ML20213G200

Affidavit of Ma Logrande.* Forwards Ma Logrande 870116 & 0310 Ltrs Informing NRC of Position of Suffolk County Re Util Emergency Evacuation Plan.Supporting Info Also Encl

ML20213G200
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	05/08/1987
From:	Logrande M SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY
To:
Shared Package
ML20213G123	List: ML20213G120 ML20213G172 ML20213G200 ML20213G219
References
OL-3, NUDOCS 8705180176
Download: ML20213G200 (27)

Text

. _ _

'Attachm:nt 2

.- \

l l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 (Emergency Planning)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)

AFFIDAVIT,CF MICHAEL A. LOGRANDE Michael A. LoGrande, being under oath, deposes and says as follows:

1. I am the County Executive of Suffolk County, New York, and have held that position since December 27, 1986. As County Executive, I am authorized to direct the County's response to emergencies.

2. On J anuary 16, 1987, in response to certain publicly reported misstatements made by Mr. Victor Stello, Executive Director for Operations, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, I sent Mr. Stello a letter informing him of the positions of Suffolk County (and my own as Chief Executive Officer of the County) concerning the LILCO Plan and the County's 8705180176 870514 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G PDR

I w

actions in a Shoreham emergency if the Shoreham plant were to be licensed to operate. Likewise, on March 10, 1987, I, along with Gregory J. Blass, Presiding Officer of the Suffolk County Legislature, again corresponded with Mr. Stello on those subjects. The January 16, 1987 and March 10, 1987 letters are

. attached hereto as Exhibits A and B. I hereby affirm those

, statements, affirm that they are truthful and accurate, and af firm that they continue to represent my position as Suffolk County Executive and the position of Suffolk County on the subjects discussed therein.

i

3. On June 23, 1986, my predecessor in this office, Peter F. Cohalan, issued a Statement to correct misstatements made by LILCO concerning LILCO's so-called " realism" argument, and l

related matters. That statement is attached to Exhibit A, my I letter of January 16, 1987. I hereby affirm that the County's position regarding the LILCO Plan, LILCO's " realism" argument, and the licensing of the Shoreham plant remains as set forth in Mr. Cohalan's June 23, 1986 Statement, and that Mr. Cohalan's statement truthfully and accurately represents the position of Suffolk County, i 4. On February 17, 1983, the Suffolk County Legislature adopted Resolution No. 111-1983, which was approved by the Suffolk County Executive on February 23, 1983. A copy of

^

^

Resolution No. 111-1983 is also citached to Exhibit A, my letter of January 16, 1987. Resolution No. 111-1983 is the law of l

Suffolk County, and it reflects certain of the findings and con-clusions of the County concerning an offsite response to a radio-logical emergency at the Shoreham plant.

5. It has come to my attention that in "LILCO's Second Renewed Motion For Summary Disposition of the ' Legal Authority' Issues (Contentions EP 1-10)," dated March 20, 1987, LILCO asserts that the County is in possession of 18 controlled copies  ;

of the LILCO Plan, and that the County's oficials are "f amiliar" with the Plan by virtue of their participation in the emergency planning litigation before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

These assertions are incorrect. To the best of my knowledge, the County is in possession of 8 copies of the LILCO Plan. Only 5 of the Plans are up-to-date and, of those, 4 are in the possession of the SCPD for purposes of preparing testimony for hearings before this and other Boards.

l

6. Neither I, nor my deputies, nor any members of my staff have in our possession the current version of the LILCO Plan. I have never reviewed the LILCO Plan and none of my deputies or staff has ever reviewed that plan with one exception -- Mr. Frank Petrone, who reviewed portions of an earlier version of LILCO's Plan while employed by FEMA, and has reviewed portions of LILCO's Plan in connection with the preparation of testimony in the Shoreham Exercise proceeding. To my knowledge, no County

b official or employee is sufficiently knowledgeable of the LILCO Plan to implement all or a portion of it, with or without LILCO assistance.

Nichael A. LOGrande Suf folk County Executive Subscribed to and sworn before me this f' day of May, 1987.

/

!Lg 4s , AlfplL Notary Public /

State'of New York at Large My commission expires:

N

! PHYLLIS A.00GRE

! H0fARV PUBLIC Siste of New Yort

! Its.524117675,Suflok Coun .

1ern Espwes Octatw 31,19 l

_4_

l

. Exhibit A COUNTY OF SUFFOLK O

OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE MCNAEL A. udMANDE surrous couerty eatcWTivs January 16, 1987 Mr. Victor Stello Executive Director for Operations U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dear Mr. Stello 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 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 s

the NRC you allude.

are thus the ones re'sponsible for the " problems" to which Second, you state, l

l "If there was [ sic] a real emergency, there is no doubt l that those people pledged to help protect the public would follow LILCO's plan. I'm convinced they would do l 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 stats.2ent is unfounded and incorrect.

