ML20215L071
| ML20215L071 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Shoreham |
| Issue date: | 09/02/1986 |
| From: | Margulies M Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20213F109 | List:
|
| References | |
| OL-5, NUDOCS 8706250536 | |
| Download: ML20215L071 (1) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:__ _ _ .. . 1 i 6/3 e as%,
\
yf ) UNITED STATES el ) G NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LicENslNG BOARD PANEL COC efIC:
'a %,-{;
. m[ -(- / W ASHIN GTON, 0.C. 20555 bbNC September 2, 1986 W D -3 M @
$CKYTNu$hv#$'
Donald P. Irwin, Esquire BRANCH
. Hunton & Williams a 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23213 gg4g Re: Long Island Lighting Company (ShorehamNuclearPowerStation, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 -
Dear Mr. Irwin:
This is in response to your submittal to the Board, of August 28, 1986, in tne nature of a letter. After stating that LILCO asks that the Board reschedule the cancelled September 3 prehearing conference at the - earliest possible date, you enter into a discourse as to what you believe to be the cause of alleged delay in the proceeding, present a I thorough review of developments of the application proceeding, conrnent-that the Shoreham facility is comercially generating electricity and quote extensively from a letter from the president of the Long Island Association to the President of the United States seeking intercession to speed NRC completion of the proceeding. This unsolicited comunication with the Board is highly inappropriate and unacceptable. If Applicant is seeking relief from the Board, it should do so by an appropriate pleading, by which other parties have a right of reply. Administrative proceedings do not allow for the kind of discussion of views contained in the gratuitous submittal. The submission of newspaper articles and a copy of a letter to the President
, that are not part of the record and do not relate to the merits 'is inappropriate.
The activity discussed cannot be condoned. To discourage such. unauthorized filings, from whatever source, we reject and return the submittal to you. On August 29, 1986, a letter via telecopy was received from Intervenors advising of their intent to respond, sometime this week, to your submittal. This action makes the proposed response unnecessary. Very truly yours, Morton B. Margulies, Chairman For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 4 Attachment cc: Service list
, ?
d J' 8706250536 870622 - PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR { d
g g. g agg -% [ /' . [,, UNITED STATES / [ #' k '! g g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION . g' j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20S66 g **og/*** CHAIRMAN August 22, 1986. l The Honorable Dennis E. Eckart N United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515
.)
~
Dear Congressman Eckart:
The Commission has received your letter-of July 30, 1986. concerning our July 24 ruling in the Shoreham proceeding. In that decision, we held a.s a. matter of law that the license- , applicant should be permitted the. opportunity' to show -that lack of' State and local cooperation in preplanning does not absolutely preclude'a finding, based on the facts adduced in the evidentiary , record, of reasonable assurance-that adequate measures can and - will be taken to protect the public in an emergency. We did not make such a factual- finding in our decision,-and we did not say , that we would. Commissioner Asselstine~ex i view which was attached to the Commission' spressed a. dissenting-July 24',1986 order.- l j As you know,'the decision'was part of a. formal adjudication;being conducted under the Administrative-Procedure Act, which mandates our consideration of only those materials that are:part-of the adjudicatory record. Accordingly', while the Commission .. appreciates your concerns, we hope-that you will understand that - we must. base our decision on the adjudicatory. record.of the. Shoreham proceeding. To avoid'the perception that we are' j
, engaging in prohibited communications :we are serving your letter , and our response on the par. ties.'to the. adjudication.
Sincerely,
].
d ' I Frederick M. Bernthal Acting Chairman
\
W m. n : - 8
.gg + = .
g WASHINGTOM OFFICE: _ %No ' 1224 LONGWORTH BUILOING I c% WASHINGTON. O.C. 20$l5 3 g ID'$).I * - (202) 225 6331 JyW 3WPC2 i 3 ., DISTRICT OFFICE: w@wa isn.ASCA 9040 MENTOR AVENUE
,3 .
MENTOR. CHIO 44060 s',i< ik,A$AESS (216) 522 2056 ewcr CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES Tott mE
" " ' " '*8"5 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES % WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
[ July 30, 1986 4 The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.
.Q ,
t s'i Chairman ' !^%' : Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20555 ,
Dear Mr. Chairman:
['- I am writing to express my serious concerns about the Commission's July 24 ruling that nuclear power plants can'be, allowed to operate in the absence of any cooperation from state - and local emergency planning officials. This decision runs contrary to Congress' and the Commission's expressed recognition that local participation is central to effective emergency
, planning. I fear that it also endangers the future development of l sound, coordinated emergency planning efforts considered integral '
and mandatory for any nuclear power plant's operation.. The Commission's decision upon considering Long Island
, Lighting Company's (LILCO) petition for review of the emergency plan at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant stands out as a lone recommendation in clear opposition to the views offered i.n this case by the NRC staff, the Shoreham Licensing Board, and the NRC Appeal Board. I share and support the Board's finding that /
LILCO's plan was not adequate "because there was .nothing ~ in the record to indicate that the state or local governments would ever participate in Shoreham emergency planning, and the Board couldn't speculate on what the government might do if and when Shoreham began full power operation." To rest our assurances of public safety on speculation is indeed faulty and unacceptable. As you know, the emergency planning regulations were formulated after the Three Mile Island accident, when Congress and the Commission determined 'that it is essential to require advance planning to respond to ser'ious nuclear accidents. I understand that the Commission was given authority to consider whether a state, local or utility emergency plan provides i reasonable public safety assurances in the absence of an approved local plan. However, in this instance there is not only a lack of a local plan, but a stated refusal by local governments to participate in or cooperate with emergency planning in the event : of an accident. Therefore, I' question the Commission's, 3' determination that reasonable public protection could be assured j- j anyway. .: ; l c, b13DE841Y ~l 1M -
y ,
- DENNIS E. ECKART WASHINGTON OFFICE:
11tn CISTRICT. OMIO 1224 LONGWORTH BUILDING jh' I'N* - l VEvata WASHINGTON. O.C. 205t5 l CoMMirrit cN (202) 225 4331 ! ENERGY f:t COMMERCE . ccMwirst os ; - OlSTRICT OFFICE: l EDUCATION & LABOR 9040 MENTOR AVENUE ccMurret oN
- MENTOR, OHIO 44060 1 SMALL BUSINESS (216) 522 2056 3
AT LARGE MAJORITY WHIP CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES Tott FREE < 1 800 457 7375 l WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515 I July 30, 1986 l l The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr. Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20555 ; i
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am writing to express my serious concerns about the l Commission's July 24 ruling that nuclear power plants can be, i allowed to operate in the absence of any cooperation from state . I and local emergency planning officials. This decision runs contrary to Congress' and the Commission's expressed recognition i that local participation is central to effective emergency planning. I fear that it also endangers the future development of sound, coordinated emergency planning efforts considered integral and mandatory for any nuclear power plant's operation. j The Commission's decision upon considering Long Island
, Lighting Company's (LILCO) petition for review of the emergency . plan at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant stands out as a lone recommendation in clear opposition to the views offered i.n this case by the NRC staff, the Shoreham Licensing Board, and the NRC Appeal Board. I share and support the Board's finding that <
LILCO's plan was not adequate "because there was.nothing'in the record to indicate that the state or local governments would ever participate in Shoreham emergency planning, and the Board < couldn't speculate on what the government mignt do if and when Shoreham began full power operation." To rest our assurances of public safety on speculation is indeed faulty and unacceptable. As you know, the emergency planning regulations were formulated after the Three Mile Island accident, when Congress and the Commission determined 'that it is essential to require advance planning to respond to ser'ious nuclear accidents. I understand that the Commission was given authority to consider whether a state, local or utility emergency plan provides reasonable public safety assurances in the absence of an approved local plan. However, in this instance there ir not only a lack of a local plan, but a stated refusal by local governments to participate in or cooperate with emergency planning in the event of an accident. Therefore, I' question the Commission's, .1 determination that reasonable public protection could be assured { anyway. e, e b hob 100 _
._ _ ,- _ . . _ . . . _ _ _Z
. , 'm .
~
!< ? ..'
i' ', : ; The Honorable.Lando W. Zech, Jr. July 30, 1986 ! Page Two I 4 >
, I
.The codimission's ruling that an ad hoc local safety response
' .can be deemed adequate in protecting public. health and safety.in the event of a nuclear power accident completely negates the l focus'of and need for emergency planning. It sends the wrong !
message to communities in the process of developing coordinated. H emergency response plans, or those which will.do so in the ,
-j future. The Commission's' actions with this regard should be encouraging integrated participation in and support.for emergency J planning efforts from all levels, including the NRC, local 1 government officials and citizen groups. .I. deeply regret that ] ! the Commission chose, through this decision, to weaken and ,
undervalue this vital planning process. . .
. t 1 ! In relu. -
l 5 L\ ! DENNIS E. ECKA (I'
+
i j Member of Congress ' ] 'DEE/chd . (. i l 'l' I I I l l
. 1
,. m ,
-t f
.. . . . . . . ~ . ..
. o pa ato l
;cf $% UNITED STATES 2
5: fGl NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENslNG BOARD PANEk,UE ii, , k, . saf W ASHIN GTON, D.C. 20655 August 22, 1986 W E 25 A8 40 0FFICE JF w . w h 00CMETING A sipVlCf~ 'I{ BRANca i
]l Ms. Carol Berman 42 Lord Avenue SERVED AUGd57386 Lawrence, New York 11559 Re: Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. -
Unit 1),DocketNo.50-322-OL-5
Dear Ms. Berman:
This is in response to your letter of August 15, 1986, advising of your interest to inform the Board of your views on the LILCO emergency plan i and the exercise at a session requested to be held in Nassau County. , il We appreciate your interest. At this time we cannot inform you of anything more definitive as to the time and place of holding limited appearance sessions than was included in the Memorandum and Order (Prehearing Conference, July 8,1986), of July 11, 1986. The statements will be taken at a time in proximity to holding hearings on the i emergency planning exercise, which have not been set. The Board is aware of the request for a session in Nassau County. ! ); We will inform you when and where the sessions will be held when it is determined. l i Very truly yours, l ,
)' ;
Morton B. Margulies, hairman Administrative Law Judge 4 cc: Service list #
}
j l , d s NO- Q hhh
'l;' Y ,
.., [{fD &q%UQvhG ^
gI , joq g UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
/ m. .' ' S - l l
$T, g W ASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 i..../
SAIRMAN August 22, 1986 t
]
l e i l{ ji . The Honorable Alfonse M. D'Amato
- 2!
United States Senate Il Washington, D. C. 20510 ,
. 1
Dear Senator D'Amato:
4 l aj The Commission has received your letter of July 25, 1986 i regarding CLI-86-13, our July 24, 1986 decision concerning the ' 1 Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. In that decision, we held only that as a matter of law the license applicant should be . permitted the opportunity to show that lack of State and local' ,
.I cooperation at this time does not absolutely preclude a finding,' l Dased on the facts adduced in the evidentiary record, of reasonable essurance that adequate measures can and willibe ;
taken to protect the public in an emergency. We did not make l such a factual finding in our decision, and we did not say that J we would.- Commissioner Asselstine expressed a diss'enting view' i
- which was attached to the Commission's July 24, 1986 order. .
i , As you know, the decision was part of a formal adjudication being conducted under the Administrative Procedure Act .which mandates our consideration of only those materials that are part l of the adjudicatory record. Accordingly,'while the Commission appreciates your concerns, we hope that you will und'erstand.that ; we must base our decision on the adjudicatory record of the ., Shoreham proceeding. To avoid the perception that we are ! 1 engaging in prohibited communications, we are serving your i letter and our response on the parties to the. adjudication. Sincerely, - { v+ . . { _T l 04 L 4 j Frederick M. Bernthal Acting Chairman I J,
, .k'i c4
. .J , k
- t.y a
.17 (o n 9 & W , ,
I ~
"ALFoNS? M. D'AMATo
. Nm you
[ a . w mited Etates Erste ! WASHINGTON, oC 20510 4
- l
'l 1l July 25, 1986 l I.
The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr. ) Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, NW . Washington, D.C. 20555 l
-l
Dear Chairman Zech:
. -1 I am writing regarding the NRC's Decision CLI-86-13 issued on July 24, 1986. Although I realize it is up to the NRC to .
interpret its regulations, I am writing to let you know of my . l serious concerns with this decision. The Governor of New York and the County Executive-of Suffolk . County both have stated emphatically that under no circumstances l would they cooperate with LILCO in planning or conducting an evacuation drill for the Shoreham nuclear power plant, nor would they participate in any independently developed and tested LILCO emergency plan. Nevertheless, without a hearing, you have rejected these statements and have made conclusive findings to the contrary. The experiences of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island have taught us that ad hoc responses to emergencies are not - acceptable. The NRC's own rules adopted after Three Mile Island made that clear. As Commissioner Asselstine indicated in his dissenting views, the Commission's decision "... endorses the idea that a nuclear plant may be allowed to operate without state and local government participation in or cooperation with emergency . planning. This decision, in effect, takes the ' planning' out of emergency planning and, thereby, undermines the foundation upon which our emergency planning regulations are based. The Commissions' decision is riddled with assumptions which seem to I be supported by nothing more than. wishful thinking." The decisions of New York and Suffolk County not to adopt or implement emergency plans constitute the exercise of their police . powers. The courts have upheld these decisions. I urge you to - respect and accept these decisions. ,
, ?
by A 8- - 4 yf
,.g . . --
eg , .%,
. . 1 i * '
The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr. July 25, 1986 Page Two ' The Commission has traditionally recognized the importance of State and local participation in the emergency planning <
^,
process. To say that the State and local governments will somehow magically be able to participate in the event of an actual emergency is similar to saying that a person who has'never l learned to swim can rescue a drowning man simp).y because it is an emergency. Thdy may want to help, but th'ey would not know how. If an emergency necessitating an evacuation were to occur, we would need trained professionals dealing with it, not amateurs. For . the NRC to ignore this fact and simply pretend that everything will work out is grossly irresponsible. l This serious decision regarding the health and well-being of -1 l the citizens of Long Island must not be taken lightly. I believe that, under these circumstances, in a severe emergency the peop,le
,,' could not be protected. I urge the NRC not to disregard this .
fact. ' t l Sincerely, l Alfo - M. D'Amato United States Senator AMD:enm l I t
?]
w f
}
<. "L .m. ., m. #M DV
". 4 i4
.. . M S' d^
UNITED STATES .. g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- [ wAsHmGTON, D. C. 20066 j
...../
cHAmMAN August 22, l'986 - 4
]
i
. :. l 3
i a y The Honorable Alfonse M. D'Amato United States Senate . Washington, De C. 20510
Dear Senator D'Amato:
The Commission has received your letter of July 25, 1986 , y regarding CLI-86-13, our July 24, 1986 decision concerning the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. In that decision, we held only ' that as a matter of law the license applicant should be ^ permitted the opportunity to show that lack of State and local i cooperation at this time does not absolutely preclude a finding. . i based on the facts adduced in the evidentiary record, of ! reasonable assurance that adequate-measures can and will be 1 taken to protect the public in an emergency. We did not m'ake such a factual finding in our decision, and we did not say that we would. Commissioner Asselstine expressed a dissenting. view . ; which was attached to the Commission's July 24, 1986_ order; _ i 1 As you know, the decision was part of a formal adjudication being conducted under the Administrat.ive Procedure Act, which mandates our consideration of only those. materials,that are part of the adjudicatory record. Accordingly,.while the: Commission appreciates your concerns, we hope that you will' understand that we must base our decision on the adjudicatory record of.the
. Shoreham proceeding. To avoid'the perception that we are -
. engaging in prohibited communications, we are serving your.
letter and our response on the parties to the adjudication. ! 1 Sincerely, A
/S/
Frederick M. Bernthal Acting Chairman Ref: CR-86-93
% b A cr$0c.K N Originating Offic OGC i
em=> C/R, ,,,, , , , , , O CA , , , , , , , , , , , , , , O CM , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , 0,CM, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,,,,,,,, , , , , * ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,y,,,,;, '
... Ms =='> s n ,,,,,,=,,:,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,j 172Vihl , ...,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
7 om>
.......T..... ....... . . . . . .
Le (........ ..................... ............,...,.... .................... . . . . . .............
..ie:: x o y p 3 . : .: n.: e. + ;;4 a g?, : 7 m y g -. 7, pv t >;,s po 19sa-.go.;p
^#
, n /R b.5c/ Lt A ',
; e - < g*
e, OFFICI OF THE SECRETARY a CORRESPCNDENCE CONTROL TICKET - d !
.s !
PAPER NUMBER: CRC-86-0782 LOGGING DATE: Jul 29 86
, 'Mf~t i l
ACTION OFFICE: OGC z ;5
'A. D'Amato AUTHOR: .C . $: ,
AFFILIATION: U.S. SENATE . pj g j
- . s. . .n. l LETTER DATE: Jul 25 86 FILE CODE: ID&R-5 Shoreham ' M'?..,M . . .
. t_.y :
i
SUBJECT:
Expresses concern re NRC's decision CLI-86-13 issued on July 24 re evacuation plan for Shoreham. h _,$. t.e !
. q;A ACTION: Signature of' General Counsel
.9. . g ,wM
- m. g 3 DISTRIBUTION: RF, OCA to Ack, Cunningham 73 (
'b,f.l~.MM M \ '
SPECIAL HANDLING: - . y ;.'P".W.,gyWl
~
NOTES: -- ^$' , e NDdh .. ::s re
. u,(.p.fm.:t DATE DUE: Aug 13 86 - '
l
- v.{.;% $f.Y Y ".x j
. r- ,
SIGNATURE: . .. DATE SIGNED: * ,
' ,'. ...N,. .t.d. 'K ,5,J80 AFFILIATION: .e n
7., ',k
.. .. '@.*4.. . T.. m$
[
.3 ; : -
v y" ,
.m;gelGjy&p ...M s i *heh I-
* ~ ~. 1
- f. . ;;
W, *
'b ' 4N, hi pb '. l ,.Ylph' N.; h
; g} m 'y,y-f 3,7.,,), h , J ;m. h .'y .h... k .'f.':
~ ,
+ e ,. .
n
..- , , *. . /.' : '.,a'r,
; . -. l.'f wd atwteE
. .' y w ! ,, ..,5y-G,
.4, g .y-....s".q9-d h,t c !
