ML20129D862
| ML20129D862 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/11/1985 |
| From: | Kelley E SUFFOLK COUNTY, NY |
| To: | Edles G, Rosenthal A, Wilber H NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#385-797 OL-3, NUDOCS 8507160668 | |
| Download: ML20129D862 (23) | |
Text
m W% - -
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK se --
gF%
ec#Kd=TED us c n%*@%a:IA-: %5 515 I
PETER F. COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY XECUTIVE... y,,
MARTIN BRAOLEY ASHARE DEPARTMENT OF LAW COUNTY ATTORNEY ACDRESS ALLCOMMUNICATIONS IN THIS M ATTER TO.
July 11,1985 Atomic Saf ety and Licensing Appeal Board U. S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Fif th Floor ( No rth Tower )
East-West Towers 4350 East-West Highway Bethesda, Marylsand 20 814 Attention:. Administrative Law Judges:
Alan S.
Ro se nthal, Chairman Ga ry J. Edles H oward A. Wilbe r In the Matter of LONG ISL AND LIGHTING COMPAhY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 '( Emeraency Planning)
Dear Sirs:
By letter dated July 8 th, I notified the Appeal Board that the Suf f olk County Attorney felt constrained by pending New York State Court litigation f rom commenting on the " legal authority" group of issues now bef ore the Appeal Board.
I also requested the Appeal Board's indulgence with respect to a f urther submission in the event that f uture developments warranted.
Such developnents have occurred and our position on these ' issues is as f ollows:. The Suf f olk County Executive continues to oppose the notion that LILCO, independent of any gove rnmental involvement, would have the legal authority by itself to implement an emergency plan for Shoreham.
The County Executive takes no position with respect to the " immateriality" argument advanced ' by LILCO.
g7160668G50711 G
ADOCK 05000322.
PDR VCTER ANS MEV3RI AL HIGHW AY s
H AUPPAUGE. NEW YORM t 1788 m
(5 t 6) 3E 0-4049
e-Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boa rd July 11,198 5 Page 2 Wi th re spect to L IL CO 's " r eali sm" argument, the rele va nt developnents are as f ollows:
1.
On June 26, 1985, the Suf f olk County Executive responded to a 1etter f rom W.
Taylor Reveley, III, Esq., one of counsel for LILCO, wi th re s pect to the issue of whether the Suf f olk County Executive would respond in the event of a radio-logi cal emergency at Shoreham.
The County Executive replied that he would so respond "to the best of my ability and in accordance wi th the duties and obligations placed upon me by Article 2-b of the Executive Law".
That exchange of correspondence comprises Enclosures 1 and 2 hereto.
2.
On June 20, 1985, the Commission issued an Order in this case, CLI-85-12, denying a pe ndi ng reque st f rom Suf f olk County's fo rmer attorneys, the firm of Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, that it perf orm a full-blown NEPA evaluation of low power opera-tion of the Shoreham plant prior to issuance of a license authorizing 5% power testing.
In rej ecting tha t reque st, th e Commission stated its expectation that, in the event a f ull power license were ultimately granted f or Shoreham, governments would not ref use to take pa rt, to th e ex te nt ne ce ssa ry to protect the public health and safety, in radiological emergency preparedness.
CL I-85 -12 at p. 4.
As can be seen f rom paragraph 1 above, the Suf f olk County Executive does not disagree with the Commission's view on this matter.
3.
On July 9,1985, the New York Court of Appeals, by a 4-3 vote, upheld the trial court's invalidation of Suf f olk County Executive Order 1-1985.
The Court of Appeals' majo rity opinion included the f ollowing passages:
If the challenged executive order is merely a vehicle f or the gathering of inf ormation to enable the County Executive to perform his statutorily mandated f unctions of taking "an active and personal role in the developnent and implementation of disaster preparedness programs" ( Executive Law Sec.
20[1][b ]) and giving " advice and a ssi sta nce " to the local legislative body or other duly appointed planning authority
( Executive Law Sec. 23[ 51), it is clearly authoriz ed under the sta tute.
The Court of Appeals went on to find that D:ecutive Orde r 1-1985, as dra f ted, went bayond tha t f unction and rather constituted the "first step touard implemen ta tion of a plan".
H owe ve r, th e S u f-f olk County D:ccuti ve b211 eve s that th e qua ted po rtien of th e
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board J uly 11, 1985 Page 3 opinion permits him to take such steps as are necessary to gather suf ficient inf onnation, during an exercise or otherwise, of an emergency response plan for the purpose of advising the County Legislature concerning the f easibility of the same.
The Court of A ppeals ' slip opinion is Enclosure 3 hereto.
4.
