ML20148S950
| ML20148S950 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/13/1988 |
| From: | Axelrod D NEW YORK, STATE OF |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20148S849 | List: |
| References | |
| OL-3, NUDOCS 8804200094 | |
| Download: ML20148S950 (18) | |
Text
-
O 0~
Aoril 13, 1988 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino 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 I
DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DAVID AXELROD ON BEHALF OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
'O Q:
Please state your name and title.
O A:
I am David Axelrod, M.D.
I am the Chairman of the New York State Disaster Preparedness Commission and the Commissioner of Health of the State of New York.
In my capacity O
as Chairman of the Disaster Preparedness Commission, I am respon-sible to Governor Cuomo for the actions of the New York State Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group and the New York State O
Emergency Management Office.
In my capacity as Commissioner of Health, I direct the actions of the New York State Department of Health.
O 8804200094 880413 PDR ADOCK 05000322 g
PDH
.O
O Q:
What is the purpose of this testimony?
O A:
I am authorized and directed by Governor Cuomo to present testimony to address a hypothetical situation:
what O
action would New York State take if the NRC were to license Shoreham to operate at levels above 5% power and there were a serious accident at the plant that required offsite emergency g
response.
I stress that this is a hypothetical situation since it is the State of New York's view that the NRC may not lawfully issue such an operating license for Shoreham.
I also stress that g
the views and statements contained herein represent the views of the State of New York.
Q:
Does the State of New York have a plan for responding
)
to such a Shoreham accident?
A:
No.
The State of New York has no such plan and has conducted no site-specific training or other activities to prepare to respond to a Shoreham accident.
O Q:
Are you aware that LILCO has prepared an offsite emer-gency plan for Shoreham and that LILCO asserts that State person-nel would follow that plan in responding cooperatively with LILCO O
personnel to an accident at Shoreham?
O O
O A:
Yes.
O Q:
Is LILCO correct that the State of New York would follow LILCO's plan and work cooperatively with LILCO personnel O
in responding to an accident at Shoreham?
A:
No.
Governor Cuomo explained in his affidavit of O
February 8, 1988, why New York State personnel would not follow LILCO's Plan or work cooperatively with LILCO.
As the Governor's affidavit states, the position of the State of New York regarding the LILCO Plan is:
O I hereby state firmly that officials of the State of New York would not follow LILCO's emergency plan.
There is no basis for any suggestion to be made to the contrary.
In O
fact, officials of New York State would neither follow LILCO's emergency plan nor work with LILCO's emergency response personnel.
LILCO's plan is unworkable and inadequate, and LILCO's emergency response personnel are incompetent.
The State of New York could not O
effectively exercise its police power obliga-tion to protect the health and safety of its citizens if the State were to rely upon LILCO's plan and personnel in a radiological emergency.
O Governor Cuomo's Affidavit is attached to and made a part of this testimony.
O Q:
Please explain what the State's actions would be in the event of the hypothetical Shoreham accident.
O 3-O 1
1
O A:
I do not believe that Shoreham can be lawfully J
licensed.
The State of New York will hold to this position.
If the NRC still licenses Shoreham, the State of New York will pursue legal remedies to prevent the plant from operating.
I
~
stress this because the question posed assumes the operation of Shoreham under circumstances I believe to be unlawful.
9 I cannot speculate what specific actions the State would take, when they would be taken, or what resources might be avail-able in the hypothetical situation that the NRC were to license g
Shoreham to operate at levels above 5% power, the courts were to uphold that licensing decision, and there were a serious accident at the plant that required an offsite emergency response.
Q)
Q:
Does that complete your testimony?
A:
Yes.
O O
O O
_4 O
O 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
'g)
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
q
AFFIDAVIT OF MARIO M.
- CUOMO, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mario M. Cuomo, being under oath, deposes and says as follows:
O 1.
I am the Governor of the State of New York.
Under New York law, I, as Governor, would be responsible for directing the O
State's response to any radiological emergency within. the State of New York.
O 2.
On May 6, 1987, I submitted an affidavit in the instant proceeding.
Attached to that affidavit was a statement dated June 30, 1986, issued by me concerning misstatements and mis-O characterizations made by LILCO concerning the implementation of LILCO's radiological emergency response plan for the Shoreham plant.
These LILCO statements related particularly to LILCO's O
so-called "realism" argument and LILCO's claims as to how the p.wse O
w
- O State would respond to a hypothetical radiological emergency if the Shoreham plant were licensed to operate.
