ML19282C799

Forwards Complaints Re New Class Action Against Boston Edison Co,Et Al,Commenced by Plymouth County Nuclear Info Committee,Inc,Et Al.Summons,Order & Class Action Complaint Encl

ML19282C799
Person / Time
Site:	Pilgrim, 05000471
Issue date:	04/26/1979
From:	Mazzone J AMERICAN NUCLEAR INSURERS
To:	Saltzman J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 7905020383
Download: ML19282C799 (29)

Text

.. .

VK\ -

CFFIE Cf THE GENEML COUNSEL

\V

< (1 A

,,e m m

..N/t y,^/j (y ..~t;.: - 1 ( C,, .c .

L BURT C.PROOM.CPCU Nv _

p,.se April 26, 1979 Mr. Jerome Saltzman, Deputy Chief Office of Antitrust & Indemnity Directorate of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Saltzman:

Re: Plymouth County Nuclear Information Committee, Inc. vs.

Boston Edison Company, et al Superior Court, Plymouth, Mass.

Civil Action No. CA79-8986 Policy Nos. NF-188 and MF-58 The captioned action has been commenced against Boston Edison Company and others, seeking various kinds of relief from the Court, including allegations of damages for bodily injury and property damage for which coverage may be provided under ANI Policy #NF-188 and MAELU Policy #MF-58 and also under the secondary layer of financial protection.

A copy of the complaint is enclosed for your information.

V y truly yours, J ephyarrone ice re ident &

General C nsel JM/jr Enclosure c/c - Ambrose Kelly, w/o enc.

1 THis DOCUME - \y P O O R 'Q U A U Q 7 9 0 5 0 2 0 5 f D, l

$(

\

ruer,a sute 245/ 27a ra gm ,ew/

e ro mem cm , t . cen / c<e e m m t y. y c.at eten_n;5

y" l y%f y 5/ COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS PLYM,0UTH, ss. '

SUPERIOR COURT Mikai 0F TH TEll CMIT CIVIL ACTION Plymouth County Nuclear Information Comm.ittee, NO CA79-8986 Inc.,

Dorothy v.Limont, Mark F.Limont, Diane A.DeLowery, Lynn Wilkinson, Donald Wilkinson, Walter J. .

B uckingh am,, Jr . , Ca t .h. erin e...C ,Roa ch_

.., Plaintiff (s) .

vs.

Boston Edison Company, Massachusetts Department of Public Health, Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency & the Office of Emergency Preparedness, Massachusetts Department o f P u b l i q . ..Wo rk s. , M a s s ac hus e.t.ts...D ep ar.t;-Defendant (s )

ment of Environmental Quality Engineering SUhihf0NS AND ORDER OF NOTICE To the above-named Defendants :

You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon ..Penn..S....Moulton . .., plaintiff's attorney, whose address is .9 .Egremont St. (#10)., Boston,Ma 0214 6n answer to the complaint which is herewith served upon you, within 20 days after service of this summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You are aho required to file your answer to the complaint in the office of the Clerk of this Court at PLYhlOUTil either bt; fore service upon plaintiffs attorney or within a reasonable time thereafter.

Unless otherwise provided by Rule 13(a), your answer must state as a counterclaim any claim which you may have against the plaintiff which arises out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the plaintiffs claim or you will thereafter be barred imm making such claim in any other action.

WE Al'SO NOTIFY'YOU that application has been made in said action, as appears in the complaint for a preliminary injunction and that a hearing upon such application will be held at the Court House at said fMk!DM}E-BROCKTON-ROMOMXXXnIEXX)DXERXHXEEICMK in first session without Jury of our said Court on . Wednesday.. . - . .

the . twenty-fif th.. day of

. April.

. , A.D., 197 9, at . 9..:.3 0.. . o' clock A.ht., at which you may appear and show cause why such application should not be granted.

JAhlhd l'. kYNCH, B.

Witness, , Esquire, at Plymouth, the . . nineteenth .

April. . day of in the year of our lo rd one thousand nine hundral and seventy.nin_e . .

r DATE OF SERVICE -

" NhWN3 y' g.Q. jh 19 l'*i.a.sk f ,

CLEl1K.

1. This summons is issued pursuant to Bule 4 of the Afassachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure.

2.

When more than one defendant is involved, the names of all defendants should appear in the caption.

If a separate summons is used for each defendant, each should be addressed to the particular defendant.

A'T-UE 7 CON TA JUF BOSTON Fon= a.au.es.n.ne g .g egg eeg e. . O se -eme ** B * * * * * *

-~.=~m &-e-. weene e -m.

.s .

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE COUNTY OF PLYMOUTH COMMONUEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS Plymouth County Nuclear ) Civil Action #CA 7f' 7 Information Committee, Inc., )

Dorothy V. Limont, )

Mark F. Limont, )

Diane A. DeLowery, )

Lynn Wilkinson, )

Donald Wilkinson, )

Walter J. Buckingham, Jr., )

Catherine C. Roach, )

Plaintiffs ) CLASS ACTION

) COMPLAINT IN EQUITY

-vs- )

)

Boston Edison Company, )

Massachusetts Department of )

Public Health, ) ~

Massachusetts Civil Defense )

Agency and the Office of )

Emergency Preparedness, )

Massachusetts Department of )

Public Works, )

Massachusetts Department of )

Environmental Quality )

Engineering, )

Defendants )

Now come the plaintiffs and make the following complaint against the above named defendants-COUNT I NEGLIGENCE

1. This action is brought pursuant to Massachusetts G.L.

Chapter 214 et seg, G.L. Chapter 79 et seg, the United States Constitution and Massachusetts Constitution, the laws of Massa-chusetts, and Rule 23 of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Pro-

~

cedure.

