ML20215G207

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Responds to Expressing Concerns Re 870104 Newsday Article on Plant Emergency Plan.Given Unwillingness of State & Local Govts to Participate in Development of Plan,Approved Util Offsite Emergency Plan Only Such Plan Available
ML20215G207
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Shoreham
Issue date: 02/20/1987
From: Stello V
NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
To: Logrande M
SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
Shared Package
ML20213G127 List:
References
FOIA-87-229 NUDOCS 8703020105
Download: ML20215G207 (2)
v • d • e


Text

-

7,J M 19 s n i1

  • a aseg\ UNITED STATES i ,' / '

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMIS$10N

{ WASHINGTON, D. C. 30004

\,,,,/ February 20, 1987 i

t Fr. Michael A. LoGrande Suffolk County Executive H. Lee Dennison Building 1

Veterans Memorial Highway

Nauppauge NY 11788

Dear Mr. LoGrande:

This is in response to your letter of January 16, 1987 which expressed your j

i concerns regarding a January 4,1987 Newsday article about emergency planning for Shoreham. The article describes the di"ficulties encountered in the development of offsite emergency plans for Shoreham, t'

Offsite emergency preparedness is the only licensing exception preventing a

!' full power operating license. Otherwise the Ifeensing process has judged the plant safe to operate. Thus, I stand by iny statement that the problems concerning emergency planning at Shoreham are a direct result of the lack of participation by State and local governments. You indicate that the decision to construct Shoreham was made by LILC0 and approved by NRC. The record of this protracted proceeding also shows various state and local permits for environmental monitoring, building and zoning were also sought by LILCO and approved. NRC staff has not identified a radiological safety hazard resulting -

from the physical configuration of the planning zone surrounding the plant which substantially differs from other licensed facilities in the United States.

The significant problem LILC0 faces in obtaining an NRC approval lies in the intransigence of the State and local government.

I also continue to stand behind the second statement of mine which you quote;

' that is, I believe the State and local governments would act in the best interest of their citizens by following the best plan available should there be an emergency. Given the unwillingness of the State and local governments to participate in development of such a plan, an approved LILCO offsite emergency plan is the only such plan which would be available.

My position is essentially in accordance with Commission actions to date. On July 24, 1986, the Commission issued a decision (CLI-86-13) that reviewed a previous Appeal Board decision on the ' adequacy of LILCO's emergency plan.

The Appeal Board decision (ALAB-818), dated October 18, 1985, held that the  :

plan was inadecuate based on the refusal of New York State and Suffolk County '

to participate in emergency planning. LILCO requested that the Comissio'i i review the Appeal Board decision and argued that the State and County would i respond in an emergency. In its decision, the Commission stated that if Shorehen were to go into operation and there were a sericus emergency requirino consideration of protective actions-for the public, State and County officials would be obligated to-assTsf as a matte of law and as a matter of discharging y'

.  %' y7 4' I yfJLtye f*  :

4 -- - - - .

g --myw .--4wg x ,/

y ,w-- - - - - --,m..iw, w ,.-~,,.,._,,-g.m.- -- -+

o/

Y their public trust. At the same time, the Commission realized that more infor-mation is needed to determine whether the LILC0 plan, assuming a best-efforts response from State and County without previous participation in emergency planning, would provide comparable protection to what might be accomplished if State and local government had cooperated in the first place. Therefore, the Commission remanded the issue to the Licensino Board for further proceedings.

The Comission has stated that the agency is obligated to consider whether a utility plan prepared without government cooperation can pass muster. The Comission has also stated that State and County denials that they ever would or could cooperate with LILCO, either before or even during an accident, cannot be accepted at face value.

With this in mind, the NRC will continue the licensing process, including Board Hearings, for Shoreham.

Sincerely.

Original signed by Victet Stone Victor Stello, Jr.

