ML20112E470
| ML20112E470 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1984 |
| From: | Schwartz S NRC OFFICE OF INSPECTION & ENFORCEMENT (IE) |
| To: | Christenbury E NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20105B226 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-250 NUDOCS 8501150156 | |
| Download: ML20112E470 (5) | |
Text
__
l e
,+
o Y
Q l
E. Christenbury, Director and Chief Counsel MEMORANDUM TO:
Hearing Division, ELD Sheldon A. Schwartz, Deputy Director FROM:
Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response, IE FEMA REVIEW 0F 0FFSITE EMERGENCY PLAN FOR
SUBJECT:
I was informed by Craig Wingo, Office of Natural and Technolog FEMA, that Stu Glass, a FEMA attorney, had informed the Shor e that the FEMA findings and determinations on the LILC0 tre '.,
Juov Offsite Transition Plan is targeted for provision to the NRC by Marc Mr. Glass further stated that FEMA would probably take a coupl the March 1, 1984 target to complete their efforts, Sheldon A. Schwartz, Deputy Director Division of B ergency Preparedness sad Engines. kg Response. IE E. L. Jorden. IE
~
cc:
n, c De u, It fCHA DElEDOM JUCTIFl CATION
, y,7h* *,
M GWM PT o a PRoggwgy H*
y T O F. C.~.t. f.
qg9ygy
/)
M FEu a.
i B[5011g0156840518 PDR
[gh-250 f 9l f
1 seekt*v term ComGat15 37,x.tv scovi;*.g stars DCE 'Os woes 3 r. USA i. AAL CMAlpMA*.
AND COUN5E.
- = # es**os cave teamus us.* %.tx AOV JONES
'0"'I.W'
-- s~
J...
2 n... '.f.L... ~
COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR
^ * * * * " ' ' ' " * " * "
e
,,,e o,,,
- 01.*"A*5 L"'."n'.'J%
AND INSULAR AFFAIRS -
. _ c== *. :=~si.
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
.vs7cANIst.
UCO;.?.'.*-', 't..
- T J'",l s.,'h..
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
.'.T 'J'O. ""
%'OT A l. 51E"c's ***
March 19, 1984 0% C C s CYM",? "*
g
. _ ll
/
.t
.. _M..
/
/
[
a.a e cena w wa.
8
= r:,c'"::.:
k o'Caiamo so. 63.enaam Cauf.
The Honorable Louis O. Giuffrida A / fQb Director Federal Emergency Management Agency
/'
(A g,
4/y[&
500 C Street, S.W.
i Washington, D.C.
20472
Dear Mr. Director:
I am very troubled by the content of FEMA's March 15, 1984, letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) transmitting a copy of the Regional Assistance Committee's (RAC) review of the Long Island Lighting Company's (LILCO) Transition Plan.
I am similarly concerned about the substance of remarks made by your staff in a recent telephone conversation with members of the Subcommittee staff.
The appearance is that FEMA has resorted to political manipulation on behalf of a nuclear utility.
The March 15th letter, from Samuel W. Speck, FEMA Associate Director for State and Local Programs and Support, to' William J.
Dic ks, NRC Executive Director for Operations, contains numerous misleading and apparently politically motivated statements.
This letter is unprecedented in that it contains comments relating to matters other than the findings of the RAC review.
These comments may be seen by some as undercutting. FEMA's substantive findings.
Among my specific concerns are FEMA's suggestions that NRC'should consider the known resources of the State and local governments, and, that NRC should consider the possible future assistance of the Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan (FRERP).
The first comment ignores the fact that Suffolk C)unty has repeatedly stated its belief that the only responsible course of action is to oppose operation of Shoreham because of its view that no emergency plan can adequately protect its citizens, and, that the State has made clear that it will not impose a plan against the will of the local government.
It is particularly misleading to suggest that NRC should assume the existence and availability of State and local resources when these resources are not included in the LILCO Transition Plan and will not be a part of the emergency response plan exercise.
As such, even if Ab
The Honorable Louis O. Giuffrida March 19, 1984 Page Two these resources were available, they could probably not be used effectively.
Further, the letter's inclusion of a policy state-ment regarding FEMA's FY - 1985 resource allocation plans has nothing to do with the RAC review of the LILCO Transition Plan, was inappropriate to announce in a transmittal letter on this particular case, and creates the misleading impression--contrary to existing regulations and your own personal statements on this issue--that along with FRERP the federal government is somehow going to provide adequately for the health and safety of Long Island residents.