2. Plaintiffs are Plymouth County Nuclear Information Com-mittee, Inc., c/o Rainbow Community, Halfway Pond Road, Box 207 B, RFD #6, Plymouth, Massachusetts; Dorothy V. Limont, Federal Furn-

=

*  : ace Road, Plymouth, Massachusetts; Mark F. Limont, Federal Furn-ace Road, Plymouth, Massachusetts; Diane A. DeLowery, RochrHill Road, Plymouth, Massachusetts; Lynn Wilkinson, 52 Cliff Street, Plymouth, Massachusetts; Donald Wilkinson, 52 Cliff Street, Ply-mouth, Massachusetts; Walter J. Buckingham, Jr., 14 South Street, Plymouth, Massachusetts; Catherine C. Roach, 14 South Street, Plymouth, Massachusetts.

3. Plaintiff, Plymouth County Nuclear Information Committee, Inc. is a Massachusetts non-profit corporation incorporated under Massachusetts G.L. Chapter 180, on June 25, 1974, with a princi-pal place of business at Rainbow Community, Halfway Pond Road, Box 207 3, RFD #6, Plymouth, Massachusetts.

4. Plaintiffs bring this suit as representative parties on behalf of all members of Plymouth County Nuclear Information Com-mittee, Inc.

5. Plaintiff corporation, Plymouth County Nuclear Informa-tion Committee, Inc., has a membership consisting of over 600 persons, predominantly residing in Plymouth County, who as a class are harmed by defendants' actions.

6. The class that plaintiffs represent is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable; there are questions of law or fact that are co= mon to all members of the class; and the claims of the representative plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class; and the representative plaintiffs will adequately protect the interests of the class.

7. The questions of law or fact common to the members of the class predominate over any questions of law or fact affecting in-dividual members of the class.

i',, .

8. This class action is superior to other available methods for fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy.

9. The members of the class represented by plaintiffs oun real property or are residents in the County of Plymouth, Common-wealth of Massachusetts.

10. Defendant, Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency and the Office of Emergency Preparedness, is a duly authorized agency of the Common-wealth authorized pursuant to the Civil Defense Act, Massachusetts G.L.

Chapter 639 Acts of 1950, as amended. The Agency has the responsi-bility for evacuating persons from areas stricken by disaster.

11. Defendant, Massachusetts Department of Public Works, is a ,

duly authorized agency of the Commonwealth, authorized pursaunt to Massachusetts G.L. Chapter 16 et seq. The Department has the authority to conduct research, surveys, experimentation, design, development, etc., with regard to the transportation needs of the Commonwealth, and to monitor the transportation of nuclear waste caterials on the highways of the Commonwealth.

12. Defendant, Massachusetts Department of Public Health, is a duly authorized agency of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts established pursuant to Massachusetts G.L. 111 S5. The Depart-ment has the responsibility for protecting the interests of life, health, comfort, and convenience of the citizens of the Common-wealth.

13. Defendant, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality Engineering, is a duly authorized agency of the Common-wealth established pursuant to Massachusetts G.L. Chapter 21A, 5 7, and has the responsibility of providing to the Commonwealth safe air to breathe and safe water to drink. The Department supervises the operations of the Division of Water Pollution Con-trol pursuant to Massachusetts G.L. Chapter 21, 5 26. Defendant Department is mandated under Massachusetts G.L. Chapter 21 5 27(6) to set effluent limitations for all pollutants, including radioactive materials, which may be discharged into the waters of the Commonwealth. .

14. At all tices herein mentioned defendant Boston Edison Cocpany was and now is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts with a principal place of business at 800 Boylston Street, Boston. On or about December 1972 defendant began to operate a nuclear power plant for the purpose of generating electricity, known as the Pilgrim Nuclear Generating Station al (here-inaf ter referred to as the plant) . Defendant Boston Edison Company is

- the sole owner of the plant.

15. The plant is a boiling water reactor. It produces electricity by generating heat through nuclear fission. The heat converts water into steam. The steam turns the blades of a turbine which produces electric current.

16. The plant produces highly radioactive atoms from the fission of uranium atoms and from the absorption of neutrons by the coolant and structural materials. Low-level radiation is continuously released by the plant into the surrounding area and onto the land and persons of plaintiffs during the norral operation of the plant. On several occasions such emissions have exceeded even the limits set by the Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission. ,

17. The low-level radiation presents an immediate hazard to the health and welfare of the plaintiffs and all persons in a similar position.

Low-level radiation causes cancer, genetic defects, life-span shortening, and adverse human grouth and de-velopment changes. (Please see Affidavits of Dr. Eric Chivian incorporated and Dr. Ira Helfand, Plaintiffs' Exhibits A and B, by reference herein.) This constitutes an unlawful deprivation of plaintiffs' right to be free from bodily harm protected by the United States and Massachusetts Constitutions.

18. There is imminent and immediate danger that the plant will release great quantities of highly radioactive materials into the biosphere. This can occur when water used to cool the nuclear _

fission reaction is insufficient to cover the fissionable mater-ial. In that event the material can reach temperatures high enough to melt through the containment vessel surrounding the reaction. Radioactive material would be released into the at-mosphere causing thousands of deaths and unquantifiable property losses. (Please see Affidavit of Allan S. Krass , Plaintiffs '

Exhibit C, incorporated by reference herein.)

19. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") , the Federal agency responsible for regulating the construction and operation of the Pilgrim I nuclear plant, based its assurances of safety from a catastrophic accident on the so-called Rasmussen Report (also known as " Wash-1400"). On January 19, 1979 the NRC re-pudiated the findings of that Report and stated that it would not rely on such Report for predicting the probabilities of

potentially catastrophic accidents. On March 28-April 1, 1979 a serious accident occured at the Three-Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station in Middletown, Pennsylvania, contrary to all previous probability predictions of the NRC. The operators of the plant and the NRC were unprepared to cope with the accident, and did not foresee its resulting complications, which included the irradiation of large populations within sixteen miles of the plant at levels of radiation which in some instances ex-ceeded natural background radiation by a factor of several hundred times. As a result of the above there is a serious question re-garding the safety of the Pilgrim 1 plant.

