ML20137R994
| ML20137R994 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/21/1986 |
| From: | Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| TASK-PII, TASK-SE SECY-86-023, SECY-86-23, NUDOCS 8602130530 | |
| Download: ML20137R994 (20) | |
Text
.,
o ua l
uq'o zn 4
0 a
\\,...../
January 21, 1986 SECY-86-23 (Information)
For:
The Commissioners From:
Victor Stello, Jr.
Acting Executive Director for Operations
Subject:
EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS EXERCISE FOR SHOREHAM
Purpose:
To inform the Commission of the current status of the proposed emergency preparedness exercise for Shoreham.
Background:
By a Comission memorandum dated June 4,1985, the staff was directed to " request that FEMA schedule as full an exercise of the LILC0 plan as is feasible and lawful at the present time" (Enclosure 1). Accordingly, the staff requested FEMA to sched-ule an exercise by memorandum dated June 20, 1985 (Enclosure 2).
By memorandum dated October 29, 1985 (Enclosure-3), FEMA pro-posed two options for conducting an exercise in consideration of the reluctance of state and county officials to participate in an exercise. By Commission memorandum dated November 8, 1985 (Enclosure 4), the staff was directed to pursue the option that would include all functions and normal exercise objectives.
It was recognized that some offsite response roles may be simulated.
By letter dated November 12, 1985 (Enclosure 5), the staff requested FEMA to conduct an exercise consistent with the second option proposed by FEMA.
The staff has met with FEMA representatives in response to FEMA's request for assistance in the conduct of the offsite portion of the Shoreham exercise.
In addition to NRC's normal evaluation of the onsite portion of the exercise, NRC agreed to provide about 20 staff members from headquarters and the regions to support FEMA as offsite exercise controllers.
In a meeting with FEMA Region II, LILC0 stated that they are prepared to participate in an exercise on February 13, 1986 (Enclosure 6).
Contact:
K. Perkins, IE 492-7361 8602130530 060121 PDR SECY PDR 86-023
Commissioners 2
The staff has received a copy of legislation passed in Suffolk County entitled "A Local Law Concerning the Protection of Police Powers Held by the County of Suffolk" (Enclosure 7), which has been signed by the County Executive and has the potential for impacting the Shoreham exercise and schedule. This legislation is currently being discussed with the Commission by the Office of the General Counsel and the Office of the Executive Legal Director.
Discussion:
.The role of emergency preparedness exercises in the licensing process is to demonstrate that the plans and procedures devel-oped to cover onsite and offsite response and reviewed by NRC-and FEMA, respectively, can be implemented. -In preparing for an exercise, the objectives to be tested are first agreed on by the licens'ee, state and local officials,.NRC, and FEMA.' A scenario is developed to test these objectives by providing sufficient conditions to demonstrate the players' capabilities.
L Because actual emergency conditions do not exist, exercise controllers are used to provide the information that simulates 4
emergency conditions. These positions, for control of offsite exercise conditions, are normally filled by the licensee and
~
state or local agency staff or contractors.. For this exercise, federal agency staff will perform some of the controller.func-tions normally filled by state or local agency staff. Control-lers do not play the role of decisionmakers.
Consistent with i
the scenario, controllecs provide the information needed for the players to take actions or challenge the players to test re-sponse capabilities against the exercise objectives.
For-example, this could include introducing equipment malfunctions to test the players' ability to use alternate resources.
Evaluators observe the players in their various roles to make determinations on their capability to implement the plans and procedures. The NRC regional office evaluates the licensee's performance. While-the NRC evaluates the licensee's onsite
~
i performance, the Regional Assistance Committee (RAC), composed of several federal agencies including a member from.NRC, sup-ports FEMA in the evaluation of offsite performance. Typically, the licensee must also provide evaluators to observe their player's performance. This critique is a key element in the exercise process and is included in the federal evaluation of l~
the exercise.
Because of the unique nature of the Shoreham exercise in that the licensee will be filling the role of state and local offi-cials through the Local Emergency. Response Organization (LERO)-
i plan, FEMA requested NRC to provide additional controllers for the LERO portion of the exercise. The superimposing of federal controllers, managed by FEMA, will assist in ensuring objectiv-ity in the control of the exercise.