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 l accident at Shoreham. For your information, enclosed are copies i

M. Lgt DOGN4908e SL@lk a vtTgmaseg essesC8tlAL M4GMWAY e MAUPPauGE. Pe.V. I 9 784 e (SI48340-4000

o Mr. Victor Ste11o 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 enclosed 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 S1.3 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, 's s*

• A 1

/hfIlhU h,> &

MICHAEL A. LoGRANDE Acting County Executive MAL:fmn Enclosures J

,g,, , , -,.- ,-wy- -w---e,- -w--+--i-,-9<,9 ygy ,,,,,,,,--y

--,-ve---g- -y=+ 9-, --+%%,,---g- y- w vi y-rw-w--- y, e--5---mm

1 STATEMENT OF SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE PETER F. COHALAN JUNE 23, 1986 I AM ISSUING THIS STATEMENT TO ENSURE THAT THERE ARE NO MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF MY POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THE SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION. I AM PARTICULARLY MOTIVATED TO MAKE THIS STATEMENT BECAUSE LILCO HAS MISSTATED MY POSITION IN EFFORTS TO PERSUADE FEDERAL AGENCIES TO LICENSE SHOREHAM. LET THE RECORD BE -

CLEAR: I AM OPPOSED TO THE LICENSING OF SHOREHAM.

IN FACT, I HAVE NEVER SUPPORTED THE LICENSING OF SHOREHAM FOR COMMERCIAL OPERATION. ON MAY 30, 1985, I GAVE QUALIFIED SUPPORT ONLY TO A TEST OF LILCO'S EMERGENCY PLAN ON THE CONDITION i

THAT THERE WOULD BE PARTICIPATION OF THE SUFEOLK COUNTY GOVERNMENT. HOWEVER, ON JUNE 10, 1985, THE NEW YORK STATE N I SUPREME COURT, AND LATER THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND THE COURT OF

APPEALS, RULED THAT I COULD NOT CHANGE COUNTY POLICY BY COMMITPING COUNTY PERSONNEL AND RESOURCES TO A TEST. IN RESPONSE, I WITHDREW MY MAY 30, 1985, POSITION, AND ON NOVEMBER 7, 1985, FORMALLY REQUESTED THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NOT i

TO CONDUCT A TEST OF LILCO'S EMERGENCY PLAN.

l ON FEBRUARY 13, 1986, OVER THE OBJECTIONS OF THE COUNTY

! LEGISLATURE AND MYSELF, LILCO CONDUCTED A TEST OF ITS EMERGENCY l _

! PLAN. I STATED THEN THAT THE EXERCISE AMOUNTED TO " THEATER OF l

l l

THE ABSURD." THE TEST WAS UNREALISTIC AND WAS CLEARLY DESIGNED TO CONVEY FALSE IMPRESSIONS OF LILCO'S COMPETENCE. WE ON LONG ISLAND WERE NOT DECEIVED; WE HAVE FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE WITH LILCO'S LACK OF COMPETENCE -- LET'S NOT FORGET THE $1.35 BILLION IMPRUDENCE FINDING AND LILCO'S RESFONSE TO HURRICANE GLORIA. I FEEL THAT THE ONLY SIGNIFICANT ASPECT OF THE FEBRUARY 13 TEST CAME AFTERWARD, WHEN THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, FRANK PETRONE, ANNOUNCED THAT LILCO'S EMERGENCY PLAN DOES NOT PROVIDE REASONABLE ASSURANCE THAT THE PUBLIC WOULD BE PROTECTED IN THE EVENT OF A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT AT SHOREHAM. IN SHORT, MR. PETRONE, SAID SHOREHAM SHOULD NOT BE l

LICENSED TO OPERATE.

SINCE FEBRUARY 1983, IT HAS BEEN CLEAR TO SUFFOLK COUNTY THAT THE OPERATION OF SHOREHAM WOULD CREATE A POTENTIAL DISASTER 1

FOR THE PUBLIC. AFTER EXTENSIVE AND COSTLY STUDIES, ANALYSES, AND SURVEYS, PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND A TRIP TO THE THREE MILE ISLAND N VICINITY, THIS GOVERNMENT CONCLUDED THAT THE PUBLIC COULD NOT BE f

SAFELY EVACUATED OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED IF THERE WERE A SERIOUS l ACCIDENT AT SHOREHAM. THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT, HAVING BEEN l

ESTABLISHED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PUBLIC'S WELFARE,

~

THEREFORE, HAD ONLY TWO CHOICES: TELL THE PUBLIC THE TRUTH THAT THEY COULD NOT BE PROTECTED; OR DECEIVE THEM BY ADOPTING AN l

l EMERGENCY PLAN THAT WOULD LULL THEM INTO BELIEVING THEY WERE i

BEING PROTECTED WHEN IN FACT THEY WERE NOT.

l l

.g.

i l

l

- , _ ~ _ _ _ . . _ , . _ . . . _ , . . _ . . . _ . . - - . _ . _ . . . - - - . _ _ . . . _ .

4 SUFFOLK COUNTY CHOSE WHAT IT WAS OBLIGATED TO DO: IN RESOLUTION 111-1983, IT TOLD ITS CITIZENS THE TRUTH. THUS, THE COUNTY RESOLVED NOT TO ADOPT OR IMPLEMENT AN EMERGENCY PLAN FOR SHOREHAM. THIS DECISION WAS UPHELD BY FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS.

IT WAS ALSO UPHELD BY GOVERNOR CUOMO AFTER EXTENSIVE ANALYSES BY '

THE MARBURGER COMMISSION.

