ML20210M600
| ML20210M600 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1986 |
| From: | GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2063 GAO-RCED-87-45, OL-5, NUDOCS 8702120583 | |
| Download: ML20210M600 (37) | |
Text
r 20/d
~
Unit d Senteo Gen $ral[cesunting Offica Report to the Honorable
(
Daniel Patrick 2,Ioynihanmgn
= {
United States Senate
.. Nol.I$[br$c.$C3M.~.ffj '86 DEC 30 P3 :33 atuueo conamunura o.-"' ' '" '
EMERGEXCY+
PLAXXING
~
FederalInvolvement in Preparedness Exercise at Shoreham Xuclear Plant i
/
Rt**M*T S - Tsat be icneed outsids the Oertweef A h ., i . '. c g i -
cxces r.d.he basis of specafic hyproval by flee Office of Con es ' opal Relations.
3r$0S GAOSCEB8M5 g2ggg@d$$$$ 2 F
United States General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548 .
Resources, Community, and .
Economic Development Division .
~~
B 225108
' December 2,1986 The Honorable Damel Patrick Moynihan United States Senate
Dear Senator Moynihan:
As requested by your office on June 3,1986, and confirmed in our letter dated June 10,1986, we reviewed the role of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) related to the off-site emergency response test at the Shoreham nuclear power station. The test, commonly referred to as an exercise, took place on February 13,1986. FEMA, which usually makes a finding on the overall adequacy of off-site emergency planmng for a nuclear power station, did not do so at the conclusion of the Shoreham exercise. As agreed with your office, our objectives were to examine FEMA's responsibility for evaluating the exercise and to review actions and events surrounding n:MA's decision not to make an exercise finding. .
In =mmary, we found that
. although FEMA has statutorily-derived responsibility to review emer-gency response plans developed by state and local governments, the agency does not have any permanent statutory responsibility to review utility off-site emergency response plans or assess an exercise conducted by a utility.
. FEMA agreed to review the emergency response plan and monitor the exercise for the Shoreham plant under a memorandum of understanding with the Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion (NBC), through which FEMA acts as an adytsor to NBC in the licensing process. Both NRC and FEMA interpret the memorandum as requirmg FEMA to comply with a request to conduct an exercise of a utility plan. '
. FEMA agreed to review the exercise at Shoreham only after reaching an l understanding with NRC that n:MA would not be required to make a
- finding on off-site preparedness. FEMA's decision not to make a finding was based on its belief that a FEMA determmation could not be made unless state and local governments participated or unless Laro was given the legal authority to fully carry out the plan.
l 1
The Shoreham nudear power stanon. which is located in Suffolk County, New York, is owned by the long Island Lightmg Company (IIIfo).
i l
t r1 GAo/ECED87-66 Emermey r.--J-j
- . _.___.-_._-. - _. _. - _ ,,, _. _ .. .._,_ . _ - _ .. .- . - - - . - _ ~ ~ -
B225108 l
l These issues are discussed below and presented in more detail in the appendixes.
Until the accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, off-site FEMA's Responsibility emergency plans were not required by NBC as part of the licensing pro-for Evaluating the cess. In December 1979 President carter designated FDIA as the lead Exercise agency in coordinating off-site emergency planning for nuclear power plants. Shortly thereafter, the 1980 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Authorization Act (Public Law 96-295) assigned NRC overall responsi-bility for determinmg the adequacy of proposed emergency response plans for new facilities na a part of the licensing procedure. Under the statute, NRC may not is3ue an operating license for a facility unless it first determines that (1) there is a state or local emergency preparedness plan that meets NBC guidelines, or in the absence of such a plan, (2) there is a state, local, or utility plan which assures that operation of the facility will not andangar public health and safety. In maldng the first
- - detsrmin%n with respect to state or local plans, the statute requires that NRC consult with FEMA. The statute is silent on NRC consultation with FEWA on the second determination.
FEWA's responsibility to review state and local plans originated in the NRC statute cited above. Although NRC has a statutory responsibility to review utility plans and to assess an exercise conducted by a utility, there is no statutory requirement to consult FEWA on the status of a utility's off-site emergency preparedness. FEWA's reviews of state and local plans and preparedness are governed by a FEWA regulation and a memorandum of understanding between FEWA and NRC. The memo-randum between FEWA and NRC provides that FDLA will make a finding on the status of off-site emergency preparedness. FDIA may find that (1) there is reasonable assurance that the plans are adequate, (2) there are inadequacies that must be corrected to provide reasonable assurance, or (3) FEWA is undecided. NBC can also request FD(A, through their memo-randum of understanding, to review a utility plan. NBC and FEdA inter-pret the memorandum as requirmg FEWA to comply with such a request, even if state and local plans do not exist.
l l Additionally, radiological emergency preparedness is one of the activi-ties for which FDIA receives annual appropriations. The legislative his-tory of FDIA's appropriations acts for the past several years shows that FDIA's appropriations Were spec 1flCally available to support alternative emergency response plannmg where local governments opted out of plannmg efforts.
l l
Page 2 GAO/BCED47-45 P _ -iPrepaawdness I
-g -, . -. , ,---- -_,.. - -, - ,--.d w -w r we wwv-- m -w -- ^- +---m-w--- --i-w w- -
-w- ----
a.asstos s
In the case of the Shoreham plant, Suffolk County abandoned its M Actions Iesuiirtb ---
attempts to devise its own emergency plan and refused to participate in
' > Lack of a Finding emergency planmng because county officials believed evacuation of Long Island would be impossible. In addition, the State of New York agreed it would not impose a plan on Suffolk County because the state alone did not have the capability or resources to assure that the public health and safety could be adequately protected. Consequently, Lnro prepared a plan ofits own.
NRC requested FEMA on June 1,1983, to review the uLco plan. This first FEMA review was performed by a contractor, Argonne National Labora-tories. FEMA reported to NRC that the contractor found 34 inadequacies in the plan. Followmg this review, FEMA established a position that a nongovernment plan could be considered adequate if there were no inad-equacies when evaluated against established FEMA and NRC criteria. The criteria contained in a joint NRC and FEMA guideline Consist of 16 plan-ning standards and 196 criteria elements. Normally, according to FEMA officials, all 196 criteria elements would be included in a review, but because of the uniqueness of the situation without state and local partic-ipation, only 109 elements were applicable to the Luro plan.
The elements rated inadequate have sigmficantly declined with plan revisions but have not been totally elimiwad. In addition, absent state and local participation, questions were raised by FEMA and others about the legal authority of Luro to implement the plan in an actual emer-gency. For example, a New York State court in Suffolk County found that Lnro did not have the legal authority to exercise governmental
' functions such as controlling traffic and activatmg sirens. It could not, therefore, legally carry out its plan in an actual emergency. At the time of our review, an appeal of this decision was pending.
FEMA ongmally said that, in order for it to make a finding on off-site f
preparedness, the utility would have to be given the legal authority to
' carry out the plan in an emergency and an exercise would have to be conducted. FEMA further specified that, before an exercise could be held, allinadequacies FEMA found in its reviews of various CIro emergency plan revisions would have to be resolved. For instance, several FEMA reviews found inadequate written agreements between government agencies and support organizations. This inadequacy and four others, including the legal authority issue, remained outstanding when the exer-cise was conducted.
i Page 3 GAo/BCED4N5 Emergency 7._ '
.7 -- _ , ...,.,m-- .-
.e 7 , _ _ .,,,,.--,,_~._m..- - _ , - . _. . _ , ,m.. - _ , . _ _ __ , . , , ._,,,..-_,y,,,_..my. , _._om , ,. ,_m, . . , g
B 225103 x
In June 1985 NRC requested FDu to schedule an exercise of the uwo plan. To respond to NRC's request, FDM proposed two exercise options but told NRC they would not be able to make a finding under either option without state and local participation. According to FDu, the first option included only utility company exercise objectives, while the second included all normal exercise objectives with state and local roles portrayed by FDtA officials and other federal officials from agencies such as the Department of Energy.
On November 12,1985, NRC chose the second option. On the same day, Suffolk County wrote to FDIA opposing an exercise. Their opposition was spressed in terms of their interpretation of court and licensing board decisions: (1) uwo's plan is illegal, as determined by a New York State court; (2) Lum's plan cannot be implemented, as ruled by the NRC's ,
Licensing Board and Appeal Board; and (3) Luro has been denied a license to operate Shoreham, as ruled by the NRC's Boards. FDIA officials said they felt bound, under their memorandum of understanding with NBC, to conduct an exercise because NBC asked them to. The officials also said they believed that an exercise would be useful to NRC in its licensmg
. process. Furthermore, they noted that usually FDu does not consider it necessary for all off-site inadequacies to be corrected prior to an exerC1se.