20. Plaintiffs reasonably fear that the plant will release great quantities of highly radioactive material. This fear has affected their peace of mind and lessened their use and enjoy-ment and property values of their land.

21. In the event of an accident described in paragraph 18 all persons within a ten-mile radius would have to be evacuated immediately. The radius could be greatly expanded to in excess of fif ty miles depending on the seriousness of the accident, the wind direction and velocity and other meteorological and physical factors. No plan for evacuating plaintiffs and persons in a similar position has ever been properly designed, implemented, published or tested. Plaintiffs reasonably fear that an emer-

- gency evacuation without proper testing and planning would create a dangerous situatiot. of panic. Plaintiffs fear they would not be able to obtain safe access out of the zone of radiation danger.

i i

According to the 1978 Plymouth census, 15,000 year-round residents and an additional 15,000 summer residents live within five miles of Pilgrim 1. It has been estimated by the Plymouth Town Planner that some one million tourists annually visit the Plymouth Rock and other historical sites which are all within five miles of Pilgrim 1. The Massachusetts Attorney General has stated in an of-ficial document entiticd " Comments on Draft Supplement to Final En-vironmental Statement for Pilgrim Nuclear Station, Unit 2", filed with the "RC on April 9, 1979, that in the event of a serious Pil-grim nuclear accident, evacuation from Cape Cod, which is well with-in the range of risk from Pilgrim, would conservatively take over sixteen hours. Further, the Attorney General referred to the fright-ening prospect of "having nearly half a million disorganized people, including thousands of children and retired elderly, bottlenecked within ten to thirty miles of the site," and being thus subjected to the radioactive plume emanating from a Pilgrim 1 accident.

22. Uhile in operation the plant continuously produces quantities of high-level radiation emitting spent fuel. The spent fuel is stored on the plant site because there is no method of permanent disposal available off of the plant site. This spent fuel contains extremely toxic plutonium and is emitting and will continue to emit highly toxic radiation for up to 500,000 years.

23. Low-level radioactive waste is trucked away from the plant site in a manner and at such times as to cause inconven-ience, alarm, and potential danger to the plaintiffs and other persons in the area.

24. As a result of a serious fire at the Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant in Alabama in 1975, the NRC reviewed the fire ,

protection systems for 28 operating units. The NRC Staff identi-fled twelve plants including Pilgrim 1 to be functioning with inadequate safety systems and not in accordance with current regulations. The NRC Staff then supported its recomnendation that these plants be allowed to continue operation solely on the basis of the Rasmussen Report's claim of " low probability" of such a potential fire--even though such a fire had already oc-curred at Browns Ferry. However, on January 19, 1979, the NRC held that the Rasmussen Report was no longer a basis for nuclear reactor safety and withdrew any such endorsement of its earlier conclusions. On February 5, 1979, the Union of Concerned Scientists formally requested the NRC to shut down Pilgrim 1 until its safe-ty system had been corrected. The NRC has refused to comply with this request. Plaintiffs reasonably fear that their lives and property are in serious and immediate jeopardy because of this refusal.

25. The NRC informed defendant Boston Edison Company in a March 27, 1978 lecter that during the prior eighteen-month period forty-six items of non-compliance with NRC safety regu-lations were found at the plant. These items included repeti-tive failure to take air samples and failure to identify proper-ly the contents of a shipping cask uith radiation levels as high as 100 millirems per hour.

26. The plant has suffered repeated accidents and danger-ous equipment failures since the plant became operational in December, 1972. The accidents include leakage of radioactive water, leaky gaskets in reactor feed pump valves, impermissibly high levels of radioactive exhaust, corrosion of piping, and faulty valves.

27. Boston Edison Company has been fined by the NRC on at least two separate occasions: (1) in 1975 a fine of $12,000 was levied against Boston Edison Company fc- the falsification of certain safety test records; (2) in 1978, a fine of $16,000 was imposed on Boston Edison Company because of the persistent and repeated over-exposure of its own workers to radiation.

28. Defendant Boston Edison Company, in violation of its duty owed to plaintiffs and their class, negligently located, constructed, designed, operates, and maintains the plant.

29. The actions or omissions of defencant Boston Edison Company constitutes negligence in the following manner: _

a. In using and continuing to use nuclear fission to generate electricity before knowledge existed or exists on how to do so safely;

b. In designing, constructing and maintaining the plant so that an unreasonable and foreseeable risk exists of the release of radioactive materials throughout Plymouth County and Eastern Massachusetts.

c. In poorly training their personnel and in allow-ing inadequately trained personnel to handle sophisticated nuclear reactors;

d. In improperly and unreasonably storing on site in Plymouth radioactive materials whose radioactivity will continue for thousands of years; and in planning to do so for the foresee-able future;

e. In building the plant before knowledge of how to safely decommission the plant exists, knowing that the plant

be shut down permanently forty years after it is built and must that the encrec sly radioactive material within as well as the structures themselves must be guarded for thousands of years.

f. In regularly emitting toxic radioactive material into the air, ground, and water of Plymouth County and eastern Massachusetts;

g. In failing to provide adequate precautions to prevent the genuine possibility of a meltdown of the reactor core which would result in the catastrophic release of radioactivity through-out Plymouth County and Massachusetts;

h. In operating the plant while there are insufficient numbers of :iuclear Regulatory Commission experts and engineers in the United States to handle more than one accident at a nuclear power plant at on^ time.

i. In operating the plant while no tested or reasonable evacuation plan exists for a fifty-mile radius around the plant.

30. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent actions of defendant Boston Edison Company, plaintiffs and their class have been and are substantially deprived of the peaceable use and enj oyment of their homes and land.

