ML20196H111
| ML20196H111 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/09/1988 |
| From: | Halpin P SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20196H031 | List: |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0654, RTR-NUREG-654 OL-3, NUDOCS 8803100080 | |
| Download: ML20196H111 (55) | |
Text
{I N
s e, February 9. 1988 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensino Board
)
In the Matter of )
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
) (Emergency Planning)
)
Unit 1) -
)
)
APPIDAVIT OF PATRICK G. HALPIN Patrick G. Halpin, being duly sworn, does state as follows:
I. Introduction
- 1. I am the County Executive of Suffolk County, New York.
I have held this position since January 1, 1988, having been duly elected to this position in November 1987. As County Executive, I am authorized to direct the County's response to emergencies.
- 2. I am familiar with "LILCO's Motior:s for Summary Dispo-sition of Contentions 1-2 and 4-10," dated December 18, 1987.
This Affidavit addresses matters alleged by LILCO in the Motions.
88031000B0 800229 PDR NUREG PDR 0654 C
]
e
t
- 3. LILCO alleges in the Motions that in the event of a f radiological emergency at Shoreham, the Suffolk County government would respond by working in close coordination with LILCO person-nel and that Suffolk County officials, in carrying out such a response, would rely upon and follow LILCO's offsite emergency response plan for Shoreham. LILCO asserts that such a coordin-ated response effort between LILCO and Suffolk County personnel must be presumed to occur on the basis of the NRC's recently amended emergency planning rule, set forth at 52 Fed. Reg.
42078-87 (Nov. 3, 1987). Attachments 1 and 2 to this Affidavit p/
are summaries'and quotations of LILCO's various assertions about f
the ways in which LILCO claims Suffolk County and New York State "
I would act in the event of an emergency at Shoreham. ~
t r
- 4. LILCO's assertions regarding how Suffolk County would l t
respond to a radiological emergency at Shoreham are false.
Suffolk County believes that Shoreham should not be permitted, and indeed will not be permitted, to operate above 5 percent power. If, for present purposes of discussion, however, one assumes that Shoreham were permitted to operate, and if there were then a radiological accident at Shoreham, Suffolk County would not use LILCO's plan or coordinate with LILCO personnel in any response to that emergency. To use or otherwise follow LILCO's plan in any way or to rely upon LILCO personnel would be to violate the County's established emergency planning policies, to breach the trust of our citizens, and to endanger the safety
- 3. [
4 I
of the public through reliance on a LILCO plan and LILCO emer- '
.gency workers that are incapable of protecting the public safety, i i
II. County Poliev
- 5. Suffolk County's policy that it will not use LILCO's ,
plan or rely upon LILCO personnel in a Shoreham emergency does -
not represent a new County policy. Rather, the policy is long standing, enunciated first in Resolution No. 111-1983, then followed by Peter F. Cohalan, the County Executive during most of I the period covering the Shoreham emergency planning controversy, and subsequently followed by my predecessor in office, Michael A. <
s LoGrande.LIA copy of Resolution No. 111-1983 is Attachment 3 l
hereto; a copy of Mr. Cohalan's statement is Attachment 4 hereto; g
- and a copy of Mr. LoGrande's affidavit adopting Mr. Cohalan's statement is Attachment 5 hereto.
- 6. I hereby affirm my agreement with, and I hereby adopt as part of this affidavit, Attachments 3-5 hereto.
I will not burden this affidavit by repeating the statements and rationale contained in those Attachments. I stress, however, that they set forth in detail the bases for the County's decision not to adopt
- or implement an emergency plan for Shoreham, the reasons that the County would never use LILCO's Plan, and why the County would i
t h
e
e i
never in any way rely upon or coordinate with LILCO personnel in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham.1/
III. Additional Comments Related to LILCO's Motions [
- 7. I am informed that LILCO asserts repeatedly that the County would give LILCO approval or permission to take various actions in the event of a Shoreham accident.3/ LILCO's asser- !
tions are false. As County Executive, I would never grant LILCO <
any such permission or approval. First, in my view, giving LILCO such permission or approval would constitute an improper transfer of the governmental authority and police powers of this County to LILCO. It would thus be inconsistent with my responsibilities as the County Executive and would put into LILCO's hands the public's safety that I was elected to protect. Second, LILCO 1/ LILCO suggests that because County police officers have responded to several security threats at Shoreham, the County would work cooperatively with LILCO if there were a radiological emergency at Shoreham. LILCO's suggestion is false and a '
distortion of logic, because the events and circumstances are totally different. The County has determined that it is possible to respond adequately to a Shoreham security incident and the <
County does so. The County has also determined that an adequate response to a radiological emergency is not possible. Therefore, the County has resolved not to adopt or implement an emergency plan, and it will not do so. The County is thus forthright in the context of both security and emergency planning. It is disingenuous for LILCO to torture facts and logic in order to create false impressions about the County's intentions.
1/ For example, LILCO states in its "Introduction: Memorandum of Law" (p. 3) that "LERO must get permission from the State or County to activate the warning sirens (for example) or to recommend to the public that they shelter or evacua:e." LILCO then states that "LERO workers would be permitted to perform specific functions under the direction of these governmental authorities." 1d. at 4.
i 4 -
4 cannot be trusted to perform its duties capably, let alone perform emergency functions upon which the welfare and safety of 1.3 million citizens of Suffolk County would depend. We on Long Island have learned not to rely on LILCO to take action capably:
LILCO's feeble and woeful response to hurricane Gloria and its gross mismanagement of Shoreham's construction are but two drama-tic examples.1/ Finally, we have seen the debacle of LILCO's performance in its February 1986 "exercise." Even though LILCO had originated the scenario for the exercise, even though the "exercise" has been found to be too limited in scope, even though LILCO had received advance notice of the date of the nuclear "accident," and even though LILCO had conducted countless drills to get ready for the exercise and the specific date it was scheduled for, LILCO's LERO personnel still performed incompe-tently. The Licensing Board's recent decision in LBP-88-2 under-scores what we have known for years: LILCO's LERO personnel are 1/ I am informed that LILCO in several affidavits has asserted that its personnel's capabilities have been established through actions such as responding to gas line breaks and directing traffic in a few minor circumstances, and because some individual LILCO employees have received awards. I do not belittle these efforts -- they are commendable, out we must keep in mind how limited these actions were; they are irrelevant to the scope and types of action that would be required in a radiological emergency. When LILCO has been required to act in response to a major event such as Hurricane Gloria, or to the simulation of the 1986 Exercise whose scenario LILCO created for itself, its performance has been inadequate. And, no matter how many gas line breaks LILCO might postulate, the severity and massive impact of a nuclear accident at Shoreham would create burdens on LILCO's workers that even the best gas-line repairman could probably not even imagine. Indeed, it is ridiculous for LILCO to compare a localized gas line break to the evacuation of hundreds of thousands of people under circumstances of a nuclear plant disaster. The fact that LILCO does this, again shows that LILCO does not take emergency planning seriously.
5-
, i
. t "amateurs" (LBP-88-2, at 6), not competent emergency workers; and l LILCO's Plan is fundamentally flawed, including deficiencies in .
communications, training, mobilization of workers, public infor- .
mation, media relations, and handling emergency broadcast system matters.1/ LBP-88-2 provides further corroboration of my judg-ment and Suffolk County's determination that the County could not l and would not rely upon LILCO's plan or personnel. LILCO's plan is seriously flawed and unable to protect public safety, and LILCO's personnel are incompetent and inadequately trained to t
take effective emergency response actions. Therefore, in a '
radiological emergency situation at Shoreham, whatever response Suffolk County made, it would be without following LILCO's emer- '
gency plan or coordinating with LILCO or LERO. I emphasize that in such a situation, it would not even be realistic to consider ,
working with LILCO. The citizens of Suffolk County would undoubtedly view LILCO as the culprit that recklessly forced Shoreham into operation over the public's overwhelming opposi-tion. The accident would again prove LILCO's judgment to be worthless, and it would prove the public's to have been right. ;
LILCO would be seen as having betrayed its promise that an acci-dent was virtually certain not to happen. No Suffolk County official could then turn to LILCO for aid and advice on how to '
respond to the catastrophe which LILCO itself created. There 1/ LILCO asserts in its Memorandum of Law (p. 8) that its LERO personnel are "trained" to respond to a radiological emergency at Shoreham. Suffolk County's witnesses at the Exercise hearing, including expert police officers, conclusively demonstrated ;
LILCO's assertion to be false, and LBP-88-2 underscores this fact.
I t
L
would be public outrage toward LILCO and disbelief of anything LILCO was part of, including recommendations for protective actions, public information, and other emergency response actions.
- 8. LILCO urges that the County would be irresponsible if it were to act on its own. LILCO claims that the County would have to use LILCO's sirens and LILCO's radio messages and other resources because LILCO's methods are in LILCO's judgment the best way of protecting the public. LILCO is entitled to its ,
views of what.is "best" for itself, but LILCO does not speak for '
the County and has no basis or competence to claim what is "best" for the County or what our "best efforts" would be. The County speaks for itself through its Legislature and its County Execu-tive. On Shoreham matters, we speak in one voice: Suffolk County would not use LILCO's Plan or resources because we believe LILCO's Plan is inadequate and unworkable. We thus have !
concluded that our "best efforts" would be exercised as described above -- acting on our own, without regard to LILCO's Plan or personnel. i
- 9. I want to ensure that there is no misunderstanding of Suffolk County's policy: Suffolk County will not under any circumstances rely on LILCO's emergency plan or on LILCO's LERO personnel. I have directed my staff to gather all copies of LILCO's Plan in the County's possession, except for only three
-7_
I copies which will be maintained to assist our litigation efforts.
The Suffolk County Police Department ("SCPD") personnel who have served and/or may serve as witnesses will have one copy to share !
only for purposes of assisting with matters in litigation.
Mr. Boyle, the County Attorney, will have one copy for purposes of assisting with matters in litigation. And Mr. Kurtter, my Deputy County Executive who oversees Shoreham matters, will have 1
one copy for purposes of assisting with matters in litigation.
All other copies of the Plan have been or are being sent to the i County's outside litigation counsel, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, for their use in litigation. It must be stressed, therefore, that County personnel know essentially nothing about LILCO's Plan, i except for those few persons who have provided litigation support. And, these persons' knowledge of LILCO's Plan is thus ;
limited to having identified, analyzed, and/or testified about inadequacies in the Plan and specific ways in which the Plan is deficient. These persons have not studied LILCO's Plan for any i
purpose of preparing or learning how to administer or implement I the Plan. There has been and will be no planning or training whatsoever for County personnel to take any actions pursuant to LILCO's Plan or any other plan or to work with LILCO personnel. '
- 10. It is my intent that the foregoing paragraphs put to !
rest conclusively LILCO's baseless statements that Suffolk County l would ever rely on LILCO's Plan or personnel in an emergency. ,
I r
i
Yet, there are a number of additional matters contained in LILCO's Motions that I wish to address below,
- 11. I am informed that LILCO asserts that in the event of an emergency, I or my representative would go to LILCO's Emergency Operations Center. It also is asserted that LILCO personnel would be permitted to come to the SCPD police head-quarters in Yaphank to assist in briefing and dispatching County police. Indeed, LILCO would have the Licensing Board believe that the Suffolk County police would work with LILCO's Traffic Guides to implement the traffic and EPZ perimeter access control measures set forth in LILCO's Plan. LILCO also contends that its personnel would be given permission to remove obstructions such as accidents and stalled or broken down vehicles from the road-ways and to provide fuel to motorists. LILCO's statements are false, and I reject them as pure fantasy. I would not go, nor would any County representative go, to LILCO's facility; and no LERO personnel would be permitted into the SCPD headquarters.
Moreover, under no circumstances would the Suffolk County police work in partnership with LERO personnel to direct traffic or control access to evacuated areas of the EPZ. It is equally baseless for LILCO to suggest that the police would implement the traffic control portions of the LILCO Plan. They would not do so. Nor would 7 or any other County official give LILCO permis-sion to remove roadway obstructions or to provide fuel to motorists during a Shoreham emergency. I repeat that LILCO's actions over the years make LILCO a company whose judgment and competence Suffolk County and the public cannot trust or rely on.
! I would be derelict in my responsibilities if I were to work with LILCO in a radiological emergency situation when the public's lives and safety were in danger and when the public had to have confidence in their leaders and their leaders' judgment. Indeed, if in an emergency I were to turn to the discredited LILCO for help or advice, I would have no credibilit/ with the public because neither I nor the public have any trust in LILCO. If I turned to LILCO, I would lose my effectiveness as a public official. .
