ML20215D505

Svc of Ex Parte Communication.* Forwards Four Ex Parte Communications Which May Not Have Been Served on Board & Parties.Documents Identified Through Ofc of Secretary Search,Per Congressional Request.Served on 870617

ML20215D505
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	06/16/1987
From:	Julian E NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
To:	HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO., Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC), SHOREHAM OPPONENTS COALITION
References
CON-#287-3739 OL-3, OL-5, NUDOCS 8706190039
Download: ML20215D505 (28)

Text

4 UNITED STATES p

3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.g-j

' WASHINGTON, D.C. 20556 Me

OFFK

E OF THE :

'M.~" ' 16 P 3 :02

]

SECRETARY

, June 16, 1987

)

e.

Gi.c MEMORANDUM FOR:

/oards'andParties

' SiI' D N N 1 7 1987

-Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ' Unit 1)

DocketNos.50-322pL,OL-3,OL-5 FROM:.

EmileLL. Julian dtingChief Docketing and Service Branch

SUBJECT:

SERVICE OF EX PARTE COMMUNICATION In response to a Congressional request for any ex parte communications during the Shoreham operating license pro-ceedings,.the Office of the Secretary conducted a search of-the Shoreham adjudicatory docket files as well as other-

j files of the Office of the Secretary.. As a result ^of the search, documentation of an' oral ex parte communication and numerous written ex-parte communications were obtained. Four of the identified ex parte communications which were not in the adjudicatory docket files may not have-been served on the Board and parties.

Thus,.these documents are presently being served in.accordance with the Commission's ex parte

rules, i

B70619'0039 8706167 i

PDR ADOCK 05000322 Q

PDR y

I 3 50

)

m

l- & [ W 0_,,' %

v3 Etiog UNITEo STATES M>g I(

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIL.

-[,J @ j REoloN I 9 -

1. { g g.,

, KING CF PRUSSI A. PENNSYLVANIA 19404 g

631 PARK AVENUE c,a 5...e,

Mr. Richard M. Kessel Executive Director New York Consumer Protection Board 99 Washington Avenue,10th Floor Albany, New York 12210

Dear Mr. Kessel:

This letter is in response to your mailgrams of July 11 and July 15, 1985 to Dr. Nunzio Palladino, Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

In those mailgrams you requested the suspension of the low power testing program Shoreham until the NRC performs a thorough investigation of the July 10 at opening of the 18-inch primary containment purge valves and the air line failure that resulted in an automatic reactor shutdown on July 13.

You also requested that NRC review LILCo's training of personnel and the condition of equipment at Shoreham to determine if the plant is safe to test at low power.

'In response to your ' requests and the concerns you expressed,- I believe that a -

brief discussion of the particular events of interest as well as the purpose and conduct of the start-up test program is warranted.

The purging operation of the containment on July 10 was an evolution that invol-ved improper opening _of two 18-inch containment purge valves, contrary to plant procedures.

During the low power testing phase containment purging js a normal evolution that is conducted using four 4-inch and two 6-inch containment purge

{

valves.

On July 10 the operators erroneously opened the larger valves in addi-tion to the normal, smaller valves. To understand why this occurred, I believe some background information is necessary.

During normal operation in the low power testing phase, personnel access to the containment is permitted to con-duct repairs or to investigate problems.

In order to allow personnel access, the containment atmosphere is sampled and appropriately purged with outside air.

The exhaust from the purge valves is automatically diverted to a filtra-tion system.if radiation levels in the containment exceed pre-determined set points.

Furthermore, the exhaust from the filtration system is also monitored and if pre-determined set points are reached, the release is automatically terminated.

This practice of purging the containment in this manner is some-what limited to this phase of testing.

Under full power operating conditions, containment systems such as the one used at Shoreham are normally inerted with nitrogen and access is li.mited to those times when the reactor is shut down and deinerted.

Deinerting the containment is normally accomplished by purging with the smaller valves approximately 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> prior to shut down.

Furthermore, during operation purge valves can also be used to relieve excess containment pressure. The larger purge valves are designed for use when the reactor is shut down.

Consequently, at Shoreham the unique nature of operation and the relative short time interval of reactor operation at very low power levels does N

not result in a threat to public health and safety in that significant radia-I f,

tion levels within the reactor core have not been reached.

Once they are, Q

additional precautions are instituted.

Nonetheless, opening of the larger Q

purge valves was an error and appropriate remedial actions;are being pursued to assure more stringent administrative controls over the opera' tion of the 18-inch I

purge valves.

Richard M. Kessel 2

The air supply line failure that led to an utomatic ' shutdown of the Shoreham reactor on July 13 occurred.in a non-safety related system. Safety related air

, supply lines and equipment in the plant are subject to different quality con-trol and quality assurance standards for design, construction, and operation.

Therefore, conclusions regarding the condition of safety related equipment must be based on the performance and inspection of that specific class of equipment.

In this event all safety-related equipment functioned correctly and the reactor was shut down in an orderly manner. Nonetheless, NRC has emphasized to i

LILCO the importance of minimizing failures in non-sa fety-related systems.

