ML20209F222
| ML20209F222 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 04/24/1987 |
| From: | Backus R BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3262 ALAB-853, CLI-87-02, CLI-87-2, OL, OL-1, NUDOCS 8704300234 | |
| Download: ML20209F222 (10) | |
Text
__
~
j
_j DOCKETED UiNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA jj g y yg before the 6FF;.:E :: F,.
m NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00CXETin Ji?
In The Matter of
)
Docket No. 50-433-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
)
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al
)
(Off-site Emergency
)
Planning)
(Seabrook Station, Unit 1)
)
-and-Docket No. 50-433-OL-1 (On-site Emergency Planning and Safety Issues)
BRIEF OF SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMISSION'S ORDER OF APRIL 9 (CLI-87-02)
In its Memorandum and Order of April 9, the Commission decided the Appeal of ALAB-853 which it had taken up sua sponte.
The issue decided in ALAB-853 had originally been pursued by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, joined in by the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL).
In its Memorandum and Order, the Commission did in fact reverse ALAB-853, holding as a matter of regulatory policy in the circumstances of the Seabrook proceeding, that it was necessary to have off-site emergency plans available for the entire 10 mile EPZ around the reactor. However, the Commission noted that,on the day
{
$@E!!#E8gt,
- )so3
4^ '
. before it issued its Memorandum and Order, the Seabrook Applicants had filed what purported to be a " utility" off-site emergency plan for those portions of the Seabrook plume exposure EPZ within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
The Commission noted this development, but stated that in view of the fact that this development had happened "on the eve of affirming this decision,"
it would maintain the stays ordered in its January 9 Order and afford the parties an opportunity to address the issue of mootness and whether or not the stay should be vacated by pleadings to be filed by April 28, 1987.
This brief, on behalf of SAPL, addresses that directive.
SAPL does not agree that the so-called " utility plans" furnished by the Applicants on April 8 render the matter under consideration by the Commission moot, and SAPL opposes the vacation of the stay on the basis of that submission.
Two reasons underly this position.
1)
The Acril 8 Plans Are Not A Good Faith Submission The Applicants, in their April 8 pleading to this Commission, stated:
"The Applicants are filing in the Seabrook docket a utility plan for that portion of the Seabrook EPZ which is located in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts..."
The Applicants are not being forthright.
They have nat furnished a " utility plan" for the portion of the EPZ which is located in Massachusetts.
Rather, all the Applicants have done is furnished a two year old draft of a proposed plan tendered for I
-, ultimate adoption as the official governmental plan for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
However, as all parties have acknowledged, there are today neither local plans for the six Massachusetts EPZ communities, nor any state plan regarding the Massachusetts portion of the EPZ.
Thus, it remains as true on April 8, or on April 28, as it was prior to that date, that there exists neither a " State, local or utility plan which provides reasonable assurance that public health and safety is not endangered by operation of the facility concerned," as within the language of the 1980 Authorization Act, Public Law 96-295, 94 Stat. 780 S109(b).
In order to qualify as a utility plan within the meaning of the Authorization Act, the plan should at least make a pretense of 4
providing some compensatory steps that the utility itself would take to make up for the lack of state and local governmental participation in the planning effort.
The submission of April 8 does none of this.
1 Thus, the so-called " utility plan" does not even rise to the level of a good faith attempt to meet the requirement of 10 CFR 50.33(g).
The lack of a good f aith attempt to meet the requirement of the section is further shown by the f act that these outmoded, disavowed draf t plans still refer to the use of Merrimack College in North Andover, Massachusetts as a reception center, despite the f act that the president of Merrimack College i
has emphatically informed the Applicants that in no way is his
}
facility to be considered for this use.
The attached letter from 4
i
.-n-
--,-a, n
-,,,n,-,, - -, -
,-,,,,--,.---,-.ne
--, m
,e,.-.
~n
,,-e---,
nn-,,
Father John E. Deegan, President of Merrimack College, states in i
his letter to Mr. R. J. Harrison, President of Public Service Company of' New Hampshire s the lead Applicant:
"I write this letter as a formal disclaimer.
Merrimack i
College has never agreed to be a Receiving Center in such a j
situation."
i Surely, in order to qualify, on any minimal good faith standard, as a utility plan, it would be essential that such matters as locating reception centers be addressed.
