ML20148S901
| ML20148S901 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1988 |
| From: | Halpin P SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148S849 | List: |
| References | |
| OL-3, NUDOCS 8804200070 | |
| Download: ML20148S901 (89) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
O Attachm nt 1 l
0 Acril 13, 1988 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
() Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board
)
O In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
O )
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF PATRICK G. HALPIN ON BEHALF l OF SUFFOLK COUNTY CONCERNING CONTENTIONS 1-2, 4-8, AND 10 2
0 Q: Please state your name.
~ '
A: Patrick G. Halpin.
Q: What is your position?
O A: I am the County Executive of Suffolk County, New York.
l
() Q: What is the purpose of this testimony?
A: I present this testimony to address what Suffolk County E) would do in the following hypothetical situations the NRC
'() $$0 SOccQ $ {2 0 -
1
O l
authorizes operation of Shoreham at power levels above 5% and i i
g there is a serious nuclear accident at the plant which may 1
require offsite protective actions. l Q: Does Suffolk County have a plan for responding to such
)
a hypothetical accident at Shoreham? If not, is one being developed by the County?
i A: The answer to both questions is no. In Resolution No. 456-1982, the County determined that it would devote no funds, personnel, or resources to test or implement any plan for 3
Shoreham unless the plan was first approved by the County Legis-lature. (A copy of Resolution No. 456-1982 is attached.) During 1982 and early 1983, the County government thoroughly evaluated wheth'er it was possible to develop an emergency plan that would protect the health, welfare, and safety of Suffolk County's residents. In Resolution 111-1983, the County determined that
)
such a plan could not be developed. Accordingly, the County resolved not to adopt or implement a plan for Shoreham, Resolutions 456-1982 and 111-1983 have been upheld as ational c;
and lawful by both federal and state courts. Citizens for an Orderly Enerov Poliev. Inc. v. County of Suffolk, 604 F. Supp.
,s 1084 (E.D.N.Y. 1985), aff'd, 813 F.2d 570 (2d Cir. 1987);
u Prospect v. Cohalan, 65 N.Y.2d 867, 493 N.Y.S.2d 293 (1985).
O 1)
D' Q: Nevertheless, if the NRC were to license Shoreham for O operation above 5% power, wouldn't Suffolk County reconsider the determination expressed in Resolution 111-1983 and develop a plan, even if you had dcabts about how effective it would be? In
() other words, wouldn't somethir.g be better than nothing?
A: No. The County has already devoted extensive resources
() to determining whether to develop and implement a plan for Shoreham. This included the year-long 1982-83 planning effort that cost in excess of $600,000 for outside experts alone. NRC acti n t license Shoreham above 5% power would not cause the O
County to reconsider Resolution Nos. 456-1982 and 111-1983, because such a reconsideration would breach the trust our citi-zens have placed in their elected officials. The County's deter-O mination not to adopt or implement an emergency plan for Shoreham was not based on expediency or any purpose of convenience. The g determination was based on good faith and dedication to the principle that Suffolk County's government has an unqualified duty to protect the well-being of its citizens. The County determined that the public could not be safely evacuated or O
otherwise protected in the event of a serious nuclear accident at Shoreham. This meant that we could not responsibly adopt or work g to implement an emergency plan that we believed would fail to protect the public. As elected officials, our duty is to tell the public the truth. We did that in enacting Resolution N . 111-1983, and we will continue to do that now. We will not O
O back-down from what was determined and resolved in Resolution
.(3 Nos. 456-1982 and 111-1983.
Q: Are you aware that LILCO has developed an offsite
- O response plan for use in case of a nuclear accident at Shoreham?
A: Yes.
O Q: Are you aware also that LILCO has taken the position that if the County does not develop its own plan to respond to an accident at Shoreham and there were in fact such an accident, the ig County would use and implement LILCO's plan and the LILCO resour.ces assembled as part of that plan to respond to the g accident?
As Yes, I am aware of LILCO's position. I am also aware that LILCO has asserted that in such a circumstance, LILCO and g
County personnel would work cooperatively with each other to attempt to implement LILCO's plan, and that I, as County Executive, or someone else with authority in County government if j)
I were not available, would give approval or permission for LILCO's personnel to take various actions pursuant to LILCO's j) plan.
~ ~
O
1 n :
G \
i 1
Q: Is'LILCO's position correct?
l 0
A: No. The Suffolk County government would not follow or implement LILCO's plan or work with LILCO's personnel if there g were an accident at Shoreham. The reasons are set forth in 1
detail in an affidavit I executed on February 9, 1988. Rather l l
than repeat thos? reasons again, I attach a copy of that affi- ;
g davit and make it a part of this testimony.
1 i
Nevertheless, I wish to underscore several points. First, O LILCO has suggested that the County would work to implement LILCO's plan because this would be the best way to attempt to protect the County's citizens and because it is not credible that the County would do anything else at the time of an emergency.
O LILCO's premise, however, is incorrect because the County govern-ment does aqt view LILCO's plan as an acceptable way to respond, r indeed even as an option. The County, after analyzing various O
deficiencies in LILCO's plan for purposes of participating in litigation before the NRC, has found LILCO's plan to be unwork-able. We have told our citizens that LILCO's plan cannot protect O
+ .em , and County officials from the police department and other departments, whose expertise and qualifications are outstanding, have d umented this. If, after telling ur itizens that O
LILCO's plan cannot protect them, we were to do an about-face and tell them that they and we should follow this unworkable plan in an a id nt when their lives and safety are on the line, we would 0
O
O have no credibility with our own citizens. The result would be a ]
c) breakdown in the essential trust that our citizens must have in us if this government is to be able to function for the public's well-being. In the circumstances of a nuclear accident, it would
() be a prescription for even greater chaos.
Second, LILCO is incorrect when it suggests that the Suffolk O County government might give LILCO permission to take offsite actions during a Shoreham emergency. We would not. There are several reasons. To give such permission would in my opinion be g an improper delegation of the County's police power responsibil-ity. I recognize that the cuomo v. LILCO decisions were vacated by the Court of Appeals for technical jurisprudential reasons on February 17, 1988. But the rationale articulated by O
Justice Geiler on February 20, 1985, and by four justices of the Appellate Division (127 A.D.2d 626, 511 N.Y.S.2d 867 (1987)), is still the only judicial view of the laws the County cannot g
delegate or through "permission" grant to LILCO the police power authority held by this County.
O Further, and aside from the legal question, I would never give LILCO permission or approval to take offsite actions in a Shoreham emergency because I find LILCO to be incompetent to O
perform such actions. As discussed in the attached affidavit, LILCO's conduct over the years has convinced the County govern-ment that we would not effectively serve our citizens' interests g
6-O .
S) l if we acted in concert with LILCO. LILCO has lost the confidence [
of this government and its citizens. For us to join with LILCO 33 would be to relinquish the trust our citizens have in us. We would never do that.
'O Third, no one connected with Suffolk County government has operational Jamiliarity with LILCO's plan. A few members of the 3 g Suffolk County Police Department and a few people from other departments have studied parts of LILCO's plan in connection with litigation before the NRC. They have specified various defects in the Plari. N7ne of these persons has reviewed LILCO's plan for lO purposes of acting pursuant to it. No one in tne County govern-f ment has trained to act pursuant to LILCO's Plan. Suffolk County i j) Resolution Nos. 456-1982 and 111-1983 prevent any County person-nel or resources from being used to implement LILCO's Plan.
Indeed, the County has sent all copies of LILCO's plan -- except for three which we are retaining solely for litigation purposes
- g L
! -- to our lawyers in Washington, D.C.
l Q: You have stated that Suffolk County will have no plan
)
for an accident at Shoreham and that you would not follow LILCO's c i
! plan. What if the NRC were to license Shoreham anyway? l
- 5) i i
A: I do not believe that the NRC would license Shoreham to operate in the face of the lawful and rational determinations of
- Suffolk County. If the NRC nevertheless were to take such -
- O <
h I
I r
io i
- - - . , ~ , _
, - ,-----.,.--,...,_.,.v , - . . , , , , - - . _ , n - - ..,._,. _-._..n,. ___,,,-,.w-- -m,---__.- , - - - - - - - -
)
l action, Suffolk County would naintain its position and put the I r j matter before the courts. T1e County has acted in good faith and ;
solely in the interests of .ts citizens. We will not'back-down from our convictions and our duty as elected government 3 officials.
l Moreover, it is unproductive to engage in make-believe by l
!g pretending how the County would act under the hypothetical circumstances of an accident at Shoreham after that plant were ,
somehow licensed by the NRC. For reasons stated above and the o attached affidavit, we would never follow LILCO's plan or coordi-nate in any way with LILCO. Nor do I know what resources would [
be available. It is my judgment that if there were a serious g emergency, many of our employees would necessarily look after
, their families as a first and perhaps only priority. Also,
- County personnel have had no training or preparation to carry out any kind f a purported "response" to a Shoreham emergency. The O
, County's position is that it would not be possible to safely evacuate or otherwise protect the public in the event of a nu lear a ident at Shoreham. It is thus baseless fantasy to try O ,
to speculate about what might hypothetically be done.
Q: The NRC's Licensing Board on February 29, 1988, stated O
the following:
There is a presumption that the State and County response will follow the LILCO Plan, a O presnmption rebuttable only by timely evidence
)
that the Governments will follow a different :
but adequate and feasible plan that can be !
relied on or by other evidence of li:te kind.
3 t Was the Board accurate with respect to how the County would act in a Shoreham emergency? l 3 i i
A No. As discussed above, Suffolk County has no plan for responding to an accident at Shoreham and will not develop one, D because we have determined after extensive analyses that no such plan could be adequate to protect the well-being of our citizens.
Further, the County would not under any circumstar.ces follow LILCO's plan, because LILCO's plan is unworkable and cannot protect the well-being of our citizens and because County law l
l prohib'its us from implementing that plan. There is no factual O basis for the Board's st'atement.
Q: Does that complete your testimony?
O As Yes. l h
1
) .
< r l
l
) '
f i
i
_9-O .
, - - - - _ - .,. - - - . ~ . - - , _ . _ , , , , , , . _ , , _ _ , , _ _ _ - - _ - - _ - _ _ _ . ,
- i 1()., , '
- a t.* o . ?.c s . a. e,
!atre!uced t 15ti-II .
- r.ichard s, b,vtne, nraseeconterg, gistatorsA1:20 314ss. sesso, raley, Nolan, ,
t p
daCLton, Noto, Ho*488e.racappa. Close, Alig;;v, I Pro 4pec t, *a lue, ,
- () .
atscLy*:CN.WQ. 616 ~1911, ,
' 6
- OLICT Cr TUC COUNTY CT $UTTOLA3,*,;1CLCCICA ..
\
WM'cACA3, '
County of Suttolk has v protestian of its rest 4 cats in the ovent the primary ,
j Ic1And Ltonting Company's shorana1 H .
ucasar Power Statientof a radiological en.argen fat (*
.() through L'XC REA s , and t,} e ' ' - ,
est:rgency plan and pr:parndness are dScoJ !alth and so
.Cauntyt and ,
eveloptd to protectto assure that.thepossibt bestasty and in RHCP.!AS
- Suffolk County 's the cit!.sa.7s of Su!!al nationally r.c w candweting reco,gnized a experts drawn froEmergoney Planning t () - desatled planning aeffort a range of pertinent Task Force, es+ posed o vinble radiological emergnney plan u ter s f f act, olk Countyinand order to attauptdisciplines, to develop .
L.
the has rightful gone beyond pouars of its powers ng Company as.
ak'HCACA3, The Long Isla matorial to the New York Suffolk state private cor;,oratton in an attemptLa an unw OL by submitting count County as the official radiological emergen y planning resourca; to usur
!() .
personnet, 4pproved
'UNCATAS, said plan,ing n saster Preparedness Ccesission resource material .,
s approv4L
- and fo
- RADICLCCICALis preliminary data wnten in no . * "
4MCACCNCy
! co.".stitute such County plan At3 70H3C ' FLA:Iway constitutes thedeveloped in p i
=
tiMEACAS, r*
and and will notsuffolk C:vnty.La the future i() / (!JH to has tion thefully New prepared York State Qt and appecSoffsik. Ccunty will submit i
/
vith the planning efforts of both sas ter Prope.'edness Commt ss ten only whQLCC: CA
'/ vedLIL03by fut*olk County and is the en enas plan RC3cLVtc, ,
that suffolk and How Yorx states therefore, berety int:1 rated
' Rrdiolegical Emerg ncy Respcas County Lt e Planning Policytherchy established the foll: wing
': C) ,
Su!!alk C'ounty shall .aot assign f personnel to test or implement any unds or '
th. shorenas nuclear Ptantradiological r emergency response '
of the County's antitty. toplan the behas s t been ' ally developedunte Suttolk C:enty shall not assign f
- ()
pitt:nnot to test or implement any unds of ~ ~ ~ ~ .
s radiolegical the shorcham Nucloat energency response plan fo r ;
- 1 .. .
pitn has bien tne subjectPlant unless that -
hcJd, and one La be of at holdlaAsr in two HaPublic hcarings. ona to te in Ran ra
- vppauge. .
- C) h i
l t
i lC) ,
ll i
.^^
g - -
. . . , ... ... - - .-~ ,
- t
,p; j
' son;nelo k county sha ll rio t assli n .s or
- to test or irnp l e m e n t any gaetological e se ryency re spon s e plan for *
)
the Shorehars Nu: lear Plant unless that j plan has t.een approved, altse public O he s:1..g s , by tr.c suffolk County t,agis14ture .
and tr.: C.:ency c.=ecuttve 0 i e n d ,' b.s Lt turther .
P.Isc t.V C D , thr't copies of *
!;2aker of tr.e A s s . *.
- t.' i s resolutien 'e n- . .
of t.no state at : tete .J1y, ::g , the Majority t '* dor of the Sen e '~Ed O ' -
P.o * "$ b . u r s*.
49L~.-~
D.'.7:3 8 Kay 13, 1982 .
M P.". *. 3 B y : *
/
Y0 '$ -
_Courdy Executive ci :;u t io 14- Countj O"
h te og Approvals g* f ,c g 9 #
.O O
j '--
/
o O -
__.c__ .
SUFFOLK COUNTY
",.. a L. cei C' t J. Willia rn H. Ro:ers. Clerk of the C a nt- K i p.t. rur, County Le;ist:ture of the Cev.-ty of Suf!:!k. h:ve e:ni:: .s ed the F. ..!Y Er.llEA D, N. Y. fctmir.t c4;y cf re,:,lutien vaith th: sti:;in.! rn:!vtica s.sw en f.l: in V -
thi: cI5ce. :nd w hieh was daly ad:-:;d by the Ceun:y !.ari:!r tar. elv.id Ccunty on YJ a /P, /f?'a2 / '
'. tid th*,t the.urne [a trse and correct trr...Mript cleaid rysclwtion ir.d of L the whole thereof.
, J. ,%. C'- .,4. J ha ve hereunto at rny har.d tad the officti s4t! of the County !.e;isir.ture of the C:anty of Suffolk
. C. .' . *.'. *)
Ct:rk of tr.e Ccw .tr t.g
. .n;. ture
__,,.-...,-v.-,. . . . .
I .
lO (n
M .
t
~4 -e~~ ^~
O
.O February 9, 1988 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULA10RY COMMISSION O Bef re the Atomic Safetv and Licensino Board
)
I" * "****# #
O
(,0NG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY l
) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
) (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Unit 1) )
O AFFIDAVIT OF PATRICK G. HALPIN
.O Patrick G. Halpin, being duly sworn, does state as follows:
I. Jntroduction
- 1. I am the County Executive of Suffolk County, New York, I have held this position since January 1, 1988, having been duly elected to this position in November 1987. As County Executive, I am authorized to direct the County's response to emergencies.
O
- 2. I am familiar with "LILCO's Motions for Summary Dispo-sition of Contentions 1-2 and 4-10," dated December 18, 1987.
This A!fidavit addresses matters alleged by LIICO in the Moticas.
O
, .._ we ---
o h if '?Y _
O
- 3. LILCO alleges in the Motions that in the event of a O r'adiological emergency at Shoreham, the Suffolk County government would respons by working in close coordination with LILCO person-nel and that Suffolk County officials, in carrying out such a
- O response, would rely upon and fcilow LILCO's offsite emergency response plan for Shoreham. LILCO asserts that such a coordin-ated response effort between LILCO and Suffolk County personnel l O must be presumed to occur on the basis of the NRC's recently amended emergency planning rule, set forth at 52 Fed. Reg.
42078-87 (Nov. 3, 1987). Attachments 1 and 2 to this Affidavit O are summaries and quotations of LILCO's various assertions about the ways in which LILCO claims Suffolk County and New York State would act in the event of an emergency at Shoreham.
O ,
- 4. LILCO's assertions regarding how Suffolk County would respond to a radiological emergency at Shoreham are false.
g Suffolk County believes that Shoreham should not be permitted, and indeed will not be permitted, to operate above 5 percent power. If, for present purposes of discussion, however, one g assumes that Shoreham were permitted to operate, and if there were then a radiological accident at Shoreham, Suffolk County would not use LILCO's plan or coordinate with LILCO personnel in 1
g any response to that emergency. To use or otherwise follow LILCO's plan in any way or to rely upon LILCO personnel would be to violate the County's established emergency planning policies, to breach the trust of our citizene, and to endanger the safety O
g .
.O of the public through reliance on a LILCO plan and LT.LCO emer-O ,
gency workers that are incapable of protecting the public safety.
II. County Poliev O
- 5. Suffolk County's policy that it will not use LILCO's plan or rely upon LILCO personne) in a Shoreham emergency does g not represent a new County policy. Rather, the policy is long standing, enunciated first in Resolution No. 111-1983, then followed by Peter F. Cohalan, the County Executive during most of g the period covering the Shoreham emergency planning contreversy, and subsequently followed by my predecessor in office, Michael A.
LcGrande. A copy of Resolution No. 111-1983 is Attachment 3 O. hereto; a copy of Mr. Cohalan's statement is Attachment 4 hereto; and a copy of Mr. LoGrande's affidavit adenting Mr. Cohalan's statement is Attachment 5 hereto.
