ML20215K853
| ML20215K853 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Shoreham |
| Issue date: | 02/24/1987 |
| From: | Singer I AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | Margulies M Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20213F109 | List:
|
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8706250468 | |
| Download: ML20215K853 (1) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_,
/ 2,, . l
...H.t \
aaeob ( : n'-.,efs
-'S' UNITED STATES l
.'" [
j* NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL 30LMET[0 W ASHIN GTON, O.c. 20555 U99C
$, o[
'87 MAR -6 P4 :35 1 March 6, 1987 1 0Fric 05 i. ' anr ,
SOCKE.r!N:,r, u n:ct BR/,NC H - 4-)
'li SERVED'o,Pt)o1987 MEMORANDUM FOR: Docketing and Service Branch ,
FROM: Kathaleen Kerr f Secretary to Judge Morton B. Margulies
.I l
SUBJECT:
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY -l (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) l l Docket No. 50-322-0L-3 Please serve the attached letter dated February 24, 1987 from Ira , J. Singer to Morton B. Margulies to the parties in the Shoreham OL-3 proceeding. l
/
Attachment As Stated 1
.i .
l l 4 a
,a
}
[. Lt ' :
}
, dj ;
hj 't 8706250468 870622 PDR COMNS NRCC CORRESPONDENCE PDR 3i L_
? ' -
/3
/* o UNITED STATES '
f g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION {gi/ED MAR 0 5.1987
; WASHINoToN,0.C. 20565 y ,
Y k+,...,/ March 5, 1987 omcE os Tae
'87 '1AR -5 Pl2 :27 SECRETARY
.].i MEMORANDUM FOR: Boards and Parties w
"CE k
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ~ET ~~AL. s ', (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) .j
. Docket Nos. 50-443/444-OL 3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) .
Docket Nos. 50-322-0L-3 and OL-5
SUBJECT:
COMMElfTS ON PROPOSED RULE ON " LICENSING 0F NUCLEAR i POWER PLANTS WHERE STATE AND/0R LOCAL GOVERNMENT 1 l DECLINE TO COOPERATE IN OFFSITE EMERGENCY PLANNING" WHICH REFERENCE THE SEABROOK AND SHOREHAM PLANTS ,,4
{;
On February 24, 1987, the Comission met to consider possible .
/o .l publication og the above reference draft proposed rule concerning state participation in emergency planning. Congressional and State .
representatives and parties to the Seabrook and Shoreham proceedings l submitted coments to the Comission, some of which included statements 1 with respect to the licensing of Seabrook and Shoreham. The statements of Congressional and State representatives and parties submitted to date which reference these plants are attached. ' Copies of these as well as coments from the public on the proposed rule that also refer to Seabrook or Shoreham have been placed in the Public Document Room and .. are available for inspection. .(1 , Additional coments on this draft proposed rule that are received prior to the formal publication of a proposed rule in the Federal Register
- will be treated in the manner specified above. Formal publication in l, the Federal Register is scheduled for March 6,1987. . , j<
/, x /-
Emile L. Julian, Acting Chief -i Docketing and Service Branen j Attachments: As stated i
.l a
~#
i
- . , . . s.
/,
g f
- 7 I
OL ! 'q , e q $9% /t ll ..a r c.- -
,c _
m~- . .. . . . ~. ., .
;. . . , - . ::i: ';\_,. ;
/
. M C Cf M A R & ois P A*PRQPR '
(FEB 2 3 iS89 1 SHOREHAM - WADING RIVER CENTRA 1 S L T)lSTRICT-Shoreham, New York th7/dd,715
- dito 92v e Richard R. Doremus Ed. D. Jo@ T. Havnard superintemieno nj sclu.<as Martin Brooks, Ed. D.
y p3G$ ovecour uj sianal sen su.s John 1.utz . -
; Autant Sutwentenetent jnr instruction Superybor of thuldmus and Genumh
- Robert J. Sokel
. owreror uf numeu Ajyain
.gL . , i . j.[ ,
a , m . , q.j
. i February 19, 1987 l
' I Londo W. Zech, Jr., Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission s o Washington,' D. C. 20555 .
Dear Mr. Zech:
Cn February 23, 1987, UhetN.R.C. is~ scheduled to hear . , l j testimony from GovernotaMario Cuomo of New York on proposed , 4 4 rule changes by the N.R.C. affecting the Shoreham Nuclear .; Power Station.(S.N.P.S.). Nhile the Governor officially / , 'l speaks for the stcto of NW York, he does not speak for all ,, ;
. residents or all governmental bodies. Our Board of l Education, which represents the Shoreham-Wading River School ~.'". l ; District, in which the SNPS is locaced, has adopted the i
following resolution: , ,
.. u.
"If the Federal covernment through the IMclear : t '
i Regulatory Con;sission decides to licensc~the (Shoreham) . power station to operate, ' the . schnol. board will support the decision...." M f We suggest the position of the Board be viewel in the'
- context of a statement from a position paper ty Governor -
, Cuomo on the Shoreham Nuclear Power' Station made"in 1983.
Governor Cuomo's abatement is: "The Federal Govsrnment~has exclusive jurisdiction over the question whether sthe, i
~
Shoreham Nuclear Power Station is safe and'can therefore be licensed to operate." y s ,p - The Governor's statement was.not inconsistent'with~other
'l' statements he made during 1983 and 1684 when he-asked the President to make available federal marshalls for'possible.
evacuation t.nd when the Governor stated that, "of course the 4 state would intervene to protect tne public if a nuclear. j i accident were to occur." More.recently, the Governor has Lj ' ca?. led the' SNPS, " unsafe" and has indicated that. Long' Island cannot be evacuated. Whether or not the SNPS is safe or-not' .' is a matter for N.R.C.-determination but our experience-indicates that the area around the plant'can certainly-be i j1 s u. . D s. 81% *e. %. p . l ti t q W{.
,l x, . - -
+n
+N '-
A-3 m:
....,-..g.. . . ,.... . .~ p .
.7
~._=. = .. . . .
.73
~
One of our local papers, which strongly opposes t evacuated. l the opening of the plant, recently criticized Mr. cuomo, !
"The Governor is not from Suffolk county. He doesn't know what is going on here." . ,j I. - There.is on file in the' office of the Atomic Safety and ,
Licensing Board a letter dated' December 6, 1983, submitted ; j i by us, the Shoreham-Wading River Central School District, ,
~and addressed to Lawrence Brenner, then Administrative Judge i
which states that our dirtrict had participated in '# preliminary planning for un emergency plan and was prepared to go e. head and continue such planning when the opportunity presented itself. The preliminary planning was at.first 5 s done in close communication with consultants to suffolk county but when Suffolk County. withdrew from the task of ' 1
; emergency planning.the opportunity to coordinate our efforts in an overall plan for the power station did not arise again j until the decision was reached to conduct a drill of the plan. proposed by Lilco. ,
1 i
+
The Shoreham-Wading River School District'did participate in
~
, .I'
.! the drill' conducted on February. 13, 1986 after a series of .
1
! meetings witd1 representatives from Lilco during which ,,
I coordination between'our plan and the Lilco plan.was j successfully achieved.- The Lilco representatives were j attentive to our concerns and cooperative in addressing' l I them. Since the schoo1' district's participation in'the I
; drill involved sending buses over some of the routes that .
would be used in the event of an emergency,.the' district had f
! prepared maps of each- bus route, carefully indicating- 1 streets and directions which were distributed to the bus '
l company and the drivers. ,l 1 J r The communication during the drill'was' excellent and the buses were summoned and followed the appropriate routes- ,
- c. without difficulty. From the school-' district's point-of-view j b our part in the drill was suecassful and went off without a- j hitch. At this time we wish to state that we believe we can l' safely evacuate the. pupils in our care'and that an u l evacuation presents no logistical problems that cannot be overcome with rational planning. Our belief is reinforced . 1 by the knowledge that we have enough vehicles and, [
according to in-district surveys,.enough bus drivers.and staff members willing to be trained as bus drivers to transport all our pupils simultaneously.should an emergency. occur. -Our Superintendent of Schools, Richard R. Doramus, . has testified before the Federal Emergency. Management Agency
'that we'are'able to evacuate and are ready to continue to participate in emergency planning; .
~ ~ - -
;)
I 4' ' ,
~j
i_ . . i... G 1.Z Z Z.,i i ,
. i .
., g _1 , , ,
gg -
. . .- j t
~
)
i
. 1 4
1 The objections to an emergency plan are simply being used by l those who oppose nuclear power as a means to blocking the 4 opening of the power station, and, unfortunately, by those ' who have seized on the issue of an emergency plan in seeking public office. Those who refuse-to participate in emergency , f planning and oppose the licensing of the Shoreham Nuclear- .J Power Station have rallied around the' slogan "It is 3 impossible to evacuate Long Island." Much of Long Island, i of course, both east and west of Shoreham is more distant from that power station than New York City and a substantial n]
- part of the Greater New York metropolitan area are from two <
nuclear power stations at Indian Point. One wonders, then, if the slogan is taken literally why a similar slogan has ]
*not been rai* sed about New York City unless, perhaps, state q - officials have developed an emergency plan which they ,, l believe can efficiently evacuate the millions of people in the city. officials have also prophesized the dire !
consequences to the farmlands of eastern Long Island should '; an accident happen at Shoreham and ye~t much of the farmland 4 of eastern Long Island lies closer to three nuclear power ' stations at Millstone, Connecticut than it does to Shoreham. , e l The peculiar geography of Long Island is cited by opponents , of emergency planning as an argument that evacuation is impossible. This peculiar geography includes a northern half of the ten mile circle around the power station that is , all water and, therefore, only the southern half need be evacuated if evacuation were ever to be necessary., The . eastern two-thirds of that southern half are very sparsely settled. It is only the western third of that half circle i that has any population density. In addition, there is a 1
! four-lane divided highway, the William Floyd Parkway,.and j also two-lane roads such as Randall Road and Wading .,
'l River-Manorville Road that run directly south.from the power. 'l station. Approximately eight miles from the power station l
; the William Floyd Parkway crosses the Long Island .
l Expressway, a'six lane divided highway which also runs east i and west. Two miles south of the Long Island Expressway is ; l
.the Sunrise Highway (Route 27), a four lane divided highway -
which also runs east and west. An evacuation could be carried out along these roads, parkway and highways, . particularly if all lanes are designated as one-way away , 3 from the pcwer station. In any case, it is our opinion that the Shoreham-Wading River School District could evacuate in the event of an emergency which required such action to be taken. , should the power station be licensed to operate, the school , district is ready to cooperate and coordinate with any governmental body or other organization which is assigned 3 g- i -; 9 ', '{
> Sid
-j
23.i overall responsibility for emergency planning around the We wonder what becomes of Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. our nation's energy policy if each state or locality will decide whether or not it will permit a nuclear facility to ' open? .:. o Sincerely, :i i j a J,h ' M Albert G. Prodell, President < Board of Education -I Shoreham-Wading Riier Central School District B i
.N :
a# i
.,{
q l
. ij e l q !
9 i 3 s 1
]
,- r>
.1
'% 4 er e- 'o
,, .y ..
4 7
- 7
~ ~ . . . . * -
. . - . . .. ........:....~ - - .
. - . . . , . . . . - . . . , .,A
- a. i
~
R4F6=='ap e % :
- 1p S A 'L [\ L a w Seacoast Anti-Pollution Leaaue -
00tKETE0 5 Market St., Portsmouth, N.'H. 03801 uwe (603; 431-5089
'87 FEB 24 P2 :35 ,.
. . :'i PRELIMINARY STATEMENT OF THE SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION . LEAGUE 1, '
ON THE NRC PROPOSAL TO AMEND ITS RULES TO AL . tFULL. POWER OPERATION OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS ABSENT STATE ND: LOCAL ~l
. GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION IN EMERGENCY PLANNING (SECY-87-35) ,
Throughout its history, both in its former incarnation as the .) , Atomic Energy Commission and in its present form as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, this Commission has asserted that public
~
health and safety are its primary, final and enduring considerations. The Commission has on various occasions and consistently in the past disclaimed any interest in or consideration of the weight of economic [l ! \ investment borne by potential licensees. Further, the Commission, l l in promulgating the final rule on emergency planning in August 1980, did contemplate the eventuality that lack cf participation by State and local governments could impede operation of some reactors.
! Today, the Commission is seeking to backpedal on its commitment l
. i' l to public safety, inject utility economic considerations into-
! licensing determinations, and pretand that it never envisioned that j State and local governments would not go along with the planning
],
procese; if they determined that adequate plan development was infeasible. In short, the Commission is seeking to stand history on , 1 its head to accomodate the needs of uti% ties that have run up against ' a reality that to them is most unpleasant, i.e._the fact that there 3 1 ,, are certain locations in this country where plans simply cannot be developed that provide " reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological j emergency" as required at 10 CFR 50.47(a)(1). g
. . , . . . o,,
)' A
,:A Founded 1969 ,
- N-
, a. . . ~ . . , . J l-- - -.-.E : A.A : -. E .....--. ; - -
'?
a I
, ,, .. l
. l
. 1 1
A) THE COMMISSION IS RET _,R_ EATING FROM ITS PUBLIC SAFETY _ RESPONSIBILITIES I j The Commission, in considering this proposed rule, acknowledges ! 1 1~
. that the adequacy of plans is improved if there is the cooperation of j d state and local governments: .$,
^
- L , The governments or others may dispute whether planning is l adequate, but it would seem fairly indisputable that the d adequacy of a plan with cooperation will be enhanced 1 relative to a utility sponsored plan without it.
(SECY-87-35, Attachment A at 11) j Adoption of the proposed rule could, in a few ' cases where '1 State or local governments do not cooperate in emergency . - J
, planning, result in nuclear plant operation with less than '
optimum governmental coordination in emergency planning. .; In this circumstance, the public in the vicinity of the few 1. r affected plants would be placed ,a_t,somewhat greater risk m 1 relative to what would be the case if either the govern- , ments cooperated or the NRC adhered to its current - li .l,. emergency planning rules.
; Emphasis Added >
( (SECY-87-35, Attachment C at 1) In short, it is incontestable that adoption of the proposed rule would lead to a reduction in the margin of public safety and the '
,- '(
1 NRC Staff has conceded this point. ' The purpose of emergency planning is to provide a means of-
, l achieving dose savings for the population in the event of a 7, l
radiological emergency. )
, The discussion'of the proposed. rule. states, i 3 ,
that that proposed approach " focuses on what is prudent and achievable i i dose reduction taking into account ~ 1ack of governmental cooperati~on." t , The Seacoast Anti-Pollution League believes that the use of the word ' 4
" prudent" in this context is ridiculous in the extreme. There is {'
nothing at all prudent about adopting a set of rules, particularly j'1 I; < in light of the lessons that can b,e learned from the r'esponse to' the accident at Chernobyl, which provide an avenue for circumventing State 1 and local governmental assessments as to se feasibility of plan implementation ~. w
.f' j
t s
- .J.lah )
In the first Supreme Court case arising out of a contested J.?j j j m - 4 f x
-U
. E .-_.__.._;._..I _ . . . u_ . r _. . ._ , _ ;_. _
, _ . , . y.g.gi j
;- J licensing proceeding, Power Reactor Development Co.-v. International Union of Electrical ~. ' Radio & Machine Workers, 367 U.S. 396 (1961),
the Atomic Energy Commission assured the Court that "public safety is the first, last, and a permanent consideration in any decision on [ the issuance of a construction permit or a license to operate a
nuclear facility." If such were indeed still the case, the NRC would not now be entertaining a rulemaking proposal that represents an -
admitted reduction in the level of public protection, SECY-87-35 states that: "The rule change would have a minimal impact on safety."
. a This statement is simply grabuitous and unsubstantiated. As'a sop -
j to try to appear to retain a concern about public safety, the ; Commission tosses out the statement that: ..y ! i Moreover, the Commission emphasizes.that it would not be '
.j possible under this option to license-a plant for full , 1 power operation unless the applicant demonstrates that ]
adequate offsite emergency planning is achievable and all '
, other aspects of foregoing criteria are satisfied.. This i rulemaking is, intended only to address non-cooperation by responsible State or local governments: it does not provide -
a remedy or excuse for other offsite emergency p1 M ng problems. (SECY-87-35,' Attachment A at 5-6) , h d Any party that has ever intervened in an-NRC licensing ~ proceeding 1
> 1 knows how hollow this assurance is.
In the Seabrook licensing proceeding, many meritorious. contentions detailing' serious planning deficiencies have been rejected by the Board. (See, for example, the contention appended as Attachment I.) ,
, a B) THE COMMISSION IS IMPROPERLY REVERSING ITS PAST POSITION THAT ECONOMIC INVESTMENT BY UTILITIES HAS NO BEARING ON LICENSING l In 1979, in the wake of the Three Mile. Isl$nd: nuclear accident, the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League petitioned the NRC, pursuant' to j 10 CFR 2.206, for a hearing ~ on suspension or revocat' ion of the
, ~. ~
- ) ,
q/-
.t 5
_ . _ _ 7. _ . . ~ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ _ . _ _ . w ..
.' , . _g.
construction permits for Seabrook in light of that fact that the Commission was promulgating emergency planning requirements. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed a memorandum in support of SAPL's request. SAPL believed then, as it believes today, that it is impossible to develop a feasible evacuation plan for the area . around Seabrook because of dense population and an inadequate , roadway network. l On July 15,1981,' Harold Denton, then the NRC's Director of ,- l the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, denied the requeit for a hearing, stating l
. 1 As a basis for instituting a show cause proceeding, the 1 Commonwealth of Massachusetts suggests that permitting : x continued construction may result in "perhaps billions" ,
of dollars of wasted investment if the Commission ultimately rejects the Seabrook operating license, on the basis of inability to adequately cope with emergetSies. - l That risk of lost investment is the risk that ever; holder ) of a construction permit carries. See Power Reactt l Develorment Co. v International Union of Electrical, Radio
& Machine Workers, 367 U.S. 396 (1961). The permittee's ,
investment in constructing the facility is not, however, I a proper factor for consideration in determining at the l operating license stage whether a nuclear power plant l's l safe to operate. Ij! at 415 ! (Director's Decision Under 10 CFR 2.206, July 15,1981 at 11) SAPL challenged the denial of a hearing in the U.S. Court of Appeals. i Though the Court upheld the NRC's decision, the Court noted: t The Commission thus argues that because the EPZ evacuation issue will be addressed in the operating license review, it was not arbitrary or capricious to refuse to address it sooner. . The Commission further denies that PSC's financial investment in the plant will influence its consideration of whether to grant'the operating license. (Seacoast Anti-Pollution League v. ; Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 690 F. 2d 1025 (D.C. Cir.1982) Today, the Commission has reversed its position. The proposed rule states: Significant policy questions of equity and fairness are w presented where a utility has substantially campi.eted. ' ' construction and committed substantial resources to a c]4 nuclear plant and then, after it is far too late 3 f e
. i. ., __ __ _ _ . . . _ . _ . . _ . . . . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _
_Z] _))] realistically for the utility to reverse course, the State or local government opposes the plant by non-cooperation in . . offsite emergency planning. . i (SECY-87-35, Attachment A at 4) ! It is only "far too late" for the utility to reverse course because
,i the utility and the NRC refused to deal with the infeasibility of [j l evacuation at Seabrook back in 1979 when SAPL requested that the matter be addressed. -
It is intervenors who have not been ac' corded j;
" equity and fairness". ;
9,
, l i
l C) THE COMMISSION. IN ADOPTING ITS CURRENT EMERGENCY PLANNING REGULATIONS, DID CONTEMPLATE THE EVENTUALITY THAT STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS MIGHT NOT PARTICIPATE IN EMERGENCY PLANNING -
- The Commission's present claim that it always expected that State i and local governments would participate in the development or ')j i .
implementation of offsite emergency plans is plainly erroneous. - In the discussion of the rationale for the adoption of the l I final emergency planning rule, the Commission stated: l 1 The Commission recognizes there la a possibility that th' ! operation of some reactors may be affected by. this ru'.a through inaction of State and local governments or an inability to comply with these rules. (45 Leg. Reg. 55402 at $5404, August 19, 1980) The Commission did state that it ' expected State and local officials .
, 1 would " endeavor to provide fully for public protection." Id. at 55404.
SAPL believes that this is what responsible government officials have - done in refusing to submit inadequate emergency plans for the areas t surrounding Seabrook and Shoreham. 1 D )- CONCLUSION , The NRC, in proposing this rule change in, response to utility ' claims that politically ambitions public officials _are taking advantage of a " flaw" in the licensing process in biceking'rfucIbar plant operation,- h 7: has put forth a false characterization of the past regulatory history # e
- .........-.-...-.-..=.~...4.
and intent of emergency planning regulations. Further, the Commission haa executed an abrupt about face on the issue of consideration of l 1 utility investments in licensing decisions. Most importantly, the Commission has. retreated from that which is supposed to be 7 i its highest commitment, the public health and safety. $ i, . a
.; l Respectfully submitted, ' :j Jane Doughty , j Seacoast Anti-Pollution i
- League
- i
; February 24, 1987
*
- e I
i 1 h I 4
-l ri T
b i W t 4 1 (- 1 . j = + - - -
~., ,.yr
- i t'
,,)
P 0 4 t 4
g.._ , . ~ . _ _ _. _ .. _ _ . . . ... .. _ . . - - . _ . . . - .. _ ..-._.._
._ g ; .aj?
ATTACHMENT I - p. 1 2 , Contentlon'4:
- The New Hampshire, State, local and host community plans fall to meet in adequate
~ fashion the requirements that provisions be made for medical treatment of contaminated 1 i injured individual. as set forth at 10 C.F.R. 650.47 (b)(12) and NUitEG-0054 !!.L.1. and
.. l
/l L. 3. ,
1 Basis: Section 2.8 of the New Hampshire State plan describes the medical and pub!!c - {
' \
i he'alth support available to cope with a radlological emergency. Table 2.8-1 lists the ,
<+
local medical faellities capable of treating , radiation accident patients. The total ll* capacity of all these facilities, 'even assuming their maximum capacity, is inadequate , l for the task of treating those numbers of Individuals who are likely to be both
', contaminated and injured in a serlous nuclear accident at Seabrook, much less those in addition who are exposed to excessive amounts of radiation. Assuming maximum capacity, j
- 1
- the hospitals !!sted can treat a total of 51 Type 2 patients (Type 2 patlants being ll
- i def!ned in the- Table as those requiring . medical care as well as radiologically , J f
contaminated) and a total of 76 Type 1 patients (defined as those who have experienced J excessive exposure to radiation). Only two of the hospitals listed can treat the numbers ' . of patients specified for Type 2 treatment in addition to the numbers requiring Type j
; 1 treatment. This means that the absolute maximum number of patients who could be '
I. treated at any one time is 91 patients. Table 1, located in each of the 17.New Hampshire local plans, provides 1985 peak population figures for each of the New Hampshire municipalltles within the plume exposure EPZ. The combined total 1985 peak population of the 17 New Hampshire towns Is 191,849. Even if dealing only with the Type 2 patients, lit is unreasonable to assume that only 51 persons out of 191,849 would be both injured and contaminated in a serious nuclear accident involving an evacuation of the plume exposure EPZ . Si is only .02f% of 191,849. Realistically, in a serious accident scenario, th' ousands of people could require specialized medical care. l t .! l s
- 1. SAPL holds the position that " contaminated injured Individuals".e4,10 C.F.R.150.47 (b)(12) should properly be construed to include those exposed to excessive levels of-J],
T ; radiation as well, the so-called Type i patients. Excessive radiation exposure injures j-l living tissue.
