ML20209F178
| ML20209F178 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 04/24/1987 |
| From: | Mizner J SILVERGLATE, GERTNER, BAKER, FINE & GOOD, WEST NEWBURY, MA |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20209F185 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3261 CLI-87-02, CLI-87-2, OL-1, NUDOCS 8704300221 | |
| Download: ML20209F178 (17) | |
Text
'.
8z6/
00LKETED 6hW8:np.I 1%In7 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIM g n P12:46 hh;b fk1 In the Matter of
)
Docket Nod.W'U '0-443-OL 5
)
50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
)
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, it; gl.,.,
)
Offsite Emergency Planning
)
and Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2
)
Onsite Emergency Planning RESPONSE OF THE TOWN OF WEST NEWBURY TO APPLICANTS' SUGGESTION OF MOOTNESS AND REQUEST __TO VACATE STAY On April 9, 1987, the NRC issued a memorandum and order l
(CLI-87-02), holding that a utility applicant must submit a radiological emergency plan (either a governmental plan or a utility plan) for the entire EPZ pricr to the issuance of a low power license.
It concluded by reiterating that a license for low power testing:
could be held up if it were established, beyond significant doubt, that there were truly insuperable obstacles to issuance of a license for operation at any subctantial power level.
We believe that sound policy requires that we retain this option at least for Seabrook.
The filing af an offsite plan makes possible at least a summary review, of the type we performed in Shoreham, to determine whether adequate emergency planning is at least in the realm of the possible.
In that memorandum it also decided to treat PSNH's motion as a request to vacate the Commission's' decision on grounds of mootness and to vacate the stay on the ground that the concerns underlying the stay have been alleviated.
The Town of West Newbury opposes vacating the decision or the stay.
It suggests that the issue is not moot and that the concerns underlying the stay bave certainly not been alleviated i
I 8704300221 870424 PDR ADOCK 05000443 G
PDR q
)
?
. by the plans submitted by PSNH -- plans that do not warrant a determination that adequate emergency planning is possible.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, after lengthy and comprehensive examination of a number of draft radiological emergency response plans by both affected towns and state officials, refused to submit them for review by FEMA, concluding that the plans were fundamentally inadequate and could in no way reasonably assure the health and safety of the citizens residing in the affected communities.
It is these same, rejected, plans which PSNH has now presented to the NRC in its efforts to obtain a low power testing license.
Unlike the Shoreham situation, the Seabrook situation does not present the ambiguity of governmental authorities divided over the viability of emergency response plans.
The governor of Massachusetts has made his position unequivocally clear.
At a hearing before the NRC on February 24, 1987, Governor Dukakis testified:
After months and months of work and effort and analysis, came to one fundamental and inescapable conclusion; the area around Seabrook could not and cannot be evacuated in the event of a serious nuclear accident.
That is the fundamental fact of the matter....(Transcript of hearing, p.24)
Each of the six Massachusetts communities within the EPZ, including the Town of West Newbury, has also made its position
?
. unequivocally clear.
Last year, each of the six communities rejected the plans recently submitted by PSNH as fundamentally inadequate and incapable of implementation so as to reasonably protect the health and safety of its citizens.
West Newbury found the plans to be patently inadequate after more than a year of good faith evaluation of various drafts culminating in the rejected draft.
See copies of affidavits of Robinson M. Shively, Thomas E. Pulkkinen, and Patricia Wells Knowles, appended hereto and marked "A",
"B" and "C".1 Moreover, on April 22,.1987, the West Newbury Board of Selectmen voted to remove the siren poles placed by.PSNH in West Newbury as part of the emergency response plan.
Those poles are scheduled to be removed on May 8, 1987.
See letter of April 23, 1987 from town counsel for West Newbury, R. Scott Hill-Whilton to counsel for PSNH, appended hereto and marked "D".
Thus, the plans submitted by PSNH can in no way be deemed plans of State and local governmental entities as defined in 10 CFR sec. 50.33 (g).
Nonetheless, PSNH has attempted to make an end run around 1 The copies of the affidavits appended to this motion are unsigned, since logistics precluded counsel from obtaining the original signed affidavits prior to this submission.
The original, signed and notarized affidavits will be submitted for substitution next week.
l l
L -
b
=
i l the licensing requirements by the simple expedient of denominating the draft governmental plans rejected over a year ago " utility plans", and submitting these renamed, but unchanged, l
plans in an effort to obtain its low power license.
They contain no compensatory measures to substitute for the participation of state and local officials.
Rather, PSNH has simply ignored the fact that the state officials and the local officials in the affected communities have said that they cannot and will not implement the deficient plans.
The complete absence of any effort to compensate for the lack of state and local participation is plain'from even a cursory review of the West Newbury plan.
From the first page of the plan, with each page labeled " Draft 3, 4/86", it is clear i
that the proposed plan depends completely on the cooperation and participation of the town (as well as the state).
The first page contains signature lines for approval by the town and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The second page is captioned
" Record of Changes" and states: "This plan is to be reviewed annually by local and state officials to ensure its adequacy and timeliness.
It is the responsibility of the town's civil defense director to update the plan as necessary." Page I-1 describes the i
_.._. _..-.-.... -,.... _ _ -. - - - -.- ~ ---_ _ ----_..._..._... _._..--
p 1
-s-i i
purpose of the plan as, inter alia, to " define duties and i
responsibilities to various local government agencies...".
The assumptions of the plan set forth at pages I I-10 include an assumption that "if municipal resources are insufficient to deal with a dangerous situation resulting from an accident at seabrook Station,,the state will provide needed assistance in a timely manner." (I-10).
Page I-14 describes plan implementation in terms of actions by designated town officials and states that
" specific procedures for town EOC officers and key department heads have been developed to define responsibilities based on those outlined in this plan.".
Pages I I-17 describe the responsibilities of the town; pages I I-19 describe the responsibilities of the state.
And the required participation of local (and state) officials continues unabated virtually throughout every page of the plan.
The total inadequacy of the so called " utility" plans is further demonstrated by the section of the plan calling for evacuees requiring temporary housing or radiological monitoring to proceed to the host community reception center at Merrimack College (p.II-F-3; see also, II-J-I).
On December 16, 1986 the president of Merrimack College sent a letter to PSNH disclaiming any agreement to participate as a reception center by Merrimack College and advising PSNH to desist from using the name of w----v
. Merrimack college in any future publications outlining emergency
~
plans.
A copy of that letter was sent to FEMA by the NRC staff on February 6, 1987.
On January 6, 1987, the president of PSNH responded to that letter, assuring Merrimack college that PSNH was not responsible for preparing and has not prepared any emergency plans that indicate that Merrimack college is to serve as a reception center.
A copy of that letter was sent to the Administrative Judges by counsel for PSNH on March 6, 1987.
copies of this correspondence are appended hereto and marked "E",
"F",
"G" and "H".
If PSNH has no plans including Merrimack college as a reception center, it is difficult to see how it can call the plans it submitted a utility plan.
- Moreover, notwithstanding the clear knowledge that Merrimack college would not act as reception site, as set out in the plan, PSNH did nothing to delete the college as a reception center or make alternative plans to substitute for the nonparticipation of the college.
In essence, even assuming, arauendo, that a utility plan may be substituted whern state and local governmental entities have declined to submit plans 2,.PSNH has made absolutely no effort to 2 The Town of West Newbury does not concede that utility plans are a proper substitute for governmental plans, or that.they can ever meet the requirements for licensing.
Rather, it maintains i
4
'I
.c-----
,------n,
. develop a substantive utility plan.
Instead, it has simply foisted on the commission pounds of meaningless paper.
Accordingly, since there are no valid plans before this Commission, the Town of West Newbury submits that the issue is not moot and that the stay should not be vacated.
1 l
Respectfully submitted, By its attorney,
./
/g?.d.?,xt _.
Judith H. Mizner SILVERGLATE, GERTNER, FINE, GOOD & MIZNER 88 Broad Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 542-6663 that plans must be submitted by the Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in order to meet the licensing requirements.
i 9
(
4 l
{
p
.g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos.
50-443-OL
)
50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
)
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, at alz
)
Offsite Emergency Planning
)
and Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2
)
Onsite Emergency Planning AFFIDAVIT OF ROBINSON M.
SHIVELY I, Robinson M. Shively, being sworn, depose and state the following:
i 1.
I am a member of the Board of Selectmen of the Town of West Newbury.
2.
I participated in the evaluation of the drafts of emergency response plans prepared in connection with the effort I
to license Seabrook Station.
The Committee evaluating the drafts, of which I was a member, met on a regular basis from March 26, 1985 to April, 1986.
None of the drafts reviewed to that time were, in my opinion, adequate to ensure the health and l
safety of the residents of West Newbury.
i 3.
I have reviewed the emergency response plan for the Town of West Newbury submitted to the NRC by PSNH and served on counsel on April 8, 1987.
4.
That plan is one of the drafts I concluded was i
inadequate in April, 1986.
5.
I cannot and will not participate in the implementation of a plan I believe to be inadequate. -
i Sworn to under the pains and penalties of perjury this t
day of April, 1987.
Robinson M.
Shively New appeared before me the above-named and made oath that the foregoing is true.
q Notary public My commission expires:
i s
6 4
i l
4 l
i l
. _.. _... - - _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _., _ _ _. ~ _ _ _ _ _ -.,
.g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos.
50-443-OL
)
50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
)
i OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, at 312
)
Offsite Emergency Planning i
)
and i
Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2
)
Onsite Emergency Planning i
AFFIDAVIT OF THOMAS E.
PULKKINEN I, Thomas E.
Pulkkinen, being sworn, depose and state the following:
1.
I am a member of the Board of Selectmen of the Town of West Newbury.
2.
I participated in the evaluation of the drafts of emergency response plans prepared in connection with the effort
)
to license Seabrook' station.
The committee evaluating the drafts, of which I was a member, met on a regular basis from March 26, 1985 to April, 1986.
None of the drafts reviewed to that time were, in my opinion, adequate to ensure the health and safety of the residents of West Newbury.
f 3.
I have reviewed the emergency response plan for the Town of West Newbury submitted to the NRC by PSNH and served on counsel on April 8, 1987.
4.
That plan is one of the drafts I concluded was I
inadequate in April, 1986.
5.
I cannot and will not participate in the implementation of a plan I believe to be inadequate..
1 Sworn to under the pains and penalties of perjury this day of Apri'1, 1987.
4 Thomas E. Pulkkinen New appeared before me the above-named and made cath that the foregoing is true.
I i
i
\\
i Notary public My commission expires:
i 1
.I i
d t
e l
I i
\\
.C~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos.
50-443-OL j
)
50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
)
OF NEW KAMPSHIRI, at Als
)
Offsite Emergency Planning
)
and l
Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2
)
Onsite Emergency Planning AFFIDAVIT OF PATRICIA WELLS KNOWLES I, Patricia Wells Knowles, being sworn, depose and state the i
i following:
1.
I am a member of the Board of Selectmen of the Town of West Newbury.
2.
I participated in the evaluation of the drafts of emergency response plans prepared in connection with the effort to license Seabrook Station.
The Committee evaluating the drafts, of which I was a member, met on a regular basis from March 26, 1985 to April, 1986.
None of the drafts reviewed to i
that time were, in my opinion, adequate to ensure the health and safety of the residents of West Newbury.
l 3.
I have reviewed the emergency response plan for the Town I
of West Newbury submitted to the NRC by PSNH and served on counsel on April 8, 1987.
4.
That plan is one of the drafts I concluded was inadequate in April, 1986.
5.
I cannot and will nct participate in the implementation of a plan I believe to be inadequate.
- j j
- -, - - - - -, -. - ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - -,, - - - - - -, - - - - - - - - -,,
-v-
~ __
=
I Sworn to under the pains and penalties of perjury this day of April, 1987.
2 Patricia Wells Knowles Now appeared before me the above-named and made oath that the foregoing is true.
I i
i Notary public My commission expires:
i l
O i
i i
i i
}
i l
i i
l I
l 1
i l
1
~O' LAGOULIS, CLARK, HILL-WHILTON & MCGUIRE ATTORNEYS AT!.AW 79 STATE STREET
- NEWBURYPORT, M ASS ACHUSETTS 01950. (617) 462 9393 LAOCUUS & CLAAx. P.C.
JAMES LAGOUUS caoncE w. CLAnx Jn.
R. SCOTT HILL.WHILToN MAunicE c. Mcculat April 23, 1987 Robert J. Stillman, Esq.
Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin St.
Boston, MA 02110
Dear Mr. Stillman:
The West Newbury Board of Selectmen voted last night to remove the five siren poles placed by your client, Public Service Company of New Hampshire, in the town of West Newbury.
The poles will be removed on Friday, May 8,1987 unless earlier removed by your client.
Your client is invited to observe the removals or to provide whatever assistance or advice your client may deem advisable to insure that the removals are properly conducted.
Your client may take possession of the poles and siren apparatus immediately after their removal.
If your client declines to take possession, you will be advised as to where the materials will be stored.
This notice is being sent to your firm in accordance with your previous request that all notices regarding the siren poles be so directed.
Very truly yours, R. Scott Hill-Whilton RSHW/fb cc West Newbury Board of Selectmen
/ Judith H. M12ner, Esq.
e i
c
'L' g
L
- i. Merrimack
( O'LL'E'C E 1947-1987
[d$9,8 Office of the Pnsiden December 16,198G 870104 Mr. R. J. !!arrison President & Chief Executivo Officer Public Service Company pf New Ilampshiro P.O. Box 330 l
Ainnchester, N.H. 03105
Dear hir. Harrison:
It has been brought to my attention that the Public Service Company of New !!ampahiro. in preparing ovacuation plans for the Seabrook Nuclear for students and other citizenn affected by a nuclear dianato I write this letter as a formal disclaimer. ' Morrimack College has never agreed to be a Recalving Contar in auch a situation.
to the evacuation plana.' The Covernor has concluded Furthermore, the
(
accident occurs at Soabrook, the resultant conditions would creato a situatio whIch emergency planning hnd evacuation could not possibly protect.
this institution certainly,will'not be a part of anyone else Sinen outlining your emergency plan. ' Also, ploaso notify th received plans that Morrimack Collego la not to be ir:!uded in them.
cxpect this to be dono immediately and, if 1:ot, wo will take logn! actfon I
to ace that it is dono.
the Covernor han doomed unsatisfactory and in which t no input.
Please coano and desist from any mention or use of Morrimack have in regard to your omorgency plans.' College's namo in any pub I look foyward to yo'ur prompt action in this matter.
Sincarely, CC: Earl V. Drown Eaq.
l Concral Counco!,
in(.Doug
/
4 N' E "-
' Appropriato Ofacjala,,
,O.S.A.
P.: t -
ont g
(
==lo noe,u anac. u.m.m....u-
p
,f*
l Ll!
]
's i
] meme sac s.r*. et s.w sempse.
January 6, 1987 New Hampshire Yankee Diviaicn Rev. John E. Deegan, O.S.A.
President Harrimack College N:rth Andover, Massachusetts 01845 D xt Rev. Deegant l
1 recently received your letter of December 16, 1986 to Mr. Robert J.
Harrison of Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSNH).
I will address the concerns raised in your letter.
First, let me assure you that PSNH is not responsible for preparing and has n2t prepared any emergency plans that Indicate that Herrimack Cottage is to serve as a reception center for students and other citizens. To the best of my knowledge, the esty document that refers to Herrimack College is a draft telephone book advertise-
' pct included in the June 1986 State of New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency submittal
,2f its plans.
That advertisement was prepared based on the then current State of Massachusetts Civil Defense plans.
I know of no other State of New Hampshire docu-ments that have either been prepared or transmitted that refer to Herrimack College.
l I h:ve referred your letter to Mr. Richard strose, Director of the New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency along with a request that he address your concerns.
Your letter refers to a lack of input by Herrimack College into the development of emergency plans.
I have been told that the State of Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency (HCDA) plans for a response to a Seabrook Station emergency have included Harrimack College as a reception center since Hay 1984. Later plans prepared by NCDA also included Herrimack College.
I understand that meetings were held during January and February of 1986 between HCDA planners and Herrimack College officials to develop and review the College's role in the Andover host plan.
I would suggest that, if you have any questions or concerns regarding the State of Hassachusetta plans, you write to Mr. Robert Boulay, Director of Hassachusetts Civil Defense Agency.
Very truly yours.
Edward A. Brown President
,.!AS bes l
cc R. J. Harr(son bec C. S. Thomas R. H. Strose T. t..
It.t rp s t o r l
R. Boulay R. T. Wtnn A. ft. C.i!fi%fr.Ila
- -