In its 1
i April 9 Memorandum and Order, this Commission stated:
"The filing of 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. Thus applicants must do at least this much before there can be any license issued."
i The Applicants have not yet done that much. For this Commission merely to look at obsolete, since disavowed, draf t plans once contemplated for use by the governmental entitites in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as a basis for " summary review" 1
as to whether or not the Commission's emergency planning regulations can eventually be met would constitute a triumph of form over substance.
The substance of this matter is that there does not yet exist in any realistic manner any state, local, or utility plan for the approximately one-third of the emergency planning zone which is in i
4 1
1 i
i i
i
1 I the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Since this Commission, in its April 9 Memorandum and Order, held that:
"In the special circumstances of this case, our judgment is that sound policy f avors requiring the filing of a State, local or utility plan before any operating license is issued, including a license j
confined to fuel loading or low power testing," it follows that such a plan not having been filed, no operating license should be issued, including the license authorizing fuel loading, or the I
license for low-power testing which was the subject of the ASLB 's Partial Initial Decision of March 25, 1987.
2)
The Acril 8 Submission Does Not Comolv With The Commission 's Reaulations The Commission's Memorandum and Order of April 9 does state that the Commission expects to ensure the filing of a " State, local or utility plan before any operating license is issued...."
4 i
SAPL would respectfully suggest that the Commission statement is in error, since under the applicable and governing regulations i
l adopted by this Commission, and as to which the Commission itself I
must be bound, 1
i
...the applicant shall submit radiological emergency response plans of State and local governmental entities in
{
the United States that are wholly or partially within the plume exposure pathway Emergency Planning Zone (EPZ), as well as the plans of State governments wholly or partially within the ingestion pathway EPZ." 10 CFR 5 50.33(g)
I i
SAPL is aware of the provisions of the 1980 NRC Authorization i
I l
t
. Act, cited above, and the various reenactments of that section through 1984.
However, the Commission is bound to comply with its regulations as they presently exist and those regulations plainly j
do not authorize the submission of a utility plan as sufficient compliance.
It may be argued that bec'ause of the NRC Authorization Act,
the regulation should be considered amended pro tanto.
- However, i
there is no indication in the Authorization Act that Congress intended to require the Commiss. ion to accept utility plans, rather f
than making it possible for the Commission to amend its regulations to consider utility plans.
The Commission has not amended its regulations to authorize consideration of utility plans, and it should not now do so in the f ace of clear and unambiguous regulatory language that now exists.
I Section 108 of the Authorization Act of 1984, Public Law 98-533, 98 Stat. 2827 states as follows:
"Of the amounts authorized to be appropriated under this this Act, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission may use such sums as may be necessary, in the absence of a state or local 4
l emergency preparedness plan which has been approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, to issue an operating 4
license (including a temporary operating license under Section 192 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended) for a nuclear power reactor,1f it determines that there exists a State, local or utility plan which provides reason-able assurance that public health and safety is not j
endangered by operation of the facility concerned."
l l
l 1
=. -
i l
T l
The language in this act is plainly permissive, and not mandatory on the Commission.
In order to exercise that permissive authority, the Commission should have amended its regulations to i
l expressly provide for the use of a utility plan.
Conclusion For the reasons stated, the Commission should conclude that the April 8 submission on the part of the App: Lcants does not consitute a good f aith effort to comply with the Commission's
{
regulations, at 10 CFR 50.33(g), and should continue the present stays in effect until there has been a good faith effort at compliance with the Commission's regulations.
Until that time, for the reasons stated by the Commission in
{
its April 9 Memorandum and Order, no license for any nuclear operation should be authorized.
Respectfully submitted,
Seacoast Anti-Pollution League i
by ts Attorney Dated: April 24,1987 B
K S, MEYER & SOLOMON j
b kel.d Mku i
RpBERT A. BACKUS 116 Lowell Street 1
Manchester, NH 03105 I
603-622-7272 t
i f
t i
k i
i I hereby certify that a copy of the within Brief of Seacoast Anti-Pollution League in Response to the Commission's Order of April 9 (CLI-87-02) was sent this date, postage prepaid, to all names on the attached service list.
1 hub)
(4, R
ert A. Backus 2
1 i
I i
l I
l t
4 i
.,-,--,n
,n-n..n.,,-
e
..--n--..