A copy of my May 6, 1987 affidavit and the attached June 30, 1986 statement is incorporated as Exhibit 1 hereto.
O 3.
I hereby affirm that the statements set forth in my May 6, 1987 affidavit and the June 30, 1986 statement continue to be true today.
As stated therein, as Governor of the State of New O
York, in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham, New York State personnel would not be authorized to utilize the LILCO emergency plan for Shoreham and, further, New York State O
personnel would not be authorized to rely upon advice from LILCO personnel or otherwise to work in coordination with LILCO personnel.
The reasons for this position are set forth in my 0
June 30, 1986 statement and need not be repeated herein.
It is important to bear in mind that experts of New York State have analyzed LILCO's plan and the capabilities of LILCO's emergency O
workers as part of the State's participation in the NRC's
~
licensing proceedings.
These State officials, including those who presented sworn testimony, have found LILCO's emergency plan O
to be unworkable and its emergency workers incapable of performing effectively in a radiological emergency.
The true "realism" is that LILCO has a paper plan and a paper emergency O
response organization which are inadequate and unworkable.
The State has no confidence in either of these.
Therefore, under no circumstance could or would the State rely on LILCO's Plan or
'O emergency workers to protect the safety of New York's citizens. O w
O L
The State would not put the public's welfare at LILCO's disposal.
l iO i
4.
I am aware that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's new f
emergency planning regulation dated November 3, 1987, includes the following sentence:
- O In addressing the circumstances where applicant's inability to comply with the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section is wholly or substantially the result of nonparticipation of state and/or local l()
governments, it may be presumed that in the event of an actual radiological emergency state and local officials would generally l
follow the utility plan.
I refer specifically to the language, it may be presumed l
lO that in the event of an actual radiological emergency state and local officials would generally follow the utility plan."
I hereby state firmly that officials of the State of New York would O
not follow LILCO's emergency plan.
There is no basis for any suggestion to be made to the contrary.
In fact, officials of New York State would neither follow LILCO's emergency plan nor work O
with LILCO's emergency response personnel.
LILCO's plan is unworkable and inadequate, and LILCO's emergency response personnel are incompetent.
The State of New York could not O
effectively exercise its police power obligation to protect the health and safety of its citizens if the State were to rely upon LILCO's plan and personnel in a radiological emergency.
O Moreover, except for a few who have analyzed LILCO's plan solely for the purposes of litigation, New York State's emergency Planning and response personnel are not aware of the contents of O
3-O w
)~
i LILCO's plan and have not trained or prepared in any way to implement it.
5.
I am informed that LILCO in its recent summary disposition motions claims that in a radiological emergency, New York State would give LILCO permission to carry out particular emergency planning functions, cuch as sounding sirens or disseminating emergency broadcast messages.
This is untrue.
First, these functions could not be turned over to LILCO because they are inherently within the police powers of the State.
Only the State is legally constituted to exercise the functions that i
LILCO falsely claims the State would authorize LILCO to perform.
l Second, LILCO's personnel are not capable of performing functions I
necessary to protect the health and safety of the citizens of New O
l York in a radiological emergency.
LILCO's personnel do not possess the competence and skills to confront and respond l
effectively to the exigencies of a nuclear accident that require
'O such axtraordinary actions as evacuating hundreds of thousands of people facing innumerable personal difficulties, and dealing with the pressures and complexities of what would be the most
- O challenging and demanding emergency that any population center in this nation has ever faced.
Thus, the State would not use LILCO's resources or turn over to LILCO any State resources,
- O including the State emergency broadcast system.
Nor would the State manage or coordinate a response from any LILCO facility.
O
-4 O
m
O 6.
I am informed that LILCO claims that I would be required to exercise my authority under Article 2-B of the O
Executive Law so as to use LILCO's emergency plan and emergency workers in a radiological emergency.
LIJro's claim is untrue.
Article 2-B does not require Le to use resources offered by LILCO O
or anyone else that I consider inadequate and incapable of aiding the State and its citizens in responding to the exigencies of a radiological emergency.
I consider LILCO's emergency plan and O
emergency wcrkers to be precisely that -- inadequate and incapable.
To use LILCO's resources would be to compound severely the risks and dangers that the public would already be O
facing from the radiological accident.
Article 2-B imposes no duty on me to take action that I believe would harm the welfare
/
of New York's citizens.
'O
'7bV O
Mario M.
