ML20062C063
| ML20062C063 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/30/1990 |
| From: | Mcgranery J, Todorovich M DOW, LOHNES & ALBERTSON, SCIENTISTS & ENGINEERS FOR SECURE ENERGY |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20062C060 | List: |
| References | |
| 2.206, OLA, NUDOCS 9010290199 | |
| Download: ML20062C063 (49) | |
Text
_
ig- Il
- DgnhEU BEFORE THE UNITED STATES !
- g -2 p 6 20' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
In the Matter of )
)_
~00 fI@CE gpi [chfihnt !
Long Island Lighting Company; )- USNRC Docket No.:
Consideration of Issuance of Amendment ) 50-322 To Facility-Operating-License and- ). License No..NPF )
Proposed No Significant Nazards )
Consideration Determination and )
Opportunity for Nearing )
(Emergency Preparedness Activities) )!
)-
(55 Fed. Reg.-12076, March 30, 1990)- )
) 3 SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS FOR SECURE ENERGY, INC.'s !
PETITION FOR 7JWE TO INTERVENE AND REOUEST FOR HEARING >
On March 30, 1990, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission _ ]
("NRC") announced that the Long Island Lighting Company _
("LILC0"), 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 as long as the reactor remains in the defueled condition (" reactor is void-of all fuel assemblies") with the " spent fuel, with a~burnup of i
approximately two effective full-power days, . . . stored-in 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 from the requirements of 10 C.F.R. 50.' 54 (q) and proposed changes to its Shoreham Nuclear Power. Station Emergency Dk D
[
g l=
1 I Preparedness Plan, would allow the licensee to1 cease its _
offsite emergency preparedness: activities." Id, at 12076- ,
I l
- 77. In the Notice, the NRC also states that "any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who-I L wishes to participate'as a party _in the proceeding must file i
a written petition to intervene." Id. at-12077.
Scientists andiEngineers for Secure Energy, Inc.;
! ("SEg " or " Petitioner") and some of its members would be adversely affected by this proposed amendment-and, therefore, ,
pursuant to Section 2.714'of.the' Commission's Rules, request that it be granted leav'e to intervene as a party and that'a hearing be held to consider the merits of the proposed amendment. ,
SE2 views this Amendmentlas 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 frosofull-power .
operational status violates the dictates of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended'("AEA") and: the: National Environmental o Policy Act of 1969 as amended ("NEPA"). Thus, while the issues presented herein directly relate to the proposed Amendment allowing the cessation of LILCO's certain emergency ,!
preparedness activities, they necessarily include other n
. ~ _ _
l v lv d,
l I
unlawfully segmented actions taken and/or proposed { by LILCo.
and the NRC Staff in furtherance of the decommissioning scheme. ]
SE2 submitted an enforcement. request under Section 1 2.206 of the Commission's Rules in July 1989, and has l
-submitted several. supplements to the request since that time consolidated with the Shoreham-Wading River Central School District (" School District")~ request. In their Section 2.206 n
requests, the School District and SEp have argued that LILCO l is taking the initial steps-in a course of action aimedJat decommissioning the Shoreham facility in violation of the i'
terms of the operating license,-the Commission's. regulations, the AEA and NEPA~. Technically, the request is still pending j before the NRC, but the Commission's lack of an explicitly >
j denominated " final decision" has effectively denied their requests because continuing and.significant steps toward da facto-implementation of LILCO's decommissioning ~ proposal ,
proceed unhampered, with the full knowledge and support of the NRC Staff.
All of the arguments advanced in Petitioner's Section y 2.206 Request, and the supplements thereto, are pertinent to 1/ In Klenne v. sierra Club, the Supreme Court states that l "when several proposals . . . that will have a cumulative or synergistic impact upon a' region are pending concurrently before l an agency, their environmental consequences must be considered ,
together." 427 U.S. 390, 410, 96 S.Ct. 2718 2730 (1976). R 1
~ _ - . . _ _ _ . . . . . . . _ . _ - . . _ . . _ _. _ . . _
i l
l 1
the issues at hand and, therefore, are incorporated herein by reference as additional support for the specific-aspects'ofi -
the issues and contentions-as_to which' Petitioner _ seeks leave. t l -f to intervene and requests a hearing.
r e
i
. . . , . . . . . . . . _ . . . , . . . , _ . . _ . . . . . , .,...,.4.,__. _, - ,
1 a- i i
I, INTEREET OF PETITIONER AND THE RIGHT TO INTERVENE-As the NRC Staff _has stated the applicable law: To determine: whether: a petitioner has sufficient interest' to intervene in a' proceeding,Lthe Commission has held!that a licensing board may apply judicial' concepts of' standing.
Portland General Electric Co. (Pebble Springs Nuclear Plant,-
Units 1 andL2), CLI-76-27, 4 NRC 610 (1976). .A petitioner must show that the' action sought in the proceedingLwill cause' an injury in fact, and that injury is within the sone of interest protected'by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as-amended, and/or th'e National Environmental Policy Act of 4
1969. Id. at 613-614; Niacara Mohawk Power Corn., 31131 (Nine Mile Point Nuclear Station, Unit ~2) LBP-83-45, 18 NRC 213, 215 (1983). In addition, the petitioner mustLestablish:
(1) that it personally has suffered or:will suffer a distinct and palpable harm that constitutes an injury in fact; (2) that the injury can be traced to the challenged action; and (3) that the injury is likely to be remedied.by alfavorable decision granting the relief sought. Dellumm v.'NRc, 863-F.2d 968, 971 (D.C. Cir. 1988); 3RR A112 Nuclear Enaineerino Co.. Inc., (Sheffield Illinois, Low-Level Radioactive Waste 4 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-.
._ ___ _ _ .. _ ._.~ _ . - . _ . ~ - . _ . _ . _ . _ _ . _ . - _ _ . . _ . . _ . _ . . _
,, s; e
l:
I i -s-L l
! outcome, and the law allows standing even'if that interest is .. t j thought by others=not to be a substantial:one. Houston l Liahtina and Power co., 31 al. (South Texas' Project, Units 1 and 2), LBP-79-10, 9-NRC 439, 447-48 (1979).-
b SE meets all.of the criteriatforLstanding in this-2 matter. 'SEa and its members are 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 remedied by a favorable decision.
The AEA guarantees.any interested person'a hearing in ,
any reactor licensing action which may affect the haalth and-safety of the petitioner. 42 U.S.C.al'2239. In this instance, the proposed cessation of offsite emergency preparedness actitivies would unacceptably-increase the risk
- t of radiological harm and hence adversely affect the i
radiological health and safety of Petitioner's members and their property.- Petitioner's and its~ members interests, as l
detailed below, will be protected, and the requirements and purposes of the AEA met, if leave for it to intervene in a hearing held in this matter is granted and the remedies sought by Petitioner'are granted as a result of that- ;
proceeding. [
l 1
l l
l I
u
1 1
l l
l 1
- T-l.
LILco's efforts toward An facto decommissioning; t
without an approved decommissioning plan are a gar 33 -
1 I violation of the AEA and a direct health and safety L violation. LILco's efforts to save money'by. shutting downi all operations, slashing staff, and defueling.the. reactor ignore AEA procedure and endanger the~ health and safety of-Petitioner's members ~during-this unapproved. decommissioning, a Petitioner seeks to have'the NRC-require LILCO:to abide by-the Shoreham full-power operating License until:en 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 1the reacto'r 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 members' radiological health and safety risks. And the instant proposed amen'dment would:only i compound the increase in these present and~ future risks. No concern with full-power coerational safety has been expressed L
by LILeo, or the NRC Staff, 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
- i. .
i
-3 full power operation must certainly affect the type of. care, ,
maintenance and attention to details at the facilityr and the l '
l hearing' process will reveal the health and safety risks-(
l caused by LILco's da faste decommissioning efforts and the.
NRC Staff's apparent wholesale acquiescence to that' position.
NEPA mandates: preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") prior to agency decisionmaking'on major federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. The EIS aust consider, inter 1113, the environmental impacts of, and the reasonable. alternatives to, the proposal. Thus, NEPA ensures that agency decisionmaking not only includes environmental consideration,.but'also is structured in such a way that, environmental-consideration 11s-meaningful. SE2 has determined that its responsibilities demand that it seek intervention in-this instance in order to-protect the interests of its members.
SE2 is an organization dedicated to correcting the alarming degree of misunderstanding on fundamental,, P scientific and technological issues permeating-the national energy debate, especially with respect to the balancing of environmental concerns. In pursuing these objectives, SE2 is committed to offering its views, based on the considerable knowledge and expertise.of its members, to the public and to
~
the various governmental agencies with responsibility for the i
l l
. - - .. -.. ~ . . .- ---_ - _ _ _______-__ _ --__ ____- __--_- _ ____
_ . . _ . _ _ . _ - . _ _ _ _ _ -____.______ - ____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ . . . _ _ . ~ _ _ . . _ . . _ _ _
l
. i l
l
.g..
Many of SEa 'is members live I
resolution of energy issues. ,
and/or work on Long Island in the vicinity of the shoreham: 7
'ii
. Nuclear > Power Plant and rely on electricity from its~
licensee, LILco. Therefore, the organization and its members- i have a special interest in the radiologically safe and environmentally benign operation'of Shorehan to provide them with reliable electricity and to avoid-the substit0 tion of fossil fuel plants relying on. imported oil and gas,lwhich would contribute not only to acid rain, the greenhouse effect, and other effects adverse to the' physical environment, but also to our. national trade deficit and the endangerment of national energy security and other effects adverse to our society.
Members of SE 2 who have authorized tho' organization to represent their interests include:
Eena-Mai Franz 25 Josephine Boulevard
-P.O. Box 623 Shoreham, New York 11786 Andrew P.' Hull 2 Harvest Road Shoreham, New York 11786 Stephen V. Musolino 6 Middle Cross Shoreham, New York- 11786 ,
Joseph B. Scrandis '
10 Walnut Street Westbury, New York 11590 1
1 0
[
'I
. ' John'R. Stehn l 8 Harbor Hills Drive -
j Port Jefferson, New York -11777 l These SE, members variously' live and/or work' not only l within 50 miles of Shoreham but also within the plume-exposure pathway emergency planning sone ("EPZ") and/or the-ingestion pathway EPZ and own,- lease and/or use real property' i'
within a 50 mile radius and/or the-two-.EPZ's of Shoreham and have an interest in whether the. proposed amendment providesL reasonable assurance of'their radiological health and safety, which is within the zone of interests to be protected-under the AEA, and whether the decision on this' proposed' amendment-and the larger proposal of which it-is a part is made in-L accordance with NEPA.
The SE2 members depend on LILCO to meet their electric energy needs at home and at work. Thus, SE2 has a-vital interest in ensuring that an adequate and: reliable supply of electricity will be available to meet their needs and that the electricity provided is available at' reasonable i rates. As a completed and fully licensed plant, Shoreham is- !
presently capable of meeting the growing electric energy needs of the Long Island area. Actions to dismantle the facility and build substitute oil-or gas burning plants, on the other hand, delay any increase in the' region's electric.
energy production capacity.and also generate'significant ,
.: c
]
l expenses which will inevitably be passed on-to Long Island's ,
ratepayers. SE2 also has an interest in protecting its :
members from the adverse health' consequences of the air-
~
pollution produced by the oil burning plants which would be necessary substitutes for:Shoreham. ,
Aside from its authorisation to represent the interests of its members located within fifty miles of the Shoreham facility, SE, has standing' in this case based on its organizational interests. 3.ag Philadelnhia Electric Co., ;
(Limerick Generating-Station, Unites 1 and 2), LBP-82-43A, 15 NRC 1423, 1437 (1982), citina, Warth v. soldin,-422 U.S.'490,-
511.(1975). SE, strongly' supports the use of nuclear plants to provide the safe and domestically secure electricity needed in this country. This mission necessarily includes intervening in the present matter'where the destruction of a 1
new state-of-the-art nuclear reactor-is sought.
As set forth in Comnetitive Enternrise Inst., et al.
, v. Nat'l Michway Traffic Safety Admin., No. 89-1278, slip op.
1
- at 27 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 19,'1990), organizational standing is established whenever the agency's action interferes with the-organization's informational purposes to an extent that-it interferes with the organization's activities. Thisiis-precisely the situation in the instant case
- the NRC Staff refuses to conduct a NEPA study which directly deprives SE 2 l
4
=, .
12 -
1 of its ability to (1) comment directly on an environmental-l report prepared by LILc0 and the Draft IIS prepared'by.the- )
NRC Staff, (2) advise its nenbers of the environmental' risks'. )
involved with each alternative explored by;.the. environmental-studies, and (3) report the findings ~and recommendations based upon the environmental evaluations to the public and ;
political' leadership as set forth in' SE g 's Charter.
l P
I 9'
vga,.....,y *..we, , , yvw.y---, , u yw y 3.y.- pie g
l II. PETITIONER'S INTERESTS NILL BE GREATLY AFFECTED BY THE AMENDHENT AND THE raw zzDING l I
j i
.The proposed NRC Staff decision to grant LILCO's
~
request for the proposed amendment violates'the requirements-of the AEA at the expense of the-Petitioner's members' right-to reasonable assurance of radiological 1 health and safety and circumvents NEPA and the NEPA-mandated consideration of tho' decommissioning proposal, including _its reasonable ;
alternatives. Petitioner's andiits members' AEA and NEPA--
I interests will also be directly affected as described herein, and Petitioner wishes to participate in each and every aspect ,j of the hearing which touches and concerns those-interests as well as the specific aspects identified *: low and-in any -
amendment of this-petition hereafter' filed.
~
SE 2 , on behalf of 'itself and its ' members, seeks leave =
to intervene and requests a hearing to= determine whether the amendment should be granted, denied, or-a different. amendment made under the AEA. The specific aspects of the proposed j amendment as to which'SE 2 wishes to intervene.under the AEA y are: (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 and subsidiary guidance thereunder; (2) whether, if a decision is made to go to full power operation at .)
\.
-- ~ . . . - . . . - - - . - - .. - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _
.. i
- ]
1
?
14 - ]
Shoreham, the proposed amendment would provide reasonable 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 assurance of their. protection (including their .(
..l l
real and personal property) from the radiological; hazards:of. [
operating the facility; and (3) whether,~if-a decision is made to decommission Shoreham,-the proposed amendment would- i provide reasonable assurance that such decommissioning will be conducted in accordance with the public health and safety ,
and the national defense and security to protect- SE 2 's members and their real and personal property from the-radiological. hazards during the decommissioning of the facility.
Both their personal radiological and other health and ;
safety interests (including the safety of their property) would be adversely affected if'the proposed amendment'is not .!
in accord with the'AEA and/or.the regulations and subsidiary guidance issued thereunder and/or if it does not otherwise provide reasonable assurance of the public health'and safety. y and the national defense and security.
This proposed amendment, in particular, would allow the cessation of certain emergency planning activities-including the exercise or drill of L.ose plans explicitly
L ,
p:.. *-
r it required in the license. Such cessation of practice would
. greatly reduce the effectiveness of_the 3000 person-LERO' organization and thus greatly delay and prejudice the ability 1 of LILCO to return- to full power. operation with the same.
degree of reasonable assurance of the public health and safety offered by the regular practice and trainingJcurrentlyf required. such increased vulnerability to radiological hars,.
by definition, significantly increases the risk'of such harm and, hence, unavoidably and significantly increases the >
direct and/or indirect endangerment of the Petitioner's l
l members' radiological health and safety.
SE also wishes to have full and; fair NEPA.
2 consideration given the decommissioning proposal ~(of which-the instant application is an interdependent part), including the need for power, the cost-benefit analysia of decommissioning and the operation and near-term operation alternatives for shoreham. Any actions in furtherance of the de facto decommissioning proposal,-including this proposed amendment, prejudice consideration of such mandatory NEPA analysis by, among other things, making the alternatives l further away in time, more costly and less likely in: fact. j l
NEPA, as implemented in regulations issued. thereunder by the CEQ and the NRC, mandates that no major. Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment 1
i
, _ . . . . , _ ~ . . . _ . . . . _ . . . _ . . _ . . . . . _ . _ .. . ,_..__ .
l l -
- 16'-
will be implemented without first receiving a full environmental review. As more fully detailed-below, l Petitioner's interests under-NEPA vill be protected, and the purposes and requirements of NEPA served, to the extent that-such a review is conducted under the NRC Rules (includingfa :
hearing) and the remedies l sought by Petitioner.are grantedlin the proceeding. . Petitioner's interests will be adversely-affected should'this petition or the relieffsought herein be
-i 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 4 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 3
(
considerations.
If a full NEPA environmental review is conducted, it may be that the factors which first led to the construction L of this $5.5' billion dollar reactor would lead the. .l 1
l decisionmaker-to favor the-continued utilization of this brand new facility and, reject'the decommissioning' proposal. j But the failure to properly maintain and protect the facility l in accordance with the operating License during this interim l
l l
l =
. . . _ . - . _ _ . . _ _ _ . . . _ _ . _ .. . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ J
s I
e l
period could further erode the alternative of full power .
s operation by, among other things, increasing the costs, in
. i time and money, of returning-to full power' operation.
During the interia period,_beforeithe necessary 3 environmental evaluations- are completed, : the . reactor must not .
languish in~a mode of emergency planning, inconsistent withL NRC regulations and its current operating License. Nor should the licensee be permitted by the. commission to behave as though the reactor will never again operate and'that offsite emergency preparedness activities are,~therefore, l
unnecessary. Significant health and safety risks, including L
l 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 t
The increased risks of radiological hara to!
Petitioner's members as discussed above, also. constitute-adverse environmental impacts and would also increase'the risk that the choice of reasonable alternatives would be-limited. As a result, approval of the proposed amendment is barred by 10 C.F.R. I 51.101(a) (1989) until a record of' decision is issued following completion of the required NEPA review of the decommissioning proposal. S.tt A112, 10_C.F.R.
I 51.100(a) (1) (1989). ;
-. . . . . ~ , - . - . _- - . . - - - - . . . . - _ _ . -_ _ __ . . . . _ . . _ _ . - . -
1 l
t Intervention and a hearing on this proposed ,
amendment, addressing the' aspects identified in this .
l Petition, is the gnly avenue available to Petitioner before ,
the NRC for protecting the vital interests of itself and its members as to this NRC licensing issue at this time. The ;
consolidated Requests filed pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.206 in . l
~
I July 1989 sought redress of many similar issues, but the NRC l Staff has essentially ignored that section 2.206 request,. t which is 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 fasig decommissioning by the licensee in violation of its operating License, the AEA and NEPA by increasing the risk of' damage to shoreham and resulting radiological harm to SE2 members. [
Petitioner must address the-13 lagie decommissioning at this time because the licensee obviously seeks to abrogate I its obligations under its operating license before formally applying for a decommissioning license amendment thereby endangering the health and safety of Petitioner's members, 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 ,
__ - _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . . . _ . . . _ . _ . . _ _ - . _ _ . _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ . . . ~ _ .
I i
i 4
l regulations and thereby deny Petitioner and its members, all ;
of whom are interested in the development of a complete -
environa'ntal e record, the opportunity to have such full NEPA l consideration before significant alternatives are, for all practical purposes, foreclosed.
Obviously, neither the NRC Staff her the 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 will bring 1 to light the significant regulatory, health, safety and-environmental issues which form the bases for its challenge i
of the proposed amendment and for all of the licensee's actions toward da ingig decommissioning. These essential s issues are required by law to be addressed, and by addressing ,
them now in-this action the Petitioner will hasten their l examination and appropriate resolution by the commission. , ;
1 l.
I E
..- - ~ -., ,-,-... - . _ . _ _. . .,,w,%,m-, .,we, ,,y-, - - - .,,.%.,,..,,.,m,.- .._,.,-.,, .py-- = , _ , - - -,w<y
. _ _ - . - . - - _ - . . . - - . . -._. - - . . . _ - - . ~ - . - . . - . . . . . . - - . . . - . - . ~ .
i i
l !
I - 30 -
III. SPECIFIC ASPECTS AS TO WHICH PETITIONER SEEKS TO -
i- INTERVENE . ,
A. Specific Aspects of the subject Matter As !
To Which Petitioner Seeks to Intervene i Under the ETA ;
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 radiological ,
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 (g) (1989). Those requirements have boon.further i implemented by other Commission guidance and requirements.
ERA, 3.g., Part 50 Appendix 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 these reductions would not involve a significant hazards consideration.
The Petitioner asserts that 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, risk to
. . - - . - . - , . . ,._#....-... ..._..n-.,. _%.o... ,.- , _ _ .c... , , , ,. ...,.w,.. , , . , . - , . . - , _ ,
J
. e l
l l
1 j
them from the radiological hasard that could directly and/or indirectly result from such lack of emergency planning activities. l l
The particular aspects of the proposed amendment as I
to which Petitioner wishes to intervene under the AEA are, I
l inter alla, as follows:
! 1. Given that the proposed amendment is premised-on Shorehan's "defueled state", does the Settlement Agreement in fact prohibit further operation of the Shoreham facility? i
- 2. Is the licensee's proposed amendment allowing
{
~
j emergency preparedness activities to be discontinued in l
accordance with the AEA, the regulations and guidance ;
thereunder, the conditions specified in the license, and/or the licensee commitments pursuant to that license given the existence of that full-power Operating License? l
- 3. Is the plant's defueled condition relevant to ,
the requirement of an offsite Emergency Response Plan under ;
the AEA while Shoreham possesses a full power operating License? t
- 4. Given that LIICO has already drastically reduced staffing at the plant and that LIIco " relies on an offsite ;
emergency response organization consisting primarily of the l
licensee's employees," is LIIco presently in violation of its ;
operating license which requires maintenance of the emergency
i l
l I 4
( - 22 -
i 1
response organisation and, if so, does the NRC Staff have an obligation to enforce the licensee's staffing oblig'ation through fines and related orders and/or Confirmatory letters spelling out affirmative steps to be taken by LILc0 to correct the violations?- .
- 5. Is there a sufficient number of adequately ,
4
- trained emergency response personnel on and/or offsite if the
! licensee were to place nuclear fuel into the reactor vessel? ,
j 6. If the licenses has an obligation to maintain (including reassigning and/or hiring, and training and/or retraining) emergency response staff adequate for full power operation, how should those obligations be detailed? ,
I l 7. If the licenses has an obligation to maintain (including reassigning and/or hiring, and training, and/or ;
I retraining) emergency response staff adequate for full power operation and to maintain plant equipment in a status ready for full power operation but fails, or has failed, to. observe l 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 8 and Appendix C of Part 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?
r
__.__ _ _ ___ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . ._..m._ , . . _ __ . _ . . . _ . . . . _ , . . _ , . ..,_,,,,....,,.m, - ,, . , . . , , . _ _ . - . . . - . . _ , . . , , _ . _ , , -
l l
l 1
i
- 8. The proposed license amendment would void five ;
license conditions whenever two factual circumstances exists.
This presents the question of whether there is any i I relationship between the existence of the two factual j conditions and a need to, or justification for, ceasing to l apply the requirement (s) for (a) strike shutdown (License ,
j condition 2.C(9)), (b) hurricanne shutdown (License condition i
j 2.C(10)), (c) the licensee to provide a LILCO representative t l knowledgeable of the offsite emergency plan, the offsite l l
l 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 site, area, or general emergency at shoreham (License condition 2.C(11)), (d) at least 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 drilled quarterly with full or partial participation by sne local emergency response organisation (License condition 2.C(13))?
- 9. Given the NRC Staff's recognition that this proposed license amendment is ' coupled with the licensee's request for exemption from the requirements of 10 C.F.R.
l
- _ -. _ _ _ , _ _ . _ . _ . . , _ - _ _ . _ _ _ ~ . . . . . _ . . _ . - _ _ _ . . . _ _ . , _ _
_ ._..-.. ---.- _ ... _ . _ ,1
l l
L. . '
i l
50.54(g) and proposed changes to its shoreham Nuclear Power
~
Station Emergency Preparedness Plan," does not the i consideration of this proposed amendment require simultaneous consideration of that exemption and those proposed changes to f the energency 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 emergency planning activities need to be considered in a single AEA proceeding with the pending proposed cranges to the licensee's physical security plan? 55 Fed. Reg. 12758 (April 5, 1990).
- 11. Given the regulatory requirement that the "NRC will base its finding on a review of the Federal Energency Management Agency (FEMA) findings and determinations as to whether state and local energency plans are adequate and I whether there is reasonable assurance that they can be l implemented", are such FEMA findings and determinations also required for the instant proposti amendment to the conditions l
l of Shorehan's license applicable to emergency planning? Ems i 3.g , Memorandum of Understanding Between Federal Emergency
i
. . 'I i
25 - !
1 Management Agency and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 50 Fed. !
Reg. 15485 (April 18, 1985).
- 12. Does a license amendment which allows a full power reactor license to discontinue quarterly offsite ;
emergency plan drills involve a significant reduction in the ;
margin of safety of, and/or increase the probability'of radiological harm to, the population of the plume exposure .
pathway EPE?
- 13. Would a delay in the effectiveness of the proposed smendment until after a hearing is held disrupt or ;
delay the operation of Shoreham? ,
- 14. Would a delay in the effectiveness'of the proposed amendment until after a hearing is held impose 1 unnecessary regulatory burdens on the NRC which are not j i
related to significant safety benefits?
l B. Specific Aspects of the subject Matter As to Which Petitioner Seeks To Intervene i Under NEPA.
LILCo's proposed license amendment which effectively eliminates the offsite Emergency Response Plan and disperses i the organization which is charged with the 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.
1
L :
i s
I . . .
)
)
?
Because preparation of an EIS and a final decision is required before any part of the decommissioning proposal may !
be implemented, 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 ,
i review of the whole decommissioning proposal. i section 102(2)(c) of NEPA provides that prior to making a decision to implement a " proposal" for a " major i
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
" alternatives to" the proposed action. 42 U.S.C. I 4332 (1982).
The council on Environmental Quality ("cEQ")
regulations, which are " binding on all federal agencies,"
further clarify the NEPA responsibilities of federal ,
agencies. 40 C.F.R. I 1500.3 (1988). Among other things, those regulations (a) aandate application of NEPA *at the earliest possible time to insure that planning and decisions-reflect environmental values," (b) require that actions which are " interdependent parts of a larger. action" be discussed in.
l a single impact statement, and (c) prohibit ~ actions which
" limit the choice of reasonable alternatives" until the NEPA
)
l l l l '
\
~ 21 -
[
process is complete. 40 C.F.R. $$ 1501.2, 1508.25, & 1506.1.
1 The NRC's own NEPA regulations, which closely parallel those of the CEQ, also prohibit any " decision on a proposed action" or actions, especia11y'one tending to alimit the choice of reasonable alternatives," pending completion of the NEPA j process. 10 C.F.R. $$ 51.100 and 51.101 (1989). f While the decommissioning proposal has been advanced I by LILeo, a non-federal entity,.the NRC's on-going -
supervision of that licensee's activities and the need for i 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 ensure that neither the Shoreham facility, itself, as the .
relevant part of the environment under the supervision of the NRC, nor the alternatives to its decommissioning, are adversely affected by premature implementation of the !
decommissioning proposal. Saa 40 C.F.R. I 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 independent of that proposal.
-.-.- . . - - . - - . . . - - . . - . . . - . - - . . . . - _ . - . - - . - - - . - - . . - . - . ~ . - . - _ . . _ . - .
l a
i I
i i
LI Wo and the NRC claim that no steps have been taken i
at Shoreham which are irreversible or constitute .
irretrievable commitments of resouross. This claim is l subject to significant doubt in view of the judicial b
interpretation of these concepts in the context of NEPA and the facts of this case. 333 ca==anwealth of Massachusetts v. l Matt, 716 F.2d 946, 953 (1st Cir. 1983) (aeach of these 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 harm at stake is a harm to the environment, but the harm consists of the added E13h to the >
/
environment that takes place when governmental decisionmakers make up their mines 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 clain could be made even if the plant had been razed but "could be" rebuilt. The issue is ,
not whether the plant, its equipment and its staff could 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 1
/
l i
risk that the currently available alternative of operation 1 including adequate offsite amargency planning night not be
- ~
reasonably avaIlable when the federal decisionmaker finally <
addresses the question of whether or not to authorise ;
l decouaissioning of Shoreham? ,
l
' 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 i
' with New York State in a plan to decommission Shoreham plainly known to the NRC, the Shoreham plant sat ready for i
immediate full-power operation. As a fully licensed plant with a complete staff (including a trained and practicing ,
LE30) and fully functional equipment and systems, Shorehan ,
I constituted a valuable resource for the Long Island area in that it was capable of immediatgly generating electric energy. I 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 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 would, therefore,
l l violate NEPA and the Commission Rules (in particular, 10 -
i C.F.R. I 51.101(a) (1) (1989)) if approved at this time.
The Petitioner first urged maintenance of the status ,
j gM2 (that is, full operational readiness at the Shoreham .
plant), pending preparation of an EIS and a final decision on the proposal to decommission the facility, in its section, 2.206 request filed in July 1989. Petitioner has reiterated the need for the Commission to take such action in ;
l supplements to the initial request and at meetings between the NRC Staff and LILCO management. The NRC-Staff's l 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 Commission.I' Petitioner disagrees with this proposition advanced by the NRC, and supportid 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 t 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).
k the commission receives a formal written application for a license amendment to allow decommissioning. -
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, 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 f
" 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 t
authorization is given pursuant to a " formal" application to decommission some time in the future. This position ignores l 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. I 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 situation makes it abundantly clear that a decommissioning proposal t
exists "in fact" in this instance.
i
1 -!
- c l i i
I i LILeo has entered into a settlement Agreement with various entities of the state of New York that represents a I
decommissioning proposal. The Agreement (which may be :
terminated by its own terms or voided by pending suits'in j 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 ,
the plant to an entity of New York State which will, in turn, ,
- take the final steps in the decommissioning process.
1 07 several occasions, LILCO has made the terms of the Settlement Agreement known to the NRC. Furthermore, since :
! Shoreham 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 i
decommissioning proposal outlined in the settlement l Agreement.
LILCo began by transferring the fuel from the reactor i
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 and thus was defuelina, an activity that is not anticipated i in the operating License, as opposed to refuelina which la an i i activity addressed by the Technical specifications. LILeo I I
1
]
)
e has also presented a plan.to discontinue upgrading, j
~
I maintenance, and operator training programs, and to i drastically reduce the staff'at the Shoreham plant, among ;
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 I findings of consistency and allowed LILCo to go forwerd with 1
these actions.
Following implementation of the destaffing plan, 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, i committed to maintaining the plant in safe and enerational ,
condition, the NRC gave LILCo explicit' permission to pursue the layup plans.
In addition to these activities, LILCO has submitted l 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
~
1 p
,,,,.r.._,
t
. l 1
I i
- 34 - ,
this case. Thus, the NRC position (that it will not consider a proposal to decommission to exist until the licensee ,
i submits a formal application for a license amendment to allow ,
60 commissioning) is not tenable.
t Aside from the reality of the situation which makes it abuniantly clear that a proposal for decommissioning presently exists and is being prematurely implemented at the Shoreham plant, the commission's own definition of the term
- " decommission" supports petitioner's contention that LILCO's actions to date constitute decommissioning. The Commission ,
defines " decommission" as meaning "to remove (as a facility) f safely from service and 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 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 l
l definition in that, although the licensee has not yet j submitted an application for a license amendment explicitly 7 denominated as an " Application to Decommission", LILCO has !
.e, y e, , . - . _ .w ,.4 - - .-__.,e+, , - , , , . . , . - , . , , . . , ..,w_. ,-, _ ..~.,,,,v. .,,_i..., -
,# . -, - ,,..m-...-
t 1
submitted several applications which are intended to further confireF the removal of the facility from service ind which have no utility independent of decommissioning. Thus, an ,
unauthorised decommissioning has, in fact, begun. !
In the typical situation, when a plant is at the end 4 of its useful life, by age or accident, there is no question I 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 a11' licensee duties as to the " actual" decommissioning.
The Shoreham situation is anything but typical: ,
Shoreham is at the beginning of its useful life and thel :
initial step in decommissioning (safely removing the plant from service) cannot be ignored as inconsequential or unrelated to the process of decommissioning.
Moreover, the Settlement Agreement between LILCO and l
New York State exactly parallels the commisuion's definition ,
of " decommissioning" in that it outlines a plan for decommissioning that begins with LILCO's actions to remova ,
2/ Among the considerations listed by the CEQ as indicative of '
the" significance"oftheimpactsofanactionis"[t]hedegree to which the action . . . represents a decision in pr.nciple about a future consideration." 40 C.F.R. 1508.27(6) (1988). The proposed amendment, which implicitly rests on the premiss that decommissioning is a foregone conclusion, therefore, represents such a " decision in principle."
(
l l 6 i 'l l
l the plant from service and anticipates that an entity of New ;
Yorkstateshalltakethefinalactionsnecessarydocomplete [
decommissioning of the plant, while LILco will remain
- financially liable for those actions. The NRC staff's
! present position, that the NEPA process is not triggered j ,
until a licensee submits an application explicitly i denominated as an " Application to Decommission", ignores the fact that LILCo 'is presently taking actions further ,
confirming the removal of shoreham from service and, tnerefore, has not only begun decommissioning, but is ,
aggressively implementing that proposal.
The proposed amendment violates Petitioner's and Petitioner's members' rights 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 '
l 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 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 and the NRC view Shorehan's decommissioning as inevitable, t
.....w_._..m_, _
. _ _ - . . , . . . , , , . , , . . , , _ _ _ . , , . _ , . , _ , . _ . . . _ . . , , , _ . . . . , , , . , _ . _ , . . , , , , . _ , , , , ._ , . ~ _ _ . . ,
i
?
but also makes the alternative of operation further.away in l 4
time since the reorganisation and retraining (and possibly ;
requalification) of LERO could take considerable time and money.
The offsite Emergency Response Plan is.an integral part of the shoreham facility license. The fully licensed l and functioning Shoreham plant is not just the sum of its equipment and systems. Rather, Shoreham is the hardware and I
the personnel which allow it to operate and operate safelv.
The discontinuance of the Offsite Emergency Response organization would be, therefore, no different than dismantling the hardware that makes up some other vital safety feature. Thus the proposed amendment constitutes a negative 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 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.
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 environmental effects of government actions; any infringement ,
l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ . - _..__a __ _ _ __._ ___,_ _ _ _.
r 1
l of that right constitutes a constitutional 1y' cognisable -
(
injury . . .
" ca=aetitive Entarnrise Inst., et. al. v.'Nat'l ;
i Minhway Traffic safatv admin., No. 89-1278, slip op, at 28 (D.C. Cir. Jan. 19, 1990). Until an EIS has been prepared on 1 the total decommissioning proposal, no part of that plan,
! including this proposed amendment to the Physical security l Plan, may be taken.
I
- 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
"(a)11 licensing . . . actions subject to this subpart require an environmental assessment except those identified !
in 5 51.20(b) as requiring an environmental impact statement, those identified in 5 51.22(c) as categorical exclusions, and i
those identified in 5 51.22(d) as other actions not requiring environmental review." 10 C.F.R. I 51.21 (1989).- Assuming arguendo, that the proposed amendment may be considered a discreet 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 which constitutes i
---...,,.---w.-..---- , , - . . . ~ - - . , - _ . . ~ - . - - . . . . - - . > . . + - - . - - . ~ _ - . - _ . _ , _ - ~ . - - - - . - - - . . - . . - . _ ~ - _ _ . -
l l
categorical exclusions from environmental review. Thus, !
Section 51.21 mandates proparation of at least an ..
environmental assessment'("EA") addressing the environmental ,
impacts of, and alternatives to this licensing action. >
r Further, Petitioner requests an EA and also asserts that the proposed amendment involves unresolved conflicts concerning 4 alternative uses of available resources. 333 10.C.F.R. 6 ,
51.22(b) (1989). .
An environmental assessment is intended to provide a i
basis for a decision whether a proposed action merits ,
preparation of an EIS or a finding of no significant impact. i This determination hinges on whether the proposed action will or will not "have a sianificant effect on the quality of the i human environment." 10 C.F.R. I 51.32 (a) (3) (emphasis l
added); 313 Alag 42 U.S.C. I 4372(2)(c) . l 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 "'significant1y' as used in NEPA." 40 C.F.R. l 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 ,
environment" is:
.s
s i
i
'l Whether the action is.related to other actions with >
individually insignificant but cumulatively- ;
sinnificant innacts, significance exists if it is 4 reasonable to anticipate a cumulatively significant i impact on the environment. Sieniflemnee cannot be l avoided by terming an action temporary or hv breakins-it down into small ca=annant narts. !
40 C.F.R. I 1508.27(b) (7) (1988) (emphasis added). Anl h
environmental assessment of this proposed amendment must, therefore, consider the cumulative impacts of the proposed amendment and the other related actions'which have or will be taken in furtherance of the decommissioning scheme.
Furthermore, the CEQ defines " cumulative impact" as:
the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, cresent and reasonab1v foreseeable futura l
l actions reaardless of what amanev (Federal or non- I Federal) or norson undertakes much other actions.
cumulative impacts can result from individually minor ,
but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time.
40 C.F.R. I 1508.7 (1988) (emphasis added). Thus,.the proposed amendment cannot be isolated from the continuun of "past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions" in furtherance of decommissioning. Rather, a proper environmental assessment will necessarily consider the >
proposed amendment in the context of the decommissioning i proposal which has been, and-continues to be, implemented in a segmented fashion. Such consideration must inevitably
e
- O i
l 1 l )
l ;
yield the conclusion that the piecemeal implementation of the ~
l individual steps in the decommissioning process cannot >
1 continue until an EIS evaluating the environmental impacts l l
of, and alternatives to, the decommissioning scheme as a whole has been prepared and a final decision on that proposal' l
made.
Petitioner has thus shown an injury in fact that will result from the proposed amendment that is within the. zone of interests protected by NEPA and that can be redressed by a decision not to grant the amendment and by granting the other remedies sought.
1 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"?
- 2. Would issuance of the proposed amendment violate the Commission's NEPA regulations, including without ,
limitation, 10 C.F.R. Il 51.100 & 51.101 (1989)?
- 3. Do NEPA, and the CEQ and NRC regulations ;
promulgated 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 I
h l
operation at full power pursuant to its full-power operating i
License, the Technical Specifications and licensee ,
commitments thereunder, as well as the Atomic Energy Act, the regulations and other normal NRC Staff requirements of a full i
power licensee,.until such time as full NEPA. review of the :
l l
decommissioning proposal is completed and published and a 1
decision on that proposal is subsequently made? v
- 4. Does the proposed amendment require an environmental assessement ("EA") prior to becoming effective?
If the proposed amendment does require an EA 4 j 5.
l prior to becoming effective, what is the proper scope of that .
EA? That is, (a) should the EA be limited to the amendment ;
as defined in the Notice, (b) should the scope also include .
l 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 I
its Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. Emergency Preparedness t
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, and other variances to its full-power operating license, which are pending at this time or (e) should it include all .!
other proposals in fact, currently pending before the NRC (for example, the decommissioning report, submitted by the
- , -,-m - - - , - .< .-,,.,,--,-.--,-----,,-e--,.. -, . , - - - .,..,,-..,--,--,,.v.,. , . . . , - - . . -. , -,~ - - - . . . - , - , . - ,, ,. ..w, , . a.-,-L - , , - - - - - - - -
i
- O i
licensees' SNRC-1713 dated April 16,-1990 and/or the deletion of the position'of corporate quality assurance from the i Emergency Response organisation communicated to the NRC-by licensees SNRC-1698 dated April 4, 1990). j
- 6. Is the Staff's determination thatLan EIS.is necessary for the decommissioning of Shoreham in its response to Petitioner's counsel dated July 20, 1989 determinative of {
4 the need for an EIS?
- 7. If the NRC Staff's July 20, 1989 determination of the need for an EIS is binding on the Staff, does NEPA require initiation of the EIS process at this time?
i s
I i
?
l [
l l
.. - . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ , . . , . _ . . . . . _ . . . _ . _ _ . . . _ _ , _ _ . _ . _ ~ , _ . _ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . _ . _ . . . . _ . . . _ . . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _
. .. -s IV. REMEDIES The Petitioner seeks the following remedies l
- 1. An order permitting the Petitioner's intervention as to the subject of the captioned notice. ]
- 2. An order directing a hearing on the issues l 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 I the proposed amendment pendente lita to allow for an .
independent assessment by this Atomic Safety and Licensing -
l l Board of (a) whether the amendment involves a significant f hazards consideration which assessment shall include review :
1 FEMA findings and determinations pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 6 :
50.47 (a) (2 ) (1989) and the NRC/ FEMA NOU. signed April 3 and 9, l 1985, and (b) whether approval.of the amendment before a
\
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 ;
r regulations thereunder. -
1
- 4. An order consolidating this petition with the i
petition of.Shoreham-Wading River Central School District insofar as the two petitioners have common interests. .
i
- , - - - . _ . . . , , , - , , . . . . , , . . . . . . . . . . . . , . , . , . _ , , , . , . . . . _ . _ _ . , . . . . . . , . . _ , - _ - . . . , . . - . _ _ . . . , . - - . _ . . _ _ _ , , , - - ~ _ , . . . , , _ . . . _ , - - , - . . . . . . .
F l
I l )
- 5. An order consolidating this matter with related matters pending before the Commission for which notices of an ;
l opportunity for hearing have been and/or will be issued.
- 6. An order finding that there exists a proposal- i for the decommissioning of Shoreham, which is a major federal
" action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment and, therefore, ordering'the licensee to prepare 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. +
- 7. An order requiring the licenses to expeditiously reassign and/or hire, and train and/or retrain, LERO and other emergency planning staff to m*- 'the existing emergency planning requirements for full power aparation of Shoreham in accordance with its license, related commitment's thereunder, and all NRC requirements for full. power licensees; and, further ordering such staff to be 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
...:. v; 1
- 46 --
l i Shoreham, appropriate to a' full power operating' status in-y
)
[ accordance with readiness for immediate fuel loading, subsequent power ascension and full-power operation in ,
u accordance with-the licensee's full power Operating License, l .
commitments related.thereto, and all NRC-Staff requirement's, of full power operating licensees-(including maintenance of' l LERO and conduct of drills) until such time as a decision is- t made on the decommissioning proposal.
0
- 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 a
- pursuant to orders 6,-7, and 8 above.
+ ,
- 10. An order putting the licenseeDon notice or, in.
the alternative, an order requiring the:NRC Staff.to issue an ,
order putting the licensee on notice, that fines ofo$100,000 '
per day shall be imposed for any violation (s) of orders 6, 7 l: or 8, independently , so that such. fines may accumulate to
{
j $300,000 per-day.
l
~11. An order requiring the NRC-Staff and the ,
I licensee to furnish the' petitioner's attorney with all. future communications and/or governmental filings originatedeby those parties or either of them, by telecopy, express mail,.
, J
't 7, .. r. --.e. , - . , . v--E . ,--w.. . - . . . - - - - - - - - - - - -----s-- - - I'--- - - - - - - - - -
1 1
l
! or' overnight courier, which communications relate to Shoreham and/or issues affecting Shoreham.- ;
- 13. An order requiring the NRC Staff to issue a-l ~
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 ;.
commitments thereunder, and/or (c):NRC' requirements of full--
power reactor licensees, which violations occurred on or' after April 21, 1989, cnr in the alternative, - to .show cause - to this Atomic Safety and' Licensing Board-how a failure to' issue -
such a Proposal of Civil Penalties can be justified'under 10 ,
i C.F.R.-Part 2, Subpart B and Appendix C.
- 14. An order denying the amendment sought and.the-l other approvals with-which it is coupled. <
t f
. h, e
sw- - , - e ~ --,,,,..--------,e =we--, ------.-,---------.-N~.,,-., ,a-- .A.-+
- M6@M@f
~
~ ~
Y~
. APP 27 '90 ~1 .: 5 7 F ROM D. L . A... uRSH I NGT CH 'DC -
.w .. o 1
l L
00Nc1mSION WESR3 FORE, for the above-stated reasons, the Petition for' Leave to Intervene should be granted, a hearing-should be~
held, and the other remedies herein sought'should be granted.- ,
Respectfully submitted, A .t- --- , ..
k o M '
April 27, 1990- '-- -
Professor Miro M. Todorovich.
Executive. Director-Scientists and Engineers for.
Secure Energy,-Inc.
Suite-1007 i<
' 570 Seventh Avenue b- New York, New York 10018 Gr ",
y..
E ,1 -
April 30, 1990 By: .r - - - -4 A 8-
- 4mes P.-NoGranery,.Jr/f
- ~Dow, Lohnes & Albertsdn ' Esquire l 1255 23rd Street, N.W.
Suite 500 Washington, D.C. 20037 .
j (202)= 857-2929 Attorney for' Petitioner.
-scientists and Engineers for secure Energy, Inc.
L In accordance with 10 C.F.R. 55 3.70s (e) and. 2.712(b) , .j l
service may be made upon the above-designated Attorneys for '
l Petitioner. !
1'.
i 4
'I
.s -
i 4* TOTAL PAGE.003.*4
/ t
... - - -. - _ . . _ . _ , - . - - . . . . . - - - . . . .-.f..-...-. .
- j
...4 0
SERTIFICATE OF SERVICE COLbL U C Pursuant _to~the notice requirements set-forthiin the [
Federal--Register (55 Fed._ Reg.12076, March- 30,o1990)bnglYg;{ P6:40 l
service requirements of 10.C.F.R. 5 2.712 urstly SECRfiARY (1989) ,- I- @OCK[llNG J A M ifylC[..
certify thati on April 30,r1990 the . foregoing-Petition foEDEYe- q i
- to Intervene'and-Request-for Hearing and' Notice of Appearance + 1 were served, via first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid,_-upon the ;
following:
,-1 The Honorable Samuel J. Chilk l
- j The secretary of the Commission '
office of the' secretary -
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j Washington, D.C.. 20555: a
-ATTN Docketing and service Branch .j i
office of-the-General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 Washington, D.C. 20555 W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esquire Hunton & Williams ;
P.o. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 r<-
+.. 5
[
fa')ses P. McGranary, J//f--
Munsel - for Petitiond scientists-and Engineers for secure Energy,;Inc..
T l
t me ce - =--..+. ..e --, ...+w+ +,..-.*s.-.- a---e.. - __m_ m- _ _ - - _ _ _ - - - - - - _ - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - ___ - _ - - - - - - _ _ -