ML20067C942
| ML20067C942 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 02/06/1991 |
| From: | Mcgranery J DOW, LOHNES & ALBERTSON, SCIENTISTS & ENGINEERS FOR SECURE ENERGY |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#191-11394 91-621-01-OLA, 91-621-1-OLA, OLA, NUDOCS 9102120259 | |
| Download: ML20067C942 (6) | |
Text
-
a i
"p3%
d r,i ; Li!
1 JAC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'91 FEB -6 P2 :53 i
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
[g'ckO[lNi N
' UkMl?
i Morton B._Margulies, Chairman Dr. George A. Ferguson Dr. Jerry R. Kline
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-3 2 2 -OLA
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
ASLBP No. 91-621-01-OLA
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
(Physical Security Plan Unit 1)
)
Amendment)
)
-SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS FOR SECURE ENERGY, INC.
AMENDMENT TO ITS REQUEST FOR HEARING AND PETITION TO INTERVENE 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, Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc.
(" Petitioner") amends, by counsel, its request for hearing and petition-to intervene in that proceeding by providing an affidavit from the Executive Director and its-members (Dr.- John L.- Bateman, Eena-Mai Franz,
--Andrew P. Hull,.Dr. Stephen V. Musolino, Joseph Scrandis, John R.
Stehn) requesting representation by Petitioner addressing the injury-in fact to its organizational interests and the interest of.the members who have' authorized it-to act for them (httached).
-as well as detailing further contentions to be raised in this proceeding, as specified below.
9102120259 910206
-PDR ADOCK 05000322 03 0
PDR-g,-
4-2-
Petitioner agrees with the determination that the overarching issue in this proceeding is:
"Should the c.;erdment of the Shoreham Security Plan'be sustained"?
Petitioner further submits that the particular issues raised in Section III of its original petition in this proceeding are subsidiary elements of the overarching issue identified by the ASLB.
In particular, Petitioner identifies the issues of whether the reduction in vital areas, vital equipment and plant security staff will offer adequate assurance of the public health and safety to meet t).e design basis threat of radiological sabotage described in 10 C.F.R. $ 73.l(a)(1) (1990).
A further specific aspect of the proceeding as to which Petitioner seeks to intervene on behalf of itself alt its represented members is whether the categorical exclusion from environmental assessment and environmental impact statement review pursuant-to 10 C.F.R.
$ 51.22(c)(12) applies since Petitioner-urges on behalf of itself and its represented members
- that the. amendment at issue is not "cenfined=to (1)
- organizational and procedural matters,-(11) 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.P.R.-73.37."
Given the alleged unavailability of a categorical exclusion pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
$ 51.22 (c) (12) (1990), Petitioner's and Petitioner's represented members' rights pursuant to NEPA and 10 C.F.R. Part 7
1 9
e a,
. 51 (1990) to have at least an environmental assessment ("EA")-and possibly an-environmental impact statement ("EIS") review of the proposed amendment-to the physical security plan have been violated.
In addition to being a RAI as violation of such NEPA rights, the absence of an EA or EIS obviously causes an injury to the Petitioner's right to the availability of the information that would.be developed by the NRC Staff.
The absence of such an EA-or EIS similarly causes such injury to Petitioner's represented members, thus totally depriving them of their ability to disseminate the information that is essential to programatic activities in a zone of interest protected by NEPA.
'Under the AEA, to the extent that the amended physical security plan is not adequate'to meet the design basis threat of' radiological sabotage,_ Petitioner's represented members suffer a particularized injury in fact resulting from-the reduced security 4
against such radiological sabotage and thus an increase to the risk of their radiological health and safety..The recuctions in plant vital areas a:d security personnel obviously reduce the barriers against radiological sabotage and the amendment at least requires a hearing to determine whether the represented members' 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-commercial. operation can result in harm."
January 8 Order at 36.
-- 4 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 members, it is asserted that there is a full core of slightly radioactive fuel at the Shoreham plant which is now subject to protection by lesser physical barriers and a smaller security force, thus increasing the risk from radiological sabotage.
Given the fact that Petitioner hasLnot yet been allowed access to the changes in the physical wecurity plan for Shoreham, it is therefore limited in the extent to which the harm 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 further fission activities.
Given the design basis threat _ assumption of "(w) ell-trained-(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 penetration and creation of a radiological-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 the possibility of creating panic on-Long Island with ensuing
. personal health and property damage risk as a result of such-theft or sabotage, regardless of instant actual radiological risk,-cannot-be ignored.
(The' risk from all of-these scenarios tolthe_ represented members is only enhanced by the elimination of Emergency Preparadness requirements. )
If it has been determined that "the expansion of the capacity _of a spent fuel pool" creates "an obvious potential for offsite consequences" (January 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 measures 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."
r i_
. 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 conferene and appropriate discovery.
Respectfully submitted,
~
f k._ m_ y_fg 77A e,if,
Q
-g f
-J,.
games P. McGranery,/4t.
Dow, Lohnes & Albert'sbn Suite 500 1255 Twenty-Third Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20037 (202) 857-2929 Counsel for the Petitioner Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc.
i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION-ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
Morton B. Margulies, Chcirman Dr. George A.
Ferguson Dr. Jerry R. Kline
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-322-OLA
-Long Island Lighting Co.,
)
Docket No. 50-322, Shoreham Nuclear
)
ASLBP No.
Power Station, Unit 1,
)
91-621-01-OLA.
Suffolk County, New York
)
(Amendment to Physical Security Plan)
)
(55 Fed. Reg. 10528, 10540
)
March 21, 1990)
)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF ORGANIZATIONAL INTEREST BY MIRO M. TODOROVICH, EXECUTIVE: DIRECTOR OF SCIENTISTS AND ENGINEERS FOR SECURE ENERGY, INC.
-Miro M. Todorovich,'being duly _ sworn, says as follows:
1.
I, Miro M. Todorovich, am the Executive Director of Scientists =and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc.
("SE")*
I 2
reside at Ravina Road, Rt.
1,_ Box-321, Patterson, New York,12563.
I was'a founding member of SE in 1976 and have been the duly-2 elected-Executive Director since that time.
As Executive L
-Director, I: collect data and information about events of interest to SE 's; members; receive and summarize members! views 2
on matters of common 1 concern covered by the charter and bylaws of the organization; help formulate positions reflecting the knowledge,_ views and sentiments of SE members; engage the 2
organization in educational, informational, litigation'or-other f
^A c m tr ~ a +'
i i
,_n.
.,e.
+
1
,+
+-
activities implementing the wishes of the membership and SE '82
. Board of Directors for actions in the public interest.
In this instance, I have been directed to seek intervenor status for SE2 in the various segmented NRC proceedings related to th+
decommissioning of the Shoraham Nuclear Power Station
("Shoreham") so that SE, can fulfill some of its authorized purposes by representing its organizational interests and the health, safety and environmental interests of its members in those proceedings as authorized by those members.