Timely investigation of events such as those discussed above is a normal part of NRC's inspection activities.. NRC inspectors began their investigation of the vent valve opening on the morning of the event and an NRC inspector was in the Shoreham control room and observed the performance of operators and systems when the automatic shutdown occurred on July 13. Our follow-up on these events

. included consideration of the incidents that led up to the events, the actual and potential consequences of the events, the personnel and system performance,.

and action taken by LILCO to avoid such events in the future. The results of our investigations, which will be reported in our inspection report for the month of July, identify areas where improvements can be made but do not indi-cate the need for suspension of the test program at Shoreham.

In your July 15 mailgram you referred to three problems having occurred at Shoreham since the start 'of low power testing.

Two of these, which you specifically identified, were discussed above.

It was not clear from your mailgram what the third problem you referred to' was.

However, it' should be recognized that one of the main purposes of start up test programs at power plants is to ensure that components and systems operate in accordance with specified criteria.

In this regard, such testing is intended to identify system and equipment problems, and procedures are in place to handle them when they occur.

To date, the number and types of events that have occurred at Shoreham in their st' art-up program are not uncommon and are, in fact, to be expected during this phase of plant operation.

You also requested that NRC' review both LILCO's training of personnel and the condition of equipment at Shoreham.

NRC reviews, on a continual basis, these areas as well as other areas affecting plant operations such as management in-volvement, radiological controls, maintenance, surveillance, quality control and quality assurance, fire protection, and security.

Our review of personnel training includes the licensed and non-licensed operator training programs as well as training of other plant. staff. To date ever 24,000 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> of inspection time have been expended by NRC at Shoreham and the inspection coverage has been intensified since the plant received its low power license.

During the start-up test program NRC is focusing its inspection efforts on all of the above areas in order to evaluate the performance of LILCO and the Shoreham facility during the transition to low power operation.

O

0, i.

=

-s e

/

Richard M. Kessel 3

The results of our investigations of the July 10 and 13 events at Shoreham and of' the ext.ensive routine inspection program conducted at Shoreham have not to date revealed any conditions that give reason 'to question LILCO's ability to safely operate the Shoreham plant.

I assure you that should such conditions arise in the future, the NRC will take appropriate actions to protect the health and safety of the public.

t Please contact me if I'can be of further assistance.

5incerely.

/ M w e (~ L Thomas E. Murley Regional Administrator O r d ) O t O 4

.s .. /..; (.. y l h Richard M. Kessel 4 e 01stribution ' W. Di rcks, ,J. Roe: ~ ! T. Rehm V. Stello-H. Denton e 1 ~ J.. Taylor: G. Cunningham 'T. Murley EDO 000833-f SECY 85-558V J. Allan- .J. Gutierrez- 'R. Starostecki H. Thompson . W. Kane F. Miraglia - W. Butler ' 'J. Kerry-R.-Caruso l- 'E.. Conner R.' Fuhrmeister i a 4 o' o

= s a-0220833196 07/15/85 ICS IPMMTZZ CSP aHS8 2125874882 HGHB TOMT NEW YORK NY 195 07-15 1231P EST NUNZIO PALLADINO U.S. NUCLEAR REGLLATORY COMMISSION 1717 H ST NORTHWEST aASHINGTON OC~20555 ! ONCE AGAIN CALL UPON THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N TO SUSPEND LOW-POWER TESTING AT THE SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNTIL THE NRC. HAS COMPLETED A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION OF LAST WEEK 8S ACCIDENT, AS - nELL AS THE LATEST INCIDENT IN WHICH AN AIR LINE BROKE, SHUTTING 00MH' THE PLANT. THIS LATEST ACCIDENT HAKES IT AT LEAST 3 PROBLENS SINCE THE START OF LOW-ROWER TESTING LAST SUNDAY. ONCE AGAIN, FUNDAMENTAL GUESTIONS ABOUT LONG !$ LAND LIGHTING COMPANY'S (L!LCO'S) CCHPETENCE TO SAFELY OPERATE A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT HAVE ARISEN. FURTHERHORE, THE CONDITION OF THE EGLIPMENT AT SHORENAM MUST BE GUESTIONED IN LIGHT CF THE CONTINUAL SREAK 00WNS. IN VIEa CF THESE CONSIDERATIONS, ! URGE THAT THE NRC PRCHPTLY UNDERTA<E A THORCUGH INVESTIGATION OF THIS PAST WEEKEND'S ACCIDENT aMICM CAUSED A " HOT SHUT 00WN" 0F THE PLANT. FURTHERHORE, ! ASK THAT THE NRC REVIEW BCTH LILCO'S TRAINING OF PERSONNEL AND THE CCNDITICN OF EGUIPMENT AT SHOREHAM 70 DETERMINE WHETHER THE PLANT IS SAF5 TO TEST AT Loa-POWER. PENDING THE OUTCCHE OF THIS REVIEW, LOW-POWER TESTING SHOULO BE SUSRENDEO. RICHARD M kESSEL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NEW YORK STATE CONSUMER PROTECTION BOARO 12:33 EST "GMCOMP ~ 7/17...To EDO for Appropriate Action...Cpys to: RF.. 85-570 t C k =

