ML20083K594
| ML20083K594 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1984 |
| From: | Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Kline J, Laurenson J, Shon F Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8404160226 | |
| Download: ML20083K594 (136) | |
Text
.- ._. - - - --
5%\
CORREsponagygg HUNTON & WILLIAMS IG
$3%gg 707 East MAIN STREET P.O. Box 1535 sooo psNmsyLv&Ns4 AyEgyE,. N w RicHuown. Vamo NIA 20212
- ..Ant. =cwaia..va=ue a
i e o soxi aso wasnewofo . O c. s h M%'rMd55.c voam noire eso eaoo j tt6senoses roa-os.oose
-isoo TE L e ptioN E 804 788 8200 resex 7satos 333 soutw oammo avtwuc TWX *7lO 956 OO68 f./ffCE OF " ' ' ' " * " - " " '
- Los anacLas. caurons.a soo
00CMm #" "**a'" c^=ou 8'* o*
4 retsp- E 3 e t-sosa =ows ess eae mari
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Apri1 13, 1984 'a =' ve~ ~ t = =g,=^,~,
=v*o'~a
. o so..see -~o v sm.. .. ~. . .m . s os r.%%'il."e'o.*.e m., .
O a e.'*.'.'1 ,,<.'~o
...cc, os.o ~o .o. ,s. .
. James A. Laurenson, Chairman Dr. Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission
, East-West Tower, Rm. 402A East-West Tower, Rm. 427 l 4350 East-West Highway 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814 Mr. Frederick J. Shon j
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory i
Commission East-West Tower, Rm. 430 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 -
4 Gentlemen:
j The purpose of this letter is to keep the Board apprised
- of developments in collateral litigation related to this pro-
- ceeding.
' As the Board knows, Suffolk County and Governor'Cuomo filed almost identical suits against LILCO in New York State Supreme Court in Suffolk and Albany Counties on March 8, 1984.
On April 6, LILCO removed them to the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Northern Districts of New York. A copy of LILCO's removal petition to the Eastern District is Enclosure 1 hereto; the petition filed in the Northern District is substantially identical.
-In addition, as this Board may know, a separate suit has been pending in the United States District Court for the East-ern District of New York styled Citizens for an Orderly Energy 9404160226 840413 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G
j PM hJD,.3
litINTON & WILLI AMM Policy, et al.(COEP) v. County of Suffolk, et al., (CV 4966). The gist of the complaint in that suit is that Suffolk County's refusal to participate in emergency planning at Shoreham violates federal law. On April 3, 1984, LILCO moved to intervene in this suit and attached as an exhibit to its motion a complaint, also docketed separately in the. event that intervention was not granted. Copies of that motion and com-plaint are Enclosures 2 and 3 hereto. Following a hearing on April 9, LILCO was granted leave to intervene in the COEP suit.
A copy of the Court's April 11, 1984 Memorandum and Order granting intervention is Enclosure 4 hereto.
S ir ,ce r ely. o s, t .
Donald P. Irwin One of Counsel for Long Island Lighting Company 91/730
Enclosures:
As Stated cc w/ Attachments: Attached Service List
e -
a
- EncloCura 1 s ,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-x COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, :
Plaintiff, :
- v. : PETITION FOR REMO'IAL LOMO ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY, Defendant. :
x TO THE HONORABLE JUDGES OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERM DISTRICT OF NZd YORK:
Defendant Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO), re-spectfully petitions this Court to remove -he above styled ac-tion from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, to the United States District court for the Eastern District of New York, and sets forth in support of its petition the following:
(1) On er about March 8, 1984 an action was commenced against LILCO in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, styled County of Suffolk, Plaintiff, v. Long Island Lighting Comeany, Defendant, by the service of a Summons and Complaint upon LILCO (copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit "A").
(2) This Action is a civil action of which this Court has original jurisdiction under the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
~.
t 9
5 1331 and 1337 and is one which may be removed to this Court by defendants pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C.
$ 1441(a) and (b), for reasons stated hereinafter.
(3) For the reascns stated more fully hereinafter, this Action arises under the Constitution and laws of the Unit-ed States, and particularly the Supremacy Clause and the Four-teenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C.
$ 2011 et seq. (the Act) and regu-lations adopted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to implement the Act, in particular, 10 C.F.R. Part 50.
(4) The primary objectives of the plaintiff are (1) to thwart and frustrate the purposes of the Atomic Energy Act by refusing to perform allegedly essential governmental functions, which functions LILCO is entitled to have performed in accor-dance with LILCO's rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States, and which refusal is for the intended pur-pose of preventing the licensing of the LILCO Shoreham Nuclear Power Station (Shoreham), and (2) to insert into the federal statutory and regulatory provisions for the licensing of nucle-ar power plants, an additional level of potentially dispositive governmental scruitiny, which scruitiny was neither contem-plated nor permitted by the federal statutory and regulatory framework.
In short, Suffolk County, and presumably its vari-ous branches, departments and divisions, s eks to obtain I
! l l
through this Action the right to exercise independent veto power over the licensing of nuclear power plants. Plaintiff seeks a declaration that it has the power to review indepen-dently, in accordance with criteria which it alone selects, the adequacy of emergency planning provisions for public health, safety and welfare, associated with the operatien of nuclear power plants. This Action represents the latest in a line of attempts by Suffolk County to arrogate unto itself, by use of the judicial process, functions which have been preempted to-tally by federal law. (See e.g. County of Suffolk, et al. v.
LILCO, et al. Docket No. 83-7122)(2d Cir. 1984).
(5) The Complaint acknowledges and alleges that LILCO is presently seeking an operating license for Shoreham from the NRC and that such license is required by federal law before LILCO will be allowed to operate Shoreham (Complaint 1s 4 and 5).
(6) The Complaint acknowledges and alleges that for-purposes of protecting the health and safety of persons in the area of Shoreham, the NRC requires that LILCO submit a ra-diological emergency response plan (RERP) to the NRC for ap-proval by the NRC (Complaint is 6 and 7). -
(7) The Complaint acknowledges and alleges that the suffolk County legislature has undertaken to substitute its judgment for that.of the NRC in determining whether "any...RERP t_ _
4 for a Shoreham accident...[would provide] adequate protection for the health, welfare and safety of Suffolk County residents and transients." (Complaint, V 12). The United States Supreme Court has expressly rejected the contention that local govern-ments may completely prohibit the construction of nuclear power plants until the safety concerns of the local governments are satisfied. Pacific Cas and Electric v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Develcoment Commission, U.S. , 103 Supreme Court 1713, 1726, Lawyers Edition 1953).
(8) The Complaint alleges that because of the decision by Suffolk County that no RERP will adequately provide for the health, welfare and safety of Suffolk County residents, Suffolk County will, in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham, withhold from its citizenry the performance of public safety functions by Suffolk County employees, such as police.
Thus, the County alleges that it will refuse to perform public safety functions; that LILCO is not empowered to perform public safety functions in connection with emergency planning for Shoreham; and that as a result Suffolk County will allegedly accomplish indirectly what it clearly could not legally accom-plish directly, namely, the abandonment of the Shoreham Power Station because of the decisions by Suf'olk County as to the health, welfare and safety considerations relating to the op-eration of the plant.
. I (9) The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York embraces the County of Suffolk.
(10) LILCO files herewith a bond with good and suffi-cient security in the amount of $500, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(d) and Civil Rule 3 of this Court, conditi-oned that LILCO will pay all costs and disbursements incurred by reason of the removal proceedings should it be determined that this action is not removable or improperly removed.
WHEREFORE, defendant Long Island Lighting Company re-quests that this Court grant this Petition, assume jurisdiction of this action, and remove this action pending in the Supreme Court of New York, County of Suffolk, therefrom to this Court for the reasons stated herein and to grant such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
Dated: Mineola, New York April 5, 1984 LOMG ISLAUD LIGHTING CCMPANY By Attorneys for Defendant Long Island Lighting Company
-S-o
i T
Of Counsel:
1 James E. Farnham W. Taylor Reveley, III K. Dennis Sisk Lewis F. Powell, III Hunton & Williams P. O. Box 1535 ,
Richmond, Virginia 23212 i
I r
L h
1 f
,e l
I a
i i
l l
i i
l ~6 l
l l
VERIFICATIO!!
STATE OF tIEW 'iCRK )
- ss.:
COU!!T*i OF !!ASSAU )
, being duly sworn, states:
that he is of Long Island Lighting Company, defendant in this action, and that the foregoing Peti-tion for Removal is true to his own knowledge, except as to matters therein stated on information and belief, and as to those matters he believes them to be true.
Sworn before me this day of April, 1994.
Notary Public
. i CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 4
i I hereby certify that on this day of April, 1984, 1
a copy of the foregoing PETITION FOR REMOVAL was mailed, post-age prepaid, to Martin Bradley Ashare, Esquire, H. Lee Dennison Building, Veterans Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, New York 11788.
4 i i 1
J i
l.
I
.t i .
. .7, e
8 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATL 7F NEW YORK ,
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK d Y'
\\e.h i
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, ) ,
1 C
) 'P j v.
Plaintiff, ) /g' f SUMMONS
) s LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY, ) Index No.
)
Defendant. )
)
To the above-named defendant:
You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon plaintiff's attorney, at his address stated below, an answer to the attached complaint.
If this summons was personally served upon you in the State of New York, the answer must be served within twenty days after such service of the summons, excluding the date of service. If the summons was not personally delivered to you within the State of New York, the answer must be served within thirty days after service of the summons is complete as provided by law.
If you do not serve an answer to the attached complaint within the applicable time limitation stated above, a judgment may be entered against you, by default, for the relief demanded in the complaint without further notice to you.
The action will be heard in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, in and for the County of Suffolk.
EXilIBIT A s
(
This action is brought in the County of Suffolk because it is the residence of the plaintiff, which has its principal office to conduct business at the H. Lee Dennison Building, Veterans Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, New York 11788.
Dated: March 8, 1984 #1 / #. - [M s Martin Bradley Ashare, Epq.
H. Lee Dennison Building Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 (516) 360-4049
(
/
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE CF NEh' YORK CCUNTY OF SUFFOLK
)
CCUNTY OF SUFFOLK, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) Complaint
- v. ) Index No.
)
LCNG ISLAND LIGHTING CCMPANY, )
)
Defendant. )
)
Plaintiff, by its attorneys Martin B. Ashare, Suffolk county Attorney, and Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher &
Phillips, for its complaint against the defendant, alleges:
1
- 1. This is an action for a declaratory judgment filed pursuant to CPLR 53001. An actual controversy of a justiciable nature exists between the plaintiff and the defendant involving defendant's usurpation of the police power of Suffolk County and the State of New York in implementing a plan for responding to a nuclear accident or radiological emergency at the shoreham Nuclear Power Station, which controversy may be determined by a judgment of this Court. Plaintiff asks this Court to dociare that defendant's implementation of its plan is unlawful and illegal under the Constitution and laws of the State of New York.
l
(
r .
- 2. Plaintiff COUNTY OF SUFFOLK is a municipal entity ex-
- isting under and by virtue of the laws of the State of New , ..( ..
- York, having governmental jurisdiction over an area known as ,
the County of Suf folk, consisting of approximately 920 square I '
miles, with a population of approximately 1.3 million .
yy. ,
residents, and having its principal office to conduct business '
- in Hauppauge, New York.
f e .
- 3. Defendant LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (LILCO) is a gas and electric corporation organized and operating under the -
. -,/ ;
laws of the State of New York, engaged as a public utility in , .;
c the business of providing gas and electric services in the .>
Counties of Suffolk and Nassau, and in'a portion of the borough .-
of Cucens, with its principal place of business located in ' '
, w.
nineola, New York. -
b LILCO has nearly completed construction of the ,j 4 i
- 4. /
i.
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station (Shoreham), an 820 megawatt .' ,,_.i nuclear-powered electric generating facility located in the .
/+ *;-
County of Suffolk on the north shore of Long Island. '
J
~
Ecfore a utility is allowed to operate a nucicar
- 5. '
power plant, it must obtain an operating license from the Nu- ,
clear Regulatory Commission (NRC). LILCO is presently seeking ,
an operating license for Shoreham from the NRC. .
A
/ ( J e .
. z, . s.
s, .. 2
- e
.ew
/ WV
- f * . ". './ ,
4 ./
- 6. The NFC may not issue an operating license unless it finds reasonable assurance that adequate measures can and will be taken to protect the public in the event of a nuclear accident or radiological emergency at the nuclear power plant.
[w 7 'In the event of an accident or emergency posing an offsite
, j radiological hazard or threat to public health and safety, pro-
' ~ ~
tective measures will normally include evacuation and/or shel-tering of persons within the plume exposure pathway emergency
,, planning zone (EPZ) surrounding the nuclear power plant. This EPZ for Shoreham, as defined by LILCC, is an area approximately a, ' ton miles.in radius from the Shoreham nuclear plant. The land port,ien of this ten-mile EPZ falls entirely within Suffolk Cou'.ity, with the remainder located to the north of the facility
- e. ,.
I its ibng Is1'and Sound. Protective measures also include actions
(
necessary to-prevent radiological contamination or other harm re ulting from ingestion of contaminated food, water or p.oducts of contaminated land, crops or animals located within I- ,
ths food ingestion pathway EPZ surrounding the nuclear plant.
Th}sEP2forShorehamisanareaapproximatelyfiftymilesin
^
'radjda from Shoreham. ,
~' '
- 7. In order to permit the MRC to find that adequate
- ~
offcito emergency preparedness exista for a nuclear power plant, the NRC requires an applicant for an operating license 9
2
(
W e
k 4
49 e [
-___AW
i .
e
/' to sub=it to the NRC a radiological emergency response plan k
(RERP) which sets forth the measures that will be taken to protect the health and safety of persons within the plume expe-l sure pathway'and food ingestion pathway EPZs in the event of a nuclear accident or radiological emergency at the plant. ',
- 8. Upon information and belief, all offsite RERPs which have been submitted to the NRC involving nuclear power plants other than Shoreham have been RERPs which have been sanctioned, and would be implemented, by the governments of the states and/or localities within the EPZs surrounding the nuclear power '
plants. .
- 9. In the exercise of its police power under the w Y
('
y Constitution and laws of the State of New York, the suffolk County Legislature adopted Resolution No. 262-1982 in March 1982. That Resolution resolved to undertake to develop, at tb[ s County's own expense, an RERP that would provide the best pos-sible protection for residents and transients in Suffolk Co nty ,
in the even.t of a nuclear accident at Shoreham. Resolution No.
262-1982 further provided that no offsite RERP could be sub- ~}-
mitted to the NRC by or on behalf of S.uffolk County unless-such ' s RERP had been approved by the suffolk County Legislature. A ,
subsequent resolution, Resolution No. 456-1982,- provided that"
- 4ik a
r i
. s s s
1 f- the County Legislature's review of a draft"of the plan to be k- developed would include at least two public hearings in Suffolk County.
10~. In April 1982, the Government of Suffolk County proceeded to assemble a team of nationally-recognized experts to develop the RERP for Suffolk County that had been mandated by Resolution No. 262-1982. The work of the experts took ap-proximately eight months to complete and resulted.in a draft County RERP and supporting analysis of approximately 775 pages.
In December 1982, that draft RERP was presented.to the Suffolk County Legislature for its review, as recuired by Resolution No. 262-1982. .
r'
! 11. Pursuant to Resolution No. 456-1932, eigh't days of
\
public hearings on the draft County RERP were conducted'by the Suffolk County Legislature during January 1983. In the course of these hearings, the County Legislature received testimony
, fr'om numerous, expert witnesses put forth by the County and LILCO, as well as testimony from hundreds of members of the public and concerned c,itizens groups which both favored and opposed the. operation of Shoreham. In addition, the County Legislature travelled to Harrisburg, Pennsylvania in February 1983, to hear testimony from local public officials and
_t a
-S 4
'a .
w i sb 1 h) a
- v*
,g. r
l residents concerning the nuclear accident which had occurred in 1979 at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant and the emergency planning lessons learned in its aftermath.
- 12. When it had completed its review of the draft County RERP, the County Legislature determined in Resolution No.
111-1983 that it would not adopt or implement the draft RERP, or any other RERP for a Shoreham accident, because the local conditions existing on Long Island (including density of popu-lation, land configuration and the limited roadway network) would preclude any RERP, if implemented, from providing adequate protection for the health, welfare, and safety of Suffolk County residents and transients. Resolution No.
111-1983 recites that "the preparation and implementation of
\'
any such plan would be misleading to the public by indicating to County residents that their health, welfare, and safety are being protected when, in fact, such is not the case."
- 13. Upon information and belief, the Governor of the State of New York, after reviewing the results of a'seven-month study of Shoreham prepared by a Commission which the Governor appointed for that purpose,.has determined that no offsite RERP for Shoreham will be submitted to the NRC by or on behalf of the State of New York.
6-t a-
g- 14. In the face of determinations by Suffolk County and the State of New York that no local or state RERP vill be sub-mitted to the NRC by or on behalf cf the County and State, LILCO has developed and submitted to the NRC its own offsite RERP, referred to by LILCO as the " Transition Plan." LILOC's Transition Plan sets forth the means for implementing emergency measures in the ten-mile and fifty-mile EP:s.
- 15. The primary means for implementing the emergency measures called for in LILCO's Transition Plan is the creation by LILCO of an organization designated the " Local Emergency Re-sponse Organization" (LERO). LILCO has established LERO, and it is staffed by approximately 2,000 persons, most of whom are LILCO employees entirely under the control of LILCO. The senior management of LERO consists entirely of LILCO employees and, in one case, a paid LILCO consultant. The head of LERO is designated the " Director of Local Response," a position filled by one of LILCO's vice-presidents. No government official of Suffolk County or the State of New York is a member of LERO.
- 16. Suffolk Coun,ty has determined that the County will not participate in implementing LILCO's Transition Plan. Upon i
information and belief, the Governor of the State of New York also has determined that the State'of New York will not participate in implementing LILCO's Transition Plan.
I J
~
l l
l o
/ 17. In the event of a nuclear accident at Shoreham,
(
LILCO's Transition Plan provides that LILCO, through its alter ego LERO, and without consent or approval by, or participation of, Suffolk County or the State of New York, will arrogate to itself functions purporting to protect the health, welfare and safety of residents and transients within Suffolk County. The offsite emergency response to the accident for a distance of fifty miles from that plant vill, under LILCO's Transition Plan, be under the management, direction and control of LILCO.
Those public safety functions which are possessed inherently by local and state government officials for exercise through the police power will, according to LILCO's Transition Plan, be g possessed and exercised by LILCO employees. In the LILCO Tran-l
(. sition Plan, among other things LILCO employees, and not any local or state government official, are designated (a) to decide what actions should be taken to protect.the health, wel-fare, and safety of persons in the EPZs; (b) to determine '
whether and how more than one hundred thousand Suffolk County residents and transients within the ten-mile EPZ, and several-hundred thousand persons beyond that who will respond to the emergency, should be evacuated; (c) to advise Suffolk County residents and transients, through announcements on the Emer-gency Broadcast System, press statements and press conferences, q w -- 1 y % w r,
L .- ~-
i L j i
r what specific actions they should take to protect their health, welfare and safety; (d) to activate emergency sirens which LILCO has installed throughout the ten-mile EPZ to alert the public to the occurrence'of a nuclear accident or radiological emergency; (e) to manage and direct the flow of traffic on roads within Suffolk County through various means including blocking lanes, altering roads to one-way flow, erecting barri-cades and installing road signs; (f) to control and direct the removal and displacement of more than cae hundred tho.usand residents and transients from the ten-mile EPZ; and (g) to establish controls over drinking water, milk, food, crops and livestock in the fifty-mile EPZ, an effort which could affect millions of people.
.f
- 18. LILCO has begun implementing its Transition Plan. In addition to creating LERO, it has assigned specific jobs in its LERO organization to specific LILCO employees ~at the senior management level and throughout the other working levels of the organization. Classroom training sessions for these employees have been held and drills have been conducted.- Moreover, LILCO has entered into letters of intent or agreements with other private companies to provide buses and a=bulances to be usedLto evacuate persons pursuant to LILCO's orders. LILCO has also entered into letters of intent or' agreements with radio
. 91 -
J
j; f stations for the broadcasting of emergency messages from LILCO to th'e public over the Emergency Broadcast System.
- 19. LILCO has asserted that it has the necessary legal authority to implement its Transition Plan and "to effectively protect the safety and health of the public." LILCO Transition Plan, p. 1.4-1. LILCO further asserts:
[N]othing in New York State law prevents the utility from performing the necessary functions to protect the public. To the contrary, Article 2-9 of New York State Ex-ecutive Law, S 20.1.e, makes it the policy of the State that State and local plans, organization arrangements, and response ca-pability "be the most effective that cur-rent circumstances and existing re. sources allow." Id.
f*
(
- 20. Contrary to the foregoing LILCO assertions, LILCC's-implementation of its Transition Plan is unlawful and illegal.
