ML20078H110

Urges Commission to Reject Util Emergency Preparedness Plan. State of Ny Will Not Impose Radiological Emergency Preparedness Plan on Suffolk County.County Will Refrain from Implementing Plan.Public Safety Cannot Be Assured

ML20078H110
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	10/04/1983
From:	Cuomo M NEW YORK, STATE OF
To:	Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
ISSUANCES-OL-3, NUDOCS 8310140027
Download: ML20078H110 (2)

Text

.

, A' .

DOCKET NUMBER ,

PROD. & UTIL FAC.. .

• l

,M. '

DOCKETED

,1

• USNRC

'83 OCT 12 P2:18 Sint or Ntw YORK Executive CHAMBER OFFICE OF SECRETu AtewY12224 00CHETING & SERVICi.

MAmo k cuomo BRANCH s - .....

3 October 4, 1983 ' SERVED OCT131983

Dear Chairman Palladino:

i I understand -that at the request of the Nuclear Regulatory

, - Commission (NRC) , the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)

-is coordinating an eight-agency federal review of an emergency preparedness plan written by the Long Island Lighting Company for the proposed Shoreham nuclear power plant.

. While I understand-that recent. legislation does authorize i the .NRC to consider a utility developed emergency preparedness plan f or a commercial.. nuclear power plant, I am writing to urge the-Commission to reject the LILCO plan fpr Shoreham.

Suffolk County has clearly stated that it will refrain from implementing a radiological emergency plan at Shoreham because the' County believes that it is impossible to safely evacuate or otherwise protect the public in the event of a serious nuclear accident at Shoreham. I have indicated that the State will 'not

impose a: radiological emergency preparedness plan on Suf folk County because.I do not believe that the State alone has the capability or resources to assure that the public health and safety can'be adequately protected.

While I have made no final judgement regarding the l_ possibi-lity of developing and implementing an adequate emergency preparedness plan for Shoreham, I am convinced that a preparedness. plan which relies solely and entirely upon~ private

~

i

' utility workers cannot provide the degree of security necessary

.-to I

' conclude that the' public health and saf ety of the region's L . residents'are adequately protected.

t .

In an emergency situation, even those involving more f amiliar disasters, one cannot always predict how individuals will. react. This is especially true in the case of individuals whose normal responsibilities do not include the protection of l public health and safety.

F C

8310140027 831004 q PDR COMMS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR D

y

. Is it reasonable to assume that a utility-directed worker will respond in a predesigned manner' when his action may involve a choice between evacuating a stranger and perhaps protecting his own family? -Is it reasonable to assume 'that residents will react calmly to directives and mandates from utility workers whose company may be perceived to be the cause of the disaster? Under what authority would utility workers perform functions which may amount to an exercise of governmental power? I am ,sure this is not the scenario either envisioned or endorsed when the Congress and the NRC reasonably required the development of of f-site preparedness plans for nuclear power plants.

[am certain that we all agree that bef ore a new nuclear power plant can operate, there must be reasonable assurances that '

the -public health and saf ety is adequately protected. I do not believe that an entirely utility-developed, utility-directed, and utility-operated off-site preparedn ss plan meets this standard.

Sincerely, n

'- /

f W '

Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairman s Nuclear Regulatory Commission Matomic Building 1717 H Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20555 i

O D

O r.