ML19329C650

Limited Appearance Statement from Henry W. Kendall Regarding the Seabrook Station Unit 1 License Amendment Application

ML19329C650
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	07/30/1990
From:	Kendall H - No Known Affiliation
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
SECY/RAS
References
Download: ML19329C650 (12)

Text

' ' RECEIVED

.l ~ ~ J

'.2. tt,o,/'

wJ( ~ ~ ' -

/ u! I.vi q LM 11 w,f-t1 i,k

{;l~lit.>lli;7

~ le,it.,. ~ J,iq ~ tl<4 d i i ~ t ( f 11 poy~ oF t;t.i.~fh. 0v1{0*

f ~ tA.N-.Q/,(~ rlAA.A'- tk c~ U~JA \ u.2-4 ~lvi (r*1) ir-~tl'(A,1i~~T~Y P&-f~ o~ '1.u,u_'N,~~' wJ,,\ s~ruJ ~

i~ ~ +o ,ti.),{ rcrv~-\.e._Th-v

~t~ ~ M'1J'A Jj C)} \)1~

, ~. c.+Lk.vM.Ut,~

&\. ~pov(u,l W'

,j

UV*~ )1-~rJ~*/w:/ r._ +~AN?l'--A\[i }YU,, . d'\ ol*"?,lvi?d,-v-.'"'>v~ ~ \ J.f ~/1~.A..V'?llA: ~

oH ~ - - ~ ~~"P+-;l-v)j '.1? )--Y~ I ~~ J'<l 't- ~~:i4 v r *~_viM

~ Cl-41 ~ -{,-,,11 \wJfM~ ~t:°'t-a~1((1~ ,4,-0---p ~\'"l:1 ~S lA' i(;? v.1aJvJ "r-f~ ~ ~ A . : f--V\fYJ,~~Y-o7}Y} ~ ~ J C)\ t. }'1-14 c.vrv:; . ,1 hJ10 w~ \1} '\ 0 'Ip- v:, f_f-1}- /\*, a '7 ~ } y,rv;\,. ~ \~n cvr vVl-1 \'I V\ \ \ )-~

. ~~ y,tt,,1l)-yy\ '\ VW\f\--} ~'l'tJ/ 0-M\i\ ..)(?'1YrG1:v * .~ r ~ *1,{cu\A.V~

~ L~'V)."t'~1*'ir(;~ ~ ~ J'--0 )-=31 j\ .-vn- ~ ~~~ ~,q ~ J:V4YJ").,,rf-lJ -)c'.l\\j (11 l .. ~. . v:.-1v~-v'O\/v,vl{/1:l1 \!Ml -yVl,-?vVl1\,\!\ ~ ja r~ , A v~ V>tA f~\'1 *rYvWVJ \,'\SJ~1{) ~--7 r>J~ -"Y"Vl *,Vvt JV"lfVvl /\ Q.\- )J)

. ~ : W\.frJ 7~~{\. 'VWJ ~ ~ - ")7.f'Sl-T <l\- )~ 01 ~ ~~rJ*""lvt~ Vvr1 ~1'1'J ')V\J\t7 y r~~Yvv'f\ cl\.).{) o(:?~~ ~ \ ~ ~ f l --~ ~rf'T~ 4r, t er\,\ M 1~m,WV1 fvo./ljJ v .J *1 Yi "?f'.A ~ ~ vv-n-ri1 .fvYV\t't oY\-. <&~17 ~ ~ f\.4'~J!tl:4~ l'/~rro1' ~ ,, '

~ J \ -r--:rni<Ywvi ~ ~-M -~ *V\ p f vuvv ~ --t11A\;v o(11 ~ (V(f"i J\ ~1-Nl

. . \n~- t:t WJ\JL} ';I v?l\1 *1 - :v-/pfj-'7 017/t ~ ~ CVV\ PTY\fv? oWJ'tG gcniJOA.,i.-vtiJ ~'11~~~, ~yY] d"~~'f ~ ~/VJJ{\ J1'Wo]\ .~rvlf

('\>~'\,y\JJ'\Al1J ~ i~\? \t\ i 01/)Cv l ~11bJ l:f (Y--\dt *¥1 /\'),l)\

-v(O V) 11~ VO~'vi-'ZJ . cm ~ ~ , l }-*~ci"'S oYO <vi,r' J\ -k?7~ \7 f YYrJ \I)

• l~.,Nl~ /JN /Vl.} .(\A--6YV\ V\/) ~~ ~I\ ()1- ti,?~ ~ / \ ~ ~

• Cf?'711.oJ-~-~~ ~ ~\\J *,, -~1l1S* >1 g\?~(7Y?'67 \Avrp,~

1 ~(YYJ VV) ~ J~ 'l 'f.1~ *~(\;- ~ J-'jcV17\ ~ - 10 "Yy'VY11Y71C\

~ A ?1~~ ~~ ~A~ 4 j 0~ ~'?~nJ .

