ML20067C835

Shoreham-Wading River Central School District Amend to Request for Hearing & Petition to Intervene.* Requests That Action Be Set Down for Hearing After Prehearing Conference & Appropriate Discovery

ML20067C835
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	02/04/1991
From:	Mcgranery J DOW, LOHNES & ALBERTSON, SHOREHAM-WADING RIVER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NY
To:
Shared Package
ML20067C837	List: ML20067C835 ML20067C865
References
CON-#191-11391 91-621-01-OLA, 91-621-1-OLA, OLA, NUDOCS 9102120218
Download: ML20067C835 (4)

Text

cr.

J R39]

00LkE I,L D

' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA M*'

NUCLZ3R REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY .ND LICENSING BOARD '91 FEB -6 P2 33 Before Administrative Judges:

y tc: it El cig Ma Morton B. Margulies, Chairman WM 73 4' " '" I Dr. George A. Ferguson Dr. Jerry R. Kline

)

In the Matter _of ) Docket No. 50-322-OLA .

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) ASLBP Ho. 91-621-01-OLA

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Stction, ) (Confirmatory Order Unit 1) ) Modification)

)

)

SHOREHAM-FADING RIVER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT AMENDMENT TO ITS REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PFTITION TO INTERVENE Pursuant to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's

("ASLB") Memorandum and Order of January 8, 1991 (" January 8 Order") in the above-captioned proceeding, Shoreham-Wading River Centrb1 School District (" Petitioner") amends, by counsel, its request for hearing and petition to intervene in that proceeding by providing an affidavit from the President of its School Board and the emp10yee requesting representation by Petitioner addressing-the injury in fact to its organizational interests and the interests of the employee who has authorized it to act for him (attached) as well as detailing further contentions to be raised in this proceeding, as specified below.

In addition to those particular aspects of the Confirmatory Order as to which Petitioner originally specified an I

9102120218 910204 3._ g3 DR ADOCK O

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

ft' i

4 intent to. intervene, Petitioner- agrees with the ASLB January 8 order that the overarchir..t action that can be challenged in the confirmatory order modification proceeding is "whether the Confirmatory order shall be sustained" and asserts that issue.

2,anuary 8 Order at 6.

Petitioner further asserts that each and every particular aspect specified in 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 le.the sustainability of the NRC's underlying determination "that the health and safety recuire.that the commitment be i 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 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 arbitrary and capricious action constitutes a present and future p-L -danger to the health and safety of the represented employee.

p

-Also, given'the absence of a categorial exclusion-l-

pursuant to 10 C.F.R.-5 51.22(c) for the action, tha lack of an environmental asFessment ("EA") or environmental impact statement l

l: ('2IS") on the Confirmatory order modification violates both l

• L

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

l Petitioner's and its represented employee's rights under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U.S.C. 5 4332 at gag. (1988) ("NEPA") and 10 C.F.R. Part 51 (1990) because it deprives both-Petitioner and its employee of the information

-which NEPA requires-to be developed by the Staff for the benefit of the general public 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 employee.

Also, the Settlement Agreement between the Long Island Lighting Company ("LILCO") and other entities and subsidiary agreements thereto (for example, the Amended Asset Transfer Agreement) establish a noxus between the circumstances leading to

' the Confirmatory Order, the Confirmatory Order itself, the

-alleged resultant' construction-of substitute oil burning plants, and the-harm that would be created for Petitioner's_ represented employee, thus establishing as part-of the subsidiary issues of the proceeding, the resulting harm for Petitioner's represented L

employee. Egg January 8 Order at 27.

4

-4 -

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 (inc!.uding such o:nor relief as the ASLB deems appropriate), and requests that the action bo set down for hearing after a pre-hearing conference and appropriate discovery.

Respectfully submitted, February 4, 1991 d-. <

-r' l' James P. McGranery, Jr. j j/

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

Washington, D.C. 20037 (202) 857-2929 Counsel for the Petitioner Shoreham-Wading River Central School District l

l l ..

.