31. As a direct and proximate result of the negligent ac-tions of defendant Boston Edison Company low-level radiation and the possibility of a serious accident involving highly radio-active matter (due to human error and/or equipment failure such as occurred at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Plant during the cericd March 28 through April 2,1979) have caused property values within a ten-mile radius of defendant's plant to decrease. This constitutes an unlawful taking of plaintiffs' property without due process of law in

' violation of the United States Constitution and Massachusetts donstitution.

32. Defendant Boston Edison Company's operation of the plant caused and causes irreparable injury to plaintiffs and their class. Such operation is continuous and recurrent and unless en-joined will result in a multiplicity of suits.

33. Defendant Boston Edison Company knows or should have known that their acts or failures to act complained of would and will continue to result in injury to the health, safety, well-being and general welfare of plaintiffs and their class and will continue to deprive plaintiffs and their class of rights and privileges in the reasonable use and enjoyment of thelt lives and property.

34. Plaintiffs have repeatedly notified defendant Boston -

Edison Company of the damages caused by its operation but such de-fendant refuses to abate the harm and threatens to continue such harm indefinitely.

35. Plaintiffs and their class have no adequate remedy at law. No amount of monetary damages could compensate plaintiffs for loss of enjoyment of their property and the menace to their health occasioned by the operation of the plant.

36. Even if plaintiff and their class could obtain monetary damages from defendant Boston Edison Company, defendant's liability is severely limited by the Federal Price-Anderson Act to not exceed

$560 million, which is less than five percent of the total damages of a serious nuclear accident estimated ,by the NRC.

37. Plaintiffs cannot determine their cumulative damages and cannot ascertain in advance whether defendant Boston Edison Company's limited liability would be suf ficient to cover any losses and therefore plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.

. _11

38. Plaintiffs have exhausted all administrative remedies that would have the same or similar effect as this lawsuit.

Plaintiff has petitioned the NRC for the relief requested here-in and that relief has been denied. Defendants Massachusetts Departments of Environmental Quality , Public Health and Public Safety have neglected or refused to take action to protect plaintiffs and the citizens of Massachusetts despite their duty to do so as required by Massachusetts law.

39. The danger and nuisance caused by the plant are inminent and create an emergency situation that must be abated without de-lay. Application for the imposition of administrative remedies would cause plaintiffs further irreparable injury due to the in-herent delays involved in taking such steps.

40. State regulations and statutes do not provide any other procedures for abating this emergency situaticn without undue delay causing plaintiff further irreparable injury.

41. Defendant Boston Edison Company can effectively achieve its main objective of supplying electrical power in such a way that the harm to plaintiffs and others in a similar position would be substantially reduced or aliminated through the use of electricity conservation and alternative means of generating energy, or by causing the plant itself to operate in such a manner as not to pose a serious risk of danger to plaintiffs.

42. Defendant, Civil Defense Agency and the Office of Emergency Preparedness, has not established a comprehensive, effective, workable or tested plan for evacuation of the ap-proximately 1,500,000 people who live within a fifty-mile radius of Pilgrim 1.

43. Defendant, Department of Public Works, has not conducted adequate research, surveys, experimentation, design, or develop-ment with regard to the transportation needs of the approximately 1,500,000 people who live within a fifty-mile radius of Pilgrim 1 in the event of a catastrophic accident, nor has the Department adequately regulated or monitored the transportation of nuclear waste materials on the highways of the Commonwealth.

44. Defendant, Department of Public Health, has failed to take the necessary actions to protect the plaintiffs and their -

class from the hazards of nuclear radiation. Pursuant to Massa-chusetts G.L. Chapter 6 5 91 defendant Department is obligated to consider hazards to public health resulting from the operation of nuclear power plants. Defendant Department of Public Health is not fulfilling its duty to protect the citizens of the Common-wealth from the hazards of radiation which is being emitted from defendant Boston Edison Company's plant.

45. Defendant, Department of dnvironmental Quality Engineer-ing, has not exercised its statutory responsibilities to prevent the discharge of radiation by defendant Boston Edison Company's plant im :0 the waters of the Commonwealth.

the final

46. The Massachusetts Superior Court sitting in Equity is protector of the rights of plaintif& and the citizens of Massachusetts.

Wherefore, the plaintiffs having a right to clean air and water and the natural, scenic, historic and esthetic qualities of their environment as guaranteed by the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, pray:

1. That defendant Boston Edison Company be enjoined and re-strained from operation of the plant until:

a. The plant can be and will be operated without any emissions of low-level radiation into the biosphere.

b. An evacuation plan for the fifty-mile radius sur-rounding the plant has been adequately devised, implemented, published, and tested by the Civil Defense Agency and the Office of Emergency Preparedness.

c. Massachusetts Department of Public Health person-nel are stationed on the plant site twenty-four hours per day to monitor the radioactive emissions emanating from the plant.

d. Massachusetts Department of Public Health institute offsite monitoring of radiation in a fifty-mile radius of the plant twenty-four hours per day.

e. Nuclear Regulatory Commission personnel be stationed in the control room of the plant at all times during the plant's operation to safeguard against human error and to ensure that plant operating decisions are made in the public interest rather than just in Boston Edison Company's interest.

f. Adequate and safe provision has been made for storage of highly radioactive spent fuel in a remote unpopulated site other than Plymouth County.

g. The transportation of radioactive waste is monitored on a continuous basis over previously prescribed routes, and official escorts provided by the Department of Public Works and the Department of Public Health.

h. The design of the plant conforms to all current Fed-eral safety standards.

i. Defendant Boston Edison Company notifies all citi-zens within a fifty-mile radius of the plant that low-level radiation is dangerous to their health.

j. Defendant Boston Edison Company agrees to and in-plements a plan to finance annual medical physical exams for anyone so requesting same within a ten-mile radius of the plant and all members of plaintiffs' class.

2. If defendant Boston Edison Company is not enjoined, then for a judgment against such defendant for the diminution of the market value of plaintiffs and their class's property -

due to the continued operation of the plant.