2.
SE is a not-for-profit organization formed under the 2
laws of the State of New York and qualified under IRC i Sol (c) (3).
The organization's membership includes over 1200 scientists and-engineers.
SEg also receives additiona) support from layperson sponsors who support to organization's mission.
3.
SE is a group of professionals, all experts in their 2
chosen fields, who are dedicated,-among other things, to the correction of the alarming degree of misunderstanding that permeates national energy debate.
Through public foru.us, interaction with government leaders, internal communic.ation-about
-technical issues-and active liaison with the nation's journalists, SE seeks to show that a majority of responsible 2
acientists support the value of technical innovation in all fields and, particularly, in energy.
2-1
- =
4.
The use of electricity continuos grow.
Non-renewable fossil-fuels face inevitable depletion and their combustion contributes to acid rain, the greenhouse effect, apparent changes in our weather pattern, and air pollution generally.
Thus, SEg supports the utilization of atmospherically clean and domestically securo nuclear power to safely meet our electric energy needs.
5.
In the Northeastern part of the United States, tho
-increasing demand for electricity has boon thus far mot by increased reliance on imported oil and hydro and nuclear electricity. imported from Canada.
The adjacent Canadian provinces have responded to the American appetito for electrical power by planning construction of ten more nuclear power plants in Ontario and at least two others in Queboc.
If Shoroham is not put on line, the Canadians will be able to further incritase the U.S.
foreign trade imbalance.
This incroano is likely to be particularly dramatic because the cost of Canadian clocnricity export is tied to the average cost of American oil-produced electricity and that cost is expected to continue to rino.
In short then, while our neighbors to the north are expanding their nuclear power production, we in the power-thirsty Northuast are not only bent on dismantling a perfectly operable, stato-of-the-art, nuclear power installation but also contemplate, according
'to the current New York State agreement, replacing it by a combination of new U.S.
fossil-fuel plants and purchasen from 3-
Canada.
This plan will foul our atmosphoro, increase the average cost of electricity, and provide the Canadian-economy with a windfall profit.
In the view of SE members, this course of a
action with the Shoreham plant makes neither health, t.afety, environmental nor economic sense.
6.
Since its inception, SE han participated extensively 2
in the debate of issues in the nuclear industry.
Besides having been invited to advise administrators, logislators anci agency and commission officials throughout the country on such itsues as the Three Mile Island cleanup, nuclear insurance programs, reprocessing of spent fuels, wasto disposal, materialo transportation, the breedor reactor program, nuclear licensing delays and regulatory reform of the licencing process, SE has 2
previously participated in stages of nuclear power pinnt licensing proceedings in favor of the utilization of nuclear power for the safe and economical production of electricity.
has been a participant in the ongoing debate In particular, SE2 on various issues in connection with Shoreham and has continually favorod-utilization of the facility.
7.
Given the organizational intorests described above, SE2 is naturally interested in and concerned about the present proposal to decommission the recently licensed, brand new, stato-of-the-art Shoreham. '~~~~
.9 8.
SE is concerned that the decommissioning of Shoreham 2
is presently underway despite the lack of prior safety or environmental' review evaluating the safety or environmental impacts of, and alternatives to, the decommissioning proposal as required by the-National Environmental Policy Act ("NEFA").
SE2 has a right to comment upon an environmental impact statement
("EIGC) to be prepared on the decommissioning proposal before that proposal is implemented or before steps are taken which tend to limit the choice of alternativos to that proposal.
The actions taken by Shoreham's-licensee, the Long Island lighting Company ("LILCO"), and permitted by the Nuclear Regulatory.
Commission ("NRC"), to date have already begun to sericusly prejudice consideration of the alternative of operatinc Shoreham.
The most recent actions in the steadily lengthening chain of actions in furtherance of, or premised upon, decommissjoning, include the NRC's issuance an immediately effectivo Cor.firmatory Order and proposed licenso amendments allowing LILCO to reduce its commitments to physical security and to coase its offsito 1
- emergency preparedness activities.
'Both the NRC and LlLCO are its content to ignore the mandato of NEPA and thoroby deny SE2 right to participate in the decisionmaking process.
Over seventeen months ago, SE submitted a request for NRC action g
under the provisions of Section 2.206 of the NRC regulzitions.
SE is left with no alternative but to pursue its organizational 2
11nterests through administrative hearings offered on the segmented decommissioning actions. _
9.
SE also has an organizational interest in eliciting r
information on the decommissioning of shoreham for the benefit of its members who live and/or work near the plant so that they can carry out SE 's mission-on a local level by informing the local 2
governmental leaders and the other interested Individuals and groups in the Shoreham area of the environmental implications of the proposal to decommission Shoreham.
10.
And if the scope of this proceeding is narrored to its relationship to the choice among the alternatives for decommissioning modo, I believe my health, safety and environmental interests would be harmed by any actions inconsistent with monthballing the plant ("SAFSTon").
11.
SE, has joined the Shoreham-Wading River Cent ral School District (" School District") in seeking to intervene in hearings to be hold on the Confirmatory order and the license amendment roquests affecting both Physical Security and'offsite Emergency Preparedness.
The issuos-raised by all of these actions significantly overlap due to'the fact that.they all are either in-
~ furtherance of the decommissioning proposal or depend on that proposal for their justification.
SE favors the conscslidation 2
of these throo proceedings as the most officient and expeditious way to consider-the issuca raised by the School District and SE
- 2 __
SE2 also submits that such consolidation is demanded by NEPA bacuase all of these segmented proposals and actions are, in fact, part of a single proposal, are cumulatively significant, and have no utility independent of the decommissioning proposal.
O l t.
(3,v % u s -)
,i s'
' s,t.
Miro M. Todorovich Executive Director-w SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN-BEFORE ME, on this /
day of 30 4'< #~ 4, 1991.
f' -
/W8,9*'-C4')
w f f> n t
.C.
\\
Notary Public
' U O' My commission expires:
FRANCIS DLNNETT Notary Pubhc. State of New York No. 314347001 Qualified in Queens Courdy30,1991 Cc.nmission E pues Aug..
- c.,,
l i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING-BOARD Before' Administrative Judges Morton 3. Margulies, chairman Dr. George A. Fergnason Dr. Jerry A. El:,ne
)
In the Matter of
)
) -Docket No. 50-322-oLA L
Long Island Lighting Co.,
)
Docket-No. 50-322, Shoreham Nuclear
)
ASLBP No.
. Power Station, Unit 1,
)
91-621-01-OLA Suffolk Countyi New York
)
(Amendment to Physical-Security Plan)
)
(55 Fed. Reg. 10S28, 10540
)
. March 21,.1990)-
)
-)
AFFIDAVIT 0F JOHN L. BATEMAN, M.D.
John L. Bateman,' M.D., being. duly sworn, says as follows:
I,' John L. Bateman, reside at:10' Cameron' Drive, 1.