On June 20, 1985, the NRC Staf f req ue sted th e Federal Energency Management Agency to schedule as f ull an exercise of the Shoreham emergency plan as is f easible and lawf ul at the present time.
That request is Enclosure 4 hereto.
Taken together, the developments recited above indicate that the Suf f olk County Executive would respond in the event of an actual radiological emergency at Shoreham; that the New York Court of Appeals has recognized the existence of statutorily mandated duties on his part in this respect and has ref used to proscribe his taking steps to gather inf ormation concerning any emergency response plan that would be in effect in such an event; and that an exercise of such a plan now appears to be actively in the plan-ning stage.
To this extent, we do not disagree with the " realism" argument advanced by LILOO.
Two issues related to that of legal authority are now bef ore this Appeal Board:
those of conflict of interest on the part of LILCO personnel exercising certain emergency responce functions, and the absence of a New York State plan f or Shoreham.
F ram what has been stated above, it is clear that the Suff olk County E<ecutive would ensure the response of the Suff olk County government in the event of a radiological emergency at Shoreham.
As to the absence of a State plan, the significance of that "def e ct" is greatly attenuated, given its applicability only to the region more than 10 miles f rom Shoreham, by the intended participation of the Suffolk County government in response to any actual energency at Shoreham.
Respectf ully cubmitted, MARTIN BRADLEY ASHARE Suf f olk County Attorneyf"i D
A J/
. LL,Q id s
N By:
Eugene R.
Kelley M BA: ERK: rg Chief De'puty County Attorney
')
e
[
f Enclosures CC: Servi ce List s
i
4 l
HuwTon & WnLIAxs 707 EAmt Marat Stamat P.O. Box 1538 seco.um.se,6 vama muumus; m er R2cmasown Vaaosse A aaesa
- p. o. aos ease as. e u.
esaw vosa maw venne sorrt eveoa e ee asse Tetsposcada 30d-7. 7-8200 vsuas reser vi e ma a4= s towan TWK-710-S56 Cost
- e. p. som sees-s a a w outkeeme e. o sesaice es@ggyggs.VtpetselA Beste massiew. mosrfw samouma as os e
"*"J*" ',*,W ***
- June 17, 198E TEs.49esOces e45.M487L
,,,,y..,
e..,,
dode speaJee BA'Oes soap"
,,AJefas, wapePNJA 304G nosomysLLE. TtsessemeEE 37eok P
u.
m.,ea.
oo TELf9es@seg g[343T'43gh r.
..-o..,=.
Martin.Bradley Ashare, Esq.
Suffolk. County Attorney H. Lee Dennison. Building.
Veterans Memorial Highway i
Hauppaugee New-York 1178E Long Island Lighting. Company l
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
I Dear Mr. Amhare suffolk County Executive.Cohalan.was quoted in.the, June.
l 15,1985 New York: Times to this offecte i
In that event (i.e., shoreham becor*7 l
radioactival, the county has a duty and responsibility to provids7for-the health and safety of-the residents near the plant.
I write to ask if,in. fact,.the County Executive will i
l respond fully, in cooperation. with. LERO, to protect. the public.
health and, safety in the event a radiological accident occurs at Shoreham.
Very truly yours, W w.
ay1 nov ley Izz 12E/586 s
J 1
i rw-s v.e-e-
- w ne..w- -, -
,,-n,--.,,..,,,,,,nn.,
,_.-,.-.-n.,.,,,--,~.a.,w,w,-,
,n,,,-_
_. _ ~ -,, _ - - _, - -,.. _, - - -, - - -, -,, -.
COUNTY OF CUFFOLK OFFICE OF THE COUNTYEXECUTIVE~
Putra F.COHALAN surreta couerry enscutsvur JOHN C.GALLAGHER cutFoenrn June 26,1985 l
Hunton. & Williams j
70 7 E. Main St.
l P.O. Box 15 35
- .I Richmond, VA 23212 l
Attr. W. Taylor Reveley, III, E sq.
RE:
Long. Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit Il i
Dear Mr. Revoley:
g This is in response to your letter of June 17, j
1985.
In the event of a radiological accident, I, as the i
County Executive will respond to the best of my ability and in accordance with the duties and obligations placed upon j
me by Article 2-b of the Executive Law..
Sincerely, gb d-t PETER F. COHALAN SUFFOLK COUNTY EKECUTIVE i
PFCtsu 1
e ll
/t Y
,t,t,__
Eatitt ci Siggets la e.
em a,
-o m e. m, Das 2
Ke.
440 Ordee attitwo wit.haut coats, i,,
In the Ntter of Vaynt fatapets, acec randw.
at at..
