ML20090H352

Requests Public Notification of Hearings,That Hearings Be Held in State of Ma or Near Site & That C Nord Be Scheduled to Present Public Oral Comments

ML20090H352
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	10/04/1983
From:	Costello N MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	Harbour J, Hoyt H, Luebke E Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8310280088
Download: ML20090H352 (4)

Text

J s .--

e t h c G- . . . , .. .,$0&. c.5. 0. 43 T.N g ~

.......a.

CcMMcNWEALTH OF M ASS ACHUSETTS e r M ASS ACH USETTS SEN ATE Room 217. STATE House. sosToN. M A 02133 e

T '. 7= = ' *aa

'O E 13 P3 4 w CoM MITTE Es -

Huuam senveces ano a

' CFFli.E OF Hof.9"a**

SENATOR NICHOLAS J. COSTELLo 00CET F"R'5**." ',s o "

THIRD ESSEK DISTRICT { g gnE October 4, 1983

-H21cn Hoyt, Esq., Chairman Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke .

Dr. Jerry Harbour Administrative Judges Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission g s OCT M E Washington, D.C. 20555 Dacr Administrative Judges:

I am writing with regard to the recent limited appearances relating to the Seabrook nuclear station.

I am deeply disturbed by the location and scheduling of the hearings, and by the Panel's apparent lack of commitment to soliciting the fullest input from the public.

Tha majority of the hearings were held in small New Hampshire communities at some considerable distance from the Seabrook site. More important, no hearings were held in Massachusetts, in spite of the fact that the great majority of residents within the 10-mile and 25-mile radii of Seabrook live in Massachusetts, not New Hampshire.

Tha scheduling of the hearings made it difficult for local residents to make arrangements to be heard. I myself was unable to contact any representative of the Panel in the local area in order to arrange a time to appear. I subsequently contacted the NRC in Washington. Initially I was told that the final public hearing in Seabrook was being cancelled. Although this cancellation was subsequently reversed, the NRC was still unable to arrange a time for me to appear. Furthermore, it has been brought to my attention thet Mr. Chris Nord of Newburyport, a constituent of my district, was denied the opportunity-to speak, although he had been listed among those who wished to make a statement. I am enclosing a copy of Mr. Nord's letter to me.

In view of these facts, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Panel's procedures were deliberately designed to limit and undermine the public's opportunity to be heard, on an issue which directly affects public health and safety.

I am deeply concerned that the people whom I represent be given the fullest opportunity to comment before the Panel. Consequently, I request that the Panel schedule further hsarings for public input. I further request that those hearings be held in Newburyport, M ss., or another Massachusetts community within a 10-mile radius of Seabrook.

.. I further request that the public receive ample advance notification of the time and place of these hearings, and that the panel maintain a local office or telephone in advance of tha hearings so that area residents may contact the panel for information about procedures and scheduling.

Finally, I specifically request that Chris Nord of Newburyport be scheduled to offer his

~

public oral comments at a time acceptable to him.

8310280088 831004 d' W

PDR ADOCK 05000443 <

U PDR

1

,9 4

h COMMONWEALTH OF M ASS ACHUSETTS M ASS ACH USETTS SEN ATE 4 noou 217. STATE house. soSTON. M A 02133 l

. TEL. 7221604

- i Cow uirt e rst l HWM AN SERYtCES AND j ELDERLY AFFAIRS j C'""'"C""'**"*"

SEN ATOR NICHOLAS J. COSTELLO . '"

• THeno ESsEx otsTalet As=7cutru a c Halen;Hoyt, Esq., Chairman (cont.).

"In your position as members of the Licensing Board Panel, you hold enormous influence over the future safety and well-being of the residents of the district I represent. In my view, you.have a corresponding responsibility to ascure that those residents have the fullest opportunity to be heard with respect and serious attention.

I will look forward to your reply. Thank you for your consideration. 1 i

Sincerely,

/ -b 4 NICHOLAS J. C STELLO State Senator-NJC/je cc The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy The Honorable Paul E. Tsongas The Honorable Nicholas Mavroules Chris Nord l

I l

j Al .,~ # Christopher 3. Nord

., 2 Vernon Street Newburyport, M a. 01990 465-h761

"' l A J gg ,

G,[_o j hd e ( f September 12, 1963

, NA p .u. cd

)5

.I am writing to document an experience with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) that lef t me angry and supremely frustrated.

.On Wednesday, August 31, the ASLB held " Limited Appearance" hearings at the Seabrook Fire Station (Passaconaway Building), ostensibly to receive the testimony of local residents regarding the licensing of of the Seabrook nuclear power plant. In order to reserve a ten-minute period for my testimony, I was instructed to call the Nuclear Reg-ulatory Commission in Washington, D.C. (202-1 92-7000; my nickei), to 4

give my n ame to one David R. Lewis, Administrative Law Clerk. I called Mr. Lewis the Friday before the hearings (6/ 26 ) , at which time he as-

, sured me that my phone call was all that was needed, and that I was, in fact, the seventh person to sign up.

The night of the hearings, I arrived at the fire station just as the room was called to order, and took the opportunity to sign up again, on a list held by an aid to the ASLB judges who was seated at the back of the meeting hall. In the course of almost four nours of testimony, my name was never. called. At 10:45, as the presiding judge, Helen Hoyt , was about to adjourn the hearing, I raise'd my hand in des-peration, but was not recognized. When the meeting was adjourned, I made my way to the stage and asked Judge Harbour if my name was even on his list. He replied that the entire list of people who had reserved their place via Washington had been called first, after which names were called from the list gathered that night. When I asked to see the' lists, I was r.efused with polite apologies.

Something smelled (smells) fishy. I can see two prominent ex- ',

planations for what happened to me. One is that in the bureaucpatic fumbling preceeding the hearing, my name was somehow lost. Two things strike me about that theory: first, that no one else in the hearing seemed upset by their name being passed over-- in other words, why was mz name the only one lost?; second, that it strikes me as a f airly slim possibility that my name be passed over or " lost" from two lists, the D.C. list end the meeting hall list. Which leads me to tne second possibility-- which has found support in two offices of the Massachusetts state government, apparently based on other people's experiences with the ASLB and their subsequent complaints: that my name was purposesly overlooked, the ASLB preferring not to provide a high-visibility forum I

for me. I am aware that this may be quite presumptuous on my part, but I am for*ced to consider that it may not be. I am also aware that

w. -

-s_ ** ^"

~

f*

- } ., m n- r E = #7 ~-****** "

1 this' implies a lack of faith in7the ASLB 'as a truly impartial judicial

~

' -body. To this I c an only say that af ter eight years of personal study and involvment in the controversy over Seabrook's construction, there is no longer any-qusstipn_in my mind.that the Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission ind its Atomic Safety and Licensing Board act to f acilit ate

.(ie. "make casier") the licensing-of nuclear plants.

e Let me give one' example ofiwhat the ASLS might rather not have me-say'in the setting of public hearings. For more than a year, I have gathered evidence from the areas near three operating nuclear

. power _plahts in New England-- Vermo'nt Yankee, Maine Yankee, and ?ilgrim--

inaicating a rise in leukemia and other cancers parallelling the sp an of each plants ' normal operation. From this perspective, a pattern of ill effects has become clear. Perhaps more import antly, this inves-

^

tigation has brought to light the repeated intervention of a single federal agency-- namely the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, Georgia-- in countering and quieting these isolated and yet anologous local suspicions of health hazards. This is accomplished through a combination of statistic al juggling, smooth public relations, and the credibility and clout that' statements from a federal " health" agency

- automatic ally c arry in the minds of a frightened local population that has been taught to believe the " experts".

This is just one area of the row over Seabrook for which I have information I would like to share. The two other primary issues that I personally want to be able to address before the ASL3 are 1) evacu-ation planning, and- 2) the possible use of Seabrook's spent fuel for

-making nuclear weapons.

Finally, let me say what I want. The , Atomic Safety and Licensing Board should hold " Limited Appearance" hearings in Massachussetts, so that residents in the six Mass. towns within the ten-mile radius of Seabrook have ample opportunity to be heard. To this end, I c all on the. City Council and Mayor of my residence, Newburyport; my St ate Legislat or, Barbara Hildt; my State Senator, Nicholas Costello; and the offices of the Attorney General and the Governor of the Common-wealth of Massachussetts-- to work from their respective positions to ensure that myself and other knowledgeable and concerned local residents receive the hearings we are entitled to (I am aware of four

" Limited Appearance" hearings that have been held in New Hampshire to date). Furthermore, I propose that the roster for reserving time to give testimony be handled locally--ie, by the town or city where hearings are to be held-- in order to minimize the risk of bureaucratic

" error";

Thank you for hearing me out. I would appreciate being kept informed of any progress in this matter. If I c an help in any way, let me know. '

. Sincerely,~ . Se ( NA- (%- N Christopher S. Nord I" b  ?}}