ML20083B742
| ML20083B742 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 09/13/1991 |
| From: | Mcgranery J DOW, LOHNES & ALBERTSON, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20083B735 | List: |
| References | |
| 91-621-01-OLA, 91-621-1-OLA, CLI-91-04, CLI-91-4, LBP-91-01, LBP-91-1, LBP-91-23, LBP-91-35, OLA, NUDOCS 9109250188 | |
| Download: ML20083B742 (21) | |
Text
-
W BEFORE THE UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS:
y) gp j j pp37 Ivan Selin, Chairman Kenneth C. Rogers James R. Curtiss Forrest J. Remick
)
Docket No. 50-322-OLA In the Matter of
)
)
ASLBP No. 91-621-01-OLA LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
)
(Confirmatory Order (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Modification, Security Unit 1)
)
Plan Amendment and Emergency
)
Prepareaness Amenament)
MOVANT-INTERVENORS' BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ACCOMPANYING NQIICE OF APPEAL Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
S 2.714a(a), Petitioners Shoreham-Wading River central School District (" School District")
and Scientists and Engineers for Securn Energy, Inc. ("SE "I' DY 2
counsel, submit this brief in support of their notice of appeal of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's ("ASLB") denial of their potitions for intervention and requests for hearings in the above-captioned proceeding.
Lona Island Liahtina Co. (Shoreham Nucicar Power Station,-Unit 1), LBP-91-1, 33 NRC 15 (January 8, 1991}; Lona Island Lichtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP-91-23, 33 NRC
_ (May 23, 1991); and Lona Island Lichtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), LBP 35, 33 NRC (kc9dr' 10
'"al).
9109200100 910913 ADOCK 0500 gg2 DR
I 2-t I.
The Denia) of Standing to the School District was Premature.
On May 23, 1991, in LDP-91-23, the ASLB denied (a)
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
$ 4321 At agg. (1988) ("NEPA") standing to the School District in all three matters and (b) denied the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. $ 2011 at gag. (1988) ("AEA"), standing to the School District and SE in the Emergency Preparedness 2
Amendment and the Confirmatory Order matters.
However, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714 (a) (3) (1991), _
-the School District and SE have a richt to be able to amend 2
their petitions for leave to intervene "without prior approval of-the presiding officer at any time up to fifteen (15) days prior to the holding of the special hearing conference (or) the first prehearing conference."
The School District and.SE also have an 2
absolute right to be able to " supplement" their petitions to intervene ~at any time prior.to fifteen (15) days before the special prehearing conference or the first prehearing conference.
10 C.F.R. - $ 2.714 (b) (1) (1991).
i Since the Board scheduled the prehearing conference for July 23, 1991,- the School' District and ~SE, had the right to amend and the_right to_ supplement their petitions at any time beform July 8, 1991.. They also proffer tha* +59y had plannsd to smend and supplement their petitions including affidavits further
, specifying the interests that are harmed by issuance of the orders in question prior to the Commission's fulfillment of its L
s
"'-M T
wg e
'T-gr'"'i q-Tva.
-r4e i,'q'tWem"
.p.
w-9 spy
+"y.WEr 1
wevu y
gypg-+
g-ggpw=*etwwt,fr"Yt-,-erwwMm w-yw-e---
-p'9 m - y e-ven t -f W +4 s y'rg y g-4"N'S"-
W
- g-tw g?g*re*4*-'t+444
-3 obligations under NEPA and the AEA, as well as by specification of contentions.
The ASLB's denial of Petitioners' standing when they still had, by regulation, the unfettered right to amend and supplement their petitions is arbitrary and capricious and in direct violation of their procedural rights under the AEA and NEPA and the NRC regulations pursuant thereto.
The Commission should reverse and remand with instructions to the ASLB to allow the Petitioners adequate time in which to supplement and amend their patitions for intervention und requests for hearing.
II.
The ASLB Misperceived the Standing Requirements VDder NEPA.
The School District respectfull-suggests that the Dismissal order also errs in inplying that the School District's claims for standing are limited to " organizational interests
. of a ratepayer and tax recipient" (LBP-91-23 at 24) and that those interests are limited to "cr.onomic" interests (Id. at 25), finding that such " economic interests do not qualify it for j
standing uncer NEPA or the AEA."