FEMA is developing a control plan to coordinate the federal and licensee effort and 3
1 will act as the lead controller to' manage the control of the exercise.
For this exercise, DOE-Argonne National Laboratory, j
1
.,.e-,
,,.n.w
,-,,,-_.-n..--n..,
.v,
,n,
...,,v_,,~,
.,n.
,,.,~---,_-,n
Commission:rs 3
support FEMA in exercise evaluations, will be providing addi-tional evaluators.
The NRC staff members used as controllers in this exercise will be located in either Federal or LILCO controlled property with the potential exception of two controllers assigned to radiolog-ical monitoring teams.
NRC's. participation as controllers in this exercise is being coordinated with the Office of the Executive Legal Director.
We do not put any NRC employees in a position where they could be arrested or where they would be in violation of local laws.
The Commission will be informed of any planned changes to NRC participation in this exercise.
,[..,
Q '.',
Victor Stello, Jr.
Acting Executive Director for Operations
Enclosures:
1.
Memo from S. Chilk to W. Dircks dtd 6/4/85 2.
Memo from E. Jordan to R. Krimm dtd 6/20/85 3.
Ltr from S. Speck to W. Dircks dtd 10/29/85 4.
Memo from S. Chilk to W. Dircks dtd 11/8/85 5.
Memo from W. Dircks to S. Speck dtd 11/12/85 6.
Ltr from C. Daverio to R. Kowieski dtd 12/13/85 7.
Suffolk County Legislation DISTRIBUTION:
Conunissioners OGC OPE OI OCA OIA ACEG EDO SECY
' < p'aq Action: Taylor IE CyS: Dircks
'4 o
UNITED STATES K08 h
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
Rehm 3.;,.,
.,E g. s i WASHIN GTON, D.C. 20555 f n
Stello J
%, o',V /
f GCunningham 1
June 4, 1985 Denton CFFICE OF THE a
Murley secasTany Jordan COMTR-85-5A MEMORANDUM FOR:
William J. Dircks, Executive Director for Operations FROM:
Samuel J. Chilk, Secre 7m I
F i
SUBJECT:
SCHEDULING OF EMERGENCY PLLN EXERCISE FOR SHOREHAM In view of LILCO's standing request to schedule an exercise of its emergency plan, the Commission, with Chairman Palladino and Commissioner Asselstine disagreeing, sees no reason why the licensee should not be allowed to exercise those parts of the plan which it may legally exercise.
Ine Commission does not disagree with the view that an exer-cise of the LILCO plan could yield meaningful results, even though such an exercise may not satisfy all of the require-ments of NRC's regulations.
It could, as a minimum, identify
~
the impact of the limitations of LILCO's plan when executed under the state and county restrictions.
Although the Com-mission is aware that because of the recent court decision a Ell are.lse of the LILCO emergency plan may not be possible, the staff should request that FEMA schedule as full an exer-cise of the LILCO plan as is fehsible and lawful at the pre-sent time.
If FEMA indicates an exercise is not currently possible, the staff should ask FEMA to provide a detailed report of its reasons for declining, addressing the following:
1.
Status of the outstanding technical and operational deficiencies with the LILCO plan.
2.
Estimates of when each remaining deficiency will be corrected.
NOTE:
Since this SRM was approved, the County Executive of Suffolk County has issued an Executive Order indicating that the County will cooperate in emergency planning activities for Shoreham.
The Staff, in requesting that FEMA schedule an emergency plan exercise, should also suggest that FEMA give, appropriate consideration to the County's apparent change of position regarding participation in emergency planning activities.
ENCLOSURE 1
.- 2 --
3.
Specific plan implementation activities LILCO could not exercise given the state court's decision.
4.
Benefits and disadvantages to holding an exercise, given the response to Item 3, until legal concerns have been fully-resolved or adequate compensating measures taken.
5.
Views on whether (and if so how) the deficiencies can be adequately remedied without the-involvement and coop-eration of state and local entities.