3. For punitive damages due to the intentional and uill-ful acts or omissions by defendant Boston Edison Company which cause or will cause bodily harm to plaintiffs and the members of their class.

4. That defendant Boston Edison Company be held absolutely liable for the damages which they have caused plaintiffs and their class and which has substantially, seriously and unreason-ably affected the health, safety, well-being and general welfare of claintiffs and the members of their class.

5. For judgment declaring that the aforesaid conduct and activities of defendant Boston Edison Company in the operation of Pilgrim 1 which has directly caused physical intrusion and damage upon the property of plaintiffs and their class amounts to an unlawful taking or an inverse condemnation of the property of plaintiffs and their class without compensation.

6. For their costs of suit in this proceeding including a reasenable attorney's fee.

7. For such other and further relief as the Court deems proper.

COUNT II ASSAULT AND BATTERY

47. Plaintiffs and *. heir class incorporate herein the allega-tions contained in paragraphs 1 through 46 as though the same were herein set forth at length, and further state as follows:

48. Plaintiffs are in apprehension and fear of an unlawful touching and harm to their persons by the discharge into the biosphere of ionizing radiation from defendant Boston Edison Company's plant. Defendant's release of radiation is intentional.

Plaintiffs have not consented to the release of radiation or the resulting harm to their persons. The apprehension and fear caused by defendant's release of ionizing radiation from their inherent-ly dangerous instrumentality constitutes an assault. Unless such defendant is enjoined this assault will continue.

49. Plaintiffs are suffering a continuous and unlawful touching by ionizing radiation caused by defendant Boston Edison Company. The radiation causes physical changes to plaintiffs' bodies and cellular structure. Plaintiffs have not consented to this unlawful and harmful impact of low-level radiation.

This touching constitutes a battery. Unless enjoined this t'.t-tery will continue.

50. As a direct and proximate result of defendant Boston Edison Company's actions plaintiffs and their class have suffered permanent and irreparable physical and mental injury, suffering.

and mental anguish and actual damages.

., ,.i

51. These allegations of assault and battery, being para-graphs 47 through 51 are hereby incorporated by reference in Count One of this Complaint and nade a part thereof.

UHEREFORE, plaintiffs and their class request relief as set forth in Count One.

COUNT III INTENTIONAL TRESPASS -

52. Plaintiffs and their class incorporate herein the al-legations contained in paragraphs 1 through 51 as though the same were herein set forth at length and further states as fcilows.

53. Plaintiffs have repeatedly notified defendant Boston Edison Company of the radioactive emissions and fallout that _

falls upon plaintiffs' property and persons.

54. After notice to defendant Boston Edison Company re-garding the acts described in paragraph 46, such defendant continues to operate the plant without regard to the damage being inflicted upon plaintiffs and their class.

55. The continuous invasion of plaintiffs' and their class's interests is caused by the conduct of defendant Boston Edison Company when such defendant knew of the nature of the injury inflicted and had reason to know that substantial damages were resulting or were substantially certain to result from its conduct.

56. As a direct result of defendant Boston Edison Company's knowledge of the harm being inflicted upon plaintiffs and their class, due to the continuous and recurrent acts or omission by such defendant after being warned of the harm being done to the

. g e plaintiffs, the defendant's conduct cons titutes an intentional invasion of the interests of the plaintiffs and their class in the use and enjoyment of their land.

57. As a direct and proximate result of the continuing and recurring invasion by the defendant, with knowledge of the harm resulting, the plaintiffs and their class were injured as indicated above.

58. The acts and failures to act by defendant Boston Edison Company in the construction and operation of the plant are continu-ous and recurring, and are an intentional invasion of the rights of the plaintiff and their class. Therefore, defendant Boston Edison Company's conduct in operating the plant is willful and wanton, and the plaintiffs demand punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages.

'4EEREFORE, plaintiffs request relief as set forth in Count One.

COUNT IV EMINENT DOMAIN

59. Plaintiffs and their class incorporate herein the allega-tions contained in paragraphs 1 through 58 as though the same were herein set forth at length and further state as follous:

60. Fear of major nuclear accidents and the possibility of a major nuclear accident at Pilgrim 1, dininishes and destrous the value of the property of plaintiffs and their class.

61. As a direct and proximate result of defendant Boston Edison Company's release into the air and water and onto the land of plaintiffs and their class of radioactive pollutants, plaintiffs and their class have been substantially deprived of the beneficial use and enjoyment of their property. There has been substantial diminution of the value of their property and i

the income derived therefrom due to an inability to lease and sell their respective property. Their homes and property have been injured and damaged. The danger and hazard of the pollu-tants caused by defendant Boston Edison Company has denied plaintiffs and their class of a market for their respective property.

62. The value of the property owned by plaintiffs and their class has been destroyed by defendant Boston Edison Company acting under Commonwealth authority derive,d from the Common-wealth's participation and cooperation in the regulation and licens- _

ing of defendant's plant, to wit by and through the following agencies of the Commonwealth: Massachusetts Department of Public Utilities; Massachusetts Energy Facilities Siting Coun-cil; and Massachusetts Department of Environmental Quality En-gineering.

63. Defendant Boston Edison Company has filed no notice of taking as is required by law.

64. All such damage to the property of plaintiffs and their class as set forth in the preceding paragraphs has been caused by the operation of the Pilgrim 1 Nuclear Station, and such property-destroying activities are continuing and there is no reason to suppose such damage will be abated except by the action of this Court.

WHEREFORE,. plaintiffs request relief as set forth in Count One.

Penn S. Moulton 9 Egremont Street (#10)

Boston, Massachusetts 02146 (617) 731-8074 ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFFS April 18, 1979 O

EXHIBIT A AFFIDAVIT OF ERIC CHIVIAN MD I, Eric Cr.ivian MD, do deoose and swear to the following:

1. I an an Honors Graduate in Biochemistrv fron Harvard Collene, hold a "edical Degree from Harvard Medical School, and did cost-nraduate nedical traininn for one year at the Mt. Zion Hospital and Medical Center in San Francisco and for t-to vears in the U.S. Dublic Health Service. I was in General Dractice in Medicine for 6 years. Presently, I am a Clinical Fellow at Harvard "edical School, encloyed by the Mass. General Hosoital .