FDu went ahead with exercise pinnning and an exercise was conducted N'S Evaluation of -
on February 13,1986. FDu issued its assessment report on the Exercise kultS Shoreham emergency response exercise on April 17,1986. According to the report, because the exercise was conducted without state and local government participation, FDM could not measure state and local gov-ernments' capabilities and preparedness if called upon to respond.
Accordingly, the report only contained mu's evaluation of what was done durmg the exercise. It noted, however, that the unresolved legal authority issue affected about one-third of the exercise objectives.
The report also cited five deficiencies, such as delays in dispatchmg bus drivers and deploying traffic guides. FDu dermes deficiencies such as these as inadequacies that would cause a fmding that off-site emergency preparedness was not adequate. Given ma's dermition, FDu officials agreed such deficiencies in an exercise with state and local participation would have led to a fmding of inadequate. In this case, however, the technical deficiencies were overshadowed by the legal authonty issue which arose because there was no state and local participation. FDu officials said they believed the value of an exeresse held without state Page 4 GAo/ECED47 8 Emerpacy r.g "--
. B.335108
- and local participation could only be determined by Nac. An NRc Deputy Dutctor said Nac should be able to use this information in the same manner as a report with an overall negative finding.
According to the FEMA officials, the Shoreham exercise presented a unique situation, and FEMA decided before the exercise that no finding regarding the adequacy of the exercise would be made. FEMA's Region H Director, however, thought the exercise assessment should include a statement that, without state and local participation, FEMA Cannot give reasonable assurance that the public health and safety can be protected.
The Regional Director inserted this statement in a draft report, but FEMA's Director had the statement deleted because he believed the state-mer.t re;. resented a personal opinion and a finding. The FEMA Region H
+ Director said that, because of his concern for safety, he resigned rather than delete the statement from the Shoreham exercise report. Followmg his resignation, the former Region H Director stated in licensing board hearmgs on the Shoreham exercies that actual testing of public alertmg and netification systems was virtually nonexistent durmg the exercise.
For example, he said sirens were not sounded and tone alerts were not '
activated.
i.
In obtammg information for this report, we met with officials and reviewed documents and records at FEMA headquarters and the FEMA l .
Region H (New York) office. We also met with Nac headquarters and l
regional officials, Iso officials, the former Director of FEMA's Region H, and Suffolk County's legal representatives. We did our work between
- June and September 1986. To meet your needs for timely information, we agreed to limit the scope of our work, to the extent pcssible, to FEMA's decisions and responsibilities. We discussed the information in this report with FEMA and NRc officials and have incorporated their com-ments where appropriate. Except as noted above, our review was made in accordance with generally cceepted government auditing standards .
However, at your request, we did not obtain official agency comments.
Appendix I of this report outlines FEMA's roles and responsibilities.
Appendix H addresses the Shoreham emergency response plan develop .
ment and testing and diamaaa the rationale behind these events.
Appendix IH is a chronology of events related to the Shoreham nuclear power plant.
i i
Face 5 GAo/BCED47-45 Emergency Preparedname e , . , - - - y -.. - - . -,-w.---. . - -. -- - -.-.,,.---,---,so-.._-m y .- ,,+ . -. - - -,, , - - , - .. . - ., , ,-- .,w.-,------ - . - -- _.---. .---. ---- , - - , - - . .-. -,..~ . - . ,- - - . - -
B.23510B Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further '- '
distdbutien of this report until 30 days from the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the Director of FIXA, the Chairman of NBC, and otherinterested parties.
Sincerely yours, A
J. Dexcer Peach Assistant Comptroller General I
i Page6 GAO/BCED47 45 Emergency 1%paredness
a , . . . . i %
O b
e 9
9 06 e
essa T GAo#.a W #
~
Contents
\ .
Letter 1 Appendix I ,
10 FEMA's Roles and Evaluation of Dnergency Planning and Preparedness 10 bMm, Scop, and Methodology 12 Responsibilities Appendix II 14 Shoreham Emergency County Planning Efforts Terminated 15 NRC Requests and FEMA Reviews the Utility's Plans 16 Response Plan FEMA Reconsiders Its Policy on the Evacuation Exercise 18 Development and FEMA Pad With the Exercise 20 FEMA's Evaluation of the Exercise 21 Testing FEMA Provided Input for an NRC Finding 22 Appendix III 24 Chronology of Significant Events Pertaining to Off-Site Preparedness at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant Tables Table II.1: Results Reported by FEMA on the Review of 17 the LILCo Plan and Subsequent Revisions Table II.2: Elements Rated Not Adequate in FEMA's 19 Review of LILCo Plan Revisions 4-6 l
Figures Figure I.1: Emergency Planning and Preparedness Review 12 Process Figure II.1: General Location Map 15 Page8 GAo/BCED47-45 Emmergemey r. .
c- . .
i l
l Abbreviations :
Asta Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency l utro Long Island Lighting Company NRc Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion Rac Regional Assistance Committee l
l Pass 9 GAO/BCEDMT4 Emegemey Propandmem D
- , ., n---- . , , -,n ,,, . ~ , . - - - - - - . . - , - , , _ , , , , , ..,. ,, - - . , , . , - - - - , - - . ,.
Appendix I FKWA's Roles anc. Responsifiies The Federal Emergency Management Agency (ma), created in 1978, is .
the lead federal agency responsible for establishing policies and coordi-nating emergency efforts for natural and manmnae disasters. In support of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), mu assists and evaluates
- state and local off-site planning and preparedness for commercial nuclear power plants. mu's role was reemphasized 11tthe 1980 NRC Authorization Act (Public Law 96-295), which required that NRC consult with rau on the adequacy of state and local emergency preparedness plans. NRC, however, remains ultimately responsible for making the overall nuclear plant emergency plannmg and preparedness assessment using FDM's off-site emergency plamung findings and its own findings on on-site emergency plamung.
Until the accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant, state Evaluation of and local governments prepared off-site emergency plans on a voluntary Ernergency Planning basis, and NRC did not require off-site plans as part of the licensmg pro-cess. In December 1979, in response to recommendations of the Presi-and Preparedness dential Commission on the accident at Three Mile Island, the President transferred off-site plan coorrlinaHng responsibility from NRC to mM.
NRC, however, retained responsibility for licenalng nuclear plants.
Shortly thereafter, the 1980 NRC Authorization Act (Public Law 96-295) assigned NRC overall responsibility for determining the adequacy of pro-posed emergency response plans for new facilities as a part of the licensing procedure. Under the statute, NRC may not issue an operating license for a fccility unless it first determines that (1) there is a state or local emergency preparedness plan that meets NRC guidelines, or in the absence of such a plan (2) there is a state, local, or utility plan which assures that operation of the facility will not endanger public health and safety. In maldng the first determination with respect to state or local plans, the statute requires that NRC consult with mu.
A mu regulation (44 CFR Part 350) establishes the agency's policy and procedures for FDM review and approval of state and local emergency plans and preparedness. Under the regulation, rnM prepares findings
- on the adequacy of state and local emergency plans and the ability of i governments, as demonstrated by an exer dse, to effectively implement l
the plans. However, by its terms, the regulation does not apply to utility-developed plans except as those plans might affect existing state and local plans. An extension of this regulation is a memorandum of under-standing which provides for NRC to request FDM input on utility plans.
l IBM conducted the Shoreham utility plan reviews and exercise evalua-tion under the memorandum of understanding between NRC and FDM.
Page 10 GAO/BCZD47-46 Emergency Preparedness
Appends I FEMA's moles and ? _ _; - ~ " ties {
Under the memorandum, NRC can request that FEMA review a utility's plan at any time. As interpreted by FEMA and NRC, the memorandum requires n:MA te comply with such a request even if there are no state-or local-approved plans. In the Shoreham case, NRC requested FEMA on June 1,1983, to review the utility company's plan under the memo-randum of understanding even though the state and local governments had not approved the plan. In accordance with the 1980 NRC Authoriza-tion Act (Public Law 96-295) as implemented in NRC's regulation (10 CFR Sec. 50.4), NRC had to make a finding on the adequacy of emergency preparedness at Shoreham. NRC is not required to consult with FEMA regarding off-site preparedness for a utility plan. However, NRC said it would base its findings on a review of FEMA findings regarding off-Site emergency planning and preparedness.