Because of the unprecedented political nature of FEMA's transmittal letter, I asked my Subcommittee staff to discuss this matter with Mr. Speck, who signed the letter.
- However, my sta'ff's March 16, 1984 telephone conversation with Mr. Speck has unfortunately heightened my concern about FEMA's conduct in this matter.
With respect to the Subcommittee's communication
~
with Mr. Speck, my staff has related the following:
--Mr. Speck stated that the wording on pages 2 and 3 aof the letter were placed there because he felt that LILCO's immediate financial predicament was so dire that a statement of the bare facts alone--
that there were 32 inadequacies in LILCO's plan--
could in some way contribute to the economic collapse of the utility.
Mr. Speck stated that his letter was worded to help create some " breathing space for the utility with Wall Street" so that.it could have.more time to work toward correcting the deficiencies identified by FEMA.
--Mr.
Speck stated that content of the letter was developed internally by FEMA staff and that there was no involvement of people outside the agency
-in the formulation of the letter.
These notes were subsequently read to Mr. Speck in a follow-up conversation with two members of my staff and confirmed by him.
to be accurate characterizations of the earlier discussion.
I request your personal response to these characterizations of
.what is apparently the FEMA staff position.
Further, I.would like to suggest that'it is extremely
' inappropriate for a utility's financial considerations to be
.used as a basis for how FEMA relates its findings about offsite safety.
I believe that Mr. Speck's interest in what he perceives to be'the best interests of LILCO lack propriety.
It is my view that-he should be removed, or recuse himself, from any further role in directing ~ FEMA's Radiological. Emergency Preparedness program.
p
The Honorable Louis I. Giuffrida
' March 19, 1984
-Page Three Additionally, I would appreciate your prompt response :c the following:
.1.
Identify all documents generated by the FEMA staff relating to the RAC review of the LILCO Transition Plan.
Included in this request are identification of all drafts of the RAC review transmittal letter and all internal staff memoranda relating to the Shoreham RAC review or the RAC review transmittal letter.
- 2. Provide copies of all documents identified in Question 1.
3.
Identify all communications that you, Mr. Speck, Mr. Ronald G. Eberhardt, or individuals in FEMA's Office of General Counsel have had with any persons outside the agency since January 1, 1984, that related to or concerned the RAC review of the LILCO Transition Plan, the transmittal letter for the RAC review, or_the Shoreham case in general.
Please indicate the date of such communication, its substance, and who was involved.
In addition, please identify all records of such communication such as telephone logs, calendars, and minutes from meetings.
This request specifically includes, but is not limited to, the identification of all communication between yourself, Mr. Speck, Mr. Eberhardt, or members of FEMA's Office of General Counsel and employees or officials of LILCO, representatives of LILCO (including but not limited to members of the firm Hunton and Williams), organi-zations composed of or representing the' nuclear industry, the Secretary'of Energy or members of the Department of Energy staff, members of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or members of the NRC staff, or other Executive Branch offices or the White House staff.
Thank you, in advance,-for your prompt response to the concerns and questions stated in this letter.
Si
- erely,
$st,
1
-m Edwarc J
ark e
Chairman Subcommittee o ersight and Investigations -
EJM/tru
s g.....,'
f**-T*'***(
1 i UI/M.Mid s
- l. A L L 4.i. Inl L V L /.. s-
6., i
. fr REGION I V-is f
631 PAR A AVENUE
%,.....f KING OF PRUSSIA, PENNSYLVANI A 19406 20 39p MAR Docket No. 50-322 Long Island Lighting Company ATTN:
Mr. M. S. Pollock Vice President - Nuclear 175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, New York 11801 Gentlemen:
Attached is a copy of FEMA's review of Revision 3 of the LILCO Transition Plan for Shoreham Offsite Emergency Preparedness.
In their review FEMA has identified 32 inadequacies based on the standards and evaluative criteria of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-I, Rev. 1.
In addition, FEMA has identified those aspects of the plan which, in their view represent legal authority issues.
We request that you carefully review the. FEMA findings and make appropriate revisions to the plan.
If you have any-questions concerning this matter, please contact Dr. Ronald Bellamy (215) 337-5200 of my s_taff.
Sincerely, w
Thomas T. Martin, Director L
Division of Engineering and l
Technical Programs
Attachment:
As stated cc:
See Page 2 h/M3 lf") // A gmus-evo 66 7
i March 20,1984 2
Long Island Lighting Company cc w/ encl:
W. Steiger, Operations Manager Brian McCaffrey, Manager, Nuclear Compliance and Safety Director, Power Division Edward M. Barrett, Esq.