-{ ;
. tl
-----------.-..---.~-~..'
, , - - - - - - - --- 1 t-
* \
t,
, , l.s * -.
ATTACHMENT I - p. 2 I q Furthermore, the capacitics listed for Exeter llospital and Pease Air Force Base ( hospitals should not be assumed since Exeter llospital lies within the plume exposure l l EPZ and might need to be evacuated. Pease is just a short distance beyond the EPZ lj ] boundary and might conceivably also be evacuated. If evacuated, neither facility would l, be available for the provision of medical treatment, thereby reducing the capacity for
,) 4 treatment of Type 2 patients to 47. Five of the hospitals listed, Mary Hitchcock x.
Memorial Hospital, Cheshire Medical Center, Cottage llospital, Newport Hospital and ' 'I Sceva Speare Memorial Hospital are more than 50' miles from Seabrobk Station and would
, require significant travel time before arrival. If contaminated Individuals were severely injured, they might not be able to survive the duration of the trip. Travel time would
, be lengthened by the congestion of the roadways in the EPZ in an evacuation scenarlo. '
- 1 4
g l l l a to e 9 5 h
, g
}
~
-.m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _____
?. ~ . -. - . - ~ . . - . . . .. - - . . . . . .. . . . - . .
;... . . :.Q l _
'~d b JOCKET NUM8EI
) p
, 2AOPG3E0 gig j, (FEB 2 31987) 0XKETED iMtl.:C 1'
STATEMENT OF COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS' '87 FEB 24 P2 35 i 1,TTORNEY GENERAL JAMES M. SHANNON ON NRC STAFF'S .. i . DRAFT PROPOSED EMERGENCY PLANNING RULE CHANGE ' 5 CFFn
- 00C: 3 e
.. q ; .'
1' Attorney General James M. Shannon regrets that the .; 1 4 ! Commission has denied him the' opportunity to address the l Commissior. personally at the Staff briefing on the proposed emergency planning rule to be held on February 23, 1987. . Because the Massachusetts Attorney General's office has for , thirteen years represented the Commonwealth in the Seabrook , 1 construction permit and operating license proceedings, the Attorney General is in a unique position to comment on this , ( draft rule that is directly aimed at assuring the licensure of the Seabrook plant. On February 18, 1987, the commission denied the Attorney General's request to appear before the l I Commission. Attorney General Shannon is therefore submitting i this written statement urging the commission to reject the Staff's draft rule change that is based on considerations of
" equity" that simply do not apply for the Seabrook plant-(one i
of only two plants -- Shoreham and Seabrook -- directly affected by the proposal), and that will, if adopted, most certainly renuit in an unacceptable lowering of safety. For thirteen years, since the outset.of the Seabrook i licensing proceedings, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has- I argued that the Seabrook plant is sited too 'close to a massive, transient summer beach population for which adequate emergency ..
.]
1 8
*w. m, * '-
.))
3y e I l l
, .. . . - - .- --a planning is not feasible. Even before the accident at Three Mile Island and the current emergency planning requirements, l
, the Commonwealth, along with the other intervenors in the ., l
l proceeding, maintained that the utility should be required to demonstrate the feasibility of evacuating the summer beach a population'near Seabrook. See Public Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2). LBP-76-26, 3 NRC 857, 922-26 (1976); ALAB-390, 5 NRC 733 (1977). After the
- accident at Three Mile Island, the Commonwealth joined the l Seacoast Anti-Pollution League in its Peti' tion to Show Cause .
-]
why the Seabrook construction permit should not be suspended or ?
, revoked unless it could be demonstrated that emergency planning 1 was feasible for the Seabrook Station ten-mile emergency planning zone..
- The Commonwealth argued in 1979, and again in 1981, that l
adequate planning was not feasible. Moreover, the Commonwealth pressed for a determination of the emergency planning issues l
.before allowing the utility to proceed with construction so as j to avoid the risk that billions of dollars would be wasted should the plant be denied an operating license due to its inability to comply with the elaergency planning regulations.
The Commonwealth further argued that this emergency planning issue could not be decided fairly by the NRC if it waited until the operating license stage. See " Commonwealth of Massachusetts Memorandum in Support of Seacoast Anti-Pollution
$ J % e No ,
- -s' i f $
1' T i 1
. - -. _ ~.. . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . , - .
.......-...}...-. . . - - . . . . . -
.}.f ::Q k
i , League's Request for an Order to Show Cause Dated May 2, 1979," 1 dated November 16, 1979 (" Attachment A" hereto] at pp. 3-7;
" Memorandum of the Commonwealth.of Massachusetts in Support'of Seacoast Anti-Pollution League'is Request for an Order to Show ]~4 g ,
L, "
-1 Cause-Dated June 30, 1980," dated March 13, 1981 ("Attachnent
]' J B" hereto) at pp. 3, 14, 17. .1 Nonetheless, the NRC refused to grant a hearing, stating v! i unequivocally that a utility's investment in construction was 1
not a proper factor for NRC consideration in determining. j r 4
' i i whether to issue a license to operate. DD-14,-14 NRC 279, 286' -
l
".a l
. (1981). Indeed, when the intervenors appealed to the District j
~', NR of Columbia. Circuit Court of Appeals,.the Commission stressed j l
that it "does not and cannot consider the utility's investment" ] 1 and denied that.such investment would in any way " influence its j 1 consideration of whether to grant an operating -license." - s i Seacoast Anti-Pollution League v. NRC, 690 F.2d 1025, 1033, 1 l 1030-(1982) (emphasis added) citing NRC.Brief at'36-37.- It.was 2 J this representation by the NRC that was the deciding factor.in i -
;1 t the court's refusal to order a hearing. ,Id. at 1033-34. 1,
< i However, now that the NRC is faced with the very real 1 1 ,
possibility that the Seabrook plant,' as well as Shoreham, may. . 1 not receive a full-power operating. license, the NRC Staff has f shifted its position by 180 degrees'and is endeavoring,to lower ; 1 2 the emergency' planning' licensing standard not out of any
. . l consideration for safety, but solely out of a concern for a
. v. ;I
$i l
. ., s
- d'!t
,/ -k '
.t. ,dy' au ] w
=jm '
i
...~---.---...-....-..w -.L... . . - . ~ . . . - - , .- .- - . . . -. - :.6
~ . . - . .
l I utiliity's investment in construction. SE Draft Notice at j
- p. 4. The Staff now deems it unfair to the utility that it not '
i be given an operating license after expending so much money j b constructing the plant. However, the Commonwealth's refusal to submit emergency response plans is entirely consistent with the d l position it has taken for thirteen years. If equity were the , 1 real issue -- and not. solely the economic interest of the utility -- the Staff, as well as the utility, would have agreed . with Massachusetts years ago.that the emergency' planning issues {
.a should be decided before billions of dollars were expended in. ."' l 1
f, construction. Viewed in the light of this latest Staff f j proposal, the refusal to grant a hearing can only be seen as a i reflection of the fear that if the emergency planning issues l are decided properly, without consideration given to.the - utility's investment in construction, then this plant coQld not l 1
- be' licensed.
1
- As the courts, as well as the NRC, have frequently made clear, it is the utility, and not the publi'c,.which must take the risk that a completed plant will not receive-an operating license due to its inability to meet the NRC's ever-evolving safety standards. E.g., Power Reactor Development Co. v. s International Union of Electrical, Radio f Machine Workers, 4
AFL-CIO, 367 U.S. 396 (1961); Porter Count Chapter of the Izack Walton League v. NRC, 606 F.2d 1363, 1376 (D.C. Cir. 1979); Seacoast Anti-Pollution League v. NRC, 690 F.2d at ! 1033. While the Staff couches its lowering of safety standards lt g1
. . . . + ,, yf 1'
L
- a a , + = ...- . .-. . - . ~.a. , a. -.. : . - . . . . -.
y ..
' ~. - - ;
,i .. . .. . J - l 1 in'such euphimistic terms as "less coordinated planning," it is. j indeed the public who will bear the rish should a' plant be
..t licensed without the required assurance that adequate .!l1. y ,
- protective. measures will be taken in the event of an emergency. The Staff is playing a game of " chicken," assuming. M that Governors deciding not 'to participate in planning wil'1 in ,
fact-participate once a plant is licensed. But it=ts-the -
~
- public that is endangered when plants are licensed to operate
-l with less than adequate emergency planning. . .i.. Moreover, the Staff's proposed rule has far-reaching' -
. consequences beyond the two or three states that now, for good 'I I
,, 'I' cause, are failing to cooperate in emergency planning. Indeed, I what the Staff's proposal amounts to is a return to the pre-Three Mile Island situation of voluntary emergency .
planning. - Indeed, the refusal of some states to participate in emergency planning is the direct result of the NRC's retreat from the standards set after Three Mile Island. Thus, the i l
' ..t Staff in its briefing to the commission states that all that is i. J
)
required for licensure is reasonable and feasible dose.
- reduction. As the Staff (as well as the Seabrook, utility) has -
y previously articulated, this standard applied to the Seabrook f) case would mean that as long as.it is feasible to evacuate some ~, J ' people from the Seabrook beaches, the plans will have accomplished the goal of dose' reduction, and the plant may'be' '~!
- t. 1 1 i
n,
$1
.. _i vyn ig Y
1 .
,y.
. _ . _ . , , . . ...;.--_. m.. ~ . , . .. . ~ . . .,. . _ . _ . , . ..-__.~.-.,_.......,.:. -
. . .. _ _. a j y ;_ ..
}
licensed. Consequently, it would n'ot matter that thousands of- 1 other beachgoers may not be able to evacuate in time to avoid ,
. exposure to lethal doses of radiation. Thus, the Licensing ) . Board in the Seabrook case has rejected out-of-hand ;
e ! Mass'achusetts' sole contention proffered in the proceeding on '!
- ) ! the New Hampshire's emergency plan, that set forth expert -
y
, testimony showing that adequate protective measures could not ,
be taken for the summer beach population. Any determination of 3 adequacy the Board might make for licensure, therefore, will be ; i' made without any look at evidence of whether the plan's - i l l " protective" actions will even protect the public. Certainly, ,
< J if the Commission expects states to cooperate in emergency l
planning, in a case where intervenors have argued for years l that adequate emergency planning is not feasible, the'
. 8 , Commission must demonstrate true concern for the public's ; safety and require more for licensure'than merely the ability-to achieve " feasible" dose reduction without any regard to the 4 level of protection achieved. -
t Moreover, the Staff's major justification for the draft ~,! > rule -- that the Commission never expected states not to i ,' cooperate in planning -- is simply not true. The Commission in its Statement of Consideration in support of its emergency planning regulations in fact exptessly recognized that:- .j- ' (T]here is a possibility that the operation of j some reactors may be~affected by this rule tbrough inaction of State and local governments ; , o' -
.. . .. ,a 6- . !
I
. q
. mas..L._.__..__-.._.___._._._ . _._.--....._......._.._....__.-___._a 4 . -. . , .----
l
*~ '
}
. {
.O or an inability to_ comply with these' rules. The
-Commission believes that the potential restriction of plant operation by State and l local officials is not significantly different u-
. in kind or effect from the means already '1 5
available under existing law to prohibit reactor . ,
, operation, such as zoning and land-use laws, ;i certification of public convenience and 1l' I necessity, State financial and rate considerations (10 CFR 50.33(f)), and-Federal -
[ environmental laws. The commission notes, .l;! however, that such considerations generally . relate to a one-time decision on siting, whereas , c this rule requires a periodic renewal of State , c and local commitments.to emergency planning." ',., j . 45 Fed. Reg. 55402, 554:4-(August 19, 1980) (emphasis added). j; ,.. It is clear from the Statement that the' Commission did *
! anticipate that some states might not:part1cipate in planning 4l '
.j i
. 1 and that it recognized the consequent possibility that some reactors might never receive a license to operate.
Nevertheless the Commission deemed emergency planning'by state ] J and . local governments to be such "an essential aspect in the protection of the public health and safety," 45 Fed.LReg. ,at 4. , , 55404, that the Commission was willing.to risk the-fact that some reactors might not operate as'a' result'of a'st' ate's=
- I J.i i
failure to cooperate in planning. 1}.
.' There can simply be no basis for lowering the'" essential" .j l emergency planning standards set in 1980 for protecting the ' j r i<
public health and safety. Certainly the economic.' interests.of , a utility cannot be an acceptable justificat' ion. Attorney f General 5hannon'therefore' urges the Commission.to reject the j
'1
, Staff's proposal. . 3 e
. J1 l ' <j i!
4
- 3, ;
"f g_
i i.
- 7. --
a
-l a____-
. . , , , _-. . .y.-...__.._.--.. ._._s.. . _ . . . . _._._._.._..____....__._..___.'ii. .
. , .. - . . . . .. . .. -- : c Respectfully submitted, JAMES M. SHANNON ATTORNEY GENERAL d By: b- , /l Carol S. Sneider .. !
l Donald S. Bronstein "yl Assistant Attorneys General Environmental Protection Division ;
"One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor 1
, Boston, MA 01108-1698 -
(617) 727-2265 . Dated: February 23, 1987 '
^5
.)
*l
. . 1
, l a
e 1 I l 4 i
. y 1
\
l 8 ,a j 'l 1
]
. . l
-i j
~
-4 a l
i l
. ~
v s .1
- 1 ,
I d 4
.( ;
y < l
~ -
t e
.. . . .. . ;g'
, J.,; .d
.A v
s .+
'/ * *
.t .8-, -> .
l . , (
) <,
. . . - . . . - . . . .~ ~...:-- :- - . - - - - - - - ~- -
- - -~~ " ' q
~
AQ rn en-I- A 1 l l UNITED STATES OF-AMERICA - "l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION - l 1 TO: DIRECTCR OF NUCLEAR REACTOR' REGULATION *
.. l RE: CONSTRUCTION PERMITS 'CPPR-135 .
CPPR-136 , I . l
! )
In the Matter of l
) 1
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) . NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) Docket Nos. 50-443 ,
) 50-444 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )
' 1
~ ,, I .-
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT y OF SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTIOM LEAGUE'S REQUEST FOR AN ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE DATED MAY 2, 1979
'$he commonwealth of Massacnusetts, an intervenor in the construeilon permit licensing proceedings for the Seabrook Station, supports the request of the Seacoast Anti-Pollution- ,
League (SAPL) for an order to show cause why the Seabrook l
. construction permits ~ should not be suspended or revoked for the following reasons: 1) the f'ailure of the NRC to evaluate and determine the feasibility of evacuation and ' emergency planning ;
beyond the Seabrook low population zone (LPZ), and 2) the-failure of the NRC to evaluate the consequences of a Class 9. ' accident in its environmental reviews. "
- n. ,
,,p,..
..s . . .' ,
- 'ul a !
G t
. . . . . _ . . . . . . . . . - . . ._~........h.;...__ . . , . _ . ~ . . . _ . . - . . . . . . . _ _ ...__-
. a i 7..
* =- . . . . . .s.,
SAPL has raised these issues in its Request for an Order to Show Cause, dated May 2,1979. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts joins the arguments presented by SAPL in support ,' 1 I of its Request for an Order to Sh'ow Cause, dated May 2,1979,
< and by the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution ,r (NECNP) .1! As a contiguous state to New Hampshire, the Commonwealth joins in the concerns about adequate emergency ,
~
planning articulated by the New Hampshire Attorney General in , its Statement of Position.E/ This memorandum comments on recent events and presents the Commonwealth's views on critical , issues' of public health and safety. i . I. THE NRC MUST CONSIDER THE FEASIBILITY OF EVACUATION . AND EMERGENCY PLANNING BEYOND THE SEABROOK LPZ f There is no question that the Commission must consider ' l the feasibility of evacuatons beyond the present 1.25 mile LPZ i for the Seabrook site. Since the issuance of the construction i 1 permits for Seabrook Units 1 n 2, new NRC requirements have "been promulgated; they call for extension of the emergency .
\
l 1/' See "NECNP Memorandum in Support .of Seacoast Anti Pollution League Requests for Orders to Show Cause" (July 30, 1979). SAPL also has requested an order to show cause, dated . March 12, 1979, concerning the financial qualifications of Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSCO). The Commonwealth is on record as supporting this request. See .
" Response of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to SAPL's. ,
Request for an Order to Show Cause" (March 26, 1979). 2/ See " Statement of Position with Respect to the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Request for Show Cause Order Dated May i 2,1979," N.H. Attorney General (October 1F,1979) . ;
~
a g!t
- 4 i .
i
.r.i :- a nds
- l. .w . , ... ..._...a. . . . . . . . . - . . . . - - - - - . . . . ~ . . . . . ~ . . . - . - . . - - .-, =. .- - - - -A=A planning zone from the present LPZ to a radius of at least 10 2 miles around all reactor s'ites.M ,
The unique characteristics of the Seabrook area, .- e s'i including the heavily populated beaches, limited egress routes. d -
~!
and lack of shelter :f acilities, create maior obstacles to the '
- l
^ ~'
development of emergency plans that assure protection of the '
, public in the event of a serious reactor accident. The 1 licensee's own evacuation studies, on which the present .
emergency planc c.e based, indicate that nearby beaches could not be evacuated in the time now recommended by the Staff.M .i Because NRC policy requires a determination of emergency " i planning feasibility at the construction permit stage, this q must issue be resolved' before further construction renders an l impartial decision impossible. ' SAPL has presented a thorough background of thh evacuation issue in its memorandum in support of itsrequest for 9 8 F NRC policy Statement on Emergency Planning Zones, 44 F.R. 61123, Oct.'23, 1979; Information Reoort, SECY-79-450, p.-2, l July 23, 1979; letter dated September 13, 1979, from Darrell G. . [ Eisenhut, Acting Director of the Division of Operating .j' Reac tor s, to all operating nuclear power plants, Enclosure 7; < Proposed emergency planning regulations for expedited ' rulemaking. M The staff is now requiring a commitment from. licensees to provide prompt notification to offsite authorities and to " assure that such authorities have- the resources to provide early warning and clear instructions to the public in the plume exposure EPZ within 30 minutes following notification from the facility. See D.B. Vassallo, NRC-NRR, to R. M. Butler , Boston - j 1 Edison Company, October -23, 1979 (NRC Docket No. 50-471) . ; i
,. .1'
]
y. (>
. j ,
. . - - - - - . . . - . . . . - . . . . . . ~ . . . . - . ... .;-..... . - ... .. - ~ . .L . ::. a 1 4
j - . . - - . . . - . . . .. ,
. . 9 i '4 .
1 a show cause order. Briefly, from the initiation of the s seabrook construction permit proceedings, the NRC S ta f f has maintained it has jurisdiction to require a demonstration of <
the feasibility of evacuating persons beyond the LPZ because of I!A the proximity of the Seabrook units to the coastal beaches and :
- because of the limited road networks servi,ng those beaches. .
!l This position was supported by NECNP, the Attorney General of .) [
f New Hampshire and the NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor i
. Safety.E! , l
. I Although the Licensing Board admitted that evacuation a beyond the LPZ would become advisable in the event of a. Class 9 .,
i acc iden t, the Board ruled and the. Appeal Board agreed' that '
'5 i
>j i4 . ,
existing NRC regulat' ions did not require a consideration of emergency protection measures beyond the LPZ.5/ The Commission subsequently rejected this narro'w interpretation of ' Appendix E by issuing a proposed amendment 'to 'the emergency planning regulations designed to overcome the limitations
] ,
imposed by ALAB-390. The proposed rule provided immediate ; e . l- " interim guidance" and required an applicant to consider , jl P emergency planning beyond the LPZ," . . . based on the' design jq .
, 1
- E/ See Letter from ACRS ceviewing Seabrook Application 1I (December 10, 1974),
3. 5/ See Public Service Co. of N.H. (Seabrdok Units 1 and 2),
- LBP 76-26, 3 NRC 857, 871-875, 922-926 (1976) ; ALAB-390, 5 NRC ]J 733 (1971); Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50.. 4
]
4 i
' k' .
5 <
; ..s . .. ^, . u ;^
4 '. . q. 4
_ _ _ . . . _ _ . . _ _ . .. . . _ , _ . . . _ . . . . _ . . c._ .. . . _ . .-:- . .. - _ .E.1 . _ ... _ .. " ;_,3 1
. . . _ _ . _. .. _ _ l l
j features of the facility and the physical characteristics of the environs in the vicinity of' the site. "M l [ In 1976 a joint NRC/ EPA Task Force was organized to .- develop a basis for emergency response planning near nuclear ,:j; 1
]i i power plants. The Task Force concluded that the consequences
- . 1 of a spectrum of design-based and Classs 9 accidents should form the bases for emergency planning zones (EPZ's) with a 10 mile .
'il radius for a radioactive plume inhalation exposure pathway, and j with a 50 mile radius for an ingestion exposure pathway.M '
- j 1
As a result of NRC investigations into the Three Mile Island -f (TMI) accident and comments on the Task Force Report, the staff ; t ,
"f t
, recommended that the Commission adoption of new emergency .
- planning requirements, including the 10 and 50 mile EPZ's.M
, On September 13, 1979, the staff issued these proposals as -
, "Near , Term Requirements for Improving Emergency Preparedhess" Recently the Commission 3 fc: all nuclear reactor sites.lOf i -
a 1
, M 43 F.R. 37473, 37475 (August 23, 1978). ,
M '
" Planning Basis for the Development of State and Local .
Government Radiological Emergency Response Plans in Support of , Light Water Nuclear Power Plants," NUREG-0396 -(December,1978). M
; Information Report, SECY 79-450 (July 23, 1979 ) . . '
^ .1 1M Letter from Darrell G. Eisenhut, Acting Director of NRC Division of Operating Reactors, to all operating nuclear power 1.l plants (September 13, 1979).
. u1
. ,j
, i.
3;g .
. :/~
. . . . , . . .a ., J .d J
. $4
, - 5- ': -
_._u.... .. .._.__..._.u._.u._. _ . . _ . . . a.... . .- _ _ _ . _ _ . _ , . . . _, _ .2, ,,.j 1 l . ,
.. . . . . . . .. . . . j
^
l officially endorsed the EPZ planning guidance In endorsing this guidance, the Commission
. recognizes that it is appropriace and prucene for emergency planning guidance to take into consideration the principal characteristics . . . of a spectrum of design basis and core melt accidents. jl 44 F.R. 61123 (October 23, 1979) O , t On September 19, 1979, the staff issued new "Draf t l Emergency Action Level Guidelines for Nuclear Power Plants" ,i (NUREG-0610), which' replace the general classes of emergency ,
jll action levels in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.101.E These .