.O
- 6. I hereby affirm my agreement with, and I hereby adopt as part of this affidavit, Attachments 3-5 hereto. I will not burden this affidavit by repeating the statements and rationale
)
contained in those Attachments. I stress, however, that they set l forth in detail the bases for the County's decision not to adopt or implement an emergency plan for Shoreham, the reasons that the
)
County would never use LILCO's Plan, and why the County would 0
O t . . .-
1 never in any way rely upon or coordinate with LILCO personnel in
!O the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham.1/
III. &dditional Comments Related to LILCO's Motions
- O
- 7. I am informed that LILCO asserts repeatedly that the County would give LILCO approval or permission to take various actions in the event of a Shoreham accident.1/ LILCO's ass ~er-tions are false. As County Executive, I would never grant LILCO any such permicsion or approval. First, in my view,~giving LILCO
.O such permission or approval would constitute an improper transfer of the governmental authority and police powers of this County to LILCO. It would thus be inconsistent with my responsibilities as the County Executive and would put into LILCO's hands the public's safety that I was elected to protect. Second, LILCO 1/ LILCO suggests that because County police officers have
,13 responded to several security threats at Shoreham, the County would work cooperatively with LILCO if there were a radiological emergency at Shoreham. LILCO's suggestion is false and a distortion of logic, because the events and circumstances are j totally different. The County has determined that it is possible to respond adequately to a Shoreham security incident and the County does so. The County has also determined tnat an adequate
- O response to a radiological emergency is not possible. Therefore, the County has resolved not to adopt or implement an emergency plan, and it will not do so. The County is thus forthright in the context of both security and emergency planning. It is
, disingenuous for LILCO to torture facts and logic in order to l _
create false impressions about the County's intentions. l
!O l 1/ For example, LILCO states in its "Introduction: Memorandum of Law" (p. 3) that "LERO must get permission from the State or County to activate the warning sirens (for example) or to recommend to the public that they shelter or evacuate." LILCO then states that "LERO workers would be permitted to perform .
O specific functions under the direction of these governmental l
authorities." Id. at 4.
1-l l
lo i -
O cannot be trusted to perform its duties capably, let alcne O perf rm emergency functions upon which the welfare and safety of 1.3 million citizens of Suffolk County would depend. We.on Long Island have learned not to rely on LILCO to take action capably:
LILCO's feeble and woeful response to hurricane Gloria and its O.
gross mismanagement of Shoreham's construction are but two drama-tic examples.3/ Finally, we have seen the debacle of LILCO's performance in its February 1986 "exercise." Even though IILCO had originated the scenario for the exercise, even though the "exercise" has been found to be too limited in scope, even though O LILCO had received advance notice of the date of the nuclear "accident," and even though LILCO had conducted countless drills to get ready for the exercise and the specific date it was scheduled for, LILCO's LERO personnel still performed inccmpe-tently. The Licensing Board's recent decision in LBP-88-2 under-scores what we have known for years: LILCO's LERO personnel are O 3/ I am informed that LILCO in several affidavits has asserted that its personnel's capabilities have been established through actions such as responding to gas line breaks and directing traffic in a few minor circumstances, and because some individual LILCO employees have received awards. I do not belittle these efforts -- they are commendable. But we must keep in mind how 0 limited these actions were; they are irrelevant to the scope and types of action that would be required in a radiological emergency. When LILCO has been required to act in response to a major event such as Hurricane Gloria, or to the simulation of the
- 1986 Exercise whose scenario LILCO created for itself, its performance has been inadequate. And, no matter how many gas O line breaks LILCO might postulate, the severity and massive impact of a nuclear accident at Shoreham would create burdens on LILCO's workers that even the best gas-li'ne repairman could probably not even imagine. Indeed, it is ridiculous for LILCO to compare a localized gas line break to the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of people under circumstances of a nuclear plant o disaster. The fact that LILCO does this, again shows that LILCO does not take emergency planning seriously.
l i
5-O t .
O "amateurs" (LBP-88-2, at 6), not competent emergency workers; and O LILCO's Plan is fundamentally flawed, including deficiencies in communications, training, mobilization of workers, public infor-mation, media relations, and handling emergency broadcast system
)-
matters.A/ LDP-88-2 provides further cor oboration of my judg-ment and Suffolk County's determination that the County could not and would not rely upon LILCO's plan or personnel. LILCO's plan is seriously flawed and unable co protect public safety, and LILCO's personnel are incompetent and inadequately trained to take effective emergency response actions. Therefore, in a radiological emergency situation at Shoreham, whatever response Suffolk County made, it would be without following LILCO's emer-gency plan or coordinating with LILCO or LERO.
I emphasize that in such a situation, it would not even be realistic to consider O
working with LILCO. The citizens of Suffolk County would undoubtedly view LILCO as the culprit that recklessly forced Shoreham into operation over the public's overwhelming opposi-tion. The accident would again prove LILCO's judgment to be worthless, and it would prove the public's to have been right.
LILCO would be seen as having betrayed its promise that an acci-dent was virtually certain not to happen. No Suffolk County official could then turn to LIICO for aid and advice on how to respond to the catastrophe which LILCO itself created. There
'O A/ LILCO asserts in its Memorandum of Law (p. 8) that its LERO personnel are "trained" to respond to a radiological emergency at Shoreham. Suffolk County's witnesses at the Exercise hearing, including expert police officers, conclusively demonstrated O LILCO's assertion to be false, and LBP-88-2 underscores this fact.
O
1 O-would be public outrage toward LILCO and disbelief of anything O LILCO was part of, including recommendations for protective actions, public information, and other emergency response actions.
O
- 8. LILCO urges that the County would be irresponsible if it were to act on its own. LILCO claims that the County would have to use LILCO's rirens and LILCO's radio messages and other resources because LILCO's methods are in LILCO's judgment the best way of protecting the public. LILCO is entitled to its views of what.is "best" for itself, but LILCO does not speak for the County and has no basis or competence to claim what is "best" for the County or what our "best efforts" would be. The County speaks for itself through its Legislature and its County Execu-tive. On Shoreham matters, we speak in one voice: Suffolk l
l County would not use LILCO's Plan or resources because we believe LILCO's Plan is inadequate and unworkable. We thus have concluded that our "best efforts" would be exercised as described above -- acting on our own, without regard to LILCO's Plan or personnel.
- 9. I want to ensure that there is no misunderstanding of Suffolk County's policy: Suffolk County will not under any circumstances rely on LILCO's emergency plan or on LILCO's LERO personnel. I have directed my staff to gather all copies of LILCO's Plan in the County's possession, except for only three 7- '
,0 l
l l _ _ - _ _ .
O copies which will be maintained to assist our litigation efforts.
g The Suffolk County Police Department ("SCPD") personnel who have served and/or may serve as witnesses will have one copy to share only for purposes of assisting with matters in litigation.
,0 Mr. Boyle, the County Attorney, will have one copy for purposes of assisting with matters in litigation. And Mr. Kurtter, my Deputy County Executive who oversees Shoreham matters, will have O,
one copy for purposes of assisting with matters in litigation.
All other copies of the Plan have been or are being sent to the County's outside litigation counsel, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, for their use in litigation. It must be stressed, therefore, that County personnel know essentially nothing about LILCO's Plan, except for those few persons who have provided litigation support. And, these persons' knowledge of LILCO's Plan is thus O
limited'to having identified, analyzed, and/or testified about inadequacies in the Plan and specific ways in which the Plan is deficient. These persons have not studied LILCO's Plan for any purpose of preparing or learning how to administer or implement the Plan. There has been and will be no planning or training whatsoever for County personnel to take any actions pursuant to LILCO's Plan or any other plan or to work with LILCO personnel.
- 10. It is my intent that the foregoing paragr.phs put to O
rest conclusively LILCO's baseless statements that Suffolk County would ever rely on LILCO's Plan or personnel in an emergency.
O O
lO i
i Yet, there are a number of additional matters contained in LILCO's Motions that I wish to address below, O
- 11. I am informed that LILCO asserts that in the event of g an emergency, I or my representative would go to LILCO's l Emergency Operations Center. It also is asserted that LILCO personnel would be permitted to come to the SCPD police head-quarters in Yaphank to assist in briefing and dispatching County police. Indeed, LILCO would have the Licensin? Board believe that tbc Suffolk County police would work with LILCO's Traffic Guides to implement the traffic and EPZ perimeter access control measures set forth in LILCO's Plan. LILCO also contends that its l personnel would be given permission to remove obstructions suc'h' as accidents and stalled or broken down vehicles from the road-0 l ways and to provide fuel to motorists. LILCO's statements are l
l false, and I raject them as pure fantasy. I would not go, nor would any County representative go, to LILCO's facility; and no
,O LERO personnel would be permitted into tne SCPD headquarters.
Moreover, under no circumstances would the Suffolk County police work in partnership with LERO personnel to direct traffic or control access to evacuated areas of the EPZ. It is equally baseless for LILCO to suggest that the police would implement the traffic control portions of the LILCO Plan. They would not do O
so. Nor would I or any other County official give LILCO permis-sion to remove roadway obstructions or to provide fuel to motorists during a Shoreham emergency. I repeat that LILCO's O
l
'O L
O actions over the years make LILCO a company whose judgment and g competence Suffolk County and the public cannot trust or rely on.
I would be derelict in my responsibilities if I were to work with LILCO in a radiological emergency situation when the public's O lives a d safety were in danger and when the public had to have confidence in their leaders and their leaders' judgment. Indeed, if in an emergency I were to turn to the discredited LILCO for help or advice, I would have no credibility with the public because neither I nor the public have any trust in LILCO. If I turned to LILCO, I would lose my effectiveness as a public official. .
.O
- 12. I am informed that LILCO claims that Suffolk County personnel would use LILCO's Plan and rely upon LERO personnel because New York State law, particularly Article 2-B of the New York Executive Law, and the Suffolk County Charter, call for i
- O the use of private resources in an emergency. LILCO's statement is false and seriously misleading. While New York law permits reliance in appropriate circumstances on a volunteer organization to carry out certain tasks, the clear premise of New York law is l
that a County Executive, before relying upon any volunteer organ-I ization, must consider the volunteer organization to be competent l
and helpful in performing needed emergency services. In the lO i
present instance, neither LILCO's judgment nor its competence is worthy of Suffolk County's trust. LILCO has demonstrated itself and its LERO organization to be grossly inadequate in its iO lO
O structure, organization, composition, training, performance, and c3 v
even purpose. Indeed, LERO has shown'itself simply to be a cosmetic organization that LILCO has sought to use for the 212 forma purpose of securing an NRC license, not an organization g actually constituted to be able to provide effective emergency services in a nuclear accident where human lives and safety are on the line.1/
O
- 13. I am informed that LILCO asserts that Suffolk County in the past has merely offered "generalized denials" in stating that it would not rely upon LILCO or LILCO's Plan. LILCO's statement is false. Attachments 3-5 nereto do not constitute "generalized denials," but rather constitute detailed explanations of why Suffolk County, in the rational exercise of its police powers, l
has decided not to adopt or implement an emergency plan for Shoreham and why no County Executive could or would make use of LILCO's Plan or rely in any way on LILCO personnel in an emer-gency. These are pointed statements of principle and practical l explanations detailed with chapter and verse specificity. The fact that LILCO persists in mischaracterizing these categorically lo l
clear statements and seeking to pass them off as inconsequential is, to Suffolk County, just another example of the cavalier
- O 1/ For example, the County Charter permits the County to use "traineo" radiolvgical personnel. LILCO cites this provision at pages 5-6 of its Memorandum of Law. But LILCO omits a critical fact: LILCO's personnel are not trained and competent emergency workers on whom the County could rely. The County's witnesses at
() the Exercise hearing conclusively demonstrated this, and LBP-88-2 underscores it.
O
O conduct, the lack of good faith, and the misdeeds LILCO has O c nsistently manifested t ward Suffolk County, In short, LILCO's claim is simply a distortion of the truth.
- 14. I am informed that LILCO asserts that the principal reason that Suffolk County would not use LILCO's Plan is Suffolk County's alleged disagreement with LILCO's choice of a 10-mile plume exposure emergency planning zone. LILCO's statement is false. The principal reason that Suffolk County would not use LILCO's Plan is that the Plan would not protect the public's i
!O safety, but would instead imperil public safety. Indeed, following an eig!,t month, $600,000 study and analysis by a team of l nationally recognized experts, Suffolk County-determined that an adequate emergency response, whether it be in the context of a 2, 10, or 20-mile EPZ, would not be possible to achieve.5/ The County's determination was the basis of its resolution not to adopt or implement an emergency plan for Shoreham that was upheld 5/ LILCO refers several times to the so-called Voorhees plan, i.e.,
I the draft County plan which was developed in 1982 and rejected by l Suffolk County in Resolution 111-1983. LILCO's references to that plan are irrelevant because the plan was rejected and is thus a nullity.
O The plan was a draft document prepared in 1982 by County consultants; when the draft was presented to the Legislature, and reviewed following extensive hearings, it was rejected on the merits. The draft was not distributed to County officials or departments for use under any circumstance. The County has devoted no resources to the l implementation of the rejected plan or to any other plan. To my (O knowledge, no copies of that draft plan are even available to County response personnel. LILCO's references to Mr. Cohalan's statement that the voorhees plan was the "best possible" plan are likewise irrelevant.
The consultants were told to prepare the best possible plan; but that plan was not adequate and was rejected. LILCO's assertions that the rejected draft plan reflects how Suffolk County would act in a Shoreham LO emergency are baseless, false, and a distortion. LILCO has no right to arrogate to itself the power to speak for the County and attribute to the County the false statements that LILCO fabricates.
10 L
O by the federal courts and the courts of New York as being lawful
,j- and' rationally based. LILCO's claim, again, is simply a distortion.
O 15. I am inf rmed that LILCO asserts at various places in its Motions that the NRC's new rule and the so-called "best efforts" principle require the Licensing Board to presume that,in g the event of a serious radiological emergency, Suffolk County would take actions which are contrary to Suffolk County law (Legislative Resolution 111-1983) and the sworn statements of t'wo past Suffolk County Executives and myself. LILCO's assertions are
)
false. The NRC's new rule permits no such presumption. indeed, the new rule recognizes that local governments and State govern-ments have the authority and responsibility to exercise their police powers in the manner which they deem serves the health, welfare, and safety of their citizens. Attachments 3-5 hereto, as well as the discussion in the body of .s Affidavit, explain
.O, thoroughly why Suffolk County has determined that its police power responsibilities require it not to adopt or implement an emergency plan for Shoreham and not to rely on LILCO's Plan or LILCO's personnel. Suffolk County has thus acted conclusively within the spher'e of governmental responsibilities that is
,0 exclusively the County's. Neither LILCO nor the NRC is in a 1
position to second guess how Suffolk County exercises its police powers, and any such suggestions of LILCO or the NRC would be i
noth misguided and false. It is only this County government--
O l
1
!O l
L_s _ __
l O
established by law and elected by the people it is constituted to z) serve--that can speak authoritatively of what the County would itself do in an emergency. The fact is that Suffolk County speaks through its elected officials: the County Legislature and O the County Executive. The Legislature through duly enacted Resolutions, and the Executive through repeated statements and representations, including affidavits such as the instant affi-O d*"It' have spoken categorically and directly: Suffolk CoQnty would never follow or otherwise use LILCO's Plan or rely on, coordinate with, or otherwise work with LILCO's personnel in the j) event of a radiological emergency at the Shoreham plant. Any statement of LILCO or anyone else to the contrary is but mere j fantasy.
O m
) ~ /
%'~~ Pat (ick G. Hal$dn lO 4 Sworn to and subscribed before me this C3" day of February 1988.
l
'O <?f2n22Lf JbLufst__.
(Notary Publid unnai 9 NOTMn F06dC, Ne.<,iNm W h r o. S o m 5:3 M re:k t,x n:yy My Commission expires: conme bm uy 31,19.sq lO l
!o 14 -
O
O.
Attachment 1 i
- O Summarv of LILCO "Best Efforts" Assertions LILCO VERSION OF A BEST EFFORTS CONTENTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
- O S&6: Activation of Pursuant to the LILCO version sirens, direct of a best efforts response, the broadcast Governments would:
messaging making protective action -
() decisions
{ 1) "tell LERO to sound the
( sirens" (Motion at 2);
- O
- 2) grant LERO permission to implement "certain elements of the emergency response" (Motion at 13), including notification, evacuc_lon
- () and/or early dismissal of schools (Motion at 14);
- 3) rely on the advice of the plant staff (Motion at 15);
O
- 4) use the Emergency Broadcast System messag'.3 written by LILCO (Motion at 16);
- 5) "direct the emergency response O ut f the LERO EOC" (Motion at 20).
i O
o lO l
O LILCO VERSION OF A BEST EFFORTS CONTENTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE O 1&2 Direct traffic, block Pursuant to the LILCO version roadways, erect of a best efforts response, barriers on roadways, the Governments would:
channel traffic during a Shoreham emergency.
O 1) "implement in the field the traffic control elements of the LILCO Plan" (Motion at 2);
- 2) be able to supply the .
communication system and
,0 police necessary to implement the traffic control elements of the LILCO Plan (Motion at 3);
O 3) notify, mobilize and dispatch the police to the traffic control points (Motion at 4);
- 4) have Suffolk County police assembled and briefed at
.() Yaphank in two hours time (Motion at 5);
- 5) instruct Suffolk County police l to direct traffic pursuant to l the advice of LERO traffic O guides and the guidance of the LILCO Plan rather than implement an ad hoc response of their own (Motion at 8);
- 6) grant permission for the LERO O traffic guides to direct traffic in the event an adequate number of Suffolk l County police fail to report l (Motion at 10).
- O 1
10 1
- O
-n , , . - - - - - - - - - , - - - - , - , - , , ,- , , -- .- - - - - ,-
l
-O !
I LILCO VERSION OF A BEST EFFORTS ;
C0NTENTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE l
O 10 Provide access control Pursuant to the LILCO version at the perimeter of of a best efforts response, the the E&Z Governments would:
O (1) "Suffolk County Police could and would provide long-term access control" (Motion at 4);
(2) the best efforts response of the Suffolk County police O
would "be adequate to protect the public health and safety" (Motion at 7);
(3) the Suffolk County police "would maintain EPZ perimeter control" and keep the public LO out of evacuated areas (Motion at 8).
! 4&9 Removing road Pursuant to the LILCO version obstructions and of a best efforts response, O providin'g gasoline the Governments would:
(1) in a fast-breaking accident, give LERO permission via a telephone conversation to remove obstructions from the
.O road and dispense gasoline to i evacuees (Motion at 1);
I i
(2) in a slower developing accident, give permission to l
LERO at the LERO EOC to remove
- g obstructions and dispense t gasoline to evacuees l (Motion at 1);
O l
lO O .
- k. m
O LILCO VERSION OF A BEST EFFORTS C9NTENTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE O (3) grant permission to LERO quickly (Motion at 2);
(4) "certainly" allow LERO to clear road obstructions and dispense gasoline (Motion at
() 6).
7&8 Make and implement Pursuant to the LILCO version ingestion pathway, of a best efforts response, the recovery and reentry Governments would:
O decisions (1) the State of New York would:
(a) implement its generic recovery and reentry and O ingestion pathway procedures, using the LILCO Plan to compensate for the lack of a cer.nty plan (Motion at 2);
- O (b) "convene the State Recovery Committee" (Motion at 6);
(c) "function in the lead position for long-term O radiological monitoring and medical follow-up for the general public." The County "would assist the State, using the LILCO Plan" (Motion at 13);
O (d) "recommend protective actions and direct ingestion pathway activities for Nassau and Suffolk counties" O (Motion at 19);
(e) use the LILCO Plan to maintain an inventory of dairy farms, food processing plants and
-)
( State farms (Motion at 21);
.O .