A Regional Assistance Cormnittee (RAc), chaired by FEMA and made up of officials from various federal agencies generally reviews and determines the adequacy of off-site plans.t The Committee uses the criteria found in a joint NBC and FEMA guideline (Criteria for PreoaraHan and Evaluation of Radialamical Eirm hiicy Response Plans and Preparedziess in SuopgG of NMaar Power Plants NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1). The criteria include the standards for developing, reviewmg, and evaluating utility, i
state, and local government radiological emergency plamung and preparedness. Sixteen plamung standards and 196 supporting evalua-tion criteria are included. The standards address areas such as sssign-ment of emergency responsibility, public education and information, and general pmns for restoring an affected area to normal use. The sup-porting evaluation criteria expand upon the requirements in the stan-dards and how they apply to the utility, state, or local governments.
To assist NRC in addressing concerns regardmg licensing and other issues such as plan inadequacies and exercise deficiencies, the NRC also estab-lishes Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards (Astas), made up of three members of NRC's independent licensing board panet An ASLB generally consists of a lawyer actmg as the chairman, a nuclear engineer or reactor physicist, and an environmental scientist. AsLa decisions or rec-ommendations are subject to the review of an NRC appeal board. In fiscal year 1985, three AsLas held hearings on the Shoreham licensing proceed-ings. The first ASLB addressed authonzation of low power testing, the
%e RAC is chaared by a FEMA Responal offksal and has members from the Nuclear Regulatory a- -- = Department of Health and Human Services. Department of Energy. Department of Transportanon. En,uv.s.caal Protecuon Agency, Department of Agneulture. Department of Com-merce. and Department of the Intenor.
Face 11 GAo/BCED47-46 Essergency Properedness
Appendiz !
FEMA's aoles and aasponsibilldes
~
second ruled on installation of emergency diesel generators, and the third board examined off-site emergency plannmg.
Figure I.1 illustrates the usual process for plan and exercise review and evaluation where the local government prepares and approves a plan and submits it to the state for approval by the Governor, who, in turn, forwards it to FEMA. The second part of the figure illustrates the review procedure for utility plans, such as Lnro's plan for Shoreham, which are not approved .by the state and local governments. After FDfA receives these plans, the review process in either case is similar. The only differ-ence is that, with stateaubmitted plans, FEMA and the state interact on changes to the plan, whereas with utility-submitted plans, comments are forwarded to NnC, which then forwards them to the utility.
Figure 1.1: 8 -- ;zy Planning ara With State and Local Participation Local v
State h
FEMA /RAC v
NRC STAFF > ASLB > ASLB Appeal Board > NRC Without State and Lccal Participation Utility v
NRC v
FEMA /RAC v
NRC STAFF > ASLS > ASLB Appeal Board > NRC 1
As requested by Senator 31cynihan's office on June 3,1986, and con-Objectives' Scope and firmed in our June 10,1986, letter, our objectives relative to the emer-Methodology gency response exercise at the Shoreham nuclear power plant were to Page 12 GAO/BCED47-45 Emergency Preparednese
Appendix I FEur's noin and n=pon.ibuma
~
examine FEMA's responsibility for evaluating the exercise and making an exercise finding, as well as to examine actions and events which led to FEMA's decision not to make an exercise finding.
1 To determine what FEMA decisions led to its lack of a finding, We pre-pared a detailed chronology of significant events pertauung to FEMA's role in review of the plan and exercise evaluation. In developing this chronology, we recognized that outside events, including court decisions, also influenced FEMA decisions. Our chronology was prepared primarily through information gathered in our review of FDfA headquarters and its Region II(New York) files relating to the Shoreham matter. These files contained correspondence, reports, studies, and other documents prepared by FEMA, the luf, NRc, the State of New York, Suffolk County, and uIro, relating.to the Shoreham matter. We discussed the review and exercise of the utro plan with officials of FEMA and NRC headquarters and regional offices, Suffolk County's legal representatives, as well as with the former Director of FEMA Region II, who resigned on April 14, 1986. We also met with utco officials and visited the Shoreham nuclear power station in Suffolk County, New York.
In examming FEMA's responsibility for evaluating the exercise and makmg an exercise finding, we reviewed pertinent legislation, regula-tions, court and licensing board decisions, and other pertinent materials.
We also conducted interviews at FEMA and NRC to obtain agency views regarding the question of whether FEMA carried out its responsibilities.
We conducted our field work pnmarily between June and September 1986. Because of the timeframe established to perform this work, we agreed with your staff that the scope of our work be limited, to the extent possible, to FEMA. We discussed the information in this report with responsible agency officials and incorporated their views and com-ments as appropriate. However, as you requested, we did not obtain official agency comments on this report. With the above exception, our review was made in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
l
( GAO/BCEB87-45 Esmergency Preparednen Page 13 l
l
Abwe.iek II Shoreham Emergency Response Plan Developmen~: and Tesing .
A construction permit for the Shoreham nuclear power station in Suf- '
folk County, New York, was issued in April 1973, and the plant was essentially completed in 1983. According to a Shoreham official, uIro had spent about $4.6 billion on plant construction and related costs, such as training expenses, as of July 1986. If ultunately licensed for full power operations, the official said Shoreham would be able to produce ,
30 percent of utro's yearly energy requirements. Suffolk County offi-cials believe the plant should not be licensed because, in the event of a serious accident, emergency evacuation of Iong Island would be impos-sible. Figure II.1 illustrates the location of the Shoreham plant and major traffic arteries. Suffolk County and New York State governments are not participatmg in developing or testing the off-site emergency plan for Shoreham. Consequently, uta) subnutted its own plan to NRc in May 1983 and proposed that, in the event of an accident at Shoreham, its employees would carry out the plan with the possibility of some ad hoc maalarance from state and local governments.
ht June 1983 FEMA began its review of the u140 plan. By June 1985 FEMA found that utro had corrected all but five inadequacies. The mejor unresolved inadequacy involved the utility's lack of legal authority to carry out functions legally restricted to state and local government per-sonnel In February 1986 PEMA conducted an exercise of the plan. Suf-folk County and the State of New York were asked to participate in the exercise. However, neither did so. The legal authority issue affected the demonstration of a number of exercise objectives. Because no state or local police powers could be carried out, school children could not be sent home, traffic control could not be accomplished, and no emergency could be declared. As a result, IT:MA said it was not able to render a finding whether there was reasonable assurance that public health and safety would be protected in the event of an actual radiological emer-gency. NBC 't;as not made a final decision on the adequacy of emergency l plannmg at Shorehem. ASI.B hearings on this issue are tentatively sched-uled for February 1987.
Page 14 GAo/BCED.87-48 E _ _ _ y .'. w ^_ _ _ _
~ '
~ -
r 3 Appendiz 'I Shorehasa E.. . 7 Response Plan Development and Testing i
l Figure 11.1: General Location Map
/" Bndgeport s h Blcck Island Sound :
Connecticut Gardiners shelter Islano Islano New York \ Stamford. Long Island Sound y Montauk Shorenam N
$ James n Mt. Vemon Y , Port [ 'aSehon iv N d Jefferson '
g * #
untingt n 2
D (A Brocknave I Bronx Airport i Jh g lslino E* Dress $ !
LaGu,ardia Hicksville449. MacArthur e
[ Airport / C i g Airport pg 6845 Atlantic Ocean
,;7 9k IWi ga1 gg\#d g@
Queens c a 60 New York Brookly JFKInternationald N'D0~ u fekk-& Ten-Mile Radsus h 'enam site Q -- _
v n Jeever carvenon 1
\ erooxnave
\ on9 IMAOd l
l Airpon Source: LILCO Until early 1982, Suffolk County cooperated with Lnro in developing County Planning emergency response plans for the plant. At one time, Suffolk County Efforts Terminated officials even accepted uLco financial support for development of their emergency response plan. However, when the county later rtegnized an apparent conflict of interest, it rejected Luro's financial assistance and returned all funds to the utility in March 1982. In the absence of cooper-ation from the county or the state, Lnro created its own off-site emer-gency response plan and on May 10,1982 submitted it directly to the New York State Disaster Preparedness Commission for approval. Suf-folk County officials successfully and permanently blocked this move Page 15 GAO/RCED47-46 Emergency Pmparednese
~
Appendix H l shorehasa Fmergency " m Plan l Developament and Tesdag 1 l
l l
l because they had not approved the plan. Meanwhile, Suffolk County .'
officials continued drafting their own emergency response plan.