0

)-

4\f\ A[) ~ ~ J \ ~ 1C) cr')]VY\Sl -:i ~n ~-...Jv:ry e 1'V()- (7__,\rY\ ~-61--J Y/1) (1 \-

~ w~ ~->?AP )JV1*1_~1:-, -:ry '-.1\~;v'? v_vi *oJvrP ~}fr vrrD'~ ~ ~~ ):11j--.J~ ~ ~./1 t ii/vJ'l~ClCJ 7V( 'ir?VVJ~

• -f.~WJ';Lf\*Ylef r7~-,:;i"ll\ o"'A- ~ r_.y~flu- \.,.,°l ~~~.t }S2 ~ : 1 1 ~ 1 1 "2'\~1~~ ~ 41'?~.tv?-})r()l 'llP1 <~1'\11 iV;~ ~ wVvrb~t

~ ) \ V W ) ~ I ~r ~ 'v1\ <v'4'1 - ~ }-.9 Ih~cYv1YTV(v7 _jf? ~ 'ovW) V1J t,1J

~ ~ w ~ ..,\l?y,vr Y7)7>j7rltA Cl~[\ ~1-?1'lrl . m~.vvv17 1-17vt~.N'Vit-

\  ;\-r:vbd~_v-wiyv~ r' ~'1[\ ~ ' \ 7'f ~trJt<Y\/l~--- ~ _ £11:J~(?.~

~~J;~ ~'4--Y~ VWJ1? ,~,,ir~vv~ 1(1'~ J{.N'l7')Y0 ~~,\-4~

/ ?l;1f v') \ N l - ' 1 ~ ~\{~~~\_~,),/YYJ/'J.Q ..\C'V\ y~J ~ ~ V \ ! V ]

7 ri---f *rnH r,~w~1/lvVZT n ~ VYwt7 __g.~~4_?Y.,v,rvrvry

~ } s i r ~J ~~} r11~~ --r"A t:c} ~1*v ~1~ (\11 o 1111,

• t7 ~~ 1_,-at7 \\.\1. ~~ *.Nti~/1~<1 1~ ~ a\1 W){ll'p) Jnd

HENRY W . KENDA LL 396 MOOSE HILL STREET SHARON, MASSACHUSETTS 02067 September 14, 1989 Ms. P. Pierce-Bjorklund 15 Spring Street Essex, Mass 01929

Dear Ms. Pierce-Bjorklund:

That you for your recent letter with the enclosures and the inquiry regarding the possible damage from operation of the Seabrook Nuclear power plant.

As you are aware there are two sorts of hazards associated with the operation of nuclear plants - the first being routine releases of radioactivity which are permitted by the Nuclear Regulatory Agency und er the operating license that is granted a plant, the second being an accidental release of a scale not contemplated in the license.

I and my colleagues have, over nearly two decades given much time and study to both of these matters. Of the two we long ago concluded that the second represented far and away the most serious risk to members of the public. There is nothing that has come to my attention at any point that would lead me to change this view.

I think that the risk of serious accident in the US nuclear program is way, way too high *- a conclusion confirmed by NRC estimates. If such an event occurred at Seabrook the consequences could dwarf anything the region has ever seen in terms of damage. And by the region , I mean New England, if not the Northeast. Satisfactory evacuation would be impossible for many who would be at risk. As at Chernobyl, the radioactive contamination could reach out to great distances. While I and many others deplore the manner in which the NRC has run its, and the nation's, nuclear affairs, they have done so at least in nominal compliance with the law. I say that because, with a few, occasionally spectacular, exceptions, challenges asserting otherwise have failed. I am sorry to say that I do not know what to do about this for the NRC seems wholly resistant to beneficial change.