- 4 e y : , ' 4;, d..'.'.*..,< o b. ' ,
..n. .-
.r y. yn ,
Jl^.lv.y v,..:r[.y :h_ yy ' ?Qap.
.=.e'.,.. q
+ '
,,z -> 7 y. ;. .
. i_,, . Qy.. % : ,,. *4
, d ., - )
~ ' * ', ' g ...g, g .
e ;< N,- , . , , . ,J j i.
* .v.
. , '.t yI!.
3.e. [
~,. i % ,.1.4 5 ,
-
- e ~A .-s ;34*h"pg g
- Q'f; *
~
}.
2., ,. [j y , cl y4 -.. .yg..
. ~ .
- c. ,.,.[q ; - ,;
. , o.{yyp,..g.'
. y. m u .;.. ,q,.,,
.m..,,)
.a
?- . . . . .
.; = .. [ .~ 3. .;o.v r3,%. - gag.s -
- j %7
" ::b1~
a .. --. c s.,Q4q
.r . c3.+,.$ 4.s e -) ,, j k,$
a 3. )
. vD s ,2 a tlJ
' 'i.K , ,
. )
- b
- m .* <
' . 2lf. 3 3
*. ., . g g 9- .'O + , <g.
g .
- g. -
p.,.
,r*
' ' -
- t y . t,,y,,.
. , .t y p;. .
y u l ,
,* A' *.: .\k.; y :l'Qtf f, ,. . .,
1 t . 6 * - ['[, , ,
=
a g 7,, -
.. ;y W.&
.w.
A
.._ _ . __ - . _ . ....~_ _ _ . _ _ . . . . . . . -
'A'LFoi k *M/ D'AMATO b
. mwpm ,
.; . f. .
, 7 i
tanittistates #5tatt WASHINGTON, DC 20510 ' 1 l 61 l July 25, 1986 ")
. :I ,
1 i The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr. *
- e
' 'l Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission q 1717 H Street, NW / i Washington, D.C. 20555 )
Dear Chairman Zech:
I am writing regarding the NRC's Decision CLI-86-13 issued I on July 24, 1986. Although I realize it is up to the NRC to . ; interpret its regulations, I am writing to let you know of my . j serious concerns with this decision. l The Governor of New York and the County Executive of Suffolk County both have stated emphatically that under no circumstances ) would they cooperate with LILCO in planning or conducting an , evacuation drill for the Shoreham nuclear power plant, nor would they participate in any independently developed and test'ed-LILCO emergency plan. Nevertheless, without a hearing, you have rejected these statements and have made conclusive findings to the contrary. The experiences of Chernobyl and Three. Mile Island have taught us that ad hoc responses to emergencies are not
- acceptable. The NRC's own rules adopted after Three Mile Island made that clear. !
1 As Commissioner Asselstine indicated in his dissenting views, the Commission's decision "... endorses the idea that a nuclear plant may be allowed to operate without state and local government participation in or cooperation with emergency planning. This decision, in effect, takes the ' planning' out of emergency planning and, thereby, undermines the foundation upon which our e.nergency planning regulations are based. The jj Commissions' decision is' riddled with assumptions which seem to be supported by nothing more than wishful thinking." i The decisions of New. York and Suffolk County not to adopt or implement emergency plans constitute the exercise of their police ; powers. The courts have upheld these decisions. I urge you to a respect and accept these decisions. aTth g h m,.-Gr-9
, . .g 9 , A)
/ ,
.. .s ,
. L .
, t The Honorable T ando *
'W. Zech, Jr. I July 25, 1986 Page Two 1
' ( -
)
The Commissicin has traditionally recognized the importance ] of State'and local participation in the emergency planning s.1 process. To say that ~ the State and local governments will 4 somehow magically ^oe able to participate in the event of an actual emergency is similar to saying that.a person who has never - l learned to swim can rescue a drowning man simply becaust it is an emergency. g -x
. i They may want to help, but they would net know how. If an emergency necessit'ating'an evacuation were to cccur, we would ,
need trained prcfessionals dealing with it, not amateurs. For , the NRC to ignore this fact and simply pretend that everything will work out is grossly irresponsible. This serious decision regarding the health and well-being of , the citizens of Long 'Is? and must not be taken lightly. I believe that, under these circumstances, in'a severe emergency the people ', could not be protected. 7 urge the NRC not to disregard this 3 f,ac t . l I l Sincerely, /7 - l
/
G/2 )/ t \
- %.N .
(f u , 4 l Alfo M. D'Amato .
.: l U,nited States' Senator AMD:enm -
.) l s.
s ti 9 3
*% 1 .
.. g g
k s ( A
'N
' s ,' ,g h w i
'%' '- % n g
- s i :;
'i ,} * '~
% y ,
s s %, e,g N . ' ,[
^
s 3 .l. ' t
,.s<
Q-j ' g 4. N \_ w s
\
w ,, , -
}s s 3 .(
..,, y-; -
-- - - ~ - - - - - - -
w{. W - p
& UNITED STATES F + S NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION "a '
ATOfAlC SAFETY AND LICENS NG BOARD PANEL J0CMETED
- j. %, *
...../'-
WASHIN G TON, D.C.10555
~86 ALE 22 A10:20 I
August 21, 1986 0FFICE OF Le .b r C0CKETING A SEPvlCf. . BRANCH
- s Thomas L. Carroll. Esquire i s*
Counsel, Nassau County Board of Supervisors '
- 1. West Street SERVED M' W-C6 Mineola, NY 11501 RE: Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
-e
, u Unit 1) Docket Nos. 50-322-OL-3 and 50-322-OL-5 . ;
r
Dear Mr. Carroll:
+' '
This is in response to your letter of August 14 1986 transmitting . t two resolutions of the Nassau County Board of Supervisors concerning the use of county facilities, including the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, in ;.ILCO's evacuation pit:n, As exparte comunications, in accordance with Commission practice they will be forwarded to the Office of the Secretary for inclusion in the dockets of the proceedings that you relate them to and be served on the parties of record. . 1 Very truly yours, h -
. s Morton 8. Margulies, Chairman- I Administrative Law Judge
~
s m , cc: Service Lists Docket Nos. 50-322-0L-3 aid 50-322-OL-5 a 4 w 4 1 , [h-
',, UN '
j.f 9 p
, p.gg Sop?- '
~l
< M - :
- ....\
^., l UN8TED STATES OF AMERICA l NUCLEAR REOULATORY CORMISSION In the Matter of I i
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY l Docket No.(s) 50-322-OL-3 L I { (Shorehan Nuclear Power Station) I '; ] I .!j i I
?l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1l a
't \
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Ltr MB Margulies to TL Carroll . have been served upon the following persons in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR section' 2.712. , Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Gary J. Edles . Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal ' Board Board
, U.S. Nuclear Regtlatory Consission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission Washington, DC W555 Washington, DC 20555 ' -
Administrative Judge Howard A. Wilber Administrative. Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Morton B. Margulies, Chairman i Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory,Consission j Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 l Administrative Judge Administrative Judge { Jerry R. Kilne Frederick J. Shon ; Atcaic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 1 Edwin J. Reis, Esq. W. T. Reveley, !!!, Esq. OHice of the General Counsel Hunton & Williams U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission P.O. Box 1535 , Washington, DC 20555 Richmond, VA 23212 l C. K. Mallory, !!!, Esq. Herbert H. Brown, Esq. .; Hunton & Williams Kirkpatrick & Lockhart ' 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, DC 20036 Washington, DC~ 20036 4 i O liI G1 ! 4
- i
-. -. = -. - ..
i o .
. Docket No.(s) 90-322-OL-S L%r MB Margulies to TL Carroll j t
1 Lawrence C. Lanpher, Esq. Stephen B. Latham, Esq. Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Twomey, Latham & Shea 1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 33 West Second Street - Washington, DC 20036 Riverhead, NY 11901 l} i i Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq. Nora L. Bredes '
- x. General Counsel Executive Coordinator Long Island Lighting Company Shoreham Opponents Coalition q 175 East Old Country Road 195 East Main Street l Hicksville, NY 11001 Smithtown, NY 11767 i Dr. Robert Hoffman Monroe Schneider Long Island Coalition for Safe Living North Shore Committee P.O. Box 1355 P.O. Box 231 Massapequa, NY 11758 Wading River, NY 11792 Spence W. Perry, Esq. Jay Dunkleberger Associate General Counsel New York State Energy Office Federal Emergency Management Agency Agency B1dg. 2, Empire State Plaza 500 C Street, S.W. Albany, NY 12223 Washington, DC 20472
, Stewart M. Glass, Esq. Fabian G. Palomino Esq. j ! Regional Counsel Special Counsel to the Governor j Federal Emergency Management Agency Office of the Governor l 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 State Capitol, Room 229 l New York, NY 10278 Albany, NY 12224 l 1
Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq. Staff Counsel Mary M. Gundrus, Esq. - l New York State Public Service New York State Department of Law i Commission Two World Trade Center, Room 4614 3 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10047 Albany, NY 12223 ; Martin B. Ashare, Esc. Peter Bienstock, Esq.
- Suffolk County Atterniy New York State Department of Law Suffolk County Offices -
Two World Trade Center, Room 4614 H. Lee Dennison Building New York, NY 10047 Veterans Memorial Highway dauppauge, NY 11799 q l 4
]
' s,A 1; 1
4
- 1 s
~
Docket No.(s) 00-322-OL-3 Ltr FB Margulies to TL Carroll Deted at Washington, D.C. this , 22 day of August 1986
$ .' t. i Bui;f4 J[l/A W L 6' 4is;i;;;eia;;siEg;",;;i;;ign e
i
< i i
. .q t.
1 .: l l . l l l
~
, y ,.
- b)[
.c? picr)Np g #
k y 00CKETED USNRC J g w$h4y , AUG 18 A1154
'*""'*^"'" OCMENNhdN"I
*IUhfEffiU"EE"r.o
, EPAE-
. lo ' " ""' August 14, 1986 Hon. Morton B. Margulies, Chairman 4 !
Hon. Jerry R. Kline, Member ! Hon. Frederick J. Shon, Member Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 3ERVED AUG.' M 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 'I RE: Shoreham Nuclear Power ; Station-Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 l 4 I
Dear Honorable Sirs,
l I am Counsel to the Nassau County Board of Supervisors. This letter is sent at the direction of the Board of Supervisors ; to explain the recent actions taken by the Board concerning the ; use of county facilities in sn evacuation plan proposed by the Long Island Lighting Company. , The Board of Supervisors understands that ,the Nassau i Veterans Memorial Coliseum has previously been considered to j be part of LILCo's emergency plan and that this facility was part of the February 13th exercise. It is also the understand-ing of the Board that the instant licensing proceeding will consider the results of that exercise. Under the circumstances it is important that there be no confusion or misunderstanding concerning the uce of any county facilities as an evacuation center for LILCO. Please be advised that there is no existing agreement between the County of Nassau and LILCO concerning the use of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum or any other' county fac-ility as an evacuation center in any emergency plan of LILCO. e
, h a
q' 94ett# 'ff
n' -- . .. __ __
" 'g ^*.
7~ . Atomic Safety & Licensing-Board 7
- Pags 2 On June 16, 1986, the Board of Supervisors enacted Resolutions 782-1986 and 782-B-1986 concerning the use of :
county facilities, including the Nassau Veterans Memorial l j Coliseum, in LILCO's evacuation plan. .! The resolutions, insofar as pertinent, provide:
" RESOLVED, that the purported designation of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum by the .,
Long Island Lighting Company as a Nuclear Disaster Evacuation Center be and the same is hereby declared a nullity, contrary to law and void...
*** f
" RESOLVED , that no Nassau-County facilities including the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, are or will be available for the use by the )
Long Island Lighting Company, or by the Facility , I Management. Corporation of.New York, Inc. as part of the Long Island Lighting Company emerg- ' ency plan, unless prior approval by resolution is first obtained from the Nassau County Board r of Supervisors." certified copies of these resolutions are enclosed. for your information. The resolutions in question set forth the position 3 of the Board of Supervisors, which is that no county facility ) j is or will be available for use in LILCO's emergency plan l unless the Board of Supervisors authorizes such use. i Very truly yours, j
/
Thomas L. Carroll TLC:mf Counsel encl. 1
]
.}
a e di
. e. q
. o v. . ;
. % UNITED STATES f 't '" ( ) S NUCLEAR REGULATOPY COMMISSION .
3i / ' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 00 H E C T.- p
%g s,
/ W ASHINGTON. O.C. 20555
'86 Jtt 30 P2 :29 July 29, 1986 '
0FFICE 05 il .. . ; wit
. .; l 00CHETING a SEwict. l BRANCW I i
Thomas L. Carroll, Esquire j l Counsel, Board of Supervisors l Nasshi County Executive Building SERVED M 30 g l 1 West Street Mineola, New York 11501 - RE: Shoreham Nuclear Power Station , (EP Exercise) Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 1
Dear Mr. Carroll:
. l
*l This is in response to your letter of July 22, 1986 requesting '
i permission to make a limited appearance in the captioned proceeding for a j the purpose of orally explaining certain resolutions of the Nassau . , 1 County Board of Supervisors relating to the use of Nassau County l facilities by the Long Island Lighting Company as part of an evacuation ! plan.
]
The Licensing Board welcomes your appearance and you will be notified of when limited appearance statements are to be made and you can make your presentation. - Very truly yours, f ..fy Morton B. Margulies, hainnan Administrative Law Judge i
. I cc: Service List i I
e
% i
+
I P
3Mg% n l CE.3 99 Congregg of tijc Giniteb dbtates
- i Easf)fugton,3BE. 20515 July 29, 1986 *
. l Admiral Lando W. Zech i Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission '
1717 8 Street NW ' Washington, DC 20555 . I
Dear Mr. Chairman:
)
The Nuclear ' Regulatory Commission's decision that a license for I the Shoreham nuclear power plant can be granted without the , participation of New York State and local officials in emergency l planning is totally unacceptable. , l The people of Long Island have forcefully and repeatedly. stated' their concerns about the safety of the plant and the difficulty of ; an evacuation in the event of an accident at Shoreham. Once aga in ,f I the NRC has chosen to disregard those concerns and listen instead to i the Long Island Lighting Company's questionable " realism" arguments . ! On May 15, 19 86, Governor Mario Cuomo of New York wrote to Chairman Palladino and requested that the NRC terminate the pending licensing proceedings for the Shoreham facility. We can s'ee no ' reason for ignoring the Governor 's request. The Commission's decision to proceed in the face of the clear opposition of local l officials' makes a mockery of' the entire -licensing process. This most recent decision leaves the ihescapable impression that the i commission is prepared to license Shoreham no matter what. 'This i hardly seems to us to be the best way to carry out your duties. ' kie strongly urge you to heed the arguments of the Corrmission's own licensing and appeals boards in this matter. The emergency planning procedure is the public's best guarantee that their health and safety will be protected. We have always maintained that health and safety considerations override all others in the case of Shoreham. The Commission should halt the licensing process. ROBERT J.' MR AZ EK THOMAS J. DOW EY Member & Congre a Member of Con ress ' l 4
?
&&DSoboGW(P v i
m
,F j -
, ._. i
' *dht.NN8k M. D'AMATO -
M ' b g
' '/
Biev YOM s.
, f ,.
snitti states seste ! .I WASHINGTON /DC 20510 I l i l July 25, 1986 - 1
>j The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.
Chairman . Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, NN ' Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Chairman Zech:
j I am writing regarding the NRC's Decision CLI-86-13 issued on July 24, 1986. Although I realize it is up to the NRC to ] interpret its regulations, I.am writing to let you know of my . l serious concerns with this decision. -
] l The Governor of New York and the County Executive of Suffolk _j
. County both have stated emphatically that under no circumstances i would they cooperate with LILCO in planning or conducting an 1 evacuation drill for the Shoreham nuclear power plant, nor would they participate in any independently developed and tested-LILCO , emergency plan. Nevertheless, without a hearing, you have l rejected these statements and have made conclusive findings'to ; the contrary. I i
. The experiences of Chernobyl and Three Mile Island have i
taught us that ad hoc responses to emercencies are not acceptable. The NRC's own rules adopted after Three Mile. Island made that clear. ! As Commissioner Asselstine indicated in his dissenting views, the Commission's decision "... endorses the idea that a nuclear plant may be allowed to operate without state and local government participation.in or cooperation with emergency planning. This decision, in effect, takes the ' planning' out of emergency planning and, thereby, undermines the foundation upon which our emergency planning regulations are based. The-Commissions' decision is riddled with assumptior.s which seem to be supported by nothing more than wishful thinking." The decisions of New York and Suffolk County not to adopt or > implement emergency plans constitute the exercise-of their police - 'i powers. The courts have upheld these decisions. I urge you to A ;- , respect and accept these decisions'. k +
. ,. f w"m zg
.g s,. <- '
O
~
The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr. July 25, 1986 Page Two - The Commission has traditionally recognized the importance , of State and local participation in the emergency planning .< process., To say that the State and local governments will 'l somehow magically be able to participate in the event of an i actual emergency is similar to saying that a person who.has never learned to swim can rescue a drowning man simply because it is an a emergency. They may want to help, but they would not P.now how. If an i emergency necessitating an evacuation were to occur, we would ' need trained professionals dealing with it, not amateurs. For . j the NRC to ignore this fact and simply pretend that everything ! will work out is grossly irresponsible. ! I This serious decision regarding the health and well-being of f the citizens of Long Island must not be taken lightly. I believe ,
' l i that,'under these circumstances, in a severe emergency the people , ;
could not be' protected. I urge the NRC not to disregard this )I fact. . t ' j Sincerely, l Alfo M. D'Amato United States Senator , I
- m enm ,
j n y 3
.. ; . . .: .. .-. : . .: ... . -.--:....--:- , - - - ~ - - - - - - - - . - - -- - - - -
m
,~
3 . Sl.
