ML20205N243

Requests That Recipient Be Disqualified from Participating as Party in Shoreham Proceedings & Appear Before Special Session of County Legislature,Per Recipient in Response to County Executive

ML20205N243
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	03/10/1987
From:	Blass G, Logrande M SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:	Stello V NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR OPERATIONS (EDO)
Shared Package
ML20205L915	List: ML20205L910 ML20205N243
References
CON-#287-2803, FRN-52FR6980 OL-3, OL-5, NUDOCS 8704020634
Download: ML20205N243 (6)

Text

. _ _ -

v .

1 COUNTY OF SUFFOLK I i March 10, 1987 Mr. Victor Stello Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 l

Dear Mr. Stello:

l i

On behalf of the government of Suffolk County, we are 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 actions of Suffolk County concerning the Shoreham nuclear power plant. Your February 20 letter rejects the County Executive's corrections and reiterates even more emphatically the mischaracterizations you made earlier.

The message of your February 20 letter is clear: the Staff of the NRC has decided that public safaty does not matter at Shoreham; that what matters only is putting the plant into operation.

You have converted the Staff's role in the Shoreham licensing proceedings from participant in the case to champion of the cause -- LILCO'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.

Accordingly, 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 j 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.

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 8704020634 870323 PDR 0 002621 F ADOCK 05000322 PDR LgoesLATURE SVILDING. VETER ANS MEMORIAL M'GMWAT e MAUPPAUGE. htw VOAR t1733 e (S t 4: 340 4C88

Mr. Victor Stello March 10, 1987

Page 2 s

j cannot satisfy this standard: your February 20 letter is a manifesto of the Staff's favor and partisanship toward LILCO; a ,

l declaration of hostility toward Suffolk County.

l Second, Suffolk County requests that you appear before a 4

Special Session of the County Legislature. Your February 20 letter parades a bias that stems either from ignorance of the facts or from design. We want to know the sources upon which you rely for information concerning emergency planning at Shoreham.

With whom from LILCO and other entities outside-the NRC have you i met, and what have they said? What private conversations have you held with NRC Commissioners? 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 full story behind your actions concerning emergency planning issues at Shoreham, 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 l Executive informed you that your statement was unfounded and j

incorrect, and transmitted documents, including Suffolk County Resolution No. 111-1983, to explain in detail the reasons for his statement that, "I would not use the authority of this government i

to implemeng LILCO's emergency plan or to work in concert with

LILCO to effect an emergency response to an accident at

Shoreham."

! Your February 20 letter demeans the County Executive's i

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 i misstatements. This presumptuousness does not suit an appointed

, NRC employee addressing the elected government of 1.3 million l people.

The fact is that the government of Suffolk County would

never use LILCO's emergency plan, or work in concert with LILCO, l 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 i

absolutely no confidence in the judgment or competence of LILCO.

The June 23, 1986 statement of the Suffolk County Executive, which I sent you on January 16, explains the reasons in detail.

i l

i

- , , _ , , . - , . , , , , , , - . - , , . . . . ,.,..,,.m.,,, n.--,,,,.r-,.--.-,_s--,,,.---,,,.,.,----n,---,.,-,.,,--..,-,c-,---v,n.,-- - ,--.--,--.-nw,.ra,-v. -.r-.-,,,ny,-

Mr. Victor Stollo

March 10, 1987 Page 3

! 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 .

charge the County with " intransigence." The facts belle your i

words.

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' them to prepare the "best possible" plan, and gave them free rein to do that. Eight months later, when the experts completed their draft plan and the extensive studies, analyses, and surveys that j accompanied it, the County Legislature held eight days of open j hearings at which specialists from around the country, including l

LILCO's consultants and officials, and members of the public testified. Sixteen hundred pages of testimony were compiled.

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 materials and testimony before it and

concluded that in the event of a serious nuclear accident at Shoreham, it would not be possible to evacuate or otherwise l protect the public. The bases for this determination are stated l in Resolution No. 111-1983

among them are the limited roadway i network, population densities, and other physiographic conditions which would cause people 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 I flee.

f i The government of Suffolk County had two choices: to adopt j an emergency plan, or to resolve not to adopt one. To have'done j the former would have misled the public into believing they were

being protected when in fact they were not. To do the latter

would 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 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.