.- i guidelines, which are effective pending completion of the ,
expedited' rulemaking on emergency planning in January,1980, ' ti
.- i f
provide, inter,alla, for specific actions to be taken by the
- 3) >
licensee and local emergency personnel during a reactor .' accident, including " actual or imminent substantial core degradation or melting with potential;for loss of containment: ! i integrity," i.e., Class 9 accidents. The NRC's recommended ' ) l protective action for the public' during such an accident is ,
}, immediate. sheltering, pending a determination that evacuation -
, is required and can be completed prior '.to the transport of l
- . . i significant quantities of radioactivity to the affected area. .
l
- 1 The sheltering facilities along. the coast near the
; Seabrook Station are grossly inadequate to accomodate the .i
. ij 1
11/ The Commission has endorsed these " predetermined protective action plans for the EPZ's." 44 F.R. 61123 q, 4 (October 23, 1979) ,
. j
. s a- y 3
* *e- 5 i W 4 Q %
'4 .
4 .! .t."- h$ l
%4 e
s j
, _ _ _. _. a._ _2.g
+
. l number of people using the nearby. coastal beaches. The Commission 'has recognized and discussed this problem, and the
~
I consequent need for feasible evacuation alternatives. In its ,l;
.i .
August 1978 notice of the proposed amendment to Appendix E, the [ ..
'i Commission endorsed consideration of emergency planning beyond
( the LPZ, noting that: , 1 l The. NRC staff has found that there may be *
'J
- circumstances for which the available strategies for taking protective actions outside the facility site .
boundaries are limited. As an example, this ' occurs' when large numbers of persons may be engaged in - outdoor recreational activities in'the vicinity of a plant, 'and it is clear that existing structures are y, insufficient to provide needed temporary shelter - *
- In such an instance, the sta ff (sici considered it -
. appropriate to emphasize evacuationc . 43 F.'R. 37475 3 (August 23, 1978) (emphasis added) .- . ., The applicant or lic see, therefore, must demonstrate that the beaches within the emergency planning zone ,can be promptly ,
evacuated to assure the safety of these people in the event of 3 a significant radiological release. i
,l . .. There are two principle reasons 'why an evaluation of emergency action capabilities at.Seabrook should be initiated ,
1 ~
.promptly. , First, since the staff must ultimately determine' the !
. . . _ . 1
, feasibility of evacuating the beaches b'efore Seabrook' Station q
. j can begin operating, it is important that the analysis be: ,.
j completed before further investment and construction are Ii wasted. More importantly, NRC decisions a'nd regu'l ations . 4 . i.t re, quire that emergency planning. feasibility be addressed. at the construction permit stage. When reviewing an application -for a construction permit, f the Commission must at the very least determine whether. ?f :
=+ .g <
p s~ r ,
. . j
p +. . , . , ~ a .1 . . . . a . - . . . - --. .a . = ~ . .-.-.t - .. . w_ L%r3 ' [ 3 ', ' , 4 '
. surrounding population densities, transportation routes, land ',i
'une and other unique site characteristics might combine to render any e'nergency plan ineff ective.E The issue, ,
n l.:. therefore, is emergency planning _ feasibility, which is a I a
} site-specific matter that must be resolved by consideration of a ;
i f' the demographic, meteorological and topological peculiarities
}l L- of the area surrocnd,Ing the proposed ' reactor. This subject is y0 3 g
~
a necessary component of the larger issues of site suitability [l 1 1
.)
(see 10 C.F.R. 5100.10)) , reactor safety (see 10 C.F.R. j - J!
,,[ $ 50.34 [a] [10] and Appendix E to 10 C.F.R. Part 50) and the NEPA M 3
d,
; i)
[ ,- alternative sites cost / benefit analysis (see supplementary -
;.2 i 'Information to the proposed amendment to Appendix E, 43 F.R. Sjl
,- ,d !
37473, 37474 (August 23, 1978)), all of which must -be resolved i I
' [/ prior to the issuance of a construction permit.E I
j / In addition, an applicant for a construction permit is , nj
..- 4 .
'( requiied under 10 C.F.R. 550.34 (a) to provide in its ! 1 Preliminary Safety Analysis Report (PSAR) .a discussion'of its j;
- l* . . d." ~
- preliminary plans for coping with emergencies." While, 7!
}2,/ Southern California Edison Company, et al. , (San . Onofre e
- Nuclear Generating Station Units 2 and 3), ALAB-248, 8: AEC 957, 962-63 (1974); Consumers Power Comoany, (Midland Plant Units 1- .
l and 2) ALAB-123, 6 AEC 331, 342-43 (1973); 10 C.F.R.'Part_50, i *
.j Appendix E, Sections I-III .
.W The proposed emergency plannin'g regulations specifically, ,
.. require inclusion.of a " preliminary evacuation 1 feasibility. .
analysis" in tt' PSAR prior to issuance.of a construction ' ! permit. See Proposed Amendments to 10 C.F.R. Part '50,. Appendix ; j E, SII(H); Staff Paper for Commissioner revlew from R.B. I, Minogue, Director, Office of Standards Development.
.0SD's-
; proposed amendments to Appendix E were dra(ted pursuant to the d,'
Commission's notico of : expedited rulemaking . on emergency : a planning, 44 4.'R. 41483 (July 17, 1979 )'. , J ;; a ,j 1
- w . a, . - ;s 4 :. y,f 1
3 ~ i' , . -
't
'f . ,
vi r4 -
_ - . _ - . . . . . _ . . . . . _ . .. __,. . ~ _. s .. .._ _ _ _.. . -_w.s j
.. . pq < .
- v. ,
' \'Q ) ' _
, w .
. s.s j
consideration 'o2 Che operative details of such plans may be - x;, .s S s .< .
. more appropriately deircred to the operating license stage, j r
there must be at least some consideration given to the scope' of j,
. .t t these plans, a'nd a threshold' determination made whether the ;
plans effectively extend to that portion of the public thac can 'l be said to be at risk in the event of a serious reactor , 1 accident. ,In short, if the feasibility issue ic :o be , considerid tt al.1, it must be at some time prior to constrDction of a facility. To deal with this critical safety l
. %- ~ .i issue aftsE'a a,w y reactor is built illogical, and it runs the s
, ' l, considerabid risk that the applicant's ongoing investment "in f!
the project will impermissibly affect the decisien-making
]
process'.ki/ , The urgency of an evacuation feasibility analysis might
\
not be so acute were it not for the heavily util.dzed bdsches !
~
, .. ,s.-
near Seabrook, the lack of adequate sheltering facilities and
; .-t .
the limited egress routes. When Nissuing the proposed rule. requiring conhideration of emergency h1anning beyond the Ln, \s L - n ,
> the Conalssion explained that one df its major objectives was .
}!
s - s 3
. . ,. is l provide r,'to assure assuea.4ce easonable that , emergency plans exist which that aopropriate .
meacures can and will, b e taken .!n the event of an ~
'I acciden tal~ release of 8adioacti~'e ma ter al crom a t I
'y
~ ~ ~ '
nuclear power plan 3.'~~~~ 4~ ' q s . 3 w . s .
,, The intent of the 6 Commission is to ~ assure that 1q
. the decisionmaking process for licensing nuclear ;
pcNer plants will include an analysis by the i applicant and a review by the Comns.ssion of each - t-l Auglear power plant licenso or permit application to t
~
> 'i-61/ See 3abrook , CLI-78-14, 7 NRC 952 (1978) .
i'
. l4 ;
.w. . . . , . '* j N \"
; _3 7; o .
s .
/s 8 ;
'k . .M
., ( ' \ 1s y
a..._..._........_..__...___ _. .. - . . . . . . ....:. . . _ _ _ . . ~_ . _ . ._ _ w _. m o
~['
. .. ~, . .. . . . . , . . . i
- 1. . . .
i ' 1 plan for taking suitable protective actions on a . ; timely basis .under accident conditions within and -
. outside the. proposed site. 43 F.R. 37474 (emphasis '
added). T'- The commission has listed the physical characteristics'in )l the vicinity of a site which it feels are relevant to the - j a i
", evaluation of proposed protective actions j; (t]he numbers and proximity to the site boundary of . j resident and transient persons and the relative 't j speed with which warnings can be. communicated to ,
l them, the availability. and character of evacuation * *
. 3
. routes and means of transportation, the availability -
and locations of structures suitable for sheltering- 4 ; people . . .. Id. . j l
- More recently, the NRC Siting Policy Task Force Report-
-. 3
>1
.' recommended: , !
That Part 100 require that the physical
... characteristics of the EPZ, including the population e distribution in relation to transportatio'n routes
'. and other topographic features, be such as to. .
provide reasonable assurance that a relatively i prompt evacuation of the EPZ, including transients would be feasible in the event of an accident. NUREG-0625, p. 48. The Seabrook environs present major obstacles to the development of emergency plans providing " reasonable assurance - l
- q. . . ~
that appropriate measures" can be taken on a " timely besis" in. l 1 the event of a serious reactor accident. Within-a 5 mile.
, radius, there is an estimated summer peak population of over ,
100,000, the majority of whom are clustered in the beach areas.AE/ It _is not disputed that even when the seasonal-population is time weighted, the population densities . substantially exceed the population guidelines that. normally
}
q
. 15/ Seabrook. LBP-76-26, 3 NRC at . 871-87 5. i.~ '
;g '
i .
. 3
$t^ '
e
p j- ,
, j
. i i
,, trigger an evaluation of the risk of Class 9 consequences.E/ In addition, there are only 3 two-lane ; roads providing egress from the entire beach region. p For an evacuation to be effective where little 'or no + I sheltering exists, people must be removed before the radioactive plume reaches the area. The NRC/ EPA Task Force Report, now endorsed by the Commission, estimates that 4 major release may begin within 30 minutes after an initiating event, . i and that a r.asulting radioactive plume may travel five miles 30 j minutes to two hours, and ten miles in two to four hours.M/ 4 j In other words, the Task Force recommends for emergency - -
- planning guidance a plume speed of 2.5 to 10 mph.
W.-pton Pe+. is o .ly two miles east-r.ertheart of the Seabrook Station, and this coastal beach runs south to
, Salisbury Beach, Massachusetts, only five miles from- the
~
reactor site.
, A, plume traveling at a speed of 10 mph to the east-northeast'coUld reach Hampton Beach within 15 minutes of a :
releaae; a plume traveling to the south-southeast at the same
, speed could reach Salisbury Beach in about 30 minutes. Under 1
poor dispersion conditions associated with low windspeeds (2.5 mph), it would be necessary - to evacuate the beach area within five miles in only two hours. The Applicant Public Service
' 15/ See Seabrook Alternative Site Study, NUREG-0501, p. A-60 (December 1978); Final Supplement to Final Environmental.
Statemen t (Pilgrim Nucioar Power Station Unit ~ 2), NUREG-0549, -
- p. 4-55 (May 1979 ) .
11/ . NRC/ EPA Task Force Reporn, NUREG-039 6 - ak 20, see also Appendix I. -. ] '
= . an. ** =
,,f, J .
11 - Q' r i a
- w. ....,.:....-.a x x.
. - ... . ..,- x . a
,-. .~-.. ....- - . - . . . . ..
1 1
- l Company's own preliminary analysis of the road network and the -
beach population east of the Seabrook sita concluded it would , take eight hours to evacuate any of the three 22.5* beach ji l-f ,, sectors to a distance of five miles from' the reactor.E/ fj 4 f; P.S.Co. 's Supplemental Testimeriy presented one year 'later g I reduced the 5 mile evacuation time estimates for 45 beach 1
, - sectors to 3.75 to 5.5 hours.M/ Thus, the , applicant's own
- i testimony indicates that it is not likely that beach sectors ,
; j
- i
. could be evacuated before the arrival of a radioactive plume, ,
.l under serious accident conditions. It can hardly be said that ' .
4 l there is " reasonable assurance that appropriate measures can , ;
'i and will be, taken in the ' event of an accidental release . . . " f
. and that "sultable protective actions (can be taken) on a l timely basis . .- . . See 43 F.R; 37474.
SAPL and NECNP have requested the NRC to demonstrate that e
" l evacuation of persons within a 30 mile area surrounding the n . .
1 Seabrook site is feasible. . While present commission policy requires ev'acuation planning for about a 10 mile radius from
] the reactor site, the actual size and shape of this EPZ must be .
g 3 determitied on a site-specific basis.
~
^
See.44 F.R. 61123. The !
; comonwealth believes that the intervenors' request is. ,.
I reasonable in light of current Commission policy and the high 18,/ Answer 13.9 to Staff Questions; Amendment 23' to the c PSAR, p. S13-16, June, 1974. . l
.l9/ Applicant's Director Testimony No. 7, .p.19, In the '.$ +
Matter of P.S.co. , Tr. p. 249 5+, June 5, 1,975.
;l : ;
w's e, - - a . .,l-12 -
- I t . --
- i
i
. 1 permanent and seasonal populations surrounding this coastal -
site. In order to evacuate a 10 mile sector, for example, it will be necessary to provide for prompt notification and b traffic control in neighboring sectors within the 10 mile .d. i
- radius and in down-wind regions beyond the 10 mile radius. It d therefore is necessary to analyze the major egress routes and ::Jj 1
population densities beyond ten miles in order to determine the )j.
. ~;
. feasibility of evacuating all persons within the EPZ. .
In this regard, the Commonwealth is critically concerned i .
.- with the feasibility of evacuating Salisbury, which.on a summer i weekend has a population exceeding 50,000 persons. A * --
1 ,
< substantial portion of these people are day trippers on the j beaches. In addition, the town of Newburyport, located just
. south of Salisbury, attracts many summer tourists to the Parker River National Wildlife Refuge and Plum Is1'and, both' recreation ~
s - areas of which have limited access to the mainland. South and
! west of Salisbury are some of the Commonwealth's mo'st densely ,
populated North Shore communities, many of which have historic
^
and' recreational tourist at6ractions, and limited road
- networks. The metropolitan' Boston area is also within the 30-50 mile radius of the Seabrook site .
. 2 Finally, an important f actor in determining the size of. i the evacuation zone is the probability of sponcaneous or - .i voluntary evacuation. This is especially true for the ,
j.
^ 3.0_/ Within a 30 mile radius of Seabr:cok, the staff has .]'
estimated there will be over 1.4 million people in 1985 -and 3 over 3 million in 2020. See Seabrook Alternative Site Study,. J NUREG-0501, P. A-60 (June 1978) . , , , , , , , .,.;
; e e l }:
i . g
- ... - . . . . . . - ... .. . . . . - . . . . . - . . . nw Seabrook environs where there are large numbers of seasonal j transients. A proper feasibility analysis must evaluate and f include the likelihood of substantial voluntary evacuation
. outside recommended evacuation areas which could interfere with
. the prompt evacuation of sectors withem .the EPZ.b t
f 1 , l 1
$j CLASS 9 ACCIDENT CONSEQUENCES MUST BE CONSIDERED II. .
AT SEABROOK - .
' . Recent events underscore the importance of a staff evaluation of the consequences of a Class 9 accident at Seabrook ' Station in their NEPA cost / benefit analysis of -
?
alternatives. One f actor in this cost / benefit analysis is ' the.
. i risk imposed on surrounding populations in the event of serious !
reactor accidents. Since SAPL and NECNP presented their requests for show cause orders, the staff and a Licensing Board-have officially identified the accident at TMI as a Cla'ss 9 accident. E In addition, the Commission -recently' upheld the 4 staff policy of considering the environmental consequences
.l 2.1/ When pregnant women and pre-school children within 5 .
miles of TMI were advised to evacuate, there was a-substantial j number of additional evacuees within and beyond the 5 mile * .l radius. A public opinion poll of residents living within 15 miles, of TMI by the Social. Research Center at Elizabethtown 1 College, PA, (April 9,1979) revealed that over half of all 4, ' residents within 5 miles lef t the ' area and nearly one-third of the residents from 6 to 15 miles evacuated voluntarily. , 2.2./ Pubic Service Electric and Gas Co. (Salem Nuclear Generating Station, Un,it 1) - ( Salem") NRC Docket No. 50-272, ; ASLB Order (September 10, 1979; "NRC Staff Response to Board Question No. 4 Regarding Occurrence of a C), ass 9 Accident at ! Three Mile Island," Docket No. 50-272 (Augus! 24,1979) . 4
. . .y
., p
_ 14 . [p ______.______________________m_
(
.. - . - . . . . . . . . - . . ~ . . . - .. - , . . . - - - - - . - . . . . . . . - . . .. - . .. .
zTK:J} . i
. 1 of Class 9 accidents under certain circumstances.32/
Furthermore, the Commission .has just specifically endorsed the 3 consideration of Class 9 characteristics for emergency planning
- guidance (44 F.R. 61123, October 23, 1979). Because the staff
~
^~
must consider the environmental consequences of a Class 9 ; -
, accident for emergency planning, the staff will not be unduly ,
burdened by evaluating these risks in the NEPA cost / benefit , analys.is for alternative sites as well. - i l Initially the Staff was precluded from considering Class -
. 7 9 accidents in its environmental reviews because the -
b probability of their occurrence was said to be too remote. - The- -
')
regulatory basis for ignoring Class 9 consequences was provided .' i s by the . proposed annex to Appendix D to 10 C.F.R. Part 50.- The j {
.; , Reactor Safety Study (WASH-1400) provided some justification .
for this practice by quantifying the low probability of Class 9 !
' accidents.
- Nevertheless, in practice the staff increasingly began to i l
consider the potentially catastrophic consequences of such' ' i acciden ts . As early as 1973, the Staff rejected a proposed. , site at Newbold Island, because an alternative site was significantly less populous and therefore less vulnerable to. 1 ' the consequences of a major nuclear accident. Shortly-thereafter, Regulatory Guide 4.7 was issued, containing j specific guidelines on the population density surrounding ,
.(
kl/ Offshore Power Systems (Floating Nuclear Power Plants) Docket No. SIN 50-437, CL1-79, (Sep tember 14, 1979). (" Offshore- ,, j Power") , p .;
> ~~ s - - .- 3 kl .1 '
i
# I
,.. . . - . . . - . . - . . . - ~ - . . . . - . . - - . - . i . - - . .- l . r i . . . , proposed nuclear reactor sites. Stating that "[alreas of low population density ara proforred for nuclear power station t 1 sites," Reg. Guide 4.7 specified that if projected population densities within a thirty-mile radius of the site exceeded 500 c . persons _ per square mile at the time of initial operation and s )
' q!
1,000 persons per square mile at its retirement, then "special attention should be given to the consi'deration of alterhative 1
' sites with lower population densities. "- .;
Then, in the early site review for the proposed Perryman - reactor in 1977, the staff initiated a Class'9 accident. - analysis af ter demographic studies revealed population .' densities in excess of the " trip levels" of Reg. Guide 4.7. The staff formalized this policy in Commission Action Paper, . ; SECY 78-137. Whenever the population trip levels of Reg. Guide .4.7 are exceeded, an " assessment of the relative ; i differences in Class 9 accidenc risks should-be included as one element of the site comparisons." The staff's concern "was not based on a uniquely high probability of accident but rather on unique circumstances which increase the potential consequences < i and thus the overall risk. " k e 9 In 1973 the NRC received the first application for a license to manuf acture a commercial floating . nuclear power '
. t.
plan t (FNP) . Because such plants involved so unique a , departure "from land based siting, the Staff undertook an extensive study of the consequencos of a Cl$ss 9 sccident ( the
/t !
*l t Liquid Pathway Generic Study, - NUREG-0440 (LPGS]), and in the y<
FNP Final Environmental Statement found that ' yi)3 e
-.16 -
.. . _ .. .- ;.z ..~ . . = . . .- .. . . 2 x n . - . z ..
- . z. -
. . . . :;x;; ,
. . . . _ . .. ._._..n. .. a the unlikely but possible occurrence of a core melt accident at estuarine and riverine areas could j result in a direct release of radioactive material, l
- 1 such that the consequences to the environment would be u'nacceptable. FES III, p. XIV. .
- q The applicant then challenged the Staff's Class 9 a,nalysis as ' 'I '
prohibited by the proposed Annex to . Appendix .D. The Staff j
,t. .
s ! argued before the Appeal Board that it was already established policy, as revealed in its Standard heview Plan, to reject ' proposed sites in highly populated areas due to the potential . consequences of- Class 9 accidents. See ALAB-489 at.223, 224. . l The question was certified to the Commission which upheld . the Staff's consideration;of Class 9 consequences. In its. .i ' f Brief to the ' Commission, the Staff explained: ' The premise for the Anner's limitations on
. discussion of Class 9 accident risks must be that the risks for the ' reactor in question fall within '
the envelope of the risks for typical licensed ~ power-reac tor s. It just doesn't make sense to presume .
,that the Commission was fo'rever foreclosing any attempt to evaluate Class 9 consequences even if it
,could be shown that those consequences, and
- therefore the risks, for a particular. application, --
were quantitatively and qualitatively different from practically all plants within the general. envelope t previously considered. - 1 j. 4
. . . Common sense dictates that there must be a -
point beyond which' the consequences of a Class- 9 accident become susceptible to candid evaluation in. . i an environmental impact statement. And it should - l not matter whether the reactor in question is a - 3 landabased clant or an FNP. Brief of the S taf f,' j",' page 36-37 (empnasis added). . i Relying on its inherent policy-making authorityr 'the Commission ~ i held it could not ignore what its own staff- ,) views as ,7 environmental. risk that requires 4 specific mitigative ac tions. NEPA is -based on. the philosophy that the federal government should considor all available information about the , jy
]6 6
- @a.;
, [ -
l )
. . . _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . . . _ __ _ .. ._ _ _ . _ _ _ m ._.a
~
* -** + .. ~ .m reasonably likely environmental consequences of its prdposed actions and should take appropriate measures to mitigate or eliminate the adverse impacts of those actions when practical. o f fshore Power Systems , suo ra , Slip, Op. at 7.
. The Commission announced its intention to leave the generic
-. issue of consideration of Class 9 accidents at land-based j1 1
i'i reactors for rulemaking proceedings and concluded by asking the i
- s. i1 staff to: <:1
- 1. Provide us with its recommendations on how the "
interim guidance of the Annex migh* be modified, on - an interim basis and until the rulemaking.on this ,- 4 subject is completed, to reflect develooments since -4
- 1971 and to accord more fully with cu rrent staff l
]
~
policy in this arear_ and ] 2. In the interim, . . . bring to our attention any* individual cases in which (the Staff) believes the
'.) ~ :i environmental consecuences of Class 9 accidents '
', should be considered. Id., at 9-10 (emphas.is added). ) By inviting the staff's recommendation for interim , a
; guidance based on developments since the issuance of the proposed annex and on curr'ent.. staff policy, the Commission implicitly accepted the staff's policy in f avor of considering ;-
Class 9 consequences at its discretion, _and in particular_ where the population guidelines of Reg. Guide 4.7 are exceeded. ,
!l It is now clear that the sole justification 'for the' .
original policy of the proposed annex is no longer valid. The . probability of a Class 9 accident has now unmistakably. entered q 1 the realm of " reasonable likelihood". First,-the Risk-i Assessment Review Group concluded in NUREG-CR-0400 that ' the a quantitative risk assessment methodology developed in the . l( , Reactor Safety Study (WASH-1400) was scientilfically l 7.l y ; yp '
'j l
. M
i - )... .. . indefensible, thereby undermining the quantitive basis for the l low probability of Class 9 accidents.
