ML20195F055
| ML20195F055 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/03/1986 |
| From: | Brown H, Latham S, Palomino F KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART, NEW YORK, STATE OF, SOUTHAMPTON, NY, SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY, TWOMEY, LATHAM & SHEA |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#286-428 OL-3, NUDOCS 8606090341 | |
| Download: ML20195F055 (30) | |
Text
4 j -
I d
h\ cr 5
\
UNITED STATES OF AMERIC // ,3gcr~ d NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS ON 77 i BeforetheCommission\h y4h3 [
. Q ch!J;,l" G ;!
'Si *
)
- (;j!![\ff In the Matter of )
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) (Emergency Planning
) Proceeding)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
)
SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK, AND TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR NRC TO ESTABLISH POST-EXERCISE PROCEDURES On March 7, 1986, Suffolk County, New York State, and the Town of Southampton (" Governments") filed a Motion concerning future proceedings related to the February 13 exercise of LILCO's emergency plan.1 The NRC has not yet responded to the Governments' Motion. In view of the continued pendancy of this matter, the Governments file this supplement to thei'r March 7 Motion in order to seek additional relief:
1 Motion of Suffolk County, the State of New York, and the Town of Southampton for Ruling Concerning Proceedings Related to the Shoreham Exercise, March 7, 1986 (" Governments' Motion"). On March 13, 1986, LILCO also invoked the NRC's jurisdiction, filing a Motion for Establishment of Licensing Board and Institution of Expedited Procedures for Litigation of Shoreham Emergency Planning Exercise Issues, and Response to Intervenors' March 7, 1986 " Motion Concerning Proceedings Relating to the Shoreham Exercise."
8606090341 060603 PDR ADOCK 05000322 g PDR t
TSo3
i o I
O I
I
- 1. The NRC's return to FEMA of FEMA's April 17, 1986, Post Exercise Assessment for reason that FEMA did not, as is that agency's standard practice, hold a post-exercise meeting with the public residing in the vicinity of the Shoreham plant;
- 3. The NRC's request to FEMA that FEMA describe the deficiencies identified at such public meeting in a revised Post Exercise Assessment; and l 4. The unc hold in abeyance post-exercise litigation until such a revised Post Exercise Assessment is received.
~
The Governments submit that PEMA is legally required, under 44 CFR SS 350.10 and 350.11, to hold a public meeting on Shoreham and to include input from that meeting in the Post Exercise Assessment. The Governments also submit that, even if the law did not require it, FEMA abused its discretion l'n refusing to hold the public meeting. Indeed, FEMA has made the meeting a part of the agency's standard post-exercise prac,tice. At the Indian Point and Ginna plants in New York, FEMA publicly lauded the benefits of the public meeting. At Shoreham, however, FEMA has absolutely refused to abide by its standard practice.
i
_____.._____f________.____.___________________________
4
- Recent events give fresh urgency to the Governments' request for the public meeting. This Supplement follows the Chernobyl nucAsar disaster. At Chernobyl, there was no public participation in the emergency planning review process.
Chernobyl should not be made the model here. Yet, FEMA has done just that by excluding the public from its process. And FEMA, as the NRC's offsite emergency planning consultant, has saddled the NRC with the consequences of FEMA's errors. Unless the NRC corrects FEMA's refusal to hold the public meeting, the NRC's proceeding will be further flawed.
Moreover, this proceeding is not in a vacuum. Respected polls disclose that more than 70 percent of Long Island's residents oppose the operation of Shoreham. The public knows --
from the best evidence of personal experience -- that the configuration of Long Island means they could not be evacuated in a serious accident at Shoreham. The former Director of FEMA's Region II Office, Frank Petrone, knows this also, for he resigned on April 14 when FEMA barred him from writing the truth that LILCO's plan does not provide reasonable assuran'ce of protecting i
the public. And the White House Chief of Staff, "Jonald Regan, knows it. On the May 4 television show, " Meet the Press,"
Mr. Regan stated that there is "no way" Long Island could be evacuated on a Sunday afternoon, let alone in a nuclear accident. i 3-f
i Given these facts and the controlling legal principles, the
! continuation of this proceeding evades rationality. Yet the case goes on. FEMA's unwarranted exclusion of the public from the post-exercise review process can serve no conceivable public benefit. Nor can FEMA's action be construed by the NRC to serve
<- this agency's duty to the public's safety. Indeed, nothing j legitimate could justify FEMA's action or the NRC's eventual 4
consent to it. Therefore, if for no reason other than to foster the NRC's own institutional integrity in this proceeding, the Commission should grant this Motion.
l I. Backaround j On February 13, 1986, an <xercise of LILCO's emergency plan i
for Shoreham was conducted. In accordance with FEMA's standard practice and regulations, 44 CFR Part 350, the Governments f expected that FEMA Region II would conduct a meeting with people i
1 residing in the vicinity of Shoreham before concluding the Post a
' Exercise Assessment report and transmitting it to FEMA 1
headquarters. To gain assurance of this, on February 21, 1986, i the Presiding Officer of the Suffolk County Legislature,' Gregory
! J. Blass, wrote tc the Director of Region II. Egg Attachment 1.