Under the Constitution and laws of the State of New York, the police power is inherent in and can be possessed and exercised only by the State cf New York itself or by a political subdivi-sion of the State if there has been a proper delegation of au-thority from the State to such subdivision.. New York State.
C'onstitution, Arts. IIi, IX (McKinney); Municipal Home Rule Law, 510; Executive Law, Art. 2-B (McKinney). The State of New-York has delegated its police powers within the territorial-limits of Suffolk County only to the Government of Suffolk
(.
/
s _. -
f g County and other governmental entities within the County.- The State of New York has never delegated its police powers to LILCO.
- 21. An actual and justiciable controversy exists between the plaintiff and the defendant concerning the legality, under the Constitution and laws of the State of New York, of LILCO implementing its Transition Plan. A resolution of this dispute is necessary because LILCO is representing that it has authori-ty under the laws of the State of New York to implement the Transition Plan -- an RERP which usurps the police power au-thority of the State of New York and Suffolk County -- and LILCO is implementing that Plan. LILCO's acts in implementing such an RERP have violated, are violating and will violate the Constitution and laws of the State of New York.
22.
The Chairman of the Atomic Safety and_ Licensing Board of the NRC, which is. presently conducting hearings on the LILCO Transition Plan, has stated on the record his belief that the question of the lawfulness of the Transition Plan under the Constitution and laws of the State of New York should be re-solved by the courts of the State of'New York.
- 23. Executive' officials within the Federal Emergency Man-agement Agency, which is reviewing the LILCO Transition Plan at
. u
(
\
5- '
s' l
6: _e4
.. c
'x 1 ,.
the request of the NBC, have stated, in official correspond'ence to the NRC that it is essential that a determination be made as to whether LILCO has legal authority to assume management and control of the offsite emergency response to a nuclear accident at Shoreham under the laws of the State of New York.
- 24. The plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law.
WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays that, pursuant to CPLR 53001, the Court enter a declaratory judgment that LILCO's imple-mentation of its Transition Plan is unlawful and illegal under the Constitution and laws of the State of New York.
Yours & e' t c .
Martin B. Ashare Suffolk County Department of Law Dennison Building veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 (516) 360-4049 ,
Herbert H. Brown Lawrence C. Lanpher Gilbert C. Miller Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher & Phillips 1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 452-7000 Attorneys for Plaintiff Dated: March 8,.1984 Suffolk County 4
l N-N s W , j' g g N . . _ 1, 7 M9$
?1 5thn
m VERIFICATION MARTIN BRADLEY ASHARE being duly sworn, deposes and says: That he is the Suffolk County Attorney for the County of Suffolk, a municipal corporation, in the within action that he has read the foregoing complaint and knows the contents thereof, and that the same is true to deponent's own knowledge, except those - matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those he believes them to be true.
This verification is made by deponent because Suffolk County is a municipal corporation and deponent is an
[ officer thereof.
The grounds of deponent's belief as to all matters not stated upon deponent's knowledge-are as follows:
Deponent has been intimately involved with all aspects of the controversy relating to emergency response planning.
(_
M MARTIN BRADLEY ASHARE ~/
Sworn to before me this O
QM day of March 1984.
(JAA-x , l J-:' A u ;i."u%si. W O s.a Notary Public No. 46881SS
. Cuenti e m sunem esse. c e
n .
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
___________________________________________x COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, : Index No. 84 4615 Plaintiff, : NOTICE OF MOTION
- TO DISMISS
-against .
LONG ISLAND LIOHTING COMPANY, :
Defendant. :
___________________________________________x PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that upon the attached supporting Affidavit, and upon its Memorandum of Law hereinafter to be filed, defendant, Long Island Lighting Company ("LILCO") will move this Court at a Special Term, Part 1, to be-held in and for Suffolk County at the courthouse located at Griffing Ave.
nue, Riverhead, New York, on the 19th day of April, 1984, at 9:30 a.m.,
or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard, for an order dismissing the above-entitled action (1) pursuant to Section 3211(a)(2) of the CPLR on the ground that the Court does not have-jurisdiction of the subject matter of the cause of action, and (2) pursuant to Section 3211(a)(7) of the CPLR on the ground that the Complaint fails to state a cause of ac-tion.
WHEREFORE, LILCO respectfully requests that this ac-tion be dismissed and for such other, further or different re-lief as to this Court may seem just and proper.
Dated: April 6, 1984
LONG ISLAND. LIGHTING COMPANY By Edward M. Barrett Herbert M. Leiman Long Island Lighting Company 250 Old County Road Minneola, New York 11501 .
(516) 228-2244 James E. Farnham
{ W. Taylor Reveley, III 1
K. Dennis Sisk Lewis F. Powell Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 (804) 788-8200 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE 2
4 I hereby certify that on the 6th day of April, 1984 I mailed a true copy of the foregoing Notice of Motion to Dismiss l
! to Martin B. Ashare, Esq., Suffolk County Department of Law, Dennison Building, Veterans. Memorial Highway, Hauppauge,-New York 11788, Herbert H. Brown, Esq., Lawrence C. Lanpher, Esq.,
1 Gilbert C. Miller, Esq., Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, 1
Christopher & Phillips, 1900 M Street, N.W. Washington,.D.C.
j 20036,. counsel for plaintiff.
Herbert M. Leiman-r SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
___________________________________________x COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, : Index No.84-4615 Plaintiff, : AFFIDAVIT
-against :
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY, [
Defendant. :
x-STATE OF NEW YORK- )
')
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK ) ss.:
HEREERT M. LEIMAN, being duly sworn, deposes and says:
- 1. I am a member of the New York State Bar and am general counsel for Long Island ~ Lighting Company.
- 2. The issues which appear in the Complaint filed by plaintiff in this action are not within the subject matter ju-risdiction of this Court and fail to state a cause of action because they have been preempted by federal law, in particular, the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 ("the AEA") and the Nuclear Regu-latory Commission regulations implementing the AEA.
Dated: April 6, 1984 I.
Sworn to before me this 6th day of Herbert M. Lelman April, 1984 Notary Public AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 6th day of April, 1984 I mailed a true copy of the foregoing Affidavit to Martin S.
Ashare, Esq., Suffolk County Department of Law,-Dennison Suild-ing, Veterans Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, New York 11788, Herbert H. Brown, Esq., Lawrence C. Lanpher, Esq., Gilbert C.
Miller, Esq., Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher &
Phillips, 1900 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036, counsel for plaintiff.
Herbert M. Leiman
aAa a i
~ SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
x COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, :
Plaintiff, :
-against- : NOTICE OF REMOVAL LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY, :
Defendant. :
x S I R S:
Please take notice that, in accordance~with Title 28, United States Code, Section 1446(e), a petition and bond for removal of this action to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, true copies of which are at-tached, were duly filed in the office of'the Clerk of the Unit-ed States District Court for the Eastern. District of New York this b; day of April, 1984.
Dated: New York, New York April Qi, 1984 HUNTON & WILLIAMS Attorneys for Defendant Long Island Lighting 1
Company
-P. O. Box.1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 (804) 788-8501
'T v
=
s Of Counsel:
James E. Farnham, Esq.
W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.
Lewis F. Powell, III, Esq.
K. Dennis Sisk, Esq.
Hunton & Williams P. O. Box 1535 Richmond,' Virginia 23212 Edward M. Barrett, Esq.
Herbert M. Lieman, Esq.
General. Counsel Long Island Lighting Company 250 Old Country Road Mineola, New York 11501 t
4 e
1 f
4 4
4 4
1 1
,i Enclosure 2 ,
i l
1
'l l
l' UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT l EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ll t' I
________________________________________x
'l
- CITIZENS FOR AN ORDERLY ENERGY
! POLICY, INC., et al., :
Plaintiffs, :
-against- : Civil Action No.
83-4966 -
THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, and :
PETER F. COHALAN, - '
Defendants, .
________________________________________x f
MOTION BY LONG ISLAND LIGHTING I COMPANY TO INTERVENE AS A PLAINTIFF I
i Edward M. Barrett l Rosalind M. Gordon i Long Island Lighting Company l 250 Old Country Road '
Mineola, New York 11501 (516) 228-2244 i
James E. Farnham W. Taylor Reveley, III K. Dennis Sisk Lewis F. Powell, III Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 (804) 788-8200 k
l l 6 l I
d i I
!i l
llIllil ;
i O
i UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK !
U l
,1 1 ________________________________________x l l : !
l CITIZENS FOR AN ORDERLY ENERGY :
n POLICY, INC., et al., : l 1 :
,; Plaintiffs, :
- -against-
- Civil Action No. !
03-4966 ,
THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, and : l PETER F. COHALAN, :
Defendants, :
x MOTION BY LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY TO INTERVENE AS A PLAINTIFF i
I 4
Long Island Lighting Company ("LILCO"), by counsel, re- !
spectfully moves under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a) for leave to intervene in this action as a party plaintiff.
l LILCO's motion is timely because the case is still in its pre-liminary stages. Moreover, because this litigation arises out i of the defendants' efforts to prevent operation of LILCO's '
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ("Shoreham"), LILCO has a sub-stantial interest in the outcome of the suit. Third, disposi-tion of the case without LILCO's participation, though not res judicata with respect to LILCO, may as a practical matter im-pair or impede LILCO's ability to protect its interest in
, opposing the defendants' efforts to defeat Shoreham. Finally, i
l o
d !
i i i
while LILCO has confidence in the ability of the current plain- l
]! tiffs to prosecute their claims, which are essentially the same a
as LILCO's, the defendants have challenged the current plain-tiffs' standing to sue. LILCO believes the current plaintiffs
- i i
have standing, but it cannot afford nor should it be forced to '
gamble that the Court will conclude otherwise.
In these circumstances, which are discussed more fully in the accompanying memorandum, LILCO is entitled to intervene a
i of right under Rule 24(a). In addition, counsel for LILCO has !
- \ !
been authorized by counsel for the plaintiffs to represent to the Court that the plaintiffs support LILCO's effort to inter- !
vene. As required by Rule 24(c), the Complaint LILCO seeks to !
i file is attached to this motion. .
WHEREFORE, LILCO respectfully prays that this Court !,
allow it to interevene as a plaintiff in this action and to file and serve the attached Complaint.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY April 3, 1984 By Edward M. Barrett '
Rosalind M. Gordon Long Island Lighting Company 250 Old Country Road Mineola, New York 11501 (516) 228-2244 James E. Farnham W. Taylor Reveley, III K. Dennis Sisk i Lewis F. Powell, III Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street '
o Richmond, Virginia 23219 (804) 788-8200 ;
I :
- ! i i
I
1 h
" I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I I certify that a copy of the foregoing MOTION BY LONG .
q ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY TO INTERVENE AS A PLAINTIFF was on l a April 3, 1984 hand-delivered to Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq., H. ;
Lee Dennison Executive Office Building, Veterans Memorial High- '
way, Hauppauge, New York 11788, counsel for defendants; and I mailed by express mail to David A. Brownlee, Esq., Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Johnson & Hutchinson, 1500 Oliver Building, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222, and Herbert H. Brown, Esq.,
Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher & Phillips, 1900 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, counsel for defendants; and Luci?. 1 warts, Esq., Pacific Lega) Foundation, 1990 M Street,
., Suite 550, Washington, D.C. 20036, counsel for plaintiffs.
I l
i i
i l
l 1
I l
l t
, Enclosure 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
.__________________x LONG~ ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY, :
Plaintiff, :
-against- :
THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, NEW YORK, :
a New York municipal corporation, :
Serve: Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq. :
H. Lee Dennison Executive :
Office Building, : Civil Action No.
Veterans Memorial Highway, : 83-4966 Hauppauge, New York 11788, : '
PETER F. COHALAN, in his official :
capacity as Suffolk County Executive, :
Serve: Peter F. Cohalan :
County Executive- :
H. Lee Dennison Executive :
Office Building :
Veterans Memorial Highway :
Hauppauge, New York 11788, :
Defendants. :
x COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF-Edward M. Barrett James E. Farnham Rosalind M. Gordon W. Taylor Reveley, III Long Island Lighting K. Dennis Sisk Company Lewis F. Powell, III J
250 Old Country Road Mineola, New York Hunton & Williams :
11501 707 East Main Street I (516) 228-2244 Richmond,. Virginia 23219 (804) 788-8200 l
I
(;_________---__. i
i UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT -
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
---.--_____________x LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY, :
Plaintiff, :
-against- :
THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK, NEW YORK, :
a New York municipal corporation, :
Serve: Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq. :
H. Lee Dennison Executive :
Office Building, : Civil Action No.
Veterans Memorial Highway, : 83-4966 Hauppauge, New York 11788, :
PETER F. COHALAN, in his official :
capacity as Suffolk County Executive, :
Serve: Peter F. Cohalan :
County Executive :
H. Lee Dennison Executive :
Office Building :
Veterans Memorial Highway :
Hauppauge, New York 11788, :
4 :
Defendants. :
x COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Long Island Lighting Company, by counsel, respectfully.
prays that this Court enter judgment against the defendants and grant LILCO certain declaratory and injunctive relief, plus reasonable attorneys' fees and such other relief as the Court may deem appropriate, because of the defendants' unlawful
1 l
- r i 1.
attempt under color of state law to prevent LILCO from op-l erating its Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
i Jurisdiction and-Venue i
I, (1) This action arises under the Supremacy Clause and
, the. Fourteenth Amendment of the Un'ited States Constitution; the Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 55 2011-2296; and section 1 of the
! Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. 5 1983. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 55 1331 and l
I 1343(a)(3).
(2) Venue is appropriate in this- district under 28 U.S.C.
5 1391(b) because the claim arose in this district.
Parties j
(3) Long Island Lighting Company ("LILCO") is a public j
service corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of New York and engaged in.the production, distribution, and sale of electricity, primarily in Long Island, New York. LILCO owns i
the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ("Shoreham"), which is an 809 megawatt nuclear powered electric generating facility lo-i cated on Long Island's north shore in tha County of Suffolk.
, (4) Defendant County of-suffolk ("Suffolk County" or i
the " County") is a municipal corporation incorporated under the 1
laws of the State of New York and having governmental l
4 A
4
a ,
jurisdiction over the area known as the County of Suffolk, which comprises the eastern portion of Long Island.
(5) Defendant Peter F. Cohalan ("Cohalan") is and since January 1, 1980 has been the Suffolk County Executive.
As such, Cohalan is and has been the County's chief executive officer with substantial policy making and administrative au-thority in the County of Suffolk.
Background and General Allegations (6) In 1968, LILCO applied to the United States Atomic Energy Commission (the "AEC," now the Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission (the "NRC")) for a construction permit to build Shoreham. The permit was issued in April 1973.
Construction is now essentially complete, at a total cost of nearly $4 bil-lion.
(7) Until approximately February 1982, the defendants did not oppose, and in some respects encouraged, the construc-tion and operation of Shoreham. Intended to reduce Long Is-land's dependence on costly foreign oil, Shoreham has provided employment even during its construction to thousands and has generated substantial local property tax revenue. For many years, the County has appraised Shoreham for real estate tax purposes at its enhanced value as a nuclear power plant. As a 1
e 1 l
l result, LILCO has paid approximately $140 million in local property taxes.
(8) Commencing in early 1982, however, and continuing to the present, the defendants, acting under color of state law, have sought to prevent Shoreham's operation and to arro-gate to themselves regulatory functions which by Act of Con-gress have been exclusively vested in the NRC. In so doing, the defendants have undertaken to cripple LILCO economically.
The centerpiece of the defendantr' action, however, is the County's refusal to assist LILCO in the preparation of an offsite radiological emergency response plan ("RERP") for Shoreham. Absent approval by the NRC of a RERP, a utility can-not receive the NRC's permission to operate a nuclear plant at full power. The defendants' refusal to provide LILCO with po-lice power protection and their affirmative acts to prevent Shoreham's operation, predicated without justification in law or fact on purported concerns regarding Shoreham's radiological safety, have been wrongful, intentional, arbitrary, and capri-cicus. These acts and omissions amount te attempted regulation of Shoreham's operation, and they constitute a deprivation of LILCO's rights without due process of law.
(9) If the defendants succeed in preventing Shoreham's operation, LILCO will suffer substantial economic damage. The o 1 uncertainty regarding Shoreham's future caused by the defen--
dants' efforts to block its operation has reduced the value of LILCO stock, has directly jeopardized LILCO's ability to obtain necessary financing, and has resulted in a sweeping austerity program that has caused massive lay-offs of LILCO employees.
Therefore, the defendants have injured and are continuing to injure LILCO, and this case raises an actual controversy appro-priate for resolution by this Court.
Specific Allegations (10) The construction permit for Shoreham was granted by the AEC on April 12, 1973, five years after the application was filed, and following contested hearings before the AEC that included challenges to the choice of the site and the feasibil-ity of emergency planning. See Long Island Lighting Co.
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station), LBP-73-13, 6 AEC 271, 275-76, 285, 298-99 (1973). At that time Suffolk County was not a party to the licensing proceeding, but H. Lee Dennison, then the Suffolk County Executive, made a limited appearance before the licensing board in 1970 to urge that it grant a construc-tion permit for Shoreham:
I am here in representation of the 1,100,000 people of the county of Suffolk, and I speak as the administrative head of the county gov-ernment, as the county budget officer; and I have a certain basic responsibility for the l -
_ . l health, safety and well-being of the people of the county, a concern with adequate and safe transportation, police, finances, the general economy, human relationships, public
. health and welfare, adequate and clean fresh water, and surely the assurance of the quali-ty of service and consumer price for light and power.
Now there isn't any other source for energy in this area. We can't depend upon the met-ropolitan region or New York State or the St. -
Lawrence powerplants. We must begin to be self-sufficient on our own because we are an island. -
I urge you, Mr. Chairman, as County Execu-tive, to grant immediate licensing for con-L struction of this nuclear power facility as proposed at Shoreham.
Construction Permit Hearings Transcript ("CP Tr.") at 209, 211, .
216.
(11) When the construction permit was granted, the StaffoftheAECfoundthatShorehamsatisfiedtheapplicabid
,, t regulatory requirements respecting compatibility betVeen facil-ity design and' geographic siting on the one hand and emergency-planning requirements on the other. CP Tr. at 5969-73. In ad-:
dition, intervenor Lloyd Harbor Study Group ("LHSG") .f-r, , ~.
cross-examined witnesses during the construction permit hear '
ings regarding LILCO's development of an emergency plan. Tes-timony showed that LILCO had outlined generally its plans for' '
?
M k
9 e
-} l ', ,
? :. -
,/ / ,-
, . .+
's '
coping with emergencies (Preliminary Safety Analysis Report at XIII-4-1 to -3) and had discussed emergency planning with the
,, Riverhead Police Department, Suffolk County Police Department, ,
Suffolk County Health Department, Suffolk County Medical Soci-ety, and New York State authorities. CP Tr. at 2299, 2511-12.
(12) In its initial decision, the AEC licensing board
~ '
rejected LHSG's assertion that LILCO was unable t'o achieve ade-quate emergency planning for Shoreham, pointing out that "[t]he applicant has outlined its plan for coping with emergencies and has conferred with New York State and local authorities with respect to them."
6 AEC at 285 (footnote omitted). The AEC appeal board concurred. Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nu-clear Power Station), ALAB-156, 6 AEC 831, 851 (1973). This
[ issue was not pursued further by LHSG, despite the fact that LHSG did take an unsuccessful appeal on the granting of the
! Ehoreham construction permit.
(13) Following the issuance of the Shoreham construc-tion permit, the Suffolk County Department of Emergency Pre-paredness was directed by Executive Order in February 1973 to I
' develop a " Response Plan -- Specific Operating Procedures For l
Major Radiation Incidents." In early 1975 representatives of_
j the State, the County, and LILCO met to define the emergency I planning roles and responsibilities of each body. This was the
/I 6
l-1 9
I ~
l l first of many sessions to support the development of the Suffolk County emergency response plan.
(14) In 1977 Mr. Norman Kelly, Suffolk County Emergen-cy Preparedness Director, was given overall respons[bility for emergency-planning beyond the perimeter of the plant, and the ~
Suffolk County Department of Transportation was directed to de-velop an evacuation plan. After numerous working-level meet-ings and discussions between the County and LILCO, Suffolk County's " General Radiation Emergency Plan" was approved by County Executive John Klein on August 30,-1978. It was re-I viewed, and eventually accepted, by the New York State Office of Disaster Preparedness.
(15) In late 1978.the United States Environmental Pro-tection. Agency and the NRC issued NUREG-0396, a guidance docu-ment regarding generic emergency planning concerns at nuclear power plants. NUREG-0396 recommended-that emergency planning be expanded to address Class 9 accidents-(the most serious pos-tulated accidents) that might necessitate emergency action out "-
s to 10' miles from the plant ~. In response to NUREG-0396, LILCO and certain State and County officials began updating Shoreham's evacuation plan to provide for'an emergency response.
out to 10 miles.
tj
_1 J
-45 k
,~. .
