ML20215L213
| ML20215L213 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Shoreham |
| Issue date: | 06/04/1986 |
| From: | Damato A SENATE |
| To: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20213F109 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8706250601 | |
| Download: ML20215L213 (9) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:.-._u .. _ _ a .y AUONSE M. O'AMATo I u w yons Sited $tates Etnatt WASHINGTON 'DC 20510 i ~ 91 June 4, 1986 ld, i ! The Honorable Munzio J. Palladino i Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission { 1 1717 H Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Chairman:
i As you know, an issue of ongoing concern to Long' Island, New l York, residents has been FEMA's recent actions with respect to the j Shoreham nuclear power plant. FEMA has refused to hold a public, l post-exercise meeting to receive citizen input regarding the' l evacuation plan required to be developed, tested, and certified l before the Shoreham nuclear power plant can begin full-scale operation. I ask that the Commission intervene to request that FEMA' conduct this public meeting in accordance with Part 350 of their regulations. By letters dated March 27, 1986, and April 3, 1986,. I j requested General Becton, Director of FEMA, to conduct this public 4 meeting. Copies of my letters and FEMA's reply'are enclosed for l your convenience. You will note that FEMA has refused this } l request. I do not believe that FEMA should be permitted to deny residents living near Shoreham the same rights it has afforded citizens living near Ginna, Indian Point, and other nuclear facilities. I believe this is an insult to those living'near Shoreham. 4 i Currently, FEMA's Post-Exercise Assessment is before-the ~ PRC. I ask that the NRC not consider FEMA's Assessment until the l standard public meeting is held. I ask that the NRC-return FEMA's-Assessment with the dir.ection that a new Assessment be' prepared after the required public meeting is held and the essential public input received. Nothing short of that can fulfill the Commission's responsibility to the public on Long Island. 1 Uhen FEMA's Region II Director, Frank Petrone, resigned from FEPA, he expressed concern over FEMA headquarters' failure to i permit him to hold a public meeting at Shoreham. Public participation is not something to be used by FEMA only when it j serves that agency's convenience or some.public relations purpose. s In the Soviet Union, the. people.of Chernobyl did not have the chance to participate as our Constitution guarantees United States. ^ citizens. In the wake of Chernobyl, the value of the right of I public' participation is more evident than ever. 8706250601 870622 PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR I-I
3 ..s The Honorablo Nunzio Palladino June 4, 1986 i Page 2 l Finally, I have reviewed the supplementary motion filed on l June 3 by New York State, Suffolk County, and the Tcwn of .t Southampton. There is no conceivable reason why the Commission should not grant their reasonable request for FEMA to conduct its standard public meeting. The fact is that FEMA's stubbornness has put the NRC in the position of having to make an important decision without proper input and information. The only proper course for the NRC is to face FEMA's omission squarely and to correct it ~, promptly.. Thank you for your attention to this matter. ~ Sincerely, f A ons e D'Amato l U States Senator AD:ent cc: General Julius Becton O 5 O t i ? i A i +
===;
A.rosst v 0 Amo .-m.m c Enited Etatts Etnatt WASHINGTON. oC 20510 l i March 27, 1986 3l j j] The Honorable Julius W. Becton, Jr. il Director Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472 '(
Dear General Becton:
I am writing as a follow-up to the question I submitted for the record at your fiscal year 1987 appropriations hearing on March i Specifically, I asked for your assurance that FEMA will conduct a public meeting concerning LILCO's February 13 exercise beforeYour re 5. reaching conclusions on the exercise. regulation 44 CFR 350 provides for the conduct of a-FEMA meeting after an exercise, involving the exercise participants, Federal agencies, and the public and media.at the soliday 1 15, 1986, Such a meeting was held on February Inn used as the Joint News Center for the Shoreham exescise. .The pur' pose of Members of the press and public were present. the meeting was so that-FEMA could, share its initial i After FEMA's impressions on how the exercise went. presentation, made by the Chairman of the Regional Assistance Committee, members of the press asked questions informally'. At least one member of the public also asked questions. i While I appreciate that FEMA held the February 15 meeting, that meeting is not the "public meeting" to which my question refers. 44 CFR 350, which provides: "Within 48 the regulation you cite, hours of the completion o-f the exercise, a briefing involving the exercise participants and Federal observers shall be conducted by. the Regional Director to discuss the preliminary results of the l exercise." j The "public meeting" addressed by my question is required. by i Section 350.10 (a) a separate subsection of the same regulation. requires t l' Regional Director "shall assure that The meeting conducted in the vicinity of the nuclear power plant."to acqua (1) 'l purpose of the meeting shall be (2) to answer any public with the conduct of the exercise;to receive suggestions from the questions about the exercise; (3) public concerning improvements or changes that may be nece emergency preparedness; andin which the emergency plan e an actual emergency.
.~- ..a a=..-.y.
- 1. *
.s 'The HonorabAe Julius W. B e c t o n, J r.. March 127, 1986 Page 2 i Section 350.10(b) underscores the importance of the public . meeting: jl ...This meeting shall be noticed in the local. newspaper with_ the largest circulation.in the area, or,other media as the i ~I Regional Director may select, on at least two occasions, one 1 of which is at least two weeks before the meeting takes place u t.nd the other is within'a few days of the meeting-date... 1 >l
- i e.,
Fablic input from the meeting is considered by FEMALto be so. important that section1350.10(b) further states that no FEMA l approval of'an emergency. plan can be made unless such a public . meeting ~is held. And, under Section 350.11(c), the Regional . Director must. include "a summary of the deficiencies' identified durine the oublic meetino" in the evaluation of the exercise he transmits to FEMA Headquarters. The facts are as follows: j FEMA has complied with only a part of the regulation cited o in your letter by conducting on February 15 the briefing required by section 350.9; ' l FEMA has not complied with a more important rEquirementLof o the regulation you cite: the public meeting mandated by.Section j 350.10. Indeed, FEMA has still not even issued the advance notice. of such a public meeting required by section 350.10(b), Before the Regional Director-can conclude his. evaluation o. of the February 13 exercise, he must consider input from the public meeting 'reuqired by section 350.10. (See section.350.11(a)); and In the evaluation of the February 13 ' exercise 'that the o Regional Director will transmituto. FEMA Hea6 quarters,-he must summarize the deficiencies identified,during the public meeting. (See Section 350.11(c)). There is no justification for FEMA to ignore or discriminate l against the people who live near Shoreham or to deny them'the same treatment that FEMA gives to people living near other nuclear power plants. The reason FEKA has held a'public meeting after every ' other exercise is. to gather information from the public that can improve emergency preparedness..The people of Long Island have just as much to offer FEMA as people living elsewhere; and FEMA l should seek them out as it has done with local residents in every-other case. A refusal by FEMA to do this here would be a1 slap at
- Long Island's citizens and a violation of the regulationLyou have cited in your reply to me.
j In the case of Shoreham, where a utility is attempting to . i. supplant'the emergency response function of State and County. gov-d', 1 i ernments which have in good faith determined not to adopt emergency. ...-:._...._ow meLn..-__.
l s s The Honorab2e Julius W.'Beeton, Sr. sa'sch 27, 1986 i Page 3 plans, it is even more compelling for FEMA to reach out for the public's vie'ws and insights. It is significant that you cite and acknowledge the control of 44 CFR 350, but what is even more important is that you be willing to acknowledge the vulnerability of the public at Shoreham and not shortehange them on procedures-l which have become standard for FEMA everywhere else. Indeed, this is a case where FEMA should take every reasonable measure to gather practical information and insights from the public so as to assure that it is not* imperiling the safety of the people who live near { the Shoreham plant. Therefore, I ask that you instruct your Regional Director'to hold a public meeting with the people of Long Island in accordance' j with FEMA's standard practice and regulations. Until that meeting' is held and FEMA receives and meaningfully considers the public's j i input, the Regional Director should withhold judgments concerning the February 13 exercise. j j Thank you.for your attention to this matterg -- l Sincerely, fo e D'Am o Unite States Senator; AD:ent cc: Frank Petrone e 4 ? d ~ q
t <,.v ous t v c f.v ue nern vota i Enitti Etates 5tnatt j WASWNGTON. De 20MO l ) o April 3, 1986 The Bonorable Julius W. Becton, Jr. Director { Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C. 20472
Dear General Becton:
l This is a follow-up to my letter to you dated March 27, i 1986. In that letter, I requested that you direct FEMA's Region II l Director to conform to FEMA's standard practice by holding the i normal post-exercise public meeting regarding Shoreham, and to ~ withhold judgment on LILCO's February 13 exercise until the j public's input is received and meaningfully considered. .l i i i am writing today in ref erence to statements of FEMA's Mr. McAda spokr aman, William McAda, quoted in Newsdav of April 2. said that FEMA's regulations (i.e., 10 CFR 35 0) requiring a l post-exercise public meeting do not apply at Shoreham because this j situation is " unique." I am outraged by that st a temen t '. l First, your own response to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on HUD and Independent Agencies to my March 5 question l i for the record applied 10 CFR 350 to the Shoreham: situation. You i l not only cited this regulation, but went so far as to contend that FEMA dutifully complied with it on February 15. It is~ l inappropriate for your spokesman now to try to back away f rom what j I trust that you l you told me in a considered written response. will back up your own words. \\ Second, Mr. McAda's position that the " uniqueness
- of'the Shoreham situation justifies cutting the citizens of Suffolk County out of FEMA's normal public meeting process is insulting.
- Congress, has funded FEMA to help' protect the public, not to use the Agency's j
resources to run roughshod over them. Unfortunately, it is j becoming clear that the major " uniqueness
- at Shoreham is FEMA's unwillingness to treat the people who live near Shoreham the sam'e way FEMA ' treats people living near every other nuclear power l
plant. I remind you tha't at both Indian Point and Ginna in New j York, FEMA's Regional Of fice held public meetings following the j emergency preparedness exercises and prior to concluding the Suffolk's residents have the same concerns for the. 's evaluations. safety of their families as.the people near Indian Point and Ginna. FEMA cannot treat them as second-class citizens. d. & i 34 Ml
The Honorabl. Julius W. ocet.on, Ji, April 3, 1986 ~ I Fage 2 4 Mr. Mc5da's effort to undo your written response to me is particularly disturbing in light of the importance FEMA has placed on having a public meeting following the exercise at every other 1 'l plant. For example, after the Indian Point exercise, FEMA's oniv' j spokeswoman told the press that public meetings are held, ._ot n ). because they are reeuired, but also because " Frequently, people i have offered valid criticism and good suggestions. Then the plan is_ modified accordingly." This is precisely what happened at Ginna, where the plan was adjucted to accommoda$e public input concerning the need to sound sirenc carlier than was done in the exercise. 3 Finally, it is unconscionab3e that Mr. McAda would even-attempt to justify denying Suf folk's citizens-the public meeting that FEMA routinely offers people everywhere else. I remind you j I that, when FEMA adopted 10 CRF 350, FEMA specifically rejected a j j proposal to eliminate public meetings. FEMA stated at page 44335 of the September 28D98L Federal' ReCIIst er:
- j'
.t .4 1 Despite the deficiencies of public meetings as evidence,d by q i poor attendance in some cases, FEMA believes that it is essential to provide an opportunity to the public living i around or near a nuclear power plant to be informed about l specific emergency response p3 ans and preparednps. as well a:: i to discuss specific concerns with responsible officials. l i Therefore, the public. meeting : requirement, should be retained. Also, in order to wake public. meeting more. meaningful, the language in the rule has been revised in order to have public meetings he3d after the initial j exercise. Thus, in addition to discussions on the. emergency response plans, the opporutnity is provided to the public to also discuss the exercise. l Suffolk County residents are concerned with safety issues surrounding Shoreham. Given this-fact, and given the intense i commitment by FEMA to the concept of poct-exercise public meetings and, indeed, FEMA's practice of holding such public' meetings i i everywhere else, I ask for your prompt assurance that FEMA vill hold the standard public' meeting in Suffolk County,-and that you will instruct your Region II Director in accordance.with the ( request set forth in my letter dated March 27, 1986. 'l Sincerely, [ gv$ i N 5fo se D'Amato Unit d States Sen$ tor- .f'I l AD:ent G I y:
- - - - - - - - ~ - - - ' -. -. ~, x q Federal Emergency Managernent Agency \\ F Washington, D.C. 20472 4- ^ ~ hh8 2i 7 q. The Honorable Alfonse D'Amato I' United States Senate" 'l Washington, DC 20510 n
Dear Senator D'Amato:
Director Becton has asked me to respond to your letters of March 27, 1986 and April 3,1986, concerning your request that the Federal Emergency Management s Agency (FEMA) conduct a public meeting in connection with its evaluation of LILC0!s February 13 exercise at _ the Shoreham nuclear power plant. q .] At the outset it should be emphasized that the requirements of Part 350 of 44 CFR, Review and Approval of State and Local Radiological Emergency Plans and Preparedness, are not applicable t'o this case. I,; Under FEMA rule 44 CFR 350.10 the only provision for a public meeting on offsite planning and prepa edness relates to a meeting, (in. practice normally sponsored by a participactn1 State) held to explain State and local government emergency plans. to the pt.b1 Ac and to receive public comments on those plans. In the case at hand. Stat e and local governments have no plans'to explain'and have opted not to participate in a 44 CFR 350 process. The exercise evaluation conducted by FEMA for the. Shoreham' fixed nuclear generating facility has been conducted pursuant to the Memorandum of I Understanding (MOU) between FEMA and the Nuclear Regulatory Conutission (NRC). which governs such activities. A 'piblic meeting' on the exercise conducted by FEMA similar to ' the. type l specified in 44 CFR' 350.10 to explain State and local plans would not 'be U consistent with FEMA's role in the licensing process in this case.- FEMA's evaluation and report have been prepared at the NRC's request for use in that Agency's licensing proceedings. In light of the pending litigation, it would be inappropriate for FEMA to discuss its report outside. the context'of the NRC licensing process. Indeed, to do so would be an unprecedented act. j It is anticipated that the hearings before the ASLB will be extensive. Eve ry legitimate issue will be open to litigation by the parties. Hearings normally are preceded by extensive discovery. Under NRC rules, the right of the parties. co explore the basis for the evaluation and report is extensive.. Key' FEMA staf f involved in the evaluation will be made available for cross-l examination under oath. There will thus.ce ample opportunity for the State, Suf folk County, and Long Island Lighting Co::pany (LILCO).to examine the basis for the FEMA evaluation. J yl. ,..>li) a j, f1 A
w... i ~, .~ f e-c \\ / 1 4 \\ 1 Partner, under NRC procedures, the ASLB has consideraole discretton to ,. 1 accommocate the expression of local pubite interest and tne destres of local ?-] d I citizens to be heard during its licensing proceedings. I regret that FEMA's response to tne Senate Appropriations Succommittee on the HUD-Independent Agencies Appropriation Act cancerning a nearing for Suf foix \\. County on toe Shorenam exercise was somewnat confusing. Cu t answer explaining that the meeting FEMA neld for tne beneitt of tne pucisc and tne par:1cipants 1 after the rectuary 13 exeteisa was samtiac to those neld shortly after- ] exeretses of State and $dcal p'ans'at other nuclear facilities em41d oe .-l ccnstrued as saying that 44 CFR 350 procedures applied to FEMA's evalu6 tion of j j the Shocenam exercise. As I explained acove, this is not so. i please ce assured that FEMA is committed to carrying out its assigned role in j these licensing proceedings in a responsible manner. If I can be of further ) assistance, please advise, 3 Sincerely, enehk.teitr-b Acting Genera'i Cou nsel. { N) 1 l l i l i e 4 ) f _s 44 +:. 6 O i i, n 4
.._4 t._. ,.a._
- 4. 'cyl'^d.
f3# t ) k k I i h M ALpg7. NAMINC essase armsy vo: ( N.V.s.sEMatt.Absantsaa47 SENATOR, s?W OlsfMICf ,0, $ TAT 4 P' ' N E W 'r o R (s'el essaassa cuasamaa com.,itect om samm s O'sreier erriec: s ....s....s,...,_. p. f:,.::, ;;;,.. ?. g'. ;" W y.p numfimo f on. s a a v 6ose D p., (seel maa*Ff es ,.f: / (, ) sao st 'fu st.cgr ofsfCR Ja?. N. v. so f f t d, ,, ), y a' +., < s.. > >, a... o h 1986 N / f f.Q? a i / v l ^ - SlikueikF d Q~'O1 L 3 y., (,,' The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino ""~ M l .~. Chairman ~~* Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street Northwest N n M fb Mb Washington, D.C. 20555 .e 9
Dear Chairman Palladino:
{ I am enclosing a public stateme'nt of the i Nassau. County Republican Legislative' Delegation l regarding Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant.. I respectfully urge the Commission to prohibit its opening and operation. I very truly yours, ( i ':',j, , {< /. w, -. ,s c
- 3...
+ Ralch J. Marino / Chairman Nassau County Republican Delegdtiii RJM: afb Enclosure ~f
- 4 l m
\\ D O7230291 B'60610. _. _... ..a "5 i PDR ADOCK 05000322 % 1 U PDR ^ l mnn l W ' W-
.me 3 thWS t e- ~ 3 _from Senator Ralph J. Marino
- C,d';'37' 5th Senatorial District, Nassau/Suffolk Tetessumme ($181408 2382
Contact:
Brian Colfer FOR IMMEDIATE RELE June 10, 1986 -' MEMBERS OF THE NASSAU COUNTY REPUBLICAN LEGISLATIVE DELEGATION TODA ISSUED THE FOLI4 WING STATEMENT: "We oppose the opening of the Shoreham Nuclear Plant and any' attempt to pass its cost on to the consumer. l " Prior to the.Chernobyl nuclear accident, we insisted that two f conditions be met before we would support Shoreham's opening. Theyare$. ) , g g l. That a safe evacuation. plan be put into places and (.j 2. That the plant, itself, be proved safe.- I "The tragedy at Chernobyl, coupled with the recognition that adequate ) { emergency planning for Ghoreham is not possible without State and local l t participation, leads us to conclude that the Shoreham Plant should not be i licensed to operate. We have today expressed this view.in a letter f.o the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. "Long Island ratepayers should not have to bear the costs of'Shorehan a if the plant'does not open. LILCO should not be allowed to charge rate-payers for construction and planning costs of the Shoreham plant, unless the facility is actually producing power for consumer use. We call upon' g Assembly Speaker Stanley Fink to permit the Assembly to consider legislati '/ already passed by the State Senate whi'ch reaffirms the 'used and useful' principle. We are also calling upon the Governor, to exert his leadership l to have the Speaker bring this bill to the floor for debate and a vote. "The Nassau and Suf folk Legislative Delegation, and the residents' of Long Island, have' waited long enough for the recommendations of Governor cuomo's commission on Public Power and Shoreham which was originally ordered to report by April lat. The Legislature must act now." The Nassau Republican legislative delegation is comprised of Senator Ral;:h J. Marino, Senauer John R. Dunne, Senator Norman J. Levy, Senator Michael J. Tully, Senator Dean G. Skeles, Assemblyman Frederick E. Parola, Assemblyman Philip B. Healey, Assemblyman Daniel Frisa, Assemblyman Kemp Hannon, Assemblyman Armand P. D'Amato, Assemblymant q Cregory R. Becker and Assemblyman George U. Madison. 7. I
~ i - ~' . =. - = a9, . ~. ~.. w:.:.:.. b $ $ $ $ c*** O b O b O l 0 ~' t ~ 4 eveeve... PASSED RESOLUTION -- SHOREHAM EVACUATION PLAN BOARD OF EDUCATION,LROCKY POINT PUBLIC SCHOOLS b. JUN 101986W., [ The Rocky Point School Board hereby replaces and supersedes 'its 1983 ' tc 6 JCH Shoreham Resolution with the following May 19,'1986 Resolution WEREAS, the Rocky Point School District is located within t 10-p j J mile radiological emergency planning zone of the Shoreham plant; and' l WHEREAS, the Rocky Point Board of Education is cognizant of i responsibilities relative to the health and safety of students and scho personnel; and WEREAS, the governments of Suffolk County and New York' State, after extensive analysis, decided not to adopt 'or implement any-radiological emergency evacuation plan-for response to a,Shoreham 8 emergency; and ' I-r d WEREAS, New York State Supreme Cou$t decisions have upheld Suf folk County's decision not to adopt or implement any plan for Shoreham;- and i t. since the LILC0 emergency plan for Shoreham hat beep found to be beyond j LILCO's authority to implement, it would be inappropriate for the Rocky i Point School District to cooperate ~with LILCO regarding Shoreham l planning; 'and \\ l WEREAS, the Rocky Point Board of Education believes that. the ~ governments of Suffolk County and New York have acted responsibly and in furtherance of the interests of Rocky Point School District residents in deciding not to adopt or implement any. radiological. emergency evacuation / plan for Shoreham; and q Lon' ' Island WHEREAS, the Shoreham emergency plan developed by s Lighting Company makes unwarrented assumptions about the willingness and-j 3 capability of Rocky Point school personnel to undertake emergency actions i in the event of a Shoreham radiological emergency; and WHEREAS, the Rocky Point Board of Education af ter. 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 Rocky Point, it is clear ,'I that Rocky Poin school personnel could not and would not implement early-dismissal, evacuation, sheltering or other protective actions in ~ the event of a Shoreham radiological emergency evacuation;: and WHEREAS, the Rocky Point School District is informed that the' l Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Licensing Board concludedthat: Rocky Point school preparedness is adequate for.a Shoreham radiological emergency evacuation; and WHEREAS, the Rocky Point School District is informed that the Federal Emergency Management Agency appears to have ignored the ~ f act Rocky Point School District has adopted no plan and performed'no' training for a Shoreham radiological emergency; and / i WEREAS, that the mere acceptance and use of tone alect radios does not in any way indicate Rocky Point School Board's ; acceptance 'of, L or - 3 V l.1 ~ cooperation with LILCO's proposed evacuatica plan. M. e i er. s J
~. w . ~, - -. Page -2 of 2 pages Msy 19,'1986 PASSED RESOLUTION -- SHOREHAM EVACUATION PLAN BOARD OF EDUCATION, ROCKY POINT PUBLIC SCHOOLS ] 1 j NOW THEREFORZ RE IT, \\ RESOLVED, that the Rocky Point Board of Education recognizes its i responsibilities to students. and school personnel in the Rocky - Point School District; and be it.further RESOLVED, that the Rocky Point Board of Education recognizes. that the LILCO plan provides no way~of dealing with the potential ~1iability of the - Rocky _ Point School District or of the school employees' which could ~ arise out of lawsuits resulting from a Shoreham radiological evacuation, l or from protective actiona taken during a radiological emergency evacuation;. and be.it further l RESOLVED, that the Rocky Point Board of Education fully supports the Suffolk-County Legislature and the State of New York in their t osition of ; refusing to participate in shoreham radiological emergency ievacuation planning and in their opposition' to the licensing of the-Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant; and be it further f RESOLVED, therefore, that the Rocky Point Board of Education cannot ) and will not adopt or implement any plan for,.or perform any. training { for, or participar.e ' in any exercise of school protective actions, for j response to a Shorehata radiologcial emergency, and that to do so would be 1 irresponsible; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Rocky Point Board of Education conclude's that no operating license be granted to LILCO for the Shoreham Nuclear Power s Plant. ) r s i $1 yl P 'O i am $- e dn. a
....j _-.7.. ,ge.. --. ; f s l A Cl3rj jMk, y j.%' .,? UNITED STATES y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION. '*4; g t W ASHIN oTON, O.C. 20553 f , ; i, , Y O3 g.g., .g "2 %s." M b' / W 9 9n-gg ./ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' oppics oF THE \\' Y SECR ETA RY } ' ,..g \\ [i c' [~g 1 Wl?J y]H $ Ws 3 MEMORANDUM FOR: Soard and Parties: 4I 50-322-OL-3.Shoreham (Emergency Planning) 3i ~50-352/353-OL Limerick ' ^! 50-443/444-OL Seabrook (Offsite Emergency Planning) d William L. Clements, Chief, Docketing a'nd Service BrancP [ - l FROM:
SUBJECT:
EX PARTE FILING FROM WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION 41 <_s ( i, .1 - J > ~ > 4 Attached i's a copy of a paper which was recently submitted to the
- 'i Commission by the Washington Legal Foundation entitled Offsite Emercency Planning for Nuclear Power Plants
- A Case of Governmental Gridlock.
