ML20067C563

Affidavit of AP Hull.* Affidavit Re Mod of Plant License

ML20067C563
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	01/31/1991
From:	Amy Hull SCIENTISTS & ENGINEERS FOR SECURE ENERGY
To:
Shared Package
ML20067C304	List: ML20067C302 ML20067C491 ML20067C499 ML20067C536 ML20067C563 ML20067C574 ML20067C588 ML20067C610
References
91-621-01-OLA, 91-621-1-OLA, OLA, NUDOCS 9102120113
Download: ML20067C563 (6)

Text

.

=

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SATETY AND LICENSING BOARD l

Before Administrative Judges:

Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Dr. George A. Targuson Dr. Jerry R. Kline In the Matter of

)

Docket No. 50-322-OLA Long Island Lighting Co.,

)

shoraham Nuolear Power Stationt

)

ASLBP No.

Confirmatory Order Modifying

)

91-621-01-OLA License (Effective Immediately)

)

(55 Fed. Reg. 12758, April 5, 1990)

)

_)

AFFIDAVIT OY ANDREW P. HULL Ar.frew 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 the Shoraham Nuclear Power Station ("Shoreham Plant").

I have owned this property for twenty-eight 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 and standing for intervention Pf4 of right.

2.

I have been employed for the past twenty-eight years at Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, New York 11786, located l

about six miles from the Shoreham Plant.

I am a Health Physicist and work as a Group Leader in the Emergency Planning and 9102120113 910204 PDR ADOCK 03000322 l

0 PM

Radiological Assistance program.

I have an interest in, and have published papers concerning, the comparative risks of alternativo energy sourcon.

As a Health Physicist, I am familiar with both tho benefits and risko 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 nomber of Scientists and Engineers for securk Energy, Inc. ("SE ") since 1985.

I authorize SE to g

represent my interests, as described herein, in any proceedings to be held in connection with the Immediately Effective confirmatory order, issued by the NRC on March 29, 1990, prohibiting the Long Island Lighting Company ("LILC0"), licensee of the Shoreham plant from placing fuel ir.to the reactor vessel without prior NRC approval.

4.

I am concerned that the confirmatory order constitutes another stop in the decommissioning process presently underway at shorcham in violation of my rights under the National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA").

The Order reaffirms the previous NRC decisions allowing LILCO to reduce staffing and maintenanca to a level clearly inconsistent with the terms of the full power operating license and several NRC regulations.

Those very actions which the NRC explicitly allowed are now being advanced as presenting a health and safoty threat of such a magnitude that an immodiately effective Order was issued to effectively prohibit operation.

SE submitted a Section 2 206 g

request in conjunction with the Shoreham-Wading River Central.

school District in July of 1989 when the destaffing and plant disassembly activities had only just been announced and were yet to be implamented.

The Request asserted that these actions should not be a31 owed to go forward before publication of a Final Environmental Impact statament (arEIs") pursuant to the dictaten of NEPA and because they were inimical to the public health and safety due to their inconsistecy with LILCO's license obligations as a full-power licensee.

Despite the fact that the Commission denied the request for immediate relief and continues to ignore the issues raised in the original section 2.206 request and the supplaments thereto, it now relies on the results of the challenged actions to justify issuance of the immediately effective order without ordering remedial measures or proposing fines.

5.

I do not believe that any steps in furtherance of the Shoreham plant's decommissioning should be implemented until a TEIS evaluating the impacts of, and alternatives to, the entiro decommissioning proposal has been completed in compliance with the terms of NEPA and the NRC's own regulations in a single proceeding.

If the NRC allows steps which are clearly in furtherance of decommissioning, and have no necessary independent utility, to be implemented at the Shoreham Plant prior to the necessary NEPA review, my rights, and the rights of those l

l similarly situated, to have an opportunity for meaningful concent on the environmental consideration of the decommissioning proposal will be prejudiced, if not completely denied.

Besides.

reaffirming past actions r.*eed at removing the Shoreham Plant from service and, therefore, in furtherance of decommissioning, the confirmatory order also sote the stage for yet other actions in furtherance of decommissioning.

LILCO has applied for a license amandment to recognize the defueled state of the plant which will in turn facilitate the transfer of the plant to the Long Island Power Authority.

The confirmatory order, which prohibits operation of the plant, in a first link in a chain of actions directed towards the issuance of a license amendment authorizing " possession and use, but not operation."

The issuance of a possession only license would be, in turn, a further step in removing the plant from service which is the first part of " decommissioning" as defined by the NRC regulations.

6.

The confirmatory order also 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.

In direct violation of its own stated enforcement policy, the NRC has failed, in that order, to requiro LILeo to undertake remedial actions to bring the shoreham Plant into compliance with the terms of its full-power operating license.

Thus, should a determination later be made to operate the Shorcham plant, deterioration allowed by LILeo and by that incomplete order will at the least move operation further away in time, and at the worst, increase the likelihood and risk of a radiological accident.

r tpon p L,4, WASHINGTON DC PME.Olt Clco interested h erstand that SE2 has been

• joined by the shoreham-9 th3 Cvailability of gio g:neration to meet vene in a hearing to be held not only on the samunity as a whole.

I hh5%whh Ot.th3 full capacity of supply this area and

( and offsite Emergency Preparedness.

I also fcr the growing

,he issues raised by all of these actions

,, CithOr the shoreham terating facilities will satural gas supplies 31 ants will inevitably be to consider the issues raised by the school reby increasing our y tb3 cecurity of our o picnts, in turn, Will ha region aM s and actions are, in fact, part of a single

1. ain*

These ef fects of 1atively significant, and have no utility

.1 hnya detrimental et tho natural gio calls for serious

{ j d.JA sommicaionin9 eeding is narrowed to its tornatives for N BEFORE ME, on this

! day of 74 W m,

th, cofety and

,M s

/-

. by cny actions

~

Notary Public j

/

. ( sArsToR").

My commission expires:

f/ 3// 9/

II 4*

g 485 4 24 L'.

=

JAll 31 '91 13:55 F R o t1 D.L.A.

WASHINGTON DC PAGE.016 9.

I understand that SEg has been joined by the shoreham-Wading River Central School District (" School District") in seeking to intervene in a hearing to be helo not only on the confirmatory order, but also in hearings to considsr the implications of LILCO's license amendment requests affecting both Physical Security and Offoita Emergency Preparedness.

I also understand that tne issues raised by all of these actions significantly overlap due to the fact that each of the actions constituto another step in the decommissioning process underway at the Shoreham Plant.

I would 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 2

expeditious way to proceed for all concerned.

I also submit that such consolidation is demanded by NEPA becauso all of these segmented proposals and actions are, in fact, part of a single proposal, are cumulatively significant, and have no utility indopondent of the decommissioning proposal.

(,5 bO Andr'ev P. Hull ay of MM,

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME, on this d

1991.

/

/

wSdL Notary Public j

/

My commission expires:

f/ 3// 9/

tr mg d.. ~,p.i' 8MNd. _. -.. _