'. Now, by order of the Licensing _ Board in Salem,the ,
. .llj ]
+
accident at 'INI has been officially recognized as a class 9 bt accident.M/ It is 'well established that the NRC must ] j, consider any events that are " reasonably probable."E/ The . . Appeal Board in Of fshore Power Systems, recognized that j ) 1 NEPA nanda*es assessment of those environmental . l I consequances that'are reasonably anticipatable .
. Ibreover, the decisions' to tie the need to ,
~
discuss reactor accidents . . . to 'a showing of a jl reasonable likelihood of occurrence (is) an approach q~i that has gained judicial acceptance (cites * "
' 1 ,
H
- omitted) . ALAB-489, 8 NRC 194, 213 (1978)., j] '
,I '. The occurrence of a class 9 accident at Thsee Mile Island 4
establishes that there is a " reasonable likelihood", that such I severe accidents can occur. NEPA, therefore, requires an , .]
)
evaluation of Class 9 accident consequences. . l Furthermore, the NRC Siting. Policy Task Force has just I t I issutd its report (NUREG-0625) for review by the Commission. One of three primary goals _ was as follows:
"To take into consideration in siting the risk I associated with accidents beyond the design basis - J (Class 9) by establishing population density and distribution criteria . . . Althoegh (Class 9] risk' a cannot be completely reduced to zero, it can be: .
j significa .cly reduced by selective . siting. NUREG-0673, p. iii (1979). ,
+
3 i 11/ See footnote 22, supra at 14. 1 2,5_/ Northern States Power Co. (Prairie Island) Vermont (Vermont Yankee) , ALAB-455, . 7'NRC 41,
.]
Yankee Nuclear Power Co. e' 49 (1978). - [l 1-3
*w+ e, a w
$l
. _. y
~ '
'specifically, the Task Force recommends revision of 10 C.F.R.
Part 100 to provide a fixed exclusion and protective action distance and population density and distribution criteria to be , developed by generic rulemaking proceedings. The Task Force re-affirms the' staff policy toward consideration of Class 9 ,
. events:
The Task Force concludes that the protection from .' Class 9 accidents originally intended to be provided by the populacica center distance should be restored ".
. . . The rationale for recommending pcpulation density and distribution limits both within and .
beyond the EPZ is to provide some additional
. assurance that the societal risk from Class' t .'
. accidents for populations within about 20 miles of a.
nuclear plant is kept at reasonable levels. ,
. NUREG-0625, Supra at 48. - ' ~
When the Commission recently endorsed the concept of
- EPZ's, it stated-it is appropriate and prudent for emergency planning -
guidance to take into consideration the principal i characteristics . . . of a spectrum of design basis
'and core melt accidents. 44 F.R. 61123 (October 23, <
.1979) (emphasis added) . !
In the " Supplement-if Information" section of the . notice ' of the propos'ed amendment to Appendix E, the Commission stated the . protection of the public beyond .the exclusion zone was .one ,! matter which . may also be considered in identifying any. potential . 1 emergency planning' advantages or disadvantages of 4-particular sites as part of the NEPA cost / benefit. analysis of alternate sites. 43 F.R. 37474. ,,
. .i.
In summary, the. sta ff 's Class 9 policy and the Comm,ission's concurrence is now clear.. In its :most recent I alternative site study, (NUREG-0501) , the 'sta ff 's demographic - : analysis of Seabrook disciosed population densities in excess ,
..j . {
l; of Reg. Guide 4.7 tr ip levels for plant star't lup'an'd ' - [ y 4 O ,
. . . . . . - . - . . - - . . .;-.....~-....... . - . . . . - - . . ._ : .- . . -. . u. ..~r.-.:1 '
. . . . .c
- . . . . . . - =
retirement. The Staff's refusal to consider Class 9 consequences runs counter to its prior ' decisions made in Newbold Island , Perryman, and Off shore ' Power, and is directly j 3 , contrary to the current staff policy elucidated in SECY 78-137 l l and the Siting Policy Task Force Report. In view of the ;l
! Commission's endorsement of this staff policy and the .
consideration of emergency planning-disadvantages "as part of
., the NEPA, cost / benefit analysis of . alternate sites," it is the .
I duty of the Staff to undertake a complete Class 9 analysis in conjunction with the evacuation feasibility evaluation. J4 III..' LEGAL AUTHORITY - : 4
. In consideration of the NRC's statutory duty to saieguard .'
,. the public health and safety, it is the duty of the Staffe pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.202, to issue a show cause order and . 'e institute proceedings to ' evaluate the feasibility of . evacuation j and eniergency planning beyond the LPZ at Seabrook and the environmental consequences of a' Class 9 accident. - It is l well-established that emergenc:( planning is a significant
- , safety issue. See Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island ,
^
Unit 2), ALAB-47 4, 7 'NRC 746 (1978). _ The Commission has,a q statutory duty to promote the development of atomic energy '
' consistent . . . with the health and safety of the 'public. "
)
, 42 U.S.C. S2013 (d) . The Commission itself has emphasized that ,
'public safety - is' the first, last and a permanent' consideration in any decision on the issuance of a ' .
construction permit or license to operate. a: nuclear facility. Power Reactor Develcoment Coto. V. International Union of Electrical Radio and Machine ' 4 Workets, 367 U.S. 396, 402, 81 S..Ct. 1529, 1532 (1961). 4
- . }
7
'f I
.J j
l . . . 1 o l In this case, the Supreme Cour't stressed that even af ter licensing of a reactor, the Commission retains jurisdiction "to
.; i ensure that the highest safety standards are maintained." Id. !
l In discharging this duty to safeguard the public, the commission has articulated the goal that emergency plans should provide " reasonable assurance" that " suitable protective-actions" can be taken on a " timely basis." E There is no , question that emergency plans that satisfy the Commission,'s l statutory duty or goal do not presently exist. The only I
"sultable protective action" for people on the beaches 1,n the f
event: of a serious atmospheric release is evacuation. It is' , therefore the duty of the staff to assure thati an emergency - plan can be developed which provides " reasonable assurance" that the beaches can be evacuated on a " timely basis." 1 I Section 186(a) of the Atomic Energy Act (42 U.S.C. ; s
$2236(a)) authorizes the NFC to suspend or revoke "(alny license . . . because of conditions revealed . . . which would warrant the Commission to refuse to grant a license on an original application." The U.S. Court of Appeals for'the .
i District of Columbia Circuit recently held that this clause applies to all licensing matters, including health, safety, and environmental considerations . . . (and) reflects a deliberate policy choice on the part of ; Congress when it enacted section 186(a) to render .j l licenses for nuclear facilities subject to i postlicensing review under evolving licensing '! standards, rather than under those standards ; applicable at the time the license in question was issued. Ft. Pierce Utilities Authority of the City , , I E See pp. 9-10, suora. 3
. . . , . , 3 H1 ji
*. i i
, _y_
t :._,.......-. s_. .-,4..,,.~...-.c.. _ . . _ _ _ . . . . . . .. . . , ~ . . . , . . ....~43
. s. . . ! 4 0
i I of Ft. Pierce v. U.S.A. and the NRC, Nos. 77-1925 i and 77-2101, slip op, at 19-20 ~ (D.C. Cir., March 23, 1979). g Post-TMI investigations have resulted in significant new .. emergency planning licensing standards. The' emergency plan for the Seabrook environs is now subject to postlicensing review , l under the new standards, and the staff should initiate this j!
.t j
~
review promptly before further construction at Seabrook , precludes an impartial resolution of .this critical safety., J issue. It is the statutory duty of the staff to suspend or .I l
^
j{l
' revoke the Seabrook construction permits upon finding that the . .
l present emergency plans cannot provide." reasonable assurancef. :.) [. . .
.. (that) suitable protective actions (can be implement'ed) on' I a timely basis under accident conditions." (See 43 F.R. 37474) .
In consideration of the grave safety issue at hand and l the likelihood that a timely evacuation of the beaches near u Seabrook may not be possible, it is the duty of the Staff to issue a show cause order and institute a proceeding pursuant to . <! 10 CFR S2.202 to resolve these major outstanding safety questions. .. .. l
- 1 i ;
4
,. js
.) .
. , . . . .s, a 1
~
21 a . '
. . . . .. . . - ~ . . ~ . .. .- - .. . ~ -.. .-.. . . . - . . . . . . . - . - - . . . .. . .~ . . . ... ud '
l ri CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Commonwealth of
.3
; - Massachusettu supports the requests by the Seacoast lt
.]
Anti-Pollution League and the New England Coalition on Nuclear i
- Pollution that the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation I.2 j immediately issue an Order to Show Cause why the Seabrook s 1 t
construction permits should not be suspen'ded or revoked. [ Respectfully submitted, i
- i
&l * '
auA _ Laurie Burt - 1 Assistant Attorney General Environmen tal Protection Division one Ashburton Place - 19th Floor Boston, MA 02108 (6 17) 727-2265 i DATED: (G % R73 . r
, 3 0 t+%, trA '
- l i ,
. . i g
l,
+
41 I
. 1 4 i i i ll l
'i t i 1
- 4) .
*W s $
,;q ehy 4 .. ,#
g
):.
9 I a %.
,_ . ..7.....~.-..:.--..-. .
. . . _ . . - . . .- ..- . . . . .--....E
. . _ . .4 1
A NEhtwmb 3 i
; 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1- ,' ,
. TO: HAROLD R. DENTON DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF NUCLEAR i l
'i . REACTOR REGULATION 4 RE: CONSTRUCTION PERMITS CPPR 135 - CPPR-136 : i . i . l
)
In the Matter of ) l l
)
T' PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. I NEW EAMPSHIRE,'et al. ) 50-443 .> j
) 50-444 ~
6 - l (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) .
) l
- .' l i MEMORANDUM OF TtfE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS IN SUPPORT
,- OF SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE' S REQUEST FOR AN ORDER TO l l
SHOW CAUSE DATED JUNE 30, 1980. , l t INTRODUCTION f i The Commonwealth of Massachusetts (" Commonwealth") 4
- j. participated in the construction permit licensing proceedings for the Seabrook Station in an effort to protect the interests t
l' i of its residents who either reside in communities or frequent , I beaches in the, vicinity of that station. Because of these l
]' 1 l interests, the Commonwealth remains concerned about the issue ,
{ of emergency evacuation at Seabrook. On June 30, 1980, the Seacoast Anti-Pollutien League 4 2 (" SAPL") filed with the NRC a request that the Commissioners - 1> review a decision rendered by the Director of the Office of e -; Nuclear Reactor Regulation (" Director") on February 11, 1980. In that decision the Director had denied - a petition filed by , f . sej
)
'h.
4
_. . - _ . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _. . . - - _ . . . . .__._.__.2.._
~
- 1 SAPL on May 2,1979, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. $2.206 seeking an I order to Show cause why construction permits for . the proposed nuclear power plant at Seabrook should not be suspended or revoked. As grounds for its petition SAPL cited, inter _alia, l the failu're of the licensee, Public Service Company of New f
Hampshire, to demonstrate during the construction permit , I 1 process the f easibility of evacuation beyond the low population zone. -
, 1 l.
The Commission, in October,1980, decided not to review' , l the Director's denial of SAPL's petition, but directed the o staff to treat the June 30th SAPL request for Commission review , l as a new petition for a Show Cause Order under 52.206. 1 , The Commonwealth supports the current SAPL request for. an 1 j order to Show Cause why the Seabrook construction permits should not be suspended or revoked 1/ for the following l
- i. . l reasons:
r..* I
- 1. The Director denied SAPL's May, 1979 petition.on the basis that it was premature to reopen the Seabrook construction permit proceedings until certain events had transpired. Those events having ,
transpired, the Director should now approve the ' request for an order to Show Cause. . 2. There has been no determination of the < ' I feasibility of safely evacuating the population' within the 10-mile plume exposure Emergency Planning Zone of the Seabrook Station. Present evidence suggests that such evacuation may not be feasible.
- 3. It isintheinterestofallhartiesthatthe feasibility of evacuation be assessed now, rather than at the operating license stage of review. If
! the present evidence suggesting that. eyacua; ion is ~,
..jp%
i , .
${
1/ The Commonwealth also filed a Memorandum in support of 2; SAPL's May,1979 request. .
_ . , . - . . ._ . . . . . . _. .. . _ . . . . ... .-. . . _uw i not f easibl.e is later confirmed, the applicant f aces ilf 4 the loss of hundreds of millions, perhaps billions, of dollars of wasted investment. At the same time, ! q
'. residents of and visitors to the EP2 f ace the possibility *that the Licensing Board, moved by the
, expenditure of these sums, will permit operation despite the absence of truly adequate means of evacuation.
1 q u I I. THE PRE-CONDITIONS TO ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER SET , FORTH BY THE DIRECTOR HAVE BEEN MET In his February 11, 1980 denial of SAPL's petition for an ' i i Order to show Cause, the Director concluded that it would be. . l
" premature" to- reopen the Seabrook construction permit ,
; proceedings pending (1) the receipt and evaluation of
; evacuation time ' estimates prepared by the licensee; (2) j adoption of the then proposed rules amending 10 C'.F.R. Part 50
. regarding emergency planning;A/ and (3) " guidance from the t
Commission" on reconsideration of construction permits.1/ In August of last year Public Service Company of New Hampshire submitted its evacuation time estimates to the l Commission. In December ,1980, the Commonwealth received j notice that the Commission had completed an analysis of all evacuation time estimates which it had received. On August 19, - t ' J 1980 the Commission published its final regulations on emergency planning, amending 10 C.F.R. Part 50, which regulations took eff ect on November 3,1980.A/ . 4 2/ 44 Fed. Reg. 75167 (December 19, if79) . 3/ Public Service Comeany of New Hamoshine, et al., DD 80-6; >! Il NRC 371, at 373 (February 11, L980). . . . ,
;( ,
e 4/ 45 Fed. Reg. 55402 (August 19, 1980).
.A d
_. - _..u-. -~ -
- _ . . ==.uu. .ssa .
l . . l 1 t
' .hus, the first two events which, in the opinion of the 1 ' Yt Director, had to occur. before consideration of the emergency ,
4
- planning issue would be timely have, in f act, occurred. Since ,j the Commission has issued its final regulations on emergency lq Mi planning , there is no reason to expect further formal ,
]
" guidance" from the Commission regarding the reconsideration of construction permits. The Commission his not, so far as we are
- i~.
aware, given notice of any intention to issue .further formal l Rl
'{
guidelines Lin this area. 'The Director should, therefore, now n '! i grant SAPL's petition for a'n Order to Show Cause. . II. THERE HAS BEEN NO DETERMINATION OF THE FEASIBILITY OF EVACUATION WITHIN THE SEABROOK EP2 ' a .
, In its Final Regulations on Emergency Planning, amending.
10 < . F .R . Par t 50 ,1/ the Commission now requires appropriate ) i emergency planning for the evacuation of -persons beyond the low j population zone of all light-water nuclear power plants, such l i as the Seabrook f acility. A plume exposure Emergency Planning 4l 5
' Zone having a radius of about ten miles must now be established j
. i around each such plant, with the exact size and shape of the j
'jl-EP2 to be decided on the basis of specific conditions at the lsJ '
site. Licensees must submit emergency . plans providing for. - i l
,p ..
. d ji
; 5/ 45 Fed. Reg. 55402 (August 19, '.980)..... +^. .
, jp
$I i .
4
.- . . . . .-. ..-.. .. . . . -. ~. . ~ . . .
. 9 evacuation within the plume exposure EP3's as part of their .
?
s c, . final safety analysis reports, and those plans must be approved , prior to issuance of operating licenses. ; While the Final Requiations on Emergency Planning do not-
^
require that operators already holding construction permits , demonstrate compliance with the new requirements before the ., operating license stage of review, the Commission expressly noted in a statement accompanying its publication of the + , ; proposed rules which preceded those final regulations 5! ~that ' 1
- it was "considering whether construction permits which have ; I already been issued should be reconsidered because of .the emergency planning considerations of the '(proposed rules] ." , ,
3 The Director quoted this Commission statement in his. decision 4 denying the May,1979 SAPL petition and further observed that I l 'i in December,1979 the NRC staff requested all licensees of plants under construction to cubmit evacuation time estimates so that the Commission would be in a position to identify those
~
plants where " unusual evacuation constraints exist and ' sp ecial planning measures should be considered."2/ 4 Such " unusual evacuation constraints exist" in the case of lj Seabrook plant. It is therefore one of the' instances the 4 I 4
'1 il 2ii 6/ 44 Fed. Reg. 75167, (December ~ 19, 1979). -
- $ ]
7/ 11 NRC 371, at 373-(1980).
., ;j[
hn
- . )
4
.j
. . - - . . - . . - . . . . . ~ . . . . . . - . - . . . . . . . - . . . . - .~..a -u
. . .~
r anticipated by the Staff where construction permits should be a reconsidered and, if necessary, special planning measures ' ordered. , d From the beginning of the Seabrook construction permit , proceedings, the NRC Staff has maintained that it has the authority to require a demonstration of the feasibility of i evacuating persons beyond the LPZ becau'se of the proximity of the Seabrook units to coastal beaches, the inadequacy of -
, sheltering f acilities along the coast, and the limited road ,
networks serving the beaches.S/ This position has been ' supported by NECNP, the Attor,ney' General of New Hampshire, and the NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor . Safety.1/ There is .
'. thus a clear recognition of the unusual difficulties associated
[ with evacuation of the beaches near the Seabrook facility. Within about a five-mile radius of the Seabrook units there is an estimated summer peak population of approximately 100,000 persons, with the majority being clustered in the beach , areas lying from northeast to south-southeast of the site.IS/ It is undisputed that 'even when the seasonal population is ~ , i y, 8/ See Public Service Comoany of New Hamoshire ALAB - 390, 5 ERC 777, at 735-36 (1977). , 9/ See_ Id. ; Letter f rom the Chairman of the ACRS to the i Chairman of- the AEC reviewing Seabrook application
-(December 10, 1974) (Relevant language quoted at 5 NRC 7511 ,
J j 10/ Public Service Cox.canv of New Hamoshica, .at a1. , LBP-76-26, 3 NRC 8 $7 , at 871-7 2 (June 29, 197 6 ) . .
,gjHl
..}{ i. ,
1 l
. ~ - . . .a = :. -- . ; ..._ w I.'
l l time-weighted, population densities at the Seabrook site exceed -
' Q '
the " trip points" of Regulatory Guide 4.7 for both plant
!* start-up and retirement.11/ And the Licensing Appeal Board has determined that the beach area located just over one and one-half miles from Seabrook is the nearest population center ,
to the site, since it will "at thues be the most densely -
, populated area in the state."11/ .
SAPL has filed affidavits ptspared by civil defense. ; directors and other officials o'f New Hampshire towns in the , i vicinity of the Seabrook facility. Attached hereto are similar j affidavits prepared by municipal officials in Massachusetts. Based on their past experiences with large beach crowds and their knowledge of the limited access roads and traffic " choke" points which exist in their areas, these local officials' have i i serious concerns about the feasibility of evacuating their ') 1
- communities in a timely fashion.
In June of 1975, extensive evidentiary hearings were conducted, over the obj ection of the Applicant, before th'e l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on the issue of the -
.i f easibility of evacuating persons beyond the Seabrook LPT,' and particularly from Hampton Beach. .There was conflicting , ,
3 11/ See Seabrook Alternative Site Study , NUREG-0501, at . A-60 T5ecemb er , 1978 ) . a 12/ See Public Service Comeany of'New Hamoshire, ALAB-422, 6 - WEC 33, ar 51 (1977). ,
,1 g
- w. s - -
k_ m k
i. p.t .
.) ! testimony on the issue, which testimony was never resolved by .. v. '
the Licensing Board since it determined that emergency plans .)- need not be developed for areas beyond the LPZ.b The ,. nt conflicts in that testimony give further reason to . question the ! t.
; feasibi1[ty of evacuation beyond the LPZ. i Moreover, the licensee's own evacuation time estimates .-
leave substantial doubt as to the feasibility of evacuation. , ), Public Service estimates that, on a summer weekend, it will :)
- l. take four hours and 20 minutes to evacuate a 180 degree sector .
I to the north of the plant having only a two-mile radius.N/ .. ] That sector includes only one beach area, Hampton Beach, and j- accounts for only 5,247 of the 9,177 estimated vehicles , associated with that beach population.U/ Public Service provides a similar estimate - 4 hours and 30 minutes-for ' i, j evacuation of the ten-mile 90 degree northeast sector ? containing Hampton Beach. E/ i Neither of these estimates includes the time required for , competent authorities to make decisions about the need for evacuation or to notify officials and the public of that need. h 1 1 13/ Public Service Company of New Hampshire, LBP-76-26, 3' NRC j s '6T7, 922-26 (1976). , M/ Public Service Company of New Hampshire, Preliminary , Evacuation Clear Time Estimates for Areas Near Seabrook i Station, August 4, 1980, Table-4. , ,
, 9 . 4.
15/ Id., Table 2.
,7 16/ Id., Table 4. ? .h .R$
r ] g m
- t . ,
~ ]
l _9_ . { t
, Nor do they include the time required for individuals to j.
a prepare to evacuate or for officials to confirm that evacuation l! has been completed. E A recent NRC study, NUREG/CR-1745, l! qq attests to the significance of these omissions:
..f It is important to understand that estimates of the ,
length of the time period f rom the decision to ~ l evacuate through clearances of the evacuation zone is . '} (sic.] significantly aff ected by the time required for both notification and preparation. That is to ,l
- 1 say, the length of time that it takes to clear the 1i area cannot be calculated with any degree of certainty without knowing how long it takes to nott.fy
~
'* the populace of an impending evacuation, and -how long ;l
. ,l . , each person will consume in preparation. M/ ,.
^!"
' - Even without accounting for decision, notification, ,
i preparation, or confirmation time, t'he lic'ensee's estimates exceed the time period -during which fatalities- and injuries ~ will result from exposure to radionuclides on the ground in the event of an "atmospherie" Class 9 accident, according to NUREG-0396. E That document reveals that, assuming a '
. uniform population density of 100 persons per square mile and '
i . plume speed of 10 m.p.h. , an evacuation time of only .three . hours will result in approximately three deaths and twelve l 17/ Id. at 11. 18/ Analysis of Techniques for Estimating Evacuation Times for I Eiiergency Planning Zones , NURED/CR-1745, at 3-4 (Novemb er , 1980). 7 M/ Planning Basis for the Development,.of State _and Local Government Radiological Emergency Response Plans In Support of j Light Water Nuclear ~ Power Plants , NUREG-0 396, EPA 52011-78-016, i Cectmber, 197.8, Figu res I-17 and I-18. l' .y, . , . . s -
,n
'J g
- , early injuries in the 0-5 mile range of the plant and 3 approximately five early injuries in the 5-10 mile range.SS/ .h !
i If evacuation time reaches five hours (with, for example, .the . ,;' . u addition of notification time) , the results are approximately six deaths and twenty-eight early injuries in the 0-10 mile _ i;'
- cange.11/ Of course, RUREG-039'6 makes no attempt'to estimate the long-term genetic or other health eff ects associated with - .