Since. -i j tnis document presents arguments on several issues wnich are currently in 3 litigation in the above-mentioned proceedings, the Office of the General Counsel has determined that it falls within the prohibitions of 10 CFR 52.780. Accordingly, copies are being served on the Boards and parties in these proceedings. J 3 \\ .y . l 1 I. 'I ] .O ') i; 3 1j i 1 1 k 3 4 l , hf marm$ 9 {,~.
7m I w....... .~5,,, ...,.. i L, 3 ' g j, ,g, ,, g,,,,;_,,,.,,,, ,. t 1 ..s Ls \\ ' \\, }, c-y -s< 1 4 i s .. P - /- \\ g) ' I t ) f,. t / t i/ i / y )
- . q 1
t .i 5 l q g y r i t' \\ .. i 4 i -} g .; l 5 i f) j i i,> / e z r b 3 / l 7' OFFSITE 04ERGENCY PIMlgNG
- /.t FOR NUCLEIG POWER PLANTS
i r' A CASD OF GOVERNMENTA",np i GRIDLUCK 9 I /'_ i ,f c, ,/ } <p .l \\ ..s e v ..' '.1 l -, c/ 'a , J,., y ' ,.4 ) it, t.},a . " 'l s 8 i i,.\\, ! ,1 "l[, by
- ltr, f
Robert M. K'Ader. C 't i 'l (Conner E Wetter $ahn,..P.C.)
- 5. ', \\, s\\ <, t 1
t- >2 ..t i y\\ (} li 4 1 , ' 1 <i,- i' ,,<\\ e , ; / ), q ,,3,- }' / j g l ./ 6 ) a, ) ,f-i}- .i ( / 6-g. >? l - p / . '/{ {\\ ? \\ t e ,/, ,r y i
- ,6 7
r c 7 \\' 't e t, 4 f 1, e t ? f .h tQ t r' /, .). i //: .t
- r i
(, t / r8 (t y, .j a .t. ,/ q. A ( /.. ~ j ..q f 1 1 e 3 I. t WASHINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION .f s ^fl ,i critical Legal Issues Working Paper, Series - No. 4 e ', i] t April,1966 -g .. ( ), o>t k(j we#[lo% ha, "Y. y. i m m
4. ~. _ _.. l , 1, ' 5 I. PRESERVING THE NUCLEAR OPTION. When Congress enacted the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,1/ J it confidently envisioned that nuclear power would result in. fj 1 t l the production of electricity "too cheap. to meter." In . 's retrospect,. there are - many reasons ' why less fanciful yet s - 4 promising expectations have not been achieved for the 3 nuclear power industry in the United States. Whatever the .'s y-causes,.it is undebatable that our national. program for l !. ). 1 constructing and licensing nuclear facilities _has lagged [ M i t seriously behind the more ambitious and successful programs.- + .1 l .) of other' countries, especially in the last decade. - < i t The French, for example, relied.upon nucidar power,to produce 65 percent of.their electricity last year,S/ Japan,' r which is
- a. relative latecomer, has already climded'the i
,~ i 1
- ',e ladder of top achievers by accounting for three of the e
world's ten highest ranked nuclear plant performers in-1985i ,m Finland's Olkiluoto-2 735 MW reactor is the leading lifetime performer (based on 500+ MW plants in commercial operation-for more than three years). The Grohnde nuclear plant in West Germany, the highest capacity unit in the world at 1,365 MW gross, set.a w.orld record for single reactor output I jJ i 1,/ 42 U.S.C. 52011 et seg. 1, 1 : 2/ 27 Mucleonics Week 7 (January 9, 198,6). j i ,,,4 ? , '. :q i i i r y .' i,- s 1
- r,,-
s. s' 4 the Three Mile Island-plant on March 28, 1979. Since the i high-water mark of 1975, when the industry had plans for 244 reactors, El scores of reactor applications have been a-withdrawn. Currently, one hundred light-water reactors have l been licensed by the NRC (including five licensed for 1 ) low-power operation at this time). Only thirty operating "l s license applications are in the licens.ing pipeline and the status of seven of those plants is questionable. Revival of the nuclear industry chiefly depends upon changes to make ,,_.s / i licensing actions more predictable and therefore less ai ,? {
- costly, obviously, many areas of reform are required for a
any real rejuvenation, principally new procedures for ,- ] standardized reactor design approval and licensing in a { j single stage. i t one area symptomatic of an ineffective regulatory system is the current program for ensuring adequate planning q and preparedness to protect the offsite populace-from 4 1 radiological hazards in the event of a serious nuclear power plant' accident.
- Granted, prudent planning for
. serious offsite releases, while hypothetical and extremely improba-ble, should be undertaken. On the other hand, the division of regulatory responsibilities for offsite emergency a S/ This figure included 53 operating reactors, 63 with construction
- permits, 75.
construction permit-applications, 32 ordered and 21 for which a public commitment had been made. ...,lj .s. 2a 4 ) 7 I e a
. 5 ~- ~~ ^' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ' ~ ^
- n..;
.~ These vices :in. emergency planning can and should be l' censing of nuclear power i . rooted out to f'acilitate the plants and to demonstrate anew our national commitment to 1 the growth of nuclear power as a safe, efficient and en-
- J f
vironmentally sound source of electricity. 4 ? II. ' THE NRC/ FEMA REGULATORY PROGRAM. In order to issue an operating license for a nuclear .1 power plant, the NRC must find, inter alia, that there is 1 " reasonable assurance" that the plant can be operated pi. "without endangering the health and safety of the public."6/ A "q This includes safety findings as 'to emergency planning and .-..:j -_' i preparedness to protect offsite population near the-plant ~,yi 'g' from radiation if a serious accident beyond the plant's f design basis should occur.; As shorthand, this is known as, j "offsite planning." Plans and preparedness for.the nuclear station itself constitute "onsite planning." Under 10 4 l C.F.R. 550. 47 (a) (1), "no operating lic?*se for _a nuclear i ) power reactor will be issued unless a finding is made by NRC t that there is reasoriable assurance that adequate protective-measures can and will be taken in the event of a radio-logical emergency." 1 ( k' 6/ 10 C.F.R. 550.57 (a) (3) (1). The " reasonable assurance" standard derives from.Section 103 of the Atemic Energy l[ Act, 42 U.S.C. 52133. See Duke Power Comeany (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1.and 2), ALAS-813, 22 NRC.59, 2 64 (1985). f /, _ I 4
one at each plant before it is permitted to operate above' five percent of full power) to determine ' actual emergency preparedness. These exercises include participation by the utility, the NRC, all State agencies with emergency response )' n functions and all local governments within a nuclear power a plant's plume exposure emergency planning zone (EPZ), which s.- is an area approximately ten miles in radius from the plant. The EPZ.is the area for which actions are planned in advance to evacuate or shelter the public if a plant should l _/ experience an. accidental offsite release of radiation. Remedial drills and exercises are conducted to test portions of the plan which were not performed or performed unsatisfactorily in the full exercise. Based upon its review of offsite plans and its report, on the conduct of the emergency exercise, FEMA p'rovides " interim findings" to the NRC. Under NRC regulations,. t t. FEMA's findings constitute a " rebuttable presumption" -as to J the adequacy of plans and the capability'of State and local governments to implement them. b The role of FEMA.in NRC i licensing proceedings is set forth in a Memorandum of Understanding between the NRC and FEMA relating to radio-logical emergency planning and preparedness, effective e .i J f 1'i 1_0f 10 C.F.R. 550.47 (a) (2). 0 y, i , f ?. L4 O
. _.. _, 9.. ;, 3 .g ..e planning is not decided until the operating. license stage. An evidentiary '. hearing. is required by. statute in, an i i operating license proceeding only if a ' petitioner requerts and qualifies for one.14/ '/ o a-Hence, whether or not the NRC substantially involves .,'j ) i itself in offsite emergency planning (it must always review ensite planning) fortuitensly depends upon a hearing request. '.ti j .I,'l by even a single petitioner. In turn, the likelihood'of a hearing request. depends greatly upon the political climate (,. q ~ around a plant, an-individual's willingness to devote time j'
- G f '
NRC intervention. - to NRC hearings and the vagaries of the .,n j.' process. 1, It is difficult to overstate the frustration experi-I enced by a utility which has invested huge capital sums to, bring a nuclear power plant on line promptly, con 1sistent. with safety and environmental concerns, only to face' pro-tracted hearings which rarely result in any measurable d ./ contribution to reactor safety or public protection frem potential radiological hazards. Because a utility cannot j3 I compel State and local governments to develop and adopt
- plans, much less pledge to implement them in an actual Ii emergency, it can only urge public officials to act respon-
.i sibly by preparing plans sufficiently in advance that plant _j ' j .) 1 M/- Section 189a of the Atomic Energy.Act, 42 U.'s.C. i q r; S2239 (a). .,,. = c 3 -e 5
--..~-.m ._ _..., 31 2: .g 7 .h and safety relative to plant operations, may intervene and hearing'. Consequently, the NRC's regulations on demand a intervention have become a litany which is ritualistically invoked but of little practical import. Attempts by indus-q try lawyers to put teeth in the rule have been invariably restrictive.16/ Thus, the NRC Appeal ^ ' slapped down as too Board, which reviews licensing. board decisions, has effec-tively repealed the NRC's regulations on intervention and substituted a new, g facto 50-mile proximity test. D The
- d_e, facto proximity rule produces incongruous e
results in licensing hearings on emergency plans. The, protective measures which would be taken'.within a plant's 16/ In the ' North Anna case, the Appeal' Board ' held that ' "close proximity (i.e., within 50 miles] has. always been deemed to be enough, standing alone, to establish the requisite interest" to intervene in a licensing (', proceeding. Virginia Electric and Power Company (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-522, 9 NRC 54, 56 (1979). This reversed a licensing board's s _/ denial of intervention sought by an individual who l resided 45 miles from the North Anna plant and.who claimed that she canced on-the North Anna-River. Declaring that it was "not immediately obvious that such recreational activity in the general vicinity of the plant perforce would not be-affected by the issuance of the sought license amendment," North Anna, sucra, ALAB-522, 9 N',C at 57,'the Appeal Board ordered her admission to the proceeding. 17/ Some licensing boards resisted this illegal rulemaking by the Appeal-Board, but inevitably concluded that "(a]lthough residence within 50 miles is not ant explicit requirement-for intervention by - right ; that limit is consistent'with precedent'. Cleveland Electric Illuminatine Company (Perry Nuclear Power ?. ant, Units 1 and
- 2),
LBP-81-24, 14 NRC 175,.178 j (1981). 9 h., 4 sq3 y M 5 e.
--....._--.-....a ..-7
- 7..
/,- i.: If individuals sincerely question the reliability of t offsite plans, :neans other than adjudicatory hearings exist for reasoned voices to be heard. As it is,
- however, a
,,j determined intervenor armed with a set of plans has a blueprint for delaying a. plant's license through NRC hear-i m ings whether or not that is his purpose. Eu intervenor can draft admissible contentions "with. reasonable specificity" i by simply matching plan sections against applicable planning l standards. .Under this " table of contents" approach, the h') ) J contentions fairly well write themselves. The requirement yi v for adequate ' " bases, " on the other. hand, has been effec .T ~ that ' a tively written out of the regulations by decisions licensing board may not decide the " merits" of a contention under the guise-of examining its " bases." b These; 1 i 1 decisions disregard the fact that the NRC is the repository of vast. knowledge in a range of scientific and engineering >l disciplines. .._s. i O' This liberni pleading practice enables. interveners to I 'i i obtain a hearing on practically any emergency planning issue 20/ On the environmental
- side, for example, the Appeal-Board reversed a licensing board's denial:of an utterly-l frivolous contention that a
marine-- biomass
- farm,
~' comprising 400,000 acres (6 24 - square miles), could be l used for growing kelp to produce alcohol or methane. gas-- ~ as an environmentally superior alternative to the j-Allens Creek Nuclear ~ Plant.-.The technically. qualified member of the Appeal Board strongly dissented.. Houston i Lichtine and Power Comeanv (Allens Creek.- Nuclear-j Generating-- S tation, Unit. 1), ALAB-590, 11 NRC 542 4 i (1980). t.Q e .s . ? l1
., _13.,z __ nnz_zz.zzzz5a [ ,a7 p 1. own.once under way. Even with the most experienced admin-istrative law ju'ge at the helm,.NRC hearings may become a d vehicle by which intervenors attempt to lecture on the evils 4 of nuclear power and explain why local officials should not i 3-{ cooperate in adopting workable emergency plans. This 1 1 I pointless and wasteful exercise should cease. ~j j ~ .J 1j IV. THE NRC'S EARLY REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFSITE EMERGENCY PLANNING. 4
- Why, then, has the NRC assumed responsibility for i (A, placing its imprimatur on FEMA's review?
Certainly, nothing / j ./ q v in the Atomic Energy Act requires the NRC to do so. The ?* d I, basic charter of the NRC has been "to encourage widespread- , "1 participation in the development and. utilization of atomic j. energy for peaceful purposes to the maximum
- extent consis-i tent with the common defense and security. and' with the' i
health and safety of the public." E Under its rigorous I standards, the NRC assures that reactort have.been properly j i r' constructed and are safe to operate before they are li- ,./~ censed. Licensing reviews are strict and demanding., i }' 7 (Footnote Continued) I 249 (1984) (excluding contentions postulating a serious accident created or complicated by a simultaneous earthquake). 2_3/ 42 U.S.C. 52013 (d). With the p.assage of the Energy-l 3 Reorganization Act of 1974, Pub. L. 93-438, 88 Stat. )) 1233 on October 11, 1974, the Atomic Energy Commission was abolished. Regulatory functions were transferred to 'the
- NRC, while promotional functions-were 1
transferred to the Energy. Research and Development . Administration and later to - the Department of Energy. d,1 Pub. L. 95-91, 91 Stat. 565 (1.977).. 1 .,; d& 9"$ s e a
, y _,.. q 1 ac i ji, 4 . utility's plan outlining its onsite response to an emergen-cy. Offsite pla'nning was skeletal and covered an area of only one to a few miles beyond the plant's site boundary. ) i 4]j .i j The utility was required to describe how it would contact 4 local, State and federal governmental agencies which would q] respond to an emergency and, in general terms, how offsite ]. agencies would protect public health and safety.E The nuts and bolts of offsite p.' ining were 'accom-plished outside reactor licensing proceedings. In 1970, the ( } i s' Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), now the NRC, initiated a d .t i nonstatutory program to provide offsite planning assistance. 'T] This included a checklist for preparing and evaluating State / (1 and local government plans for nuclear power plants. EI-The AEC did
- not, however, review those plans or condition.
e .I issuance of a reactor license upon the adequacy of offsite plans..It merely helped State and local governments to plan
- )
1 i (Footnote Continued) populated area to puepare a probabilistic risk i assessment (PRA) to analyze the predicted consequences j of a serious accident. ~ o 27/ See 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E ( 1979.) ; Nuclear 1 Regulatory Commission, " Emergency Planning for Nuclear 'l Power Plants," Regulatory Guide 1.101 '( Rev. 1) (March j 1977). 28/ Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Guide and Checklist for ~ Development and Evaluation of State and Local Government Radiological Emergency
Response
Plans' in Support of Fixed Nuclear Facilities," NUREG-75/111 (Rev. 1) (1975). The NRC issued further guidance in a j, " Handbook for Federal. Assistance - to State and Local L 1 Governments in Radiological Emergency Response-F. Planning," NUREG-0093 (June 1976). 2 .. ~ 4
+ - ~.. ~., ..... ~, _.. f :., V. ENHANCED OFFSITE EMERGENCY PLANNING AFTER lj THE THREE M1LE ISLAND ACCIDENT IN 1979. 1 As a result of the Three Mile Island accident in March 1 1979, the NRC'was criticized for not requiring more detailed i offsite planning, particularly local planning, in case of' nuclear power plant emergencies.31/ The Kemeny Commission, 7 appointed by the President, issued its report in October, 1979 and urged that'" responsibility at the federal level for radiological emergency
- planning, including. planning-for O
coping-with radiological
- releases, should rest with wi FEMA."M!
The Rogovin Commission, appointed by the NRC, I is. sued its report in January, 1980. It agreed that federale * ( planning should be consolidated within FEMA because it'"is I in a better position to coordinate planning and action by State and local authorities, with whom it deals r'egularly, than the NRC."N Nonetheless, it recommended that the NRC l retain a' role in defining planning criteria because FEMA was in its infancy and " lacks the expertise in the particular i 31/ See " Report of the President's commission on. the Accident at Three' Mile Island,, the Need for Change: The Legacy _of TMI" at 76-77 (October '1979) (hereinafter "Kemeny Report") ; "Three Mile Island: A Report.to the Commissioners and to the Public" 'at 131-33 (January -1980) (hereinaf ter "Rogovin Report"). - t M/ Kemeny Report at 76. { M/ Rogovin Report at 131. 3 v4 I. 9
.~. + 1 i The White House did not define " lead responsibility" in i transferring all'offsite emergency, planning and preparedness functions to FEMA. Whatever nisawes the President had in j ' mind were obviously lost upon che affected agencies, but k i-d{ this much is clear: nothing in the President's order direct-jl -ai ed the NRC to inject offsite. emergency planning, including ] approval of offsite plans, into its' license proceedings.El y What-emerged under his order, regrettably / produced exactly that result. t'N i (/ The resulting Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between i ,q! the NRC and FEMA, effective January 14, 1980, stated - that.,, jH ij - I FEMA would take the lead in offsite emergency planning, 'j j ? including review and evaluation of State and local emergency plans f.ar operating reactors and those licensed thereaf-ter.EI This entailed specific findings as to whether the l plans are adequate and capable of being implemented. The-i i 1 MOU declared that previous NRC concurrence in State and ,t 1 H/ In fact, the President expressly distinguished between FEMA's newly designated offsite responsibilities and the NRC's ' statutory responsibility for on-site emergency preparedness and response." Id. at 10. The i Kemeny Commission stated that FEMA shTuld " co.n su lt " with the NRC in radiological emergency planning and, explicitly stated that review and approval by FEMA, .} with 'no mention of the NRC, should be' the basis for
- granting new operating licenses for-nuclear power j
plants. Kemeny Report at.76. 4 H/ See 45 Fed. Reg. 5847 (January 24, 1980). Minor ]' revisions' to the MOU were made on November 1, 1980. see 45 Fed. Reg. 82713 (December' 16,. 1,980). ,7 i ~
- A le.
2- ^
n, - 23 ,s G '.? emergency preparedness a licensing requirement. FEMA findings were to be accorded only presumptive
- validity, subject to independent NRC scrutiny, including hearings.N!
+ This arrangement contradicted the basic onsite/offsite. .'j u -n dichotomy of planning responsibilities between the NRC and 1 .d! FEMA envisioned by the President's order. The President had 9 i accepted the Kemeny Commission's recommendation that respon-sibility for offsite planning rest solely with FEMA, subject to consultation with other agencies, including the NRC.N ! 3] ,.s, ( .a
- .5 '
The new role for the NRC under the MOU required it to i 1 revise its regulations drastically by incorporating new.' j
- h 1
planning standards, acceptance criteria. and plan oxercise r f i requirements applicable to offsite responses. Much of this rulemaking was conducted concurrently with drafting the MOU;. and preceded its execution. The NRC justified its." actions on the ground that it had been conside. ring means to upgrade i offsite planning and preparedness as licensing requirements in the aftermath. of the Three Mile Island' ' accident. It noted, for example, a recommendation by the General' Account- ] ing Office (GAO) to that effect.M Simply
- put, the
) i. g/ See 10 C.F.R. 550.47 (a) (2). M/ Kemeny Report at 76. )1 44/ General Accounting Office, " Report to the Congress of-f the United States: Areas Around Nuclear Facilities q Should be Better Prepared for Radiological Eme.gencies"' r (March 30, 1979). .f
- 9
..f 4 I i ?
._ __._... y._ a program of voluntary to mandatory NRC concurrence in State and local plans,' the NRC recognized "that it cannot direct any governmental unit to prepare a plan, much less compel its adequacy," but noted that "the NRC can condition a ., i license on the existence of adequate plans."El Accepting the faulty premise that public health and safety can be d{ assured only if the NRC ratifies offsite planning through its licensing process, the NRC decided to go ahead with its ..j interim rule, despite strong industry opposition. d C, Work on a permanent rule continued apace in 1980. .. j .. d "ll Effective November 3, 1980, the NRC adopted a ' wholly new s j regulatory scheme for approving offsite emergency p12ns and i a, condition for licensing nuclear.reac-preparedness as tors.E/ The NRC added broad acceptance criteria for onsite and offsite emergency planning,El established an approxi-mately 10-mile EPZ as the basic plan ~ning area for protective 1 actions in.the event of a radioactive plume release,52/ and C stated that the NRC would base its licensing decisions upon FEMA findings as to whether State and local emergency plans are adequate and capable of being implemented.EI Except 49/ Id. at 75169. 10,/ 45 Fed. Reg. 55402 (August 19, 1980). 0 i 51/ .10 C.F.R. 550. 47 (b) (1)-(15). M/ 10 C.F.R. S50.47 (c) ;2). 53/ 10 C.F.R. S50. 47 (a) (2). .,?? 9
-. :-..-~...;. .~.- ,~ 1, l authority in the area of radiological hazards. As the Appeal Board has' aptly noted, "the management of vehicular l' traffic on public roads, governmental response to public o. emergencies (including the implementation of any necessary '; I i evacuation), and control over the actions of corporatiens - l 11 operating within the state, have nothing to do with radio-- 1j .e . EI l logical health ani safety. n For that very reason, the NRC's judgment that it has a ,. l useful role ~to play in offsite radiological emergency t i i planning has not been vindicated in licensing cases. .j, J Practical' experience has shown th:st the NRC's role in,, j u l1. ] of f site. planning, chiefly through hearings, serves no real-l function other than to validate what FEMA has already i determined. In uncontested cases, 7EMA findings. as to the., } ) . I adequacy of offsite plans and the ability to implement them are virtually conclusive on the NRC. In contested cases, those findings are deemed presumptively correct and rarely L' overturned.