Commissioner Asselstine's views for inclusion in any letter to' FEMA will be provided to you within several days.
A cc:
Chairman Palladino commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissionar Bernthal Commissioner Zech OGC OPE ASLBP '
ASLAP O!
OIA s
,,"',?
OPA OCA Shoreham Service List i
e t
~
UNITED STATES g
,j' g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
a WASHINGTON. D. C. 20656 f
n V.CT/
JUN 2 01985 o...
MEMORANDUM FOR:
Richard W. Krima Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs Federal Emergency Management Agency FROM:
Edward L. Jordan, Director Division of Emergency Preparedness anu Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
SCHEDULING OF EMERGENCY PLAN EXERCISE FOR SHOREHAM In response to LILCO's standing request to schedule an exercise of its emergency plan for Shoreham, the Commission, in a memorandum to the Executive Direct 6r for
. Operations dated June 4,1985 (Enclosure 1), stated that it sees no reason why the licensee (i.e., LILCO) should not be allowed to exercise those parts of the plan which may be legally exercised.
Further, the Commission indicated that it does not disagree with the view that an exercise of the LILCO plan could yield meaning-ful results, even though'such an exercise may not satisfy all of the requirements of NRC's reoulations.
The exercise could, as a minimum, identify the impact of the limitations of LILCO's plan when executed under the state and county restric-tions.
,., q Accordingly, we request that FEMA schedule as full an exercise of the LILCO Local Emergency Response Organization (LERO) plan as is feasible at the present time giving appropriate consideration to the Suffolk County Executive's May 30, 1985 Executive Order and subsequent developments relating to emergency planning activities by the County.
In determining those portions of the LER0 plan that might be appropriate for inclusion in an exercise at this time, we suggest that FEMA emphasize evaluation of the functional areas of emergency preparedness related to the demonstration of response capabilities within the plume exposure (10 mile) Emergency Planning ~ Zone.
Contact:
F. Kantor, IE 492-9749 ENCLOSURE 2
Richard W. Krim.
In the event FEMA determines that'an exercise is not currently possible, we request that FEMA provide a response which addresses the five issues identified in the memorandum from the Secretary of the Comission.
Comissioner Asselstine's views on this matter are provided as Enclosure 2.
bdwardL. Jordan, Director U Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response Office af Inspection and Enforcement
Enclosure:
- 1. Memorandum from the Secretary of the Comission dtd. 06/04/85
- 2. Comissioner Asselstine's Views DISTRIBUTION J. M. Taylor, IE JRoe R. H. Vollmer, IE TRehm J. G. Partlow, IE.
VStello B. K. Grimes, IE GCunningham E. L. Jordan, IE ~
EDO r/f S. A. Schwartz, IE K. E. Perkins, IE D. B. Matthews, IE C. R. Van Niel, IE
.ct, F. Kantor, IE W. J. Dircks, EDO H. R. Denton, NRR T. E. Murley, Region I E. S. Christenbury, ELD E. J. Reis, ELD J. R. Sears, IE W. R. Butler, NRR R. R. Bellamy, Region I DCS DEPER RF EPB RF 1
ELD EDO ESchristenbury WJDircks 6/11/85 6/
85
~
EPB [E Tec.Ed
) DE 0
.E D
D
[
F Vbr D
le Matthews z
an R
tmer Tiy I r 6/
85
/85 6/d/85
'6
/85
/p /85 6 q/85' 6/jp
...i.
Commissioner Asselstine does not believe that' the Comission should request that FDM schedule an emegency planning exercise of the LILCO plan at this time. Absent state or local goverment participation, there are serious questions about LILC0's authoriky to implement significant portions of its emergency plan for Shoreham.
Further, there is an ongoing dispute within suffolk County concerning the county's position on emergency planning at Shoreham and its willingness to participate irrtesting and implementing an emergency plan.
Under these circumstances, Comissioner Asselstine believes that scheduling an exercise of the LILCO plan at this time would only confuse matters further.