- Cuomo, Governor of the State of New York QM Affirmed this day of February, 1988.
Ms8
- o J
Notary Public s o,:,$ a %
7/II/II
%tary f.
. u w r % a w*
My Commission Expires:
M'" $h JF~
Gemmrs*.* '.
' 19 M
- O lo l,
iiO
}
m.
i L,)
9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board O
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
()
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power
)
Station, Unit 1
________________________________))
()
AFFIDAVIT OF MARIO M. CUOMO, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mario M. Cuomo, being under oath, deposes and says as follows:
O 1.
I am the Governor of the State of New York.
Under New York law, I, as Governor, would be responsible for directing the State's response to any radiological emergency within the State of New York.
i 2.
On June 30, 1986, I issued a Statement, the purpose of which was to correct misstatements and mischaracterizations by O
LILCO concerning the implementation of LILCO's radiological emergency response plan for the Shoreham plant, LILCO's so-called "realism" argument, and the State's response to a Shoreham emergency were the plant to be licensed to operate. A copy of my June 30, 1986 Statement is attached hereto as Exhibit "A."
'O
- 1Md d'? ~~
.,7-f A
i r
1 O
O 3.
I hereby affirm that my June 30, 1986 Statement is truthful and accurate, and that it continues to reflect my pocition as Governor, and the posit' n of the State of New York,'
O on the subjects discussed therein.
]/J.A/.> /
y.
Mario M. Cuomo O
G vernor of the State of New York subscribed to and sworn before me this 6A day of May, Notary Public in V8M/JT State of New York Qualified in Kings County My commission expires: /2/J/#f Asateur O
O O
O O
A
~
O Exhibit A O
O Statement by Governor Mario L Cuomo O
I have reviewed the statement issued on June 23,1986, by Suffolk County Executive Peter F. Cohalan concerning O
misstatements by LILCO of his position on the licensing of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station.
I support the County Executive's statement.
I am issuing this statement for the similar purpose O
of correcting misstatements and mischaracterizations of my position that LILCO is continuing to make.
,0 1.
There is no basis for LILCO to suggest that the State would respond to a Shoreham emergency in accordance with LILCO's emergency plan or in concert with LILCo.
The State would do O
neither.
Suffolk County has resolved not to implement LILCo's nergency plan or to respond in concert with LILC0; the State would not in an emergency act inconsistently or in conflict with O
the County. Where a local government of the State judges that it would not rely in an emergency upon a particular' entity, such as LILCO -- and provides reasonable ~ bases such as those contained in O
the Suf folk County Executive's statement -- the State could not responsibly second guess the local government's judgment.
O
1 3
2-O 2.
Even setting aside Suffolk County's determination, New York State could not responsibly act in concert with LILCO 3
during a radiological emergency.
Indeed, the established position of the State is that LILCO's emergency plan is unworkable.
The State, therefore, ceuld not in an emergency O
choose to rely upon the very plan that it has found to lack merit.
O Moreover, throughout the Shoreham project, LILCO has demonstrated poor judgment with respect to matters involving the plant.
The decision to press ahead with licensing Shoreham in O
the face of the determinations of Suffolk County and New York State that they would not adopt or implement emergency plans is itself an example.
Similarly, the finding of the State Public 0
Service Commission that LILCO's management of the Shoreham project was "imprudent" in the amount of at least $1.3 billion is more evidence of the LILCO's poor judgment.
Also, LILCO's O
emergency response to Hurricane Gloria last autumn shows that in the one recent test LILCO faced in a real emergency, the Company's actions were inadequate.
In short, there is no basis O
for the state, or indeed the public, to have confidence in LILCO's judgment or capabilities in an emerg'ency.
Given this, t
the State could not and would not rely upon LILCO, its emergency O
plan, or its advice in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham.
O j
k
, 0 3.
L LCo has repeatedly suggested that during an emergency I would suspend New York laws to permit LILCO to implement its O
I could not lawfully delegate to LILCO police power to implement its emergency plan.
But, even if I could, I conceive of taking the extraordinary measure of suspending cannot O
the laws of this state in order to permit LILCo, a company in which the State does not have confidence, to implement a plan which the State believes to have no merit.
Whatever I would do O
the moment of an emergency would be for the public good.
at LILCO's plan does not serve the public good, and I would not facilitate the i=plementation of it.
O 4.
LILCO is seeking a license to operate Shoreh a on the basis of a fiction, which LILCO ouphemistically calls "realism."
