ML20062C051
| ML20062C051 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1990 |
| From: | Doremus R, Mcgranery J DOW, LOHNES & ALBERTSON, SHOREHAM-WADING RIVER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NY |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062C047 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, OLA, NUDOCS 9010290185 | |
| Download: ML20062C051 (47) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:-. b o l /- 4-00CMETED USNRC i: BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR' REGULATORY COMMISSION 'k W 2 P6 Z-i crrgrf,: SECEfur'- DOCF.Eljlf,il f e '/!':f.
)
In the Matter of- )
)'
Long Island Lighting Company; -)- USNRC Docket'No.: Consideration of= Issuance.of Amendment ) 50-322 , To Facility Operating' License and ) License.No.;NPF-82~ Proposed No Significant Hazards )' Consideration Determination and- ) Opportunity for Hearing ). (Emergency Preparedness Activities)' ) (55 Fed. Reg. 12076, March'30, 1990)' -).
)
SHOREHAM-WADING RIVER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT'S. PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE AND=REOUEST FOR HEARING: On March 30, 1990 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") announced that the Long Island Lighting Company ("LILCO"), licensee of the Shoreham Nuclear Power' Station ("Shoreham"), had applied for an amendment adding a new license condition which would negate application of.several-of the existing license conditions.asflong as the' reactor remains in the defueled condition (" reactor-is void of all; fuel assemblies") with the " spent fuel, with a'burnup of approximately two effective' full-power days, . . . stored in-i the spent fuel storage pool or other approved storage. configuration." 55 Fed. Reg. 12076 (March'30,-1990). The > NRC states in the Notice: "This request'for license - amendment, coupled with the licensee's request for exemption 9010290185 430
- PDR ADOCM O 322 .
O PM y,
\ l
< j
^
2-from the requirements of -10 C.F.R. 50.54 (g) and proposed, f
~
changes'to its Shoreham Nuclear. Power Station Emergency Preparedness Plan, would allow the licensee to cease its: 1 offsite emergency preparedness activities." lLd.Jat 12076-
- 77. In the Notice,.the NRC also states that."any person, whose interest-may be affected.by this proceeding and who-
- wishes to participate as=a party-in'the proceeding must file-a written petition to intervene." Id. at 12077.-
Shoreham-Wading River Central School District. (" School District" or " Petitioner") and its students and-employees would be adversely affected by this proposed amendment and, therefore, pursuant to Section-2.714 of the Commission's Rules, the School DistrictLrequests that it;be. granted leave to intervene as a party. and= that a hearing int j held to consider the merits of the proposed ~ amendment. The School. District views this Amendment as one:part of the larger proposal to decommission Shoreham.. Each step in the decommissioning proposal that moves Shoreham closer to a fully decommissioned state'and further away.from full-power operational status violates the dictates of the Atomic 1 l Energy Act of 1954 as amended ("AEA") and the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended ("NEPA"). Thus, while the issues presented herein directly relate to the I proposed Amendment allowing the cessation of LILCo's certain l
-., s-. + . . , - . ,--,.,a-,-,-,-w-n--,,s., n- ..,...-ey- , . , , ,r.p- r aw.w-e n
i i j i 1 l
- -emergency preparedness activities, they necessarily. include !
other unlawfully segmented actions.taken and/or proposedV by LILCO-and the NRC Staff in furtherance of the decommissioning-scheme. -! The School' District submitted an enforcement request- t under Section 2.206 of the-Commission's Rules in Jul'y'1989,.
.i and has submitted several supplements to the request since that time consolidated with the Request of Scientists and Engineers?for SecureLEnergy, Inc. ("SE ")2 . In their Section-2.206 requests, the School District and SE 2have argued nh'ta LILCO is taking the initial stepsLin a course of: action aimed l
at decommissioning the Shoreham facility in violation of the terms of the operating license, the Commission's regulations, i the AEA and NEPA. Technically, the request is still pending , before the NRC, but the Commission's lack:of an explicitly denominated " final decision" has effectively denied their. requests because continuing and significant-steps toward da. facto implementation of LILCO's decommissioning. proposal ~ I proceed unhampered, with the full knowledge and support of. the NRC Staff. l < l l 1/ a In Klanne v. Sierra Club, the Supreme Court states.that I when several proposals . . . that will have a cumulative or sysynergistic impact upon a region are pending concurrently before an agency, their-environmental consequences must be: considered together." 427 U.S. 390, 410, 9 6 lS'. C t . 2718, 2730 (1976). l 1
. - - . . . . . . . - .. = - . a
n [ -f i- :. r
-4..
All-of the arguments. advanced in Petitioner's Section-2.206 Request, and the supplements thereto, . are peitinent' to r the issues at hand and, therefore, are-incorporated herein by-reference as additional support for the specific aspects of
~'
the issues.and contentions as to which Petitioner seeks leave' to intervene and requests a hearing. i l l l l
-n t- :.8 i
f l
-~5- i f
I.~ INTEREST OF PETITIONER AND THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE ,
=-
As the NRC' Staff has stated the applicableflaw:.To . a determine whether a petitioner has sufficient interest to; - intervene in a proceeding, the Commission has. held that a licensing board may apply judicial concepts of. standing. , Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant, t Units 1 and 2), CLI-76-27,.4 NRC 610.(1976). :A petitioner-must show that the' action sought in,the proceeding /will cause an injury in fact, and that injury'is within the zone of~ i interest protected by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as. ' amended, and/or the National Environmental Policy Act of. 1969. Id. at 613-614; Niacara Mohawk Power Coro., 31 g1.- l (Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit 2) LBP-83-45, 181NRC 213, 215 (1983). In addition, a petitioner must establish: (1) that it personally has suffered or will. suffer 1a distinct 1 l and palpable harm that constitutes an injury-in: fact; (2) 7 1 l that the injury can be traced.to the challenged: action; and , (3) that the injury is:likely to be remedied by.a' favorable decision granting the relief. sought. Dellums v. NRC, 863 F.2d 968, 971 (D.C. Cir. 1988); 122 1122 Nuclear Enaineerina-Co.. Inc., (Sheffield Illinois, Low-Level Radioactive Waste. Disposal Site), ALAB-473, 7 NRC 737, 743 (1978). To establish injury in fact for standing, a petitioner must have a "real stake," that is, a genuine or direct interest in the I l
i .i
- i
\
outcome,-and the law allows standing even.it'that interest is [ thought by others not to be a substantial one. Houston , Liahtina and Power Co., gt 31. (South Texas Project, Units _1-and 2) , . LBP-79-10, 9 NRC 4 39,. 4 47-48 (1979). The Schoo1LDistrict meets all of the criteria for ; standing in this matter. The School District is threatened-with distinct-injuries in fact as a direct consequence'of the proposed amendment. These injuries are within the zone of interests ~ protected by both the AEA and NEPA and can be l remedied by a favorable decision. The AEA guarantees any interested person a hearing-in i any reactor licensing action which may. affect the. health and l safety of the petitioner. 42 U.S.C. 5 2239. In this instance, the proposed cessation of offsite emergency preparedness activities would unacceptably increase the risk of radiological injury and hence adversely affect the , radiological health and safety of Petitioner, its students, its employees, and their property. Petitioner's interests,. as detailed below,.will be protected, and the requirements i l and purposes of the AEA met, if PetitionerLis allowed to f intervene in a hearing held on this matter and the remedies. sought by Petitioner-are granted as a result of.that proceeding.