.Merrimack CO1~- L 'E' G ' E 1947-1987 mas So-3aas office of the President December 16,198G a70104 Mr. R. J. liarrison
}
President & Chief Executive Officer Public Service Company of New llampshire P.O. Dox 330 Manchester, N.H. 03105
Dear Mr. Harrison:
i It has been brought to my attention that the Public Service Company of New llampshire, in preparing evacuation plans for the Scabrook Nuc! car plant, has included the name of Morrimack College as a Receiving Center for students and other citizens affected by a nuclear disaster.
I write this ! citer as a formal disclaimer. bierrimack Col!cge has never agreed to be a Receiving Center in such a situation. Furthermore, the Governor of Massachusetts has indicated that the State will not be a party to the evacuation plans. The Governor has concluded that if a serious accident occurs at Seabrook, the resultant conditions would create a situation which emergency planning and evacuation could not possibly protect.
Since the State of Massachusetts does not intend to submit emergency plans, this institution certainly,will not be a part of anyone else's plan.
Please desist in using the name of Merrimack Co!!cge in any future pub!! cations outlining your emergency plan.
Also, p! case notify those people who have received plans that Merrimack College is not to be included in them.
I expect this to be donc immediately and, if not, we will take legal action to see that it is done.
1 I nm suie you understand that I cannot possibly be a part of a plan which i
the Governor has deemed unsatisfactory and in which this college has had
{
noinput.
Please cease and desist from any mention or use of Merrimack College' 's name in any publication or oral communication which you may have in regard to your emergency plans.
I look fogard to your prompt action in this matter.
,i Sincerely.
0 CC: Earl V. Drown. Esq.
//
8, N General Counsel.
Re v.(
In E. Dcog6n, O.S. A.
l Appropriate Offic!als Pros ont g
(
'~~""d, North Andover, Massachusetts 01845 61MS3-7111
g e-CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AMD SERVICE LIST CCUE!LT Ui4-C Joseph Flynn, Asst.Gn.Cnsl Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chrmn*
Thomas Dignan, Esq.*
Fed. Emerg. Mgmt. Agcy.
U.S. NRC Ropes & Gray
_l 500 C St. So. West Washington, D.C.
2%S5srR 27 R253tranklin St.
Washington, D.C.
20472 Boston MA 02110 i
0FFRE < Rs rt in '
l Office of Selectmen Thomas M. Roberts *
[dkh[68keting& Serv. Sec.*
Office of the Secretary Town of Hampton Falls U.S. NRC U;fhigton,D.C.
Hampton Falls, N.H.
03844 Washington, D.C.
20555 g
2055 Jane Doughty Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.*
James K. Asselstine f
rket Street Office of Exec. Legl. Dr.
U.S. NRC U.S.
NRC j
Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Portsmouth, N.H.
0380 Maynard Young, Chairman Phillip Ahrens, Esq.
Frederick M. Bernthal j
Asst. Atty. General U.S. NRC Cn a
Road j
State House Sta. #6 Washington, D.C.
20555 Augusta, ME 04333 Rye, N.H.
03870 4
1 i
eorgeDanaBisbye,Esq Carol Sneider, Esq.
Kenneth M. Carr A
rney General s Off..
Office of the Atty. Gen.
U.S. NRC State of New Hampshire One Ashburton Place 19 F1, Washington, D.C.
20555 J
Boston, MA 02108 Concord, N.H.
03301 1
Richard A. Hampe, Esq.
Paul McEachern, Esq.
William S. Lord New Hampshire Civil Def.
Matthew Brock, Esq.
Board of Selectmen Hampe & McNicholas 25 Maplewood Ave.
Town Hall - Friend St.
35 Pleasant St.
P.O. Box 360 Amesbury, MA 01913 Concord, N.H.
03301 Portsmouth, N.H.
03801 Diano Curran, Esq.
Sandra Gavutis Rep. Roberta Povear I
2 S St e t, NN
- 430 Town of Kensington Town of Hampton Falls Drinkwater Road Box 1154 Washington, D.C.
20009
)
Hampton Falls, N.H.
03844 East Kingston, N.H. 038:
.f Judith H. Mizner, Esq.
Edward Thomas Mr. Robert Harrison l
Silverglate, Gertner, FEMA Pres. & CEO Baker, Fine, Good & Mizner 442 J.W. McCormack (POCH)
PSNH j
08 Broad Street Boston, MA 02109 P.O. Box 330 Boston, MA 02110 Manchester, N.H.
0310:
i j
j i
f l
1 i
.. - ---__