ML20198F177
| ML20198F177 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/29/1985 |
| From: | Speck S Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| To: | Dircks W NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8511140289 | |
| Download: ML20198F177 (2) | |
Text
r:
-.~.:
p f
a i Federal Emergency Management Agency 4
Washingtor. D.C. 20472 c
- o o
October 29, 1985 Mr. Willian J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cmmission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Dircks:
This is in response to a memorandum dated June 20,1985, frm Edward L. Jordan to Richard W. Krimn in which FEMA was requested to pro-ceed with the conduct of "as full an exercise......as is-feasible to test offsite preparedness capabilities at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant."
In my October 8,1985 letter,which transmitted the review of revision 5 of the LIICO Iocal Emergency Response Organization (LERO) plan, I indicated we were analyzing the results of the plan review in the context of the Septenber 17, 1985 letter frm Chairman Palladino to Congressman Markey, and the varicus legal proceedings re'ated to Shorehan in order to respond to the June 20 memorandum within several weeks. Our analysis includes consideration of the Atmic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board decision of October 18, 1985.
.The deficiencies identified in my letter of October 8 do not preclude the conduct of an exercise of the LERO plan. Howeter, the reluctance of county and State officials to participate in such an exercise and the related legal authority issues would place special parameters on the
- conduct of a LERO exercise.
m have no indication at this time that offsite jurisdictions are willing to directly participate in an exercise in the short term. 'Ihus, any exercise will be dramatically different than is typical at other sites in the State of New York. Any exercise without participation by State and
.. local 93vernments would not allow us sufficient demonstration to reach a finding of reasonable assurance.
'Ihis conclusion is based on the current legal decision with respect to utility authority to perform civil energency functions. However, that does not preclude the conduct of an exercise that would provide an indication to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as to utility onsite and offsite emergency capabilities. We believe such a report would have value in decisions to contirue the licensity process or possibly provide a basis on which the NRC could make predictive findings. Obviously, the value of such an exercise in the licensing process is a determination which can only be made by the NRC.
Given the nature of your June 20 request and consideration of a practical structure for an exercise, we feel that, while there are a number of variations possible, the basic cptions for exercising in the near term are limited to two:
Option 1 - This cption would require that we set aside all functions and exercise objectives related to issues of f()},
authority and State and local participation. Thus, only
-7 the functions outlined for LIIro would be exercised. Such
.b(
8511140289 851029 i O PDR ADOCK 05000322 F
.,; an exercise is possible but its usefulness would seem very limited. An exercise of this type would not address questions such as those raised on pages 35 through 39 of the October 18 decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board and would be redundant to actions already taken by NRC.
Option 2 - This cption would include all functions and normal exercise objectives. 'Ihis option would exercise Revision 5 of che LERO Plan. Exercise controllers would simulate the roles of key State or local officials unable or unwilling
-to participate. It would be desirable that State and local government personnel actually play. However, such a sinu-lation mechanism would at least test the utility's ability to respond to ad hoc participation on the part of State and local goverments.
The ultimate purpose of an exercise is to support a finding by FEMA for use by the NRC in their licensing process. As we mentioned above, neither of these cptions would allw a finding by FEMA on offsite preparedness.
However, we recognize that Shoreham is in no way typical and that in the past in exercising its adjudicatory powers the Commission and the various Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards have reached predictive findings ~.
Pursuant to your June 20 request, we are initiating the process necessary to conduct an exercise of either option. We are prepared to conduct such an exercise in approximately 75 days. However, FEMA requires further clarification frm NRC as to the scope of the exercise to be conducted.
FEMA will proceed with the initiating steps until November 15', at which time we will need a definitive exercise scope frm NRC in order to avoid prohibitive costs.
If at that time we have received no direction fran the Nuclear Regulatory Commission we will suspend activities until a decision is made. Given other demands, we do feel that any delay beyond the current window would require an exercise postponement of at least 90 days beyond the mid-Jaruary time frane.
Sincerely,
& VJ,
amuel W. Speck sociate Director State and Ixx:a1 Prograns and Support
- .