O-LILCO VERSION OF A BEST EFFORTS CONTENTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
.O (2) Suffolk county would:
(a) use the LILCO Plan and LERO resources (Motion at 2, 6);
O (b) collect data on the needs of an affected area and submit that data to the State (Motion at 12);
(c) "follow its normal
() procedures for all other emergencies" (Motion at ,
12);
(d) provide security and fire protection (Motion at
- O 14):
(e) determine the availa-bility of transportation (Motion at 14);
- o (f) gather data and submit requests for federal aid (Motion at 14);
(g) would implement all of O LERO's recovery and reentry procedures (Motion at 14);
(h) use LERO data and LERO decontamination and Q transportation resources and procedures (Motion at 16);
- O
- O l
l
- O .
10.
' LILCO VERSION OF A BEST EFFORTS CONTENTION GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
,O (1) "use LILCO's ingestion
! pathway procedures and resources" (Motion at 19);
(j) use LILCO's procedures y for writing EBS messages (Motion at 24);
(k) use LILCO's procedures for ingestion pathway I
(Motion at 25);
O (1) be responsible for implementing all LERO/ County activities and for coordinating with the State (Motion at 25);
O
- 3) the State and County would use the LILCO Emergency News Center (Motion at 24);
O (4) the State response to an ingestion pathway incident would be adequate (Motion at 26).
O l
o O
f O
O .
.O l Attachment 2 ;
O Examoles of LILCO "Best Efforts" Statements i I.
Introduction:
Memorandum of Law on LILCO's Motions for Summary Discosition of Contentions 1-2 and 4-10 O
"Later on in the emergency contact (between LERO and Suffolk County) would be face-to-face, because Suffolk County, using O its 'best efforts,' would send a representative to the LERO Emergency Operations Center (EOC)."
i Memorandum at 4.
O "In a real emergency, LERO workers would be permitted to perform specific functions under the direction of these
.o (State and County) governmental authorities."
Memorandum at 4.
- O "(T]he State and County cr.:id order (or ask -- it makes no difference) LILCO to sou c the sirens; the authorities would not refuse to do the best tning simply because it was part O f the LILCO Plan . . . . (I)f plant conditions dictated that people should evacuate, the County would not refuse to evacuate them just because the LILCO Plan called for evacu-O *ti "*"
Memorandum at 12.
O O .
O O. "The plain truth is that the authorities would do either what the LILCO plan calls for or something better."
Memorandum at'12.
II. LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 5 and 6 (Makino Decisions and Tellino the Public)
"It is indisputable that the County would agree to sound the O
warning sirens if the public needed to be alerted, because l the sirens are the best way to do it."
Motion at 2.
O
"(I]n the event that the County were faced with a phone call from LERO reporting that there was an emergency at the
,0 plant, that a Site Area or General Emergency had been declared, and that the public should be alerted, it is clear that the County would tell LERO to sound the sirens because lO i
the public deserve to be notified and because there is no reason att to alert them."
l i Motion at 2.
- O l LILCO has revised this Summary Sheet, in light of the amendment to the emergency planning regulations, to provide the LERO Director with more specific instr.uctions about how to . . . obtain permission to begin implementing certain elements of the emergency response."
.O Motion at 13.
()
O "After getting permission to initiate the EBS message and O s und the sirens, the LERO Director would suggest that the Suffolk County Executive go to the LERO EOC, would end the call, and would immediately implement OPIP 3.3.4, Prompt O Notification System Activation."
Motion at 14-15.
.g "(T]he 'best efforts' principle dictates that the County Executive would have to rely on the best available informa-tion, and that is the advice of the plant staff, parti-g cularly when no other information is available."
Motion at 15.
I O "[T]he Suffolk County Executive would be no worse off than officials near other nuclear plants; any county executive faced with a ' fast-breaking' accicent would be forced to
- O rely, at least in the initial stages of the response, on the advice and recommendations of the utility's onsite experts."
Motion at 16.
-0
-O O
O ~3-
O O "The question may remain whether the County Executive would allow the use of the EBS messages in the LILCO plan or spend time rewriting them. Obviously he would have the option of g changing the messages if he wished. But the 'best efforts' orinciole recuires that he use the ore-acoroved messaces if immediate action is needed."
O Motion at 16.
"It must be assumed that the County Executive or his O designee would direct the emergency response out of the LERO EOC, simply because that is where the information he needs is to be found."
O Motion at 20. -
"The 'best efforts' principle dictates that the County would
'O operate out of the LERO EOC."
l Motion at 20.
l t
- O "Since LERo personnel and the County officials at the LERO EOC would be able to work in coordination, the emergency response would be implemented with a minimum of delay or I) confusion. The Suffolk County Executive, or his repre-sentative, would be in charge and would have the responsi-bility for ordering the implementation of emergency response O actions."
Motion at 23.
l
- O
_4-I -
O III. LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 1 and 2 (Directino Traffic 0 '
"LILCO's position that the Board should summarily dispose of Contentions 1 and 2 is based on one disputable fact: the
- g,
'best efforts' of the Suffolk County police (working in cooperation with LERO) would be to implement in the field the traffic control elements of the LILCO Plan in the event g of a Shoreham emergency."
Motion at 2.
l l
lO "(T]here can be no question that the Suffolk County police could provide the personnel and communications system necessary to direct traffic during a Shoreham evacuation
.O . . . . [T]here is also no question that the police, with assistance from LERO, would be able to implement the traffic control portion of the LILCO Plan without appreciable delay
- g or confusion."
Motion at 3.
O l
O O -
1 l
l 0 '
l l
l
O "When the 'best efforts' principle is applied to the existing record, a clear picture emerges how the police would respond during a Shoreham avacuation. Specifically, O it is evident that the police could be notified and mobilized quickly, that they would know where to go once they were dispatched, and that they would understand what
- g they needed to do once they arrived at the TCPs." '
Motion at 4.
O "The B ard has f und that LERO's Traffic Guides could report to their Staging Areas and be readied for dispatch within approximately two hours. The Suffolk County police would g almost certainly be able to assemble and be briefed at Yaphank within the same time."
l Motion at 5.
10 "The Traffic Guides would monitor the officers' radiological exposure and inform them if Protective Action Guidelines O (PAGs) for permissible exposure were exceeded. Other than i this, the police would probably not need any assistance in performing their duties."
t lO Motion at 8.
"With a police 'best effort,' . . . traffic control would be (o performed in almost exactly the same way it would under the l
0 l
O :
l LERO-only response which the Board has already examined and approved.
The only difference is that Suffolk County J,_ I police, rather than LERO Traffic Guides, would actually be directing traffic."
Motion at 8.
l l
"The 'best efforts' principle forecloses the argument that ,
1 O the police would drastically deviate from the LILCO plan, or '
simply igr. ore the advice of trained traffic guides, in favor s i
of some spur-of-the-moment, ad hg_q response of their own. I Common sense refutes the argument that the police, trying '
their best, would somehow spoil the emergency response out of ignorance or incompetence."
Motion at 8.
?
l l
"If in such circumstances some LERO Traffic Guides were
{
'O m bilie d and dispat hed before enough police could be mobilized and briefed, these Traffic Guides could be given permission to direct traffic by themselves."
O M ti " *t 10' l
l IV. LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention 10 (Access Control et the EPZ Perimeter "LILCO submits that, given the 'best efforts' principle, there is no question that the Suffolk County police could and would provide long-term access control if necessary."
O Motion at 4.
O _.___-.
Y na t
"(T]hc 'best efforts' principle of 10 CFR S 50.47(c)(1) compels the conclusion that the police would provide long-term control if necessary."
Motion at 5.
O
"(T]he police's 'best efforts' would certainly be adequate to protect the public health and safety."
!g Motion at 7.
"(S}ince under the 'best efforts' principle the police would j) maintcin EPZ perimeter control, the public would be effectively kept out of those evacuated areas."
Motion at B.
O v. LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 4 and 9 (Tow Trucks and Fuel Trucks)
"In a real emergency LERO would get permission from Suffolk O
( ,anty (or, as a back-up, from New York State) before i
removing any obstructions from the roads or giving any -
l l gasoline to evacuees. In a fast-breaking accident 1ERO to would get permission from the County Executive by telephone, as detailed in the accompanying LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 5 and 6 (Meki19 Decisions.and Telling the Public) in a more like3y slower-developing accident, permission would be obtained face-to-face from a
, County representative at the LERO EOC."
- O Motion at 1.
l 1
IO .
I u _
'O
^
"(P]ermission to do their jobs would be obtained and transmitted to the (LERO) road crews very quickly."
Motion at 2.
"(T} hey (the LERO read crews) would not do their emorgency jobs until told to by the EOC, which would first have received permission from Suffolk County."
,g Motion at 5.
"(I]n an emergency the LERO Director of Local Response would
,) ordinarily receive permission to perform needed functions from the County Executive."
Motion at 5.
O
"(W] hen the LERO Director, at the EOC, got permission from the County (or State) to remove obstructions and give gas to n
v , motorists, he would relay the information to the Road Logistics Coordinator, also in the EOC."
Motion at 5.
-O "When informed that an obstruction needed to be cleared, the Suffolk County Executive, using his 'best efforts' to 4() protect people, would certainly allow LERO to clear it. If there were an evacuatioc, he would certainly allow LERO to provide gas rather than let evacuees' cars ':un dry."
g Motion at 6.
() .
E, "In an emergency requiring the evacuation of the public from i around the Shoreham plant if an obstruction occurred on the roads that would hinder evacuating motorists, Suffolk County would permit LERO personnel to remove the obstruction unless '
there were a better way to remove it."
Motion, Attachment 1.
O "In an 8mer98n Y T89uirin9 the 8V8 U8ti n f the Public from around Shoreham, Suffolk County would permit LERO to give fuel to members of the public who needed it to evacuate.
" "1 "' ^*** h**"" l' O
VI. LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 7 and 8 IIncestion Pathway and Recovery and Reentry)
,0
"[T]he State c'an apply its recovery and reentry and inges-tion pathway procedures in the generic plan section of the
, State Plan to a Shoreham emergency."
O Motion at 2.
"(D]uring a Shoreham emergency, the State of New York would
!O implement its generic recovery and reentry and ingestion pathway procedures since they are not site-specicic and would use the LILCO Plan as needed to compensate for the fact that no county plan for Shoreham has been appanded to the generje section of the State Plan. Suffolk County, on the other hand, would fulfill its clearly defined
.O
- O -
10 - .
O responsibilities in the State Plan by using the LILCO Plan g and LERO resources."
Motion at 2.
O "During a Shoreham emergency, using its 'best efforts,' the State would direct recovery and reentry activities, using its own procedures, and suffolk County would use the LILCO
- g Plan and LERO's resources to meet' its responsibilities."
Motion at 5. '
l l
O "If there were an emere,ency at Shoreham, a 'best efforts response would require that the State convene the State Recovery Committee. The Committee would be comprised of the O same State personnel and its members wou'.d be charged with the same responsibilities enumerated in the State's recovery ,
procedures."
lO Motion at 5.
I "At this point in the emergency, Suffolk County will have O been working side-by-side with LERo, using the LILCo Plan, eince che onset of the emergency. Since Suffolk County has no recovery plans for a Shoreham emergency, it would O continue to use the LILeo Plan to coordinate its participation in the recovery phase until recovery and
.:eentry is accomplished."
O Motion at 6- '
O
~n "The Suffolk County Executive and the Director of Local g -
Response would continue working together during the recovery and reentry phase. The County Executive would retain full responsibility for local decisionmaking and would direct the
- g County's response to the emergency. Meanwhile, the Director of Local Response would serve as an advisory to the County Executive. The County Commissioner of Fire, Rescue and
- O Emergency Services or his designee would work with the Manager of Local Response and would chair the Recovery ;
Action Committee. Similarly, the County Commissioner of the O Department of Health Services or his designee would work with the Health Services Coordinator; the County Commissioner of Police or his designee would work with the
- O Evacuation Coordinator; and the County Public Information Officer or his designee would work with the Coordinator of Public Information."
O Motion at 8.
"The 'best efforts principle requires that the State would O commence recovery operations for Shoreham based on these four major considerations. Since the State applies the Plan generically to all other nuclear power plants in New York, O it can apply it to Shoreham without modification. Thus, precisely how the State would respond to a Shorehaia emergency is clear, as the following sections show."
O Motion at 9.
O O
"Since the State will be implementing its recovery and reentry procedures, this division of responsibilities will also occur during a Shoreham emergency. The State would follow its procedures and Suffolk County would fulfill its O r le in the State Plan by using LILCO's recovery procedures and resources."
Motion at 10.
.O "The same decisionmaking process and coordination between the State and County would occur during a Shoreham emer-
.g gency.
The LERO Coordinator of Public Information would work with the County Public Information Officer to dis- i seminate information on the local level."
O " ti " ** ll' i
"The County Executive would be responsible for collecting g data on the needs of the affected areas and submitting that data to the State."
Motion at 12.
O "Suffolk County's involvement in this area does not require special planning for a radiological emergency. Rather, the -
() County would follow its normal procedures for all other emergencies."
Motion at 12.
O l
0 "During the recovery / reentry phase of a Shoreham emergency, J the State would function in the lead position for long-term radiological monitoring and medical follow-up for the general pu.blic. The State would implement the same -
g radiological monitoring activities and decisions for a Shoreham emergency that it would for any other power plant in New Yor.4 State. Suffolk County would assist the State, O. using t e LnCO Plan, in any manner that the State deemed appropriate."
Motion at 13.
O "Consequently, the only functions that a county performs independently of the State are (1) providing security and O fire pr te ti n, (2) determining the availability of transportation, and (3) gathering data and submitting th2m for federal aid. None of these functions require special O radi 1 gical expertise. R ther, they are the types of activities that counties rarmally perform during any emergency. The only funttion that may require special o assistance during a Shoreham emergency would be assessing the transportation needs of the public."
Motion at 14.
O "Even though the LILCO Plan duplicates many of the State's activities, Suffolk County would still implement all of O
O - 14
10 LERO's recovery and reentry. procedures during a Shoreham
- O ***'9'" Y'"
Motion at 14.
gy (B]ased on the 'best efforts' principle, the State would implement its procedures completely."
Motion at 14.
O'
. . . Suffolk County, using 'best efforts,' would implement the LILCO Plan to fulfill its responsibilities in the State Plan."
Motion at 14-15.
"The State will perform its functions and use their data in 4
making protective action recommendations to the County. The County will take LERO's data under advisement l'n its discussions with the State about what protective measures to O ,
take."
Motion at 15-16.
O i
i O
i l
15 -
O .
r-' --.--tw, -#.w.- -,++-mm-m-- y. =
- e -9 46ag qg y_,
i O
(). "Since Suffolk County has no decontamination procedures in place, the County would use LERO's resources. Tha State, however, retains the responsibility for deciding when to l Q begin these activities; LERO would not initiate environ-mental decontamination without direction from the County and/or the State."
() Motion at 16.
i "Since LERO has arrangements for transportation in place, O Suffolk County would use LERO's resources." 1 Motion at 16.
t O "The County Executive would make decisions about where to set up traffic control points on the advice of the LERO Evacuation Coordinator and the County Commissioner of
() Police. The Suffolk County Executive would decide whether l
LERO traffic guides should be used during the reentry process."
O Motion at 16-17.
i "Any communications activities implemented by LERO would be O at the direction of Suffolk County."
Motion at 17.
i O
t 0
m !
MD !
"LERO would not perform any security functions on public ,
grounds other than helping with traffic control at the
,O-i County Executive's request.
Motion at 17.
IO "The Manager of Local Response and the County Commissioner of Fire, Rescue and Emergency Services will jointly chair O the Recovery Action Committee and, as such, would be w responsible for the implementation of these tasks. They +
would brief the County Executive and the Director of Local
- () Response on the status of reentry operations. The County executive would take this information under advisement and I would confer with the State on what protection action should
- O be implemented."
Motion at 17.
O "The best efforts principle requires that the State I t
implement its radiological ingestion exposure procedure '
6 during a Shoreham emergency and ase the LILCO Plan wherever i
'o site-specific procedures and information are needed. As such, the State would recommend protective actions and !
t direct ingestion pathway activities for Nassau and Suffolk
() Counties, the only two counties in the Shoreham 50-mile "
j ingestion pathway." !
Motion at.19. i O ;
i i E
?) ,
i
O, "Obviously the State is prepared to mobilize its district offices on Long Island for an ingestion pathway response.
Therefore, they could do the same for Shoreham."
Motion at 19.
O
"(T]he 'best efforts' principle dictates that Suffolk County use LILCO's ingestion pathway procedures and resources in response to such an emergency."
-O Motion at 19.
"(S] tate agencies provide the necessary resources to protect O
l the public health, property, and the environment."
Motion at 20.
l0 "Departments of Health, Agriculture and Markets, Environmental Conservation, State Police, and Transportation, the State Emergency Management Office O
(SEMO), and the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group (REPG) will participate in assessing the impact of the radiological emergency on the ingestion pathway and will
'O work with local governments in their response."
Motion at 20-21.
) "(T]he State would rely on the LILCO Plar. which maintains '
complete lists of dairy farms, food processors, duck farms, f
(O
- 1s -
O
g:
I beef farms, fruit farms, vegetable and potato farms, farm i
.O stands, milk dealers, and ice cream plants."
Motion at 21. i
"[Tlhe 'best eff rts' principle requires the State and O
County to follow the LILCO Plan which calls for using the ENC for thic purpose."
Motion at 24.
"The County, however, would use LILCO's procedures for writing EBS messages."
Motion at 24.
"The "best efforts" principle requires Suffolk County to use the LILCO Plan in response to an emergency at Shoreham.
Since the State performs most ingestion pathway response
. activities, Suffolk County can easily fulfill its designated functions in the State Plan by using LILCO's procedures for I
ingestion pathway."
Motion at 25.
- O 4
"Both LERO and'the State can perform these functions without
~
working at a cross purposes since the County Executive would be responsible for implementing all LERO/ County activities and for coordinating them with the State."
Motion at 25.
O O
.. .. - ..- - - . ..-- - .- -- . - - - .~ - - . -
}O. -
f._ "There.can be no question that the State'_s response to an 1
0 ingestion pathway incident would be adequate."
l' Motion at 26.
i O'
4 i
j .-
I
!O l
f
'O l
l l
I I
!O I,
!.O '
i.
I lO
\
t I
i I
O' O ,
l .
O .