UNFORTUNATELY, LILCO HAS REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE FACT THAT SHOREHAM SHOULD NOT OPERATE. FOR INSTANCE, AFTER RESOLUTION 111-1983, WAS ADOPTED, THE COUNTY INFORMED THE NRC OF OUR ACTION, AND ASKED THAT AGENCY TO APPLY ITS REGULATIONS BY DENYING LILCO A LICENS3 TO OPERATE SHOREHAM. AT LILCO'S URGING, THE NRC REJECTED OUR REQUEST AND, INSTEAD, STARTED A 3-YEAR CONTORTED PROCESS OF GIVING LILCO CHANCE-AFTER-CHANCE TO CONCOCT A SCHEME BY WHICH TO LICENSE THE PLANT.

AT THE SAME TIME, LILCO LOBBIED TO ENLIST FEDERAL OFFICIALS N

TO SUPPORT LICENSING SHOREHAM. LILCO'S SUCCESSES PEAKED LAST YEAR WHEN PRESIDENT REAGAN' S SECRETARY OF ENERGY ANNOUNCED THAT SHOREHAM SHOULD BE LICENSED TO OPERATE OVER THE OBJECTIONS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY AND NEW YORK STATE. HE DID THIS IN THE FACE OF j THE PRESIDENT'S OWN POLICY ON SHOREHAM, WRITTEN OCTOBER 11, 1984, THAT THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION DOES NOT FAVOR THE IMPOSITION OF FEDERAL AUTHORITY AT SHOREHAM OVER THE OlkTECTIONS OF NEW YORK i STATE AND SUFFOLK COUNTY.

i

,-w.. -y--.--, , ,,r.my.,. . , .-.-, m, - . - - - - , - -

e 4

I HAVE RECITED THIS BRIEF HISTORY TO BRING THE SHOREHAM SITUATION UP TO DATE. BY NOW, EVERY FAIR-MINDED PERSON MUST REALIZE THAT SAFE EVACUATION OF THE PUBLIC WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE IF THERE WERE A SERIOUS NUCLEAR ACCIDENT AT SHOREHAM. THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF SUFFOLK COUNTY'S RESIDENTS AND ALMOST EVERY LONG ISLAND ELECTED OFFICIAL ARE OPPOSED TO THE LICENSING OF SHOREHAM. AND BOTH THE NRC'S LICENSING AND APPEAL BOARD'S HAVE REJECTED LILCO'S BID FOR A LICENSE. BUT DESPITE ALL OF THIS, THE CASE IS NOT OVER. WHY IS THAT?

THE REASON IS THAT LILCO PERSISTS IN TRYING TO LICENSE SHOREHAM AND IS NOW ORCHESTRATING THE BIGGEST DECEPTION OF ALL:

1 EVEN THOUGH THE NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT AND THE NRC'S LICENSING AND APPEAL BOARDS HAVE RULED THAT LILCO CANNOT IMPLEMENT ITS EMERGENCY PLAN, THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION, AT LILCO'S URGING, IS CONSIDERING A LILCO REQUEST TO LICENSE N

SHOREHAM WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY IMPLEMENTABLE EMERGENCY PLAN.

THIS IS A PRESCRIPTION FOR DISASTER. IN THE WAKE OF CHERNOBYL, IT IS A RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF THE RESIDENTS OF i

I LONG ISLAND.

SPECIFICALLY, LILCO IS PRESSING THE NRC TO LICENSE SHOREHAM ON THE BASIS OF A FICTION IT HAS CREATED AND DUBBED " REALISM."

THIS FICTION GOES ON AS FOLLOWS: SHOREHAM SHOULD BE LICENSED EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO IM?LEMENTABLE EMERGENCY PLAN, BECAUSE E THE PLANT WERE LICENSED AND E THERE WERE AN ACCIDENT AT

SHOREHAM, THE STATE AND COUNTY WOULD IN REALITY ACT IN RESPONSE TT) THE ACCIDENT AND THIS AD HOC " RESPONSE" WOULD SOMEHOW PROTECT

^

THE PEOPLE. LILCO ARGUES THAT THIS SET OF HYPOTHETICALS WOULD +

, COMPLY WITH THE NRC'S REGULATIONS AND PROVIDE A BASIS FOR THE LICENSING OF SHOREHAM. IT WOULD NOT. LILCO'S FICTION IS ILLEGAL AND ILLOGICAL; IT IS BORN OF CYNICISM AND INDIFFERENCE TO THE

.PUBLIC'S SAFETY. F FIRST, LILCO'S FICTION RETRIEVES THE DISCREDITED THEORY ON WHICH THE NRC LICENSED NUCLEAR PLANTS BEFORE THE THREE MILE ISLAND ACCIDENT. THEN, THERE WAS NO PRE-PLANNING OR INTEGRATED PLANNING' REQUIRED FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WITH THE UTILITY. THE NRC SIMPLY ASSUMED THAT IF THERE WERE AN ACCIDENT, THE GOVERNMENTS WOULD KNOW HOW TO ACT ALONE AND WITH OTHERS IN i

RESPONSE. THE THREE MILE ISLAND ACCIDENT PROVED THIS ASSUMPTION TO BE WRONG. FOLLOWING THREE MILE ISLAND, CONGRESS PASSED LAWS

. N AND THE NRC MADE REGULATIONS THAT REQUIRE PRE-PLANNING AND INTEGRATED PREPAREDNESS. THERE IS NO PRE-PLANNING OR INTEGRATED PREPAREDNESS AT SHOREHAM.