2. This affidavit is in suonort of the assertion that the boilina water nuclear reactor in Plvnouth, Mass. (Pilarin I) constitutes an irrediate danner to the j nublic health of the citizens of the areater Divmouth area, and should be shut

-g 7,N down canding a ccmolete investication of the olant's safety. If this is not i.k done, irrenarable harm to the olant workers and the oeonle of the Civnruth area

'?

N  %

will resul t.

.~x

' ' The first area of innediate and nrave concern is the health and safety 3.

hazards cosed by low level radioactivity from the nresent daily oneration of the v .h% .

b%

N olant, both to the workers in the Dilorim I plant and the neneral nonulation

\' M surroundinn the olant.

.N j 4. Pilgrim I has had the worst record of any nuclear oower olant in the countrv in their exoosure of radiation to nlant workers for both 1976 and 1077. There have been several incidents at the olant where workers received acute exnosures of 3 REMS or more; nany workers had cunulative yearly exnosures in excess of 5 REMS, exceeding the maxinum nernissible exnosure levels of the Mational Council of Radiation Protection. Pecent studies in the US and in Ennland have clearly demonstrated that workers in radiation facilities exnosed to even less than 5 REMS oer year are subject to an increased incidence of chronosone danace, leukemia, and fatal cancers. Because of its nenligence in worker exnosure, the 'luclear Regulatory Conmission fined Pilorim I S16,000.

• ,AFF~C VIT OF EDIC CHIV!AN "D--2.

5. At oresent, Pilorim I releases radiation to the surroundino nonulation in the form of low level radioactive isotones from caseous release at the stacks, and frcn leakace of canna radiation throuch the reactor buildinq. It has been shown bevond dcubt that there is no threshold of radiation exoosure to humans below which there is no danace, a fact ackrowledced by Drafessor Karl Z. '4 organ, former chairnan of the International Connission on Radioloaical Protection and former Director of the Health Physics Division of the nak Ridne National Laboratory. The redical literature has reported a strikino increase N, in the incidence of cancers, leukenias, and cenetic defects in individuals 4

exoosed to low level radiation. The association of low dose orenatal X-ray N dN s exoosure and leukemia has been known for years, and it is clear that the

s.  %

hk developina fetus nay be carticularly sensitive to ionizino radiation.

'in Therefore, even the low level releases of radiation from ilorin I inneril

~

a 6.

l\

\91 the surrounding occulation. The full extent of the dancer is not vet known, v

0 .bs and will not be known until several years have cassed, as there is a latency N w period before which genetic danace, leukenias, and cancers accear. Rut the Q

inmediate danger exists now.

7. The second area of imnediate concern is the health hazard from a serious reactor nalfunction at the Pilgrin I olant. Pilarin is a hoilina rater :eactor, a type which is acknowledaed to be even nore risky than that which failed at Three Mile Island, because the water in the forner which turns the turhines is highly radioactive as a result of its contact with the reactor core, whereas in the latter, it is not. Thus a leak at any rart of the svstem will result in substantial releases of radioactive material: Furthermore, all of the electric cables which the control the reactor and the enercencv coolino systers are located in one area, and are therefore vulnerable to an accident which would result in an inability to cool the reactor core and a nelt down, a situation which almost occurred at the Brown's Ferry Peactor fire in Alahana.

AFFIDAVIT OF ERIC CHIVIA'l MD--1.

8. Pilgrin I has already had a record of " events" culminatina in shutdown of the plant, includina water valve nalfunctions and weldinn defects in the coolina systens. And, the Nuclear Reculatory rcrnission has fined Roston Edison $12,000 for its falsification of safety records at the Pilorim I niant.

9. assachusetts does not have a Nuclear cenulatory rnnmission annroved enercency evacuation plan in case of a nuclear disaster: attenots to evacuate the South Shore, with its raoidly growina nopulation, will be irrossible ith the present lack of a workable nian. Therefore, a nuclear relt douin at Pilorim will exnose laroe conulations to acute lethal radiation doses.

10.

• tonic Enercy Connission figures on the consecuences of a sinole maior -

nuclear accident are as follows: 3300 inmediate deaths , 45,910 ir ediate injuries, 45,000 cancers over the several years af ter the accident, billions of dollars in procerty danace, and an area the size of Cennsviv?nia contaninated and uninhabitable.

11. crevious estinates of safety and the inorobability of a nuclear reactor accident can no lonaer be relied unon, ar. the events in Pennsylvania deronstrated last week. In the absence of reliable cuarantees of the safety of the oilarin I olant, it must be considered unsafe.

12. In conclusion, it is ny medical, professional, and urcent conviction that

. the P11crim I olant must be shut down nendina a concrehensive investication h

^ M h of the plant's safety systens and its daily release of radiation to its 4 cn

- i workers and to the ceneral population. With every day the plant is allowed to y

~

remain in operation, these exnosed nonulations are at ever increased risk for develocing genetic danace, leukemia, and cancer and for the catastronhic h

N effects of a major reactor accident.

Eu Signed this "th day of Acril,1970, under oains and nenalties of nerjury.

J V . ,

[ ,* ' l /, . yf *o

• j' _, _'

- - - - - ~ ' - - - - - - -

%q Eric Chivian MD

- 60 A Lewis Wharf Qnetan Haec 07110 ,

E.A n L D L 1 D

 !.tril 2, 19"-

Physicians for Social Respnsibility is an organi::ation of over one hundred medical doctors concerned with the health e f fects' of Nuclear Fower. Last week we placed the enclosed statement on Nuclear Power in the New England Journe' of "edicine. Signers of this statement include some of the most prominent and respected names in American medicine. In the statement we call for a moratoriu-on the construction of nuclear pc-wer plants and a phased withdrawel of those plants now in operation. b'e issued this statement because we felt "It .s our responsibility to slert the public to the unprecedented threat to public health posed by nuclear power." This statement was prepared before the accident at Three Mile Island.