Executive Director for Operations DISTRIBUTION:

V5tello EDO KEPerkins, IE

. JWRoe, EDO JAAxelred. IE TRehm, EDO CRVan Niel, IE JPSniezek, EDO FKantor, IE HRDenton, NRR RTHogan, IE TEMurley, RI CDeliso IE 87-30 JPMurray, OGC PLReardon. IE JMTaylor. IE Lfff0'- 2489 JGPartlow, IE -

DCS BKGrimes, IE DEPER R/F ELJordar. IE EPB R/F '

SASchwart7, IE RLo, NRR DBMatthews, IE PDR EJReis, OGC Service List

  • SEE PREVIOUS CONCURRENCE O

D/IE+

JMTaylor ellc 2/ /87 g/87 By phone EPB/IE* EP8/IE* TECH ED* EPB/IE* DD/DEPER/IE* D/DEPER/IE* OGC*

RTHogan:sc FKantor DGable DBMatthews SASchv.artz ELJordan EJReis 2/05/87 2/05/87 2/04/87 2/05/87 2/ /87 2/ /87 2/05/87

? . .

, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK l

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE MICHAEL A. L44RANDE SWFFOLE COUNTY EE.CUTIV.

l January 16, 1987 4

Mr. Victor Stello Executive Director for Operations U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 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.

First, you state that the problems concerning emergency i

planning for Shoreham "are all a direct result of the lack of participation by state and local governments." Your statement is 4

.. 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. That decision was made by LILCO and approved by the NRC. LILCO and

' the NRC are thus the ones responsible for the " problems" to which ~

you allude.

Second, you state, "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 follow LILCO's plan."

Again, your statement is unfounded and incorrect.

Suffolk County has determined af ter extensive analyses that under no circumstances would it follow LILCO's emergency plan or work in concert with LILCO to effect an emergency response to an accident at Sh eham. For your information, enclosed are copies l

2D0 rg, ' V } / - 002489 8

. ... _O, ; O. . E. .. _ ._ . . . ... . _ ......... . ....... _ l

-.--__m , - - - . - ,_ _ , . . _ . _ - - - . , -, -

~

j l

Mr. Victor Stello January 16, 1987 l Page 2 l l

i 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.

For the reasons elaborated in the e6 closed documents, I emphasize that as County Executive, I would not use the authority or resources 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 Shoreham. Suffolk County has found LILCO's plan to be unworthy and unworkable. The County would not, and could not, rely on such a discredited plan.

Moreover, in recent years LILCO has repeatedly demonstrated itself to possess poor and untrustworthy judgment. 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.

Very truly yours, d

ICHAEL A. LoGRANDE Acting County Executive MAL:fmn Enclosures

=

i l

~

LILCO Plan W '

Changes Too Often: FEMA By John M,n-u .

Chance an es e quant la the emersoney p'an hr the Shareham muslear power plaat that further mvwws and enarciene ofit are 'impractual, and as navias use afliais.

ed resourses," assedias to a M M7 eSalal of the Federal Daersemey Management Agamey.

In a lestar to the Nuclear Regulatory ""- .

Dave m!T't FEMA's deputy assertate datoener he stata and lesal pro e

  • her of changes grams and supporte said that the ausa-and ddarent NRC "readste it impractisal,premmedingt beders theand as un limited ressurens, to oestiaue to portrus Airther rev6 ewe

, of12140 plana er enerosas ander the surrent easynsh.

  • ealand manner la which thees issues an being edpadasst.

' ed? Ne added that TEMA will sostines to provide wit.

neesse for NRC heariage en the reviews it has sampleted.

Mc!Aughlia's letter assompanied the latest FDdA review of changes in the f.engIsland IJgb Co.

Ashed if the statement manat that would renase to monduct further mviews ofchanges la the 1J140 plan, TEMA spokesman Bob Blair deehand to answer dateetly.

" Mat we've e is tustratica with the lamated re-t sourons eo have he said.