SECOND, LILCO'S FICTION PRESUMES THAT STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS NOT ONLY WOULD RESPOND TO AN ACCIDENT, BUT THAT THEIR RESPONSE WOULD WORK TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC. THUS, LILCO CLAIMS,

! THE PUBLIC WOULD BE PROTECTED EVEN THOUGH THE GOVERNMENTS HAVE NO l

i i

I

g j 1 ,

n.

s,?

Q, * '

s

, s

• - \ ji (z

=

i PRE-PLANNING, OR KNOWLEDGE OF INVENTORY OF AVAILABLE RESOURCES, ,

NO PERSONNCL READINESS, AND NO TRAINING. SUCH A PRESUMPTION IS UNPOUNDED; FARCICAL AT BEST.

T'd IRD, LILCO'S FICTION PORTRAYS SUFFOLK COUNTY ACTING IN I

CONCERT WITH LILCO IF THERF WERE AN ACCIDENT AT SHOREHAM.

/

HOWEVER, COUNTY LAW PROHIBITS COUNTY PERSONNEL FROM IMPLEMENTING 4

s.

l LILCO'S EMERGENCY PLAN. EVEN IF IT DID NOT, THE COUNTY COULD NOT' '

I

! U <'

tt RESPONSIBLY ACT IN CONCERT WITH LILCO AND ITS EMERGENCY PLAN.

. , t

( /

! THE COUNTY'S STUDIES, ANALYSES, AND SURVEYS, TOGETHER WITH OUR.

E '

DAY-TO-DAY EXPERIENCES ON LONG ISLAND WITH THE LIMITED ROAD '!

,. I y NETWORK AND THE CONFINED' GEOGRAPHY, HAVE CONVINCED US THAT SAFE 4

EVACUATION OF THE PUBLIC IS NOT POSSIBLE IN A SHOREHAM ACCIDENT.

LILCO'S EMERGENCY PLAN IS A GUIDELINE FOR TRAFFIC-JAM GRIDLOCK

. ll _ , . t >

AND AN IMMOBILIZED EVACUATION WHERE HUNDREDS OF THOUSAND OF LONG t

( i ,;-

i.

ISLAND'S RESIDENTS WOULD' DE TRAPPED TO ABSORB THE. RADIATICN THEY

, , N SOUGHT 'IO FLEE. THIS COUNTY WOULD NOT ACT IN CONCERT WITH SUCH A GUIDELINE FOR DISASTER. ' -'

FOURTH, LILCO'S FICTION RESTS.OT THE SURMISE.THAT THE COUNTY s

WOULD HAVE CONFIDENCE IN T.ILCO, OR THAT IT WOULD RELY ON LILCO

\

j BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE .*M ONE ELSE.ON WHICH TO RELY. THIS IS

, FALSE. THERE IS NO CORPORATION ON LONG ISLAND WITH SO LOW A Q, STANDING WITH THE N %IC AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AS LILCO. TiEPE IS EVEN A STRONG AND CREDIBLE EFFOR'h' TODAY TO EFFECT A PUBLIC y;

3 sq[' r'.

E o

d e ,

e '

, 1

~l l

h TAKEOVER OF THIS COMPANY. IN AN EMERGENCY OR OTHERWISE, THE PUBLIC AND THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE NO CONFIDENCE IN LILCO. WE COULD NOT, AND WOULD NOT, LOOK TO SUCH A DISCREDITED SOURCE FOR GUIDANCE OR ASSISTANCE IN A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT. INDEED, LILCO WOULD BE THE OBJECT OF THE PUBLIC'S WRATH BECAUSE IT CAUSED THE ACCIDENT. IT WOULD BE THE ENTITY WHICH STEAMROLLED SHOREHAM INTO OPERATION OVER THE PUBLIC AND GOVERNMENTS' OBJECTIONS. IN

y%'H CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WOULD BETTER SERVE THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST

'<O ACT ALONE THAN TO ENTRUST THE PUBLIC WEAL TO MORE OF LILCO' S POtJR #UDGMENTS.

MOREOVER, LILCO'S RESPONSE TO HURRICANE GLORIA LAST OCTOBER LIVES INDELIBLY AS A LESSON TO EVERYONE ON LONG ISLAND. IN THE POTENTIALLY CATASTROPHIC CIRCUMSTANCES OF A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT, WE WOULD NEVER RELY UPON OR ACT IN CONCERT WITH A COMPANY THAT COULD NOT EVEN PUT THE LIGHTS BACK ON FOR DAYS.