- On March 27 and April 3, New York Senator Alfonse D'Amato wrote 4
i the national Director of FEMA also requesting such a meeting.
a Egg Attachments 2 and 3 hereto.2 2 Senator D'Amato's March 27 letter followed a FEMA response (agg Attachment 4) to a written question Senator D'Amato had 1
i i
i
- - - . -- - -- - - -_ ._ _ - - - - x .- - - - - .- .
' l On April 4, the FEMA Region II Director replied to Mr. Blass that Suffolk County's request was being considered by FEMA headquarters. Egg Attachment 5 hereto. Thereafter, on April 11 and 15, respectively, Fabian Palomino, Esq., for the State of New York, and Mr. Blass requested FEMA headquarters to direct Region II to hold a public meeting. Egg Attachments 6 and 7.
On April 21, FEMA's acting General Counsel, Spence W. Perry, Esq., denied the requests for a public meeting. Egg Attachments 8, and 9. Mr. Perry gave the following reasons:
- 1) The February 13 exercise was conducted under the NRC-FEMA Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"), not 44 CFR Part 350, and no public meeting was therefore required.
- 2) It would be inappropriate and unprecedented for FEMA to discuss its views of the exercise at a public meeting conducted outside the context of the NRC's adjudicatory licensing proceedings; and ,
- 3) In the ASLB proceedings concerning the February 13 exercise, there are procedures for appearances by the public "to accommodate the expression of local public interest and the desires of local citizens to be heard'. . . ."
submitted wherein FEMA stated that 10 CFR Part 350 applied and that the requisite public meeting had already been held. Senator b'Amato's letters of March 27 and April 3 made clear that no such public meeting, as required by 44 CFR S 350.10, had occurred.
n
II. Discussion The reasons given by FEMA for not holding a public meeting are at best lame excuses. First, it is specious for FEMA to wield the NRC-FEMA Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") as a tool with which to wrench the public from the agency's standard practice. The MOU was not written to justify arbitrary
! manipulations of FEMA's processes, but to establish coordination between the processes of the two agencies. FEMA has regularly lauded public participation following other emergency 1
preparedness exercises. Indeed, upon publishing its regulations in 44 CFR Part 350, FEMA stated:
Despite the defiencies of public meetings as evidenced by poor attendance in some cases, FEMA believes that it is essential to provide an opportunity to the public living around or near a nuclear power plant to be informed about specific emergency response plans and preparedness as well as to discuss specific concerns with responsible officials.
Therefore, the public meeting requirement should be retained. Also, in order to make public meetings more meaningful, the language in the rule has been revised in order to'have l public meetings held after the initial- i exercise. Thus, in addition to discussions .
on the emergency response plans, the opportunity is provided to the public to also discuss the exercise. 48 Fed. Reg. 44335' (September 28, 1983) l Significantly, FEMA made no exceptions to this public meeting requirement.
Second, FEMA's claim that it would be inappropriate and unprecedented to discuss its views of the February 13 exercise outside the NRC's litigation is flat nonsense, belied by FEMA's own regulations and operating procedures. Indeed, FEMA is bound to do just that in every case. Thus, Section 350.10(a) of FEMA's regulations requires that "there is at least one public meeting conducted in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant." The purpose of this meeting is specifically to discuss the exercise with the public outside the NRC litigation.
Third, FEMA's claim that public appearances at the NRC will substitute for FEMA's public meeting mischaracterizes both the NRC's proceedings and the public meeting. The NRC's proceedings are of no avail to the members of the public who would individually and organizationally participate in FEMA's public meeting. These persons are not intervenors in the NRC's proceedings. Nor would limited appearance statements at the NRC be comparable with FEMA's public meeting. The public meeting is intended by 44 CFR S 350.10(a) to have FEMA explain +the conduct of the exercise and answer questions about it; l'imited appearance statements at the NRC serve no such purpose and can have no impact on FEMA's assessment of the exercise. Furthermore, the ;
< public meeting under 44 CFR SS 350.11(a) and (c) is required to ,
be held before FEMA prepares its Post > Exercise Assessment and to l
1
\
i i
1
-- F. -
include a discussion of the public's input in the Assessment; limited appearance statements at the NRC occur after the Assessment is prepared.
Finally, the NRC has decided to interpret its regulations in 10 CFR Part 50 to cover LILCO's " utility plan," even though the regulations refer to State and local plans and not to a utility's own offsite plan. When FEMA proposed'44 CFR Part 350, FEMA stated, "This rule is intended to be consistent with the NRC
, emergency planning rule." 47 Fed. Reg. 363987 (August 19, 1982).
To be true to those words, FEMA has to interpret 44 CFR S 350 to cover LILCO's utility plan and, thus, the present situation.
This means that FEMA has to hold the same public meeting at Shoreham as it is required by S 350.10 to hold at every other nuclear power plant.
Conclusion FEMA's exclusion of the public from its post-e,xercise review process by refusing to hold a public meeting violates both FEMA's
)
regulations and its standard practice. Section 350.10(a) of the l regulations requires that FEMA hold a meeting with members of the public in the vicinity of Shoreham. FEMA's failure to hold that meeting invalidates the Post-Exercise < Assessment transmitted by 4
FEMA on April 17.
t
4 The Commission is obligated to correct FEMA's error. FEMA is before the Commission as the NRC's offsite emergency preparedness consultant. The error of FEMA in pursuit of its consultancy to the NRC is the error of the NRC itself. If the NRC does not correct the error by return of the Post-Exercise Assessment to FEMA with the request that FEMA comply with the public meeting requirements of Section 350.10(a), the NRC's post-exercise proceedings will be further flawed.