This accident, the worst, though by nomeans the only, since the introduction of nuclear power, has served to focus our attention with increased urgency on the health problems posed by these power plants. According to the information available to us in the press a large population, nore that 15,000 people,.were subjected to s'ignificant doses of radiation. This exposare continues at this time and there still exists the potential for a core meltdown with catastrophic releases of radiation to the public. The nuclear industry claims that no harm has been done, no one has been hurt. Unfortunately this is not true. The e f fects of radiation, except for the most massive doses, are insidious appearing as cancer birth de fects and genetic disease years, and even generations after the initial e ::p o s ure . If, as the press reported, readings sveral miles fro = the plant were as high as five to seven millirems per hout we must expect signicant health e f f-c:s especially among the children and pregnant wonen exposed.

In view of the demonstrated unreliability of industry safety claims, and for the reasons discussed in the enclosed statement, Physicians for Social Responsibility renews our call for a complete moratorium on the construction of nuclear power plants and the earliest practical phasecut of existing plan; .

w / ; h' 'f, . M

{ 't h h.f I gN Ira Falfand. MD ik[ hg 3 cN. - 71 -

% bC6f M . g.2 j2/

Trustee, Phys ic ians for Fo : '.~ a l espons1511ity ffI Q

• s *, '

. . i.

- e e .

g Volume NU No 11 ADVf R ilSINGVCflON s m iiin MEDICAL STATEMENT ON NUCLEAR POWER As physicians we feelit is our responsibility to alert the public to the unprecedented threat to public health posed by nuC! ear e

power Nuclear power once held the promise of being a safe Cle.an source of energy. Time has shown that this is not true.

On the Contrary, nuclear power now presents humanity with problems that may well be insoluete.

These include:

1. R ADIC ACTIVE W ASTE.The containment of rad oactive wastes. 3 NUCLE AR WE APONS PAOLIFERATION. A nuctear reactor a ma,ority of which now come from crihtary reactors producing prCduces in escess of 400 les of piutomum per year. Only ten atomic aeapons. some toneC for t.000 CC0 years. will be a continual to taenty sts of plutonium are needed to make an atomec bor,n pict'em and a legacy for future generat.ons These *astesinclude The led an government mas a: ready diverted plutomum from its steont.um 90 an.ch causes :cukemia and bone cancer pluton.um power Pf ant to build nuctear weapons As other countries acquire antch even m microscop'C amounts causes lung cancer, and nuc! ear plants. we must espect that they too adi produce nuctear Scores of omer po'sonous radioactive Compounds. There is no weapons More than 400 ISS of p'utc%m are Currently m ssing known method 'cr sa'ely d,sposing of these wastes This is not from US storage f acmt.es The ross bit ty of nuc' ear the't and j just anct*er form cf po'lution, but orie which will cause cancer subsehent biackmail Cy crirmrial or terrorist orgamiabens is d I and b.rth de'ects for our chttdren and our children 5 chi drert. l real threat at thrs tirre and it

• 11 grow as more nuclear plants 2 THE D ANGER OF NUCLE AR ACCIDENTS. A s ng's trajor are built.

acc dent might cause acute!y 3 300 deaths. 45 000injur es. billions of d0l'ars m precerty damage. 45 000 c ancers over the neat several years. and render an area the sqr of Pennsylvania c0ntamina'ed and umnhatitable accord ng to Atomic Erergy Commission fig-ures BECAUSE OF THESE 0 ANGERS WE CALL FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS DISARYAYENT, A MORATORIUM ON THE CONSTRUCTION OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS A PHASED WITH0RAWAL OF EXISTING PLANTS, AND A COMPREHENSIVE FROGRAM TO CONSERVE ENERGY AND 10 CEVELOP i

THE ALTERNATIVE SOURCES OF ENERGY WHICH 00 EXIST.

John Gotreaa MC PhD Prc r essor Emer*'us MeSca P"rsics

• Un..ers.I, of Ca u orn a Berne er S T'd DY

• Bennett Gwe,an MD Assoc are Pro'essor cf Psrce atry Herter1 abrams MD Pmit.p M Coch Prc'essor and Chairenars Han,aed MeSca' Scacol of Dad oiogy. Harvard Me$ cat School Acger B H.ck'er MO Lar-ar Sow"er C steg#s*es um.ersity Prc'essor 5 daey afesander MD Head Cartovescular Section U%ers trof Mass vetcas Ceater Larey Chn.crowncat.on Merton J irarne MO Pic'essor of Sec a! Psycm a'ry Poaa'a A army MO Prof essor ot Mescine VassacNserts est t/e cf Teca.nciegy

• Haward Med cat School A eeancer teaf MO Jackson P c'esscr of ChroceiVed Crne George N eefea MO Prev essor of Mes c,no Umvers.ty or ions Harva d Me7 Cal School

, he en Caid estt MO Pres. dent.Peys.c aas for Soc a! Aespons t*ty Acted J L.fton MO Fowadat+oe s' F un: Pesearch Pro *essor of Assoc. ate.n Metc.no Cn.idres s Hosp tal Psych atry Med c si Center ya e Un . ors.trve $c si Se oot l