Chier Juda' Vachtiar ata JJars $1sers, s.espoe.4,ets, rate and A1+under t.astsr. J43, v.
Titone dissects est votes to et,atte.
Petei F. CehA1An.14.,
in as opinism in htish.fudaea haea Arge11 ant.
amo M.ver rencvr.
IAeg Thlaad lightieg C M euy, late ttese r-Aypellemt.
In t.h. tietter of tbc Trno of Echthang tea, et 41..
Fespoodents.
4 Petcr F. Cohstaa. Et.,
4;-e11:nt, Lent taland Lighting Ceegahy, latervrcos Arcellant.
4 9/
//
7
.s. :
..,-, m. n xm w.....- 2.,, _ _ _ -
(*
O
/
[
5tett of Reto Rak e
60DEC0F$ ppt 03 m.
in t,,. u te, w. y P,.
-t.
MEMORANDUM
.i.i.,
e e n.nacit..
v.
g m%,,,m g g g,,
Peter. P. Cohalen. ALc..
w wpe pm a nie w YA %c A p peltent, Lang litand Ligming Campsay.
Intervencr-ApptW4.
In itse tAatter of the Te in of Southampton, et 61.,Raycndent6, v.
Peter F. Cahate, 54..
Apt,6 ant, 1f Long 16tead Lignting Company, latervance. Appe a<it.
n
- )T. teril;. CL11:1, Ot.r t t. C?t,, for a; i.
r.. u r.a, ::n., a u.s. v.., s u m i. u r.
Sh&l*,1;TC, for 1r.ttnet.or-L;;t*.2 s'.t 1.!!,CC.
&
- e fit! l,11;(;e., ER;ilor., fcr ITV?ri.1;, t fe-t*,ts s,
re r;;:.de..:
Et t!!.+*, E,,LL1? K'al1Ve r.*.t Li g fL r ti t: D*.Ct ?.1 7ct:' r,
?-::er: Atrar.s Atter:.4 Ge!4r&*.D.:rt: F.. I:ar.
f dr.*.i :t 1:..ss.
s':2.r. :.t.. Le. wit., tar,u.e e;..
sit, hr f r.trtr.i.-4 di:.;tt, tr.it.t.
MCHORAM:
The order of the App,11ste Dtvision shovid be sffirmed, without costa.
Article 2 2 of the Executive 1.49, netvithart.r.dtog its articulated policy of involvina local chief czeeutives in the developmehc and ivple,ntatten of dittater prapstadness pragtet (ExecucIva 1.av $ 20f 21(bi), dass not vest its thee tha ulticate respot.siblitty for t s preparatier, of county disaster plan 6.
b Asstion 23(1),pecifically providea that "!vlach county
- is authorisso to prepsre disaster preparedness plaps".
le to cicar that the deletstlen of pov*r to each county 1, to (ta t
l i
(,*[#* * '
Y. * * { g
>Y.,s?s
?.
$NY W~
' ' " * ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
i l
n e
i i
In cther secticog et.
legislative, not its executiva htanch.
s.
article 2-B, the contest clestly Lodicates that referencer re-the "couEtP*, withogt.nete.' aignify the legis1stive branch. $sction 27 for enaaple. providan in partinent parc that "telvery cospty
- shall have the pcver to provide by local low *** for its continuity". 51eilerly. 5 28.s provides that, in the avent of a decleration of a atste dissuter emessency, "any conoty *** aha11 prepar,e a local recovery and redevelopnent plen, unlesa the l
legislative body of the evntcipality shall determine auch p]sn. to be unnecessary or impractical". lo stark contrast. When the Legisisture-intended to vest suthotisy oE any kind in a covoty eyecutive,'it has.6pect(Led the role of the chief sFecutive.
- defined as "a county executive or manager of a county" (Erecutive Lev i 20lf))))) Isse, e.g.. Executive Lav fi 24111 25t!),t21.131,141.!51 26tilf31).
P.oraover, the use of the tern "is authorised'* in $23(1) unequLvocally signels. e legislativa intent that the preparation of county plane is optional, not mandatory. The provieson, authorising the chief executive of a county to act upon the declaration of a radiological scoidthe do nat n :sscotily pie.
suppose the enf ateocs of a plan (Exucutiva Law' $$245 25: 26:
Wa read Executive-L49 520fl)(bb at.estely 2811) 29.bl2)).
manifesting a policy preferring conoidaration of the county eyecutive's views in the developmoht of disaster-preparedsers programa, which policy itflacitly recognizes that priesty resten-albility for such ds'tclerment te lodged elsewhere and agree with the conc]veien of the A;;slints Division that the term "ccunty" in Executive Lav.$23(1) does not 10c1VJa "couotr executiva".