r , l
'?
l ^ l LILCO's efforts toward da facto decommissioning- ; without an approved decommissioning plan are a gar se l violation of the AEA and a direct health and safety-violation. LILCo's efforts to 'save money by shutting down all operations, slashing staff, and defueling the reactor ignore AEA procedures and endanger the health and safety of i Petitioner's members during this unapproved decommissioning. Petitioner seeks to have the NRC require LILCO'to1 abide by ' the Shoreham full-power operating License until an approved decommissioning plan and an operating License amendment are properly considered and_ approved under the AEA. > Even if an approved decommissioning plan were in existence, LILCO has failed to maintain the reactor at a full operational level from'the moment LILCo decided to decommission Shoreham, and this continuous' refusal to abide by the terms of its operating License has severely increased " the Petitioner's radiological health and safety: risks. And the instant proposed amendment would only compound the-increase in these present and future risks
. No concern with
' full-power onerational safety has been expressed by LILCO, or for that matter the NRC, since the licensee and-the NRC-Staff appear to have concluded improperly and illegally that the reactor would never again operate. This premature conclusion that the reactor will never again be brought to full power
- - - + . . ,_ ~ . - - - - - _ _ _ . - - - - , , - - . . , . . - - ~ --n.. . -, :
i
- i. .
i
}
e i operation must certainly affect the type-of care, maintenance- l and attention to details at the facility; and-the hearing process'will reveal the health and safety risks. caused by. , i LILCO's de facto decommissioning efforts and the NRC Staff's , apparent wholesale acquiescence to that position. , NEPA mandates preparation of an Environmental Impact l Statement ("EIS") prior to agency decisionmaking on major j l federal actions:significantly affecting:theLqualityfof the. human environment. The EIS must consider, inter alia,- the . environmental impacts of, and the' reasonable alternatives 1to, , the proposal. Thus, NEPA ensures that agency decisionmaking
'!j q
not only includes environmentaliconsideration,.but also is structured in such a way that environmental consideraticn'is meaningful. 3 The School District has-determined thattits , responsibilities demand that it seek intervention in this- ' instance in order to protect the interests of the School-District, its students and employees. The area of the School District is about' twelve , square miles. The Shoreham facility is located within the l baundaries of the School District and thus, the School , District is within the fifty mile limitation used by the l Commission to determine whether an intervenor expressing contentions under the health and safety provisions of the ! t
i i-f f Atomic Energy Act has an interest sufficient to allow intervention. And, as especially relevant to this proposed amendment, the School Disttict is part of LERO and its i students and employees work, reside and/or attend classes within the plume exposure pathway emergency planning' zone < ("EPZ") and the ingestion pathway EPZ. The School District has an interest in protecting, I and an~ obligation to protect, the health and environment of almost 2000 students and 500 employees, who live and/or work in close proximity to the'Shoreham' facility, from both=the possible radiological _ impacts:of the-proposed amendment,and the adverse health and other environmental consequences of non-operation of Shoreham cognizable under NEPA, for example,. the air pollution produced by-the' oil and/or? gas-burning' plants which would be necessary substitutes for:Shoreham.- Among those expressly wishing.their interests to be. 1 represented by the School District is Albert G. Prodell, President of-Shoreham-Wading River School District's Board of Education, who resides at Remsen Road, Wading River, New York 11792. ' Furthermore, the -School- District depends on LILCO to meet the electric energy needs of the District's physical' plant which includes five schools. The District has a. vital l interest in ensuring that an adequate and reliable supply of i
. - 51
.c Ml 4 i:
'I electricity will be available to meet its needs and ithat tho' i
~
- )
electricity provided is.available at: reasonable rates. As a ~ [ J completed and fully licensed plant, Shoreham is'presentlyL , capable of meeting the growing electric energy needstof:-.the a Long Island area. Actions to dismantle the facility and
~
build substitute oil burning plants, on the other hand, delay / l
}
any increase in'the Region's electricLenergy production-. ' i capacity and also generate significant-expenses which will ' inevitably be passed on to Long Island's ratepayers. ; Aside from electric rates, the District:has an-additional economic interest"in this matter which stems from 4 the fact that the District derives significant; tax revenues-- 1
. based on the value of Shoreham as an operating plant.,-The.
~
l property taxes paid by LILco for the Shoreham facility constitute approximately ninety percent'of the School- ! District's tax base. o I l l a k
'j
l l R 11 - , 4 II. PETITIONER'S INTERESTS WILL BE GREATLY AFFECTED1 BY THE AMENDMENT'AND THE-PROCEEDING -- The proposed NRC Staff decision to grant LIICO's ; I
- request for the proposed amendment violates the requirements .;
of the AEA at the expense of the Petitioner's, its students',- , and its employees' right>to reasonable assurance of { radiological health and safety and circumvents NEPA and the NEPA-mandated consideration of the decommissioning proposal, including its reasonable alternatives.- Petitioner's, its , l . . l students', and its employees' NEPA interests will also be directly affected as described herein,fand Petitioner wishes- 3 to participate in each and:every aspect of the hearing which touches and concerns those interests as well as the specific aspects identified below and incany amendment'of this , petition hereafter filed. The School District, on; behalf of itself, its students, and its employees, seeks leave to intervene and s requests a hearing to determine whether the' amendment should o be granted, denied, or a different amendment made under the-AEA. The specific aspects of the proposed: amendment-as to which the School District: wishes to. intervene ares (1) whether a grant of the proposed amendment requested would be : arbitrary, capricious and/or an abuse of discretion pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act and the Commission's regulations, ; __________1_____ , , . . . . . ,_ -, . ~ , . . . . . , , , ,,, ..,, _ _ . .