)
'iiJ such evacuation times. !
Thus, even if evacuation can be accomplished within the times estimated by Public Service, there will be a significant, number of early injuries and deaths in the event of an
, atmospheric Class 9 accident at. Seabrook. . And .there is reason l
to suspect that actual evacuation times would be much longer.' j The licensee's most recent evacuation time estimates are i defective in several ways. As we have already mentioned,
. 't Public Service has failed to include in its estimates the . time required for decision, notification, preparation, and i con firma tion . Even more importantly, it has ' failed toLprovide {
20/ Id. 21/ Id. The population density in the beach area.near the-seabr5ck site is much gteater than the -100 persons per squ'are 4 mile assumed in RUREG-0396. As the Licensing Appeal Board has
)3 noted, "there is no doubt that, .at peak. periods . .. .'in excess of 25,000 people will be. found in (that] densely populated . i i
area." Public Service Comoany of New Mameshire, ALAB-422, 6 RRC 33, at 51 (1977). Thus, all of ene .healch and f atality ,, figures. contained in NUREG-0396 are und,erstated so f ar as the- j seabrook' site is concerned. , l. a an - e. *- .i 9 M$ di
- estimates based on simultaneous evacuation during the peak l)
_i: a' i summer-season of all of the beach areas lying from.NE to SSE of. !
< a.
the site or even simultaneous evacuation of Hampton Beach and g either of the other two beach areas, Seabrook Beach and - !
~
t - Salisbury State Beach'. This" def eats the purpose 'of " licensee , . evacuation time estimates, as stated in 'NUREG/CR-1745--namely, , i
- "to present time estimates in a format that will aid a ,
realistic assessment of the options."AA/ _The licensee has .
]
" f also f ailed to provide a time estimate for evacuation .of the' J
' . .e* q entire 10-mile EPZ, as required by. KUREG-0654.11# Andfit has .
1 assumed that approximately one vehicle per household would be .
; used in the evacuation. This assumption, according ^ to .
I NUREG/CR-1745, results in a low estimate of the number of automobiles being evacuated.AA/ 1 e Other significant deficiencIns in the licensee's estimates t j include the followings (1) admitted failure to account in.its off-season- j l estimates for evacuation of the forty schools and in' any of its estimates for evacuation of -the 'three l 22/ Analysis of Techniques for Est'imating Evacuation Times for-Emergency Planning Zones, NUREG/CR-1745, at 13 (November , 1980). That document indicates that two evacuation times ' should be reported for each evacuation zone--one reflecting evacuation of that zone aloneland one reflecting simultaneous evacuation of all contiguous zones. 11. at 14. . 23/ See Criteria-for. Preparation:and Evaluation of
- Radiological Emergency Response Plans ad'd. Preparedness in . l Support of Nuclear Power Plant, NUREG-06 5 4, FEMA-REP-1, ' Rev. l ' -
(Novemb e r , 1980 ) , App. 4,'at 4-4. a 24/ Analysis of Techniques ' for Estimatidg hatuhti'on ' Times for[ 13 ' Emergency Planning Zones, NUREG/CR-1745, at ,10 ; (November,.1980)'. -
- J ,
* :)h, 4
- (
d i . hospitals the ten-mileand othgr/i nstitutionall/ located within
'. EPZ;11 ti
,G J
^
(2) failure to account for the public 4 transporation-dependent population; ji 2
'~a '
(3) failure to include major employers in its
! estimates.of summer transient automobile demand; and j 1
(4) f ailure to consider the eff ect of voluntary ' 1 evacuation beyond the ten-mile EPZ. , Given these deficiencies, it seems likely that the
- licensee's current evacuation time estimates are too low. This ,
~
is especially so in view of the Federal Emergency Management F Agency's estimates that there are 7,180 people in the ., j non-automobile owning population and 3,500 people in 1 i institutions, together constituting 10% ef the total resident population within the Seabrook EPZ.22/ It is also noteworthy that the evacuation tbne estimates
} provided by the licensee in its PSARSS/ are significantly V - -
25/ See Seabrook- Preliminary Safety Analysis Report .("PSAR") , 1 at 2.I;T and Tables 2.1-5 and 2.1-6. , 26/ NUREG/CR-1745 concludes that evacuation times for large . ( sFecial f acilities, such as hospitals, may well be longer than ! the evacuation time for the general public. See Analysis of Techniques for Estimating Evacuation Times for Energency. Planning Zones, NUREG/CR-1745, at 15 (November , 1980 ) . -
- 27/ The Dynamic Evacuation Analyses: Independent Assessment '
of Evacuation Times from the Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zones of Twelve Nuclear Power Stations, FEMA-REP-(number-not yet ass ig ned ) ., at 46. # , J 29/ Seabcook PSAR, Amendment 23, July, 1974, at 513 513-?A . '-
. + . -
jf
#3; i
- ~.%
.)
e ______m________1_____~.__________. - - --- -
[:
, e. -,.
f' . IT f L
, .h l ,
x , 4 '
, higher than its current estimat.es, even though the earlier ., q p N "i 1 esti$tates .' elate to 22.5 degrue sectors (rather than 90 degree l
,y or 180 dedree sectors) and cover only a five-mile radius.E/ :,
In.its PGAR, the licensee pst.imates that it will take eight { s . :' hours from the occurrence of the accident to clear three of the ! six bn.ch actors Io the five-mile radius and that the cther s. . k thred ectors will requires five and one-half to six hours.E/ , A FFJ:A study estimates that a minimum of six hourf,and #, 1 u m minutes will be needed to evacyate the entire EPZ on d suom'er l j Sunday, even it' notification is completed within 15 , atinutes.E/ ' That study further concludes that v The. behavior of drivers'whd are caught in congestion ' i
- witei.n direct sight of the Saabrook Station can only 1 be gtessed at this time. A','y breakdown iW orderly b :
evacuation traffic,ilow will result in evacuation ; times, greater than"the ones estimated above. Total ; evacustion times could range from 10 hours 30 minutes 1 i to - 14 hours 40 minutet for an-evacuation in which traffl'c control is gennrally ineffective.32,/ FEMA estimates, then are also considerably higher than j the licensce i s' current estimates. The earfy deaths and - s A ! Y ' s.'
]
s., >s , 1l 11 , .]' 1 29/ The earlier figures do purport to .inMude notification ) time. !
!l s '
30,/ Seabrock PSAR, at S13-16. . 31/ The Dynar.tb Evacuation Analyses: Independent Assessment oY Evacuation Times from the Plume Exposure Pathway Emergency Planning Zones of Twelve Nuclear Power Stations, FEMA-REP- t (number not yet assigned),'at 46. . j-32/ ~ Id. s
' x . . . . - . S
, ri$d ,
l- ' i l.N
']. >
+
,x
?
4 ,
~
i i j injuries resulting f rom' a Class 9 accident would, of course, be ij q
;V' $j r, . ' significantly higher than the figures recited above if the w 1
q longer tLnes ' estimated by FEHA or by the licensee in the 197 4 3 i i amendment to 'its PSAR are actually required for evacuation. 1; ) III. THE FEASIBILITY OF EVACUAT* JN'SHOULD BE ASSESSED i f; IMMEDIATELY .
. 1 The foregoing discussion demonstrates that there are . ! indeed " unusual constraints" associated with evacuation of the (
Seabrook EPZ and serious questions about the feasibility-of - 'l
\
That' being' the case, Seabrook . is' j s safe evacuation of the area. . s an appropriate instance for immediate examination of the
~
f easibility issue. Both the "Moffett Report"EE/ and the Report of the .
.j ,
President's Commission on the Accident at Three Mile, Island have , roundly criticized the NRC's past practice of postponing 'I
. full consideration of emergency planning issues until the ,
operating license stage. Th'e President's Commission wrote, The construction permit stage does not require . ( complete design plans, and therefore the full safety ' 1; ' review does not occur until the operating license j stage. By then, hundreds of millions of : dollars have ' been spent or committed in the construction process. , i Therefore, the ultimate safety review may be influenced by economic 'considerati,ons that can. lead ,
);
i! l-1i
]j 31/ Emergenev Nuclear Planninc Around U.S. Nuclear Powerelants:'
Regulatory Commission Overstqnt, Fourtn Report ey the. a Committee on Government Operations, 96th Congress,'ist Session,, d'
-House Report No. 196-413 (August 8, 1979) . f "Mof f ett Report"1. " q
. . , . . . .; 4
., ;m l '? . '
n
< 1^
/ . ], . .
;j q
4
.J
.. . .. , . - . - . . . .~ . -
. . - ...,.n g 4.
-r- . . . . i -
,4 .
. ~ .
1 l to a reluctance to order m il operating license stage._3_ajor changes at the 4? .p t ,b I i' similarly, the Moffett Report observed that . j (ilt is not until the plant'is nearly built and the 4' utility applies.for an operating license that it must
' ~'
come forward with a fu11 blown emergency plan. By. then, of course, the Commission may find itself in ai the untenable' position of having to choose'between scrapping a multi-billion dollar investment or .
~ -j allowing the golfare of area residents to be-jeopardized.2_--
i l
' ,J l The Government Operations. Committee concluded in the. __, l
'i Moffett Report that there is " considerable doubt" about the -l
; 0 i i i
; feasibility.cf conducting evacuations in any densely. populated'-
areas 15/ and that evacuation:of a sufficient area around a ! number of U.S. plants is clearly not feasible.21/ In an -
,. exchange, recounted in the Moffett Report, between Congressman Moffett and then Chairman Hendrie, Congressman-Moffett, i J
speaking on behalf of the Environmenta-Energy and Natural ,i l
,- Resources Subcomnittee of the. Government-operations Committee, called on the NRC to "take.a hred look at the feasibility of i, 1
evacuation in the case of plants located near major population a"" priority."21/ areas and. treat that examination as The I i l Commission certainly does not fulfill this legislative mandate jl
,~
"Ij 34/ Report of the President's Commission on the Accident at 31
- Three Mile. Island, at 52. ,j ya 35/ id,. at 30.
.j 7
36/ Id. at 8. j-31/ Id. at 48. . . . . . . . . , p .1 38/ Id. at 46-47. h TyI-l 1
?
- . - . . . , . .r.
i
. 1 l
or meet the criticisms of the Committee on Government , j l Operations and the President's Commission by postponing g I consideration of emergency planning at Seabrook. .) 1 Cases arising under the National Environmental Policy Act, .
- x. ' '1 42 U.S.C. Section 4331 et seg., provide a useful parallel to this situation. Confronted with the problem of " sunk costs",
l courts insist on early review of significant environmental <
, issues. Thus, in upholding the grant of a preliminary -
- injunction enjoining further construction of a bridge, the .
i second Circuit found in Steubing v. Brinegar , 511 F.2d 489, a't ', ' 497 (2nd Cir.1975) , that "(w] ithout preliminary injunctive - l 1 relief construction might well reach the stage of completion u where for economic and other reasons it would be 'impossib!w to
. ~
l turn back or alter the project- in light of what an. .! Environmental Impact Statement revealed, and thus the - 3 environment might thereby be irreparably damaged."39 ) 1 ' Similarly, the Fourth Circuit noted, . in' halting construction of i an interstate highway pending a NEPA review by the Secretary of ) 1 Transportation, that - g 1 (f]urther investment of time, effort,-or money in the 1 proposed route would make alteration or abandonment 1 of the route increasingly less wise and, therefore, - 1 increasingly unlikely. -If investment in the proposed j route were to continue prior to and during ~the
' Secretary's consideration of the environmental i
39/ Cee also National Wildlife Federation v. Andeis,.440 F.
~ '
...?
lupp. 1245, at 1256 (0.0.C. 1977). - - 7 ,t[ r i@; s.
__ _ - . . . .. .. -- . . . .. .. . _. c.n n 1 q ,
,, .. . ~
I a report, the options open to the Secretary. would .
. ; -l diminish, become a and at some formality.4 meaningless point his gensideration would The Commission clearly has the authority to require that ;
- :i Public Servi'ce Company demonstrate the feasibility of 1.
evacuating the Seabrook EPZ now. At the time when emergency
- i planning was limited to the low population zone, Commission J decisions required a determination during construction permit
;' proceedings that " timely evacuation (of the LPZ] is reasonably ,
assured." N The Commission's Final Regulations on Emergency Planning, while extending emergency planning req'uirements to .
, 4 a Emergency Planning Zones, maintain the requirement that a-
- determination of f easibility be made at the construction permit stage for new plants. The Regulations state that: q l
q i The Preliminary Safety Analysis Report shall contain S sufficient information to' ensure.the compatibility of
.! proposed emergency plans for both onsite areas and . .
the EPZ's with facility design features, site layout,; / '! and site. location with respect to such considerations' as access routes, surrounding- population- l
.use, and local jurisdictional ~
I d istributions, la 4 i boundaries . . J
. J 40/ Arlington Coalition on Transportation v. Volpe,453 F.2d ' .
l~123, 1333 (4th Cir. 1972), cert. denied,409 U.S. 1000 (1972).. .. See also Environmental- Defense Fund v. Tennessee Valley i' Authority 468 F.2d 1164, 1183-84 (6 th Cir.1972) ; Latham' v. . Volpe, 456 F.2d lill,1121 (9th Cir.1971) . ;]
' 1 ;
41/ Consumers Power Company, (Midland Plant Units 1 and 2) EAB-123, . 6 AEC 331, at 342. (19 7 3 ) '. . See also Southern .i ! A Calif ornia Edison Comeanv; et al., (San. Onofre Nuclear. { Generating Station Units 2 and.3), ALAB-248, 8 AEC 957,-961-63 (1974). .)jl
.; +
M' 10 C.F.R. Par t 50, Appendix E, Sec tic,n. II . , , J.'
,/..5- b
.i% ~
. ,vg r f
.a
,. ' j m..
- Thus, the Commission cannot now issue construction permits ,,1 L ,
without determining that timely evacuation of the EPZ for the ?! ( particular plant is feasible. ; E,ection 186(a) of the Atomic Energy Acta 1/ authorizes l the NRC to suspend or revoke "(alny 11, cense . . . because of q conditions revealed . . . which would warrant the Commission to ,- refuse to grant a-license on an original application." The 1i d U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of . Columbia Circuit has- , held that this clause 1
,1 applies to all licensing matters, including health, ,
safety, and environmental considerations ...- . (and] reflects a deliberate policy choic~ on the part of Congress when it enacted section is6(a) to render' licenses for nuclear facilities subject to post- 1 I licensing review under evolving licensing standards, rather than under those' standards applicable at the ' i time the license in question was issued.d4/' -
' It is clear, then, that the emergency plan for the Seabrook I
environs is now subject to post-licensing review under the new emergency planning. standards. In light of the gravity of the issue of safe evacuation, 4 it is the responsibility of the Director to issue the.show 3' cause order requested by SAPL. Deferral of this major out-standing safety question to the operating license stage would be inconsistent with the primary obligation of the Commission i and Staff to protect public health and safety. j f i 42 U.S.C. $ 2236 (a) . gs .'l 41/ , 44/ Ft. Pierce Ut!1!!ies Authoeity of the.C.ity of.Ft. Pierce , .) 3 v7 U.S.A. and the NRC, Nos. 77-1925 and 77-2101, slip opinion' ' at 19-20 (D.C. Cir., March 23, 1979).
]jd ,j I
-- - 3 i
a i
' .? j j
Dated: March 13, 1981 ' 2 o_ l? ' Respectfully submitted, ,n
- . . ,j .
Paula Gold, Assistant' Attorney General ; Chief, Public Protection Bureau 4 3' Stephen M. Leonard, Assistant Attorney General' ' l
' Chief, Environmental Protection Division '
j 1 i i
'j ]
i m - .1 I J- e ,,_&k 4 fl ~ # * ,! e -- 5 Je, Ann Shotwe11 . Assistant Attorney General- 'O j Environmental Protection Divisiots , -:!- l Public Protection Bureau j Department of the Attorney General l One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor' ) Boston, Massachusetts 02108 j - (617) 727-2265 . 8
-4
'k l
l j 4
.?
.p
+l O
m .. ., . .[.f , f y > ; j ;
. 1: ..
t j
-- . _____z- - - - -
4 AFFIDAVIT OF GEORGE RIEL i .,' I, George Riel, Police Chief of Newbury, do hereby depose ><
- l. i
!' and say as follows: i
- 1. The Town of Newbury is a Massachusetts town within five air miles of the sitt of the nuclear reactor under .;'
construction in Seabrook, New Hampshire.
- 2. The population of Newbury is 4,800 but increases to ,
well over 30,000 people on any given day in the summer on its l
~ !" 12 miles of beaches. '
1
- 3. There is only one road making Plum Island' accessible.. * ',
to the mainland. It consists of two and one-half miles of two ' l twelve-foot travel lanes. It then narrows into two ten-foot
't :
a !
~
lanes as it feeds into the congested downtown area. .
- 4. At least eight times a year this sole access road to j and from Plum Island is impassable due to flooding from high tides. ' 5. Any nuclear emergency evacuation attempts would' result in immediate congestion and bottlenecks throughout the-entire town. All evacuation routes available _(P.outes- 1A, 1 and
- 95) would be congested with evacuating residents of Salisbury, Merrimac, Amesbury, Newburyport, and othed small communities, kl making it that much more difficult for the residents of Newbury 4f
. Jh to evacuate the area. J
- 6. There are four schools in Newbury, which would 1
cresent special evacuation problems. *
')
3
- i
}@
1 4 1 e
- 7. At the National Wildlife Refuge which covers 4,650 acres of the Town, there are twenty miles of regularly used foct trails which are inaccessible to vehicles or 2 ;
i. communications. There are no telephone or power lines in the "! 4l
. Refuge. .-
- 8. There is a state-controlled Wildlif e Management Area ,
in the Town, 2,000 acres in size, which is also used regularly at certain times of the year. It is also inaccessible to vehicles or communication.
- 9. The majority of the population of Newbury could.be ,
4 evacuated within 16 hours if all went well. 100% evacuation to , safety of the Newbury population could be effected in - i approximetely 24 hours, j s
- 10. As an official who would be involved in- effectuating any actual evacuation, I f eel that the issue of emer.gency I
evacuation planing should be addressed at the earliest possible ! time . ! Signed under the pains and. . . penalties of perjury this 6th day
~
of March, 1981. - i -l b,A1 , .
; 1 i '.I -
0
]
* ,d s ~# k 4 - 4 p 1 l
J
)- - . . . _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ Commonwealth of Massachusetts il j 1
';j {
1 Suffolk, ss, d
. . 3, George Riel appeared'before me and swore that he has dead .
this affidavit and that the statements contained in it are true r to the best of his knowledge and belief. 't l
~~ -
Before me, . l
; . 4
. < i 1 &
- !NotaryPublc bn I
J
.l My Commission expires on 0- m d y i /19,1 .
i
, -a I 1'l -
' .1 I
h
.?,
b)l
... , .. . .]
, ril h2 ~
" s a______
- . . . - . _:- y
. 1
. J 4
. 0 l
.. AFFID AVIT OF MAYNARD PEARSON l
.1 .4 I, Maynard Pearson, Civi'l .Def ense Director for the Town of ,q t
- f. ' !
p' Amesbury, do hereby depose and say as follows: ..j i' l. The Town of Amesbury, Massachusetts is approximately 1
- 'l'
! 3-1/2 air miles from the nuclear reactor sf.te at Seabrook, New h
Hampshire.
- 2. Its population of 16,000 increases by 500 to 700
[, , people in the summer. , i; There are three highways leading out of town. .,These j 3. I are Interstates 95 and 495 and State Route 110. , d T . , In an evacuation, there may be bottlenecking and l i 4. , 1 congestion since there are too many small roads f eeding into l [* the highways.
- i'
- 5. Concern about such congestion vill increase if nearby I q
New Hampshire towns develop plans to use the same evacuation-
! routes we must use.
- 6. Amesbury has a hospital with 75-100. beds, six nursing
; -s homes and five schools.
[ i .. .
- i. 1
', 7. A full evacuation of Amesbury residents would'take j
' \
six hours at best. It is possible that the thne could be. . '
'lk decreased by the use of adequate alarms which are not now ).l available to us. ,,
Jj '
' I N , , .
3, W e % '* 'e , 1 g _/ .)l Ny
. p*
3 ,'e . l i
- 8. As an official who would be involved in effectuating any actual evacuation, I f eel that the issue of emergency '
j i: 6 evacuation planning should be addressed at the earliest l; f
. dl j
> possible time. ll .
4 j
. n
- Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 6th day of March ,' 1981.
; :j u .;
l . . .t i . 1 g d i
+
3 h
.I I
4
, 1 1
'l
- l t , l
!l 1 ,1 i
, .* l 1
\?4 1 e
c , . .. ; . , i , I
. ?
i l Commonwealth of Massachusetts
; ','i 1
* . j
/ ,
Su f f olk , ss. . Maynard Pearson appeared before me and swore that he has read this affidavit and that the statements contained in it are I
~ 'I '
true to the best of his knowledge and belief. - f Before me, i
=_,k. -
Notary Public - i l i l
.; My Commission expires on ',. 1 a,
G A Y. int ' t .< 1 l s i 1 w4 m a w i . l - Sil
-t ,
! 0 l
\
l
. . -.:: u- ;
=
) l t
AFFIDAVIT OF EDWIN OLIVERA l
. s "I
i- I, Edwin Olivera, Police Chief of the Town _of Salisbury do hereby depose and say' as follows: l 1. Salisbury is a~ Massachusetts town within ten miles of the site of the nuclear reactor under construction in Seabrook, , l' i New Hampshire. - 1
- 2. Its permanent population of approximately 5,600 residents increases by over -10,000 people between Memorial Day
^
' It is additionally visited by.1,000 .5,000 l and Labor Day.
- motorists daily during the above summer ' vacation period. '
- 3. This large increase in population and daily influx of beachgoers creates severe congestion.along the single access
. road to our beach. This one-lane access road is fed by ~! J Routes 1, 110 and Interstates 495 and 95.
t i 4.- At this " feeding" point, Salisbury Square, there 'is a ) 3 1> bottleneck which causes traffic-.congestioniand back-up. l ' 6
- 5. These same roads are also used by beachgoers on their t
way south from Hampton Beach. In an evacuacion rituation, the ]
,j congestion will be worsened by this southward evacuation. - ,
4
- 6. In normal peak season, traffic emergency vehicles - J suffer great delay and are caught up in the-slow traffic. ,
In the Salisbury area, the state reservation camping 7. area and the three trailer parks are frequented by,:among i others, French Canadians who do not undtestand English. I'E O. *8 % l
.' 1 ll ' 51 II 4; i r .'
L:
. . .J !
^
, j l
- 8. The Greenleaf Manor Nursing.Home and othe'r housing l for the elderly are within ten miles of Seabrook. The two schools in Salisbury are between five and seven miles from y
Seabrook. _l
- 9. I estimate that 100% evacuation of Salisbury would
~
~
i take at least eight hours. .,
.I
- 10. Our biggest evacuation problem is access to and from !
