ML20067C778

Shoreham-Wading River Central School District Amend to Request for Hearing & Petition to Intervene.* Petition to Intervene in Proceeding Re Emergency Preparedness Amend

ML20067C778
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	02/04/1991
From:	Mcgranery J DOW, LOHNES & ALBERTSON, SHOREHAM-WADING RIVER CENTRAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#191-11390 91-621-01-OLA, 91-621-1-OLA, OLA, NUDOCS 9102120196
Download: ML20067C778 (3)

Text

_ _ _ . _ . - _ _ _ _ _ . _ - . - - - - _ _ . . _ _ _ . ~ . _ . - _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ - _ _ _ . _

! , //39 i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l- NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i et e ;[ p j4 lbNhC e ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

[ Before Administrative Judges: 91 FEB -6 P2 :52 1

[ Morton B. Margulies, Chairman gn ,p , y g w <

j Dr. George A. Ferguson DucM h% 4 'i W:Ci ;

i Dr. Jerry R. Kline MMD i

. )

i In the Matter of ) Docket No. 50-322-OLA

)

LONG ISLAND LIGl! TING COMPANY ) ASLBP No. 91-621-OleOLA

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) (Emergency Preparedness Unit 1) ) Amendment)

. )

i _)

Si!OREHAM-WADING RIVER CENTRAL SC}iOOL DISTRICT

!. AMENDMENT TO ITS REQUEST FOR HEARING AND i 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, Shoreham-Wading River Central School District (" Petitioner"). amends, by counsel, its request for he_aring:and petition to intervene in that proceeding by providing_an affidavit from the President of'its School Board and the' employee requesting representation by Petitioner addressing the injury in fact to its organizational interests and the interest.of the employee who has authorized it to act,for him

_(attached) as well as detailing further-herein contentions to be r raised in this proceeding,_as specified below.

Petitioner agrees with the ASLB's January 3 Order'that' the overarching issue in the Shoreham Emergency Preparedness Plan proceeding is: Should the amendment of the Shoreham emergency

_ preparedness plan be sustained? January 8 Order at 9.

91 2120196 910204 PD ADOCK 05000322 MOS g PDR-

_ _ . - . . . _ , _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . . , _ _ _ _ .__.___.,,____._..__._.__.-.s.

i Petitioner also asserts that the specific aspects identified in Section III of its original petition and request for hearing in the above-captioned matter are subsidiary issues to the overarching issue identified by the Board.

Petitioner also contends on behalf of itself and its represented employee that the amendment deprives the LILc0 Emergency Response Organization ("LERO") of the adequate effectiveness to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R. $$ 50.34, 50.47, 50.54 & Part 50, Appendix E (1990) for a full power operating reactor licensee. Petitioner also contends on its own behalf.and-that of.its represented employee that when combined with the increased risk of a radiological incident due to the reduced physical security plan, the elimination of LERO destroys LILCO's ability to assure a smooth evacuation of the emergency planning zone'in the event of a radiological incident, including an incident of radiological sabotage. ,

In particular,-in the language specified-by the Board, Petitioner specifies as a particular aspect on which it wishes to inte rvene: "Whether the license amendment which: permits discontinuance of quarterly drills involves a.significant reduction in the margin of safety and increase (in) the.

probability (and consequences)'of radiological-harm". Januarv 8 Order at 45.- Petitioner also repeats its contention that there i is an issue whether, under 10 C.F.R. 5 51.21, an environmental assessment is required of the proposed amendment. And Petitioner.

further states-as a contention whether,_if suchuan environmental

_ _ _ - _ _ - _ . - - _ - _ - _ _ _ _ . - - _ - - - _ _ .--- - - _ - - - . a

assessment is required for a proposed amendment, the current amendment should be vacated, pending such an assessment.

Finally, Petitioner specifies the issues of (a) whether the licensee furnished the Commission with a reasoned analysis about the issue of no significant hazards consideration complying with Commission's ctandards, (b) whether the 10 C.F.R. $ 50.91(b) procedures were followed and in either case, if not, whether the amendment should be vacated.

WHEREFORE, Petitioner renews its request for the remedies noted in the original petition, contends that the injuries resulting from the action which is the subject of this proceeding are likely to remedied by a favorable decision granting the relief sought (including such other relief as the ASLB deems appropriate), and requests that the action be set down for hearing after a pre-hearing conference and appropriate discovery.

Respectfully submitted, T (y') h r' Tebruary 4, 1991 ,

Ac --- J . I Jamec P. McG ra nery',/p r .

Oow, Lohnes & Albertson Suite 500 1255 Twent' ,

trd Street, N.W.

Washington, a.C. 20037 (202) 857-2929 Counsel for the Petitioner Shoreham-Wading River Central School District

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before Administrative Judgest Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Dr. George A. Ferguson Dr. Jerry R. Kline

)

In the Matter of )

Long Island Lighting Company:

) Docket No. 50-322-OLA

)

Consideration of Issuance of Amendment ) ASLBP No.