, :g, h,
(16) Following the accident at Three Mile Island in '
' s 1979, the NRC promulgated new emergency planning regulations, N
which remain in effect. As a result, LILCO and County Execu-tive John Klein signed a " Memorandum of Understanding" on December 8, 1979 outlining the revised responsibilities of LILCO and the County in emergency planning. Defendant Cohalan (then County Executive-elect) approved the terms of the agree-ment. A copy of this memorandum with its cover letter is at-
.i tached to this Complaint as Exhibit-A.
(17) To respond to the extensive changes in the NRC's emergency planning requirements following the Three Mile Island accident, LILCO began discussions with private consulting firms O
early in 1980 with an eye toward hiring outside consultants to assist the County and LILCO in updating Shoreham's existing emergency plan. Throughout 1980, planning discussions with Suffolk County officials continued. County emergency planning personnel inspected the Shoreham site on February 28, 1980.
LILCO met _with.60 representatives of various Suffolk County de-partments in March 1980 and submitted 9 volumes of material to 4
the County Legislature's Health Committee in conjunction-with legislative hearings'on nuclear power. Chief Deputy County Ex-ecutive John C. Gallagher met with LILCO representatives in September and December 1980 to discuss a proposal the County 1
- e b -
?
had received from an outside consultant (EDS Nuclear, Inc.) to assist in revising the emergency plan.
(18) In February 1981 the County concluded that it could develop the revised emergency response plan on its owns since County personnel had already worked on the original plan and were familiar with local conditions. LILCO Vice President Dr. Matthew C. Cordaro, Suffolk County Planning Department Di-rector Dr. Lee E. Koppelman, and Mr.'Gallagher signed a con-tract on March 15, 1981 calling for the County to produce a re-vised radiological response plan within 6 months at a cost of
$245,000, to be paid by LILCo. The County Legislature, howev-er, rejected the initial contract because it had not been con-sulted on the terms. In September 1981 an amended contract with substantially the same terms was submitted to the County Legislature and accepted, and LILCO paid the Suffolk County Planning Department $150,000 as the first installment on the contract. The County agreed in the contract to complete the plan by March.18, 1982, at which time the balance of the con-
^
tract amount ($95,000) would become payable.
(19) Suffolk County represented in the September-1981L contract _that it was familiar-with the applicable federal regu-lations and that it could develop a RERP_that complied with them. 'The scopeLof work included preparing a. draft and final
County plan, integrating the plan with State and LILCO plans, developing implementing procedures, preparing and distributing c
g public education materials, providing expert witness testimony concerning planning work, and training emergency planning per-sonnel in coordination with the State and LILCO. A copy of the September 1981 contract is attached to this Complaint as Exhib-it B.
(20) The County's Dr. Koppelman was to supervise the County's emergency planning effort. The task of actually
(.
revising the plan fell to two Suffolk County planners, Robert Meunkle and Laura Palmer. Mr. Meunkle took specialized courses in traffic engineering and transportation at Polytechnic Insti-tute of Brooklyn in 1970, and was employed by the New York Highway Transportation Studies Group and the New York State De-partment of Public Works before coming to work for Suffolk County in 1972. Ms. Palmer began work for Suffolk County in 1978 as an engineering aide in the Suffolk County Department of Transportation, where she gained a background in Suffolk County transportation routes. After one year as an aide she was given the professional title of planner.
(21) In a deposition taken in August 1982 in conjunc-tion with the still ongoing Shoreham operating license proceed-ing before the NRC, Mr. Meunkle described his involvement in
Suffolk County's planning efforts, including his close working relationship with LILCO, particularly with Mr. Charles A.
Daverio, who from early 1980 until the spring of 1982 was Chairman of LILCO's Emergency Planning Task Force:
Q. This is a general question. I'm not just talking about protective action now. During the time you had contact with Mr. Daverio, would there ever be an occasion for the Coun-ty, or through you, to make any demands on Mr. Daverio for any type of services, logistical support, information, anything cf that sort?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Could you tell me generally the demands that you made on Mr. Daverio?
A. I wouldn't categorize it as demands.
Q. How about requests? Do you like that better?
A. Let's say we had what I consider to be a professional working relationship with the people at the utility. We had a common goal of an emergency plan, and we did whatever was necessary to reach that goal. Yes, we made requests of the utility for services.
Q. A1.1 right, sir. Insofar as you were con-cerned then, did the utility respond in a professional manner?
A. Absolutely.
Meunkle Tr. at 90-91.
(22) In another deposition in August 1982, also in connection with the NRC licensing proceedings, Ms. Palmer explained why she and Mr. Meunkle were chosen to do the emer-gency planning work, and described the scope of that work:
Q. As I understand it, the reason that the Planning Department, you and Mr. Meunkle, ,
were given the responsibility to develop the Suffolk County emergency plan instead of out-side consultants was to take advantage of the
' recognized experience and familiarity that you all had with Suffolk County?
A. That is correct.
Q. In doing all the work that you did do on the emergency plan that resulted in the final product in April of 1982, did you take into account as part of your work various local conditions that are unique to Suffolk County, such as its population and demography and its topography and its climate?
A. Yes.
Q. And its geography, all those local condi-tions?
A. Yes.
Q. I take it you were able to do so in part ba.ed.on your own longstanding familiarity and experience with the area?
A. Yes, I was.
Palmer Tr. at 26-27.
(23) LILCO. continued to cooperate with Suffolk County in exchanging and refining similar information from other nu-clear plants on emergency planning, population figures, and
o B meteorological data. Most of the sections of the County plan I i
were completed by February 1982. At that time, County planners indicated they would need assistance on the Health Department section if they were to finish their work by March 18, the date agreed to by the County in the September 1981 contract. LILCO offered to obtain assistance from Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation, Shoreham's architect-engineer, to complete that section of the plan.
(24) In mid-February 1982, Suffolk County announced it had retained the law firm of Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill, Christopher & Phillips to represent the County in the NRC hear-ings on LILCO's application for an operating license for Shoreham. The County's new lead attorney, Herbert H. Brown, stated that emergency planning would be the " centerpiece" of what subsequent events have shown to be the defendants' new po-sition of inflexible and aggressive opposition to Shoreham.
(25) Soon thereafter, Dr. Koppelman sent a letter dated February 19, 1982 to LILCO's Dr. Cordaro, noting the ex-istence of "an apparent conflict of interest" in the County's acceptance of LILCO funds for the preparation or an emergency plan, but still promising that the County would develop a plan:
The County will continue, as required by' law, to develop a plan consistent with the re-quirements of law and its obligation to pro-tect the health, safety and welfare of the people.
l l
A copy of Dr. Koppelman's letter is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit C.
, (26) Dr. Cordaro responded in a letter to Dr.
Koppelman dated March 17, 1982, stating the following:
LILCO . . . has requested neither the return of the $150,000 paid to date nor the dis-charge of its obligation to make final pay-ment. The Company is at a loss to understand why the County believes that acceptance of these payments constitutes a conflict of in-terest.
LILCO is relying on the County to perform its obligations under this contract and will be damaged severely if the County fails to per-form these obligations fully.
A copy of Dr. Cordaro's letter is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit D. The County subsequently sent LILCO a check in the amount of $150,000, which LILCO has not cashed.
(27) On March 23, 1982, the County Legislature adopted Resolution 262-1982, authorizing the County Planning Department to prepare yet another emergency plan. Resolution 262-1982 also stated that whatever plan was prepared would not become operable and would "not be deemed adequate and capable of being implemented" until " approved" by the Legislature. This attempt to reserve an ultimate right of approval constitutes an impermissible usurpation by the County of the NRC's sole au-thority to regulate matters of nuclear safety. Defendant Cohalan approved this resolution on March 25, 1982. A copy is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit E.
(28) Soon after the adoption of Resolution 262-1982, Ms.
Palmer was abruptly relieved of her emergency planning du-ties. As she explained in her August 1982 deposition:
Q. Without going into additional massive amounts of documents before me that chronicle the work that you and Mr. Meunkle engaged in as part of the emergency plan, is it fair to say that the extent of your work was very substantial to prepare the Suffolk County emergency plan?
A. Yes, it was.
Q. There came a time when you stopped work-ing on the Suffolk County Emergency Plan; is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. That was sometime in March of 1982?
A. I would say closer to April.
Q. But for the change in circumstances, do you think that a final plan would have been reached by May of 1982?
[ objection by counsel omitted.]
A. Definitely.
Palmer Tr. at 43-44.
Q. What did you do when you stopped working on emergency planning, Suffolk County?
A. Basically, it was to re-read some of the work that we had previously done and make' corrections, such as typographical errors, et cetera, that we never had time to really look at before; make sure all our files and corre-spondence were organized in case such
material was required by our lawyers. In general, it was just to clean up the project in the best way possible, tie up loose ends.
Q. Then what did you do?
A. Subsequently, I was transferred to the Department of Public Works out in Yaphank.
Q. Was that transfer at your request?
A. 'No, it was not.
Q. Who had requested it?
[0bjection of counsel omitted.]
A. The transfer was done through resolution through the Suffolk County Legislature.
Q. My earlier question was at whose instance was the transfer initiated?
(Counsel for Suffolk County objected and in-structed the witness not to answer.]
Palmer Tr. at 49-50.
(29) Mr. Meunkle testified similarly during his August 1982 deposition that he was abruptly discharged from his emer-gency planning duties:
Q. When did you last have any duties and responsibilities with respect to the emergen-cy plan?
A. April 15th of this year.
Q. When your duties and responsibilities in respect of the emergency plan ended on April 15 of this year, were you given a new job title?
l
A. No.
Q. You just were relieved of those duties and responsibilities?
A. That's correct.
Q. Mr. Meunkle, what is your understanding of why you were relieved of your duties on April 15, 1982?
[ Counsel for Suffolk County objected and in-structed the witness not to answer.]
Meunkle Tr. at 22-24.
(30) After he was directed to abandon his emergency planning efforts, Mr. Meunkle wrote a memorandum dated May 12, 1982 to Deputy County Executive Frank R. Jones emphasizing the cooperation that had existed between Suffolk County and LILCO, and describing the nature of the emergency planning effort at the time it was abruptly broken off by the County:
The purpose of this memo is to clarify some aspects of what has been done with respect to the SCRERP (Suffolk County Radiological Emer-gency Response Plan]. Initially, let me in-dicate that everything you have to date was written and prepared by the County.
I must also state that, until the very recent intervention by the County at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission hearings, we were work-ing in a cooperative vain (sic] with LILCO, therefore, their preparation and printing of the exhibits that were designed by the County were to save the County time and money. Sub-sequent to the lawsuit (Suffolk County's in-tervention in the NRC operating license pro-ceeding], I received instructions from Dr.
Koppelman to end our formal relationship with LILCO and to get from the utility whatever was then in the pipeline. This has been done.
A copy of Mr. Meunkle's memorandum is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit F.
(31) On May 17, 1982, the County's Mr. Gallagher (Chief Deputy County Executive) represented in a letter to LILCO's Dr. Cordaro that:
The County is preparing a radiological re-sponse plan which will satisfy all local, state and federal criteria and regulations, as contemplated by the September 18, 1981 agreement between the County and LILCO. Pur-suarit to Legislative Resolution 262 and Exec-utive Order, such plan will be transmitted to the County Legislature by October 1, 1982.
A copy of Mr. Gallagher's letter is attached to this Complaint l
as Exhibit G.
(32) On May 18, 1982, the County Legislature adopted Resolution 456-1982, which correctly acknowledged the County's legal duty to engage in emergency planning, but which, consis-tently with Resolution 262-1982, impermissibly reserved to the Legislature the right of ultimate approval of any plan and foreclosed pending such approval the expenditure of any~ County resources to test or implement emergency planning for Shoreham.
A copy of this resolution is attached to this Complaint as Ex-hibit H.
(33) In his letter of February 19, 1982 (Exhibit C),
Dr. Koppelman acknowledged the County's legal obligation to continue to engage in emergency planning. He further repre-sented that the County would fulfill this obligation. Mr.
Gallagher's May 17 letter (Exhibit F) contained a similar rep-resentation. And in Resolution 456-1982, the Legislature rep-resented that it intended, "through good faith and sound plan-ning efforts, to assure that the best possible emergency plan and preparedness are developed." Notwithstanding those repre-sentations, the County and Cohalan embarked upon a course of calculated delay, under color of state law, with the specific intent to induce LILCO to believe the County was seriously working toward the creation of a RERP.
(34) Consistent with its strategy of delay through di-version of LILCO's resources, in June 1982 the County filed a groundless and vexatious lawsuit in state court seeking to com-pel a full physical inspection of Shoreham (in addition to the countless inspections that had already occurred, all of which confirmed the adequacy of the plant's design and construction),
to enjoin operation of the plant pending completion of the in-spection, and to assess as damages against LILCO substantial rate relief payable to the Company's ratepayers. LILCO removed the action to this Court, which denied the County's motion to l
l remand, County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co., 549 F.
Supp. 1250 (E.D.N.Y. 1982), and then dismissed the suit, County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co., 554 F. Supp. 399 (E.D.N.Y. 1983). The dismissal was subsequently upheld on ap-peal by the Second Circuit. County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co., No. 83-7122 (2d Cir. Jan. 25, 1984).
(35) The County's emergency planning strategem is also revealed by the County's actions in the NRC licensing proceed-ing respecting what were known as Phase I emergency planning issues. " Phase I" refers essentially to those elements of emergency preparedness necessary to cope only with a minor ac-cident not having consequences beyond the perimeter of the plant.
Throughout the summer and fall of 1982, the County, as an intervenor in the NRC licensing proceeding, advanced conten-tions relating to alleged deficiencies in LILCO's Phase I (onsite) emergency planning efforts. Formal contentions (which identify issues for litigation before an NRC licensing board) were filed by the County, extensive discovery was initiated by the County, and hundreds of pages of written direct testimony were prepared and filed by the County and LILCO in advance of the Phase I hearings, which were scheduled to commence on November 29, 1982.
On November 23, 1982, however, after having diverted substantial LILCO resources for nearly six months, the County defaulted on all of its Phase I contentions and declined to litigate them before the NRC. See Long Island Lighting Co.
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-82-107, 16 NRC 1667 (1982); Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit'1), LBP-82-115, 16 NRC 1923 (1982).
(36) After having abandoned without justification in the spring of 1982 the almost-completed joint LILCO-Suffolk County emergency response plan, the County delayed considera-tion of offsite emergency planning for Shoreham for almost a year, extending repeatedly the promised completion date of its alleged planning efforts. Finally, during the first week of December 1982, after the alleged expenditure of $600,000, the County produced its so-called draft Suffolk County Radiological Emergency Response Plan (the " draft County plan"). The County Legislature announced it would hold hearings on the plan, which were mandated by Suffolk County Resolutions 262-1982 and 456-1982, and then delayed them until January 1983.
(37) The draft County plan was not a " plan" at all 1
within any reasonable meaning of that word, nor was it ever in-tended to be. Instead, it contained very little information a
that was, site-specific to Shoreham or Long Island. It was lit-tie more than.a generic blueprint, organized along the lines of-NUREG-0654 (another NRC guidance document regarding' emergency
)
1 l
I planning generally) and identifying the sorts of items one must develop to plan for an emergency at any nuclear power plant.
Even the draft County plan itself acknowledged that it required additional " development." Draft County plan at 3, 18. The areas needing further " development" included such essential items as implementing procedures, training, and drills for emergency workers. Draft County Plan at 18-19.
(38) In January 1983, the County Legislature held hearings on the draft County plan oyer an approximately two-week period. Excerpts from these hearings and the County's subsequent actions confirm that the sole purpose of the hear-ings was to undertake an evaluation for which under federal law only the.NRC has authority -- to assess whether the' draft Coun-ty plan would adequately ensure the safety of County residents in the event of an accident at Shoreham. This wrongful usurpa-tion of NRC authority was compounded by the legislators' igno-rance about fundamental aspects of nuclear power and their pre-disposition to reject the draft County plan, or, for that matter, any plan, for alleged reasons of safety.
Legislator: What type of fuel? I have a car and I pull into the gas station, and there is a high octane, low octane, regular, unleaded.
What type of fuel?
9
How long does it take to cool down and what is the radioactivity that would be released when you remove the head of the reactor?
Will [an employee working at the plant] take home any radioactivity to his family?
Leg. Tr. at 209-10. Another legislator stated the purpose of the hearings:
We are in a new industry, looking for,the -
kind of regulations and the kind of re-actability of the public so that there will be some maximum protection for the public, and that is precisely what the heart of this particular hearing and this particular pro-cess is about, and that is why we have to make a judgment call on what we believe to be the best in the interest of the County of Suffolk.
Leg. Tr. .at 228. Also on the hearings' first day, another leg-islator stated that his mind was already made up:
I don't know that the people that I represent could accept any plan that leaves them stranded at a geographical dead-end of an is-land in the event of some kind of mishap which we all say is infinitesimally remote
[ sic] possible, and yet it could or may occur. It depends upon the persons that you speak to that give you these statistical lev-els of probability that they may or may not occur at all. The point is that we have a nuclear (plant) that has been constructed, and the risk assessment that has been made by various experts, but no matter where you look the substantial communities of eastern Long Island, especially substantial in terms of population during certain times of the year as I said, are virtually excluded . . . .
Based upon the risk that I see and the exclu-sion of a substantial part of Long Island, I
e don't see how we could adopt a plan like this.
Leg. Tr. at 192. In response to a scientist who emphasized the extraordinarily low probability of an accident in urging that emergency planning continue for Shoreham, another legislator rejected statistical probabilities (which are used by the NRC to assess risks) in connection with emergency planning:
Doctor, I really recognize and appreciate you are talented in the field of nuclear science, '
as well as the gentlemen who have spoken be-fore you, and as well as all the statistics that we have received in the past and will receive many, many more, I am sure, before this is resolved, but I am sorry, there is just one thing that keeps going through my head. '
You say one in 1,000, one in 10,000, one in a million, one in a trillion. That only brings back to my thoughts a vessel that left England many years ago that was supposed to be sinkproof, and it sunk on its maiden voy-age. I mean, things like this happen. Don't tell me -- I mean, don't insult me by saying one in ten billion years, because it could happen the day Shoreham opens. We do not know. We are not God, and neither are you.
Therefore, it is our job to protect everyone on this island.
Leg. Tr. at 443-44. On the fourth day of legislative hearings, members of the public were invited to make three-minute state-ments to the Legislature, reflecting their views on Shoreham.
The first speaker began by saying "I am here to implore eve-ryone in this room who has the power to do so to prevent
permanantly the opening of the Shoreham plant." Leg. Tr. at 468. The statement was so long that the legislator chairing the session interrupted and embraced the views of,the speaker:
Legislator: Excuse me. I have extended your speech a few minutes.
Citizen: I am sorry. Thank you.
Legislator: May I just make one point? I know that you are here to express your views, and I believe we all have the same feelings on this particular issue . . . .
Leg. Tr. at 471. At the end of the hearings that day, the leg-islators were invited to comment. One legislator closed his remarks with the following statement:
[S]tay with the fight to the end, (and] I think wisdom might eventually prevail and maybe we will show that there can be no evac-uation planning and emergency pladning for Long Island, and maybe we will prove that there is no justification for Shoreham to open.
Thanks very much and stay with it.
Leg. Tr. at 575.
(39) A letter dated January 19, 1983 -- three days into the two weeks of hearings .nd one month before the Legis-lature voted on the draft County plan -- from a legislator to the President of the People's Action Coalition of Suffolk Coun-ty illustrates a subsidiary motive for holding hearings on the draft County plan:
As you will remember, I openly expressed my displeasure of . . . legislation relative to the Shoreham Plant. I maintained at the ti.ae that the most simple and direct answer to the problem would be institution of legal action by the County of Suffolk at the time the N.R.C. decides to issue the license and de-manding that LILCO prove the effectiveness of a viable Evacuation Plan. It stands to rea-son they could not do so in a million years and then, in my way of thinking, they could not activate the plant.
I understand your position that the plan should not be adopted; however, the reasoning behind the hearings for a so-called plan, at the present time, is to use the facts pres-ented as a basis for a future lawsuit.
A copy of the letter is attached to this Complaint.as Exhibit I.
(40) On February 16, 1983, defendant Cohalan issued a report "Concerning Radiological Emergency Preparedness in Suffolk County." Mr. Cohalan stated that:
Because of these insurmountable obstacles.
[Long Island geography and human behavioral-characteristics], the County Executive con-cludes.that no emergency plan can provide ad-equately for the protection of the public safety in the event of a nuclear accident at Shoreham. Thus, the Draft County Plan should be rejected. . . . The fundamental finding must be that, because of the inherent condi-tions on Long Island, there can be no pre-paredness adequate to protect the public ,
safety in the event of a serious accident'at, '
Shoreham.
O .
Cohalan Report at 6. That same day, Mr. Cohalan issued a sepa-rate statement, which included the following:
First, the unique local conditions on Long Island make it impossible to protect the pub-lic safety if there were a serious accident at the Shoreham plant. In short, there never can be emergency preparedness to protect our citizens.
Second, the result of no emergency prepared-
. ness is that Shoreham should never operate.
(Emphasis in original, as" reprinted in Newsday at 34 (February 17, 1983)).