O Attachnent 3
. . . . . . . .~ . .~. ..se as
- Introduced by Legislator Wehrenberg, Caracappa, O i
, Prospect, Foley, Nolan,.Blass, Rizzo, LaBua, Devt..a. D 3d r e , ce i s e , A 119:e v e , 3 Mariton, Beck e'.
i RCSOLUTION No.111 AND DETERMINATIONS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY ON WHE A LEVEL OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS TO RESPOND TO A RADIOLOGICAL ACCIDENT AT THE SHOREHAM O NUCLEAR POWER STATION CAN PROTECT THE HEALTH, WEtrARE AND SArETY OF THE RESIDENTS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY WHEREAS, Now York, Charter tothe. New York Sta te Municipal Home Rule and Law,Suffolk the Su f folk Coun-Coun O County; and protect the health, sa fe ty, and welfare of the residents of Suffe.
UHEREAS, ' the Long Island Lighting Company (*LILCO*)
desires the to operate the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ("Shoreham*),is cons'tructing north locatd :
O is within the boundaries of Suffolk County; andshore of Long Island near th UHEREAS, a serious' huclear accident at rolease of significant qua'ntities of radioactive Shoreham fission products; couldandresult in tr WHERIAS, O
acalth, safety, and welfare of Suffolk County residents;the and release of suc UHEREAS, 3horeham on the duty of Suf folkin reco'gnition of the ef fects of such potentici ha County to protect the health, solfare safety, at No. 262-1982, of its which citizenu, this Legislature directed that on March 23, 1982, adopted Resoluti:
Suffolk County prepara a "County Radiologica O sf the citizens of Suffolk County .."; andImergency Response Plan to serve th WHEREAS, in Resolution 262-1982, the Legislature determined that the pie loveloped and capable by theof County 'shall not be operable and shall not be deemed adequat being implemented until such luffolk County Legislature's and ,
time as it is approved by tr WH E RE AS , in adopting Resolution 262-1982, sarlier planning data') efforts W LILCO and County planners the were inadequate Meause Legislature (the "original found thz plansir pesed by conditions on Long Island andtheyfurther f ailed tofailed address the particular proble.-
achavior during a radiolog ical emergency to account for huma g thrce Mile Island; and and the lessons of the accident 4 WHEREAS, on acting to implement Rosolution March 29,262-1982, 1982, Peter F. Cohalan, Suffolk County Executive by Executive Order established tr suffolk County Radiological Emergency Response Plan , Steering
(* Steering Committee") Committe O tho County Executive and County Legisla cures and'and directed it to prepara a County pla imEREAS, the Steering Committee assembled a group of highly qualified ar lationhily plans and recognized experts frem diverse disciplines to prepare such count O
O '
wit E RE AS ,
such highly qualified experts tonscientious ef fort at af pst in excess of $50f worked in a diligent
?00 to prepare an
>pssible plan for Suffolk' county, and particularly to ensure that such plan the bes
, .nto account all particular ohysical and behavioral conditions on Long toc
- hat affect che adequacy of the emergency response plan; and Islan O
wacREAs, the analyses, studies, and surveys of such experts included:
(a) Detailed analyses of the possible Shoreham; releases of radiation fro:
(b O Detailed analyses of the radiological health consequences of sue:
radiation release on the population of suffolk County, giventh, meterological, demographic, topographical, and other specifi local conditions on Long Island; (c) k detailed social survey of Long Island residents to determini O ' and assess their intended behavior in the event of a seriou accident at Shoreham; (d) A detailed survey of scho'o1 bus drivers, volunteer firemen, an certain othey , emergency response personnel to determine whethe '
emergency pe r sonnel intand to report promp y for emergene O duties, or. instead to unite with their own fami es, in the even of a serious accident at Shoreham;- -
(e) Detailed estimates of the number of persons who would be orders to evacuate in the event of a serious accident at Shoreham, well as the number of persons who intend to evacuate voluntarila even if not ordered to do so; '
(f) Detailed analyses of the road network in Long Island and the tim required to evacuate persons from areas affected by radiatic releases; (g) Detailed analyses of the protecti'.'e actions available to Suffel O County residents to evacuate or taxe shelter from such radiatic 1 releases; and (h) Analysis ' of the lessons learned from the accident at Three Mil Island on local government responsibilities to prepara for i radiolcgical emergency;. and iO WHEREAS, on May 10, 1982, LILCO, without the approval or auuhorization c
- h3 Suffolk County Government, submitted to the New York State Disaste
?roparedness Commisssion ("DPC') two volumes entitled "Suffolk Count Radiological Emergency Response Plan' and contain~ing the original planning data as further revised and supplemented by LILCO, and requested the DPC to rev:,e lO ind approve such LILCo submittal as the local radiological emergency respons plon for Suffolk County; and UHEREAS, in ReJolutions 456-1982 and 457-1982, the County furthe addressed the matter of preparing for a radiological emergency at Shoreham a .-
sophas,ized that:
O (a) Th- LILCO-submitted document was not and will not be the County' Radiological Emergency Response Plan; and O
- O (D) *ne County's Radiological Emorgency ' Response Planning Policy' 4 enunciate { '.n Resolution 456-1982, l as follows
Suffolk County shall not implement any radiological assign funds or personnel to test .
emergene.v response plan for t1 ,
2 C) Shoreham Huclear Plant unless to the best of the County's ability. that p an, has been fully develop, i Suffolk County shall not assign . funds or personnel to test i implement any radiological emergency response plan for Shoreham Nuclear Plant unless that plan has been sub tl ,
c) least two public hearings, one to be held in Riverhead, ject and ofor.
to be held in Hauppauge, i
suffolk County shall not implement any radiological assign funds or personnel to test c emergency response plan for tr thereham Nuclear Plant unless that plan has been approved, afte '
N) public hearings, Executive; and by the Suffolk County Legislature and the Count WHEREAS, on June 9, 1982, ' the DPC rejected the LILCO-submitted documer for the raason that it was d,eficient; and ,
MEEREAS, on October 6, 1982, LILCO, again hdthout the approval c f i)
' nuthorization of the suf folk County Government, submitted to the DPC an amendt
/orsion of the previously submitted LILCO document which had been rejected 1 the DPC; and WHEREAS, on Decembe r 2, 1982, the Draft County Radiological Emergenc tosponse Plan authorized by Resolution 262-1982 was submitted to the Count
[.) logislature fcr review and public hearings as specified in Resolutions 262-198*
456-1982, and 457-1982; and tmEREAS, in January 1983, the Legislature held hearings on the Draf i
- ounty plan, which hearings included
.C) (a) More than 1,590 pages of transcripts; (b) Detailed written statements and oral testimony of County expe: !
consultan'ts who prepared the Draf t County plans i
(c) Detailed kritten statements and oral testimony of LILCO of ficial O and expert consultants retained by LILCo; (d) Detailed written statements and oral testimony of the Suffel ,
j County Police Department, the County Health Department, tr j County Social Services d e par tme nt, and the County Public Work !
Depar tmeat, all of which would have indispensable roles :
- O responding to a radiological emergency at Shoreham; l (a) Detailed written statements and oral testimony of organizatior ,
l in suffolk County concerned with radiological emergenc preparedness; and i O (f) Extensive presentations by hundreds of members of the geners
- public; and I
, i l
t O
1
O WHEREAS, members or the Legislature also_ travelled to and held pubt tearings in the vicinity (~! the Three Mile Island K flear Power Plant to ga:
information on the lessons to be learned by local governments from the accider
. ik Three Mile Islands and 13 WHEREAS, the Draft County plan sheltering as tha two priuary protective actions which identifies evacuation and protectis would need to 1 implemented in the event of a serious accident at Shoreham; and WHEREAS, evacuation of Suffolk County residents in the event of O radiological emergency could take as much time as 14-30 hours because of varios
! actors, including: the limited number of appropriate evacuation routes luffolk County; difficulties in mobilizing police and other emergency personne.:
lifficulties ensuing from spontaneous evacuation of large numbers of Coun' residents, thus creating severe traffic congestion; and unavilability i titernate evacuation routes for persons residing east of Shoreham and thus t)
O Tecessity for sbch persons during an evacuatien to pass by the plant a:
>ossibly through' the radioactive plumes and WHE RI AS , 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 certain svacuation times in the range of 14-30 hours --
will result in virtu.
immobilization of evacuation and high exposure of evacuees to radiation su-
) : hat evacuees' health, safety', and welfare would not be protected; and WHEREAS, protective sheltering is designed to protect prsons fr sxcessive radiation exposure by sur..h persons staying indoors until radiati sith the greatest danger to health has passed; and WH E RI AS , if protective sheltering were ordered for suffolk Coun O residents, unacceptable radiation exposure would still be experienced substantial portions of the suffolk County population, thus making it impossib
- o provide for the health, welfare, and safety of these residents; and WH E RI AS , the document submitted by LILCO to the DPC without Coun approval or authorize. tion is deficient because it does not deal with the actu O local conditions, physical and behavioral, on Long Island that would incountered during a serious nuclear accident at Shoreham; and WH E RE AS , the document submitted by LILCO to the DPC without Cour approval or authorization does not ensure that effective protective action
>cesons subject to radiation exposure, in the form of evacuation or shelterir O sould be taken in event of a serious nuclear accident at Shoreham, and thu s su
, locument, even if implemented, would not protect the health, saf ety, and welf a af Suffolk County residents; and WHERIAS, the extensive data which the Legislature has considered mt
- lear that the site-specific circumstances and actual local conditions existi
() on Long Island, particularly its elongated ea st/ we st configuration whi requires all svacuation routes from locations east of the plant to pass withir zone of predicted high radiation, the inef fectiveness of pr.otective shelterir the severe traf fic congestion likely to be experienced if a ' partial or compit svacuation were ordered, and the difficulties in ensuring that emerger personnel will promptly report for emergency duties, preclude any emerge:
O response plan, it implemented, from providing adaquate preparedness to proti the hesith, welf are, and safety of Suf folk County residents; now, therefore, it' O
O
. n +
I.
RESOLVED, that the sraf t County plan submitteG t. the County Legislaturan
'O 1982, if implemented, muld not protect the health, welf are, and thus is not approved and vill not b December oty of Su 2,f folk County residents
>1cmented; and be it further the document submitted by LILCo to th i DPC without th RESOLVED, that if implemented, would not protect the health O inty approval or authorization,and safety of Suf folk residents and thus will not be ap
' fare,
- be implemented; and be it further RESOLVED, that since no local radiological emergency response wif plan are, for an will protect the health, rious nuclear accident At Shorehanand since the preparation and i.mplementatio 1g foty of Suf folk County residents, the public by indicating to Count any such plan wuld behealth, misleading to wif are, and safety are being protected when, i sidents that their the County's rtdiological emergency planning proces ct, such is not the case,
- hereby tertninated, and no local radiological er,ergency , plan for response imp 6emented; and be ti 1
accident at the Shoreham plant shall be adopted or O arther radiological emergency plan can protect er RESOLVED, that since no no radiologica salth, welf are, plan safety shall of Suffolk County residents and, sincebe
- adopted necessary to assure tha morgency take all actions l xecutive taken is hereby by direc,ted arty other to governmental agency, be it state or rederal, a:
ns O :ic tionsistent with the decisions mandated by this Resolution.
)ATED: February 17, 1983 APPP < :. BY:
b Count"f Executive of Suffol.k County Date of Approval J J J/j' 3 lO 1
l O
e l
o O
i 1
O
(, Exnibit B COUNTY OF SUFFOLK'
- e O
March so, 1987 O
Mr. Victor Stollo Executive Director for Operations O
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Stello:
On behalf of the government of Suffolk County, we are O writing in reply to your letter of February 20, 1987, which responds to the January 16 letter of the Suffolk County Executive. The County Executive's letter had corrected certain of your statements quoted in the press that mischaracterized the sctions of Suffolk County concerning the Shoreham nuclear power plant.
Your February 20 letter rejects the County Executive's O corrections and reiterates even more emphatically the mischaracterizations you made earlier.
The message cf your February 20 letter is clear: the Staff of the NRC has decided that public safety does not matter at ;
Shoreham; that what matters only is putting the plant into operation.
"n You have converted the Staff's role in the Shoreham licensing proceedin the cause -- LILCO'gs from participant in the case to champion of s cause. In short, you have betrayed the Staff's responsibility to the public in these proceedings. It is time for you to take remedial actions.
O Acc rdingly, first, the government of Suffolk County requests that you immediately disqualify yourself and,the rest of the Staff from participating further as a party in the Shoreham proceedings. The Staff has subordinated its own identity to that of LILCO, and permitting the Staff to continue to participate as a purportedly impartial party would be nothing but a ruse.
O Section 0.735-3(a)(6) of the NRC's Regulations requires that the ,
Staff "not give or appear to give favored treatment or competitive advantage to any member of the public." The Staff i
O
- u. m ...v o . m .. ... .. -4 ... * *w a - * " = * * " " ** " "
O ?.
3 O .
Mr. Victor Stello March 10, 1947 i
Page 2 O
1 cannot satisfy this standard: your February 20 letter is a manifesto of the Staff's favor and partisanship toward LILCO: a declaration of hostility toward Suffolk County.
O Second, Suffolk County requests that you appear before a Special Session of the County Legislature. Your February 20 letter parades a bias that stems either from ignorance of the facts or from design. l We want to know the sources upon which you '
rely for information concerning emergency planning at Shoreham. t c) With and met, whom from what LILCO have theyand other entities outside the NRC have you said? !
you held with NRC Commissioners?What private conversations have What is your true purpose in putting LILCO's interests above those of Suffolk County's citizens? The citizens of Suffolk County have the right to know the fullatstory issues behind your actions concerning emergency planning Shoreham.
g i i
Finally, we request that you digest the facts presented in this letter. To begin, the County Executive's January 16 letter corrected your mistatement that in a "real emergency" Suffolk County would cooperate with LILCO and "follow LILCO's plan." The O Executive informed you that your statement was unfounded and ,
incorrect, and transmitted documents, including Suffolk county t Resolution No. 111-1943, to explain in detail the reasons for his statement that, "I would not use the authority of this government to implement LILCo's emergency plan or to work in concert with LILCO to effect an emergency response to an accident at ,
g Shoreham." ;
Your February 20 letter demeans the County Executive's statement. In scarcely veiled terms, you accuse the County Executive and the County Legislature of being liars, and even ;
boast that you "continue to stand behind" your earlier l O misstatements. This presumptuousness does not suit an appointed NRC employee addressing the elected government of 1.3 million people. :
The fact is that the government of Suffolk County would never use LILCO's emergency plan, or work in concert with LILCO, O or rely upon LILCO's advice or judgment in a nuclear emergency. '
whatever our actions, they would not include LILCo or LILco's ;
plan. This is the result of the County government having absolutely no confidence in the judgment or' competence of LILCO.
The June 23, 1986 statement of the Suffolk County Executive, I which I sent you on January 16, explains the reasons in detail. !
O )
t I
r Mr. Victor Stello March 10, 1987 !
Page 3 0
Your February 20 letter persists in mischaracterizing the !
emergency planning actions of Suffolk County. You write of the "refusal" of the County to participate in emergency planning and O charge the County with "intransigence." The facts belie your words. i In fact, Suffolk County has participated thoroughly in
- emergency planning. In March 1982, we retained a team of ,
nationally recognized experts at a cost of $600,000, directed O them to prepare the "best possible" plan, and gave them f rse rein i
, to do that. Eight months.later, when the experts completed their '
draft plan and the extensive studies, analyses, and surveys that l accompanied it, the County Legislature held eight days of open hearings at which specialists from around the country, including .
LILCO's consultants and officials, and members of the public testified, sixteen hundred pages of testimony were compiled.
'O '
Thereafter, the County Legislature travelled to Three Mile Island to meet with local government officials and the public in order ;
to learn first-hand the lessons of the 1979 nuclear accident.
In February 1983, the County Legislature analyzed the
,() emergency planning materfals and testimony before ,t and i concluded that in the event of a serious nuclear accident at Shoreham, it would not be possible to evacuate or otherwise protect the public. The bases for this determination are stated in Resolution No. 111-1983: among them are the limited roadway network, population densities, and other physiographic conditions ,
- O which would cause pecple who were attempting to evacuate, instead -
, to become stuck in gridlock. These people, therefore, would be i
exposed to the very radiation from which they were directed to ,
flee.
- t l The government of Suffolk County had two choices: to adopt I
-() an emergency plan, or to resolve not to adopt one. To have done
- the former would have misled the public into believing they were
- being protected when in fact they were not. To do the latter vould be to tell.the truth
- that the adoption of an emergency ,
i plan would merely put an ineffective paper plan on the shelf and :
- lull the public into a sense of false security. This government
.o was elected to tell the public the truth and to protect their ,
. welfare. That is what we did resolving in County Resolution No.
! 111-1983 not to adopt or implement an emergency plan.' !
i Suffolk County's Resolution No. 111-1983 and the County's l i
actions were challenged by LILCO in rederal court. The County 5 o won the cases the Court ruled that the Resolution is lawful and rationally based. LILCO also challenged the Resolution in State l i court. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the County's ,
decision not to adopr. a plan. In short, the County lawfully l exercised its police powers. t i .
r, e
C)
Mr. Victor Ste11o
, March 10, 1987 Page 4 O
It is clear to us that you accuse Suffolk County of "refusing" to participate in emergency planning only because you do not like the result of the County's emergency planning process
-- that is, the decision not to adopt or implement an emergency plan.
C) The reason for your view presumably is that the County's actions do not enable the NRC to license Shoreham. If Suffolk Count used,ybuthad followed instead the identical decided to adoptemergency planning an emergency plan, process it we believe you would now be praising the County for its "participation" in emergency planning. You cannot have it both ways: The County in fact participated thoroughly in emergency planning and, as part C) of that participation, acted lawfully to protect the welfare of its citizens. For the same reasons that you would praise a County decision to adopt a plan, f air-mindedness req'11res that you accept the County decision not to adopt one.
Your February 20 letter states, "The record of this O protracted proceeding also shows various state and local permits for environmental monitoring, building and zoning were also sought by LILCO and approved." This is a contrived and misleading statement, apparently intended by you to convey the impression that the County promoted the construction of Shoreham, and only as a last minute device to prevent operation of the O plant raised the emergency planning issue. The impression you seek to convey is false. The fact is that in issuing whatever permits for Shoreham that you have in mind, the County did not address, and was not required to address, the feasibility of evacuating Long Island's residents in a nuclear emergency. The permits you have in mind presumably dealt with whether LILCO C) satisfied local building and other codes. The deal with whether safe evacuation was possible. permits Indeed,did not the agencies with the opportunity to address radiological emergency preparedness issues were the AEC and NRC, when LILCO applied for a permit to construct Shoreham and thereafter. However, they refused to address the issues. It is thus the AEC and NRC, along O with LILCo, who are responsible for building Shoreham without taking into account whether safe evacuation is possiele.