Even if the NRC does not believe that FEMA is obligated to hold the public meeting, the Commission should use its discretion and its standing under the NRC-FEMA MOU to request the public meeting. There in no conceivable public benefit to be gained by excluding the public at Shoreham from having the same post-exercise input as people living near every other nuclear power plant.
$ 8 6
0 h
_ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. __ _. _ t
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth herein, the Governments move that the Commission grant the relief requested above.
Respectfully submitted, r ) -
Iferbert H. Brown Lawrence C. Lanpher Karla J. Letsche Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Attorneys for Suffolk County Fabian G. Palomino t
fff$
Special Counsel to the Governor 2
of New York State Executive Chamber Two World Trade Center New York, New* York 10047 Attorney for Governor. Mario M.
Cuomo and the State of New York (n~ '--
Stephen B. Latham
. = .
ng Twomey, Latham & Shea P.O. Box 398.
33 West Second Street Riverhead, New York 11901 Attorney for the Town of Southampton l June 3, 1986 l
l 9
Attachment 1 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK COUNTY LEGISLATURE LEG,leLATOR o v..c, GR1GOttY J. SLASS .
... .. u. . .e r e.
February 21,198G Mr. Frank D. Petrone llegional Director Fcderal Emergency Manage nent Association ,
26 Federal Pfar.e, Room 1338 New York, NY 10278 Dear Mr. Petrone.
I am writing on behalf of Suffolk County to seek your agreement that FEMA will hold concerning.the February 13 LERO exercise with Interested members of the public.
cf our knowledge, FEMA has held such a meeting following County should not be foreclosed from the same access to post-exercise information opportunity to provide FEMA with relevant data as persons who !!ve within the E nuclear power plants. Emergency preparedness is of at least as much concern to the Shoreham as to the affected public elsewhere.
To facilitate a meeting of FEMA with the public, the County would be pleased to easist F in securing an appropriate room or aiding in any other necessary arrangements. We w learning from you as soon as possible whether we should proceed accordingly.'
Sincerely, hl .
Gregory J. Blass -
Presidmg Officer a
GJB/mjh a 191089499400 ;
e psygn.es AO. pate vomst t t est II 8499 98Co.ee efpet? = 9 6 00s 90 t
-- ._ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ ---'7+ - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ , _ _ __
] . .
l
. Attachment 2 Au:Nat M. O'AMATo wwemm l
EUitCd $tGrus $tilatt P wA:,HINGToN,OC 20610
' t i
March 27, 1986 <
f 1
- The Honorable Julius W. Becton, Jr. - !
j Director Federal Emergency Management Agency 1
Washington, D.C. 20472 I
Dear'Gwnecal 3ccten:
l I am writing as a follow-up to the question I submitted for March
- i the record at your fiscal year 1987 appropriations hear ng on l a
- 5. public meeting concerning LILCO's February Your reply was as follows:
f reaching conclusions on the exercise.
l
- FEMA regulation 44 CFR 350 provides for the conduct of a l
j meeting after an exercise,15, involving 1986, at the theHolidayexercise I Such a meeting was held on FebruaryInn used as the Joint N i
l Members of the press and public Afterwere FEMA'spresent.the m l
- impressions on how the exercise went.
l presentation, made by the Chairman of the Regional Assista l i Committee, members of the press asked questions informally.
l At least one member of the public also asked questions.
- While I appreciate that FEMA held the February 15 tion meeting, l
j that refers.
meeting is not the "public meeting" d to"i?ithin which48my que i the regala'lonc you cite, 44 CFe 350, which provi es:
hours of the completion of the exercise, a briefing involving d d by the exercise participants and Federal observers shall be con ucte f the i the Regional Director to discuss the preliminary results o j
exercise." l i The "public meeting" addressed by mySection question is required bi 350.10(a) j arequires separa.tethat, subsection of the same regulation. priorblic to.the e :
The Regional Director "shall assure that there is at least one pu l t !
l
, meeting conducted in the vicinity of the nuclear power p an .(1) to a l l to answer any l purpose of the meeting shall bepublic with the conduct fer of l questions about the exercise; r
public concerning improvements or changes that may be nec: '
{
i emergency preparedness; and (4) to describe ;
an actual emergency.
l I l l l I
s .
Tho Honorcblo Juliua W. B:cten, Jr.
March 27, 1986 Page 2 i
underscores the importance of the public Section 350.10(b) meeting:
ith
...This meeting shall be noticed in the local newspaper w the largest circulation in the area,on at or.other least'twomedia as the occasions, one Regional Director may select,two weeks before the meeting' takes place of and which is at is the other least within a few days of the meeting date...
Public input from the meeting is considered by FEMA to be to important that Section 350.10(b) further states that no FEMA approval of an emergency And, underplan can be Section made ut.le==
350.11(c), such a public the Regional meeting is held.include "a summary of the deficiencies identified Director must durino the oublic meetina" in the evaluation of the exercise he transmits to, FEMA Headquarters.