1-e g
g A,
p I
h p
w-w
.4
_ _~
4
oty n -
p-
- li th; thallangsd c=;cutive crder is merely a v'. hic 12 for the gathering 'of inforwation to enable the county esecutive to perforwhte statutorily a:Aedated-functione-of taking an ective and personen role in the developernt and igitsantation of dieseter preparedness programe'* (Executive Lav 520l}1861) and givitig " advice'end assistance" to the local legislative body or other duty oppointed planning authority'ttsecutive Law 523[5)),
.it. ts clearly aut or ted utider the statute. However, we read h i Enecutive Order 1-1985 as tapresenting a first step toward the isrplementatiets of a plari and therefots ve find it to be a clest usurpation of the legis1stiva functiots (cf. UnJor 21 y City _of New York, NY2d
[ deed June 26. 19851).
1
? ?l$??_.
$$$Wr
'A E ' ' ' ' ' ' ~ ~ ~ " - ~ ~
^'^
(* ? ? *
- Te#
- 4
Y i
s t
MATTER or fro 8PECT v conAIAw pp. 440 Y. J. T.
Tit 0FC, J. (dissenting)
The issue before us is not whether Esecotive I.aw g 23(1) confere wittmate responsibility for the pecumigetion of a disaster prepare 6 ness plan upcn the executive-braneh or ttie 1esteletiva branch of ceunty governmant, for the cheltenged Esecutive Order does not pu.rport to promulgate such a plan. It simply 6&reets the Cosentssianer of Tolice and the Cosatssioner of Flanning to stody.a proposso plan-thtt la not in effect sea may never go Anto effect. The test quastiet, then, concerne itse proper role et the $watcLary it: tbte emotionally chargea diapute, pecause the Covnty hecutive clearly pssarses empress ene implied authority to.teeve the Executive Order in questien ana A
e m
e f
W Y 6vE6-$ "
S 'E
O the clieged 11144;% cet0 C@tght 13 be cofsined h v2 not t0kea
- [
plac] and-ar> conting;nt.upon. fzturo evsnte that a*y gr may not e
egne to pesa, the purported challenge-$s "non19sticlable as wholly speeslative and abetract" (New York State It'epection.
Security & Lev Enforcement b+1oyees v cueno, 64 arr2d 732, 240).
Accordlegly. the ordar of the Appellate Division should be reversed e58 the petitiona disataned.
This litigetton revolves around a nuclear power plant located at shorehemien Long Island. It appears that the plant esanot becesso operationel in the oboence of an essergency evac.
The suffolk County Legleteture has cortsistently wattori plan.
taken the position that no plan would be feasible and eventgagly peekee e repotution signed by the present County Executive, appellant Peter Cohelen, which *tereinated' Suf folt Cour.ty's
- radiological amargener planning proceta* and-directed-that 'tio local saetalogical entrgency plan * *
- De adopted or implemented."
Blocked by local goverrunental obstinance, the utility submitted ite own plan to the Waeleer Reguistory cossmission.
Af ter the Caser.(668orr rejseted-tha plan a5 boyone the atliity8e legal powers, appellant Cohalan issued Enacutive order 1-1985, whleh rendo se followss
'By the power vested in #4 under Artsate !T=a of the New York state Executive Lew ond 5 302 of the SUrrot.F Comm CFARTrF, I hereby caterwide that it is neceseary for me to eeuse to be reviewed aM evaluated the 14cet ryergency Reppense rien for foffolk County premeritty before the (Jnsted atatae Itueleer Regulatory Cere.isaton and the Federst faergency Managepent Agency.
Altfiough the parttee have riot viged nonjusticiobility, since the 8ssue impitcates subject matter jurinaletton Otto verk State inspection, security.a tow t'nforcemnnt r*ployees v cuona, 64 err 2d n 36, we raise the tesue r>n our ovrs notion O'3tnsen y stegel, ny reac, 5 an.
233, 3e) oennie steam nysq. coi,112 rer zu, 324:
O m*c - - -
t ~* ' : a ;?.
c
.s '7.umm ouwst:1y l
l
- 1 th:r firo dir:et th3 Cnassi : liner Et P211c3 cnd Coeselssioner cf a'
r the Suffolk County Plannico Dapartatt t to uss whatever resources of the govert.nont of the-County of Suf folk are neceenery in order to congilete a review-and evaluation of the above Imcal Emergency gasponse Plan and carry out and cau6e to be conducted a test and exercisa of the above emio Plan in conjunction with the Local Es4rgency Fasponse Organization (LEliQl. I further direct that egente-of the County of Suffolk assume the function of comunand and control' with 1>plementatiew of police powers of the County of. Suffott ovat the conduct of sete test and eyercise."