.. 'r
- 0 pC~f7of,p e- s l h, :;~
*Y
~QFji%
00lMLIEC 'i i "SNRu 3-
.A. m cA..om '
couNsL acAdo on supsevisens NASSAu.CowNfY
. . . . . -, EARCUTIvt guaL0eNo i
M44tG%A. NEW Wo44 Il$of sies m a.o 1h5 JN 27 P2:01
-1' 85$'Erfdai4@@7'3,1986 -
BRANCH Mr. Nunzio Palladino Chairman e n tgTNU;,;;2R Fror).A!.!'It FAC..hrr,,, (p e]h CC3 i Nuclear Regulatory Commission '
' 1717 H Street. Northwest l Washington, D.C. 20555 ,.
Dear Mr. Palladino,
$NU ,
Enclosed is a copy of the' Affidavits of Service on the Long Island Lighting Company and Facility Management , of New York, Inc. together with certified copies of the resol'utions adopted. I
'Very truly yours,.
- /-
i /4<x, ; nA 1 Thomas L. Carroll TLC:mf Counsel
- l I-1-
2 1-4 r ,
,.a
~ 'Q gQWD
nee .
9 n
' f 4
I J I i !s$c" E l 3 27 P2:01 < j RESOLUTION NO. 782B'1986 - Orr 00C r t, ra,, y gg HICE l A RESOLUTION AMENDING A RESOLUTION ENTITLED: "A f RESOLUTION RELATIVE TO THE USE OF THE NASSAU VETERANS MEMORIAL . COLISEUM IN A LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY'S EVACUATION PLAN." i
- (Fassed W Board of Supervisers es JUME 14 g !
. Votes for 108 g votes assinst, NONE . Beeses a 4 ,
resolution on
' JUNE 1 8 W with the approval - ]2 4
(
,i of the Astias County Eneestive.) ...-.x d e WHEREAS, the Long Island Lighting Company has entered .
s ; into an agreement with the Hyatt Management Corporation of New '
' i York, Inc., which purports to designate the Nassau Veterans .
I j Memorial Coliseum as a Nuclear Disaster Evacuation Center, and l i WHEREAS, the' County Attorney of Nassau County has advised
' i-l the Board of Supervisors that-the terms of the. lease between Nassad County and the Facility Management Corporation of New York, Inc.,
. .)
do not allow for such use of the Nassau Veterans Meaorial Coliseum; and now, therefore be it - l RESOLVED, that the purported designation of the Nassau ! I
- Veterans Memorial Coliseum by the Long Island Lighting Company as l'
I I a Nuclear Disaster Evacuation Center be and the same is hereby_
; declared a nullity, contrary to law and voids and be it further I l
- RESOLVED, that no Nassau County facilities, including !
the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, are or will be available i for the use by the Long Island Lighting Company, or by the Facility
- l Management Corporation of New York, Inc., as part of the Long
- 1 Island Lighting Company emergency plan, unless prior approval by l t
resolution is first obtained from the Nassau County Board of Supervisors; and be it further i e
** % e
.c .
0 &
" ' " * " * ' ' *~ , ~ . - . - . , w, ..p_, , _, ,
l
- d
, - ,1
.': . vD.'l .6.' ~ h
, .. ,w
.. *t d.:3M d.9 .,);h
.,-2" '
vz
,s .- /
.- .s . d
~
- u. tr3,
. O' - ,,
' f4 3
' 3 i
.m I 1- % 's 1
,, TATE OF NEW YORK + !
i .i i I COUNTY OF NASSAU No.P E 0 96 - i 1 1 l I 1 t N e S L - i ( k, i al l 8 L JOHN A. DeGRACE Clerk of the Board. Nassau County Boardof Supervbors. do - h hereby l foregoing h a true and correct copy of the origsnal m- :1 \
}
i L% n*:n Yo W% / GP/. auty ; \ t i pannedby the Board of Supervisors of Nassau County, Newn>~>>A York, on T \ /G}% } ' ' l
-T ,1. and approved by the County becutive on_ _< 2 -
H. A}U e e
. !- (( i
/ -' f es / -
and on /de in my I fi a office and recorded in the record of the proceedings of the Board uofannSupervuors y. of the hh. Count\ ;
* 'l , b the whole of said original.
g i Tk
.w y -
f- i ! h ( 9 , i .- .
+
t
. M '
- IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto at my hand
- l $,k and affixed Ihe official seal of sand Board of Supervisors. % i l
l thb NW _ day of f % > > I (if '
' 'Y \
in a year ne thousa nine d and ety l f' I j l l.
** Nan s**
a JONA. DeGRACE L. *
; s Clerk of the Board j n Nassau County Board of Supervisors c9, 4 1
~. , l; )
th
- Q L'M
. - + -
+ ~,.
'f( ', [
., i J) *i&Y ,, '
. % T,.%g $o -W;$
are
, 4.. g,-; ., U.7s .w 4 #
.A /J
?
t 4 ( A .
,.y pj --. ;c e
,- .=
. . ,,' '.; Wl.: g;/ rNp 32 efjTy+..
c.,-
.b q; ,,' r.,fn, p .%s.? . . . a
. ) ai c
a
'p',.**,?, ;
h, $10' u.w *-V.~' ?,;$3q: .; yb%Q 1$.';r*
-: f ' . * ", ; Z : .*>.?
a
, - .; t. a ., c _
J< :,~ s.. .
, ' r.g/.,w,w;#; g, 4 ,
y-
= v i* 13*f .
45$ ,r-1
l r j
....The proposed amendment to the lease agreement prohibiting the use of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum as an evacuation center in the event of a j nuclear (radiological) catastrophe would be a 1
nullity.", cow, therefore be it 4 l RESOLVED, that the purported designation of the Nassau. Veterans Memorial Coliseum by the Long Island Lighting Company as . j 1 a Nuclear Disaster Evacuation Center be and the same is hereby. .g j declared a nullity, contrary to law and voids and be it further . 4
.f 3 (
RESOLVED, thatacopyofthisresolutionshallbeforth-[M d ) with served upon the Long Island Lighting Company and Facility .
)
- l.:t l
.)
' l Management of New York, Inc., formetly known as Hyatt Management' . j l l Corporation of New York, Inc., <and filed with notice of such ,!.
l .;
.a ! 1
' q:.servicewiththeofficeoftheNuclearRegulatoryCommissionat. ,
l
;y j jiWashington, D.C.tand be it further
- l e
RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution shall be forth- ; a ] .
. 1 I
-j'withpublishedintheofficialnewspaperoftheCountyofNassau..IPt - f
~l4 i
* ! APPROYED: '
. Jtat t 8 816 '
, I #ENRYW.DWYER ~ i l
, j W omo mueven [. j
, l
. i e I d
l ,: $. 1 i i 2-
*ss 6
l
., ~ ,, . . . . .L -- ' _ __,
1 s * . - - - - ~' - . -
\
- {
g, i+ g} tp
;l^
i RESOLVED. that a copy of this r !! , i i with served upon the Iong Island esolution Li h shall be forth-
' Management of New York g ting Company and Facility e
[ g'y Corporation of New York, IncInc., formerly anagement known as Hyatt M + l' '+ 0
; service with the office of Huclear R., and filed with notice of such Ph 4 Washirgton D.C.I !,/q I and be it further egulatory Cormaission at RESOLVED, that a copy of this N with published in the official ne resolution shall be forth '
I j, wspaper of the County of Nassau j i t
. 1 ,
[+, < i
)
, wJ t e ses 1
' T 'n, - -
\
t.
> 1 1 'OUNTY DF NASSAU
? NBV YORK j l
{ t gg
- 474
; JOHNA. DeGRACE Clerk of the B 4 going is a true and correct copy of thoard. Nassau County BoardofSupe e original rusors. do hereby certsfy s k2pproved edbyby the Board the County E of Supembors
, ew York, on of Nassau County Nbit.4./. / hh W1. N?&/Vfb a
- xecutwe an 1 hv1 4 and r ff /GN ecorded sn the record of the proceedi whole of said original.
llQ /$f _ ngs of the Board of Supervuors . and onNeinmy N' of the County of Nassau ana ,
}
( I IN WITNESS WHEREOF. Ihave h { andaffixedthe officiulseat of said Bereunto ut my hand . this a7 W oardofSupervuors.
\l) in the y day of $
1u ear one thousand nine hundred and
' 'M -,
u JohA. DeGRACE h. . e A l Ciek of the Board ln .
} Nassau County Boards of Supervisor pt";
g . v 5 9 tdNI
) h. h.
,,..e
.-M
b ___,2. e=--"
. . - . ,, m
- l. _.
. . . - . . . . .._' . . . _ _ , _ . _ ._ .? . _ _ , _ , _ , __
J I Ufuf I 5 27 P2:01 85EfhKSgE n 'i 198gRANCh j f RESOLUTIONNO.'[f)# I
, )
~ l A RESOLUTION RELATIVE TO THE USE OF THE NASSAU VETERANS ~
+ , MENORIAL COLISEUM IN A LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY 8S EVACUATION ' l PLAN. .
.! . 'sii
( (Passed by Board of Supervisors on g 16 W I-? 4 i Votesfor/f[ votes against./MW Became a , I resetution on jygg 161986sith the appmal j f
.{ , of the Aetine County Esecutive.) .{
f
-l WHEREAS, the Long Island Lighting Company has entered i
( l into an agreement with the Hyatt Management Corporation of New j York, Inc., which purports to designate the Nassau Veterans )
" I Memorial Coliseum as a Nuclear Disaster Evacuation Center, and WHEREAS, the County Attorney of the County of Nassau.
I has advised the Board of Supervisors as follows: ,
"....The terms of the lease do not allow such' a' ,
l ' use by the tenant *. The provisions of the New ,'; i York State Executive Law preempts'to the Governor l ;
. .f l
5 and the County Executive the implementation'of' > j all facilities within the territorial limits' l of the disaster area in the event of a nuclear (radiological) disaster.
,t..
g . I t
.*-- j 9
h e
~ '~ *
+ . _ , , _ ,
.... a, ,
j l AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE i
*f STAfE OF NEW YORK )
, )ss: :-j !
C60NTY OF NASSAU ) VICTOR A. TARAVELLA, being duly sworn, deposes - l and says that deponent is not a party to the action, is over 18 {
.a years of age and resides at Uniondale, New York. !
That on the 16th day of June, 1986 at Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum, Uniondale, New York 11553,. deponent - served the annexed Resolutions in this action, on the Facility Management of New York, Inc., a domestic corporation, a party - therein named, by delivering a true copy thereof to ROSALIE l BARILLARI, personally, the Executive Secretary / Office' Manager j
, .1 of said corporation. Deponent knew the said corporation so served to be the corporation mentioned and described in said I
Resolutions as a party therein and knew ROSALIE BARILLARI to be the Executive Secretary / Office Manager thereof. j
)
' i i 1 sdc. )7 VICTOR A. TARAVELLA i Sworn to before me this M day of June, 1986. jj 06 0 } JACKIE LEVINE ! NOTARY PUSUC, State of New York No. 46d0780 -i Quallffed in Nassou County Term Empires March 30,1 . f 3i
.e *li i i:f
l
. . , I l
AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE ] 5 STATE OF NEM YORK ) l
)ss: -
1 CdUNTY OF NASSAU ) , g a VICTOR A. TARAVELLA, being duly sworn, deposes. i and says that deponent is not a party to the action, is over 18 l 1 yea::s of age and resides at Uniondale, New York. That on the 1$:h day of June,1986 at 175 East l Old Country Road, Hicksville, New York 11801, deponent served' the annexed Resolutions in this action, on the Long Island j Lighting Company, a gas and electric corporation organized an'd
, 'i d existing under the Transportation Corporation Law of the State ,
I of New York, a party therein named, by delivering a true copy i thereof to JOHN J. KEARNEY, JR., personally, the. Secretary of .4 said corporation. Deponent knew the said corporation so served to be the corporation mentioned and described-in said
'~l 4 Resolutions as a party therein and knew JOHN J. KEARNEY, JR. to be the Secretary thereof. ., , 1 k.] % .,
VICTOR A. TARAVELLA i Sworn to before me this [O day of June, 1986. b 1 i J ACKIE LEVINE 'i NoyARY 9UBUC, State et New Y0s :; No. 4M0789 a QuAlllled in Nassau Count7 ,_ g TFm Ezptres March 30,19 1;t
~!
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NilCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l1 In ths Matter of 1 i I I LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY l Docket No.(s) 50-322-OL-3 i ! 4 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station) i N l j l > j I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i f I hereby certify that cooles of the foregoing Resolution Nassau County have been served upon the following persons in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR section 2.712. ' Administrative Judge Administrative Judge , Alan S. Rosenthat, Chairman Gary J. Edles At omic Saf ety and Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington. DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge - Howard A. Wilber Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board , ; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555
]
l Administrative Judge Administrative Judge ' t ) Jerry R. Kline Frederick J. Shon l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board j U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 Washington, DC 20555 Washington, OC 20555 3Li l Edwin J. Reis, Esq. W. T. Reveley, !!!, Esq. l Office of the Executive Legal Director Hunton & Williams t ' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 1535 Washington, DC 20555 Richmond, VA 23212 q C. K. Ma11ery, !!!, Esq. Herbert H. Brown, Esq. Hunton & Williams Kirkpatrick & Lockhart . 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 / Washington, DC 20036 Washington, DC 20036 ,
-j d
I -1 l l l
~
., _ . - . . - _ . . . . _ . - . _ . . _ . _ . . . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ . . . ._._ .a . . u
~k Docket No.(s) 50-322-OL-3
.' .} '
l 1 Lawrence C. Lanpher, Esq. Stephen B. Latham, Esq. i Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Twomey, Latham & Shea ; 1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 33 West Second Street Washington, DC 20036 Riverhead, NY 11901 ) j] l i, 3
~l Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Eco. Nora L. Bredes -
General Counsel Executive Coordinator ' l Long Island Lighting Company Shoreham Opponents Coalition / j 175 East Old Country Road 195 East Main Street f'
' Hicksville, NY 11801 Smithtown, NY 11787 Jj d
Dr. Robert Hoffman Monroe Schneider ,
] !
Long Island Coalition for Safe Living North Shore Comalttee , P.O. Box 1355 P.O. Box 231 , Massapequa, NY 11756 Wading River, NY 11792 i Spence W. Perry, Esq. Jay Dunkleberger - Associate General Counsel New York State Energy Office Federal Emergency Management Agency Agency Bldg. 2 Empire State Plaza j 500 C Street, S.W. Albany, NY 12223 J1 Washington, DC 20472 'I f Stewart M. Glass, Esq. Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. j Regional Counsel Special Counsel to che Governor j Federal Emergency Management Agency Office of the Governor - 26 Federal Plata, Room 1349 State Capitol, Room 229 New York, NY 10278 Albany, NY 12224 ) l Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq. ; Staff Counsel Mary M. Gundrum, Esq. l New York State Public Service New York State Department of Law 1 Commission Two World Trade Center, Room 4614-3 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10047 Albany, NY 12223 Martin 3. Asnare, Iso. Peter Blenstock, Esq. Suffolk County Attorney New York State Department of Law Suffolk County Offices - f. two World Trade Center, Room 4614 j , H. Lee Dennison Building ' New York, NY 10047 Veterans Memorial Highway. f# Hauppauge, NY 11788 g .gN L Thh e O
.-. . . . - . . . - . . . . ~ . . - . . . .....-u.... .. . - . . . . . . . - . . . . . . - . . . - . ---, ..
l. I, Docket No.(s) 50-322-OL-3 l
,.~
/
1
,A ,/ .<
l
- Dated at Washington, D.C. this 27 day of June 1986
, 7
/M/ ,
} [
'l ;
.' '.'.,.s J.M. .! w I
w .g. ~/ G.pC. . .!I; c. iss . . . .w :. \.n, i . .. . .. Officegf;theSecretaryoftheCommission v .
'J ,
a J t i I " J e 0 > ; 1 i
.5
- 1 ,
}
i l
]
*?
'h
. 5 4
^}
.?
j w si .
. -i. ;\
~ '
on ~.y y 5 ?- I'., yg,fQ-.3 2 2 h00. L u O L-3 v.y
,$ b r[;+,.
; .k '
%N l 00CHETED -
STATE oF N EW YO A K USNRC . Executive CHAMBER
^ " " '
smo s cuo o 16 J1. -1 A9:26 cm. . -
!) 1
~
F 00CKET NUMBT [oC T
~
BRANCH PETIT:;N RULE PRM _ pune 26, 1986 l
= . . . . . . ,
)
JUL1 % l
Dear Dr. Palladino:
t I respectfully reqtiest that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) consider changing its regulations or the- . interpretation thereof so as to require an approved.offsite '
,j '
emergency evacuation plan as a condition to low-power testing at any nuclear facility. l I also request that, pending completion of this re- ) evaluation of its regulations, the NRC stay low-power testing at j the Shoreham nuclear facility and other nuclear facilities where a low-power license has been authorized and there is no approved. J offsite emergency evacuation plan.