The facts are as follows:
o FEMA has complied with only a part of the regulation cited i
in your letter by conducting on February 15 the briefing coquired by Section 350.9; j
o FEMA has not complied with a more important requirement of the public meeting mandated by section the regulation you citesIndeed, FEMA has still not even issued the advance notice 350.10.
of such a public meeting required by Section 350.10(b);
o Before the Regional Director can conclude his evaluationfrom the public of the February 13 exercise, he must consider input (See Section 350.11(a)); and 4
meeting reuqired by Section 350.10.. '
the
\
o In the evaluation of the February 13 exercise that Regional l'irector will transmit to FEMA Headquartors, he
- (See section 350.11(c)).
There is no justification for FEMA to ignore or discriminate 4
, against the people who live near Shoreham or to deny plants.
The reason FEMA has held a public meeting after every other exe'rcise is to gather information fromofthe The people Long public that Island can have improve emergency preparedness.just as much to offer FEMA a should seek them out as it has done with local residente in every l other case.
A refusal by FEMA to do this here would be a slap at )'
.> Long Island's citizens and a violation of the regulation you have
- cited in your reply to me.
In the case of Shoreham, where a utility is attempting to
' supplant the emergency response function of State and County governments which have in good faith determined to adopt emergency l
Tha Honorcblo Julius W. B;cten, Jr.
sa*rch 27, 1986 Page 3 plans, it is even more compelling for FEMA to reach out for the public's views and insights. It is significant that you cite and acknowledge the control of 44 CFR 350, but what is even more important is that you be willing to acknowledge the vulnerability of the public at Shoreham and not shortchange them on procedures which have bec,ome standard for FEMA everywhere else. Indeed, this is a case where FEMA should take every reasonable measure to gather practical information and insights from the public so as to assure that it is not imperiling the safety of the people who live near the Shoreham plant.
Therefore, I ask that you instruct your Regional Director to hold a public meetirg with the people of Lcm; Islerid in accotdance l
l with FEMA's standard practice and regulations. Until that meeting is held and FEMA receives and meaningfully considers the public's input, the Regional Director should withhold judgments concerning the February 13 exercise.
Thank you for your attention to this matterg ~~~'-
Sincerely, ,
fo e D'Am o Unite States Senator AD:ent cc: Frank Petrone i
h I .
I s s
ie e
b e
I l
l l
1 A -- - - - - - - - - - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l Attachment 3
. a.:osterw u .was o Awato 7'
)
Te ianited f5tates Etnatt l WA$petNGToM. DC tot 10 April 3, 1986 l
Becton, Jr.
The sonorable Julius W.
Director rederal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 i l
Dear General Becton:
1986.
This is a follow-up to my letter to you dated March Director to conform to FEMA's standard practice by holding andtheto I normal post-exercise public meeting regarding Shoreham, l withhold judgment on LILCO's February 13 exercise until the is received and meaningfully considered.
public's input
! I am writing today in reference to statements of FEMA's- Mr. McAda spokesman, William McAda, quoted in Newsday of April 2.
- l. said that FEMA's regulations (i.e. ,10 CFR 350) requiring a post-exercise public meeting do not apply at Shoreham because thi
' situation is ' unique." I am outraged by that statement.
First, your own response to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on 500 and Independent Agencies to my MarchYou 5 questio f or the record applied 10 CFR 350 to the shoreham situation.t went so f not only cited this regulation, bu. It is FEMA dutifully complied with it on February 15. you I trust tha: inapprop you told me in a considered written response. ,
will back up your own words.
t'he " uniqueness
- of the Second, Mr. McAda's position that Shoreham situation justifies cutting the citizens of suffolk Congrers Count; l out of FEMA's normal public meeting process is insulting.
! has funded FEMA to help protect the Unfortunately, public, not to use it isthe Agency'r resources to run roughshod over them.
becoming clear that the major ' uniqueness
- at Shoreham is FEMA's unwillingness to treat the people who live near shoreham the same ,
way FEMA treats people living near every other nuclear power <
I remind you that at both Indian Point and Ginna in New
> J plant.
York, FEMA's Regional Office held up'blic meetings following the )
l emergency preparedness exercises and prior to concludin evaluations.
safety of their families as thom the people near Indian Point and TEMA cannot treat ac second-class citizens.
'Cinns.
i I
I P
-- - . . ___ ^-um Tho Etnorobio Julius W. 50ct on, Ji .
April 3, 1986 Page 2
- r Mr. McAda's effort to undo your written response to meof the importanc
, particularly disturbing in lighton having aexercise, public meeting FEMA's following t plant.
For example, after the Indian Point not only spokeswoman told the press that public meetings are held,also Th.en the plan because.
thav are ranuired, but beemuna _
l have offered valid criticism This and good suggestions.
is procisely what happened at is modified accordingly." in the
, Ginna, where the plan was adjusted to accommodate public input concerning the need to sound sirene earlier than was done i exercise.