O It has created this fiction in part by misrepresenting a statement I issued on December 20, 1983.
Significantly, however, the purpose and thrust of that statement was to explain why O
New York state conoses the licensing of Shoreham.
Included in the four pages of my December 20, 1983, statement is the following paragraph:
O of course, if the plant were to be operated and a misadventure were t'o occur, both the State and the County would help to the extent otherwise. possible; no one suggests However, government's obligation O
to respond to a catastrophe should not be used as an excuse for inviting the peril.
O hm
O O.
This paragraph is being misused by LILCO to create false O
impressions in support of the licensing of Shoreham.
This is contrary to my opposition to the licensing of Shoreham and a mischaracterization of my intent on December 20, 1983, and now.
Because LILCO is misusing these words for an end to which I strongly object, I hereby take the extraordinary measure of withdrawing these words so that they not be cited, quoted, or otherwise relied upon.
I have directed my special counsel to transmit copies of this statement to LILCO, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.'
O lO l
O O
O Am _
e -
4 t
DOCKETED USNBC April 13, 1388 oo nM115 R2:51 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 0FFICE 0; SELM ]A41 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00CKETE & SEitvict BRANCH Atomic Safety and Licensino Board
)
In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-;22-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I
I hereby certify that copies of GOVERNMENTS' OBJECTION TO PORTIONS OF FEBRUARY 29 AND APRIL 8 ORDERS IN THE REALISM REMAND AND OFFER OF PROOF have been served on the following this 13th day of April, 1988 by U.S. mail, first class, except as otherwise noted.
James P. Gleason, Chairman **
Mr. Frederick J.
Shon **
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 513 Gilmoure Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Silver Spring, Maryland 20901 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline**
William R. Cumming, Esq.**
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Spence W. Perry, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of General Counsel Washington, D.C.
20555 Federal Emergency Management Agenc}
500 C Street, S.W., Room 840 Washington, D.C.
20472
Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.*
W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.*
Richard J. Zahleuter, Esq.
Hunton & Williams Spe.cial Counsel to the Governor P.O. Box 1535 Executive Cnamber, Rm. 229 707 East Main Street State Capitol Richmond, Virginia 23212 Albany, New York 12224 Joel Blau, Esq.
Anthony F.
Earley, Jr., Esq.
Director, Utility Intervention General Counsel N,Y. Consumer Protection Board Long Island Lighting Company Suite 1020 175 East Old Country Road Albany, New York 12210 Hicksville, New York 11801 E. Thomas Boyle, Esq.
Ms. Elisabeth Taibbi, Clerk Suffolk County Attorney Suffolk County Legislature Bldg. 158 North County Complex Suffolk County Legislature Veterans Memorial Highway Office Building Hauppauge, New York 11788 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Mr. L.
F. Britt-Stephen B. Latham, Esq.*
Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea Shoreham Nuclear Power Station 33 West Second Street North Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading River, New York 11792 Ms. Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Section Executive Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents Coalition U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
195 East Main Street 1717 H Street, N.W.
Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C.
20555 Alfred L. Nardelli, Esq.
Hon. Patrick G. Halpin Assistant Attorney General Suffolk County Executive New York State Department of Law H. Lee Dennison Building 120 Broadway, Room 3-118 Veterans Memorial Highway New York, Nett York 10271 Hauppauge, New York 11788 MHB Technical Associates Dr. Monroe Schneider 1723 Hamilton Avenue North Shore Committee Suite K P.O. Box 231 San Jose, California 95125 Wading River, New York 11792 Mr. Jay Dunkleburger Richard G. Bachmann, Esq.**
New York State Energy Office Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
Agency Building 2 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
Empire State Plaza Office of General Counsel Albany, New York 12223 Washington, D.C.
20555 i
h y -,
e a
David A. Brownlee, Esq.
Mr. Stuart Diamond Kirkpatrick & Lockhart Business / Financial 1500 Oliver Building NEW YORK TIMES Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222 229 W. 43rd Street New York, New York 10036 Douglas J. Hynes, Councilman Mr. Philip McIntire Town Board of Oyster Bay Federal Emergency Management Town Hall Agency Oyster Bay, New York 11771 26 Federal Plaza New York, New York 10278 Adjudicatory File Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Docket U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
/
d Katla\\J. Letsche i
KIRKPATRICK & L HART 1800 M Street, N.W.
South Lobby - 9th Floor Washington, D.C.
20036-5891 By Federal Express By Hand (on April 14, 1988) t