- Instead, they are merely supplemented with j
newer information available at the hearing. Thus, the NRC's overall findings are mainly redundant. Both the NRC and FEMA judge the adequacy of plans and q preparedness on the basis of specific acceptance criteria 4 set forth in a jointly authored document known as i1 3 E/ Long Island Lighting Comoany (Shoreham Nuclear Power . 3 Station, Unit 1), ALAB-818, 22 NRC 6.51, 664 (1985). .:, R q n se
^ No reason exists for the NRC to duplicate FEMA's evaluation of plans against NUREG-0654 criteria. Far more \\ detailed plans are written for radiological emergencies than for other man-made or natural disasters.
- Yet, the basic l
concepts are the same. As the agency statutorily designated to formulate national policy on disaster planning and emergency respohse to disasters, FEMA is better equipped j institutionally to judge the adequacy of plans, the. re-liability of communications and notification systems, and the availability of sufficient supplies, emergency response y ~ personnel and other resources. This is true whether the '] emergency is radiological or non-radiological in origin. 's J l 'In fact, many local governments have acknowledged the usefulness'of radiological emergency plans in preparing for. ] g or responding to other industrial accidents or, natural disasters. MunicipaA and school officials have testified ) that their. radiological emergency plans could and would be used to respond to any other kind of emergency.61/
- Indeed, w
public notification and protective action provisions of'one local plan were recently used by local officials during a. ficed evacuation of residents several miles from a nuclear j plant.SI Radiological emergency plans have been used in 61/ E.c., Philadelchia Electric Cemeany (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), lap-85-14, 21 NRC 1219 (1985). 62/ Id. at 1375. j />
,. ~ v Commissioners that no generic changes in sirena standards were warranted. 1The Commission simply referred the matter back to its technical staff. Notwithstanding FEMA's expertise and existing regimen l, 1 a for reviewing offsite preparedness, NRC approval of offsite 'l plans and preparudness is a licensing prerequisite. With no 9 appreci&hle expertise, the NRC rarely produces JL witness-from its cwn regulatory staff to enhance the record.64/ \\ Typically, licensing -boards determine whether there is s reasonable assurance of the public health and safety by
- 4 v..i testimony from utility officers and consultants, State and,
j local government emergency management officials, FEMA .] witnesses who have already re' viewed the plans and perhaps local residents.El In essenc'e,. what FEMA has already. 64/ In many
- hearings, the NRC staff has offered' the testimony of. a consultant where the accuracy of evacuation time estimates has been put in issue.
H s-Individuals from the NRC's Division of Emergency Preparedness have-substantial experience in a utility's t onsite emergency
- response, but are not-generally offered as witnesses regarding offsite plans.
- Rather, the NRC sponsors the FEMA witnesses.
.~ 65,/ An attempt to limit hearing opportunities' was struck down as inconsistent with the right to a hearing under the Atomic Energy Act. In 1982, the NRC amended 10 C.F.R. 55 0. 47 (a)-(2) to provide that emergency preparedness exercises.are part of the pre-operational inspection process and
- may not be considered in licensing hearings.
In Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, 735 F.2d 1437 (D.C. Cir. 1984), cert. denied,- 105 S.Ct. 815 (1985), the Court of' Appeals struck down-the amendment. It held'that the - NRC lacks discretion to remove from the hearing process guaranteed by (Footnote Continued) .o :.S]. l 4 - i.iin..i-n
[ ,M - .i. l ;; current fragmentation of responsibility between che NRC and FEMA results frdm historical happenstance and is no longer (if it ever was) the most effective planning framework for nuclear power plants. The President can and should rectify
- q the situation by executive action reinstating the role originally intended for FEMA.
Q.: This action would be consistent with the President's delegation of responsibility to FEMA in 1980.for preparing a i . National Contingency Plan to provide an expeditious, effec- - (J tive and coordinated response to a nuclear power plant \\ s 3 ':a i accident.N/ A Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan, l; f. (FRERP), ' covering all radiological accidents, was published' 3 in 1984. dI Tran'afer of the NRC's regulatory functions for offsite planning'to FEMA would not undercut its role in the FRERP, which basically includes " monitoring the licensee to ensure that appropriate protective action recommendations 3 are being made to offsite authorities in,a timely man-ner."N/ Monitoring the licensee's emergency activities, v i 1 1 .g 66/ Congress directed c of _ the plan in Section Pub._ L.' reparation 304 of the 96-295, 94 Stat. 790 (1980). The presidential directive followed. See Exec. ' Order
- 12241, 45 Fed.
Reg. 64879 (October 1, 1980). An 3. interim plan for responding co nuclear. power plant- ' i accidents was published by tha e.nd of 1980. 45 Fed. j ll Reg. 84910 (December 23, 1980).
- j 61/
49 Fed. Reg. 35896 (September 12, 1984). 'l 4 68/ Id. at 35920. 9 ,. M ; i + ! 4
~ .....:..~ 3 0. - advised the Commission that it will voluntarily install a siren warning and automatic telephone alert system and conduct a community information program for Sequoyah area 7' residents.71/ .] ] s 4 FEMA and the United States Environmental Protection 4 ) 3 Agency (EPA) may be headed toward'a FEMA /NRC relationship as ] r! l .they develop planning criteria for chemical and toxic spills a] i ) resulting from manufacturing plant and transportation ~i accidents. In November
- 1985, EPA promulgated interim
(., 'j1 guidance to local communities for offsite planning in areas jq potentially affected by toxic chemicai accidents.b EPA's~ .3 guidance derives from earlier FEMA guidance on contingency
- i plans for hazardous materials accidents.E The ~TEMA 1
bidance ~ published shortly after. issuance of the f l was a 4 a 1 k 71/ Seg' oyah Fuels Corporation, "Kerr-McGee Sequoyah Fuels j i u
- c Testimony Before NRC" '(March 13, 1986).
J' U 72/ United States Environmental Protection
- Agency,
" Chemical. Emergency Preparedn'ess. Program Interim i Guidance" (November 1985). The period for public l1 comment on this document recently ' expired. EPA plans j~ to publish final guidance in several months, which will continue to provide model plan criteria rather than any regulatory requirements. See cenerally J. Makris and R. Wilkerson,_ "The Chemical Emergency -Preparedness Program," 68 Public Management 9 (March 1986). ~ l H/ Federal Emergency Managemen't Agency, ' " Planning Guide 6 j + and Checklist for Hazardous Materials Contingency Plans," FEMA-10 (July 1981). FEMA is updating FEMA-10. i to include new data and a new seccion relating..to che Superfund Act, 42 U.S.C. 59601 e t, sec. FEMA-10 as revised will also include a new section on iadustrial a ? cooperative plans which integrates EPA's newly issued guidance on accidental toxic releases. 1 t' q q
.] ~., i If EPA's guidance evolves into legal requirements,76/ 1 l l however, FEMA.she'uld likewise'be assigned responsibility for i determining compliance, complemented by EPA technical input on toxic health effects. This assignment would avoid ~:4 l further splintering of the federal government's role in judging the adequacy of offsite emergency response capabil-1! ities.
- i
-; l ' f) . N' e; f i t Lu .I 76/ As a start in that direction, bills now pending before 4 Congress would authorize EPA to implement a. national "l "right to know"' program requiring chemical 1 manufacturers to provide information to the public in
- j the vicinity of plant - sites.
See H.R. 2005 and H.R. 2817, 99th Cong.,.1st Sess. (1986). .g .e +.:js ts .T h
,g.,...... .y .,. ',\\ ' i.r l At bottom, the Licensing Board addressed two fundamen-i tal issues: Are~there adequate plans and, resources and are i { plan volunteers and public officials ready and willing to ^ carry out the plans in an actual emergency? As to plans and '{ 1 resources, the Licensing Board's conclusions
- ) :
did not mate- . l rially differ from the findings already made by FDIA in .: l }1 reviewing State, local and school district plans and in evaluating the full-participation exercise for. Limerick j conducted before the hearing, except to update the record. 1 [ -i.
- t. ;
on the " human response" issues, the Board found that, in'c jj d real emergency, sufficient numbers of teachers, bus drivers "i m ,j and day care staff would respond-to protect - their charges. j ~ l Public officials testified that they 'would implement their plans to protect the public from any radiological hazards, even though the plans had not 'yet-been formally a,dopted. - [ { Would one expect them to say otherwise? The Licensing Board expedited offsite planning hear-j 'd ings79'/ and imposed fair time limits for examining and f cross-examining witnesses, but still could not sufficiently i compress the time for admitting contentions, : discovahy, 'the hearing, post-hearing findings and its decision to prevent a 78/ In 1981, the Commission observed that hearings were. net ~ being completed by the time nuclear: power plants-were fully constructed, thereby impacting plant. operation. It issued a policy statement directing licensing boards' to expedite hearings consistent with fairness.. J. ' Statement of Policy on-Conduct of License-Proceedines, J; CLI-81-8, 13 NRC 452 (1981). 9 ^ .l..- 'l l s
- s
.e.
s .~.-r.u.M ......,m.;. .....1 .--. -.....i. ..m. . ~, ,.._.... +,..-... -. 41 - y .. s ,6. . s run the entire gamut of contentions, hearings and a decision by the Licensing Board. This delayed a' final decision en the very last offsite planning issue until July 1985.79/ .9 Finally, after almost five months of waiting to test lj m the Limerick reactor above five percent power, PECO was .4 .g issued a full-power license on August 8, 1985. The cost of appr'eximately $49 million per this' avoidable delay was month, comprised of Allowance for; Funds Used During Con- . ) struction (AFUDC), operational, security and maintenance 1 6,i -D 1 '4 j costs, and increased fuel costs to the utility's customers. Something is surely amiss when public access to economical.
- d a
') < sources of. electric power is conditioned upon the almost ~ inconceivable possibility that public officials will imp 1.e-ment a mass evacuation of.a maximum security prison because'- of radiological hazards from a plant eight miles away) As. costly to the consumer as such licensing delays y might be, the situation at Limerick is not the worst ^that i b' can happen. The ultimate regulatory nightmare, fortunately 1 atypical i'n reactor licensing, involves the Shoreham_reac-ter, which has been rendered useless by gubernatorial veto ~ 79/ Limerick, suora, LBP-85-25, 22 NRC 101 (1985). Under- ~ Commissioners must approve issuance of a reactor '}- NRC rules after the Three Mile Island - accident, the }, operating license - based on their own review :of the i L record and any other matter brought to their' attention I by intervenors. 10-C.F.R. $2.764 (f) (2). This takes a j 1 l few weeks. af ter a licensing board's decision if all 7.N.s -l goes smoothly. s: . ;.pl v.2 'l .1 E'u
ll*.,.' i VIII. SPECIFIC REFORMS AND RECOMMENDATIONS i i Waste and ih1 efficiency built.into the er.isting scheme for evaluating offsite plans can be eliminated.
- Ideally, regulatory requirements would undergo periodic
" sunset" fa review. to justify their continued existence, but just the opposite has occurred: .any new requirement at one plant .l s soon becomes the minimum standard for the industry. To. reverse this process and streamline approval of plans, with full regard to the public health and safety, there are a (, number of specific measures which should be. implemented ,-ll ~ forthwith.
- j. i i
. Transfer all offsite emergency planning responsi- ..i bilitv to FEMA as consistent with national policy .on disaster planning and assistance. The inest fundamental reform is immediate' transfer from; the NRC of its existing authority and functions for.bffs,ite emergency planning to FEMA. This may be acccmplished by an Executive Order which explicitly designates FEMA as the sole d agency with responsibility for reviewing. State and local plans, conducting and evaluating emergency exercises,.assis-ting offsite governmental authorities in conjunction with affected utilities and coordinating the fedei'ai response in. j the event of an actual. emergency. The President's action would make it clear that FEMA alone is to determine the adequacy of offsite planning and preparedness. ] This is not to say that FEMA's program is flawless. j Its regionali:ation has resulted in the.use of conflicting [; .,4 .5i regulatory approaches for different nuclear
- plants, for' Wm i 1
-l
.pme 'ueg-i Jams. .e.gme. .g g, ,,,q, ,,,ga. g1 -m ,A e s a g -m-46A-m .,,w ,e ,e a3g-pA O gg .q e' preparedness. .The joint NRC/FE'MA MOU would likewise be redrafted. FE M would review plans against NUREG-0654 criteria'as in the past. The NRC wou1O of course, retain
- .1 sole. responsibility for assuring t'he adequacy of onsite
..V d planning, including the capability to notify and communicate with offsite officials and to operate utility offsite ' l i A emergency facilities. ~1 An incidental but potentially significant advantage to .) the realignment of offsite planning responsibility is that O j .e State and local governments would be less likely to view V j; their plans as limited to nuclear plant emergencies. 'C ..; l 3 offsite plans are adaptable to other disasters. As dis.- cussed, some plans have been implemented in time of floods, 4 chemical: spills and forest fires. With FEMA alone at the;, a regulatory helm, the integration of local and Statewide planning for all man-made and natural disasters should ^ i accelerate. This process will also reduce the likelihood v' that nuclear plants will be singled out for discriminatory 1 treatment, including arbitrary governmental veto,, among i i ether industries for which planning may become an operation- '1 l al necessity or legal requirement. In future licensing of nuclear power plants, the NRC j .1 would accept FEMA's certification ' that plans and prepared- .' ] l"l ness are adequate. This is 'merely a logical extension of the present rule by which FEMA findings are accorded a ' 1 " rebuttable presumption" of validity.. Just as the NRC does .a now by imposing license conditions, TEMA could qualify its ~[' . Ipj /, .2 l l
- 47 s 'i necessary, to accommodate any reasonable desire for further public input, but shoulii definitely not be transformed into ) i adjudicatory hearings. j t 1 .l Reduce the EPZ for nuclear power plants to ? I an area about two miles around the plant. d[ Whether FEMA or the NRC has the final word on offsite planning,and preparedness, other reforms should be institut-ed so that planning will be based upon realistic prepared- - ) ~ ness needs, even for a very serious nuclear power plant ..l f, . accident. If the NRC' retains authority, reduced hearing 7 time on contested issues is an added incentive. Foremost /! l 1; i among these reforms is reduction of the EPZ around nuclear ~' i 4 i i ~ power plants to a smalier area in which an immediate re-sponse to protect-the public.would be taken. The industry argued. unsuccessfully for a two-mile EPZ when -the NRC adopted its offsite planning rules. Recent scientific l evidence' justifies revisiting this requirement,
- however, s
because planning measures for a two-mile EPZ would st3.11 be conservative and provide for any reasonably foreseeable.need a 4 in an actual emergency. As the Commission has acknowledged, the expenditure of resources to cope with offsite conse-quences of a seriou's accident should be commensurate with the overall risk reduction which is achieved.El i ! 3: 1 (> 85,/ Diable Canyon, suora, CLI-84-12, 20.NRC at 252'(1984). J _,,j
- zg 1:.
~ k-
- 49;- + .a e obviously, the dose consequences of the most cata-strophic accidend imaginable, no matt.er how unlikely, would not be limited to a 10-mile EPZ. The authors of NUREG-0396 o : believed, however, that in terms of very serious accidents, }l the " lower range" of reactor meltdown accidents. would not I result in doses which would exceed even the most restrictive ~ protective action guidelines (PAGs) beyond about 10 miles from the plant. For the " upper range" of core-melt acci- -l dents in which the containment catastrophically fails and r j 4.- massive radioactivity (hundreds of millions of curies) would i be released to the atmosphere because of reactor,, j over-pressurization ' or a steam explosion, it was assumed J N that, emergency actions such as sheltering or evacuation ) within about.10 miles of a power plant would result in a'. significant savings of early injuries and deaths. b A 10-mile EPZ was selected because it seemed a reasonable basis for.taking immediate actions to protect the public. v from doses exceeding PAGs for most core-melt accidents. An important assumption of WASE-1400, however, was the fraction of a reactor core's radioactivity which would be released to the environment in a variety of' accident se-quences. At the Three Mile Island accident, contrary to much higher estimates in WASE-1400, only negligible-quan-tities of iodine and cesium radionuclides.were released to c ?- .. d. l 90/ Id. at I-6 to 7. .,,.~,3)d 6:y 9 s I 4.
~ ,y.; 1 .4 q '1 NUREG-0956 enthusiastically, recommends that "the new j analytical metho'ds should be use,d to reevaluate current j i regulatory practices andi:;evise them as needed."94/
- Chus, j
fl; ; s d:J it seemed at first blush that a utility licensee would have e solid grounds for requesting the NRC to reconsider severe J accident risk at a particular reactor site to reduce its 'l ^ s s, EPZ, pending further research and possible generic changes ,1) by the NRC. But. early optimism proved wrong. When Baltimore Gas & Electric took the lead by requesting the'NRC c if J. 1 V to reduce the plume esposure EPZ. for its Calvert Cliffs ..-f' u" two miles,95/ the NRC quickly dashed ' hopes-for j plant to ^ I prompt relief 'by rejecting the appli6ation as "prema-1 ture."UI Evidently, the staff will lnot actively consider ^ s c
- f
~~ 94/ Id. at 8-6. Following receipt of: comments 'on i .y d NUREG-0956 in draf t and final issuance 'of the ~ document ~"~ as expectid in July 1986, the Commission will prepare NUREG-1150 as a further source term study, but.. which will'also assess potential changes in effsite planning regulations. This lattert study is not expected to 1 issue in final form until 1987.- 1, ? 4 I 95/ See 26 Nucleonics Week 3 (November 14 r 1985); 7 Inside ~ NRC 3 (November 11, 1985). Stonei & Webster has performed a source term analysis fer the Shoreham. t g plant, a BWR reactor with a Mark ri containment,- which .1 found that 99 percent of f all core fission. products c} ; would be ratained inside C the plant under even worst severe accident conditions, largely bec.ause the molten j j core. would-drop into.the five million-gallon sup- 'i pression pool. 28 Nuclear \\ News 113-l'4 (April 1985). ] ,) 0 .. [h - g/ 27 Nucleonics Week 3 (February.20, 1986). ? Q: u . s, 's a y c !\\' ~, ' 9..o a r k' tg ? ; /, I' 4- ' ( ( l 3 7 .s n
m24 7._._, _., y _. . _.. _m < -l . :. l. I t letters of. agreements between governmental planning agencies,
- and volunteer organizations (such as the Red Cross and amateur radio operator groups) that would respond in an
. /, 1 J emergency.- In many instances, worka.Lg arrangements between j 7 sister agencies and organizations are already in place and j Y have provad.r'eliable in responding to disasters. As a response-oriented agency which understands that individuals a! will, in f act, volunteer in order to save and protect human .\\ o 3 life in an emergency, FEMA does not quest' ion the willingness O_,. ] '.5 t. of plan workers to perform their assigned tasks if a radio-
- l logical accident occurred.
The - NRC. has nonetheless felt [
- .6 i
obliged to have hearings iust to listen to the dire pre-3 i dictions'of intervenors that volunteers would gather their ,l families and desert their posts in a nuclear emergency. 'l Of all the conjecture to take up hearing time, this is the most pointless. The historic record of human response l 1 in time of natural or man-made disasters overwhelmingly.
- I s
d proves that volunteers will carry out their jobs' in an j! i actual emergency, notwithstanding any " role conflict," i.e., anxiety over the welfare of their families or concern for their own personal well-being. Highly prominent researchers f concluded in one report that "in interviewing around 3,500 i organizational personnel -in about 100 disaster events and g-y 1' (Footnote Continued) j '( emergency
- planning, are targeted for active
.;r consideration, but no action is expe.cted soon. i .A..,, - d n% y o A A
,w,y'm p.y\\...pr gr
- n.,
~ + m.,~- )d.. r-r / i g a ) : {3 '/ ( / g j = ..j' ( y s i y g 3. .g. ' emphasis.6/ that no @({,has ydcited a4 single instance -in t c i it 't which any. Vo!,nnyes;;kr emarg. tency support personnel failed to 2 y , I /,i, f f .do hi.s or her {obj 'duri[ng the. Three Mile.tsland emergency. 4 ,t ,f o a M. / t ] 'The. totally..cp
- s yesponse" Me[w shocid be eliminat-
{] ~ ed'from':ensidern[i,n.\\ a'ra i o [ '] . ( / gd s e -*) /. he,5, cut,'Pr.ement.\\y T e - of ' preparine d".. i d f tim estuntes should be drop;cecuation .a
- q y
et
- i f
1 Don'a j hinge. rn (. in, offsite ' planning regulations wh?ch hasi ."I become a H!avorite target,in hearings is the requiremenu y: hat' l y i .a ~ CT ths. utility prepare "an analysis, of the time I gequired to ] i L ;' ,C 'i i.3 : .y, avacualee' and for taking other prote'5:tive, actions 'for various n;. ~i. } . ]. i sectors and distances within the plume exposure p/athvay 7:PZ f. ")a s opulations *b ' Afh amp;lifiedi 5 for / transient and permanu.t v >/ -x ;t + i in JRmEG-0654, these evacuati..,er., time eshimates (ETEs) are.to j f .t o i e, - j 1 be " based on a dynamics snalysis (time-motion (study under' \\ various conditions). "100 f hip requirad nth exi$ts e.o .j f, i provide 'goverssent officialsi with. a readily.accespihle, ,ll i realistic estimata of the time. necessary < to, evacuhte the ., s .rt c .g ) j public. at various dist$nces',from the plant in ' order 2. to - 4 '\\ ./ K. .I1 i .; i. i decide w, hether 97acuatien er sheltering f will ~ afford great 6r i t ,i if 4 protection iagain.4t potentigi' radioactive releases,. .( ! ,1 i. I i -( j t, i !l ,9,,9/ 10 C.F.R.wPert.50, Appendix E, Section IV. b 1- ' c; j'j l'00/ NUREG-0654,', Cr./4erion J.10.A. Further guidance is i provided ih,RUREG-0634, Appendix 4,'which discusses ]> appropris,,te ~ a'ssumptions.. .and c.ethodologies for ]i estimating total permanent, transient and' special . facility popult.tions to be' evncuated', evaluating the (Footnote Continued) ?:f ! f'
- 9. M
? N) t /.' ' ' 7.'j, 4', 1 ,t .f f m 'l.