Finally, it is unconscionable that Mr. McAda wo.nd even attempt to justify denying suf folk 's citi: ens the pu'elic meeting l I remind you da that FEMA routinely. offers people overywhere else.tha proposal to eliminate public meetings. Federal Reafster:
- of the September 28, 1983, l
! Despite the deficiencies of public meetings as evidenced ir by l poor attendance in some cases, FEMA believes that.it i essential to provide an opportunity to the public living i
around or near a nuclear power plant to be inf to discuss specific costerns with responsible shouldofficials.
be i
Therefore, the public meeting requirement I retained. Also, in order to make public meeting more l meaningful, the language in the rule has been revised in
! order to have public meetinge held after the initial ;
exercise. Thus, in addition to discussions on the emergency l
response plans, the opporutnity is provided to the public t r also discuss the exercise.
Suffolk County residents Given this are fact, concetnod wit.hthe and given safety issues inter.se surrounding Shoreham. of pect-exe.r e fse pub 1:e ree :r.gr i
commitment and, by FEMA to the conceptindeed, FEMA's practice of ho everywhere else, I ask for your. prompt you hold the standard public meeting in Suffolk County, and thatin accordan will instruct your Region II Director 1986.
request set forth in my letter dated Match 27,,
Sincerely, /
M ,*.
Ifc.re D'Amsce Unit dd Stater Senato:
ADrent 4
- - - , . _ . - . . . . , _ _ . . - - - - - - . - _ - - . _ _ _ , - . - , . - , - - . -. -. N - - - - - - _ . - . .
Attachment 4
' ' QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY SENATOR D'AMATO f6MA RESPONSE TO SHOREHAM EXERCISE Question: General Beeton, I'm curious about the precedents in this area.
Has FtMA ever made a reasonable assurance of safety based on an evacuation drill without local cooperation?
Ans we r: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) normally does not issue a finding of reasonable assurance of of f site safety based on an evaluation of a radiological energency preparedness exercise without local cooperation. The exception 1
to this practice has been where another jurisdiction (usually the State) performs compensatory preparedness functions for the non-j participating local entity., Examples include the Indian Point
' site where, in 1983, New York State exercised its compensatory plan for Rockland Courty which was not then participating in offsite 3
a emergency planning and preparedness. Although some inadequacies existed, FEMA was eventually able to give the Nuclear Regulatory 2 Commission (NRC) a report of adequate progress on correction of 1 these errors. On the basis of that report, the NRC did not shut down the Indian Point site. Rockland County has rejoined the planning effort since that time.
Question: When do you expect you will make your recommendation to the KRC?
l Answer: We ex pe ct to give the NRC a report in about 45 days on the February 13, 1986 exercise at Shoreham.
Question: What are , FEMA's options? In other words, what i possible recommendations could you make?
2 Answer: As we explained in our October 29, 1985 letter to the ~
NRC, we will not be able to give a finding of reasonable assurance on offsite preparedness, due to the lack of participation of the State and/or local government in the emergency planning process.
This is based on legal decisions about LILCO's lack of authority to perform certain civil emergency f unctions in its planp. Our
- report will simply be an account of the exercise scenario and l
LILCO's performance ag nst that scenario. It is up to NRC to utilize that informatio in its licensing process as appropria'te.
l Question: Following each radiological emergency planning j exercise, FEMA has held an open meeting at which the.public was :
J invited to submit information concerning emergency preparedness and to discuss this general issue. These meetings were held prior j
- to FEMA issuing its evaluation of the exercise so that the public's input could be considered fully. I am not aware of FEMA having scheduled such a meeting concerning the February 13 exercise of LILCO's emergency plan, even though the Presiding Officer of the Suf f olk County Legislature , on February 21, wrote FEMA's Regional Director to confirm that such a meeting would be scheduled. Do I i
have your assurance that FEMA will invite the public to a meeting
,,~ n, - .. - - -, ~ _ - , , , - , . . . , ~ , . , _ , , - . - - , - . . ,-.m- ,_.,.,,-.,,,.,w,e .n ,,n, ,r,.,,,,_--,-._,-,.g__w e-,----.
,.;L.: -
FEMA reaches concerning LILCO's February U exercise before ?
conclusions on the exercise or issues its evaluation Answer:
FEMA ragula' tion 44 CFR 350 provides for -
the conduct rticipants, of a meeting af ter an exercise , involving the Suchexercise
.i meeting.pa was Federal agendias, and the public and media.the Holiday Inn used as the Joint held on Fe'oruary 15, 1986, at Members of the press and FEMA News Center for the Shoreham exercise.The purpope of the meeting was s public were present.could share its initial impressions on how the exercise Regional Af ter FEMA's presentation, asde by the Chairman of the Assistance informally. At Committee, members of the press asked questio
+
0 7
a no -
a
.gr-ae i r 4 .
9
[
e t
b r
r#
y f
= ,
s H
,==p.m =# ,
w w
" ' ' * * ~ ~ ~~~ " ~~~'~ ~
'EF0 . id E 7# M O':; 0- -: 3-;-"i * * ' ' - --'
04 ;0- 3 56 :;:50 .6i: OL- :' tEG EL# E- 5 M E~- P 02 Attachment 5
/T Federal Emergency Management Agency 7
- / Region 11 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 The Honorable Gregory J. Blass Presiding Officer Suffolk County Legislature com
, ..,),
Legislature Building E Ei" m' '"
ITI Veterans F.emorial Highway {f c- ;
Hauppauge, NY 11788 6; , ,__
gn r.;c y; - - .