To Facility Operating Li. cense and )

Propocod No Significant Hazards 91-621-01-OLA

)

Consideration Determination and )

Opportunity for Hearing )

(Emergency Preparedness Activition) )

(55 Fed._ Reg. 12076 March 30, 1990) )

)

AFFIDAVIT OF ALBERT G. PRODELL Albert G. Prode11, being duly sworn, says an follows:

1.

I, Albert G. Prode11, reside at Romson Road, Wading-River,- How York -11792 which ic about two miles from the Shoreham Nucicar Power Stution ("Shoreham Plant"). I have-owned this property for thirty ye?7J.

Thus,-I live within the geographical zone utilized )y the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRCH).

to determine whether a party ja sufficiently threatened by the radiological hazard and other environnental impacts -of the proposal to establish the requisite interest and standing for intervantion as of right.

l l

2. I also own a sailboat moored at Brewer Yacht Yard in Greenport which is about thirty-three miles from the Shoreham Plant and is, therefore, also within the geographical zone of interest.

3. I have been employed as a Physicist for over thirty years at Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11786, located about eight miles from the Shoreham Plant. I received my A.B., M.A., and Ph.D. in physics from Columbia University in New Ytth and taught physics at Columbia University and Barnard College before taking a position at Brookhaven. I presently work in the Acce.ierator Develt, ment Department at Brookhaven. I have served on the committee which worked in cooperation with the Long Island Lighting Oca pa . ' ("LILCO") to study and develop emergency evacuation procedures and routes for the School District's

) students and employees to follow in the event of an emergency at the Shoreham Plant. My training and experience as a Physicist has given me a thorough understanding of nuclear radiation. I am familar with both the benefits and risks of nuclear power plants.

I strongly support the use of nuclear power to meet the energy needs of the Long Island area, and the Nation as a whole, in a safe, economical, and environmentally benign manner.

4. The Stacol District covers an area of about Lwelve square miles and the Shoreham Plant is within the boundaries of the School District. Thus, the School District is within the

-2 -

. _ _ -_ - ___ - _-__- ____-______-_______-- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .- _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ ~

geographical 1 zone utilized by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") to determine whether a party is sufficiently i

threatened by the accidental' release of fission prooJcts to establish the requ/ site interest and standing for intervention as of right.

5. I am presently tb- asident of the Board of Education -

of the School District. I have held this position for sixteen years. As President, I am among those responsible not only for determining, but also for vaking, action in accordance with the School District's position on natters affecting both its general interests and the specific. health, safety and environmental interests of the students and cmployees for whom it is

- responsible during work and school hours.

6. The Board of Education for the School District has-determined that it is in the best interest of the District, its students and its employees, to see Shoreham operate, and operate safely. As an employee of the District, who both lives and works in close proximity to the plant, I authorize the School District to represent my interests, as described herein, in any

- proceedings to be he'- ) connection with the Long Island Lighting Company's (dLILCO") proposed l license amendment adding a license condition which negates: application of several pre-existing license-conditions while the reactor'is in the "defueled state." This license amendment, ecpecially when coupled with y_ _.y.- m_ _ , , , _

, c , . .m- . . A - .-=, ++-i=--_---s -- -

related ponding requests for permission from the NRC, would allow LILeo to cease its emergency preparodnecs activities altogether.

7. I am concurned 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 ("HIPA"). I do not bolieve that any atopo in furthorance of Shoreham's decommissioning should be implemented until a rina1 Environmental Impact statement ("TEIS")

cvaluating the impacts of, and alternativos to, the entire decommissioning proposal has boon completed in compliance with the terms 'of NEPA and the imC's own regulations. If the NRC allows steps which are clearly in furtherance of decommissioning, and have no neccocary independent utility, to be implemented at Shoreham prior to the necennary NEPA review, my rights, and the rights of-those similarly situated, to have an opportunity for meaningful comment on the environmenttl consideration of the decommiscioning proposal Will be prejudiced, if.not completely d e:n ied . The proposed amendment which effectively allows LILCO to coacea'all emergency preparedness activities presupposes that decommissioning is a foregone conclusion. Despite the fact that HEPA mandaten maintenance of the ,qkAtga gno pending preparation of an TEIS and a final decision so that alternatives to the proposed action are not prematurely foreclosed, the proposed amendment represente a further retreat from tho requirements of

LILco's full-power: operating-license prior to any environmental .

review of.the^ proposed decommissioning.

8. . 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 is an integral-part of a LILco's attempt to coace emergency preparedness activities. Any decrecse in such activities at a plant licensed for full-power operation increases the radiological hazard poned~by the plant. The dotrimental health and safety impacts on those in close proximity to Shoreham from an accidental release of finnion products would be significantly greator were the accident to occur while Shorcham is without a well-trained emergen'" response organization.to stem those impacts.