'u am Ca-d cott MD Ass siae. holessor of Pacciogy w.naer. Pubrzer Pr.ze

! Hawarc Verca:Schood eeraard Lcan MD Pre'essor of Cars o'egy t John C Coto MO MPH Professor ot Prevent *ve Med c.no Harvaro Sct'coi oI Pubnc Heaita j Um.ersay of Cotorado ved cat Schoot t H Vasss MD Assoc Pro'essor Cbn ca Ped strics Ch.ee Cope MO Pro 8essor of Swigery. Emeritus Coreeu un. ers.tr Crege of Med cine l

i Har. ara Med< cal School John P Verri MO Pro'essor of Med c.ee Carnet Ceys.n u o. ca.,r.ce 8 Strauss Harvaro Ves ca! Scnool Pro'essor of MeSc.no Lot B Page MO Pre'essor of Metc'ne ecston U%ers+ty and Tw9s Uwem'y Me3 cal Sc*ool e

Ti.t's Un..ers ry Sc%ec's of Vete ce Ha c!d Sc*ect MD Prc'essor o' Ved cee UNe's ty of 'cas Her-an Fa se'ts MO Pac'essor of Uetcine.Um.ers ty of toma v.ctor w S del M3 Prol end C*m Opt c' Soc a:Med A cna.c Fe.nb.com MD D. rector Family rea th Care Program Mcme*, ore mso.f al 8 H arvard Med. cal School a teri Ems'e.n Core;e er Me6c:no H Jact Ce see MD anmur C Lc;an Pro'essorof Comm unity Ved=cene Cave Spod ct MD CSc Prc'essor cf Vetcme

! C.ry Co :ege c' New York Un..ersdr of Mass V,tca:Camer

• T t!es and affMations for ident.fication purpCses onfy And 307 others.

P?'ys.Cians for SOCralResponsibility (PSR)is a non-proht organization ahose purpose is to provrde inforr-atiCn to the med Cal Co rutnty and Ine generalpl.thC Concerning the hazards of nuCl ear pmr and s eaponry We plan to c'a:e tr'e atos e statement in se.eral t'enspa:ers and journals and wculd welCome addutional sogners. members, and Conti Curions.

O I wish to become a member of PSR in the foitowing Category:

Practicing Physician $25' year House Staff $15/ year Med' Cat Student 55 year O I wish to sign the above statement 55 6

O Addit!cnal Contributton Name Title A f filiation Addresa Telephone

. Serd tnis form and your tax deductible Check to:

PSR. PO Box 39. Hanover Street Station. Boston. Mass. 02113 e

EXHIBIT C mean

.q ,

My name is Allan S. Krass and I am Associate Professor of Physics and Science Policy Assessment at Hampshire College in Amheret, Mass. I have a bachelors degree in Engineering Physics from Cornell University and a PhD in Theoretical Physics from Stanford University. I have done research and taught in areas relevant to nuclear power and led a research projec t at Ha=p-shire College which produced a book and television procram en-titled Maltdown at Monta2ue : A Citizens Guide t,o_the Coneeouen-ces of a Major nuclear Accident in Franklin County, Mass.

In this statement I wish to make two pointe :

1. The consequences of a majur nuclear accident would be more severe than in any other catastrophe, =an-made or natural, short of those which occur in war.

2. The probability of such an accident occurin6 at a nuclear power plant is not known and cannot be relia-bly estimated.

In our study of the proposed Montague plant we calculated the consequences of an accident resulting in a =eltdown of the core and a massive release of radioactive materials to the at-mosphere. Given a moderate wind from the west and no evacuation beyond 10 miles from the plant we calculated that 11,300 people would die as a result of the accident and 30,000 would suffer illness or injury. These effects would be spread over the next several generations of the inhabitants of Massachusetts and would include genetic defects, spontaneous abortions, cancers, thyroid tumors, and many chronic and debilitating illnesses.

Vast areas of land would be uninhabitable for many years, and local water supplies would be conta=1nated for centuries.

ho one knows how likely or unlikely such an accident is.

Recent events at the Three-Mile Island plant in Pcnnsylvania, as well as previous accidents at Browns Ferry, Alabama, the Enrico Fermi breeder plant near Detroit, and several other facilities have demonstrated that nuclear power plants are no different from other complex technolo6 1es which are subject to oroblems with faulty designe, imperfect quality control, and human miscalculation and irresponsibility. Anyone calculating the probability of the Three-Mile Island incident would have found that it was highly improbable, but such calculations have been shown to be micleading and have been repudiated by the huelear Re3ulatory Commission itself. Therefore the only pru-dent and responsible conclusion one can dr -*3 that nuclear power plants are much too complex to allow the most highly trained analysts to calculate how safe they .c. huclear reactors represent a colossal gamble with thousands-of human lives and the existence of entire communities. /

, ,/ /' I J'

/ ,/ - /

Allan Krass e (

• / ,

^

. - r - y2 Mary ( Le 6onen -

My ocn sion Expires N y 26, 19M 9

'. ,,,+ s VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT I have read the foregoing Complaint and I hereby certify to the best of my knowledge, information and belief that the matters set forth in the Ccaplaint are true and correct.

Signed under penalties of perjury.

William S. Abbott _

President Plymouth County Nuclear Information Committee , Inc.

April 18, 1979 O

,' g*

COMMONWEALTil OF MASSACHUSETTS PLYMOUTH, SS. SUPERIOR COURT - CIVIL

/' ,l 6* *

• /)

Plymouth County Nuclear

• b Information Committee, Inc.,et al * ,

kr"'u'I"/_/ f Plaintiffs *

-vs-

• Docket No. C 4 ~l 7 . MP[p Boston Edison Company, et al

• Defendants

• MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL PROCESS SERVER The plaintiffs hereby move this Court for an order ap-pointing the firm of Blaustein & Witten, 85 Devonshire x

Street, Boston,' Massachusetts, 02108, as Special Process Server for the service of trustee process and any temporary restrai'ning orders which the Court may issue, together with .

the related summons and complaint.

By Its Attorney:

[Cu~ [ t .

Penn S. Moulton 9 Egremont Street (#10)

Boston, Massachusetts 02146 April 19, 1979 Motion filed and allowed.

By The Court (Chmielinski, Jr., J) -

A TRUE COPY ATTEST c>~~ R.D-:. I-k6h '

i as u .

.