Suffolk County's Resolution No. 111-1983 and the County's

! actions were challenged by LILCO in Federal court. The County l

won the cases the Court ruled that the Resolution is lawful and rationally based. LILCO also challenged the Resolution in State court. The New York Court of Appeals upheld the County's decision not to adopt a plan. In short, fhe County lawfully L exercised its police powers.

)

- _ _ __._..__..1._ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . , _ _ _ . _ _ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ , - _ . _ . _ . - , . . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _

5 .

Mr. Victor Stollo c March 10, 1987 Page 4 l

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. The reason for your view presumably is that the County's actions do not enable the NRC to license Shoreham. If'Suffolk j County had followed the identical emergency planning process it used, but instead decided to adopt an emergency plan, 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 l 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-mindedness 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 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 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 satisfied local building and other codes. The permits did not deal with whether safe 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 Shoreham 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.

Moreover, in 1977, when LILCO applied for an operating license and the County intervened in the NRC's proceeding, the County raised the issue of whether evacuation was feasible at 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 AEC 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 AEC until the " operating license

l 1

. Mr. Victor Stello l March 10, 1987 Page 5 l

r 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 agreed; 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.

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 itself 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 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

emergency plan, and lawfully determined that the public could not be protected would be confronted with NRC Staff efforts to license the operation of the plant on the basis of a utility's illegal emergency plan. This is precisely the action of the NRC Staff in the Shoreham case.

j The fact is that Shoreham was sited by LILCO and

construction of the plant was approved by the AEC 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 l NRC required only that the utility submit " procedures for i notifying, and agreements reached" with local governments that

) were of a general nature. Your letter of February 20 evidences the Staff's willingness to license Shoreham under circumstances which do not comply even with the NRC's discredited pre-Three Mile Island regulations.

! Your February 20 letter discloses the refusal of the Staff 1 to confront reality. Indeed, reality is that (1) Suffolk County 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 determination has been

! upheld in Federal and State courts; and (3) LILCO's substitute i 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 j following fantasy that in the absence of County, State, or i

4

I Mr. Victor Stello '

March 10, 1987

. Page 6 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.

-We look forward to your early reply.

Si cerely, j

$W .

(--

_ e dregory Q). BlWs Michael A. LoGrande Presiding Officer Suffolk County Executive Suffolk County Legislature cc: NRC Service List i

p, . . .

COUNTY OF SUFFOLK OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE MICHAEL A. LOGRANDE surro6m covNtv ta.cutivt January 16, 1987 Mr. Victor Stello '

Executive Director for Operations U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dear Mr. Stellot Executive.On December 27, 1986, I took office as the suffolk County I am writing in this capacity to correct two misstatements by you that were reported ..n the enclosed Newsday article of January 4, 1987.

First, 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. That decision was made by LILCO and approved by the NRC. LILCO and }

the NRC you allude.are thus the ones responsible for the " problems" to which -

Second, you state, "If there was Isic) 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. 1 Suffolk County has determined after 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 Shoreham. For your information, enclosed are copies EDO --- 002489

m. . _ _ ._ . . . , _ . . . _ . _ . . . _ .. _ ....,,t.. . ..,L. _

E

• t -

Mr. Victor Stello .

January 16, 1987 Page 2 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 jud gment. 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 "impru5ance" 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, N 0 NICHAEL A. LoGRANDE Acting County Executive MALifmn Enclosures

s r ..

i

• LILCO Plan

Changes Too M- .

Often: FEMA ByJohnMeth u Changes an se hvemos la the amorpany pina hr the Shareham auclear power that Airther reviews and emaniana ofit an j

.' and as anelse une aflisait.

ed reneurema,'asserdaag to a h3 -- M eSeal of the Federal Emergesey haamagement Asemey. I In a letter to the Nuejear Regulatory F- '

a Dave METHS FEMA's deputy masselste diresear air i state and lesal pro her of changes grams and support, ead diffamat promedaags said thatthe beden the sunn.