- 14. at 24.
l l
In his April 5, 1991 affidavit (at 1 5), the President l
of the Board of Education of the School District also cited, in support of standing, his responsibility for decisions "in accordance with the School District's position on matters affecting both general interests and specific health, safety and i
i-i i.
I l*
4-8 environmental interests of the students and employees for whim it j
i i
responsible during work and school hours."
It is well established that one of the " twin alma" of i
I NEPA is to ensure "that the agency will inform the public that it f
has indeed considered environmental concerns in its decisionmaking process."
ggitimore qas &__ Electric Co. v. Natural Resourceg_pefense Canngil, 462 U.S.
87, 97, 103 3.Ct. 2246, 2252, 76 L.Ed.2d 437, 446-47 (1983).
1 There can be no doubt but that the School District, the i
4 1
president of its Board of Education #,
and its students and i
i employees are members of the most immediate sector of the "public" affected by decisions on Shoreham and that the l
continuing denial of NEPA review of the proposal to decommission j
Shoreham and the segmented parts of that proposal presented in t
this proceeding violates their rights under NEPA as enunciated in 2
Baltimore Gas & Electric.
The ASLB's ruling is totally insensitive to the plain language of NEPA which commands:
Copies of such (environmental impact
. Khall be made available to.
. statement)
.-. the public as provided by Section 552 of Title 5, United States Code, and shall accompany the'prcposal through the existing agency review processes.
1 1/
The President lives within 2 miles of the Shoreham Plant and
)
who should, contrary to the ASLB's ruling, be presumed to be within the geographical-zone of injury under both NEPA and the AEA.
4 r.-
,..,_.,..~..m
,, -,,., ~,
er,--,,
,..-,--,,-.-.--.3....___,..r._,.,
_...,~.-- m -,-- -- -,- -
,,..~....-3,
,----e,-
M 42 U.S.C. $ 4332(2)(C) (1988).
The denial of the availability of the information in the EIS to the School District and the person it represents is a " distinct and palpable harm" to them within the zone of interest protected by NEPA.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly identified that one of the " twin alma" of NEPA is "to inform the public that the agency has considered environmental concerns in its decisionmaking process.
Through the disclosure of an EIS, the public is made aware that the agency has taken environmental considerations into account."
Weinberaer v. Catholic Action of Hawall/Peagn Idagstion Proign,t, 454 U.S.
139, 143, 102 S.Ct. 197, 70 L.Ed.2d 298, 303 (19d1).
There can be no doubt but that both the School District as an institution and the person it represents are "among the injured" in the relevant public (ags note 1 supra) if an EIS on the proposal tc decommission is not prepared and published "and the fact that that particular environmental interests are shared by the many rather than the few does not make them less deserving of legal protection through the judicial process."
sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 734, 92 S.Ct.
1363, 1366, 31 L.Ed.2d 636 (1972).
In other words, the violati of Petitioner's and the represented person's rights to the information promised by NEPA constitutes a " distinct and palpable hcrm," Han injurv in fact" thst ic within the zone of.intArest nf NEPA.
T ther, LDP-91-23's recognition of the School District's interest as a " tax recipient" and " ratepayer" further
_ _ ~ -
~6-satisfies the " injury in fact" requirement for standing:
"The fact of economic injury in what gives a person standing to seek judicial review.
gigtra Club v. Morte 405 U.S. 727, 737, 92 S.Ct. 1361, 1367, 31 L.Ed.2d 636 (1>
,).
If the proposal to decemmission the Shoreham Nuclear power Station, Unit 1
("Shoreham") and its segmented parts are approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC" or " Commission"), the School District will eventually lose over $25 million in annMAl income.
In Dellums v.
U.S.N.R.C.,
863 F.2d 968, 973 (D.C. Cir. 1988), the Court found that " inability to find work [by a sinale individual) constitutes in]ury in fact" satisfying that element of the test for standing.
Certainly, the much larger threatened economic injury to the School District should qualify.I' Having satisfied injury in fact by two injuries, there is then a separate inquiry into whether the Petitioner can meet the " causation and redressability requirements of Article III."
Id.
2/
Any contention that economic interests are outside the " zone of interest" to be considered under NEPA and, therefore, that economic harms that may result from a HEPA violation are not cognirable harms flies in the face of the plain language of NEPA
. declares that it is the continuing policy of "The Congress, the Federal Government, in cooperation with.
concerned public and private organ'..ations, to tco all practical meanc and measures.