\ the beach. j i 11. As an official who would. be involved in effectuating i i .
any actual evacuation, I feel that the issue of emergency ! evacuation planning should be addressed at the earliest . l
, e t ,
possible time. I 7 i Signed under the pains and I penalties of perjury this 6th day. of March, 1981. - { 1 i
. l t
- 1
)
l
. i i
i i j
\
- i i
i f
. . , .. . , 4-o
. 1,.'..- .i .
Commonwealth of Massachusetts .
!. 3
'h \
- 'I f v,
.41 Suffolk, ss. 1 .l i
j Edwin Olivera appeared before me and swore that he has l
-i read this affidavit and that the statem'ents contained in it are , .I I
true to the best of his knowledge and belief. . , .j j j 4 4 Before me, . i l i 1
.,r- = - 1-Notary Public - ,
i 1 My Commission expires on .! j 4 q.} f (U.5 '
- 1. < .
i
', k
. 1
. ,q q
..% .m
' ' . n i
.'), )
j sp
., i l l
e b . CERTIFICATE OF' SERVICE ) l l I I , JO ANN SHOTW ELL , hereby certify that the f oregoing '
" Memorandum of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in Support of ,
Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Request f or an Order to Show z.9 p Cause Dated June 30, 1980" was served upon the following by depositing copies thereof in the United Staes Mail, postage prepaid, this 13th day of March, 1981: John Ahearne, Chairman Roy P. Lessy, Esquire . s* Office of the Executive Legal Victor Gilinsky, Commissioner f Riu.sard T. Kennedy, Commissioner Director , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm6n Washing ton, D.C. 20555 Washing ton, D.C. 20555 . Samuel chilk, Secretary E. Tupper. Kinder, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conn'n Assistant Attorney General Washing ton, D.C. 20555 Environmental Protection, Divisio , Office of the Attorney General.. Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman 208 State House- Annex . . i Atomic Safety and Licensing Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Appeal Board , U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n- Ellyn R. Weiss, Esquire l Washing ton, D.C. 20555 Karen P. Sheldon, Esquire l Sheldon, Harmon, Roisman, & Weis j
- Dr. John H. Buck ~1725 I Street., N.W.- Suite 506 !
Atomic Safety and Licensing Washington,JD.C. 20006 l Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Atomic Safety and Licensing-Washing ton, D.C. 20555 Board Panel-U.S.-Nuclear Regulatory Comm',n l Michael C. Farrar, Esquire Washing ton, D.C. 20555 ! Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Dr. Ernest 0.'Salo j U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Professor ~of Fisheries Research
- Washing ton, D.C. 20555 Institute. .
;1
, ' College of Fisheries ~
Ivan W. Smith, Esquire University of Washington Atomic Safety and Licensing Seattle,. Washington' Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Thomas Dignan, Esquire - Washing ton, D.C. 20555 Ropes and Gray . j-
- 225 Franklin Street l Dr. Marvin M. Mann Boston, Mass. 021l.0.
Atomic Safety and Licensing r,.
. Leonard Bickwit, Esquire l l Board Panel ,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm'n Office of the Gereral Counsel _ ., Washington, D.C. 20555 Wa hington, D.C. 20555 4
.1
.j 4e g i i
f
- 1
. . . ~ .
Cocket and Service Section Robert A. Backus, Esq. i Office of the Secretary O'Neill, Backus, & Spielman U.S. Nuclear' Regulatory Comm'n 116 Lowell Street Washing ton, D.C. 20555 Manchester, New Hampshire l Joseph F. Tubridy, Esquire Dr. Kenneth A. McCollum ';
<, 4100 Cathedral Avenue, N.W. 1107 West Knapp Street Washington, D.C. 20016 Stillwater, Okalhoma 74074 1 1
. l l
By: 0-- ed...wC ( JO . ANN SHOTWELL f
- Assistant Attorney General j Environmental Protection Division " !
Public Protection Bureau J Department of the Attorney General'
- i One Ashburton Place,19th Floor l Boston, Massachusetts 02108 . 4 (617) 727-2265
/
1
)
)'
s e
~
l d 4 4
' 1 a j
\
i
~-l
, . . . . m .f
~,
", , d$j s,
,n
~
. ~se j
_ ... _ y y o, .
.' l 3 { h COUNTY OF SUF,FJg .
g; eoe w-3 l
. .a
'87 MAR -2 P3 :30 COUNTY LEGISLATURE i t/i .
'
- LOU HOWARO 00C';
Laoisutoa. i4rw oisract Februaff 25,1987 i The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission , ! Washington, DC 20555 i
Reference:
Radiological Emergency Planning for the Shoreham Nuclear
, Power Station, Docket No. 50-322.
Dear Mr,
. Zech: On February 23,1987, the Nuclear Regulator Commission listened to oral I presentations from several Governors, Senators, and Congressmen most of whom ,
. . urged you not to revise the NRC regulations concerning emergency planning. The .
goal of their argument is to continue to permit local and/or state politicians to retain the present de facto veto power over NRC licensing decisions. Suffolk County was heavily represented in the appearances. The Suffolk politicians, acting 'i against the licensing of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, probably can lay claim i for the dubious honor of having discovered the " veto loophole"in the NRC regulations. Let me introduce myself, I am Legislator Lou Howard , the only public officialin . < Suffolk County to be reelected in recent years, who has had the courage to say during ; my reelection campaign that "If the NRC approves the safety of the Shoreham plant ! ~' and agrees that the emergency plan can adequately protect the public, then it should i be allowed to operate-we need a generating facility on Long Island that is not depend- , ent on foreign oil and not dependent on 1000 mile long transmission lines to bring i electricity from Canada." . The purpose of this letter is to point out that not everyone in Suffolk supports the maneuvers that have led to the present Shoreham licensing impasse. I am one of many officials and citizens who feel that the actions by the County and by the State Governor have been irresponsible, and probably in defiance of the law. The apparent j minority " pro-Shoreham" citizens are concerned not just about the Shoreham situation .
, J but wo fear that the Suffolk insanity will spread to other localities and seriously damage the national welfare and security.
It seems to me there are two important issues at stake: i
- 1) should local / state officials have the ultimate authority in deciding whether l a nuclear facility can operate safely?, and 2)should local / state officials be allowed to use emergency non-planning to effectively abrogate the dozens of locallegal permits wnich were required !
before nuclear plant construction could begin?
, g]j l 147 eac Acw Ay u ,
e AmtywLLs. Pesw yea < 1,7o1 ' e ' isten eet 44e4 _-m -
s . -
.* The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman - February 25,198't .
a A The latter issue must be settled in the courts of New York State. However, the first of these issues is clearly a concern of the NRC which I hcpe the Commission will address firmly and without further delay. It seems to me that in recent appropriation .! bills (PL-99-141 - signed by President Reagan, Nov.1,1985; and PL-99-160 - signed by l4 2 President Reagan, Nov. 26,1985) Congress has clearly given the NRC the authority to issue an operating license in cases where the local and state authorities refuse to
! participate in emergency planning if the utility has submitted a plan that is adequate
'i to protect the public. i; l In the case of the Shoreham plant, there can be no question that the'Coun'ty's refusal to participate in emergency planning is based on the assessment by local ' officials that the plant is unsafe and that the NRC cannot be trusted to carry out its responsibility to protect the public. Local officials standing for reelection, have , i repeated over and over that consultants hired by the County - at the cost of some !
$600,000 - have proved that no evacuation plan can work. Having been a member, and ; in fact, the Presiding Officer of the Suffolk County Legislature at the time the i consultants' reports were filed, I can assure you that the consultants reached no such conclusions. As a matter of fact, I doubt that any of my colleagues in the Legislature i
read the highly technical reports. (If they did, they probably learned little, because i the reports were not readily intelligible to the non-expert.) ,
)
The point just made reaffirms the original wisdom of Congress in preempting nuclear ' d safety regulation for the Federal rather than local governments. Suffolk County l obviously can't retain a staff of several hundred engineers, physicists, metallurgists, etc. I to assess the safety of a nuclear plant. What this boils down to is that the local politicians have played upon the public fears to get reelected, with total disregard to the value to the public of the Shoreham plant. l They defamed the NRC and eroded the public confidence in your ability to ensure the
' public safety. Other local politicians around the country are beginning to emulate the { '
Suffolk pattern. It is resulting in a breakdown of the democratic process which is the i
! basis'of our nation's strength. The Shoreham impasse is intolerable. The NRC must act to restore rationality to our public processes. ; Sincerely yours, - '
l .i. 1 .4
- LOU HOWARD ,
LTHafmd COUNTY LEGISLATOR ,,
. i i
4
^
v
~. -
7 -. .
;oc m m a aEs fy.g r .J e'- .,,.,,,,......., - g g, p-0L ~3 )-0 noronsamPR@-f .9-m s...... (yr;a u g y
~
y m1 HARMON & WEISS U$"CP j'
"; 3..,.1..g e..
. ... o. J/ YJ.,/. W % 4 ,,,,,,,,,,,,g,
...m ,
p-4 ! SulTE 430 WASHINGTON, D.C. soooo-uss '87 FE8 27 P4 :37 g. , GAIL McGREEVY HARMON - TELEPHONC j f ELLYN R. WC)SS .. _ (202)328 3500 ) DIANC CURRAN WES DEAN R.TOUSLEY NW- ' " ANoRcA C. FERSTER - Fe bruary _20,1987 J - . Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman .
-Thomas M. Roberts James K. As sels tine .
l
' Frederick M. Bernthal .
}
Kenneth M. Carr ' U.S.. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ! Washington, D.C. 20555 l I
Dear Commissioners:
We understand that on February 23, you will be meeting 'to .' l consider.the promulgation of an amendment to the emergency plan- , l ning rule whose sole, purpose is to clear.the-way for the licens-ing of the Shoreham and Seabrook reactors, as well as any other reactors.for which responsible state and local' governments have refused to participate in the preparation and testing of emer-gency plans because they do not believe that~the public health - and safety can'be adequately protected in the' event of'a. ( radiological' emergency. To achieve that end, the NRC Staff proposes to violate the Atomic Energy- Act and to abandon the vital' principles of emergency planning that grew out of the.Three Mile Island accident. On behalf of the Union of Concerned ' '
)
l Scientists and the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution,- - we urge you to reject the NRC Staff > s emergency planning .rulemak- _J , ing proposal. 3
. I In violation of the Atomic Energy Act, the proposal would- 1 elevatie considerations of the cost of compliance- with the _ emer-gency planning rules over the safety of nuclear power plants;
. Instead of requiring a showing that "adequateuprotective measures can and will be taken" during a nuclear reactor accident at these '
;1 plants, the Commission would only ask those utilities'to' l demonstrate that they have taken " reasonable".and " feasible" -
1
.(i.e. not too expensive) compensatory measures to make up for the lack of state'or local plans. The proposal would allow the NRC 4 l
to exempt those operating license applicants from any or all of the safety requirements for offsite' emergency. planning, as long . 3 as they could show they had attemoted to meet the requirements, j By substituting a "best effort" standard for a safety stan- J dard, the. proposal makes a mockery of the emergency planning . rule [< and-violates the principle that costs to~1icensees may.not.be' j 7l .] , .] . , . . yd
. uj.z '.
y,}
.\
v g If i
I . 1<
.1 i l .
HAaxox & weiss
],
y f NRC Commissioners 3 February 20, 1987 g Page 2 considered in making safety dett:rminations. See Power Reactor N Development Corp. v. International Union , 367 U.S. 3 96, 4 08-409 tf j N (1961). All plants were given construction permits on the l explicit condition that the utilities build "at their own risk." b] h l The NRC has said time and again that no consideration of utility costs will be permitted when plants come up for operating R.) licenses -- that if all commission rules aren't met, the license O will be denied. Now the NRC is proposing to reverse 30 years of O precedent. The NRC Staff is recommending to the Commission that it abandon a regulation -- one which only seven years ago the 'yjy I Comission decided was necesary for the protection of the public
-- rather than deny an operating license. The emergency planning .p rules are not claimed to be any less "necessary." Instead, pub- d
? i lic protection is being traded off for the economic interests of '
I l the utilities. 1
,1l By clearing a broad path for noncompliance with the emer- ,
gency planning regulations, the proposal essentially guts the l t rule. Above all, the proposal utterly repudiates the principle i! of preparedness. Under the current rule, the were existence of a 8l M written emergency plan is not enough -- the Commission must l determine that the plan "can and will" be implemented. .That j principle is abandoned in the Staff's proposal, which explicitly 4, j deletes the requirement for the exercise of offsite plans by ' state or local governments, and which implicitly waives the requirement for training of government officials. The proposed rule assumes that state and local governments will " cooperate"
$y '
during an accident -- but contains no explanation of how those 1 officials will be able to respond quickly and effectively without j the benefit of previous training or exercises. Thus, the proposal would take the NRC back to the dayJ of ajj, hoc emergency response that proved so chaotic -- and potentially disastrous -- at Three Mile Island. As the Commission recognized six years ago l when it promulgated the emergency planning rule, the mere exis- ! tence of a piece of paper provides no reasonable assurance that I the public health and safety can be protected during an accident. The additional vital importance of preparedness should be even more ingrained in the Commission's conscience af ter the Chernobyl disaster. V The rationale put forth by the Otaff for this rule grossly 5 misstates the emergency planning rulemaking record. First, the Staf f claims that at the time the rule was promulgated, the Com- j mission did not anticipate that a state mighu refuse to submit an emergency plan. On the contrary, one of the main complaints f raised by the nuclear industry's comments on the rule was that 1 l w s - - A y ne a m
V 4 ll DW b b ddioners February 20, 1987 Page 3 i l the rule gave states a de facto veto over plant operation. Fed. 45 l Re g . at 55,405, CoIT 1. The commission responded:
. j 3 j The Commission recognizes there is a possibility that i i
the operation of some reactors may be affected 'by this I
' rule through inaction of State and local governments or I an inability to comply with these rules. . The Commis-sion believes that the potential restriction of plant f
.j operation by State and . local officials ~is not sig * ,
nificantly different in kind or effect from the means-
, - j already available under existing law.to prohibit reac- -
tor operation, such as zoning and land use laws, certi-fication of .public convenience and necessity, State . 3 financial and rate considerations. .. and Federal environmental laws. - j 4 5 Fe d. Re g . a t 5 5,4 0 4, Co l . 1. It is. clear that the' Commission
+
deliberately decided that the overriding importance to safety of- , emergency preparedness outweighed the risk.that some plants might j be prevented by state action from operating.- As noted by the Staf f, the ' Commission stated its " belief" that " State and local i i officials as partners to this undertaking wi11' endeavor to pro-
~
vide fully for public protection." Id. That is. exactly what
> Massachussetts and New York have done7 based upon their. findings,-
af ter responsib:te study, that the location of these plants makes effective emergency action impossible. The problem'is that the Commission does not want " partners." It-wants'only passive sub-ordinates. 1 i _Second, the Staff argues that emergency preparedness Lis ~ not as important as engineered safety, basing this claim upon the. j
' f act that utilities were given time to phase into compliance with-the new rules. The argument is disingenuous. In fact,1the emer- 1 gency planning rules were considered so important:that they were ]J "backfitted," that is applied to all operating reactors and not
-regulation.
just new ones -- a relatively rare event in nuclear reactor In such cases, where a new rule is applied toL - licensed reactors, some time-is always given for compliance. No ' l inference can be drawn from this phase-in that the rule is of secondary importance. Indeed, the importance of the new emer- . q gency planning rule -- and the preparedness component which'this q proposal would gut -- was stressed repeatedly by the Commission: ' In order to discharge effectively its statutory responsibilities, the Commission must know ... that . adecuate protective actions in response to actual or anticipated conditions can and.will be taken. 1
, i
.. . . . i,. .
+
. ~
r
+
, *., (
HAnxox & WEISS NRC Commissioners i February 20, 1987 - Page 4, 45 Fed. Reg. at 55,403, Col. 3 (emphasis added). M i When it promulgated the existing emergency planning, rules, the Commission recognized that the stringency of the rules might result in the denial of some operatlng license applications. The Commission refused then to compromise its safety regulations on economic grounds, and it must not do so now. This desperate bid , to create a licensing loophole for Shoreham and Sea, brook -- where i the affected state governments have determined, after careful and j responsible study, that it is impossible to assure the safety of ; l the public during a radiological accident -- must be rejected. I We urge the Commission to reaffirm its commitment to the princi- 1 ples established in the 1980 emergency planning rule by rejecting l this proposal. .
)
Sincerely, Diane Curran . l 1.1
\
l
- yn . Weiss ,
Counsel for Union of Concerned j Scientists and 1 New England Coalition on 1 Nuclear Pollution
;. l , +
T s F u j
=- - -
_ ._i cf ) i M ' i 1',4 a :
- 1
1
" JOCKET NUMBER 4 .. >
7 . g g g - o t - 3 g. a r g g] 3 % F y o y . l
.= m - -
j w > I **
'87 (1AR -g pg ;gg i
j
- KENNETH H. THOMMEN. TCWN CLERK ;
- w. ' ;
sOUTHAMPTON. NEW YORK 11968 00Gu ,M,! j 'l C5163 283-6000 En. 214 ,f
)
February 25, 1987 j
. . To Whom It May Concern: ,l Please be advised'that.tha Town Board, at'a meeting held on -
2 February 24, 1987 adopted the following resolution: - ' WHEREAS, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has under consideration an amendment to its own rules and regulations which would permit ~
], , the NRC to license nuclear power plants notwithstanding the fact ;
that an adequate off site emergency plan acceptable to state and local governments can not be developed and implemented, and ,, WHEREAS, said rule' amendment is a blatant and ill conceived - attempt by the NRC to permit the licensing of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station despite the fact that State and local governments on Long Island have declared as policy that the development of an adequate off site emergency plan for said .; nuclear power station is impossible, and WHEREAS, the Town of Southampton has participated as an ' interected party in Shoreham,related proceedings because of its policy that no safe off site emergency plan can be developed, -
'. and
- WHEREAS,'the adoption of said rule by the NRC jeopardizes the 1
, future health, safety, and, welfare of the people of Southampton,
; and WHEREAS, said rule would also viqlate the police power of-the State and its local governments which was recently upheld by the Appellate Divison of the State Supreme Court in Cuomo v. l L.I.L.C.O. relating to offsite emergency planning for the . jq Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, and j
-1 WHEREAS, infringement by the federal government of the police power of state and local government is in direct violation of .,
the U.S. Constitution, il l NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT l RESOLVED, that the Town of Southampton hereby opposes this . .l proposed amendment to the NRC rules and urges that said j i,' amendment not be adopted, and be it further, f; 4m 1
? ,
Q, 7 v_ . i Page 2
> bi ,
RESOLVED, that the U'.S. Congress is hereby urged to adopt , ;J ril l legislation which would curtail the authority of the NRC to prohibit said agency from adopting said rule and infringing .p. gl' on the police power of state and local governments, and be , it further, l RESOLVED, that a copy of this resolution shall be sent to ,pq the following: ~Y (a) All New York State Congressman
- fs{
(b) Senator Alphonge D' Amato (c) Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan - lya; (d) President Ronald Reag'an :p (e) Governor Mario Cuomo (S , (f) Senator Kenneth LaValle d j (g) Assemblyman John Behan (h) County Executive Michael LoGrande ["{l r y (1) Clerk, Suffolk County Legislature ..._
@ Nuclear Regulatory Commission t l
l Sincerely yours, . l
,-:-m
'y. ,
}
-y !
Kenneth H. Thommen k ! Town Clerk I.51 l vrt se .
+
7 i Y j
. I t ,
- I w . s - .
, MI -
.. .. 7
; _ . _ . _ . ._4... ,
I , I $
! n neog%
00c;9TtIUMUD.5 #- W Ok# #
. UNITED STATES
* ?D.E O M "*** * * # "
!})#(
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g'.\ .a *s WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 o -Q ^ . t , g i. r, i { n
, '%#. Y CHAIRMAN February 27, 1987 a.
87 ws -4 PS :37 ,
.. y
. ,; , 1j h.?...~.$..>-,m.b.,'Y3.,.l4'Y9~OL
- , m The Honorable Richard.'A. Gephardt '
, United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515
)
]
Deer Congressman Gephardt: ' - Tha nk you for your letter of February 6,1987 commenting on the - 1 preposed rule which~the NRC stafi' recently forwarded to the ,4 Commission for its consideration. That proposal calls for a - charigs in the Comnission's emergency planning rules. It addresses those rare instances in.which a state or local - go,vernment elects not to_ participate in the emergency planning .., process for a nuclear power plant. It provides.that non-participation would not necessarily preclude issuance of an operating license to the plant. Under the. proposal a utilitv
. plan would be evaluated against a series of acceptance 3 criteria, including the existence of measures. designed to J
compensate for the non-participation of.the state o'r locality
, in the planning process. -
i The Commission determined on Feb'ruary 26, 1087 to' issue the l oroposed rule for public comment. Your letter, as well as j others which we have received from elected public officials, i will be given careful consideration. Your letter will be - ; placed in the record of the rulenaking. ) l Sincerely, , I a
\
l lv. 1 Lando W. Ze , il
- 1 1
1 r i i
.)'
s '
.= .. .- , d
, d'
' qk, i
=
y
. - - . . . .m' i
,l* . .
~
} .. '!! CHARD A. GEPHARDT ****a*** o* ace '
; ( 30 Diemet, MessouJe 1422 Loneweatu Howse comes evseme Wasameron. DC 2091
.,i : L w4r: 4=0 ue4as couuen' CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES ..g.
o.emer o. ace HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES W. eees os..e
- WASHINGTON, DC 20515 SeIsI4 ens ;
'87 MAR -4 P5 :37 .
February 6, 1987 : A:s Y
"- . ilCf ?
Chairman Lando Zech, Jr. s U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
-1717 H Street, N.W.
- Washington, D.C. 20555 .-
Dear Chairman Zech:
~
I have recently learned.that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission . $ is considering rule changes that could permit full-power licensing of a nuclear power plants even if state and local authorities object to 4 such licensing and have refused to participate in the formulation of , emergency planning procedures. These changes,-outlined in a recent' - j memo by the General Counsel's office, would substitute milder , requirements with potentially adverse. consequences for public safety. C' . I strongly oppose these draft rules and urge that the . Commission cease their cort 4(oration. State opposition to licensing 4 of plants like Shoreham at.I. seabrook is-grounded in the widespread i and legitimate concerns about the safety of.those plants. These concerns demand attention and resolution. - Particularly in the aftermath of the Chernobyl accfdent, a Commission proposal to circumvent state or' local' authority wculd represent an affront to state and local officials.- It sends all of
- us an ominous message about the Commission's commitment to safety.
Effactive emergency planning'for. nuclear plants requires the i assistance and cooperation of local governments and states.- Local: . ; .. citizens' concerns, as reflected by the. positions.of theirEstate and 1 local representatives, must be paramount. I urge the Commission to work with the states, rather than trying to circumvent them. - 5' I appreciate your consideration of this matter and look forward to your reply. *
,. 1 Sincerely, b
- w. &M
-Richard A. Gephardt-RAG:jch e
. '.. . , . . . .f, ;
(! ., .TS[ '
~
g , ng "A j i-
- l
The GEM t.sw Group
, 7 -
7:3 yg493j9g_gi, g,s;,ageoc.in Shaines &.McEachern .