? s : L 9 L 1s I and subsidiary guidance thereunder; (2)'whether,.if a ; decision is made to go to full power-operation at Shoreham, , the proposed amendment would provide reasonab1w. assurance- , that such full power operation would or could.be: conducted-with reasonable ' assurance of the public health and safety and= . ! national defense and security,.particularly the. reasonable i assurance of their protection (including their real'and' '
~
personal property) from the radiological hazards of operating; the facility; and (3)'whether, if a decision is made to i decommission Shoreham, the proposedLamendment would provide. , reasonable assurance that such decommissioning will be conducted in accordance with the public' health and' safety and ' y the national defense and security to protect the District, ( and its students and employees and their real and personal ~ l J property from the radiological hazards during the- '; L decommissioning of the. facility. , The personal radiological and'other health and< safety- ! L interests (including the safety of property) of theLDistrict ,
- and its students and. employees would be. adversely affected if l the proposed amendment is not in accord with the'AEA;and/or- ,
L the regulations and subsidiary guidance' issued thereunder l[
-and/or if it does not otherwise provide reasonable assurance l of the public health and safety and the-national defense and security.
i 5
&-=t -w- . , . . - _ - , - - , - , - % w . . , ,
i . r i This proposed amendment, in particular, would allow the cessation of certain emergency planning activities j including the exercise or drill of those plans explicitly' : required in the license. Such cessation of practice would l greatly reduce the effectiveness of the 3000 person-LERO l organization and thus greatly-delay'and prejudice the ability , of LILCO to return to full power operation with the same -
'i degree-of reasonable assurance of the'public health and safety offered by the regular practice and training currently required. Such increased vulnerability to:radiologicalLharm, I
i by definition, significantly increases the risk of such sabotage and, hence, unavoidably and significantly increases the direct and/or indirect endangerment ofLthe radiological-health and safety of the School District,3its; students, and employees. The School District also wishes to'have full and fair - NEPA consideration given the decommissioning proposal;(of1 which the instant application is an: interdependent part), including the need for power, the cost-benefit 1 analysis of ' decommissioning and the operationLand near-term operation ' alternatives for Shoreham. Any actions in furtherance of the j da facto decommissioning proposal, including this. proposed-
- amendment, prejudice consideration of such mandatory NEPA-i
. __ _ _ . . n. .... , _ _ _ . - - . . _ . _ _ - .
V 4 i L f l L analysis by, among other things, making:the alternatives- : further away in time,fuore costly, Land less11ikely'in fact.
'NEPA,-as implemented-in regulations issued thereunder by 'the CEQ and the NRC, mandates thati no major Federal action significantly-affecting thel quality of the human environment
~
will'be implemented without first receiving anfull. < environmental review. As more fully 'etailed d b'elow, Petitioner's interests under NEPA will_be protected,-and the purposes and requirements of NEPA served, to the extent that. such a review is conducted.under the NRC Rules (including a' i hearing) and the remedies sought by Petitioner are granted:in the proceeding. Petitioner's interests will beLadversely. affected should this petition or the relief sought herein be denied. The remedies sought by Petitioner specifically , include the correction of this presumptuous." decision" that the reactor will never return to full power-operation, as well as a return to the mandates of'the NRC's regulations , under the AEA and NEPA which require maintenance of the full power license obligations until an informed' decision is made with all appropriate environmental and economic considerations. If a full NEPA environmental review is conducted, it ; may be that the factors which first led to the construction
j
?
i . O_ I L of this $5.5 billion dollar reactor would lead the < decisionmaker to favor the~ continued utilization.of this , brand new facility and reject the' decommissioning proposal. But the failure to properly maintain and protect.the facility .f in accordance-with the Operating License-during this interim period could further erode the alterative of full-power operation by, among other things, increasing the costs, in P time and money, of returning.to full power operation. l During the interim period,-before the necessary i environmental evaluations are completed, the reactor must not l languish in a mode of. emergency planning inconsistent with NRC regulations and its current Operating License. 'Nor should the licensee be permitted by_the commission to1 behave 1 4 as though the reactor will never again operate and that i offsite emergency preparedness activities are, therefore, unnecessary. Significant health and safety. risks, including 1 those subject to NEPA review, will result'from LILCO's failure to abide by the full requirements of the Operating License which requires constant efforts to maintain offsite emergency preparedness. - The increased risks of radiological harm to Petitioner, its students and employees, as discussed above, also constitute adverse environmental impacts and would also increase the risk that the choice of reasonable alternatives
i . I d 1
- )
j 1 would be limited. As a result, approval of the proposed l amendment is barred by=10 C.F.R. I 51.101(a)L(1989) until'a record of decision is' issued following, completion:of the; required NEPA review of the decommissioning proposal; 1833 1189, 10 C.F.R. I 51~.100(a)(1) (1989). Intervention and a-hearingJon.this proposed: amendment, addressing the aspects identified in this l Petition, is the SDlE avenue available to Petitioner before the NRC for protecting.not only its own vital' interests but also those of its students and employees as to this NRC licensing issue at this time. The consolidated Requests filed pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5-2.206 in July!1989 sought redress of many similar issues, but the commission has-essentially ignored those consolidated Section 2.206 requests, which are still pending.' The Petitioner must now address each incremental, segmented step _taken by the licensee and the NRC Staff which will not only endanger plant security but also further advance the da facto , decommissioning by the licensee in violation of:its operating License, the AEA and NEPA by increasing the risk'of. damage'to. 4 Shoreham and, resulting radiological harm to the School I I District and those whose interests it is obligated to protect, its students and employees.
l . 1 1 Petitioner must address the de laste decommissioning l at this time because the licensee.obviously seeks to abrogate ) its obligations under its operating license ~before formally i applying for a decommissioning license amendment thereby~ endangering the health and safety of Petitioner, its students, and employees, jeopardizing-the future viability.of the: , reactor, and avoiding a-meaningful environmental analysis' pursuant to NEPA. Without Petitioner's: active involvement, the NRC Staff and the licensee would simply continue to circumvent the law and regulations and thereby deny Petitioner, which is interested in the development of a complete environmental record, the opportunity to have such full NEPA consideration before significant alternatives are, for all practical purposes, foreclosed.- , obviously, neither the NRC Staff norithe licensee' - appear to be in~the least-bit interested'in representing the Petitioner's valid interests by complying with the-requirements of the AEA and/or NEPA. Petitioner wil1~ bring , to light the significant regulatory, health, safety'and environmental issues which form the' bases for its7 challenge of the proposed amendment and for all of the licensee's actions toward da facto decommissioning. These essential issues are required by law to be addressed, and by. addressing them~now in this action-the Petitioner will' hasten their' i
t
- 18 -
examination and appropriate resolution by'the commission'. i i f i l 't l t l l l
L i
~
? t
\
l l III. SPECIFIC-ASPECTS AS TO WHICH PETITIONER SEEKS-TO l INTERVENE- - i l A. Specific Aspects of the Subject Matter As- , To Which Petitioner Seeks to Intervene Under the AEA 3 Pursuant to the Commission's obligations under the' AEA to-provide reasonable-assurance that the health and I safety of the public are protected against the radiologicale hazard of licensed activities ~and its obligation ,to: protect: the national defense and security, it has issued various' ' ' guidance prescribing the requirements for the-establishment and maintenance of an.offsite emergency plans for utilization facilities, such as Shoreham.-- E.g., 10 C.F.R. 55 50.47(b), and 50.54(q) (1989). Those requirements.have been further implemented by other Commission guidance and requirements.: 133, a.g., Part 50 Appx. E. Rather than explaining its own analysis of the. hazards posed by the instant amendment,:the NRC-Staff seems , , to have simply adopted the licensee's conclusory determination that t'tese reductions would not involve At ( significant hazards-consideration.- The Petitioner asserts that the relaxation and. reduction in emergency planning activities by.the amendment-would increase the probability of radiological harm which would result in an increased, and therefore impermissible,
- . . . - . . . - - .. .. :_ - . - . .. ~. . - . _ _ _ _ _ -
l
-:20 - ,
risk to them from the radiological hazard that could directly -F and/or indirectly result from such lack ~of emergency planning. activities. , The particular aspects of the: proposed amendment as to which petitioner wishes to intervene- under the AEA are, inter alia, as follows: I
- 1. Given that the propused amendment is'premisedLon '
Shorehan's "defueled' state", does the settlement Agreement _in-fact prohibit further operation of the shoreham facility? I i
- 2. Is.the licensee's proposedfamendment allowing i emergency preparedness activities to be discontinued in 1
accordance with the AEA, the regulations and guidance thereunder, the conditions specified in the l!. cense, and/or the licensee commitments pursuant.to that license-given the : existence of that full-power Operating. License? I
- 3. Is the plant's defueled condition rel'evant to l Ine requirement for an offsite Emergency Response Plan:under the AEA while shoreham possesses a full power Operating-License? .