He therefore recommends that FD'A wait to plan and schedule an exercise for Shoreham at.least until there is some resolution of Suffolk County's position on this issue.
e B
$6 l
O e
9
,,m,,.._
,y y
,m y
Federal Emergency Management Agency ' r j t 4
Washington, D.C. 20472 October 29, 1985 Mr.. Willian J. Dirt;ks Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Casaission Washington, D.C.
20555
Dear Mr. Dircks:
This is in response to a menorandan dated June 20,1985, fran Edward L. Jordan to Richard W. Krlara in Wich FDM tes requested to pro-coed with the conect M "as full an exercise......as is feasible to test offsite preparedness capabilities at the Shoreham Nuclear Powr Plant."
In my October 8,1985 letter,Wich transnitted the revisa of revision 5 of the LI!4D Incal Emergency Response Organization (LGO) plan, I indicated we were analyzing the results d the plan revias in the context of the September 17, 1985 letter fras Chairnan Palladino to Congressnan Markey, and the varicus legal geceediros related to Shoreham in order to res;ond to the ' June 20 memorardsm within several weeks. Chn analysic incitxSes consideration of the Atanic Safety and I.icensing Appeal Board decision cf October 18, 1985.
The deficiencies identified in my letter cf October 8 do not peeclude the conduct of an exercise of the LERO plan. HowoWr, the reluctance of county and State cfficials to participate in such an exercise and the related legal authority issues would place special paraneters en the cordact of a LEm exercise.
We have no indication at this time that cffsite jurisdictions are willirq to directly participate in an exercise in the short teca. Thus, any exercise will be dranatically different than is typical at other sites in the State of New York. Any exercise without participation by State and local 9:)vernnents muld not allod us sufficient denonstration to reach a finding of tuasonable assurance.
This conclusion is based on the current legal decision with respect to utility authority to perfoca civil emergency functions.
Ilo.*ever, that does not preclude the conduct of an exercise that would provide an indication to the Nuclear Begulatory Ccanission (NFC) l as to utility onsite and offsite emergency capabilities. He believe such a report would have value in decisions to contirue the licensirg process j
or possibly provide a basis on which the NRC could make predictive findings. Owicusly, the value ct such an exercise in the licensing process is a determination
- ich can only be made by the NPC.
Given the nature of y:ur.A:ne 20 rquest and consideration of a practical structure for an exercise, se feel that, Wile there are a nunber of variations p:ssible, the basic cptions for exercisirg in the near term atu limittsd to tw :
Option 1 - This cption sculd require that w) set aside all functic6s and exercise objectims related to issues of authority and State and local participation. Thus, only the functice.s outlined for LIICO muld be exercised.
Such ENCLOSURE 3
M
' ~
[.oCT.29 885 21:23 FEMR M FED CTR 1 an emereise is possible but its usefulness would seen very limited. An exercise of 'this type would not address questions such as those raised on pagee 35 through 39 of o +Wr 18 decision of the Atmic Safety and Lloensirq the c
Appeal Daard and would be redundant to actions already taken by NRC.
Option 2 - This stion would include all functions and nonnal amerciaa objectives. 'Ihis cption would exercise Revision 5 of the LEIC Plan. Exercise controllare tcmald sisuulate the j
roles of key State or local officials smable or unwilling 1
to participate. It would be desirable that State and local goverment personnel actually play. However, such a sinat-lation ce&anian sculd at least test the utility's ability to respond to ad hoc'participatic.n on the part of State and local goverments.
'the ultheate purpose cf an exercise is.to support a finding by FEMA for use by the NIC in their licensing process. As we mentioned above, neither of these @t'ons would allar a finding by FEMA on.cffsite preparedness.
However, we recognize that Shorehan is in no way typical and that in the past in exercising its adjudicatory powers the Commission-rrd the varicus Atmic Safety and Licensing Boards have. reached predictive, findings.
Pursuant to pur June 20 request, se are initiating the process necessary to conduct an exercise of either cption. He are prepared to conduct sect!
an exercise in approximately 75 days. Rosever, FEMA requires further clarification frm NRC as to the secpe of the exercise to be conducted.
FDtA will pwd with the initiating steps mtil November 15, at whie eine we will need a definitive exercise accpe fran NRC in ordec~t@ avoid prohibitive costs.