(41) The next day, February 17, 1983, the Legislature adopted Resolution 111-1983, which stated, among other things:
[Since] no local radiological emergency re-sponse plan for a serious nuclear accident at Shoreham will protect the health, welfare, and safety of Suffolk County resi-dents, . . . the County's radiological emer-gency planning process is hereby terminated, and no local radiological emergency plan for response to an accident at the Shoreham plant shall be adopted or implemented . . . .
(S]ince no radiological emergency plan can protect the health, welfare, and safety of Suffolk County residents and, since no ra-diological emergency plan shall be adopted or implemented by Suffolk County, the County Ex-ecutive is hereby directed to assure that ac-tions taken by any other governmental agency, be it State or Federal, are consistent with the decicion mandated by this Resolution.
A copy of Resolution 111-1983 is attached to this-Complaint as Exhibit J.
l (42) The following week, on February 23, 1983, the County moved the NRC licensing board to terminate the Shoreham operating license proceeding as a matter of law on the ground that, absent County participation in emergency planning, there could be none, thereby obviating the need for further consider-ation of.LILCO's application for an operating license. Resolu-tion 111-1983 was the justification cited by the County for this wrongful attempt to prevent Shoreham's operation.
(43) After extensive briefing, the NRC licensing board denied the County's motion, Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-83-22, 17 NRC 608 (1983),
and referred its ruling to an NRC appeal board for interlocuto-ry review, Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-83-21, 17 NRC 593 (1983). By order dated April 26, 1983 (unpublished), the appeal board referred the li-censing board's decision to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission itself, which upheld the decision to deny the County's motion.
Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-83-13, 17 NRC 741 (1983). In its opinion, the licens-ing board correctly observed that the County's strategy was an impermissible attempt by a local government to regulate matters of nuclear safety, stating that:
l l
J
[T]he ability of any response plan to protect the health and safety of the public is a de-termination to be made by the NRC (in con-junction with FEMA), not by state and local governments. Therefore, a decision to nei-ther adopt nor implement a radiological emer-gency response plan based on a state or local government's assessment of what the public health and safety requires is clearly pre-cluded by federal law. Such a determination, particularly when accompanied by a finding that "no local radiological emergency re-sponse plan can protect the health, welfare and safety of Suffolk County residents," is clearly an attempt to regulate matters of ra-diological health and safety related to "the construction and operation of . . . (a]
utilization facility," and is thus preempted from state and local regulation by Section 274(c)(1) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954.
42 U.S.C. $ 2021(c).
Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-83-22, 17 NRC 608, 641 (1983).
(44) Although the centerpiece of the defendants' ef-forts to prevent Shoreham's operation has been their illegal attempt to veto issuance of an operating license by refusing to participate in emergency planning, a subsidiary effort has been mounted by the County in the NRC licensing hearings for Shoreham on countless issues unrelated to emergency planning.
Since the spring of 1982, the County has endeavored to expand and delay the proceedings as long as possible. This proceeding constitutes the longest and most involved licensing process in the history of commercial nuclear power in this country. Since
1982, over 10,000 pages of prefiled direct testimony have been submitted by LILCO, the intervenors (including the County), the NRC staff, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency; over 150 witnesses have testified; over 150 days of prehearing con-ferences and hearings have been held; over 100 witnesses have been deposed; and over 25,000 pages of hearing transcript have been generated. In September 1983, following the submission by LILCO, the NRC Staff, and the County of over 4,000 pages of proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, the licensing board issued its partial initial decision, which exceeded 1,500 pages. With few exceptions, th'e decision was strikingly favor-able to LILCO.
(45) Confirmation of the lengths to which the County has gone in attempting to prevent Shoreham's operation is re-vealed in the licensing board's partial initial decision.
After a long and thoughtful review of the enormous record and the proposed findings submitted by LILCO and the County, the board found that, as to the quality assurance issues raised by the County, issues that consumed approximately one-third of the hearing days to date:
"[T}he difficulty of [the board's] task, trying to be objective in consideration of each of the parties' submissions, is further compounded by the County's misrepresentation of the complete record -- by omission, selec-tive citations and distortion of recorded testimony.
Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit
(46) After the County's breach in February 1982 of its September 1981 emergency planning contract with LILCO, LILCO continued to develop the offsite plan. Shortly after the Coun-ty had abandoned that plan, LILCO explored with the County the possibility of refining the plan and using it as an interim plan while the draft County plan was being developed.
The County refused. Therefore, on April 29, 1982, LILCO met with New York State Commissioner of Health David Axelrod and William Hennesey, Chairman of the New York State Disaster Preparedness Commission (the "DPC"), and it was agreed that the offsite plan, which was nearly complete before being abandoned by the County, would be submitted to the DPC fer its review. This joint LILCO-County plan was submitted to the DPC on May 10, 1982.
(47) The DPC was obligated to review the joint LILCO-County plan because of Article 2-B of the New York Executive Law. 'In addition, on April 29, 1980, the State of New York and five utilities, including LILCO, entered into an agreement re-specting emergency planning at the utilities' nuclear power plants.
Under the contract, the DPC became obligated to engage i in offsite emergency planning in cooperation with each utility l
in exchange for payment by the utilities of $250,000, with a possible additional payment of $189,297. The utilities, including LILCO, fulfilled their obligation under this con-tract. In addition to the financial support afforded the DPC pursuant to the April 1980 contract, LILCO has paid the DPC substantial sums in accordance with the requirements of New York Executive Law $ 29-c(2)(a).
(48) In its letter of transmittal to the DPC on May 10, 1982, LILCO specifically noted that Suffolk County did not endorse the plan that was being submitted to the DPC. A copy of this letter is attached to the Complaint as Exhibit K.
(49) Notwithstanding the clear acknowledgment by LILCO that the emergency plan submitted to the DPC in May 1982 had been repudiated by the County, the defendants wrongfully and maliciously urged the Suffolk County District Attorney's Spe-cial Investigation Unit to bring criminal charges against LILCO- ,
for its alleged misappropriation of the joint LILCO-County plan. After investigating the County's specious accusations,
~
which constituted yet another facet of the County's unlawful attempt to disrupt LILCO's effort to license Shoreham, the Dis-trict Attorney declined to bring any charges against LILCO and stated that LILCO's action "was not an attempt to mislead any public agency," did "not rise to the level of criminal conduct," and "is not a matter for action by this office."
Letter from the District Attorney's office to the Suffolk Coun-ty Attorney, dated November 16, 1982 (attached to this Com-plaint as Exhibit L).
(50) The DPC reviewed the plan submitted by LILCO and returned it to LILCO with comments. LILCO responded to these comments, amended the plan, and resubmitted the plan to the DPC in the fall of 1982. The DPC Staff review found no diffi-culties with the Plan that would have precluded it from meeting all state and federal requirements.
(51) A hearing was scheduled for December 8, 1982, before the entire DPC, to consider the LILCO-submitted offsite emergency plan. The County was invited to attend and partici-pate. Rather than participate in the lawful administrative process before the DPC, and consistent with its unlawful strat-egy to frustrate emergency planning for Shoreham at overy op-portunity, the County sued the DPC in state court in Albany County and obtained a temporary restraining order on December 7, 1982, the day before the scheduled hearing. The court en-joined the DPC from meeting to consider the LILCO plan until a preliminary injunction hearing could be held.
1 1
1 (52) on December 15, 1982 Suffolk County, the DPC, and LILCO stipulated that the DPC would refrain from further action on the LILCO-submitted plan until February 23, 1983. The stip-ulation further provided that if the County did not file its own offsite plan witn the DPC for formal consideration on or before February 22, 1983, the DPC would (a) meet promptly to j take action on the LILCO-submitted plan, or any other plan the f DPC deemed properly before it, and, (b) if a plan were ap-i proved, . forward it to the Federal Emergency Management Agency to begin the federal review of the Shoreham Plan. Although the l C3unty's suit against the DPC was dismissed following the Leg-islature's passage of Resolution 111-1983, the DPC has yet to fulfill its contractual and statutory obligation to consider the LILCO-submitted plan.
(53) Since tha County's abandonment in the spring of 1982 of the emergency planning effort it was legally bound to undertake, LILCO has repeatedly contacted various County offi-I cials and sought to restore a cooperative effort to prepare and implement offsite emergency planning for Shoreham. Not only has the County rebuffed all such overtures by LILCO, the County has affirmatively acted to frustrate LILCO's attempt to contin-ue omorgency planning without the County's assistance. For ex-ample, in its statement filed with the County Legislature at
~35-
the start of its hearings on the so-called draft County plan, LILCO expressed hope that "there will be a renewed relationship of cooperation between the Company and the County on emergency planning as a result of LILCO's participation [in the Suffolk County Legislature's hearings]." Long Island Lighting Company's Presentation to the Legislature of Suffolk County on the November 1982 Draft Suffolk County Radiological Emergency Response Plan.at 27 (January 14, 1983). The Legislature's' re-sponse was Resolution 111-1983 and its motion to terminate the Shoreham licensing hearings.
(54) Following the failure of its motion to terminate the NRC licensing proceeding for Shoreham, the County proceeded to exercise its last remaining option before the NRC -- to raise every conceivable objection to the offsite emergency plan developed by LILCO. This latest offsite plan, which LILCO filed with the NRC on May 26, 1983, provides for LILCO person-nel to fill the gaps created in emergency planning by the Coun-ty's wrongful refusal to participate in the process. The Coun-ty filed 200 pages of contentions -- 97 in number, many with several subparts -- challenging the adequacy of LILCO's plan.
Almost.without exception, each of the County's contentions has its genesis in Resolution 111-1983 and;in the County's baseless insistence that, without its participation, effective offsite
-ki y.
L
l l
, emergency planning for Shoreham is not feasible. Following ex- 1 l
tSns'ive discovery in the fall of 1983 (which has not yet been l concluded) and the filing of thousands of pages of written di-rect testimony, the NRC licensing board commenced hearings on the County's offsite emergency planning contentions on December 6,
1983. Th,ese hearings are still in progress, and they are s
expected to continue through at least May 1984.
(55) Most recently, on March 8, 1984, the Governor of New York and the County simultaneously filed almost identical lawsuits _in state court in Albany and Suffolk Counties, respec-tively. The Governor and the County seek a declaration from the state court that, in effect, state and local ~ governments may exercise an absolute veto over the licensing and operation of nuclear power plants for reasons of radiological safety. By ,
- agreement among the parties, these cases are to be consolidated i.
in the Supreme Court of Suffolk County.- LILCO '.till vigorously defend against this latest wrongful effort to prevent Shoreham's operation.
(56) The acts and omissions of the defendants de-scribed above constitute an unlawful effort' under: color of state law (a) to arrogate to themselves regulatory. functions that belong exclusively to the NRC-and (b) to-deprive LILCO of.
its prepert'y without due process of l aw. .The defendants have-
'4
'%k
acted arbitrarily, capriciously, intentionally, and in bad faith.
Count 1 (57) LILCO incorporates by reference paragraphs (1) through (56) in this paragraph as if fully restated herein.
County Resolutions 262-1982, 456-1982, and 111-1983 and the subsequent acts and omissions of the County pursuant to these resolutions constitute an impermissible attempt by a local gov- i ernment to regulate and prevent the operation of a commercial l 1
nuclear power station on grounds of the County's purported con-clusions regarding radiological safety. In its enactment of the Atomic Energy Act, the Congress of the United States vested sole and complete authority and responsibility for regulation of matters respecting radiological safety with the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Therefore, under the Su-premacy Clause of the United States Constitution, Suffolk Coun-ty Resolutions 262-1982, 456-1982, and 111-1983 and all actions by the County and Cohalan pursuant thereto are illegal and void. "S Count 2 (58) LILCO incorporates by reference paragraphs (1) through (56) as if fully restated herein. Under the Atomic En-ergy Act, LILCO has a right to seek an operating license for Shoreham from the NRC. Until at least February 1982, and prob-ably until the County's adoption in February 1983 of Resolution 111-1983, LILCO reasonably assumed and was led by the County to believe that the County would not affirmatively oppose, because of purported concerns regarding emergency planning, LILCO's ef-forts to perfect its entitlement under the Atomic Energy Act to secure an operating license for Shoreham. The County's assess-ment of Shoreham as a nuclear plant for tax purposes is addi-tional confirmation that the County recognized and would not seek to interfere with LILCO's right to seek a license for Shoreham. Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the defendants are obligated to fulfill their governmental duties and responsibilities fairly and without malice toward any citizen, whether corporate or individual. The defendants' about-face regarding emergency planning for Shoreham, predicated as it was on an impermissible. usurpation of the NRC's exclusive regulato-ry authority, constitutes on arbitrary, capricious, and mali-cious deprivation of LILCO's property without due process of law.
Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, LILCO respectfully prays that the Court grant LILCO the following relief:
(1) As to Count 1, a declaration under 28 U.S.C. $
2201, 42 U.S.C. f 1983, the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, and the Atomic Energy Act that Suffolk County Resolutions 262-1982, 456-1982, and 111-1983 and all ac-tions predicated thereon are illegal and void; (2) As to Count 2, an injunction under 42 U.S.C. 5 a
1983 and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitu-tion requiring Suffolk County and Cohalan to fulfill their duty to exercise their governmental functions fairly by taking all reasonable steps necessary to assist LILCO in emergency plan-ning for Shoreham; (3) An assessment against the defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. f 1988 of LILCO's costs, including reasonable attor-neys' fees; and (4) Such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.
V Re :pectfully submitted, l LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY April 3, 1984 By kh,w / el 1-fr u ed/ !w
' Edward M. Barrett~
Rosalind M. Gordon Long Island Lighting Company 250 Old Country Road Mineola, New York 11501 (516) 228-2244 James E. Farnham W. Taylor Reveley, III K. Dennis Sisk Lewis F. Powell, III Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 (804) 788-8200
. COUNTY OF SUFFOLK -
Exhibit A John V. N. Klein .
COUNTY EXECUTIVE December 31, 1979 Ira L. Freilicher, Vice President Long Island Lighting Company 250 Old Country Road Mineola, New York 11501 Re: Memorandum of Understanding - Shoreham
Dear Ira:
Enclosed herewith is a photocopy of the original Memorandum of Understanding between the Long Island Lighting Company and the County with respect to emergency planning at Shoreham.
With the addition of paragraph 1, providing for mutual termina-tion on ten days notice, I have signed the agreement and made the County Executive-elect Peter Cohalan aware of such action, with which he is in agreenent.
If you >:ssh a copy executed in original, I would be glad to do so.
~
cere y yours, bnV.N.Klein l Suffolk County Executive l
JVNK:ds Enclosure cc: Honorable Peter F. Cohalan Suffolk County Executive-Elect i
l I
'OLet CoumTV E mECuvevo a.E nestavumr etset tiene. e vr va m aws MEuomen t eseoww ay se misPr a u C E. M v.t97e7 'e 596 999 7 l . --
.- *S *
. /,14 MEMORANDUM eP UNDERSTANDING l'ETWEEN ,
, .f gb 2
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK AND LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON EMERGENCY PLANNING -
In order to comply with 10CFR50_ Appendix E IV(D) and.to. provide
! for efficient and timely implementation of protective actions should they ever be required as a result of an accident at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station (SNPS), Suffolk County (County) and the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) have reached the following agreeacnts and understandings:
A. The (LILCO) Emergency Plan, defines accident conditions and delineates responsibilities and duties of the SNPS staff in the event of a potential radiological incident. The Emergency Plan Implementing Procedures will be implemented whenever conditions exist which have a si5 nificant probability of leading to elevated levels of radiation which might result in an onsite or offsite personnel hazard, and/or environmental concern. Certain nonradiological_ events at the plant may also result in activating portions of the-emergency organization. Emergencies have been separated into five' classifications which are explained in detail in Section 13 3 SNPS FSAR.
B. LILCO is_ responsible for the protect'ive action of notifying the following persons onsite and
- in the immediate vicinity of the site in the ;
event of an emergency:-
- 1. All persons whether LILCO employees or visitors within the " owner controlled area" of the site,
- 2. All persons on the jetties or on the shore-
. front th.at is part of the Shoreham site,
- 3 All persons within the L1LCO owned portion of the Wading River marsh on the northeast por-tion of the site, and
- 4. All persons associated with_the St. Joseph's Villa located on the Shoreham West site.
C. The County is responsible, in support'of New York State, for the notification and protective action of all, members of the public not specifically included in B, above.
- - , - - -+- ~e --v- - , ~e, w , n -w ,
. . 4 D.
+
LILCO agrecc to notify the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) or Warning Point, using the National Alert Warning System (NAWAS) under the following circumstances:
- 1. Upon declaration by the LILCO Emergency Director of a Plant Emergency as defined in Section 13 3 3 1,3 of the SNPS FSAR where significant potential
.'exi'sts for the emergency to become a Site or General Emergency, as defined in Sections 13 3 3 1.4-5,
- 2. Upon declaration by the LILCO Emergency Dir ector (within 15 minutes) of a Site Emergency or a General Emergency,
- 3. LILCO agrees to notify the County in a timely !
fashion (within 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />) upon a serious -
incident, regardless of whether such incident involves releases of radioactivity and LILCO also undertakes to notify the County of events
' which could, mistakenly or otherwise, be con-strued as a radiological incident, and 4._ Upon dispatch from the site of injured or sick per-sonnel who are contaminated with radioactivity and who are being transported to a local hospital (within 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />).
E. LILCO will install and maintain at its expense a dedi-cated telephone line connected to the NAWAS. Three telephones will be installed onsite, in the (1) Control Room, (2) Onsite Emergency Control Center, and (3) Al-ternate Onsite Emergency Control Center. The County will. provide a terminal for this line in its NAWAS system located in its Emerbency Operations Center in Yaphank, New York- .
3 F. In the event of a Site or'neneral Emerr,ency, LILCO agrees to notify the County Warning Point and to provide the following information:
- 1. Location and type of emergency,
- 2. Caller's name and means of communications contact if different than the predesignated telephone number, 3 Date/ Time of incident,
- 4. Wind speed and direction, and .
l l
qy -
~
3-5 Status of engineered cafeguards (working /not workins !
County EOCabove.
information, or. Warning Point will call LILCO to confirm LILCO will then provide as much of the following additional information as possible: .
- 1. Type of accident (transportation accident, reactor accident, fire involving radioactive material, liquiG
', discharge, fuel handling accident, accidental criti-cality, other), t
- 2. Primary effect to offsite areas (release to the at-mosphere, release to water, direct radiation),
- 3. Estimate of the quantity and type of radioactive material released or that may tur released,
- 4. Estimates of offsite two-hour whole body (immersion) and thyroid (inhalation) dose,
- 5. Perimeter survey results,
- 6. Pasquill wind stability category,
- 7. Status of safeguards (status of core coolant systems, containment integrity, etc.),
- 8. Additional offsite agencies notified and nature of request and response, and
- 9. Other pertinent information.
0.
The County and LILCO agree to coordinate their efforts in the release of information to the public to provide the public with accurate and timely information.
H.
- LILCO agrees to conduct at least one drill annually to test communication channels in which the County will be invited to participate.
I.
This agreement may be terminated by either party upon 10 days 4
written notice to the other party.
e 1
l l
l
(
- - + . ,, , - , - - - , - , - - - . , - .- - - , - - , -.
li FOR SUFFOLK COU TY Signature f . -
Date /M-8'77 Title FOR LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Signature,__
. ._ y hn h g Date December 26, 1979 b
Title Vice President 4
e
- --m, - - - - . , , - , .
. . C)
Exhibit B t
3 TM13. ACREDtCff, as entered into as of this 16 day ofbyts be j1931,
- by and betwe=n the Long Island LigEttng Company (hereinaf ter referred to as "L1LC0") and the County of Suffolk, acting through its Department of Flannias *
(hereinaf ter referred to as the "DEFARttENT").
~
VITNE35Ett THAT: ,
WREREAS LILCO desires to enter into a contract with the DEFARE:E3T
- to render certain technical and professional services hereinaf ter described.
N$t, THERETDRE, the parties hereto do mutually agree as follows:
- 1. Emelov nent of contractor. LILCO hereby agrees to engage the 1
DEFARTMC.T and the DEFARttENT hereby agrees to perform the services herein-1
, af ter set forth. The relationship of the partis hereto shall be that of client and independent' contractor; neither the DUARt!EST nor any persea hired by the DEFAAttENT shall be considered employees of LILCO for any i
purpose.
, 2. Scooe of services. The DEPAAttENT shall prepare a County liadio-logical E=orsvacy Response Flan, as retvired by, Toderal Regulettions la effect on the date of this Agreement for the Lff.C0 Shoreham Tuc1 car Power Station.
Said Flaa shall be prepared in accordance with the description contained la clause 3 " Work Statement". The DEFAtttENT represents that it has read and 'is familiar with the applicable Federal Regulations set forth ta Exhibit 3 attached hereto and that the Did'AAttENT believes it esa Javelop a County Radtological Energency Response Flan which ensplies with such regulations.