- 4. Given that LILCO has already drastically reduced.
l staffing at the plant and that LILCO " relies'on'an offsite emergency response organization consisting primarily of the licensee's employees," is LILco presently in. violation of its: operating license which requires maintenance of the emergency.
. . _ - -. _. _ _ . . - ~ - . -.- _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ ~ _ _-____ _
e j response organization and, if so, does the NRC Staff have anL _ l obligation to enforce the' licensee's staffing obligation j through findings and'related orders and/or confirmatory l letters spelling out affirmative steps to be'taken by LILCo to correct the violations?'
- 5. Is.there's sufficient number of adequately trained emergency response personnel on and/or offsite if,the licensee were'to place nuclear fuel into the reactor vessel?
- 6. If the licensee has-an obligation to maintain (including reassigning and/or hiring, and training and/or l
retraining) emergency response- staff adequate for full power operation, how abould those obligations be detailed?
- 7. If the licensee has an obligation to maintain-(including reassigning and/or hiring, and training,-and/or retraining) emergency response-staff adequate for full, power operation and to maintain plant equipment in a status ready j for full power operation but fails, or:has failed,Lto observe either or both of these commitments, does the NRC Staff have an obligation pursuant to the AEA,and the' Commission's' regulations (including, in particular, Subpart'B!and Appendix C of Part 2 and Part 50) to issue orders'to compel the licensee to observe those obligations,-including appropriate-fines to remove any economic incentive for violation of such-orders? ,
l
L l
- l l
22 -
- 8. The proposed license amendment'would void five license conditions whenever two factual circumstances exists.
This presents the question:of whether there islany < relationship between the existence of the two. factual conditions and a need or justification'to cease applying the 1 requirements for (a) strike shutdown (License' condition 2.C(9)), (b)_hurricanne shutdown (License: condition 2.C(10)),. (c) the licensee to provide a LILCO representative knowledgeable of-the offsite emergency plan,-the offsite emergency plan appropriate support information and-necessary? communications equipment;to the Suffolk County Emergency Operating Center or to a location designated by the:Suffolk County executive in the event of_the declaration of an alert- s f site, area, or general emergency at'Shoreham (License condition 2.C(11)), (d) atLleast one trained person at the- ! Brentwood facility at all times during plant operations above- , 5% rated power (License condition 2.C(12)), and/or (e) training drills such that its offsite emergency plan is-i' drilled quarterly with full or partial participation by the - local emergency response organization (License Condition 2.C(13))? <
- 9. Given the NRC Staff's recognition that this- ,
proposed license amendment is " coupled with the licensee's 4 request for exemption from the requirements of 10 C.F.R.
- ,-ms -, r>w s m ---- - - ,- - - - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m 2 .e w- o>n.o -wa
s
~
i 23 - 1 50.54(q) and proposed changes to its shoreham Nuclear Power , Station Emergency Preparedness Plan," does not the consideration ~of this proposed-amendment requ' ire l simultaneous consideration of that exemption and those proposed changes to' the emergency plan in the same proceeding under the AEA?
- 10. Given the Commission's recognition in 10 C.F.R.
Part 73, Appendix C that "a licensee's safeguards contingency. plan'is intended to be complimentary to any emergency plans developed pursuant to Appendix E of Part 50 of this chapter
.. ., " do not the licensee's proposed changes.to its c emergency planning activities need to te considered ~in a single AEA proceeding with the penGing proposed changes to the licensee's physical security plan?. 55 Fed. Reg. 12758 (April 5, 1990).
- 11. Given the regulatory. requirement that the "NRC 4
will base its finding on a review of'the-Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) findings and ' determinations as tx) whether state and local emergency plans are adequate and whether there is reasonable assurance that they can'be implemenced," are such FEMA findings and determinations also required for the instant proposed amendment to the conditions of Shoreham's license applicable to emergency planning? Egg ; m.gi, Memorandum of Understanding Between Federal Emergency r
J w -. 4r.,.r a,_s; asp--2 aa.,a,..wi. e N i, 24 - i i Management Agency and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 50 Fed. I ( - l Reg. 15485 (April 18, 1985). 1
- 12. Does a license amendment which allows n' full l
power operating license to discontinue quarterly offsite- ' emergency plan _ drills ~ involve's significant reduction in the L margin of safety of, and/or increase the probability of radiological harm to, the population of the plume exposure pathway EPZ?
- 13. Would a delay.-in the effectiveness of the
- proposed amendment until after aLhearing is held disrupt 1or 1
i delay the operation of Shoreham?
- 14. Would a delay in'the effectiveness of the proposed amendment until after a hearing is: held impose unnecessary regulatory burdens on the NRC which are not' related to significant safety benefits?
