ML19242A425

Amend to 790313 Petition to Intervene,Adding New Considerations

ML19242A425
Person / Time
Site:	New Haven
Issue date:	05/11/1979
From:	Keeping W GARDINER, NY
To:
Shared Package
ML19242A423	List: ML19242A425
References
NUDOCS 7908010691
Download: ML19242A425 (7)

Text

'

3.

b u ac 97 1y O TOWN OF GARDINER GARDINER, NEW YORK 12525 ,

May' 11, 1979 OFFICE of EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOP UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '9p

' t'~ r"

, j'. N WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 AMENDMENT TO PETITICN FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE IN New Haven:1 AND 2, AND ALTERNATES. Dockets STN 50-596, STN 50-597 ORIGINALLY FILED March 13, 1979.

This amendment to our original petition is being filed to indicate the more detailed nature of our interest in the proceedings according to NRC rules and to add new considerations, based on events occurring after submission of our petition.

In defense of our ' untimely' petition (one day late), we repeat that choice of Gardiner as an alternate site was kept secret from us by New York Electric and Gas (NYEG) and by NRC staff until af ter the possibility of timely filing was past. The record will show that the Gardiner TOWN BOARD, at a Public Meeting, on March 13, 1979, voted to petition NRC for intervenor status. We could hardly have acted in a more tifaely man-ner. NRC staff in their answer to " Columbia / Ulster" petitions to inter-vene 4 2/79, and their supplement to this answer 5/2/79 (delivered to us5)'879)repeatedlymentionthe ' untimeliness' of our petition. A similar argument is used by applicant. ' gain, we couldn't have acted in a more timely fashion to protect the intereste of Gardiner citizens.

We reject NRC staff ' grant' of several days grace. It is sucgested tha+

publication of notice of Hearing on Feb. 9, 1979 by NRC was antitelv in that governments and other interested parties at alternate sites were not informed prior to NRC jublithed< Notice of Hearing.

As NRC staff poin t out, " consideration of alternatives (Gardiner assumes ' sites'as well as ' processes' here) is the linchnin of a NEPA analysis. Monroe County Conservation Society, Inc. vs. Volpe 472 F. 2d 693, 657-98(2d Cir. 1972)." It is evident that proceedings should not start (here by publication) until government and others who might be directly affected by said proceedings are notified of their status _

here, Gardiner as alternate site for two nuclear power plants. ,

The Town of Gardiner, New York sees its interests threatened by:

1. operation of nuclear fission reactors at New Haven

2. operation of nuclear fission reactors at the alternate site, Stuyvesant:

3. canstruction and operation of either nuclear fission reactors or fossil fuel themal electric generating plants in Gardiner, the second alternate site:

4. operation of nuclear fission plants in other possible alternate sites in New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Vermont, or New Hampshire.

5. electric power distribution facilities required by the 2500 Mw(e) facility

6. off-peak energy storage facilities.

The interes.s of the citizens of Gardiner are not represented by anyone else in the proceeding and these interests cannot be defended unless 486 Ul9

__ _ "****6T/ /{ -

th'e government of Gardiner in party to the proceedings.

The Gardiner Town Board and involved branches of Town Government, the Planning Board and the Environmental Conservation Conniccion are thoroughly familiar with Gardiner including the alternate cite celected by NYEG and al_

with deceribed routes for cooling water and power d ic tribu tion. We are familiar with the general nature of nuclear power generation and como of tcc problens involved in this process. The Town Eoard and advicory bodies have profescional expertice in radiobiology and Chemist y, and maintai.inggeology, and engineering environnental qualities.andWe much experience in accessing could accist in developnent of an accurate reccrd in the New Haven 1 and 2 and alternatc7 nroceedinc.

Thethe on Town of Gardiner would addrecc the impact of the propoced p2va ceto environment, and on the health and welfare of fellow citicens.