Henry \V. Kendall I

~-

Gto11Je,es1er ~a:i,ly Times, Th-ur.sda¥, Al:l!lJUSt 1il; 1990 A7 NRC  :.* *. *~.***_ ,n,ves1*1*g*a:t.es-1**1:c:ens1..ng p*ro*ce

• d:u.rre i

SE'AB_RCJOK, N.liI. (AP) - The, Nuclear Regu- .the b1>.ard's approval C!!f evacuation :plans for The licensing bowd's reversal paved the way ra:t0ry It1:*vesJigati0n is mvestigating its 0wn the r,eaetor. far ~tabroolfs 1ice1:rsm*g, whtch lrad been de-pro~edlil.Fe$"t<D s~ whether tb~J~@W1l that gr:ant- In his mem0, Smi'fh said it app:ears fhat 'l a~ed because 0f eonc'-ems about the viability df ed,an. Q~r~ilmg ltcelils~ t@t f!e $e~brk -i:lUGlear Williimrs beli~Yes that the. licensing beard ap- evacua..tion pla:1.:is. *

~wer plant aehav'efl '"con:uptly." lnr.oM"ed the plans cm N_ov. 9* but deci...l]l'fd not t0f Smith Wl'oje t;haj Williams see~ t.9 b.e trying The mspecl15r ,g'en_-eral 0f tlre commission, fecomtnefid am qperanng license, and 't hen re- t0 aetemune w.hetlrer "the c.Fiang_r was cot111pt-

,Wihioh gr,ant:tid the lofug;dfilay~d pfa:nt its com- versed the Uc'e nsiag decision four days later. ly ind1aced ey NRC 11>ffieeFs* and cQrruptly made m:eneial 0~r,atmg1iense <:Jn Mar.ch->'17, i.s i:nves- IN faet, the licensing was recommended N0~. by Ifieinbers of the licensing* b@ard."

1::fga.m:gg f1}e .At0n1ic S.a1:'ety and I%cens1rig. 9', but file recommendati0n wasn't matle public B'0at~'§*de-qisiolil, a.c_c0rding t0,d0<rom:ents made until Nov. 13~ S~a'brook sp0kesman Ron Shel' Smith and Williams ha:ve confirmed the in-i:iiblic* yesterday.

• said ,t 0dai. ve-stigation, but would m.ot comment on it.

Th~ bmirfl recommencted l:i:ce:nsing even M~ssaenusetts Attomey ,~neral James l,v;~1 ~vrilih, ,chairman of the .Atc,nni~ Safety thougn appe_als by antt,nuclear activists had Snann0ii, a lo~gtinle Seabro*0k f©e, also con-antl Li~ensing Boai:d, which :ve-c:ommende'd the not ~1m decid~d. The 'board said su t h a~pe-als firmed lli.e investigation, but h~ no comntent.

liclinsing t!J tke NR.C, said m :a m-emorandum dt'5 not .nr~clutle the i:mmediafe1 issuance of an Sher said plant officials ai;e familiar with

'th.at 1NRC Inspeetor Ge~ral Da::rid William&. operafirfg ltG:ens~ for Seabrook Stati0n," ac- Smith's ntemo, aml are G@nfident the lieensihg ha_s crrresm:0:nerl ll.censiNg bam,d meJfibers about col'tli:ng tv ~mith, was done cor,rectly.

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL PANEL WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555 August 2, 1990 Ms. Patricia Pierce-Bjorklund Post Office Box 908 Essex, Massachusetts 01929 Re: Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),

Dock:et Nos. 50-443-CL, 50-444-0L

Dear Ms. Pierce-Bjorklund:

The Appeal Board assigned to the above-styled proceeding has asked me to advise you that it cannot accept your July 30, 1990, submission seeking to appeal a July 9, 1990, decision of the Director of the Commission's Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (DD-90-4).

That decision was issued under the provisions of 10 C.F.R. § 2.206 in the wake of the Appeal Board's referral to the Director, through the Commission's Executive Director for Operations, of a January 11, 1990, letter that the. Board received from you. (See Appeal Board's January 23, 1990, memorandum and order.) Subsection (c) of section 2.206 states:

(c) (1) Director's decisions under this section will be filed with the Office of the Secretary. Within twenty-five (25) days after the date of the Director's decision under this section that no proceeding will be instituted or other action taken in whole or in part, the Commission may on its own motion review that decision, in whole or in part, to determine if the Director has abused his discretion. This review power does not limit in any way either the Commission's supervisory power over delegated staff actions or the Commission's power to consult with the staff on a formal or informal basis regarding institution of proceedings under this section.

(2) No petition or other request for Commission review of a Director's

2 decision under this section will be entertained by the Commission.

Because the Appeal Board possesses only such review authority as may have been delegated to it by the Commission, these provisions mean that the Board is not empowered to entertain a challenge to a Director's decision.

The photographs and other materials that accompanied your submission are being returned under separate cover.

Sincerely,

~12.J~

Barbara A. Tompkins Secretary to the Appeal Board cc: Service List