ML20100H127
| ML20100H127 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 10/25/1983 |
| From: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Cuomo M NEW YORK, STATE OF |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20100G169 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-84-250 NUDOCS 8412070443 | |
| Download: ML20100H127 (1) | |
Text
I l
Y t
,,\\
- *;g's
. UNITED STATES
[ [g, 4 p
s l
NI.lCLE AR REGULATORY COMMISSION g.
g wAssmoTon. c. c. 20sss
.ppgf, j 8, Ya :u.Y-f r
,,** " ' p October 25, 1983 C H AIR t.* A N
+
' The Honorabie Mario M. Cuomo Governor of New York Executive Chamber Albany, New York 12224
Dear Governor Cuomo:
Thank you for your letter of October 4,1983, regarding the Shoreham
Since the adequacy of that plan is one of the issues now pending before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board considering the Shoreham operating license application, I am unable to respond at this time to the merits of the issues which you raise.
The Commission will not arrive at a position on the adequacy of the plan except in the context of the adju(ication, based on the record developed in the procee. ding.
I have t
therefore asked Bill-Dircks, our Executive Director for Operations, to write to you and advise you of the NRC staff's position with respect to the issues raised in your letter.
Your continuing interest in matters related to nuclear power plants in New York State is appreciated.
Sincerely,
/"
', ~ flid u&
g Nunzi' J-( Palladino l
I
?o?l#3840523 AIRE 4-ggo ppp l
,. -. - -. ~ ~,,
n--...
,,,-n
e-.
. *s
.e'.
6f p...S.-
4.
b(*h*y sa. f,,Lf P
,1. c
<--g'4g *..a %
-w STA;g or Ngw YO:v.
EXrcVTIVr CHAM.s rP.
ALEANY11124
- 4..o : v :.:-:
M.t s.:s October 4, 1983 Dea: Chairman Palladino:
I undefstand that at the request of the Nuclear Regulatory the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Ccmmission (NRC),
is ccordinating an eight-agency federal review of an emergency p:eparedness plan written by the Long Island Lighting Company for the p:oposed Shoreham nuclear power plant.
While I understand that recent legislation does authorize the ::RC to' consider a utility developed emergency preparedness nuclear power plant, I am writing to urge plan f or a commerciat the Commission to reject the LILCO plan for Shoreham.
Suffolk County has clearly stated that it wi11' refrain from 1'
implementing a ra6iological emergency plan at Shoreham because the County believes that it is impossible to safely evacuate or otherwise protect the public in the event of a serious nuclear accident at Shoreham.
I have in6icated that the State will not
. impose a radiological emergency preparedness. plan on Suf folk County because I do not believe that the State alone has the capability or resources to assure that the public health and safety can be adequately protected.
While I have made no final judgement regardinc the p:ssibility of developing and implementing an adequate emergency I am convince 6 that a prera:edness plan for Shoreham, prepa:edness plan which relies solely and entirely upon private utility wc:hers cannot provide the degree of security necessary to cenclude that the public health and saf ety of the region's residen:s are adequately protected.
- n an emergency situation, even those involving more j
disasters, one cannot always predict how individuals familia:
Chis is especially true in the case cf individuals j
vi'_1 rea::.
vh:se n:: mal respcasibilities do no: include the p:ctection of
- _i: hea'_th and safety.
cs FI d '
l OSf
't osi (
I I
u
~
\\
- l
, :s 1: reasenable to assur.e that a utility-directed worker will res:end in a predesigned manner when his action may involve a :heice between evacuating a stranger and perhaps protecting his
- wn f amily?
Is i: reasenable to assume that residents will react directives and mandates f rc utility workers whose cain.ly ::
Under c: pany may be perceived to be the cause of the disaster?
what at:h::ity wculd utility workers perform functions which may I am sure this is
- t an exe:cise of governmental power?
the scenario either envisioned or endorsed when the Congress acern:
and the SRC reasonably required the development of off-site nc:
preparedness plans for nuclear power plants.
I am c'ertain that we all agree that bef ore a new nuclear there must be reasonable assurances that pcwe: plant can operate, I do not the public health and saf ety is adequately protected. utility-directed, and believe that an entirely utility-developed, utility-op.erated off-site preparedn ss plan meets this standard.
Sincerely,
/to f
/
li i W
)
Eonorable Nunzio J. Palladino Chairn.an Nuclear Regulatory Commission F.atenic Building 1717 E Street, N.W.
- 'ashington, D.C.
20555 n
O l
-e c--
m v
m----
++
e,
-m,-
[p2 cs:vq'o UNITED STATES g
y g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g-r WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%,'TCtMl November 23, 1933 CHAIRMAN MEMORANDUM FOR:
Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal FROM:
Nunziod.Palladino f
SUBJECT:
TELEPHONE CALL FROM CONGRESSMAN STRATTON I received a telephone call from Congressman Samuel S.
Stratton, (NY/D), to express his co-ncern about the s-ituation at Shoreham.
He stated that press reports by the New' York Times suggest that state and county officials will site idly by and allow the plant to deteriorate.
He pointed out that NRC has the authority to grant a license based on utility emergency plans if the Commission finds such plans to be adequate.
He also pointed out that the experience at TMI disclosed less iodine is released in an accident than had previously been predicted.
As a result, he believes emergency planning by the Commission is conservative.
Congressman Stratton urged thct NRC continue to re' view the Shoreham plant so that 'a def t aitive decision can be made based on utility emergency planning if the state and county governments don't propose their own plan.
He indicated to me that he would be making a press statement on this matter i
soon.
cc:
e 1
I e
- - -