On February 17,1983, the Suffolk County legislature disapproved the final county-developed emergency response plan and adopted a resolu-tion rejecting all future emergency response plans. The leaialamre stated that, in the event of a radiological emergency, safe and timely evacua-tion of the population would be impossible. Suffolk County immediately petitioned NRC for the termination of the Shoreham licensing proceed-ings. The ASLB denied the county's motion and referred its decision to the NRC for review. The NBC supported the ASLB, and, in its order dated May 12,1983, cleared the way for NRC staff, FEMA, and the Licensing Board's consideration of the Lun) plan.
n June 1,1983, NaC req =sted rEuA to provide findings and determina-NRC Requests and tions on five different. plans prepared by uwo.t This request was later FEMA Reviews the modified by NaC so FEMA would have to review only one plan-the uwo Utility's Plans Transition Plan. This plan proposed using uwo personnel to carry out the off-site preparedness aspects of the plan. An NBC official said, how-ever, that the plan was developed on the premise that the state and local officials would respond in an actual emergency. In reviewing the plan, NRC asked FEMA to address (1) whether the plan is adequate; (2) whether it is capable of being implemented; and (3) whether uIro has the ability to implement the plan.
When NRC requested the review, FEMA had never before reviewed a utility plan that was not supported by state or local officials. A week after the request, FEMA discussed its position on reviewing utility plans before the Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power of the House Energy and Commerce Commit:ee. n:MA'S Executive Deputy Director said FEMA's view was that utility plans without state and local participation were of dimimshed value in assurmg public health and safety.
However, FEMA started to review the uwo Transition Plan. Pnmarily because of the limited time for FEMA to review the plan and to meet the then established licensing schedule, FEMA's initial review Was performed 1 Accordmg to FEMA officials. the five plans differed basically in the designanon of the prmespaa orgamzauons which were to be responsible for off-site preparedness and response accons m the event of an emergency at Shoreham. The plans were referred to as (1) the UlfoCxmty Plan. (2) tne UIro State Plan, (3) the ULCo FDfA Plan. (4) the U1fo NRC Plan. and (5) the U14o Transtuun Plan.
Page 16 GAO/ECED47 46 Emergency Preparednene ,
4 Appendix n shoreham Emergency Response Plan Development and Tesdng i
by an independent contractor, Argonne National Laboratories, and not through the customary federalinteragency procedure involving the RAc.
FEMA reported to NRC that the contractor found 34 inadequacies in the plan.
Following FEMA's report to NRC, FEMA established its position that a non-government plan could be considered adequate, if there are no inadequa-cies when evaluated against the FEMA and NRC standards and criteria.
Table II.1 shows that the elements rated not adequate declined with each plan revision but have not been totally elimmated. Further, FEMA officials said the number of plan elements affected by legal concerns has remained constant, as have the number of total criteria elements reviewed. Normally, FEMA officials said all 196 criteria elements would be included in a review, but, because of the uniqueness of the situation without state and local participation, only 109 elements were applicable in reviewing the Ltico plan.
Table 11.1: Results Reported by FEMA on the Review of the ULCO Plan anc Subsequent Revisions Factor initial Plan Revision 3* Revision 4 Revision 5 Revision 6 Dit]of NRC Request 6/01/83 12/22/83 7/09/84 8/13/85 1/16/86 Data of FEMA Response 6/23/83 3/15/84 11/15/84 10/08/85 2/12/86 109 109 109 109 109 Tot:J Cntena Elements E!ements Rated Not Adequate 34" 32 8 6 5 Elements Affected by Legal Questens* 24 24 24 24 24 Source: FEMA officials and their reports to NRC.
%n September 2,1983, NRC requested FEMA to review Revisen 1 of the ULCO Transition P!an. Before review of the plan was completed, however, NRC requested on November 10,1983, that FEMA review Revisen 2. Simitarty, on December 22,1983, NRC asked FEMA to include Revison 3 in tneir current effort.
'On October 10.1983 the plan review contractor advised FEMA a reexar9:naten of their findings dis-Closed three additional elements should have been rated not adequate.
cin FEMA's reports to NRC. the agency noted any asoect of the plan where the legal issue occurred.
However, with one excepton (legal basis to carry out the plan), the legal issue did not affect the FEMA rating given to technical or operatonal elements.
The utco plan elements affected by the legal issue center on whether Luro has the legal authority to carry out its planin an emergency. For instance, with neither state nor local support in the plannmg process, can Lnro request a declaration of a state of emergency and request state and federal assistance. This and similar legal authority questions have been addressed in court and through several ASLB decisions. First. on February 20,1985, a New York State court in Suffolk County ruled that Page 17 GAO/ECED87-46 Emergency Preparednese
l Appendix n Shoreham Es .u.g Response Plan Development and Testing utro did not have authority under state law to exercise the govern-mental functions called for in the plan. As of September 1986, an appeal was pending. Second, on March 18,1985, a federal district court held that the state and county governments could not be forced to adopt an emergency response plan or, by extension, participate in the ?.xercise of the Luro plan. Third, an August 26,1985, AsLa partialinitial decision concluded that Lum had failed to demonstrate the existence of reason-able assurance that the public health and safety can be protected. The Board cited two reasons in support of its conclusion. First, uLco lacked the legal authority to implement the plan. Second, the state and Suffolk County's opposition to Lnro's plan created a situation making it impos-sible to determine whether the plan could be effectively implemented, even if the legal authority question was resolved in Laco's favor.
In the Shoreham case m established certain prerequisites for making FEMA Reconsiders Its a finding that off-site preparedness was adequate to protect the public.
Poh,ey on the These prerequisites specified that urm be given the authority to per-form response roles of Suffolk County personnel and that there be an Evacuation Exercise exercise in which this could be demonstrated. Before an exercise could be conducted, mm initially said all plan inadequacies would have to be corrected. For example, on June 27,1984, nXA said an exercise Could be conducted only if and when the inadequacies noted in the plan, including the legal authority issues, are satisfactorily resolved. How-ever, mm officials said Shoreham was a unique situation because usu-ally it is not considered necessary for all off-site irsdequacies to be corrected before an exercise is held.
Notwithstanding FDu's statements on an exercise of the Shoreham plan, NRC advlsed FDu on December 19,1984, that Luro had proposed an exercise, and mu was requested to take the lead in any exercise planning. Puu, however, did not initiate exercise planning because plan inadequacies remained. Consequently, on February 8,1985, utro wrote to NRC and advised the agency that, more than two months before, Lnro had taken all of the actions that were within its sole control and requested NRc's help in getting things moving. Again, FDiA did not take action. Puu told Suffolk County on February 20,1985, that all inade-quacies identified in the uIro plan must be resolved before a FDIA-directed exercise could be conducted. Eight inadequacies in the R.ac's most recent (Revision 4) review remained.
Prior to FDIA's review of Revision 5, NRC requested that FDtA schedule as full an exercise of the uIro Transition Plan as feasible. FDIA did not GAo/ECED47 45 Emergency Preparednese Page 18
5 Appendix H ,
shoreham Emergency Hesponse Plaa Development and Testing )
l i
l respond to this June 20,1985, request until October 29,1985. At that '
time, FDiA told NRC that the elements rated not adequate in Revision 5 of the plan did not preclude an exercise being held. FEMA stated it felt Com-mitted to conduct the exercise, once NRC specifically requested FDIA to do so. Table II.2 shows the elements rated not adequate in plan revisions 4 through 6. Revision 6 shows the inadequacies that existed at the time of the exercise.
Table 11.2: Elements Rated Not Elements Rated Not Adequate Adequate in FEMA's Review of LILCO Revisions Plan Revisions 4 - 6 4 5 6 Element Description X X X Legal authonty.
Wntten agreement? between govemment X X X agencies and suppo-t organizations.
Letters of agreement between other X X X organizations. f acilities. or irdivv* mis. X X X Potential evacuation route irnpediments.
- X X Monitenis of evacuees at relocation centers.
Developing protectrve measures based on X .
X exposure entena.
Field monitonng within the plume exposure *
- X emergency planning zone.*
Measunng radiciodine concentrations in the air within the plume exposure emergency + .
X planning zone.'
Estimating doses of radiation and companson + .
X with protective action guides.
Source: FEMA eThe plume exposure w p.cy piernng zone refers to the area within about a 10mie racius of a nucient power plant for which federai regulations require emergency preparedness planning to protec the public from exposure in the event of a radiological emergenc/.
'Radiciocine is the rad.oective matenal considered an important ntial pathway of human exposure in l the event of a nuclear power reac:or accident.
