ML20196H084
| ML20196H084 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/08/1988 |
| From: | Cuomo M NEW YORK, STATE OF |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20196H031 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0654, RTR-NUREG-654 OL-3, NUDOCS 8803100074 | |
| Download: ML20196H084 (5) | |
Text
_,
de 0:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina 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 MARIO M. CUOMO, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Mario M. Cuomo, being under oath, deposes and says as follows:
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.
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-characterizations made by LILCO concerning the implementation of LILCO's radiological emergency response plan for the Shoreham plant.
These LILCO statementa related particularly to LILCO's so-called "realism" argument and LILCO's claims as to how the l
8803100074 800229 PDR NUREG 0654 C PDR
r s
State would respond to a hypothetical radiological emergency if theshorehamplantwerelicensedtooperate.fAcopyofmyMay6, 1987 affidavit and the attached June 30, 1986 statement is 7
incorporatedasExhibitIhereto.]
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 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 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 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 L
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 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 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 emergency workers to protect the safety of New York's citizens.
, )
t o
The State-would not put the public's welfare at LILCo's disposal.
4.
I am aware that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's new emergency planning regulation dated November 3, 1987, includus the following sentence:
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 governments, it may be presumed that in the event of an actual radiological emergency state and local officials would generally follow the utility plan.
I refer specifically to the language, it may be presumed 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 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 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 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.
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
-3
r, 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, such 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 const1 Luted to exercise the functions that LILCO falsely claims the State would authorize LILCO to perform.
Second, LILCO's personnel are not capable of performing functions necessary to protect the health and safety of the citizens of New York in a radiological emergency.
LILCo's personnel do not possess the competence and skills'to confront and respond effectively to the exigencies of a nuclear accident that require such extraordinary 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 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, including the State emergency broadcast system.
Nor would the State manage or coordinate a response from any LILCo facility.
-4
6.
I am informed that LILCO claims that I would be required to exercise my authority under Article 2-B of the Executive Law so as to use LILCO's emergency plan and emergency workers in a radiological emergency.
LILco's claim is untrue.
Article 2-B does not require me to use resources offered by LILCO 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 emergency workers 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 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.
4bV Mario M. cuomo, Governor of the State of New York Affirmed this day of February, 1988.
Notary Public 3l.,: u ( uva My Commission Expires:
7/Il/If htery e.. a s:.:o u.'.v a *
- 9*"'" $5Ei["',* "" I 19E temms*:'L.
- 2 4
(.,
Attachm2nt 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power (Em'ergency Planning)
)
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:
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.
2.
On June 30, 1986, I issued a Statement, the purpose of which was to correct misstatements and mischaracterizations by 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 & Shoreham emergency were the plant to be licensed to operate.
A copy of my June 30,1986 Statement is attached hereto as Exhibit "A."
N
3.
I hereby affirm that my June 30, 1986 Statement is truthful and accurate, and that it continues to reflect my position as Governor, and the posit n of the State of New York, on the subjects discussed therein.
af Mario M. Cuomo Governor of the State of New York Subscribed to and sworn before me this 6A day of May, Notary Public W y/(2/JT State of New York Qualified in Kings County My commission expires /2/J/#(
WY
Exhibit A t
o Statement by Governor Mario B2 Cuomo I have reviewed the statement issued on June 23,1986, by suffolk County Executive Peter F. Cohalan concerning 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 of correcting misstatements and mischaracterizations of my position that LILCO is continuing to make.
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 neither.
Suffolk County has resolved not to implement LILCO's emergency plan or to respond in concert with LILC0; the State would not in an emergency act inconsistently or in conflict with 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 the Suf folk County Executive's statement -- the State could not responsibly second guess the local government's judgment.
t s
2.
Even setting aside Suffolk County's determination, New York State could not responsibly act in concert with LILCO during a radiological emergency.
Indeed, the established position of the State is that LILCO's emergency plan is unworkable.
The State, therefore, could not in an emergency choose to rely upon the very plan that it has found to lack merit.
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 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 Service Cer. mission 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 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 for the State, or indeed the public, to have confidence in LILCO's judgment or capabilities in an emer(ency.
Given this, the State could not and would not rely upon LILCO, its emergency plan, or its advice in the event of a radiological emergency at I
Shoreham.
I
/,
t
. e
- 3.
LILCO has repeatedly suggested that during an emergency I would suspend New York laws to permit LILCO to implement its emergency plan.
I could not lawfully delegate to LILCO police power to implement its emergency plan.
But, even if I could, I cannot conceive of taking the extraordinary measure of suspending 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 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 implementation of it.
4.
LILCO is seeking a license to operate Shorehum on the basis of a fiction, which LILCO ouphemistically calls "realism "
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 New York State onposes the licensing of Shoreham.
Included in the four pages of my December 20, 1983, statement is the following paragraph:
Of course, if the plant were t'o 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 to respond to a catastrophe should not be used as an excuse for inviting the peril.
i
s 4
This paragraph is being misused by LILCO to create false 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.'
4