If at that time we have received no directic@ from i
the Nuclear FAgult, tory Comission W will suspend activities tNSEf1 a decision is niade. Given otner demands, se do feel that any delay beyond the current window would require an exercise postponement of at least 90 days beyond t.he mid,7aruary time frare.
Sincerely, L
W.g ~ A<- ?
fattJelW. Speck Associate Director state and I.ocal Programs and Support
.,,,--.--.--,,n
.w,
,---,---.--------,------~----------e mn,--,-
- - - - - - - - - =, -
Action: Taylor, IE
.f.#
.N UNITED STATES Cys: Dircks o
y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Roe r
i WASHIN *. TON, D.C. 20555 Rehm Stello
\\,..... p#
Denton November 8, 1985 GCunningham oppics or Tus Murley SECRsTARY Jordan Matthews MEMORANDUM FOR:
William J. Dircks Executive Director for C ations FROM:
Samuel J. Chilk, SecretI I
SUBJECT:
SECY-85-346 - EMERGENCY PAREDNESS EXERCISE FOR SHOREHAM This is to advise you that the Commission (with Commissioners Bernthal, Roberts ch agreeing) have approved your recommendation to ted with the Emergency Preparedness Exercise following option 2.
Chairman Palladino and Commissioner Asselstine disapproved and continue to question the usefulness of an exercise at this 4 4 Kgpj
//[;.if time.
cc:
Chairman Palladino Commissioner Roberts
'l Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal Commissioner Zech OGC OPE p.
Rec'd Off. Ftto tw.......E.?.l. )
oste....).l.-1A ENCLOSURE 4
NOV 121985 Mr. Samuel W. Speck Associate Director State and Local Programs and Support Federal Emergency Management Agency Washington, D.C.
20472
Dear Mr. Speck:
This responds to your letter of October 29, 1985, proposing two options for an exercise to test onsite and offsite emergency preparedness capabilities at Shoreham. We conclude that an exercise should be conducted consistent with the approach outlined in your Option 2.
Youaskedintheletterforfurtherclarificai.ionfromtheNRCastothescope of the exercise to be conducted.
As stated in our memorandum to you of June 20, 1985, we requested that you schedule as full an exercise of the LILCO Local Emergency Response Organization plan as is feasible.
Option 2 would include all functions and normal exercise objectives, recognizing that some offsite response roles may be simulated. We believe that such an exercise would be useful in the licensing process for Shoreham.
Please let me know if we can be of further assistance.
Sincerely, E31gnedT JacE W. Boe illiam J. Dircks Executive Director for Operations DISTRIBUTION JMTaylor, IE JRSears, IE RHVollmer, IE WRButler, NRR JGPartlow, IE RRBellamy, RI BKGrimes, IE JROE, EDO ELJordan, IE TRehm, EDO SASchwartz, IE GHCunningham, ELD KEPerkins, IE ED0 R/F 1139 DBMatthews, IE DCS CRVan Niel, IE DEPER R/F FKantor, IE EPB R/F WJDircks, EDO SECY HRDenton, NRR TEMurley, RI ELD [ C ED b ESChristenbury, ELD EJReis, ELD ESchristenbury WJ(ircks 11/I985 11/ /85 L
- SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE y
/
- EPB/IE TECH
- EPB/IE D
EPER/IE bE E
FKantor: sc 0 le DBMatthews SASc rtz an RHVo lmer or 11/ d 85 11/ tl85 11/
5 11/p/85
/ /85 11/l2./85 11/ /
/
f ENCLOSURE 5
8 /44'O LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COM PANY
. Y.Thar4gdergegray 175 EAST OLO COU NTRY ROAO
- H t C K SVI LLE. NEW YORK 19808 Direct Dial Number December 13, 1985 Federal Emergency flanagement Agency Region II 25 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 ATTENTI0tt:
Mr. Roger Kowieski SU8 JECT:
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Local Emergency Response Organization 19d6 Graded Exercise - Proposed Schedule
REFERENCE:
1.