- If reviatotta to the afaresaid Federal Regulations stull be maJe Juring the period of this Agressent, calltag for chan,cs ist the score of wrk, then the '
prwvimiens of clause 10 " Changes la scope" of this Agree =ent Will arply. '
- 3. yogh, Star.%me.
I I
{ a. The DEt'ARTMctT shall perform the activities Jewribed in the SC0F . OF WAK appwnded hereto as Exhibit A. . -
- b. The DLPAtttENT shall conform to the TvJeral ::wsvlaticas ,nd gu1Jc11nes !!=ted in tahtbit 3. .sppended hereto, in the far=Jtton of outputs ,
i of .se.ttwittwa Jescrit.ed la Estilble A.
l Rev. 1 .
j 1/11/82
[ 4 . 1 i
l *
, , . - - , - -------,--a - - , - - ~ - , , , --w -en--,m--,. - - - - ~ -
l ,
- c. Vherever specialized technical and scientific inouts are
- necessary, the DEFAA3ENT v111 retain, af ter consultation with LILCO, the services of appropriate experta, at the CE7ARW ENT's expense.
4., Time of performance.
l 4.
t The DEFART:ENT will make every effort to complete,the tasks i
listed in Exhibit A withia 6 aanths from the date of execution of this Agreement, subject to the cisely response by yederal and State agencies to reqseats- for information, and the timely receipt of yederal and State concurrancas with the draf t and final Emergency Radiological Ras onse Plans. .
In the evaar, the DEFA1 MENT fails to receive timely response from yederal and ~
f tate agencies to requests for information*, the DEFAR2EN! shall promptly notify L"00 . in writing of such failure. .. *
- b. The OEFA1 Ni vill lasue monthly progress reports, and distribute them to LILca, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Tederal Emergency-Management Agency, the New York State Department of Health, the Suffelk County Lagis14ture, and.other involved and interested agencies .
aa specified by LILCD and agreed to by the DEFARDENT. The DEFANT agrees .
- to provide LIL:3 with reasonable access to eli memoranda, correspondence, professional qualification records of employees performing under the contract, papers, reports, stdies and similar documeats prepared by or obtained by the DEFAAZENT in connection with the performance of its obligations under this contract. L:LCD 'shall give the DEFAE2.ENT 7 days' notice of its intea-tion to exercise its rights under this paragraph.
- 3. Suoervision and Personnel.
- a. . All work perferned bythe DENA12ENT shall be under the direct supervision of Lee E. Esppelaan. . . "
4.
The DEFAEDIENT. represents that it has, or vill secure at its ova expense, all personnel required to perform the services covered by this Agreesent. 'Such personnel shall not be employees of, or have any contractual ,
relationship with, L 1::3. .
2-
. e J
- - - , . - . - - , . , . ~ , - - , -, , -
, s
- 4. Coenensatten* LILOC agrees to reimbu'se r the DEFARTMCrT on a fixed price basis; total es:pensation shall be TTO HUC RED AND TCETT-TIVT.
THCUSAND ($243,CCC.00) 00LLUL3 for the services described in clause 3 "Verk Statement" of this Agressent unless this Agreement is an' ended as provided herein. De DEFA10:Er! shall be co=pensated according to the
~
following payment schedule .
4
$130,000.00 on execution of this Agreement; Balance on Completion. .
- 7. Mendiscriminartee. De DDA2m shall not discriminate.
I directly or indirectly, on the grounds of race, color, religion, sex, age.
l national origin, or physical handicap is.its a=ployment practicas related i
to this Agreement. De DDA1:2N: shall take affirmative steps to ensure that applicants are esployed and employees are treated during employment vinhout regard to race, color, religion, ser, age, or national origin.
- 4. Interest of Contrac or. D e DEFARDENT represents that it presently has no interest and will not acquire any interest, direct or .
indirect, which would . conflict is any sammer or degree with the performance of services required to be performed under this Agreesent. The DDA121Z3T further represents that. La the perfor=ance of this Agreement, no persos having any such interest shall be esployed.
- 9. Title of Procertv. Title to property acquired under this Agreement vests with the D DARO 237. l
- 10. Chaetes in Seece. If during the period of this Agreement, any change is the relevant Federal regulations causes as Lacrease or decrease
- in the DDA1023T's cost of, of the time required for, the performance of any part of the work under this Agreeennt, an equitable adjustment shall be made and this agreesent modified in writing accordingly. No charge i shall be made to LIICO for any chaage er increase in the eklisations of
- the D DAADtDr! requiring extra work under this Agressent, unless the parties
{ esecute such an Agreeneet specifyiss the work to be done therenader and the cost thereof. Disputes over such as adjustment shall be resolved as provided
. la clause 11 "3emedies" of this Agreement.
4 3
. 11. Ree.dtes. This Agreement shall be interpreted according to to the laws of ihe ' State of New York. All claims, counter-claims, disputes and other matters la question between LILCO and the DDAROfENT arising out ,
of or relabing to this Agreement er the breach thereof shall be decided by arbitration la accordance with the ' rules for commercial disputes of the
- American Arbitration Associatica in the City of New Tork. The parties j hereto agree that the deter =ination of said arbitration shall be final and '
binding upon the parties hereto and that a judgment en said averd may be entered as a judgment of record la the Suprese Court of the State of
- New York. The fees and expenses of thr. arbiters shall be borne equally by the parties. Claims and disputes shall be defined as any for=al writtes complaint which r==ataa unresolved between the parties after reasonable 1
efforts to resolve s'uch matters have failed. *
- IN VITNE55 WEREOF, LI140 and the COU::TT have executed this Agreement i
e as of the date first above written. -
- APPROVED E. M. BARRETT Losc IsIA.c LIcuT:sc Ccxraxr GEN *L COUNSEL 3,hT? Dee. Tlii n 6 Eyt f...(W,/. s t. %e' W Mattaew C. Cordaro, Vice-President SUTTOLE COU:.":T DDARTP.ZNT OF FIAh'::Dic i
. A r. Ad 1 Le E. Kappelmaa, Diredtor '
CCCNTT OF SUFFOLE Am.m . , .
Nor REVII'4ED AS TO EXIC:: TION Sys O --m.g
, (#ha C. C411asner /
Chief Deputy County EseWutive Alf red JACksqa, Jr. y/g/ff Deputy County Attorney -
s 4
9 e *
~
- 6. e *
, , . . , . - . , , , - . . - - - - , - - . . , - . . . , , . . - , .-. , - - . n .-
. ~ . ,
,,..e
STATE CF NW YCkK) l I
- e.:
cCunTY cr sA55Au )
Cn this / D day of 'd$1981,before personally came
/
MATTHW C. CCRDARC, to me known, and known to as to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing instrument as Vice-President of, the LCNG 15tx;3 LICHTUtc CCMFAh'Y, and he duly acknowledged to se that he esecuted,the same.
$ # L *
/ Notary Puhite .
t :.;.. . ;M ' 4 SuttCrxn rCu) ~ f- . . . . . a. 5M ss.
CCUNTT CF SiTTCLK) .
On this 5 [ day of 1981, before me personally came LEE E. KOFFII?xt, to se known, who being by se duly evorn did depose and says That he resides at Suffolk County, New York; that he is the Director of the SUFTCLE CCThiT SEFARUIENT CT P' A33t:c, described herein, and which executed the above (natrument, and that it was executed by
, , order of thes, arid that he signed his name thereto by like order.
s .t
,g g,,7 p,., . ,
tassau.
- efrFJELit.au:s of See ?qq 5 ns usms.s STATE CT NE'. YCRK) m:a 3.nre t surs
- ==e==.nes. w i n u p -
ss.:
corm or terrot.K) -
1 Cn this [Jayo['[ 1981, before se personally come JCHN C. CALUJllXEX, to se known, who being by se duly sworn did depose
, and say: That he reetdes at Suffolk County, h v York; that he is the Chief Deputy County Executive of Suffolk County, and that he executed the within instrument, and that he signed his name thereto by order of the County Executive of Suffolk County.
A w
Notary fuo p %
.mmaA 3A88* 'd ge,,p:sst.t.m es see W -
anumaQ l " ;*
i g .
- g[V
-*=* M l .
5=
\
F
i , .
, TXMI*t? A S'CCpt CF Ucp.K
- i j sineThephases. preparation of the County Radiological E=ergency Response FIan consists of
, Planning (the DEFAAO*ENT) will provide overall canagement and te tien, and will be responsible for preparing document draft input tions to existing' docu=ents). typing, pricting, and distribution.(orIn=edifit.a- the Flan, de- the velopment and effectuation of the Emergency Radiological Response .-
DgFARDENT seats to the maximum may utilize degreeand possible.e= ploy the res;sasible County agencies and Depart-1sifolk County saarsency planaias organisations, the State of . and New YorkThe work already p 7 will be utilized to the fullest extent practicable. ether New York counties surro r
, Each phase and its assectated tasks is discussed belows
- i F5ase T - Assess Suffolk County hereenev p!ar.ni:=e ' feeds The purpose of this phase is to review and assess the present status of the County energency preparedness program and to take recommendations for a de=
Response Flam and its Implementing Procedures. called progran concernias sch ,
, plish its energency planning responsiht11 ties sad could add
, further phases and tasks described below.
- i
- fallow. .
The specific tasks to be perfor=ed
[ Task No. ~ l C
' Review and' evaluate existing Suffolk County plans and procedures 2
- the level of effort needed to bring them into compliance with and deter tae existing u a- reg l tions.
Develop a schedule and aa acties plan that would accomplish this.
~
4 Task No. 2 '
- ties /conauaication systens with these parties involved. Review existing ev Develop a detailed programrequireseats.
-existing for upgrading or developing these plans and systems ia order to ases
,_ Task No. 3 .
j' Evaluate Suffoth Ceuary's independeer environ-ental radiological assitortag 2
.masts.
capabilities and determine steps nee.essary to bring this capability
' LI1C3 and New York State.This task shall be coordinated with other work in this area done by
' Methods and equipseat required to perform radio-
, logical assessments ta a degree desired by County officials is order to sees applicable lawe and regulattens will be determined.
{ Task Me. & .
ldevelopadetailedreceanendedapproachtomeettheseneedsl Prepare a nee and provide a re-
' t fiaed schedule for both the plaa and its respective impleneating precedures.
J 4-l i -
t .
l l
~
? .. .. . .. ,
O
. a ., .
..:- - w 2. - : =. . a. _ ..: - s e e
)
. 1 l
Phase II - Develoecent of Desf t Suffolk County Radiatoeies! Emereenev Res-ense Plans The purpose of this phase voeld be to develop a County RERP that incorporates all necessary infor=ation and which is suitable for review by all appropriate l
agencies. The specific tasks to be performed follow.
Task No. 1 * .
Perform an in-depth review of participating County government organizations and their existing radiological energency response plans. -
Task No. 2 Identify County agencias involved in emergency planning, define the authoriza- -
tion and responsibilities of these agencies, and identify the cognizant La- _
dividuals withis each agency.
Establish technical and managerial liaisee with the responsible individuals in the County preparedness agency. LECD, New York State, the Nuclear Regula-tory Carnission , and the Tederal Isergency .".aoagensat Agency.
Task No. 3
- The DEFA.K"N win conduct fa=iliarization asetings with the cognizant indi-viduals in the County energency preparedness agencies. The DEPARD!ELT will provide guidance and background concerning the rols and contributica of each agency in the emergency planaias process, and recommend asasures which will result in the aest efficient planaias activity.
Ta'sk No. &
- O t
Identify a list of available Couary resources so that the overall emergency plan win aake maxi =sm use of these resources. The DEFAROtENT wiu develop checklists and prepara discussion agenda to ensure that the initial survey
' Laformation is obtained la as orderly fashion, is properly documented, and is complete.
These discussions vill help determine assignment of various respons:
bilities to applicable energency preparedness agencias and will also provide as effective problems.
forzat for identifying special emergency planning situations and/or Task No. $ '
Manage the RZRF development effort. The DEPAR2tDIT wiu identify. individual agency tasks, responsibilities and interfaces to ensure maximus coordination and to facilitate the preparation of the draft plan.
1 The execution of Task No. 3 vill require the completion of the following sub-tas ks . .
Subessk No. 3.1 4
g Euilding os the work done in Phase 1 Task 3 those agencies or organizations havtag some radiological assess =ent role during the energency will be identifia and their responsibilities will be delineated. Discussions will be held with the Depar: ment of Energy Regional Coordisating Office to deteratae their assis.
tance role. The specifications, procurement and instal 14 tion of this equipment is not included as part of this. program.
1
- * . l l .
. - 1-
[ .
- O e.
4 g
Subessk ve . 5.2 ,
Review the existing or proposed con =unications ' network between the responsible Tederal agencies. State and local officials. n C0 and field survey tea =s to ensure that the system is ef fective and reliable.
Subessk No. 5.3 -
Review and outline existing development of an early warning system for the general public. Individuals responsihte for c.aintaining and actuating this system viu be identified and their specific roles viu be determined. Twenty-four (26) hour per day operational capability of the system shall be a prograa ,
requirement. . .
~
Subtask No. 3.4 '
Incorporate into the County RI22 the energency action levels developed for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station in accordance with h*JRIG-0610.
Subensk No. 5.5 Incorporate the prepared evacuatica plans and associated time esticates into
. the caaty Plan.
TJsk No. 6 .
nis task vul be perfor=ed in parallel with Task No. 3, and will comprise the following suhtasks:
Subtask Mo. 6.1 0
The RI2F vill also include the use of protective naasures other than general
'evacuatins. De fonoving protective action response options will he developed
- Initial Frecautionary Operations (i.e., institur. ion of road blocks, etc.)
- Selective Evacuatica
- Seleetive Sheleering
- General Sheltering
- Zadioprotective Drug Ad=inistratios
- j - Isolation of Ingestion Pathways and Sources : .
S4ensk No. 6.2 the emergency planning needs for special facilities and/or problems will be
.sddressed is this subcask along with the development of preliminary. approaches -
for dealing with them. Tatilities having special emergency planning needs and/
or problems include, but are not linited to, the fonovings
- Bospitals
, - fursing/Ratireaant Rooms l - Jails j - 2ecreational Areas >
- Airports Task No. y Prepers' and issue the dne RI2P for Licensee, State and local agency review and connent. This RE3P shall emphasize proper and effective coordination be-tween the responsible emergency preparedness agencies. All authorities and responsiblities, as determined in Task No. 2, will be clearly delineated in the plans. .
i
- e 6
. m a ,
Phase ITT - Presarmeien of T1: a1 teereenew Ressanse Plan The objective of this phase,vould be to finalize the emergency plan for sub-mission to the Nuclear Regulatory Co=nission and to the Federal E=ergency V.anas ment Agency. The following taks vill be completed during this phase.
Ta'sk Ma. 1 . .
Conduct meetings with the responsible County energency planning officials, the 1.icensee, and New York State officials to discuss their comments on the draf t plan' and to secure action, Were necessary, to resolve outstanding concerns.
Task No. 2 Cather inputs and other information from County and State planning representa-tives and the Licensee as necessary to resolve outstanding differences.
Task No. 3 Fina11ae the C unty and State emargency plans by incorporating the infor ation developed in Task No. 2. The I?AJt~'T vill print and distribute the final-ised plans to all parties.
Task No. 4 .
Coincident with Task No. I above, the DEyAJtDENT and the cognizant energency planning agencias will finalize the development of plans for the previously identified special emergency planning situations and/or solutions to problems.
Task No. $
0
- Coordinate final plan sign-off eastings, print and distribute final plans to the licensee, State and local agencias and other organizations as designated by the County.
Phase IT - Assist in Cbesinint yederal Atenev Staf f Cencurrence 'Jith !. ertenev Plans The objective of this phase is to confer with the reviewing Tederal agency staffs to discuss their con =ents and to develop a program for obtaining agency concurrence with the plans developed in Phases I through III.
Task Mo. 1 -
Participate .in meetings with the 51tc. TD'k, and other responsible agency staffs to discuss the plans and, to the extent possible, resolve consission and agency concerns. ,
~
Task No. 2
- l Discuss agency comments with the County and State energency planning representa-l tives and the Licensee to develop a program to reselve outstanding differences.
[
75ase ? - Presaracion of RE?.P Testementing Procedures The objective of this phase is to develop detailed implementing procedures for the County Radiological Emergency Response Plan. ,
.g.
t
l
- . 6 j . =
' Task No. I \
J Develop a listing of all ne,cessary icalenenting procedures for the County '
emergency response plan. Any available local specific operating procedures will he utilized to the maximus extent feasible.
Task No. 2 * .
Hold discussions with the Comty emergency planning organisations to ensure that they are fully aware of the latest Tederal require =ents for preparing satisfactory implementing procedures. Develop deca 11ed outlines for each ta-plementing procedure in cooperation with County emergency planning coordinators Task No. 3 ,
The DEFMO:Drf will prepare draf ts of the i plementing procedures and distrib-ute them to the respective agencias for review and approval. -
- I Task No. 4 .
Coordinate co=nents from the agencias and prepare final draf ts of the proca-durea. .
, Taek No. 5 ,
The DEFAJtO:Crf will assist the Councy agencies in emetings held with the NRC,
' TD*.A. New York State, or other reviewing agencies as necessary to obtain final approval of the procedures.
i phase vt - Noef ficattee Svstem Taterration
.s Is cooperation with L .C0 and work Wich LUC 0 contracted to an indepenleat consultant experienced in site evaluation, system design and syaces specifica-i tion, the DEPRn: Err shall deter =1:e the resources, both administrative and physical. that are required to comply with the NRC 13.ainute DZ notification regulation and assist in review of the preparation of specification and pro-curenset of the necessary hardware. Installation and test procedures would also be developed upos selec: ion of a vendor. Actual installation would be accomplished by others.
- 1 Task No. 1
- Review survey of the 10-eila EFZ including demographic, topographic and geo-l graphic considerations that determine the characteristics of the required warning / notification systes. Also, review the evaluation of existing notifica.
ties capabilities, such as town and village fire department sirens.
s Task No. 2
- The DEFAJtn: INT will verk jointly with IILCD to: -
- 1. select the nofification systan(s) that will be utilized;
- 11. review list of commercial 1r available equipseat and vender selection /
I qualification; and 111. develop systes installation and test procedures.
y h . Q e
n -r , , - - , . , . , , , . - , -m-.w - , - - , . . - - - ~ .n- ., , - ~+ -
-~ _~- - . - . - - - - _. - - - -- - - . - - . - _- . -.-_
~. . .
~ '
~
=
Phase VTT - Pubite Iducation Freeras
. Task No.1 - Oe fine Protras Scone ,
i -
- During this task, the detailed scope and content of the public education infor-i nation program will be identified af ter consultation with and concurrence by Ut
- 2. Work completed or in progress by UL 0 shall also be reviewed and eval-usted. Examples of itaas which will be addressed include
- brief factual infomation on radiation
.- sources for additional informatios during energency (i.e., Isergency Broadcasting Systaa)
. - guidance on respiratory protection
- protective actica response options such as sheltering and evacuation .
- emergency response. planning areas (say) ,
- evacuation routes (say)
- reception center assis=nent and locatica l - provisions for identifying transit captives and those individuals requiring i
special handling who live in privata residences
- ingestion exposure safeguards
- what plans and preparations can be made now
- l 4
- things to take during evacuation (checklist) '
- ascification or alerting system details (sirens, etc.)
- method for notifying authoricias that residents have lef t their ho=as
- -(varification/ confirmation)
Ta s k No.' 2 - Me thod o f M ,,,-4.. .< -
- During this task, the means of disseminating the infor=ation to the public vill i be developed and supported by detailed procedures for=ulated jointly by the DEPARTMENT and U1. 0. These methods could include 3
2
~
a regional infor:iation centers
= periodic information la utility bills
- public service announcements (radio and TT)
] = ads is periodicals (local newspapers and sagazines)
- posting in public areas
- pamphlets distributed as a periodic basis %:
- information la the telephone book *
- distribution to school children /FTA seetings I - local governseat/cosm: unity meetists
- - telephone infor=ation service
. Task No. 3 - Procras Teolementation
' i During this task, the program will be implemented via procedures incorporating details developed in Tasks No. I and 2.
Ph ase v!!! - Testimental Services 4
At the request of Suffolk Cassity or appropriate Federsi er State agencias
, . having jurisdictica er supervisies over Energency Response Flans, the DEFARTMEN will provide expert witness testisosy before local State and/or Tederal regula d
, tory agency boards, concerning all energency p14naies work performed by the DEPARZXENT.
l l ,
I *
=
l ,
e t , _ - . - -. ,
, , . 1 pase IX - Radiotocical t erranev Resoonse Trainint In cooperation with I.II,C0 and New York State, where practical, and in support of the overall Kadiological*E=ergency Resoonse Progras, the CEPAAINE.NT will provide personnel training services for all progran participants. E=phasis vill be placed on the following disciplines: .
- emergency plan and procedure faciliariaation *
- use of radiological sutvey instruments
- radioactive vaste diaposal zethods and techniques
- radiation protection easures
- deconta=ination procedures
- radiological exposure control record keeping *
- dost=etry
. - notification procedures .