Huntington, New York 11743 which is just over twenty-eight miles I
-from the Shoreham Nuclear' Power Station'("Shoreham Plant").
have* owned this property for over ten years.
Thus,-I live within the fifty mile jeographical zone. utilized by the U.S. Nuclear
. Regulatory s,:amission ("NRC") to determine whether'a party is sufficiently threatened by the radiological: hazard and other environmental-impacts'of the proposal to establish the requisite
. interest and' standing for intervention as of right.
I also own a thirty-seven. foot o' Day center cockpit 2.
sloop (sailboat) moored in Huntington Harbor, New York 11743 4 9 a n _1m
,,, m er== t =
loff' m.
i Which is just over twenty-eight miles from the Shoreham plant and is, therefore, also within the geographical zone of interest.
in I am presently employed by V.A. Medical Center (115) 3.
Northport, New York 11768 as the Associate Chief of Nuclear Medicine Service (diagnostic radioisotope imaging and therapy).
The Medical Center is located about twenty-three miles from the I have worked there as a physician for almost Shoreham Plant.
Thus, the majority of my time, whether I am at sixteen years.
work, at home, or relaxing on my boat, is spent within the Prior to geographical zone of interest established by the NRC.
taking my current position at the V.A. Medical Center, I spent more than thirteen years in fast neutron and photon radiation biology / medical research at the Medical Research Center at As a Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11973.
nuclear medicine physician, I am familiar with both the benefits and risks of nucicar power plants.
I strongly support the use of nuclear power to meet our nation's energy needs in a safe, In this era of economical, and environmentally benign manner.
escalating energy need and fossil-fuel pollution of our including the disasterous effects of acid rain, it environment, is critical that efficient non-polluting sources of energy, like nuclear energy, be encouraged and supported.
I have been a member of Scientists and Engineers for 4.
Secure Energy, Inc. ("SE/) since early in 1990.
I authoriza SE2
'l l
1
-to represent my-interests, as described herein, in any
' proceedings to belheid in connection with the Long Island Lighting-Company's ("LILCO") 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."
5.
I am-concerned that the proposed amendment constitutes another-step in the decommissioning process presently underway at Shoreham in violation of my rights under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA").
I do not believe-that any steps in furtherance of.shoraham's decommissioning should be implamented until a Final Environmental Impact Statement-("FEIS")
evaluating the impacts of, and. alternatives-to, the entire decommissioning proposal has been completed in compliance-with j
the; terms of NEPA and the NRC's own regulations._ If1the NRC
_allowsLatops which are clearly in: furtherance-of decommissioning,.
l and have no necessary independent utility, to be' implemented-at Shoreham? prior.to the necessary NEPA_ review, my rights, and the rights-of thoseLsimilarly situated,_to have'an opportunity:for meaningful comment on-the environmental consideration of the decommissioning proposal will.be prejudiced, if not completely denied.
The proposed amendment allowing changes to the Physical -
Security plan presupposes that decommissioning is a foregone conclusion.
Despite the fact that NEpA mandates maintenance of the KLAtMA EMS pending preparation of an FEIS and a final decision so that alternatives to the proposed action are not prematurely foreclosed, the proposed amendment represents a further retreat from the requirements of LILCO's full-power operating license prior to any environmental review of the proposed decommissioning.
6.
The proposed amendment represents a threat to my 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 of " vital" equipment and areas as "non-vital," increases the probability of radiological sabotago and the concomitant increase in the radiological hazard that could directly and/or indirectly result from such sabotage.
7.
As a Long Island resident, I am interested in actions which will have a direct effect on the availability _of reliable electricity to moot my needs and those of my family and the community as a whole.. I understand that Long Island is presently at the full capacity of the existing natural gt.s pipelines which supply this area and that there is inadequate reserve capacity for the growing electric energy demands of the area.
- Thus, either Shoreham must be operated or alternative generating facilities will have to be built and operated.
Because. natural gas supplies cannot easily be increased, oil-burning plants will inevitably-be needed to replace Shoreham.
These plants, in turn, will emit pollution lowering air quality in the cegion and contributing to global warming and acid rain.
These effects of Shoreham's decommissioning will have detrimental effects on my health and on the quality of the natural environment in which I live day-to-day.
This calls for serious consideration of the alternatives to decommissioning.
And if the scope of this proceeding is narrowed to its 8.
relationship to the choice among the alternatives for decommissioning mode, I-believe my. health, safety and environmental interests would be harmed by any actions inconsistent with mothballing the plant ("SAFSTOR").
has been joined by the Shoreham-9.
I understand that SE2 in Wading River Central School District (" School District")
seeking to intervene in the hearing to be held not only on the proposed amendment allowing changes to the Physical Security Plan, but also in hearings to consider the implications of the immediately effective Confirmatory Order issued by the NRC on 1990 and LILCO's license amendment request affecting March 29, Offsite Emergency preparedness.
I also understand that the issues raised by all of these actions significantly overlap due -.
4 to the fact that each of the actions constitutes another step in the decommissioning process underway at shoreham.
I would favor the consolidation of the.se three proceedings to consider the issues raised by the school District and SE.
consolidation 2
would be the most efficient and expeditious way to proceed for I
all concerned.
t f
O J$ n L.
Bateman, M.D.
I< (.nv ny, /99 /
V f
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME, on this f7 y of E;.
10;a.3_
9,]
cf Notary Public My commission expires: 3 ()' d 7, Ilf/
unM1MN%.
M4-.4TW m/
6-
. - ~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 1
Before Administrative Judges:
Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Dr. George A.
Ferguson Dr. Jerry R.
Kline
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-322-OLA Long Island Lighting Co.,
)
Docket No. 50-322, Shoreham Nuclear
)
ASLBP No.
Power Station, Unit 1,
)
91-061-01-O LA Suffolk County, New York
)
(Amendment to Physical Security Plan)
)
.(55 Fed. Reg. 10528, 10540
)
March 21, 1990)
)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF EENA-MAI FRANZ Eena-Mai Franz, being duly sworn, says as follows:
-1.
I,'Eena-Mai Franz, reside at 25 Josephine Boulevard, Shoreham,-New York 11786 which is less than two miles from the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ("Shoreham Plant").
I have owned this property for thirteen years.
Thus, I live within the fifty mile geographical zone' utilized by the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission-("NRC") to determine whether a party is sufficiently threatened by the radiological hazard and other environmental impacts of the-proposal to establish the. requisite interest andt
- standing-for intervention as of right.
2.
I have been employed as a radio and nuclear chemist for-the past twenty-eight years at Brookhaven National Laboratory, b f' f
. - _. - -. - -.... ~.. -... -.. -. -. - _. -. - -
. - -. _ ~ -. -.
Upton,-New-York 11786, located about seven miles-from the
-Shoreham. plant.. I have spent eighteen years-doing basic research in nuclear chemistry and an additional ten years in applied research in low-level nuclear waste management.