FIFTH, LILCO'S FICTION HAS PROMPTED THE COMPANY TO EXTEND ITS PLEAS FOR LICENSING SHOREHAM TO SHAMEFUL LIMITS. ON JUNE 11, 1986, LILCO'S COUNSEL WROTE THE NRC, CLAIMING THAT STATE LAW REQUIRES THE COUNTY TO TAKE ACTIONS IN AN EMERGENCY THAT PURPORTEDLY WOULD JUSTIFY THE NRC PUTTING SHOREHAM INTO OPERATION. THIG CLAIM MISSTATES THE LAW. IT WOULD NEVER BE

" APPROPRIATE" OR "NECESSARY" FOR THE COUNTY TO TAKE ACTIONS IN PURSUIT OF LILCO'S ILLEGAL EMERGENCY PLAN.

u 4

3 FINALLY, IN THE SAME LETTER OF JUNE 11, LILCO ENSHRINES ITS FICTION WITH THE FOLLOWING WORDS: ...THE LILCO PLAN PROVIDES A BASIS FOR A PRIVATE / GOVERNMENTAL PARTNERSHIP THAT COULD AND WOULD BE EFFECTIVE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC IN A REAL EMERGENCY, WHEN POLITICAL POSTURING WOULD BE ABANDONED AND THE SAFETY OF THE PUBLIC WOULD BE GIVEN PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE." THIS IS MORE N

FANTASY. I REITERATE WHAT IS IN ESSENCE STATED ABOVE: NEITHER SUFFOLK COUNTY NOR I AS COUNTY EXECUTIVE HAS ANY " PARTNERSHIP" WITH LILCO; THERE IS NO " BASIS FOR A PRIVATE / GOVERNMENTAL PARTNERSHIP" OF ANY KIND WITH LILCO: THE COUNTY HAS NO CONFIDENCE OR TRUST IN LILCO; AND IN AN EMERGENCY, THE COUNTY WOULD GIVE NO CREDENCE TO LILCO OR ITS PLAN AND WOULD NOT WORK IN CONCERT WITH LILCO. INDEED, IN AN EMERGENCY, THE PUBLIC OF SUFFOLK COUNTY --

SHOWN BY RESPECTED POLLS TO OPPOSE SHOREHAM BY MORE THAN 75 PERCENT -- COULD NOT TRUST THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS OFFICIALS IF WE, N

IN TURN, LOOKED TO THE DISCREDITED LILCO FOR GUIDANCE OR ADVICE.

TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT LILCO'S MISCHARACTERIZATIONS OF MY POSITION ARE BROUGHT TO AN END, I SHALL TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS STATEMENT TO LILCO, THE NRC, AND FEMA. I SHALL ALSO EXPRESSLY NULLIFY MY JUNE 26, 1985 LETTER TO LILCO'S COUNSEL AND SHALL RESCIND EXECUTIVE ORDER 2-1985. BOTH OF THESE DOCUMENTS HAVE EFFECTIVELY BEEN NULLIFIED BY EARLIER ACTIONS; HOWEVER, LILCO'S

PERSISTENT MISSTATEMENTS (SUCH AS IN ITS JUNE 11 LETTER) PROMPT ME TO CLEAR THE SLATE SO THAT NO PERSON CAN CONCOCT FURTHER I .g.

FICTIONS. I AM ALSO DESIGNATING CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE FRANK JONES, AS MY REPRESENTATIVE, TO FOLLOW THESE MATTERS AND TO COORDINATE AS NECESSARY AND .PPROPRIATE WITH THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE AND WITH THE ATTORNEYS HANDLING SHOREHAM MATTERS.

LILCO HAS LOBBIED IN WASHINGTON AND ELSEWHERE TO CHARACTERIZE SHOREHAM AS A LITMUS TEST FOR NUCLEAR POWER. THUS, LILCO SEEKS TO TRANSFORM THE SHOREHAM CASE INTO THE SHOREHAM CAUSE. THIS IS A DECEPTION. SUFFOLK COUNTY IS NOT ANTI-NUCLEAR, AND WE HAVE NO SUCH POLICY. INDEED, BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LABORATORY IS IN OUR MIDST. THE COUNTY IS SIMPLY IN FAVOR OF DOING WHAT WE WERE ELECTED BY OUR CITIZENS TO DO: TO PROTECT THEIR WELL-BEING AND TO BE TRUTHFUL. LILCO DOES NOT LIKE THIS, BECAUSE THE RESULT PUTS THE COUNTY AGAINST THE MISTAKE LILCO MADE AT SHOREHAM. BUT IN A DEMOCRACY, THE PUBLIC GOOD CANNOT BE DISFCGARDED. SHOREHAM IS A MISTAKE; GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT N

COMPOUND THE MISTAKE OF HAVING PERMITTED SHOREHAM TO BE BUILT WITH THE MISTAKE OF LETTING SHOREHAM OPERATE.

THE SHOREHAM CONTROVERSY HAS OVER THE PAST FOUR YEARS GROWN-TO CONFLICT AND CONFRONTATION. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING WE RELISH.

TO STEP BACK FROM THE TRENCHES AND VIEW THE BROADER SCALE, ONE CAN ONLY WISH THAT LILCO HAD SEIZED THE OPPROTUNITY TO ABANDON SHOREHAM IN 1983 OR EVEN SOONER, WHEN THE INVESTMENT WAS BILLIONS LESS. WE WOULD STILL WELCOME SUCH A LILCO DECISION TODAY.