Charging that Cohstan betraysd thew, petitioners, several individuni Suffolk county legislators and four gutEolk County towns, brought separate aults to annul the Esecutiva order on the ground that it neutps the power of the Suffolk county Legislature to develop and Septement a diesstar preparednepp plan. They have been succvsoral at special Term and at the Appellate Division. chtaining a judpunt, vblen the Appellata Dtvision affitwod, declaring the Executive Order vold and enjoJn-Ang Cobalan, ble agents and employens free.tektng any actica 'to enforce, imp 1w9nt or carry cut the directivee, policiers or 19199* of the order "or ar.y directive or instruction relating thereto.* We conclude that the deterintnations below rest upon a speevlotive presise concerning futura events and, therefore, would reverse.
Th6te can be no dowbt that the Suffolk county Executiva has the power -- indeed the responofbility== to h the utility's proposal. t;secutive Law $ 20(21(DJ expressly d4Clares state policy to be that " local chief executives tain an active and personti role in the devoices. ant and leplonantation of disaster prepersoness program, and ba. vested with authority and responsibilier in order to insure the success of such programs.*
In
- preparing such plana,* the State Legislature bee epceitled that
- cooperation, sJyjee and aeolstance" be sought frose,63ccal
, 8 3%s.:. s k s Awa e. ML'.L ;' 22;.;rMyty y.s* mme.
- me = =.
o 1
government officials, regicast and local pittwrit"r cyceles, f andl polsce agencies o o c' '(Emecutive Law $ 23($1). That is cII S'
Eaecutive Order 1-1985 does.
Under the Suffolk Covaty charter, the County r-aceutive la chief adnidletrative otracer and administrative heed (Suffolk county Charter $ 3021, er=f. as occh, la cattguted "to saemog* th operati-a of the division of the excevtive bt**ch" (New-tork Stata taspection,_ security a to Cnforcet v cuomo. E4 Krfd F33, 239, oopeal. In a3aition to other respotelblisttas. the Charter directa the County Executive to "present to the coenty legislature from time to tima euch informstron and reewsavede.
tions concarming the affaits of the county as he may deen acces.
sary oc as the esamty legisletete emy by resolution requeat' (Soffolk cocaty charter 5 30Jfgil.
Although Cctaty Executive Cohelen b&e acted within the parasseters of these statetcry and chseter provielonc. the arge-ment la made thet eloce the suttolk county Legislature has constatentir expretoed its intention not to approve ey plan. the courts should aow hold that, as a matter of statutory con-struction, the power to promulgate and implement a disastae preparedness plan is rolely a legislativa function, and, lettevch as the sottolk coasty Legseletete will not do so, the County Enevutive's powara are vitiated. %is bege the question.
Copty Ezecutive Cohelen hoe m prsaalgated say plan Mts E>ecwt.tva cedar merely directs that a procesal be evelanted.
After the proposal in studied, be c ay woll conclude that it 1.
not visble e>4 that wLil..end the artter.
If, on the other hand, he concludes that the proposai is workable and shovid be lapte.-
- z. anted, he could sabots it to the suf folk county facief etera for its consideration med ogsaa to abide by its determination.
Again, the questlun of statutory construction would be soot, 4
S 0
O l
-m-
.r.'n*:J:mt*merwomt. -
- s. w is
- .. w. e i
Daly if Coonty trecutive Cih:1:a isrp3 rents th2 propos:1-by-executive flat in tbo tscs of legislativa disapproval vill the
+
i issue pressed upon.ne. lie ripe for judicist Tor.olution. By no stretch of logiatic. leserdeesin can.it.bt.tead se sama sort et first step toward a grandioen schema to 1& pose the plan on the county.
There are other 'ife' here es voll, we are told that it 3e absolutely cettain that the Swf tolk Cognty Iagittature v111 withhold its cottetht. But the only thing absolutely certain in political matters is that nothing is abeolutely certa!n. Atti.
tedes are shapaa by current events. Another energy criele, with its long gesoline 1snas and brown-nots, may cause a quick change in legleistive consensos. The Icgittators could, at least theoretically, be evayed by ** pert reports, especially if, by virtue of sees sort or receral precrption, it is datermined that the plant is to open li firitleh Airwaye 113. v Port Authority of Nov York and New Jersey, 564 F7d 1007 l local noise-limitation standar& utilized to bar $$T invalidated)l. A retoluttom by datinition, is "an act of a ten:wyrery Ch4F#Cter not pr45cribing a pegnanent rule of government' fMeter of Co!!fne v city of Sehenectaby; 256 App Div 359, 3921 fesphauls suppliedt which
'contipoes for a reasonable period only, and in such a case e formal repost to riot, of coutee, r4 quired to ter=Lnate its operation (5 Mc091111n, Pr nicipal corporations [3d edi, 515.421' u
(Oveer11e v f ae. Vil, or Munsay ParJr, $4 AD2a 434, 411, affd 44 hir23 774 Itsdeed, tbte litigetton Staalf, fueled by the-adoption.of a more flektble postore by tha county necutive, is itself talling. In short, we are reminded of ILysoh's Julie, vto
- wtdspering,
'I shall ne'er consent,' consected" (Don Jued, Canto I, s ta ns a 117).