As a nuclear chemist, I am familiar with both the benefits and-risks of
-nuclear power planto.
I strongly support'the use of nuclear power to meet our nation's energy needs in a safe, economical, and environmentally benign-manner.
3.
I have been a member of Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc. ("SE ")
since early in 1990.
I authorize SE 2
2 to represent my interests, as described herein, in any
-proceedings to be held in connection with the Long Island
-Lighting Company's-("LILCO") proposed license amendment allowing.
changes.in the Physical 1 Security' Plan for the Shoreham plant, announced by tho'NRCLon-March 21, 1990.
The-license amendment
-would allow rew.;tions 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."
j
'4.z I am concerned that the proposed.amendmentLconstitutes another: step in the decommissioning process' presently underway at.
Shoreham in violation of myfrights'under the National
' Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA").
I do not believe thatLany_
steps in furtherance of Shoreham's decommissioning should be 1 o
implemented until a Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS")
evaluating the impacts of, and alternatives to, the entire decommissioning proposal has been completed in compliance with the_ terms of NEPn and the NRC's own regulations.
If the NRC-allows steps which are clearly in furtherance of decommissioning, and have no necessary-independent utility, to be implemented at Shoreham prior to the necessary NEPA review, my rights, and the rights-of those similarly situated, to have an. opportunity for meaningful comment on the environmental consideration of the decommissioning proposal will be prejudiced, if not completely denied.
The proposed amendment allowing changes to the Physical Security Plan presupposes that decommissioning is a foregone conclusion.
Despite the fact that NEPA mandates maintenance of the status gus pending preparation of an FEIS and a-final decision so that alternatives to the proposed action are not prematurely._ foreclosed, the proposed amendment represents a further retreat from the requirements of LILCO's full-power operating license prior to any environmental review of the proposed decommissioning.
5.
The proposed amendment represents a threat to my personal radiological health and safety end to.my real and i
-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 of " vital" equipment and areas as "non-vital," increases the,
4 probability of radiological sabotage and the concomitant increase in the radiological hazard-that-could directly and/or indirectly result from such sabotage.
6.
As a Long Island resident, I am also interested in actions which will have a direct effect on the availability of reliable and environmentally benign electric generation to meet my needs and those of my-family and the community as a whole.
I understand ~that Long Island is presently at the full capacity of the existing natural gas pipelines which supply this area and that there is inadequate reserve capacity for the growing electric energy demand of the area.
"hus, in order to avoid
- brownouts or blackouts, either the Shoreham Plant must be operated;or-alternative generating facilities will have to be built 1and operated.
Because natural gas supplies cannot easily be increased,Joll-burning plants will inevitably.be needed to replace the-Shoreham Plant thereby increasing our reliance on foreign oil and thus reducing the1 security of our energy supply,
- among'other things.
These plants, in turn, will emit' pollution
- loweringtair quality in the region and contributing to global-warming and acid rain.
These effects of the Shoreham Plant's decommissioning will have detrimental. effects on my health;and on the quality of the natural environment in which I live day-to-day. l[n addition, Long Island ratepayers, like myself, will'not only be forced to pay the. costs associated with building and de;ommissioning Shoreham, but.also the costs of building,
s 1
l replacement oil-burning plants.
Under the terms of the " deal" between New York State and LILCO, electric rates will probably increase by 10% per year (while before the deal the rates increased a total of about 3% in three years).
These rate increases will lead to a weakened Long Island economy and real estate market.
The businesses will have to increase their prices which I will have to pay.
Many businesses and residents are already leaving Long Island.
Those remaining will have to pay higher taxes.
Part of these tax increases will go to pay for the Long Island Power Authority, a useless agency.
This calls for serious consideration of the alternatives to decommissioning.
I personally believe that the solution would be to have the New York Power Authority operate Shoreham.
This would make rate increases unnecessary and Long Island's electric supply would be secured.
7.
And if the scope of this proceeding is narrowed to its relationship to the choice among the alternatives for decommissioning mode, I believe my health, safety and environmental interests would be harmed by any actions inconsistent with mothballing the plant ("SAFSTOR").
-8.
I understand that SE has been joined by the Shoreham-2 Wading River Central School District (" School District") in seeking to intervene in the hearing to be held not only on the proposed amendment allowing changes to the Physical Security 5-
4 Plan, but also in hearings to consider the implications of the immediately effective Confirmatory Order issued by the NRC on March 29, 1990 and LILCO's license amendment request affecting Offsite Emergency Preparedness.
I also understand that the issues raised by all of these actions significantly overlap due to the fact that each of the actions constitutes another step in the-de6cmmissioning process underway at Shoreham.
I would favor the consolidation of these three proceedings to consider the issues raised by the School District and SE.
Consolidation 2
would be the most efficient and expeditious way to proceed for all concerned.
CA L
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME, on this /
day o
[M,
1991.
/
M/
OL Notary-Public
~
My Commission expires: [ ' I# ' 9/
RUTH ANN 1.tJTZ" Notary Public, State of NewY No. 62 4840230. -
Qualified in Suffolk Cou 1gf Commission Empires SeptemW.g,
- y
4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLY.AR REGUIATORY COMMISSION ATCMIC SATETY AND LICEN8ING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Dr. George A. Fortruson Dr. Jerry R. K1; no In the Matter of Docket No. 50-322-01A Long Island Lighting Co.,
Docket No. 50-322, shoreham Nuclear ASLBP No.
Power Station, Unit 1,
)
91-621-01-OIA Suffolk County, New York
)
(Amendment to Physical Security Plan)
)
(55 Fed. Rog. 10528, 10540
)
March 21, 1990)
)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF ANDREW P. HULL Andrew P. Hull, being duly sworn, says as follows:
1.
I, Andrew P. Hull, reside at 2 Harvard Road, Shoreham, New York 11786 which is just over one mile from r.be shoreham Nuclear P. wor station ("Shoreham Plant").
- 7. havs owned this property for twenty-eight years.
Thus, I live within the fifty nilo geographical zone utilized by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory commission ("NRC") to determine whether a party is sufficiently threatened by the radiological hazard and other environmen' sal impacts of the proposal to establish the requisite interest snd standing for intervention as of right.
I have been employed for the past twenty-eight years at 2.
Brookhavea National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11786, located
-i*
.iio un g,
about six miles from the Shoreham Plant.
I am a Health Physicist and work as a Group Leader in the Emergency Planning and Radiological Assistance Program.
I have an interest in, and have published papers concerning, the comparative risks of alternative energy sources.
As a Health Physicist, I am familiar with both the benefits and riska of nuclear power plants.
I strongly support the use of nuclear power to meat our nation's energy needs in a safe, economical, and environmentally benign manner.
3.
I have been a member of Scientists and Engineers for
("SE ") since 1985.