== hI' pNEW YORK STATE CONSUMEA PROTEC E~ Q ' c,9 2: 8.#. go uASHINGTON W i '* 1 'd t q' .h O ~ ALSANY N y E210'11AW o g l cs ii"MMP$~mi 4-0259425192 07/11/85 ICS IPMMTZZ C5P WH58 5184783516 MGM5 TOMT ALBANY NY 307 07=11 0211P EST CHAIRMAN NUNZIO PALLADINO UNITED ST ATES NUCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1717 H ST NORTHdEST WA$HINGTON DC 20555 I CALL UPON THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$!ON TO IMMEDIATELY HALT THE LOW POWER TESTING OF THE SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER PLANT UNTIL THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION HA5 COMPLETED A THORCUGH INVEST!GATION, OF YESTERDAY'S ACCIDENT IN WHICH A VALVE SYSTEM IN THE PRIMARY Y CONTAINMENT BUILDING WAS IMPROPERLY LEFT OPEN, RELEA5!NG GAS INT 0'THE ATHOSPHERE. THIS ACCIDENT, COMING ONLY FOUR DAYS AFTER'THE START OF LOW P0 DER TESTING RAISE 5 FUNDAMENTAL. QUESTIONS ABOUT LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY'S COMPETENCE TO SAFELY OPERATE A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT. IT IS PART OF A CONTINUING PATTERN OF MANAGERIAL INEPTITUDE EVIDENCEO IN THE RECENT NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMI55!0N DECI5!ON TO DISALLOW 1.35 BILLION DOLLARS OF 5HOREMAH C0575 BECAUSE OF LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY'S IMPRUDENCE. THE IMPROPER OPENING 0F A VALVE IN THE PRIMARY CONTAINMENT BUILDING MAY HAVE HAD SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES IF 5HOREHAM HA0 BEEN OPERATING AT FULL POWER. IT !$ NO CONFORT TO THE CITIZENS OF LONG ISLAND THAT THERE WAS NO RA0!O ACTIVE RELEASE SECAUSE THERE WAS NO RADIATION IN THE REACTOR BUILDING. !F THERE HAD BEEN RADIATION IN THE REACTOR BUILO!NG, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY'S ERROR COULO HAVE RELEASED RA0!ATION INTO THE ATMOSPHERE AND NECE55!TATED AN EMERGENCY EVACUATION OF THE SURROUNDING AREA. IT !$ CLEAR.THAT LONG ISLANDIS GEOGRAPHIC CONFIGURATION PRECLUDES A SAFE EVACUATION OF THE AREA SURROUNDING SHOREHAM. THUS, A MAJOR SAFETY PROBLEM COULO HAVE OCCURRED. IN VIEW OF THESE CONSIDERATIONS I URGE THAT THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$!ON PROMPTLY UNDERTAKE A THOROUGH INVESTIGATION OF YESTER 0Avt3 ACCIDENT AS aELL AS THE LARGER ISSUE OF THE LONG !$ LAND LIGWTING COMPANYf5 COMPETENCY TO SAFELY CPERATE 5HOREMAM AT LOW OR FULL POWER. LOW POWER 1 TESTING SwCULO 5E SUSPENDED IMMEDIATELY PENDING CCW8LETION OF THAT INVESTIGATION, RICHARD M KESSEL EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR NEW YORK STATE CONSUMER *EOTECTION BOARD ( 99 WASHINGTON AVE ALBANY NY 12210 1u:13 EST l MGMCOMP y l :t be k a

=s=.y sv vr.:=:..2. usus. :

=r.

s r:: ::: s3 ::.v:v: :...==n :-:.s v.vss:s

>, ~ ~. 1(( ) (y; z ).c % k , c. p.a m$% UNITED STATES i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j msmuorou. o. c. 2osss Jt!N 1 6 E 1 The Honorable Alfon'se D'Amato United States Senate . Washington, DC 20510

Dear Senator.D'Amato:

The Commission has asked me to reply to your letter of June 4, 1986 requesting the Commission to ask the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to conduct a public meeting on FEMA's assessment of the February 13, 1986 emergency planning exercise for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. FEMA has said that its regulations do not require such a public meeting, and the Commission does nct believe that it should second guess FEMA on what FEMA's own regulations mean.

However, the Commission has ordered a public hearing on the exercise results in which the principal interested parties, including the State of New York and Suffolk County, can participate.

The State of New York, Suffolk County, and the Town of Southampton submitted a request similar to yours to the Commission on June 3, and the Commission addressed this request in a Memorandum and Order of June 6, 1986. A copy is enclosed for your information. I hope that this letter responds adequately to your concerns. Respectfully, } i L GL f,-jl ti ' ; l ts I Martin G. Malsch i Acting General Counsel l

Enclosure:

Memorandum and order dtd. 6/6/86 I C>< g

i i ~.,. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA c, /j, M. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,y ~ COMMISSIONERS: h ee H Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman h"5 i C CU~cK(. -DCC Thomas M Roberts e-James K. Asselstine Frederick M. Bernthal "c. N s Lando W. Zech, Jr. ' 'M ' In the Matter of 'd N LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) ) Docket No. 50-322 OL-3 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Unit 1) ) ) MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CLI 11 4 Now pending before us in the Shoreham emergency planning adjudication are three related matters: (1}petitionsforreviewofALAB-832,aMarch26, 1986 Appeal Board decision reversing"and remanding ort a number of issues, but ~ directing the Licensing Board to delay remand pro'ceedings; (2) motions from l LILCO and Intervenors concerning litigation of emergency planning exercise results; and (3) petitions for review of'ALAB-816. In sum, we direct continued deferral of the ALAB-832 remand, and immediate initiation of the exercise hearing to consider evidence which Intervenors might wish to offer to show that there is a fundamental flaw in the LILCO emergency plan. Further, the Comission is now reviewing ALAB-818, and expects to issue shortly a decision on the realism and immateriality issues. l

i,- 2 I. PLAB-832 l r The Appeal Board in ALAB-832 reversed and remanded to the Licensing l Ecard on'a number of issues, but directed the Licensing Board to hold the remand in abeyance until the Comission provided instructions. No party has requested initiation of the remand pending Comission review of ALAB-832, and thus'we direct the Licensing Beard to continue to defer the remand proceedings until further order of the Commission. Pending petitions for i 1 review of ALAB-832 will be addressed by the Comission in the near future, j If the Comissiep decides that further hearings are required on any of the issues considered in ALAB-832, the Comission will so direct the Licensing Board. II. Motions Concerning Litigation of Emergency Planning Exercise Results In.a motion dated March 7, 1986, Suffolk County NewYorkStkte,andthe Town of Southampton (the Governments or Intervenors) asked the Comission to advise the parties to this proceeding of their procedural responsibilities concerning further hearings on emergency. planning issues. Intervenors ask the Comission to make clear: (1) that there should be no proceedings on the results of the February 13, 1986 Shorehe,m emergency exercise until after FEMA issues its evaluation of the exercise; (2) that the filing of contentions on the exercise should await the issuance of FEMA's repor ; anc (3) that because the Shoreham Licensing and Appeal Boards have upheld the Governments' position by denying LILCO's application for an operating license en the ' ground that LILCO's emergency ' plan is f atally defective, the burden is upon LILCO, and not the Governments, to initiate further proceedings. i

Y.~' 3 4 ~ In a'planding.of March 13, 1986, LILCO, opposed the first two' arguments by Intervenors, and further submitted its own motion requesting the Commission to imediately appoint a Licensing Board to conduct proceedings on the exercise, preferably the Board which previously heard Shoreham emergency planhing issues. Further, LILCO asks the Comission to instruct the Board: to admit only contentions which could not have been litigated at some earlier time, and which, as pleaded, do not demonstrate that the Shoreham plan is fundamentally flawed.1 to conduct an expedited proceeding. ? to schedule an immediate Prehearing Conference whose purhose will be to detennine schedules for the filing of all contentions other than those which'must ewr.it the issuance of the FEMA report, and to determine schedules for discovery requests. i to pennit the filing of a secon'd round of contentions which could i not have been filed prior to issuance of the FEMA-report, along with a corresponding second rotind of discovery. I In support of this standard, LILCO cites both the O.C. Circuit's decision in Union of Concerred Scientists v. NRC, 735 F.2d 1437 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert cenied, 105 5. Ct. 815 (1965), and a Licensing Board decision in Carolina Fewer & Licht Co. (Shenron Harris Nuclear Pcwer Plant), LBP-85-49, ZZ NRC 899 (1985), i

i ~. 4 to bar t!iscovery against FEMA personnel prior to the issuance of i FEMA's exercise report so as to expedite the preparation of FEMA's report on the exercise. l On March 24, 1986, the NRC Staff responded both to' the Governments' motion and to LILCO's motion, in substance opposing the fomer and supporting the latter. The Governments also submitted their response to LILCO's motion on March 24. While not objecting to the appointment of a Licensing Board, the Governments largely object to the other proposals on the, ground that they are departures from the Comission's rules. We now address the proposals and the objections to them. Since the motions and responses were filed, FEMA has issued'its report, thus mooting some of the requests. Wethusaddressonlytheremaibing questions. (1) The proposal to use " threshold pleading" and sumary disposition prior to discovery to exclude contentions which do not demonstrate, as pleaded, a fundame'ntal defect in the emergency plan. The Governments assert that this suggestion is' defective on three counts: first, that the Commission's contention pleading regulations require sdequate specificity and basis, and the use of the fundamertal flaw criterion is a departure from the regulations that can be implemented only by rulemaking; second, that by this proposal LILCO is allegedly attempting to require merits decisions at the contention pleading stage, centrary to settled Comission precedent; and third, that the use of summary disposition prior to discovery is legally unsupported, based en an erroneous Licensing Board reading of UCS v. NRC, sucre, note 1.