Dear Mr. Blass:
z K. i .
b ':-
~
cm 3 9 March I 21, enjoyed 3986the andoppcrtunity share your to n.eet with for you ontolivl x--,<i"d concerns FEMA Er, ~3 A-a public hearing in order to obtair. public views relative to the February 13, 1986 LILCO exercise of Shoreham.
As we discussed, this exercise is not part of the FEMA 350 process, but rather pursuant to the NRC FEMA Memorandum of Understanding. Therefore, your request as a result of our meeting has been forwarded to the FEMA Office of General Counsol for review.
I was in Washington last week and briefed sanior management staff of the Suffolk County Legislature's request. I am currently awaiting a response and deter-mination and will forward this to you immediately upon receipt.
Thank you again for working so closely an' '
cooperatively with me during this very difficult time.
sincor y,[-
r*
F'ank P. Petrone
.egional Director Mk 2
l I- .
e .
Attachment 6 s
e
)
% . .. .. ..a >
STArc or Ncw Yosta EXECuravE CH AMBE A ALSANY 12224 FABIAN PALOMINO Soec.es counsas to tes Governor April 11, 1986 Becton, Jr.
The Honorable Julius W.
Director Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C 20472
Dear General Becton:
On behalf of New York State, I am writing to underscore Blass, Presiding the letters written to you by Gregory J.
Officer of the Suffolk County Legislature, respectfully requesting that in compliance with the regulations and your customary practice FEMA hold a meeting with the public residing near the Shoreham nuclear power plant prior to FEMA's completion of its evaluation of LILCO's February 13 exercise.
The affected public on Long Island is entitled to participate in FEMA's post-exercise near other evaluation nuclear power processha/e plants just as people living At both the Indian Point and Ginna plants in participated.
New York, meetings were held by FEMA with the public before There is Region II completed its post-exercise evalua t iert. FEMA to no basis in the present circumstances' for discriminate against the peopleI ofaccordingly Long Islandask by that denying you them that same opportunity. the public to direct Region II to provide an opportunity for meet with FEMA prior to the conclusion of the Region II evaluation. .
Sincerely,
/ .
Fabian Palomino Special Counsel to the Governor i
Attachment 7 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK l l COUNTY LEGISLATURE GREGORY J. 8 LASS PassoNG orrectR April 15, 1986 1
The Honorable Julius W. Becton, Jr.
Director Federal Emergency Management Agency .
Washington, D.C. 20472
Dear Mr. Becton:
I believe I speak for all concerned citizens of Suffolk County in expressing shock that you have attempted to manipulate FEMA Region II's emergency preparedness responsibilities Your against the safety interests of the people of Suffolk County.
conduct and the persistent hostility of FEMA headquarters toward Suffolk's citizens. require some blunt and straight talk. That is the purpose of this letter.
Your attempt to contrive Region II's conclusion with respect to LILCO's February 13 drill is the third major impropriety at FEMA concerning Shoreham since you took office late last year.
It comes after FEMA secretly executed an illegal sole source contract to hire " simulators" to pretend they were State And andit local officals in the drill of LILCO's emergency plan.
follows your refusal to permit Region II to hold a post-exercise meeting with the public near Shoreham as FEMA has done with Both of people living near every other nuclear power plant.
these events demonstrate FEMA's indifference to the safety of the people of,Suffolk County.
Not forgotten are documents published by the press' more than a year ago that prove FEMA's collusion with the Department of Energy and other federal officials to license Shoreham These, and the at any cost to the safety interests of the public.
April 11 statement of Frank Petrone upon resigning as FEMA's Region II Director, provide compelling evidence that you and your colleagues have betrayed the respect and trust of the people of this County.
In my view, there is only one honorable course for you and FEMA at this point:- to tell the whole truth. The truth about
" pressure," as Mr. Petrone put it, from the NRC and other federal agencies and officials. The truth about any commitments FEMA made to support the licensing of Shoreham despite legitimate e IS f GI 360-dCas a waypeayCE.Ngw vong 3g733 LtGiSLaTURE tutLDiNG. ItETERameS MEMCReaL McGMway f
l The Honorable Julius W. Secton, Jr. :
April 15, 1986 Page 2 public concerns.
And the truth about any representations you made before, during, or after confirmation to speed a license for Shoreham.
Moreover, the loss of public confidence in FEMA requires that you act forthrightly to end the taint to FEMA's review of LILCO's February 13 drill. As a start, this means conducting the normal public meeting with persons living near Shoreham and making full and candid findings as to the status of emergency preparedness in Suffolk County. There is no basis for FEMA And there to discriminate against the citizens of Suffolk County.
certainly is no basis to delete from the report Region II's statement -- tne actuality -- that LILCO's plan does not permit a reasonable assurance finding.
Finally, Mr. Petrone's resignation has raised countless questions about the integrity of FEMA's activities concerning Shoreham. Accordingly, I shall ask, Congress to commence a full-scale investigation into the circumstances surrounding alone and Mr. Petrone's resignation and the conduct of FEMA, with other federal officials, concerning emergency preparedness issues at Shoreham. The public must learn what has gone on behind closed doors.