I authorize SE, to Secure Energy, Inc.
g represent my interests, as described herein, in any proceedings to be held in connection with the Long Island Lighting company's
("LILeo") proposed license amendment allowing changes in the Physical Security Plan for the shoraham plant, announced by the NRC on March 21, 1990.
The license amendnant would allow reductions in the security force and would also permit LILeo to reduce its safeguard commitments by reclassifying certain areas and equipment which are precantly designated " vital."
4.
I am concerned that the proposed amendment cc.7stitutes another step in the decommissioning process presen.cly underway at shorehan in violation of my rights under the Naf ional 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").
.~..
l*
,l -
i l
evaluating the impacts of, and alternatives to, the entire decommissioning proposal has been completed in compliance with
'the terms of NEPA and the NRC's own regulations.
If the NRC allows stepe which are clearly in furtherance of decommissioning, s
l-and have no necessary independent utility, to be implemented at Shorehan prior to the necessary-NEPA review, my rights, and the rights of those similarly situated, to have an opportunity for meaningful comment on the environmental consideration of the decommissioning proposal will be prejudiced, if not completely denied.
The proposed amendment allowing changes to the Physical security Plan presupposes that decommiHioning is a-foregone conclusion.- Despite the fact that NEPA mandates maintenance of the status gun pending preparation of an FEIS and'a final-decision-so that' alternatives to the proposed action are not prematurely foreclosed, the proposed amendment-represents a further retreat-from the requirements of LI mo's full-power operating license prior to any environmental review of the-proposed decommissioning.
5.-
The proposed amendment ~ represents a threat to my
-personal'radiolegical 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 stcurity fored'and the~ reclassification of'" vital" equipment and areas as "non-vital'" increases the probability of radiological sabotage and the concomitant-increase 2
enm y-.,3 rtw 1
t Dr es+ = v ---e n+ve*a-+e-=-'wwww==*
- ===~=w-~~=-
=' * * + ' * " * " ' ' -'*
in the rsdiological hazard that could directly and/or indirectly result from such sabotage.
6.
As a Long Island resident, I an interested in actions which will have a direct offect on the availability of reliable electricity to moot ny noods and those of my family and the community as a whole.
I understand that Long Island is presently at the full capacity of the existing natural gas pipelines which supply this area and that thoro in inadequate reserve capacity for the growing electric energy demands of the area.
- Thus, either Shoreham must be operated or alternative generating facilities will have to be built and operated.
Because natural gas supplico cannot easily be increased, oil-burning plants will inevitably bo needed to replace Shoreham.
Thone plants, in turn, will enit pollution lowering air quality in the region and contributing to global warming and acid rain.
These effects of Shoreham's decommissioning will have detrimental effects on my health and on the quality of the natural environment in which I live day-to-day.
This calls for ser!cus consideration of the alternatives to decomnionioning.
7.
And if the scope of this proceeding is narrowed to its relationship to the choice among the alternatives for decommissioning modo, I believe my health, safety and environmental interests would be harmed by any actions inconsistent with mothballing the plant ("SATSTOR")..
I e
has been joined by the Shorehan-8.
I understand that SE2 Wading River Central School District (" School District") in seeking to intervene in the hearing to be held not only on the proposed amendment allowing changes to the Physical Security Plan, but also in hearings to consider the implications of the immediately affective Confirmatory Order issued by the NRC on March 29, 1990 and LILCO's license amendment request affecting Of fsite Emergency Preparedness.
I also understand that the issues raised by all of these actions significantly overlap due to the fact that each of the actions constitutes another step in F
the decommissioning process underway at Shoreham.
I would favor the consolciation of theso three proceedings to consider the issuco raised by the School District and SE.
Consolidation 2
would be the most efficient and expeditious way to proceed for ali. concerned.
dL h b-Andrew P. Hull SUBSCRIDED AND SWORN BEFORE ME, on this 8/
day of a-4+n,
</
/
1991.
0, (/) A ~
"/
/
_v u%
Notary Public My Commission expircat f/?
9/
SUSAN T. CARLSDi Notary Wid 4464 August
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCII.AR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING DOARD Before Administrative Judgest Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Dr. Georgo A. Ferguson Dr. Jerry R. Kline
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Dockot No. 50-322-OLA Long Island Lighting Co.,
)
Docket No. 50-322, Shoreham Nuclear
)
ASLDP No.
power Station, Unit 1,
)
91-621-01-OLA Suffolk County, Now York
)
(Amendment to Physical Security Plan)
)
(55 Tod. Rog. 10528, 10540
)
March 21, 1990)
)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF STEPHEN V. MUSOLINO, Ph.D.
Stephon V. Musolino, Ph.D., being duly sworn, nays as follows:
1.
I, Stephen V. Mucolino, resido at 6 Middle Cross, Shoreham, New York 11786 which is about two milos from the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ("Shoroham Plant").
I have owned this property for five years.
Thus, I live within the fifty mile geographical tono utilized by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRc") to determine whether a party is sufficiently throatoned by the radiological hazard and other environmental impacts of the proposal to octablish the requisito intorest and standing for intervention an of right.
2.
I have been employed for the past twelve years at Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, Now York 11786, located w[wf1Mhddh'tF f f 1
$g.
about five miles from the Shoreham plant.
For the past nine years, I have worked as a Health Physicist.
I am Ass'tstant for Safety to the Project Head of the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider Project, including radiation, industrial, industrial hygelne, and cryogenic safety.
I am also a member of the 9rcohhaven Emergency Planning Staff.
I earned my BSET at Buffalo State, my Masters in Nuc1 car Engineering at Polytechnic Institute of New York, and my Ph.D. in Health Phystes at Georgia Institute of Technology.
I am past President of the New York Chapter of the Health Physics Socloty.
Through both my training and work experience, I am familiar with both the benefits and risks of nuclear power plants.
I strongly support the use of nuclear power to meet our nation's energy needs in a safe, economical, and environmentally benign manner.
3.
I have been a member of Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc. ("SE ")
since January 3, 1989.
I authorize 2
SE to represent my interests, as described herein, in any g
proceedings to be held in connection with the Long 1.and Lighting Company's ("LI LC0") 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."
2 l
4 4.
I am concerned that the proponod amendment constitutes another stop in the decommissioning process presently underway at Shoreham in violation of my rights under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA").
I do not believe that any
)
steps in furthorance of shoreham's decommissioning should be implemented until a Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS")
evaluating tho impacts of, and alternatives to, the entire decommissioning proposal has been completed in compliance with the terms of NEPA and the NRC's own regulations.
If the NRC allows steps which are clearly in furtherance of decommissioning, and havo no necessary independent utility, to be implemented at Shoreham prior to the necessary NEPA review, my rights,-and the rights bf those similarly situated, to have an opportunity for meaningful comment on the environmental consideration of the decommissioning proposal will be prejudiced, if not completely denied.
The proposed amendment alAowing changes to the Physical Security Plan presupposes that decommissioning is a foregono conclusion.