NRC *nadere it imprestient, and an unwise use of limited reneurna, to sentinue to perdern Airther seWowe

• of IJ140 plane ce esereians under the surrent uneyash-reaised matserin which these lasuas are belas adjudisat, ed? He added not TEMA will amatiane se preunds ett.

neesse for NRC heartage se the reviews it has =fw .

MdAughlia's letter assompanied the latest fella restow

' etchanges la the taas IslandIJah Co.

t Aahed if the statemeat maant that would reAnse to eneduct Aarther reviews of abanges la the (J140 plan.

FEMA speksamaa Ecb Blair decisand to aaneer darestly.

t "What we've esp seurons we have,,ressed he amia is hatretica with the lismiled es.

1J140 emetals omid they did est Rad Mclaughlin's

. statement to be a semplaint about 13140 and referred Aarbt questions to FEMA and the NRC. IJ140 spehen.

mas Jun toia amid that the TEMA review is being studied by compnay ofBcials and that many shaages la the Shore.

l ham plan en amused by *the pohtaan) stanties here?

~

B. air said h Shoreham heenaans enas was serainias TEMA resourose buaues "we And that the plas le shaared befew we even semplete our restee? i l For esample,la the latest reriew, LA40 remsived as adequate retlag for havt'ag as agreement with a redse statica enhas se serve as the primary emerpaey bread.

I saat station la h event of a Shercham aarident. But aAer LI140 submitted its revielen for review. WALK radie die pad out of the plaa. and a subsutute has met been i .,

des les 4 ere is as other esse as semp!!astad as this see,* enid dr Victor Sta!!e, esaeutive director for operotieas of the NBC.

6 anar receiving Mdeughlia's letter and b FEMA review,

, - S The review found 16 *taadesuscies.* ue tem sia hund la l l g.Y(g the pmvleus nvtes la Octoke 1968 % mview a year eather,in October 1964, ICY wS"Yh M

• the latest nview ladude IJ14 found e plan edi ht.h taadequacies to usonater only ta drivere in automobiles for radiation rether than both driv.

3 ers aad paasengers, and the lack of Arm agreements with support ageactes including the Naaseu Chapter of the Red

• Creen.

. The Shonham lleenalag esse is the Sist before the f NRC to tavelve as emerency plan pnpared by a utshty.

Such plans ord.aartly are prepared by state and local gov.

[ ernment and revsemed by TEMA, which issues a Andang r en whether by previde adequate protection to the pubbs.

LI1CO submatted its emergney plan aAer the state e and $dalk County refowd to participate la emerency 3 h platuunf ne teen Because the courta have ruled that IJ140 has authority to implet ent its emergency plan.

FEMA has ea14 it cannet inese a And.ag en obehr h plan would protect the puble

l. The NRC's 5tette said the problema senserning emer.

gency staaning for Shoreham, tecludang the stands taken by W4LX and W Nasaeu Red Crees. *are all a darset 8 result of k lack of partacipation by state sad local pv. '

e erarneata 1 And it d4 cult to understand. If them ena a a real ernergency, there is as doubt that these ele

! pledged to help protect the public would follow O's plan Tm eenvinced they would de anything to protect the pubhe, and that means fe!! awing a structured plaa. Us.

less they have e I thev would felle.plaa we plaa.*

L!140's deat haew about, that eneeas a Dev. Marie Cuomo and former 8dolk County Esecu.