- 12. I am informed that LILCO claims that Suffolk County personnel would use LILCO's Plan and rely upon LERO personnel because New York State law, particularly Article 2-B of the New York Executive Law, and the Suffolk County Charter, call for the use of private resources in an emergency. LILCO's statement is false and seriously misleading. While New York law permits reliance in appropriate circumstances on a volunteer organization to carry out certain tasks, the clear premise of New York law is that a County Executive, before relying upon any volunteer organ-1:ation, must consider the volunteer organization to be competent and helpful in performing needed emergency services. In the present instance, neither LILCO's judgment nor its competence is worthy of Suffolk County's trust. LILCO has demonstrated itself and its LERO organization to be grossly inadequate in its
^t structure, organization, composition, training, performance, and even purpose. Indeed, LERO has shown itself simply to be a cosmetic organization that LILCO has sought to use for the RL2 forma purpose of securing an NRC license, not an organization actually constituted to be able to provide effective emergency services in a nuclear accident where human lives and safety are en the line.1/
- 13. I am informed that LILCO asserts that Suffolk County in the past has merely offered "generalized denials" in stating that it would not rely upon LILCO or LILCO's Plan. LILCO's statement is false. Attachments 3-5 hereto do not constitute "generalized denials," but rather constitute detailed explanations of why Suffolk County, in the rational exercise of its police powers, has decided not to adopt or implement an emergency plan for Shoreham and why no County Executive could or would make use of LILCO's Plan or rely in any way on LILCO personnel in an emer-gency. These are pointed statements of principlo and practical explanations detailed with chapter and verse specificity. The fact that LILCO persists in mischaracterizing these categorically clear statements and seeking to pass them off as inconsequential is, to Suffolk County, just another example of the cavalier E/ For example, the County Charter permits the County to use "trained" radiological personnel. LILCO cites this provision at pages 5-6 of its Memorandum of Law. But LILCO omits a critical fact: LILCO's personnel are not trained and competent emergency workers on whom the County could rely. The County's witnesses at the Exercise hearing conclusively demonstrated this, and LBP-88-2 underscores it.
conduct, the lack of good faith, and the misdeeds LILCO has consistently manifested toward Suffolk County. In short, LILCO's claim is simply a distortion of the truth.
- 14. I am informed that LILCO asserts that the principal reason that Suffolk County would not use LILCO's Plan is Suffolk County's alleged dissgreement with LILCO's choice of a 10-mile plume exposure emergen.:y planning zone. LILCO's statement is false. The principal reason that Suffolk County would not use LILCO's Plan is that the Plan would not protect the public's safety, but would instead imperil public safety. Indeed, following an eight month, $600,000 study and analysis by a team of nationally recognized experts, Suffolk County determined that an adequate emergency response, whether it be in the context of a 2, 10, or 20-mile EPZ, would not be possible to achieve.5/ The County's determination was the basis of its resolution not to adopt or implement an emergency plan for Shoreham that was upheld 1/ LILCO refers several times to the so-called Voorhees plan, i.e.,
the draft County plan which was developed in 1982 and rejected by Suffolk County in Resolution 111-1983. LILCO's references to that plan are irrelevant because the plan was rejected and is thus a nullity.
The plan was a draft document prepared in 1982 by County consultants; when the draft was presented to the Legislature, and reviewed following extensive hearings, it was rejected on the merita. The draft was not distributed to County officials or departments for use under any circumstance. The County has devoted no resources to the implementation of the rejected plan or to any other plan. To my knowledge, no copies of that draft plan are even available to County response personnel. LILCO's references to Mr. Cohalan's statement that the Voorhees p1An vas the "best possible" plan are likewise irrelevant.
The consultants were told to prepare the best possible plant but that plan was not adequate and was rejected. LILCO's assertions that the rejected draft plan refiscts how Suffolk County would act in a Shoreham e ergency are bas'eless, false, and a distortion. LILCO has no right to arrogate to itself the power to speak for the County and attribute to the County the false statements that LILCO fabricates.
by the federal courts and the courts of New York as being lawful and rationally based. LILCO's claim, again, is simply a j
distortion. <
- 15. I am informed that LILCO assertr. at various places in its Motions that the NRC's new rule and the so-called "best efforts" principle require the Licensing Board to presume that in !
the event of a serious radiological emergency, Suffolk County would take actions which are contrary to Suffolk County law !
(Legislative Resolution 111-1983) and the sworn statements of two ,
past Suffolk County Executives and myself. LILCO's assertions are '
false. The NRC's new rule permits no such presumption. Indeed, the new rule recognizes that local governments and State govern- I ments have the authority and responsibility to exercise their police powers in the manner which they deem serves the health, welfare, and safety of their citizens. Attachments 3-5 hereto, as well as the discussion in the body of this Affidavit, explain thoroughly why Suffolk County has determined that its police power responsibilities require it not to adopt or implement an emergency plan for Shoreham and not to rely on LILCO's Plan or !
LILCO's personnel. Suffolk County has thus acted conclusively I
within the sphere of governmental respensibilities that is exclusively the County's. Neither LILCO nor the NRC is in a l position to second guess how Suffolk County exercises its police I powers, and any such suggestions of LILCO or the NRC would be both misguided and false. It is only this County government-- ;
I I
i e
1 i
, l i ,
l . ;
established by law and elected by the people it is constituted to serve--that can speak authoritatively of what the County would itself do in an emergency. The fact is that Suffolk County i r
speaks through its elected officials: the County Legislature and !
the County Executive. The Legislature through duly enacted Resciutions, and the Executive through repeated statements and l representations, including affidavits such as the instant aff1-davit, have spoken. categorically and directly: Suffolk Co6nty would never follow or otherwise use LILCO's Plan or rely on, coordinate with, or otherwise work with LILCO's personnel in the {
l event of a radiological emergency at the Shoreham plant. Any j i
! statement of LILCO or anyone elser to the contrary is but mere fantasy. i i
i 3
9 (V 'a ' !
' Pat (ick G. Halp n !
t 4
Sworn to and subscribed before me this 9 ' day of February 1988. '
, I Unn,w ,, (Notary PublidD j
NufAM Wif 4. '.'.an u Nes han
- ii 54 40j $'3c 'wif#. f.auv3 !
My Commission expires: M'M*13b d - !
i l
i i
I
Attachment 1 Summarv of LILCO "Best Efforts" Assertions CONTENTION LILCO VERSION OF A BEST-EFFORTS GOVERNMENT RESPONSE ,__
S&6 Activation of Pursuant to the'LILCO version sirens, direct of a best efforts response, the broadcast Governments wouldt messaging making protective action decisions .
- 1) "tell LERO to sound the sirens" (Motion at 2);
- 2) grant LERO permission to implement "certain elements of the emergency response" (Motion at 13), including notification, evacuation and/or early dismissal of schools (Motion at 14);
- 3) rely on the advice of the plant staff (Motion at 15);
- 4) use the Emergency Broadcast System messages written by LILCO (Motion at 16);
3
- 5) "direct the emergency response out of the LERO EOC" (Motion at 20).
l I
CONTENTION LILCO VERSION OF A BEST EFFORTS !
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE 162 Direct traffic, block roadways, erect Pursuant to the LILCO version !
of a best efforts response, ;
barriers on roadways, the Governments would: :
channel traffic durin a shoreham emergency.g
- 1) "implement in the field the traffic control elements of the LILCO Plan" (Motion at 2)
- 2) be able to supply the communication system and ,
police necessary to implement the traffic control elements f of the LILCO Plan (Motion at i 3);
- 3) notify, mobilize and dispatch the police to the traffic control poit:ts (Motion at 4);
t
- 4) have Suffolk County police l assembled and briefed at Yaphank in two hours time (Motion at 5);
- 5) instruct Suffolk County police (
to direct traffic pursuant to ;
the advice of LERO traffic !
guides and the guidance of the f LILCO Plan rather than implement an ad hoc response !
of their own (Motion at 8); !
- 6) grant permission for the LERO t traffic guides to direct traffic in the event an l adequate number of Suffolk L County police fail to report I (Motion at 10). i i
I I
t i
\
CONTENTION LILCO VERSION Or A BEST EFFORTS GOVERNMENT RESPONSE k
10 Provide access control Pursuant to the LILCO version at the perimeter of of a best efforts response, the the E&Z Governments would (1) "Suffolk County Police could and would provide long-term access control" (Motion at 4);
(2) the best efforts response of the Suffolk County police would "be adequate to protect the public health and safety" (Motion at 7);
(3) the Suffolk County police "would maintain EPZ perimeter control" and keep the public out of evacuated areas (Motion at 8).
4&9 Removing road Pursuant to the LILCO version cbstructions and of a best efforts response, providing gasoline the Governments would:
(1) in a fast-breaking accident, give LERO permission via a I telephone conversation to
} remove obstructions from the road and dispense gasoline to evacuees (Motion at 1);
(2) in a slower developing accident, give permission to LERO at the LERO EOC to remove obstructions and dispense gasoline to evacuees (Motion at 1);
l l
1
CONTENTION LILCO VERSION OF A BEST EFFORTS GOVERNMENT RESPONSE (3) grant permission to LERO quickly (Motion at 2);
(4) "certainly" allow LERO to clear road obstructions and dispense gasoline (Motion at 6).
7&8 Make and implement ingestion pathway, Pursuant to the LILCO version of a best efforts response, the recovery and reentry Governments would:
decisions (1) the State of New York would:
(a) implement its generic recovery and reentry and ingestion pathway procedures, using the LILCO Plan to compensate for the lack of a county plan (Motion at 2);
(b) "convene the State Recovery Committee" (Motion at 6);
(c) "function in the lead ,
position for long-term radiological monitoring and medical follow-up for the general public." The County "would assist the State, using the LILCO Plan" (Motion at 13);
(d) "recommend protective actions and direct ingestion pathway activities for Nassau and Suffolk counties" (Motion at 19);
(e) use the LILCO Plan to i
maintain an inventory of dairy farms, food
! processing plants and State farms (Motion at 21);
i l ___
CONTENTION LILCO VERSION OF A BEST EFFORTS GOVERNMENT RESPONSE (2) Suffolk County would:
(a) usa the LILCO Plan and LERO resources (Motion at 2, 6);
I (b) collect data on the needs of an affected area and submit that data to the State (Motion at 12);
(c) "follow its normal procedures for all other emergencies" (Motion at 12);
(d) provide security and fire protection (Motion at 14);
(e) determine the availa-bility of transportation (Motion at 14);
(f) gather data and submit requests for federal aid (Motion at 14);
(g) would implement all of LERO's recovery and reentry procedures (Motion at 14);
(h) use LERO data and LERO decontamination and transportation resources and procedures (Motion at 16);
CONTENTION LILCO VERSION OF A BEST EFFORTS GOVERNMENT RESPONSE (i) "use LILCO's ingestion pathway procedures and resources" (Motion at 19);
(j) use LILCO's procedures for. writing EBS messages (Motion at 24);
(k) use LILCO's procedures for ingestion pathway (Motion at 25);
(1) be responsible for implementing all LERO/ County activities and for coordinating with the State (Motion at 25);
(3) the State and County would use the LILCO Emergency News Center (Motion at 24);
(4) the State response to an ingestion pathway incident would be adequate (Motion at 26).-
i 6
Attachment 2 Examples of LILCO "Best Efforts" Statements I.
Introduction:
Memorandum of Law on LILCO's Motions for Summary Disposition of Contentions 1-2 and 4-10 "Later on in the emergency contact (between LERO and Suffolk County) would be face-to-face, because Suffolk County, using its 'best efforts,' would send a representative to the LERO Emergency Operations Center (EOC)."
Memorandum at 4.
"In a real emergency, LERO workers would be permitted to perform specific functions under the direction of these (State and County) governmental authorities."
Memorandum at 4.
"(T]he State and County would order (or ask -- it makes no difference) LILCO to sound the sirens; the authorities would not refuse to do the best thing simply because it was part of the LILCO Plan . . . . [I)f plant conditions dictated that people should evacuate, the County would not refuse to evacuate them just because the LILCO Plan called for evacu-ation."
Memorandum at 12.
l
"The plain truth is that the authorities would do either '
what the LILCO plan calls for or something better."
~
Memorandum at 12.
II.
LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 5 and 6 (Makino Decisions and Tellino the Public)
"It is indisputable that the County would agree to sound the warning sirens if the public needed to be alerted, because the sirens are the best way to do it."
Motion at 2.
"(I)n the event that the County were faced with a phone call from LERO reporting that there was an emergency at the plant, that a Site Area or General Emergency had been declared, and that the public should be alerted, it is clear that the County would tell LERO to sound the sirens because the public deserve to be notified and because there is no reason noi to alert them."
Motion at 2.
LILCO has revised this Summary Sheet, in light of the amendment to the emergency planning regulations, to provide the LERO Director with more specific instructions about how to . . obtain perr.lssion to begin implementing certain elements of the emergency response."
Motion at 13. '
's "After getting permission to initiate the EBS message and sound the sirens, the LERO Director would suggest that the Suffolk County Executive go to the LERO EOC, would end the call, and would immediately implement OPIP 3.3.4, Prompt Notification System Activation."