Revision 5 inadequacies, which existed at the time FDtA agreed to schedule an exercise, were classified by rotA officials into three Catego-ries--(1) those easy to correct,(2) those relatively easy to correct, and l
(3) those not easy to correct. Two inadequacies were considered easy to correct 'uecause one (monitoring of evacuees at relocation centers) was considered adequate in the previous plan revision and the other (devel-l oping protective measures based on exposure criteria) only required a l correct procedure reference. FotA officials said two other inadequacies
( dealing with obtaining letters of agreement were classified as relatively easy to correct. The remaining two inadequacies classified by FDtA as l
l GAO/ECED47-46 Emergency Preparedness Page 19 l
l l . _ _ - ._ _ . . _ . _ - _ _
i Appenas n
- shareham Emergency Resposee Plan r_ ' . - t and Teoclas not easy to correct concerned (1) a potential evacuation route impedi-rient because of no pre-emergency planning for snow removal without -
state and local participation, and (2) the earlier mentioned legal authority issue. HXA officials said they did not believe proceedmg with an emergency response exercise was a change from HMA's previous remarks that allinadequacies would have to be corrected because the only remainmg " critical" issue with the plan was the legal authority )
issue.
FEMA presented two exercise options in its October 29,1985, response to FEMA Proceeds With NBC's request for an exercise. The first option was a limited exercise in the Exercise which only the Luro functions would be performed. The second, much broader, option FEMA stated would include all activit'es and normal exer- :
cise objectives. Using the second option, federal officials would minmlata the role of key state and local officials. FEMA also informed NRC that an exercise without particiN9=_ by state and local authorities would not provide a sufficient demonstration of the u14x) plan to permit FEMA to render a finding on the adequacy or inadequacy of the emergency response exercise. 9MA acknowledged that obviously the value of such an exercise in the hcensing process is a determination which can only be made by the NBC. NBC chose the second option.
An exeretse of the Luro plan was conducted on February 13,1986.
Luro's emergency preparedness was tested at 10 locations around the Shoreham plant. In addition, emergency capabilities of Luro were tested in such areas as radiological field monitoring, route alerting, and traffic control. In the exercise, FEMA and NBC personnel simulated the roles of state and local officials. However, they did not issue emergency orders or provide emergency services to the public. Federal evaluators assessed the quality of the Luro staff's responses to the questions posed by the simulators, as well as the general performance of the staff in exercising the emergency preparedness plan.
According to Luro's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Luro received high marks from NRC and FEMA in their prelimmary assessments of the test of the Luxo emergency evacuation plan. This asseument, however, differs from some others. For instan'ce, Suffolk County's legal representatives said there was no basis to conclude that the exercise demonstrated that Lnro could evacuate the vast numbers of people who would seek to flee a nuclear accident along Long Island's limited roadways.
Pase 20 GAo/ ACID 87-48 Emersoney Preparedness
r- -
Appendit H Shoreham Emergency Response Plan Development and Testing n February 15,1986, a briefing was held for the exercise participants, FEMA's Evaluation of the public, and the media. A FEMA regulatory provision requires that, the Exercise prior to the evaluation of the exercise, the FEMA Regional Director "shall assure that there is at least one public meeting conducted in the vicinity of the nuclear power facility." According to Suffolk County's lagal rep-resentatives, the briefing FEMA held did not fulfill all the requirements of the regulation. For example, they said the meeting was not structured to elicit comments from citizens regarding the exercise. However, FDIA officials do not believe the requirements of the regulation are applicable in the Shoreham case because there was no state and local participation.
Dunng the briefing, the FDIA Region II Director said reasonable assur-ance could not be given that the public health and safety would be pro-tected in the event of a radiological emergency at the Shoreham plant.
The FEMA Region II Director included this overall finding in a draft ver-sion of the assessment report on the exercise. The Director of FEMA determined that, consistent with the agency's October 29,1985, corre-spondence to NRC, no overall positive or negative finding on the ade-quacy of the exercise of the Lnro plan should be made in the assessment report because there was not sufficient demonstration of the plan without state and local participation. The Director of FEMA Region II told us that he wanted the report to include a statement that, since the plan cannot be implemented without state and local participation, FEMA cannot give reasonable assurance that the public health and safety can be protected. He said, because of his concern for safety, he resigned rather than delete the sentence from the Shoreham exercise report. FDIA subcequently issued the report on April 17,1986, without the Region II Director's statement on the results of the exercise, i.e., a negative finding.
Even though the exercise assessment did not contain an overall finding, it did include five deficiencies and 38 areas needing corrective action.
FEMA defines deficiencies as inadequacies that would result in a finding that off-site emergency preparedness was not adequate. Areas regturmg corrective action are also defined as inadequacies but are not consid-ered, by themselves, to impact adversely upon public health and safety.
Examples of deficiencies cited by FEMA included delays in dispatching bus drivers and deploying traffic guides, and unfamiliarity of bus drivers with their routes. In addition, FEMA noted that the unresolved legal authority issue affected about one-third of the exercise objectives.
An NRC Deputy Director said he believes that, because FatA included deficiencies in the report, NRC Will be able to use the report as if it Page 21 GAO/BCED47-48 Emergency P.wparedness
Appendix H shoreham E% g Response Plan Development and Testing included an overall finding. The official said the earliest a licensing deci-sion could be made would be late 1987.
m(A's Ulcial position is that the agency had an obligation to be respon-FEMA Provided Input sive to NRC requests. In addition, the House Appropriations Committee, for an NRC Finding in approving fiscal year 1984 and 1985 funding for FDIA, stated that the (
fact that a governmental entity cannot or will not perform a particular role or roles in preparing, submitting, or implementing off-site emer-gency preparedness plans should not, by itself, constitute a sufficient basis for FatA to determine that the plans-or portions of them- are inadequate. Therefore, when NRC requested FDtA (on June 20,1985) to conduct an exercise, FDIA officials responded on October 29,1985, and L
identified the two possible options for an exercise-(as discussed on p.
20). f The NRC exercise request was made pursuant to a memorandum of understanding between the two agencies. As interpreted by NRC and FEMA, this memorandum provides that findings and determinations on the current status of emergency preparedness at sites may be requested by NRC. NRC is not statutorily required to consult with ELA regarding the adequacy of a utility's off-site planning and preparedness when there are no state or local approved plans. However, NRc informed FDIA on June 1,1983, that it would base its findings on a review of FDtA off-site emergency planning and preparedness findings.
Accorriing to testimony on April 22,1986, by FDIA's General Counsel before the Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and Power of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, FDIA and NRC modified the memorandum of understanding somewhat by the exchange of corre-spondence between FEMA and NRC. The modification arose when FDIA advised NRC that any exercise without participation by state and local governments would be dramatically different than is typical at other sites in New York and would not provide FEMA with a sufficient basis to arrive at a finding of reasonable assurance that public health and safety could be adequately protected. When evaluating state and local plans, FDtA makes one of three findings for an exercise that is conducted for licensing purposes: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the plans are adequate and can be implemented as demonstrated in an exercise: (2) there are inadequacies that may adversely affect public health and safety that must be corrected in order to provide reasonable assurance that the plans can be implemented: (3) FDtA is undecided and will pro-vide a schedule of actions leading to a decision. Although FDtA said it Page 22 GAO/ECED47-45 Emergency Preparedness
\
Appends H shoreham E . ..:7 Response Plan Develop nent and Testing would not be able to make a finding following either exercise option, it observed that an exercise would provide an indication to NRC of utility emergency capabilities. FEMA also said that, although the ultimate pur-pose of an exercise is to support a finding by FEMA for use by NRC in its licanning process, Shoreham is not a typical case.
In summary, FDLA does not have a statutory responsibility to review utility plans or to consult with NRC Concerning an exercise conducted by a utility. However, the agency agreed to review the ULco plan under its memorandum of understanding with NRC. One important difference that did occur at Shoreham was that there was no FEMA finding following the exercise. The FEMA Assistant Associate Director, who signed the exercise report, told us that to his knowledge this is the first time FEMA did not make a findin'g following an exercise for an unlicensed plant. FEMA offi-cials stressed to us that the decision to provide NRC no overall finding was made prior to the exercise.