Despite the fact that NEPA nandates maintenance of the alA. tun E12 Pending preparation of an FEIS and a final decision so that alternatives to the proposed action are not prematurely foreclosed, the proposed amendment represents a further retreat from the requirements of LILCO's full-power operating 11censo prior to any environmental review of the proposed decommissioning.
5.
The proposed amendment represents a threat to my personal radiological health and' safety and to my real and - _ _
l 4
pernonal preperty in violation of ny rights under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as mannded.
The proposed amendment which t
allows reductions in the security force and the reclassification of avitala equipment and arean as "non-vital," increases the probability of radiological sabotage and the concomitant increaso 1
in the radiological hazard that could directly and/or indirectly result from such sabotage.
6.
An a Long Island resident, I am interested in actions which will have a direct effect on the availability of reliabic electricity to meet ny needs and those of ny family and the community as a whoic.
I understand that Long Island in presently at the full cepacity of the existing natural gan pipelines which supply thin area and that there in inadequate reserve capacity i
for the growing electric onergy demands of the area.
- Thus, either Shoreham must be operated or alternative generating facilities will have to be built and operated.
Because natural gas supplion cannot easily be increased, oil-burning plants will inevitably be needed to replaco Shorcham.
These plants, in turn, will omit pollution lowering air quality in the region and contributing to global warming and acid rain.
These effects of Shoreham's-decomminnioning will have detrimental effects on my health and on the quality of the natural environment in which I live day-to-day.
This calls for serious consideration of the alternatives to decommissioning.
7.-
And if the scope of this proceeding is narrowed to its relt.tionchip.to the choice ar.ong the alternatives for,
J4ti ?!
'9)
IJt!.2 F F'Ot1 [i. L. A, HaiH]fj6TOti 1. :
FAGE.011 4
decommissioning mode, I believe my health, safety and environmental interests would be harmed by any actions inconsistent with mothballing the plant ("SATSTOR").
8.
I understand that SE, has been joined by the Shoreham-Wading River contral School District (" School District") in seeking to intervene in the hearing to bo held not only on the proposed amendment allowing changes to the Physical Security Plan, but also in hearings to consider the implications of the immediately effective confirmatory order issued by the NRC on March 29, 1990 and LILCo'n licenso amendment request affecting offsite Emergonoy Preparedness.
I also underntand that the issues rainod by all of these actionu significantly_ overlap due to the fact that each of the actions constitutes another stop in the decommissioning process underway at Shoreham.
I would favor the consolidation of these three proccodings to consider-the issuon rained by the School District and SE.
Consolidation g
would be the most efficient and expeditious way to proccod for l
all concerned.
C"l
- l
, y:3t_;
'4~<A.;
w, Stephen V. Musolino, Ph.D.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN DEFORE ME, on thin 8 /
day of 8/MI,///o'
, / M/
1991.
.k*;ng.fh?y,.k w p fef
,7>
Cn Notary Public My Commission expirest
/I O BONNIE E. SHWWOOD NotaW4 SWW W New M No. 4444809 l
Oualified in SvHoa g,
Commission Empires Feb. 28, L -
I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMKISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING DOARD Before Administrative Judgot Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Dr. George A. Ferguscn Dr. Jerry R. K1:,ne In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-322-01A Long Island Lighting Co.,
)
Docket No. 50-322, shoreham Nuclear
)
ASLBP No.
Power Station, Unit 1,
)
91-621-01-OLA Suffolk County, New York
)
( Amendment to Physical Docurity Plan)
)
(55 Fed.-Reg. 10528, 10540
)
March 21, 1990)
)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF JOSEPH SCRANDIS Joseph scrandis,~being duly sworn, sayn as follows:
1, Joseph Scrandis, havo owned my present residence at 1.
10 Walnut Street, Westbury, New York 11590 for twenty-two years, located some 43 miles from the Shoreham Nucicar Power Station
("Shoraham Plant").
Thus, I live within the fifty milo geographical tone utilized by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatcry Commission ("NRC") to determine whether a party is sufficiently threatened by the radiological hazard and other environmental impacts of the proposal to establish the requisite, interest and standing for intervention as of right.
I have been employed for the past five years at Aikido 2.
Computer Systems,-Ltd., 150 Broad Hollow Road, Melvillo, New York 11747, located thirty miles from Shoreham.
My job titles are 2
1(P'
Director of Maintenance and Installations, and computer Systems Engincor.
I am responsible for developing now computer systems,
]
the duties of a Chief Hochanical Engineer and Senior Electrical Engineer, and maintaining several computer systems for public service agencies.
I hold degrees in Electrical Engineering and Physics, and have been an active proponent of science and technology for 30 years via personal efforts and debato, letters to the editor, and organizational affiliations.
I am familiar with both the bonotits and risks of nuclear power plants and strongly support the use of nucicar power to meet our nation's energy needs in a safe, oconomical, and environmentally benign mannor.
3.
I have boon a member of Scientists and Engineers for Secure Enorgy, Inc. ("SE ")
since before 1980.
I authorize SE, 2
to represent my interests, as described herein, in any proceedings to be hold in connection with the Long Is1cnd Lighting Company's ("LILCo") proposed licenso amendmont allowing changes in the Physical Security Plan for the Shoreham plant, announrod by tho.TRC on March 21, 1990.
The licenso anendment would allow reductions in the security force and would also parmit LILco to reduce its safeguard commitments by reclassifying certain areas and equipment which are presently designated
" vital."
4.
I am concerned that the proposed amendment conntitutes another step in the decommissioning process presently underway at Shoreham in violation of my rights under the National.
1 e
Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA").
I do not believe that any steps in furtherance of Shoreham's decommissioning should be implemented until a Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS")
evaluating the impacts of, and alternatives to, the entire 4
decommissioning proposal has been completed in compliance with the terms of NEPA and the NRC's own regulations.
If the NRC allows steps which are cicarly in furtherance of decommissioning, and have no necessary independent utility, to be implemented at Shoreham prior to the necessary NEPA review, my rights, and the rights of those similarly situated, to have an opportunity for meaningful comment on the environmental consideration of the decommissioning proposal will bo prejudiced, if not completely denied.
The proposed amendment allowing changes to the Physical security Plan presupposes that decommissioning is a foregono conclusion.
Despite the fact that NEPA mandates maintenance of the status gno pending preparation of an FEIS and a final decision so that alternatives to the proposed action are not prematurely foreclosed, the proposed amendment represents a further retreat from the requirements of LILeo'n full-power operating license prior to any environmental review of the proposed decommissioning.
5.
The proposed amendment represents a threat to my personal radiological health nd 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..
of " vital" equipment and aremo as non-vital," increases the a
probability of radiological sabotage and the concomitant increase in the radiological hazard that could directly and/or indirectly result from such sabotage.
6.
As a Long Island resident, I an also interested in actionn which will have a direct effect on the availability of reliable, inerpensive, and environmentally benign electric generation to meet my needs and those of my family and the community as a whole.