LILCO/ FEMA Meeting on Decemoer 12, 1985 2.
Telecon between Messrs. Charles Daverio/ Roger Kowieski on 12/12/85 Gentlemen:
Pursuant to the referenced meeting, LILCO and LER0 are prepared to participate in a fully integrated emergency preparedness exercise, to be graded oy FEMA and flRC, on February 13, 1985.
During our most recen t drill p rogram, we have determined that the Coliseum receiving area is not as available for training as we would like. While it could be made available for an actual emergency, we have decided to identify a more accessiole location for training as well as emergencies.
This location is the Coliseum concourse area.
The concourse area will provide ample space for the implementation of LERO procedures for radiological monitoring of evacuees and shall be used to demonstrate this activity during the geaded exercise.
We believe either of these locations would be adequate.
It is our intent to -incorporate the Coliseum concourse area as the primary location for radiological monitoring of evacuees in a permanent revision to tne LERO plan.
Tne receiving area will remain in tne plan, but will be identified as the secondary location for this activity.
We plan to forward tnis revision to NRC requesting an expedited review.
ENCLOSURE 6
- ~-
o.
Federal Emergency Management Agency Region II December 13, 1985 Page Two If you have any questions or concerns regarding this letter or any points of discussion concerning the referenced meeting, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned at (516) 420-6211.
Very truly yours, Cnarles A. Daverio Manager, Emergency Preparedness CAD /0MB/cjc e
'f k
9 l
s
(,
,M d
RESOLUTION No.
ADOPTING LOCAL LAW NO. ~
YEAR 1985, A LOCAL [AW CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF POLICE POWERS HELD BY THE COUNTY OF SUEEOLK
'WHEREAS, the County of Suffolk, pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of New York, has been delegated police powers by the Sta,te; and WHEREAS, the County has a duty to ensure that such police i
powers are not usurped by other entities; and WHEREAS, County preparations for and responses to natural and man-made emergency situations involve the County's exercise of its police power functions; and WHEREAS, the Long Island Lighting Company has prepared an off-site emergency plan 'for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station in
- which private persons, including Long Island Lighting company employees, would carry out governmental functions and otherwise usurp the police powers of Suffolk County; and s
WHEREAS, at the initiative of the Long Island Lighting
\\
Company there is pr,oposed to be a test of that Company's off-site,
emergency plan, during which test the roles at.d governmental functions of SuffoO Cou.
y officials would be performgd and
" simulated" by persons who.are not officials of Suffolk County and.who are not legally authorited to perform or simulate Suffolk County roles or governmental functions; and 4
ENCLOSURE 7
WHEREAS, the County of Suffolk has not been informed of what roles and governmental functions of the County would be so performed or " simulated," what actions would be taken by persons carrying out-the test, and what public roadways, lands, and other property would be affected during such simulation; and WHEREAS, the County of Suffolk finds that it would be
~
-inconsistent with its police powers and its duty to prevent such powers from being usurped if it were to remain indifferent to usurpation of its' police powers or to allow unauthorized persons I
to perform or simulate the County's roles or governmental functions; and WHEREAS, the County of Suffolk finds that it is recdire'd to
' establish a mechanism of general applicability to gain information needed to assess whether persons are proposing to tcke actions or perform roir.s or governmental functions, or otherwise' usurp the County's police powers in a test or actual emergency situation; and WHEREAS, there was duly presented and introduced to this County Legislature at a meeting held on 1985, a proposed local law entitled, "A LOCAL LAW CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF POLICE POWERS HELD BY THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK," and said local law in f'i al form is the same as when presented and l
Introduced; now, therefore, be it RESOLVED, that scid local law be enacted in form as follows:
-2
LOCAL LAW NO.
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK LOCAL LAW CONCERNING THE PROTECTION OF POLICE POWERS HELD BY THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK i
BE IT ENACTED BY THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE OF THE COUNTY OF SUFFOLK l
h AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
Definition.
As used herein, " person" means any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or public or private organization of Eny c'haracter, provided, however, that " person" I
shall not include any governmental entity authorized by law to perform the governmental functions of Suffolk County or authorized,by law to exercise police powers within the State of New Ydrk.