Under previouc precedent cited by NRC staff (TVA Watta Ear Units 1 and 2, ALiE-413, 5 NRC 14re, 1421 n 4, 1977), agencies within a 50 mile radius of a planned nuclear facility have ' standing'. NRC ctaff disputes our claim to standing based on the approx.150 mile dictance from New Haven to Gardiner (but only approx. 45 miles from stuyvesant and zero miles from the cecond a. ternate site). We suggest that recent events at Three Mile Icland No. 2 (TMI) require a change in the estab-lished 50 mile test of standing. Our reason for making,thic suggestion in the finding of the How York Dep't, of Health that 1)JXc wac identified in the Albany, New York atmosphere (New York Tirac, May 3,1979, p. B12) some 4 weeks after relcace durina the early hours of the D I incident.

Alb2ny is over 200 miles from TMI indicating that an incident of similar magnitude at New Haven or anywhere in this region could significantly increase the radiatien to whic: citicenc of Gardiner arc exposed. Con-ciderable evidence hac been obtained that low dcas of radiation may have a greater proportional biological effect than higher dcces so that even cmall incremento in total doce over background even for relatively chort periods may harm the health of precent cnd future generatienc as far away ns 200 miles or further. The report of 133Xo, which is a ficsion product not normally found in the atncephere, succcsts th ,expor.ure of Carcincrites (150 miles from TtT) to even more raciatica from y>J e than Albanians though only a few d percent higher tPan normal backrround. .0ther ficcion

~ d 1" ; rti "1 r 21='= " ( :- 9 p52 I

", 1'9 "^i ^ '" '=' ='"""tr5 , etc.) were not measured I

bythothe New Yor they were probably all released from the 3:I cora ani ceme (l>aI) were tented and ray have been dispercea as widely as the A J J.( e . Thun, the ~

reduced, small. increase in doce in Albany wac a minimum, the ac tual iose likely being higher. Also, higher doecs were probably received

loser to the tiac of the DiI inciden t and closer to LII. ,

We outline thece. things to indicate cur concern with New Haven, with ituyvesan t , and, of cource, with Gardiner itself. All of these sitec -

' specially Cardiner - are closer to Gardiner than SXI. Exposure to nuclear adiation carried thrcuph the atmosphere, in our curface or grcund water upplies, elfare.

or in our food supply would be detricental to cur health and ver 200 Sir.ccfrom miles suchcaid radiaticn frcnwe reactor, a nuclear currest reactor has been modification of neasured uling. From these considerations, the watts Bar ew Haven, Stuyvenant( true under natts Ear)Garciner andchould Cardinerhave( standing true in any re cace) .

w, ' ,

%e < " )'"% ,**9P A

=3f lt

• 7 'E o As d ' M .)

(e gd' M .e  ;

m . i r q uJ A . .

L

- W *

. . I The interects, health, and safety of the citizens of Gardiner would be affected by operation of nuclear or other therral generating plants at any of the s..ca under consideration. In these alendments -

to our petition we have attenpted to explain the causes of our con-com briefly. On the basis of these conciderationn we respectfully request desio, nation as Intervenor in STM 50-596 and STN 50-597 (New Ha<en 1 nnd 2) by right, not discretion of NRC, and without limitation as to issucc of intervention.

Sincerely yours,,

by '$tl:su Y /

ib C4?

WILLIMI KEEPING  ;

SUPERVISOR S

9 d

4

=

] 'd I ,' ': P ge

$ i]((

02l

~

486

CONTENTIONS - TOWN OF GARDINER, NEW YORK RE STN 50-596, STN 50-597 In a previous communication, April 12, lo'1, the Town of Cardiner indicated its principal contentions in STN 50-596 and STN Sh-597 as being in regard to potential adverse effect of the proposed facilities if built in Gardiner, an alternate site. In addition, the effect of ancillary facilities such as high voltage transmission lines and pumped hydro-storage plant (s) would also be expected to have a negative efrect on Gardiner if published plans are followed.

In this communication we amplify our previous contentions and ex-tend our list consonant with our amended petition to intervene.