As for reliability, it has been my observation that the quality of electricity supply has seriously degraded on Long Island over the last five years.
The office in which I work has recently suffered several brownouts and outages during times of peak electricity usage, porviously those occurrences were quite raro, occuring at a rate of an in:Ident every few years.
Although this problem is endemic to the section of Long Island where I live and work, it is not limited to it.
Being responsible for numerous computer systens in the New York City area has made me aware that the whole region is dangerously close to being caught without sufficient electrical power reserves.
As a computer enginear, I can testify that those power outages, brownouts and sags can wreak havoc with the continuous and proper operation of computer systems. They have damaged and interrupted computers and can leave them in a chaotic state requiring (bruto force) power resets which may result in a loss of data or a more serious loss of control.
These conditions are damaging to the economic well being of the people of Long Island.
1 i
and would be greatly alleviated by the operation of the shoreham plant.
As for the consequencea of shorehan's decommissioning on the physical environment, I understand that Long Island is presently at the full capacity of the existing natural gas pipelines which supply this area and that there is inadequate reserve capacity for the growing electric energy demand of the Thus, either the Shoreham Plant must be operated or area.
alternative generating facilition will have to be built and operated.
Because natural gas supplies cannot easily be increased, oil-burning plants Will inevitably be needed to replace the Shoraham Plant thereby increasing our reliance on foreign oil and thus reducing the security of our energy supply, among other things.
These plants, in turn, will emit pollution lowering air quality in the region and contributing to global warning and acid rain.
These effects of the Shoreham Plant's decommissioning will have detrimental effects on my health and on the quality of the natural environment in which I live day-to-day.
Finally, as for the economic implications of Shoreham's decommissioning, by acceding to the would-bo dismantlers of the Shoreham plant, the NRC is vreaking havoc upon the economic well-being of Long Island and, in turn, upon myself.
The huge debt incurred in the construction of Shoreham will fall upen the residents and consumers of electricity on Long Island.
Just as we are involved in the burden of servicing the dabt, to will we l
have to pay it off, end suffer the indignity of not being able to I
reap any of the benefits of its use through the generation of ~~ - ---
4 g
much needed electricity.
Parther, besides suffering the consequences of electricity shortage that shorehan's non-use shall create, we residents will have to further pay fer the construction of new power plants to replace shoreham's electricity.
This will throttle normal growth and expansion, and will make any normal every-day operations involving electricity sporadic and problamatic.
The value of my home and those of my i
neighbors will plummet.
My property on Long Island will be 3
likened to that of many third world countries: 1111guid, devalued and very difficult to sell, radically different from the rest of the United states, All of these negative effects of the
' decommissioning proposal emphasize the need for serious consideration of the alternatives to decommissioning.
7.
And if the scope of this proceeding is narrowed to its
- relationship to.the choice among the alternatives for decommissioning modes, I believe my health, safety and environmental interests would be harmed by any actions inconsistent with mothballing the plant ("SAFSTOR").
8.-
I understand.that SE has been joined by _ the Shoreham-g Wading River central school District (" School District") in seeking to intervene in the hearing to be held not only on the proposed amendment-allowing changes to the Physical Security-r
. Plan, but also in hearings _to consider;the implicatior.s of the immediately effective Confirmatory' Order issued by'the NRC on March 29,_1990 and LILCO's license. amendment request - e f fecting Offsite Emergency Preparedness.
I also understand that the.
'-+1 a '*
p a
meedwgu eizmemwwm er
-'-m'sem4M, t-w ?t-e w rw
-gr-
+ty--
YWe-*
4
}--n--m-a+tadwf"'gsk#""'%" M I^F"1 MWT*F*T--'
VM F - TPT"#UNTYf'7T
.~_.___.m_-...
JAti 31 '91 15:10 FROM D.L.A.
WASHINGiot4 DC PAGE.03)
Issues raised by all of these actions significantly overlap due to the fact that each of the actions constitutes another step in 2
the decommissioning process underway at shoreham.
I wou:.d favor the consolidation of these three proceedings to consider the issues raised by the School District and SE,.
Consolidation would be the most efficient and expeditious way to proceed for all concerned.
AO tb iMt
.J v
F&c-SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME, on this I
dayof,)1a[,199[f lr e r l t u, ' tr y Notary Public d
My Commission expires:
/
/
/
RANCHEiBAUSCPCHFR hipy Nhh: $ttle of Nt* York 1
N.4 CM2C7 + SuCOlk COWafy Commiscn Cnittsyg), Igg _ _- - -
~.,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judges:
i Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Dr. George A.
Ferguson Dr. Jerry R. Kline
}
)
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket No. 50-322-OLA Long Island Lighting Co.,
)
Docket No. 50-322, Shoreham Nuclear
)
ASLBP No.
Power Station, Unit 1,
)
91-621-01-OLA Suffolk County, New York
)
(Amendment to Physical Security Plan)
)
(55 Fed. Reg. 10528,-10540
)
March 21, 1990)
)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF DR. JOHN R. STEHN Dr. John R.
Stehn, being duly sworn, says as follows:
1.
I, John R. Stehn, reside at 8 Harbor Hills Drive, Port Jefferson, New York 11777 which is about ten-miles from the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ("Shoreham Plant").
I have owned this property for twenty-nine years.
Thus, I live within the fifty mile geographical zone utilized by the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission-("NRC") to determine whether a party is
- sufficiently threatened by the radiological hazard and other environmental impacts of a proposal to establish the requisite interest and standing for intervention as of right.
2.
Before I entered semi-retirement in 1974, I worked as a Phycicist for sixteen years at the Brookhaven National
@g
~
Laboratory.
At Brookhaven, I was part of a team of roughly twelve physicists in the National Nuclear Data Center.
The team regularly obtained information from scientists who were making sensurements of the nuclear properties of materials, especially those materials important to the design of nuclear reactors, in order to improve the quality and efficiency of nuclear power plants.
Before my tenure at Brookhaven, I spent sixteen years doing very similar work at the General Electric Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory.
Although I am presently retired, I enjoy a continuing appointment at Brookhaven as a Guest Scientist.
As a Guest Scientist, I am able to both follow recent developments in my field and to continue research on a project that was incomplete at the time I retired.
Brookhaven is located about seven miles from Shoreham and, thus, I am within the geographical zone of interest not only while I am at home, but also while I am working.
3.
I began my career in graduate school by obtaining a Ph.
D. in Nuclear Physics at the University of Wisconsin.
This training, together with my thirty-two years of experience practicing as a nuclear reactor physicist and nuclear engineer at two major research laboratories, has allowed me to appreciate the technology developed during and after World War II to use the immense possibilities offered by nuclear energy to help mankind generate electrical energy more cleanly, cheaply, and safely.
I know very well how nuclear power plants are designed to work and, from my contacts with others in the field, how it is possible for - ____
mishaps to occur.