4 l B. Specific Aspects of the Subject Matter As. to Which Petitioner Seeks To Intervene Under NEPA. l l l LILCO's proposed license' amendment which effectively eliminates the offsite Emergency Response Plan'and disperses. the organization which is charged with implementation of.that Plan is one segmented part'in implementation of a proposed major Federal action which, if approved, will significantly affect the quality of the human. environment. - Because s---__- rr w- - yo. -,--ew y-,-w.,-- ,wa4 y w w , ,. 9-_,q,..y*.,,,.g.%o, ..pp. e- - - - - ,ge-e-y- p - e
gi > i P preparation of-an EIS'and a final decision'is required before any part of the decommissioning proposal may be implement'ed, the proposed amendment is in direct violation of Section 102(2)(c) of NEPA and Petitioner's right to such NEPA review. Therefore, it cannot be approved. prior to NEPA review'of the whole decommissioning proposal. Section 102 (2) (C) ' of' NEPA provides that, prior to . making a decision to implement a-"preposal" for a " major federal action significantly affecting-the quality of the-human environment," administrative agencies shall prepare an Environmental Impact Statement-("EIS") which evaluates, among other things, the " environmental impacts of"'and the - l " alternatives to" the proposed-action. 42 U.S.C. 5 4332-(1982). The Council on EnvironmentalLQuality:("CEQ") regulations, which are " binding.on all federal agencies,"' further clarify the NEPA responsibilities of federal: i agencies. 40 C.F.R. I 1500.3-(1988). Among;other things, those regulations (a) mandate application of_NEPA "at the earliest possible time to insure that planning and decisions =; reflect environmental' values," (b) require that actionsiwhich are " interdependent parts of a larger action"'be' discussed in-- a single impact statement, and (c) prohibit actions which
" limit the choice of reasonable' alternatives" unti1 the NEPA-
'l !
r
- 26 i process is complete. 40 C.F.R. El 1501.2, 1508.25, & 1506.1. ,
The NRC's own NEPA regulations, which closely parallel-those of the CEQ,.also prohibit any " decision-on a proposed-action" D L or actions, especially one. tending to " limit the choiceLof I h reasonable alternatives," pending:completionJof the NEPA-process. 10 C.F.R. 55 51.100 and.51.101 (1989). While-the decommissioning-proposal has boon advanced-by LILCo, a non-federal entity,-the NRC's on-going , [ supervision of that licensee's activities.and the need for- ' NRC approval of the various aspects of the decommissioning process make what otherwise might be a private action in another industry into a " major federal'. action."- . The NRC controls whether the decommissioning proposal may proceed! . and, therefore, has a non-discretionary duty under.NEPA to i L ensure that neither the'ShorehamLfacility,.itself, as the relevant part of the environment under the supervisionLof'the NRC, nor the alternatives to its. decommissioning,.are, adversely affected by premature implementation of the decommissioning proposal. 233 40 C.F.R. 5 1506'.1(b) (1988). . To date, the NRC Staff has failed to' recognize this: duty and, instead, has given LILCO tacit-and explicit permissions to implement an ever increasing number of-steps = in the decommissioning proposal which have no utility i independent of that proposal. i g , , % -.ge--.,e
l
. . i l !
l LILCO and the NRC claim that no steps have been taken l at Shorehan which are irreversible or constituts l l l irretrievable commitments of resources. This claim is j l subject to significant doubt in view of the judicial , l interpretation of these concepts in the context of NEPA and l l the facts of this case. Ram commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Matt, 716 F.2d 946,-953 (1st Cir. 1983) ("each of thess events represents a link in a chain of bureaucratic commitment that will become increasingly harder'to undo the longer it continues"); sierra club v. Marsh, 872 F.2d 497, 500 (1st Cir. 1989) ("the hara at stake is a harm to the anvironment, but the hara consists of the added risk to the environment that takes place when governmental decisionmakers make up their minds without having before them an analysis (with prior public comment) of the likely effects of their ' decision on the environment"). For example, if the concepts of " irreversible" and "irretreivable" are stretched to their theoretical definitional limits, the same claim could be made even if the plant had been razed but "could be" rebuilt. The issue is i not whether the plant, its equipment and its staff could e someday be put back together again, but rather over what duration and at what cost could the feat be achieved. That ist would approval of the proposed amendment increase the _ . , - - - , + . - - - , . , -,...,-,~.,,,-,.e v.,-. - , ..,m--mmew--w,w-e ..e ,,,,_,-we,,-..,~n. ,v.-,- .. - , . - , . n . . . - , _ ,
+
) l l risk that the currently available alternative of operation , including adequate offsite emergency planning night not be reasonably available when the federal decisionmaker finally ! addresses the question of whether or not to authorize , 1 l decommissioning of Shoreham? ' The farther away in time and expense LILc0 and the NRC move the reestablishment of operational capability, the less likely it becomes that the alternative of operating , shoreham will be pursued. In the Spring and early Summer months of 1989, when LILCO made its intention to cooperate with New York State in a plan to decommissien shorehan . plainly known to the NRC, the shoreham plant eat ready for immediate full-power operation. As a fully licensed plant with a complete staff (including a trained and practicing LERO) and fully functional equipment and systems, Shorehan constituted a valuable resource for the Long Island area in 3 that it was capable of immediately generating electric l energy. l The proposed amendment is another in a' series of actions instigated by LILCO, to be approved by the NRC staff, in furtherance of the decommissioning proposal. As such, the , proposed amendment would make the intended benefit and purpose of shorehan (the supply of 805 MWe in full power operation) more remote in time and less likely in fact. It
i would, therefore, violate NEPA and the Commission Rules (in i particular, 10 C.F.R. I 51.101(a) (1) (1989)) if approved at t this time. The Petitioner first urged maintenance of the status gne (that is, full operational readiness at the Shoreham ! I plant), pending preparation of an EIS and a final decision on I the proposal to decommission the facility, in its Section l 2.206 request filed in July 1989. Petitioner has reiterated I ; the need for the Commission to take such action in ; supplements to the initial request and at meetings between the NRC Staff and LILCO management. The NRC Staff's t response has continually been that although an EIS.will have to be prepared before decommissioning can take place, no , proposal for decommissioning has yet been presented to the
.t commission.M Petitioner disagrees with this proposition I advanced by the NRC, and supported by LILCO,.that the Commission's NEPA responsibilities are not triggered until 2/ The NRC has stated that while:
decommissioning of a facility requires a license amendment necessitating the preparation of an EIS, such an amendment has not yet been applied for in this case. If the Commission issues a license amendment authorizing the decommissioning of the Shoreham facility, an environmental review will be performed . . . . Interim Reply to the initial Section 2.206 Request (dated July ' 20, 1989) (emphasis added). !
_ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ ~ _ _ . _ _ _ - _ - . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . ____ _ t the commission receives a formal written application for a , license amendment to allow decommissioning. l At the heart of this disagreement is the definition , of the term " decommission." The more limited the set of , actions that constitute " decommissioning," the more actions ! LILCO can take which do not satisfy the definition and,- i therefore, do not trigger NEPA review. LILCO and the NRC
- ultimately premise their delay in initiating the NEPA process ,
on the position that the licensee's current activities are t
" consistent with" its full-power license and that the term i
" decommission" only encompasses some' narrow, but undefined, set of actions which will not be undertaken until appropriate l authorization is given pursuant to a " formal" application to decommission some time in the future. This position ignores both the reality of the present situation and the definition of " decommission" found in Part 50 of the Commission's own Rules. 10 C.F.R. 5 50.2 (1989).