1. The Gardiner alternate site is inappropriate for any type of thermal electric gen 2:ating plant.

Amongst other reasons, this is because it

a. is closer than 5 miles to a state park;

b. is closer than 15 miles to a major jetport and is in the flightpath of that jetport;

c. contains protected wetlands;

d. has the Catskill aqueduct, supplying about 50 % of tha fresh water for 10 million people, on its eastern border;

e. is in a narrow valley where temperature inversions occur daily preventing dispersal of released pollutants;

f. is geographically located such that the water. droplet plume (also see e.) would significantly affect agricultural pro-duction in areas to the east of the plant in the Towns of Gardiner, Plattekill, Lloyd, and Marlborough, and possibbf in Dutchess County as well - these are among the principal apple and wine producing areas of New York State;

g. would have to use a significant part of its electric (not thermal) energy production in pumping cooling water ten =iles from the Hudson river horizontally and 350 feet uphill:

2. A malfunction at a nuclear plant within about 400 miles of Gardiner would have a deleterious effect on the physical en-vironment of Gardiner and the health of its residents, and normal operation of such nuclear plant would also have a deleterious effect but to a lesser extent. This is because'.

a. any ionizing radiation has the potential for causing cell change, including tumorigenesis, and of causing mutations 43o U22

- I in germ cells thereb; iffecting the next generation;

b. nuclear plants routinely release gaseous fission products thereby increasing the probability of radiation-caused disease and mutation in the directly affected population and of spread-ing widely in water and Laods indirectly affecting a much greater populatien and becoming dispersed in the environment of Gardiner and other nlaces even distant from the plant affect-ing the abilities of these environments to support life;

c. an'incid'ent' (e.g. Enrico Fermi, Browns Ferry, Three Mile Island, and -,ny others) would release much more radioisotope fission proi cc affecting populations and environments (see 2-b) at great distances (see discussion in am.cadment to petition to intervene) from the site of the ' incident';

d. a severe malfunction, such as a meltdown, would release the entire radioisotope and heavy atom inventory of the reactor to the environment and would be expected to directly affect environments at great distances from site and indirectly at still greater distances not only with nuclear rad'iation but also the associated chemotoxic effects of substances such as 239Puwhich would also be released; all of the principal and alternate sites for nuclear plants which are being examined in this hearing would have deleterious effects on Gardiner the most severe being, a Gardiner site, second the Stuyvesant site, an; third the New Haven site inasmuch as the danger is inversely related to distance.

3. Since no accepted disposal method for fission products exists and reprocessing of spent fuel is not presently planned, increasing inventories of thesc =aterials must be stored at plant sites in-cluding New Haven or Stuyvesant or Gardiner where they could escape from control.

4. Trsasport of nuclear fuel and exhausted fuel rods containing fission products and plutonium would adversely affeit Gardiner because principal north-south rail and highway systems pass through or are adjacent to Gardiner and would be expected to be used in operation of New Haven or Stuyvesant and, certainly -

Gardiner where an accident could - despite safe design - cause*

release of fissile materials and fission products to our local environment.

5. Since radioactivity cannot be stopped, the production of radio-isotopes in nuclear reactors has the potential for ultimately destroying human life not only in Gardiner but throughout the United States and in other countries if subst2ntial accumulations are ever released either accidentally or through someone's pur-poseful action.

6. Gardiner'has been proposed as the site for a pumped storage hydro plant and appears to be on a proposed route for 765 KV lines both of which facilities would need large base '. c d facilities such as that proposed but which would seriously affect the environment in Gardiner not only because of non-productive use of land (e.g.

about 1500 acres for proposed pumped storage plant and a 350 ft.

right of way for 765 KV lines) but also because of increased .

-3_

I microwave radiation, a r c itt g , and interference with communications from the 765 KV and a clear flooding danger from the pumped storage plant. The need for these ancillary facilities affecting Gardiner sould 'oc reduced if not climinated if the proposed project at New Itaven or alternate sites was abandoned.

1 4

e 4

i

?l a

9 Office of the Town Clerk Town of Gardiner gucq s

(C2 b(-

coomt u N< 12s2s

[7 ,7 hd .}g ?q

r 'Pd

- l f/

U~ ~ ..Si' JC 'hi 1979

' '.',s 7- , . j , 17(,.

{ sqy,p, #~'~~ ^

~T i

8 OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR f

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASIIINGTON , D. C. 20555 O

i l

CC c, ~

C rs t ,'