Moreover, in 1977, whrn LILCO applied for an operating license and the County intervened in the NRC's proc'.iding, the County raised the issue of whether evacuation was feasible at O shoreham. This was three years before the NRC even had a rule requiring an effective local emergency plan. The County's action followed the persistent efforts, begun in 1970, of a Long Island citizens group that had intervened in the Shoreham construction permit proceeding to raise and litigate the emergency planning issue before the AEC. In 1973, at the strong urging of LILCO and
() the AIC Staff, the AEC ruled that the citizens group could not raise or litigate the emergency planning issue at that time. The issue was postponed by the AIC until the "operating license O
'O
, Mr. Victor Stello March 10, 1987 Page 5
.O 1
stage." Therefore, it is clear that the only reasons that
- emergency planning issues were not considered before construction of $horeham was well underway were (1) because LILCO insisted on this and the AIC agreed and (2) because the NRC did not require "O the issue to be thoroughly examined until the adoption of its poat-Three Mile Island regulations in 1980.
You know well that the turning point for all concerned with radiological emergency planning was the Three Mile Island accident, when the Kemeny Commission, Congress, and the NRC
!O itselt heralded the need for workable local emergency
, preparedness. Indeed, all of the major investigations into the emergency preparedness aspects of Three Mile Island concluded that workable local emergency preparedness is a key to effective response to a nuclear accident. The investigators implored local governments to approach this responsibility seriously. NRC l() officials who travelled across the country holding workshops echoed the need for effective local involvement in emergency
- planning. No one had the temerity to suggest that a County which had extensively examined emergency preparedness for a nuclear plant within its jurisdiction, drafted the best possible 1
emergency plan, and lawfully determined that tiie public could not
'O be protected would be conf ronted with NRC Staf f efforts to license the operation of the plant on the basis of a utility's i illegal emergency plan. This is precisely the action of the NRC Staff in the Shoreham case.
i 9
The fact is that Shoreham was sited by LILCO and
'O construction of the plant was approved by the AIC when emergency planning was given little attention. As late as 1979, before the Three Mile Island accident, the NRC's regulations did not require a local emergency plan as a condition of licensing a plant. The NRC required only that the utility submit "procedures for notifying, and agreements reached" with local governments that
.O were of a general nature. Your letter of rebruary 20 evidences the Staff's willingness to license Shoreham under circumstances
- which do not comply even with the NRC's discredited pre-Three 1 l Mile Island regulations.
Your rebruary 20 letter discloses the refusal of the Staff g to confront reality. Indeed, reality is that (1) Suffolk County has participated extensively in emergency planning and has rationally datermined safe evacuation and other protection of the
~
public to be impossible; (2) the County's determination has been upheld in Federal and State courts and (3) LILCO's substitute emergency plan has been held by New York State courts to be illegal and n e implementable. By choosing to rationalize C)
LILCO's licersing objective in the Shoreham proceedings, rather than advocating reality, you have become stuck with promoting the following fantasy: that in the absence of County, State, or O
O Mr. victor stello
, March 10, 1967 Page 6 t O
implementable LILCO emergency plans, the public still would be protected by a not implementable emergency plan which has been lawfully opposed by County government in order to protect the public's welfare.
O we look forward to your early reply.
Si cerely, 9
p m 0. 3 L.
dregory Q), Bl%)s
, }bdAbY14 Michael A. LoGrande Presiding Officer Suffolk County Executive i Suffolk Coun':y Legislature i O
cc: NRC Servics List O
O O
O O
O
\
. ()
Attachment 4 STATEMENT OF SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE PETER F. COHALAN
- JUNE 23, 1986 k !
I AM ISSUING THIS STATEMENT TO ENSURE THAT THERE ARE NO
, ;1ISUNDERSTANDINGS OF MY POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THE SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATICN.
I AM PARTICULARLY MOTIVATED TO MAKE THIS STATEMENT BECAUSE LILCO HAS MISSTATED HY POSITION IN EFFO O PERSUADE FEDERAL AGENCIES TO LICENSE SHOREHAM. LET THE RECORD BE CLEAR:
I AM OPPOSED TO THE LICENSING OF SHOREHAM.
IN FACT, I HAVE NEVER SUPPORTED THE LICENSING OF SHOREHAM FOR COMMERCIAL C 4 RATION. ON MAY 30, 1985, I GAVE QUALIFIED O
SUPPORT ONLY TO A TEST OF LILCO'S EMERGENCY PLAN ON THE CON THAT THERE WOULD BE PARTICIPATION OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY GOVE RNMENT.
O HOWEVER, ON JUNE 10, 1985, THE NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT, AND LATER THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, RULED THAT I COULD NOT CHANGE COUNTY POLICY BY O COMMITTING COUNTY PERSONNEL ANu RESOURCES TO A TEST.IN RESPONSE, I WITHDREW MY MAY 30, 1985, POSITION, AND ON NOVEMBER 7,
1985, FORMALLY REQUESTED THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NOT g
O TO CONDUCT A TEST OF LILCO'S EMERGENCY PLAN.
j ON FEBRUARY 13, 1986, OVER THE OBJECTIONS OF THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE AND MYSELF, LILCO CONDUC?dD A TEST OF ITS EMERGENCY 1, PLAN.
iO I STATED THEN THAT THE EXERCISE AMOUNTED TO "THEATER OF l
l l
l L
r c.
) THE ABSURD.*
THE TEST WAS UNREALISTIC AND WAS CLEARLY DESIGNED TO CONVEY FALSE IMPRESSIONS OF LILCO'S COMPETENCE. WE ON LONG ISLAND WERE NOT DECEIVEDr WE HAVE FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE WIT j LILCO'S LACX OF COMPETENCE --
LET'S NOT FORGET THE $1 35 BILLION IMPRUDENCE FINDING AND LILCO' S RESPONSE TO HURRICANE I GI4RI FEEL THAT THE ONLY SIGNIFICANT ASPECT OF THE FEBRUARY 13 T
) CAME AFTERWARD, WHEN THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, FRANK PETRONE, ANNOUNCED THAT LILCO' S EMERGENCY PLAN DOES NOT PROVIDE REASONABLE ASSUR
) THE PUBLIC WOULD BE PROTECTED IN THE EVENT OF A NUCLEAR ACCID AT SHOREHAM.
IN SHORT, MR. PETRONE, SAID SHOREHAM SHOULD NOT BE LICENSED TO OPERATE.
) SINCE FEBRUARY 1983, IT HAS BEEN CLEAR TO SUFFOLX COUNTY THAT THE OPERATION OF SHOREHAM WOULD CREATE A POTENTI AL DISAS FOR THE PUBLIC. APTER EXTENSIVE AND COSTLY STUDIES, ANALYSES,
) AND SURVEYS, PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND A TRIP TO THE THREE MILE ISLAND VICINITY, THIS GOVERNMENT CONCLUDED THAT THE PUBLIC COULD NOT BE SAFELY EVACUATED OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED IF THERE WERE A SERIOUS ACCIDENT AT SHOREHAM. THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT, HAVIFG BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PUBLIC'S WELFARE, TH EREFO RE , HAD ONLY WO CHOICES :
TELL THE PUBLIC TH': TRUTH THAT
) THEY COULD NOT BE PROTECTED; OR DECEIVE THEM BY ADOPTING AN EMERGENCY PLAN THAT WOULD LULL THEM INTO BELIEVING THEY WERE BEING PROTECTED WHEN IN FACT THEY WERE NOT.
D
.g.
O
. ~
t..
O ,
O SUrrou COUNTY CHOSE WHAT IT WAS OBLIGATED TO DO: IN RESOLUTION 111-1983, IT TOLD ITS CITIZENS THE TRUTH. THUS, THE COUNTY RESOLVED NOT TO ADOPT OR IMPLEMENT AN EMERGENCY PLAN FOR O SHOREHAM.
THIS DECISION WAS UPHELD BY FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS.
IT WAS ALSO UPHELD BY GOVERNOR CUOMO AFTER EXTENSIVE ANALYSES BY THE MARBURGER COMMISSION.
O UNFORTUNATELY, LILCO HAS REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE FACT THAT SHOREHAM SHOULD NOT OPERATE. FOR INSTANCE, AFTER RESOLUTION 111-19 83, WAS ADOPTED, THE COUNTY INFORMED THE NRC OF OUR ACTION, AND O ASKED THAT AGENCY TO APPLY ITS REGULATIONS BY DENYING LILCO A LICENSE TO OPERATE SHOREHAM. AT LILCO'S URGING, THE NRC REJECTED OUR-REQUEST AND, INSTEAD, STARTED A 3-YEAR CONTORTED PROCESS OF
-O GIVINo LILCO CHANCE-AFTER-CHANCE TO CONCOCT A SCHEME BY WHICH TO LICENSE THE PLANT.
AT THE SAME TIME, LILCO LOBBIED TO ENLIST FEDERAL OFFICIALS
!O TO SUPPORT LICENSING SHOREHAM. LILCO'S SUCCESSES PEAKED LAST YEAR WHEN PRESIDENT REAGAN'S SECRETARY OF ENERGY ANNOUNCED THAT SHOP 2 HAM SHOULD BE LICENSED TO OPERATE OVER THE OBJECTIONS OF
THE PRESIDENT'S OWN POLICY ON SHOREHAM, WRITTEN OCTOBER 11, 1984, 1
l THAT THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION DOES NOT FAVOR THE IMPOSITION OF O
FEDERAL AUTHORITY AT SHOREHAM OVER THE OBJECTIONS OF NEW YORK f3 TATE AND SUFFOLK COUNTY.
O 3
10 1
l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _. __ _ . _ . _ _ - - -
3:
O O I HAVE RECITED THIS BRIEF HISTORY TO BRING THE SHOREHAM SITUATION UP TO DATE. BY NOW, EVERY FAIR-MINDED PERSON MUST REALIZE THAT SAFE EVACUATION OF THE PUBLIC WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE O IF THERE WERE A SERIOUS NUCLEAR ACCIDENT AT SHOREHAM. THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF SUFFOLX COUNTY'S RESIDENTS AND ALMOST EVERY LONG ISLAND ELECTED OFFICIAL ARE OPPOSED TO THE LICENSING
'OP SHOREHAM.
!O. AND BOTH THE NRC'S LICENSING AND APPEAL BOARD'S HAVE REJECTED LILCO'S BID FOR A LICENSE. BUT DESPITE ALL OF THIS, THE CASE IS NOT OVER. WHY IS THAT?
O THE REASON IS THAT LILCO PERSISTS IN TRYING TO LICENSE SHOREHAM AND IS NOW ORCHESTRATING THE BIGGEST DECEPTION OF ALL:
EVEN THOUGH THE NEW YokK STATE SUPREME COURT AND THE NRC'S
- O LICENSING AND APPEAL BOARDS HAVE RULED THAT LILCO CANNOT IMPLEMENT ITS EMERGENCY PLAN, THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, AT LILCO' S URGING, IS CONSIDERING A LILCO REQUEST TO LICENSE
!O SHOREHAM WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY IMPLEMENTABLE EMERGENCY PLAN.
THIS IS A PRESCRIPTION FOR DISASTER. IN THE WAXE OF CilERNOBYL, IT IS A RECXLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF THE RESIDENTS OF
- O LONO ISLAND.
j SPECIFICALLY, LILCO IS PRESSING THE NRC TO LICENSE SHOREHAM ON THE BASIS OF A FICTION IT HAS CREATED AND DUE3ED "REALISM. "
O THIS FICTION GoES ON AS FO LLOWS : SHOREHAM SHOULD BE LICENSED EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO IMPLEMENTABLE EMERGENCY PLAN, BECAUSE IF i
THE PLANT WERE LICENSED AND IF THERE WERE AN ACCIDENT AT
.O 4
O
6 g SHOREHAM, THE STATE AND COUNTY WOULD IN REALITY ACT IN RESPONSE TO THE ACCIDENT AND THIS AD HOC "RESPONSE" WOULD SOMEHOW PROTECT THE PEOPLE. LILCO ARGUES THAT THIS SET OF HYPOTHETICALS WOULD 0 COMPLY WITH THE NRC'S REGULATIONS AND PROVIDE A BASIS FOR THE LICENSING OF SHOREHAM. IT WOULD NOT. LILCO'S FICTION IS ILLEGAL AND ILLOGICAL; IT IS BORN OF CYNICISM AND INDIFFERENCE TO THE O PUBLIC'S SAFETY.
FIRST, LILCO'S FICTION RETRIEVES THE DISCREDITED THEORY CM WHICH THE NRC LICENSED NUCLEAR PLANTS BEFORE THE THREE MILE O ISLAND ACCIDENT. THEN, THERE WAS NO PRE-PLANNING OR INTEGRATED PLANNING REQUIRED FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITH Tile UTILITY. THE NRC SIMPLY ASSUMED THAT IF THERE WERE AN ACCIDENT, O THE GOVERNMENTS WOULD KNOW HOW TO ACT ALONE AND WITH OTHERS IN RESPONSE. THE THREE MILE ISLAND ACCIDENT PROVED THIS ASSUMPTION TO BE WRONG. FOLLOWING THREE MILE ISLAND, CONG RESS PASSED LAWS O AND THE NRC MADE REGULATIONS THAT REQUIRE PRE-PLANNING AND INTEGRATED PREPAREDNESS. THERE IS NO PRE-PLANNING OR INTEGRATED l PREPAREDNESS AT SHOREHAM.
O SECOND, LILCO' S FICTION PRESUMES THAT STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS NOT ONLY WOULD RESPOND TO AN ACCIDENT, BUT THAT THEI R RESPONSE WOULD WORK TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC. THUS, LILCO CLAIMS, THE PUBLIC WOULD BE PROTECTED EVEN THOUGH THE GOVERNMENTS HAVE NO O-O
( -
O - -
. PRE-PLANNING, O OR KNOWLEDGE OF INVENTORY OF AVAILABLE RESOURCES, No PERSONNEL READINESS, AND NO TRAINING.
SUCH A PRESUMPTION IS UNFOUNDED: FARCICAL AT BEST.
THIRD, O LILCO'S FICTION PORTRAYS SUFFOLK COUNTY ACTING IN CONCERT WITH LILCO IF THERE WERE AN ACCIDENT AT SHOREHAM.
HOWEVER, COUNTY LAW PROHIBITS COUNTY PERSONNEL FROM IMPLEMENT LILCO'S EMERGENCY PLAN.
O EVEN IF IT DID NOT, THE COUNTY COULD NOT RESPONSIBLY ACT IN CONCERT WITH LILCO AND ITS EMERGENCY PLAN THE COUNTY'S STUDIES, ANALYSES, AND SURVEYS, TOGETHER WITH OUR DAY-TO-DAY EXPERIENCES ON LONG ISLAND WITH THE LIMITED ROAD NETWORK AND THE CONFINED GEOGRAPHY, HAVE CONVINCED US THAT SAFE EVACUATION OF THE PUBLIC IS NOT POSSIBLE IN A SHOREHAM ACCIDENT LILCO'S EMERGENCY PLAN IS A GUIDELINE FOR TRAFFIC-JAM GRIDLOCK AND AN IMMOBILIZED EVACUATION WHERE HUNDREDS OF THOUSAND OF LO ISLAND'S RESIDENTS WOULD BE TRAPPED TO ABSORB THE RADIATION TH lO
- "' " *** " *** * "*' ^** *" **"C'** "*" 'UC" ^
GUIDELINE FOR DISASTER.
FOURTH, LILCO'S FICTION RESTS ON THE SURMISE THAT THE COUNTY
!O W Uw HAVE CONFIDENCE IN LILCO, OR THAT IT WOULD RELY ON LILCO BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE NO ONE ELSE ON WHICH TO RELY. THIS IS FALSE.
THERE IS NO CORPORATION ON LONG ISLAND WITH SO LOW A
.O STANDING WITH THE PUBLIC AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AS LILCO.TH ERE IS EVEN A STRONG AND CREDIBLE EFFORT TODAY TO EFFECT A PUBLIC O
6 O
l
( '.
O TAKEOVER OF THIS COMPANY. IN AN EMERGENCY OR OTHERWISE, THE O
PUBLIC AND THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE NO CONFIDENCE IN LILCO.
WE COULD NOT, AND WOULD NOT, LOOK TO SUCH A DISCREDITED O SOURCE FOR GUIDANCE OR ASSISTANCE IN A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT. INDEED, LILCO WOULD BE THE OBJECT OF THE PUBLIC' S WRATH BECAUSE IT C THE ACCIDENT.
IT WOULD BE THE ENTITY WHICH STEAMROLLED SHOREHAM O INTO OPERATION OVER THE PUBLIC AND GOVERNMENTS' OBJ ECTIONS . IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WOULD BETTER SERVE THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST TO ACT ALONE THAN TO ENTRUST THE PUBLIC WEAL TO MORE OF LILCO' S POOR JUDGMENTS.
O MOREOVER, LILCO'S RESPONSE TO HURRICANE GLORIA LAST OCTOBER LIVES INDELIBLY AS A LESSON TO EVERYONE ON LONG ISLAND. IN THE POTENTIALLY CATASTROPHIC CIRCUMSTANCES OF A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT, WE WOULD NEVER RELY UPON OR ACT IN CONCERT WITH A COMPANY THAT COULD NOT EVEN PUT THE LIGHTS BACK ON FOR DAYS.
FIFTH, LILCO'S FICTION HAS PROMPTED THE COMPANY TO EXTEND ITS PLEAS FOR LICENSING SHOREHAM TO SHAMEFUL LIMITS. ON JUNE 11, 1986, LILCO'S COUNSEL WROTE THE NRC, CLAIMING THAT STATE LAW REQUIRES THE COUNTY TO TAKE ACTIONS IN AN EMERGENCY THAT PURPORTEDLY WOULD JUSTIFY THE NRC PUTTING SHOREHAM INTO OPERATION. THIS CLAIM MISSTATES THE LAW. IT WOULD NEVER BE
,0 "APPR PRIATE" R "NECESSARY" FOR THE COUNTY % TAKE ACTIONS IN PURSUIT OF LILCO'S ILLEGAL EMERGENCY PLAN.
O 1
l l
O -
t
3 .
FINALLY, IN THE SAME LETTER OF JUNE 11, LILCO ENSHRINES ITS FICTIOg WITH THE FOLLOWING WORDS: "
...THE LILCO PLAN PROVIDES A BASIS FOR A PRIVATE / GOVERNMENTAL PARTNERSHIP THAT COULD aRD WOU O BE EFFECTIVE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC IN A REAL EMERGENCY, WHEN POLITICAL POSTURING WOULD BE ABANDONED AND THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC WOULD BE GIVEN PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE." THIS IS MORE N
FANTASY.