The CEQ definition of " proposal" includes the statement: "A proposal may exist in fact as well as by agency ' declaration that one exists." 40 C.F.R. I 1508.23 (1988) ' (explicitly adopted by the Commission at 10 C.F.R. I 51.14(b) (1989)). A hard look at the reality of the.present situa.i.on makes it abundantly clear that a decommissioning proposal exists "in fact" in this instance. ,
l i I ! l l l
)
LILc0 has entered into a settlement Agreement with ! various entities of the State of New York that represents a l decommissioning proposal. The Agreement (which may be ' I l terminated by its own terms or voided by pending suits in ! state court) provides that LILCO will' not operate the' plant but will take steps to remove the plant from service in an. effort to both reduce costs and facilitate the transfer of i' the plant to an entity of New York State which will, in turn, take the final steps in the decommissioning process. On several occasions, LILCO has made the terms of the Settlement Agreement known to the NRC. Furthermore, since Shorehan was removed from service, LILCO has sought.NRC permissions in various forms including license amendment applications (some of which have been granted). Petitioner contends that those permissions implement stages of the decommissioning proposal outlined in-the Settlement Agreement. LILCO began by transferring the fuel from the reactor to the spent fuel pool. The NRC Staff found that this was not inconsistent with the terms of the operating license despite the fact that LILco had no plans to replace the fuel l l 1 and thus was defuelina, an activity that is not anticipated in the operating License, an opposed to refueling which in an 1 activity addressed by the Technical Specifications. LILCO
I o 32 - has also presented a plan to discontinue upgrading, ; maintenance, and operator training programs, and to l drastically reduce the staff at the shoreham plant, among l other things. Despite the fact that Petitioner has argued . that these actions are clearly inconsistent with the purpose ; and terms of the operating License, the NRC Staff has made- ; findings of consistency and allowed LILCo to go. forward'with ! these actions. Following implementation of the destaffing plan, t LILco presented a plan for "mothballing" (" system layup") of equipment and systems that make up the plant. Although LILCO holds a full-power operating License and is, therefore, committed to maintaining the plant in safe and operational , condition, the CRC gave LILCo explicit permission to pursue f the layup plans. In addition to these activities, LILco has submitted several applications for relief from various requirements > contained in the license, in the Technical specifications, and in the NRC Regulations. All of these proposals are inconsistent with the terms of LILCo's full-power operating
- License and various parts (including Parts 50, 51 and 73) of the NRC's regulations. The Settlement Agreement and- LILCo's -
actions in pursuit of that Agreement have clearly put the NRC ! on notice that a decommissioning proposal exists "in fact" in
, - . . - . . , - . ,.--..-.,a .. . . _ - , - _.,,.,,..,,,___,-...,..n.,,. , - , . , , . . - ,. . . , . . . - . , . - _ . . - , - . , .
t 1 f l ; 33 - l l i this case. Thus, the NRC position (that it will not consider a proposal to decommission to exist until the licensee submits a formal application for a license amendment to allow ; decommissioning) is not tenable. i Aside from the reality of the situation which makes l it abundantly clear that a proposal for decommissioning f presently exists and is being prematurely implemented at the [ j Shoreham plant, the commission's own definition of the tern
" decommission" supports Petitioner's contention that LILCO's actions to date constitute decommissioning. The Commission defines " decommission" as meaning "to remove (as a facility) !
safely from service add reduce residual radioactivity to a . level that permits the release of the property for unrestricted use." 10 C.F.R. I 50.2 (1989) (emphasis added) . , Thus, under the commission's definition, decommissioning is a continuina process beainnina with actions to remove a facility safely from service and continuina through to actions to reduce the level of residual radioactivity at the l site until it is released for unrestricted use. The NRC Staff's argument that it has not yet received a decommissioning proposal is inconsistent with its own definition in that, although the licenses has not yet submitted an application for a license amendment explicitly denominated as a " Application to Decommission", LILCO has
. . - , . . - - - - , - - - , - , - - , - - ,n, ~ . . - . - . . - ~ . , _ .-,,---.,,-,-w--,-- . . . , . . , , - . , , . . - - - , ,, ,--,-----,,,,-,~,.--,,,-r
! )l l 1 submitted several applications which are intended to further
]
confirmF the removal of the facility from service and which l have no utility independent of decommissioning. Thus, an , i t l unauthorized decommissioning has, in fact, begun. In the typical situation, when a plant is at the end l of its useful life, by age or accident, there is no question whether the plant shall be operated further, and thus no decision whether to safely remove the: plant from service. That occurrence is nothing more than a ministerial > recognition of a fact which then initiates all licensee I duties as to the " actual" decommissioning. ; The Shoreham situation is anything but typical. Shoreham is at the beainnina of its useful life and the initial step in decommissioning (safely removing the plant from service) cannot be ignored as inconsequential or unrelated to the process of decommissioning. l Moreover, the settlement Agreement between LILCO and New York Stata exactly parallels the Commission's definition of " decommissioning" in that it outlines a plan for , decommissioning that begins with L7LCO's actions to remove 2/ Among the considerations listed by the CEQ as indicative of the " significance" of the impacts of an action is "[t]he degree of which the action . . . represents a decision in principle about a future consideration." 40 C.F.R. I 1508.27(6) (1988). The proposed amendment, which implicitly rests on the premise that decommissioning is a foregone conclusion, therefore,- represents such a " decision in principle."
)
)
I i l l l
)
I l the plant from service and anticipates that an entity of New York state shall take the final actions necessary to complete 1 : decommissioning of the plant, while LILCO will remain 1 financially liable for those actions. The NRC staff's present position, that the NEPA process is not triggered ( until a licensee submits an application explicitly , denominated as an " Application to Decommission", ignores the fact that LILCO is presently taking actions further confirming the removal of Shoreham from service and, i therefore, has not only begun decommissioning, but is aggressively implementing that proposal. The proposed amendment violates Petitioner's rights i under NEPA, and the NEPA regulations promulgated by the CEQ and the NRC, both (a) to have decisions on interdependent' parts of a proposal for a major federal action informed by a Final EIS evaluating the proposal as a whole and also (b) to. have alternatives to a proposed action preserved pending the preparation of an FEIS and the issuance of a final decision i on the proposal as a whole. The proposed amendment is another step in the decommissioning process in that cessation of offsite emergency preparedness activities not only implies that LILco I and the NRC view Shoreham's decommissioning as inevitable, _ but also makes the alternative of operation further away in
I l 1 1 ! time since the reorganization and retraining (and possibly
~
l requalification) of LERO could take considerable time and money. l The offsite Emergency Response Plan is an integral part of the Shoreham facility license. The fully licensed ) 1 and functioning Shoreham plant is not just the sum of its I equipment and systems. Rather, Shoreham is the hardware and the personnel which allow it tc operate and operate safely. l l The discontinuance of the offsite Raergency Response l Organization, would be, therefore, ne different than dismantling the hardware that makes up some other vital < safety feature. Thus, the proposed amendment constitutes a l negat8ve impact on an existing resource and may also tend to' limit the reasonable alternatives. Decisions which place a resource at risk of adverse impacts and tend to limit i reasonable alternatives cannot be made until the NEPA process ) is complete and, thus, the proposed amendment should be ' denied or deferred in accordance with NEPA's mandates. l Before this further step in the decommissioning plan
)
is taken, an environmental evaluation of the decommissioning plan as a whole must be undertaken. The D.C. Circuit has stated that "NEPA creates a right to information on the 2 environmental effects of government actions; any infringement of that right constitutes a constitutionally cognizable ! l I I L 1
}
( l , ! f injury . . .