Section 2.
Prohibition.
A (a)
It shall be a crime for any person to conduct or participate in any test or exercise of any response to a natural or man-made emergency situation if that test or exercise includes as part thereof that the roles or functions of any Suffolk County official will be performed or simulated, and if the Suffolk County Legislature, pursuant to the procedures set forth in l
-Sections 3 and.4 of this Local Law, has issued a notice of i
disapproval of such" performance or simulation of County roles or f
functions.
(b)
It shall be a crime f - in person to conduct or I
participate in any test or exercise s f a.., response to a natural i
or man-made emergency situation if that test or exercise includes
- 3
.t L
[
as part thereof that the roles or functions of any Suffolk County V
[
official will be performed or simulated, and.if the person shall have failed to comply with the procedures set forth in Sections 3(a) and 3(b) of this Local Law.
V Section 3.
Procedures and Public Hearings.
- \\
(a)
At least 25 days prior to conducting or
~
j participating.in a test or exercise covered by this Local Law, a
i h
i.
person who intends to conduct or participate in such test or exercise shall submit to the Clerk of the Suffolk County I
Legislature a description of the proposed activity, specifying how, when, where, by whom, and for what pu? pose the roles or functions of'Suffolk County officials may be performed or
/
J
' simulated.
f (b)
Upon receipt of the submittal required by Section 3(a) of this Local Law, the Clerk shall within 7 days inform the person of any additional information required for the Legislature's review of such submittal.
(c)
The Legislature shall review the submittal to assure that the times, places, manner, and purposes of the proposed performance or simulation of County of Suffolk roles or governmental functions do not interfere with the public's use of or access to'public property, do not involve the unauthorized performance of governmental functions, and do not. usurp or otherwise impair the police powers held by the County.
_ 4
e s'
(d)
The Clerk shall in writing notify the person of the Legislature's determinations under the review set forth in Section 3(c) of this Local Law.
(e)
The Legislature shall hold a public hearing concerning any submittal wherein the Legislature determines that the. proposed performance or simulation of County roles or governmental functions may involve an interference with the public's use of or access to public property, or unauthorized performance of governmental functions, or a -usurpation or other impairment of the police powers held by the County.
(f)
After such public hearing, the Legislature shall determine whether-the proposed performance or simulation of County roles or governmental functions' constitutes an interference with' the public's use of or access' to public property, or unauthorired performance of governmental functions, or a usurpation or other impairment of the County's police powers, and in~the event of a determination to disapprove the proposed performance or simulation, the Clerk shall issue a notice of disappreval of such proposed performance or simulation.
Section 4.
Special Procedures..
(a)
If any person making a submission pursuant to Section 3 of this L cal Law believes that some or all of the data in the submittal merit confidential treatment, the person shall so inform the Clerk at the time of the submission.
If the Legislature then determines that confidential treatment is
~
required, the procedures of Section 3 shall be modified as i _
y
.o.
u s
necessary and appropriate.
If the Legislature determines that confidential treatment is not required, the person shall be so advised and i hall have the option of withdrawing the submittal or s
proceeding under the procedures of Section 3.
(b)
The Presiding Officer is hereby authorized to convene such special meetings of the Legislature a,s may be required in order to conduct the reviews and other procedures required by this Local Law in a timely manner.
Section 5'.
.i Penalties and Remedies.
1 (a)
A violation of Section 2 of this Local Law shall be a Class A Misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a sentence of not more than one (1) year in prison or a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or-by both such fine and imprisonment.
(b)
A violation or threatened violation of any Section of this Local Law, including a failure to submit information as set forth-in Sections 3(a) atd 3(b), shall give the County the option, among other civil remedies, of seeking.injunctive relief.
against the person who is in violation or threatening violation thereof.
Section 6.
Separability.
If any part of this Local Law shall be declared invalid or unconstitutional by any Court, such declaration shall not affect the validity of any other part.
Section 7.
Effective Date.
This Local Law shall take effect immediately, and shall' apply to any activity conducted after such effective date.., -.. -
-