=Se hy 7
ee ee de -= e. Asee.5pd ad shTd ed'~,W '-
-"M aTpM e" d n -- - -
n
All thes2 #1f 3' E004:r it botti Unnsces20cy cnd 10 proper for us to e> press any view on vbether a disaster preparedcass A
plea may be put into effect absent the impritiatur of the local legislature. Coutts should not involve the:musives in chs11engee to enecotive acts where 'the harm. sought to be enjoined le
[becautel * *
- continagent upon avents which ma: not coise to pass the claim.to enjoin the purported basard is non19eticlable as wholly speculative and abstrect' (Now York etste Tospectioni Security & t.ew Enforcement niployees y curros, 64 FY7a 233, 240, sypg a_). To paraphrase our holding in tiow York Pubile interest Pescarch Croun w Carey (42 NY2d 577, 531, sopra,1, until the in the teeth of County taceutive attempts-to implement a plek legislative opposition, any declaration on out part "'wev1d be premature (quoting sorchard. Declaratory Judgannte, p 63: see_
also, Cobnor v siebert, 56 NY7d 041. 'Jurlediction existe that ngnts may-bar eointained, paghts are not maintained that juris.
diction may malet' IEcrkovier v Arbid. 230 nr 251, 2721.
An actual antagonistic sportion-of-rights which. are ripe for adjudication is an indispensable safeguard, essential-ter the integrity of the 3cdicial proceSn (see, Matter of State Ind, conse,, 214 Nr il (Cardoso. J.)).
"i'his is not accely a question of 3udiciel prudance or restratnts it is a constitutiottal corrana defining the proper role of the courts under & comanon-law system
- INew York Public Tntereet Pesnarch crono y Caray, 42 Nf7d 521, 130-531, sopra).
The SoJfolk County 1.egislature's pertinacity cannot, in any sense,10terdict the County I'aceutive frofi vncertaking his obligation to *take en active mod personal role le the cavmiop.
pont and implementation of dissater preparedness programv' frsecot.tve 2.aw 5 20(11tDil. When the st.udy is cc.=pteted, the County 1.cgislature evet at least 'listan" to his report, even if 6
O i, =..,, u :. =.... nn-_
it 4043 not lik] wh:t it Sh rrf ( c. SuffC14 County en:rtst 5 E
303!g)). The suf folk coonty 1.ogislature's resolutions on the b
subject constitute hut tetporary, tsinteterial declarctioDA, not 1egislation finally and unequivocally disapproving the proposed plea (s,ae, city of trov unit of nrnswIoar county enapter or civ.
Serv. Employees Assn. v city of 'rrov. 36 AD2d 145, 147, affa 30 nr2d 549s Dueo11e v Tne. v)1. of Mansey Park. gas Hattet or co111ns v city of SeSeMete6y, everas & Mattar _of Jewett v 2.uan wyack corm,31 tir2d 295, 305 306).
Forhope the suffolk County I.egleletuso can curts the County Exeevtive's ability to function in thie aree tbtough the power of the pureo, by sagasing to allocate sufficient fucds for the project. But sven that gocation sa not before vs.
At this stage, the Couoty treevtive le plainly within his powers, and the
" lawful acts of executive branch atticials, performed in satis.
faction of responsibilities confes red t.y law, involve questions of 394geant, allocation-of resovacee end ordering at priosities, which are generally not enbject to 394tcle) reviav * * *. This judictat derarance to a coordinate, coequel branch of governannt incigdes one issue of justiciability generally canoninated as the
' political gvescion* doctrine" (New York State feepection, Security 61,ew Enforcemme r>ptovees v Cuoe, 64 lit 2d 233, 235, euntal.