- evacuation methodology
- radiological accident prognosis
- protective action response option evaluation, process I
. e
(
i e
- g .
.* . 9 6 8
- u.
l .
,g _ _. _ m - -_ - - - - - - - - - - - ---
N .
EW TATT 5 Cotdeline Secueents .
All finalized plans and procedures vill be developed to meet NRC TIP.A. EPA and any other applicable regulatory requireal :s it effect at,the date of the execu tion of this Agreement. It is the intentier of the DEFAJtT :E rt therefore, to
. utilize the following criteria as the basic guideline documents for the develop meat of the appropriate plans and implementing procedures.
- a. NUREG-0396
. " Planning 3 asis for the Development of State and Local Covernment F.adio- .
logical Energency Response Flaas in Support of Light k'ater Nuclear Fever
- Plants" Dececher, 1978 *
- b. 2rt: REC-0610
" Draft Emergency Action Level cuidelines for Nuclear Fever Flants" 5eptember, 1979 . ,
- c. EPA-320/1-73-001 1
"Mamael of Protective Action Cuides and Proteccive Actions for Nuclear Incidenes" Septaaher,1975
& 10 C7150 Appendia E C <
" Emergency Flaas for Production and Utilisation facilities"
- e. BUIEG-0634. FIMA-RZF-1 Rev.1 .
" Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response
. Flaas and Preparedness in Support of Yuclear Fover Plants" Novemb er, 1980. e A
e e
l 9
12 i
t 1
i e
- l , -.
L
a Exhibit C COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
,a DEPARTMENT OF PL ANNING LEE E. KOPPCLM AN oenecion or PLaNMcNG February 19, 1982 w ee
- Long Island Lighting Company Executive Offices 250 Old Country Road Mineola, New York 11501 Re: Radiological Emergency Response Plan l
Gentlemen:
We wish to inform you that based on current evaluation we believe an apparent conflict of interest exists in accepting your funds for the preparation of the County's Radiological Emergency Response Plan. Accordingly, we will return the funds you advanced and will not call for any further funds.
The County will continue, as required by law, to develop a plan consistent with the requirements of law and its obligation to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the people.
Very truly yours, C
Lee E. Koppelman Director of Planning LEK:ej e
)
l 1
l i
L v:gramas womene'ad wie way . - "auceause.d si new vong , _ _ - N
Exhibit D
,#4j @ '
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY 17 5 EAST OLD COUNTRY ROAD
"'* * " ,*,5*,"!,',", ~ March 17, 1982 Dr. Lee E. Koppelman Director of Planning County of Suffolk H. Lee Dennison Bldg.
Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, NY 11787 Re: Contract Between Suffolk County and LILCO Regarding Emergency Planning
Dear Dt. Koppelman:
Your letter of Februar 19, 1982, indicates that Suffolk County intends to return $y150,000 that LILCO has paid to the County pursuant to a contract under which the County is to receive financial assistance from LILCO to help defray the County's expense in preparing its Radiological Emergency Response Plan for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. Pursuant to 1982.the contract, the County is to complete its plan by March 18, Your letter of February 19th also states that LILCO should not of the make the final County plan.payment that will become due upon completion i
LILCO, however, has requested neither the return of the
$150,000 i make finalpaid to date nor the discharge of its obligation to payment.
l the County believes that acceptance of these payments consti-The Comp tutes a conflict of interest.
LILCO is relying on the County to perform its obligations under this contract and will be damaged severely if the County fails to perform these oblig'ations fully.
the return of any monev paid under this contract unless theLILCO will not' accept County first assures the Company in writing (1) that acceptance of this mone;- by LILCO will not be construed to release or discharge the County from its obligations under the contract, I
(2) that the County intends to perform its obligations under the contract, ani (3) that the return of this money will not impair the fully.
County's ability to perform its contractual obligations The Company intends to make final payment in accordance with the terms of.the contract.
LoNo ISLAND UGHTING COMf44NY Dr. Lee E. Koppelman Director of Planning County of Suffolk March 17, 1982 -
Page 2 1, ,
If you would like to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact me.
' Very truly yours, g2 Luv f.
cc: Hon. Peter F. Cohalan i
David J. Gilmartin, Esq.
W. T. Reveley, III, Esq.
I. L. Freilicher, Esq.
O I
l j .-
f 1
e s
$. m g
Exhibit E In tro. Re s .' tto.' 1266-82 i
Introduced oy the Presiding at the request of thu County Laid on Toblo 3/9/82 Executive j RESot37ICN !!O. 262- 1952, DIRECT!UC THE i' 4 COMPTnottCA AND COUNTY TRCASURCA TO RCFOND
$150,000 RCCCIVED FRC:t LItCO AtID TRANSTERRIt!C TUNDS IN C0tuadCTICN WITH RADICT OCICAL RESPCNSE PLAN.
WHEREAS, Resolution !!c . 694-1991 aut.6.cri:ed an agree ent between LILCO ano eno r.*dlological emergency Suf folk County Oeoartnant rc:ponse of Planning fer the preparation of a coun ty plant and
~
WHCREAS, under the te rms of the agrec. .nt, LILCO has paid the County of suffolk and 3150,000 with an cdditionai $95,000 due upon compintion of the contract; WHEREAS, special counsel for the County in the Shoreham operating licensing the County proceedings to has advised the County that it is in the best interest of
$110,000 avoid any appearance of a conflict of interesc by returning the received from, LILCO for the radiological response plans and WHERIAS, it l response plan at its own expense; now,is the intention there fore ,ofbethe it County to co=piste the radiolo REccLVED, that to return $150,000 to LILCO the County Comptroller and Count'y Treasttrar are diracted and be it furcharf,1 RESOLVED, that the County Comptroller and County Treasurer are directed to cancel the unexpanded balance in the followin,g encumbrancest.
01-8026-932
' .. 01-8026-993 01-8026-904 sed be it further R250LVED, tha t the County comptroller and County Treasurer be,
-harchy are authorized to transfer the following funds and authorizations and thcy
- fn0H Enployeo Sanefits Realth Insurance
\
01-9060-836 $275,000 10,
- Planning Radiclogical Respense Plan (cffice Supplies) 01-3026-301 10,000 Planning i
Radiological 01-4025-304 Response Plan (Printing) 19,000 Planning 1)
- r.adiolo.3 cal Response Plan (Misc.)
01-80:G-350 40,000 I
e 4
( *
[ . *
$ e t
l.
e 6
In t ro*.' Ais 126f.-32 Pags 2 P!:nning A 41:! gical Response Plan (Adv.)
01-3025-J77 1,000 Pl.a nn Rig
's..diological Rase. case Plan (Hileage) 01-5026-433 5,000 .
Planning -
P..diological Ra Q:n'so Plan (Fees for services for non-E=plcyees 300,000 01-3026-456
.nd ha it further RESOLVE'3, tha t P.:diological Estrgency Response the County Plan Planning' to serve Ca paInterest rtmen t shall prepare 4 County u-1 fare of the.casidants of Suf folk Caunty; andthe ba it further o f :a f ety, healt>t anci RISCLVED, that said plan shall not be operable and shall not be dec.med adequate and capable of being implemented until such time as it is approved by the Su' folk County Legislature; and .
. RESQLVED, tha t only after Legislature, shall it be submitted to said and the plan is approved by the Suffolk County the Federal Emergency llanag emen t Aqcncy liuclear Re d e t e r: sin a ti:n s , ruling s , g ula ccry Comisis sion for reviews, or haartngs by suca rederal_ agenctas.
purposes of any findings, Dr.'I3 : March 23, 1332-APPRC _ Ya fb --
Csuntyscxecutive om suffoix County Date of Approval: 3[J., f [ V-t -
SUFFOt.K COUNTY l
- i* ** .- -
C.,inry Kegisknar, .nn4 ..
r sam H. R gers. Clerk of the
- llVERHEAD. N. Y. County legis!:ture of the County of Suffsik, have corn e.
feceroing copy of resolution with the original resolution ~
no this office. and w hich was duly adopted by w on the Gle in County 1 County on h yc./)Jklf?cI/ .agislatur:ofsi.id t.nd that thesameisatruetro'c rtttc:nscript f the whole thereof. a saidresslution:ndof
- 3. Daano.. Jh 4 < wr se:I of the County L t ..w . . . :eunta set my hand and the ofCcial .
, .e County of Suffolk be.. ~ - - -
. .. !.' *$ .h C!cr!s of the Cc,unty lesta . f * .. -
e.
- ured
,w 1
t
. . Exhibit F f~, ' '
M 1
SUFFOLK COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING EVACUATION PLANNING GROUP '
H. Lee Dennison Building Veterans Memorial Highway N Hauppauge, N.Y. 11788 -
~
MEMORANDUM
. . May 12, 1982 .
TD: Frank Jones Deputy' County Executive FROM: Robert Meunkle .
. Planning Department . .
RE: Suffolk County Radiological Ecergency Response Plan (SCRERP)
The purpose of this memo is to clarify some aspects of what has been done with respect to the SCRERP. Initially, let me indicate that everything you have to date was written and prepared by the County.
I must also state that, until the very recent intervention by the/
County at the Nuclear RegulaMry Comission hearings, we were working' in a cooperative vain with LILCO, therefore, their preparation and printing of the exhibits that were designed 'by the County were to save the County ..
time and money. Subsequent to the law suit. I received instructions froni Dr. Koppelman to end our formal relationship with LILCO and to get from the utility whatever was then in the pipelinf.s.1his has been done.
. There also appears to be some confusion as to can'sultants, again I must stress, that the discussions relative to consultants was prior to the County's legal . actions. .
. s There were 'two distinct areas where we have asked the utility for assistance. One was when we suggested they retain KLD Associates to do the dynamic analysis of the evacuation routing assignments. We requested this because the County did r:st have the in-house computer or traffic -
model capability needed, and predicated on inquiries we had made, it was apparent that KLD had the state-of-the-art model which was proprietary.
. . In addition, we wanted someone.(as did the utility) to independently verify our time estimates for the various evacuation senarios as postulate'd in NUREG 0654, Appendix IV. The initial meeting with XLD occurred on -
December 30, 1981. ,
, . . ~;
M.W U 0.-(\1
) :'J " '; 'c.'.0
.. !.S . .
4020438 '
. . c
. e, . Frank Jones May 12, 1982 The second major area we asked the utility for assistance with were
, items within the Health Services portion of the SCRERP. The firm of Stone ard Webster., already acting as consultants to LILCD on their emergency plan, were asked by the utility to work with us on the County Health Services portion of the local plan. This occurred in early March. Subsequent to your directive to me on April 15, 1982, and further reinfon:ed by a discussion with Dr. Koppelman and myself, I contacted LILCO to request that any materials belonging to us be returned and to indicate we would not be making further requests.
During the long process that this planning effort has been following, many meetings were held with representatives of the Department of Health Services, some of which were attended by the utility.
Predicated on those meetings, the utility asked Stone and Webster to j
', write the Health Services portion of the County plan at.our direction.
! At the initial meeting with the principals, I presented an outline of what I wanted in this portion of the plan. There were two subsequent meetings, pri,or to being directed by yourself to tensinate any working relationships with the. utility. At each of these meetings we comented on the draft' document and requested changes and modifications. At the tennination of the working relationship with the utility we did not have the current Health Services section of the plan. I specifically explained this to Chris MacMurray, stating tnat we were working on health with the l utility and the utility was currently in possession of the Health Service's portion of the plan. Mr. MacMurray indicated that if we did not receive
' the document to infonn him and he would see that it was provided through -
the attorneys. - - -
It was over three years ago that we initiated work on the Evacuation Plan (Appendix A) for the ten mile EPZ. At that time, it was our stated objective to prepare the best possible document to protect the health and safety of the people of Suffolk County. -
When the County entered into an' agreement with the' utility to prepare the SCRERP, our role greatly expanded but the stated objective has always remained the same. - - -
I believe we were successful in realizing our stated objective, which I_ is probably unfertunate in view of the current County position with respect to emergency planning. I state this, having read many other plans, all of which have been prepared,by co.nsultants. Invariably, consultants cannot devote the time necessary to guarantee that their methodology is-functional. In essence a consultant ultimately gets to move on to their next project, while a local agency which develops a plan, must make sure that their plan is,in fact, operable. .
e
. . 402c438
- - , m, , - . . . , - ._. ---[',.- .e, ,,,,_m. . - - , --,_-3r
yxhibit G COUNT 9CFQUPPCOI'.
CFPIC3 CF11W CCUNTY(DtlltCUTIVE .
Psm..F.Ca.uuan
~ . .
Jase.r C.,, ,
t l
~
tasy 17, 1982 ^
l Mr.' Matthew c. Cordaro, Ph.D.
Vice President .
Long Island Lighting Company i
175 East old Country Road Bicksv111o, New York 11001 . -
, Dear Mr. Cordaro .
This is in reply to your letter of March 17, 1982, '
concerning the september 10, 1981 agreements between .
Suffolk county and L11CO regarding emergegey' planning.' :
- 1. Given that the County is in a'n advo'rsarial
~
relationship to LILco in the pending licensinir hearings beform the Nuclear Regulatory Coasaission, the County ,
- ' believes there would be the appearance of a m nflict .
e f-interest by receiving any funds from L2LCO.,
2.
~
The county is preparing a' radiological emergehey.
response plan which will satisfy all local, state and :
federal critoria and regulations, as contemplated by . !
'the Baptember 18, 1991 agreement between the County and LILCO.
Pursuant to Legislative Resolution 262 and Exooutivo Order, such plan will be transmitted to the }
CountyLegislaturebyCotober1,$982.
- 3. The county's omergency planning effort is timing perfors: sed by a team of nationally recognised experts. i A list of these The information. experts is enclosed, herewith for your County 2secutive experts that suffolk County wishes $as to develop infernedthe these best.
possible emergency plan to protect the health and safety of the residents of Suffolk county. Need1oss to say,
! a meaningful, woghable radiological amargency plan would'aloo be in LILCO's best interests. ~.
vemme ===am - -
m =ues.mv. sine ,
c2*___ ___ . _ _ _
l . ..
may 17, 2002 l l . l
- 1 l ,
l 4.
i 1
Should LILCO be dissatisfied with the forogoing, '
please refer to Clause II of the Geptamber 19 1982 agreemeq.: . ,
Theroin, it is stated that all taattorG in ques, tion relating ,',
to the agreement be decided by a stipulated arbitration.;W - -
procedure. -
. 3 It is the County's hope that LILeo will promptly terminate its resistance to the County'.s good faith f.
emergency planning efforts. An increasing amount of thLs - - ,
1 County's time is being consumed by the need to respond .
to esamingly the County's belligerant current effort. actions of 2.2LCo that challange, i I ask that you ~ convey -
to your colleagues these serious sentiments, and th t LILc0 refrain frca escalating fruther with rhetoric or deed any difference which exists between LIIco .. '
and the count:r with respect to the critical gohl.'of effective rad;,ological emergency pr,e'perodness. ..~
i .
. ;. Sincerely. Tours,,
i v v --
ha C. Gallagher tlhief Deputy Co y,Executivts' JCG/tr , ,
e P
, ! l
, l
.s: . l c, .
. .i '
, . . . . . ' 1
. . . 1
.* -__m--w,.---v..v...,m_,..,yy,
- w. , _ -,, --,,we,. ., ,,em.,
S 4 .
CONCL2 CmmrY PNIIMl5GD!Cf CE3C:3E
. PIJaettes Nrmsm Ctiffolk C==nty has ..Jesid the fa"A4 7 Me to dzvelcp they j,g's
- mie31csl m.,
, a raganos p12. - - '
L 7x - hWe of :2:raan virginia,' a'!!i::a uith catmain Waaan %2ccal, ,
- "24Wgical m , q 2P=i .g and grip.ar::cinnes tat 11 Sase Wm sweesu c
=epcon j s .
cibility :i!ce ,.WJ.cn of the 31m.. Usc-vtzuhams has vezhed. e. *M*- ..
i.. 1 courgency rospman 31ms Scr 3ccal gquesuments at tuelte nuclear aitas the ucot :: cat haing at amm Zuis ni ? m 1 %. ling the nimblo'4. . platt, and naar claveland, chio, 2=r the Puery r% .
l D. "Ai16 n. Ostr, Prefasser cf Planning st ic:r, is a nebar af the Ma+y Emacutive's otmaring c==ittan which is over-iaa the ensegmcy r~in- aerces and i 12.1
- revies y'% cna aavica to pr/-womhans. pretasace anne has praparmal-
, analynne and testiftaa en the otat== of marssacr senparahmee in tac,,, ;;p3-
- -dng the osakracic P2=t in ame simpshire and the pilgrta 2;gp2mif!.W . '
.m. . .
- 3. =r. ami '?. 2ri'ex:n, arctossar af &Mc at us2a univarnity anahu
.t f*
j,
' ' Talo asviiw, 6:insa ny t:r. . : ens n. Swaxm, Mr M@lQ47%,-
tect t2a has g= 2 -2 catzsis ..:minarch cn ths u , ,q ..aapanasJWy
= car e:s e.3::e taila ..
2al:md p1=nt, trill o}::ity'2:a occicle.rical nh3Mk
..=..-
- t'* N *
.P [
- m. :=nsia h. n<mine, amassemot vice
, cie .
ef c=t A at caa -ettseinkg i
- h. *%1ter 47; '?hrm1, .': _ Y., 21::fesect cf t*
- ==4*y D*Wi=,'"Jningsiti$rW, 7;:. .
at ttinmesas, cas .:r. w m-en, -gu er pqchiatry,L 4 .
l
@i7 l . :
l S
1
, __.____._._-_.._....______...________.____=l
l .. .
1 1 . : .
- 4. . Dr. *7tod Finlovren, cf Les Mihi cakfcmia, will perfcca the con =septagna analyais for tha camty's amargqnsy regenas plan. Dr.hnlayaan *. ,-=- N ', .
t
. l
' .17' 9 :.
. providad tacimical Eecticn. th the Stata cf Cali?cmia da its ovaluatiden.'c0 ' - . .
h W1 Planning Das Esqui.-..^.s out served as a camaltant to th's GC!s t
-5 . . . ...s.. -l Pia' M't7 Crcup eich inves**ptist the accidet at three stile rmgy :. 4
. .: s
- 5. Dr. rh 3. tudnit , p -iw of Putura assourcas Associates, ::me.,i a d ip y ,,- ,
%'i, Califamia, will $lda n. Pfalayrzst in tha area of .;2*"4-*f % ,
anaessant.
' h. Duonits is a fenner Dizacter af the cefies of Itac1 car Der
' Desearces, M=$=r qsgulatczy casaissien, and da 1973 perved as technical,ccce for the Esc's ipecialM 47 dato the three Mila Island noeWhat. .o " -
l
- 6. 'tr nhard 7 P. nadferd, Director d the Catar for 2nvircransstal yi ! ,
the attit ernity ce Piew, witz acce ths'hanie affects er s.commasTidjiig
,c
, inechkrit en ths ,v.1% of Duffolk County. tr. nadferd tas f-[, [,): h ,
cf the DEza PMW' 22fmts of hi**w nadiatim) CcandhMEEM3I- ~.
,, _ W cf meicacas. .
~
e 1
1 . ,
- e 1 ,
G
. s e
. 4 y.-_m,, . . , - , ,,,y,., .-r-,-m . ,--.-.,,,,-,e,.-~..,y
atto. es. .a . 1515-32 Intre..!uced :
.cgislators 31sss, assso, Toley, %.recappa, Ciese, Allgravo, c1 chards, 'a a n e en s e r g, R12:c, Nolan, Mariton, Moto, Howard, Proepset, LaSua, o, vino, neazak 3ESO L*JT
- 0?!. NO . 46 -1982 ESTA2LISitti:C THE
.V.310 LC CIC.t L CMC 3CENCY RESPCNSE P f.AH3 IHC 00LICY CT T!!E C3UNTY CT SUTTOLX
$HEacAS, protectica of itsCounty residents of Suffolk has the primary re spon sibility Island Lighting Company's shorcham Nucicar Powar Stations andin the theLcateve WHEREAS, through good fa ithSuffulk Ccunty takes this responsibility seriously and and sound planning ef forts, to assure that ,the best intends c on=rgency Ccunty; and plan and preparndness are develop:d to protect the citizens ofpossibig Suficie HMERSAS, Su f folk Csunty's Emergancy nationally recogni:cd experts drawn from a range ofplanning
.c w conducting Task Terce, coe. posed oG pertinent disciplines, . 10 a datatled planning e f fo rt in order to attamps to develop a vir.ble radiolo,gical scargency plan for Suf folk County; and act, WHEREAS, has. gene beyond The Long Island Lighting Company, the rightful powe rs itsofpowers as a pervate corporation in an attemptin an to unwarrant usurp material to the New Suffolk County by submiccing county planning resource" cs the official radiological emergency response plan for Suffolk C UMEREAS, said plan'ning resource material partennel, is- preliminary data which developed in part by c=unty
.tppecved RADIOLOGICAL EHERCENCY in no way constitutes the Suffolk Csunty-con:titute_such County plant and RESPONSC ' PLAN and will not in the future tiMEREAS, Suffolk County will submit Of All to.the New York State Disaster Preparedness Commission only when thatits R has baan fully prepared and appecved by Suf folk County and -is therebyplan integ with the-planning efforts of both LILC3 and New York State; therefore, be it ed RESOLVED, tha t Suffolk County Rrdialegical .Emergoney Response Planning Policyhereby established the fo110 wing
- Suffolk C'ounty shall not assign funds or personnel to test or implement any radiological emergency response plan fo r the Shoreham Nuclear Plant unless that plan has been fully developed to the best of the County's abt11ty.