< As you know, Chernobyl was operating at only six to ! seven percent of power when the April 29th accident occurred. j This raises numerous questions for the nuclear power industry and for the NRC. Among the issues which I believe the NRC should consider in light of Chernobyl are:
- a. Does Chernobyl indicate that low-power testing can !
pose far greater risks-to surrounding populations than previously asserted?'
- b. Can a serious accident with widespread geographic effects occur even when a nuclear power plant is operating at low-power levels?
- c. Should an offsite emergency evacuation plan be 1
)
required for low-power testing? i
- i
- d. What level of risk, if any, is considered i
acceptable by the NRC, even without an emergency evacuation plan? ! 9
, gf :
l 0
-.. -..- .. - . . - . .. . ... -... ... . . . . . .. . . . - - . .-..-a> ./t, l
l t i Dr. Palladino l Page 2 ' June 26,1986
,I I have previously suggested answers to several of these 'j ;)
questions. In particular, I proposed that low-power testing not -) i i be permitted without approval of an offsite emergency evacuation plan. The Chernobyl incident only serves to strengthen the case ;j for such a policy. I ask that you reconsider it and require an approved offsite emergency evacuation plan as a condition to low- - j power testing. I also request that you stay such testing at the Shoreham nuclear facility until such an evacuation plan has been approved. j Sincerely, ,'i 4 s 42AAC
- Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman -
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Matomic Building . 1717 H Street, N. W. 1 Washington, D. C. 20555 , 3 l1
- 4,
.{
1 1 1
'i I l1 i
)j i '
j ? , i , t.q
'N 1
,. , .. . _ _ _ _ . . _ . . _ . . , _ _ . _ _ . _ . . _ _ a. . , _ . . _ _ _ . . ~ . . .
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMM8SSION t In.the Matter of l' ] I ! LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY l Docket No.(s) 50-322-OL-3 I i (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station) 1 .' J i ! , ; I q CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ;; i l l'hereby certify that copies of the forsqcing Ltr Gov. Cuomo to Pallhino - have been served upon the following persons in accordance with the i requirements of 10 CFR section 2.712.
- Administrative Judge Administrative Judge ,i Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Gary J. Edles j
; Atomic Safety'and Licensing Appeal Atoalc Safety and Licensing Appeal I
-Board Board .
f U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Consission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. .
; Washington,-DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555
~j Administrative Judge .
Howard A. Wilber Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Board Atomic Safety and-Licensing Board ' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ! Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 .
, Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Jerry R. Kline Frederick J'. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission r Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 '
Edwin J. Reis, Esq. W. T. Reveley, !!!, Esq. Office of the Executive Legal Director Hunton & Williams . U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 1535 , Washington, DC 20555 Richmond, VA 23212 , C. K. Mallery, III, Esq. Herbert H. Brown, Esq. i Hunton & Williams Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 800L ; Washington, DC 20036 Washington, DC 20036
.2 i
0 ef
, : =t f '
V ,
s , .
]:
Dochet No.(s) 90-332-OL-3
~
o . Lawrence C. Langher, Esq. Stephen B. Latham, Esa. Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Twomey, Latham & Shea 1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 33 West Second Street g f Washington, DC 20036 Riverhead, NY 11901
,5 Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq. Nora L. Bredes N General Counsel Executive Coordinator Long Island Lighting Company Shoreham Opponents Coalition 175 East Old Country Road 195 East Main Street-Hicksville, NY 11801 Smithtown, NY 11787 Dr. Rober.t Hoffman Monroe Schneider '
Long Island Coalition for Safe Living North Shore Committee i P.O. Box 1355 P.O. Box 231 Massapequa, NY 11758 Wading River, NY 11792 ,
)
Spence W. Perry, Esq. Jay Dunkleberger Associate General Counsel New York State Energy Office ,
, Federal Emergency Management Agency Agency Bldg.-2. Empire State Plaza 500 C Street, S.W. Albany, NY 12223 Washington, DC 20472 '
. i Stewart M. Glass, Esq. -
Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. Regional Counsel Special Counsel to the Governor Federal Emergency Management Agency Office of the Governor j 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 State Capitol, Room 229 l New York, NY 10278 Albany, NY 12224 l Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq. ' 4 Staff Counsel Mary M. Gundrus, Esq. ., New York State Public Service New York State Department of Law Commission Two World Trade Center, Room 4614 3 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY 10047 . Albany, NY 12223 Martin B. Ashare, Esc. Peter Bienstock, Esq. Suffolk County Attorney New York State Departeent of Law Suffolk County Offices - ' Two World Trade Center, Room 4614 H. Lee Dennison Building New York, NY 10047 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauccauge, NY 11788 i [ e 4,
~.
~ .
I e Dochet No.(s) 90-323-OL-3 4 Dated at Wathington, D.C. this f' i day of July 1996 / , / '. [j < ./ > - _t ( (' f.. j. AlLA lLi /l 6
- 6iir;;~o ; si;;;Ea;r si U n o.; r i;n 4 .
*.'. 4 4
. I
%, ? -
j l
, 3 e
*1 0
.i ;
4 1
}l t
> 1 1 t
.?
t 4 a [q l J *%Q
.3 m
., . . .. # - 53 i
' COUNTY OF SUFFOLK v
i I , l OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE , l
.I PETER F. CoHALAN FRANK R. jones ,
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE CHIEF DEPUfY
.e
[N s N JL ( ~.,,' . I k': , . Op - i '
' ~ ~
June 23, 1986 d@ ' ' . ,. 9, ) . 1 6 /
- h. . /
W ' e i l Mr. Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman s, ,.- ' Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts Commissioner James K. Asselstine i e' Commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal , J Commissioner Lando W. Zech, Jr. 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H. Street, N.W. l Washington, D.C. 20555
- Re
- Long Island Lighting Company
- l (Shoreham Nucioar Power Station);
Docket No. 5 0-3 2 2 -O L- 3 l
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission:
The Suffolk County Executive, Peter F. Cohalan, has issued a i statement on Shoreham. At Mr. Cohalan's direction, I am sending a copy of his statement to you and to all parties in the Shoreham proceeding so that there will be no further misstatements of Mr. Cohalan's position (such as those contained in a June 111, 1986 letter to you from LILCO counsel) . Sincerely, R. es . County Executive I hief De FRJ/tk . Enclosure cc: All Shoreham participants
.y y
v
,8 VETER ANS MEMORIAL M!QMWAY a MAUPWAUGE. N.Y. I 1788 e '(5161360 4000 W
I'ff
~
*E - -
, c p[ 'l 4,. .
"'k <
\
j- , t, 3
$ (. f3 ( ,
n' s,
\ ,; ) : ,
STATEMENT OF SUnFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVt" Y y
. , 7' -
PETER F. COHALAN ' i JUNE 23, 1986 , 3 l > f 4 g -] I AM ISSUING THIS STATEMENT TO ENSURE '1 THAT THERE ARE NO .; .e MISUNDERSTANT PMS OF MY POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THE SHOREHAM - l NUCLEAR POWER STATION. - I AM PARTICULARLY MOTIVATED TO MAKE THIS , A I STATEMENT BECAUSE LILCO HAS MISS'IATED MY POSITION IN EFFORTS h :
, . .8 PERSUADE FEDERAL AGENCIES TO LICENSE SHOREHAM. -LET THE RECORD BE. -
l 9 l CLEAR: I AM OPPCSED TO THE LICENSING OF SHOREHAM.L '
; IN FACT, I HAVE NEVER SUPPORTED THE LICENSING OF SHOREHAM 4
.j FOR COMMERCIAL OPERATION. ON'MAY 3cJ, 1985, I GAVE QUALIFIED 1 - 3 ,. SUPPORT ONLY. TO A TEST OF LILCO'S EMERGENCY PLAN ON THE ' CONDITION THAT THERE WOULD BE PARTICIPATION OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY 'I GOVE RNMENT. HOWEVER,-ON JUNE 10, 1985, THE NEW YORK STATE *' SUPREME COURT, AND LATER THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND THE COURT OF I APPEALS, RULED THAT I COULD NOT CHANGE COUNTY POLICY BY }j i 4 COMMITTING COUNTY PERSONNEL AND RESOURCES TO A' TEST. IN s d'
. y -
RE SPONSE, I WITHDREW MY MA(3(!) 1985, JOSITION, AND ON NOVEMBER
, 3 3
7, 1985, FORMALLY REQUESTED THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NOT ' TO CONDUCT A TEST OF LILCO'S EMERGENCY ' PLAN.
, j
\ i ON FEBRUARY 13, 1986, OVER THE OBJECTIONS OF THE COUNTY n i.
1. LEGISLATURE AND MYSBLF, f.,ILCO CONDUCTED A TEST OF /ITS EMERGENCY j-l '. PLAN. I STATED THEi.7 Ti:AT THE EXERCISE AMOUNTED TO " THEATER OF 1 4
-\ >y a
,i 7.;; Zl 4 )
.e s.. *
. er s -
THE ABSURD." THE TEST WAS UNREALISTIC AND WAS CLEARLY DESIGNED ,4a
')
i TO CONVEY FALSE IMPRESSIONS OF LILCO'S COMPETENCE. WE ON LONG ISLAND WERE NOT DECEIV8D; NE HAVE FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE WITH \k {' LILCO'S LACK OF COMPETENCE -- LET'S NOT FORGET THE $1.35 BILLION
'{i
- . . IMPRUDENCE FINDING AND .LILCO' S RESPONSE TC HURRICANE GLORIA. I Ji!
e ' FEEL THAT THE ONLY SIGNIFICANT ASPECT OF THE FEBRUARY 13 TEST CAME AFTERWARD, WHEN THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL ! l l EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, FRANK PETRONE, ANNOUNCED THAT j LILCO' S EMERGENCY PLAN DOES NOT PROVIDE REASONABLE ASSURANCE TH AT ' THE PUBLIC WOULD BE PROTECTED IN THE EVENT.0F A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT A\ .l , 7) AT SHOREHAM. IN SHORT, MR. PETRONE, SAID SHOREHAM SHOULD NOT BE LICENSED TO OPERATE. I i SINCE FEBRUARY 1983, IT HAS BEEN CLEAR TO SUFFOLK COUNTY # 4 THAT THE OPERATION OF SHOREHAM WOULD CREATE A POTENTI AL DISASTER i FOR THE PUBLIC. AFTER EXTENSIVE AND COSTLY ST'UDIES, ANALYSES,- .j Ah'D SURVEYS, PUBuIC HEARINGS, AND A TRIP TO THE THREE MILE ISLAND
, VICINITY, THIS GOVERNMENT CONCLUDED THAT THE PUBLIC COULD NOT BE i SAFELY EVACUATED OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED IF THERE WERE A SERIOUS ACCIDENT AT SHOREHAM. THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT, HAVING BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PUBLIC'S WELFARE, 'l j'
THEREFORE, RAD ONLY TWO CHOICES: TELL THE PUBLIC THE TRUTH THAT THEY COULD NOT BE PROTECTED; OR DECEIVE THEM BY ADOPTING AN EMERGENCY PLAN THAT WOULD LULL THEM INTO BELIEVING THEY WERE BEING PROTECTED NHEN IN FACT THEY WERE NOT. a 2 s i 4 9
SUFFOLK COUNTY CHOSE WHAT IT WAS OBLIGATED TO DO: IN , RESOLUTION 111-1983, IT TOLD ITS CITIZENS THE TRUTH. THUS, THE COUNTY RESOLVED NOT TO ADOPT OR IMPLEMENT AN EMERGENCY PLAN FOR SHOREHAM. THIS DECISION WAS UPUELD BY FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS . i
' 2 '
IT WAS ALSO UPHELD BY GOVERNOR CUOMO AFTER EXTENSIVE ANALYSES BY THE MARBURGER COMMISSION. UNFORTUNATELY, LILCOHASREFUSEDTOACCEPTTHEFAbTTHAT ! SHOREHAM SHOULD NOT OPERATE. FOR INSTANCE, AFTER RESOLUTION 111-1983, WAS ADOPTED, THE COUNTY INFORMED THE NRC OF OUR ACTION, AND , ASKED THAT AGENCY TO APPLY ITS REGULATIONS BY DENYING LILCO A , LICENSE TO OPERATE SHOREHAM. AT LILCO' S URGING, THE NRC REJECTED I
, OUR REQUEST AND, INSTEAD, STARTED A 3-YEAA CONTORTED PROCESS OF GIVING LILCO CHANCE-AFTER-CHANCE TO CONCOCT A SCHEME'BY WHICH TO ~
i LICENSE THE PLANT. -
; AT THE SAME TIME, LILCO LOBBIED TO ENLIST FEDERAL OFFICIALS TC SUPPORT LICENSING SHOREHAM. LILCO'S SUCCESSES PEAKED LAST s
5 YEAR WHEN PRESIDENT REAGAN'S SECRETARY OF ENERGY ANNOUNCED THAT , SHOREHAM SHOULD BE LICENSED TO OPERATE OVER THE OBJECTIONS-OF SUFFOLK COUNTY AND NEW YORK STATE. HE DID THIS IN THE FACE OF . THE PRESIDENT'S OWN POLICY ON SHOREHAM, WRITTEN OCTOBER.ll, 1984, THAT THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION DOES NOT FAVOR THE IMPOSITION OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY AT SHOREHAM OVER THE OBJECTIONS OF NEW YORK-STATE AND SUFFOLK COUNTY.
~3" ph,)
5a
i l l I HAVE RECITED THIS BRIEF HISTORY TO BRING THE SHOREHAM
. l SITUATION UP TO DATE. BY NOW, EVERY FAIR-MINDED PERSON MUST REALIZE THAT SAFE EVACUATION OF THE PUBLIC WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE l l
IF THERE WERE A SERIOUS NUCLEAR ACCIDENT AT SHOREHAM. THE j OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF SUFFOLX COUNTY'S RESIDENTS AND ALMOST EVERY LONG ISLAND ELECTED OFFICI AL ARE OPPOSED TO THE LICENSING 1 OF SHOREHAM. AND BOTH THE NRC'S LICENSING AND APPEAL BOARD'S I HAVE REJECTED LILCO'S BID FOR A LICENSE. BUT DESPITE ALL OF > i THIS, THE CASE IS NOT OVER. WHY IS THAT? i + THE REASON IS THAT LILCO PERSISTS IN TRYING TO LICENSE , SHOREHAM AND IS NOW ORCHESTRATING THE BIGGEST DECEPTION OF ALL: ! t EVEN THOUGH THE NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT AND THE NRC'S l t LICENSING AND APPEAL BOARDS HAVE RULED THAT LILCO CANNOT 1 1 IMPLEMENT ITS EMERGENCY PLAN, THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, { AT LILCO'S URGING, IS CONSIDERING A LILCO REQUEST TO LICENSE j i SHOREHAN WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY IMPLEMENTABLE EMERGENCY PLAN. l
~ l l THIS IS A PRESCRIPTION FOR DISASTER. IN THE WAKE OF CHERNOBYL, j IT IS A RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF THE RESIDENTS OF I LONG ISLAND.
SPECIFICAI,LY, LILCO IS PRESSING THE NRC TO LICENSE SHOREHAM , i ON THE BASIS OF A FICTION IT HAS CREATED AND DUBBED " REALISM." l l THIS FICTION GOES ON AS FOLLOWS: SHOREHAM SHOULD BE LICENSED j EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO IMPLEMENTABLE EMERGENCY PLAN, BECAUSE IF THE PLANT WERE LICENSED AND E THERE WERE AN ACCIDENT AT i _4
'])1
-m.__.
f 4 5 , l l l SHOREHAM, THE STATE AND COUNTY WOULD IN REALITY ACT IN RESPONSE , TO THE ACCIDENT AND THIS AD HOC " RESPONSE" WOULD SOMEHOW PROTECT THE PEOPLE. , LILCO ARGUES THAT THIS SET OF HYPOTHETICALS WOULD I
. COMPLY WITH THE NRC'S REGULATIONS AND PROVIDE A BASIS FOR THE l l
LICENSING OF SHOREHAM. IT WOULD NOT. LILCO'S FICTION IS ILLEGAL ! 1 AND ILLOGICAL; IT IS BORN OF CYNICISM AND INDIFFERENCE TO THE l l PUBLIC'S SAFETY. '
,' FIRST, LILCO' S FICTION RETRIEVES THE DISCREDITED THEORY ON ; WHICH THE NRC LIC' ENSED NUCLEAR PLANTS BEFORE THE THREE MILE i ISLAND ACCIDENT. THEN, THERE WAS NO PRE-PLANNING OR INTEGRATED .,
PLANNING REQUIRED FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITH THE UTILITY. THE NRC SIMPLY ASSUMED THAT IF THERE WERE AN ACCIDENT, THE GOVERNMENTS WOULD KNOW HOW TO ACT ALONE AND ' WITH OTHERS IN j
; RESPONSE. THE THREE MILE ISLAND ACCIDENT PROVED THIS ASSUMPTION TO BE WRONG. FOLLOWING THREE MILE ISLAND, CONGRESS PASSED LAWS a
AND THE NRC MADE REGULATIONS THAT REQUIRE PRE-PLANNING AND INTEGRATED PREPAREDNESS. THERE IS NO PRE-PLANNING OR INTEGRATED PREPAREDNESS AT SHOREHAM. SECOND, LILCO'S FICTION PRESUMES THAT STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS NOT ONLY WOULD RESPOND TO AN ACCIDENT, BUT THAT THEIR RESPONSE WOULD WORK TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC. THUS, LILCO CLAIMS, i THE PUBLIC WOULD BE PROTECTED EVEN THOUGH THE GOVERNMENTS HAVE NO
-S. 3,
, "f
., .W 4
'
- I PRE-PLANNING, OR KNOWLEDGE OF INVENTORY OF AVAILABLE. RESOURCES, 1l' t' NO PERSONNEL READINESS, AND NO TRAINING. SUCH A PRESUMPTION IS l
.a' l UNFOUNDED; FARCICAL AT BEST. ; {
4
' THIRD, LILCO'S FICTION PORTRAYS SUFFOLK COUNTY ACTING IN -! CONCERT WITH LILCO IF THERE WERE AN ACCIDENT AT SHOREHAM. !
