ML20071Q800

Advises That Util Proposal,Per 830512 Order Re Submission of Util Plan in Absence of State & Local Govt Plans,Is Simply Unimplementable Compendium of Speculative & Hypothetical Alternatives.Facility Shutdown Recommended

ML20071Q800
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	06/07/1983
From:	Cohalan P SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:	Asselstine J, Gilinsky V, Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
NUDOCS 8306090258
Download: ML20071Q800 (3)

Text

. . ._ - _ . . .

g h M , '4 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK li, 47 gh ~

E OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE kkf'N D

PETan F. CONALAN JOHN C. GALLAGHER surro6x couwvv suscunva cwirro c ury Jup'e 7, 1983 Nunzio J. Palladino, Chairman Commissioner Victor Gilinsky ra.

Commissioner James K. Asselstine JJ$..f!?2r '"

g Commissioner John F. Ahearne ~., p' Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts g..

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ~~~r  %

1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Members of the Commission:

In your Order of May 12, 1983', the Commission ruled that it is

" obligated to consider a utility plan submitted in the absence of State and local government-approved plans . . . ." The Commission further stated, The licensee will bear the burden of showing that its plan can meet all applicable regulatory standards. We express no opinion at this juncture whether it will be possible for the utility to meet this burden; there is no evidentiary record before us upon which to provide any such opinion.

I now wish to bring to the Commission's attention that what

, the Long Island Lighting Company ("LILCO") has filed is not the l

requisite " utility plan" which the Commission had presuma5Ty contem-plated in issuing its May 12 Order. Indeed, as described below, the LILCO " utility plan" is no plan at all. It is simply a compedium of l speculative and hypothetical alternatives which are inherently incapable of being implemented.

Now that LILCO's " utility plan" is available, I believe it highly-desirable that the Commissioners take a fresh look at the l impact of the Commission May. 12 Order.- In fact, LILCO's so-called i " utility plan" takes gross liberties with what Congress intended in Section 5 of the NRC Authorization Act and what the Commissioners contemplated in Section 50.47 (c) (1) of the NRC's regulations. Thus, LILCO has submitted five plans, four of which designate the NRC, FEMA, the State of New York, and Suffolk County to perform the essential l

l ~

8306090258 830607 l

PDR ADOCK 05000322 O PDR vgTERANS b8Eb40RGAL $#GMWAY a MAUPPAUGE. N.Y. I 1799 e (3 I GI 3004000

- - - - , . - ,., . . ,. _ - - _ - - - .._ _, - ,, - ~. - -,. . . _ _ . - . _ , .

t U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission June 7, 1983 l Page 2 s command and control functions that, implement the " plans." But, the i County has already categorically. resolved that it will not do so.

And, neither the NRC, FEMA, nor.(the State has agreed to do so. The result is that LILCO has submitted so-called " plans" which in those four instances amount to no plans at all.

2 The fifth LILCO " plan" proposes that all functions, including command and control, be performed by LILCO personnel with no participation of gov 9rnmental entities. This " plan" similarly fails the Commission's standard of what constitutes a " utility .

plan" under the language of Commissioner Gilinsky's May 12 Separate Statement:

Can there be adequate emergency prepared-

. ness (as distinct from planning) if neither the State nor the County Governments i will participate?

The answer is clearly, No. There cannot be adequate emergency preparedness for the surrounding population without the partici-pation of a responsible government entity.

And, however they may qualify their views l now, I do not believe that a single l

Commissioner would actually approve the

! operation of the plan without such partici-pation.

In light of the foregoing, I hereby request that the Commission summarily reject LILCO's so-called " utility plan" as being un-responsive to legal requirements. As described in the attached County Motion, any effort to litigate LILCO's five "non-plans" would result in a tortuous forum of absurdity where nothing productive would result.

If the Commission directs a hearing on LILCO's so-called

" utility plan," the Commission will actually create a regulatory monster in which millions of dollars will be squandered in reaching the inevitable conclusion that offsite emergency preparedness is impossible on Long Island. The Commission took its earlier action in directing a hearing, however, before seeing what LILCO was planning to submit. Now that the LILCO submittal is before the NRC, it is I essential that the Commission take a fresh look at the fruitless hearing which it has unwittingly condoned.

i

---

r--- - - - - - - - - - - - -

t.:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission June 7, 1983 Page 3 ,

Accordingly, it is my hope that the Commission will reconsider its ruling and finally face the. fact that there can be no requisite emergency preparedness under LILP.O's purported " utility plan," and that Shoreham should not operate. I request that you give this matter your urgent attention.

Sincerely yours, 4-f Peter F. Cohalan i ,

Suffolk County Executive W

l l

f l cc: Service List l