. to foster and promote the general welfare, to l
create and maintain conditions under which man.
. can.
fulfill the social, geonomic and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans."
42 l'.S.C. S 4331(a) (1988)
(emphasis added).
1 i
i
. On one level, the School District argues that the injury in fact is a deprivation of information, which is guaranteed by NEPA.
On that level, the School District contends that the cause of the injury is the NRC's violation of the command of NEPA to produce such an EIS and that the harm can be redressed by a simple order requiring the preparation of such an EIS and vacating the three orders challenged here until the NEPA process in completed.
On a second level, the School District alleges an economic injury in fact which is threatened by the proposal to decommission Shoreham.
In this case, the School District j
contends that it.the public and the decisionmakers ever had before them the true environmental costs and benefits of the proposal to decommission Shoreham in the DECON mode as a result of.NEPA review, that proposal-would be withdrawn or denied.
If that proposal were withdrawn or denied, the-threatened economic harm to the School District, its students and employees would be eliminated or significantly ameliorated automatically.
- Thus, there is a direct _ causation and sure redressability of the economic injury as well as other environnental injuries flowing from the indirect (g2gi, air pollution, disruption of the community through destruction and construction noise, traffic, etc.) effects of the plan tv replaca shoreham with'fassil fualed generating units.
Under these circumstances, the School District has standing under NEPA.
1 r,
,-,",-,-..,-w.ww-c.w,me-,.<-
,w.,i.-.e---
,we-w.,
-se er-v m~,,,w.,.
w,,,,-,c-,--
--w-
,,yn
.,er=---
wwwe,,-+,-,3--,-et-w--+-
,r
' ~ - ' +
- l Furthermore, given the fact that the Final Environmental Impact Statement Related to the Operation of Shoreham (NUREG-0285, October 1977) ("FEIS") identified the resulting tax revenue to the School District among the principal socioeconomic benefits of the proposal to operate Shoreham,3#
(FEIS at S 5.6), it seems truly anomalous that the May 23 order
]
would find that interest does "not quality it for standing under j'
HEPA."
LBP-91-23 at 24.
If the FEIS found those tax revenues (and hence, the School District's ability to provide a better education for the citizens of the District) to be a principal socioeconomic benefit to be addressed in the FEIS under NEPA, how
)
1 l
2/
The FEIS recognized among other things,.that-the " major
[
economic impacts from the operation of (Shoreham) are derived from the tax. revenues."
In particular, the-FEIS recognized (at S l-5.6.3).that there was a substantial benefit from the " taxes paid to the Shoreham-Wading River School District during construction of the plant (since they) represent a substantial proportion of the total School District budget (and that) proportion will i
continue will continue to increrse when.the plant goes into-operation..
The special benefit of Shorehan to the School-(
L District by way of its tax contributions-was also singled out in L
the FEIS at-S 5.6.5 " Summary of Socioeconouic Impacts."
l In Chapter 8, the FEIS addressed the "need for the station"-
1 concluding-that the energy demand and LILCO's commitments to the New. York-Power Pool to maintain a minimum reserve margin justified a new electrical generation plant-the size of Shoreham l
-(5 8.4.1 &-8.4.3), that there would be significant cost savings l
in providing electricity from this nuclear plant rather than from oil-fired plants ($ 8.4.2), and that other. alternative electric energy-sources were not " feasible" on Long Island-($ 8.2).
l Finally, in the Benefit-Cost Summary (Ch.10), the FEIS recognized.
"dir?-t benefits" from Shoreh'am as its production of-up to 5 billion Kwh/yr of-electricity, its " favorable effect on system i
l reliability, and a savings in system fuel costs," as well as l
' identifying the contribution to "the 1ccal property, revenue and sales: taxes and the-new jobs created as "important considerations to-the surrounding areas."
($ 10.2).
I
.. - -.,,. -. ~. _.-.- -
_,.... - -..... - -.. _. -.... - - - -.. -. _ - - -.... -.. -. - -.... -. ~ - -
4
. can the ASLB find that the proposed deprivation of such revenues is not a harm which would " qualify it for standing under HEPA?"
Any EIS addressing the proposal to decommission Shoreham would have to address the loss of those tax revenues as a
" socioeconomic cost" of the approval of the pro,;osal, a cost directly affecting the School District.