Very truly yours, w Qt / L Gregory J. Blass Presiding Of,fic'er I
e 9
, - _ = _ _ . . _ , , ,,, ,
Attachment 8
/ + %p g %
1/'.
f t
g Federal Emergency ManagymngAgacy ~ '~
c Washington, D.C. 20472 ,
(f,' ' %)N
$/A M 2 26 fJi'{$
.r PRf' idik ,OfflCIR API ,, ')
90U Y 1.EG111.ATURE GUfl LA COUNTT. N.Y.
The Honorable Gregory J. Blass Presiding Officer Suf folk County Legislature Legislature Building Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge NY 11788
Dear Mr. Blass:
The Director has asked me to respond to your letter of April 15, 1986.
As to your request that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conduct a public hearing on the February 13th exercise at the Shoreham Plant, I believe my letter to Fabian Palomino, Special Counsel to the Governor of the State of New York, sets forth FEMA's position. A copy is enclosed for your information. I believe this also answers the issues raised in your letter of March 6,1986, to Frank Petrone on the same . subject.
Sincerely,
,/ N
~
S'p ce Perry b Acting General Counsel Enclosure ,
p
((' l bCQ
- ' I 11:20 KIRKPATRICK & '
7KHART 202 452 7075 P.02 ;
[ COUNTY OF SUFFOLK I
i COUNTY LEGISLATUrtE aneconyJ.otass 'l
" " " ? " ** April 15, 1986 l l
l I,
I The Honorable Julius W. Becton, Jr. l Oirector Federal. Emergency Management Agency .
Washington, D.C. 20472
Dear Mr. Becton:
i I believe I speak for all concerned citizens of Suffolk l <
County in expressing shock that you have attempted to manipulate I I '
FEMA Region II's emergency preparedness responsibilities against the safety interests of the people of.Suffolk County. Your l conduct and the persistent hostility of FEMA headquarters toward Suffolk's citizens require some blunt and straight talk. -
That is .
the purpose of this letter. l Your attempt to contrive Region II's conclusion with respect to LILCO',s February 13 drill is the third major impropriety at FEMA concerning Shoreham since you took office late last year. {,
It comes after FEMA secretly executed an illegal sole source ,
contract to hire " simulators" to pretend they were State and i local officals in the-drill of LILCO's emergency plan. And.it j follows your refusal to permit Region II to hold a gost-exercise jj meeting with the public near Shoreham as FEMA has done with .
!l people living near every other nuclear power plant. Both of !)
these events demonstrata FEMA's indifference to the safety of the l!
people of Suffolk County.
l Mot forgotten are documents published by the press more than 1 a year ago that prove FEMA's collusion with the Department'of Energy and other federal officials to license Shoreham at any cost to the safety interests of the public. These, and the April 11 statement of Frank Petrone up'on resigning as FEMA's Region II Director, provide compelling evidence that you and your colleagues have betrayed the respect and trust of the people ~of this County.
In my view, there is only one honorable course for you and FEMA at this point: to tell the whole truth. The truth about
" pressure," an Mr. Petrone put it, from the NRC and other federal agencies and officials. The truth about any commitments FEMA made to support the licensing of Shoreham despite legitimate n4yyypypr,,gy ypmg p yge e IglMS994094 LC0'9hA1png mussOsh0. iRTEMANS **E"OmA% wynwas e
. l l
1 The Honorable Julius W. Becton, Jr.
April 15,1986 Page 2 public concerns. And the truth about any representations you made before, during, or after confirmation to speed a license for Shoreham.
. More'over, the loss of public confidence in FEMA requires that you act forthrightly to end the taint to FEMA's review of LILCO's February 13 drill. As a start, this means conducting the normal public meeting with persons living near Shoreham and making. full and candid findings as to the status of emergency prepareeness in Suffolk County. There is no basis for FEMA to discriminate against the citizens of Suffolk County. And there certainly is no basis to delete from the report Region II's statement -- the actuality -- that LILCO's plan does not permit a reasonable assurance finding.
Finally, Mr. Petrone's resignation has raised countless questions about the integrity of FEMA's activities concerning Shoreham. Accordingly, I shall ask, Congress to commence a full-scale investigation into the circumstances surrounding Mr. Petrone's resignation and the conduct of FEMA, alone and with other fe.deral officials, concerning emergency preparedness issues at Shoreham. The public must learn what has gone on behind closed doors.
Very truly yours, Gregory J. Blass Presiding Officer, e
4 1
4 e
9
__ _ _ - _ . - .- _ - __ . - - ..----I, - - - -
Attachment 9
/ .% '
'I
[q Federal Emergency Managempit(gg Washington, D.C. 20472
~ ~ /Cli M 2 26 Il 16 PRUNG URICER co m m lSLATURE APR 2 l 1986 SUFFOLK COUliTY. N.Y.
Fabian Palomino, Esq.
. Special Counsel to the Governor State of New York Albany, NY 12224
Dear Mr. Palomino:
The Director has asked me to respond to your letter of April 11, 1986, in which jou support the requestu made by Gregory J. Blass, Presiding Of ficer of the Suf folk County legislature that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) hold a public meeting in connection with its evaluation of LILCO's February 13 exercise at the Shoreham nuclear power plant.
At the outset' it should be emphasized that the requirements of"Part 350~ of'44 CFR,' Review and Approval of State and Local Radiological' Emergency Plans' and ,-
Preparedness, are not applicable to this case..