Jeffrey L. Futter, Esq.
T. F. Gerecke, Manager, QA Department Shoreham Hearing Service List Public Docment Room (PDR) (LPDR) local Public Docment Room Muclear Safety Infomation Center (NSIC)
HRC Resident Inspector State of New York bec w/ encl: Region I Docket Room (with concurrrences)
Chief, Operational Support Section (w/o encl)
DPRP Section Chief B. Bordenick, ELD R. Goddard, ELD O
9
l
. Lilco's Finances Spur Debate on Safety Planj i
By MATTHEW L. WALD sion." said the letter, which was wnt.. Alan K. Simpson. Republican of Wyo. !
The effort by the Long Island Light.
ten by Samuel W. Speck, the agency's ming and chairman of the Committee,
ing Company to develop an ernergency assocsate dmctor for state and local on Environment and Pubhc Works, '
lP ans to pr== in a few days an plan for its Shorenam nuclear power prtMtrams.
station has tnggered a debate in Wash.
These include, he wrote, "the known amendment to an N.R.C. authonzanon ington. The argument is over whether legal responsibility of state and local bill. The amendment would allow the the utihty's financial condition should c:ficzals to respond to emergencies and Government so put into effect a plan be considered in making safety judg.
known resources available to these eo. writtan by a utihty, even if the state ments.
't:tites," as well as possibile Feders! and local governments objeced to it.
Also at issueis the role of the Federal help.,
The proposal faces an uncertain fu.
Government in emergency plarmmr 1 stent of Latter ture in the Senate and hosuhty in the Lilco wrote its plan because Suffolk House mmmattees that would review County, in which Shoreham is situated, Mr. Markey said two members of his it.
~
has refused to participate in the emer, staff had telepbooed Mr. Speck to ask Even if the propeaal passes, LUco gency plannmg that is required before why the letter had strayed from evalu. faces other hasrdles before the reactor the M.1 bilbon reactor can be licensed sting the plan. He said Mr. Speck had could be licensed, including problems by the Federal Nuclear Regulatory rephed that he had worded the letter to with its eme Beocy diesel gementors.
.Comuussion.
put the nportin a better113%inorder In another development, LDco last Lilco officials have said that the util, to allow " breathing space for the utility week lost a bid to innprove its nianr==
ity expects to run out of cash to pay its with Wall Street."
denied it permission to issue tax. free when. the Ikdted States Treasury bills this synng unless it enarole the The chief spokesman of the agency, i
reactor or regains its ability to borrow James Bolton, wben asked if the letter bonds, to refinance some of its debt at tconey by removing a11 doubt surround-had been written with Lilco's financial lower intenst rates.
ing the operation of the reactor.
had. "We would have to say ym," he sometirnea ymmittad to issue such conditico in mind, confirmed that it
-Utihties la Paancint trouble are Evalastles of Pisaning N
2
.M h amnWa they are R~ resentative Edwivd.T. Markey, a
c m,
C abwed only h unlides serving cus.
i Democrat of Massachusetts, has t by ratepayen and h tomers in oW one or two counties.
charged that the Federal Emergency l
p* P e.
m snau and Suffolk Coun-Management Agency tempered its as-hl seasments of the Lilco plan because of.
"Some of the things that were s' aid in l'. W ' --...
j concern over the utility's stabiDty.
Congressional heanngs over the last l
The agency's most recent evaluation few years make it obvious that the Con.
P.-
of the plan, on March 15, cited Eaws in gross expects us to take that into ac.
frn Jn#rflicer:~, W:c,'
the Lilco plan and pointed out legal count."
vmume-- fe... -- e' probletns that cast doubt on its viabil.
- Mr. Holton stressed that the coocern p,ont Ed'-
ors.
try.W coverletter accompanying the over finances had not extended to page re",
re#
report, however, made the umasual changing the report's findags recommendation to the N.R.C. that it look beyond the pina.
.a==*--st la congress EU YOOK, N.T.
"There are many other factors, Mr. Speck called a reporter a few TIES 3
which we do not evaluatein the course minutes later with another explana.
28 M of our' analysis, that in our judginent tion. Mr. Markey's staff, he said, was should be csosidered,by the commis. %. mog my remarks, giving them a M - 90).675
.. ::::..m meaning they did not have when they S - 1,e s,873 e3 l
'were made." Lilco's condition was l
. "not the drtving force" behind the let.
}-
ter, he said. -
In an effort to help Lilco, enatar
[
\\
.s
. - -. - -. - -