Motion at 14-15.
"(T]he 'best efforts' principle dictates that the County Executive would have to rely on the best available informa-tion, and that is the advice of the plant staff, parti-cularly when no other information is available."
Motion at 15.
"(T}he Suffolk County Executive would be no worse off than officials near other nuclear plants; any county executive faced with a ' fast-breaking' accident would be forced to rely, at least in the initial stages of the response, on the advice and recommendations of the utility's onsite experts."
Motion at 16.
-3
.m . _ _ , , ,. - _ __
4 "The question may remain whether the County Executive would allow the use of the EBS messages in the LILCO plan or spend time rewriting them. Obviously he would have the option of changing the messages if he wished. But the 'best efforts' orinciole recuires that he use the ore-acoroved messaces if immediate action is needed."
Motion at 16.
"It must be assumed that the County Executive or his designee would direct the emergency response out of the LERO EOC, simply because that is where the information he needs is to be found."
Motion at 20.
"The 'best efforts' principle dictates that the County would operate out of the LERO EOC."
Motion at 20.
"Since LERO personnel and the County officials at the LERO EOC would be able to work in coordination, the emergency response would be implemented with a minimum of delay or confusion. The Suffolk County Executive, or his repre-sentative, would be in charge and would have the responsi-bility for ordering the implementation of emergency response actions."
Motion at 23.
o III. LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 1 and 2 (Directina Traf fic "LILCO's position that the Board should summarily dispose of Contentions 1 and 2 is based on one disputable fact: the i
'best efforts' of the Suffolk County police (working in cooperation with LERO) would be to implement in the field the traffic control elements of the LILCO Plan in the event of a Shoreham emergency."
Motion at 2.
"(T]here can be no question that the Suffolk County police could provide the personnel and communications system necessary to direct traffic during a Shoreham evacuation
. . . . [T]here is also no question that the police, with assistance from LERO, would be able to implement the traffic control portion of the LILCO Plan without appreciable delay or confusion."
Motion at 3.
s
~
"When the 'best efforts' principle is applied to the existing record, a clear picture emerges how the police would respond during a Shoreham evacuation. Specifically, it is evident that the police could be notified and mobilized quickly, that they would know where to go once they were dispatched, and that they would understand what they needed to do once they arrived at the TCPs."
Motion at 4.
"The Board has found that LERO's Traffic Guides could report to their Staging Areas and be readled for dispatch within approximately two hours. The Suffolk County police would almost certainly be able to assemble and be briefed at Yaphank within the same time."
Motion at 5.
"The Traffic Guides would monitor the officers' radiological exposure and inform them if Protective Action Guidelines (PAGs) for permissible exposure were exceeded. Other than this, the police would probably not need any assistance in performing their duties."
Motion at 8.
"With a police 'best effort,' . . . traffic control would be performed in almost exactly the same way it would under the
LERO-only response which the Board has already examined and approved.
The only. difference is that Suffolk County police, rather than LERO Traffic Guides, would actually be directing traffic."
Motion'at 8.
"The 'best efforts' principle forecloses the argument that the police would drastically deviate from the LILCO plan, or simply ignore the advice of trained traffic guides, in favor of some spur-of-the-moment, ad hqq response of their own.
Common sense refutes the argument that the police, trying their best, would somehow spoil the emergency response out of ignorance or incompetence."
Motion at 8.
"If in such circumstances some LERO Traffic Guides were mobilized and dispatched before enough police could be mobilized and briefed, these Traffic Guides could be given permission to' direct traffic by themselves."
Motion at 10.
IV. LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of l
Contention 10 (Access Control at the EPZ Perimeter "LILCO submits that, given the 'best effor.ts' principle, there is no question that the Suffolk County police could and would provide long-term access control if necessary."
Motion at 4.
e
"[T]he 'best efforts' principle of 10 CFR S 50.47(c)(1) compels the conclusion that the police.would provide long-term control if necessary."
Motion at 5.
i
"(T]he police's 'best efforts' would certainly be adequate to protect the public health and safety."
x Motion at 7.
"(S)ince under the 'best efforts' principle the police would j maintain EPZ perimeter control, the public would be effectively kept out of those evacuated areas."
Motion at 8. l V. LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentions 4 and 9 (Tow Trucks and Fuel Trucks) l "In a real emergency LERO would get permission from Suffolk County (or, as a back-up, from New York State) before removing any obstructions from the roads or giving any gasoline to evacuees. In a fast-breaking accident LERO would get permission from the County Executive by telephone, as detailed in the accompanying LILCO's Motion for Summary Disposition of Contentionc 5 and 6 (Making Decisions.and Telling the Public). In a more likely slower-developing accident, permission would be obtained face-to-face from a County representative at the LERO EOC."
Motion at 1.
c:. -
b
"[P]ermission to do their jobs would be obtained and transmitted to the (LERO) road crews very quickly."
Motion at 2.
"(T] hey (the LERO road crews) would not do their emergency jobs until told to by the EOC, which would first have received permission from Suffolk County."
Motion at 5.
"(I]n an emergency the LERO Director of Local Response would ordinarily receive permission to perform needed functions from the County Executive."
Motion at 5.
"(W) hen the LERO Director, at the EOC, got permission from the County (or State) to remove obstructions and give gas to motorists, he would relay the information to the Road Logistics Coordinator, also in the EOC."
Motion at 5.
"When informed that an obstruction needed to be cleared, the Suffolk County Executive, using his 'best efforts' to protect people, would certainly allow LERO to clear it. If there were an evacuation, he would certainly allow LERO to provide gas rather than let evacuees' cars run dry."
Motion at 6.
l ,-
"In an emergency requiring the evacuation of the public from around the Shoreham plant if an obstruction occurred on the roads that would hinder evacuating motorists, Suffolk County would permit LERO personnel to remove the obstruction unless there'were a better way to remove it."
Motion, Attachment 1.
"In an emergency requiring the evacuation of the public from around Shoreham, Suffolk County would permit LERO to give fuel to members of the public who needed it to evacuate.
Motion, Attachment 1.
VI.
LILCO's and Motion for 8 (Incestion Summary Disposition of Contentions 7 Pathway and Recovery and Reentrvi
"(T]he State can apply its recovery and reentry and inges-tion pathway procedures in the generic plan section of the State Plan to a Shoreham emergency."
Motion at 2.
"[D}uring a Shoreham emergency, the State of New York would implement its generic recovery and reentry and ingestion pathway procedures since they are not site-specific and would use the LILCO Plan as needed to compensate for the fact that no county plan for Shoreham has been appended to the generic section of the State Plan. Suffolk County, on the other hand, would fulfill its clearly defined t
O responsibilities in the State Plan by using the LILCO Plan and LERO resources."
Motion at 2.
"During a Shoreham emergency, using its 'best efforts,' the State would direct recovery and reentry activities, using its'own procedures, and Suffolk County would use the LILCO Plan and LERO's resources to meet its responsibilities."
Motion at 5.
"Ir there were an emergency at Shoreham, a 'best efforts response would require that the State convene the State Recovery Committee. The Committee would be comprised of the same State personnel and its members would be charged with the same responsibilities enumerated in the State's recovery procedures."
Motion at 5.
"At this point in the emergency, Suffolk County will have been working side-by-side with LERO, using the LILCO Plan, l
since the onset of the emergency. Since Suffolk County has no recovery plans for a Shoreham emergency, it would ;
continue to use the LILCO Plan to coordinate its participation in the recovery phase until recovery and reentry is accomplished."
Motion at 6.
i
O O
"The Suffolk County Executive and the Director of Local Response would continue working together during the recovery and reentry phase. The County Executive would retain full responsibility for local decisionmaking and would direct the County's response to the emergency. Meanwhile, the Director of Local Response would serve as an advisory to the County Executive. The County Commissioner of Fire, Rescue and Emergency Services or his designee would work with the i i
Manager of Local Response and would chair the Recovery Action Committee. Similarly, the County Commissioner of the Department of Health Services or his designee would work with the Health Services Coordinator; the County l Commissioner of Police or his designee would work with the I Evacuation Coordinator; and the County Public Information l Officer or his designee would work with the Coordinator of !
Public Information."
Motion at 8.
"The 'best efforts principle requires that the State would commence recovery operations for Shoreham based on these four major considerations. Since the State applies the Plan generically to all other nuclear power plants in New York, it can apply it to Shoreham without modification. Thus, precisely how the State would respond to a Shoreham emergency is clear, as the following sections show."
Motion at 9.
"Since the State will be implementing its recovery and reentry procedures, this division of responsibilities will also occur during a Shoreham emergency. The State would follow its procedures and Suffolk County would fulfill its role in the State Plan by using LILCO's recovery procedures and resources."
Motion at 10.
"The same decisionmaking process and coordination between the State and County would occur during a Shoreham emer-gency.
The LERO Coordinator of Public Information would work with the County Public Information Officer to dis-seminate information on the local level."
Motion at 11.
"The County Executive would be responsible for collecting data on the needs of the affected areas and submitting that data to the State."
Motion at 12.
"Suffolk County's involvement in this area does not require special planning for a radiological emergency. Rather, the County would follow its normal procedures for all other emergencies."
Motion at 12.
"During the recovery / reentry phase of a Shoreham emergency, the State would function in the lead position for long-term radiological monitoring and medical follow-up for the general public. The State would implement the same radiological monitoring activities and decisions for a Shoreham emergency that it would for any cther power plant in New York State. Suffolk County would assist the State, using the LILCO Plan, in any manner that the State deemed appropriate."
Motion at 13.
"Consequently, the only functions that a county performs independently of the State are (1) providing security and fire protection, (2) determining the availability of transportation, and (3) gathering data and submitting them for federal aid. None of these functioca require special radiological expertise. Rather, they are the types of activities that counties normally perform during any emergency. The only function that may require special assistance during a Shoreham emergency would be assessing the transportation needs of the public."
Motion at 14.
"Even though the LILCO Plan duplicates many of the State's activities, Suffolk County would still implement all of LERO's recovery and reentry procedures during a Shoreham emergency."
Motion at 14.
"(B]ased on the 'best efforts' principle, the State would implement its procedures completely."
Motion at 14.
Suffolk County, using 'best efforts,' would implement the LILCO Plan to fulfill its responsibilities in the State Plan."
Motion at 14-15.
"The State will perform its functions and use their data in making protective action recommendations to the County. The County will take LERO's data under advisement in its discussions with the State about what protective measures to take."
Motion at 15-16.
.s "Since Suffolk County has no decontamination procedures in place, the County would use LERO's resources. The State, however, retains the responsibility for deciding when to begin these activities; LERO would not initiate environ-mental decontamination without direction from the County and/or the State."
Motion at 16.
"Since LERO has arrangements for transportation in place, Suffolk County would use LERO's resources."
Motion at 16.
"The County Executive would make decisions about where to set up traffic control points on the advice of the LERO ,
Evacuation Coordinator and the County Commissioner of Police. The Suffolk County Executive would decide whether LERO traffic guides should be used during the reentry process."
Motion at 16-17.
"Any communications activities implemented by LERO would be at the direction of Suffolk County."
Motion at 17.
e "LERO would not perform any security functions on public grounds other than helping with traffic control at the County Executive's request.
Motion at 17.
"The Manager of Local Response and the County Commissioner of Fire, Rescue and Emergency Services will jointly chair the Recovery Action Committee and, as such, would be responsible for the implementation of these tasks. They would brief the County Executive and the Director of Local Response on the status of reentry operations. The County Executive would take this information under advisement and would confer with the State on what protection action should be implemented."
Motion at 17.
"The best efforts principle requires that the State implement its radiological ingestion exposure procedure during a Shoreham emergency and use the LILCO Plan wherever site-specific procedures and information are needed. As such, the State would recommend protective actions and direct ingestion pathway activities for Nassau and Suffolk Counties, the only two counties in the Shoreham 50-mile ingestion pathway."
Motion at 19.
.~
"Obviously the State is prepared to mobilize its district offices on Long Island for an ingestion pathway response.
Therefore, they could do the same for Shoreham."
Motion at 19.
"(T]he 'best efforts' principle dictates that Suffolk County use LILCO's ingestion pathway procedures and resources in response to such an emergency."
Motion at 19.
"(S] tate agencies provide the necessary resources to protect the public health, property, and the environment."
Motion at 20.
"Departments of Health, Agriculture and Markets, Environmental Conservation, State Police, and Transportation, the State Emergency Management Office (SEMO), and the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Group (REPG) will participate in assessing the impact of the radiological emergency on the ingestion pathway and will work with local governments in their response."
Motion at 20-21.
"[T]he State would rely on the LILCO Plan which maintains complete lists of dairy farms, food processors, duck farms, l
l l
1
. l beef farms, fruit farms, vegetable and potato farms, farm stands, milk dealers, and ice cream plants."