FEMA defines deficiencies as inadequacies that would cause a finding that off-site emergency preparedness was not adequate. Given this defi-nition, FEMA officials agreed such deficiencies in an exercise with state and local participation would have led to a finding of inadequate. In this case, however, the technical deficiencies were overshadowed by the legal authority issue which arose because there was no state and local participation. FEMA officials said they believed that the value of an exer-cise without state and local participation could only be determined by NRC. An NRC Deputy Director said NRC should be able to use this informa-tion in the same manner as a report with an overall negative finding.
i Page 23 GAo/ECED47-46 Emnergency r..-
r Appendix III l Carono:.ogy o:f Signi:ican~: Evens Per aining to 0:f:f-Si:e ?reparecness a: t:ae S:aore:aam Nue:. ear Power P:.an': .
Following a number of discussions between Lnro and county representa-03/15/81 tives, Suffolk County agrees to develop a radiological emergency response plan, and Lnro in turn consents to paying the projected
$245,000 cost of preparing the plan.
Suffolk County legislature approves the terms of the March 15,1981, 09/81 agreement with Lnro, and Laro advances $150,000 as the first install-ment.on the $245,000 payment.
Suffolk County advises Luro of the apparent conflict of interest in its -
02/19/82 accepting funds from Luro to prepare an emergency plan.
The Suffolk County legislature adopted a resolution to (1) cease the 03/23/82 planning effort then taderway, (2) return to Lnro all money paid under the September 1981 agreement, and (3) develop a pir.n at the county's expense.
An Assistant Secretary at the Department of Energy transmits a ULco-04/23/82 developed plan to FEMA for review. Suffolk County did not approve the plan.
FEMA responds to the Department of Energy that, for FEMA to carry out 05/06/82 its responsibilities for determining the adequacy of off-site emergency planning and preparedness around nuclear power plants, the agency needs to assure itself that the plans are sanctioned by the state and local governments concerned.
Laro prepares and submits to the New York State Disaster Preparedness 05/10/82 Comnussion a document entitled Suffolk County Radiologica! Emergency Response Plan. This plan was not approved by the county.
New York's Disaster Preparedness Commission staff finds the uLco-06/09/82 developed plan to be unsatisfactory for submission to the full Disaster Preparedness Commission.
Page 24 GAo/ECED87 45 Emergency Preparedness
_ . , _ . _m . .
Amm CL . _ g of signancant Evente rertaining 4
to off6ite Preparednese at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant V
10/06/82 t.uro submits an amended plan to the New York State Disaster Preparedness Commission for review.
12/02/82 A New York State court issues a temporary restrauung order prohibiting any review of Lnro's plan pending a hearing on a county request for a preliminary injunction.
i I
12/15/82' Suffolk County, the New York Sta:e Disaster Preparedness Comnussion and Luro agree that the Disaster Preparedness Comndssion will refrain from reviewing Lnro's plan until the county legislature has an opportu-nity to review and decide on the adequacy of the county's plan,.but by no later than February 22,1983.
02/17/83 The Governor of New York directs the state not to review or approve i any emergency response plan other than a plan approved by Suffolk County.
02/17/83 Following its consideration of an emergency evacuation plan prepared for the county, the Suffolk County legislature decides not to adopt or implement any radiological emergency response plan. The legislature believes it is not possible to achieve a workable evacuation because of the demographics of the site.
02/23/83 Suffolk County advises NRC that recent action by the county requires
, termination of the Shoreham licensing proceeding. The county explains that their determination not to prepare a local radiological emergency plan follows nine months of extensive analysis, studies, and surveys by a team of nationally recogmzed experts, and weeks of public hearings.
03/25/83 FEMA develops a draft policy position in the event that NRC submits the Luro plan for FEMA to review based on an NRC/ FEMA memorandum of understanding. Its position is that there must be a commitment from Suffolk County and the State of New York to any plan that FEMA reviews.
Page 28 GAo/ECED47-44 Eamorgency 7.--
Appendix m Chromeiser of egmah=r Events Pertaining to offatte Preparedness at the Shoreham Weiear Power Plant A FEMA Assistant Asaaciata Director testifies before the Subcommittee 04/18/83 on Oversight ar.d Invaatigations of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. In response to a question of whether Fou would make a positive finding on a plan developed exclusively by a utility, the FEMA official responds that the agency could look at the plan that is sub-mitted,-but he notes that all of their planning criteria are geared to state and local governments. Further, he said that no matter how good the plan is, FEMA would have to make a negative finding because, without state and local government support, the plan could not be operational.
NRC affirms a Licensing Board ruling that Luro's plan must be consid- -
05/12/83 ered under NRc's regulation regardless of the position of the county and 5 the stare on uux)'s ability to implement the plan. The Commission states )
that it intends that utro's plan be examined by FEMA, NRC staff, and the ^
Lierming Board.
NRC requests FEMA under an NBC/ FEMA memorandum of understanding to l 06/01/83 provide findings on five different plans developed by uLco. The plans l
- were referred to as (1) the uux> County Plan, (2) the Luix> State Plan, (3)the uu:0 FEMA Plan, (4) the uwo NBC Plan, and (5) the Inco Transi-tion Plan. (This request was later revised to apply to one plan-the u140 Transition Plan.) NRC defined the findings to include
. whether the plans are adequate;
. whether they are capable of being implemented; and
. whether utro has the ability to implement any of the plans.
NRC explains it must make a finding on whether the state of emergency preparedness provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency.
NBC states its findings are to be based on a review of the FEMA findings regarding off-site emergency plans and preparedness.
FEMA's Executive Deputy Director testifies before the Subcommittee on 06/08/83 Energy Conservation and Power of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. He states that, absent state and local commitments to carry out the plan in an emergency, a plan prepared by a utility would be of diminished value in assuring public health arid safety.
yI
A,,emma m .
ca iesyorme-aa - Evens Pertainins to ofrelse Proposedness at the shorebesa '
Nuclear Power Plant
- Nevertheless, he states that it is conceivable that a utility or some other local politicaljunsdiction could agree to take measures in an emergency, compensating for a lack of commitment by one of the affectedjunsdic- ,
tions. Therefore, PEMA has agreed with NBC to review plans prepared by or for a utility. He explains that this is not part of the FEMA regulatory process but is a review contemplated in the agency's memorandum of ,
understanding with NBC.
FEMA advises NRC that the I.nro plan, reviewed by Argonne National Lab-06/23/83 oratories, has 34 inadequacies in terms of the NRC/FDLA plannmg stan-dards and criteria listed in NUREG-0654, Rev.1. FDIA further states that there are two preconditions for a FEMA finding on whether the plan .
is capable of being implemented and whether Luro has the ability to implement the plan.
- 1. A.determ>= dan that uIro has the ippropriate legal authority to l
' assume management and implementation of an off-site emergency response plan.
- 2. A demonstration through a full-scale exercise that utro has the ability to implement an off-site plan.
l i
- 07/22/83 NBC asks FEMA whether it would find that there is reasonable assurance that the uIro plan, as written, is adequate and capable of implementa-
! tion if the noted inadequacies were corrected and there was no question (
- of legal authority to carry out the plan.
FEMA said that if there are no inadequacies when the plan is reviewed i
08/29/83 against federal standards, FEMA could certify to the adequacy of the f plan. FEMA further stated that it could make a finding that off-site preparede is adequate to protect the public living in the vicinity of -
the Shoreham plant if Laro is given the authority to perform response roles of Suffolk County personnel and there is an exercise in which this is demonstrated.
j NRC requests FEMA to review Revision 1 of the utro Transition Plan.
09/02/83 '
Before the plan review is complete, however, NRC requests FEMA on
! November 10,1983, to review Revision 2. The following month (12/22/
4
-,.e- ..,r,., - = - . =- ,- - e-w.----,. e--~-w, ,-.m.,,-_ ., ewer,e - w.em.,,,h%,,w-w-,,, we..w-----.-
Appends m Chroneleg of ef=ne*==* Events Pertaining to Off44te r.ya - -- at the Shorehasa Nuclear Power Plant 83), Nac asks mu to include Revision.3 of the utro plan in their current -
effort.
The Governor of New York advises NaC's Chairman of the state's posi-10/04/83 tion. The Governor notes the state will not impose a radiological emer-gency preparedra plan on Suffolk County because of his belief that the state alone does not have the capability or resources to assure the public health and safety can be adequately protected. He further states his conviction that a preparedness plan which relies solely and entirely upon private utility workers cannot provide the degree of security necessary.
I Argonne National Laboratories advises mu that a raavaminadon of its 10/10/83 fladinga disclosed three additional elements should have been classiSed as not adequate.
Nac responds to New York's Governor and notes the Commission has 10/27/83 -
made no decision on the adequacy of the uu:0 plan nor rMed any
. conclusion as to whether such a plan would insure the health and safety of the public. Rather, the Commission states it has only concluded that the utility should be given an opportunity to present evidence on the plan seeking to demonstrate its effectiveness.