9

e s

)

BUT, 'THE FACT IS THAT WE HAVE A FIGHT ON OUR HANDS. LILCO REMAINS BLIND TO THE REALITY WHY SHOREHAM SHOULD NOT OPERATE. TO LILCO, CHERNOBYL NEVER HAPPENED, FEMA'S REGIONAL DIRECTOR NEVER RESIGNED OVER SHOREHAM, THE WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF NEVER ADMITTED LONG ISLAND CANNOT BE EVACUATED, SUFFOLK COUNTY DID NOT WIN COURT VICTORIES UPHOIDING THE LEGALITY OF THE COUNTY'S POLICIES ON SHOREHAM, AND LONG ISLAND'S GEOGRAPHY IS NO DIFFERENT FROM ANYWHERE ELSE. INDEED, LILCO IS EVEN IMPERVIOUS TO THE OUTPOURING OF OPPOSITION TO SHOREHAM FROM EVERY CORNER OF LONG ISLAND. VIRTUALLY EVERY ELECTED OFFICIAT OPPOSES SHOREHAM, THE GOVERNOR OPPOSES SHOREHAM, AND THE PUBLIC OVERWHELMINGLY OPPOSES SHOREHAM.

I REMAIN CONFIDENT THAT SUFFOLK COUNTY WILL PREVAIL. WE ARE RIGHT, AND WE HAVE THE PUBLIC'S UNYIELDING SUPPORT. THE REASON IS THAT A BASIC TRUTH HAS DRIVEN THIS COUNTY FROM THE START: IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO EVACUATE OR OTHERWISE PROTECT THE PUBLIC IF THERE WERE A SERIOUS NUCLEAR ACCIDENT AT THE SHOREHAM PLANT.

SHOREHAM SHOULD NOT OPEN.

~10-

. . . . . . , .m.. ..v. ..so-oa Introduced by Legislators Wehrenberg, Caracappa, D' Andre, Geise, Allgrove, Bact s

, Prospect, Foley, Nolan, Blass, Rizzo, LaBua, Devine, Hariton, Beck RESOLUTION No. 111 - 1983, CONSTITUTING THE FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY ON WHETHER A LEVEL OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS TO RESPOND TO A RADIOLOGICAL ACCIDENT AT THE SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION CAN PROTECT THE HEALTH, WELFARE AND SAFETY OF THE RESIDENTS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY WHEREAS, Suffolk County has a duty under the Constitution of the State <

N3w York, the New York State Municipal Home Rule Law, and the Suffolk Count Chcrter to protect the health, safety, and welf are of the residents of Suffo:

County; and , i UHEREAS ,

• the Long Island Lighting Company ("LILCO") is constructing ar desires to operate the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ("Shoreham"), located c tho north shore of Long Island near the town of Wading River, a location whic is within the boundaries of Suffolk County; and WHEREAS, a accident serious' huclear at Shoreham could result in tl release of significant qu.antities of radioactive fission products; and {

WHEREAS , the release of such radiation would pose a sevtre hazard to tr acolth, safety, and welfare of Suffolk County residents; and UHEREAS, in recognition of the effects of such potential hazard posed 1 Shoroham on the duty of Suffolk County to protect the health, safety, ar welfare of its citizens, this Legislature on March 23, 1982, adopted Resolutic No. 262-1982, which directed that suffolk County prepare a " County Radiologica Emorgency Response Plan to serve the interest of the safety, health, and welfar af the citizens of Suffolk County .."; and j WHEREAS, in Resolution 262-1982, the Legislature determined that the ple lovaloped by the County "shall not be operable and shall not be deemed adequat and capable of being implemented until such time as it is approved by tr 's' Buf folk County Legislature"; and WHEREAS, in adopting Resolution 262-1982, the Legislature found the narlier planning efforts by LILCO and County planners (the " original plannir icta") were inadequate because they failed to address the particular proble.- ,

poced by conditions on Long Island and further failed to account for huma i schavior during a radiological emergency and the lessons of the accident a Ihroo Mile Island; and WHEREAS, on March 29, 1982, Peter F. Cohalan, Suffolk County Executivt acting to implement Resolution 262-1982, by ' Executive Order established tr suffolk County Radiological Emergency Response Plan . Steering Committe

("Stoering Committee") and directed it to prepare a County plan for submittal t tho County Executive and County Legislature; and WHEREAS, the Steering Committee assembled a group of highly qualified ar antionhlly recognized experts from diverse disciplines to prepare such Count plan; and

i WHEREAS, such highly qualified experts worked in a diligent and ionscientious effort at a cost in excess of $500,000 to prepare the best

)posible plan for Suffolk County, and particularly to ensure that such plan took i

.nto account all particular physical and behavioral conditions on Long Island ,

hot af fect the adequacy of the emergency response plan; and WHEREAS, the analyses, studies, and surveys of such experts included:

(a) Detailed analyses of the possible releases of radiation fron Shoreham; (b) Detailed analyses of the radiological health consequences of suct radiation release on the population of Suffolk County, giventhe meterological, demographic, topographical, and other specific l local conditions on Long Islands (c) h detailed social survey of Long Island residents to determine and assess their intended behavior in the event of a seriour accident at Shoreham; (d) A detailed survey of school bus drivers, volunteer firemen, anc certain othey , emergency response personnel to deterraine whether emergency . personnel intend to report promptly for emergenc3 duties, or. instead to unite with their own families, in the event {

of a serious accident at Shoreham;- *

(e) Detailed estimates of the number of persons who would be orderec to evacuate in the event of a serious accident at Shoreham, as well as the number of persons who intend to evacuate voluntaril) even if not ordered to do so; (f) Detailed analyses of the road network in Long Island and the time required to evacuate persons from areas affected by radiatior releases; (g) Detailed analyses of the protective actions available to suffoD County residents to evacuate or take shelter from such radiatior releases; and