Under FEMA rule 44 CFR 350.10 the only provision for a public meeting on
- of fsite planning and preparedness relates to a meeting, :(in practice normally sponsored by a participating State) held to explain State and local government emergency plans to the puolic and to receive public comments on those plans.
In the case at hand, State and local governments have no plans to explain and have opted not to participate in a 44 CFR 350 process.
The exercise evaluation conducted by FEMA for the Shoreham fixed nuclear ,
generating f acility has been conducted pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between FEMA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) which governs such activities.
A *public meeting" on the exercise conducted by FEMA would'not be consistent with FEMA's role in the licensing process in this case. FEMA's evaluation and report have been prepared at the NRC's request for use in that Agericy 's licensing proceedings. In ' light' of ^ the pending litigation,-it would be inappropriate for FEMA to discuss its report outside the context of the NRC licensing process'. ~Indeed, to do so would be an unprecedented act.
It is anticipated that the hearings before the ASLB will be extensive. Every legitimate issue will be open to litigation. by the parties. Hearings normally are preceded by extensive discovery. Under NRC rules, the right of the parties to explore the basis for the evaluation and report is extensive. Key FEMA staf f involved in the evaluation will be made available for cross-examination under oath. There~will thus be ample opportunity for the State, a Suf folk County, and Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) to examine the basis for the FEMA evaluation.
.c4 t
. ._ _ s_ _ _ , _ . _ . , _ _ _ _ _-_,f,.- - - _ . . _-
2 altther, under NRC procedures, the ASLB has considerable discretion to accommodate the expression of local public interest and the desires of local citizens to be heard within the context of its licensing proceedings.
^
In view of the above',~ FEMA has 'no ' plans to' conduct a public meeting as has.
been suggested. 'If I'can be of fu ether assistance,' please ~ advise. g Sincerely, C
Spence W. Perry Acting General Counsel o
G %
e 8
1 l
~ ~~ " -- - - - - , - ,
y_ __ _ ,
W-'.
4
- o.
A UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Commission
)
In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit.1) )
)
)
Certificate of Service I hereby certify that copies of SUFFOLK COUNTY, STATE OF NEW YORK, AND TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR NRC TO ESTABLISH POST-EXERCISE PROCEDURES have been served on the following this 3rd day of June 1986 by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted.
- Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman -* Herzal Plaine, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Room 1114 10th Floor 1717 H Street, N.W. 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.-C. 20555
- Comm. Frederick M. Bernthal
- Comm. Lando W. Zech, Jr. U.S. Nuclear Regula, tory Comm.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Room 1156 Room 1113 1717 H Street, N.W.
1717 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555
,Comm. Thomas M. Roberts ,
- Comm. James K. Asselstine U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. Room 1103 ,
Room 1136 1717 H Street, N.W. .
1717 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20555 l i
Washington, D.C. 20555 l
l l
Y
,s -
i t
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Stuart Diamond Atomic Safety and Licensing Business / Financial Appeal Board NEW YORK TIMES U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 229 W. 43rd Street Washington, D.C. 20555 New York, New York 10036 Joel Blau, Esq.
Mr. Howard A. Wilber New York Public Service Comm.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board The Governor Nelson A.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockefeller Building Washington, D.C. 20555 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223
- Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
Mr. Gary J. Edles Atomic Safety and Licensing Regional Counsel Federal Emergency Management Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Agency Washington, D.C. 20555 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 Mr. William Rogers Anthony F. Earley, Esq.
Clerk General Counsel Suffolk County Legislature Long Island Lighting Company Suffolk County Legislature 250 Old Country Road Office Building Mineola, New York 11501 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 **W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.
Hunton & Williams
- Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq. P.O. Box 1535 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm. 707 East Main Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Spence Perry, Esq. Mr. Jay Dunkleberger New York State Energy Office Associate General Counsel Agency Building 2 Federal Emergency Management Agency Empire State Plaza Washington, D.C. 20471 Albany, New. York 12223 Mr. L. F. Britt Stephen B. Latham,'Esq.
Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 33 West Second Street North Country Road Riverhead, -New York 11901 Wading River, New York 11792 -
- Docketing and Service Section Ms. Nora Bredes Office of the Secretary Executive Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Shoreham Opponents Coalition 1717 H Street, N.W.
195 East Main Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Smithtown, New York 11787
r,
, ]
l 3
t <
Mary Gundrum, Esq. Hon. Peter Cohalan New York State Department Suffolk County Executive H. Lee Dennison Building of Law 2 World Trade Center, Rm. 4614 Veterans Memorial Highway New York, New York 10047 Hauppauge, New York 11788 MHB Technical Associates Dr. Monroe Schneider 1723 Hamilton Avenue North Shore Committee Suite K P.O. Box 231 San Jose, California 95125 Wading River, New York 11792 Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq. Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
Suffolk County Attorney Special Counsel to the Governor Bldg. 158 North County Complex Executive Chamber, Rm. 229 Veterans Memorial Highway State Capitol, Hauppauge, New York 11788 Albany, New York 12224 David A. Brownlee, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Appeal Board 1500 Oliver Building U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
l Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Washington, D.C. 20555
~
_ f' -_' h Herbart H. Brown KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART l 1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, D.C. 20036 ,
Date:
June 3, 1986
- By Hand -
- By Federal Express l
i i
' ' ------e--~ c . - -. , , ___