I strongly support the use of nuclear power to meet our nation's energy needs in a safe, economical, and environmentally benign manner.
When Shoreham was being built, I was delighted to see evidence that I would be able to retire on Long Island with the prospect'of there being ample supplies of inexpensive electricity to make living here both pleasant and inexpensive.
Now that I am almost completely retired, I find myself threatened by the rising costs of electrical power.
The terms of the agreement between LILCo and Governor cuomo which allow LILCo to increase its rates by 5% per year for the next ten 1
years, so long as it does not operate Shoreham as a nuclear
-plant, will be especially burdensome to me as a retired person.
4.
I have been a member of Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc. ("SE,") since 1982.
I authorize SE to g
represent my interests, as described herein, in any proceedings to be held in connection with the Long Island Lighting Company's
(" LI LC0") 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."
5.
I am concerned that the proposed amendment constitutes another step in the decommissioning process presently underway at 1
Shoreham in violation of my-rights under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA").
I do not believe that any - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ -
f i
steps in furtherance of Shoreham's decommissioning should be implemented until a Final Environmental Impact Statement ("FEIS")
evaluating the impacts of, and alternatives to, tha entire decommissioning proposal has been completed in compliknce with the terms of NEPA and the NRC's own regulations.
If the NRC allows steps which are clearly in furtherance of decommissioning, and have no necessary. independent utility, to be implemented at Shoreham prior to the necessary NEPA review, my rights, and the rights of those similarly situated, to have an opportunity for meaningful comment on the environmental consideration of the decommissioning proposal will be prejudiced, if not completely denied.
The proposed amendment allowing changes to the Physical Security Plan presupposes that decommissioning is a foregone conclusion.
Despite the fact that NEPA mandates maintenance of the 111tMa EMQ pending preparation of an FEIS and a final decision so that alternatives to the proposed action are not prematurely foreclosed, the proposed amendment represents a.
further retreat from the requirements of-LILco's full-power operating license prior to any environmental review of the
_ proposed decommissioning.
6.
The proposed amendment represents a: threat to my personal radiological health'and safety and to my real'and i
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 of " vital" equipment and. areas'as "non-vital," increases the.
d probability of radiological sabotage and the concomitant increase in the radiological hazard that could directly and/or indirectly result from such sabotage.
7.
As a long Island resident, I am interested in actions which will have a direct effect on the availability of reliable electricity to meet my needs and those of my family and the community as a whole.
I understand that Long Island is presently at the full capacity of the existing natural ghs pipelines which supply this area and that there is inadequate reserve capacity for the growing electric energy demands of the area.
- Thus, either Shoreham must be operated or alternative generating facilities will have to be built and operated.
Because natural gas supplies cannot easily be increased, oil-burning plants will inevitably be needed to replace Shoreham.
Theno plants, in turn, will emit pollution lowering air quality in the region and contributing to global warming and acid rain.
These effects of Shoreham's decommissioning will have detrimental effects on my health and on the quality of the natural environment in which I live day-to-day.
This calls for serious consideration of the alternatives to decommissioning.
8.
And if the scope of tnis proceeding is narrowed to its relationship to the choice among the alternatives for decommissioning mode, I believe my health, safety and environmental-intereats would be harmed by any actions inconsistent with mothballing'the plant ("SAFSTOR").
I
- l l
l
_.,-.-.m
~
_._.m _ _.-
9.
I understand that SE, has been joined by the Shoreham-Wading River Central School District (" School District") in i
seeking to intervene in the hearing to be held not only on the a
proposed amendment allowing changes to the Physical Security Plan, but also in hearings to consider the implications of the immediately ef fective Confirmatory Order issued by the NRC on March 29, 1990 and LILCO's license amendment request affecting offsite Emergency Preparedness.
I also understand that the issues raised by all of these actions significantly overlap due to the fact that each of the actions constitutes another step in the decommissioning process underway at Shoreham.
I would favor the consolidation of these three proceedings to consider the issues raised by the School District and SE.
Consolidation 2
would be the most efficient and expeditious way to proceed for all concerned.
- $. ll Uhu..
Dr. John R.
Stehn day of 'ItEnoniu,
' SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME, on this-I 1991.
N n1U ( t Mol(e Notary {ublic My Commission expires
\\497 KATHLIEN FALLON NotwyPubic, State of NewWrk No. 478E05 Qual 6 edin Suffolk County ComrNsskoExphs Janury 31,193,2.
= = _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _..
N i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
' li*rd. ;i P e
C NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'9I @
Before Administrative Judges:
. ri a f u %3N M lyig,,
iM Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Dr. George A. Ferguson Dr. Jerry R. Kline
)
c in the Matter of
)
Docket No. 50 322 OLA
)
LONG ISLAND LIGIITING COMPANY
)
ASLBP No. 9162101 OLA
)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
(Physical Security Plan 3
Unit 1
)
Amendment)
)
)
- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copics of the Amendment to its Request for IIcaring and Petition to Intervene and affidavits of Professor Miro M. Todorovich, Dr.- John L Datemanc Eena Mai Franz, Andrew P. Ilull, Dr. Stephen V. Musolino, Joseph Scrandis, an<l John 1
R. Stehn, in the above captioned matter by Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc. were served upon the following by first class mail, postage prepaid on this 4th day of February,1991:
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Administrative Judge.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory _ Commission Mort m B. Margulies, Chairman
-Washington, D.C. 20555 --
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
. U.S, Nuclear Regulatory Commission Administrative Judge
-Washington, D.C. 20555 Jerry R. Kline __
Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission George A. Ferguson Washington, D.C. 20555 ASLBP-5307 Al Jones Drive.
Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
Columbia Beach, Maryland 20764
- Deputy Assistant General Counsel
-fo_r Reactor Licensing.
-Michael R. Deland, Chairman
- Mitzi A.- Young, Esq.
Council on Environmental Ouality L
Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney Executive Office of the President
-Office of the General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20500
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission g
l Washington, D.C. 20555
, b..
,-.<._,....-._,__.J~
~ ----..-~.
u.-.-
.._-_._,.u_.
Stanley B. Klimberg Esq.
C..rl R. Schenker, Jr., Esq.
Executive Director and General Counsel O'hielveny & hiyers Long Island Power Authority 55513th Street, N.W.
Suite 201 Washington, D.C. 20004 200 Garden City Plaza Garden, City, New York 11530 Stephen A. Wakefield, Esq.
Donald P. Irwin, Esq.
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 Consumer f
1633 Uroadway Frauds and Protection l
New York, New York 10019 120 Broadway New York, New York 10271 i
Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
David A. Repka, Esq.
Winston & Strawn 140() L Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20003 7
').
o
)
. q.
February 4, lu91 f l" I
m-n Ames P. hicGranery, Jr. ([ '
Counsel for Petitioner Intervenors Shoreham Wading River Central School District and Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc.
E
__ _