9. As a Long Island resident, I am interested in actions which will have a direct effect on the avai) ability of reliable.

electricity to meet my needs ani those of my family and the community as a whole. I understand that Long Island is presently ,

at the full capacitysofLthe-existing natural. gas pipelines which supply this area and that there io . inadequate reserve capacity for the-growing electric energy demando of the area. Thus, either-shoreham-must be operated or alternative generating facilities will havo'to be built and operated. Because natural l

1

gan supplica cannot easily be increased, oil-burning plants will inevitably be needed to replace shorehnm. These plants, in turn, will emit pollution lowering air quality in the region and contributing to global warming and acid rain. These effects of '

Shoreham'sLdecommissioning will have detrimental effects on my p 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.

10.

I am also concerned about the adverne economic 4 consequences- which will automatically fellow from the decommissioning of the Shoreham plant. Under the terms of the existing Agreement between LILCO and the State of New York, the cost of electric energy will probably double over the next-ten years.-

These outrageous rates combined with a drastic reduction in tax levies (the taxer levied on the operable Plant constitute approximately 90% of the District's tax base) will cause a-precipitous decline in the quality of education offered to school children in the District in addition to huge tax increases for District residents.

11. And if the. scope of this proceeding is narrowed to its relationship to the choice among tho alternatives for decommissioning._ mode,_I believe my health, safety and environmental interests would bo harmed by any actions.

inconsistent'With mothballing the plant ("S APS"cOR") .

__,__2___ ._---u - - ' - - - - - - - - - - ^ ' -

. c. ,

..o

. e. .n. on r i uG10u N- -psg.cos-

12. I understand that School District has been joined by Scientists and Engineers for Secure Energy, Inc. ("SE2 ") IU seeking to intervono in the hearing to be held not only on the proposed amendment allowing the coccation of emergency preparedness activities, but also in hearings to censider the implications of the immediately effective Confirmatory order-issued by the NRC on March 29, 1990 and LILCO's license amendment request affecting the Physical Security Plan. I also understand that the issues raised by all of theso actions significantly overlap due to the fact that each of the actionc constitutes another stop in the decomminaiorsing process underway at Shoreham.

I would_ favor the consolidation of those three proceedinga to conaldor the issues rained by the School Dlatrict and SE ' 2 consolidation would'be the most officient and expeditious way to procood for all concerned.

f U /}vN Pt6 ITil //

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEF6RE ME, on thic / day of May, h4&.

1$3 '

94

_ Notary PublIIC ( /'

w1UF R BRfcGs 0[

Quonfodth of Now York My Commission expires: NM Cwmon g,g&#olk g ,, , Couny

,, p, 4

7 -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION pg0 Before Administrative Judges:

'91 TEB -6 P2 33 Morton B. Margulics, Chairman Dr. Ge9rge A. Ferguson g% j g m _

Dr. Jerry R. Khne coca nw a si .:vna bauu

)

In the Matter of ) ' Docket No. 50 322 OLA

)

LONG ISLAND LIGilTING COMPANY ) ASLBP No. 9162101 OLA

)

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) (Emergency Preparedness Unit 1 ) Amendment)

)-

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the Amendment to.its Request for Hearing and Petition to Intervene and affidavit of Dr. Albert G. Prodell, in the above captioned matter by Shoreham Wading River Central School District were served upon the following by first-

class mail, postage prepaid on this 4th day of February,1991

- Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Administrative Judge

,U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Morton 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

. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board - . Administrative Judge .

L 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:

Depsty Assistant General Counsel

- for~ Reactor Licensing Michael R. Deland,' Chairman .

Mitzi A. Young, Esq. - Council on Environmental Quality

~

Senior Supervisory Trial. Attorney Executive Office of the President Office'of the General Counsel Washington, D.C. 20500 '

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

> Washington, D.C. 20555 Stanley B. Klimberg, Esq.

Executive Director and General Counsel Carl R. Schenker, Jr., Esq. _

Long Island Power Authority-Counsel,'Long Island Power Authority Suite 201

~O'Melveny & Myers 200 Garden City Plaza 55513th Street, N.W. Garden, City, New York 11530

Washington, D.C. 200(14

, = , . ,

- - . ~ _ . . - . _ - - - . . - . . - - .- . - - . - . . - . . . . . . -

. . 2 Stephen A, Wakefield, Esq.

Donald P. Irwin, Esq.

General Counsel- Hunton & Williams U.S. Department of Energy P.O. Box 1535  !!

- Washington, D.C. 20585 Richmond, Virginia 23212 -l

-Gera'd C. Goldstein, Esy, Samuel A. Cherniak, Esq.

Office of General Counsel NYS Department of Law New York Power Authority Bureau of Consumer j 1633 Broadway Frauds and Protection l New York, New York 10019  ;

120 Broadway New York, New York 10271 l Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq. ,

David A. Repka. Esq. 1 Winston & Strawn -

1400 L Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005

(} - Q

~

l (

February 4,1991 A_s_ /' . /:[ 2n

.Jhmes P. McGranery, Jrf ,

Counsel for Petitioner fritervenors Shoreham Wading River Central School District and Scientists and Engineers =

for Secure Energy, Inc, l

,.o bm i j Il

_;)

l 4

'e l-.

--'-'% --.___ _-______.___ __ ___ _ .a