HOWEVER, COUNTY LAW PROHIBITS COUNTY PERSONNEL FROM IMPLEMENTING $ i LILCO'S EMERGENCY PLAN. EVEN IF IT DID NOT, THE COUNTY COULD NOT . 1 l RESPONSIBLY ACT IN CONCERT WITH LILCO AND ITS EMERGENCY PLAN. j THE COUNTY'S STUDIES, ANALYSES, AND SURVEYS, TOGETHER WITH OUR ,; t DAY-TO-DAY EXPERIENCES ON LONG ISLAND WITH THE LIMITED ROAD ' 3- NETWORK AND THE CONFINED GEOGRAPHY, HAVE Ck /INCED US THAT SAFE EVACUATION OF THE PUBLIC IS.NOT POSSIBLE IN A SHOREHAM ACCIDENT. ,, LILCO'S EMERGENCY PLAN IS A GUIDFLINE FOR TRAFFIC-JAM GRIDLOCK i AND AN IMMOBILIZED EVACUATION WHERE HUNDREDS OF THOUSAND OF LONG j
-i ISLAND'S RESIDENTS WOULD BE TRAPPED TO ABSORB THE. RADIATION-THEY-SOUGHT TO FLEE. 'IHIS COUNTY 'WOULD NOT ACT. IN CONCERT WITH SUCH A i ; GUIDELINE FOR DISASTER.
FOURTH, LILCO' S FICTION RESTS ON THE SURMISE THAT THE COUNTY i 1
, WOULD HAVE CONFIDENCE IN LILCO, OR THAT IT WOULD RELY ON LILCO 4' BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE NO ONE ELSE ON WHICH TO RELY. THIS IS l
.1 FALSE. THERE IS NO CORPORATION ON LONG ISLAND WITH SO LOW A y STANDING WITH THE PUBLIC AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AS LILCO. THERE- J IS EVEN A STRONG AND CREDIBLE EFFORT TODAY TO EFFECT A PUBLIC 6
?i h;
p
$1 a
g i f: l
- ~ . - . < - . . .
-..7....._..~-.,
i , l
,t TAKEOVER OF THIS COMPANY. IN AN EMERGENCY OR' OTHERWISE, THE 'l PUBLIC AND THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE NO CONFIDENCE IN ,
- 1
.{
LILCO. WE COULD NOT, AND WOULD NOT, LOOK TO SUCH A DISCREDITED a j $ 1 SOURCE FOR GUIDANCE OR ASSISTANCE IN A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT. INDEED, 4 ;l i~ I LILCO WOULD BE THE OBJECT OF T!fE PUBLIC'S WRATH BECAUSE IT CAUSED l 4 i THE ACCIDENT. IT WOULD BE THE ENTITY WHICH STEAMROLLED SHOREHAM'
. i INTO OPERATION OVER THE PUBLIC AND GOVERNMENTS' OBJECTIONS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WOULD BETTER SERVE THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST l
; + -
~ $l
! TO ACT ALONE THAN TO ENTRUST THE PUBLIC WEAL TO MORE OF LILCO'S 4 :-
POOR JUDGMENTS. , MOREOVER, LILCO'S RESPONSE TO HURRICANE GLORIA LAST OCTOBER ; i
] \
LIVES INDELIBLY AS A LESSON TO EVERYONE ON LONG ISLAND. IN THE POTENTIALLY CATASTROPHIC CIRCUMSTANCES OF A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT, WE ' WOULD NEVER RELY UPON OR ACT IN CONCERT WITH A COMPANY TH$T COULD
.1
'. NOT EVEN PUT THE LIGHTS BACK ON FOR DAYS. .
, FIFTH, LILCO'S FICTION HAS PROMPTED THE COMPANY TO EXTEND W 1
l
. ITS PLEAS FOR LICENSING SHOREHAM TO SHAMEFUL LIMITS. ON JUNE 11, .
l 1 ; i 1986, LILCO'S COUNSEL WROTE THE NRC, CLAIMING THAT STATE LAW j- ; l REQUIRES THE COUNTY TO TAKE ACTIONS IN AN EMERGENCY THAT PURPORTEDLY WOULD JUSTIFY THE NRC PUTTING SHOREHAM INTO 5 q- i OPERATION. THIS CLAIM MISSTATES THE LAW. IT WOULD NEVER BE
" APPROPRIATE" OR "NECESS ARY" FOR THE COUNTY TO TAKE ACTIONS IN PURSUIT OF LILCO'S ILLEGAL EMERGENCY PLAN. l ri e!
f.; l l '- e . l b 'M t l;
.2 -
-i
- - - .- -; a = = ;-
J 1 l
- FINALLY, IN THE SAME LETTER OF JUNE 11, LILCO ENSHRINES ITS l
i 1 , FICTION WITH THE FOLLOWING WORDS: " ' i ...THE LILCO PLAN PROVIDES'A I
;) '
BASIS FOR A PRIVATE / GOVERNMENTAL PARTNERSHIP THAT COULD AND WOULD J. BE EFFECTIVE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC IN A REAL EMERGENCY, WHEN !. i POLITICAL POSTURING WOULD BE ABANDONED AND THE SAFETY OF THE - i PUBLIC WOULD BE GIVEN PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE." THIS IS MORE j FANTASY. I REITERATE WHAT IS IN ESSENCE STATED ABOVE: NEITHER + SUFFOLK COUNTY NOR I AS COUNTY EXECUTIVE HAS ANY " PARTNERSHIP" .l ! WITH LILCO; THERE IS NO " BASIS FOR A PRIVATE / GOVERNMENTAL , PARTNERSHIP" OF ANY KIND WITH LILCO; THE COUNTY HAS NO CONFIDENCE - OR TRUST IN LILCO; AND IN AN EMERGENCY, THE COUNTY WOULD GIVE NO CREDENCE TO LILCO OR ITS PLAN AND WOULD NOT WORK IN CONCERT WITH LILCO. INDEED, IN AN EMERGENCY, THE PUBLIC OF SUFFOLK COU.NTY -- l SHOWN BY RESPECTED POLLS TO OPPOSE SHOREHAM BY MORE THAN 75 2 l i
, PERCENT -- COULD NOT TRUST THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS OFFICIALS IF WE, I IN TURN, LOOKED TO THE DISCREDITED LILCO FOR GUIDANCE OR ADVICE.
1 i TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT LILCO'S MISCHARACTERIZATIONS OF MY
~
POSITION ARE BROUGHT TO AN END, I SHALL TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS STATEMENT TO LILCO, THE NRC, AND FEMA. 'I SHALL ALSO EXPRESSLY , NULLIFY MY JUNE 26, 1985 LETTER TO LILCO'S COUNSEL AND SHALL RESCIND EXECUTIVE ORDER 2-1985. BOTH OF THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE ,
.)
EFFECTIVELY BEEN NULLIFIED BY EARLIER ACTIONS; HOWEVER, LILCO'S PERSISTENT MISSTATEMENTS (SUCH AS IN ITS JUNE 11 LETTER) PROMPT f ME TO CLEAR THE SLATE SO THAT NO PERSON CAN CONCOCT FURTHER -
/ ;
- i
.g.
~
3- . o FICTIONS. I AM ALSO DESIGNATING CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE *
- . ,}
l FRANK JONES, AS MY REPRESENTATIVE, TO FOLLOW THESE MATTERS AND TO i j COORDINATE AS NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE WITH THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE AND WITH THE ATTORNEYS HANDLING SHOREHAM MATTERS . i l LILCO HAS LOBBIED IN WASHINGTON AND ELSEWHERE TO Il CHARACTERIZE SHOREHM AS A LITMUS TEST FOR ' NUCLEAR POWER. THUS, , LILCO SEEKS TO TRANSFORM THE SHOREHAM CASE INTO THE SHOREHAM
*\
CAUSE. -THIS IS A DECEPTION. SUFFOLK COUNTY IS NOT ANTI-NUCLEAR,
.j '
! AND WE HAVE NO SUCH POLICY. INDEED, BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL
^
1 l LABORATORY,IS IN OUR MIDST. THE COUNTY IS SIMPLY IN FAVOR OF ,
)
i DOING WHAT WE WERE ELECTED BY OUR CITIZENS TO DO: TO PROTECT I l l THEIR WELL-BEING AND TO BE TRUTHFUL. LILCO DOES NOT LIKE THIS, ) 1 BECAUSE THE RESULT PUTS THE COUNTY AGAINST THE MISTAKE LILCO MADE j AT SHOREHAM. BUT IN A DEMOCRACY, THE PUBLIC GOOD CANNOT BE l
? l
{ DISREGARDED. SHOREHAM IS A MISTAKE; GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT j COMPOUND THE MISTAKE OF HAVING PERMITTED SHOREHAM TO BE BUILT WITH THE MISTAKE OF LETTING SHOREHAM OPERATE.
.i
~
I THE SHOREHAM CONTROVERSY HAS OVER THE PAST FOUR YEARS GROWN l l TO CONFLICT AND CONFRONTATION. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING WE RELISH. 4 TO STEP BACK FROM THE TRENCHES AND VIEW THE BROADER SCALE, ONE CAN ONLY WISH THAT LILCO HAD SEIZED THE OPPROTUNITY TO ABANDON
\
SHOREHAM IN 1983 OR EVEN SOONER, WHEN THE INVESTMENT WAS BILLIONS LESS. WE WOULD STILL WELCOME SUCH A LILCO DECISION TODAY. 5 , 9 .i a -
-O
~~ - - - - - - - - - - - 1
.j
- a
- s I
I j BUT, THE FACT IS THAT WE HAVE A FIGHT ON OUR HANDS. LILCO I,k
-:.)
-)
'"'. MAINS BLIND TO THE REALITY WHY SHOREHAM SHOULD NOT' OPERATE. TO ;
y
.j . LILCO, CHERNOBYL NEVER HAPPENED, FEMA'S REGIONAL DIRECTOR NEVER J
f N RESIGNED OVER SHOREHAM, THE WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF NEVER ' 5 ADMITTED LONG ISLAND CANNOT BE EVACUATED, SUFFOLK COUNTY DID NOT WIN COURT VICTORIES UPHOLDING THE LEGALITY OF THE COUNTY' S
- i
-l POLICIES ON SHOREHAM, AND LONG ISLAND'S GEOGRAPHY IS NO DIFFERENT i1
- FROM ANYWHERE ELSE. INDEED, LILCO IS EVEN IMPERVIOUS TO THE JI j
., j l OUTPOURING OF OPPOSITION TO SHOREHAM FROM EVERY CORNER OF LONG
} .
l ISLAND. VIRTUALLY EVERY ELECTED OFFICIAL OPPOSES SHOREHAM, THE GOVERNOR OPPOSES SHOREHAM, AND THE PUBLIC OVERWHELMINGLY OPPOSES SHOREHAM. . I REMAIN CONFIDENT THAT SUFFOLK COUNTY WILL PREVAIL. WE ARE t RIGHT, AND WE HAVE THE PUBLIC'S UNYIELDING SUPPORT. THE REASON IS i t i .. 4 i THAT A BASIC TRUTH HAS DRIVEN THIS COUNTY FROM THE START: IT
* ]
J WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO EVACUATE OR OTHERWISE PROTECT THE PUBLIC i l IF THERE WERE A SERIOUS NUCLEAR ACCIDENT AT THE SHOREHAM PLANT. SHOREHAM SHOULD NOT OPEN.
.; 1 4
1 I
; .6 ,
- iij gi
k I i Camsefungue $cli cal pietrict l BOARD OF EDUCATION l 400 JAYNE BLVO. D ) PORT JEFFERSON STATION, NEW YOR S. *
.' g Kathleen Gaglias i Area code 516 473 81
- I LOIS FERN KOCH District Clerk j President [
?
.;.3 D
PETER j. CARIO ~ i Vice President - JUN 2 5 $86" j'_. y~ JOSEPH BUSA FRANK D'ADDARIO DOCKET N!!*"'5M - g ugymh h , 17 f PR% NEE 9M;DIVKOEg l FRANK L MITCHELL PROD & UTIL FACMdN ! FREDRIC R. NEWMAN JOHN DAVIS
]~' '
i i June 19,1986
...o
- 1 SERVED JUNAF1996
\
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 . '[ Gentlemen Enclosed please find a copy of a resolution which was passed by the Board of Education of the Comsewogue School District.at its - regular board meeting on June 16, 1986. l Very truly yours, ;
. Kathleen Gaglias, j District Clerk kg ;
enc I cc: Mr. Alan P. Austen, Acting Superintendent Lois Fern Koch i i i q .. W
~ _ . - . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ , , _ , _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ __
n + 4 ' 3 ,
^'
l COMSEWOCUE SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 Port Jefferson Station, New York'
- I SCHOOL BOARD RESOLUTION 7j i
WHEREAS, the Comsewogue School District is located within the 10 mile radiological emergency planning zone of the Shoreham plant; and , WHEREAS, the Comsewogue Board of Education is cognizant of its ! responsibilities relative to the health and safety of students and school l
, l . personnel; and 1 WHEREAS, the governments of Suffolk County and New York State, after j extensive analysis, decided not to adopt or implement any radiological -
j emergency evacuation plan for response to a Shoreham emergency; and , I WHEREAS, New York State Supreme Court decisions have upheld Suffolk - County's decision not to adopt or implement any plan for Shoreham; and ! since the LILCO emergency plan for Shoreham has been found to be beyond ! LILCO's authority to implement, it would be inappropriate for the Comsewogue School District to cooperate with LILCO regarding Shoreham planning; and i WHEREAS, the Comsewogue Board of Education believes that the governments of Suffolk County and New York have acted responsibly and in furtherance ; of the interests of Comsewogue School District residents..in deciding.not to
~
adopt or implement any radiological emergency evacuation plan for -Shorehami'
. and 1
WHEREAS, the 'Shoreham emergency plar cleveloped by Long Island Lighting Company makes unwarranted assumption =, bout the willingness and capability of Comsewogue School District personnel to undertake emergency actions in the event of a Shoreham radiological emergency; and WHEREAS, the Comsewogue Board of Education after having surveyed its employees cannot assure adequate participation and supervision from. school personnel and bus drivers, and on the basis of the limited transportation
- and other resources available to Comsewogue, it is clear that Comsewogue school personnel could not and would not implement early dismissal, evacuation, sheltering or other protoctive actions in the event of a Shoreham radiological emergency evacuation; and WHEREAS, the Comsewogue School District is informed that the Nuclear .
Regulatory Commission's Licensing Board concluded that Comsewogue school
- preparedness is adequate for a Shoreham radiological emergency evacuation; l and WHEREAS, the Comsewogue School District is infor, m ed that the Federal !
Emergency Management Agency appears _,to have ' ignored. the fact Comsewogue _ School District has adopted. no plan and performed no training for.a Shoreham .C; i-I, radiological emergency; and - MI ;;
-{q
-l t
_. a - __] '
- i RESOLUTION - SHOREHAM EV ACUATION PLAN - Page 2 j h
WHEREAS, that the mere acceptance and use of tone alert radios does not , . in any way indicate Comsewogue Board's acceptance of, or cooperation with' l LILCO's proposed evacuation plan. :j 1 NOW THEREFORE BE IT, 3-l RESOLVED, that the Comsewogue Board of Education recognizes its . { responsibilities to students and school personnel in the Comsewogue School
, l District: and be if further . .
I RESOLVED, that the Comsewogue Board of Education recognizes that the ' LILCO Plan provides no way of dealing with the' potential liability of the l Comsewogue School District or to the school employees which could arise -
'l out of lawsuits resulting from a Shoreham radiological evacuation, .or from + protective actions taken during a radiological emergency evacuation; and be -
i it further I l RESOLVED, that the Comsewogue Board of Education fully supports the' ' Suffolk County Legislature and the State of New York in their position of refusing to participate in Shoreham radiological emergency evacuation , planning and in their opposition to the licensing of the' Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant; and be it further 1 RESOLVED, therefore, that the Comsewogue Board of Education cannot and - l will not adopt or implement any plan for, or perform any training for, or i participate in any exercise of school protective actions for response-tear.. w " - - -- Shoreham radiological emergency, and that to do so would be irresponsible;' ;
+
and be it- further RESOLVED, that the Comsewogue Board of Education concludes that no i operating license be granted to LILCO for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, j j I hereby certify and swear that this is a true excerpt from the January 16, 1986, j minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Board of Education of the Comsewogue l School District. ] 1 Lk ' hCLO/ LCud Kathleen Gaglias, ' Q , District Clerk '
. l q
.._ .. . 4:
fi: d2 u f
,f
. . .._q rr
). >
Re LYNr% PUBUC SCHOOLS P ! e2R"."'!F BOX 367. ROSDN. NEWYORK 11576 (516) 621-4900 ,, " "*'.7C1 ! g -1 .+ , 0'}C;G NUMBER h 3M -- ' PRO ' 4 UTIL FAC....h SERVED j[Jg any, June 18, 1986 i t U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ' Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Sir / Madam:
The Roslyn Union Free School District has been asked to provide facilities to the Nassau County, New York, Chapter of the American j Red Cross in case of emergency or disaster. The Board of Education ' y has granted this request subject to the following condition:
"This agreement is not meant to be part of any evacuation ;
plan prepared by LILCO related to the Shoreham Nuclear f facility." l I l
. Sine ly, !
k b Ronald G. %ohl, Preside RWism Board of Education i
, ::(
j
,y fhh ,
\ u
. #P }
. ,. .. _ ._ _ .. _ _ .. ,_. . .._.. . m _.
t ., . -f . UNITED STATES OF AGERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of I i LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY I Docket No.(s) 50-322-OL-3 i i (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station) l I i I l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 4 l 1 hereby certify that copies of tne foregoing Letter fr Roslyn Public School have been served upon the following persons in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR section 2.712. 1
; l
- l Administrative Judge Administrative Judge '
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Gary J. Edles Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal
. Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal -
.I i Board Board -'
, )
, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission , j Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555- '
Administrative Judge l Howard A. Wilber Administrative Judge l Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board j U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com^ mission ! Wasnington, DC 20555 . Washington, DC 20555 l
?