• l tive Peter F. Cohoraa ha ve submitted evers statements to the NRC aarter they weald set te protest the subhe is a Shoreham acedent, but act by fouewtag LJ1to's plan, w hich by claim is un=erkable and illegal, l Richard Meneel, esecuuve director of the state Cea..e y samer Pntacties Soard and e opehumaa for Cuomo en l the Shoreham leaue aald,"The problem to yev eaa's evacu.

ate 14ea letsad me matter what the stata and sounty vers le de N NRC is sittaag la har ivory teners and evslu.

c stang a fantasy? , ,

.- :.=:M;MM&, . , ,~ ,a

• O' REMARKS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE l et PETER F. C0HALAN

JUNE 23,1986 I HAVE CALLED THIS NEWS CONFERENCE TO PUT AN END TO LILCO'S MISCHARACTERIZAT

' POSITION CONCERNING THE LICENSING 0F SHOREHAM. AS RECENTLY AS JUNE 11, LILCO MADE SUCH MISCHARACTERIZATIONSINALETTERTOTHENUCLEARREGULATORYCOMMISSION. I M OPPOSED jLICENSINGOFSHOREHAM,ANDIDEMANDTHATLILCOSTOPITSMISCHARACTERIZATIONS.

! THE FACT IS THAT THE NRC AT LILCO'S URGING IS CONSIDERING A LILCO REQUEST T j SHOREHAM WITHOUT AN IMPLEENTABLE EMERGENCY PLAN. ACCORDING TO LILC0'S HEASONING, SHOREHAM

! SHOULD BE LICENSED EVEN THOUGH THERE IS N01MPLEMENTABLE EERGENCY PLAN, BE PLANT WERE LICENSED AND E THERE WERE AN ACCIDENT AT SHOREHAM, THE STATE AND COUNTY WOULD IN REAllTY ACT WITH LILCO IN RESPONSE TO THE ACCIDENT AND THIS AIUiK RESPONSE WOU lPROTECTTHEPUBLIC. I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE'S OFFICE WOULD l COOPERATE IN ANY WAY WITH LILCO'S MAKE BELIEVE EVACUATION PLAN OR WITH LILC fEXPLAINEDINTHESTATEMENT1AMISSulNGTODAYTHATSPEAKSF l I AM SENDING THAT STATEMENT TO THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, THE FEDERAL lEMERGENCYMANAGEMENTAGENCYANDTHELONGISLANDLIGHTINGCOMPANYTOENSURETHATTHEREAREN

!FURTHERMISREPRESENTATIONSOFMyPOSITIONWITHRESPECTTOTHESHOREHAMNUCLEARPOWERPLANT

]ACOPYUFTHECOMPLETETEXTOFTHISSTATEMENTHASBEENPROVIDEDTOYOU. I WILL SumARIZE MY iSTATEMENT,ASFOLLOWS i IN FACT, I HAVE

! AN OPPOSED TO THE LICENSING OF SHOREHAM FOR ComERCIAL OPERATION.

!NEVER SUPPORTED THE LICENSING OF SHOREHAM FOR COMMERCIAL OPERATION. ON MAY 31,1985 juuAllFIEDSUPPORTONLYTOATESTOFLILCO'SEMERGENCYPLANONTHECONDITIONTHATTHEREWOULD lBEPARTICIPATIONOFTHESUFFOLKCOUNTYGOVERNMENT. I WANTED TO PUT LILC0'S PLAN TO A FINAL,

! DEFINITIVE TEST, UP OR DOWN, USING COUNTY PERSONNEL, AND, ACTUALLY ATTEMPTING TO MOVE PEOPLE

'ANDEVACUATESCHOOLS,SINCELOWPOWERLICENSINGWASIMMINENT.

l l

s. ',

THE ACTION OF mY 31,1985, *S TAKEN AT A TIME WHEN LILCO ES HOLDING $131 Mi

' "eLOUNTY TAXES AND AT A TIE WHEN THE COUNTY'S FISCAL CO l ' GRAVE lANGER. SUBSEQUENT TO THE mY 31st ACTION, THE TAXES WERE mlD AN FISCAL CONulTION HAS IMPROVED DPAmTICALLY.