5 We disagree with the proposition that restriction of any emergency planning exere'ise hearings requested by Intervenors to " fundamental flaws" requires rulemaking or is otherwise inappropriate. In the preamble to the rule reviewed by the OCS court, and in our rule change responding to the ] court's. decision, we emphasized the predictive nature of emergency planning findings. See 47 Fed. Reg. 30232 (July 13,1982); 50 Fed. Reg. 19323 (May 8 f 1985). The Court never questioned this concept. The Ccurt niso observed that there was nothing to prevent the Commission from exclunag from exercise litigation any issue which was not material to licensing, decisions. See j 735 F.2d at 1447-48. Under our regulations and practice, staff review of exercise results is consistent with the predictive nature of emergency planning, and is restricted to determining if the exercise revealed any deficiencies which preclude a finding of reasonable assurance that protective measures can and will be taken, i.e., fundamental f1Tws in the plap. Since only fundamenta'l flaws are material licensing issues, the hearing may be restricted to those issues. However, we agree with IntervenTes' second point', that the wording of LILCO's proposal to exclude contentions which do not demonstrate fundamental flaws in the' emergency plan, has the potential to require premature evidentiary decisions. We remedy that possible defect by directing the Board to admit only those Intervenor contentions which satisfy the specificity and other requirements of.10 CFR 2.714 by 1) pleading that the exercise demonstrated fundamental flaws in LILCO's plan, and 2) by providing bases for the contentions which, if shown to be true, would demonstrate a fundamental flaw in the plan. O

s ] ~

• 6

~ IntervenorsLthird point is that sumary disposition prio'r to discovery ] is legally defective. Our rules provide that sumary. disposition motions may I . be filed "within such time as may be fixed by the presiding officer." -10 CFR ] 1 2.749(a)..The rules'further provide that if essential facts are not 1 available for response to the motion, the Board may deny it or make such i ~ ) other' order as is appropriate. 10 C.F.R. 2.749(c).. Thus, Intervenors are not necessarily entitled to discovery to oppose sumary disposition of their contentions. First, they must convince the Board that discovery is necessary and likely to produce. evidence supporting the existence of a genuine issue of 4 material fact. These rules should be adequate for this proceeding. l (2) Other LILCO Proposals LILCO also proposes that the exercise proceeding be conducted by the Board which previously heard Shoreham emergency plarming issues.,We direct the Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel to reappoint the members'of the earlier Board if they are available. Further, the Board is to expedite the hearing to the maximum 1rxtent consistent with fairness to the parties, and to issue its decision upon the completion of the proceeding.2 ~ 8 i 2The Board and the parties should keep in mind that the Comission's forthcoming decision on ALAB-818 may obviate the need for a hearing on the exercise results, or it might mandate more extensive evidentiary hearings.

1 I 1 1 -1 III. Review of ALAB-818 A's noted above, we previously deferred review of ALAB-818. We now plan to proceed initially with review of the so-called " realism" and "imateriality" issues in ALAB-818. We will take up the legal authority and preemption issues at some future date. The parties have already submitted extensive papers on the " realism" and "imateriality" issues addressed in ALAB-818, and we see no need for further written briefs. IV. Intervenors' Mcc1oo cf June 3,1986 1 The June 3, 1986 Suffolk County, State of New York, and Town of Southampton Supplement to Motion for NRC to Establish Post-Exercise l Procedures is denied. The motion asks NRC to find that FEMA's review of the 1 February 13 exercise violated FEMA's procedural rules requiring a "public meeting. The Comission defers to FEMA's interpretation of its own procedural rules. We perceive'no ham to Intervenors from this denial of S

8 their motion; as The issues raised by the. exercise will be aired in the adjudication we initiate today. Comissioner Asselstine approved in part and disapproved in part. His separate views are attached. It is so ORDERED. For the Comission [ 1 7 "% . \\j (& & 5 / [~ SAMUEL } DGLK 3 s g y 3ecretary of he Comission ? 4 ***d l I Dated 6t Washington, D.C. r r< this c ~ day of June, 1986 a w J i l

'o... io. SEPARATE VIEWS OF COMMISSIONER ASSELSTINE i I a h' gree with that portion of this order which directs the initiation of Ia earing on the results of the exercise of the emergency plan for Shoreham. I also agree with the decision to continue to defer review of. I the issues in ALAB-832. However, I do not agree.with the procedural guidance provided to the Licensing Board in this order. I see no reason to set any pleading requirements beyond those already existing in the. Comission's regulations. 4 8 4 0 0 4e i l e 8 e i ~ e e 4

-- + ALFONSE M. 0 AMATO - new coa. Snitd $tates Etnatt WASHINGTON,'Oc 20510 l June ;, 1986 The Honorable Mun:io J. Palladino Chairman iiuclear Recu1* tory Commission a 1717 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Chairman:

As you know, an issue of ongoing concern to Long Island, New York, residents has been FEMA's recent actions with respect to the Shoreham nuclear power plant. FEMA has refused to hold a public, post-exercise meeting to receive citizen input regarding the evacuation plan required to be developed, tested, and certified before the Shoreham nuclear power plant can begin full-scale operation. I ask that the Commission intervene to request that FEMA conduct this public meeting in accordance with Part 350 of their regulations. By letters dated I: arch 27, 1986, and April 3, 1986',. I requested General Becton, Director of FEMA, to conduct this public meeting. Copies of my letters and FEMA's reply are enclosed for your convenience. You will note that FEMA has refused this I request. I do not believe that FEMA should be permitted to deny residents living near Shoreham the same rights it has afforded citizens living near Ginna, Indian Point, and other nuclear facilities. I believe this is an insult to those living near Shoreham. Currently, FEMA's Post-Exercise Assessment is before the PRC. I ask that the NRC not consider FEMA's Assessment until the standard public meeting is held. I ask that the NRC return FEMA's-Assessment with the direction that a new Assessment be prepared after the required public meeting is held and the essential public input received. Nothing short of that can fulfill the Commission's responsibility to the public on Long Island. When FEMA's Region II Director, Frank Petrone, resigned from FEPA, he expressed concern over FEMA headquarters' failure to permit him to hold a public meeting at Shoreham. Public participation is not something to be used by FEMA only when it serves that agency'c convenience or some public relations purpose. In the Soviet Union, the people of Chernobyl did not have the chance to participate as our Constitutio.n guarantees United States citizens. In the wake of Chernobyl, the value of the right of public participation is more evident than ever.

