ML20205H209

Requests Rejection of Util Offsite Emergency Exercise Plan Proposal.State of Ny Supreme Court & Aslab Have Held Plan to Be Invalid & Any Assistance from NRC Would Be W/O Legal Basis & Would Violate NRC-FEMA Mou.Served on 851114

ML20205H209
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	11/13/1985
From:	Cuomo M NEW YORK, STATE OF
To:	NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
CON-#485-156 OL-3, NUDOCS 8511150028
Download: ML20205H209 (3)

Text

I cc ( TEw.u-m -n; u

..-:z,

-. u r.

DOOP.ET MUMBER p..,,] Q--dd

,/N EVECUTIVE CHf41EER, HEW YORK CITY PROD. & UTIL FAC...-,

DOLXETED U5hRC

'85 NOV 13 P5:09 STATE OF New YomK ExEcuTave CHAMsER OFFEE 0 3:. a ~;g 00CKETf E t< G '

TWO WORLo TRADE CENTER NEW YORK NY lood7 asVED NOV 141985 November 13, 1985 d

Dear Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission:

This is to advise you that New York State is opposed to the NRC taking steps to hold or to assist in the holding of an exercise of the Long Island Lighting Company's offsite emergency 1

evacuation plan for Shoreham.

Inasmuch as the New York State Supreme Court and the NRC's Licensing and Appeals Board have all held the plan to be invalid, any such action by the NRC would be without legal basis and constitute an aff ront to the sovereignty of the State of New York.

Moreover, to hold an exercise of the LILCO plan would constitute a blatant violation of the FEMA-NRC Memorandum of Understanding.

That Memorandum provides that FEMA's participation in l

such an exercise shall be to make " findings" for j

use in NRC administrative proceedings.

F E M A's j

letter of October 29,1985, to W.1111am Dircks of the NRC concedes that "neither option

[of the proposed exercise of LILCO's plan] would allow 3 finding by FEMA on offsite emergency preparedness."

Accordingly to go ahead with such exercise would violate that Memorandum.

Especially offensive to the State of New York is the illegal notion that FEMA conduct such an exercise with hired consultants acting as "exerciae controllers [who] would simulate the roles of key state or local officials unable or unwilling to pa rticipa t e."

This idea is factually outrageous.

These consultants, who would be purporting to exercise the sovereign, fiduciary responsibilities of protecting the health and welfare of the inhabitants of the State of New York (which is vested by its Constitution and laws solely in its duly elected officials), would have no knowledge B511150028 851113 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G

PDR Ds3 1

r i

EPECUTI'vE CHMEER rCW YGPK CITY j l what emergency resources or personnt; are available at any given time in that area to state or local officials.

Even if they had such knowledge, such ad hoc response would be legally outrageous and invalid.

The ad hoc response of state and local government's led to'the chaos which occurred during the Three Mile Island incident.

As a result of that your Commission changed its emergency planning regulations to require " comprehensive, cooperative, and detailed preplanning and ability by the concerned entities... including the various government g r oups...t o mount a

very highly coordinated ef fort."

(Lona raiana Liahtina ca. (sups Unit 1) LPB-85-12, 21 NRC 644 (1985).

Since neither the State nor the County are participating in the LILCO plan and have not preplanned to integrate or coordinate their efforts with the LILCO plan, such pretended, ad hoc response sould clearly be violative of those post TMI regulations.

The use of such consultants is in no way equatable to the situation at Indian Point where the State of New York, in default of participation by Rockland County, supplied personnel who on a preplanned basis integrated, cooperated and coordinated their activities in accordance with a State approved evacuation plan for that facility.

Finally, to proceed with the proposed exercise would constitute a repudiation of Presidential Policy established to assure Long Islander's that the Feder6 Government would respect their State and. scal government's determinations with respect to emergency planning at shoreham.

The President expressed this policy in a letter to Representative William Carney dated October 6,

1984, where he said that his administration "does not f avor the imposition of Federal Government authority over the objections of State and local governments in matters regarding the adequacy of an emergency evacuation plan for a nuclear power plant such as Shoreham."

l l

~

~ ~., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

~

I.

/EFCA TELECCPIEF 495:12-11-85: 4:CIFt1

's yz In view of this Presidential Policy and j

because the proposed exercise ~would be illegal, wasteful and futile, the state of New York respectfully requests that you reject the proposal for the exercise of the LILCO plan.

Such action would enhance public confidence in the NRC as an impartial adjudicative body.

In any event, you are aware from past experiences that in the interest of safeguarding the welfare of its inhabitants, New York State will take appro late action to assure NRC's and PEMA's conformanc to applicable laws and regulations.

Sin

oly, rio M. Cuomo Governor Nunsic J. Palladino, Chairman Commissioner Thomas M. Roberts Commissioner James K. Asselstine Commissioner Frederick M. Bernthal Commissioner Lando W. Zech, Jr.

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 29555 I

i

.