Ssa, e.ai, 10 C.F.R. Part 51, App. A, para. 1 (1991).
III.
The ASLB Erred in Denying Standing to the School District and SE Before Discovery was r
completed and Without Providing Any Rational Basis for its Decision.
On the one hand, if one styles the consideration of the petitions to intervene and request for hearings at this stage of the proceeding as being akin to the consideration of a motion for summary judgment by the NRC Staff and the Licensee, it is clear that it is improper to deny standing before there has been
" adequate time for discovery."
Sfa, SAgt, Lujan v. NatiSDal Hildlife Federation, 110 S.Ct. 3177, 3187 (1990).
on the other hand, LBP-91-35 confuses the issues of standing and admissible contentions, ignoring clarifications offered by the Petitioners' counsel at the prehearing conference.M The ASLB's findings that Petitioners " failed to 1/
The ASLB states in ritualistic fashion that "tn the extent that the matters presented at the July 23, 1991 prehearing conference explained Petitioners' contentions, filed June 21, 1991, and LILCL's and Staff's answers, we have considered them."
LDP-91-35 at 36.
However, the Commission will note that LBP 35 is devoid of any reference to the prehearing conference presentations.
i show that [previously identified particular injuries to them and thoce whom they represent) can be traced to the Security Plan Amendment" (LDP-91-35 at 5) and failed to offer "some arguable scenario of a public risk or hazard arising from the license 1
changes which may have been bosed on publicly available information" (Id. at 34) are without discussion of the record and are, therefore, arbitrary and capricious.
There was a quite lengthy presentation on the security plan contention at the prehearing conference.
Tr.77-131.
And there was particular discussion of scenarios by which the Anjuries could be achieved, namely by penetration of the facility in accordance with the design threat (10 C.F.R. $ 73.1(a)(1)
(1991)) after which the intruders could then either reconfigure the fuel in_the pool or remove it from the premises (Tr. 113-122).
Counsel for Petitioners submitted that the injury-consisted in the p.gr. 12 increase in risk by a decrease in security plan requirements, and further asserted that Petitioners could not posit the precise mechanisms of the ultimate harm in l
any_ meaningful detail without access to the security plan originally approved by the NRC and the_ amended security plan, with additional consideration in both cases of the NRC Staff's e
rationale for the requirements in each plan.
The public t
documents which'the ASLB suggest that Petitioners shoulo have referred to-have nothina to do with the security plan, and would provid nL insight into the prior or current security plan for examination by experts.
It is also relevant to note that the F
e, c,-
r
.e en-w---
mwe,,-r,-. -, - -, -,v w
~ - m -r-e - r - M e. ew,. w.e-- - r wm. -e
.e,
--..--i,mv
.w.--r.w---.-
r y,- v e y -w i-y-v * ~
-,sv- * - -
. ASLB points to no denial of Petitioners' alleged injury through increased risk of radiological injury from sabotage or offnite transportation of the fuel.
The Orders should be reversed and remanded for lack of a rational basis on these grounds alone under both HEPA and the A EA.
IV.
The ASLB Erred in Denvina the NEPA Contentions.
The A5LB recognized the standard established by the Commission for the admission of a NEPA contention in this proceeding:
A properly pied contention will at a minimum need to offer some pausible explanation why an EIS might be required for an NRC decision approving a Shoreham decommissioning and how these actions here could, by foreclosing alternative decommissioning methods or some other NEPA-based considerations, constitute an illegal segmentation of the EIS process.
In the Malter of Lona Island Lightino Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), CLI-91-4, 33 NRC 233, 237 (April 3, 1991) cited at LBP-91-35 at 4.
However, the ASLB erred in applying this standard.
For example, in holding that " Contention 1 calling for a full NEPA environmental review 'of the proposal to decommission Shoreham' goes beyond the matters at issue in this proceeding" (LBP-91-35 at 10), the ASLB ignored this Commission's determination in CLI-91-4 thht Petitioners should be allowed, ID this proceeding, to present an explanation of "why an EIS might
- be required for an NRC dscision approving a shoreham decommicoloning."
r And the ASLB erred further in describing Petitioners' relianLO on the CEQ regulation adopted by the NRC (40 C.F.R.
1508.25, adopted in110 C.F.R.