- y. (
. ;. g.. e' Tr. n> (., U United States. These studies cover'a'. broad range of differ-a c 'ences in demography and roadway networks.and include a wide , range of evacuation estimates from one to 12 hours.101/ ~ Estimates for new plants 'can be easily extrapolated from '? ,1. ] existing studies and supplemented by locally available , j I i;' f,. information with sufficient precision to permit reasoned if f i f decisionmaking. II .1 .n It is self-delusion to believe that pinpointing evac- ] 1 uation times for a dozen or so~different EPZ sectors within j r.. q .c) 5, 10 or 15. minutes will really help a decisionmaker faced j) .'j i l 1 with the prospect of having to evacuate several hundred 4 1 ..f. l square miles under rapidly changing and perhaps unpredict- 'y J j a1 able circumstances. And it is an absolute waste of hearing i time to debate with intervenors whether a few minutes can be i saved by diverting traffic -from-a designated evacuation' i route over a back road through farmer Brown's orchard 102/ a. f If local residents have any truly valuable insights, they
- j can be passed on to local traffic officials and State i
f .i 101/ Catawba,, supra, LBP-84-37, 20 NRC 933, 999 (1984). .j '^ I 102/ ETEs are often attacked by intervenors because of their misconception tha.t a plan will not " work" if an evacuation cannot be completed-by a specific time. NRC j ' regulations do
- not, however, impose any such time 1,
limit. .See Cincinnati Gas s Electric Comeany (Wm. E. j, Zimmer Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-727, 17 .1 NRC 760, 770- (1983) ;- Shearon Earris, supra, LBP-84-298, '20 NRC 389, 419. (193 4) ; Commonwealth Edison Company (Byron Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-84-2, ji 19 NRC 36, 49 (1984). f j J 7..
- m.,
l
, /4;' ~ if s., - j 'G: ) exposure and uptake. Nonetheless, the Appeal Board has {' interpreted " backup" I:o mean another hospital capable of providing immediate treatment for traumatic injuries.105/ 4 Practically speaking, arrangements for medical services y] for contaminated injured individuals means planning for 3 I 1 onsite employees'and offsite emergency workers because they j$ ! 1 have far greater proximity to the reactor than the general . i a public. Nonetheless, the NRC's regulation, by its literal terms, does not exclude'the general offsite populace. The. ) C,_./ .,j Commission has recognized that it is extremely unlikely that j .rj an offsite person might be contaminated by radiation, even f .:. \\ j more unlikely than ' radiation exposure. It therefore ruled j , ' i in a licensing case that arrangements already in place for s treating,' contaminated injured onsite personnel and offsite workers also suffice for the general public if oth,er hos-pitals capable of providing treatment were listed in offsite l plans.106/ j u The Court of. Appeals for the' District of Columbia l Circuit disagreed that listing other hospitals capable of ,s treating contaminated injured individuals constitutes an adequate " arrangement" for members of the public within the d. 105/ Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units
- 1. and. 2 ), ALAB-819, 22 NRC 681, 711-15 j
(1985), 1 106/ Southern California Edisen Comeany (San Onofre Nuclear
- j Generating Station, Units 2 and 3), CLI-83-10, 17 NRC t
528, 533-36-(1983). .. AJ g ew,4 esg .n 9
_i ,[f ' that theory in NRC hearings and the prevailing consensus 4 among the foremost authorities 3, s that evacuation of a hospital because of a nuclear plant accident is unlikely in a .. - i l the extreme. I! u In any
- event, hospitals in the United States are routinely evaluated and accredited by the Joint Committee'on 4 i Accreditation of Hospitals, which ensures that accredited j
~ l hospitals are able to handle traumatic injuries if treatment is complicated by radioactive contamination. Any number of n a () area hospitals could be called upon.on an ad hoc basis, even (i "I l assuming the' extraordinary unlikelihood of evacuating a . j '.4 9] plant's local hospital. Needless handwringing over formal agreements with multiple backups ignores that hospitals are 1 ,already equipped and staffed to react to disasters requiring. j f emergency ' medical services.109/ Arrangements for a local 'j and backup hospital to prvelde medical services' for contam- ! i 1 inated injured site personnel and emergency workers, supple-J mented by,a list of area hospitals, suffice to serve any .l 'i prudently foreseeable need. Eliminate consideration of hvoothetical core-melt accidents frcm environmental analyses. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et sec., requires'the NRC, like any federal agency, to l ] j:1 109/ See Emergency Medical Services System Act of 1973, P.L. 93-154, 87 Stat. 594 (1973), as amended, P.L. 96-142, J- ..gj[ ~ 93 Stat. 1067 (1979). l ! 70% ~;hh d
7, _.. _. . g3 _ ~ ~ t 'u. l' . jp
- policy,112/
even though the accident involved no breach of reactor containment nor ady release of' radiation into the atmosphere beyond regulatory limits.113I .i The NRC has since required each plant's environmental impact statement to consider ~ "the site-specific environ-4 mental impacts attributable to accident sequences that lead 'j 1 to releases of radiation,and/or, radioactive materia).s, 7j i 4 r including sequences that can result in inadequate cooling'of reactor fuel and to melting of the reactor core."114/ This ,.s i J radical departure from past policy has produced no insights d ...) enabling the NRC to license incrementally ' safer reactors. 4 Nor has it enhanced public understanding of tiie environ- .3 mental costs and benefits in operating a nuclear ' power i l plant. The NRC's discussion of core-melt accident conse. I quences is couched in technical language comprehensible only to scientists versed in health physics. As such, the new s ( policy has failed to meet either of NEPA's twin ~~ objectives ') I N/ of instructing the decisionmaker and educating the' public. ~i Worse yet, NEPA reviews duplicate ongoing NRC studies and j 1 ; rulemaking related to severe accident risk
- analysis,
'l ; i d; }1 112/ See Statement of Interim Policy, 45 Fed. Reg. 40101 1 (June 13, 1980). 113/ See'Kemeny Report at 34-35. f, 114/ 45 Fed. Reg. 40101 (June 13, 1980).. ..m [k'. ] 1
2.. x._ _. 1 j*. 69 - ..j. jd/ bother with this time-consuming and highly hypothetical 1 busywork? So much conjecture about latent cancer deaths, l premised on an extremely improbable accident, is irrelevant i. ]i to.' licensing and only whets the anti-nuclear penchant for scaremongering. dj IX'. CONCLUSION s, 1 4: Reactor licensing reform must occur on several fronts .L to rejuvenate the nuclear industry in the United-States. j Ridding the regulatory system of unnecessary and redundant NRC revi~ew for offsite emergency planning would be an , ej{ \\ y ; l important. step in simplifying reactor licensing and would, jJ reverse the regulatory mindset which has historically resulted-in ratcheting more and more ' requirements 'upon-4 i reactor licensees. Offsite planning for nuclear power _- J plants can be expedited and actually improved if ' agency ~ regulators have an open mind to rethink the basic structure .i' .m 'of licensing procedures. C 1 .1 ~, 4 ',} ' 1 lM i s , *.;u 9. me
-u { ','
- pS Rt1%'o UNITED STATES yh.i 4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5
e { ,i w AsHIN GTON. D.C. 20656 [ g..... / ' June 2, 1986 a [J 2 198 % oprica or THE cccm sacRaTAny s:xc;g_,,Q 3 .\\ l - <.:..c R 1 b. P. i W ) / .j 1 s The Honorable Mario M. Cuom 2 i D' ['M a w... c,m,'_yO-Q b l-- Governor State of New York Executive Chamber ~ Albany, New York 12224 .iaa M & UTA FAC. MQ C b 7>
Dear Governor Cuomo:
m 1 i on May 27, 1986, the Commission received a letter from you, dated May 15, 1986, requesting termination of the licensing' 3 proceeding concerning Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. The State of New York is a party to that proceeding. Since the.. lettir does not indicate that copies of it were served on the other parties to the proceeding, and since it is in f effect a motion seeking a particular outcome of the proceeding, the NRC, in accordance with its regulations governing ex parte communications, has served copies on the other partTes. The Commission will have no substantive response to the motion until the other parties to the proggJtd%have had an opportunity to file answers to it. [ '1 Res ectfu ) 5+ ilt c \\ .l S T8 amue'l J. C ilk t 0 .gg $ Secretary c,f the Commission ! l cc: Service List n ') 1 j ?! A $[$. s .\\ h()YW Y9f 1
. m_. J i D y llNirE5 STATES OF AMERICA ? NUCLEAR REQULATORY COMMISSION l l In the Matter of I. j l 4 LONG. ISLAND LIGHTING COMFANY i Occket No.(s) 50-122-OL J i l, s t I l (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station) 1 i'
- 1 i
- 1 Nf CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE e
I hereby certify that copies ~of the foregoing Letter Chilk to Sovernor Cuomo-have been served upon the following persons in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR section 2.712. l 8 J Administrative Judoe Administrative Judge .l Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Gary J. Edles j Atomic' Safety and Licensing Apoeal Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board .jf U.-S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington. DC 20555 Washincton, DC 20555 Administrative Judge i
- l Howard A. Wilber Administrative Judge f
Atomic Safety and Licensino Apoeal Morton B. Maraulies. Chaleman 1 Board Atomic Safety and Licensing. Board j U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC-20555 .] i 1 Administrative Judge Administrative Judoe Jerry R. Kline Frederick J. Shon Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensind Board U.S. Nuclear Reaulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-
- .]
Washington. OC 20555 Washinoton. OC 20555 j; Donna 0. Duer, Esq. Edwin J. Rets, Esq. .3 Law Clerk Office of the Executtve Legal' Director ~ l' Atomic Safety and Licensina Daard Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatore Comeission i U.S. Nuclear ReQulatory Commission Washington. DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 + W. T. Revelev, !!!. Esq. C. K. Mallory. III. Esq. Huotan t Wili. tams Hunton t 41.11: 4ms '3 P,0. Box 1535 2000 Fonn syl varit a Av enue. N.W. -j Richmond, VA 2321.'. Washington, DC 20036-Ji i l "? a 4 i
r; .. '~ l f s,, ' ' 's ' Docket tio.l s ) 0 0- $ 2 2 -01.- 1 i Herbert H. Brown, Esq. Lawrence C.'Langher, Esq. Kirko4 trick & Lockhart Kirkpatrick & Lockhart j 1900 M Street. N.W.. Suite 800 1900 N Street, N.W.i. Suite 800 .t Washington. DC 20036 Washington. DC 20036
- }
Stephen B. Latham, Eso. Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esc. ]j Twomey, Latham & Shea General Counsel 33 West Second Street Long Island Lichting Company Riverheao, NY tt901 175 East Old Country Road j Hicksville, NY 11801-i I ~ t i Nora L. Bredes Dr. Robert Hoffman Executive Coordinator Long Island Coalition for Safe Living Shoreham Opponents Coalition P.O. Box 1355 i 195 East Main Street Massapequa, NY 11758 l i Smithtown, NY L1797 t i Monroe Schneider Spence W. Perry, Esq. North Shore Committee Associate General Counsel P.O. Box 231 Federal Emerooney Manacement'Acency 1 Wading River, NY 11792 500 C Street, S.W. Washington,-DC 20472 tj Jay Dunkleberger Stewart M. Glass, Esq. New York State Eneroy Office Regional Counsel Agency Bldg. 2. Empire State Plata Federal Emeroency Management Ac*Jncy Albany, NY 12223 26 Federal Pla:a, Room 1349 New York, NY 10270 Jonathan D. Feinbero. Esu. Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. Staff Counsel Scecial Counsel to the Governor New York State Public Service Office of the Governor Commission , r State Capitol, Room 229 3 Rockefeller Plaza Albany, NY 12224 Albany, NY 12223 Marv M. Gundrum, Eso. Peter Bienstock, Esc. New York State Departm: int of Law New York State Department of Law Two World'frade Center. Ecom 4614 Two World Trade Center, knom 4614 i Naw (ork, Ny L i> Q 4 / Nww York. NY 100*i -l i ! I A ,f[
- ,s
- W l
.N Y
. m-- t Docket No.is) 50-322-OL-3 l Marttn B. Ashare, Esq. Suffolk County Attorney Suffolk County Offices - H. Lee Dennison Building I Veterans Memorial Highway Haucpauge, NY 11788 1 ) Dated at Washington, D.C. this ,) [- ) 2 day of June 1986 Offica c4.the Secre ary of the Conigission 1 i 1 J I 1 / 1 1 1
y, ,p.m a s ..g g - a 'y ,e o .1 ' n.c........ g iJJne 01,1986. E" '. - p 0 ' Nuclear Regulato Corm 11Eston t Fifth Floor Heari Room g UUNIO1986** 4350 East - West H ghway e.' N'm a Bethesda, Maryland k-5 1 Att: Adninistrative Judges of NRC, ASLB and ASLAB D Re: Suspension of Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Restart Pending Hea 1, ai FEMA Post-Drill Assessment Exercises Sirs: $f.RVE0 J1JN @98l There is difficulty in constructing this correspondence because there is much to say, little time in which to say it and a Gleepening conviction that in reality you are not an independent goverrinental agency, but rather one Wiich is bound bv Other considerations, not inclusive of the safety of 60 000 school youngsters. disabled, infirmed, hospitalized individuals and general, citizenry, ~ who all happen to live in the 10-mile EPZ on this elongated shape, elasticized to its limits. The considerations which gg appear irresistable' to you are familiar to most Long Islanders now. There is among us a sense of wonder regarding your real ability to gras how you are actually being perceived b you direct destiny. p It is doubtful you would eat or sleepy those over whom if you could but eavesdrop on some of the local gentry s daily conversations, which invariably I include some aspect of Shoreham. Snoreham is the focus of heightened and keen interest, due in part to the i curiosity generated from a transparently preformed who relentlessly pursue an irrational proposal, position of appointed.judgesirrbuedi potentially devastating consequences. These legally learned but not self-i examined men are fully anticipating the future victims of their. ptoposal's enactment,is based on safe and sane Judament.ie. licensing at any capacity, will c licensing Your allowance of power-up at 1%, and then later to 5% was the approval of not only the geographic placement of this plant, but also the operation of a breeder reactor 'in the vicinity of population densities. It is well established now that you have not taken into consideration Long Islanders' unwillingness to accept this lant in their.very midst. It is also well establishen that the Nuclear R latory Agency accepts the nuclear industry's will and that will fonns the asis of your deliberations. The will of the nuclear, industry absorbed your rationality from the onset of Shoreham. The question was not whether this plant should go on line, but when. Simply because you have denied their existence throughout these proceedings, you have not been able to transform reality.and the nature' of sound judgment. Reason and logic have ' survived even your legal maneuvering. No one can convince us of the safety or sanity of this nuclear facility at any stage of power-up. Shoreham is also spoken of in "high places" as a test case. Shoreham no longer represents an intently mismanaged, deceitful and reckless utility. Shoreham represents the nuclear industry and its self-assumed right to do anything it wants, anywhere it so pleases. l 1 A, t H a V gir4(yt1TJW c ppg
And you, the regulative body. are to reculate with diligence the licensing and operation of these facil'ities as they. proliferate the landscape. This would rightfully i@ly that there will be certain and particular, junctures in the licensing phase wherein you will have to issue a prudent 'no to scme facilities which have been poorly managed, negligently constructed, wrongfully acministered,f an even remotely feasible @or workable evacuation plan. roper staffing subject to the claim of 1 l-the benefit o Another aspect.of Shoreham which will continue to receive a voluminous ant)unt of attention regards the granting of any license to operate over the strenuous objections of state and local governments. It will be in the courts presided over by judges other than you that you should begin to feel your first real tinge of regret that you ever allowed a utility to pull you around by the ear. It will be in the courts, shakily assuming Shoreham does not'have a sigle cent)ination of minor events leading us to a Three-Mile Island or Chernobyl accident first, that your credibility as an independent governmental - i agency will at last be dissolved like so much Jello in hot water. I find that lamentable. Since the nuclear industry. doesn't Just plan to go away, we, Ine public, desperately have need for a vigilant body, a true, regulatory group e@owered with the ability to say 'no' and to mke it stick, 'to act on our behalf and most i@ortantly, on the behalf of our children. Introductory thoughts aside, I would like to address the possibility and proper issuance of a no-go order to LILC0 within this interim of shut-down and their planned 5% power-up planned for some time this sumer. There would be no { better tine than doing so: LILC0 is waiting for the media cool-down on Chernobyl before they heat up again. Who ever said LILC0 was not sensitive to the people it abuses. i As to how you ever managed to salve your consciences issuing even ' he 1% t power-up last year remains a opaque mystery to many of us in view of the fact 1 i that a workable evacuation plan was just as paramount at 1% as it would be at j 100% capacity. We became at risk the manent Shoreham sunk its rods and powered up to 4 of 1%--the potential for loss of coolant is constant no matter the power-up percentage. Pressures and tenperatures were the same at 1% as they would be at 1C0%. You knew all this. Yet you issued the license for low power testing. You knew no evacuation of sound or workable measure would ever be possible so you circumvented it. Somewhere around that early period of your i discovery, you decided to allow the plant to go hot, thereby minimizing the potentiality"should" be capable of finalizing something on paper frcm all their ) of the risk of decision reversal. You knew that at scme later LILC0 date,ionary 31ans that would borrow the look of a pseudo-evacuation plan. Then revis would come Fi.MA's paper drill. From this paper doctment, you would extrapolate many of your future considerations in tne licensing process. The FEMA PAPER 1 DRILL-[FPD]- predicated upon such an obviously feeble exercise would take on i new dimensions, would grow in its stature,ious consideration.and would beccme elevatedt serious plateau, to be given the honor of ser But not be.. l fore its main detractor and overseer, Mr. Petrone, was removed frcm his regional position. Surely you must know how this reflected on the reality of the drill. You have arbitrarily dismissed the main bulk of the Intervenor's (Suffolk County) contentions. One by one, you hurled out of the arena, valued and truthful information regarding the geographic
- concerns, the lack of participation of institutions which are responsible for the welfare of thousands of people and you ignored school officials telling you and over again, the kind of evacuation required by a full-scale radiological emergency h
a, 1
J
- 1. 3 r"
l would not be' workable in their school. districts. How is it that you co letely reversed the natural order in the } residents' process which would@ appear to be, first be able to licensing i safety; then and only t.,h_en, issue a low-power license? For those of us who have knowledge'of the FPD, we are uniquely [ surprised that a governmental agency would choose to enbarrass itself so blatantly in public. We are further astonished that LILCO, upon reading the TPD, didn t hastily direct it be shredded outright, and start -over 1 l' agah. It is painful to imagine no sirens sounding in a drill no school children being moved, not one hospital or nursing facility being evacuated, he roads east of the 10 EPZ (easily winning the " Jeer" award l not one sincere effort on LILCD's behalf to fulfill a desire ~ to block t for all time), not one invisable relocation center opening its arms wide to drw into its bosom even one, solitary resident of the EPZ, and not one clue that a disasterous event was unfolding at the i@olitely 3 situated silo in Shoreham. 1 1 Further realized from the FPD: a breakdown in coordination of 1 messages and the pertinency in those messages in the area of E0C traffic l irro the non-notification of the LIhediments; confusion in notifying the FAA:iginal procedures to do so in R sirrply because there never were any or ] the first place LER0's need to have r. larger dose assessment board to keep their own i;nformation clear; danwind distance sa@ ling of thyroid 1 dose miscalculations -(due to a, misplaced decimal-point the-j miscalculation read 9000 mrem /hr 0 4.3 mi instead of same mrem /h'r 0.5-mi) -; extrapolated data treated as actual data rather than projected data, requiring 2!s hrs, to correct the error: ltation and timliness of LILC0's: decision not.to ' ' ) i test the strens during the drill;inator and route coordinator' LILC0's lack of consu I reports between Evacuation coord choice to eliminate schools from the drill; bus drivers' lack of training in reading dosimeters which would tell them when they-should take appropriate actions such as ingesting or adninstering KI; untimely 1 delays in distributi,on of information sigle matters such as having an EPZ map show plume pathway; bus drivers dispatched 2 hours after i declaration, others going to wrong transfer of their route altogether; traffic guides in* points or missing a portion mtely informed as to the destination of evacuees; non-dispatch' of emergency personnel to clear o accident area; a 40-minute delay in sending out a bus to pick uo.one group of school children (simulateo) i@ roper instructions given t'o bus 1 drivers; traffic guides needing to learn does authorization limits and who may authorize them;ics of the FEMA Paper Drill go on and on. By t traffic guide deployment excessive. The list of verifiable characterist time this drill was to be staged, LERO was supposed to have everyone trained. This was not a highschool rehearsal in which errors would naturally arise and be ironed out for the final show. This'was the final show. And this is the Grand Drill whose docunentation is being elevated by you to lofty heights. You are treating it as if it were legitimate. It was the most visable farce of the keystone Cops variety. I can't tell you how it a LERO was capable of offering. gonizes me to criticize the best effort did not want to find myself-at the i disconcerting position of realizing that LILCO would never be capable of Y: q4 ,a, h
) _q. \\ standing.up to the overwhelming realities involved in evacuating even the miniaturized 10 EPZ. ,Yet with this painfully disel FEMA PAPJ' R DRILL and the truth of no workable evacuation "orrrl;1ae possible, you rendered license for the power-up to 5%. _ L We are r,0w experiencing the first wave of our annual rpulation i i increment with thousands of stmner residents seeking relief " rom their nine month sojourn in the city. This would be an awfully fine time to state to LILC0 that no further testing will be allowed until you have reworked each of Suffolk County's 38 contentions. 1; It is inconceivable that within the framework of reportable occurrences at this plant since 1% power-up, your knowledge of ~ j the duplicity and lack of qualification in the radiological department on site the corrosion of pipes, in GE designs, and the factthe undeniable history of gene known problems with that by your own guidelines, an evacuation plan which reflects reality must be set in place, that you do not fortnwith revoke your granting of the 5% operating status of SNPS. How difficult it may seem to you to irmiediately brake this insanity in its very tracks. But in truth it could be quite easy. You could 00 about it any any nuit>er of wa,, among which would include a little i media-blitzing yourselves. Si y take out a two-page spread in Newsday t and list the 38 contentions o Suffolk County and then indicate the methods employed by the Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board and Appeals in casting those crucial considere.tions into a sea of indifference. Sirrply i show how you legally attenpted to lay to rest the contentions' which represent our very 1ifelines. Then you could reprint for all those M0MS d F. DADS out there in evacuee land, word-by-word testinonies offered by j scn001 adainistrators and teachers about the sheer inpossibility of 1 sheltering relocating or directly mass evacuating children under the umbrella o,f a rLdiological ' emergency situation in a timelv and safe manner. And please don't forget to print in lar p, resume you are proud of your decision-making) ge and proudly B0LlRT letters the following tram yoJr parti l initial decision: e
- FEMA agraes that LILCO need not have written agreements from schools
- Since schools have early dismissai plans, LILCO does not have to come up with any additional plans i
i
- Parents do NOT require written agreements as to how or where their children will be taken
'
- School bus drivers are expected by LILCO to drive during evacuacion
There will be no real role conflict on behalf of bus drivers j during evacuation
- Schools need NOT pre-plan sheltering even though pre-planning might increase dose savings
]
- LILCO does not have to concern itself with sheltering or shielding factors for -very EPZ school f
s
- LILCO chose early dismissal over direct evacuation because they wish to discourage proolems incurred when families attempt to reunite during emergency phase; LILCO thinks early dismissal will mitigate
{' parents and children f rous seeking protection TOGETHER d];
- URC does not demand that each and every element of the plan be capable of working with absolute precision. They will determine how much j
precision is actually necessary for us. f3: - l i
- {
- .,
'd
- NRC believes LILCO has provided all the information necess'ary for schools to evacuate properly
- NRC assumes bus drivers will-be able to supervise children in just the same way as ifit were'early dismissal
- There will be some adults around at relocation centers to supervise childTen.