O _
I REITERATE WHAT IS IN ESSENCE STATED ABOVE: NEITHER SUFFOLK COUNTY NOR I AS COUNTY EXECUTIVE HAS ANY "PARTNERSHIP" WITH LILCO: THERE IS NO "BASIS FOR A PRIVATE / GOVERNMENTAL O PARTNERSHIP" OF ANY KIND WITH LILCO; THE COUNTY HAS NO CONFIDENCE OR TRUST IN LILCO: AND IN AN EMERGENCY, THE COUNTY WOULD GIVE NO CREDENCE TO LILCO OR ITS PLAN AND WOULD NOT WORK IN CONCERT WITH O LILCO. INDEED, IN AN EMERGENCY, THE PUBLIC OF SUFFOLK COUNTY -- .
SHOWN BY RESPECTED POLLS TO OPPOSE SHOREHAM BY MORE THAN 75 PERCENT -- COULD NOT TRUST THEIn OWN GOVERNMENTS OFFICIALS IF hT, O IN TURN, LOOKEDTOTHEDISCREDITEDLILCOFORGUIDANCEORADVICE.]
TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT LILCO'S MISCHARACTERIZATIONS OF MY POSITION *RE BROUGHT TO AN END, I SHALL TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS
- O STATEMENT TO LILCO, THE NRC, AND FEMA. I SHALL ALSO EXPRESSLY NULLIFY MY JUNE 26, 1985 LETTER TO LILCO'S COUNSEL AND SHALL RESCIND EXECUTIVE ORDER 2-1985. BOTH OF THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE O EFFECTIVELY BEEN NULLIFIED BY EARLIER ACTIONS: HOWEVER, LILCO'S PERSISTENT MISSTATEMENTS (SUCH AS IN ITS JUNE 11 LETTER) PROMPT ME TO CLEAR THE SLATE SO THAT NO PERSON CAN CONCOCT FURTHER O
O -t-
- FICTIONS.
-) I AM ALSO DESIGNATING CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE FRANK JONES, AS HY REPRESENTATIVE, TO FOLLOW THESS MATTERS AND TO COORDINATE AS NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE WITH THE COUNTY
,, LEGISLATURE AND WITH THE ATTORNEYS HANDLING SHOREHAM MATTERS.
LILCO HAS LOBBIED IN WASHINGTON AND ELSEWHERE TO CHARACTERIZE SHOREHAM AS A LITMUS TEST FOR NUCLEAR POWER. THUS, O LILCO SEEKS TO TRANSFORM THE SHOREHAM CASE INTO THE SHOREHAM CAUSE. THIS IS A DECEPTION. SUFFOLK COUNTY IS NOT ANTI-NUCLEAR, AND WE HAVE No SUCH POLICY. INDEED, BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY IS IN CUR MIDST. THE COUNTY IS SIMPLY IN FAVOR OF DOING WHAT WE WERE ELECTED BY OUR CITIZENS TO DO: TO PROTECT THEIR WELL-BEING AND TO BE TRUTHFUL. LILCO DOES NOT LIKE THIS,
/
BECAUSE THE RESULT PUTS THE COUNTY AGAINST THE MISTAKE LILCO MADE AT SHOREHAM. BUT IN A DEMOCRACY, THE PUBLIC GOOD CANNOT BE DISREG ARE ED. SHOREHAM IS A MISTAKE; GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT O COMPOUND THE MISTAKE OF HAVING PERMITTED SHOREHAM TO BE BUILT WITH THE MISTAKE OF LETTING SHOREHAM OPERATE.
THE SHOREHAM CONTROVERSY HAS OVER THE PAST FOUR YEARS GROWN-4 TO CONFLICT AND CONFRONTATION. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING WE RELISH.
TO SI'EP BACK FROM THE TRENCHES AND VIEW THE BROADER SCALE, ONE CAN ONLY WISH THAT LILCO HAD SEIZED THE OPPROTUNITY TO ABAN0ON
'O SHOREHAM IN 1983 OR EVEN SOONER, WHEN THE ItNESTMENT WAS BILLIONS LESS.
WE WOULD STILL WELCOME SUCH A LILCO DECISION TODAY.
I i
9
.O i
t i i
O.
s n
}
BUT, THE FACT IS THAT WE HAVE A FIGHT ON OUR HANDS. LILCO REMAINS BLIND '!O THE REALITY WHY SHOREHAM SHOULDTONOT OP LILCO, CHERNOBYL NEVER HAPPENED, FEMA' S REGIONAL DIRECTOR NEVER RESIGNED OVER SHOREHAM, THE WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF NEVER ADMITTED LONG ISLAND CANNOT BE EVACUATED, SUFFOLK COUNTY DID NOT WIN COURT VICTORIES UPHOLDING THE LEGALITY OF THE COUNTY POLICIES ON SHOREHAM, AND LONG ISLAND'S GEOGRAPHY IS NO DIFFERENT FROM ANYWHERE ELSE.
1 INDEED, LILCO IS EVEN IMPERVIOUS TO THE (
OUTPOURING OF OPPOSITION TO SHOREHAM FROM EVERY CORNER OF iO ISLAND.
VIRTUALLY EVERY ELECTED OFFICIAL OPPOSES SHOREHAM, THE GOVERNOR OPPOSES SHOREHAM, AND THE PUBLIC OVERWHELMINGLY OPPOSES P
SHORERAM .
- O I REMAIN CONFIDENT THAT SUFFOLK COUNTY WILL PREVAIL.WE ARE RIGHT, AND WE HAVE THE PUBLIC'S UNYIELDING SUPPORT. THE REASON IS i
THAT A BASIC TRUTH HAS DRIVEN THIS COUNTY FROM THE START: IT
- Q WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO EVACUATE OR OTHERWISE PROTECT THE PU l IF THERE WERE A SERIOUS NUCLEAR ACCIDENT AT THE SHOREHA SHOREHAM SHOULD NOT OPEN.
4 f
I O
O
-10 O
3 Attachment 5 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
+
In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
AFFIDAVIT OF MICHAEL A. LOGRANDE D
Michael A. LoGrande, being under oath, deposes and says as follows:
q'
- 1. I am the County Executive of Suf folk County, New York, and have held that position since December 27, 1986. As County Executive, I am authorized to direct the County's response to emergencies.
- 2. On J anuary 16, 1987, in response to certain publicly O reported misstatements made by Mr. Victor Stello, Executive Director for Operations, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, I sent Mr. Stello a letter informing him of the O positions of Suffolk County (and my own as Chief Executive Officer of the County) concerning the LILCO Plan and the County's
O actions in a Shoreham emergency if the S'noreham plant were to be jD / licensed to operate.
Likewise, on March 10, 1987, I, along with Gregory J. Blass, Presiding Of ficer of the Suffolk County Legislature, again corresponded with Mr.
Stello on those subjects.
The January 16, 1987 and March 10, 1987 letters are attached hereto as Exhibits A and B. I hereby affirm those statements, affirm that
'O they are truthful and accurate, and af firm that they continue to represent my position as Suffolk County Executive and the position of Suffolk County on the subjects discussed therein.
O 3.
On June 23, 1986, my predecessor in this office, Peter F. Cohalan, issued a Statement to correct misstatements made by
'()
LILCO concerning LILCO's so-called "realism" argument, and related matters.
That statement is attached to Exhibit A, my letter of January 16, 1987.
I hereby affirm that the County's O
position regarding the LILCO Plan, LILCO's "realism" argument, and the licensing of the Shoreham plant remains as set forth in Mr. Cohalan's June 23, 1986 Statement, and that Mr. Cohalan's O
statement truthfully and accurately represents the position of Suffolk County.
O 4.
On February 17, 1983, the Suffolk County Legislature adopted Resolution No. 111-1983, which was approved by the Suffolk County Executive on February 23, 1983. A copy of O Resolution No. 111-1983 is also attached to Exhibit A, my letter of January 16, 1987.
Resolution No. 111-1983 is the law of O
O Suffolk County, and it reflects certain of the findings and con-O clusions of the County concerning on offsite response to a radio-logical emergency at the Shoreham plant.
- 5. It has come to my attention that in "LILCO's Second Renewed Motion For Summary Disposition of the ' Legal Authority' Issues (Contentions EP 1-10)," dated March 20, 1987, LILCO asserts that the County is in possession of 18 controlled copies of the LILCO Plan, and that the County's oficials are "familiar" with the Plan by virtue of their participation in the emergency j planning litigation before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
These assertions are incorrect. To the best of my knowledge, the County is in possession of 8 copies of the LILCO Plan. Only 5 of O the Plans are up-to-date and, of those, 4 are in the possession of the SCPD for purposes of preparing testimony for hearings before this and other Boards.
O
- 6. Neither I, nor my deputies, nor any members of my staf f have in our possession the current version of the LILCO Plan. I g have never reviewed the LILCO Plan and none of my deputies or staff has ever reviewed that plan with one exception -- Mr. Frank Petrone, who reviewed portions of an earlier version of LILCO's g Plan while employed by FEMA, and has reviewed portions of LILCO's Plan in connection with the preparat? 7 of testimony in the Shoreham Exercise proceeding. To my knowledge, no County
'O 1
O e
O
! of ficial or employee is suf ficiently knowledgeable of the LILCO Plan to implement all or a portion of it, with or without LILCO O assistance.
f O
Nichael A. l.oGrande Suf folk County Executive Subscribed to and sworn before me this f' day of May,
'O 1987.
/
O -
' 'l N Notary Public b I *'/' /
State' of New York at Large My commission expires:
O s PWtus A DUGM criJtY PU8UC, $we W New M ,,
k $24117575, Seton CetrK 1ern Expres Oceber 31.19B O
O O
4 O
O
^
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK O
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE MICHAEL A. LOGRANoe
,unma casm uscums O
January 16, 1987 n"
Mr. Victor Stello Executive Director for Operations U. S. Nuclear. Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 g Dear Mr. Stellot On December 27, 1986, I took office as the Suffolk County Executive. I am writing in this capacity to correct two misstatements by you that were reported in the enclosed Newsday article of January 4, 1987.
O rirst, you state that the problems concerning emergency planning for Shoreham "are all a direct result of the lack of participation by state and local governments." Your statement is unfounded and incorrect. The emergency planning problems at Shoreham are a direct result of the decision to construct the Shoreham plant where a nuclear power plant does not belong.
O decision was made by LILCO and approved by the NRC. LILCO andThat s the NRC are thus the ones responsible for the "problems" to which you allude. .
Second, you state, O "If there was ! sic) a real emergency, there is no doubt that those people pledged to help protect the public would follow LILCO's plan. I'm convinced they would do anything to protect the public, and that means following a structured plan. Unless they have a plan we don't know about, that means they would fol' low O LILCo's plan."
Again, your statement is unfounded and incorrect.
i Suffolk County has determined after extensive analyses that under no circumstances would it follow LILCO's emergency plan or
- O work in concert with LILCO to effect an emergency response to an accident at shoreham. For your information, enclosed are copies l
l =E . . m .. . ~ .s .. . ...m..,,, , , , , , , , _
- O i
l
y O.
s -
O Mr. Victor Stello f January 14, 1987 Page 2 4
0 of Suffolk County Resolution 111-1983 and the June 23, 1986 statement of the former Suffolk County Executive. These documents reflect the conscientiousness of the County and provide thoroughly considered bases for the County's determinations.
- ()
1 For the reasons elaborated in the enclosed documents, I emphasize that as County Executive, I would not use the authority or resources of this government to implement LILCO's emergency plan response or toto work in concert an accident at Shoreham. with LILCO to effect an emergency LIT.CO's plan to be unworthy and unworkable.Suffolk County The Countyhaswould found
- ()
not, and could not, rely on such a discredited plan.
Moreover, itself to possess poor and untrustworthy judgment.in recent years LILCO For example, after holding full hearings, the State Public Service Commission' denied LILCO recovery of $1.3 billion of Shoreham's costs because
.() of LILCO's "imprudence" and "gross mismanagement" during construction of the plant. The County would not and could not rely on the guidance or advice of such a company,in an emergency,.
If the County did, its citizens could not trust their own government.
1
!O VY "lY Y " '
.* 4
,/II!ka.U', f h',h ' 4C
.ICHAEL A. LcCRANDE
- Acting County Executive
- 5) MALifmn l Enclosures l
4 lO lo lO
[
D 4
f STATEMENT OF SUFitLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE PETER F. CORALAN O
JUNE 23, 1986 I
AM ISSUING THIS STATEMENT TO ENSURE THAT THERE ARE NO T'
MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF MY POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THE SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION.
I AM PARTICULARLY MOTIVATED TO MAKE THIS STATEMENT BECAUSE LILCO HAS MISSTATED MY POSITION IN EPPORTS TO l PERSUADE FEDERAL AGENCIES TO LICENSE SHOREHAM. LET THE RECORD BE CLEAR:
I AM OPPOSED TO THE LICENSING OF SHOREHAM.
IN FACT, I HAVE NEVER SUPPORTED THE LICENSING OF SHOREHAM g FOR COMMERCIAL OPERATION. ON MAY 30, 1985, I GAVE QUALIFIED SUPPORT ONLY TO A TEST OF LILCO'S EMERGENCY PLAN ON THE CONDITION THAT THERE WOULD BE PARTICIPATION OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY
, GOVE RNMENT. HOWEVER, ON JUNE 10, 1985, THE NEW YORK STATE v N SUPREME COURT, AND LATER THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, RULED THAT I COULD NOT CHANGE COUNTY POLICY BY J COMMITTING COUNTY PERSONNEL AND RESOURCES TO A TEST. IN RE S PONS E, I WITHDREW MY MAY 30, 1985, POS ITION, AND ON NOVEMBER 7,
1985, FOPJtALLY REQUESTED THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NOT TO CONDUCT A TEST OF LILCO'S EMERGENCY PLAN.
U ON FEBRUARY 13, 1986, OVER THi'. OBJECTIONS OF THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE AND MYSELF, LILCO CONDUCTED A TEST OP ITS EMERGENCY PLAN.
I S'i ATED THEN THAT THE EXERCISE AMOUNTED TO "THEATER OF O
/
d
O THE ABSURD."
THE TEST WAS UNREALISTIC AND WAS CLEARLY DESI TO CONVEY FALSE IMPRESSIONS OF LILCO'S COMPETENCE. WE ON LONG O ISLAND WERE NOT DECEIVED: WE HAVE FIRST-HAND EXPERIENC LILCO'S LACX OF COMPETENCE -- LET'S NOT FORGET THE $1.3 IMPRUDENCE FINDING AND LILCO' S RESPONSE TO IHURRICANE FEEL THAT THE ONLY SIGNIFICANT ASPECT OF THE PEBRUARY CAME AFTERWARD.
WHEN THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEHENT AGENCY, FRANK PETRONE, ANNOUNCED THAT O LILCO'S EMERGENCY PLAN DOES NOT PROVIDE REASONABLE A THE PUBLIC WOULD BE PROTECTED IN THE EVENT OF A NUCLEAR AT SHOREHAM.
IN SHORT, MR. PETRONE, SAID SHOREHAM SHOULD NOT BE LICENSED TO OPERATE.
O SINCE FEBRUARY 1983 IT HAS BEEN CLEAR TO SUFFOLK COUNTY THAT THE OPERATION OF SHOREHAM WOULD CREATE A POTENTIAL FOR THE PUBLIC.
I AFTER EXTENSIVE AND COSTLY STUDIES, ANALYSES, O
AND SURVEYS, PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND A TRIP TO THE THREE MILE ISLAND i VICINITY, THIS GOVERNMENT CONCLUDED THAT THE PUBLIC COULD NOT BE SAFELY EVACUATED OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED IF THERE WERE A SERI IO ACCIDENT AT SHOREHAM. THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT, HAVING BEEN j
ESTABLISHED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PUBLIC'S WELFARE, THEREFORE, HAD ONLY WO CHOICES:
TELL THE PUBLIC THE TRUTH THAT O THEY CoutD Nor BE PROTECTED: OR DECEIVE THEM BY ADOPTING AN EMERGENCY PLAN THAT ROULD LULL THEM INTO DELIEVING THEY WERE BEING PROTECTED WHEN IN FACT THEY WERE NOT.
.O 1
I
~t.
l lO
y YNp SUFFOLK COUNTY CHOSE HEAT IT WAS OBLIGATED IN TO DO:
j RESOLUTION 111-1983, IT TOLD ITS CITIZENS THE TRUTH. THUS, THE p
COUNTY RESOLVED NOT TO ADOPT OR IMPLEMENT ANFOREMERGENCY P SHOREHAM.
THIS DECISION WAS UPHELD BY FEDERAL AND STATE COU
', IT WAS ALSO UPHELD BY GOVERNOR CUOMO AFTER EXTENSI THE MARBURGER COMMISSION.
UNFORTUNATELY, LILCO HAS REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE FACT THAT SHOREHAM SHOULD NOT OPERATE.
FOR INSTANCE, APTER RESOLUTION 111-1983, WAS ADOPTED, THE COUNTY INFORMED THE NRC OF OUR ACTION, AND ASKED THAT AGENCY TO APPLY ITS REGULATIONS BY DENYING LILCO A LICENSE TO OPERATE SHOREHAM.
AT LILCO'S URGING, THE NRC REJECTED OUR REQUEST AND. INSTEAD, n
STARTED A 3-YEAR COf{TORTED PROCESS OF GIVING LILCO CHANCE-AFTER-CHANCE TO CONCOCT A SCHEM LICENSE THE PLANT.
AT THE SAME TIME, a
'# LILCO LOBBIED TO ENLIST FEDERAL OFFICIALS
~~
TO SUPPORT LICENSING SHOREHAM.
LILCO'S SUCCESSES PEAXED LAST YEAR WHEN PRESIDENT REAGAN'S SECRETARY OF ENERGY ANNOU 0 SHOREHAM SHOULD BE LICENSED TO OPERATE OVER THE OBJECTIO SUFFOLK COUNTY AND NEW YORK STATE.
HE DID THIS IN THE FACE OF THE PRESIDENT'S OhH POLICY ON SHOREHAM, WRITTEN OCTOBER 11, 1984, U THAT THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION DOES NOT FAVOR THE IMPO FEDERAL AUTHORITY AT SHOREHAM OVER THE OBJECTIONS OF NEW STATE AND SUFFOLK COUNTY, O
3 O
)
D
[ I HAVE RECITED THIS BRIEF HISTORY TO BRING THE SHOREHAM SITUATION UP TO DATE. BY NOW, EVERY FAIR-MINDED PERSON MUST REALIZE THAT SAFE EVACUATION OF THE PUBLIC WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE P
IF THERE WERE A SERIOUS NUCLEAR ACCIDENT AT SHOREHAM. THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF SUFFOLK COUNTY'S RESIDENTS AND ALMOST j
J EVERY LONG ISLAND ELECTED OFFICIAL ARE OPPOSED TO THE LICENSING l OF SHOREHAM.