A 13-member fact-finding panel created by the Governor of New York 12/14/83 does not reach a consensus on specific issues but does prepare a general views statement. One of these statements expresses reservations about utro's ability to implement a plan that achieves an adequate state of preparedness without the assistance of county government.
The Special Counsel for the Governor of New York appears before the 01/17/84 Asts and raises three issues.
- 1. The state's position is that utro lacks the legal authority to imple-ment its plan.
- 2. The Ast.B does not have the jurisdiction to rule on certain legal issues, as the contentions related to utro's legal authority must be heard in a state court.
Page 28 GAo/BCED47 44 Faergeney Preparedmons
Appendix m CL 'g of signincaat Evente L.
to off6ite Preparednese at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant
- 3. The state has concluded that the Luro Transition Plan is inadequate and not capable of implementation. .
)1/24/84 FEMA's Region II Director asks headquarters whether their review of the Luro Transition Plan should continue in light of New York State's recent position before the ASLB. FEMA asks NRc the following day whether FEMA should continue, modify, or terminate the NRC requested review of the Lnro plan.
!)1/26/84 NRC requests FEMA to Continue its review of the plan. It states that FEMA's review will be an essential ingredient in the Asta's ultimate determina-tion on the adequacy and implementability of Luro's proposed emer-gency plan.
i)3/15/84 FEMA reports to NRC the results of the RAc's review of Revision 3. The Rac found 32 inadequate criteria elements out of 109 based on the standards of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1. In addition, legal concerns affected
- 24 elements. The Luro plan elements affected by the legal issue center
. on whether Luro has the legal authority to carry out its plan in an emergency. .
' )4/26/84 FEMA advises NRc that, in working with Department of Energy and other federal agencies, it is now determining the circumstances under which j FEMA might prepare a plan to exercise the utility's off-site emergency plan when necessary corrections are completed. FEMA notes that it is i presently contemplating an exercise of the utility plan using a federal emergency plan, referred to as the Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan. FEMA further states that the Department of Energy and
! other federal agencies may be involved in the response.
1 i)5/17/84 nxA's Director testifies before the House Interior and Insular Affairs i Committee's Subcommittee on Energy and Environment. He states FEMA has participated in exploratory steps, with other federal agencies,
, toward the goal of planning an exercise to test the uLco plan when its inadequacies are corrected. He notes that the federal government is working to devise an effective way to use its resources to compensate for state and local government resources in a Shoreham exercise.
Page 29 GAo/ECED47-45 Essergency Preparedness
. - - . . - - . _ - . - - . - . . - - - . ~ . - . - - - . - - - - - . . , . . - - - - . . - , -
i A.,.mma m Cheemolog of Ww Evenes Portaining i.orrae.Pr em . tm.smo m =
Neelear Power Plant .
NBC responds to FEMA that a recent test of the Federal Radiological -
06/01/84 Emergency Response Plan included the full participation of the licensee,
' state, and local governments. NBC states the federalinvolvement empha- '
sized determining whether the plan was an effective mechanism for coo.-% =dmr and providing federal support and n==iarance. At -
Shoreham, NaC states the emphasis would shift from testing the federal plan to providing specific support to supplement Luro's response.
FEMA responds to a concerned New York resident's letter. FEMA notes it 06/27/84 has participated in exploratory steps, with other appropriate federal i agencies, toward considering an exercise to test the efficiency of the Lumo plan. FEMA states that this could only be done if and when the inad-equacies including the authority issue are resolved.
NBC requests FEMA to review Revision 4 of the Immo Plan. .
07/09/84 utro writes to NaC and asks them to work with FEMA in planning an i 11/14/84 exercise.
4 FEMA advises NBC that a full review of Revision 4 of the Luro plan has 11/15/84 been completed. Eight elements were found inadequate. In addition, legal concerns affected 24 elements.
NBC advises FEMA that utro has proposed an exercise and FEMA is 12/19/84 requested to take the lead in considermg this matter.
(
12m writes to NaC and advises the agency that utro has taken, more
! 02/08/85 than 2 months ago, all of the actions that are within its sole control.
utm maintains that progress in arranging an exercise at this point is in i
FEMA's, not utro's, control The utility asks for NRC's help in getting things moving.
FEMA tells Suffolk County that its basic position is that all inadequacies
, 02/20/85 identified in the utro plan must be resolved before a FEMA-evaluated l
exercise is conducted.
Pese so GAo/ ACED 47 46 Faergemey M _
- L
.. .~ ~ . - - .- . - - -
i
- Arr--*- m Chronology of signaha=r Events Pertaining
- to off6ite Preparedness at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant l
A New York State court determines that taro does not ht:ye the legal 02/20/85 authority to exercise the governmental functions included in its plan. An appealis pending.
taro invites Nac to observe the conduct of a tabletop exercise and asks -
02/22/85 that Nuc extend an invitation to FDIA.
The Secretary of Energy writes to the Director of FEMA that 03/08/85
. it is his understanding that some progress has been made regarding the testing of the Luro plan.
. this matter is of vital importance if similar problems on other nuclear plants nearing completion are to be avoided. '
4
. the Department of Energy will continue to support the testing of the.
1240 plan as soon as possible.
A federal district court det KA.ss the state and county governments 03/18/85 cannot be compelled to adopt an emergency response plan or, by exten-sion, to participate in the exercise of the Lnro plan.
Fnu's Region II Director sends to FEMA headquarters a technical evalua-03/27/85 tion of Lum's proposed resolution of eight inadequacies in Revision 4 of the plan. The Regional Director recommends any further expenditure of nXA resources on the taro plan should await the result of Luro's appeal of the New York State court decision that Laco does not have the legal authority to carry out its plan.
While finding the taro plan largely adequate, an Asta rules in a panial 04/17/85 initial decision that Luro's implementation of many key aspects of its i
emergency response plan is prohibited by state laws. It finds that LItro has no independent authority under federallaw to carry out these aspects of its emergency response plan.
The Licensing Board further rules that there is no basis to determine l
that " realistically" taro would be given authority to carry out its plan in the event of an actual emergency or that the state and county would cooperate with Luro to implement the existing plan. The Board also 4
i' GAo/ECID#f 48 Baergener Preparedeems Pass 81
_ . . - . . . . . . . _ . . _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . , _ _ . _ . . . _ , . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ , . . . _ - , _ . , _,._._-._,.,_..._m
Appenes m ch-n.n sr orecm-t hu m -
to Offette r.- - at the shoreham
. ' Noclear Power Plant
~
rejected uwo's argument that it was "immatenal" whether all aspects of the uwo plan could be carried out.
The Suffolk County Executive modifies the county's position by 05/30/85 directing the Police Commissioner and the Director of Planning to eval-unte and participate in an emergency response plan for the Shoreham facility.
sc, with the Chairman and a Commissioner disagreeing, states in a 06/04/85 memorandum that it sees no reason why the licensee should not be allowed to exercise those parts of the plan that may be legally exercised.
The Commission states an exercise could, as a minimum, identify the 1 impact of the limitations of uwo's plan when executed under the state and county restrictions. -
The Suffolk County Executive order of May 30,1985, was voided by a 06/10/85 New York State court. The court ruled that the County Executive did not have the power to assist uwo in such an exercise, as that power was vested in the county legislature. This decision was affirmed by the highest court of New York State, the New York State Court of Appeals, on July 9,1985.
nc requests rou to schedule as full an exercise of the uwo plan as is 06/20/85 feasible.
ac issues a license for testing the plant at 5 percent power.
07/03/85 ,
The Suffolk County Executive issues an order stating that he will, from 07/15/85 time to time and in accord with statutorily mandated functions, direct county personnel to investigate, gather information, review and eval-uate such uwo plans as may be feasible to protect the health, welfare, and safety of the residents of Suffolk County.
nc requests FDIA to review Revision 5 of the uwo plan.
08/13/85 Page 32 GAOMICED47 46 Emergency Preparedness
.;, __ .__ __ __m . .
Appseen m Chiesology of s'enine==t Events Portalaing
, to offelte Preparedness at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant 1
An Asa issues a parnalinitial decision, supplementing an April 17, 08/26/85 1985, decision, that wro has failed to demonstrate the existence of the requisite " reasonable assurance." The Board provides the following rea-sonsin support ofits conclusion:
. wro lacks the legal authority to implement its off-site emergency plan.
. The state and Suffolk County's opposition to wro's plan has created a situation making it impossible to determine whether the plan can be
. effectively implemented, even if the legal authority question is resolved in wro's favor.