I Administrative Judge Administrative Judge ) Jerry R. Kline Frederick J. Shen l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board-
> U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission '
l Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Edwin J. Reis Esq. W. T. Reveley, 111, Esq. 'i Office of the Executive Legal Director Hunton & Williams U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 1535 . i Washington, DC 20555 Richmond, VA 23212 C. K. Mallory, !!!, Esq. Herbert H. Brown, Esq. Hunton & Williams Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 1900 M Street, N.W., suite a00 ; Washington, DC 20036 Washington, DC 20036 p, A i v4 kQ ' ;
Docket No.(s) 9p-322-OL-3 Lawrence C. Lanpher, Esq. Stephen 8. Latham, Esq. Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Twomey, Latham & Shea ' 1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 33 West Second Street lt Washington, DC 20036 Riverhead, NY .11901 il Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq. Nora L. Bredes General Counsel Executive Coordinator Long Island Lighting Company Shoreham Opponents Coalition d 175 East Old Country Road 195 East Main Street i Hicksville, NY 11801 Smithtown, NY 11787 i
; i, Dr. Robert Hoffman Monroe Schneider l Long 1 stand Coalition for Gafe Living North Shore Committee I . P.O. Box 1355 P.O. Box 231 Massapequa, NY 11758 Wading River, NY 11792 J
1 Spence W. Perry, Esq. Jay Dunkleberger Associate General Counsel New York State Energy Cffice Federal Emergency Management Agency Agency Bldg. 2, Empire State Plaza . 500 C Street, S.W. Albany, NY 12223 4 Washington, DC 20472 i
. W Stewart M. Glass, Esq. Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.
Regional Counsel Special Counsel to the Governor Federal Emergency Management Agency Office of the Governor 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 State Capitol, Room 229 New York, NY 10278 Albany, NY 12224 Robert H. Feller, Esq. Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq. - Assistant Attorney Staff Counsel New York State Department of New York State Pubite Service Environmental Conservation Commission 50 Wolf Road 3 Rockefeller Plaza Albany, NY 12233 Albany, NY 12223 Mary M. Gundrum, Esq. Peter Bienstock, Esq.- New York State Department of Law New York State Department of Law Two World Trade Center, Room 4614 Two World Trade Center, Room 4614 New York, NY 10047 New York, NY 10047 I
? ,
e d 4
3... . e
' Docket No.(s) 90-333-OL-3 Martin B. Ashare, Esq.
Suffolk County Attorney Suffolk County Offices - l: ! H. Lee Dennison Building . .j j Veterans Memorial Highway '.' Hauppauge, NY 11788 t
,; . m .! j Dated at Washington, D.C. this ,
24 tav of June 1986 - Q* tw., -- 6iiiii'Bi'isi iiiieii;Fii isi Eidisiiin. I i 3 0 i t l
'l )
\
l t . i l i
? ..
t .
.i
- 4 3
~
^t 4 .
k;
'l
- i '
-)'
'_s.
l' 'jt : i
; p'
Y
,.. .. L. . . - . ., ...~s . .... -..-. - -:...-. .--...-. . . - ..-. .- ~ -,.--. - . - . ~ . . . . . .L .Q s , '
3 9 ,
f &m, i [ , % .. l -
~* 'l?] y .. ,_ f stAtt of NEW YORK -, * ") # ' O .
]
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT i
'N [ ]
STATE CONSUMER PROTECTION BOARD J ' ,' lg \# l l RICHARD M. KESSEL ,
- CMMI meo ExscWivt omsCfon ,
O REPLY TO: C REPLY TO: a wAsmNoron Avenus June 16, 1986 2so eRoAowAY. irm rLooA j ALSANY. N(W YCAd 12210 . NEw YoRM. NEW YOAK 10007
*'35" ' (2tane744s2 DOCMET NUM0ER PROD & UT!L FAC.p g' 7_g ].
I
" ' ~ ~~ ~
Hon. Nunzio J. Palladino 3 Chairman > US Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 hED*g i 1%$ l
Dear Dr. Palladino:
l Following the Chernobyl-4 accident in the Soviet Union, f the New York State Consumer Protection Board (CPB) retained MHB* Technical Associates of San Jose, California to prepare a , i preliminary study concerning the implications of that accident i
; for nuclear emergency planning in our State. A copy of MHB's ]
report is enclosed. , j As discussed in the report, Chernobyl demonstrates very i clearly that nuclear power plant accidents are possible and ' that their consequences can be catastrophic. Although the American nuclear industry initially claimed that a I s Chernobyl-type accident could not happen here, recent. reports ! indicate that Chernobyl 4 had safety systems that were
. analogous, at least in principle, to the safety features on i j some American commercial reactors, including Shoreham. We must ]
1' redouble our efforts to lower the probability of nuclear , accidents and strengthen our emergency response procedures. 1 To accomplish this objective, the CPB proposes that the l Nuclear Regulatory Commission promptly initiate generic - hearings to consider major changes in US emergency planning i ' including:
-- expansion of the current 10 mile evacuation zone; )
development of measures for providing safe food and i water supplies after an accident; installation of direct computer links between nuclear plant control rooms and state emergency offices; 4 g
-2 y
es
u .. . .s . . . . . -. . ;.a. . .... . .._. .-_. - . . . . . . . . . . . . . , __ _ _ . za l
- s. ..
1 - l l l I
' k j
development of procedures for decontaminating land j j and water areas affected by a' nuclear accident; and ;j j
-- requirement of an evacuation' plan for low ' power
-> testing as well as other stages of operation for all nuclear plants. '! I,
. ;4 '1 We urge that these hearings be convened promptly so that. ';
necessary changes in ergency plann' can be , implemented as ! quickly as possible. j tryly'ycurs, I \ 4 Ri Nard . Kesse-1 , l
.i ;
t bmf ' { i i - ,1 . I l l i f q e l l
'! ]
1 g i !{ ! 4
, y- ,
/ .d-I. ' i' G,
b
t ... .l ' ... .;
.---a. .:.... . . . ~ . . . - . . . . . . . . - . . .. . . . . . . . . . , . .
i
.* , ,, l
$ l I
.l
> a l, ,1 t
, . .f
~
4 . 4l
. L[( l 4 IMPLICATIONS OF THE CHERNOBYL-4 ACCIDENT FOR NUCLEAR EMERGENCY PLANNING .
FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK . , , . 7 i , i . l I '
- 0 1
\
r . l 1 1
. s
, Prepared For The STATE OF NEW YORK CONSUMER PROTECTION BOARD
-e
} June 1986 ',
i f Q
.i !
I i t. f MHB TECHNICAL ASSOCIATES ' 1723 Hamilton Avenue, Suite K 2 .s San Jose, California 95125 .i ! (408)'266-2716- ' 9'
/ . . -(ih y
N. Jlf- , -
..+-.a. . . ~ . . - . = . . ..- - . . . . . . . . . . . : .. . . - . . - .l.~. L .a 4
.g I - C IMPLICATIONS OF THE CHERNOBYL-4.
l t. 3,. l ACCIDENT FOR NUCLEAR EMERGENCY PLANNING FOR THE STATE OF NEW YORK lj i Prepared For The STATE OF NEW YORK. CONSUMER PROTECTION BOARD . 1
.. \
i MHB Technical Associates : .; !
~ '
1723 Hamilton Avenue, Suite K , y San Jose, California 95125 4i (408) 266-2716 i
'h . I. OVERVIEW '
I On April 26, 1986, the most severe nuclear power . plant ; accident to date occurred at .the Chernobyl-4 nuclear power j 1 l s ta tion , located in the Soviet Unic.i along the Dneiper River - l approximately 60 miles from the city of Kiev. The reported death ' toll from the accident is currently twenty-three, with more deaths due to radiation exposure .likely to occur in~ the next several months. Approximately 92,000' people have been evacuated. . from the area within an 18-mile radius of the reactor site. Radioactivity from the damage core has spread through the~ Soviet I, Union, Eastern and Western Europe,'and beyond. ," . The societal impacts of the accident can be expected ' to be 4
-{ ,
significant. The long-term health ef fects .(e.g., latent cancers, ! 9) genetic ef fects, thyroid nodules, e tc '. ) :are likely to be *. ' a ] substantial, but the magnitude of the impact cannot be. accurately' l
.m-
. "i
._.,_.,1...-, . _ . _ . - - . . - ._ . -. - . . -
m{ v '.' <* s .
}
I l determined at this time. Contaminated foodstuf fs have been taken j off the ma rke t in Eastern and Western Europe. The economic cost
~
l of the accident cannot be accurately quantified at this time, but ,j t
; appears likely to be in the range of billions of dollwes. I n' i
^ '
I general, for a very large release of radioactivity (such as occurred at Chernobyl), it can be expected that long-term i l
, relocation of the population will be necessary for hundreds of square miles, and decontamination will be necessary to. varying !
degrees for perhaps thousands of square miles. - i This paper is intended to review' the lessons of the Chernobyl accident for the citizens of New York. The lessons 'of Chernobyl are 'particularly relevant because New York is "home" to
; a number of nuclear power plants: Indian Point Units 2 and 3, 1
Nine Mile Point Units 1 and 2 (Unit 2 is under cons truc tion) , ! l Fitzpatrick, Ginna, and Shoreham (now in low-power testing). In i addition, New York could be affected by accidents at a number of nuclear plants in other states. t 1 j This paper is based on what must be recognized to be limited and preliminary technical information, and _sometimes l
)
contradic tory reports, on the nature and course of the Chernobyl accident. As more becomes known about the accident, additional
+
lessons beyond those discussed here may well be identified. The paper is organized in eight sections. This " Overview" ' describes the purpose of the paper. Next, the nature of the - 1 Chernobyl accident is described. The third section of the paper c briefly describes the salient design features o'f the,Chernobyl-4 , nuclear power plant. Section IV sets forth the various scenarios [ ;[s ] $is
' :.y
., N - *
. .._ .. , . . . . , . . . , - . _ . . . . ._ - _._ _..__....w__.2.
]
E !
, d 1
1 tha t have been proposed as possible causes of the Chernobyl l accident. . The next section of the paper presents- the
= .
7 {. consequences of the accident. Section VI discusses emergency .', ]
. ~,
a by planning and reactor siting issues raised the Chernobyl 1 1- accident, while Section VII discusses U.S. nuclear accident 3 liability policies. N Finally, the lessons of the Chernobyl accident are summarized. Briefly, these' lessons are:' - l 1 I
' k Lesson one: General design similarities in terms of , 1
,'.i
~
) containment and safety systems exist between Chernobyl- I r , I i 4 and many U.S. nuclear power plants, particularly l
boiling water reactors. These simila rities should be j
-j , considered in reassessing the vulnerablility of U '. S .
nuclear power plants to serious accidents. .The need - 1 l for such a reassessment is particularly great' for i i pressure suppression containments. This conclusion r l 1 places a premium on the prompt and thorough-going l 1 examination of the Fitzpatrick, Nine Mile Point Units l' and 2, and Shoreham nuclear plants. , Two: Lesson Catastrophic reac tor accidents --
. resulting in very large releases of radioactivity -- ,
are possible in U.S. reactors. Such accidents might be j i caused by inherent design deficiencies, lack of - construction quality, human error, external events,
-.} i sabotage, or multiple causes. New York S ta te . 'eme rgency '. .!
4 _m o
; , xfg
-l
' lk. . ' f M M l
N
. .y _ . _ ._ _ u _ - ._ ..-_. - u--:
, l - .-
i planning ef forts should explicitly consider such serious accidents.
.i .
+
.l g
.]
Lesson Three: The long-term impacts of radiation .i l releases on agriculture, health, water, and the economy j are 'likely to be more disruptive to socie ty than the iI
; j short-term impac ts . Unfortunately, current emergency l J
plans place insufficient emphasis on long-term l l radiation safety measures. Both the early and long- [
> . 4, '
term consequences of a serious reactor accident can be -j partially mitigated with an effective regional 'l t , a l j emergency plan which provides for a variety of )
; protective measures, including an extension of 'the current ten- and fifty-mile emergency planning zones. -
New York state should also consider the 'need' for j emergency response for accidents at nuclear power-plants in other states and at plants in Canada, since such accidents could require eme rgency response in
,.i counties which do not now have radiological emergency .
t1' plans to deal with the accident. q f k Lesson Four: Emergency plans should be in place at all times for an operable reac tor , regardless of whether jl the plant is undergoing testing, temporarily out of j service, or operating at full power. 1/ .,
.i 1/ Although Chernobyl-4 was at low power at the beginning of .. 3
' the accident, the plant achieved initial criticality on J' i December 14, 1983 (Walter Mitchell~, III, Design Features of ', @y 1 ,
~
_ s
r . .:. . _w . . . . ~ . - . . . - - - .1 -
,. - - -....-.------..-~=w 0
. . j
;.,y .. 1 Lesson Five: State governments and regional Nuclear a
, l
, Regulatory Commission (NRC) offices' should have an ,, l 1 automatic data ' link connecting them with nuclear power - ] _.. 1 , plant control room instruments to ensure prompt a assessment of the severity of any potential nuclear . j
- i power plant accident. Such a data link would help '
\
reduce the potential for miscommunication of essential i plant status and radiation release information.in time j
- 4
.e !
l of crisis. , l 1 i .i Lesson Six: The State of New York - should ensure that. adequate regional and/or federal capabilities are in ! e place for tracking - radioac tive - plumes,_ and for coordinating actions needed to in te rdic t potent'ially ) contaminated f'ood and water supplies, and decontaminate potentially large affected land areas'. Lesson Seven: Remote siting should be1 required for new . nuclear power plants. Urban siting severely limits or renders impossible the prompt evacuation _of the near-
. site population, which increases the potential for large early casualty tolls in the event of a ' serious 3
the Soviet RBMK-1000/Chernobyl-4 Reac tor ,- report , prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory- Commission's Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards,- May 4, 1983), and had j operated for some time at higher power ' levels. - Thus, the 2 plant had developed a large amount of fission products and, ', ,, as a result, a considerable decay he'at inventory.at-the' time .1 of the accident on April 26, 1986. ' =
' ; 7[]q da
.s.
~ ~
l
i -. ., t. P i accident. Further, urban siting increases the. l
} potential for societal disruption resulting from a-serious nuclear- accident since 'a la rger number. of .
1 . .; people would have to be relocated, and a greater level
)
i ' of econcmic activity would be disrupted. Existing F ; . - l urban-sited plants, such as Indian Point, merit special 1 review of containment adequacy. Improvementis can be made to strengthen the ability of existing containments - to withstand - accidents and minimize releases. Plans l should be developed for the orderly. phase out of plants ' l i. which cannot be adequately improved in this regard. In i the interim, strengthened inspection and . enforcement ' k measures should be taken to . attempt to- reduce the I
. l .~
- likelihood of an accident and to ensure that emergency , -j
; response plans and procedures are fully implemented _
j while these plants operate. a 1 Lesson Eight: The State of New York should press j
; Congress to raise or entirely ' remove federaillimits o'n l
~ -
the financial liability of nuclear power p1 ant
," owners / operators and designers / suppliers who may be at -
fault in a nuclear accident.
\
s d W -
@[.;
Q .; r
,4..
. 2 . .;... -
t I .I . The Chernobyl-4 Accident The Chernobyl Unit 4 nuclear power plant accident began at 1:23 a.m. on April 26, 1986, with a chemical explosion at the plant. 2_/ The cause of this explosion is currently unknown. 3/ . An International Atomic Energy Agency (I AE A) ' report, which was l based on interviews with Soviet officials, indicates that the . reactor was being shut down for planned maintenance at the time . cf the accident, with its core generating about 6-7 percent of full power. ,4_/ '
,j 1
The explosion (or its aftermath) evidently resulted in a . t *
'I l reduction or loss of coolant flow to the reactor core. Despite,
' f
]
the low pover level the inventory of fission products produced
]
sufficient decay heat that the coolant loss, coupled with l J insufficient, unavailable, or untimely emergency cooling, led to i 1 severe core damage and ignition of the graphite moderator. 5/' l 2_/ Themis Speis and Brian Sheron.(NRC), " Status Briefing on the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident: Presentation to the Commission," May 13, 1986. -; 3/ There are a number of possible causes for such an explosion, .l
,- but the precise cause is unknown. It is also currently unknown whether there was a single . explosions, or multiple explosions, and, if the latter, their relative timing. It has been suggested, for example, that the accident was '
started by an explosion and- subsequent fire in the turbine / auxiliary complex, resulting in the production of hyd rogen which then escaped to the re ac to r building above the refueling deck and caused the explosion which destroyed th e upper part of th e reactor build ing . This hypo thesis , however, cannot be confirmed or negated on the basis of the information currently available. ' 4/ N_ew York Times, May 10, 1986, text of statement on the Chernobyl accident released on May 9 by the IAEA 5/ New York Times, " Consensus of. Experts: The Accident Isn.'t 3 ove r , " May 10, 1986. - 4: ' 2
, 9
~
~ -
y The Chernobyl-4 containment boundary failed in an as-yet unspecified manner, leading to the release of fission and other radioactive products to the environment. . European nations have reported elevated levels of many j different radioisotopes in air, water, and soil samples. 6_/ As 'l ' i of this writing, it is not clear to what extent f uel melted , 7/ i although the quantities and types of radionuclides reported in l Europe suggest very significant core damage and fuel melting. 8/ The first releases of radioactivity began the morning of , April 26, 1986. Soviet officials stated that they began !