AND BOTH THE NRC'S LICENSING AND APPEAL BOARD'S HAVE REJECTED LILCO'S BID FOR A LICENSE. BUT DESPITE ALL OF THIS, THE CASE IS NOT OVER. WHY IS THAT7 THE REASON IS THAT LILCO PERSISTS IN TRYING TO LICENSE SHOREHAM AND IS NOW ORCHESTRATING THE BIGGEST DECEPTION OF ALL:
EVEN THOUGH THE NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT AND THE NRC'S O
LICENSING AND APPEAL BOARDS HAVE RULED THAT LILCO CANNOT IMPLEMENT ITS EMERGENCY PLAN, THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, AT LILCO'S URGING, IS CONSIDERING A LILCO REQUEST TO LICENSE O
SHOREHAM WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY IMPLEMENTABLE EMERGENCY PLAN.
THIS IS A PRESCRIPTION FOR DISASTER. IN THE WAKE OF CHERNOBYL, IT IS A R2CKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF THE RESIDENTS OF
.O LONG IStaiD.
1 SPECIFICALLY, LILCO IS PRESSING THE NRC TO LICENSE SHOREHAM l
ON THE BASIS OF A FICTION IT HAS CREATED AND DU'3 BEG "REALISM."
Q THIS FICTION GOES ON AS FOLLOWS: SHOREHAM SHOULD BE LICENSED EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO IMPLEMENTABLE EMERGENCY PLAN, BECAUSE H THE PLANT WERE LICENSED AND E THERE WERE AN ACCIDENT AT O
4 O
O O
SHOREHAM, THE STATE AND COUNTY WOULD IN REALITY ACT IN RESPONSE TO THE ACCIDENT AND THIS AD HOC "RESPONSE" WOULD SOMEHOW PROTECT THE PEOPLE.
0 LILCO ARGUES THAT THIS SET OF HYPOTHETICALS WOULD COMPLY WITH THE NRC'S REGULATIONS AND PROVIDE A BASIS FOR THE LICENSING OF SHOREHAM. IT WOULD NOT.
LILCO'S FICTION IS ILLEGAL AND ILLOGICAL; O IT IE BORN OF CYNICISH AND INDIFFERENCE TO THE PUBLIC' S SAFETY.
FIRST, LIILO ' S FICTION RETRIEVES THE DISCREDITED THEORY ON WHICH THE NRC LICENSED NUCLEAR PLANTS BEFORE THE THREE MILE O ISLAND ACCIDENT. THEN, THERE WAS NO PRE-PLANNING OR INTEGRATED PLANNING REQUIRED FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITH THE UTILITY. THE NRC SIMPLY ASSUMED THAT IF THERE WERE AN ACCIDENT, O
THE GOVERNMENTS WOULD KNOW HOW TO ACT ALONE AND WITH OTHERS IN RESPONSE.
THE THREE MILE ISLAND ACCIDENT PROVED THIS ASSUMPTION TO BE WRONG. FOLLOWING THREE MILE ISLAND, CONG RESS PASSED LAWS O %
AND THE NRC MADE REGULATIONS THAT REQUIRE PRE-PLANNING AND INTEGRATED PREPAREDNESS.
THERE IS NO PRE-PLANNING OR INTEGRATED PREPAREDNESS AT SHOREHAM.
O SECOND, LILCO'S FICTION PRESUMES THAT STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS NOT ONLY MOULD RESPOND TO AN ACCIDENT, BUT THAT THEIR RESPONSE WOULD KORK TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC. THUS, LILCO CLAIMS, O THE PUBLIC WOULD BE PROTECTED EVEN THOUGH THE GOvERNHENTS HAVE NO O -5 O
O O
PRE-FLANNING, OR IQiOWLEDGE OF INVENTORY OF AVAILABLE RESOURCES, NO PERSONNEL READINESS, AND NO TRAINING.
SUCH A PRESUMPTION IS O uNrOUNDEDi rARCICAL AT BEST.
THIRD, LILCO'S FICTION PORTRAYS SUFFOLX COUNTY ACTING IN CONCERT WITH LILCO IF THERE WERE AN ACCIDENT AT SHOREMAM.
HOWEVER, COUNTY LAW PROHIBITS. COUltrY PERSO!DIEL FROM IMPLE LILCO'S EMERGENCY PLAN.
EVEN IF IT DID NOT, THE COUNTY COULD NOT RESPONSIBLY ACT IN CONCERT WITH LILCO AND ITS EMERGENCY P O THE COUNTY'S STUDIES, ANALYSES, AND SURVEYS, TOGETHER WITH OUR DAY-TO-DAY EXPERIENCES ON LONG ISLAND WITH THE LIMITED ROAD NETWORX AND THE CONFINED GEOGRAPHY, HAVE CONVINCED US THAT SAFE O EVACUATION OF THE PUBLIC IS NOT POSSIBLE IN A SHOREHAM AC '
LILCO'S EMERGENCY PLAN IS A GUIDELINE FOR TRAFFIC-JAM GRIDL AND Mi IMMOBILIZED EVACUATION hTERE HUNDREDS OF THOUSAN O ISLAND'S RESIDENTS WOULD BE TRAPPED TO ABSORB THE RADIATI SOUGHT TO rLEE.
THIS COUttrY WOULD NOT ACT IN CONCERT WITH SUCH A i GUIDELINE FOR DISASTER.
i FOURTH, O LILCO'S FICTION RESTS ON THE SURMISE THAT THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE CONPIDENCE IN LILCO, OR THAT IT WOULD RELY ON LILCO BECAUSE TH: RE ROULD BE NO ONE ELSE ON hMICH TO RELY. THIS IS FALSE.
THERE IS NO CORPORATION ON LONG ISLAND WITH SO LOW A O
STANDING WITH THE PUBLIC utD LOCAL GovERsHENTS ASTHERE LILCO.
IS EVEN A STRONG AND CREDIBLE EFFORT TODAY TO EFFECT A PUBLIC lC 6 !
,0 l
O
.O
[ TAKEOVER OF THIS COMPANY. IN AN EMERGENCY OR OTHERWISE, THE PUBLIC AND THE COUNTY GOVERNMEh7 WOULD HAVE NO CONFIDENCE IN LILCO.
.O WE COULD NOT, AND WOULD NOT, LOOK TO SUCH A DISCREDITED SOURCE FOR GUIDANCE OR ASSISTANCE IN A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT. INDEED, LILCO WOULD BE THE OBJECT OF THE PUBLIC'S WRATH BECAUSE IT CAUS THE ACCIDENT.
IT WOULD BE THE ENTITY WHICH ETEAHROLLED SHOREHAM INTO OPERATION OVER THE PUBLIC AND GOVERNMENTS'OBJECTIONS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WOULD BETTER SERVE THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST
- O TO ACT ALONE THAN TO ENTRUST THE PUBLIC WEAL TO MORE OF LILCO' S POOR JUDGMENTS.
MOREOVER, LILCO'S RESPONSE TO HURRICANE GLORIA LAST OCTOBER LIVES INDELIBLY AS A LESSON TO EVERYONE ON LONG ISLAND. IN THE O
POTENTIALLY CATASTROPHIC CIRCUMSTANCES OF A NUCLEARWEACCIDENT.
WOULD NEVER RELY UPON OR ACT IN CONCERT WITH A COMPANY THAT COULD NOT EVEN PUT THE LIGHTS BACK ON FOR DAYS.
'O FIFTH, LILCO'S rICTION HAS PROMPTED THE COMPANY TO EXTEND ITS PLEAS FOR LICENSING SHOREHAM TO SHAMEFUL LIMITS. ON JUNE 11, 1986, LILCO'S COUNSEL WROTE THE NRC, CLAIMING THAT STATE LAW Q REQUIRES THE COUNTY TO TAXE ACTIONS IN AN EMERGENCY THAT PURPORTEDLY WOULD JUSTIFY THE NRC PU1 TING SHOREHAN INTO
, OPERATION. THIS CLAIM MISSTATES THE LAW. IT WOULD NEVER BE O "APPROPRIATE" OR "NECESSARY" FOR THE COUNTY TO TAKE ACTIONS IN PDRSUIT OF LILCO'S ILLEGAL EMERGENCY PLAN.
2
,0 7
O
O FINALLY, IN THE SAME LETTER OF JUNE 11, LILCO ENSHRINES ITS FICTION WITH THE FOLLOWING WORDS:
"...THE LILCO PLAN PROVIDES A
{)
BASIS FOR A PRIVATE / GOVERNMENTAL PARTNERSHIP THAT DE EFFECTIVE.TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC IN A REAL EMERGENCY, kHEN POLITICAL POSTURING hDULD BE ABANDONED AND UIE SAFETY O c;
PUBLIC WOULD BE GIVEN PARANOUNT IMPORTANCE." THIS IS HORE FANTASY.
REITERATE hHAT IS IN ESSENCE STATED ADOVE: NEITHER SUFFOLX COUNTY NOR I AS COUNTY EXECUTIVE HAS ANY "PARTN J WITH LILCor THERE IS NO "BASIS FOR A PRIVATE / GOVERNMENTAL PARTNERSHIP" OF ANY KIND WITH LILCor THE COUNTY HAS NO CONFIDENCE OR TRUST IN LILCO; AND IN AN EMERGENCY, THE COUNTY hDULD GIVE NO O CREDENCE TO LILCO OR ITS PLAN AND WOULD NOT WORX IN CO LILCO.
INDEED, IN AN EMERGENCY, THE PUBLIC OF SUFFOLX COUNTY --
SHOWN BY RESPECTED POLLS TO OPPOSE SHOREHAM BY MORE THAN O" PERCENT -- COULD NOT TRUST THEIR OWN COVERNMENTS IF WE, OFFICIALS IN TURN, N LOOKED TO THE DISCREDITED LILCO FOR GUIDANCE OR ADVIC TO MAXE CERTAIN THAT LILCO' S MISCHARACTERIZATIONS OF MY POSITION ARE BROUGHT TO AN END, I SHALL TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS STATEMENT TO LILCO, THE NRC, AND FEMA.
I SHALL ALSO EXPRESSLY NULLIFY KY JUNE 26, 1985 LETTER TO LILCO'S COUNSEL AND SHALL RESCIND EXECUTIVE ORDER 2-1985.
o BOTH OF THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE O
EFFECTIVELY BEEN NULLIFIED BY EARLIER ACTIONS; HOWEVER, LILCO'S PERSISTENT MISSTATEMENTS (SUCH AS IN ITS JUNE 11 LETTER) PROM ME TO CLEAR THE SLATE SO THAT NO PERSON CAN CONCOCT FURTHER O
9 -t-
g O
/g FICTIONS.
I AM ALSO DESIGNATING CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUT FRANK JONES, AS HY REPPESENTATIVE, TO FOLLOW THESE MATTERS AND TO O
CO RDINATE AS NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE WITH THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE MD WIT!{
THE ATTORNEYS HANDLING SHOREIRM MATTERS.
LILCO HAS LOBBIED IN WASHINGTON AND ELSEWHERE M g
CHARACTERIZE SHOREHAM AS A LITMUS TEST FOR THUS, NUCLEAR POWER.
LILCO SEEKS TO T.%NSFOP.M THE 3HOREHAM CASE INTO THE CAUSE.
THIS IS A DECEPTION.
SUFFOLK COUNTY IS NOT ANTI-NUCLEAR.
U AND WE HAVE NO SUCH POLICY. INDEED, BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY IS IN OUR MIDST.
THE COUNTY IS SIMPLY IN PAVOR OF DOING WHAT WE WERE ELECTED BY OUR CITIZENS TO DO:
TO PROTECT O THEIR WELL-BEING AND TO BE TRUTHFUL. LILCO DOES NOT LIKE THIS, BECAUSE THE RESULT PUTS THE COUNTY AGAINST THE MISTA AT SHOREHAM.
BUT IN A DEMOCRACY, THE PUBLIC GOOD CANNOT BE DISREGARDED.
n~ SHOREHAM IS A MISTAKEt GOVEPliHENT SHOULD NOT N
COMPOUND TH'. HISTAKE OF HAVING PERMITTED SHOREHAM TO B WITH THE MISTAKE OF LETTING SHORERAM OPMRATE.
THE SHOREHAM CONTROVERSY HAS OVER THE PAST FOUR YEARS GR TO CONFLICT AND CONPRONTATION.
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING WE RELISH.
TO STEP BACK FROM THE TRENCHES AND VIEW THE BROADERONE SCALE, O CAN ONLY WISH THAT LILCO HAD SEIZED THE OPPROTUNITY TO ABAN SHOREMAn IN 1993 OR EVEN SOONER, wHEN THE IrweSTMErrr wAS BILLIONS LESS.
WE ROULD STILL WELCOME SUCH A LILCO DECISION MDAY.
O
.g.
O
~ ~~
............_...~.7-
}
J .
BUT, THE FACT IS THAT WE HAVE A FIGHT ON OUR HANDS.
LILCO REMAINS BLIND TO THE REALITY WHY SHOREHAM . TO SHOULD NOT O
LILC , CHERN sYL NEvER HAPPENED, rEMA'S REGIONAL DIRECTOR NEVER RESIGNED OVER SHOREHAM, THE WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF NEVER ADMITTED LONG ISLAND CANNOT BE EVACUATED, SUFFOLK COUNTY DID NOT WIN COURT VICTOR 1ES UPHOLDING THE LEGALITY OF THE CO POLICIES ON SHOREHAM, AND LONG ISLAND'S GEOGRAPHY IS NO DIFFER FROM ANYWHERE ELSE.
INDEED, LILCO IS EVEN IMPERVIOUS TO THE O OUTPOURING OF OPPOSITION TO SHOREHAM FROM EVERY CORNE ISLAND.
VIRTUALLY EVERY ELECTED OFFICIAL OPPOSES SHOREHAM, THE GOVERNOR OPPOSES SHOREHAM, AND THE PUBLIC OVERWHELMINGLY OPPOSES SHOREHAM .
O -
RIGHT, I REMAIN CONFIDENT THAT SUFFOLK COUNTY WE WILL ARE PREVAIL.
AND WE HAVE THE PUBLIC'S UNYIELDINGTHE SUPPORT.
REASON IS THAT A BASIC TRUTH HAS DRIVEN THIS COUNTY IT FROM THE% START:
WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO EVACUATE OR OTHERWISE PROTE IF THERE WERE A SERIOUS NUCLEAR ACCIDENT AT THE SHORE .
SHOREHAM SHOULD NOT OPEN.
O O
O
, 10 O
....o. .. . . . . .. n- e a Int:cduced by Legislators Wehrenberg, Caracappa, o' Andre, ceise, A11g ro ve , Ma-'
s* Prospect, Toley, Nolan, Blass, Rizzo, LaBua, Devino. Hariton, Beck 2 RESOLUTION NO. 111 - 1983, CONSTITUTING THE FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS Or SUTTOLK COUNTY CN WHETHER A LEVEL OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS TO RZSPOND M A RADIQLCGICAL ACCIDENT AT THE SHOREHAM NUCLEAR PCPER STATION Ct.N PROTECT THE HEALTR, llELTARS AND SAFETY OF THE RESIDENTS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY J
WHEREAS, Now York, the New Suf folk County has a duty under the Constitution of the State <
Charter to York Stato Municipal Home Rulo Law, and the Suffolk Coun' protect the health, County; and ,
safety, and valf!.ro of the residents of Suffo:
UHEREAS,
- the Long Island Lighting Company ("LILCO") is constructing a:
Sosires tha north to operate the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ('Shoreham"), loca ted c shore of Long Island near the town of Wading River, a location whic is within the boundaries of Suffo',k County; and trHERE AS , a serious' huelear accident at Shorcham could result in ti gpolease of significant quantities of radioactivo fission products; and WH E RI AS ,
Tealth, the release of such radiation would poso a severo hazard to tt safety, and welf ara of Suf fc1h County residents; and UMEREAS, g horeham on the duty in recognition of Suffolk ofCounty the ef fects of such potential hazard posed 1
-elfare to protect the health, safety, ar of its citizens, this Legislature on March 23, 1982, adopted Resolutic
- 10. 262-1982, which directed that suffolk County prepara a
- County Radiologica Imergoney Responso Plan to sorvo the interest of the safety, health, and welfat af tha citizens of Suffolk County .."; and WHEREAS, in Resolution 262-1982, the Legislaturo determined that the pie
)cveloped by the ccunty 'chall not bo operablo and shall not ba deemed adequat ind capable of being Lmpicmented until such time as it in approved by tr luffolk County Legislaturo"; and 'N ,
WHERIAS, in adopting Recolution 262-1982, the Legislatura found the inrlice planning efforts by LILCO and County planners Data ) sore inadcquato kcauco they f ailed to address(the the
' original particular plannu proble.-
>ostd by conditions on Long Island and further failed to account for huma chavior during a radiological emergency
'hrca Hilo Island; and and the lessons of the accident 4 WH E RI AS , on March 29, 1982, Peter F. Cohalan, Suf folk County Executive geting to implement Rorolution 262-1982, by Executive Order established tr u2 folk County Radiological Emergency Recronce Plan steering Committe Steering Committec") rnd directed it to prepara a County pitn for cubmittal t
.he County Exccutive end County Lcgiciaturc; and im E REAS , the Steering Committee assembica a group of highly qualified ar gotiontily recognized experts from diverto dizeiplince to preparc such Count lens cnd O
O VHEREAS, such highly qu alified experts worked in a diligent
- enscientious effort at a cost in excess of $500,000 to prepare the best and I 9ssible plan for suffolk county, and particularly to ensure that !
.nto account all particular physical and behavioral conditions on such Long plan took l 0: hat affect the adequacy of the emergency response plan; and Islane I 1
WHERIAs, the analyses, studies, and surveys of such experts included: '
(a) Detailed analyses of the possible Shoreham; releases of radiation fro,.