LI140 es said they did set Sad Melaughlia's statenient to be a complaint aheut IJ140 and referred

  • Aarther questions to TEMA and the NRC. !J140 spokee-man Jun Leia amid that the FEMA review is being asudaad by esapaay eScials and that many shaages la the Share-

! las an saused by "the potatacal staatson bero?

ham B fair amid the Shoreham ta'sesaias ease was straial TEMA resouroes beesun "we Sad that the plan is ahamgod before we even essplete our restow?

(* For esample, la the letast review,IJ140 resolved as adeguate reting for having as agreement with a radae

, s'.ation e .lhag te serve as tae primary emergency beend.

I cast esa tion la the met of a $benham accident. But aAer LI140 submits.ad its revisies for review, WALK rodas l die pod out of the plan, sad a subetitute has est basa 4

led.

,a ere la as othat enev as somsliented as this one? amid Victor Sta!!e. eseestive dirnter for opereLions of b NRC.

6 anar receiving Mdaughlie'e letter and the TEMA review.

& review found 15

  • inadequacies," un toss sia hund in N- M the pavious review la Octater 1985. b mview a year
8. e rhe. ,in October 1964. fouad ei hL h inadequacies in l k~.-P;-Mw D. ' the latest review include 1134 s plan to monster only drivere in automobiles for rediation rather than both driv.

g ens and paanengers, and the lack of Arm agreementa with e.apport ageacies including the Naansu Chapter of the Red Creas.

. N Shoreham licensing esas le the Aret before the f NRC se lavolve na emergency plan prepared by a ut.lity.

Such plans ord.marily are prepared by r. ate and local gov. .*

e ernment and nviewed by TEMA, which issues a Anding I on whether they provide adequate protection to the pubhe.

LILCO submatted ita emergency plan after the state

. , and Suffolk County rehased to participate la emergency r*

g piaruung. Because the sourts have ruled that LI140 has no legal authority to implement its emergency plan, FEMA has said it cannot issue a Rading on whehr &

plan e ould protect the public.

l. The NRC's Stello said the problems soneerning emer. .*
gency plaaring for Shcreham includag the stands taken -

i by WALK and the Naaaau Red Cross. *an all a direct 1 I result of the lack of participataon by state and local gov-g ernmenta I And it daneult se understand. lf there was a a

real ernergency, there is no doubt ht thees ple

  • pledged te help protect b public would follow O's plan Fm convinced they would do anything te protect the t

pubhc. and that means following a structured plan. Un-less they have a plaa we don't know about, that means l they would follow LI140's plaa? ,

)

a Gov. Mano Cuomo and former Sufblk County Esecu- -

in e Peter T. Cohalan have submitted swers statementa to l the NRC sayine they would act toprotect the blic la e '

Shoreham accdent, but not by fou 'e plan,  !

=hich by claim is unworkable and il l Richard Xeasel, esecuti<e daracter of the state Con- .u. )

seter Protection Board and a spokesmas br Cuomo on l the Shor, ham issue said,"the problem is you can't eveeu.

i ste Lang Island no matter what the state and sounty were l to do The NRC is sattang La their ivory towere and evalu- l sias a fasiaar.- , , . . . . .

n. L*NYge*NM7 ** ' '"" ,J -

l

. a.

REMRKS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE PETER F. COHALAN JUNE 23,1986 I HAVE CALLED THIS NEWS CONFERENCE TO PUT AN END TO LILCO'S MISCHARACTERIZATIONS FOSITION CONCERNING THE LICENSING 0F SHOREHAM. AS RECENTLY AS JUNE 11, LILCO MDE SUCH MISCHARACTERIZATIONS IN A LETTER TO THE NUCLIAR REGULATORY COMISSION. I M OPPOSED TO THE i 1.ICENSING OF SHOREHAM, AND I DEMAND THAT LILCO STOP ITS MISCHARACTERIZATIONS.

THE FACT IS THAT THE NRC AT LILCO'S URGING IS CONSIDERING A LILCO REQUEST TO LICENSE SH0REHM WITHOUT AN IMPLEMENTABLE EMERGENCY PLAN. ACCORDING TO LILCO'S REASONING, SHOREHAM SHOULD BE LICENSED EVEN THOUGH THERE IS N0 IMPLEMENTABLE EMERGENCY PLAN, BECAUSE E THE PLANT WERE LICENSED AND E THERE WERE AN ACCIDENT AT SHOREHM, THE STATE AND COUNTY WOULD IN REALITY ACT WITH LILCO IN RESPONSE TO THE ACCIDENT AND THIS AD HOC RESPONSE WOULD SOMEHOW PROTECTTHEPUBLIC. I WANT TO PAXE IT CLEAR THAT THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S OFFICE WOULD NOT

} COOPERATE IN ANY WAY WITH LILCO'S MAKE BELIEVE EVACUATION PLAN OR (EXPLAINED IN THE STATEPENT 1 M ISSUING TODAY THAT SPEA 9 I M SENDING THAT STATErENT TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION, THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGErENT AGENCY MD THE LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY TO ENSURE THAT THERE ARE NO FURT.'ER MISREPRESENTATIONS OF M POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THE SH0REHM NUCLEAR POWER PLANT.

A COPY UF THE COMPLETE TEXT OF THIS STATEPENT HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU. I WILL SUWARIZE M STATEPENT, AS FOLLOWS:

I M OPPOSED TO THE LICENSING OF SHOREHAM FOR COMMERCIAL OPERATION. IN FACT, I HAVE

NEVER SUPPORTED THE LICENSING 0F SH0REHM FOR COMERCIAL OPERATION. ON MAY 31,1935,1 GAVE QUAllFIED SUPPORT ONLY TO A TEST OF LILCO'S EFERGENCY PLAN ON THE CONDITION THAT THERE WOULD BE PARTICIPATION OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY GOVERNFENT. 1 WANTED TO PUT LILCO'S PLAN TO A FINAL, DEFINITIVE TEST, UP OR DOWN, USING COUNTY PERSONNEL, AND, ACTUALLY ATTEMPTING TO MOVE PEOPLE AND EVACUATE SCHOOLS, SINCE LOW POWER LICENSING WAS IMINENT.

THE ACTION OF MY 31,1985, *S 1AKEN AT A TIME WHEN LILCO ES HOLDING $131 MILLION

'# COUNTY TAXES AND AT A TIE WHEN THE COUNTY'S FISCAL CONDITION AND C GRAVE lANGER. SUBSEQUENT TO THE mY 31st ACTION, THE TAXES WERE mlD AND THE COUNTY'S FISCAL CONUITIOR HAS IMPROVED DRAmTICALLY. -

, AS WE NOW KNOW, THE KIND OF TEST I SUPPORTED ON MY 31,1985, BORE NO RESEMBLANC THE RNTASY TEST LILCO CONDUCTED ON FEBRlARY 13TH OF THIS YEAR. THE TO NOTHING MORE TMN AN EXCERCISE IN THE " THEATER OF THE ABSURD AND ARTIFICIAL: A CSRADE TO EMBLE LILCO TO CONVEY FALSE IMPRESSIONS INDEED, THE MDST SIGNIFICANT ACT CAME AFTERARD, WHEN THE REGIOSL DIRECTOR OF TH EMERGENLY mmGEMENT AGENCY, FRANK PETRONE, ANNOUNCED TET LILCO'S EERGENCY PLAN PROVIDE HEASOMBLE ASSURANCE IMT THE PUBLIC WOULD BE PROTECTED ACCIDENT AT SHOREEM.

UNFORTUMTELY, LILC0 MS REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE RCT TMT SHOREMM SHOULD NOT DESPITE THE RCT THAT THE OVERWHELMING mJ0RITY OF SUFFOLK'S RESIDE ELECTED OFFICIAL IN SUFFOLK A.G MSSAU COUNTIES ARE OPPOSED TO THE '

5 IN THE WAXE OF CHERNOBYL, LILCO CONTINUES ITS RECKLESS DISREG4RD FOR THE SAFETY O

~

RESIDENTS OF LONG IStAM SPECIFICALLY, LILC0 IS PRESSING THE NRC TO LICENSE SHOREMM UN THE ESIS OF A FICTION IT MS CREATED AND DdBBED "REAllSM." LILCO IS PROM] TING THIS FICTION BAS WHICH I SENT TO LILCO'S COUNSEL ON JUNE 26,1985, AND ON EXECUTIVE ORDER #2 0F 1985. ON JANUARY 30,1986, I WROTE TO LlLCO'S COUNSEL PRCTESilNG THE MISLEADING USE OF MY JUNE 26TH LETTER. AS LATE AS JUNE 11TH, OF THIS YEAR LILC0 CONTINUES IO MISCMRACTER!lE MY POSITION EEFORE THE NRC AND fem. THEREFORE, I WILL EXPRESSLY NULLIFY MY JUNE 26,1985, LETTER AND SMLL RESCIND EXECUTIVE ORDER #2-1985 LILCO'S PERSlSTENT MISSTATEMENTS CAN NOT G0 ON UNCHALLENGED.

LILC0 REmlNS BLIND TO THE REALITY TMT SHUREMM WILL NOT OPERATE. LILCO IMPERVIOUS TO THE OUTP0URING OF OPPOSITION TO SHOREMM FROM EVERY COR SHOREHAM IS NO LONGER AN ISSUE. SHOREMM IS DEAU.

4

6 .

l I

243

>ROCEEDINGS OF THE LEGl5LATURE - FES. 17 -

i l

l be both adequate and Implementable. The cooperation of local government is essential if a workable plan is to be developed. I have stated I would not support the opening of any nuclear plant for which an acceptable emergency evacuation plan does not exist. While recognizing that the ultimate determination of a acceptabibility rests with the federal government. I stand by my previous statements. As Governor. I will not be a party to any effort to impose an independently developed evacuation plan..."

Presiding Officer Howard advised the chair is ready to entertain a motion on the resolution. Mr. Prospect of f ered the following resolution, seconded by Mrs. Devine. On a roll-call vote. 16 Legis1stors In favor: l' opposed. Mr.

Howard. I vacant seat. Chairman declared resolution adopted.

Intro. Res. No. 1196-83 Introduced by Legislators Wehrenberg, Caracappa. D' Andre. Celse. Allgrove.

Sachety. Prospect. Foley. Nolan. Slass. Rizzo. LaBus. Devine. Harlton Beck RESOLUTION N0 111 - 19 CONSTITUTING THE FINQlNGS AND DETERMINATION) ut suff0?.K COUNTY ON WHETHER A LEVEL OF EMERGENCY PREPAREONE55 TO RESPOND TO A RA010 LOGICAL ACCIDENT AT THE SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWE'R POWER STATION CAN PROTECT THE HEALTH. WELFARE AND SAFETY OF THE RESIDENTS OF SUFFOLK COUhTY WHEREAS. Suffelk County has a duty under the constitution ef tte state of "New York, the New York State Municipal Home Rule Law, and the 5.ffolk County Charter to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the residests of Suffelk Countyt and VMEREAS. the Long Island Lighting Company ("LILC0") is cor:structing and desires to operate the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ("Shoreham") . located on the north shore of Long Island near the town of Wading River, a location wnich is within the boundaries of Suffolk County; and WHEREAS, a serious nuclear accident at Shoreham could result in tot release of significant quantitles of radioactive fission prodwets; and WHEREAS. the release of such radiation would pose a severe nazard to the health, safety, and welfare of Suffolk County residents; and WHEREAS. In recognition of the effects of such potential Parard posed by Shoreham on the duty of Suffolk County to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, this Legislature on March 23. 1982, acepted Resolution i

No. 262-l$$2. which directed that Suffolk County prepare a " County ' Radiological Emergency Response Plan to serve the interest of the safety. health, and welfare of the citizens of Suffolk County .."; and WHEREAS. In Resolution 262-1982, the Legislature eeterminee that the plan developed by the County "shall not be cperacle and small not ce ceemed adequate and capable of being implemented until such time as it is approved by the Suffolk County Legislature"; and

t PRottIDINGS OF THE LEGISLATURE - Ftt. 17

. 244  :

WEREA$. In adopting Resolution 262-1982, earlier planning efforts by LILCo and County planners the Legislature (the " originalfound that data") were inadequate posed by conditions on Long Island andbecause they failed to address the particul behavior during a radiological smergency further failed to account for human Three Mlle Islands and and the lessons of the accident at WERI AS, on March 29, 1982 acting to implement Resolution 262-1982, Peter F. Cohalan. Suf folk County Executive

' Suffolk County Radiological by taecutive Order established the Emergency Response Plan Steering Committee the County Executive and County Legislatures and("$ a totearing Co natlonally recognised experts from diverse disciplines toWERIAS, plant and prepara such County WEREAS, such highly quellfled experts worked in a diligent and conscientious effort at a cost in excess of $500.000 to prepare the best ,

possible plan for Suffolk County, and particularly to ensure that such plan t into account all particular physical and behavioral conditions ook that affect the adequacy of the emergency response plant and on Long Island WEREA$ the analyses, studies, and surveys of such experts included:

(a)

Detalled Shoreham analyses of the possible releases of radiation from '

(b)

Detailed analyses of the radiological health consecuences of such

. radiation celease en the population of Suffolk County. giver.the meterological.

local conditionsdemographic, on Long talandtopographical. and other specific ,

I (c) A detailed social {

and assess their Intended behavior insurvey of Long Island residents to determine accident at Shorehams tne event of a scrious (d) A detailed survey of school bus drivers certain other emergency response personne, volunteer firemen, and emergency personnel l to cetermine whether Intend to report promptly duties, or instead to unite with their own families. for emergency In the event of a serious accident at Shoreham; (e) Detalled estimates of the number of persons who would be ordered to evacuate in the event of a serious accident at Shoreham, as well as the number of persons who inter.d even If not ordered to do sot to evacuate voluntarily (f) Detailed analyses of the road network required to evacuate persons from in Long Island and the time releases: areas affected by radiation I

r .

\W l

('

245 ptetit0INGS OF THE LEGl5LATURE - FEs.17 Detailed analyses of the protective actions available to suffolk County residents to evacuate or take shelter from auch radiation (g) releases; and (h)

Analysis of the lessons lesrned from the accident at Three Mile Island on local goverisment responsibilities to prepare for a radiological emergencyl and VHEREAS. on May 10. 1982 LILCO. without the approval or authorization of the suffolk County Covernment, submitted to the New volumes York entitled State Olsaster "Suffolk County Commisssion ("cPC") two Pressreeness Radiological Emergency Response Plan" and containing the original planning data, as further revised and supplemented by LILCO. and requested the CPC to review a4 approve such LILCD submittal as the local radiological emergency response plan for Suf folk County; and

. WHIRI AS . In Resolutions L56-1982 and L57-1982, the County further  ;

addressed the matter of preparing for a radiological emergency at Shoreham and f 1

womasland that:

(a) The LILCO-submitted document was not and will not be the County's Radiological Emergency Response Plant and

. (b) The County's Radiological Emergency Response Planning Policy, as enunciated in Resolution L56-1982. In as follows:

Suffolk County shall not assign funds or personnel to test or

- implen;ent any radiological emergency response plan for the Shoreham Nuclear Plant unless that plan has been fully developed to the best of the County's ability.

Suffolk County shall not assign funds or personnel to test or leptement any radiological emergency response plan for the Shoreham Nuclear Plant unless that plan has been subject of at least two public hearings, one to be held in Riverhead, and one to be held in Hauppauge.

Suffolk County shall not assign funds or personnel to test or

. Implement any radiological emergency response plan for the Shoreham Nuclear Plant unless that plan has been approved after public hearings, by the Suffolk County Legislature and the County Executivet and i

6 p, g

WHERIAS. on June 9 1982. the CPC rejected the LILCD-submitted document

' e reason that it was deficient and WHIREAS. on October 6 1982. LILC0. again without' the approval or 8

  • auth y,

C rization of the Suf f olk County Governtent. submitted to the CPC an amended

' " of the previously submitted LILCO docueent which had been rejected by

} the g C

. and WHERLAS. on De c e mb e.r 2. 1982 the Draft County Radiological Emergency 8eseense Plan authorized by Resolution 262-1932 was submitted to the County

~~

t

' PROCEEDINGS OF THE LEGISLATURE - FEnl. 17 246 Legislature for review and public hearings as specified in Resolutions 262-1982.

496-1982, and 457-1982: and WEREAS. In January 1983. the Legislature held hearings on the Draft County plan, which hearings includedt (a) More than 1.590 pages of transcripts:

(b) Detailed written statements and oral testimony of County expert can'sultants who prepared the Draft County plang (c) Detailed written statements and oral testimony of LILCO officials

. and expert consultants retained by LILCO (d) Detalled written statements and oral testimony of the Suffolk County Police Department, the County Health Department, the County Social Services department, and the County Public Works Department. all of which would have Indispensable roles in responding to a radiological emergency at Shoreham:

(e) Detailed written statements and oral testimony of organizations

, in Suffolk County concerned with radiological emergency d preparedness and (f) Extensive presentaticas by hundreds of members of the general publics and WEREAS. members of the Legislature also travelled to and held public hearings in the vicinity of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant to gain Information on the lessons to be learned by local governments from the accident at Three Mile Islands and

, WERE AS. the Draft County plan identifies evacuation and protective sheltering as the two primary protective actions which would need to be Implemented In the event of a serious accident at Shoreham and WEREAS. evacuation of .Suffolk County residents in the event of a radlological emergency could take as much time as 14-30 hours l'ecause of various factors. including: the limited number of appropriate evacuation routes in Suffolk County: difficultles in mobilizing police and other emergency personnels difficulties ensuing from spontaneous evacuation of large numbers of County residents. thus creating severe traffic congestion and unavilability of alternate evacuation routes for persons residing east of Shoreham and thus the necessity for such persons during an evacuation to pass by the plant a rid i

possibly through the radioactive plume: anc WHEREAS. 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 certainly evacuation times in the range of 14-30 hours --

will result in virtual immobilization of evacuation and high exposure of evacuees to radiation st.ch that evacuees' health, safety, and welfare would not be protected: and l

.'. l 1

g~ .

s pacct!DidCS OF THE LEGISLATURE - Fit.17 '

1 28 7 i w1REAS. protective sheltering is designed to protect persons from excessive radiation exposure by such persons staying Indoors until radiation with the greatest danger to health has passed; and WEREAS.

If protective sheltering were ordered for Suffolk County re:Idents, unacceptable radiation exposure would still be experienced by substantial portions of the Suf folk County population. thus making it impossible to provide for the health, welfare, and safety of these residentst and WERE AS.

the document submitted by LILCO to approval or authorization is deficient because it does not deal with thethe actual DPC without County local conditions. physical and behavioral, en Long Island that would be encountered during a serious nuclear accident at Shoreham3 and WIRI AS. the document submitted by LILCO to approval or autherl2ation does not ensure that ef fective the CPC without County persons protective action by l trould be taken in event of a serious nuclear accidsubject to radiation exposure. In t document.

of even if residents; Suffolk County implemented.