Motion at 21.
"(T]he 'best efforts' principle requires the State and County to follow the LILCO Plan which calls for using the ENC for this purpose."
Motion at 24.
"The Ccanty, however, would use LILCO's procedures for writing EBS messages."
Motion at 24.
"The "best efforts" principle requires Suffo?.k County to use the LILCO Plan in response to an emergency at Shoreham.
Since the State performs most ingestion pathway response activities, Suffolk County can easily fulfill its designated functions in the State Plan by using LILCO's procedures for ingestion pathway."
Motion at 25.
"Both LERO and the State can perform these functions without working at a cross purposes since the County Executive would be responsible for implementing all LERO/ County activities and for coordinating them with the State."
Motion at 25.
- . s i "There can be -no ~ question that the State's response to an
~
ingestion pathway incident would be adequate."
Motion.at 26.
h I
i i
.f I
4 .
[
I l-l B
I l
l 4
i t
l l
1 I
i I
i i
l t
20 -
e i
5 4
_ w n w wwwr e-,-.-e++=-+mem---w---+-,we - - - , -----w4-#-*+-w- +> - - * +=-*- * --e*--' +-e * - --'
() h8 J.
4%e3 STATEMENT OF SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE PETER P. COHALAN JUNE 23, 1986 I AM ISSUING THIS STATEMENT TO ENSURE THAT THERE ARE N MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF MY POSITION WITH RESPECT TO T NUCLEAR POWER STATION.
I AM PARTICULARLY MOTIVATED TO MAKE THIS STATEMENT BECAUSE LILCO HAS MISSTATED MY POSITION IN E PERSUADE FEDERAL AGENCIES TO LICENSE SHOREHAM. LET THE RECORD BE CLEAR:
I AM OPPOE2D 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 TH THAT THERE WO'1LD 18 PARTICIPATION OF THE SUFFOLK COUNTY GOVERNMENT.
HOWEVER, ON JUNE 10, 1985, THE NEW YORK STATE 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 TO CONDUCT A TEST OF LILCO'S EMERGENCY PLAN.
ON FEBRUARY 13, 1986, OVER THE OBJECTIONS OF THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE AND MYSELF, LILCO CONDUCTED A TEST OF ITS EMERGENCY PLAN.
I STATED THEN THAT THE EXERCISE AMOUNTED TO "THEATER OF
i e
, E. C.
l l
THE ABSURD."
THE TEST WAS UNREALISTIC AND WAS CLEARLY DESIG 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 IMPRUDENCE FINDING AND LILCO' S RESPONSE TO HURRICA I FEEL THAT THE ONLY SIGNIFICANT ASPECT OF THE FEBRUA CAME AFTERWARD, WHEN THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, FRANK PETRONE, ANNOUNCED THAT LILCO'S EMERGENCY PLAN DOES NOT PROVIDE REASONA THE PUBLIC WOULD BE PROTECTED IN THE EVENT OF A N AT SHOREHAM.
IN SHORT, MR. PETRONE, SAID SHOREHAM SHOULD NOT BE LICENSED TO OPERATE.
SINCE FEBRUARY 1983, IT HAS BEEN CLEAR TO SUFFOLK COUNTY THAT THE OPERATION OF SHOREHAM WOULD CREATE A POTE FOR THE PUBLIC.
AFTER EXTENSIVE AND COSTLY STUDIES, ANALYSES, AND SURVEYS, PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND A TRIP TO THE THREE MILE ISLAND VICINITY, THIS GOVERNMENT CONCLUDED THAT THE PUBLIC COULD NOT '
SAFELY EVACUATED OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED IF THERE WERE A SERIOUS, ,
ACCIDENT AT SHOREHAM. THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT, HAVING BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PUBLIC'S WELFARE, THEREFORE, HAD ONLY Tdo CHOICES :
TELL THE PUBLIC THE TRUTH THAT THEY COULD NCrI' BE PROTECTED; OR DECEIVE THEM BY ADOPTING AN EMERGENCY PLAN THAT WOULD LULL THEM INTO BELIEVING THEY BEING PROTECTED WHEN IN FACT THEY WERE NOT.
r
.g.
,.~
t.,
SUFFOLK COUNTY CHOSE WHAT IT WAS OBLIGATED TOIN DO:
RESOLUTION 111-1983, IT TOLD ITS CITIZENS THE TRUTH. THUS, THE COUNTY RESOLVED NOT TO ADOPT OR IMPLEMENT AN EMERGENCY PLAN FO SHOREHAM. l THIS DECISION WAS UPHELD BY FEDERAL AND STATE COURTS. l IT WAS ALSO UPHELD BY GOVERNOR CUOMO AFTER EXTENSIVE ANALYSE 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 i
ASKED THAT AGENCY TO APPLY ITS REGULATIONS BY DENYING LILCO A '
LICENSE 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 WHIC LICENSE THE PLANT.
1 AT THE SAME TIME, LILCO LOBBIED TO ENLIST FEDERAL OFFICIALS TO SUPPORT LICENSING SHOREHAM. LILCO'S SUCCESSES PEAXED LAST l YEAR WHEN PRESIDENT REAGAN'S SECRETARY OF ENERGY ANNOUNCED TH SHOREHAM SHOULD BE LICENSED TO OPERATE OVER THE OBJECTIONS OF SUFFOLX COUNTY AND NEW YORX STATE. HE DID THIS IN THE FACE OF 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 OEkJECTIONS OF NEW YORK STATE AND SUFFOLX COUNTY.
3
,] .~
4 .D 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 POSSIB IF THERE WERE A SERIOUS NUCLEAR ACCIDENT AT SHOREHAM. THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF SUFFOLK COUNTY' S RESIDENTS AND ALMO 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 AL EVEN THOUGH THE NEW YORK STATE SUPREME COURT AND THE NRC'S 9
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 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 LONG ISLAND.
SP'CIFICALLY, LILCO IS PRESSING THE NRC TO LICENSE SHOREHAM CW 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 IMPLEMENTABLE EMERGENCY PLAN, BECAUSE g THE PLANT WERE LICENSED AND E THERE WERE AN ACCIDENT AT 4
SHOREHAM, THE STATE AND COUNTY WOULD IN REALITY ACT IN RESPONSE s
TO THE ACCIDENT AND THIS g HOC "RESPONSE" WOULD SOMEHOW PROTECT THE PEOPLE.
LILCO ARGUES THAT THIS SET OF HYPOTHETICALS WOULD COMPLY HITH THE NRC'S REGULATIONS AND PROVIDE A BASIS FOR THE LICENSING OF SHOREHAM. IT WOULD NOT. LILCO'S FICTION IS ILLEGAL '
AND ILLOOICAL; IT IS BORN OF CYNICISM AND INDIFFERENCE TO THE PUBLIC'S SAFETY. .
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 RESPONSE.
THE THREE MILE ISLAND ACCIDENT PROVED THIS ASSUMPTION TO BE WRONG. FOLLOWING THREE MILE ISLAND, CONGRESS PASSED LAWS i
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 PICTION PRESUMES THAT STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS NOT ONLY WOULD RESPOND TO AN ACCIDENT, BUT THAT THEI R RESPONSE WOULD WORX TC PROTECT THE PUBLIC. THUS, LILCO CLAIMS, i THE PUBLIC WOULD BE PROTECTED EVEN THOUGH THE GOVERNMENTS HAVE NO r
s
_ _ _. ,s____. - . _ _ _ - - _ . _ - _ _ - _ _ . . _ _ _ _
^
(..
PRE-PLANNINO, OR KNOWLEDGE OF INVENTORY OF AVAILABLE RESOURCES NO PERSONNEL READINESS, AND NO TRAINING.
SUCH A PRESUMPTION IS j UNFOUNDED; FARCICAL AT BEST.
THIRD, LILCO'S FICTION PORTRAYS SUFFOLX COUNTY ACTING IN CONCERT WITH LILCO IF THERE WERE AN ACCIDENT AT SHOREHAM.
HOWEVER, COUNTY LAW PROHIBITS COUNTY PERSONNEL FROM IMPLE LILCO'S EMERGENCY PLAN.
EVEN IF IT DID NOT, THE COUNTY COULD NOT RESPONSIBLY ACT IN CONCERT WITH LILCO AND ITS EMERGENC THE COUNTY'S STUDIES, ANALYSES, AND SURVEYS, TOGETHER WITH OUR DAY-TO-DAY EXPERIENCES ON LONG ISLAND WITH THE LIMITED R NETWORK AND THE CONFINED GEOGRAPHY, HAVE CONVINCED US THAT SAFE EVACUATION OF THE PUBLIC IS NOT POSSIBLE IN A SHOREHAM LILCO'S EMERGENCY PLAN IS A GUIDELINE FOR TRAFFIC-JAM GR AND AN IMMOBILIZED EVACUATION WHERE HUNDREDS OF THOUS ISLAND'S RESIDENTS WOULD BE TRAPPED 'IO ABSORB THE RAD SOUGHT TO FLEE.
THIS COUNTY WOULD NOT ACT IN CONCERT WITH SUCH A GUIDELINE FOR DISASTER.
FOURTH, LILCO'S FICTION RESTS ON THE SURMISE THAT THE COUNTY WOULD HAVE CONFIDENCE IN LILCO, OR THAT IT WOULD RELY ON LILCO BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE NO ONE ELSE ON WHICH TO RELY.
THIS IS FALSE.
THERE IS NO CORPORATION ON LONG ISLAND WITH SO LOW A STANDING WITH THE PUBLIC AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTSTHAS ERELILCO.
IS EVEN A STRONG AND CREDIBLE EFFORT TODAY TO EFFECT A PUBL 6
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 THE ACCIDENT.
iT WOULD BE THE ENTITY WHICH STEAMROLLED SHOREHAM INTO OPERATION OVER THE PUBLIC AND GOVERNMENTS' OBJ ECTIONS . IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WOULD BETTER SERVE THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST TO ACT ALONE THAN TO ENTRUST THE PUBLIC WEAL TO MORE OF LILC POOR JUDGMENTS.
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 TH 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. THIS CLAIM MISSTATES THE LAW. IT WOULD NEVER BE "APPRO?RIATE" OR "NECESSARY" FOR THE COUNTY TO TAKE ACTIONS IN PURSUIT OF LILCO'S ILLEGAL EMERGENCY PLAN.
7
,o .-
FINALLY, IN THE SAME LE7PER OF JUNE 11, LILCO ENSHRINES ITS FICTION WITH THE FOLLOWING WORDS:
"...THE LILCO PLAN PROVIDES A BASIS FOR A PRIVATE / GOVERNMENTAL PARTNERSHIP THAT COUL i
BE EFFECTIVE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC IN A REAL EMERGENCY, WHEN POLITICAL POSTURING WOULD BE ABANDONED AND THE SAFETY OF T 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 "PARTNERS WITH LILCO; THERE IS NO "BASIS FOR A PRIVATE / GOVERNMENTAL PARTNERSHIP" OF ANY KIND WITH LILCO: THE COUNTY HAS NO CONFI OR TRUST IN LILCO AND IN AN EMERGENCY, THE COUNTY WOULD GIVE NO i
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 MESPECTED POLLS TO OPPOSE SHOREHAM BY MORE THAN 75
- PERCENT -- COULD NOT TRUST THEIR OWN GOVERNMENTS OFFICIALS IF WE, IN TURN, LOOKED TO THE DISCREDITED LILCO FOR GUIDANCE OR ADVIC TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT LILCO' S MISCHARACTERIZATIONS OF MY POSITION ARE BROUGHT TO AN END, I SHALL TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS '
I STATEMENT M LILCO, THE NRC, AND FEMA.
i 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 l
i
e FICTIONS.
I AM ALSO DESIGNATING CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EXECUTIVE FRANK JONES, AS MY REPRESENTATIVE, TO FOLLOW THESE MATTERS AND TO COORDINATE AS NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE WITH THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE AND WITH THE ATTORNEYS HANDLING SHOREHAM MATTER LILCO HAS LOBBIED IN WASHINGTON AND ELSEWHERE TO CHARACTERIZE SHOREHAM AS A LITMUS TEST FOR NUCLEARTHUS, POWER.
LILCO SEEKS TO TRANSFORM THE SHOREHAM CASE INTO THE SHOR CAUSE. THIS IS A DECEPTION. SUFFOLK COUNTY IS NCff 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 MISTAXE LILCO AT SHOREHAM.
BUT IN A DEMOCRACY, THE PUBLIC GOOD CANNOT BE DISREGARDED.
SHOREHAM IS A MISTAXEr GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT 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
i )
o BUT, THE FACT IS THAT WE HAVE A FIGHT ON CUR HANDS.
LILCO REMAINS BLIND TO THE REALITY WHY SHOREHAM SHOULD TO LILCO, CHERNOBYL NEVER HAPPENED, FEMA' S REGIONAL DIRECTOR RESIGNED OVER SHOREHAM, THE WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF NEVER ADMITfED I4NG ISLAND CANNOT BE EVACUATED, SUFFOLK COUNTY DID NOT WIN COURT VICTORIES UPHOISING THE LEGALITY OF THE 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 C ISLAND.
VIRTUALLY EVERY ELECTED OFFICIAL OPPOSES SHOREHAM, THE GOVERNOR OPPOSES SHOREHAM, AND THE PUBLIC OVERWHELMINGLY OPPOSES SHOREHAM .
I REMAIN CONFIDENT THAT SUFFOLK COUNTY WILL WEPREVAIL.
ARE RIGHT, AND WE HAVE THE PUBLIC'S UNYIELDING SUPPORT. THE REASON IS THAT A BASIC TRUTH HAS DRIVEN THIS COUNTY FROM IT THE STA WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO EVACUATE OR OTHERWISE P IF THERE WERE A SERIOUS NUCLEAR ACCIDENT AT THE SH SHOREHAM SHOULD NOT OPEN.
l I
i l
l l
l
~10
[ff*4 W N
.m.
.. . ..nu Introduced by Legislator Wehrenberg, Caracappa, DP'idre, Geise, A11grov e
, Prospect, Foley, Nolan,.Blass, Rizzo, LaBua, Devi..s. Harlton, Beck Bac'i-RESOLUTION NO. 111 AND DETERMINATIONS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY ON WHE A LEVEL OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 70 RESPOND TO A RADIOLOGICAL ACCIDENT AT THE SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION CAN PROTECT THE HEALTM, WELFARE SUFFOLK COUNTY AND SAFETY OF THE RESIDENTS OF WHEREAS, New York, Charter tothe New York Sta te Municipal Home Rule and the Law,Suffolk Cou Suffolk Coun-County; and protect the health, safety, and welf are of the residents of Suf fo:
11HEREAS,
- the Long Island Lighting Company ("LILCO*)
desires the north to operate the shoreham Nuclear Power Station ("Shoreham')is constructin , loca ted t is within the boundaries of Suffolk County; andshore of Long Island near t taiEREAS, a serious' huelear accident at celease of significant qua'ntities of radioactive fission products; andShoreham could WH E RIAS ,
asalth, safety, and welfare of Suffolk County residents; andthe release ,
taiEREAS, shoreham on the duty of Suf folkin recognition County toof protect the ef fects of such Mtential hazard po elfare 9o. 262-1982, of its citizens, this Legislature on March 23,the1982, health, adopted safety, ar Resolutic which directed that Imergency Response Plan to serve thesuffolk County prepare a ' County Radiologic 4 of the citizens of Suf folk County . . 's andinterest of the safety, health, and welfar WHEREAS, in Resolution 262-1982, leveloped snd capable by the County "shall not be operable and shall not be deemedthe of being implemented Legi adequat until such luffolk County Legislature's and time as it is approved by tr WH E RIAS , in adopting Resolution 262-1982, sarlier planning Sata') efforts by LILCO and County planners the were inadequate Legislature (the found thz "original plansir posed by conditions on Long Island andbeause they failed to address the particular prob schavior during a radiological further failed to account for huma three Mile Island; and emergency and the lessons of the accident 4 WHEREAS, on seting to implement Rosolution March 29,262-1982, 1982, Peter F. Cohalan, Suffolk County Executive by ' Executive Order suffolk County Radiolog ical Emergency established tr
(' Steering Committee" and directed it to pre Response Plan Steering Committe -
the County Executive a)nd County Legislature;and pare a County pian for submittal t -
VDiEREAS
' lationhlly reco,gnized experts from diverse disciplines prepare plans and tothe Steering Com such Count T-- w- w- .-w s--- -- _ _ , . , , . _ , _ . - - , - - - - - - _ , -
WHEREAS, 4 such highly qualified exports worked in tenscientious ef fort at af pst in excess of $50f !00 a diligent a to prepare the be
>pasible plan for suffolk~ eounty, and particularly to ensure that
, .nto account all particular physical and behavioral conditions on such plan to
- hat af fact the adequacy of the emergency response plan; and Long Isla WHEREAS, the analyses, studies, and surveys of such experts included:
(a) Detailed analyses of the possible Shoreham; releases of radiation fre (b)
Detailed analyses of the radiological health consequences of suc radiation release on the population of Suffolk County, giventh meterological, demographic, topog raphical, and other speciti local conditions or1 Long Island; (c) h detailed social survey of Long Island residents to determin and assess their intended behavior in the event of a seriou accident at Shoreham; (d) A detailed survey of sch6ol bus drivers, volunteer firemen, an certain othey , emergency response personnel to determine whethe emergency .
duties, or. personnel intend to report promptly for emergene instead to unite with their own families, in the even' of a serious accident at Shoreham;- - -
(e) Detailed estimates of the number of persons who would be ordere to evacuate in the event of a serious accident at Shoreham, a 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 tim.
required to evacuate persons from areas affected by radiatio' releases; (g) Detailed analyses of the protective actions available to Suffol County residents to evacuate or take shelter from such radiatic releases; and (h) Analysis
- of the lessons learned from the accident at Three Mil Island on local government responsibilities to prepare for radiological emergency;. and WHEREAS, on May 10, 1982, LILCO, without the approval or authorization c
- he Suffolk County Gove rnma r.t , submitted to the New York State Disaste.
?reparedness Commisssion ("DPC") two volumes entitled "Suffolk Count' Radiological as Emergency Response Plan' and contain'ing the original planning data -
further revised and supplemented by LILCO, and requested the DPC to revie and approve such LILCO submittal as the local radiological emergency respons plan for suffolk County; and tiMEREAS, in Resolutions 456-1982 and 457-1982, the County furthe addressed the matter of preparing for a radiological emergency at Shoreham an amphas,ized thatt (a) The LILCo-submitted document was not and will not be the County' Radiological Emergency Response Plan; and
to) The
. County's enunciater ',n Radiological Resolution Emorgency 456-1982, ~i Response Planning Policy, as follows:
' Suffolk County shall not assign funds or personnel to test implement any radiological emergency response Shoreham plan for t-to the best of the County's ability. Nuclear Plant unless that plan Suffolk County shall not assign funds or personnel to test implement any radiological emergency response plan Shoreham Nuclear Plant unlass that plan has been subject for t least two public hearings, or of to be held in Hauppauge.
~
o be held in Riverhead, and ol suffolk County shall not implement any radiological assign funds or personnel to test 4 emergency response plan for t thoreham Nuclear Plant unless that plan has been approved, af t
- public hearings, by the Suf folk County Legislature and the Coun -
Executive; and WHEREAS, on June 9, 1982, the DPC rejected the LILCO-submitted documer for the reason that it was de,ficient; and 1GIE REAS , on October 6, 1982, LILCO, again without the approval e authorization of the Suf folk County Government, submitted to the DPC an amenda
/ersion of the previously submitted LILCO document which had been rejected 8 the DPC; and WHEREAS, on December 2, 1982, the Draf t County Radiological Emergene tesponse Plan authorized by Resolution 262-1982 was submitted to the Count Legislature for review and public hearings as specified in Resolutions 262-198; 456-1982, and 457-1982; and tGIE RE AS , in January 1983, the Legislature held hearings on the Draf
- ounty plan, which hearings included (a) More than 1,590 pages of transcripts; (b) Detailed written statements and oral testimony of County expe:'
consultan'ts who prepared the Draft County plan; (c) Detailed written statements and oral testimony of LILCO of ficia; and expert consultantr, retained by LILC0; (d) Detailed written statements and oral testimony of the Suffol; County Police Department, the County Health Department, t?'
County Social Services department, and the County Public Wod Department, all of which would have indispensable roles :
responding to a radiological emergency at Shoreham; (e) Detailed written statements and oral testimony of organizatier in Suffolk County concerned with radiological emergent preparedness; and
- (f) Extensive presentations by hundreds of members of the gener.
public; and i
e
s
' miEREAS, members or the Logislature also_ travelled to and hold publ learings information in the vicinityf~t the Three Mile Island K ' lear Power Plant to ga d Three Mile Island; andon the lessons to be learned by local povernments from the accide 4
WHEREAS, the Draft County plan identifies theltering as the two primary protective actions which evacuation and protectig would need to 5 implemented in the event of a serious accident at Shoreham; and WHEREAS, evacuation of Suffolk County residents in the event of radiological emergency f ac tor s, including could take as much time as 14-30 hours because of vario the limited number of appropriate evacuation routes luf folk County; difficulties in mobilizing police and other emergency personne lifficulties ensuing from spontaneous evacuation of large numbers of Coung residents, thus creating severe traffic congestion; and unavilability e 11 ternate evacuation routes for persons residing east of Shoreham and thus tP tecessity for sbch persons during an evacuation to pass by the plant ar
>ossibly through' the radioactive plume; and WHE RI AS , 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 certain' avacuation times in the range of 14-30 hours --
will result in virtuo immobilization of evacuation and high exposure of evacuees to radiation su:
- hat evacuees' health, saf,ety', and welfare would not be protected; and
, WHEREAS, protective sheltering is designed to protect p rsons fre txcessive radiation exposure by such persons staying indoors until radiatit sith the greatest danger to health has passed; and WH E RI AS , if protective sheltering were ordered for Coun-Suffolk tesidents, unacceptable radiation exposure would still be experienced substantial portions of the Suf folk County population, thus making it impossib
- o provide for the health, welf are, and safety of these residents; and WH E RI AS , the document submitted by LILCO to the DPC without Coun approval or authorization is deficient because it does not deal with the actu local conditions, physical and behavioral, on Long Island that would 1
incountered during a serious nuclear accident at shoreham; and WHEREAS, the document submitted by LILCO to the DPC without Coun ipp:: oval or authorizatio'n does not ensure that effective protective action
>ersons subject to radiation exposure, in the form of evacuation or shalterin sould be taken in event of a serious nuclear accident at Shoreham, and thus su loc ument, even if implemented, would not protect the health, sa f e ty, and we lf a
- >f Suffolk County residents; and
! WHERE AS , the extensive data which the Legislature has considered ma j : lear that the site-specific circumstances and actual local conditions existi on Long Island, particularly its elongated ea st/ we st configuration whi requires all evacuation routes from locations east of the plant to pass withir zone of predicted high radiation, the inef fectiveness of pr.otective shelterir
- the severe traf fic congestion likely to be experienced if a partial or compit svacuation were ordered, and the difficulties in ensuring that emerger
! personnes1 will promptly report for emergency duties, preclude any emerger response plan, if implemented, from providing adequate preparedness to prote the heilth, welf are, and safety of Suf folk County residents; now, therefore, it l
1
i O ,
- RE SOLVED, that the staf't County plan submitten t .the County Legislatur 1982, if implemented, would not protect the heatth, welf are, an and thus is not approved and will not b Decembe ety of su r 2, f folk County residents ilemented; and be it further the document submitted by LILCO to the DPC without th RESOLVED, that if implemented, would not protect the health inty a
' fare,pproval or authorization,and safety of Suf folk residents and thus will not b
- be implemented; and be it further RESOLVED, that since no local radiological emergency response plan foran welfare, vill protect the health, rious nuclear accident at Shorehan f ety of Suf folk County residents, and since the preparation and implementatio the public by indicating to Count any such plan would be misleading towif are, and safety are being protected when, i sidents tha t their health, et, such is not the case, the County's radiological emergency planning proces J hereby terfninated, and no local radiological emergency , plan for response implemented; and be ti i accident at the Shoreham plant shall be adopted or arther RESOLVED, that since no radiological emergency plan canradiologica protect tr no salth, welfare, safety of Suffolk County residents and, since morgency plan shall be
- adopted take or implemented bynecessary actions suf folk County, to the Count assure tha xocutive is hereby directed to governmental agency, be it State or Federal, a:
all ictions taken by an.y 'other
- onsistent with the decisions mandated by this Resolution.
JATED: February 17, 1983 APP , BY:
County Executive of Suf folX County Date of Approval: ,,2J/73 e
0 9
e 6
f
- ' \ -
Exnibit B COUNTY OF CUFFOLK
l l March 10, 1987
)
Mr. Victor Stello Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Stello:
l 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 plant. of Suffolk County concerning the Shoreham nuclear power 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 safety does not matter at Shoreham; that what matters only is putting the plant into operation.
You have converted the Staf f'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 Staf f from 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 Regulations requires that the Staf f "not give or appear to give favored treatment or competitive advantage to any member of the public." The Staff
,, n s r jn a . .. .
p 7 @ I WdhbdY -
.. _ .. . _ ........ .. .. . . ... . . . . . . - . - . . ~ . .....~-
e 3
('.
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 Suf folk County.
Second, Suffolk County requests that you appear before a Special Session of the County Legislature. Your February 20 letter or facts parades a bias that stems either from ignorance of the from design. We want rely for information concerning emergency planning at Shoreham.to know With and met, whom from what LILCO have theyand other entities outside the NRC have you said?
you held with NRC Commissioners?What private conversations have What is your true purpose in putting LILCO's interests above those citizens? The citizens of Suffolk County of Suffolk County's have the right to know the full story behind issues at Shoreham. your actions concerning emergency planning 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 statement that, No. 111-1983, to explain in detail the reasons for his "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 Shoreham." '
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 emergency plan, or work in concert with LILCO, or rely upon LILCO's advice or judgment in a nuclear emergency.
Whatever plan.
our actions, they would not include LILCO or LILCO's This is the result of the County government h4ving 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.
- f. ..
[ Mr. V10 tor Stello Ma rch 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 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 draf t 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 testified.
consultants and officials, and members of the public 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 protect the public.
in Resolution No. 111-1983:The bases for this determination are stated among them are the limited roadway 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 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 rederal 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.
i Mr. Victor Stello March 10, 1987 Pcge 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 i you would now be praising the County for its "participation" in emergency planning. You cannot have it both ways: The County in f act 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 preise 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 f alse. 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 thereaf ter. 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 i
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 Staf f, 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 Stelle March 10, 1987 Page 5 l
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 AIC 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.
I 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.
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 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 i Mile Island regulations.
l 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 prote'ction of the 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 absence of County, State, or
.. .-~. l Mr. Victor Stollo -'
, M rch 10, 1987 Page 6 implementable LILCO emergency plans, the public still would be l 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 dregoryl4A Blhjs
. $_ _ e bc f Michael A. LoGrande Presiding Officer Suffolk County Executive Suffolk County Legislature cc: NRC Service List
I actions in a Shoreham en4ergency if the Shoreham plant wer licensed to operate.
' Likewise, on March 10, 1987, I, along with Gregory J. Blass, Presiding Officer of the Suf folk County Legislature, again corresponded with Mr. Stello on those subjects.
The January 16, 1987 and March 10, 1987 letters are attached b reto as Exhibits A and B. I hereby affirm those J
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 Suf folk County on the subjects discussed therein.
- 3. On June 23, 1986, my predecessor in this office, Peter F.
Cohalan, issued a Statement to correct misstatements made LILCO concerning LILCO's so-called "realism" argument and ,
related matters. That statement is attached to Exhibit A, my letter of January 16, 1987.
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.
4.
On February 17, 1983, the Suffolk County Legislature l
adopted Resolution No. 111-1983, which was approved by the Suf folk County Executive on February 23, 1983. A copy of Resolution No. 111-1983 is also attached to Exhibit A
, my letter o f J anua ry 16, 1987.
Resolution No. 111-1983 is the law of j
.. - q5 % t@O f & h p '.~.
j
Suffolk County, and it reflects certain of the findings and con-clusions of the County concerning an offsite response to a r(dio-logical emergency at the Shoreham plant.
- 5. It has come to my attention that in "LILCO's Secont 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 cont. rolled copies of the LILCO Plan, and that the County's oficials.are "familiar" with the Plan by virtue of their particip'ation 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.
- 6. Neither 1. nor my deputies, nor any members of my staf f have in our possession the current version of the LILCO Plan. I have never reviewed the LILCO Plan and none of my deputies or staf f has ever reviewed that plan with one exception -- Mr. Frank Petrone, who reviewed portions of an earlier version of LILCO's Plan whfle 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 a
m
- 4
! of ficial or employee is suf ficiently knowledgeable of the LILCO Plan to implement all or a portion of it, with or without LILCO assistance.
~
Nichael A. LoGrande Suffolk County Executive Subscribed to and sworn before me this f. d day of May, 1987.
-i /
- 'is, k 't . . 44.', f I NCtarf Public /
Stete'of New York at Large My commission expires:
s P m ts A 00G#t NOf4RY PUOLIC, Sisee et New Yort k St411MM, $ dom Countrr/
1ers tapre casta 31,l'sB i
- 1 i
d
- hibit A
, COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
>4CHAEL A, LoGRANof S
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY EXECUTIVE sw,m.a ca.wr, t2acums 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 Ex ecu tive. I am writing 1986, I took in this office as capacity to the Suffolk correct twoCounty misstatements article of January by you4, that were reported in the enclosed Newsday 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."
unfounded and incorrect. Your statement is 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 allude.
you NRC are thus the ones responsible for the "problems" to which '
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 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 6:e w a m . ,e m . . o. 6 .., . .. s .. we. = , iitse . m so**xco
_8
, , , . . - , - ..~)I
F 0
. j 1
Mr. Victor Stello January 16, 1987 Page 2 of Suffolk County Resolution 111-1983 documents reflectstatement of the former suffolk County Executive.and the June These thoroughly considered bases for the County's determinatithe ons.
co emphasize that as County Executive,For the reasonsI elaborated in plan responseor toaccident to an workatin concert with LILCO to effect an Shoreham.
LILCo's not, andplan couldto be unworthy and unworkable.Suffolk County has found not, rely on such a discredited plan.The County would Moreover itself to poss,ess poor and untrustworthy judgment.in For example, recent yea denied LILCO recovery of St.3 billion of Shoreham's ause of LILCO's "imprudence" construction of the plant. and "gross mismanagement" during The County would not and could not rely If theon the County guidance did, or advice of such a company,in an emergen government. its citizens could not trust their own .
Very truly yours, N l .* s , ,
,/ I'bu ' A h' <C,,
ICHAEL A. LcCRANDE Acting County Executive MAttfmn Enclosures
f s
4 4
f STATEMENT OF SUFFOLX COUNTY EXECUTIVE PETER F. COHALAN JUNE 23, 1986 I AM ISSUING THIS STATEMENT TO ENSURE THAT THERE AAE NO MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF MY POSITION WITH RESPECT TO THE SHOREH NUCLEAR POWER STATION.
I AM PARTICULARLY MOTIVATED TO MAKE THIS STATEMENT BECAUSE LILCO HAS MISSTATED MY POSITION IN EFFOR 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 COND THAT THERE WOULD BE PARTICIPATION OF THE SUFFOLX COUNTY GOVE RNMENT.
HOWEVER, ON JUNE 10, 1985, THE NEW YORX STATE N
SUPREME COURT, AND LATER THE APPELLATE DIVISION AND THE COURT OF APPEALS, RULED THAT I COULD NOT CHANGE COUNTY POLICY BY COMMITTING 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 M CONDUCT A TEST OF LILCO'S EMERGENCY PLAN.
ON FEBRUARY 13, 1986 OVER THE OBJECTIONS OF THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE AND MYSELF, LILCO CONDUCTED A TEST OF ITS EMERGENCY PLAN.
I STATED THEN THAT THE EXERCISE AMOUNTED 'IC
- THEATER OF
t THE ABSURD."
THE TEST WAS UNREALISTIC AND WAS CLEARLY D TO CONVEY FALSE IMPRESSIONS OF LILCO'SWE COMPETENCE. ON LONG ISLAND WERE NOT DECEIVED; WE HAVE FIRST-HAND EXPERIENCE W LILCO'S LACK OF COMPETENCE -- LET'S NOT FORGET TH!, $1.35 BIL IMPRUDENCE FINDING AND LILCO' S RESPONSE TO HUR . I FEEL THAT THE ONLY SIGNIFICANT ASPECT OF THE FE CAME AFTERWARD, WHEN THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, FRANK PETRONE, ANNOUNCED THAT LILCO'S EMERGENCY PLAN DOES NOT PROVIDE REAS THE PUBLIC WOULD BE PROTECTED IN THE EVENT OF AT SHOREHAM.
IN SHORT, MR. PETRONE, SAID SHOREHAM SHOULD NOT BE LICENSED TO OPERATE.
SINCE FEBRUARY 1983, IT HAS BEEN CLEAR TO SUFFOLK COUNTY THAT THE OPERATION OF SHOREHAM WOULD CREATE A FOR THE PUBLIC.
AFTER EXTENSIVE AND COSTLY STUDIES, ANALYSES.
AND SURVEYS, PUBLIC HEARINGS, %-
AND A TRIP TO THE THREE MILE ISLAND VICINITY, THIS GOVERNMENT CONCLUDED THAT THE PUBLIC COULD :
SAFELY EVACUATED OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED IF THERE -
ACCIDENT AT S*.idRENAM.
THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT, HAVING BEEN 1
)
ESTABLISHED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROTECTING THE PUB .
THEREFORE, HAD ONLY 'NO Cl!OICES :
TELL THE PUBLIC THE TRUTH THAT THEY COULD NOT BE PROTECTEDr OR DECEIVE THEM BY ADO EMERGENCY PLAN THAT WOULD LULL THEM INTO BELIEVING BEING PROTECTED WHEN IN FACT THEY WERI NOT.
.t.
l
}
e .
SUFFOLK COUNTY CHOSE WHAT IT WAS OBLIGATED IN TO DO:
RESOLUTION 111-1983, IT TOLO ITS CITIZENS THE TRUTH.
TRUS. THE COUNTY RESOLVED NOT TO ADOPT OR IMPLEMENT AN EM SHOREHAM.
THIS DECISION WAS UPHELD BY FEDERAL AND STAT IT WAS ALSO UPHELD BY GOVERNOR CUOMO AFTER EXT 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 DE LICENSE TO OPERATE SHOREHAM.
i AT LILCO'S URGING, THE NRC REJECTED OUR REQUEST AND. INSTEAD.
STARTED A 3-YEAR CONTORTED PROCESS OF GIVING LILCO CHANCE-APTER-CHANCE TO CONCOCT A LICENSE THE PLANT.
AT THE SAME TIME, LILCO LOBBIED TO ENLIST FEDERAL OFFICIALS TO SUPPORT LICENSING SHOREHAM. w LILCO'S SUCCESSES PEAKED LAST YEAR WHEN PRESIDENT REAGAN'S SECRETARY OF ENERG SHOREHAM SHOULD BE LICENSED TO OPERATE OVER THE O SUFFOLK COUNTY AND NEW YORK STATE.
HE DID THIS IN THE FACE OF THE PRESIDENT'S OWN POLICY ON SHOREHAK, WRITTEN OCTOBER 11, 1984 THAT THE REAGAN ADMINISTRATION DOES NOT FAVOR T FEDERAL AUTHORITY AT SHOREHAM OVER THE OBJECTION STATE AND SUFfVLK COUNTY.
3
6 s
f 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 B IF THERE WERE A SERIOUS NUCLEAR ACCIDENT AT THE SHOREHAM.
OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF SUFFOLK COUNTY'S RESIDENTS A EVERY LONG ISLAND ELEC'TED OFFICI AL ARE OPPOSED TO THE 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 THAT7 THE REASON IS THAT LILCO PERSISTS IN TRYING TO LICENSE SHOREHAM AND IS NOW ORCHESTRATING THE BIGGEST DECEPT 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 SHOREHAM WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY IMPLEMENTABLE EMERGENCY P THIS IS A PRESCRIPTION FOR DISASTER. IN THE WAKE OF CHERNOBYL, IT IS A RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF THE RESIDE!TTS O 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 FDLLOWS SHOREHAM SHOULD BE LICENSED EVEN THOUGH THERE IS NO IMPLEMENTABLE EMERGENCY PLAN, BECAUSE IF THE PLANT WERE LICENSED AND E THERE WERE AN ACCIDENT AT
.t.
SHOREHAM, THE STATE AND COUNTY WOULD IN REALITY ACT IN RESPONSE TO THE ACCIDENT AND THIS g 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 ILLOOICALt IT IS BORN OF CYNICISM AND INDIFFERENCE TO THE ,
PUBLIC'S SAFETY. l l FIRST, LI!40'S FICTION RETRIEVES THE DISCREDITED THEORY ON kHICH THE NRC LICENSED NUCLEAR PLANTS BEFORE THE THREE MILE
) ISLAND ACCIDENT.
TH EN. 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 RESPONSE.
THE THREE MILE ISLAND ACCIDENT PROVED THIS ASSUMPTION TO BE WRONG.
- FOLLOWING THREE MILE ISLAND, CONGRESS PASSED LAWS 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 THFIR RESPONSE WOULD WORX TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC. THUS. LILCO CLAIMS.
THE PUBLIC WOULD BE PROTECTED EVEN THOUGH THE GOVERNMENTS HAVE N 5-
C
?
t I
[ i PRE-PLANNING, OR KNOWLEDGE OF INVENTORY OF AVAILABLE RE ,
No PERSONNEL READINESS, AND NO TRAINING.
SUCH A PRESUHPTION Is UNFOUNDED: FARCICAL AT BEST.
4 THIRD, i
LILCO' S FICTION PORTRAYS SUFFOLK COUNTY ACT CONCERT WITH LILCO IF THERE WERE AN ACCIDENT AT S HOWEVER, COUNTY LAW PROHIBITS COUNTY PERSONNEL FRO LILCO'S EMERGENCY PLAN.
EVEN IF IT DID NOT, THE COUNTY COULD NOT RESPONSIBLY ACT IN CONCERT WITH LILCO AND ITS EM 5
THE COUNTY'S STUDIES, ANALYSES, AND SURVEYS, TOGETHER W DAY-TO-DAY EXPERIENCES ON LONG ISLAND WITH THE NETWORK AND THE CONFINED GEOGRAPHY, HAVE CONVINCED US THAT SAFE EVACUATION OF THE PUBLIC IS NOT POSSIBLE IN A S .
LILCO'S EMERGENCY PLAN IS A GUIDELINE FOR TRAFF ,
AND AN IMMOBILIZED EVACUATION WHERE HUNDREDS l
i j
ISLAND'S RESIDENTS WOULD BE TRAPPED TO .\BSOR SOUGHT TO FLEE.
THIS COUNTY WOULD NOT ACT IN CONCERT WITH S GUIDELINE FOR DISASTER.
i FOURTH, LILCO' S FICTION RESTS ON THE SURMISE THAT THE COU WOULD HAVE CONFIDENCE IN LILCO, OR THAT IT WOULD RELY ON LILCO BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE NO ONE ELSE ON .
THIS WHICH IS TO RELY '
l FALSE.
THERE IS NO CORPORATION ON LONG ISLAND WITH So LO STANDING WITH THE PUBLIC AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
. TH ERE AS IS EVEN A STRONG AND CREDIBLE EFFORT TODAY TO E !
i ,
i !
6 .
i
~
+,
y TAKEOVER OF THIS COMPANY. IN AN EMERGENCY OR OTHERWISE, THE PUBLIC AND THE COUNTY GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE NO CONFIDENCE LILCO.
WE COULD NOT, AND WOULD NOT, 140K TO SUCH A DISCREDITED !
SOURCE FOR GUIDANCE OR ASSISTANCE IN A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT.
INDEED, LILCO WOULD BE THE OBJECT OF THE PUBLIC'S WRATH BECA THE ACCIDENT. ,
i IT WOULD BE THE ENTITY WHICH STEAMROLLED SHOREHAM r
INTO OPERATION OVER THE PUBLIC AND GOVERNMENTS' OMECTIONS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, 1 IT WOULD Br,TTER SERVE THE PUBLIC'S ItttEREST TO ACT ALONE THAN TO ENTRUST THE PUBLIC WEAL TO MORE O POOR JUDGMENTS. i MOREOVER, !
LILCO'S RESPONSE TO HURRICANE GLORIA LAST OCTOBER LIVES INDELIBLY AS A LESSON TO EVERYONE Od LONG IN THEISLAND.
POTENTIALLY CATASTROPHIC CIRCUNSTANCES OF A NUCLEARWEACCIDENT, i
WOULD NEVER RELY UPON OR ACT IN CONCERT WITH A COMPA '
NOT EVEN PUT THE LIGHTS BACK ON FOR DAYS.
FI FTH, LILCO'S FICTION HAS PROMPTED THE COMPANY TO EXTEND ,
ITS PLEAS FOR LICENSING SHOREHAM TO SHAMEFUL LIMITS.
ON JUNE 11, 1996, 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 SHDREHAM INTO OPERATION.
THIS CLAIM MISSTATES THE LAW. IT WOULD NEVER BE "APPROPRIATE" OR "NECESSARY" FOR THE COUNTY TO TAXE ACT}
PURSUIT OF LILCO'S ILLEGAL EMERGENCY PLAN.
- 7. .
F i
L i
I
[
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 PARTNERSH OULD BE EFFECTIVE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC ,INWHEN A REAL EMERG POLITICAL POSTURING WOULD BE ABANDONED THE AND THE PUBLIC WOULD BE GIVEN PARAMOUNT IMPORTANCE. THIS IS MORE "
FANTASY.
u R2 ITERATE WHAT IS IN ESSENCE STATED ABOVE: NEITHER SUFFOLK COUNT! NOR I AS COUNTY EXECUTIVE WITH LILCO; IP" HAS 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 WOUL CREDENCE TO LILCO OR ITS PLAN AND WOULD LILCO. TH NOT W INDEED, IN AN EMERGENCY, THE PUBLIC OF SUFFOLX COUNTY --
SHOWN BY RESk'ECTED POLLS TO OPPOSE SHOREHAM B PERCENT -- COULD NOT TRUST THEIR OWNIF GOVERNMEN IN TURN, WE, N-LOOKED TO THE DISCREDITED LILCO FOR GUIDANCE s
TO MAKE CERTAIN THAT LILCO'S MISCHARACTERIZATIO POSITION ARE BROUGHT TO AN END, I SHALL TRANSMIT A COPY OF THIS STATEMENT TO LILCO, THE NRC, AND FEMA.
I SHALL ALSO EXPRESSLY NUL*IFY 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 CONCO
.g.
.b
.e FICTIONS.
I AM ALSO DESIGNATING CHIEF DEPUTY COUNTY EX FRANK JONES, AS MY REPRESENTATIVE, TO FOLLOW THESE MATTERS AND TO COORDINATE AS NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE WITH THE CO LEGISLATURE AND WITH THE ATTORNEYS HANDLING SHO .
LILCO HAS LOBBIED IN WASHINGTON AND ELSEWHERE TO CHARACTERIZE SHOREHAM AS A LITMUS TEST . THUS,FOR NUCLEA 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 TO CITIZENS PROTEC"T TO DO:
THEIR WELL-BEING AND TO BE TRUTHFUL. LILCO DOES NOT LIKE THIS, BECAUSE THE RESULT PUTS THE COUNTY AGAINST AT SHOREHAM.
DE TH BUT IN A DEMOCRACY, THE PUBLIC GOOD CANNOT BE D IS REGARDED.
SHOREHAM IS A MISTAKE; GOVET.NMENT SHOULD NOT N
COMPOUND THE MISTAKE OF HAVING PERMITTED SHOREH WITH THE MISTAKE OF LETTING SHOREHAM OPERATE.
THE SHOREHAM CONTROVERSY HAS OVER THE PAST FOUR TO CONPLICT AND CONFRONTATION.
THIS IS NOT SOMETHING WE RELISH.
TO STEP BACK FROM THE TRENCHES AND VIEW , ONE THE BROADER CAN ONLY WISH THAT LILCO HAD SEIZED THE OPPROTUN SHOREHAM IN 1983 OR EVEN SOONER, LESS. WHEN THE INVESTMENT WAS BILLIONS WE WOULD STILL WELCOME SUCH A LILCO DECISION MDAY.
I l
l 9
I I
i
)
Y s
BUT, THE PACT IS THAT WE HAVE A FIGHT ON OUR HANDS .
LILCO REMAINS BLIND TO THE REALITY WHYOPERATE.
LILCO, SHOREHAM TO SHO CHERNOBYL NEVER HAPPENED, RESIGNED OVER SHOREHAM, FEMA'S REGIONAL DIRECTOR NEVER THE WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF NEVER ADMITTED LONG ISLAND CANNOT BE EVACUATED ,
SUFFOLK COUNTY DID NOT WIN COURT VICTORIES UPHOLDING THETHE LEGALITY OF COUNTY'S POLICIES ON SHOREHAM, FROM Ah M ERE ELSE. AND LONG ISLAND' S GEOGRAPHY IS NO DI INDEED, LILCO IS EVEN IMPERVIOUS TO THE OUTPOURING ISLAND. OF OPPOSITION TO SHOREHAM NER OF LONG FROM CV VIRTUALLY EVERY ELECTED OFFICI,AL GOVERNOR OPPOSES SHOREHAM, THE OPPOSES SHORE HAM . AND THE PUBLIC OVERWHELMINGLY OPPOSES I
RI GHT, REMAIN CONFIDENT THAT SUFFOLK COUNTY .
WE ARE WILL AND WE HAVE THE PUBLIC'S UNYIELDING .
THE REASON SUPPORT IS THAT A BASIC TRUTH HAS DRIVEN THIS TART: COUNTY IT FROM WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO EVACUATE OTECT THEORPUBLIC OTHERWISE IF THERE WERE A SERIOUS NUCLEARHAMACCIDENT PLANT. AT TH SHOREHAM SHOULD NOT OPEN.
s
-10 L .
f
.....n. ..
. . . . use as Introduced s
by Legislators Wehrenberg, Caracappa, D' Andre, Geise, Allgrove,
- Prospect, Foley, Nolan, Blass, Rizzo, LaBua, Devine Heriton. Beck RESOLUTION NO. 111 - 1983, CONSTITUTING THE FINDINGS l
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 HEALTR, ;
WELFARE AND SAFETY OF THE RESIDENTS OF SUFFOLK COUNTY WHEREAS, Now York, Suffolk County has a duty under the Constitution of the State c the New York State Municipal Home Rule Law, Charter to protect the health, and the Suffolk Count County;~and ,
safety, and welf are of the residents of Suffo:
ITHEREAS, ' the Long Island Lighting Company ("LILCO*)
desires the north to operate the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ("Shoreham"),is constructing loca ted a:c is within the boundaries of Suffolk County; andshore of Long Island a location nearwhic the town WHEREAS, a serious' huclear accident at release of significant quantities of radioactive fission products; andShoreham could result in t!
WH E RI AS ,
acolth, the release of such radiation woul'd pose a severe hazard to tr safety, and welfare of Suffolk County residents; and imEREAS, Shoreham on the duty of Suf folkin recognitionCounty of the ef fects of such potential hazard posed 1 salfare to protect the health, safety, ar Vo. 262-1982, of its which citizens, this Legislature directed that on March 23, 1982, adopted Resolutic cmergency Response Plan to serve Suffolk County prepara a "County Radiologic 4 of the citizens of Suf folk County . . ";the and interest of the safety, health, and welfar WHEREAS , in Resolution 262-1982, lovoloped and capable by the County "shall not be operable and shall notthe Legislature be deemed determined that the of being implemented adequat until such time as it is approved by tr
! Juffolk County Legislature"; and ,
's.
WHERIAS, in adopting
! Resolution 262-1982, serlier planning 3cta") ef forts by LILCO and County planners the were inadequate Legislature (the "original found tha planni.-
sosed by conditions on Long Island andbecause they failed to address the particular proble.-
further f ailed
' achavior during a radiolog ical emergency to account for huma thrce Mile Island; and and the lessons of the accident 4 WHE RE AS , on March 29, 1982, Peter F.
acting to implement Rosolution 262-1982, by Executive Cohalan, Suf folk County Executive suffolk County Radiological Order established tr Emergency Response Plan , Steering Coramitte
(' Steering Committee")
the County Executive and County Legislatures andand directed it to preparn a County plan for s WH E RIAS intionhily reco,gnized experts from diverse disciplines tothe plen; and Steering prepare Committee ass such Count l
. i 4
VHEREAS, such highly qualified experts onscientious ef fort at a cost worked Ln a in excess of $500,000 to diligent and prepare the best
.nto account all particular physical and behavioralon such conditions Long plan took >ps
- hnt affect the adequacy of the emergency response plan; and Islanc WHCREAS, the analyses, studies, and surveys of such experts included:
(a) Detailed analyses of the possible Shoreham; releases of radiation frot (b) radiation release on the population of SuffolkDetailed County, analys meterological, demographic, giventhe local conditions on Long Island;topog raphic al, and other specific (c) h detailed social and assess their intended behavior Lnsurvey of theLong Island residents to determine accident at Shoreham; event of a serious (d) A detailed certain othey , emergency response personnel tosurvey of school anc bus emergency .pe r sonnel intend to determine whether duties report promptly of a se,rious accident at Shoreham;-or. instead to unite in thewith eventtheir ow (e) Detailed to evacuate in the event of a serious accidentestimates well at Shoreham, of the numb as even if not ordered to do so;as the number of persons who intend to evac (f)
Detailed required to analyses evacuate ofpersons the roadfromnetwork in Long Island and the timt releases; areas affected by radiatier (g) Detailed analyses of the protective actions available to SuffoD county residents releases; and to evacuate or take shelter from such radiatior N
(h) Analysis ' of Island on local the lessons learned governme from the accident at Three Milt responsibilities radiological emergency;.nt and to prepare for i WHERIAS,
- ho Suffolk County onGovernment, May 10, 1982, LILCO, without the approval or authorization o:
Proparedness submitted to the New York State Dieaste:
Commisasion ("DPC") two volumes entitled "Suffolk Count; tediological as fur ther Emergency revised Response Plan' and contain'ing the original planning data ,
and approve such LILCO submittal and supplemented as theby LILCO, and requested the DPC to reviei local picn for suffolk County; and radiological emergency response
! UMEREAS, in Resolutions 456-1982 and 457-1982, the l sadressed the lamphos,ized tha matter t of preparing for a radiological emergency at County furthe:
Shoreham anc (a) The LILCO-submitted document Radiological Emergency Response Plan;wasand not and will not be the county'-
\
l
. s (D) The County's Radiological456-1982, enunciated in Resolution EmergencyisResponse Planning Policy, a as follows:
Suffolk County shall not implement any radiological assign fundsresponse or personnel to test o Shoreham emergency plan for th to the best of the County's ability. Nuclear Plant unless that plan, Suffolk County shall not implement any radiological assign funds or personnel to test o emergency Shoreham Nuclear response plan for th Plant least to twoinpublic be held hearings, Hauppauge. one to be held in Riverhead,unless and on th Suffolk County shall not implement any radiological assign funds or personnel to test e.
hhoreham emergency response plan for thi Nuclear Plant unless that plan has been approved, afte public Executive; hearings, and by the Suffolk County Legislature and the Count-.