(h) Analysis

• of the lessons learned from the accident at Three Mile Island on local government responsibilities to prepare for a radiological emergency;. and WHE REAS , on May 10, 1982, LILCO, without the approval or authorization o:

-h3 Suffolk County Government, submitted to the New York State Disaste:

?roparedness Commisssion ("DPC") two volumes entitled "Suffolk Count:

Radiological Emergency Response Plan" and contairling the original planning data 10 further revised and supplemented by LILCO, and requested the DPC to reviet and approve such L7LCO submittal as the local radiological emergency responst plcn for Suffolk County; and WHEREAS, in Resolutions 456-1982 and 457-1982, the County furthe addressed the matter of preparing for a radiological emergency at Shoreham anc cmphos,,ized thatt (a) The LILCO-submitted document was not and will not be the County':

Radiological Emergency Response Plan; and

(D) The County's Radiological Emergency Response Planning Policy, a

, enunciated in Resolution 456-1982, is as follows:

Suffolk County shall not assign funds or personnel to test o implement any radiological emergency response plan for th Shoreham Nuclear Plant unless that plan, has been fully develope to the best of the . County's ability.

Suffolk County shall not assign funds or personnel to test o implement any radiological emergency response plan for th Shoreham Nuclear Plant unless that plan has been subject of a least two public hearings, one to be held in Riverhead, and on t'o be held in Hauppauge.

Suffolk County shall not assign funds or personnel to test o.

implement any radiological emergency response plan for the hhoreham Nuclear Plant unless that plan has been approved, af te:

public hearings, Executive; and by the suffolk County Legislature and the Count:

WHEREAS, on June 9, 1982, the DPC rejected the LILCO-submitted documen for the reason that it was deficient; and WHEREAS, on October 6, 1982, LILCO, again without the approval o.

muthorization of the Suffolk County Government, submitted to the DPC an amende' version of the previously submitted LILCO document which had been rejected b:

tho DPC; and

. WHEREAS, on December 2, 1982, the Draft County Radiological Emerger.c:

Tasponse Plan authorized by Resolution 262-1982 was submitted to the Count:

• ogiolature

. for review and public hearings as specified in Resolutions 262-1982 456-1982, and 457-1982; and mBEREAS, in January 1983, the Legislature held hearings on the Draft

cunty plan, which hearings included:

(a) More than 1,590 pages of transcripts; ,,

(b) Detailed written statements and oral testimony of County exper consultan'ts who prepared the Draft County plan; (c) Detailed written statements and oral testimony of LILCO official.

and expert consultants retained by LILCO; (d) Detailed written statements and oral testimony of t!e Suffell County Police Department, the County Health Department, the County Social Services department, and the County Public Work:

Department, all of which would have indispensable roles ir responding to a radiological emergency at Shoreham; (e) Detailed written statements and oral testimony of organizations in Suffolk County concerned with radiological emergene:

preparedness; and

• (f) Extensive presentations by hundreds of members of the genera:

public; and

1

• I WHEREAS, members or the Legislature also travelled to and held publi '

imarings in the vicinity of the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant to gai information on the lessons to be learned by local governments from the acciden at -Three Mile Island; and l

WHEREAS, the Draft County plan identifies evacuation and protectiv shaltering as the two primary protective actions which would need to b implomented in the event of a serious accident at Shoreham; and i WHEREAS, evacuation of Suffolk County residents in the event of

Ediological emergency could take as much time as 14-30 hours because of variou 4 !cetors, including: the limited number of appropriate evacuation routes i Buffolk County; difficulties in mobilizing police and other emergency personnel lifficulties ensuing from spontaneous evacuation of large numbers of Count rosidents, thus creating severe traffic congestion; and unavilability c sltornate evacuation routes for persons residing east of Shoreham and thus th socessity for shch persons during an evacuation to pass by the plant an soscibly through the radioactive plume; and 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 certain1 avacuation' times in the range of 14-30 hours --

will result in virtua immobilization of evacuation and high exposure of evacuees to radiation sue

hat evacuees' health, safety *, and welfare would not be protected; and WHEREAS, protective sheltering is designed to protect persons frc axcossive radiation exposure by such persons staying indoors until radiatic sith the greatest danger to health has passed; and WHEREAS, if protective sheltering were ordered for Suffolk Count residents, unacceptable radiation exposure would still be experienced i substantial portions of the suffolk County population, thus making it impossib1

o provide for the health, welf a re , and safety of these residents; and WHEREAS, the document submitted by LILCO to the DPC without Count approval or authorization is deficient because it does not deal with the actua local conditions, physical and behavioral, on Long Island that would t ancountered during a serious nuclear accident at Shoreham; and

's l ,

WHEREAS, the document submitted by LILCC to the DPC without Coun*

ipproval or authorizatidn does not ensure that effective protective action 1 1 >sroons subject to radiation exposure, in the form of evacuation or shelterinc sould be taken in event of a serious nuclear accident at Shoreham, and thus suc locument, even if implemented, would not protect the health, safety, and welfa:

>f Suffolk County residents; and WHEREAS, the extensive data which the Legislature has considered mal

lear that the site-specific circumstances and actual local conditions existi an Long Island, particularly its elongated east / west configuration whic coquires all evacuation routes from locations east of the plant to pass within zono of predicted high radiation, the ineffectiveness of protective shelterinc tha severe traffic congestion likely to be experienced if a partial or comple-svacuation were ordered, and the difficulties in ensuring that emergenc

! parconnel will promptly report for emergency duties, preclude any emergenc l rosponse plan, if implemented, from providing adequate preparedness to protec

, tha he' tith, welfare, and safety of Suf folk County residents; now, therefore, 1 it l

l .