Suffolk C:enty shall. not assign funds of pse:=nnot to test or implement any
- radiological emergency response plan for planShorsham the has bienNucicar Plant of the subject unless at leathat se two public hesd, hearings, one to be held in Raver-r.nd one to be hold in Hauppauge.
l l
l i
l
.y
. . , ... ... .. .. .'t a Saf fe t s County shall. no t assign nds ce personnel to test or implencnt any radiolog ical ame r'gency responso plan for the Shorenam Nuclear Plant unless that plan has been approved. af ter public he.rL.gs, by the Suf folk County Lagis14ture ,
and 0.2 County Execu tive end, be it further RISOLVED, copies of th.
t.". i s resolution be sent to the covernor, the Sp aalcer of c.a.e As s . . 'a ly, tne Majority f.a-dne of .he senate z.nd at the s ta te a t :Ic.: * ::x . .
the Lagt:21.. c u re D.'.;ID : M.sy 13, 1932 -
M P."" .~. 3 BY :
k '.iG-e.1 Coutr.y Execut ve of Sulfolk County Date of Approvals g* / 7 gg,,,,
~
t',. i. e C,mh Cha d. William H. Rogers. Clerk of the SUFFOLK COUNTY i Cang N.L-rure County Legislature of the Cevnty of Suffs!k h:ve com . red the P.!YEnllEAD. N. Y. , formir.: copy of re .luti:n v.ith the ori:;in ! resslu. icin i.ow on film in this office.:nd hich w sdaly ade:tW hytheCeunty L4;i:!:turvetend County on . /P, fff'2a J and thtt the same a tru e and correct tren.*4ript of::id reolution e nd of the whole thereof. ,
J.T%,.. T;hnW.J have hereunto set my hand :nd the officiti set! of the County Wislature of the County of Suffolk i Q&t.&. . . . . . . . . . . . . Gy. :D s ......
. C!:rk of the County Lc.nt. ture
._ ,e . m .m . . m m.m.e r _ - ~
I I
l l
. e Exhibit I COUNTY OF SUFFOLK '
\
COUNTY LEGISLATURE e t.nuiNaNo J.catst C owe t T L t caS4.a toft, FerTse O.s tmeC T iaemmes.staaer 9 1
, ma.eu w a as E.St SETaumCT 8ste Tomsb 987382099 l' GS648409 8900
%4 *seOm Ceteg gest C Desw rtg g me aset a 8 wt6ec &arttT ComweitLE tt tt man se arraimS CO** wet 1LL e .%a%f t L tcegi a tivt a%= e s.. e . ;
- . . sea %
- g e:t ==
- t t e e as..=s a %O e*ws * * *.s e ' *. .e.t = este a.us cu eeseeas
, m ast- a oc. .a u ...est..svano 1
1 January 19, 1983 i
Hrs. Deb'orah Schechner. President Peoples Action Coalition of Suffolk County P. O. Box 27 Shirley. New York 11967 Re: Shoreham Evacuation
Dear Mrs. Schechner:
Ireferenced am in receipt topic.of your letter dated January 6th in relation to the above-As you will renember. I openly expressed my displeasure of Legislator Prospect introducing legislation relative to the Shoreham Plant. I main-tained at the time that' the most simple and direct answer to the problem would be institution of. legal .a.ction by the,_ County of Suffolk at the. time the N.R.C. ,. decides to. ,is, sue .the. license, and demanding that LILCO prove the effectideness,of,a, viable,< Evacuation' Plan.
It stands to reason they i
could not do ao could not activate the plant. in a million years and then, in my way of thinking. they The purpose of Mr. P_rospect's resolution, as I see it, vasi to spend four million dollars of taxpayers' ano.ey, not counting the untold millions that will be paid in the event 'any so-called Evacuation Plan is implemented.
(
1 understand your position that the plan should not be adopted; however, the reasoning, behind the hearints .for a so-called plan, at the.present time. is to use..the .lacra presented as a basis for a future lawsuit. In this case. Legislator.rrespect has , saddled ~ ~Ehe paci1E witTi'aisapesse that is atrocious, unreasonable.and, in my humble opinion, with no affir6stive result in the future. '
i On the, ether hand werauthe Lagialatura t9,,ag'res that, as elected officials, we abou14 reject the plan, we are in effect idficating that we ao not cEs.rish human life and h' ave _no. destra .to protect our een-stituents.
On the basis of this assumption, legisaators have so other
a Hrs. Deborah Schechner, President
- January 19.-1983 2- .
alternative but to vote. in thm. of fi ma* fue. o There is no lonCer cal mancuverings of aone simple solution to this prubicm because of the politi-individual. I regret the situation that we are confronted with but we have no other alternative. I have been criticized for voting for the original resolution; however, how was it possible to vote tinn.
"no" and y,1ve the ir.prcr.ston that I was in favor of the LILCO opera-I thank you for the comments in your letter and I assure you of my con-tinued interest in the safety of all constituents throughout Suffolk County.
Sincerely yours, r
FERDINAND J. GIESE :,
County Legislator TJG:sfk 5th District cc to: All Suffolk County Legislators e
o e
e e
s e
G k
i
E398 2 l WHEREA!., in ac:::ing Resciution 262-1952, tne Legisia:ure fsunc tha; earlier :lanning ef forts by LILCO .and Ccunty planners
{:ne " original planning ca:a") were inacequate because they i faile: to accress :ne par:icular problems posec by conditions on Long Islano and further f ailed to acccunt for human benavior curin; a raciclogical emergency and the lessons of the accident a: Three Mile Island; and t-WHEREAS, on Mar:n 29, 1982, Peter F. Cohalan, Suffolk Coun:y Executive, acting to implement Resolution 262-1982, by Execu:ive Order established the Suffolk County Radiological Emergency Response Plan Steering Committee (" Steering Committee")
anc ciree:eo it to prepare a County plan for submittal to the Coun:y Executive and County Legislature; and WHEREAS, the Steering Committee assembled a group of nignly qualified ano nationally reco nized experts from diverse cisciplines to prepare such County plan; and an WHEREAS, such highly qualified experts worked in a diligent conscientious effort at a cost in excess of 5500,000 to. i i
' pre:ar,e the best possible plan for Suffolk County, and particularly to ensure that such plan took into account all particular pnysical and behavioral conditions on Long Island that
, aff ect the acequacy of the emergency response plan; and f
. EAS, the analyses, studies, and surveys of such experts t
i (a) Detailed analyses of the possible releases of raciation from Shorenam; (b) De: ailed anal'yses of the radiological health
' consequences of such radiation release on the population of Suffolk County, given the meterologi-
] cal, demographic, tcaographical, and other l specific local conditions on Long Island; i i (c) A detailed social survey of Long Island residents to oetermine and assess their intended behavior in 'the event of a serious accident at Shoreham; i' (d) A detailed survey of school bus drivers, volunteer firemen, and certain other emergency response personnel to determine whether emergency personnel intend to report pro ptly for emergency duties, or instead to unite with their own f amilies, in ,
the event of a serious accident at Shoreham; '
4 l
1
. l
~ - - . . , . . - - -- .m, - - . . ,w.,w,ev -.. .-+ ,c- w - . ,. . ,_ _ . , , - ---.r,- .
Page 3 (e) Detailcc . imates of tne num:er of perscr.. wno
- culc De cedered te evacuate in tne event of a sericus ac:icent at Sh:renam, as well as the num:er of persons who intend to evacsate voluntarilv even if not ordered to'do so;
)
(f) Detailec analyses of the road network in Long i
q Island and the time.recuireo to evacuate persons from areas affectec by radiation releases; (g) Detailed analyses of the protective actions 4
available to Suffolk County residents to evacuate or take shelter from such radiation releases; and
- (h)
~
Analysis of the lessons learned from the accident j
at Three Mile Island on local government responsibilities to prepare for a radiological i emergency; and WHEREAS, on May 10, 1982, LILCO, without the :pproval or autnorization of the Suffolk County Gove'rnment, submitted to tne New York State Disaster Preparedness Commission ("0PC")
two volumes entitled "Suffolk Ccunty Radiological Emergency Response Plan" a,nd containing the original planning data, as further revised and supplemented by LILCO, and requested the OPC to review and approve such LILCO submittal as the local raciological emergency response plan for Suffolk Ccunty; and '
WHEREAS, in Resolutions 456-1982 and 457-1982, the County
, further addressed the matter of preparing for a radiological emergency at Shoreham and. emphasized that:
(a)
The LILCO-submitted document was not and will not be the County's Radiological Emergency Response Plan; and
' (b) The County's Radiological Emergency Response Planning Policy, as enunciated in Resolution 456-1982, is as follows:
1 Suffolk County shall not assign funds or personnel to test or implement any radiological emergency response plan for the Shoreham Nuclear Plant unless that plan has been fully developed to tne best of the County's acility.
i Suffolk Ccunty shall net assign funds or
~;
personnel to test or implement any radiological emergency response plan for the Shorenam
! Nuclear Plant unless tnat plan has been subject of at least two public hearings, one to ce neld ,
in Riverhead, and one to be held in Hauppauge. )
i I
e
~ ... - . _ _ __ .
, ,. Suffelk 1 nty snali not assign funcs or pers:nnel to test or implement any radiological emer;ency ress nse plan for the Shorenam teuclear Plant unless that plan has been approved, af ter puolic hearings, by the Suffolk County Legislature ano the County Executive; and
.WHEREAS, on June 9,1952, the OPC rejected the LILCO- '
subettted cocument for tne reason that it was deficient; and WiiEREAS, on October 6,1982, LILCO, again without the approval or authori:ation of tne Suffolk County Government, 4
suomitted to the OPC an amenced version of the previously submittec LILCO occument which had been rejected by the DPC; s
ano WHEREAS, on December 2, 1952, the Draft County Radiological Emergency Resp:nse Plan authori:ed by Resolution 262-1952 was submittee to the County Legislature for review and public hearings as specified in Resolutions 262-1982, 456-1982, and 457-1982; and j WHEREAS, in January 1983, the Legislature held hearin'gs en tne Graft County plan, which hearings included:
(a) More than 1,590 pages of transcripts; (b) Detailed written statements and oral testimony of County expert consultants who prepared the Oraf t County p1an; (c) Detailed written statements and oral testimony of LILCO officials and expert consultants i retained by LILC0; (d) Detailed written statements and oral testimony of the Suffolk County Police Department, the County Health Department, the County Social Services Department, and the County.Public Works Department, all of which wou.ld have indispensable roles in respond-ing to a radiological emergency at Shorenam; (e) Detailed written statements and oral testimony or organizations in Suffolk County concernec with
, radiological emergency prepareaness; and (f) Extensive presentations by hundreds of memoers of tne general public; ano WHEREAS, memoers of the Legislature aise travellec to j
ant nele putlic nearings in the vicinity of the Three Mile Islano fluclear Power Plant to gain informat. ion on:the lessons to ce learned by local governments from the accident at inree Mi1e Isiand; ano
. i
Pcge 5
' WHEREAS, :na Draf: Ccunty plan identifies evacuation and pec:ective snel:ering as the :wo primary protective actions -
nich wouic neec to be i..,.,lemented in the event of a sericus acciden at Sherenam; and WHEREAS, evacuation of Suffolk County residents in the event of a raciological emergency could take as much time as 14-30 hcurs because of varicus factors, including: the limiteo
- number of appropriate evacuation routes in Suffolk County; difficulties in mcoilizing police and other emergency personnel difficulties ensuing from spontaneous evacuation of large numoer;s
' of Ccunty resioents, thus creating severe traffic congestion; and unavailacility of alternate evacuation routes for persons .
j resicin-g east of Shoreham anc thus the necessity for such persons i during an evacuation to pass by the plant and possibly throygh the radioactive plume; and ,
WHEREAS, evacuation times in excess of 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> -- and cer:ainly evacuation times in the range of 14-30 hours -- will j result in virtual immobilization of evacuation and high ;
~
ex::sure of evacuees to radiation such that ' evacuees' health, saf ety, and welf are wculd not be protected; and ,
I l WHEREAS, protective sheltering is designed to protect persons from excessive radiation exposure by such persons staying indoors until radiation with the greatest danger to
~
heal n has passed; and WHEREAS, if protective sneltering were ordered for Suffolk Ccur.:y residents, unacceptable radiation exposure would still be experiencec by substantial portions of the Suffolk County pc:ulation, thus making it..im ossible to provide for the l health, welfare, and safety of these residen'ts; WHEREAS, the document submitted by LILCO to the DPC 4
without County approval or authorization is deficient-because ,
it does nc: deal with the actual local conditions, pnysical and senavioral, on Long Island that would be encountered
~
i during a serious nuclear accident at Shoreham; and i
WHEREAS, the occument submitted by LILCO to the DPC witncut County approval or authorization does.no ensure
! :na: effective protective action by persons subject to i
racia: ton ex:csure, in the form of evacuation or sheltering, i wcuid e taken in event of a serious nuclear accident at Shereham, and thus such document, even if implementec, would no: prctact the neal:h, saf ety, and welf are of Suffolk County residents; and .
4 l.
D
, , , , , . . . - - - .n , , , , -- , - . - , , - -->w- .. , -, -- , , . , . n . . . .-v
. . Page 6 WHERE'S, :ne ex:ensive ca:a wnien the Legislature nas c:nsi:erec an:
make clear tnat the site-specific circumstances 2 :;al lo:al conditions existing on Long Islanc, par:icularly its elongatec eas:/ west configuration whien recuires all -
eva:uation routes from locations east of the plant to pass witntn a zene of predicted hign radiaticn, the ineffe::iveness .
cf crotective snel:ering, the severe traffic congestion likely to be experienced if a partial or comalete . evacuation were creare , an:
the difficulties in ensuring that emergency "
personnel will prcmptly report for emergency duties, preclude any emergency response plan, if implemented, from providing
! a:ecuate pre:arecness to protect the health, welf are, and safety of Suffolk County residents; tnerefore be it RESOLVED, that the Draf t County plan submit:ec to the Coun:y Legisla:ure on Decemoer 2,1952, if implemented, would not protect the health, welf are, and safety of Suffolk County resi:ents anc and thus is not approved and will not be implemented; RESOLVED, that the document submitted by LILCO to the OPC witncut the County approval or authorization, if implemented, would no: protect tne health, welf are, and safety of Suffolk ,
Ccunty residents and thus will not be approved and will not be implemented; and RESOLVED, that since no local radiologic'ai emergency res::nse plan for a serious nuclear accident at Shoreham will ,
- r
- :act the health, welfare, and safety of Suffolk County resi:ents, anc since the preparation and implementation of any -
sa:n plan *culd be misleading to the public by indicating to C:unty resioents that their health, welfare, and safety are being prete:tec wnen, in f act, such is not the case, the County's ra :clogical emergency planning process is hereby terminated, anc no local raciological emergency plan for response to an -
a::icent at the Shorenam plant shall be adopted or implemented; and RESOLVED, tha: since no radiological emergency plan can or::e:: :ne health, welf are, safety of Suffolk County residents and, since no radiological emergency plan shall
- e a::::ec or implemented by Suffolk County, tne County Executive is necesy dire::ed to take all actions necessary to assure
- na; a:: ions taken by any otner governmental agency, be it Sta:e er Federal, are consisten:
- y :nis Resolution. witn the decisons mancated S S O
. . :'. Exhibit J Resolution No /// - 1983, Constituting the Findings ano Determinations of Suffolk County .
on Whether A Level of Emergency Preparedness To Respono to a Radiological Accident At the ,
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Can Protect the Health, Welf are .
and Saf ety of the Residents of Suffolk County WHEREAS, Suffolk County has a duty under the Constitution of the State of New York, the New York State Municipal Home Rule Law, safety, and and the Suffolk County Charter to protect the health, welf are of the residents of Suffolk County; and WHEREAS, the Long Island Lighting Company ("LILC0") is constructing and desires to operate the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ("Shoreham"), located on the north shore of Long Island near the town of Wading River, a location which is witnin tne boundaries of Suffolk County; and WHEREAS, a serious nuclear accident at Shoreham could result in fissica the release prooucts; and of significant quantities of radioactive WHEREAS, the release of such radiation would pose a
- se.ere ha:ard County to and reticents; the health, safety, and welfare of Suffolk ,
i WHEREAS, in recognition of the effects of such potential ha: arc posec by Shoreham on the duty of Suffolk Count i
tect tne healtn, Legislature on March safety, anc welfare of its citizens,ythisto pro-23, 1982, adopted Resolution No. 252-1982, wnt:n airected that Suffolk County prepare a " County Radio-Icgt:al Emergency Response Plan to serve the interest of the saf,ety, healtn, and welf are of the citizens of Suffolk County anc WHEREAS in Resolution 262-1932, the Legislature determinec tnat tne plan developed by the County "snall not ce operaole anc scali not be deemed adequato and capable of being implementec untti sucn ti 4 i Legislature"; andas it is approved by the Suffolk County O &
w n - c -
Exhibit K
[gd,g LONG ICLAND LIGHTING COMPANY 87 5 EAST OLD COUNTRY ROAD + HICKSVILLE. NEW YORK 18001 l
1 I "^""*Jjf**'[^yAa'*
May 10, 1982 i Commissioner William Hennessey Chairman Disaster Preparedness Commission c/o Dr. David Axelrod N.Y.S . Dep t. of Health Empire State Plaza Tower Building Albany, N. Y. 12237
Dear Commissioner Hennessey:
On August 11, 1981, the Suffolk County Legislature passed Resolution No. 694, approving a contract for the devel-opment of a local off-site emergency plan for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Stations the contract had previously been signed on behalf of the Suffolk County Executive and LILCO. A copy of ,
the contract is attached to this letter.
Under the Se County emergency planners, funded by $ptember 245,000 18th contract,from LILCO, were to prepare the local off-stte emergency plan for Shoreham, to be completed within six months of the contract's effective date. County
! emergency planners, assisted in various ways by LILCO, have in fact produced a local off-site emergency plan for Shoreham.
It is bound in two binders, which were produced at the request of the County Planning Department, entitled "Suffolk County Radiological Emergency Response Plan" and "Suffolk County Radio-logical Emergency Response Plan - Appendix A."
LILCO hereby submits the' local off-site emergency plan for Shoreham to the Disaster Preparedness Commission for its i review. Also included is a separate volume containing the miss- l ing Suffolk County Health Department Section which was prepared J i by Stone & Webster at the request of the Suffolk County Planning Department. This section has not yet received final County review.
- i
- e e
,+ - - - - -- - -
1
. O +
j Commissioner William Hennessey Chairman Disaster Preparedness Commission May 10,1982
, Page 2 i
As you know, the County has recently refused to endorse t
, the local off-site emergency plan prepared by its own planners, 4
and has attempted to return the funds provided to it by LILCO under the contract of September 18. However, political endorse-ment of the plan is not required for its submission to and review by New York State and FEMA: the contracted work, essentially com- i Plated, is ready for review. 'Ihe County can certainly fine-tune '
this local off-site plan if its further emergency planning efforts so require.
1 Very truly yours, 111.e. %t--
i Matthew C. Cordaro, Ph. D.
! Vice Prat . dant
- MCCitz
- Attach.
i i
I i
)
i I
i l i
e
- e
--e-~.. ,, ,,--n - ..-,e-s-,-, e,,,-,,v, , , --..-,-,-,..-r,,-,,-,-e,-,.,---,---vw., ,p. --e---- en.,.- ---sv.-- g ,- - - , - . ,s, ,.--n r---- ,
r ..
TGV19138:!
Exhibit L COUNTY OF SUFFOLK l
O
! OFFICE OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY j'
AeoassenapovTo: PATRICK HENRY erscaAL sesvsevisaviene user, on v.eCT A770NedEv l
i November 16, 1982 )
! David J. Gilmartin, Esq.
I Suffolk County Attorney i H. Lee Dennison Building 4
1 Hauppauge, NY 11788 i
Dear Mr. Gilmartin I Pursuant to your request, this office has reviewed the report to j the Subcommittee of the Suffolk County Legislature concerning the actions
! of LILCO in filing an Emergency Radiological Evacuation Plan.
h
- It would appear by a review of the correspondence dated May 10,
! 1982 of Dr. Matthew C. Cordaro to Commissioner William Hennessey that LILCO advised the state of the county's position with respect to the l Radiological Emergency Evacuation Plan. This letter clearly indicates I that LILCO fully acknowledged the county's disavowal of the off-site cmergency plan submitted on May 10, 1982. Indeed, there is evidence to 4
cuggest that in April of 1982 a meeting was held with the county, state i cnd LILCO officials present in which LILCO suggested its alternative to opproval by the county of the evacuation plan was to submit a draft as is.