FEMA sends NRc the results ofits review of Revision 5 of the wro plan.
10/08/85 FEMA reports that six elements were rated inadequate. IAgal Concerns
' continued to affect 24 elements.
mr essendally c mpM0W WY W OD "'
10/08/85 plantis shut down.
An NRc Atomic Safety Manaing Appeal Board affirms the Licensing 10/18/85 Board's determination that Lnro does not have authority under federal or state law to implement its emergency response plan.
FEMA advises NBC that the inadequacies identified in Revision 5 of the 10/29/85 uro plan do not preclude an exercise. However, FEMA informs NRC that any exercise without participation by state and local governments would not allow FEMA & sufficient basis to reach a finding. FEMA pro-posed two exercise options.
Option I- Set aside all functions and exercise objectives related to issues of authority and state and local participation. Only the functions i outlined for m40 would be exercised.
Option II -Include all functions and normal exercise objectives. Exer-cise controllers would simulate the roles of key state or local officials.
I i
Suffolk County and New York State advise FEMA they are opposed to 11/12/85 FEMA taking steps to hold or to assist in the holding of an exercise of :he Luro plan for Shoreham. Among other things, they refer to the FEMA / NRC 1 GAO/BCIDff4 Faergmeer 7.- - -
Pase as
AWm Chromonogy of signahat Events Portahdag to Off84te 7.w '-- - at the sharehasa Nuclear Power Plant N
9 memorandum of understanding, which provides that FEMA's responsibili-
- ties over an exercise shall be to make "findinga" for use in NRC adminis-trative proceedings. Since the two exercise options proposed by FEMA would not allow FEMA to reach a finding, the state and county contend .
an exercise would violate the memorandum.
NRC advises FEMA that they have selected Option II. NRC states this 11/12/85 option would include all functions and normal exercise objectives, recog-nizing that some off-site response roles may be simulated. They further note their belief that such an exercise would be usefulin the licensing process for Shoreham.
A FEMA Associate Director testifies before the Subcommittee on Energy 11/14/85 Conservation and Power of the House Committee on Energy and Com-merce. He states that, while FEMA will report its observations of the
! Shoreham exercise, the report will not constitute a finding on off-site preparedness. He notes, however, that NRC believes, even with these
. restrictions, information would be gained which would be useful to NRC in its licensing proceeding for Shoreham.
The Suffolk County legislature passes a law maldng it a crime for a i 12/23/85 person to participate in an exercise of an emcrgency plan, if the exercise includes the simulation of a role or function of a Suffolk County official.
NRC requests FEMA to review Revision 6 of the utro plan and provide 01/16/86 findings and determinations to NRC.
A federal district court prohibits Suffolk County from interfering with 02/11/86 the exercise. Since the county chose not to appeal the court's decision, the legal obstacles raised by the county to the exercise were removed.
FEMA advlses NRC that five elements were rated inadequate in Revision 6 02/12/86 of the plan. In addition,24 elements were affected by legal concerns.
02/13/86 The emergency response exercise is conducted without state and county i participation. It involves approximately 1,000 participants, primarily .
I
(
Page 34 GAO/BCED4745 Emergency Preparedness
Appenda M Chronology of Significant Events Pertaining to Offette Preparednese at the Shoreham
.% clear Power Plant
~
Luro employees, and 75 federal' evaluators and controllers. Federal con-trollers include a team who play state and local roles in order to allow Luro to demonstrate how they would interface with state and local gov-ernments in an actual emergency.
'02/15/86 A briefing regarding the exercise is held and FEMA's Region II Director states that, since the plan cannot be implemented without state and l
local participation, FEMA Cannot give reasonable assurance that the public health and safety can be protected.
03/20/86 A FEMA Associate Director explains in a letter that FEMA felt Committed -
to conduct an exercise after they were requested to do so by NRC.
i AccvnL4 to this official, in its pcsition as NBC's expert on off-site issues
! around nuclear power plants, FEMA is required to carry out its responsi-bilities as provided in FEMA's regulations; as directed by the Administra-tion; as prescribed in the joint FEMA /NBC memorandum of under***nding:
and in compliance with guidance provided by Congressional appropria-tions and oversight committees. The Associate Director states, however, that FEMA has received conflicting guidance from various sources in Congress.
03/26/86 An NBC Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board rules on appeals of various technicalissues involving the technical adequacy of the Luro plan and states that further pran=*<linga are necessary on issues involving (1) the reliability of some emergency workers, (2) emergency planning for hospitals, and (3) the adquacy of the designated relocation centers.
04/14/86 The FEMA Region II Director told us that, because of his concern for safety, he resigned on April 14,1986, rather than delete a statement from the Shoreham exercise report. He wanted the report to include a statement that, since the plan cannot be implemented without state and local participation, FEMA cannot give reasonable assurance that the public health and safety can be protected. The Director of FEMA Viewed this statement as a personal opinion and a finding. Consequently, he had it deleted from the final exercise report which was sent to NRC on April 17,1986.
MN oaoMMM %
-. _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ l
Appemez M Chromelear of *1PM- avessa Portaintas to otrat Preparednese ntin shorehmen Neelear Power Flaat I
l FEMA officials testify before the Subcommittee on Energy Conservation 04/22/86 and Power of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. When ;
asked why one of three types of ending= provided for in the PEMA/NBC memorandum of understanding was not made followmg the exercise,
- FEMA's General Counsel states there is some flexibility under such a memorandn== He states the memorandum was, in effect, modified some-what by the exchange of correspondence between FEMA and NRC.
NBC orders hearings on the adequacy of the Shoreham exercise of Feb-06/11/86 ruary 13,1986, and states it will shortly rule on Luro's " realism" and
" immateriality" arguments.
4 The New York State legislature approves a bill which permits the estab-
-07/03/86 lishment of a Iang Island Power Authority to assume, if specified condi-i
- tions can be met, the property and obligations of utro. Several days later (July 7,1986) attorneys for Laro explain to an NBC Lleanning Board Panel that the bill has no immediate effect. They note the bill does not become effective until January 1,1987, and the prospects for acquisition of Luro with or without Shoreham cannot be determined from the bill's face.
NBC requests FEMA to review Luro's plan Revision 7 and Laro's response 07/16/86 to the FEMA exercise report for Shoreham. Before review of this revision is complete, NRC requests on September 30,1986, that FEMA review Revi-i sion 8.
r i 07/24/86 NRC issues a decision which concludes that more information is needed to weigh Lnro's " realism" and "imn'reariality" arguments. It orders fur-ther hearings to decide how the utro plan measures against a standard
! that would require protective measures comparable to what might be accomplished with governmental cooperation. In applying this informa-tion, the' decision directs the licensing board to assume that the state and i county would respond to an accident at Shoreham on a best effort basis using the Lnro plan.
The former FDIA Region II Director testifies before the ASLB that during
) 09/25/86 the Shoreham exercise actual testing of public alerting and notification i
1 Pase as GAo/BCENT 48 Fmergency .~._
, Appendix M -
Chronology of tigaan**=r Events Pertaining w Offette 7.. *---- at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant
\
o systems was virtually nonexistent. For example, he states that sirens were not sounded and tone alerts were not activated.
2 10/03/86 The asta issues a prehearing conference order that sets a tercative hearing date for February 1987. The board states that whatever addi-tional time is needed to examine FDIA's evaluation of Revisions 7 and 8 can be accommodated just before or simultaneously with the hearings.
4 4
I O I
t
- i l
t l
! NN) Page 37 GAo/BCED&T 48 Emerpsmey .^._g - _ .
t o
-- ----.---.,.---_,._,m,__.,.~....,.r,mmcm. -- ,-.,m,,, ,,.m.- m ,yy,y -,..,-,.c,-,-,,,_w.y.-wr. , - - - - , , . - . - - , - - ,~.-
e - - - -
3 -. .
. - Requests for copies of GAO reports should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office Post Office Box 6015 Gaithersburg, Maryland 20877 Telephone 202-275-6241 The first five copies of each report are free. Additional copies are
$2.00 each.
There is a 25% discount on orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address.
Orders must be prepaid by cash or by check or money order made out to
, the Superintendent of Documents.
i.
4 L
n 1
a
+
- _ - -~- _ ._. - - _ .- . . .._ _ _ , . . . , . _ _ _ . . . , _ _ . , _ _ _ , . - . , . _ , . . . . . , _ _ . _ , . _ _ _ _ _ . ._. - _ . - _ - - -