I

l 2 l i l

• . County Legislatur  ;

that'the sraf t County plan submitter to the an l j

RESOLVED, 1982, if implemented, would not protect the health, welfare,and thl Dec0mber 2, f folk County residents t cty of Su Icm:nted; and be it further i

submitted by LILCO to the DPC without th l that the document ld not protect the health  !

RESOLVED, l not be approved and wil nty cpproval or authorization, if implemented, wouand safety

,. faro,

. be implemented; and be it further plan for welf are, an that since no local radiological emergency response protect the health, RESOLVED, will d implementatio to Count ricus nuclear accident at Shorehamfoty the public of bySuffolk County residents, indicating i

any ' cuch plan would be health, welfare, misleading to and safety are being protected oces when, sidonts that their the County's radiological emergency planning prplan for res and be i such is not the case,terfninated, and no local radiological emergency ,implementad;

. c t,

's haroby i

cccident at t'he Shoreham plant shall be adopted or

trthcr emergency plan canradiologica protect t!-

no radiological no RESOLVED, that since f lk County residents and, since t talth, welfare, safety of beSuf o

• adopted or implemented by Suffolk County, the Coun to assure thz shall actions necessary nargency plan take all

<ccutive is herebyan,y directed 'other to governmental agency, l tion.

be it State or Federal, a:

, tiono taken by onsistent with the decisions mandated by this Reso u ATED: February 17, 1983 APP BY:

County Executive of Suf folk County Date of Approval: J JJ 7$ s t

l e

I e

4

.,.,,~_nn-.., , , . . , , , . _ , _ . , - - . ,..,-,n,n---,m,,,.,n,-

nn,,--,---..,.,,,,.,-

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

Dear Mr. Stello:

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 %ss mischaracterizations you made earlier.

The message of your February 20 letter is clear: the Staff of the NRC has decided that public safety 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.

l Accordingly, first, the government of Suffolk County requests that you immediately disqualify yourself and.the rest of.

l the Staf f f rom participating further as a party in the Shoreham 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 Repulations requires that the Staff "not give or appear to give favored treatment or competitive advantage to any member vf the public." The Staff 6 ow,u.s ev.to. o vive.. . smo. 6 -.o .., . -*u ..ws_ =sa voaa i nee = 's i e n* *c"

, - - - , - _ _ _ . . - . _ - _ ~ . _ _ _ _ , - - __

Mr. Victor Stello March 10, 1987 Page 2 cannot satisfy this standard: your February 20 letter is a manifesto of the Staff's favor and partisanship toward LILCO; a declaration of hostility toward Suffolk County.

Second, Suffolk County requests that you appear before a 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 mot, 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 Executive informed you that your statement was unfounded and 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 to implement LILCO's emergency plan or to work in concert with LILCO to effect an emergency response to an accident at l Shoreham." l

's l Your February 20 letter demeans the County Executive's '

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 misstatements. This presumptuousness does not suit an appointed NRC employee addressing the elected government of 1.3 million people.

The fact is that the government of Suffolk County would never use LILCO's energency plan, or work in concert with LILCO, 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 ha.ving 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.

l I

l Mr. Victcr Stello March 10, 1987 Page 3 i i

l l

Your February 20 letter persists in mischaracterizing the i 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 belie your 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 accompanied it, the County Legislature held eight days of open hearings at which specialists from around the country, including 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 t

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 protect the public. The bases for this determination are stated in Resolution No. 111-1983: among them are the limited roadway network, population densities, and other physiographic conditions which would cause people who were attempting to evacuate, instead %s, to become stuck in gridlock. These people, therefore, would be exposed to the very radiation from which they were directed to flee.

The government of Suffolk County had two choices: to adopt an emergency plan, or to resolve not to adopt one. To have done 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 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 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, the County lawfully exercised its police powers.

_ _ _ ___ _ _ _ _.~- - _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _

Mr. Victor Stallo March 10, 1987 Page 4 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 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 of that participation, acted lawfully to protect the welfare of its citizens. For the same reasons that you would praise a l 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

Mr. Victor Stello March 10, 1987 Page 5 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 Kemany 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 ptotected would be confronted with NRC Staff efferts 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.

The fact is that Shoreham was sited by LILCO and construction of the plant was approved by the AEC when emergency %s 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 NRC required only that the utility submit " procedures for 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 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 l public to be impossible; (2) the County's determination has been upheld in Federal and State courts; and (3) LILCO's substitute 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 following fantasy that in the absenca of County, State, or

3 O

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,

$W -

l^- e dregory Q), BlWs Michael A. LoGrande Presiding Officer Suffolk County Executive Suffolk County Legislature cc: NRC Service List N

_ - - _ . - ._ - - _-. -. . ___