No specification of who the adults will be, their ] caliber, how long they will be available, or if they will be trained to i handle children of all ages. lq ;
- NRC-agrees that there may be an extensive delay in evacuation due to the fact that no reasonable time estimate can be given without knowing j
predesignated relocation centers j
- NRC agrees that LILCO does not provide reasonable assurance that adequate and protective measures can and will be taken to evacuate l
children. .j i Despite the above considerations and so very many more, too l numerous to place in this letter, you have granted the low-power testing 1 i of this plant. You know that " low power testing" is really an in%te 1 I . description. You know that we should have had the decency of conpfeted '1 hearings before this nuclear oven was ever allowed to be made hot. But 1 We are all sitting on the creaking lint) of disaster right now, piness. l you denied us our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of hap in real y not future time. time, To you, the NRC, and all your attending legal bodies, I say "Let this ship sink now and regain your souls." Deny not only continuance at 5% power but for 1M power, now and for all time to come. Most Sincerely, BJ. KLAUS a Rocky Point, NY A s 1 1 i ;; 4 l! l 0:.u g
PASSED RESOLUT80N -- SHOREHAM EVACUATION PLAN BOARD OF EDUCATION, ROCKY POINT PUBLIC SCHOOLS ( The Rocky Point School Board hereby replaces and supersedes its 1983 Shoreham Resolution with the following May 19, 1986 Resolution ]: 1 WHEREAS, the Rocky Point School District is located within the 10-mile radiological emergency planning zone of the Shoreham plant; and q WHEREAS, the Rocky Point Board of Education is cognizant of its. ) / responsibilities relative to the health and safety of students and school personnel; and ) WHEREAS, the governments of Su(' folk County and New York State, after extensive analysis, decided not to adopt or. implement any radiological emergency evacuation plan for response to a Shoreham emergency; and WHEREAS, New York State Supreme Court decisions have upheld Suf folk - to adopt or implement any plan for Shoreham; and q County's decision not l since the LILCO emergency plan for Shoreham has been found to be-beyond i LILCO's authority to implement, it would be inappropriate.for the Rooky. i Point School District to cooperate with LILCO regarding -Shoreham j planning; and i l WHEREAS, the Rocky Point Board of Education believes that the governments of Suffolk County and New York have acted responsibly and in furtherance of the interests of Rocky Point School District residents in deciding not to adopt or implement any radiological emergency evacuation / plan for Shoreham; and l 1 i WHEREAS, the Shoreham emergency. plan developed by Long Island Lighting Company makes unwarrented assumptions about the willingness and ] capability of Rocky Point school personnel to undertake emergency actions J i in the event of a Shoreham radiological emergency'; and WHEREAS, the Rocky Point Board of Education af ter having surveyed i 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 Rocky Point, it is' clear I that Rocky Poin school personnel could not and would not implement early dismissal, evacuation, sheltering or other protective. actions in the event of a Shoreham radiological emergency evacuation; and WHEREAS, the Rocky Point School District is informed that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Licensing Board concluded that Rocky Point schoal preparedness is adequate for a Shoreham radiological emergency evacuation; and WHEREAS, the Rocky Point School District is informed that the-Federal Emergency Management' Agency appears to have ignored the f'ac t Rocky Point School District has adopted no plan and performed no training for a'Shoreham radiological emergency; and i i WHEREAS, that the mere acceptance and use of tone alert radios does not in any way -indicate Rocky Point School : Board's acceptance of, or j cooperation with LILCO's proposed evacuation plan. p. e ese e e>W 5 -Obe
.___._m.....a i Page of.2 pages + Kay 193.1986 a PASSED RESOLUTION -- SHOREHAM EVACUATION PLAN e-BOARD OF EDUCATION, ROCKY POINT PUBLIC SCHOOLS NOW THEREFORE RE IT, j RESOLVED, that the Rocky Point Board of Educa*. ion recognizes its l' responsibilities to students and school personnel in the Rocky Point I 6 T School District; and be it further [ RESOLVED, that the Rocky Point Board of Education recognizes that the LILCO plan provides no way of dealing with the potential liability of the Rocky Point School District or of the school employees which could arise out of lawsuita resulting from a Shoreham radiological evacuation, 4 or from protective actions taken during a radiological emergency evacuation; and be it further RESOLVED, that the Rocky Point 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 i Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant; and be it further RESOLVED, therefore, that the Rocky Point Board of Education cannot j and will not adopt or implement any plan for, or perform any training for, or participate in any exercise of school protective actions for response to a Shoreham radiologcial emergency, and that to do so would be l irresponsible; and be it further l RESOLVED, that the Rocky Point Board of Education concludes that no operating license be granted to LILCO for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. l i i i j ) t I i .f .f'.+ gi .i
f ** i o) r .]* STATE O r N ew YOR K t CXECUTIVE CHAMsER [ h hb i ALBANY 12224 g G& MAmio ' i. Cuowo sgav;CE BRAM
- 7 g
szcY4iac oovcanoa DOCKET NUMBER PROD. & UTIL. FAC. h b Ol-- i N ~~ NM3P1)S, 1986 rM5.SE' rye..@.M # ~3 SERVED MAY MlG06 Dear aimau Falladiuv. ,l i I respectfully request that the Nuclear Regulatory Agency forthwith terminate the pending proceedings for a license to operate the Shoreham Nuclear Facility at full power. My opposition to the opening of the Shoreham Nuclear Plant is based upon the hearings, studies and findings of an independent commission which I established several years ago, composed of diverse members including persons supporting i the opening of Shoreham. It led me to conclude that there could be no safe offsite evacuation plan for that plant. 1 Suf folk County had earlier reached the same conclusion after i months of study, hearings and the advice of experts that no safe offsite evacuation plan could be formulated for that facility. My sole concern, as I stated at that time, was and remains the safety, health and welfare of the people of { Long Island. On Sunday, May 4, 1986, while being interviewed on " Meet the Press," White House Chief of Staff Donald Regan, in response to a question as to whether the area around the Shoreham Nuclear Plant on Long Island could be evacuated in the event of an emergency at the Plant, stated that "as one who did live in Long Island for quite a few years," the area could not be evacuated and suggested that a bridge across Long Island Sound to Connecticut might solve the problem. He also stated that he thought the problem of the Shoreham Plant has become "a political football." l In an article by Susan Page entitled " Reagan: U. S. l* Needs More N-Plants" which appeared in Newsday on May 1, 1986, an undisclosed aide who was with President Reagan in Bali said that the problems over opening the Shoreham Nuclear Plant on + Long Island are political, and that the Shoreham Plant should i be opened notwithstanding that there can be no safe evacuation . i of the residents around the Plant whether there is a nuclear 'd disaster or not. j' 7' g gy2T8[ 7
- f
i l 4 y l UNITED STATES OF AME7<ICA NI1 CLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIUN l t 3l i In the Matter of I l) LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Oc'cket No.(s) 5 0 - 3 2 2 - O L'- 3 , j t f (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station) l l t .t 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE j I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Ltr Governae Cuomo dtd 5/15/86 have been served uoan the following oersons in'accordance with the !j . requirements of to CFR section 2.712. l t
- trative Judge Administrative Judge Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman
. Edles Atomic Safety and Licensing Acceal c Safety and Licensing Apoeal Board jard U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission u.$. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Washington, DC 20553 Washington. CC 20535 1 Admi urative Judge Howard A. Wilber Administrative Judge ( Atomic Safety and Licensing Apoeal Morton B. Margulins, Chairman f 4 Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board j U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 i Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Jerry R. Kline Frederick J. Shon ~ Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensina Board j U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis6 ion Washington, DC 20555 Washington, OC 20555 Donna D. Duer, Esq. Ednin J. Rets, Esq. Law Clerk Office of the Executive Legal Director jI Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commisston U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coin,nission Washington, DC 20555 .) - Washington, DC 20555 W. T. Reveley, 111. Esq. C. K. Mallory, !!!, Esq. Hunton & Williams Huntun & Williams a P.O. Box 1535 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. ,h j{ Richmond VA 23212 Washington, DC 20036 / Jj
. n ;--- --- - c- - ---- - _ -- R ..y t i Dociet No.(s) 50-322-OL-3 s i i Herbert H. Brown, Esq. Lawrence C. Langher, Esq.. Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Xirkpatrick & Lockhart 1900 M Street, N.W., Sutte 800 1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 Washingtons DC 20036 Wasnington, OC 20036 Stephen B. Latham, Esq. Anthony F. Earl'ey, Jr., Esc. Twomey, Latham & Shea General Counsel 33 West Second Street Long Island Lighting Company Riverhead, NY ll901 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, NY 11601 Nora L. Bredes Dr. Robert Hoffman Exe~cutive Coordinator Long Island Coalition for Safe Living Shorehem Opponents Coalition F.O. Box 1355 195 East Main '.r e e t Massapequa, NY 11750 4 Smithtown, NY '787 1 d Monroe Schneider Spence W. Perry, Esq. North Shore Committee Associate General Counsel P.O. Box 231 Federal Emergency Management Agency y i Wading River, NY 117.92 500 C Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20472 i Jay. Dunkleberger Stewart M. Glass, Esq. New York State Energy Office Regional Counsel Agency Bldg. 2, Empire State Pla:4 Federal Emergency Management Agency Albany, NY 12223 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 New York, NY 10278 Jonathan D. Feinbero, Esq. Fabian G. Falomino Esq. Staff Counsel Special Counsel to the Sovernor Non York State Public Service Office of the Governor Commission State Capitol, Room 229 3 Rockefeller Plaza Albany, NY 12224 Albany, NY L2223 Mory M. Gundrum, Esq. Feter Bienstock, Esq. New York State Decertment of Law New York State Decartment of Law i Two World Trade Center, Room 4614 Two World Tr ade. Cen ter, Room 4614 .[j{ New York, NY 10047 New York, NY 10047 j 1! i ..t I
z s f Docket No.(s) 50-122-OL-3 i q 1 Martin B. Ashare. Esa. Suffolk County Attorney Suffolk County Offices - H. Lee Dennison Building / / Veterans Memorial Highway / i Hauppauge, NY 11788 / ) / m s ) ) ', e Dated at Washington, D.C. this 28 day of May 1986 . (f4 f.l ! Office of the 3ecretary of the Commission I 1 i s j } \\ l a / 4 l l
y a TOWF OF plV RH AD 8N m /2. ;ef, i
- 803
~ 1 MAY 1 h lhhhM"' ;' lRENE 3. PENOZlCK TOWN CLERK 4 y .,0f May 7, 1986 i ,'s i q Clerk of the Nuclear Regulatory cocnTNU"'?R g g g g g 3 1717 H Street North West Washington, D.C. 10555 PR c 1 s. UT.L F1,c....- j i t To whom it may concern: ~ Enclosed, please find a certified copy of I ,l a resolution adopted by the Riverhead Town Board, Riverhead, l New York opposing the opening of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. .i Sinc rel', I (f.5c.E. ] IJP:dmh Town Clerk Enc. l i 1 i i ) i l c,w UOI (,,,,, v v r%-- g f x,_ l .h 1 1 _ e.e - e_ m...m_,..e,s.v.m,m O
w ,,e TOWN OF RIVERHEAD RESOLUTION #247 DATED: MAY 7, 1986
- 247 RESOLUTION CALLING UPON THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO INSURE THE CITIZENS OF RIVERHEAD THAT THE NUCLEAR POWER PLANT AT SHOREHAM WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO OPEN.
j' i Councilman Prusinowski offered the following resolution, which was seconded by CouncilmanLombardi WHEREAS, the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, which has il been constructed by the Long Island Lighting Company, is 1,ocated at the border of Riverhead township; and WHEREAS, the Federal Government has, by pre-emption, taken upon itself the obligation of insuring the safety of the citizens of Riverhead and her adjoining towns in Suffolk from nuclear accidents by, designating the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-4 sion in conjunction with the Federal Agency, FEMA, to determine i whether the evacuation of Riverhead and eastern Suffolk is pos-l l sible in the event of a nuclear incident; and q 4 WHEREAS, the geography and road networks of Riverhead ) make evacuation in the event of a nuclear disaster impossible; i ] and WHEREAS, it appears that the regional Director of FEMA, a Mr. Frank Petrone, resigned his position on April 14,-1986, because of his refusal to change the language in his official { report criticizing LILCO's February 13, 1986, Ernergency Planning j Exercise; and j 1 WHEREAS, we are all mindful of the recent accident in the Soviet Union which demonstrates both the possibility for disaster and the unreliability of nuclear technology. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ) RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Riverhead hereby calls upon the President of the United States, as Chief t. _we e.t _....., uw. .ms.4.. e o w,. u..,,1 n. c o m,1 2,. n r v rnmmis-I STATE OF NEW 70aSt. .1 THIS IS TO CERTIFY that I, the undersigned, Town Clerk of the Town of River. J w r sAs, I hud, County of Suffolk, New York, have compared the foregoing copy of A resolution with the orfginal now on file in this office and which was duly adopted bUh day of May 80, and that the esme is a true and i on the to corteet transcript of said resolution 7} and of the whole thereof. 4 / IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand ar.d the offletal sea of 0 the said own of Riverbud, this 7th day of May 13 ~ Y G' d 4f Tf u u
i 1 s. i. t UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .f j in the Matter of I .l I LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY I Docket No.(s) 50-322-OL-3 l-1 J~l (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station) l J! I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 heraby certify that cooles of the foregoing Resolution Town of Riverhead j have been served upon the following aersons in accordance with the requirements of to CFR section 2.712. i I j Administrative Judge Administrative Judge j Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Gary J. Edles Atomic Safety 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, Chiirman 'i Board Atomic Safety and Licensino Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washinoton, DC 20555 2 Administrative Judge Administrative Judoe Jerry R. Kline Frederick J. Shen Atomic Safety and Licensino Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear ReQulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission Washington, 0,C 20555 Washington DC 20555 i Donna D. 01er, Esq. Edwin J. Reis, Eso. Law Clark Office of the Executive Legal Otractor Atomic Safety and Licensino Board Panel U.S. Nuclear ReQulatory Commission 3 U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission Washington, DC 20555' Washington, DC 20555 } W. T. Reveley, !!!, Esq. C. K. Mallory, III, Esq. Hunton & Williams Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. j l Richmond. VA 23212 Washington, DC 20036 .,yg 'I .4 e. k. e
] m. ~.. _.m_ w 1 ) i t Docket No.(si 50-322-OL-3 'i l c Herbert H. Brown, Esc. Lawrence C. Lancher, Esc. j Kirkpatrick*& Lockhart Xtrkpatrick & Lockhart 1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 1900 M Street. N.W., Suite 800 Washin2 ton, DC 20036 Washington, DC 20036 .I Stephen B. Latham, Esa. Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esc. Twomey. Latham & Shea General Counsel 33 West Second Street Long Island Lichting Company Riverhead, NY 11901 175 East Old Country Road i Hicksville, NY 11001 } t Nora L. Bredes Dr. Robert Hoffman I Executive Coordinator Long Island Coalition for Safe Living Shoreham Opponents Coalition P.O. Box 1355 195 East Main Street Massapequa, NY 11750 Smithtown, NY 11787 Monroe Schneider Spence W. Ferry, Esq. North Shore Committee Associate General Counsel P.O. Box 231 Federal Emergency Management Acency Wading River, NY 11792 500 C Street, G.W. Washincton, DC 20472 Jay Dunkleberger Stewart M. Glass, Esc. I New York State Energy Office Regional Counsel Agency Bldg. 2, Empire State Plaza Federal Emergency Manacemeni Acency Albany, NY 12223 26 Federal Plaza Room 1349 New York, NY 10278 Jonathan D. Feinbera, Eso. Fabian G. Palomino. Esc. Staff Counsel Special Counsel to the Governor New York State Public Service Office of the Governor Commission State Capitol, Room 229 3 Rockefeller Plaza Albany. NY 12224 Albany. NY 12223 Mary M. Gundrum, Esq. Peter Bienstock, Esc. 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 g. -,g,, - q 4
- n
..,.v._.;.._._. .....-,a- . 7 -; h Docket No.(s) 50-322-OL-3 1 i j ' i '3 i . { <- 6 t Martin B. Ashare, Esq. Suffolk County Attorney Suffolk County Offices - i l H. Lee Dennison Buildino I' Veterans Memorial Highway Haupcauge, NY 11788 / ) / ',l this , ^y / Dated at Washington, D.C. 12 day of May 1986 h,gg;,7Q4 OfficejsftheSecretary'oftheCommission-g i l g-t '4. 1
- to 1
i I . ? 6 '1 h s s I il 8 s + ., '!1' 1 i
- 14 ]
i fig. t ..?, - ] .A } .a s
~N d~'T y j .g 7-- --------_------ 3 / tj C r ~ t Ice ccn jt' c v ta 1 .,To:M ~ a, l s 4CQ 7 cousrv or NASSAU OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY M > y I 31 N P. NASSAU COUNTY EXECUTIVE BUILDING, i ..I
- N,-':
r MINEoLA. NEW YORK 115o1 1 1 I T 516 535 3056 3 9 onexgT MUMBERPROD. & UTIL. FAC..P.'g g d c. -. / ' l n-1 %6-J 2, g Nuclear, Regulatory Commission gggg.g Washington, D.C. 20555 Gentlemen: j , I have been requested by Presiding Supervisor Thomaja Gulotta to write to you concerning the Long Island Licjhting Company use of the Nassau Veteranc Memorial Coliseum at Uniondale in the County of Nacsau, State of New York, in connection with its application for a permit for the utilization of the.'Shoreham j Nuclear Plant,at Shoreham, County of Suffolk, State'of New York. I wish to advise that 6he-Board of Supervisors of.the' Government has not a(dopted a Local Disaster Plan and there has d County of Nassau wh ch is the Legislative branchof thd County neveJ: been any. designation of the Nassau Veterans Memorial I Coliseum for any purpose,related thereto. I i 't \\ I bave renderedyan opinion regarding this matter to I the Leard of Supervisors and I enclose herewith a copy of that-opinion fer your records and information. j Very truly yours, 'n i bil a ? h l d,/ \\ ETOB:tas EDWARD T. O'BRIEN f encl. County Attoxney l t c f- .p i l V Lb' s 7 Y \\ \\ / .3 f-j' [i.