. - ~ ~ ~ s ~ n.vr Hartford CT Professional Association, Attomeys ' ,
!. ,: g y,3g { s erowdene..ni
,s
' \ February 19, 1987
.?7 m.E -4 P5 :37 f
< :4
. Mr. Samuel J. Chilk '
J Secretary to the Commission , , . 1717 H Street NW x . 31 Washington, DC 20555 s w Re: Seabrook Licensing Proceeding
. ., j ,
Dear Mr. Chilk:
, Enclosed please find STATEMENT OF PAUL McEACHERN.,
ATTORNEY FOR THE TOWN OF HAMPTON BEFORE THE NP.Cil FEBRUARY . 1
- . 23,.1987, for filing in the above-referenced proceeding. 1 '
-3 By copy of the enclosed statement forwarded to each ,
's i of the commissioners, on. behalf of the Town of H4mpton,. ' 1 I am requesting that I be permitted to deliver the reuarks, .g orally at-the Briefing. This would' require three ninutes. ' i 1 3 ,v 14 To my knowledge the Town of Hampton is the only New ! Hampsnire intervenor in the Seabrook Station proceeding ' that will be present and who has made formal,roquest to ' be heard by the commissioners. , , , t whether cr not the commissioners permit this brief '
, al presentation, please consider this a formal regtiest.
to make the enclosed written" statement a '\ part'of the brief-- l ing record for the February 23 hearing. , Thank you for your atte'ntion to this matde u , v N -- i s i i*b \
'Ve'frymtyw)ly y'auds, ;
')
. / 4
_ , 6 Yr , 1 [F 1 McEachern 1.. PM:jml / j. Enclosure , cc: Lando W. Zech,-Jr. " ' ' ' O James K. Asselstine ~ i ..I Thomas M. Robertc? % ' ' Frederick M. Bernth)l 3~ ibnneth M. Carr s 2 5 _ P.O. N 3d0. .M .%tplewood Avenue Port 4 mouth. New Hampshire 03801 J- ;*
+-
Telephone 5tM/436 3110 FAR603/436 2993 [ Robert A. 5hatnes. Paul M $chern. John H. McEachern. Duncan A.
' i, ,
f Mh
; Mc Eachern. Gregory rom A Dan W. Thornhill. Branch Sanders. AHce K. Page. Matthew T. Brock. Daniel C. Hoefie. Pamela D. Eidgedge.
m 5 -9 Wilh m B. Gamble. R.. Timothy Phoenis. Fred .I Madri4an tretired) m - l I l y
)j s Y
t L>?
.]
r t' ,
]' .
l? *
\
~
- i 1
. STATEMENT OF PAUL McEACHERN, ATTORNEY FOR THE TOWN OF HAMPTON ..!
, y
- l. BEFORE THE NRC, FEBRUARY 23, 1987 N In the Matter of -
4' PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPS* DIRE, _qji & .;;j
- .. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) '
Dock 1 D'ocket h,et Nos. . 50-443, 50-444'Off-Site Emergency ~ Planning 50-443-OL-01, 444-OL-01-On-Site.E2 add Safety Issues 9
.. 3J "
J' The proposed rule limiting the voice of the local governments lfor ,-
. J, l
, their own safety concerns is a regretable deformity of the Federal- j State relationship. +-
+
- j ./
a i J
\
i Safety comes last. The plant is sited,- constructed, loaded.withi $) i fuel and then the NRC decides if " reasonable ascurance that'. adequate il d protective. measures can and will be taken-in the event of-a
' J radiological . emergency". -
j Absurd. . . No . local government would ever issue a permit to build a house, j tell the builder he is at his own risk, and then, after the house is ,j built decide the zoning questions. The NRC is doing just this in the case of nuclear power plants. - ',, , \ obviously, pressures build to adjust the safety: concerns' shen it 'is. ', !
~
apparent that the plant may not open if they are-addressed. ,Jl The staff's language on page 4 of attachment A to the rule change points out the dilemma "Significant policy questions of~ equity and fairness . 'a are presented where a utility has substantially completed' , !
; q, construction and committed substantial resources '.,o a JJ 3
0.
.. 1
'd g
k,}, 4P 4 s
-r -
. . . . . . . . . . . . . -. .. - .i... -i, i.p- s.is,1 . .. - .,
.. . . . r i i- g ii
i 3 ; .- ., 1 nuclear plant and then, after it is far too late real- . H-istically for a utility to reverse course, the State Q
'1 1 or local government opposes the plant by non-cooperation l!
in offsite emergency planning." i Yet, the. utility has always been aware that a construction permit ") J does not entitle.it to'an operating license. Now, we are told that " minimal impact" on safety would come about 1 by the rule change. (Staff 1913 Makino Issue reb, it, 198 7, I.g ]J. l
.' ;il In' effect, the NRC. is considering. a law of the jungle, rule - that ;
every man will run for it. l ,
, 3 The Town of Hampton, New Hampshire cooperated with all higher governmental authorities until December, 1985 when an unworkable f evacuation plan'was submitted without its prior knowledge. '
In March,1986,' the Town, acting in Town meeting, voted to end: a its cooperation. Since then, the exigencies of the situation have .) . taken hold. The inescapable f act of Seabrook is that it is improperly ' sited. ) 1 j Safe evacuation is an impossibility. It's unfortunate that the NRC-has placed safety as the last consideration before licensure. Safety 1 last, indeed.
^)
1 11 The NRC has no traffic policemen or. school t'eachers to carry out an e'acuation. Before this commission compromises the sa'fety of the citizens near Seabrook, .it should re-examine its method of licensure ,-i 4
.f ;
which allows a plant to be sited next to a popular beach resort with 3}
= * . -
- ) ,
2 .- -:s <
, 'd
[ i h
1 1
- l p limited access roads. . There's the ' rub. It will not be glossed over .
_;1
.i.t by an corruption-of the Federal-State relationship. '
.v ., t* l 4 t
.t .:
O O 9 e j <h e 0 4' l6 r* *- .. g 6 .. A t . J 61
- 4 8
r I e e W 1 I'
.. ._ rt
, -g s
i 3l 11 r I
.t ' .,
y . .l .
.4.
i
.'i - 1
)
]
m . e. .. .- _.] 3 .., .f.i . 4,<
.I'
.4 f s' o ll 0- V 0
t
w ~n w=n g g_yy3 /Wy-OL r a n. s um. r;.c.. 1
- h'" % ...t. . . . .v.v. .
aW - M* mes oury . Board of Selectmen Town Hall, Amesbury, MA 01913 i
., Tel. 388 0290 l i: UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULA'IORY COMMISSION
)
BEFORE THE COMMISSIONERS c]o . February 23,* 1987 g 3
, M ..
^
PRELIMINARY COMMENTS BY THE TOWN OF AMESBURY WITH RESPECT 'IO RULEMAKING ISSUE SECY 87-35.
$ ,~.h j
-o i g v1 ;
As an active party to an ongoing licensing proceeding, A.he u] ' s Town ef Amesbury, Massachusetts is deeply concerned with the above ;j l titled rule making petition proffered by the NRC Staff. That deep j concern brings us to Washington, DC today to hear first hand the
, rationale behind the Staff's petition.
l The Town of Anesbury's initial reaction to the proposed rule I was one of utter shock. Just the idea that an agency of the government, I under obligations to protect the public interests, would propose a rule change solely for the benefit of the utility is unconscionable. After ! careful review of Rule Making Issue SECY-87-35 we must conclude that a more accurate title would read: . I A Regulatory Change to Allow Licensing of the Seabrook ' and Shoreham Nuclear Power Plants Dispite the Fact That Both State and Iocal Officials, Af ter Much Research and Investigation, Have Concluded That No Radiclogical Emergency Response Plan Can Provide the " Reasonable Assurance" Necessary To Protect the Public in the Affected Areas. Throughout the petition, references are mad to the " intent" of the existing regulations and the anticipated cooperation of State and Local governments. The Town of Amesbury fully agrees that a 3 1* s (1 7.. k a
ToA, 2/23/87, p.2. cooperative effort by all levels of government to develop any public safety program stands the best chance for success. However, when one or more of those governments find significant, uncorrectable deficiencies l'n the program, common sense dictates that those con- y cerns for public safety be treated as the highest priority, and any
; resulting financial hardships to the private sector be given' the l,
'i i least consideration. ,; ;
-l In the case of Seabrook Station, the Applicants have* known since the onset of the permit process that they operate at their. ,
own peril. When the construction permit application was mado, the , public asked for emergency planning programs. . .the NRC denied that " request saying it was inappropriate at the time. Again in 1980, j l when the present regulations were adopted, the public sought answers . to the questions of emergency planning. The NRC cont'inued its delay l of the issue stating it would only address emergency planning as part j of the final iteensing proceedings. l l
, For the past three years, the Intervenors to the Seabreok case l t ! have been Aabeled " eleventh-hour obstructionists" by the Applicants.
j The Town of Amesbury contends it is. the NRC who should bear that , 1, title, The NRC has deliberately obstructed the ef forts of both ' the. Intervenors and the general public in addressing emergency planning . i problems prior to substantial completion of the facility. Furthermore, the proposed rule making petition uses as a basis .il for its legitimacy the financial interests of the Applicants and i their stockholders. Time and again financial concerns have been ! raised by the Intervenors only to have the NRC take the position that
~
t finances and emergency planning are two separate issues and are not to ! be mingled. The about-face by the Staff adds credence to' the f amiliar - g .l criticism that the NRC continually gives the appearance of proponent jff . s
,' hY x ..
1
i . .g ..
' +
. 'ICA, 2/23/87, p.3.
i- . t~ . for the industry rather than regulator and protector of public safety. In conclusion, the Town of Amesbury views the proposed rule-making petition as the NRC's attempt to salvage the financial interests t of New Hampshire Yankee /Public Service Company of New Hampshire and
/
.L' )' the Long Island Lighting Company. A regulatory change of this nature t undermines states rights, lessens trust in the Federal government and j i y
, . threatens the lives and property of thousands of citizens. The NRC t i
..z.
[ made a grievous' error in siting Seabrook and Shoreham; this effort to 3 I
, rationalize those improper accions by blaming " uncooperative ,
~
i governments" smacks'of totalitarianism!' a!
! THE PETITION SHOULD BE DENIED. . il a l, l
' For th To f Amesbury, MA, '
.j
-l a .t f l William S. Lord ! Amesbury B,oard of Selectmen '
; Town Hall - Friend St. ;
Amesbury, MA 01913 . { 4 1 El l '
, . 1
. l ., 1 . - ;! .i t
- )
1 1
*1 i'
. i
. f .'
3
.[
F
& . O 9 g*
, } * . i e d',$_f-y ;
-Q y 3i. -y.3 1
.d .
]
'.
- I
.. , I i .
1. Y5 '* N THE ASSEM8LY sl"o^m$"n^e"e on
/ Tg.]a ,
STATE OF NEW YORK m XEip Loeg istanG Economy couuirress t l
% eeucau ;
ALBANY environmem coaarvae i atmei< c. sAtmu Local covernments < 11tn Cisinct 87 M,4.R -4 P 5,: 4 y y,,1 ma'ataa { sm sports & Arts Devotooment i Election Law . i
! ~" t i N U:E:'R '**
>' n). & UT!! FAC.o..xpd.vm rrrr AM-[/,.-) d ,Oh'8 i'J $i ' nl f (
.1 i
if STATEMENT OF ASSEMBLYMAN PATRICK G. HALPIN i FEBRUARY 23, 1987 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION HEARING ON PROPOSED RULE CHANGE ' WASHINGTON, D.C. I i !, i. I'm Assemblyman Patrick Halpin and I represent the lith ~' i
't Assembly District in Suffolk County, New York. I'd like to thank I
Chairman Zech and the members of the commission for this , ! opportunity to testify on the proposed rule change to eliminate state and local government approval of emergency plans for . 4 nuclear power plants before an operating license can be-issued. i I am here today as a representative of people whose lives-
, i l and safety are very much affected by every rule change you propose because of their proximity to the Shoreham nuclear power
\
{ plant. And I am here as a member of the New York State Assembly to present a resolution the Assembly passed on February 17 " that vehemently condemns this proposal. . Unaminously, 150 Legislators from across New l York - upstate and downstate, urban and stiburban, Democrats and Republicans - are calling upon you to continue the right of 1
,j i\
-l .;,
, 1 {1
'I 1 A
- o. e, . . .?,
, ;(
~, . ,
f a
- 4. , I
.i 101 No. Wwiwood Avenue. Lindvanurst. New Yors t1757.($16) 957 2047 i Room SSt.Legiswivv 0frice Building. Aleany. New Yors 12248. tSt 8) 455 $787 '
l H . state and local governments to approve emergency plans before I
' l an operating license for a nuclear plant can be issued.
I must say that I was shocked when I learned that Mr. U Parler and Mr. Stello were recommending this change to the d V NRC. 1I It was at the urging of Victor Stallo, NRC Executive .
~l
, da!
Director for. Operations, that New York State adopted Chapter 708, )
- section 3 of the Executive Law in 1980, which placed the f1 responsiblity for emergency planning on the state. This statute
~
provides for a statewide Radiological Preparedness Plan, as well as site specific plans for each nuclear reactor. i This law was not passed in a vacuum.- In fact, legislative
' a i '
history shows that Chapter 708 was passed in the wake.cf the ,
.ij worst nuclear accident in U.S. history at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant in Pennsylvania. After Three Mile Island the
- 3.
Commission recognized that as a federal body li could not possibly 1
-assure that a viable emergency plan existed at each and'avery nuclear pvver plant in the country. At that point it became 4
apparent that an emergency plan could only be developed by state j and local' officials.
!l Consistant with the police powers of the states, state and.
as {j local officials are directly resposible to provide for public. , i safety. However, before the incident at Three Mil,e Island it was 'l seen that the federal government had sole jurisdiction'over the I; ' 1 regulation of the nuclear power industry. In 1980 - unfortunately after an accident occured - the states assumed the rightful: 4 i< 2- ' j', a
- p g
L ). .. I
=
' ' 4! '.
o i W-
/
responsiblity to assure that a viable; emerge.tcy plan existed for-nuclear power plants in their jurisdictions. l With these facts in mind, I pose this question: What has I i o 4 l chhn,ged since 1980 to prompt the NRC to-propose eliminating the requirement that state and local officials approve emergency ?I plans? 1 Could it-be that in 1980 it had not occured to the NRC, or to the nuclear power industry, that state and local. officials might ' r i withhold their approval? . Q Perhaps it was assumed that cooperation of' local'and state ' l !
.a F ..
governments was a given, regardless of whether a plant was , , , safe; regardless of whether a real emergency plan, a workable .'
+
\
plan, existed. I H This,'however is not the case in Suffolk County. Both state and county. officials know that there can be no emergency '..hrows plan that either they or LILCo could devisc to ensure that the people ]t of Long Island would be protected in the event of an emergencey ' at the Shoreham plant. Perhaps some of you may not be ,1 t I aware of the unique geography of Long Island, but it simply does
>ry-
-{
not allow for the safe evacuation of hundreds of thousands of l J ,,, people in'an emergency. White House Chief of Staff, Do'nald Regan, ' when visiting Long Island, agreed with this assessment--and io
.i j i
flipply suggested that we build.a bridge to Connecticut to 1 J
.- . evacuate in an emergency. ,$ : ]
4 " {j ,
. .. % . . 3 ll
- j
}
v7 ':
, }
4
protect.the lives and safety of the people we are elected to
}
serve, as well as an encroachment on our sovereignty as a state. t Witnesses who have testified today have urged you not to- ,,
; change the rules in'the middle of the game. But this is not a
. game. You are considering~a proposal that has tremendous 9
. 4 implications for the Reagan AdminIrd ration's support for States
' Rights and the notion of federalisa, but more importantly, you have ;
.put before yourselves a proposal that will affect the safety of .
. millions of Americans.
The New York State-Assembly condomns this. rule change. On - 3 behalf of that body,.I urge you not to, change the licensing ' i q process for nuclear power plants.
- f It is dangerous and reckless to move backwards your reasons for
. involving state and local governments in emergency ~ planning in 1980 were correct and clear. If the mcmory of the Three Mile-
~
- I
. f Island Nuclear accident has paled, let the recent tragedy at the
{
'Chernobyl nuclear power plant romind you of the non-negotiable- i i importance of safety measures.
.\. In' conclusion, and on behalf of all my colleagues in the-New j i York State Assembly, I say to you'three simple words'about your- ij proposed changed: Don't do it. . Thank you. 4 e
]
i
.y 5 e 2 'l th. !
- ) ;-{
e i to e e, -* 'e 8. ,-
,r' -
.y 3
a ' I n.
}' .'
e?' I s
~
ymr
. pm nuuna no.. ~5. A,19, 3 ) +/4'l -0L
;a tit:
STATEMENT OF ROBERT C. SMITH (NEW HAMPSHIRE - 1) Y~ NRC HEARING, FEBRUARY 24, 1987
'87 HM -4 P5 :32 ,l G000 AFTERNOON. I WANT TO THANK THE COMMISSION FOR GIVING ME l> i THIS OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON A PROPOSE 0 RULE CHANGE TO ADDRESS THE2
- l '
UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCE IN WHICH STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS 00 NOT , r COOPERATE IN OFFSITE EMERGENCY PLANNING. , I REPRESENT THE FIRST DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, IN WHICH THE
~'] ;
SEABROOK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IS LOCATED. AS YOU KNOW, SEABROOK ) l
~
IS COMPLETE AND LOADED WITH FUEL.. BUT THE PLANT'S OPERATION IS BEING 3 [ DELAYED -- AT A COST OF $50 MILLION PER MONTH ACCORDING TO THE UTILITY -- .I AND THE ENTIRE NUCLEAR LICENSING PROCESS HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO A COMPLETE STANOSTILL -- BECAUSE OF AN UNINTENDED, SHORTSIGHTED LOOPHOLE IN NRC REGULATIONS. ] I THE NRC IS IN THE UNEllVIABLE POSITION OF HAVING TO ADDRESS THIS LOOPHOLE AND TO SERVE AS A REFEREE BETWEEN TWO EXTREMELY POLARIZE 0
; VIEWPOINTS, TWO SIDES THAT OFTEN REFUSE TO LISTEN TO THE FACTS OR EACH OTHER. ON THE ONE SIDE, THERE ARE PEOPLE OPPOSED TO NUCLEAR POWER WHO ARE DEDICATEDT0'STOPPINGSEABROOKR$GAROLESSOFTHECOSTTOEITHERTHEUTILITY, ,
TAXPAYER, OR RATEPAYER, AND WHO REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE MODERN SAFETY ; > FEATURES THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT INTO SEABROOK. ON THE OTHER SIDE, THERE IS l THE NUCLEAR INDUSTRY AND THE UTILITY WHO HAVE BECOME FRUSTRATED WITH A , i FLAWE0 PROCESS THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE OFFSITE EMERGENCY PLANNING UNTIL BILLIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN INVESTE0 IN THE PLANT. IN THE UTILITY'S , ; FRUSTRATION WITH THE PROCESS, A PUBLIC PERCEPTION HAS BEEN CREATED THAT ; I00NOTBELIEVJTHISISTHECASEBUT l SAFETY IS.NOT THEIR FOREMOST CONCERN.
;i THE INDUSTRY MUST 00 A BETTER JOB 0F ADDRESSING IT. jl u;
. J!
4 2
. s!.
u
. l l
l 1 IT IS WITH THIS IN MIND THAT I AM HERE TODAY. WHETHER THE PLANT DOES l i OR DOES NOT G0 ON LINE IS THE NRC'S DECISION. I AM HERE BECAUSE I REPRESENT { THE APPROXIMATELY 500,000 0F THE PEOPLE OF THE FIRST O! STRICT. WHII.'E OPINIONS ON SEABROOK MAY GREATLY VARY, THERE ARE TWO MAJOR CONCERNS: SAFETY
! '.' ^
AND COST. THE PEOPLE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE WANT TO BE ASSURE 0 0F THE SAFETY OF THE PLANT AND 00 NOT WANT TO PAY FOR MORE AND MORE DELAYS. f UNDER CURRENT LAW, STATE AND LOCAL APPROVAL OF EMERGENCY PLANS IS , j REQUIRED BEFORE A FULL POWER LICENSE CAN BE ISSUEO. MORE0VER, EVACUATION PLANS ARE REQUIRED WITHIN A TEN MILE RADIUS OF THE PLANT. . .
' THE REASON AND JUSTIFICATION FOR THE PROPOSED RULE CHANGE, WHICH WOULO NO LONGER REQUIRE STATE AND LOCAL APPROVAL OF EVACUATION PLANS AS A ,
CONDITION OF FULL POWER LICENSING, IS THAT CERTAIN STATE AND LOCAL-GOVERNMENTS HAVE SIMPLY REFUSED TO COOPERATE IN THE PROCESS. THE NRC ARGUES THAT IT WAS NEVER ANTICIPATED THAT STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS WOULD NOT COOPERATE AND THAT THESE STATES ARE EXERCISING A DEFACTO VETO OVER LICENSING THEY WERE NEVER INTENDED TO HAVE. l I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN, AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE, A STRONG SUPPORTER 0F STATES RIGHTS AND LOCAL CONTROL, AND IN0EED, THE PARTICIPATION OF i AFFECTED POPULATIONS IS THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF CURRENT REGULATIONS. l UNFORTUNATELY, THAT SPIRIT, THAT INTENT, - AND THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF ' q EMERGENCY PLANNING - IS BEING UNDERMINED BY THOSE STATE AND LOCAL I
, GOVERNMENTS WHO REFUSE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS. IN ORDER TO CLARIFY- 4 WHETHER STATES AND COMMUNITIES HAVE A VETO OVER LICENSING I BELIEVE, 3[ .