() (b)
Detailed analyses radiation release onof the theradiological population health consequences of suet of Suffolk meterological, demographic, topographical, andCounty, giventhe local conditions on Long Islands other specifit (c) \ detailed social
() '
and assess their intended behavior insurvey ofthe Longevent Island residents to determint of a serious accident at ShorrSams (d) A detailed survey of school bus drivers, volunteer firemen, anc certain othey , emergency response personnel to determine whethe emergency . intend to report
() duties, or. personnatinstead to unite with promptly their own for emergene families, in the eve of a serious accident at Shoreham;- *
(e) Ist.iled
- estimates of the number of persons wSo would be orderec well vacuate in the event of a serious accident at Shoreham, as as the number of persons who intend to evacuate voluntaril) even if not ordered to do sol (f) Detailed analyses of the road network in Long Island and the time required to evacuate persor.s from creas affected by radiatior releases; (g) Detailed
() analyses of the protectivo actions available to suffoD County residents to evacuate or take shelter from 5 radiatior relcaces; and
's th) Analysis
- of the lessons learned from the accident Island on local government responsibilities to pre Three *e Mile for r adiological emergency;. and 4 O
WHE RI AS , on May 10, 1982, LILCo, without the approval or authorizatien c:
no Suffolk County Government, submitted to the New York State Disaste reparedness Commisssion ("DPC') two volumes entitled "Suffolk Count sdiological s fur thet Emergenc/ revised and supplemented by LILCo, and requeried the DPc to reviet Response Plan
- and contain'ing the original planning data sd approvo such LILCO cubmittal as the local radiological emergency response an for suffolk county; and 1;HEREAS, in Resolutione 456-1982 and 457-1982, the county further idrossed the matter of preparing for a radiological emergency at nphas,ized that Shoreham an
) (a) The LILCo-submitted document was not and vill not be the county's l Radiological Emergency Response Plant and l
i lO i
I
.O (c) The !
, County's enunciated in Radiological EmergencyisResponse Resolution 456-1982, Planning Policy, a as follows: I Suffolk County shall not
- 4) implement any radiological assign emergency funds or persennel to test o Shoreham response plan for th to the best of the County's ability. Nuclear Plant unless that plan, has b Suffolk County shall not implement any radiological assign funds or personnel to test o emergency response plan for th O Shoreham Nucleer Plant least two public hearings, unless one tothat planinhas be held been subject of a Riverhead, to be held in Hauppauge. and on Suffolk County shall not implement any radiological assign funds or personnel to test o.
emergency response plan for the thorcham Nuclear Plant O unless that plan has been approved, af te:
public Executive;hearings, and by the Suf folk County Logislature and the Count-WHEREAS, on June 9, for the reason that it was deficient; 1982, theand DPC rejected the LILCo-submitted documen i ,
() MIEREAS, on October 6, 1982, LILCO, again without the approval o
.uthorization ersion of the of the suffolk County Government, submitted to the DPC an amende-
.he DPC; and previously submitted LILCO document which had bocn rejected b; WHEREAS, on December 2, ,
1982, the Draf t County Radiological Emergenc:
~c;sponse Plan authorized by Resolution 262-1932 was submitted to the egislature for review and public hearings as specified in Resolutions count:
56-1982, and 457-1982; and 262-1992 imE RE AS , in January 1983, the sunty plan, which hearings included: Legislature hold hearings on the Draf' O (a) More than 1,590 pagcc of transcripts; s
(b) Detailed written statements and oral testimony of County exper consultan'ts who prepared the Draf t Councy plan; (c) Detailed written statements and oral testimony of LILCO official O and export concultanto retained by LILCo; (d) Detailed writ' ten statements and oral testimony of the Suf foli County Polico Department, the County . Health Department, the County Social Sorvices depar tment, and tho County Public Work:
i Depar tmen t, all of which would have indispensablo roles i:
O responding to a radiological emergency at Shoreham; (c) Detailed written statemente and oral toctimony of organization:
in Suffolk County concerned with radiological omergene:
preparednoss; and O *(f) Ext nciv presentations by hundredo of members of the genera:
public; and O
a tGEREAS, members or the icarings in the vicinity of the ThreeLegislatureMilo Island alsoNuclear Pcwir toPlant travelled and held gapubl[-
information on the lessono to be learned by local governments from the to acciden it Three Milo Island; and O
RHEREAS, tho Draft County plan 1holtaring as tho two primary protectivo identifico evacuation and protectiv actions which would need to t
'mplemented in tho event of a serious accident at Shoroham; and WHEREAS, evacuation of Suffolk County residents in the event of c;adiological "factors, emergoney could take as much tir o an 14-30 hours because of variou including: :ho limited number of appropriato evacuation routes i Buffolk County; lifficulties ensuf ig dif eiculties in mobilizing polico and other emergency personnel from spontaneous evacuation of largo numbers of Count residents, thus creating savoro traffic congestion; and unavilability :
titernate evacuation routon for persono residing cact of Shoreham and thus th r occessity for sbch persons during an evacuation to pass by the plant an
'4ossibly through the radioactivo plumo; and WHERIAS, evacua tion times in exec c c of 10 hours --
and certaini avacuation times in the rango of 14-30 hourc --
will result in virtua
.mmobilization of evacuation and high exposuro of evacueen to radiation suc U,; hat evacucas' health, safety', and welfare would not be protectod; and WHEREAS, protective sheltering in designed to protect persons fre
{ excessive radiation expecuro by such persons staying indoorn until radiatic i sith the greatest dangor to health has passed; and WHEREAS, if protectivo sheltering woro ordered for Suffolk Count O c sid en ts , unacceptable radiation exposuro would still bo experienced i substantial portions of the Suffolk County population, thus making it impossib!
- o provido for the health, welfaro, and safoty of those residents; and WHE RE AS , the document submitted by LILCO to the DPC without Count l
tpproval or authorization in deficient becauco it doce not deal with the actua cci e nditi O:ncountered nn, physical and behcviorcl, on Long Icland that would t during a serious nuclecr cecident et Shorcham; and N
RHE RE AS , the document submitted by LILCO to the DPC without Coun-tpproval or authori:atidn does not encuro that offcetive protective action 1
>crcono subject to radiction expocure, in the form of evacuatica or shelterine
-sould bo taken in event of a corious nucicar accident at Shorchen, and thus suc ilocument, even if implemented, would not protect the health, saf ety, and we lf a:
>f Suffolk County residentc; and WHEREAS, tho extoncivo data which tho Legislatura hao considered ma)
, :locr thct the cite-cpecific circumstances and actucl local conditions existir jn Long Icland, particularly its clongated cact/ west configuration whic Coquirco all evacuation routco from lecctions ccet of the plant to pace within
- eno of predicted high radiation, tho inef fcetivenecc of pr.otcetivo chelterinc
- ho ccvoro traf fic congcction lihcly to ba oxperienecd if c 'ptrtici or comple-svacuction were ordered, and the difficultico in encuring that emergenc
>orconnel will promptly report for oncrgency dutico, precludo any emergent tecponso plan, if impicmented, from providing adequcto prcperednoca to protei
')ho hetith, wcifaro, and safety of Suf folk County recidentc; nov, thcroforo, I l it l
l l .
O
l l
D RESOLVED, that'the sraft County plan submitten to the County Legislatur an 1982, if impicmented, would not protect the health, welfare, and thus is not approved and will not b
)
Ocambar 2,f folk County residents l ey of Su ementod; and be it further submitted by LILCO to the DPC without th RESOLVED, that tho_ document if implemented, would not protect the health tyr eapproval or authorization,and safoty of Suffolk residents and thus vill not be approv implemented; and bo it further RESOLVED, that since no local radiological emergency responso the health, plan foran welfare, will protect Shoreham d implementatio
.ous nuclear accident atity of Suffolk County residents, and since the by indicating Count to preparation an the public gpy such plan wuld behealth, misleading to and safoty are boing protected when, wif are, i
Ydonts that their the County's radiological omorgency planning proces
- , such istertainated,not the caso,and no local radiological amorgoney , plan for response implemented; and be ti hereby the Shoreham plant shall be adopted or
.tecident at *
.-her- plan can protect er radiological amorgoney radiologica RcSoLvro, that since no no
!O '
iith, walfare, safety of Suf folk County residents and, tosincobo nocessary assure ' tha cdopted or rgency plan shall take all actions l cutivo is hereby directed to governmontal agency, bo it Stato or Federal, a:
- ione taken by an.y other sistent with the decisions mandated by this Rosolution.
- O
'ED: Februe.ry 17, 1983 .
APP 1. BY:
' :st JYu Count 1 txecutivo of Suf fol.k county O 3 Dato of Approvalt J JJ s O
O .
LO O ,
~~^~ ~ ' ~ - . - - . . , . - - _ _ _ _ _ _ ,,
O Exnibit B COUNTY OF SUFFOLK J
g March 10, 1987 Mr. Victor Stello Executivo Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Stello:
J on behalf of the government of Suffolk County, wo are writing in reply to your letter of February 20, 1987, which responds to the January 16 letter of the Suffolk County Executivo. The County Exocutive's letter had corrected certain of your statomonts quoted in the press that mischaracterized the J actions plant. of Suffolk County concerning the Shoreham nuclear power Your February 20 letter rejects the County Executive's corrections and reitoratos oven more emphatically the mischaracterizations you mado earlier. ws The message of your February 20 letter is clear: the Staff
? of the NRC has decided that public safety does not matter at Shorcham; operation.
that what matters only is putting the plant into licensing You havo convorted the Staff's role in the Shoreham
- the cauco proceedingo
- LILCO's cause.from participant in the caso to champion of In short, you have betrayed the Staff's responsibility to the public timo for you to tako remedial actions. in those procoodings. It is Accordingly, first, the government of Suffolk County requests that you immediately disqualify yourself and.the rest of the Staff frcm participating further as a party in the Shoreham proceedings.
of LILCO, The Staff has subordinated its own identity to that o and permit *.ing the Staf f to continuo to participato as J a purportedly impartial party would bo nothing but a ruso.
Section 0.735-3(a)(6) of tho NRC's Regulations requiro' that tho Staf f "not givo or appear to givo f avored treatment or competitivo advantago to any member of the public." The Staff
(
umme .wo.% .na s.~e w ens -o-... . -. e = w = " i' m
- d*""
V Mr. Victor Stello c.
. March 10, 1987 Page 2
(,J cannot satisfy this standard: your rebruary 20 letter is a manifesto of the Staff's favor and partisanship toward LILCO: a declaration of hostility toward Suffolk County.
Second, Suffolk County requests that you appear before a Special Session of the County Legislature. Your February 20 letter parades a bias that
() facts or from design. We want stems either from ignorance of the rely for information concerning emergency planning atto know the sources upon wh Shoreham.
With and mot, whom from what LILCO have theyand other entities outsido the NRC have you said?
you hold with NRC Commissioners?What privato conversations have What is your true purpose in putting LILCO's citizens? interests above those of Suffolk County's r)
- The citizens of Suffolk County havo the right to know the fullatstory issues behind your actions concerning emergency planning Shoreham.
Finally, we request that you digest the facts presented in this letter.
To begin, the County Executive's January 16 letter O corrected your mistatement that in a "real emergency" Suffolk County would cooperate with LILCo and "follow LILCo's plan." The Executive informed you that your statement was unfounded and incorrect, and transmitted documents, including Suffolk County Resolution statement that, No. 111-1903, to explain in detail the reasons for his "I would not use the authority of this government to impicment LILCO's emergency plan or to work in concert with O LILCO to effect an emergency response to an accident at Shoreham."
N Your February 20 letter demeans the County Executive's statement.
In scarcely veiled terms, you accuse the County Executivo and the County Legislature of being liars, and even O boast that you "continue to stand behind" your earlier misstatements. This presumptuousness does not suit an appointed NRC employeo addrcaning the elected government of 1.3 million people.
The fcct is that the government of Suffolk County would
() never uno LILCO's emergency plan, or work in concert with LILCO, or ecly upon LILCO's advico or judgment in a nuclear emergency.
Whatcycr plan.
our actions, they would not includo LILCO or LILCO's This is the result of the County government h4ving abcolutely no confidence in the judgment or ccmpetence of LILCO.
The June 23, 1986 statement of tho Suffolk County Executivo, which I sont you on January 16, explains the reasons in detail.
O
- O
~
C O Mr. Victor Stello March 10, 1987 Page 3 0
Your February 20 lottor persi5ts in mischaracterizing the emergency planning actions of Suffolk County. You writo of the "rofusal" of the County to participato in cmcrgency planning and chargo the County with "intransigenco." The facts belie your words.
O In fact, Suffolk County has participated thoroughly in emergency planning. In Karch 1902, wo retained a team of nationally recognized exports at a coce of $600,000, directed them to prepare tho "bont possible" plan, and gave them froo rein to do that. Eight months later, when the exports completed their draft plan and tho extensive studics, analysos, and surveys that O accompanied it, the County Legislature held eight days of open hearings at which specialists from around the country, including LILCO's consultants and officials, and memborn of the public testified. Sixtcon hundred pages of testimony were co= piled.
Thoreafter, the County Legislature travolled to Thrco Hilo Island to =cet with local government officials and the public in order r
O to learn first-hand the lessons of tho 1979 nuclear accident.
In february 1983, the County Legislature analyzod the emergency planning materials and testimony before it and concluded that in the event of a serious nuclear accident at Shoreham, it would not bo possible to evacuato or otherwise protect the public. The bases for this determination are stated O in Resolution No. 111-1903: among them are the limited roadway network, population densitics, and other physiographic conditions which would cauco people who woro attempting to evacuato, instead ss to beco=c stuck in gridlock. Thoso people, thoroforo, would bo expeced to the very radiction from which they woro directed to flee.
O The government of Suffolk County had two choicas to adopt an emergency plan, or to reco1vo not to adopt one. To have done the for=cr would have misled the public into believing they were being protected when in fact they were not. To do the latter would bo to tell tho truth: that the adoption of an emergency C) plan would coroly put an ineffectivo paper plan on the shelf and lull the public into a sense of falso security. This government was olected to tell the public the truth and to protect their volfare. That is what we did recolving in County Recolution No.
111-1903 not to adopt or impicacnt an emergency plan.-
Suffolk County's Resolution No. 111-1903 and the County's O actions ucro challenged by LItco in redoral court. The County won the cacc the Court ruled that tho Resolution is lawful and rationally baced. LILCo also challenged the Recolution in State court. Tho Now York Court of Appeals uphold the County's decision not to adopt a plar. In short, the County lawfully exorcised its polico powers.
O
____ ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - --- J
Q.
Mr. Victor Stello March 10, 1987
()- Page 4 It is clear to us that you accuse Suffolk County of O' "refusing" to participate in emorgency planning only because you do not like the result of the County's emergency planning' process
-- that is, the decision not to adopt or implement an emergency plan.- The reason for your view presumably is that the County's actions do not enable the NRC to license Shoreham. If Suffolk County had followed the identical emergency planning process it used, but instead decided to. adopt an emorgency plan, we believe C) you would now be praising the County for its "participation" in emergoney planning. You cannot have it both ways: The County in fact participated thoroughly in emergency planning and, as part of that participation, acted lawfully to protect the welfare of its citizens. For the same reasons that you would praise a County decision to adopt a plan, fair-mindednoss requires that
() you accept the County decision not to adopt one.
Your February 20 letter states, "The record of this protracted proceeding also shows various state and local permits for. environmental monitoring, building and zoning vore also sought by LILCO and approved." This is a contrived and.
() misleading statement, apparently intended by you to convey the impression that the County promoted the construction of Shoreham, and only as a last minute device to prevent operation of the plant raised the emergency planning issue. The impression you sock to convey is falso. The fact is that in issuing whatever permits for Shoreham that you have in mind, the County did not address, and was not required to address, the feasibility of O cvacuating Long Island's residents in a nuclear emergoney. The permits you have in mind presumably dealt with whether LILCO satisfied local building and other codes. The permits did not 's deal with whether safo evacuation was possible. Indeed, the agencies with the opportunity to address radiological emergency preparedness issues were the AEC and NRC, when LILCO applied for
() a permit to construct Shorchcm and thereafter. However, they refused to address the issues. It is thus the AEC and NRC, along with LILCO, who are responsible for building Shoreham without taking into account whether safe evacuation is possible.
Morcovor, in 1977, when LILCO applied for an operating
{} licenso and the County intervened in the NRC's proceeding, the County raised tho issuo of whether evacuation was feasible at Shoreham. This was thrco years before the NRC oven had a rule
. requiring an effectivo local emergency plan. The County's action followcd the persistent efforts, begun in 1970, of a Long Island citizens group that had intervened in the Shorchem construction permit prococding to raiso and litigato the cmorgency planning O -issuo.beforo the AEC. In 1973, at tho strong urging of LILCO and the AEC Staff, the AEC ruled that the citizens group could not raiso or litigato tho emorgency planning iscuo at that timo. The issue was postponed by tho AEC until tho "operating licenso O
O Mr. Victor Stello March 10, 1987 O Page 5 J
stage." Therefore, it is clear that the only reasons that emergency planning issues were not considered before construction of Shoreham was well underway were (1) because LILCO insisted on this and the AEC agreeds and (2) because the NRC did not require the issue to be thoroughly examined until the adoption of its post-Three Mile Island regulations in 1980.
a
You know well that the turning point for all concerned with radiological emergency planning was the Three Mile Island accident, when the Kameny Commission, Congress, and the NRC itself heralded the need for workable local emergency preparedness. Indeed, all of the major investigations into the e=crgency preparedness aspects of Three Mile Island concluded
'J that workable local emergency preparedness is a key to effective response to a nuclear accident. The investigators implored local govern =ents to approach this responsibility seriously. NRC officials who travelled across the country holding workshops echoed the need for effective local involvement in emergency planning. No one had the temerity to suggest that a County which
- had extensively examined emergency preparedness fCE a nuclear
() plant within its jurisdiction, drafted the best possible emergency plan, and lawfully determined that the public could not be protected would be confronted with RRC Staff efforts to license the operation of the plant on the basis of a utility's illegal e=ergency plan. This is precisely the action of th1 RRC Staff in the Shoreham case.
3 The fact is that Shoreham was sited by LILCO and construction of the plant was approved by the AEC when emergency %s planning was given little attention. As late as 1979, before the Three Mile Island accident, the NRC's regulations did not require a local emergency plan as a condition of licensing a planc. The RRC required only that the utility submit "procedures for
() notifying, and agreements reached" with local governments that were of a general nature. Your letter of February 20 evidences the Staff's villingness to license Shoreham under circumstances which do not comply even with the NRC's discredited pre-Three Mile Island regulations.
(3 Your February 20 letter discloses the refusal of the S*'ff to confront reality. Indeed, reality is that (1) Suffolk t . .ty has participated extensively in emergency planning and has rationally determined safe evacuation and other protection of the public to be impossible: (2) the County's determinacion has been upheld in Federal and State courts: and (3) LILCO's substitute emergency plan has been held by New York State courts to be
.() illegal and not implementable. By choosing'to rationalize LILCO's licensing objective in the Shoreham proceedings, rather than advocating reality, you have become stuck with promoting the following fantasy that in the absence of County, State, or
'O
O Mr. Victor-Stello March 10, 1987 O page 6 i implementable LILCO emergency plans, the public still would be O pr teceed by a noe implementable emergency plan which has been lawfully opposed by County government in order to protect the public's welfare.
We look forward to your early reply.
/
Si cerely, O
$%m dregory Q). BlVs
[- ,'
Michael A. LoGrande Presiding Officer Suffolk County Executive Suffolk County Legislature cc: NRC Service List l
l l
!O l
N
'O 1
lO 1
l l
l