5 - 51.14 (b) ) as " bald conclusory allegations."
Id. at 11.
Petitioners set out the precise legal standards that are determinative of whether the three matters in F
question here are part of the " scope" of the decommissioning proposal.
The ASLB opinion fails to address in any way whether Petitioners are correct in alleging that the application of those standards to the three matters in question here indicates that they are within the " scope" of the proposal to decommission and, therefore, must be considered in a single EIS on that proposal.
l The ASLB's finding that "the licensing actions were not linked to the need for an EIS in any meaningful way" (1d. at 12) j is also in error because the need for an EIS in these circumstances was addressed by Contention 2.
And the ASLB's reliance on the Commiusion's prior determinations that the decision not to operate Shoreham is a private decision, is irrelevant; what Petitioners are addressing here is not a decision not to operate, but rather NEPA review of the proposal to decommission.-
Finally, as to-the ASLB's ruling on Contention 1, the ASLB's determination that Petitioners have "not placed at issue how the three licensing actions could preclude any NEPA-based considerations and constitute an illegal segmentation of the NEPA
. i process" is inte11uctually indefensible.
Id. at 14.
Tha "NEPA-baned considoration" which Petitioners arn relying on to satisry the alternative part of the second prong of the commission's standard is illegal segmentation.
That is, Petitioners have i
cited the standard adopted by the CEQ and the NRC for determining whether_particular subsidiary actions may be considered separately or must be included within the scope of a single EIS (1.2, not illegally segmented).
The ASLB never comes to grips with this proposition.
The_ASLB also errs as to its findings on contention 2.
-First, the ASLB establishes a straw man finding that Petitioners have " failed to submit an admissible contention on the issue of whether the three licensing actions require an EIS."
Id. at 16.
It is plairs from contentions 1 & 2 that Petitioners do nnt argue that the thrAR licensing actions require an EIS, but rather argue that the-pronosal to decommission (including these three L
licencing actions) requires an EIS.
I~
The ASLB also errs in finding that "[tjo debate whether the GEIS extends to the Shoreham situation, without the Ll' assumption of a requirement for an EIS, would be to engage in~an irrelevant academic exercise."
Id. at 16.
It has'been tne a
Petitioners' position that the only rationale for excluding the proposal to decommission Shoreham from EIS consideration is'if the GEIS (which was the premise for the deletion of 10 c.F.R. 5 l
L
- 51. 20 (b) (5) (1988)) addressed the.NEPA considerations of a 1
proposal to decommission a plant, such as Shoreham, which has.not L
i 1
._..i? -. 1 _.. _. J-._. ~.. _,_ __. - _ _ _. _. _.. _ _ _ _. _. - - - _. _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _.,. _ _
. reached the end of life through age or accident.
Absent such a finding, Petitioners argue that the rationale for the original adoption of 5 51.20(b)(5) continues to require an individual EIS for a proposal to decommission such a nuclear power plant.
The ASLB also errs in denying the admissibility of Contention 3, since the format setout in Regulatory Guide 4.2 (Rev.
2, July 1976) has been codified and is required by 10 C.T.R. Part 51 Appendix A (1991).
The ASLB also erra in finding that " Contention 4 does not present a relevant issue."
LBP-91-35 at 20.
Contrary to the
\\SLB's conclusory determination that the " proposal to decommission Shoreham and the issuance and the POL are unconnected to the three subject licensing actions" (14.),
Petitioners put in issue the question of that connection in Contention 1.
Ilowever, the ASLB refused to address that issue in the context of contention 1, finding that that issue "goes beyond the matters at issue in this proceeding."
Id. at 10.
Insofar as this conclusory ruling in the context of Contention 4 is taken to be the ASLB's finding on Contention 1, it is unsupported by cubstantial evidence of record and arbitrary and capricious.
The ASLB recognized that it cou1d " consider Contention 4 as a part of another contention" (LBP-91-35 at 20), but failed to do so despite tne fact that Petitioners did, by Contention 1, " link ()
the three licensing actions to the matters at issue in accordance with the regulatory requirements."
Id2 i
i
(
. V.
The ASLB Erred in Danying Admissibility of the Seeurity_P1an CoJLtentirnp In addition to the reasons offered above, the ASLD's reliance on the absence of expert opinion (gtat, at 22) is unaningless, because Petitioners have not had access to either the previous or current security plan for analysis by experts.