AS WE NOW KNOW, THE KIND OF TEST I SUPPORTED ON MY 31,1985, BORE NO RESEMBL THE FANTASY TEST LlLC0 CONDUCTED ON FEBRtARY 13TH OF THIS YEAR TO NOTHING MORE TMN AN EXCERCISE IN THE " THEATER OF THE ABSU AND ARTIFICIAL: A CMRADE TO EMBLE LILCO TO CONVEY FALSE IMPRESS INDEED, THE MDST SIGNIFICANT ACT CAME AFTERWARD, WHEN THE REGI0mL DIRECTOR EMERGENCY mmGEMENT AGENCY, FRANK PETRONE, ANNOUNCED TMT LILCO'S EERGENCY P PROVIDE PEASOMBLE ASSURANCE TMT THE PUBLIC WOULD BE PROTEC ACCIDENT AT SHOREMM.

UNFORTURTELY, LILCO MS REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE RCT TMT SHOREmM SHOULD DESPITE THE SCT THAT THE OVERWHELMING MJORITY OF SUFFOLK'S R ELECTED OFFICIAL IN SUFFOLK M MSSAU COUNTIES ARE UPPOSED TO T IN THE WAKE OF CHERNOBYL, LILCO CONTINUES ITS RECKLESS DISREMRD FOR THE SAFE RESIDENTS OF LONG ISLANI

' SPECIFICALLY, LlLC0 is PRESSING THE NRC TO LICENSE SHOREmM ON T IT MS CREATED AND DUBBED "REAllSM." LILC0 IS PROMOTING THIS FICTIO WHICH I SENT TO LILCO'S COUNSEL ON JUNE 26,1985, AND ON EXECUTIVE ORDER #2 0F 1985. O SHlARY 30,1986, I WROTE TO LILC0'S COUNSEL PROTESTING THE MISLEADING USE OF MY JUNE LETTER. AS LATE AS JUNE 11TH,0F THIS YEAR LILC0 CONTINUES IO MISCMRACTERilE MY POS BEFORE THE NRC AND FEM. THEREFORE, I WILL EXPRESSLY NULLIFY MY JUNE 26,1985, LET SMLL RESClND EXECUTIVE ORDER #2-1985. LILC0'S PERS! STENT MISSTATEM UNCHALLENGED.

LILC0 REmlNS BLIND TO THE REALITY Tmi SHUREMM WILL NOT OPEPATE. L IMPERVIOUS TO THE OUTPOURING OF OPPOSITION TO SHOREHAM FROM EVE SHOREHAM IS NO LONGER AN ISSUE. SHOREHAM IS DEAD.

l

V.

.L.

t $ . ,

1 243 COCttDINGS OF THE LEGISLATURE - FEB.17 M

?

j be both adequate and Implementable. The cooperation of local government .

la essential if a workable plan is to be developed. I have stated I w:uld not support the opening of any nuclear plant for which an j acceptable emergency evacuation plan does not exist. While recognizlng that the ultimate determination of a acceptabibility rests with the o federal government. I stand by my previous statements. As Governor. I will not be a party to any effort to impose an independently developed cvacuation plan..." J Presiding Officer Howard advised the chair is ready to entertain a motion  !

on th3 resolution. Mr. Prospect of fered the following resolution, seconded by jMrs. Dr. vine. On a roll-call vote. 16 Legislators in favors l' opposed. Mr. g

!doward. I vacant seat. Chairman declared resolution adopted. -}

' Intra. Res. No. 1196-83 ] ,

Intrcduced by Legislators Wehrenberg Caracappa. D' Andre. Celse. Allgrove.

Bachety. Prospect. Foley. Nolan. Blass. Rizzo. LaBua. Devine. Harlton. Back .

RESOLUTION N0 l - 19 CONSTITUTING THE FINDINGS i

AND DETERMINATicN> _ ut suFFOLK COUNTY ON WHETHER A 1

LEVEL OF EMERGENCY PREPAREONE5S TO RESPOND TO A

)

RADIOLOGICAL ACC10ENT AT THE SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWE'R POWER STATION CAN PROTECT THE HEALTH. WELFARE AND j