" connatitive Enternrise Inst.. et. al. v. Nat'l Hiahway Traffic safety Ad=in., No. 89-1278, slip op. at 28 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 19, 1990). Until an EIS:has been prepared on the total decommissioning proposal, no part of that plan, including this proposed amendment to the Physical security
, Plan, may be taken. In addition to failing to: recognize this proposed amendment as yet another step in the. inching implementation of the larger decommissioning proposal, the NRC has failed to prepare an environmental assessment for this amendment. Section 51.21 of the commission's regulations states that I "(a)11 licensing . . . actions subject to this subpart ( l require an environmental assessment except those identified in i 51.20(b) as requiring an environmental impact statement, those identified in 5 51.22(c) as categorical exclusions, and those identified in Section 51.22(d) as other actions not requiring environmental review." 10 C.F.R. I 51.21 (1989). Assuming arguendo, that the proposed ataandment may be considered a discret action, distinct from the larger decommissioning proposal, it is not among those actions listed in Section 51.20(b) which require preparation of an EIS. Likewise, the proposed amendment is not among the actions listed in subsections.(c) or (d) of Secton 51.22 l which constitutes categorical exclusions from environmental w -
---w.e--,,~w,- *,m, n--- ., - . , - , , , - - - - .-.v., -.--. .- , , - - , - , ~ - - - . . - - - - . - - , - - . - , - , , . - - - + - ------m- - - - - * -
l ,
= .
I F l l review. Thus, Section 51.21 mandates proparation of at least l l an environmental assessment ("EA") addressing the i environmental impacts of, and alternatives to, this licensing action. Further, Petitioner requests an EA and also asserts i that-the proposed amendment involves unresolved conflicts. I concerning alternative uses of available resources. Saa 10 , C.F.R. I 51.22(b) (1989). An environmental assessment is intended to provide a basis for a decision whether a proposed action merits preparation of an EIS or a finding of no significant impact. - This determination hinges on whether the proposed action will 'i or will not "have a sianificant effect on the quality of the human environment." 10 C.F.R. I 51.32 (a) (3) (emphasis added)1 EAR Alag 42 U.S.C. I 4372(2) (c) . Thus, the level of enviromental scrutiny a proposed action must undergo is determined by the " significance" of the action's environmental effects. The CEQ regulations provide guidance as to the meaning of "'significantly' as used in NEPA." 40 C.F.R. I 1508.27 (1988). Among the factors listed by the CEQ to be considered by an agency in evaluating whether a proposed action will "significantly affect the quality of the human l environment" is: l
l I Whether the action is related to other actions with ; individually insignificant but cumulatively sianificant innacts. Significance exists if it is ; reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant ; impact on the environment. significance cannot be avoided by terming an action temporary or by breakina it down into small connonent narts. 40 C.F.R. I 1508.27 (b) (7) (1988) (emphasis added). An environmental assessment of this proposed amendment must, f therefore, consider the cumulative impacts of'the proposed l amendeont and the other related actions which have or will be ,
.t taken in furtherance of the decommissioning scheme. l Furthermore, the CEQ defines " cumulative impact" as:
the impact on the environment which results.from the l incremental impact of the action when added to other ; nast, oresent and retREDably foreseeable future L actions reaardless of chat aaency (Federal or non-l Federal) or eerson undertakes such other actions. l Cumulative impacts can result.from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place -' over a period of time. 4 40 C.F.R. I 1508.7 (1988) (emphasis added). Thus, the proposed amendment cannot be isolated from the continuum of "past, present, and reasonable foreseeable future actions" in furtherance of decommissioning. Rather, a proper environmental assessment will necessarily consider the proposed amendment in the context of the decommissioning proposal which has been, and continues to be, implemented in ' a segmented fashion. such consideration must inevitably
. . _ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ - _ . _ . _ . _ . . ...-____;,_.-___...-_.._._.._.....~. __ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ . . ....--..-..-_.__-..__;
i : { l h i : l yield the conclusion that the piecemeal implementation of the [
~
individual steps in the decommissioning process cannot. j i continue until an EIS evaluating the environmental impacts of, and alternatives to, the decommissioning scheme as a whole has been prepared and a final decision on that proposal ; made. Petitioner has thus shown an injury in fact that will result from the proposed amendment that is within the zone of I interests protected by NEPA and that can be redressed by a decision not to grant the amendment and by granting the other ! t l remedies sought. The particular aspects of the proposed amendment as to which Petitioner wishes to intervene under NEPA are, inter alla, as follows:
- 1. Does a proposal to decommission the Shoreham Plant exist "in fact"?
1
- 2. Would issuance of the proposed amendment violate the Commission's NEPA regulations, including without
-{
limitation, 10 C.F.R. 55 51.100 & 51.101'(1989)?'
- 3. Does NEPA, and the CEQ and NRC regulations :
prosulgated thereunder, require that the licensee maintain the physical protection of the plant and nuclear materials-located there, including the on-site and off-site LERO and requirements for drills in full accord with readiness for ;
- - . - . - _ - - . . - . _ _ . . - _ - - - - - . _ - . . - - - . . - - . ~ - . . . . - _ - - . - -
i l 1 i t I operation at full power pursuant to its full-power operating ! j l License, the Technical Specifications and licensee , i t commitments thereunder, as well as the Atomic Energy Act, the ; regulations and other normal NRC Staff requirements of a full power licensee, until such time as full NEPA review of the decommissioning proposal is completed and published and a
- decision on that proposal is subsequently made?
- 4. Does the proposed amendment require an i
environmental assessement ("EA") prior to becoming effective? ,
- 5. If the proposed amendment does require an EA !
prior to becoming effective, what is the proper scope of that EA? That is, (a) should the EA be limited to the amendment j as defined in the Notice, (b) should the scope also include i the licensee's request for exemption from the requirements of 10 C.F.R. I 50.54 (q) and the licensee's proposed changes to its Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Emergency Preparedness Plan, (c) should the scope also include the foregoing and the licensee's proposed changes to its Physical Security Plan, (d) should the scope of the EA also include all other pending requests by the licensee for amendments to, exemptions from, l and other variances to its full-power Operating License, which are pending at this time or (e) should the scope of the EA it include all other proposals in fact, currently pending before the NRC (for example, the decommissioning report,
._________ _ _ _- _ r . - --.---e . -,.,--_....----._mm..-,.---.-,*m -._mm..,-,m., _ ... ,, ,- p. . , . -,w. , . 9e.e.g_,,,-.-.,,,.,. + .
i I l
]
l -! i submitted by the licensees' SNRC-1713 dated April 16, 1990 1 l l and/or the deletion of the position of corporate quality assurance from the Emergency Responsa Organisation communicated to the NRC by licensees SNRC-1698 dated April 4, 1990)? )
- 6. Is the Staff's determination that an EIS is necessary for the decommissioning of Shoreham in its response to Petitioner's counsel dated July 20, 1989. determinative of. ,
the need for an EIS?