g [ _m i b col'NTY OF NASSAU In'ter-Departmental Memo \\ ~ Thomas S. Gulotta .1 T*- Presiding Supervisor '] j Town of Hempstand S ,1 13 it From: ' Edward,T, O'Brien f Acting County Attorney Li l \\ '1 Om April 43 193E t i Leasc anNndNL t and Tarillt' M a r.a c er.e r.t of New York, I r.e. S: e' Coliseum /Shoreha. f .+ ( + I understand a proposal will be made to amend the above -j lease to prohibir Facility Manage.ne.. Corporation'h (formerly -{ Hyatt,. tenant) dse of the Nassau Veta.'ans Memorial Coliseum as ] a disaster evacuation center in the event of a nuclear (radiologir cal) disaster. q The terms'of the lease do not allow such a use by the l tenant. The provisions of the New York State Executive Law J l preempts to the Governor and the County Executive the'implementa-tion of all facilities within the territorial limits of.the disaster area in the event of a nuclear (radiological) disaster. Section 24, Executive Law. Some pdhlic concern has been directed to the letter agreepent made )ptween Hyatt and the Long Island Lighting. Company (LILCOE which are, lated to LILCO's application to the Nuclear Regu-latory'Coms.ission (NRC) for a permit to open the Shoreha:r. facility s in Suffo'lk County, i I have examined the record and find that neither LILCO nor'Hyatt made any representation to the NRC regarding,the Nassau County Government's position and the NRC Licensing Board made-no finding that the government of Nassau Coun~ty supports (or opposes) a shoreham evacuation plan which would involve the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum or any other facility in Nassau County. The Nassau County Board of Supervisors.has adopted no. ordinance.or resolution regarding such use.- The proposed amend- .i ment to the lease agreement prohibiting the use of the Nassau Veterans Memorial Coliseum as an evacuation center in.the event-of a nuclear.(radiological) catastrophe would be a nullity. 3 ..j i' T l ~a ETOB:tas-7' EDWARD T. O'BRIEN l =pg) (( Acting County Attorney ~ ] a s. t y ti ,A .g s
j ..j.y g' Ap. ,,g. 1.~ w.yf ._ ) _.a._-.. t {s ~ 1 + D.'- i ,f -s" , UNITED STATES OF AMERICA' ] , NM(LEAR REGULATORY CONMISSION 1 1 + 'i ,i In the Matter of 1 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Occket No.(s) 50-322-OL-3 ) 1 ,I .(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station) 1 -i l N r CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 !.hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Ltr County of Nassau dtd 5/2 ,j have been served upon the following persons in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR section 2.712. 4 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Alan S. Rosenthtl, Chairman Gary J. Edles Atomic Safety anJ Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 205'45 Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Howard A. Wilber. Administrative Judge ' Atomic Safety and Licensing Apoeal Morton B. Marquiles, Chairman Board Atomic Safety and Licensino Board. l U.S.' Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatcry Commission 'l Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC-20555 'l Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Jerry R. Kline Frederick J.- Shon Atomic Saf ety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety snd Licensino B' card. U.S. Nuctuar Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission-Washington, DC 20555 Washington. DC 20555 Donna D. Duer, Esq. Edwin J. Reis. Esc. Law Clerk Office of.the Executive Leca! Director Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Requiatory Commission 'Aashing ton, DC 20555 Washincton, DC 20555' W. T. Reveley,' !!!, Esc. C..K. Mallory, !!! Esq.- Hunton & Williams Hunton & Williams 1 P.O. Box 1535 2000 Pennsylvania.Avenuei N.W. Richmond, VA 23212 Washington, DC 20036 yfi
- ]
4
a. u,.- ~.,..r.. i ..~.-a Je -1
- L "r
e l Docket No.(s) 50-322-0L-3 1 1 i. E. I Herbert H. Brown, Esc. Lawrence C. Langher, Esq. Kirkpatrick & Lockhart j Kirkpatrick & Lockhart. 1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 800-1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 ) Washington, DC 20036 Washington, DC 20036
- )
- 1 -l 1 i Stephen B. Latham, Esa. Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq. Twomey, Latnam & Shea General Counsel 33 West Second Street 'Long Island Lightino Company ) l Riverhead. NY IL901 175 East 01o Country Road 1 Hicksville, NY 11001 J l t + Nora L. Bredes Dr. Robert Hoffman Executive Coordinator Long Island. Coalition for Safe Living j Shoreham Opponents Coalition P.O. Box 1355 ] 195 East Main Street Massapequa, NY 11758 ] Smithtown, NY 11787 1 Monroe Schneider Spence W. Perry, Esq. North Shore _ Committee Associate General Counsel P.04 Box 231 Federal Emeroency Manacement Agency i Wading River, NY 11792 500 C Street, S.W. i Washington, DC 20472 i t. - J a y. Dunkleberger Stewart M. Glass,Esa._ 1 ? New York State Energy Office Regional. Counsel. l. Agency Blda. 2, Empire State Plaza Federal Emergency Management Agency { Albany. NY -12223 26 Federal Plaza, Race 1349 New York.'NY 10278 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esc. + Fabian G. Palomino Esq. Staff Counsel Special Counsel to the Governor New York State'Public-5ervice Office of the Governor Commission State Capitol, Room 229 3 Rockefeller-Plaza-t . Albany. NY. 12224 Albany, NY 12223. } 3 Mary M. Gundrum Esq. Peter. .Bienstock, Esc. 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 j 4{, l -, \\ a -)
I ,e .2 i i I Docket No.(s) 50-322-OL-3 f Martin B.' Ashare, Esq. Suffolk County Attorney Suffolk County Offices - H. Lee Dennisen Building '] V,eterans Memorial Highway 1 Haupcauge, NY 11780 ,l i Dated at Washington, D.C. this 12 day of May 1986 j i 1 ~ - -....... - -.. Office f the Secretary of the Commission j j + .t l I e i l l l l 1 i e '/ - s;
.j.- ( (.g@ MWj 1% WN i ~ ' ' i ^ 3 y ), W .,q * *ew ~ ^ y q Io UNITED STATES j g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o S i WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 (,M,/ f February 11, 1986 CHAIRMAN 2 I l The Honorable Daniel P. Moynihan United States Senate Washington, OC 20510 i s i
Dear Senator Moynihan:
We. appreciate your comments on the Shoreham emergency planning exercise scheduled for February 13, 1986. We have carefully considered both your February 4, 1986 letter and your 1 -February 5, 1986 " Declaration and Remonstrance" on the advisability of the exercise. .p. We wish to assure you as. clearly as we can that the purpose and-ground rules for the exercise should raise no concerns about Federal-State relations. Our regulations, co'nsistent with s tatutory provisions 'in. recent years, contemplate that NRC will give full consideration to the merits of a utility emergency plan if the state or local government does not prepare one-Accordingly, LILCO prepared a plan which is undergoing NRC review. We have made no decision on the acceptability of LILC0's plan,-but an, exercise will assist the Commission in assessing its adequacy under the circumstances. The exercise will assist the Commission in i determining whether the. plan is as good as.LILCO. claims.it-is,; or as bad as the Shoreham opponents believe it.is. Your objections to the exercise appear to be based on your belief that.the exercise will usurp traditional and legitimate i state and local authority. We assure you_ categorically-that'we H intend no such usurpation by this exercise. It is the Commission's intention that no state or county functions will be performed by any-Federal personnel during the exercise, and that no Federal personnel wil1 interact with members of the public so as to lead anyone to believe that they are actually state or county officials..It is also the Commission's intention.tha t no; LILC0 ' employee will 'be, or appear to be, performing any state or county functions:during the exercise. Indeed, as the, Commission emphasized when it. i reques tad FEMA to schedule and conduct the' exercise, the upcoming ' N " (y - exercise should comply with all state and county. laws which limit the conduct of certain emergency response functions to state or d county personnel. The exercise will not infringe on any legitimate police powers of the state or county. L i y . '1 - l
- c 2
N g}0 g - zff
i s * - m 3, .a 2. l 1 l A more complete e'xposition of the views of the Commission as to j the exercise'is set forth in.the attached Commission order. My views and the views of Commissioner Asselstine, who both oppose conducting the exercise, are also enclosed. /, j t j The concerns which you expressed about the exercise are also h raised by the defending parties in a lawsuit brought by the Department of. Justice in the United-States District Court for i-the Eastern District of New York. The purpose of the lawsuit is to resolve the constitutional -legal validity of a recently 'i enacted county law which seeks to make participation'in the E exercise a crime.. Late yesterday, the Court issued an opinion and order which we understand enjoi_s,the county from enforcing n the new county law in a manner which would block the exercise. I We will provide you with the Court's opinion as soon'as we j re ce i,ve.i t. \\ j A' gain, we appreciate receiving your views and we wish.to assure l you that we sincerely believe our efforts are in furtherance of 2, ! ! e our statutory duties. If you desire'further information, we ,~ i - will provide it promptly. 'd i Sincerely, .g .y/,5 c- 'f' ' f. .[ w b * # A[ j l Nunzio J. Palladino
Enclosure:
As Stated 3 t i 3 t j: ,I >l il s ..g 3 .) ./. :, h 'l !i 4 ' [. It a - .j
a ,[ i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I l NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0tlMISSION $ g,'$ 6. h l i COMMISSIONERS: i f q!, 1 c Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Ji Thomas M. Roberts James X. Asselstine Frederick M. Bernthal
- }
Lando W. Zech, Jr. 356ED JSN,'t a v-s' ) l In the Matter of' ) ) LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 OL ) 00cKtiNuhnNR g : g ~ dial *) i (Sho'reham Nucleer Power Station) ) 9R00. & tmL FAC ~~ ) gi48VED FEB 5 1986 l MEMORANDUM AND ORDER l
1 Background
Long Island Lighting Company's (LILCO) application for a full power l operating license for its Shoreham Nuclear Pcwer Plant, located in Suffolk ) County, New York, is pending before the NRC. In order for there to be an L adequate record for safety review of LILCO's full power application, NRC regulations generally require,'among other tHngs, that an offsite emergency l l plan be developed, and that there be en exercise of the plan. See 10 CFR 5 50.47 and Part 50, App. E. The exercises are generally supervised ind conducted by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), with participation by relevant state and local governments. In this case, however, the ernergency plan before us for review was developed and proposed by LILCO because the State and County refused to develop one. The LILCO Plan for 1 Shorehan provides for the lead role for offsite emergency response to be ni administered by the local Emergency Respense Organization (LERO), an !$ ij Jy pp ]1 1(f?h j i D
.. ~. _ _ _ ~ _. ~ l. .m 2 1 l organization ~ cemprised of primarily utility employees. In a December 26, 1985 l. motion,.New York State, Suffolk County, and the Town of Southampton jointly moved the Connission to cancel a February 13, 1986 exercise of LILCO's i emergency preparedness ' plan for Shoreham. LILCO and the NRC staff oppose the motion, and we deny it for the reasons explained below, i The movants have n'ot identified any basis in NRC regulations for the l 1 filing of such a motion, which in effect attempts to interfere directly with the Connission's process for obtaining Information necessary for its licensing t l decisions..Under NRC practice it is not clear that this type of motion is. ]l t r .3 authorized or that we are. obligated to respond in any formal way. On this i ! basis alone'the motion may be denied. Nevertheless, because we consider the upcoming exercise to be importatet in carrying out our safety responsibilities. q we are responding to the motion in tnis Memorandum and Order. j a The Nature of the Exercise j In'the upcoming Shoreham exercise planned for February 13, ip66, FEMA t intends to observe a number of LERO primary response capabilities. This observatiof1 will entail an examination of facilities, plans, and t communications, but will not entail interaction with the public that would be affected in the event of an actual emergency. Specifically, FEMA plans to F observe the following facilities and/or activities: LERO Energency Operations Center ) Emergency Operations Facility i Emergency News Center t 3 Reception Center 3 ) Cotigregate Care Centers i .I $3 l -,.o g 1 m
s 3 Emergency Worker Decontamination General Population Bus Routes a 1 School Evacuation J t Special Facilities Evaceation Pobility Impaired at Home Route Alerting Traffic Control Points I Impediments to Evacuation 1 I Radiological Monitoring j .:,1 Accident Assessment j 'k The Notion The State, County and Town oppose the holding of this exercise of the LILCO plan for essentially two reasons: (1) they contend that various court ' ' decisions make clear that LILC0 cannot implement its plan, so an exercise of the plan would be useless; and (2) they contend that, if the exercise is i designed to test the implementability of the LILCO plan using' a simulated { State and County response which was never litigated before any NRC Board., it 1 would be irrelevant to the licensing process for Shoreham, and thus the-results of the exercise would be worthless for that reason'as well. We-reject both reasons. As to the first argument, it is true that a New York State Court has held that, in the event of an actual emergency, certain elements of LILCO's emergency plan can only be implemented by New York State er Suffolk County-authorities. Cuomo v. LILCO, No. 84-4605 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Feb. 20, 1985). The-exercise does not flaunt that decision; to the contrary, it presumes the a' validity of the limits on LILCO's authority to' implement its plan as set forth I 4 %i O
m_... q . [., y q. j 4 H in that case, the only. elements of LILCO's emergency plan which will be tested are those that LILCO may lawfully do on its own. The exercise of these j elements of the LILCO plan will not, however, be useless. To the contrary, q l the exercise is expected to provide important an_d material information to the } Commission. For example, as we noted when we directed tne NRC staff to request. FEMA to schedule an exercise, the exercise will assist us in determining whether any defects that exist as a result of "the limitations of LILCO's plan when executed under the state and county restrictions" (memorandum from S. Chilk to W. Dircks, dated June 4, 1985 at 1), are ? significant under our regulations. See.10 CFR 50.47(c)(1). Therefore, it is .l simply incorrect for the movants to argue that the exercise is useless because l, ] ) not all of the plan's elements will be tested. As to the second argument, the LILCO Plan in part states that: ] i The role of Suffolk County, should it decide to become involved:in the response to a radiological emergency, either because the f Governor orders it to do so or because the County Executive so chooses, will be for the various members to part'icipate to the ) j-extent to which they are qualified by reason of prior training or-experience. Thus a fundamental factual premise for movan'ts' second argument, i.e., that ) the plan litigated in the Shoreham licensing proceeding provides sole.ly for a LILCO-only response, is incorrect. The plan provides for planned LILCO action in the event of an g hoc State ar.d County response to en actual emergency. Not only does the LILCO plan anticipate the possibility of such a response, c ! such a response has been, in effect, promised by the Stato and County.--The Ccunty Executive has stated that in the event of an actus1 radiological accident at Shoreham he would " respond to the best of [his'. ability' and in-j ~ accordance with the duties and obligations placed upon [him) by Article 2-b of A the Executive L4w" (letter from P. Cchalan to T. Reveley; dated June 26, 1985),. f.,' l .+
. _ _ u._ L S and Governor Cuomo has. stated. that in a radiological emergency, "both the State and the County would help to the extent possible, no one suggests + 1 otherwise." Governoc's Press Release dated December 20, 1983. ?.j In order to test LILCO's planned response to ad, hoc governmental participation in an actual emergency and to add more realism to the exercise, ) federal employees will play the role of such offici.als durirg the exercise. l 1 l Through this role-playing, the NRC is attempting to evaluate LER0's capability . -l (1) to accommodate the presence of state and local officials, (2) to support ^ those officials using the resources available through LERO, and (3) to provide t .i those officials with sufficient information to carry out their state and ~.) county responsibilities. These " actors," however, will be instructed not to play decisionmaking roles, not to assume any command and control authority, not to interact with menbers of the public so as to lead anyone to believe that they are actually county officials, and not to actually perform.any state or local functions exclusively reserved to. state or county officials' by state i t or county laws. The basis for the number of actors to be used in this aspect 3 j of the exercise and the detailed instructions they will be provided are based, t primarily, on New York State plans for other nuclear power plants and the t' manner in which New York State personnel and other counties have participated 4 in other New York facility exercises. Thus, contrary to movants' assertion, the simulation to be perforc'ed 3 during the exercise will test an actual and important aspect of LILCO's plan. Indeed, the exercise currently scheduled, including the role playing, i corresponds exactly with the current status of emergency planning for II Shoreham. I)" i g 3 I d I
1 ~ 6 t Conclusion In sum, we find that the motion presents no reason why the exercise should be cancelled.1 We fu'rther find that the conduct of this exerci.se, ,1j' i which is permitted by our regulations,'is under current circumstances both j lawful and necessary to fulfill our responsibility under the Atomic Energy Act to protect the health and safety of the public. The exercise will allow us to evaluate whether the LILCO plan, as described above, is as good as LILCO ] claims it is or, conversely, is as bad as the State, County, and Town assert. 'j i 'd ) ] 1The County appears to assert (Motion, p. 21) that, in the event of a ~) radiological accident at Shoreham, County personnel could not lawfully make j use of the LILCO plan, even if this was under the circumstances the best way { to protect the safety of the citizens of Suffolk County. We find this. assertion to be too preposterous an abrogation of the County's oblications to j its citizens to be taken seriously. 1 t The motion also states that NRC may not request an exercise at i plant 1 "which has been denied an operating license." (See,e.g.Motionat3). However, the Comission itself has not reviewed the evidentiary record on the adequacy of LILCO's plan, and consequently there is no final agency action denying LILCO an operating licen'se. Movants also seem to argue that the Comission erred by failing to conduct a formal Comission meeting when it decided to request the exercise. See Motion at 2. No law requires such a meeting. a 2 ^ Section 103d., 42 U.S.C. % 2132d., provides that: ... no license may be issued to any person within the United States if, in the opinion of the Commission, the issuance of a license to such person would be inimical to the ccemon defense and security or to the health and safety of the public. Section 161c., 42 U.S.C. % 2201c., authorizes the Commission to: ... make such studies and investigations, obtain'such information, and l-hold such meetings or hearings as the Commissien may deem necessary or proper to assist it in exercising ary authority provided in.this Act. or in the administration cr enforcement of this Act, or any regulations or j orders issued thereunder. 4 s e
-T. .. ~.-..--. - - e ^. 7 Accordingly, we decline movants' invitat. ion to carcel the exercise based on movants' assertion that the exercise is useloss because it cannot prove that LILCO's emergency plan is sufficient to meet NRC requirements. While, 3J for the resscos set forth herein, we believe that the exercise is very useful, we obviously take no position on whether the exercise will satisfy our i l emergency planning reonirements. For the past several years the State, j l e County, and Town have been claiming that no adequate plan can be developed for Shoreham, and that the LILCO plan is inadequate. They are entitled, as litigants before us, to advocate that position; they are not, however, .) entitled to obstruct our inouiry into the facts necessary to enable us to f resolve that assertion.3 i .' f, .t J l 8 i t -) ...i 3The motien did not inform us of a pending development directly related to the motion: a County law,. now in effect and under County consideratien' when its motion was filed, that is apparently intended to make NRC j, participation in the exercise a crime shculd the County legislature disapprove 1 of it. Because it has not been raised-by the movants as a basis. for their q motion, we do not deal with the new local law in this Order. 19 -JQ. nzg 4 nj
8 L{ Chairman Palladino and Cemissioner hselstire disapprove this order. Chairman Palladino provided dissenting view! with which Comissioner 1 Asselstine agreed. The additional views of the Comission ma.jority are also ? 1 .if attached. i It is so ORDERED.
- i {
l F 1 the Comission i n l ,r' { . q 1 x josun x
- i
{ecret:1ry of the Comission SAMUEL d. CH H.K. j Y\\ 1 i e Dated at Washington, D.C. g this b ~ day of January,1986. t I E b 4 3' i -}, iw 9.E .*ql lh I
+ DISSENTING VIEWS OF CHAIRMAN PALLADINO j' I BELIEVE MY POSITION ',N THE SCHEDULING OF AN EXERCISE AT THIS N) \\ TIME IS WELL KNOWN. THAT' POSITION IS AS FOLLOWS: ) AFTER THINKING ABOUT THIS ISSUE A GREAT. DEAL, I CONCLUDED'THAT 4 4 ONLY'A POTENTIALLY WORKABLE PLAN SHOULD BE EXERCISED; GIVEN A .l THE LICENSING AND APPEAL BOARD DECISIONS-THAT LILCO DID,NOT 'HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO PERFORM MANY 0F THE REQUIRED .g M-l EMERGENCY RESPONSE FUNCTIONS SET OUT IN THE PROPOSED PLAN, I dj' QUESTIONED THE USEFULNESS OF THE DRILL BEING PROPOSED. lI' j 1;] FURTHER, THE RESULTS OF A DRILL OF AN-INADEQUATE PLAN MIGHT CREATE NEW HEARING ISSUES WHICH WOULD NEED TO BE-ADDRESSED-AND THAT MIGHT NOT ARISE IF ONE WERE TO EXERCISE ONLY AN ADEQUATE PLAN. 1i 4 I BELIEVE THAT AN EXERCISE AT SHOREHAM WHICH INVOLVES' Il cw y PARTICIPATION OF THE STATE, SUFFOLK COUNTY, AND.THE UTILITY j 1 i COULD PROVIDE, ON THE OTHER HAND, USEFUL INFORMATION ON THE j ' ADEQUACIES OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS AT SHOREHAM THAT WOULD BE ~ 0F USE AND INTEREST TO ALL PARTICIPANTS. '] [ UNTIL THE COMMISSION COMPLETES ITS REVIEW OF THE EMERGENCY PLANNING LEGAL AUTHORITY ISSUES AND DEPENDING UPON THE OUTCOME '] 0F.THAT REVIEW, I WILL CONTINUE TO. HOLD.THE'ABOVE-STATED VIEW. 4 i WOULD ADD THAT I HAVE NOT PREJUDGED,"AND 00 NOT. INTEND TO j. bY 'i h I 't
. ~. m 2-1 1 l PREJUDGE, ANY OPEN ISSUE IN THE SHOREHAM OPERATING LICENSE l PROCEEDING. l, i i e .d. '. t \\ A. t O b e .A l d ..] + J i ..{ 1 i 9 0 s 1 8 3 - h T 4 a j -iU ,.]
- q
.W
_ r.. .m Additional Views of Majority While we share our colleagues' views that the February 13, 1986, exercise would be more useful to us in discharging our regulatory responsibilities were Suffolk County and New York State to participate land indeed we would be inclined to postoone the exercise were state and local participation certain in the near future), we are aware of nothing which suggests that there is any realistic chance of that occurring. Given the intransigence of these governmental bodies we believe our responsibilities require that we proceed with an exercise without them. T, I ..: 4 For the reasons stated herein, we simply disagree with the view that this ] ~ i exercise will not provide useful information. Whether the LILCO plan adequately accounts for a promised, but ad, hoc, governmental response (the l " realism" argument) is a matter on which we express no coinion at this time. As nted in our opinion, however, we expect the upcoming exercise to provide us with important factual information to help us resolve this { ,l issue. i b a I 1 w
ANI NP. MOYNIH . es,ew YoIx Tnifeb afales Senate WASHINGTON. O.C. 20$f 0 February 4, 1'986 i
Dear Mr. Chairman:
1 For some time I along with many others have been urging on 1 you my view that the exercise of the emergency plan for the Shoreham nuclear plant, scheduled for February 13, 1986, in. collaboration with the Long' Island Lighting Company, would be profoundly, unwise, probably illegal, and a waste of public . funds I have argued particularly, though not exclusively, -against the " simulation" by federal. officials.of hypothetical q behaviors of state and local officials responsible for the-health and safety of Suffolk residents...This'~ purported substitute for local participation is extravagantly ill-conceived. ^ erhaps you are being advised that the local opposition to P the Shorehata plant threatens the future of nuclear power in this j country. May I respectfully offer my judgement that the reverse. 1 is more nearly true. If anything like the future of nuclear i. power in'the United States is at stake, the cause~is the actions of befuddled administrators who are forcing this ill-conceived j exercise on the people of Long Island while they hope no one else is watching. They are wrong. As a member of the Nuclear j l Regulation Subcommittee of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, I can assure you that this fiasco will be taken as prima facie evidence'of elemental incompetence on the part~of those responsible for nuclear regulation in the Federal j Government. i Put plain, if you believe that the extraordinary simulation planned for February 13 is a real test of a real question, then the you will believe anything. If this is true then the nati'on m is in danger as well as the people of Long Island, then we had best close the Commission down. j I beg of you to censider how much is at issue. Considering the potentially enormous stakes, one would have hoped that the exercise planned for February 13 would have yielded by now to some more sensible course. Since that hope has been disappointed thus far, I write.to advise you that I am in.the process of.having embodied in.a formal Declaration'and Remonstrance setting out.the legal and i prudential considerations that should-inform the. ultimate exercise of-judgment. The document.should be' ready for +s subm 6 1on-to-you.and others no later than February 10, 1986. D While it. might prove to-reveal no surprises, it will at least; I marshal in one package the relevant considerations, submitted in ~-C the understanding that those who govern judiciously accept the q ) M, ,f / x IT[ te P
.-i . -.s h obligation to weigh and reconsider crit;ical issues. You may wish in the meantime at least to postpone the February 13 exercise. Or you may be persuaded even noti that the exercise is a serious mistake. In any event, I believe this Declaration and Remonstrance should be lodged with you for your convenience and as a record of the matters you have been called upon to consider. sincerely, l .W ) Daniel Patric oynihan I J, ? i Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, bnf Washington, DC 20555 9 .t 1 1 i 1 't i ,-. N.$ j f) i Yi l i 1 l
_ _ ~. occur nuMasa Q. ----J{-C(.'. -] pi.D F(8 5 686
- 5. >
ANil O NtHAN PROD. & tJTIL l'AC_ ] Tuileb Mlales Menctie WASHINGTON O.C. 20$10 k February 4, 1986 N b ' 6 !98 4 '4 + .; ^u l S ' ,,. O l
Dear Mr. Chairman:
p -L. i For some time I along with many others have been urging on 4; you my view that the exercise of the emergency, plan for the i Shoreham nuc. lear plant, scheduled for February 13, 1986, in collaboration with the Long Island Lighting Company, would be profoundly unwise, probably illegal, and a waste of public i funds. I have argued particularly, though not exclusively, ] against the " simulation" by federal officials of hypothetical. 1 behaviors of state and local officials responsible for the health and safety of Suffolk residents. This purported substitute for i local participation is extravagantly ill-conceived. a i i Perhaps you.are being advised that the local opposition to the shoreham plant threatens the future of nuclear power in this' country. May I respectfully offer my judgement that the reverse 1s more nearly true. If anything like the future of nuclear power in the United States is at stake, the cause is the actions of befuddled administrators who are forcing this ill-conceived exercise on the people of Long Island while they hope no one else is watching. They are wrong. As a member of the Nuclear ~ Regulation Subcommittee of the Committee on Environment and Public Workd, I can assure you that this~ fiasco will be taken as ~ prima facie evidence of elemental incompetence on the-part of l those responsible for nuclear regulation in the Federal, Government. Put plain, if you believe that the extraordinary simulation i planned for February 13 is a real test of a real question, then J the you will believe anything. If this is true then the nation la in danger as well as the people of Long Island, then we had best close the Commission down. I beg of you to consider how much is at issue. Considering the potentially enormous stakes, one would have hoped that the exercise planned for February 13 would have yielded by now-to some more sensible course. Sinc'e that hope has been disappointed thus far, I-write to 3 advise you that I am in the process of having embodied in a' ~ formal Declaration and Remonstrance setting out the legal and j prudential considerations that should inform the ultimate exercise of judgment. The document.should be ready for submission to you and others no later than February 10, 1986. j While it might prove to reveal no-surprises, it will at least marshal in one package the relevant considerations,-submitted in fd the understanding that those who govern judiciously accept the j A
- )
2 obligation to weigh and reconsider critical issues. You may wish in the meantime at least to postpone the February 13 exercise, or you may be persuaded even now that the exercise is a serious ., l l mistake. In any event, I believe this Declaration and Remonstrance should be lodged.with you for your convenience and as a record of the matters you have been called upon to consider. i Sincerely, j [ .M ) Daniel Patric oynihan i 2 : 4 Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, NW l Washington, DC 20555 s 4 j t i i l 1 1 i -) 5 .8 g c ..g L
I ' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$!0N i i In the Matter of I I j' LONG ISLAND LI1HTING COMPANY I Occket No.(s). 50-322-OL-3 3 (Shorehaa Nuctoar Power Station) t )
- i. {
i i l i ,) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Letter Moynthan to Palladino l have been served upon the following persons in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR section 2.712. j A l Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Ji ' I Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Gary J. Edles j Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal [ Board Board j,' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,.0C 20555 Washington, OC 20555 l Administrative Judge j Howard A. Wilber Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Morton 8. Margulies, Chairman } Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, OC 20555 i Administrative Judgs Administrative Judge Jerry R. Kline Frederick J. Shon 1 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensinq Ocar.d 3 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 .i ! Donna.D. Duer, Esq. Edwin J. Reis, Esq. j Law Clerk Office of the Executive Leoal Director Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, OC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 i ! -l- ! Jq W. T. Reveley, III, Esq. C. K. Mallory, !!!, Esa. 1i Hunton & Williams Hunton & Will;ams P.0. Box 1535 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.- ji Richmond, VA 23212 Washington, DC 20036 j
- N
'4.. a s 11
( I Docket No. (s) 50-322-OL-3 l I Herbert H. Brown, Esq. Lawrence C. Langher, Esq. Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Kirkpatrick k Lockhart .t 1900 M Strast, N.W., Suite 800 1900 N Street, N.W., Suite 800 Washington, DC 20034 Washington, DC 20036 C;ephen 8. Latham, Edo. Anthony F. Earley', Jr., Esq. Twomey, Latham & Shea General Counsel 1 33 West Second Street Long Island Lighting Company j Riverhead NY 11901 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, NY 11801 1 Nora L. Bredes Dr. Robert Hoffman q Executive Coordinator Long Island Coalition for Safe Living ) Shoreham Oppenents Coalition P.O. Box 1355 ] 195 East Main Street Massapequa, NY 11758 1 Smithtown, NY 1.1787 4 Monroe Schneider Spence W. Perry, Esq. l North Shore Committee Associate General Counsel P.O. Box 231 Federal Emergency Management Agency Wading River, NY 11792' 500 C Street, S.W. Washington, DC 20472 i I Jay Dunkleberger Stewart M. Glass, Esq. New York State Energy Office Regional Counsel Agency Bldg. 2 Empire State Plaza Federal Emergency Management Agency i Albany, NY 12223 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 j New York, NY 10278 Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq. Fabian G. Palomino. Esq. Staff Counset Special Counsel to the Governor New York State Public Service Office of the Governor Commission State Capitol, Room 229 3 Rockefeller Plaza Albany, NY 12224 Albany, NY L2223 s 1 Mary M. Gundrum, Esq. Peter-8tenstock Esq. New York State Decartment of Law New York State Decartment of Law Two World Trade Center, Room 4614 Two World Trade Center, Room 4614 New-(ork, NY 10047 New York, NY 10047 -i i ila s e 4
~ j ( + l i Occket No.(s) 50-322-OL-3 j Martin B. Ashare, Esq. Suffolk County Attorney Suffolk County Offices - H. Lee Dennison Building Veterans Memorial Highway Haupcauge, NY 11788 Dated at Washington, D.C. this ,/ o day of February 1986 4! b ' b)....jl'...] Offici v' the Secretary of the maission f t l l I t 9 q O 4
-- i .c 7 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK At'% , [0 - $.,h 1 ~ g _3 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE ]- q PETER F. COHALAN JOHN C. GALLAGHER surroux cousrv sxscutivc eme,occury 'i January 23, 1986 1 ^ ~.t- "'\\g\\r - _s Herzel H. E. Plaine, Esq. J General Counsel lQ ?.i United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission /g*2 Washington, D. C. f e" -: -l. George W. Watson, Esq. .,1 ~,[ yi l i Acting general Counsel &,/ / Federal Emergency Management Agency . -g. Washington, D. C. (. Gentlemen: $L... ,25 2 ' []') ~ This is in response to your letter of January 22, 1986. As you may krow, I am prevented by resolutions of the County Legislature and Court decisions affirming the validity of those resolutions from directing the participation of County personnel in the exercise of any i emergency evacuation plan, j In view of the fact that the County Legislature is presently considering the LILCO submission pursuant to Local l Law 2 of the year 1986, I am referring your letter to the 4 Legislature. Ver truly yours, P TER F. COHALAN Suffolk County Executive f PFC:sm h cc: Hon. Gregory J. Blass All Members of the Suffolk County Legislature ' Herbert Brown, Esq. j, ) ? .s '? s' .h VETERANS McWORIAL ecQMw AY 'e w Aypp AUCC. N.Y. I 1786 - e (S t 61360 4oo0 - Wt 2eenAC I Q V %/ \\ ) WV# T l
January 22, 1986 1 t N Honorable Peter F. Cohalan Suffolk County Executive H. Lee Dennison Building --Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 q
Dear Mri Cohalan:
on January 16, 1986, Suffolk County Local Law 2-86 became ) effective. That law, entitled "A Local Law Concerning the Protection of Police Powers' Held by the County of Suffolk" ~ purports to require Suffolk County Legislature approval of ) certain tests or exercises for. responding to emergency .I situations. Tae law obviously is' designed to apply to the 1 upcoming February 13, 1986 scheduled emergency planning exercise for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant..This-exercise will include not only federal government participants from the Nuclear Regulatory' Commission ("NRC" or " Commission"), the Federal Emergency Management Agency (" FEMA"), the Department of Energy, the Department of Commerce, the Environmental Protection Agency, the d Department of Health and Human Services, the Departiment'of Transportation, and the Department of Agriculture, but also employees of the Long Island Lighting Co. ("LILCO"), - the holder of a Commission low-power operating license. We have no desire for a confrontation with Suffolk County over Local Law 2-86. To the' contrary, we would welcome a reversal of Suffolk County's opposition to the upcoming exercise and its par,ticipation in that important information gathering function. The NRC has requested FEMA to' conduct that exercise to enable the Commission to gain facts that will assist it in evaluating aspects of LILCO's emergency i plan and in determining whether that plan provides reasonable assurance that adequate protective' measures can and will be taken in the event a radiological emergency were= ever to occur at Shoreham. This important task could be-done more ef ficiently and effectively were Suf folk County to i participate in the exercise, as have other local communities surrounding the more than 100 nuclear power plants in operation or close to operation in this country..Moreover,. were Suffolk County to participate in the upcoming exercise,. any legitimate concerns over either infringement of its .i police powers during the exercise or lack of information-about the. exercise would obviously be satisfied. 3..' Regardless of the County's decision concerning participation 54 in the February 13 exercise, however, its. concerns'over that j i O 4ef
2 exercise are not justified: the County's police powers will i not be impinged in any way and we have.no desire to unreasonably withhold information concerning'the upcoming exercise from the County. We are hopeful that, once the County understands the context of the test in the federal licensing scheme and the nature of the federal participation, a confrontation can be avoided. Toward that end we want to advise you about the upcoming exercise. We understand that LILCO has also submitted a description of the February 13, 1986 exercise for your information. The exercise is to be supervised and conducted by FEMA at the request of the NRC. No State or County functions will -l be performed by any federal personnel during the upcoming exercise. No LILCO employee will-be, or appear to be, performing any State or County functions.- Indeed, as the NRC made clear in requesting FEMA to schedule and conduct the exercise, the upcoming test,will comply with all State and County laws which limit the exercise of certain functions to State or County personnel. Although,-as explained below, federal personnel will, to a limited degree, play the roles of certain State and County officials, this limited role-playing will not, and is not. intended to, infringe on any legitimate police ~ powers of Suffolk County. The LILCO Transition Plan for Shoreham provides for the lead ) i role for offsite emer^gency response to be administered inr i the Local Emergency Response Organization ("LERO"), an organization comprised of primarily utility employees. In the upcoming Shoreham exerciue, FEMA intends to observe, by examination of facilities, plans, and communications,.ut b not by interacting with the affected public, a number of LERO primary response capabilities. Specifically, FEMA s plans to observe the following facilities and/or activities: LERO Emergency Operations Center Emergency Operations Facility Emergency News Center Reception Center Congregate Care Centers Emergency Worker Decontamination General Population Bus Routes i School Evacuation' Special Facilities Evacuation 'j Mobility Impaired at Home- ] Route Alerting Traff.c Control Points i Impediments to Evacuation / Radiological Monitoring
- d Accident Assessment y[i
i i 3 In addition to the above areas, FEMA will evaluate the part of the plan which provides for possible New York State and/or Suffolk County involvement in response to a radiological emergency. The LILCO Plan in part states that: 1 The role of Suffolk County, should it decide to become involved in the response to a radiological emergency, Q either because the Governor orders 'it to do so or 1 because the County Executive so chooses, will be for 1 d the various members to participate to the extent to which they are qualified by reason of prior training or '1 experience. In order to test this aspect of the plan and to add more realism to the exercise, should neither Suffolk County or j New York officials choose to participate, federal employees-will play the" role of such officials during the exercise. Through this role-playing, the NRC is attempting to more effectively evaluate LERO's capability (1) to accommodate the presence of State and local officials, (2) to support those officials using the resources available through LERO, and (3) to provide those officials with sufficient information to carry out their State and County-responsibilities. These " actors," however, will be, instructed not to play decisionmaking roles, not to assume any command and control authority, not to interact with members of the public so as to lead anyone to believe that they are actually County officials, and not to actually perform any State or local functions, which are exclusively reserved to State or County officials by State or' County laws. The basis for the number of actors to be used in this aspect of the exercise and the detailed instructicns they will be provided are based, primarily, on New York State plans for other nuclear power plants and the manner in which New York State personnel and other counties have participated in other New York facility exercises. As is clear from the above description, the February 13 Shoreham exercise is not intended to, nor will it, infringe on any lawful County interest. As. stated above, the NRC is i requiring this exercise to fulfill the congressionally j { mandated objective under the Atomic Energy Act of ensuring that the public health and safety is prote-ted by any decision that the NRC makes on LILCO's application. In order to carry out this important federal function, the NRC is granted specific statutory authority to obtain i information through such studies.and investigations which it deems necessary and proper.
- See, e.g.,
42 U.S.C. 5 2201c. 3 Similarly, FEMA has a congressional mandate to conduct such 27 an exercise at the request of the NRC. 42 U.S.C. SS 5131 & j[ 5201; 50 U.S.C. S 2253 (g); 44 C.F.R. Part 350. 4
- t. - _ pp. 2.
..z, w 4 / g,. '3 i 6 /, .s 4
- 5.,
W.e would welcome a Suffolk County decision to participate in the Shoreham exercise. In our view the public only loses f by your refusal.to help the NRC and FEMA perform their ~ federally.. mandated functions. Regardless of your decision, however, it is NRC's intention that FEMA continue to plan j i for and conduct the. upcoming February 13 exercise in order J -to fulfill our federal responsibilities.. 1 1 Sincerely, 1 - 1 f A l Herzel H..E. Plaine. General Counsel 'l i United States Nuclear, 3, Regulatory Commission 1 H hl I George..-Watson Acting GeneraliCounsel Federal Emergency'y. Management Agenc 3 1 1 I I ( i i i s 5, .4 s ') s z _ J g e , gz i 5 i m m
aa-UNITED. STATES'0F AMERICA NUCLEAR RFGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of I i 1 LDNG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY l Docket No.(s) 50-322-OL-3 1 J, - (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station) I .'; i i ll l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE d. I hereby certify that copi'es of the foregoing Ltr Cohalan tt Plaine/ Watson h.1 . hale been served upon the f ollowing person's in. accordance with the j requirements of 10 CFR section 2.712. ] Administrative Judge Administrative Judge '"j ] Alan S. 'osenthal, Chairman Gary J. Edles Atomic So sty and Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Beard Board U.S. Fuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 'j Administrative Judge Howard A. Wilber Administrative Judge; [ Atomic Safety ano Licensing Appeal Morton B. Margulies,.Chai.-aan Board Atcai - Safety and Licensing Board 3 U.S. Nuc1rar Regulatory Commission U S. uclear Regulatory Commission -j Washingtel,'DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge j Jerry R. v11ne Frederick J. Shon Atomic Sarety and Licensing Board Atomic. Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-U.S. Nuclear Regulptory Commission Washingten, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 1 .]a Donna D. Duer, Esq. Edwin J. Reis, Esq. L,w Clerk Office of the Executive Legal Director Atomic Safety and Licensing Board *anel U.?. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washir.gton, DC 20555 i Waanington, DC 20555 i J W. T. Revel ay, !!!, Esq. C. K. Ma11ery, III, Esq. Hunton.& tilliams Hunton & Williams i I P.O. Box 1535 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Richmond, VA. 23212 Wasnington, DC 20036 1 -) ./ d$ M t
w i l' ~ Docket No.(s) 50-322-OL-3 I I Herbert H. Brown, Esq. Lawrence C. Lanpher, Esq. i Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 1900 M Street, N.W., Suite 800 l Washington, DC 20036 Washington, DC 20036 j, q J , i Stephen B. Latham, Esq. Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esq. 1 Twomey, Latham & Shea General Counsel 33 West Secon'd Street Long Island Lighting Company '{ Riverhead, NY 11901 175 East Old Country Road j Hicksville, NY 11801 1 ,l Nora L. Bredus Dr. Robert Hoffman Executive' Coordinator Long Island Coalition for Safe Living j j Shoreham Opponents Coalition P.O. Box 1355 j 195 East Main Street Massapequa, NY !!758
- a Smithtown, NY 11787 nh Monro't Schneider Spence W. Perry, Esq.
( North Shore Committee Associate Seneral Counsel l .P.O. Box 231 Federal Emergency Management Agency i Wading River, NY 11792 500 C Street, S.W. 'f Washington, DC 20472 i Jay Dunkleberger Stewart M. Glass, Esq. New York State Energy Office Regional Counsel Agency Bldg. 2, Empire State Plaza Federal Emergency. Management Agency Albany, NY 12223 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 New York, NY 10278 j Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq. Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. Staff Counsel Special Counsel to the Governor New York State Public Service Office of the Governor Commission State Capital, Room 229 3 Rockefeller Plaza Albany, NY 12224 Albany, NY 12223 Mary M. Gundrum, Esc. Peter Bienstock, Esq. '1 j I New York State Dspartment nf Law New York State Department of Law ( Two Warld 1-ade Center, Room 4614 Two World Trade Center, Room 4614 1 New York, NY '0047 New York, NY 10047 1 11 s '{ 0; i t i ' en
' Docket No.(s) 90-322-OL-3 Martin B. Ashare, Esq. Suffolk County Attorney SuHolk County Offices - H. Lee Dennison Building Veterans Memoria1' Highway Hauppauge, NY 11789 r. Dated at Washington, D.C. this je j 29 day of January 1986 4 / _ _..b_'_d _ _ _ _ /_. ^ {kW kh,
- Offic, the Secretary of the C mmission 9
l 9 b .1 . O d e t 9 o i j j i I i l 1 i i l . a y s 94
- f t
5
6[( ] h,q R & O b ~ s - t ) I [f(( ) 'g g uuns NOV STATE or New YORK I EXECUTIVE CHAMBER 'Ng g, TWO WORLD TRADE CENTER ./ [ht,? ) NEW YORK. NY lood? i 1 ). November 13, 1985' SER'!EC NOV 1412
Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission:
This is to advise you that New York State is opposed to the NRC taking. steps to hold or to assist in the holding of an exercise of the Long. Island Lighting Company's offsite emergency. evacuation plan for Shoreham. Inasmuch as the New i York State Supreme Court and the NRC's Licensing and Appeals Board have all held the plan to be invalid, any such action by the NRC would be l without legal basis and constitute an aff r'ont' to j the sovereignty of the State of New York. l Moreover, to hold an exercise of the LILCO ' plan would constitute a blatant violation of the l FEMA-NRC Memorandum of Understanding. That. i j Memorandum provides that FEMA's participation in such an exercise shall be to make " findings" for use in NRC administrative proceedings. F E M A's letter of October 29,19 85, to W.1111am Dircks.of ,the NRC concedes that "neither option [of the proposed exercise of LILCO's plan] would allow a _ j finding by FEMA on offsite emergency preparedness." Accordingly to go ahead with such exercise would violate that Memorandum. Especially offensive to the State of New York is the illegal notion that FEMA conduct such an exercise with hired consultants acting as " exercise controllers (who] would simulate.the roles of key state'or local officials unable or unwilling to p a r t ic ipa t e." This idea is f actually outrageous. These consultants, who would be. purporting to t exercise the sovereign, fiduciary responsibilities of. protecting the health and welfare of the
- l inhabitants of the State of New York (which is 4
vested by its Constitution and laws solely in its-6uly elected officials), would have no knowledge .f g 4 i Q- ? ) h }9N
t what emergency resources or personnel are available jl at any given time in that area to state or local officials. Even if they had such knowledge,.such a6 hoc response would be legally outrageous and }l invalid. The ad hoc response of state and local government's led to the chaos which occurred during the Three Mile Island incident. As a result of 1 that your Commission changed its emergency planning regulations to require " comprehensive, cooperative, and detailed preplanning and ability by the concerned entities... including the various government g roups...to mount a very highly i coordinated ef fort." (Long Island Lichting Co. -f SNPS Unit 1) LPB-85-12, 21 NRC 644 (1985). Since i neither the State nor the County are participating in the LILCO plan and have not preplanned to integrate or coordinate their efforts with the LILCO plan, such pretended, ad hoc response would clearly be violative of those post TMI regulations. The use of such consu]tants is in nc way equatable to the situation at Indian Point where the State of New York, in default of participation by Rockland County, supplied personnel who on a ~ preplanned basis integrated, cooperated and coordinated their activities in accordance with a State approved evacuation plan for thati facility.
- Finally, to proceed with the proposed exe'rcise would constitute a repudiation of Presidential Policy established to assure Long Islander's that the Federal Government would respect their State and local government's determinations with respect to emergency planning at Shoreham.
The President expressed this policy in a letter to Representative William Carney dated October 6,
- 1984, where he said that his administration "does not f avor the imposition of Federal Government authority over the objections of State and local governments in matters regarding j,
the adequacy of an emergency evacuation plan for a nuclear power plant such as Shoreham." ] 1 + 1
-. ~.. t. ,r. i I r i In view of this Presidential Policy and i because'the proposed exercise would be. illegal, wasteful and futile, the State of New York respectfully requests that you reject the proposal j for the exercise of the LILCO plan. Such action c, would enhance public confidence in the NRC as an ) i .'j impartial adjudicative body. In any event, you are i aware from past experiences that in the interest of i safeguarding the welfare of its inhabitants, New York State will take'approp iate action to assure .2 i NRC's and FEMA's conformanc to applicable. laws and j regulations. ]; Sined ely, . ;j j 1 j ) rio M. Cuomo j s Governor Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman j Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts Commissioner James K. Asselstine i Commissioner Frederick M..Bernthal Commissioner Lando W. Zech, Jr. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 .1 ' ) { i 1 ~ 4. 1 it
- T c
q v s4 4
u.. ..... s _. 7 j jNITED STATES OF AMEFI:A NCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSIGN In the Matter of l LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CONFANY Occket No.(s) 50-;22-OL ~ .c a (3horeham Nuclear Power Station) i .l 4 l I i CERTIFICATE CF 3ERVICE .I hereby certify that cocies of tne foregoing Ltr Governor Cuomo itii3/85 ' -I have been-served upon the following.0ersons in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR sectten 2.712. iIf Administrative Judge Administrative Judge jy Alan 5. Rosenthal, Chairman Gary J. Edles ' d i Atomic Safety and Licenstna Acceal Atomic Safety and. Licensing Appeal i Board Board U.S. Nuclear Reculatorv Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ' I Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 1 1 Administrative Judge Howard A. Wilber Administrative Judg. Atomic Safety and Licensing Apceal Morton B. hergulies. Chairman Soard Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.3. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com' mission i Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 I Administrative Judge Administratise Judga Jerry R. Klins Frederick J. Shan Atomic Safety and.icensing Board 4tomic 3afety and Licensina Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Ccemission U.S. Nuclear Regulatori Commission j Washington. DC 20555 Washtngt:n LC 2055; j Donn D. Duer, Esq. Edwin J. Reis. Esq. Law Clerk Office of the Exe:utive Lega' Otrector Atomic Safety and Licenstnq Board Panel U.S. Nuclear 90culatorv Ccemission l U.3. Nuclear Regulatory Commt asi:n Wasnington OC 2 '> 5 5 5 [ Wasnington, DC 20555 li W. T. Reveley. III. Eso. C. K. Mallorv. III. Esq. 3 H.r t:n ', Wi ll i am 3 kunton k Atilitos ?.0. Ses 1535 .)00 Fennsvivi..i. nvenue, n.4. Rlthmand. VA 23212 daahin0 ton. DC 29335 j' 4 1 I
~ - . +. ,4 , ~. : .,x g J - Ocd et k'.(st 50-32;-OL-3 J Horbert H. Brown. Esq. Lawrenca C. Lan:ner, Eso, p Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 1900 M Street. N.W., Suite 800 1900 M Street, N.W... Suite 800 e Washington. DC 20036 Washington. DC 20036 . Stephen B. Latha.a. Esq. Anthony F. Earley, Jr., Esc. Twomey. Latham & Shea-General Counsel 13 West Second Street Long Island Lighting Companv Rtverhead. NY.11901 175 East Did Country Road Hicksville, NY 11801 ,f Nora L. 9 redes Dr. Robert Hoffman J' Executive Coordinator Long Island Coalition.for Safe Living Shoreham Opponents Coalition F.O. Box 1355 11 195 East Main Street Massaceoua, NY 11758 Seitht,own. NY 11737 Monroe Schneider Spence W. Ferry, Esq. I North Shore Committee Associate' General Counsel ? P.O. Box 231 Federal' Emergency Management Agency - i Wading River. NY 11792 500 C Street. N.W., Room 840 l, Washington. DC 20472 i 4 f Jay Dunklebergar Stewart M. Glass, Esq. New York State Energy Office Regional-Counsel Agency Bldg. 2. Empire State Pla:a Federal Emergency Management Agency Albany, NY 12223 26 Federal Plaza, Room -1349 New York. N1 10278 ) Jonathan D. Feinbero. Esq. ' Facian G. Palomino, Esq. Staff Counsel Special Counsel to the Governor New York ltate Public Garvice Office of the Governor Commission 5 tate Capitol, Room 229 3 Rockefeller Pla:a Albany,.NY 12224 Albany, NY 12222-i } Mary M. Gundrum. Esq. Peter Bienstock. Esc. New /ork State Department of Law .New York State Decartment of Law Two 'celd Trade Center, ecce 45'4 Two World Trade Conte. Paam 4614 w Haw icri, h r. 10047 hew York. Ni Iw*. s ~ Y a ..) th 6 "I e } 's
I Oc K ei fio. t s ) PA - 3 2 2 - O L - 3 l Martin 8. Ashare. Esq. SLffolk County Attorney Suffolk County Offices - Lee Dennison Building lj l Vvterans Memorial Highway l Hauppauge. NY 11700 l 1 1 't i Dated at Washtngton, D.C. this -i 14 day of November 1985 k+[ __ _{ '_____/... . _ _0_ b.U.. _.V....,...... e Offtc . ' :ne Secretary of the Ce misaton-I n f ? t l I i l i I I I i 2 i I l i i t j y, 1 P z+ ..a, O.
I @ 'k,[j ~ 7 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ?:i. m.~,, a OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE i ., e r, l OGCg'N Gf' g'jA' dH'CR, 7.- JOH PETER F. CoHALAN surrosa county ciscwt vc cmirbrouty 1 i November 7, 1985 1 e J
- i # ' ** 3 t 3,9 3 Q L - 3 a
- ' * ~
- Mr. Nunzio Paladino, Chairman United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission j
1717 H Street N. W. Washington, D. C. 20555
Dear Mr. Paladino:
i I am writing on behalf of Suffolk County to advise you that the County opposes any exercise of the Long Island Lighting Company's emergency plan for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant which does not involve county or state l particioation. 'l While I have called foh a test using county personnel, it is the policy of the County, as expressed in Resolucion j 111-1983 that the County shall not participate in evacuation planning or the exercise 'of the LILCO plan. Accordingly, absent amendments to Resolution 111-83, the County can neither participate in, observe, nor in any other way support an exercise of LILCO's emergency plan..The County asks that the Commission take no action inconsistent with the County's position. Sincerely yours, r Qd i ec.TER F. COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE FFC/kb cc: Victor Gilinsky, Commissioner i Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner l Jame's K. Asselstine, Commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal, Commissioner Charles Zech, Commissioner 8 ,(,f ! g s s N g c ? c M a %$ te g eo g a a g neig.e g y e ,. a,p s & L/,c N T J L 9 7 8 8 8 IS I Se 3 60 4000
a.- ... -. :.:. a.. . a._ m =;;.- x..; %- f i + s .y .t bo UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f g' gpq g g l i wAsMINGToN, D.C. 20888 j j ~' e .~ 5 Fj M C g G 2 September 23, 1985 ?.i oprics or twa C
- 85 $5p g4 pg ;33_
commnsssonen mm.e w-
- - A
?%CV" ~ 077.. COCWacN:s.k', C I. i mas .j David C. Lyons, M.D. Surgery of the Hand i Chevy Chase, Maryland; 20815 rRoo. & tfrit. pac,.g, g d{ 6404 Shadow Road ~ o%/:~.T r:UMsta.
Dear 10r. Lyons:
1 Thank you for your letter expressing your concern about licensing issues ,e3 surrounding the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. j As you may know, several agencies and organizations must coordinate activities and execute ti. air individual-responsibilities in order to successfully license a nuclear power plant. I believe that all of these i organizations are aware of the importance of their responsibilities and l act according to their interpretation of the facts and issues. When r different interpretations result in conflicting views, there arc I mechanisms that can be employed to attempt to resolve those differences. These mechanisms include puolic hearings, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board procedures, appeal processes, and ultimately use of the nation's 7 judicial review system ~ In'avery case, I believe each organization is attempting to fulfill their responsibilities, e In the case of Shoreham, the NRC has voted to authorize a low power license up to 5% power because, in our technical judgment, operation of r the plant up to this power level poses no undue risk to the public health and safety. Emergency planning and some other issues must be resolved before the Commission can consider a full power license. In order to determine what emergency planning deficiencies exist, the NRC has requested FEMA to schedule an emergency drill. As such, the NRC has-fulfilled its responsibilities. j Currently there are significant legal questions that must be resolved before progress can be made. I am cf the opinion that numerous f' organizations are ware of the situation and are exerting best efforts % resolve the conflicts. Like you, I hope we can settle the ouestions that arise in an expeditious manner. 1 Sincerely, lu. k. Lando W. Zec Jr. %b .. ';ps f- .n .N u
-._.-.. -.. -.. ~. -.. -.-. ~ m s +, x % d d..LyO,u, 4.!b. i- .URGERY C# TME MANO 2.".d FF l2: 06 .MA00W 40Ao CMSVY CMA48. MARYLANO 8041. isen....i... g, 301-229-0602 v; -Landon Zach 10 September 1985 T', l Commissioner n U.S. Nuclear Regulat ery Commission ,d.' t Washington D. C. 20555 1 A
Dear Commissioner Zech,
M-d Please do something to relieve the deadlock that has-develesidd*around the licensing of LILCC's Shoreham plant. This situation is creating a very' damaging precedent for the regulation of nuclear energy in our country. 41 y]l r' (' 'and Licensing Board, and the Federal Emergency Management The Nuclear hegule. tory Ccamission, the Atomic Safety Administration are staffed by highly trained technicians, t enginer-rt:, m.d physicists. These commissions are ordained-F. b;; the Ccngress of the United States to regulate and supervise. the devel.opment of nuclear energy in this country. But what has happened in Suffolk County, New York, _is the turning topsy turvy of the authority structure. Now local untrained pol.icicians are making the decisions thay are not equiped .i to make. By requiring an at .al evacuation drill the lowest level of government has the greatest and' final. power with-c .it's potential veto. Great sums of money, man power, time, and emotional energy can not be spent on these vast projects, I which then will be used or thrown away on the whim of some unqualified' local people.' Our country can not progrvrs_into the 21st century with this type of decision making process. Please do not permit decisions to be.tased on irrational fears and superstitLon. 1 1 V ocal politicians can not suecort a nuclear pl. ant because they might lose some votes, and elections are usually won by narrow percentage margins.- They need.to~be rescued.from their dilemma.. The Federal Government needs~to. change the rules it set up. If an actual evacuation drill is too difficult or too politically threatening to. run, then experts at FEMA shoul.d determine if the evacuation plan is feasible. This determination could then be used to break the gridlock for everyone envolved. FEMA has plans for areas of the country damaged by nucl.esi warfare and there are plans for the evacuation of Long Island in case of a hurricane, but none of these has i had to go through publ.ic drills. Please do not '.et the local politicians of Suffolk Cou-ty curn the power structure of our country upside down. 1 ' de Please do not.let the Shoreham pl. ant become a precedent 3 j electrical energy supp'.y for our' country. }$ ' that~ caused the ruination of an orderly development of. Sincerely, p. j
. ~ .,u.Ni$.$r$rY:.50T 8/2$ $ ~ . M)e t. - ~ ~ .Y
- e..,1;s
' i, EAST WILLISTON UNION FREE SCHOOL DISTRICT OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT N wheam school DARRELL R. LUND, Ph.D. North Side School Willets Road School 110 EASTWILLISTON AVENUE j M F f 'I." EAST WILLISTON, N.Y.11596 M C .516 334 8020 '85 AUG -9 P 3 :49 - ) August 6,1985 j h.h. ' i . w Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5F2NCS 1717 H Street, N.W. 1 Washingten, D.C. 20555
Dear Sir / Madam:
Attached is a copy of a letter sent by the East Williston School District to the Red Cross once we learned, indirectly, that our schools had been. pledged as evacuation centers-pledged without our knowledge or permission. - Sincerely, 1 r $4 V / D rrell R.Lund Superintendent of Schools l DRI/ef i attachment i l l i 'T h h 3r9 i
e. EAST WILLISTON UNION - F3EE SCHOOL DISTRICT ~ ' ~ ~ OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT g The he DARRELL R. LUND, Ph.D. Willets Road School 110 EAST WILLISTON AVENUE iAST WILLISTON, N.Y.11596 516 334 4020 l DOWEiC:. e February 27,1985 ,f ';MC '85 AljG -9 P3 :4f N . jf b^ %~ h".. l Mr. Frank M. Rasbury 0 Executive Director of Nassau County gang l Chapter of the American Red Cross l 264 Old Country Road Mineola,New York 11501
Dear Mr. Rasbury:
i 25,1984, to Mrs. Elaine D. Robinson 1 A copy of your letter, dated July of LILCO pledging use, among others, of East Williston Schools as emergency shelters in case of an emergency evacuation caused by problems Such a pledge - at LILCO's Shoreham plant has been brought to our attention. by you for use of our schools in man made emergencies, in our judgeme violation of our original agreement with you. Thus, we are withdrawing all l privileges we originally extended to you for the use of our facilities. l We will consider any new request made by you to enter into a new agreement for use of our facilities. But you must assume, pending further actions by 's you and us, that our facilities are, as of this letter, no longer available to you for any use. Sincerely, I(/ / Q // arren R.Lund / Superintendent of Schools' l DRI/ef cc: Ronald J.Gossow, Asst. Superintendent for Business 1 Nick Viscio, Superintendent of Bldgs. & Grounds k. t y A
I j C i I t b 6 '.- T. ?;[* * ...*f. ) .s. s.- ? o i ( s.. > > d f.. v .I -s, . >\\ d J.. %T e T ' " '" I ^...ok
- f. ~3 '
I. r d. u ?. t. ef l
- d. a.i.s. c,d V4 d
t s p 'a
- nd&.
an L a iC 8 ww. ).. = a a== *= i O b.1 p '.+.
- w
/ J.. f. o k. 3.. .n .33-3. l.a..r .k.- m o .. ( 4 f
- e. :. - v : r. s, - c..:
- ..p. i n. -
1 1 1 ..,.a. e.,. .,,v. ...,..,.:~ n,.>.r.. r. g r.s./ .v...y...,. q it' '. :19
- i. i s e L 2 2:; 2 r.ed
- p. '. 5 2 -. ; '. ;.4 i r ; ;,.. :.1 sn ;r J 4 7; ?
j ri; air uent: Jf 10 C2 2.. '. i., ' ' 7'.0. l A ,i M d r. t s t r a t i. e. u d y A d A ! r ; -d s 's t v e J A g e Alan 5. :ssent521, 052tr'2-Gary J. Edles M. w : !afety and Li:+ns-. 3. ul att i c 32-ety ed ti ta sing Ap;.n! r O. m e A. C.,.sy r j 1 'J. 3. hie v ' qui at. - ., n m : s ? i. n U.3. N :i sse Pq' ! at:r y C;m sti:. 1 er ar y 3.:,.. n,. +, c.
- e.e.t a, 2 2...., s. o,,
4 r. b Mut: tri tt.o Ld;e How vd A. Mitter ScM:'tstrat:.2.' e d ; 2 { n :.... 9s4. s. ,. r.. .,..y. . g... ...,na.3,. ,t v.. 3.. o.. u .,.m..., , s ( s. l
- r. t e.
n., A q.: >.,
- a.,.
- v.. u.
4 p. 0. 3. '.4 ' 9 v F a g i 2.,r j
- s. r.., ; s s t e r.
U. 3. % ; 10 4.- Es;a!J:;- kent;si.- ) 6 h o,, 4, a t. t.- a.. ". o. '.M. '. ". 's
- 4. 4 3 *. i t. *, 6. c '.., ". F.
s i 9 1 l , :.a t c. a t > a t i. : J a;> xdelmstrett.- !!a;) j ..: r e. .lias - r e d e r i :: k J. v.:- 1 ,sarJ a,, n t c u .2rwty 3..1 L-n i.n;.:c1 < t. a t e a a n+ '. i i n.: Lice,ia; U. S. ?!'. : l e s e :.oj u i r ' ; r y k s.miitten
- u. 3. Nuc l e s
- m!a--
- m :42: :,
e .. r. e.,. y 4 2,. 4., i, v.. 4 i ,... i,.,. s. u l l l y ) n n a w' e ee' O e f m as d ' 4 m f 9 $ha T.
- di3i t: ;.
e' = J LIN "lerk Cf
- i ;* *h; "
.. W b* 6. s .,:01' $3*O.} $ O ',, k ) ?? A . 3. Einisar RJ;ulat;/ ^:.z iss.:- 4219;,1;'.11 ~ ~ ~~ 'se"1.'e .'.'N... M 3 2 h s-
- a
- C e. g ays e
- ',,t r-
u i
- r.,2.
t 3 -e e .} f.. i '.
- 4
'3** ~..'t. t .S + N ~., ,q h 2 t I
l , ~. .s .~ \\ e i 1 j w .s 1 ) i b l 1 ? = t- * . -.~ ...s j t. I i s 4 N 7 r b e !* ( N b f ) N I. t 3). lN =0 a I > g. k. =. - - s a ,4 .',.dw,.,. 1 +.1 ! w$ i , j p t. .. l. L' ., a I-9 I8, t t., 'i - i I '
- G. O 0
.$1 4 6., 3..d., 6 78 ' I 6 4 h 5$ N . t W3S.1nQtCn C5 . ' ' -)". S 3 l'- '6 j. i j 7 i 4 1 .Y. I I 1 i. b.4 Itt2ph?F h. .. J I '.' i f 51'i. ~. J. l' ' 3 i 3h?a '. ; ' 2 ' 1 I..' * 'djAf fi A t '111 ' 3 3 W9'5 t 3 e;;f'd 'ilfiel 3 ' 5 ' 0 ' '. 9 ' 3 0. f 3 9 '. ed.
- / d eaJ, N!
1IN1 '.l a a h i n g '. 1,
- 0
~ OM a, Mr $6th0Gy E. Ear!$f, )r., sQ UO"d !.. EreJes j j G2ner a! C r.:n sil h e.:; t i ra C : r d i s. 2 t : r L:rg !siand Lighting Cr:. pan / 0 hor e ar Oppcter'.4 :calati:n 'l t,r *. e.3 t m.w< r,w -w.. >. j.
- c. ys j
- t. v,.
- c. a - >.." a... 3 t r *. * '.
4 v a
- u... q. v g.i [ g,
q-y 5 17., t 4 3. L... t
- q.,,., gy i173.?.
8 a j ) Dr. ::b u t H:fiman 2,; a n :. M. C. y, C 2.i. cng Island Cultti n t:r LH Liveg ', s s ; ; i a.. e r s '. ::e w. -...,,' e. n.., e. n..
- v.,..
.~e5 e.... ..,...i..n. 3.,. 3, g. 6.- u r..,...-../ j 4 .~ 1 Mis t s p it q u e, Bl? 11 T3 T' 2 Jtr w., '. i., :c m 350 at 3:1 1..,,, 6. . _. p. } 1 t af a.... 3..r..s ,, a,.
- u.., -,.,
o. _a. ..s fl e,4 r;r. 3 t a le E. :er ry.;f4!ce i e ;. ; r. 31 <; 2 2 ;. ! hsn:y Sid). ".., OptM 36.2.9 ?!a:a ~; i _ r a '. E u r g r : ".20
- i va' 5
- j w.. 4
- .,.. i. a
- x. y t a u ~.
... :..,. 2.i :. _...., .i . i. s. a n,, i 4 2r.., ,n. =..,.4 ., >. y. j - a:i an u.
- Pa12mics,
.s;.
- .2ve
- c. r.:. 1 4.
Op'i n af the Go/ern:r
- m
- .
'j 2:ecial Counsel to the Gover cr t h.4 ar> I '. a t : -:. 2 <. :.; st4te Capit:1, Occr. 22C ~ 2 0< 2' .3.,...* .;JF. .e t 0 3 r: /, H.f. G l . d< n. ..,., o a.. : e., -.+ . s. .n e, .p 4e 3e e e my e w + +3 e o e e d e e ea I .l. 'e .s w e. y e. j 4 3t- .p
- m. 4.-
o n, . } s M S J =w et r u.m .s
... -... z.. .n-.. a
- v. o....~. y...
i1 a r t. n 9. Ashare, Esq. h8 folk Ocunty Attcar2y i h ffalk 3 n 6. y -2 4 ' t : a s - H. Les Ocnntac1 3a:1 ding Veterans Mn: rial Highway H a c p p 4.: g e, Mt 11799 O d. '3 d 3t ;M43hinftCn, D.C. thi 3 h ,/ ) i 12 day Ct A Tj 'J s '. IE90 s ....i. -.M.,....y '.../.... u../ r? - s Ed 'J
- d JI,
'h 2 'i d. [ j 21.4l'. i f ee.? t 9 1 1 I I 1 I i 1 + 4 'M 3 '[ Pf-b /, '4 'w-u.
p- . V5 ' h PROD, & UTIL. FAC...&.,j&L w. c. w n: x ;t .- '_ ~, t SERVED AUG-01985 STATE CF New Yonx 00uGQ Exec i,yggpg R USNRC ~ ' j A ANY' J 2 224 PABIAN PALCMINO s,., w -,,. m. a.,.,-, '85 Aug -6 p;9:39 -, ..., n n.,.
- a 4
s / s \\ Qw-- C UICE of 5 c;5.,.. ? 00CM.Tpic i sg. f g,c-3 = RA tCH ( ^;, August 5, 1985 i s +
a
.; 1 i '; i Annexed is a copy of a letter recently sent by Governor Cuomo to Secretary Herrington with respect to the Shoreham nuclear facility. j i Attachment J 4 %./ I i i a >l
- )
- s.
?'Q .asose7c4:: :::cos 1 PDR ADOCK 05000322 C PDR 30k
"'~~""~~~~?'1 _._.c . - -... ~ ... ~ -
- .s <,.
g),. "
- c..u,.,...
.A . h ~ STATE or Ncw YORK 3 $XECUTIVE CHAMBER 5 ALsANY13224 . MAmo M. CuoMo a, covsas.ca j l ,j r-August 2, 1985 \\ ,,i u-I y' l
Dear-Secretary Herrington:
gp . ) IJ.s July 17,1985, in response to my letter to President Reagan This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of- .M .v 3 of May 21, 1985, expressing my concerns to him abouti both k, preserving.the lines-of-sovereignty between Federal and state,', government.with respect to emergency planning for the E Shoreham nuclear plant, and preserving the integrity of the q ] 4, Nuclear Regulatory Commission as an independent adjudicative q body. 1 r,,. .M) ' I am pleased that you agree that the intiegrity of-the NRC should be preserved. However, I believe that-the ~' best way to do that is for you to refuse to meet with nuclear i industry' representatives who publicly suggest'that~such y 1 meeting may result in directions from you to the NRC to take [ actions which will result in the opening of the Shoreham j ,o facility; and, for you to publicly disavow any motion that x* 1 you or anyone in your agency would' seek to suggest to the NRC how it should.. interpret its regulations or decide cases.. 4 Your letter states: ~ "The. County Executive, Mr. Cohalan, has agreed to assume the command and control functions for a 118.t. of the Shoreham plan whict will-assure that the emergency plan is properly structured." hat may have been Mr. Cohalan's intention when he issued Executive Order 1-1985 on May 30,1985. Ho weve r,. 'on June 10, 1985, Mr. ' Justice Doyle of the New York State Supreme. Court ruled that County Executive Cohalan did not 'i have the power to assist' LILCO in such exercise (that-power 1~! i was vested in the County Legislature which opposed the opening of Shoreham). Justice Doyle's order also nullified 4' ] Exec tive Order 1-1985 and, among other things, enjoined Mr. 'sQ, Cob. n and all: persons. acting -in concert trith him from. .O $$ l 1' as ing or expending any funds or resources "...or .f R 4 ,,c .5:h:.j1'$~~~5~&:y:i,3,Q?,f. - m.n..- 1 S -:~~ a-m. e. f %,,:n,e ~ a: ,..w-.
. ~ .?~ p l + .b
- +
.g
- j John S. Herrington August 2, 1985 t
directing. any County personnel to review, test or implement 1 ! the LILCO plan or.a radiological emergency. response : plan for 3 the Shoreham nuclear plant without securing a resolution. t j adopted by the County Legislature...". That decision and t 1 -t injunction was affirmed by the highest court of New York State,; the New York State Court of Appeals, on July 9,1985, 1 approximately a week and one-half before your letter wasL ? written. If Mr. Cohalan were to seek lo assist'LILCO in an exercise, as-asserted in your letter, at a= minimum he would be subjecting himself and those acting in concert with him to
- punishment for contempt of.that injunction.
We in New York State. do not. share your view as to ~., Shoreham's importanco to the' State or the Nation. LILCO's i 6,/ own+ representatives testified before the Marburger Commission e that the power to be generated by Shoreham would not be needed. i for ten years.; others said that this period would be 13 or more years. Moreover, there are adequate alternative sources of the,; ? [ power Shoreham would generate.which present no threat to the health and welfare of the residents of Long Island and New York State, and which will be available. long before that power is needed. In addition, the New York State Energy' Office has advised me that the reduction in-the use of-I) imported oil that would result assuming Shoreham went on-ling i and operated! continually (except for ~ refueling) could be achieved by converting LILCO's E. F. Barrett and Port Jefferson power plants from oil-to coal. Indeed, that' Office 4 informed me that LILCO sought such coal conversions and I thereafter abandoned those efforts. 'H ,g 1 s/ Contrary to your assertions, the. treatment by New j. York State and local authorities of other nuclear power. plants as compared to Shoreham is not disparate with. respect 1 to emergency plannin,g. Nuclear power plants are not fungibles with respect to emergency planning, and differences in treatment are not necessarily disparities. Because. of the configuration of Long Island, the limited. East-West roadway network, its climatology, the fact that only safe evacuation may be to the westward, the. density of population involved, and other factors, Shoreham is a uniqpe case. The independent decisions 'by the suffolk County Legislature i l (which is vested with power to make such determination) and ~ ' New York State against adopting or implementing an emergency plan for Shoreham were not dispcrate, but rather the result 1 of sound and deliberative action necessary to protect.the . j safety and welfare of the inhabitants of Suffolk County.and j New York State. Their lawfulness have been upheld by the New ~ York StateESupreme Court and the United States District .J4 .) Court. I reiterate that New York -State would consider. 9.$$ i efforts by your agency to promote the operation of that. plant ~3y4 ' v i over those objections to be an affront to the sovereignty'of ' rN t New York State, and a reversal of the policy established by. T '0 ' ~ sp, g g )
] s 1 ',..j' f^ John S. Herrington August 1985 i your Administration not to impose the Federal Government's Y! authority "over the objections of state and local governments i in matters regarding the adequacy of an emergency evacuation j plan for a nuclear power plant such as Shoreham" (letter from 3 President, Reagan to Congressman William Carney, October 11, 1984). a ..) L .,}l Respectfully, 9 } o M .. \\
- .)
i (D 1
- ,]!
Honorable John S. Herrington Secretary of Energy ~ i Washington, D. C. 20585 ,4; l / 4 4 I "l i i
- +'
l ,s, p a l .) l 4 1 e A I a .) I gg ,' ' "j, .4
- f.
I .Sp.m" IEkh? )
- .a e 3v
.}}