, I evauations in the af ternoon of April 27, approximately 36 hours .
f 1
-6/ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioc, " Request for Collection !
of Licensee RadiDr:tivity Measurements Attributed to the I Chernobyl Nuclear Plant Accident," IE Information Notice No. 86-32, May 2, 1986. Reported isotopes collected in Europe : include Iodine-131, Cesium-134 and -137, Tellurium-132, j Ruthenium-10 3, Molybdenum-99, Neptunium-2 39, a n d N-i o b i u m - 9 5 . I Some of these fission products had previously been predicted j to remain la rgely in the damaged reactor core, even after j
; fuel melting and containment failure. j 1
-7/ The NRC has concluded that decay heat plus the heat from the graphite fire produced temperatures sufficient to melt the fuel. In addition, the NRC has concluded that "some or all i of molten core material, is probably on the reactor ' cavity l floor" --
i.e., some of the core material may have melted s out of the core region entirely. See, Themis Speis and ; Brian Sheron (NRC), " Status Briefing on the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident: Presentation to the Commission," May 13, ! 1986. l
]
8_/ Preliminary dose estimates prepared by Lawrence Livermore ! National Laboratory ase,umed the release of half of the core j inventory of Iodine-4 31 and Cesium-137, with most of this ' ' release occuring in the first 24 hours (Lawrence Livermore 3 National Laboratory, " ARAC Preliminary Dose Estimates for ! Chernobyl Reactor Accident," May 7, 1986, p. 2) . Such a ! magnitude of release, combined with detection of many dif ferent radioactive species in Europe, are consistent with ; l WASH-1400 (U.S. Nuclear Reg ula tory Commission, Reactor . I Safety Study, October 1975) radiation release estimates for 4! core melt accidents. ', dj
, 3 l
j
s ., .. _ . . _ , .. . .. . . . ,# r
.'.. 1 - .\
< s ,y o
's j 1
later. 9/ On. April 28, Swedish technicians at the Forsmark ' nuclear power plant discovered unusuall) high radiation levels on
.i i
workers' clothing, and, finding no, thing wrong with their own ' e4 plant, demanded an explanation from the Soviet Union.- 1 10 / For
~
hours, none ya.s forthcoming. Finally, late in the evening of ,. q s
.s .
- g. g April 27, the Soviets lddmitted that an accident had takeri 'p.ldee~
s . at the Chernobyl plant, some 800 miles southeast.of *.ne'foramarh , i1 .~ . .i
-' 3 11/
site. - x >
^x
- i. 3 ,
i i
, j i x
- 2 ;
i l , 4 i i
'I
; 't ss- -
-j i
, .c >
'N \ g
~
4 i b g :1
' i y ,
t
. , .\ '. L j y .
J ' l
'O
( s. J. % , 1 h
$) I f r i t
;w r
.ci ,3
.v 1
4 , ( 133i s
's .
, o
.j ,
r g i r :1 < i wn
,. (
\
. 'I k7
/ f Times', ' " Soviets r
9_/ Los Angeles Cite ' Local Of ficia[.d '; 4 Misjudgment," May 7,x (f86. ( ): .f" y .j .i 3 3 t ge 3 J_0/ Time, Deadly Meltdown,'" May 12, 1956. 1
,, j.
"yg <>
, 1. . .
.- - 1
},1,/ Newsweek, "The'Chernobyl' Syndrome," May' 12,'1986. '!
l )
/ jy[
i . s
, 1. -
. ?
.4 r
. , 1 .~#-
- s. .4 . ,1
% 4 g' -
c(L:%
_ ..m. . .m - _ . . _ . . _ .- - _ _ . . , . . . _ . 4. i .. '- 1
'j ?
- l l
1 III. Reactor Design Issues Chernobyl Unit 4 - is a graphite-moderated, boiling-water- i
,; 1 1
cooled, vertical pressure-tube nucle'ar power. plant with an " electrical output of 1,000 megawatts. 1_2/ The reactor is q
- 8 *
. designated as an RBMK-1000 design. As of early 1986, there were .,
=
)? - l T
fourteen RBMK-1000 plants in operation in. the Soviet Union j
-(including . Chernobyl-4) . The . RBMK-1000 design, based on early -
, Soviet plutonium production reactors, was completed in 1969, and p-. the first unit went critical in 1973 (Leningrad Unit 1) .
.[ .
- i. The . low-enriched, uranium _ oxide. fuel .approximately
( 192 .; l' ]s s metric tons) is contained -in a large. number - (more than ' 1,000) o f. ' zirconium-niobium alloy pressure tubes embedded . in a' matrix of - ) q
! graphite blocks. Each pressure tube contains eighteen ' fuel rods' ;
and a central support member. The fuel rods are clad . 'in a ; zirconium-niobium alloy. There are two stacked fuel _ assemblies j j in each fuel channel. On-line refueling is accomplished via- a 12/ l
~~
Information in this section has been= extracted ~and. ( summa rized from the following references: .N. A. Dollezhal, , I. Y. Emelyanov, et al., "Some Features 'of sNuclear . Power - ". ~ Plants With RBMK-3 00 Reactors and Experience- ~ in Their Operation," IAEA-CN-42/385, September ' 198 2; E. ' V. Kulikov,
" State-of-the-Art and Development Frospects 'for. Nuclear-Power Stations Containing RBMK Reactors," translated from .: -l Atomnaya Energiya, Vol. -56, No. 6 ,1 June 1984;- .W alter Mitchell, III,. Design Features of the ' Soviet RBMK- H 1000/Chernobyl Re ac to r , . report preparea for the. U.S. . ;
Nuclear Regulatory -Commission's. Advisory . Committee on i < Reactor . Sa feguards , May ' 4, 1986; B. .A. Semenov, " Nuclear ;., power in the Soviet Union," IAEA Bu lle ti n ,:.Vol.'25,-No. 2; yi Themis Speis'and Brian Sheron (NRC), " Status Briefingfon the. Chernobyl Nuclear Accident'. Presented to the Advisory ' i Committee on Reactor: Sa feguards ," I May l8,' 19 o6, and: "S tatus !i Briefing' on the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident: Presentation to 31 the Commission," May 13, 1986; and: N. A. Dollezhal, - 3
" Graphite-wat'er steam-generating sreac tor in the USSR,"
2; Nuclear-Energy, Vol. 20, No. 5, October 1981. #
.l{4 a, +c
.. j a ..
~.
. i
- " + ,
a ..,
, 1 .
special refueling machi l e located on the refuelLag deck above the . reactor. The reactor core region is a cylinder about forty feet in diameter and twenty-six feet high, and is contained in a reactor vault. The reactor vault is a steel-lined, prestressed concrete region below the refueling deck. The atmosphere in the reactor l vault is inerted. The vault is designed for a pressure of 27 psi i (0.18 MPa). , l In contrast to numerous early press reports > the safety j 1
, systems available at the Chernobyl-4 plant to respond .to 9 accidants are broadly' comparable to those used in U.S. nuclear !
power plants. M/ Safety systems provided in the Chernobyl-4 1 design include passive coolant injection tanks (referred to in U.S. plants as accumulators or core flood tanks)., as well ' as high- and low-pressure injections systems, which.can b'e supplied with emergency power frem three diesel generators (these diesels ; t i serve a two-unit station) . ,l_4_/ The C,hernobyl-4 design incorporates elements of both
; containment and confinement., There are two "drywell" regions wh_ich consist of the' reactor vault and the primary enclosure which encompasses the primary coolant piping. and main coolant pumps (the pump enclosure area is designed to a pressure of 56 13
~/ Compare, for example, descriptions in Themis Speis and Brian Sheron, op. cit., and Walter Mitchell, III, op. cit., with Final Safety- Analysis Report (FSAR) listings of safety.
equipment for U.S.. boiling water reactors, including Shoreham, Fitzpatrick, and Nine Mile - Point Units 1 and ' 2. See, also, New York Times, "Chernobyl Design Found to Include New Safety Plans," May 19, 1986. .
. ?;
14/ Themis Speis and Brian Sheron, oA cit. .-
%ii n
~~
~ -
i i psi) . Below these drywell areas is a two-layer suppression pool. ; a
, M/ The suppression pool is intended to condense steam and )
I thereby reduce pressure in the drywell region. In addition, the . l 1 suppression pool water is circulated through a ' heat exchanger, j and then pumped through spray. nozzles back to the suppression i pool. The dryvell areas are connected to the suppression
- 16) )
i
;icol via a system of v,alves and "downcomer" pipes. The remainder j of the reactor building is a confinement structure. See Figure i 1. . ,,
In principle, this arrangement is not dramatically dif ferent i from U.S. boiling water reactors, particularly those of the so- 3 l ni i called " Mark II" design (such as Shoreham or Nine Mile Point Unit'
'f !
- 2) . The degree to which the comparison is accurate depends on design details of the Chernobyl-4 plant which are not yet publicly available. M/ -
1
! 15/ Drawings contained in NRC documents appear to indicate the 1 i
presence of a spray (" sprinkler") system in th e air space l above the two suppression pools. Such a system would assist l in the suppression of steam and help hold containment ! pressure down. The source of the spray water and the system -) which supplies the spray water are not indicated in the NRC j documents. See, Themis Spels and Brian Sheron (NRC),
" Status Briefing on the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident:
Presentation to the Commission," May 13, 1986. . ; l
- i i Lf/ L. I. Turetskii, et al., "A System for Localising Failures '!
of Generating Un Es with the RBMK-1000 Reactor," Thermal Engineering, Vol. 31, No. 2, 1984, pp. 117-118. ,, 1 H/ The information most important to such comparisons includes , the volumes enclosed by the drywell areas and the suppression pool, the amount of water in the suppression pool, the size of the downcomers, the design pressure of the j drywell and suppression pool areas, and a host of other i details. Such information should become available over the - l next fev months as the Soviet investigation into the Chernobyl accident proceeds. g f
?. ,
y 6
- ~
'. +
i l l The containment concept employed at Chernobyl-4 is referred
, to as a " pressure suppression" containment. Chernobyl-4 utilizes i
two . water-filled pools (called suppression pools) to condense
.-}
steam released into the containment during an accident. Pressure suppression containments are used in most boiling water reactors -I
.j !
in the U.S. M/ In addition, some pressurized water reactors # l i
., \ , employ a pressure suppression concept re f e rred to as an " ice !
condenser" containment, which employs large volumes of ice to - condense steam, rather than the pools of water used in most ; 1 <
, boiling water reactors in the U.S. M
; In comparison with large dry containments used in most 1
? l pressurized water reactors (such as Indian Point and Ginna), .the' -l pressure suppression containments are relatively small in: volume. 1 Concerns have been raised for many years about the ability of-J pressure suppression containments to withstand t-he forces exerted j by a core melt accident. Even the most recent ~ studies suggest that such containments are predicted to fail very early in a range of severe accident scenarios. M/ At Chernobyl, s 4
-1 m
18/ It is obvious from drawi'gs n and photographs of the Chernobyl ' plant tha t the plant does not have the " containment dome" that is characteristic of some boiling water and most pressurized water reactors in the U.S. It should be pointed out, however, that BWR Mark I and Mark II plants also do not have a " containment dome." One should not, therefore, ' necessarily associate the conceot of containment with 'the
, presence or absence of a " dome."
M/ This is particularly true for Mark I boiling water j containments and ice condenser pressurized water reac tor . containments, but is also true of Mark II containments ~as , s well. See, for example, NUREG-1079, Estimates of Early j ' Containment Loads from Core Melt Accidents, draft report for 1> comment, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, December 1985; - and Steven C. Sholly and Gordon Thompson, . Union of Concerned . 1' Scientists, The Source Term Debate, January 1986. s fij ,. .g y, u
~ , . .,
.]
,c 4.. , , ,
, V' * , a preliminary reports suggest that the analogous containment system i
,. failed very early in the accident, although the precise mode of 4 containment failure at Chernobyl'is not currently clear. 2_0_/ i a aj .
f1 l
'?
{ ' s i 1
'l l
. ;J i ,
s A\
~ ;. 1'I rn -
i ..s j ~1 d s I I l ' g r . n i i
'ci \
i l - j
~
20/ It has been suggested that the Chernobyl-4 contain~ ment could- .I have failed from a number of causes, including an excess- I reactivity explosion in the- reactor icore (see, ; Victor
.I ,
Gilinsky, "How Can We Learn More?", . The' Washing ton Post I National. Weekly Edition,. June 2, 1986, "an uncontrolled chain reaction") a hydrogen explosion in : the reactor . vault "
.t
* (although the inerted atmosphere in. the reactor vault should -jl1 have prevented th is ) , leakage. - past- seals damaged by' ' high
' temperature, . radiation exposure, and/or. high pressure, and !
-by puncturing by ' the overhead crane when thev erane lost. . J) '
structural supports in an explosion above . the - re fuel ~ing: s 1 deck. Any or none of these possible causes could ,have been' s I! involved.. A final determination-'of.the cause'of. containment 3.! failure' awaits the release of additional- information during 4 ll the course of the Soviet ' investigation ' into the Chernobyl - accident. [ *
/ ' f$a . !j 1
; "'h .
- ~W s
_. j
!)
- 4 ,
1 IV. Secuence of Events (Accident Scenario) 4 The exact cause of the Chernobyl-4 accident is not known at 4
, this time. Several hypotheses have been advanced, however,;which. ;j q,
deserve mention. Former NRC Chairman Joseph Hendrie, 21/ Harold - i J Denton (Director of'the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation at ' the NRC), and Canadian and Swedish- nuclear officials have ' speculated that Chernobyl may have experienced a " station blackout" -- loss of all normal and emergency AC power. M/
, )
.j - one possible cause of station blackout is a fire, and it has ,j l
.3 been suggested that . Chernobyl may have experienced a fire that
.i i burned through electric power cables to safety systems. 1 M/ , Regardless of plant design, electric power and cables are vital l to reactor s hu tdown , provision of emergency coolant, and instrumentation to monitor an accident or determine 'its ' potential' severity. The sufficiency of fire protection - requirements for U.S. reactors has long been debated. Fires represent a so-called i
" common mode" or " domino" failure that can' simultaneously disable t
what would normally be considered to be redundant safety ' systems.
! Other possible causes fo'r the accident have been suggested.
One potential cause that has been advanced is a " reactivity F 21/ New York Times, " Experts See Soviet Nuclear Accident As l-Being Long-Feared ' Worst Case'," May 9, 1986. 1 y/ Inside N.R.C.,. " Opinions Var) on Impact of Chernobyl- 4 Accident on U.S. Plants," Vol. 8, No. 10, May 12, 1986. 23/ New York Times, " Experts See Soviet Nuclear. Accident . As 1
- j -
Being Long-Feared ' Worst Case'," May 9,'1986. See, also, . ( Inside N.R.C., " Opinions Vary on- Impact of Chernobyl . Acciden t on U.S. Plants," Vol. 8, No. 10,.May 12, 1986. ..
.- 6(A]
- d. -
/
.. , l transient" --
a sudden surge in reactor power. 24/ Other possible causes for the accident that have been discussed are a fuel handling accident, a loss of coolant accident, 2J/ or a flow' , blockage to part of the core. 26/ Soviet nuclear officials have repeatedly stated that " human
)
error" was involved in the accident, and that there is no N evidence of any basic design deficiency in the reactor. 21/ While this is a somewhat predictable response, given the number .
, of similar plants in operation and under construction in the -;
. Soviet Union, it may.also be true. Human errors 'can increase the
, likelihood of accidents in any reactor (human error was at least partially to blame for the 1979 accident at Three Mile Island and' the 1957 accident at the Windscale reactor. in England), or amplify the consequences of an accident. For example, on several occasions, containments in U.S. commercial nuclear plants have been inadvertently left open for extended periods of time, ti offering a direct release pathway to the environment in the event 24/ Victoe Gilinsky, "How Can We Learn More?"., The Washington Post National Weekly Edition, June 2, 1986; article mentions "an uncontrolled chain reaction." .
,2,5,/ One of the designers of the Chernobyl plant (Ivan Emelyanov) suggested in an interview tha t one of th e hundreds of .
'
- cooling pipes burst, which may have triggered the accident.
He also suggested that a power surge from 6% to 50% of full power occurred in less than ten seconds after'the coolant pipe failure. See, San Jose Mercury News, "Chernobyl Designer Blames Disaster on Human Error," May 20, 1986.- - 2_6,/ Themis Speis and Brian Sheron (NRC), " Status Briefing on the Chernobyl Nuclear Accident Presented to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards," May 8, 1986. 27/
- Los Angeles Times, " Human Error Blamed for Soviet 'JiS3 ster," .
May 20, 1986; San Jose Mercury News, "Chernobyl Disigner .4 Blames Disaster on Human Error," May 20, 1986. ',, ;aj 5,i
.s
?
s
t
.- i I
, of an accident. l28/. Such a containment " bypass" failure would
, defeat even the strongest of U.S. containments, and result, in g the -event of a . core melt accident, in a .large release of I-
... * . R
- radioactivity to the environment. -i
- l 1 .
4 1
.n>
\
! l
+
l r
? j
! l i
']
i i I, ;, 1 1
- I
! l I .
t
- i -
s . 't . t i
, .3 28/ Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Reliability' Analysis of. ,
Containment Isola tion Systems, NUREG/CR 4220,, prepared for f',f -? the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 1985. L.- : 2?j <
- Md b
a:-j ' j~l
. c.
,, r"
.w . . . -. a . ,.--..a..... . . . . . . .: .- - ._.m.. a s.