f The Honorablo Nuncio Palladino June 4, 1986 j Page 2 Finally, I have reviewed the supplementary motion filed on J,une 3 by New York State, Suffolk County, and the Tcwn of Southampton. There is no conceivsble reason why the Commission should not grant their reasonable request for FEMA to conduct its standard public meeting. The fact is that FEMA's stubbornness has put the NRC in the position of having to make an important decision without proper input and information. The only proper course for the NRC is to face FEMA's omission squarely and to correct it p roniptly. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, A1 ons,e D'Amato U4 States Senator AD:enr cc: General Julius Becton S l + l

A;10N5f V C AVaf 0 -m.mr Enittd EtartsEtnatt WAsMINGToN. DC 20510 9 r March 27, 1986 l The Honorable Julius W. Becton, Jr. Director s. Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472

Dear General Beeton:

I am writing as a follow-up to the question I submitted for the record at your fiscal year 1987 appropriations hearing on March FEMA will conduct Specifically, I asked for your assurance that 5.a public meeting concerning LILCO's February 13 exercise before reaching conclusions on the exercise. Your reply was as follows: FEMA regulation 44 CFR 350 provides for the conduct of a' meeting after an exercise, involving the exercise participants, Federal agencies, and the public and media. 15, 1986, at the Boliday Such a meeting was held on February Inn used as the Joint News Center f or the Shoreham exercise. .The purpose of Members of the press and public were present. the meeting was so that FEMA could, share its initial After FEMA's impressions on how the exercise went. presentation, made by the Chairman of the Regional Assistance Committee, members of the press asked questions informally. least one member of the public also asked questions. At While I appreciate that FEMA held the February 15 meeting, that meeting is not the "public meeting' to which my guestion The February 15 meeting was required by subsection 9 of l 44 CFR 350, which provides: "Within 48 refers. the regulation you cite, hours of the completion of the exercise, a briefing involving the exercise participants and Federal observers shall be conducted by, j the Regional Director to discuss the preliminary results of the exercise." The "public meeting" addressed by my question is required by { Section 350.10 (a) a separate subsection of the same regulation. prior to.the evaluat requires that, least one public Regional Director "shall assure that there is at The l meeting conducted in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant." purpose of the meeting shall be (1) to acquaint the members of the'l (2) to answer any j public with the conduct of the exercise;to receive suggestions from the the exercise; (3) may be necessary for i questions about public concerning improvements or changes that(4),to describe to the pub emergency preparedness; andin which the emergency plan is expect e an actual emergency. 1 i i

s, a The Honorab:e Julius W. Becton, Jr. March 27, 1986- .Page-2 i Section 350.10(b) underscores the importance of.the public-meeting: ...This meeting shall be noticed in the local newspaper with' the largest ~ circulation in the area, or other media as the Regional Director may select, on at least'two occasions, one of which is at least two weeks before the meeting takes place and the other is within a few days of the meeting date... Public input from the meeting is considered by FEMA to be so important that Section 35 0.10 (b) further states that no FEMA-approval of an emergency plan can be made unless-such a public meeting is held. And, under Section 350.11(c), the Regional Director must. include "a summary of the deficiencies identified durine the oublic meetinc* in the evaluation of the exercise he transmits to FEMA Beadquarters. l The facts are as follows: FEMA has cocplied with only a part of the regulation cited o in your letter by conducting on February 15 the briefing required by Section 350.9; 1 FEMA has not complied with a more important re*quirement of o the regulation you cite: the public meeting mandated by Section 350.10. Indeed, FEMA has still not even issued the advance notice. of such a public meeting required by Section 350.10(b); Before the Regional Director.can conclude his evaluation o of the February 13 exercise, he must consider input from the public ! meeting 'reuqired by Section 350.10. (See Section 350.ll(a)); and In the evaluation of the February 13 exercis'e that the o Regional Director will transmit to FEMA Headquarters, he must summarize the deficiencies identified during the public meeting. (See section 350.11(c)). There is no justification for FEMA to ignore or discriminate against the people who live near Shoreham or to deny them the same treatment that FEMA gives to people living near other nuclear power plants. The reason FEMA has held a public meeting after every other exercise is. to gather information from the public that can improve emergency preparedness. The people of Long Island have just as much to offer FEMA as people living elsewhere; and FEMA should seek them out as it has done with local residents in every other case. A' refusal by FEMA to do this here would be a slap at

• Long Island's citizens and a violation of the regulation you have cited in your reply to me.

In the case of shoreham, where a utility is attempting to supplant the emergency response function of State and County gov-ernments which have in good faith determined not to adopt e=ergency

The-Honorabae Julsuc k. Beeton, Jr. - Ma'r c h. 27, 1966 Page 3-j plans, it is even more compelling'for FEMA to reach out for the public's vie *ws and insights.. It is significant that you cite and l acknowledge the control of 44 CFR 350, but what is even more important is. that you be willing to -acknowledge the vulnerability of the public at Shoreham and not shortehange them on procedures 4 which have become standard for TEMA everywhere else. Indeed, this 1 is a case where FEMA should take every reasonable; measure to gather / practical information and insights from the public so as to assure j that' it is not, imperiling the safety of the people who live near 1 i the Shoreham plant. Therefore, I ask that you instruct your Regional Director to hold a public meeting with the people of Long Island-in accordance with FEMA's standard practice and regulations. Until that meeting is held and FEMA receives and meaningfully considers the public's input, the Regional Director should withhold judgments concerning the February 13 exercise. Thank you for your attention to this matter ( - Sincerely, ~~ fo e D'Am wo Unite States Senator-i AD:ent . cc: Frank Petrone f l 't

1 ,,c,. ^ ~ .Q,' 5: o e s.mc j S,. p ou '~ Enitti Etatts 5cnatt ~ wasMWGTON. D,C 20810 ' April 3,-1986 The Bonorable Julius W. Becton, Jr. ' Director Federal Emergency Management Agency Kashington, D.C. 20472

Dear General Becton:

This is a follow-up to my letter to you dated March 27, 1986. In that letter, I requested that you direct FEMA's Region II Directoc to conform to FEMA's standard practice by holding the normal post.-exercise public meeting regarding Shoreham, and to withhold judgment on-LILCO's February 13 exercise until the public's input is received and meaningfully considered. I am writing today in reference to statements of FEMA's 1 Mr. McAda L spokesman, William McAda, quoted in Nevsdav of April 2. said that FEMA's regulations (i.e., 10 CFR 350) requiring a Shoreham because this post-exercise.public meeting do not apply atI am outraged by that statement'. situation is " unique." First, your own response to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on EUD and Independent Agencies to my March 5 question You f or. the record applied 10 CFR 350 to the Shoreham situation. not only cited this regulation, but went so far as to contend that TEMA dutifully complied with it on February 15. It is-inappropriate f or your spokesman now to try to back away f rom what you told me in a considered written response. ' that you I trust will back up your own words. second, Mr. McAda's position that the

• uniqueness' of the Shoreham situation justifies cutting the citizens of Suffolk County out of FEMA's normal public meeting process is insulting.

Congress has funded FEMA to help protect the public, not to use the Agency's resources to run roughshod over them. Unfortunately, it is becoming clear that the major ' uniqueness

• at Shoreham is FEMA's unwillingness to treat the people who live near Shoreham the same way FEMA treats people living near every other nuclear' power plant.

I remind you that at both Indian Point and Ginna in New York, FEMA's Regional Office held public meetings following the emergency preparedness exercises and prior to concluding the 's Suffolk's residents have the same concerns for the evaluations. and safety of their families as the people near Indian Point Ginna. FEMA cannot treat them as second-class citizens. +me

- - + The Honorab] Julius W. Be e t'o n, J. + f April 3, 1986 Fage 2 Mr. Mcida's effort to undo your written response to me is part.icularly disturbing-in light of the importance FEMA has placed en having_a public meeting following the exercise at every other plant. For example, after the Indian Point exercise, FEMA's j spokeswoman told the press that public meetings are held, not on1v i I because they are recuireds but also because

• Frequently, people have offered valid criticism and good suggestions.. Then the plan is modified accordingly."

This is precisely what happened at Ginna, where,the plan was adjucted to accommodate public input concerning the need to sound sirenc carlier than was done in the 3 exercise. ] Finally, it is unconscionab3e that Mr. McAda would even attempt to justify denying suf f olk 's citizens the public meeting that FEKA routinely offers people everywhere else. I remind you that, when FEMA adopted 10 CRF 350, FEMA specifically rejected a proposal to eliminate public meetings. FEMA stated at page 44335 of the September 287 1983, Fede r al ' R ecl st e r : -Despite the deficiencies of public meetings as evidenced by poor attendance in some cases, FEMA believes that it is essential to provide an opportunity to the public living around or near a nuclear power plant to be informed about specific emergency response plans and preparedness as well er to discuss specific concerns with responsible officials. Therefore, the public meeting requirement should be retained. Also, in order to wake public meeting more j meaningful, the language in the ruic has been revised in order to have public meetings held after the initial exercise. Thus, in addition to discussions on the emergency response plans, the opperutnity is provided to the public to ~ also discuss the exercise. Suffolk County residents are concerned with safety issues surrounding Shoreham. Given this fact, and given the intense commitment by FEMA to the concept of post-exercise public meetings and, indeed, FEKA's practice of ho3 ding cuch public meetings everywhere else, I ask for your prompt assurance that FEMA vill hold the standard public =eeting in Suffolk County, and that you vill instruct your Region II Director in accordance with the request set forth in =y letter dated March 27, 1986. S i nce r el y, /'~ ftN \\ jfo se D'Amato Unit d States Senator AD:ent J

! ' q. m. .s L 2:.': %. pdf }, Federal Emergency Managernent Agency '\\ f Washington, D.C. 20472 Q { e..CC ,1 s l The Honorable Alfonse D'Amato I United States Senate Washtngton, DC. 20510 l

Dear Senator D'Amato:

) j l Director Becton' has asked me to respond to your letters of March 27, 1986 and ) April 3, 1986, concerning your request that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) condu ct a public meeting in connec:Lon with its evaluation of LILCO's Feeruary 13 exercise at the Shoreham nuclear power plant. At the outse: it should be emphasized that the requirements of Part 350 of 44 CFR, Review and Approval of State and Local Radiological Emergency Plans and Preparedness, are not applicable to this case. l Under FEMA rule 44 CFR 350.10 the only provision for a public meeting on offaite plann;ng and preparedness relates to a meeting, (in practice normally sponsored by a participating State) held to explain State and local government emergency plans to the public and to receive public comments on those plans. l~ In the case at hand, State and local governments have no plans to explain and have opted not to participate in a 44 CFR 350 process. / Che exercise evaluation conducted by FEMA for the Shoreham fixed nuclear generating facility has oeen conducted pursuant to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between FEMA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) which governs such activities. A 'public meeting

• on the exercise conducted by FEMA similar to the type specified in 44 CFK 350.10 to explain State and local plans would not be i

consistent with FEMA's role in the licensing process in this case. FEMA's evaluation and report have been prepared at the NRC's request for use in that Agency's licensing proceedings. In light of the pending litigation, it would be inappropriate for FEMA to discuss its report outside the context of the NRC licensing process. Indeed, to do so would be an unprecedented act. It is anticipated that the hearings before ne ASL3 will be extensive. Every legitimate issue will be open to litigation by sne par:tes. Eearings normally are preceded by extensive discovery. Under NRC rules, the right of the parties to explore the basis for the evaluation and report is extensive. Key FEMA staf f involved in the evaluation will be made available for cross-examination under oath. There will thus ce acple opportunity for the State, l Suf folk County, and Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) to examine the basis for the FEMA evaluation. '1-ur'u i - ' -

6, ., / ?? b 2 Partner, under NRC procedures, the ASLB nas constdera' le discre: ton to l c accommocate the expression of local puolte interes and tne desires of loca'. citizens to ce neard during its licensing proceedings. I regret _that FEMA's response to tne Senate Appropriations Succommittee on ene HUD-Independen: Agencies Appropriation Act cancerning a nearing for suffo*x County on :ne Snocenam exercise was somewna: confusing. cu t answer explaintng tha :he meeting TEMA neld for :ne benett: of :ne puoite and :ne par:tespants aftet':ne Teornary 13 exettise was samliar to those neid sher:1y after exegesses of. State and ideal p'ans at c:ner nuclekt f acilittes could ce constravd as saytng tha 44 CFR 350 procedu res applied to TEMA's evaluhtion of. the Snocenam exercise. As I explained acove, this is not so. p' ease ce asmared tha: TEMA is committed to carrying oc: its assigned role in these licensing proceedings in a responsicle= manner. If I can be of further assistance,:please advise. Sincerely, k.$Ei)r enc Acting Genera'i' Couns,el V 9 e 1 ~. 1

.6, Ol(#) d p.,<.g,,., j,, v'c . /,f* % 6 1.f UNITED STATES

a g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g 'Q, j WASMNCTON D. C.20685 y ME (%,.* 4 Februa:7 12, 1985 Nancy E. Romaine Richard E. Romaine 2615 Falcon Ave. Medford,'.New York 11763 s

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Romaine:

Thank you for your letter of December 26, 1994, which has been referred to me for reply. .In it, you requested the Commission to offer representatives of Suffolk County an opportunity to orally present their arguments to the Commission concerning Shoreham low-power testing. The Commission heard the County's views, and those of the State of New York, LILCO, and the NRC staff on February 8, 1985. Sincerely, Herzel E. E. Plaine General Counsel i i t M J._ U,

e+ i .m .m ,o 6 i l 2615 Falcon Avenue Medford, New York 11'163 December 26, 1984 All Nuclear Regulatory Commissioners U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 s Gentlemen: I understand that you will not be allowing the legal representatives for Suffolk County to argue their case as to Why a Low Power License for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant should not be issued. This, in our opinion, is a travesty of justice. To have a decision made for the residents of Long Island without their being able to pre-sent their case in grossly unfair. We feel that before you consider a license for the testing of that unsafe plant, you must allow the citizen representatives to be heard. Our future is in your hands, not only safety-wise but financially. Once the test is run, the cost of the plant will be added to LILCO's rate base and we cannot afford the increase in our rates that this will cause. Our electric rates will soar to more than our mortgage payments and people who are just getting by, like 1 ourselves will be in grave trouble. We have many acquaintences who have been employed to work on the Shoreham Plant. All report' of the waste and-mismanagement of LILCO - brand new tools and equipment being buried, people standing around with no work to do and being paid (our friends among them). We should not have to pay for such waste. j You must allow attorneys for suffolk County to be heard in oral argument. They represent our views completely and I am aghast that our Go,vernment will not listen but will do as IT pleases with no thought to the economy and the safety of the people of MY community. I would appreciate a reply to this letter. I have written to you on several occassions relative to the Shoreham Plant and have never received the courtesy of a reply from any one of you Commissioners. Sincerel fv& w 6x - Nancy E. Romaine Richard E. Romaine -}}