Additionally, the " physical plant and equipment configuration given in the final safety analysis report" (1d, at 23) is irrelevant without knowledge of how the security plan (original and amended) classified those areas and equipment as " vital" or not vital.
That information is contained only in the security plan which was not available to Petitioners.
Purther, rejection of Petitioners' argument that relaxation of security arrangements at Shoreham is arbitrary and capricious because similar relaxation has not been granted to other nuclear power plants which have been in an extended outage for as lor-ss or longer than Shoreham is ill-founded.
Id. at 25.
The rejection of that argument is based on the ASLB's implicit finding that Shoreham is not "likely to be restarted."
That ultimate finding is one that is at issue in this proceeding and cannot be assumed by the ASLB.
Insofar as the ASLB faults Petitioners for not citing Icgal authority for their reliance on the treatment afforded othar plants, it is cleat that Petitioners are making an argument that disparate treatment of Shoreham would be arbitrary and capricious.
l
\\
16 -
l The ASLB also arrs in faulting Petitioners for not diccuccing 10 c.r.R. $ 73.5 relating to the possibility of exemptions from Part 73 (14. at 25) because the ASLB later recognizes that there is no " exemption request" at issue in this proceeding.
-24. at 34.
Likewise,-the Board's treatment of the Petitioners' presentation of evidence of an attempt at sabotage on October 16, 1989, is a misunderstanding of Petitioners' purpose.
Id. at 27.
Petitioners were not attempting to have the ASLB " resolve a controversy over the adequacy of the previous plan or the licensee's performance under the previous version" (id.), rather Petitioners' argument was that the existence of the attempted J
sabotage, and the licensee's poor performance in addressing-it i
under the previous plan, indicates that there should be no i
relaxation of security plan requirements.
1 In similar fashion, the ASLB rejects Petitioners' argument "that the license condition for Shoreham must meet all the-requirements applicable to a plant with a full power operating license."
Petitioners reason is. obvious:
at the time in question shoreham was "a plant with a full power operating license."-
he ASLB also errs in stating that Petitioners have failed-to provide-" expert opinion indicating the existence of some form of risk to public health arising from the defueled-Shoreham reactor.
Id. at 28.
Petitioners in particular proferred expert opinion that since the fuel was not self-
_.Jdd--.C,-*-,,.._,.1,--,,-_',-m.m-.-w.~L,._.
-,-.~.,_.,,,..~,..,v-~..
.w.-,_1,
-,.., ~. ~,..,,,,,,
m.,.,J,.w.r,-,,,,
. protecting (i.e., emitting less than 100 rems por hour), it would be more canily accessible to intruders for in plant sabotage or trensportation away from the site where it could cause radiological harm to the health and safety of the public, including those whom Petitioners represent.
Contrary to the ASL6's assertion, Petitioners clearly identified the relevance of the information presented at the Management Meeting on July 28, 1989 ar showing that a reduction in guard force would violate the sattienent agreement on security where Petitioners and the persons they represent are third party beneficiaries.
Id. at 29.
The ASLB's rejection of contention 5(e) is in error becauso Petitioners identified the appropriato criteria to be applied for allowing a reduction from 10 guards and asserted that those criteria had not been met.
Without access to the original and amended security plans and the justification for the reduction offered by the licent and accepted by the Staff, a
Petitioners can say nothing more.
Petitioners also note that no justifications or attempts to meet thone criteria were offered by either the licensee or the Staff in the proceeding.
The ASLB also erred in rejecting Contention subpart 5(f) because, as a matter of law, the protection of equipment deemed " vital" for the operation of a nucicar reactor in essential to a liennsee with a full power operating license.
Neither the licensee nor the Staff at any point presented evidence of the NRC's declassification of equipment for areas as
- vital in any other prior caso due to the " mode of the reactor."
Id. at 32.
Finally, the ASLB misunderstood Contention subpart 5(g).
The essence of the subcontention is that the normal y
na requirements for security plans for full power operating Oh$
licenceou would not be subject to relaxation an the case Shoreham d
because the fuel was not self-protecting and no exemption had been sought.
In all these respects, Petitionera also note that while the ASLB had constant reference to Petitionero' failure to cite
" publicly available information" relevant to its security contentions, at no point does the ASLD point to any " publicly availabic information" that would have boon relevant (gugz, Idb.
et 34).