1 - 1 1 V. Accident Consequences , j Whatever the cause of the Chernobyl-4 accident, there is , [' , little' question' that a severe accident involving major fuel. melting and early loss of containment 'is possible at U.S. _; - reactors. The scientific community has mainly differed over the
~
likelihood of. such an accident and the size the resulting radioactivity release. The Chernobyl accident appears to negate . 1 . .; the claims- of both Soviet and American. nuclear industry . -i l representatives that the likelihood of' a' large . radioactive. . , , release was as low as one chance in a million per reactor year. j '
} The Chernobyl accident demonstrates both -that such an' {
t accident is possible, and that its results can be , devastating. ' f t
! The magnitude of radioactivity released as a result of a reactor l accident, and the consequences of such an accident, hav.e' been the subject of numerous safety studies since. the start of conimercial' nuclear power: the WASH-740 report .in 1957', the abortive Brookhaven National Laboratory update of WASH-7 4 0 . ' in 1965, the-. I j WASH-1400 report ("Rasmussen Report") in 1975, and more 'recent~
. a studies by-Sandia National.L5boratories.for the'NRC. Uenerally, l d
these studies indicate tha t , for ' U.S. reactors, fuel ~ melting - p
, coupled with early containment failure could leave hundreds of l square miles uninhabitable, necessitate decontamination- or- 4
* , j abandonment of thousands of square miles of land,'- and result. in ,f tens of billions of -dollars in property losses and cleanup costs. ~
The re is no questioning the need - for the .most stringent i j nuclear safety laws, as well as the need for rigid enforcement'of. 4j j' those laws. But.however well-designed, built, and operated,1the ' d i b.m 1 a
7 1 q
. a
, chance of a serious nuclear accident at existing plants cannot1be
, reduced to zero. All current nuclear ' plants can experience $
I r catastrophic failures. The consequences of such an event can .
*l j , .
- .) . ,
- l. ky . . ;l
- D
- s- >
- j-j It
- emergency plans in the U.S., being limited to a 50-mile radius '1 i
- )
- within ten or fifty miles of a- nuclear power pla nt site would provide an adequate base to expand response efforts beyond this >
- true for sites with higher than average population density, increasing population density (and numbers of special facilities such as schools, nursing homes, prisons, etc.)) just outside the ten-mile planning zone, or for sites with access / egress routes which are constrained by geographic features. Moreover, should 4
- r. i.
- lic, prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regula tory Commission, , j NUREG/CR-125 , Vols. I.and II,-1980.
Subject:
" Emergency Communication System, Point-of-Con tac t. " .
-?
- s
...._._._.._..y_._ _ _ . . . , . . . .._ ..:_ __
4 t Applied locally or regionally, this type of system could
, resolve many of the prompt notification problems and l 1
inaccurate / untimely data transmission problems facing any state
.l 1l with an operating reactor. It would permit of f-site authorities ' j know almost as quickly as reactor operators when a reactor has a
-- l .
problem. Such connections to the regional NRC office and
* ~
appropria te state .of fices would permit qualified authorities to monitor the course of an accident, assess its potential severity, 1 d 3 and' plan precautionary measures. -- f j j .* ] i t O ' 9 s 4
~1 q
J
- 5. j l
k l 1-O e
+ih a
4
~~
_. s i
..t.._. .._....__..a_,._...
._. m _ _.,.-. . _ ..... . _ ....__.c. . . - . . . . . . _ _ . . . _ __ _ . L :A
;>; , 1 4
l VII. Nuclear Accident Liability Limitations
' /
The Chernobyl accident also focuses attention on the nuclear ; R^ '
< accident liability issue. Currently, federal law limits the lia-bility of reactor operators in the event of a catastrophic acci- _ :
dent. This legislation -- called the Price-Anderson Act -- is -j now being considered for. renewal by Congress. The current. limits under the Price-Anderson Act are less than $1 billion. There is little question tha t this limits could be quickly reached 'if a - Chernobyl-like accident occurred in the United States. At that point, the responsibility for treating or compensating accident - victims for health or property damage would fall on the , state or' 1 federal government, and reactor <>wners/ operators and plant designers / constructors would be held harmless from further liability. - The widespread damage caused by the Chernobyl accident clearly indicates the need for a substantial increase- in the level of nuclear accident insurance required of U.S. utilities. l l A proposed revision of Price-Anderson would require automatic payments, in the event of an accident, from all U.S. utilities with opera ting nuclear plants. In addition to these insurance 8 l
.., provisions, we see no reason tha t - the public or a state ,- government should be deprived- of further recourse - f rom guilty l parties through litigation. That should. be accomplished by raising significantly or removing entirely' the current cap on ;
nuclear liability. i1
..j ol
- r. d
,' f,h i ,
- l
~
- l. \
l
-m l
i . I ' ?, -' , ! VIII. Conclusion j 9 Chernobyl demonstrates very clearly that nuclear power pl. ant .i
..,l d
accidents are possible and that their consequences can be catas . l trophic. Although the American nuclear industry initially , { y) claimed that a Chernobyl-type accident could not happen here, .
.I I recent reports indicate that Chernobyl-4 had safety systems tha t I l
were analogous, at least in principle, to the safety features on , some American commercial reactors, including Shoreham. j e s . i Even if the specific sequence of events at Chernobyl are r l l eventually demonstrated to be very unlikely in U.S. reac to rs ,- l there are a host of other types of accidents which.can occur and" result in potentially large radiological releases to the
.' environment. Thus, any design differences that exist between Chernobyl Unit 4 and domestic reactors provide little. basis for i
complacency.
,j ; ; As tragic as Chernobyl was, it would be even more tragic if ]
' l we failed to learn the obvious lessons of this accident. We must j u redouble our efforts to . reduce the likelihood of nuclear
- i accidents, and strengthen our emergency response procedures. To these ends, we must learn from the ' basic lessons of Chernobyl .
, including: 3
. Lesson One: General ' design similarities in terms of I containment and safety systems exist between Chernobyl- i 4 and many U.S. nuclear power plants, particularly 1 i
boiling water reactors. These similarities should be a, l considered in reassessing the vulnerablility of U.S. l f , Vf[d .
'y {
i
~ - 1
g * ', .
- i nuclear power plants to serious accidents. The need
. for such a reassessment is particularly great for pressure suppression containments. This conclusion 0 I,
places' a premium on the prompt and thorough-going . j examination of the Fitzpatrick, Nine Mile Point Units 1 . and 2, and Shoreham nuclear plants.
, , j.
. ' ')
Lesson Two: Catastrophic reactor accidents --
. l
.1 resulting in very large releases of radioactivity --
.a j f i
are possible in U.S. reactors. caused Such accidents might be
~
'}
by inherent design deficiencies, lack of
, construction quality, human error, external events, d-
{ sabotage, or multiple causes. New York State' emergency ! planning efforts should explicitly consider such , serious accidents. '
.$ 1 Lesson Three: The long-term impacts of ' radiation 1l j
i releases on agriculture, health, water, and the economy . , are likely to be more ' disruptive to society than, the short-term impacts. Unfortunately, current emergency plans place insufficient emphasis on long-term radiation safety measures. Both the early and long- J
, term consequences of a serious reactor accident can be i partially mitigated with an effective regional j emergency plan which provides for a variety of pro tec tive measures, including an extension of the '1.
a current ten- and fifty-mile emergency planning zones. I
' )j[
.su- . A4
~
_ s
a.m !'. $s , New York state should also consider the need for
, emergency response for accidents at nuclear power I 5
plants in .other states and at plants in Canada, since .l .
< .:] . )
such accidents could require emergency response in 1)
)
counties which do not now have radiological emergency plans to deal with the accident. j , Lesson Four: Emergency plans should be in place at all i times for an operable reactor, regardless of . whether j] ' :1'! the plant is undergoing testing, temporarily out of . service, or operating at full power. 43/ . Lesson Five: State governments and regional Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) offices should have, an ' automatic data link connecting them with nuclear ' power plant control room instruments to ensure ' prompt ) assessment of the severity of any potential nucl' ear power plant accident. Such a data link would help reduce the potentiat for miscommunica tion of essential- j plant status and radiation release information in time of crisis. 9
- 43/
~~ Although Chernobyl-4 was at low power at ' the beginning .of -
the accident, the plant ~ achieved initial criticality 'on December 14, 1983 (Walter Mitchell, III, Design Features of' ]; i the Soviet RBMK-1000/Chernobyl-4 Reactor, report prepared'
- dor the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Advisory 4 Committee on Reactor Safeguards, May 4, 1983), and- had j-operated for some time at higher power levels. Thus, the d plant had developed a large amount of fission products and, ,- j as a result, a considerable decay heat inventory at the time of the accident on April 26, 1986. 'f l4f3 8
en
- s
_w . q
. . . . .-.. .. ._. __ . . _ , ._;.. .-,. .. _ . _ g.. . ; . . .. __. _u. ;r o c * -
- j. '.
I i q j Lesson Six: The State of New York should ensure tha t [ , adequate regional and/or federal capabilities are in ; place for tracking radioactive plumes, and for ;
. i
~
coordina ting ~ actions needed to interdict potentially contaminated food and water supplies, and decontaminate ;)
, l potentially large affected land areas. j
-{, \
, Lesson Seven: Remoto - siting should be' required- for new 1
! :; a nuclear power. plants'. Urban siting severely limits.or i
-. I i1 rende rs . .impo ssible the prompt evacuation of the near-1
.)
! site population, -which increases th e potential- for )
large early casualty tolls in the event of a serious 3 accident. Further, urban siting increases the. ' i potential for society disruption resulting fr'om a serious nuclear accident since a . larger number of
)
I i people would have to be relocated, and a greater level of economic activity would be disrupted. ' Existing urban-sited plants, such as Indian Point, merit spec'ial ' review of containment adequacy. Improvements can be made to strengthen the ability of existing containments' to withstand accidents and minimize releases. Plans e should be developed for the orderly phase'_ out of such [ plants which cannot be l adequately ? improved' in. this , regard. In the interim, strengthened inspection and ;
-)
enforcement' measures should' be' taken to -attempt 'to 7
. .i reduce the likelihood of an accident'and to ensure that '
1 h$ g -
~ -
n
g, _ . - _ - . . . . . _ . . _ .. . . . . . ~ . . .. _ . . _ . . . _ . . , . . . . . . . . . . ..._..____-i
- 64. .!
3 i .. 4 A.'.' ,
.h l 1 15, - emorgency response plans and procedures ,a r e fully i
, implemented while these plants operate. 1
- t. .o .il l Lesson E ig h. t.: ' The State of New York should press l
Congress. to raise or entirely remove federal limits on i1 the - fina ncial j liability of nuclear power plant
-i '
owners / operators and designers / suppliers who may be at . fault in a nuclear accident. ;
, j 1
. 1 I
,A .
4 a. e s
} ,
- a '
a t . . 6 9-i l
) i B
4 t k e 8 ! I
'f i e
p I' 1 'i a,j .
...g aw.- .= + d *e e v *E * & '* N* ( - - = = + * * * * * * < - * ^ ' ' ' ' ~ . * * ' " ' ' * ' ' ' ' ' ' " ' * *
=
.5,....wy.i,
- s s *e
..s
. 4% ,
4
, y' ' Q FIGURE 1 1 s 1 t.,
- \ s*
,\ i . k( t 1
, PtAttiARRANGtMdNf i ' i' ,
'... y
'1 1
( l g m 's ) RtW iHING PORitutis . i Of PRINAAT'$Y51til .t
., 4 i i.l: $.
> \
. ' ,l' .,l w o a (lu./ lil ;,
/ - REACT (V' VALA.T
\
/ \
]kl l
/ i
-,. .I , (g/ ]j m (w 18) ~-
*j[ \
f (
\ . $
K*.10R 'PIPnN y A yg :- ', i
* , ' '.V v '
tlunniu itvit $UPPRES$10N i
' 1[S i
pggg) , _ 5
; i t I( '
4 r.
* '__ '4 12 m (236FT) l ~
t. f'dl s 's '4 .. , \ f
' '7 l
., , \
.'tUPPRt',31CN P001. s 5t '
\
=
AARNiGEMEN1'
* 'i s J '
1
. RE?CTOR 3 '
/ ,-
'f I t
1 I VAMT , s j [ )\ ,' { t'd s . t ,
\ I, 4tMCO6tP(NG g
..?
~\ A00M
* ;j -
' J\.
!%4 <
/,
\
L ') t r ] ' i' .f .__ ,
, t 2,
j, _k r ir-/ _ , , . V hr.TWgu, I t L . .' a . 7<tA X m 3 x , ,
*
- AIR
.7t . . ~ " ' " " ,,,,,(~ E t *!, l' t ! PACE
). 14 'L 9 '- J'
- M,, U@ g ny W"h N% W , +/ 5 l., t , . . . . ,* y Va= - t --~. .e. . p!a=
. > ' f, 33 a
t
]
i 4 / f... -
,] ' ' '*'(, \ ]
' ,{
$UP9Rtss10N ! d 'hM I \~
e , l P001.(5) ,
,j - - ' '
5 OVERF!Cil TV9E r
)
,s Sj
' ~
7R!NKL183 ( . I h
// 4
\ $
y/ ! e ,/ '/ .,
' -r ) Lt
\ ,\
- SOURCE: T. Speis.and B. Sheron, " Status'Irte.t}ing7en I l the' .' ./ O ChernobyftNuc'f ear Accident P r ea en t e4'/ ; t o t h.s j.
Advisory Committea on'F.eactor SAf ae 'g' a/ardss" a U.S. Nucleat Repijlatory CommissSgr;;d Mr.y 8, ,
. gh(" /
j y , ', p , ' 1986 (adapted frdm). "
. j
\'y ( ',( - '
.-f\; 'q
.~/ / , .i .i,' '
s ( 5 s- .\ t,ft / s ,e a < i c; __w A j_ 'O wS LLL S
es '
,;p . , w ., s
e UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the Matter of I ! I Docket No.(s) 50-322-OL-3
3{ i LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY l l
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station) I j-I N -! I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
, l'hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Ltr Kessel to Chairman 6/16 have been served upon the following persons in accordance with the i j requirements of 10 CFR section 2.712. !
i -t i d Administrative Judge . Administrative Judge' k,
! 41an S. Rosenthal, Chairman Gary J. Edles , , ]1 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coumission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 ' Washington, DC 20555 '
Administrative Judge Howard A. Wilber . Administrative Judge - Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Morton B. Margulies, Chairman l' Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission , , Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 l A Administrative Judge Administrative Judge. . Jerry R. Kline Frederick J. Shen ! Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 + t 1 Edwin J. Reis, Esq. W. T. Reveley, !!!, Esq. Office of the Executive Legal Director Hunton n Williams U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 1535 Washingtor., DC 20555 Richmond, VA 23212 l,
}
1', C. K. Mallory, III, Esa. Herbert H. Brown, Esa'. Hunton & Williams Kirkpatrick k'Lockhart- . 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. 1900 M Strest N.W., Suite 800 . ') Washington, DC 20036 Washington, DC 20036 . ;:
, ^q,]
y;
.}
. ; u.... . . - . . _ . .. _ . . . . . :._.....____ _1 , ,_ .. . . _ ,
'T ..e,
?l ,6 Y
v Docket No.(s) 50-322-OL-3 1
' Lawrence C. Lanpher, Esq. Stephen B. Latham, Esc. '
'l'
. 'Kirkpatrick k Lockhart Twomey, Latham & Shea. ' .!
1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 33 West Second Street Washington, DC 20036 Riverhead, NY 11901 '
- o. .j r
Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq. Nora L. Bredes .
. General Counsel Executive Coordinator '
'Shoreham Opponents Coelition'
,Long Island Lighting Company 175 East Old Country Road 195 East Main Street' i Hicksville, NY 11801 Smithtown, NY 11787 .
l Dr. Robert HoHean Monroe Schneider Long Island Coalition for Safe Living North Shore Committee _ , P.O. Box 1355 P.O. Box 231 Massapequa, NY 11758 Wading River, NY 11792 . a Spence W. Perry, Esq. Jay Dunkleberger Associate General Counsel New York State Energy Offics Federal Emergency Management Agency Agency Bldg. 2, Empire State Plaza i s- 500 C Strset,"S.W. Albany,' NY. 12223- . j Washington, DC- 20472 ,e Stewart M. Glass,.'Esq. Fabian 6. Palomino, Esq.
,.- Regional Counsel Special Counsel'to the Governor ,
Office of the Governor Federal Emergency Management Agency- ~
-}
26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 . State. Capitol, Room 229 J New York, NY 10278 Albany, NY 12224' Jonathaa D. Feinberg, Esq. 1 Staff Counsel New York State Public Service Mary M. Bundrum, Esq. New York State Department of Law
]
Commission Two World Trade Center, Room 4614 3 Rockefeller Plaza New York, NY- 10047 J Albany, NY 12223 ! Martin B. Ashare,'Esq. Peter Bienstock, Esq. Suffolk County Attorney 4 New' York State: Department of Law Suffdik County Offices - }; Two World Trade Center, Room 4614 H. Lee Dennison Building j New York, NY 10047 Veterans Memorial Highway i.
, Hauppauge, NY 11788 y s- (;
's e
f
p, ' -
.o . '
l~ I Docket No.(s) 50-322-OL-3
/'
/
Dated at Washington, D.C. this ' 25 day of June 1986 c ' ' / - - 7 ' __ _' _______
, A, , wf ;k _, L t. .L _ , _ _ __ _' _,__%__J Office of the Secretary of the Commission,
_. _X_ _
<L_ _ _ _lu, /
. l l
J 1 p l h a i l l
\
l l
- l l
I
. i i f 5
I 1 I e 4 "i , 4 1, 4
+
e
'3,,
+
e}}