- 7. If the NRC Staff's July 20, 1989 determination i of the need for an EIS is binding on the Staff, does NEPA I
l require initiation of the EIS process at this time? . t D
-k l
~ , . . , , , - , . . , . . . ~ , . , - - . . _ , , , . . ..~~,,~,...-.,_,.~...--....mr- + . _ .c.,m, - . . -
-l l
)
IV. REMEDIES I The Petitioner seeks the following remediest e
- 1. An order permitting the Petitioner's intervention as to the subject of the captioned notice.
i
- 2. An order directing a hearing on the-issues i presented by the captioned notice as detailed in this !
petition as it may be amended. -
- 3. An order requiring the NRC Staff not to issue the proposed amendment pendente lita to allow for an l independent assessment by this Atomic Safety and Licensing.
Board of (a) whether the amendment involves a significant hazards consideration which assessment shall include review FEMA findings and determinations pursuant to 10 C.F.R. I
- 50. 47 (a) (2) (1989) and the NRC/ FEMA MOU signed April 3 and 9, 1985, and (b) whether approval of the amendment before a l record of decision has been issued on-the entire decommissioning proposal subsequent to full NEPA review of that proposal would violate NEPA and/or the CEQ and NRC regulations thereunder.
- 4. An order consolidating this petition.with the petition of Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc. -
insofar as the two petitioners have common interests. t I l i
, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ , . _ _ _ _ _ _ . - . - _ _ . _ . _ - _ . _ - - _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . __ --~ _ _ _
1 l i I t i ! I j 5. An order consolidating this matter with related i matters pending before the Commission for which notices of an i
! opportu6ity for hearing have been and/or will be issued.
- 6. An order finding that there exists a proposal :
for the decommissioning of Shoreham, which is a major federal [ l action significantly affecting the-quality of the human environment and, therefore, ordering the licensee to prepare' ! i an Environmental Report on the scope of that proposal , (including, inter alia, the alternatives relating to full-power operation); and, further ordering, that all Shoreham , proceedings not related to enhancing full-power operation be held in abeyance pending the submission'of.that Environmental Report and the subsequent preparation and publication of a-Draft Environmental Impact Statement by the NRC Staff. > i . 7. An order requiring the licensee to expeditiously reassign and/or hire, and train and/or retrain, LERO and , 1 other emergency planning staff to meet the existing emergency planning requirements for full power operation of Shoreham-in accordance with its license, related commitments thereunder, and all NRC requirements for full power licensees; and, further ordering such staff to ba maintained until such time as a decision is made on the decommissioning proposal. '
- 8. An order requiring the licensee to work with the NRC Staff to maintain its Emergency Preparedness Plan at ,
. * * , j
\
l 1 l
; Shoreham appropriate to a full power operating status in accordance with readiness for immediate fuel loading, subsequent power ascension d full-power operation in accordance with the license 6's fu11' power Operating License, '
commitments related thereto, and all NRC Staff requirements of full power operating licensees (including maintenance of-LERO and conduct of drills) until such time as a decision is made on the decommissioning proposal. >
~
I 9. An order requiring the licensee, and the NRC Staff independently, to furnish this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board with reports, on Monday of each week, > describing the then current progress and status of affairs pursuant to orders 6, 7, and 8 above.
- 10. An order putting the licensee on notice or, in the alternative, an order requiring the NRC Staff to issue an order putting the licensee on notice,-that fines of $100,000 per day shall be imposed for any violation (s) of orders 6, 7 or 8, independently, so that such fines may accumulate to ,
$300,000 per day.
l
- 11. An order requiring the NRC Staff and the licensee to furnish the petitioner's attorney with all future-l communications and/or governmental filings originated by those parties or either of them, by telecopy, express mail,.
,_ - _ . . . , ,_.-.._,,_.-.m-._ _
1 i I l ! l , l or overnight courier, which communications relate to Shoreham and/or issues affecting shoreham.
- 12. An order requiring the NRC Staff to issue a ;
Notice of Civil Penalties to the licensee relating to the Shoreham Emergency Preparedness Plan for any violations of (a) the AEA and/or NEPA, and/or regulations thereunder, and/or (b) its full power operating license, including 4 commitments thereunder, and/or (c) NRC requirements of full- , power reactor licensees, which violations occurred on or after April 21, 1989, or in the alternative, to show cause to this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board how a failure to issue I such a Proposal of Civil Penalties can be justified under 10 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart B and Appendix C.
- 14. An order denying the amendment sought and the other approvals with which it is coupled.
1 l l l l {
i ! COMc121aION WEBREF028, for the above-stated reasons, the Petition f l for Leave to Intervene should be granted, e hearing should be > held, and the other remedies herein sought should be granted. ' Respectfully submitted, l April 27, 1990 [ - Mrv ! Dr. Riobard R. Doresus superirte ient of schools shorehan- 'ng River Central school , trict. Distriot t.. ios. shoreham, New York 11786 . 1' l By: " - <- m # April 30, 1990 - - -
##/, Esquire aLohnes P. McGranary,
& Alber Mon 1255 23rd street, N.W.
Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20037 (202).857-2929 Attorney for Petitioner shoreham-Weding River Central school Distract l l In accordance with 10 C.F.R. ll 2.708(e) and 2.712(b), service may be made upon the above-designated Attorneys for Petitioner. l i I l l o
i
?
L JCKLICE' e CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE UWRC Pursuant to-the notice requirements set forth'i y h g g pg g Federal Register (55 Fed. Reg. 12076, March 30, 1990) and the l
~
QrrfLE OF SECREft4Y service requirements of 10 C.F.R. 5 2.712 (1989), I hereby>0CKLlg'gte<vlCF l f certify that on April 30, 1990 the foregoing Petition for Imave to Intervene and Request for Hearing and Notice of Appearance were served, via first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, upon the followingt l l The Honorable Samuel J. Chilk~ l ! The Secretary of the Commission office of the secretary i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ATTN: Docketing and Service Branch office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esquire Hunton & Williams P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212
. ~ A .
Jappies P. McGranary, /J// Cdhnsel for PetitioMt shoreham-Wading River Central school District i i
,,. 'y '*'-'---"a+ I}}