Acceptance of the gorgott county 1.agislature's argusont here would establish a far-reaching and utlachievous precedent that cannot be confined to litigation involving a p:ver plant irt suffolk County. It vould abrogata the separation-of powers doctrine et the locat level, and, in its piece, substitet.a a parliamantary system (ce,;, Pecole v Tramine, 268 NV II, because it would enable the legfelative breech to toro a tiower of consent or conf!rMtion into a pcwer of appointment. To strip the 7
ID Ne bI TU I T E' M U d E ~ #IF " " 1 r-1 v.,
V execetive cf h13 power t2 drignato o polieS coapt;olinare nr exampia the 1egle1 store need only pass a rseoluticn to th affect that it will Pot confirm anyone other than T erut if the-auecutive attempted to seek or interview. ether app 11cante the legaslatore mead only call upon the judiciary to anjoin hita.fson.
acting in conttavention of its resolution. Through this arti.
fice, the executive would be compelled to nominste T, the legisistere's *nceinee' tsyf suffolk County charter S.3202fals
- ** ~~
41 HY2d 963, reve 56 AD2d 331).
& Matter et _ county of Suf folk, The United States Supress court recently rebuffed similar attasspes by Congress to ettaightjacket the President through tha use of the icgislative veto f rutoretlow & Watu-rall etion service v Chaaha, 462 178 919). In chadhe, the court invalidated 5144(c)(1) of tha Int:sigration and pationelity Act is USC $ 1254felll)) which authorized either House of Congress, by resolution, to overturn the decisforof-the Executive Dranch, pursuant to authority delegated by Congrees to the Attorney Cenoral, to ellow a particular hportabic e)1en to zeznin in this It seasoned that-thir legislative veto provision Country.
violated integral parts of tbo constitutlop41 design for the act'aretton of povere. As so wc11 put, "the hydraulic pressuse inherebt within each of the separate tranches lof Covarraent) to eseced tt.4 catar limite of its pwor, even to accocrplish desireable objectives, ewst be resisted
- Ifeterretion 6 untu-re!!rstion frarvsee y cheaha, 3, 9518. There is no saasan why this Court shoofd hold othervlse.
We wuld prefer riot to express our thoughts on iAet the 1978 State Le0161stora thought on a question that they poselbly esvar thought about, ny applying established roles of nonjvett.
c!*blisty, we give tima for tL6 political process to operate.
traving identified a gap in the legislation, it would be best to
.g.
O 4
e g
?)O [l 7 ['jM Q g**F $ *gueghpepr, ___ __
b i N$h d y
- m
.D, iLT5e~M11 C U ow tha Stato Icgleietura to fill it ( m, per.ieney's Statutss A
- . 4 i
5 191 lbil.
to fino, se doce the aujarity, that Erscutive Order 1
198$.1 constitutes an impermtecrible "ficat etep* in it:7 ecohting the plan, je, in actuality, en inqvtry into the County knecutive's etete of mind. It 14 beelo 24u, however, that the courts have no power to investigate the entivas of the executiva branch, abseht a deshonstration of fraud or the lika (m, 2 McQuillin, Municipal Corporations I2d edl, SS 10,35, 10.36, 10.3D, en this record, petitionces hava tiot overcome the presumption that the executive hoe acted with the solo porpose of accompliebths permissible constitutions) and statutury <;oale (se,e, 2 Mc091111n, Huntelpel corporotioner (2d ed), 'l 10.351.
For thosa reasons, the ordor of the Appellete Divgaton-should be reversed ent tria perf rionediefrdesc+.
e e
e e
e e
e e
e Order aff3rsod, without costs, in a morarandus. Chiet Judge Wachtler and Judon.Str>nns, Yays and Atensnder concur.
Jgdge Titoo.e dissants and votes to reverse in an opinion in which Judges Jasen ADO Nayce c6fiCDP.
Dec1444 July 9,1985 P
.g.
9 9
l
[
I e
e I -
e e e a
EL:,
, * *i* 'J..LT '!? rarsWE 1,5;4g.3AgJ--
- . ^
e J
UNITED STATES 8-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
5 t
WASHING ton, D. C. 20555
')
k *....p JUN 2 0 E MEMORANDUM FOR:
Richard W. Krimm Assistant Associate Director Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs Federal Emergency Management Agency FROM:
Edward L. Jordan, Director Division of Emergency Preparedness and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforcement
SUBJECT:
SCHEDULING OF EMERGENCY PLAN EXERCISE FOR SHOREHAM In response to LILCO's standing request to schedule an exercise of its emergency plan for Shoreham, the Commission, in a memorandum to the Executive Director for Operations dated June 4,1985 (Enclosure 1), stated that it sees no reason why the licensee (i.e., LILCO) should not be allowed to exercise those parts of the plan which may be legally exercised.
Further, the Commission indicated that it does not disagree with the view that an exercise of the LILCO plan could yield meaning-ful results, even though such an exercise may not satisfy all of the requirements of NRC's regulations.