and would not protect the healthent at $horeham,

, safety. and thus such and welfare WEREA$. the extensive data clear that the site-specific circumstances and actual local conditionswhich existing the Legislature on Long Island. particularly its elongated east / west configuration which requires all evacuation routes from locations east of the plant to pass acne na withi the severe traf fic congestion likely to be experienced or complete

, If a partialof pre evacua tioM personnel weref ordered.

will promptf report for and the difficuttles In ensuring that emergency fesponse plan. emergency duties, preclude any amargency ths health, welfare, and safety of Suf folk County rM'1ents; nowIf implemented 31

. therefore. be -

RESOLVID.

on December 2. 1982, if implemented, would not, protect safety of Suffolk County residents welfare, and the healththat the Draft

'Oplemented; and be !! further and thus is not approved and will not be County ap RESM vto. that the document telfare. proval or authori:stion. If implemented, would not protect thesubmitted by LILCO to t health.

not be implemented; and be it furtherand safety of Suffolk residents

- and thus will not be approv RESOLVED.

serious nuclear accident at Shorehamthat since no local radiological emergency response plan for a will protect the health, welfare, and of any such plan would be misleading tosafetyimplementation of Suf folk County residents fesidents that their the public by indicating 't o County fact.

's such is not health, welfare, and safety are being protected when, in en hereby the terminated. case, the County's radiological emergency planriing process furtheraccident at the Shoreham plant shall be adepted orand no local radiological emergency plan implemented; and be it N

g. Nw h.MdY^-* c n.-gv,+n  %,.2 M E u J...AS.!.<mq.ip,,,55%wdid.9 w - WAWJNd {

I

PROCEIDINGS OF THE LEGISLATURE - FEB. 17 ..

24 RESOLVED. that since no , radiological emergency hesith, emergencywelfare, plansafety of Suffolk County residents and sinceplan shall be no can protect the radiological Executive actions is hereby taken by any otherdirected toadopted or implemented by Suffolk Coun take all actions necessary to assure that consistent with the decIslons mandated by this Resolution. governmental age DATIO: February 17.^1383

. APPROVID SY

/s/ Peter F. Cohalan County Executive of Suffolk County Date of Approval FeDruary 23. 1983 The Presiding Officer for introductory Resolution No. announced he also has a Certificate of Necessity Mr. Rizzo, 17 Legislators in favor 1197-83.

On a motion by Mr. Howard, seconded by to lay introductory f.esciution No. 0 opposed; i vacant seat, rules were waived following 1197-83 resolution, seconded by Legislators opposeat Mr. on the table Rizzo.

hr. Howard offered the resolution net adooted.1 in favor. Mr. Howard; I vacantDr. seat.a roll-call vote. 15 Chairman ceclared 1 Intro.Rhs.No. 1197-83

- Introduced by Presiding Officer Howard fs RESOLUTICH NO. 112 - 1983, COUNTY EXECUTIVE TO SU661 fl QUESTING THE PLAN FOR h.E SHCRENAM N LEAR PLANTAN EMERGENCf RES*CNSE VHEREA5 the Suffolk interests for the people of theCowC y Legislature deems it to be in the best

. evacuation of Shoreham: and . nty of Suffott to have a plan for the WHEREAS hearings on an. the Suffolk Co'unty Legislature had conducted two weeks of evacuationpt,a'nsubgittedtotheLegislatures and VHEREAS. s

spoke to residents. members p/f the Legislature went to the Three M in trviewed pUtplic officials who participated in the .

t.he facility called "7 ree Mile Islandf," and emergency and the througn evacu tio

\

WHEREAS. tee, Shoreham could result in Suffolk County losing its right tof ailure by Suf destiny; and I determine its e-n ,

WHEREAS. '

In a plan being forced upon Suffolk Coutyes;byandother authoritifa u

{

l its residents in case of an emergency e am; at Shor hWHEREAS. s best suitee for Suffolk now, therefore, be it c>

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20215G207&oldid=3274666"