ML20195H733

Discusses Items of Interest from FEMA Appropriations Hearing on 880426 Re FEMA FY89 Budget Request.Am D'Amato Encl.Served on 880505

ML20195H733
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	04/27/1988
From:	Bradburne J NRC OFFICE OF GOVERNMENTAL & PUBLIC AFFAIRS (GPA)
To:	Bernthal, Roberts, Zech NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
CON-#288-6231 OL-3, NUDOCS 8806280365
Download: ML20195H733 (4)

Text

2 /

00cMET NUMBER faf' 2 qq PROD. & UTIL FACX,,,,,;. . _

[g c%%c, UNITED STATES

! n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00LKETED

{ WASHING TON, D. C. 20846 UM

,!, April 27, 1988

..... 88 MY -5 P1 :06 MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman Zech Comissioner Roberts OmCE 0: 5V:

• Comissioner Bernthal 00CKE N ^ 'l V I!

Comissioner Carr BRC Comissioner Rogers FROM: John C. Bradburne, Director SERVED MAY -51988 Congressional Affairs, GPA

SUBJECT:

ITEMS OF INTEREST FROM FEMA APPROPRIATIONS HEARING On Tuesday, April 26, FEMA director Julius Becton appeared before the Senate Appropriations Subcomittee on HUD-Independent Agencies to discuss FEMA's FY89 budget request. There is no FY89 FEMA appropriations bill at this time and working drafts have not been made available.

A statement in the Report of the Conference managers on FEMA's previous appropriation, which was part of the December,1987 Continuing Resolution, allowed FEMA to seek. reimbursement from NRC for certain expenses associated with FEMA's evaluation of offsite radiological emergency plans. There was no discussion of this issue at yesterday's hearing.

Senator D'Amato (R-NY), a member of the Subcomittee, asked Director Becton a series of questions about FEMA's position on NRC's November, 1987 emergency planning rule change. His questions ceiitered on FEMA's May 7, 1987 testimony before Senator Breaux and FEMA's fonnal coments on the emergency planning rule change. He asked why FEMA has since "reversed course" and agreed to evaluate a drill of the LILCO emergency plan for Shoreham scheduled (at that time) for June 13, 1988.

In response, Director Becton said that NRC had given FEMA three guidelines or assumptions to follow in evaluating exercises of emergency plans '

developed by utilities. These were:

- that State and local governments would participate in the event of a real emergency.

- that State and local governments will follow the utility emergency plan in the event of a real emergency, and l

- that State and local governments will provide adequate resources to I accomplish the goals of the plan.

Senator D'Amato stated that he was not familiar with these guidelines. He then infonned Director Becton that he was sending a letter to him requesting answers to questions regarding comunications among NRC, FEMA, DOE and LILCO. A copy this letter is attached.

Contact:

J.DelMedico, x2-1693

Attachment:

As stated cc: 9GC SECY 8806280365 000427 EDO PDR ADOCK 05000322 P PPR i

WC 4s". M D' AM ATO

• ta vont Enited States Etnate WASHINGTON, DC 20510 April 25, 1988 ,.

The Honorable Julius W. Becton, Jr.

Director Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W.

Washington, D.C. 20472

Dear General Becton:

I am writing to object to FEMA's recent decision to review LILCO's emergency plan for nuclear accidents at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant in Suffolk County, New York.

It is my understanding that this review is based upon -

the NRC's new emergency planning rule, under which the NRC presumes that in the event of a nuclear accident state and local agencies will exercise their best efforts to comply with the utility's plan. As you undoubtedly know, the legality of this rule is currently being challenged by New York State, Suffolk County and others in an action pending in the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Furthermore, both the Governor of New York and the County Executive for Suffolk County have stated, unequivocably and under oath, that under no circumstances will their governments participate in LILCO's emergency planning charade. I have attached copies of their affidavits. Both Governor Cuomo and County Executive Halpin have explained in detail the governments' reasons for concluding that it is not possible to provide for the public's safety in the event of a nuclear accident at Shoreham. FEMA's review of LILCO's plan, on the basis of the NRC's erroneous presumption, is an arrogant declaration that FEMA believes that the Governor of New York and the County Executive for Suffolk County have simply lied with respect to their governments' intentions.

The NRC's baseless presumption makes a mockery of state and local views about emergency planning and a mockery of the NRC's and FEMA's responsibilities to assure the public's safety in the event of a nuclear accident. I find it

. . 1 l

1 appalling that FEMA is willing to participate in this charade.

I am also dismayed that FEMA would decide to conduct a review of an emergency plan without state and local j participation, that FEMA expressly assured Congress, and l further advised the NRC, that FEMA could not make a i determination of the adequacy of an emergency plan without state and local participation.

Specifically, on May 7, 1987, FEMA testified before the  ;

Subcommittee on Nuclear Regulation of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. During that testimony, David McLoughlin, FEMA's Associate Deputy Director for State and Local Programs and Support, assured Congress that FEMA had warned the NRC that FEMA "had great concern about the absence of State and local government involvement in the preparation of emergency plans." Mr. McLoughlin concluded, "without that (State and local participation) we would not be in a position to make adequate judgement on the reasonable assurance of i off-s4 te safety." j 1

FEMA's written submission to the NRC made the same point. "As a result, the conclusions that FEMA would be called upon to make (in evaluating a plan and exercise) about the probable response of state and local governments, would i be based largely on conjecture. FEMA is very reluctant to  !

certify that adequate protective measures can be taken where )

any finding would be based on such a degree of conjecture."

Finally, I am surprised to learn that the LILCO plan which your agency intends to review was devised by LILCO prior to NRC's decision of February 1, 1988, ruling that LILCo's prior plan was substantially flawed in several key respects. Surely, it makes no sense for FEMA to squander resources reviewing a plan that fails to effectively address I the significant flaws found by the NRC in LILCO's earlier plan. ,

In view of these concerns, I ask that you reconsLder l FEMA's ill-advised and irresponsible decision to review LILCO's emergency plan. At a minimum, you should postpone the review until your agency has had an opportunity to fully assess whether a plan without State and local participation  !

can be based on anything other than conjecture; until the conclusion of the court battle over the legality of the NRC's new rule; and until LILCO has submitted a new plan that takes into account the fundamental flaws identified in LILCO's earlier plan. '

Furthsr, I ask that you provide me with written responses to the following questions:

1. FEMA testified before congress that it could not make an adequate judgement regarding off-site safety without state and local participation in the emergency planning process. Has FEMA changed its conclusion? If so, identify specific events or developments that caused FEMA to change its conclusion.

2. Please describe all communications between the NRC and FEMA regarding FEMA's decision to conduct the review and -

grade the exercise, and please provide me with copies of all correspondence and other documents relating to such written or oral communications.

3. Did Department of Energy officials communicate with FEMA regarding FEMA's decision to review LILCO's plan or grade the exercise and, if so, please describe any oral communications, and please provide me with copies of all correspondence and other documents relating tc such oral or written communications.

4. Did LILCO officials communicate with FEMA regarding FEMA's decision to review LILCO's plan or grade the exercise and, if so, please describe any oral communications, and please provide me with copies of all correspondence and other documents relating to such oral ,

or written communications, l

5. Please estimate the direct and indirect costs for FEMA, including personnel costs, of reviewing LILco's plan and conducting and grading the exercise.

I look forward to your immediate response.

1 Sincerely,

/ ,

J.

Ifo se M. D'Amato ed States Senator  ;

AMD/koh

. _ _. __ l