LILCO has plainly maintained since April that the County's final approval is not required. Regardless of the substantive merit of that position, no l
l j mens rea on the part of LILCO can be found.
t f Though it cannot be denied that the binder and title of the i
Radiological Evacuation Response Plan suggested it was Suffolk County's i plan, this was not an attempt to mislead any public agency. This
! certainly does not rise to the level of criminal conduct and while perhaps ill-advised is not a matter for action by this office.
1 Very truly yours?
1 ON .Cf ' 'O
- h. g g
.l ,
JAM S J. O'ROURKE .
Bur au/C hief l
! JJOsban
! cc: Peter F. Cohalan Suffolk County Executive
! John Wehrenberg, Presiding Officer -
! Suf folk County Legislature ,
Rosalind Gordon, Esq., LILCO ! , ,
ses eeu=,.v anasi . ouivisee . , , e ..v.ii,e, . is . .. . <
' ~
- i
,e Enclocure 4 l
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
x CITIZENS FOR AN ORDERLY ENERGY POLICY, INC., et al. CV-83-4966 MEMORANDUM j Plaintiffs, AND ORDER
! -against-COUNTY OF SUFFOLK and PETER F.
COHALAN, in his capacity as County Executive, Defendants.
l l ---------------------------------x
', APPEARANCES:
i PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION Attorneys for Plaintiffs 1990 M. Street, N.W., Suite 550 Washington, D.C. 20036 By: Lucinda Low Swartz HON. MARTIN BRADLEY ASHARE H. Lee Dennison Building veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, HILL, CHRISTOPHER & PHILLIPS 1900 M. Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 By: Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
KIRKPATRICK, LOCKHART, JOHNSON
& HUTCHINSON 1500 Oliver Building Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 By: David A. Brownlee, Esq.
Attorneys for Defendants,
\_/
s 343 .... , , , , ,
2 4
Suffolk County and Peter F. Cohalan, County Executive EDWARD M. BARRETT Long Island Lighting Co. ;
250 Old Country Road t Mineola, New York 11501 HUNTON & WILLIAMS Attorneys for Long Island Lighting Co.
707 East Main Street i Richmond, Virginia 23219' By: Lewis F. Powell, III, Esq.
LOU LEWIS, ESQ.
Attorney for Shoreham-Wading River Central School District 55 Market Street Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 i ALTIMARI, D.J.:
.)
Plaintiffs Citizens for an Orderly Energy Policy, Inc. (" Citizens"), a not-for-profit corporation, and five of its members commenced the instant action by the filing of a complaint on or about November 10, 1983. Seeking declaratory as well as injunctive relief, plaintiffs plead two causes of action. Briefly stated, plaintiffs' first cause of action seeks a judgment declaring three resolutions adopted and implemented by defendants void and illegal
.as preempted by the' Atomic Energy Act, 42 U.S.C. 5 2011 gt s3g. For a second state law cause of action, plaintiffs seek an injunction requiring the Suffolk
~
-s
. . l
.m ... _ . , , . . .
-, . . . . ~.-_ .
3 o
i l
County Planning Department to develop or assist in the ,
l i development of a radiological emergency response plan 3
for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Facility ("Shoreham"), ,
and requiric, the County of Suffolk to make available t
f all necessary resources in the event of an emergency at i ,
I Shoreham for the protection of the residents' health and safety. See N.Y. Const. art. 9, 5 2(c)(10); N.Y. j
! Exec. Law 55 20, 23, 25 (McKinney 1982).
I i
The Shoreham-Wading River Central School i i
District (the " District"), pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) !
4
/
j a nd ( b ) ( 2 ) , Fed. R. Civ. P., and Long Island Lighting l Company ("LILCO"), pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2), by !
f separate motions seek leave to intervene in this !
lawsuit as plaintiffs. Defendants urge that we deny a
c
- their motions to intervene. In addition, defendants !
l have moved to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint. :
i DISCUSSION 1 1 Rule 24(a)(2), Fed. R. Civ. P., provides that
) "Upon timely application anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an ;
- action
- . . . (2) when the applicant claims
] an interest relating to the property or !
- transaction which is the subject of the 4
' action and he is so situated that'the
- disposition of the action may as a j practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest, un-i i-
. .m . . . . . . . . . .
I-
._q.
i l
i i
j less the applicant's interest is adequately represented by existing
- parties. .
! Rule 24(b)(2) provides that:
1 i "Upon timely application anyone may be i' permitted to intervene in an action:
. . . (2) when an applicant's claim or i defense and the main action have a r
, question of law or fact in common I . . . . In exercising its discretion i the court-shall consider whether the i intervention will unduly delay or pre-j judice the adjudication of the rights .
- of the original parties." !
f While some courts and commentators refer to a !
l -
" threefold test for intervention of right," see 7A 1 - / Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, 5 '
1908, at 495 (1972) (hereinaf ter " Wright & Miller"),
i this circuit has recently analyzed the applicants' ;
i >
burden in terms of a four-pronged test. An intervener
! must show that: !
l
- "(1) the application is timelyr l j (2) the applicant claims an' interest '
- relating to the property or trans-
- action which is.the subject matter
! of the action . . . . "; (3) the pro-taction of the interest may as a practi-cal matter be impaired by the disposi-
! tion of the action; and (4) the interest'
- is not adequately protected by an j existing party."
4 Restor-A-Dent M Laboratorigg, Jgc. v. Certified
- Allov Products, 133., 725 F.2d 871, 874 (2d Cir. 1984).
k J -
~
pps ,s .s. s s a . ?e N
l l l
I jo I 4
See, 3B Moore, Moore's Federal Practice, par. 24.07(1),
- at 24-50 (2d ed. 1982) (hereinafter " Moore's Federal
! Practice"). Guided by the above test, we address i
j separately the two motions for intervention.
I I A. LILCO'S APPLICATION '
In support of its motion to intervene, LILCO i argues with respect to the first requirement that its i
motion is timely since the complaint was filed barely l
l four and a half months agor no answer has been filed; i
! no discovery has taken place; no trial date has been
/ ,
set; and intervention will neither inconvenience the j parties or the court nor delay the resolution of the i
ultimate issues in the case. As to the second requireme nt , LILCO argues that the defendants seek to l j
! prevent Shoreham's operation for reasons of f i
i radiological safety. Since Shoreham is LILCO's " single largest economic endeavor" and "[t]he financial I
well-being of LILCO is inextricably linked to Shoreham," LILCO argues that its interest in the l
subject matter of the action "could hardly be greater."
i
- As to the third requirement, LILCO argues that while l dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint would not prevent it trom raising its claims against the defendants in a l
, N_ .
f
(
L--__-_____-______
- 6
)
o i
separate action, the stare decisis impact of an earlier decision on the same subject might impair its ability to prosecute its claims. Turning to the last requirement, LILCO argues that while it has confidence 2
in the plaintiffs and their attorneys, the defendants have challenged their standing to maintain the instant action. Moreover, LILCO reasons that because of the magnitude of its interest in the resolution of the subject matter of the instant action, "it would be
, appropriate to allow LILCO to intervene in recognition j of the reality that, no matter how ardent the plaintiffs, they have a significantly smaller stake in this case than does LILCO."
Answering LILCO's motion, defendants argue that LILCO has not clearly demonstrated inadequate
- representation to justify intervention, i.e., it has not established that the original plaintiffs have j
interests adverse to LILCO's or are guilty of nonfeasance, or that the original plaintiff s and defendants are in collusion. Defendants also argue that given the circumstances of this case, LILCO's motion to intervene is untimely, and that LILCO's ability to protect its interest will not be impaired by
/
- denial of the motion to intervene.
..a o ... , . .
.- _ 3 i
Addressing first LILCO's request that we ,
resolve its motion to intervene before turning to the defendants' motion to dismiss, we think such a _
procedure, especially under the facts of the instant -
case, most appropriate. First, LILCO has recently ;
filed an action against defendants in this Court.
Contrary to defendants' argument, the action is essentially identical to the instant case, but for an 5
additional claim styled under the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 5 1983. If allowed to intervene in this action,
) LILCO will withdraw its separate action saving both the Court and the defendants the burden of essentially )
duplicative litigation and putting all concerned ,
parties before the Court at one time. More importantly, LILCO, as even defendants must surely recognize, has as great an interest in the subject c m
matter of this action as defendants and certainly more, than plaintiffs. It asks this Court to allow it the opportunity to file a brief and be heard before we decide issues of paramount importance to it. _That defendants argue that the parties before the Court have I
P ;
already exhauctively briefed the legal issues and that ,
i there is little left for LILCO to add, is an argument aV.. l' s
-) \ .'
V >r
,p V ,
em .. .. .
. j
, 8 we find particularly unpersuasive. Obviously, LILCO does not ask for the opportunity to address the issues in the hope that it will discover a case or some 4
authority unnoticed by the other very able attorneys involved in this matter. It merely asks the Court to
- allow it the opportunity to persuade us that plaintiffs i
j and its position, rather than defendants, is best supported by the applicable authority. Furthermore, we
- are unmoved by defendants' suggestion that deferring i the motion to dismiss, so that LILCO may respond, will
~
j benefit neither the Court nor the parties. This Court believes we all benefit when every lawfully interested party la af forded the opportunity to express its v
thoughts and position before a court takes possibly dispositive action. Our system of jurisprudence requires it and parties appearing before this Court can expect nothing less. Finally, the delay occasioned by LILCO's entrance into the action will be relatively short and to the prejudice of no party.
As the above discussion indicates, we think l
LILCO's motion to intervene proper. First, while one i can question why it wasn't brought on a bit earlier, i
the delay will not prejudice the existing parties to l, -
l
! 4 r
s :
1 4
i the action. See Wright & Miller, supra, S 1916, at 575-76 ("The most important consideration in deciding whether a motion for intervention is untimely is i
whether the delay in moving for intervention will f prejudice the existing parties to the case. ") Indeed, the argument of the motion's untimeliness carries little force when one notes that discovery has yet to commence, nor motions to date decided, nor prejudice likely'to befall any party by allowing intervention. See, Jet Traders Inv. Corp. v.
,- Tekair Ltd., 89 F.R.D. 560,-568 (D. Del 1981).
i Second, LILCO clearly has a direct and substantial interest in the determination of the issues presented in this action. Simply put, plaintiffs seek to compel-defendants to. participate in offsite emergency planning for Shoreham.and thereby remove a major impediment _to , e Shoreham's licensing. Third, it is similarly clear.that LILCO's ability to protect its interest may well be im-paired if we continue this. action and grant. defendants' 3 motion to dismiss in its absence. While LILCO could still raise the 'same issues -in its action,. the principle' of. b
.. w , . . . - - . . . .
s
1 l ,
r" stare decisis would undoubtedly impair LILCO's ability to protect its interest were it prevented from intervening in this action and addressing the pending motion. See, Smith v. Pangilnan, 651 F.2d 1320, 1325 (9th Cir. 1981); Nuesse v. Camp, 385 F.2d 694,-702 (D.C. Cir. 1967); Atlantis Development Corp. v. United States, 379 F.2d 818, 826-29 (5th Cir. 1967); Spirit v.
- Teachers Ins. and Annuity Ass'n, 93 F.R.D. 627, 643 (S.D.N.Y. 1982); In re oceana International, Inc., 49 F.R.D. 329, 332 (S.D.N.Y. 1969); see also, New York Public Interest Research Group, Inc. v. Regents of
'l University of State of New York, . 516 F.2d 350, 352 (2d Cir. 1975); Securities and Exchange Commission v.
Everest Management Corp., 475 F.2d 1236, 1239 n. 4 (2d l Cir. 1972); Wright 4 Miller, supra, S 1908, at 515;-
Moore's Federal Practice, supra, par. 24.07[31, at 24-65. Finally, we turn to the more difficult question of adequacy of representation. While the leading commentators disagree with respect to whether q the burden is on the intervener to show that representation may be inadequate, see, Moore's Federal
~
Practice, supra, par. 24.07 [ 4 ] , at 24-70-71, or on the party opposing intervention to show that representation
- ..'. ,.....% .s . . . .
. . +.E.. . -,
f 043 ' ' - * * - ~ * . ' ' ' ' ' '
a b -w 1
. 11
,- l is adequate, see Wright & Miller, supra, S 1909, at 520-21, in this Circuit the burden lies with LILCO, the intervener, to show that representation ncy be inadequate. United States Postal Service v. Brennan, 579 F.2d 188, 191 (2d Cir. 1978). We think LILCO has satisfied its " minimal" burden. Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of America, 404 U.S. 528, 538 n. 10, 92 S.
Ct. 630 (1972); United States Postal Service v.
Brennan, supra, 579 F.2d at 191. To begin with, we reject defendants' suggestion that an intervener may r' ) satisfy the inadequate representation requirement only by establishing (i) that the original plaintiffs have interests adverse to the intervener's or are guilty of nonfeasance or (ii) that the existing parties are in collusion. (Defendants' Memorandum in Response to LILCO's Motion to Intervene at 5, citations omitted) .
See, Wright & Miller, supra, S 1909, at 523-24. Here, defendants have challenged plaintiffs' standing to maintain this lawsuit. This challenge alone creates a serious possibility that plaintiff s may .not adequately represent LILCO.1 Moreover, it is clear that while plaintiffs' and LILCO's interests are not adverse, they.
are different. This too adds to the risk that
(_)
- P.O J 3 4.- * ,*:e et.
1 plaintiff s may not adequately represent LILCO's interest. In sum, we find that LILCO has satisfied its minimal burden and is entitled to intervene as of right in this action. In any event, were we to conclude otherwise, as by finding that LILCO is adequately represented in this action, we would invite LILCO to move to intervene pursuant to Rule 24(b)(2), Fed. R.
Civ. P., and immediately grant that motion. In light of LILCO's great interest in the subject matter of this action, the possible contribution it may make to proper resolution of the issues, and the Court's interest in resolving these difficult issues in one lawsuit with the participation of all concerned parties, it hardly makes sense to bar LILCO's entrance into this lawsuit.
See Discussion, p. 13-14 infra.
THE DISTRICT'S MOTION The Districe moves to intervene pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2), or, in the alternative, 24(b)(2),-Fed..
R. Civ. P. Without addressing the more difficult question of the District's rightL to intervene as of.
right, we grant its. motion for permissive int'ervention under Rule 24(b)(2).
~ d s
0
'a w-*4= ee , e. .-,.% .-
- .m . . . . . . . . . .
8 1.4 i . .
l l
Under Rule 24(b)(2), there are three l requirements for permissive intervention:
(1) " timely application;"
(2) "a question of law or fact _in common between the applicant's claim or defense and the main action;" and (3) a determination that the intervention will not " unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties."
United States v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., 88 F.R.D. 186, 189 (S.D.N.Y. 1980). Accord, United States r- v. Yonkers Bd. of Education, 518 F. Supp. 191, 202 (S.D.N.Y. 1981). It is well-settled that the principal consideration in either granting or denying an application for permissive intervention is "whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties."
United States Postal Service.v. Brennan, supra, 579 F.2d at 191; Spirt v. Teachers Ins. and Annuity Ass'n, supra, 93 F.R.D. at 645; Weisman v. Darneille, 89 F.R.D. 47, 52 (S.D.N.Y. 1980); United States v.
Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., supra, 88 F.R.D. at 189. See generally, Wright & Miller, supra , 5 1913, at 552; 7 Cyclopedia of Federal Procedure, S 24.23, at 22
',/ '
. a.n s . . . . . - ..
s- 1' s
?
(rev. ed. 1971). In addition, the Court may also consider the nature and extent of the intervener's interests, whether the intervener's participation will contribute to the just and equitable adjudication of the issues, and whether the intervener's interests are adequately represented by the parties of record.
United States , Postal Service v. Brennan, supra, 579 F.2d at 191. The last factor, adequacy of representation, is "a minor factor at most." United States v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc., supra, 88
. F.R.D. at 189. See, Groves v. Insurance Company of North America, 433 F. Supp. 877, 888 (E.D. Pa. 1977).
In resisting the District's attempt to permissively intervene in this action, defendants in essence argue that the District's position is as legally faulty as plaintif f s' , that its participation will not materially assist our resolution of the action, and that the original plaintiff s will adequately represent its interests. Significantly, defendants do not even suggest that the District's intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the original parties.
1
'~'
- n ... - . , . . ,
-3 1
s J
Having reviewed the intervener's complaint and .
the arguments contained in the District's memorandum of law, it is self-evident that the District's claims and the main action contain common, if not identical, questions of law and fact. Moreover, the application is clearly timely, see p.8-9 supra, and while the District's addition will cause some delay, in that
" additional parties always take additional time,"
Wright & Miller, supra,' S 1913, at 553, the delay will certainly not be undue or to the prejudice of the j original parties. In addition, the District has a great interest in the subject matter of this action, economic and otherwise, and its participation will only benefit the just and equitable adjudication of the issues. For all of these reasons, the District's motion to intervene under Rule 24(b)(2) is granted.
LILCO and the District are granted leave to file briefs in opposition to the defendants' motion to
- dismiss, such briefs to be filed within two. weeks from receipt of this memorandum and order. Defendants may respond to those briefs within two weeks from receipt and, in addition, address any-issues raised by the interveners' presence in the action, including its e p3 .. . , , ..
~
) 1 effect on the motion to dismiss and the grounds raised therein. In addition, in the interests of justice and equal time, plaintiffs may respond to defendants' final submission.
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated herein, the motions of LILCO and the District to intervene are granted.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: Uniondale, New York April 11, 1984.
Y -
( : Frank X. Altimari U.S. District Judge i
~~ ' '~
~ *~' ~~
...w ....~. ..
s.
O FOOTNOTE 1
The Court recognizes that intervention cannot cure a jurisdictional defect that would have barred us from hearing the original action between the parties; however, if plaintiffs are later found to be without standing to proceed in this action, it is within our discretion to treat LILCO's pleadings as a separate action since it would appear that no challenge can or will be made to its standing. 7A Wright
& Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, S 1917, at 585-86 (1972).
(
c
=/
1 1
O
c i
LILCO, April 13, 1984 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
(Emergency Planning Proceeding) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 I hereby certify that copies of a letter dated April 13, 1984 from Donald P. Irwin to James A. Laurenson, et al., with attachments, were served this date upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid.
James A. Laurenson, Secretary of the Commission Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing East-West Tower, Rm. 402A Appeal Board Panel 4350 East-West Hwy. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Bethesda, MD 20814 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission East-West Tower, Rm. 427 Washington, D.C.
4350 East-West Hwy. 20555 Bethesda, MD 20814 Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
David A. Repka, Esq.
Mr. Frederick J. Shon Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 7735 Old Georgetown Road Commission East-West Tower, Rm. 430 (to mailroom)
Bethesda, MD 20814 4350 East-West Hwy.
Bethesda, MD 20814 Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
Regional Counsel Eleanor L. Frucci, Esq. Federal Emergency Management Attorney Agency Atomic Safety and Licensing 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 Board Panel New York, New York U. S. 10278 Nuclear Regulatory Commission East-West Tower, North Tower Stephen B. Latham, Esq.
Twomey, Latham & Shea 4350 East-West Highway 33 West Second Street Bethesda, MD 20814 Post Office Box 398 Riverhead, NY 11901
. ,o 5
-y ..
1 6
Fabian G. Palomino, Esq. Ralph Shapiro, Esq.
Special Counsel to the Cammer & Shapiro, P.C.
Governor 9 East 40th Street j Executive Chamber New York,'New York 10016 Room 229 State Capitol James B. Dougherty, Esq.
Albany, New York 12224 '3045 Porter Street Washington, D.C. 20008 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq. Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.
Christopher M. McMurray, Esq. New York State Public Service Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill Commission, Staff Counsel Christopher & Phillips 3 Rockefeller Plaza 8th Floor Albany, New York 12223 1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036 Spence W. Perry, Esq.
Associate General Counsel
- - Mr. Marc-W. Goldsmith Federal Emergency Management Energy Research Group Agency 4001 Totten Pond Road '500 C Street, S.W., Rm. 840 Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Washington, D.C. 20472 MHB Technical Associates Ms. Nora Bredes 1723 Hamilton Avenue Executive Coordinator Suite K .
Shoreham Opponents' Coalition San Jose, California 95125 '195 East Main Street Smithtown, New York. 11787 Mr. Jay Dunkleberger New York State Energy Office Martin Bradley Ashare,'Esq.
Agency Building 2 Suffolk County Attorney Empire State-Plaza H. Lee Dennison Building Albany, New York 12223 Veterans Memorial Highway-Hauppauge,'New York 11788-Gerald C. Crotty, Esq.
Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber
- State Capitol
< Albany, New York 12224 G :
" Donald P. Irwin Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street Post Office Box 1535-
- Richmond, Virginia 23212 1 DATED
- . April 13, 1984-
--~y1. -- w,.- 3 - --
J s 4 - -