The exercise could, as a minimum, identify the impact of the limitations of LILCO's plan when executed under the state and county restric-tions.
Accordingly, we request that FEMA schedule as full an exercise of the LILCO Local Emergency Response Organization (LERO) plan as is feasible at the present time giving appropriate consideration to the Suffolk County Executive's May 30, 1985 Executive Order and subsequent developments relating to emergency planning activities by the County.
In determining those portions of the LERO plan that might be appropriate for inclusion in an exercise at this time, we suggest that FEMA emphasize evaluation of the functional areas of emergency preparedness related to the demonstration of response capabilities within the plume exposure (10 mile) Emergency Planning Zone.
Contact:
F. Kantor, IE 492-9749
/1 v
k a
q plc.
3 1
Richard W. Krimm In the event FEMA determines that an exercise is not currently possible, we request that FEMA provide a response which addresses the five issues identified in the memorandum from the Secretary of the Commission.
Commissioner Asselstine's views on this matter are provided as Enclosure 2.
- A a
r
(
ward L. Jord
, Director Q
Division of Dnergency Preparedr.ess and Engineering Response Office of Inspection and Enforce:nent
Enclosure:
- 1. Memorandum from the Secretary of the Commission dtd. 06/04/35
- 2. Commissioner Asselstine's Views
-4
'o
=
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensina Acceal Board In the Matter of
)
)
LONG ISLAND' LIGHTING COMPANY Docket No. 50-322-OL-J (Emergency Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Unit 1)
)
Certificate of Service I hereby certify that copies of a letter to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board, dated July 11, 1985, have been served on the following this llth day of July, 1985,
~
by U.S. Mail, First Class.
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Stuart Diamond Atomic Safety and Licensing Business / Financial Appeal Board NEW YORK TIMES U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 229 W.
43rd Street Washington, D.C.
20555 New York, New York 10036 Mr.Howard A. Wilber Joel Blau, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing New York Public Service Cor Appeal Board The Governor Nelson A.
U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockefeller Building Washington, D.C.
20555 ~
Empire State Pla:a Albany, New York 12223 Mr. Gary J. Edles Stewart M. Glass, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Regional Counsel Appeal Board Federal Emergency Manageme; U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Agency Washington, D.C.
20555 26 Federal Pla:a New York, New York 10278 9
. ~ _ ~.
Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Edward M.
Barrett, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Long Island Lighting Company Washington, D.C.
20555 250 Old Country Road Mineola, New York 11501 Dr. Jerry R.
Kline W. Taylor Reveley III, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Hunton & Williams U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission P.O. Box 1535 Washington,,D.C. 20555 707 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23212 Mr. Frederick J.
Shon Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Atomic Safety and Licensing Board New York State Energy Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Agency Building 2 Washington, D.C.
20555 Empire State Plaza Albany, New York 12223 Mr. L. F. Britt Stephen B.
Latham, Esq.
Long Island Lighting Company Twomey, Latham & Shea, Esgs.
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station P.O. Box 398 P.O. Box 628 33 West Second Street North Country Road Riverhead, New York 11901 Wading River, New York 11792 Nora Bredes Docketing and Service Sectio @
Executive Director Office of the Secretary Shoreham Opponents Coalition U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Comm.
195 East Main Street 1717 H Street, N.W.
Smithtown, New York 11787 Washington, D.C.
20555 Ms. Donna D.
Duer James B. Dougherty Atomic Safety and Licensing 3045 Porter Street, N.W.
Board Panel
~
Washington, D.C.
20008 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 MHB Technical Associates Jonathan D.
Feinberg, Esq.
1723 Hamilton Avenue Staff Counsel, New York Statd Suite K Public Service Commission San Jose, California 95125 3 Rockefeller Plaza-Albany, New York 12223 Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comms Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 t
Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
Fabian G.
Paolmino, Esq.
Bernard M. Bordenick, Esq.
Special Counsel to the Governs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Executive Chamber, Room 229 Washington, D.C. 20555 State Capitol Albany, New York 12224 Spence Perry, Esq.
Mary Gundrum, Esq.
Associate General Counsel New York State Department Federal Emergency Management Agency of Law.-
Washington, D.C.
20471 2 World Trade Center, Room 461 New York, New York 10047 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart, Esgs.
1900 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20036 l
MARTIN BRADLEY ASHARE Suffolk County Attorney H. Lee Dennison Building Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 By:
(%MAAl 4,
Eugene RJ Kelley
\\
Chief Deputy County At ey Sworn to before me this
'llth day of July, 1985.
ddd TERE $A M. CUAtES h0TARY PdBUC State of New YofK -
No. 471ME9. Su' tot Couty Term Expires March 30,1
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _