ML20067C697
| ML20067C697 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/06/1991 |
| From: | Mcgranery J DOW, LOHNES & ALBERTSON, SHOREHAM-WADING RIVER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#191-11389 91-621-01-OLA, 91-621-1-OLA, OLA, NUDOCS 9102120166 | |
| Download: ML20067C697 (15) | |
Text
I i
// ?53P7
..L ef ;l D UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l' M* L NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 91 FE0 -6 P2 :52 Beforo Administrative Judgest gig
- g, g,;,
DucKL im. 'i + s in Morton B. Margulies, Chairman W Nt+
Dr. George A. Perguson Dr. Jerry R. Kline
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-322-OLA
)
14NG ISLAND LIGPTING COMPANY
)
ASLBP No. 91-621-01-01A
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
(Physical Security Plan Unit 1)
)
Amendment)
)
SIIOREHAM-WADING RIVER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT AMENDMENT TO ITS REQUEST POR HEARING g
AND PETITION TO INTERVENE o
Pursuant to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's
("ASLB") Memorandum and Order of January 8, 1991
(" January 8 Order") in the above-captioned proceeding, Shoreham-Wading River Central School District (" Petitioner") amends, by counsol, its request for hearing and petition to intervene in that proceeding by providing an affidavit from the President of its School Board l
and the employee requesting representation by Petitioner addressing the injury in fact to its organizational interests and e
the interest of the employee who has authorized it to act for him (attached) as well as detailing further contentions to be raised in this proceeding, as specified below.
Petitioner agrees with the determination that the overarching issue in this proceeding is:
"Should the amendment of the Shoreham Security Plan be sustained"?
Petitinner further 9102120166 910206 PDR ADOCK 05000322 pS'S l
O PDR l
l
--J
j-i 1 i submits that the particular issues raised in Section III of its
' original petition in this proceeding are subsidiary elements of 4
the overarching issue identified by the ASLB.
I In particular, Petitioner identifies the issues of i
6 whether the. reduction in vital areas, vital equipment and plant security staff will offer adequate assurance of the public health and safety-to meet the design basis threat of radiologi.a1 sabotage described in 10 C.F.R. i 73.1(a)(1) (1990).
A further specific aspect of the proceeding as to which Petitioner seeks to intervene on: behalf of itself and its represented employee is whether the categorical exclusion from envirenmental assessment and environmental impset statement review pursuant to 10 C.T.R. 5 51.22 (c) (12) applies since Petitioner urges on behalf of'itself and its represented employee-that the amendment at issue is not " confined to (i) organizational and procedural matters, (ii) modifications to systems used for security and/or materials accountability, (iii) administrative changes, and (iv) review and approval.of-transportation routes pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 73.37."
Given the alleged unavailability-of a categorical exclusion pursuant to 10
-C.F.R.
$ 51.22(c)(12) (1990), Petitioner's avJ Petitioner's represented employes's rights pursuant to NEPA and~10 C.F.R. Part
-51 (1990) to have at;1 east:an environmental assessment ("EA") and possibly an environmental impact statement ("EIS") review of the proposed amendment to the physical security plan have been
i I
~3-violated.
In addition to being a ogI gg violation of such NEPA rights, the absence of an EA or EIS obviously caubes an injury to the petitioner's right to the availability of the informat!on that would be developed by the NRC Staff.
The absence of such an EA or EIS similarly causes such injury to Petitioner's represented employee, thus totally depriving them of their ability to disseminate the information that is essential to i
programatic activities in a zone of interest protected by NEPA.
Under the AEA, to the extent that the amended physical y
security' plan is not adequate to meet the design basis threat of radiological sabotage, Petitioner's represented employee suffers a particularized injury in fact resulting from the reduced 1
j security against such radiological sabotage and thus an increase to the risk of his radiological health and safety.
The reductions in plant vital areas and security-personnel obviously reduce the barriers against radiological sabotage and the amendment at-least requires a hearing to determine whether the-represented employee's radiological health and safety is adversely affected.
Petitioner also specifies as an issue "Whether the security changes for a defueled plant that has never been in f
commercial 1 operation can result in harm."
January 8 order at 36.
In support of-the: proposition that security changes for a defueled plant that has never been in commercial operation can result in harm to-Petitioner's represented employee, it is
{
b 4-l asserted that there is a full core of slightly radioactive fual
' at the Shoreham plant which is now subject to protection by 1
lesser physical barriers and a smaller socurity force, thus increasing the risk from radiological sabotage.
Give.n the fact l
that petitioner has not yet been allowed access to the changes in the physical se'curity plan for shoreham, it is therefore limited i
in the extent to which the hann can be specified.
It can be
. stated in the response to the Board's question that the theft of spent fuel with a burnup of approximately two effective full power days and subsequent offsite transportation could result in offsite radiological harm by deposit in water supplies, and/or
- the configuration of those fuel bundles in such a manner as to-create (Krther fission activities.
Given the design basis threat assumption of "(wjell-trainedL(including military training and skills) and dedicated individuals,"-it is not fanciful to posit that degraded armed response personnel-staffing and reduced physical barriers
- increases the risk of renetration and cr6ation of a radiological-L
- incident at'the fuel pool with off-site consequences.
of course, the mere: assumption of increased risk of theft also gives rise to an increased risk of diversion to weapons or terrorist purposes.
And thelpossibility of creating panic on Long-Island with ensuing 4
- persona 11haalth and property' damage risk as a result of such
~
- theft or saboLaca. reaard.less of instant actual radiological
(
L risk, cannot be ignored.
(The risk from all of these scenarios
?
I
...~--,-_.._._m
.... ~.
~ -. _..., _ _. _. _. -.. _ _... _ _ ~. _ _ ~... _. _... _.. - -. _ _..
5-1 to the represented employee is only enhanced by the elimination of Emergency Preparedness requirements.)
If it han been determined that "the expansion of the capacity of a spent fuel pool" creates "an obvious potential for offsite consequences" (Janu a ry 8 Order at 13) Where it is presumed that full NRC safety systems are in effect and are functioning, there is unavoidable inference that a reduction in the measuren against radiological sabotage (which would significantly increase the vulnerability of approximately 90 tonnes of enriched fuel to such sabotage) must also involve "an obvious potential for offsite consequences."
J G
1 l
- -gy.
y 1i-1w
=_.
. WHEREFORE, Petitioner renews its request for the remedies noted in the original petition, contends that the injuries resulting from the action which is the subject of this proceeding are likely to remedied by a favorable decision granting the relief sought (including such other relief as the ASLB deems appropriate), and requests that the action be set down for hearing after a pre-hearing conference and appropriate discovery.
Respectfully submitted, c) -
6
'v s I
.m Jpt%s P. McGranery, g.
Dow, Lohnes & Alber$ son Suite 500 1255 Twenty-Third Street, N.W.
Washincton, D.C.
20037 (202) 857-2929 Counsel for the Petitioner Shoreham-Wading River Central School District l
l
i 4
0 b
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Dr. George A. Terguson Dr. Jerry R. Kline
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 5 0-3 2 2-O LA Long Island Lighting Co.,
)
Docket No. 50-322, Shorehh? Ni'elear
)
ASLDP Ho.
Power Station, Unit 1,
)91-621 O LA Suffolk County, New York
)
(Amendment to Physical Security Plan)
)
(US Fed. Reg. 10528, 10f40
)
March 21, 1990)
)
)
AFTIDAVIT OF ALBERT G.
PRODELL Albert G.
Prodell, being duly sworn, says as follows:
1.
I,-Albert G. Prodell, reside at Remsen Road, Wading-River, New York 11792 which is about two miles from the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ("Shoreham Plant").
I have owned this property for thirty years.
Thus, I live within the geographical zone utilized by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC")
to determine whether a party is suf ficiently threatened by the i
radiological hazard and other environmental impacts of the proposal to establish the requisite interest and standing for intervention as of right.
2.
I also own a sailboat moored at Brewer Yacht Yard in Greenport which is about thirty-three miles from the Shoreham 4
I I
l*
Plant and is, therefore, also within the geographical zone of interest.
4 1
j 3.
I have been omployed as a Physicist for over thirty years at Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11786, j
located about eight miles from the Shoreham Plant.
I received my
)
A.D.,
M.A., and Ph.D. In physics from Columbia University in New York and taught physics at Columbia University and Barnard College before taking a position at Brookhaven.
I presently work in the Accelerator Development Department at Brookhaven.
I have served on the committee which worked in cooperation with the Long Island Lighting Cor.pany ("LILCo") to study and develsp emergency
-- evacuation procedures and routes for the School District's students and employees to follow in the event of an emergency at the Shoreham Plant.
My training and experience as a Physicist has given me a thorough understanding of nuclear' radiation.
I am familar with both the benefits and risks of nuclear power plants.
I strongly support the use of nuclear power to meet the energy needs of the Long Island area, and the Nation as a whole, in a j
safe, economical,- and environmentally benign manner.
4.
The Shoreham-Wading P.1ver central School District
(" School District") covers an area of about twelve square miles and the Shoreham Plant is within the boundaries of the School
' District.
Thus, both I and the School District's students and-3 employees regularly spend a considerable amount of t'ine within the geographica)-zone utilized by NRC to determine whether a party is sufficiently threatened by the accidental release of '
fission products and/or the adverse environmental effects of the proposal to establish the requisite interest and standing for intervention as of right.
5.
I am presently the President of the Board of Education of the School District.
I have held this position for sixteen years.
Au President, I am among those responsible not only for determining, but also for taking, action in accordance with the School District's position on matters affecting both its general interests and the specific health, safety and environmortal interests of the students and employees for whom it is responsible during work and school hours.
6.
The Board of Education for the School District has determined that it is in the best interest of the District, its students and its employees, to see Shoreham operate, and operate safely.
As an employee of the District, who both lives and works in close proximity to the plant, I authorize the School District to represent my interests, as described herein, in any proceedings to be held in connection with the Long Island Lighting Company's ("LILC0") proposed license amendment allowing changes in the Physical Security Plan for the Shoreham plant, announced by the NRC on March 21, 1990.
The license amendment would allow reductions in the security force and would also permit LILCO to reduce its safeguard commitments by reclassifying certain areas and equipment which are presently designated
" vital." _
7.
I am concerned that the proposed amt.nieent constitutes another step in the decommissioning procoes presently underway at shoreham in violation of my rightn under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA").
I do not believe that any steps in furtherance of shoreham's decommissioning should be implemented until a Final Environmental Inpact Statement ("FEIS")
evaluating the impacts of, and alternativos to, the entire decommissioning proposal has been completed in compliance with the terms of HEPA and the Nac'c own regulations.
If the NRC 1
allows steps which are clearly in furth(rance of decemmissioning, and have no necessary independent utility, to be implemented at Shoreham prior to the necessary NEPA review, my rights, and the rights of those sittlarly situated, to have an opportunity for meaningful comment on the environnental consideration of the decommissioning'proposul vill be prejudiced, if not completely denied.
The proposed amendmont allowing changes to the Physical Security Plan presupposes that deconcissioning is a foregone conclusion.
Despite the fact that NEPA mandates maintenance of LAe statun gun pending preparation of an FEIS and a final decision so that alternatives to the proposed action are not prematurely foreclosed, the propoced amendment represents a further retreat from the requirements of LILCO's full-power operating license prior to any environniental review of the proposed decommissioning.
8.
The proposed amendment reprenants a threat to ny personal radiological health and safety and to my real and, - -
~..,.. _
personal property in violation of my rights under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.
The proposed amendment which allows reductions in the security force and the reclassification 1
of " vital" equipment and arean an "ner.-vital," increason the probability of radiological sabotage and the concomitant increase in the radiological hazard to r.e and the School District's students and other employees that could directly and/or indirectly result from such sabotage.
9.
As a Long Island resident, I am interested in actions which will have a direct ef fect on tho. availability of reliable electricity to meet my needs and thos.o of my family and the community as a whole.
I underctand that Long Island is presently at the full capacity of the existing natural gas pipelinen which nupply this area and that there is inadequato reserve capacity for'the growing electrio energy dewando of the area.
- Thus, either Shoreham must be operated or alternat.3vo generating facilities will have to be built and operated.
Because natural gas supplies cannot easily be incroaced, eil-burning plar.ts will inevitably be needed to replace Shoreham..These plants, in turn, vill emit pollution lowering air. quality in the region and contributing to global warming and acid rain.
These effecte of shoreham's decommissioning vill have det rimental effects on my health and on the gun 11ty of the natural environment in which I live day-to-day.
This calls for serious consideration of the alternatives-to decommissioning.
5-
,,._.~ _._._ _ _. _ _
10.
I am also concerned about the adverno economic consequences which will automatically follow from the decommissioning of the Shoreham Plant.
Under the terms of the existing Agreement between LILCO and the 1 tate of New York, the cost of electric energy will probably double over the next ten years.
These outrageors rates combined with a drastic reduction in tax levies (the taxes ?evied on the o etable plant constitute approximately 90% of the District's tax base) vill cauno a precipitous decline in the quality of education offered to school children in the District in addition to huge tax increases for District residents.
13.-
And-if the scopo of this proceeding is narrowed to its relationship to the choice among the alternativos for decommissioning mode, I believo my health, safety and environmental interests would ba hnr=ed by any actions inconsistent with mothballing the plant ("SAFSTOH").
12. -
I understand that School District has been joined by Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc.
("SE ") in 2
seeking to intervene in the hearing to ba held not only on the proposed amendment-allowing changos to the Physical Security Plan,-but also in hearings to consider the implications of the I
immediately effective Confirmatory Order issued by the NRC on March 29, 1990 and LILCO's license amendment request af fecting-Offsite Emergency Prepar6dneau.
T also underctand that the-issues raised by all of these actions significantly overlap due to the fact that each of the actions constitutes another stop in !
i i
2
k b r, S1 '91 15:09 r port D. L. A.
W Ai s t rei r ve In:
NiE.015 ' \\'
a I
I
'~ O k
the decomminaioning process underway at shorcM m.
I would favor j
1 the consolidation of these three proceedings to consider the
{
4 issues raised by the School District and SE,.
Consolidation vould be the most efficient and expeditious voy to proceed for 1
all concerned.
i hib h.$ SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME, on this,_[_ day of J k 8 // 1991. f4 6wt 6 eraces ^ /f NOTAW PUBtC, $ tate of New Ycrk Notary Pub 1ic No $44WD ovonoo retiow coumy My Comm1HSlon CXpirest
- [D_
Commimonimios Apli30,19ff, y 7 t !- t l ~ ~
y UNITED STATES OF AhiERICA , ;,q ; y NUCLEAR REGULATORY COhihilSSION , at t Before Administrative Judges: 91 FEB -6 P2 :52 hiorton B. hiargulies, Chairman Dr. George A. Ferguson 4't
- 1.t w -
Dr. Jerry R. Kline
- N,lU'
) in the hiatter of ) Docket No. 50 322 OLA ) i LONG ISLAND L!GilTING COhiPANY ) ASLBP No. 916210101A ) (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) (Physical Security Plan Unit 1 ) Amendment) ) ) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby cer'ify that copics of the Amendment to its Request for llearing and Petition to Intervene and affidavit of Dr. Albert G. Prodell, in the above captioned matter by Shoreham Wading River Central School District were served upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid on this 4th day of February,1991: Atomic Safety and Ucensing Appeal Board Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission h1orton B. hiargulies, Chairman Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Administrative Judge Washington, D.C. 20555 Jerry R. Kline Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission George A. Ferguson i Washingtoa, D.C. 20555 ASLBP 5307 Al Jones Drive Edwin J. Reis, Esq. Columbia Beach, hiaryland 20764 Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Reactor Licens~ng hiichael R. Deland, Chairman hiitzi A. Young, Esq. Council on Environmental Ouality Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney Executive Office of the President Olfice of the General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20500 U.S. Nuclear Regulaton Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Stanley B. Klimberg, Esq. Executive Director and General Counsel Carl R. Schenker, Jr., Esq. lang Island Power Authority Counsel, Long Island Power Authority Suite 201 O'hielveny & hiyers 200 Garden City Plaza 55513th Street, N.W. Garden, City, New York 11530 Washington, D.C. 20004
2-Stephen A. Wakefield, Esq. Donald P. Irwin, Esq. I General Counsel ilunton & Williams U.S. Department of Energy P.O. Box 1535 Washington, D.C. 20585 Richmond, Virginia 23212 Gerald C. Goldstein, Esq. Samuel A. Cherniak, Esq. Office of General Counsel NYS Department of Law New York Power Authority Bureau of Consurner 1633 Broadway Frauds and Protection New York, New York 10019 120 Broadway New York, New York 10271 Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq. David A. Repka, Esq. Winston & Strawn 1400 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005 0w. 4 E: February 4,1991 -1 3 Jp;nes P. McGranery, Jr. C6unsel for Petitioner 1 'enors Shoreham Wading River entral School District and Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc. .}}