WHEREAS, on June 9, for the reason that it was deficient; 1982, the and DPC rejected the LILCO-submitted documen ICIERE AS , on October 6, 1982, LILCO, again authoriza tion of the Suf folk County Government, without the approval o
/orsion of the submitted to the DPC an amende tho DPCs and previously submitted LILCO document which had been rejected b;
, WHEREAS, on December 2, 1982, tosponse Plan authorized by Resolution 262-1982 the DraftwasCounty Radiological Emergene:
submitted to the Cou n t',
Logislature 156-1982, andfor457-1982; review and and public hearings as spe:ified in Resolutions 262 1982 -
t ICBE RE AS , in January 1983,
- ounty plan, which hearings included the Legislature held hearings on the Draf' (a) More than 1,590 pages of transcripts; (b) Detailed written ss consultan'ts who prepared the Draf t County plan; statements and oral t (c)
Detailed written statements and oral testimony of LILCO of ficial l and expert consultants retained by LILC0; (d) Detailed written statements and County Police Department, oral testimony of the Suffoli the County He al th Department, the County Social Services d epa r tmen t, Depar tme nt, all of which would haveand the County Public Work:
indispensable role s i:
responding to a radiological emergency at Shoreham; (e) Detailed written in Suffolk County statements concerned and oral testimony of organization:
preparedness; and with radiological emergene: {
- (f) Extensive presentations public; and by hundreds of members of the genera:
WHEREAS, members or the tearings in the vicinity of the Three Mile Island Nuclear PowerLegislature also travelle information Plant to gat it Three Mile Island; andon the lessons to be learned by local governments from the acciden WHEREAS, the yholtering as the t woDraft County plan primary protective identifies evacuation and protectiv actions which would need
.mplemented in the event of a serious accident at Shoreham; and to h WREREAS, evacuation of Suffolk County residents in the event of
- cdiological
!ac tor s , emergency including could take the limited number as much time as 14-30 hours because of variou of appropriate evacuation routes i iuffolk County; difficulties in mobilizing police and other emergency personnel 11fficulties ensuing from spontaneous evacuation residents, thus creating severe traffic congestion; of large numbers of Count siternate evacuation routes for persons residing east of Shoreham and unavilability c secessity for sheS persons during an evacuation to pass and thus th sessibly through* the radioective plume; and by the plant a r.
WHE RE AS , evacua tion times in exce ss of 10 hours tvacuation times in the range of 14-30 hours and certain1 immobilization of evacuation and will high exposure of evacuees to radiation sue result in virtua
- hat evacuess' health, saf,ety', and welfare would not be protected; and WHIREAS, protective sheltering is designed to protect p rsons frc axcessive radiation exposure by such persons staying indoors until sith the greatest danger to health has passed; and radiatic WHERIAS, if protective sheltering were ordered csidents, unacceptable radiation exposure for suffolk Count would still be experienced 1 substantial
- o provide portions of the suf folk County population, thus making it impossib:
for the health, welfare, and safety of these residents; and WH E RI AS , the document submitted by LILCO is deficient because ic does notthe DPC without Count to ipproval local or authorization conditions, physical deal with the actua and behavioral, on Long Island that would 1 ancountered during a serious nuclear accident at Shoreham; and WHEREAS, the document submitted by LILCO to the DPC without Coun-spproval or authorization does not ensure that effective protective
>orsons action 1 1 subject to radiation exposure, in the form of evacuation or shelterine l
- sould be taken in event of a serious nuclear accident at Shoreham, and thus suc locument,
>f Suffolk County even if implemented, residents; andwould not protect the health, saf ety, and we lf a:
l l
WHERIAS, the extensive data which the Legislature has considered ma) )
- lcorLong an that the site-specific circumstances and actual local conditions existi:
Island, particularly its elongated 1
east / west configuration whic requires all evacuation routes zono of predicted high radiation, the inef fectiveness from locations east of the plant to pass within l tho severe traffic congestion likely to be experienced of pr.otective shelterine svacuation were ordered, and the difficulties if a partial or comple-in ensuring that emergent porsonnel rosponse will promptly report for emergency duties, preclude any emergent plan, if implemented, from providing adequate preparedness to protei tho Lt heilth, we l f are , and safety of Suf folk County residents; now, therefore, !
RESOLVED, that'the sraf t County plan submitteo to the County Legislatur an ecomber 2, 1982, if implemented, would not protect the health, welf are, and thus is not approved and will not b l
of suffolk County residents I
ty emantedt and be it further the document submitted by LILCO to the DPC without th RESOLVED , that if implemented, would not protect the health i
ity'
'a ro ,approval or authorization,and safety of Suf folk residents and thus will not be approv<
be implemented; and be it further I RESOLVED, that since no local radiological emergency response health, welfplan are, foran will protect the ious nuclear accident at Shoreham oty of Suf folk County residents, and since the preparation and inplementatio the public by indicating to Count any such plan would be misleading to health, welfare, and safety are being protected when, i
idonts tha t their the County's radiological emergency planning proces t, such isterhinated, h2reby not the case,and no local radiological emergency , plan for response :
implemented; and be i accident at the Shoreham plant shall be adopted or thor no radiological emergency plan can protect tr RESOLVED, that since no radiologica alth, welfare, safety of Suffolk County residents and, sincebe
- adopted or nece ssary to assure the orgency plan shall take all actions ecutive taken is hereby by directed any 'other to governmental agency, be it State or Federal, a:
tione nsistent with the decisions mandated by this Resolution.
1
.TED: February 17, 1983 APPP BY:
%s Coun 7 Executive of Suffolk County Date of Approval: ,,2 3 73 l
s l
4 9
6
Exnibit B COUNTY OF SUFFOLK j
March 10, 1987 Mr. Victor Stello Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Mr. Stallo:
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 mischaracterizations you made even earlier.
more emphatically the %%
The message of your February 20 letter is clear: the Staff of the NRC has decided that public safety does not matter at Shoreham; operation. that what matters only is putting the plant into licensing You have converted the Staff's role in the Shoreham the cause proceedings
- LILCO's cause.from participant in the case to champion of In short, you have betrayed the Staff's time forresponsibility to the public you to take remedial in these proceedings.
actions. It is 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 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 f avored treatment or competitive advantage to any member of the public." The Staff sm ,- ,
e
- s. ... .......... . .s. .... .
g
~ .. ~ .. - ota . i + a* c "
f
~
1 1
Mr. Victor Stello March 10, 1987 Page 2 l
cannot satisfy this standard: your February 20 letter is a I manifesto of the Staff's favor and partisanship toward LILCO; a declaration of hostility toward Suf folk County.
Second, Suf folk County requests that you appear before a Special Session of the County Legislature. Your February 20 letter or facts parades from design. a bias that stems either from ignorance of the We want rely for information concerning emergency planning at Shoreham.to know th ,
With and met, whom f rom what have LILCO theyand other entities outside the NRC have you said?
you held with NRC Commissioners?What private conversations have What is your true purpose in putting LILCO's interests above those of Suf folk 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.
Finally, we this letter. To begin, request that you digest the facts presented in co'.rected your mistatementthe County Executive's January 16 letter that in a "real emergency" Suffolk County would cooperate with LILCO and "follow LILCO's plan." The Executive incorrect, informed you that your statement was unfounded and Resolution No. and transmitted documents, including suffolk County statement that, 111-1983, to explain in detail the reasons for his
! "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 Shoreham."
%s -
Your February 20 letter demeans the County Executive's statement.
In scarcely veiled terms, you accuse the County Executive boast and the County Legislature of being liars, and even that you "continue to stand behind" your earlier misstatements. This presumptuousness does not suit an appointed NRC people.
employee addressing the elected government of 1.3 million i
{ The fact is that the government of Suffolk County would never use LILCO's emergency plan, or work in concert with LILCO or rely upon LILCO's advice or judgment in a nuclear emergency.,
Whatever plan. our actions, they would not include LILCO or LILCO's This is the result of the County government having t
absolutely no confidence in the judgment or competence of LILCo.
l The June 23, 1986 statement of the Suffolk County Executive, which I sent you on January 16, explains the reasons in detail.
l l _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ . _ _ - . _ . _ _ - - - - -- ~ ~ - - - ~
h Mr. Victor Stello March 10, 1987 i
Page 3 Your February 20 letter persists in mischaracterizing the emergency planning. actions of Suffolk County. You write of the "refusal" charge theofCounty the County with to participate in emergency planning and "intransigence."
words. The f acts belie your In fact, emergency planning. Suffolk County has participated thoroughly in In March 1982, we retained a team of nationally recognized them to prepare the "best experts at a cost of $600,000, directed to do that. possible" plan, and gave them f ree rein Eight months later, when the experts completed their draf t plan and accompanied it, the extensive studies, analyses, and surveys that ,
the County Legislature held eight days of open hearings at which specialists from around the country, including LILCO's testified. consultants and of ficials, and members of the public Thereafter, Sixteen hundred pages of testimony were compiled.
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 concluded enat planning materials and testimony before it and Shoreham, it would in the notevent of a serious be possible nuclear accident at t o evacuate protect the public. or otherwise in Resolution No. 111-1983: among them are the limitedare The bases for this determination stated roadway 1 network, population densities, and other phyaiographic conditions which would cause people who were attempting to evacuate, instead to become stuck in gridlock. These people, therefore, would be %s exposed flee.
to the very radiation f rom which they were directed to The government of Suf folk County had two choices: to adopt an emergency plan, or to resolve not to adopt one. To have done i the former being wouldwhen protected haveinmisled the public into believing they were fact they were not.
would be to tell the truth: that the adoptionTo do the latter of an emergency plan would merely put an ineffective paper plan on the shelf and I lull the public into a sense of false security. This government
( was welfare.
elected to tell the public the truth and to protect their 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 actions were challenged by LILCO in rederal court.and the The County's County won the cases the Court ruled that the Resolution rationally based. LILCO also challenged the Resolution in State is lawful and court.
decisionThe not New York Court of Appeals upheld the County's to adopt a plan. In short, the County lawfully exercised its police powers.
(
t l
. - - _ - - - m, , . . _ _ _ , , . . . - _ . , - - - . - . , . _ - , , - ,-,7 , _ . - , . , _ , , _ .,--r--
m 9 .
+
Mr. Victor Stello March 10, 1987 Page 4 l
It is clear to us that you accuse Suf folk 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 plan. The reason for your view presumably is thator implement an emergency actions do not enable the NRC to license Shoreham. the Count 9's County If Suffolk 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 County decision to adopt a plan, fair-mindedness requires that you accept the County decision not to adopt one.
Your rebruary 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.
permits you have in mind presumably dealt with whether LILCOThe satisfied local building and other codes. The permits did not N 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 AIC 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 ef forts, 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 AIC Staf f, 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
3
= .
Mr. Victo'r 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 agreeds and (2) because the NRC did not the issue to be thoroughly examired until the adoption of itsrequire post-Three Mile Island regulations in 1980.
You know well that the turning point radiological emergency planding was the Three Milefor all concerned Island with accident, when the Kemeny Commission, Congress, and the NRC itself heralded preparedness. the need for workable local emergency 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 conf ronted with NRC Staf f ef forts to ,
license the operation illegal emergency plan. ofThis the plant on the basis of a utility's is precisely the action of the NRC Staff in the Shoreham case.
The fact is that Shoreham was sited by LILCO and construction planning was of given the plant was little approved by the AIC when emergency attention. ws As late cs 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 whichIsland Mile do notregulations.
comply even with the NRC's discredited pre-Three 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 public to be impossibles (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 i
illegal and not implementable. By choosing to rationalize LILCO's licensing objective in the Shoreham proceedings, rather than following advocating fantasy: reality, you have become stuck with promoting the that in the absence of County, State, or ,
y s Y
g .
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% .
bs dregory Q). Bllgjs Michael A. LoGrande Presiding Officer Suffolk County Executive Suffolk County Legislature cc: NRC Service List v
i 1
l
\ j