ML20067C302

Scientists & Engineers for Secure Energy,Inc Amend to Request for Hearing & Petition to Intervene.*

ML20067C302
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	02/04/1991
From:	Mcgranery J SCIENTISTS & ENGINEERS FOR SECURE ENERGY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20067C304	List: ML20067C302 ML20067C491 ML20067C499 ML20067C536 ML20067C563 ML20067C574 ML20067C588 ML20067C610
References
CON-#191-11393 91-621-01-OLA, 91-621-1-OLA, OLA, NUDOCS 9102120022
Download: ML20067C302 (4)

Text

4 F, e =- .

k)~

I:0thEiED f

~

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA U5MC  !

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 91 FEB -6 P2 33 Before Administrative Judgest p;c- , q;gg vMi i n, , ' : in Morton B. Margulies,-Chairman Mm" Dr. George A. Ferguson i Dr. Jerry R. Kline In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-322-OLA

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) ASLBP No. 91-621-01-OLA

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) (Confirmatory order Unit 1) ) Modification)

)

)

SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS FOR SECURE ENERGY, INC. 1 AMENDMENT TO ITS REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PETITION TO INTERVENE Pursuant to the Atomic Safety end Licensing Board's

("ASLB")- Memorandum and Order of January 8, 1991 (" January 8 4

Order") in the above-captioned proceeding, Scientists and Engineers'for Secure' Energy, Inc. (" Petitioner") amends, by i counsel,_-_its request for hearing and petition to intervene in that proceeding:by providing_ affidavits from the Executive-Director and the members, Dr. John '.. Bateman,- Eena-Mai Franz, Andrew P. -Hull, Dr. Stephen V. *:..solino, Joseph Scrandis, John R.

=Stehn, requesting representation by Petitioner addressing the injury in fact to its organizational interests and the-interests of the members who has authorized it to act for them (attached)_

as well as detailing further contentions to be raised in this proceeding, as specified below.

9102120022 910204 DR ADOCK05000gg2 go9 l

j

rv e -.

L In addition _to those particular aspects of the Confirmatory Order as to-which Petitioner originally specified an intent to intervene, Petitioner agrees with the ASLB January 8

-Order that the overarching action that can be challenged in the confirmatory order modification proceeding is "whether the Confirmatory Order shall be sustained" and asserts that issue.

January 8 Order at_6.

Petitioner further asserts that each and every particular aspect specified11n Section III of its original petition are subsidiary issues to this overarching issue.

-And as_the Board further specified in the January 8 Order at 6, a specific aspect which Petitioner seeks to intervene on is the sustainability of the NRC's underlying determination "that the-health and safety reauire that the commitment be >

confirmed by the Confirmatory Order" (emphasis added).

Further, Petitioner specifies that the failure of the Staff to' issue any remedial orders or to provide a rational basis for not issuing such remedial orders constitutes an arbitrary and capricious 1 action in violation of the Commission's responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as further elucidated in 10 C.F.R. Part-2, Appendix C (1990) and that such I arbitrary and capricious action constitutes a present and future danger to the health and-safety of the represented members.

l Also, given the absence of a categorial exclusion l

pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 51.22(c) for the action,-the lack of an I

l i

t e ,7 environmental assessment ("EA") or environmental impact statement k

("EIS")-on the Confirmatory Order modification violates both Petitioner's and its represented members' rights under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. S 4332 31 agg. (1988) ("NEPA") and 10 C.F.R. Part 51 (1990) because it I deprives both Petitioner and its members of the information which NEPA requires.to be developed by the Staff-for the benefit of the i genera 1Epublic and the decision-makers.

Petitioner further asserts that allowing the Shoreham plant to remain in a degraded safety condition while possessing an operating license creates an obvious potential for offsite  ;

radiological consequences-for its represented members.

Also, the Settlement Agreement between-the Long Island Lighting' Company ("LILCo") and other entitles and subsidiary l

l_ agreements thereto (for example, the Amended Asset-Transfer j Agreement) establish a nexus between the circumstances leading to the Confirmatory Order, the Confinsatory Order itself, the alleged resultant construction of substitute oil burning plants, and'the harm that would be created for Petitioner's represented

-members, thus establishing as part of the-subsidiary issues of the proceeding, the resulting harm for Petitioner's represented members. Egg January 8 Order at 27.

r  ;

-e ,  ;

WHEREFORE, Petitioner renews its request-for the remedies noted in the original petition, contends that the injuries.resulting from the action which is the subject of this proceeding are likely to remedied by a favorable decision granting the relief sought (including such other relief as the ASLB deems appropriate), and requests that the action be set down for hearing after a pre-hearing conference and appropriate discovery.

Respectfully submitted,

~ :3

,F

,// :

vy s February 4, 1991 -- .4 W 1' ) '

James P. McGranery//r.

Dow, Lohnes & Albqrtbon Suite 500 1255 Twenty-Third Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 857-2929 Counsel for--the Petitioner Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc.

l-L u

l

+,- . ~ . - - . . - , . - - - - - . . . , . ,, . , - - .