Ms. Nora Bredes Shoreham 00ponents Coalition 195 East Main Street Smithtown, New York 11787 i Chris Nolin l

New York State Assembly L

Energy Comittee t

626 Legislative Office Ruilding l Albany, New York 12248 l

l Peter S. Everett, Esq.

I Hunton & Williams l 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW l Washington, D.C. ?0036 l

l l

J

"IJ1JN 01 '89 15155 3d.- 37 L P.2 l

, _Rwau3C3 u

l LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY

_m ---

i')

_ EXECUTIVE OFFICES 175 EAST OLD COUNTRY ROAD e HICMSVILLE. NEW YORK 11 Sol E

N WIWAM .J CATAcce'NOS CdNT 84N no ex'.;7 b;,xt.swTive ormCER June 1, 1988

.Yz. Ja=os M. Taylor Doputy. Executive Director '

Nucloar Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20555 Dacr Mr. Taylor:

Enclosed is a copy of the letter addressed to Fr. Stello that specifically states LILCO's desire and intention to continue'the licensing of the Shoreham P.uclone Powar Plant.

Very truly yours,

. . AM*b -

WJC:kam Enclosure fLf'd ' ! 3 C 2 7L ll

e

- 41.N 01 '88 15:55 P.3

,l

.83 &O

. M,MMWW LONG ISLAND LIGHT 1NG COMPANY L .n, - - ,1.__ _

_; EXECUTIVE OFFICES: 178 E AST CLO COUNTRY RO AD . HICM8YlLLE. NEW YO8tK 11801

'WfLt. LAM J CATACCS:NOW c.4ANUMAN ANJ CHEF EKEC@vt OFFCE4 June 1, 1988 Mr. Victor Stello Z::scutivo Director U.C. Nuclear Regulatsry Cc:::.:iccion Ono ht.ito Plint North 1.LLE Rechville Pike '

Doctd 172:1 noc%ville, Maryland 20852 Re Shoreham Nuclear Power Station L::. Mr. Stello:

This letter will confirm our oral advice to you last woch that LILCO has reached an agreement in principle concerning c acttic.r..ont of issues between it and various government agencies 11,.au York State relating to the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.

t cra in tho process of drafting documents to reflect these c ' r t :::.o n t e .

Even after they have been completed and signed, the

( c " c::e::.t '.till not become effective until a number of c!.. i q,;r.ci'oc have occurred, a process that will take

/c;:roxir! tcly three months. LILCO will continue e licensing of t.. >..r.12 until such time as all contingencies ha- been

' - ' ""co, at which time commission approval of the transfer of cr..":.U. of the plant and its relevant licenses will be sought.

T.A c.c th. threa-month period contemplated for satisfaction of t' - ..:nLingancies, the company has agreed not to operate the

! . . :r ct groator than 5 percent of full power should the C:.:. .:.0=ica ::cmove its present restriction on the license to low I .ur c.d tocting operations.

An coon as documents reflecting the agreement to enter i..':o c cattlon. ant have boon completod we will provide them to you

t. %u:: atoff. In the meantime, it is the intention and desiro

( 2.. co..;_r.n" to continue the Shorcham licensing process, 1 .  :.1. tha full participation exorcise scheduled for next week

c. fi.u tu ,li.ty orf.orconey plan for the Shoreham EP2.

j Sincerely, '

3, - . , ,.y neuseny q) l

.