For all of these reasons, the ASLB's denial of Contention 5 end its subparts is arbitrary and capricious.
VI.
ThstAQLB Alng_ Erred in Other Respects.
The ASLB's rejection of Petitioners' contention that they should not be required to file NEPA contentions prior to LILCO'c filing of an environmental report on the basis that no
" explanation was offered as to the manner in which they were prejudice or injured" (ld. at 35-36) also must be reversed.
The Commission's regulations clearly state that Petitioners are to submit NEPA contentions 2Dly after the submittal of the environmental report.
10 C.F.R. 5 2.714 (b) (2) (iii).
~ 19 -
And the ASLB's rejection of consideration raf LILCO's post-hearing-filing and Petitioners' response thereto on the security plan issue constituted an abuse of discretion without explanation or attempt at reasoning.
CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, the' School District and SE urge the 2
Cora.iscion to revernc cnd rc=cnd the Mc=crende and Orderc *, tith appropriate guidance.
Respectfully submitted, September 13, 1991.
-m A i, M Jphes.P.McGranery,/t)
DDW, LOHNES & ALBERT 40N
-Suite 500 1255 Twenty-Third Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.-
20037 Counsel for--the Petitioners W
v s
n w
.-.r
.-...-n
,a
,,,,,.,,n..
a.,_
_n,
---en.,
4 i
"J
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION COMMISSIONERS:
Ivan Selin, Chairman Kenneth C. Rogers James R. Curtiss Forrent J. Remick
)
Docket No. 50-322-OLA In the Matter of
)
)
ASLBP No. 91-621-01-OLA LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
)
(Confirmatory Order (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,
)
Modification, Security Unit 1)
)
Plan Amendment and Emergency
)
Preparedness Amendment)
QERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the Movant-Intervenors' Notice of Appeal and Brief in Support of Accompanying Notice of Appeal in the above-captioned proceeeding have been served on the following parties variously, as indicated, by hand, Federal Express (Saturday delivery),
or first-c' ass mail, postage prepaid, on this 13th day of F
- tember, 1991:
Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Jerry R. Kline Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.c 20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 (First-Class Mail)
(First-Class Mail)
George A.
Ferguson Thomas S. Moore Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Alternate Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 5307 Al Jones Drive U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Columbia Beach, Maryland 20764 Washington, D.C. 20555 (First-Class Mail)
(First-Class Mail)
W. Taylor Reveley, III, Esq.
Samuel A.
Cherniek, Esq.
Donald P. Irwin, Esq.
NYS Department of Law Hunton & Williams Bureau of Consumer Frauds Riverfront Plaza, East Tower and Protection 951 East Byrd Street 120 Broadway Richmond, Virginia 23219-4074 New York, New York 10271 (Federal Express (Federal Express Saturday Delivery)
Saturday Delivery) 1
l-t
.. Michael R. Deland, Chairman Gerald C. Goldstein, Esq.
Executive Office of the President Office of General Counsel Council cn Environmental Quality New York Power Authority 722-Jackson Place, N.W.
1633 Broadway Washington, D.C.
20503 New York, New York 10019 (First-Class Mail)
(Federal Express Saturday Delivery)
Stanley B. Klimberg, Esq.
Nicholas S. Reynolds Executive Director &
David A. Repka General Counsel Winston & Strawn
- Long Island Power Authority
'1400-L Street, N.W.
200 Garden City Plaza, Suite 201 Washington, D.C.
20005 Garden City, New York 11530 (Hand Delivery)
(First-Class Mail)
Carl R.-Schenker,~ Jr., Esq.
Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
O'Melveny & Myers-Mitzi A. Young, Esq.
555 13th Street, N.W.
Office of General Counsel Washington, D.C.
20004 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
- (Hand = Delivery)
Room 15-E9 one White Flint North Stephen A. Wakefield, Esq.
11555 Rockville Pike General Counsel.
Rockville, Maryland 20852 U.S. Department of Energy (Federal Express 1000-Indopondence Avenue Saturday Delivery)
Room 6A245 Washington, D.C.
20; (First-Class.-Mail) 9phes P. McGranery, gfg Munsel for the PetiVioners Shoreham-Wading: River Central School District and Scientists-and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc.
-N" o
w m.m-
.. - -