SAFETY OF THE RE510ENTS OF SUFFOLK COUhTY WHEREAS. Suffolk County has a duty under the Constitution cf the State of New York, the New York State Municipal Home Rule Law, and the 5.ffolk County [3 Charter to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the reside 9ts of Suffolk ]4 Ctuntyl and l VHEREAS. the Long 1 land Lighting Company ("LILC0") is constructing and .). J desires to operate the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ("Shoreham") . located on U 4

the north shore of Long Island near the town of Wading River, a location which "

i is within the bounderles of Suffolk Countyt and y WHEREAS. a serlous nuclear accident at Shoreham could result in tee $

release of significant quantitles of radioactive fission products; and VHEREAS. the release of such radiation would pose a severe hazard to the h health, safety, and welfare of Suffolk County residents and y J

WHEREAS. In recognition of the effects of such potential razard posed by .. j Shoreham on the duty of Suffolk County to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens, this Legislature on March 23. 1982, acceted Resolution '3 i Ns. 262-1982, which directed that Suffolk County prtpara a " County Radiological Emergency Response Plan to serve the Interest of the safety, health, and welfare 9 of the citizens of Suffolk County .."1 and g WHEREAS. In Resolution 262-1982, the Legislature determined that the plan "j developed by the County "shall not be cperaDie and shall not be ceemed adequate and capable of being Implemented until such time as it is approved by the ,

Suffolk County Legislature"I and *

• e

, , < - 4 z ;< . ,, , r ~ . .

, ? ,,

v.

t PR0ttt0lNGS OF THE LEGl5LATURE - FEB. 17 i 24 WHEREA$.

In adopting Resolution 262-1982, .

earlier da ta") planning efforts by LILCO and County planners the were inadequate Legislature (the " originalfound that posed by conditions on Long Island andbecause they failed to address the part behavior during a radiological emergency further failed to account for human Three Mlle Islands and and the lessons of the accident at WHEREAS, on March 29, 1982, acting to implement Resolution 262-1982, Peter F. Cohalan, Suffolk County Executive

~ Suffolk County Radiological by Executive Order established ,

the Emergency Response Plan Steering Committee the County Executive and County Legislaturessubmittal and("$teering to C nationally recognized experts from diverse disciplines plang and e and toWHER prepara such County WHEREAS, such highly quellfled experts worked In a dillgent and conscientious effort at a cost in excess of $500.o00 to prepare the be possible plan for $uffolk County, and particularly to ensure that such into account all particular physical and behavioral conditions plan took that affect the adequacy of the emergency response plans and on Long Island WHEREAS, the analyses, studles, and surveys of such experts e includ d .

(a)

• Detailed analyses of the possible Shoreham releases of radiation from '

i (b)

{ . radiation release on the population of SuffolkDetailed a County, giventhe

, meterological, local conditions demographic, on Long Island topographical, and other specific I

(c)

A detalled social and assess their Intended behavior insurvey of Long Island residents to d tvemin accident at $horehams tne event of a serlows (d) A detalled certain other emergency response personnel tosurvey of school bu emergency personnel latend to report promptly determine whether of a serious accident at Shorehamtdutles, or Instead to unite (e) Detalled to evacuate well In the event of a seriousataccidentestimates Shoreham, as of th even If not ordered to do solas the number of persons who Intend to eva i (f) Detalled analyses of the road network I

l required to evacuate persons from in Long Island and the time releases areas affected by radiation

• l 1  !

l 1

t l y .- -

i.

f 245 pnect! DINGS OF THE LEGISLATURE - Ftt.17 (g)- Detailed analyses of the protective actions available to Suffolk 8

County residents to evacuate or take shelter from such radiation .

- releases and t

(h)

Analysis of the lessons learned from the accident at Three Mlle Island on local government responsibilities to prepare for a radiological emergency and WHEREA$. on May 10, 1982 LILCO. without the approval or authorization of

'* the $uf folk County Covernment, submitted to the New York"Suffolk State Olsaster

• commisssion ("D P C") two volumes entitled County Preparedness Radiological Emergency Response Plan" and containing the original planning data.

g as further revised and supplemented by LILCO and requested the*OPC to review and approve such LILCD subeittal as the local radiological emergency response y plan for $uf folk County and

• • VHIRfAS. In Resolutions L56-1982 and L57-1982, the County further

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

't g em:Masland thatt d

(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 456-1982. Is as follows:

a ,

Suffolk County shall not assign funds or personnel to test or implement any radiological emerggncy response plan for the h

$horeham Nuclear Plant unless that plan has been fully developed 0 to the best of the County's ability.

Ic Suffolk County shall not assign funds or personnel to test er Implement any radiological emergency response plan for the o Shoreham Nuclear Plant unless that plan has been subject of at ,

as least two public hearings, one to be held in Alverhead, and one l to be held in Hauppauge. l id er Suffolk County shall not assign funds or personnel to test or

y implement any radiological emergency response plan for the Shoreham Nuclear Plant unless that plan has been approved. after at public hearings, by the Suffolk County Legislature and the County Executives and ed as WERtAS. On June 9 1982. the OPC rejected the LILCO-submitted document ly 9,, the reason that it was deficient and WtRt AS. on October 6. 1982. LILCO, again without the approval or

.O

• 8wt y,, %, ration of the $uf folk County Government, submitted to the CPC an amended C" the g of the prevleusly submitted LILC0 document which had been rejected by l

. {I a nd WERIA$. on Decembe.r 2 1982, the Craft County Radiological Emergency Aes,,ye Plan autherlaed by Resolution 262-1922 was submitted to the County r$

N *

'_' M d i u-

, ,m - . t. c. . w.y. 9,s ;..:.g., m,

, , - . .,m a g, . . . .,

1

! i

'PROCEtolNGS OF THE LEGISLATURE - Ftt. 17 2Ie6 i

Legislature for review and public hearings as specified in Resolutions 262-1982 456-1382. and 457-1382: and WHEREA$.

County plan, which hearings Includadt In January 1983, the Legislature held hearings on the Draft (a) More than 1.330 pages of transcripts:

(b) Detailed written statements and oral testimony of County expert consultants who prepared the Draft County plan: )

(c) Detailed written statements and oral testimony of LILCO officials I and expert consultants retained by LILCO ,

l (d) Detailed written statements and oral testimony of the Suffolk County Police Department, the County Health Department, the County Social Services department, and the County Pubtle Works Department, all of which would have Indispensable roles in responding to a radiological emergency at Shoreham I

(e) Detailed written statements and oral testimony of organizations

, in Suffolk County concerned with radlological emergency j j preparedness and (f) Extensive presentations by hundreds of members of the general public and WHEREAS. members of the Legislature also travelled to and held public hearings in the vicinity of the Three Mlle Island Nuclear Power Plant to gain Information on the lessons to be learned by local governments from the accident at Three Mlle Islands and VMERtA$. 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 $horehams and WHEREAS. evacuation of .Suffolk County residents in the event of a radiological emergency could take as much time as 14-30 hours because of various factors, includingt the limited number of appropriate evacuation routes in Suffolk County difficultles in mobillaing police and other emergency personnels difficultles ensulng from spontaneous evacuation of large numbers of County residents, alternate evacuation thus creating severe traffic congestion: and unavilability o,f l routes for persons residing east of Shoreham and thus the necessity for such persons during an evacuation to pass by the plant and possibly through the radioactive plumes and WHEREA$. 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 Immobillaation of evacuation and high exposure of evacuees to radiation such that evacuses' health, safety, and welfare would not be protected: and

,___._m_ . . . _ , . _ - _ _ . . _ _ . , _ . . _ . . _ - _ . _ . _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . . , . _ - . . _ . - _

8

3.

• j PROCT! DINGS OF THE LICISLATURE - FEB.17 l

.I 247 WERE A$.

i protective sheltering is designed to protect persons from I excessive radiation exposure by such persons staying Indoors until radiation with the greatest danger to health has passed: and WE RE AS.

If protective sheltering were ordered for Suffolk County residents, unacceptable radiation exposure would still be experienced by swestantial portions of the Suffolk County population, thus making it impossible to provide for the health, welfare, and safety of these residents: and WIRE A$. the document submitted by LlLCO to approval or authorization is deficient because it does not deal with thethe actual DPC without County local conditions, physical and behavioral, on Long Island that would be encountered during a serlous nuclear accident at Shoreham3 and ,

4 W!RIAS. the document submitted by LILCO to approval or autherlastion does not ensure that ef fective the CPC without County persons protective action by subject to radiation esposure, in the form of evacuation or sheltering, would be taken in event of a serious nuclear accident at Shoreham, and thus such of Suffolk County residents: and document, even If implemented. would not protect the hea WER! A$. the extensive data clear that the site-specific circumstances and actual local conditionswhich the Legisla on Long Island, particularly its elongated east / west configurationesisting which requires all evacuation routes from locations east of the plant to pass within a zone the severe traf fic congestion likely to be experienced complete if a partial or evacuatlett personnel willwere promptly ordered, report and for the difficuttles in ensuring that emergency responte plan, emergency duties, preclude any emergency the It health, welf are, and safety of Suf folk County residentst nowif impleme

, therefore, be

• Rt$0LVt0.

en safety Cecember of Suffolk County 2. 1982. If implemented, would not protect residents , and the health, welfa leptemented; and be it further and thus is not approved and will not be tounty ap RESOLVED. that the document telfare, proval or autherlastion, if implemented, would not protect thesubmitted by LlLC health. '

not be implemented:and safety of Suffolk* residents and thus will not be approved and will and be it further

! Rt$0LVED.  :

Serlous nuclear accident at Shorehamthat Ince no local radiological emergency response plan will protect the health, welfare, and j of any such plan would be misleading tosafety of Suffolk County reside i residents that their the public by Indicating to County $

fset, Is hereby such is not the case, the County's radlologicalnning emergency process plahealth, we' en accident at the Shoreham plant shall be adopted orterminated. and no local r further implemented 8 and be It a I 4

M +p p .->:.r$,.;2.=

z.

gy tricMM.E .prKd.:o..s.e %e-~ __

e.g.>

gags.was<.c.se .M ._- .

PROCit0INGS OF THE LEGISLATURE - FE8 17 243 RESOLVto, that since no , radiological emergency health, emergency welfare, plan shall safetybeof Suffolk County residents ,and plan can protect the since no radiologic,g Executive actions takenIsby hereby any other directed take toadopted all or implemented actions necessary to assure by Suffo that consistent with the declaici's mandated by this Resolution. governmental DATIO: February 17, 1983 APPROVIO SY: *

/s/ Peter F. Cohalan County fascutive of Suffolk County Date of Approval February 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 Resolution No, 0 opposed: 1 vacant seat, rules were wolved following 1197-83 on the table resolution, seconded by Mr.

Legislators opposedt Rizzo.

On aMr.roll-call Howard of f ered the resolution not adooted._1 in favor. Mr. Howard Chairman vote.

1 vacant seat. 13 declarea intro.Rhs.No. 1197-83 Introduced by Presiding Officer Howard f'

RESOLUTION NO. 112 - 1983.

COUNTY EXECUTlvt TO SUBMI ESTING THE PLAN FOR h t SHOREHAM NLEAR AN IntRGENCY RESPON$t PLANT '

WHERtA$.

interests for the people the Suffolk of theCouC y Legislature deems it evacuation of Shoreham and . nty of Suffolk to have atoplan be In the best for the WHEREAS the suffolk Co'unty Legislature had conducted two weeks hearingsVMERtAS, on an, evacuation p/la'n submitted and to the Legis spoke to residents, members pfg the Le\ {slature went ton the area, Three

' emergency and the evacu In}trviewed public officials tion of reside'nts who participated in the in the area the facility called "T ree Mlle Islandg' and , cbserved and went through WHEREA$, N the, f ailure by Suf folk ' County to sutmit an evacuation i Shoreham could result destinyl and In Suffolk County losing its right to plan for determine its own j WHERtA$,

i in a plan being forced upon Suffolk Couty by other ouldafailure result to a uthoritiest and its residents in case of an emergency atn $hWHEREAS, that is best suited for Suffolk C

! orehamt now, therefore, be it

- - - - . .- - _ - _ - - . _--._.-L .--- -