1 AN AMEN 0 MENT TO THE ATOMIC ENERGY ACT IS CLEARLY NEE 0Ep. HOWEVER, THE FACT , REMAINS THAT CURRENT LAW 00ES NOT PROVIDE FOR THIS ACTION ON THE PART OF { c .. .. ;.; ; k
~
4 E.
- J
, 1
- STATES AND, THEREFORE, BELIEVE THE NRC TOOK THE PROPER COURSE OF ACTION IN ATTEMPTING TO ADDRESS THIS SITUATION.
ij WITH MORE ASSURANCES THAT SAFETY WOULO NOT BE COMPROMISED OR n CIRCUMVENTED, I COULD SUPPORT THE PROPOSED RULE. ON THE POSITIVE SIDE, THE . PROPOSED ROLE DOES NOT RECOMMENO SHRINKING THE TEN MILE EVACUATION PLANNING ZONE (EPZ),AZONEIHAVECONSISTENTLYSUPPORTED. ALTHOUGH SEABROOK IS ,
. 1- ' PROBABLY THE SAFEST PLAtlT EVER BUILT IN THIS COUNTRY, IT IS FOOLISH TO THINK THAT IN THE CASE OF AN ACCIDENT, PEOPLE OUTSIDE 0F A ONE-MILE RADIUS WOULO NOT WANT TO EVACUATE. TEN MILES IS, IN MY OPINION, THE MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE , ' \
p ZONE, AND I AM ENCOURAGED BY THE FACT THAT THE PROPOSED RULE CHANGE ,
] , q MAINTAINS THE TEN HILE RADIUS. ,
I AM ALSO ENCOURAGED T' HAT THE RULE DOES NOT. EITHER DIMINISH, RESTRICT,
,' OR ELIMINATE THE RIGHT OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE EMERGENCY PLANNING PROCESS. RESPONSIBLE COMMUNITIES THAT WANT TO PARTICIPATE WILL ,
STILL HAVE THAT RIGHT. AT THE SAME TIME, I CONSIDER IT VITAL THAT ANY RULE CHANGE MAINTAIN THE l PUBLIC'S CONFIDENCE THAT EMERGENCY PLANS WILL WORK AND PROVIDE ADEQUATELY FOR THEIR PROTECTION. ALSO, ANY RULE CHANGE MUST ENSURE THAT EVACUATION l' PLANS DEVELOPED UNDER NEW GUIDELINES BE JUST AS EFFECTIVE AS PLANS DEVELOPED UNDER EXISTING REGULATIONS. A LACK OF STATE COOPERATION SHOULO NOT BE
~
AS AN EXCUSE TO RETURN TO LOWER STANDARDS OF SAFETY. EMERGENCY PLANNING . l SHOULO MAINTAIN ITS PLACE AS A SAFETY CONSIDERATION OF EQUAL IMPORTANCE TO , 41 DN-SITE SAFEGUARDS. ,
.i' IRONICALLY, THERE ARE ONE HUN 0 RED NUCLEAR PLANTS IN THIS COUNTRY CURRENTLY 0PERATING WITH APPROVED EMERGENCY PLANS, AND,.SEABROOK IS MORE MODERN AND PROBABLY SAFER THAN ANY OF THEM. THE SITUATION CLEARLY NEEDS TO i
1
.. . . y+
h
?o
J k BE ADDRESSED. IF YOU ACCEPT THE PREMISE THAT LOCALITIES SHOULO HAVE A
' DEFACTO VETO OVER LICENSING, THEN THE ISSUE IS DEAD AND SEABROOK WILL NEVER . GO ON LINE.
IF YOU 00 NOT, A NEW RULE, A CHANGE IN THE PROCESS, IS , NECESSARY SO THE NRC CAN OECIDE WHETHER SEASROOK SHOULO BE GRANTED A
; l i
LICENSE. AS I HAVE INDICATED, I BELIEVE THE RULE CONTAINS A NUMBER OF POSITIVE ASPECTS. IT RETAINS THE TEN MILE EVACUATION ZO,NE ANO 00ES NOT RESTRICT THE RIGHTS OF COMMUNITIES TO PARTICIPATE'IN THE PROCESS. , j l AT THE SAME TIME, I BELIEVE THE RULE NEEDS TO BE STRENGTHENED IN A
~ ~
NUMBER OF AREAS. SPECIFICALLY, THE RULE CITES EIGHT MEASURES THE UTILITY , MUST TAKE TO COMPENSATE FOR LACK OF LOCAL COOPERATION. I BELIEVE THESE
- {
e .# MEASURES MUST BE MADE MORE SIECIFIC IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT SAFETY WILL NOT COMPROMISE 0. THERE ARE MANY REASONS, AND MANY PLACES TO LAY THE BLAME, FOR . SEABR00K'S DELAYS. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES, HOWEVER, IS IT THE FAULT OF THE
-> RATEPAYERS, MANY OF WHOM ARE MY CONSTITUENTS, AND UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES 00 I INTEND TO G0 BAC). , NY DISTRICT TO TELL PEOPLE THAT THE FEDERAL AGENCY r RESPONSIBLE IS. PARALYZED BY INDECISION AND IS UNABLE TO C'JME UP WITH A- l ! SOLUTION. 'THIS COMMISSION HAS A DUTY TO MAINTAIN THE CURRENT, STRICT 2
STANDARD OF SAFETY,'WHICH CURRENTLY IS REQUIRED BY THE COMMUNITIES, APPLY IT TO UTILITIES, AND TRANSLATE IT INTO REGULATION. IF THESE OBJECTIVES CAN BE MET BY THE NRC IN ITS RULE CHANGE, THEN YOU WILL HAVE.MY SUPPORT. IF THEY CANNOT, THEN YOU WILL NOT. .
,t*
q; 9 f
~
_ a. _
, 1
. I
( o~ > a:a:::a p.de x3+.-,, y2._ - O L.-3 #~'M
. v n c.. ..c. )
000 ETF? m;. \ 4 Testimony by Governor Mario M. Cuomo submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission - '87 WR -4 P5 :32
' t' Washington, D.C.
1 Monday, February 23, 1987 g .,
};,
1 j Chairman Landog tech,' members of the commission: tj
)1 Thank you for granting my request to address the Ceamission today. I' am hef e to request respectfully that the Ceemission act promptly to reject the staff proposal eliminating'the requirement that states and localities must approve an emergency evacuation
~
plan for the vicinity of a nuclear p e r plant before that plant
- oen be licensed to operate. !
i
,l . I appreciate the extraordinary nature of my requests that '
j the commission preclude even the publication for public comment - of this staff proposal. Wowever, I make this request because the proposal is so , i extraordinary, so radical in substance and so potentially j dangerous in effect, that it is contrary to.the fundamental ' traditions of our government. It violates the historical and constitutional responsibility of state governments to protect the health and safety of their
- citisens. It ignores the practical realities of emergency preparedness and response.
j This proposal warrants immediate, emphatic rejection.by this Commission. , I My concerns are not " anti-nuclear." I have ordered my state l l to participate in the evacuation of four operating nuclear plants in New York. I support nuclear power when it is'nafe and oppose ; it when it 1s not. I have a clear constitutional obligation to 1 protect the safety, health and welfare of the inhabitants of my state. I oppose your staff's proposal because it reduoes concern i for public safety to the vanishing point. I also oppose it j because the purported justifications for it are specious and it cannot pass legal muster. It violates explicit federal Administration policy concerning federal-state relations, as well -j as undermines the traditional federal-state relationships in our
. democracy. .
Furthermore, pursuit of-the proposaY is unnecessary and , l unreasonable. Though esst in generie terms, the real thrust of- ;j the proposal is to secure an operating license for one or two .; i nuclear plants. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl made it clear that some plants might really be rejected after-completion. That. e is why Marble Hill, zimmer and Midland have all been abandoned. - { ' h;.) n
;u.. .
. 1 The two* asserted justifications for this proposal are:
- 1. "There is a lack of cooperation by state and/or local governments in the development and implementation of offs'ite, emergency plans" which is " contrary to the commissions empestations when the emergency planning rules were issued...." :
! and ,
- ,- 2. " ... questions of equity and fairness are presented where.
, a *ility has completed construction and committed substantial ,
; reewurces to a nuclear plant and then, after it is far too late ; l realistically for a utility to reverse course, the state or local I
', government opposes the plant by non-cooperation in offsite . ,- ,
. emergency planning." jl Both of these claimed justifications are specious. The
- reeerd contradicts the first purported justification. 'In the ,
Federal Racister notice on the issuance of that rule, this commission expressly stated that "the operation of some reactors may be affected by this rule through inaction of state and local . l governments...." Thic commission also acknowledged that the rule would even permit a state's de facto voto, but the Commission. ~ t accepted this as a necessary"' element of our federal system. -( 4,5 Z311 Bgg 55, 402; 55,404)'. ,
- The second claimed justification is without merit. The timing of decisions not to participate in offsite planning by l state and local governments results'from an unfair and unwise l ; policy pursued by this commission, at the insistence of the d nuclear industry. This policy makes it impossible for state and I local governments to decide whether to particip3te in a utility l offsite emergency plan until its plant has been substantially '
< eenstructed. The policy is one of not inquiring into siting and , i emergency safety issues until the plant is substantially . constructed. It is this policy that creates the problem, not the conduct of state and local governments. Thus, no questions of c fairness or equity arise on behalf of a utility in that' situation. ' , h !' Commenting on the folly of this policy back in 1961, supreme courts Justices Black and Douglas saidt "They (the A.E.C.) presuppose ... that safety findings can . i
- be made after the construction is finished. But when the point is rasched, when millions have been invested, the momentum is on
,)i T
the side of the applicant, not on the side of the'public.- The J" momentum is not only generated by the desire to salvage an , investment. N,,o j
.4-- --. wi.sagency
- 4. wants u4*w
~
to be the architect
.s3 a ,... . . 3 4 w of v.w a. white
. ,+ .a 1 approach to the most awesome, the most deadly, the most-dangerous process that man has ever_ conceived."
f To me, this justification is reminiscent of the' classic k story of the young man who murdered both his parents, then p , j um i t
~
,V l
PLL.. , , pleaded for fairness from the court on the ground that he was an egyban. In.my state there is one nuclear plant where neither the state nor local governments are participating in the offsite emergoney plan. Before and during the construction peruit ... proceeding in 1970, objection was made on the ground that q evsouation planning issues should be examined before construction be commenced because a feasible evacuation plan might not be possible for that site. The utility opposed such inquiry on the basis of the aforesaid policy, and the A.E.c. agreed with the 4 i utility. , This utility at that time also publicly acknowledged that it would need governmental cooperation to have ar. approved plan and en operating license. With the knowledge that it was taking a risk of not getting such cooperation, it nevertheless voluntarily i gambled its money in construction on that basis. , l The situation is more agregious regarding that utility's -
~
i gambling. When its investment was still-relatively small, the stats and local governments gave it notice that they would not . .
' participate in its emergency plan because there could be no safe evacuation for a plant at that site. ,
Yet the utility continued to invest in that plant. A short
- while later, I made an offer of alternative forms of state assistance to offset the cost if the utility abandoned the plant.
Tha utility rejected the offer and invested more billions in it. For your staff to presume thtt questions of equity and f airness - arise in this utility's favor is sheer nonsense.
, The proposed rule cannot pass legal muster. The statutory re'quirement is that it be found that in the event of an accident J adequate measures can and will be taken to protect the health and safety of the p6Elic. All the investigations of the Three Mile
, Island accident established that an ad hoc response by state and*
i local governments to a nuclear accident which is not coordinated l l and intarrelated pursuant to a cooperatively developed e acuation plan cannot provide re conable assuranca that adequate measures can and will be taken to protect the health and safety of the public. The proposed ruls change ignores these studies, and assumes there is no minimum Standard of public safety. The ; failure to comply with this tijective statutory standard renders .l 1 it invalid. It seeks to escape this objective statutory' requirement by , providing that if this commission subjectively finds that-a j ' uti'lity-prepared emergency plan includes effective beasures to , compensate for the lack of governmental cooperation, the plan [, will be sufficient; provided the utilitythan provided the non-participating governments copies of the offsite plans, and 4 j l assuming that those governments will respond in the event of an actual emergency. . . . , . . . 1 7 . [ f d 1
.. ~-
, n.e . . . . . . . . .
. 1 This proposal ignerse the legal requirement that for findiase to be valid they sanet have a rational heels. There een j be no rational basis for a finding that any plan includes
' effective measures to compensate for the lack of governmental l participation. The ressen is that governmental participation ;
provides the legal authority to implement the plan. A utility : i
' cannot laplement its plan without unlawfully usurping sovereign '
powers vested solely in state and local governments. Thus, there necessarily cannot be effective compensation for the lack of governmental participation. e l If the Commission purported to vest such powers in the utility, it would violate the loth Amendment to the federal
, Constitution. * *
- Even if there could be such finding, the rule would be still invalid. It assumes that because a utility delivers copies of the plan to non-participating governments, it will be distributed to their emergency response teams for study and training so that ,
', their responses will be coordinated and interrelated with the 1 utilities personnel. ~
~
There is no~ rational basis to assume such actions on the part of a non-participating government. Any' head of a non- ' participating government not desiring to imperil his inhabitants by having a full power license issued for a nuclear plant for which there can be no safe evacuation would direct that such piens be promptly returned to the utility and not used for any purpose, litigation. except possibly for study solely for purposes of It would also be folly for this Commission to pursue the proposal because it violates the expressed policy of' the administration in this area of federal-state relations. In , October, 1984, President Reagan wrote in a letter to one of Long Island's Congressaan, *... this Administration does not favor the imposition of federal governnent authority over the objections of i
' state and local gevernments in matters regarding the adequacy of an emergenc , Sheraham." y evacuation plan for a nuelser power. plant such-as There has been no. change in this policy. The proposed rule would, nevertheless, clearly violate it. ' The elected governors of the several states'are vested with a constitutional responsibility to protect the health, safety and welfare of their inhabitants. By seeking to preclude this responsibility, the proposal would. constitute an affront:to them.
This would cause new and significant troubles for the nuclear power industry and an intractable conflict between $he federal Administration and the states. i Nuclear power plants cannot be licensed without the public's trust . To achieve this trust, state and local governments must have confidence in this Commission's commit.nent ,to,public safety, j A Y,b
c . If the W.R.C. pursues this propeaal and places the bailing out of wtilities from their own peer business judgment aheve working to protect and enhance public safety, the state governments will neeseearily move to expand their influence over the regulation of
,nuelear safety. Their inhabitants will demand this, and through ,
L. the political process, state governments will force a shift in the belance of nuclear regulatory-power control from the federal
; government to the states.
This commission cannot, under the guise of a rule change, l preclude the several states and local governments fror, exercising their traditional constitutional rights to protect the health and safety of their inhabitants. It has no legal authority to do so.
- Only Congress'has that power. If congress widhes to do so, it seat enast a law preempting the states and making the federal gewernment solely reopensible for offsite enerfeney evacuation.
Even congress has no power to delegate those sovereign powers to utility corporations. 4
~
Pursuit of-this objective would be unwise. 'it would squander what remaine of this commission's limited credibility. The consequent incredulity and hostility it wil's engender in'the '
. public and in govermsental officials will have grave reverberations in waste repository licensing aad with regard to l N.R.C. efforts to accelerate the licensing prosess.
When government does things right, everyone benefits. When it does things wrong, the benefits sought are outweighed by the lossee. The history of the collapse of nuclear power is attributable in large part to past industry victories before this . Cosaission. The loss of public confidence which has resulted has ) vastly outweighed the short-run objectives attained. l
? l ! I ask this Commissions is the pursuit of this rule for the i sake of two operating licenses worth the commission's ) , credibility, further problems in waste repository licensing, an j intractable fight betwesn the Administration and the states over 1 l'
state's rights and even the possible elimination of this commission, esp,ecially when the rule is invalid and will ' overturned by the courts if approved? I think nett j Accordingly, I strongly urge this commission to vote to leave the existing rules intact and rejiset this proposal. l l I w a % 'e w hf a m. 4.- j y n i
. =.=.~
y:rTTiiUM32R g ,vJ-lL/ Y YS"b.
> e ' ro. 9 c., . ,, , . ........ - ;gc7cr n- ;
TESTIMONY PRESENTED BY
.\
GOVERN'OR MICHAEL S. DUKAKIS '87 -4 PS :32 1 BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION . . 4 '
!":t,
, l FEBRUARY 24, 1987 . ,
dl , i e I WANT TO THANK YOU, . CHAIRMAN ZECH AND MEMBERS OF THE l l COMMISSION, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR BEFORE YOU TODAY. , j
- 1 I ASKED FOR THIS,0PPORTUNITY, AS DID GOVERNOR CUOMO AND OTHERS, ',
BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THE RULE CHANGE YOU ARE CONSIDERING WILL , UNDERMINE THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE PEOPLE OF MASSACHUSETTS, NEW ENGLAND. AND THE NATION. B ACK IN 1946 NO ONE KNEW OR FULLY APPRECIATED THE MAGNIT DE OF-6 THE RISK THAT NUCLEAR POWER COULD POSE TO OUR CITIZENS. WHILE WE SAW WHAT WE BELIEVED WERE THE TREMENDOUS ADVANTAGES OF l NUCLEAR POWER, THE SERIOUS DISADVANTAGES HAVE ONLY REVEALED i ) THEMSELVES OVER TIME.
.s THESE RISKS HAVE POSED A CHALLENGE TO GOVERNORS AND TO STATE
.llj, COVERNMENTS. BECAUSE FOR 200 YEARS IT IS STATE GOVERNMENT IN i i y THIS COUNTRY THAT HAS BEEN CHIEFLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE l j' l
PROTECTION OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY OF OUR CITIZENS IN j(
-d THE EVENT OF MAJOR DISASTERS AND ACCIDENTS. *- )
i a) '
. . . . , , . . j e
- 5.Q
. I y
NO ONE DOUBTS THE AUTHORITY AND THE OBLIGATION OF GOVERNORS TO ACT IN INSTANCES WHERE THERE ARE SAFETY VIOLATIONS OR POTENTIAL DANGERS AT CHEMICAL PLANTS, OIL OR COAL-FIRED GENERATING .?; PLANTS, OR GAS-FIRED FACILITIES. BUT WHEN IT COMES TO NUCLEAR 4 l I ! PLANTS THE SITUATION IS DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT. - . .} l 4
.f ;
.,j FOR THE RULE YOU ARE DISCUSSING TODAY WOULD MAKE A GOVERNOR'S RIGHT TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE PEOPLE OF. '
HIS OR HER STATE VIRTUALLY MEANINGLESS ONCE A NUCLEAR ACCIDENT HAD OCCURRED. -
)
i , i I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF YOU ARE' FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA AROUND '.' SEABROOK. SO LET ME DESCRIBE IT TO YOU SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT I AND THE RESIDENTS OF THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES , , ARE FACING.
)
THE SEABROOK AREA IS HIGHLY POPULATED AND GROWING. i WE HAVE , ADOUT FIFTY THOUSAND MASSACHUSETTS RESIDENTS IN THE SEABROOK EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONE. THAT PERMANENT POPULATION SALLOONS TO UPWARDS OF 150,000-200,000 DURING THE' PEAK SUMMER BEACH MONTHS. - 1 i (
. I THE AREA IS A NCTORIOUS POINT OF SUMMER TRAFFIC CONGESTION, AS ANY BOSTONIAN WHO HAS SPENT THREE HOURS ON INTERSTATE 95 OR
, ,j ROUTE 1 ON A SUNDAY NIGHT RETURNING FROM HAMPTON BEACH CAN'TELL YOU.
'li 1
.a
- w. . . I i
.g. ., b 5
I ed i f i l
P THE BEACHES THEMSELVES ARE SERVED BY NARROW ROADS--IN SOME - INSTANCES ROADS NOT MUCH WIDER THAN THE HALLWAY OUTSIDE THIS ROOM. THE WEATHER IS TYPICAL NEW ENGLAND SEASHORE WEATHER: Rl Ml CHANGEABLE, TURBULENT, UNPREDICTABLE--SO MUCH SO THAT
')'3 I
. EFFECTIVELY TRACKING A RADIOACTIVE PLUME FROM SEABROOK WOULD BE il l
- I l
. DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE. .
?,' .
1
'1a THE HOUSING STOCK IS, FOR THE MOST PART, INADEQUATE FOR ANY KIND OF TEMPORARY OR LONG-TERM SHELTER. OLD WOODEN BEACH .
e COTTAGES WITHOUT CELLARS PRED0l!INATE ALONG THE SHORES, , .' 1 : INADEQUATE FOR WINTER WEATHER, MUCH LESS SHELTER FROM A '
< t RADI0 ACTIVE STORM. *
, j!
4
-SO WHEN I BECAN TO APPROACH THE QUESTION OF EMERGENCY PLANNING l ; AT SEABROOK, I DID SO AS SOMEONE WHO KNOWS ALl!OST EVERY' INCH OF l THOSE CITIES AND TOWNS AND THAT TERRITORY--WHICH IS PRECISELY
{ WHY GOVERNORS HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE ROLE THEY HAVE IN EMERGENCY , F PLANNING--UNTIL TODAY. AND BECAUSE OF THAT, MY STAP7 AND I, , l l ASSISTED BY DR. ALBERT CARNESALE, DEVOTED LITERALLY THOUSANDS "
; d 0F HOURS TO OUR REVIEW.
i
- l b l AFTER MONTHS AND MONTHS OF WORK, EFFORT, AND ANALYSIS I CAME TO ,I ,
. L} l ONE FUNDAMENTAL CONCLUSION--THE AREA AROUND THE SEABROOK' ,1 NUCLEAR POWER PLANT COULD NOT BE EVACUATED IN THE EVENT OF A SERIOUS NUCLEAR ACCIDENT. THAT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL FACT OF THE HATTER--AND IT IS ONE THIS COMMISSION MUST FAC$ AND FACE 4 N
SQUARELY. d
..+ - - ,
j<
'- ; 4f
-wJ M ,
J1 i
i 1 I THIS WAS NOT AN ARBITRARY DECISION. IT FLOWED LOGICALLY FROM , MONTHS OF CAREFUL AND THOUGHTFUL ANALYSIS. FOR THAT REASON, I RESENT THE IMPLICATION OF THE GENERAL ! COUNSEL'S MEMORANDUM TO THIS COMMISSION. NON-COOPERATION? THE ONLY DEFINITION OF COOPERATION THAT WOULD FIND FAULT WITH WHAT - WE HAVE DONE IS ONE THAT ASSUMED ALL THE CONCLUSIONS BEFOREHAND. t . , i ' THE PROPOSED RULE CHANGE HAS BEEN PROVOKED, IN PART, BY MY l DECISION REGARDING SEABROOK. THE FACT IS, MR. CHAIRHAN, THAT , i THE SEABROOK PLANT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN BUILT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND I DOUBT VERY MUCH WHETHER THIS COMMISSION WOULD EVER CONSIDER LOCATING A NEW PLANT THERE TODAY. - THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS HAS WARNED ABOUT THE PROBLEMS j i OF EFFECTIVE EMERGENCY RESPONSE AT SEABROOK FOR TWELVE YEARS. SO ALLOW ME TO ISSUE THE WARNING ONCE AGAIN. YOU SIMPLY CANNOT d EVACUATE THIS AREA IN THE EVENT OF A SERIOUS NUCLEAR ACCIDENT. ~ Y 4 t'
*E 4 w w * .
f
AS COMMISSION MEMBERS . j YOU ARE CHARGED UNDER THE LAW WITH REGULATING NUCLEAR POWER IN THIS COUNTRY SO AS TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC'S HEALTH AND SAFETY. .
. THE RULE CHANGE PROPOSED TODAY MUST MEET THAT TEST.
YET THE ONLY REAL JUSTIFICATION OFFERED FOR THE NEW RULE IS ECONOMIC. IN HI'S HEMORANDUM, THE GENERAL ;- COUNSEL SUGGESTS THAT OFF-SITE EMERGENCY PLANNING BE IS TO ' DOWNGRADED. WITH ADMIR'ABLE BUT CHILLINGHEFRANKNESS TELLS US THAT THE REASON FOR ALL THIS , IS THAT " BILLIONS OF DOLLARS HAVE...BEEN INV'ESTED," WHICH " POSE SERIOUS FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES." l2 3 ~ 1 AT SEABROOK THIS RISK AND THESE CONSEQUENCES NOWN
' ' HAVE AND ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE PLANT'S OWNERS FOR YEARS.THEY WERE' i
ACKNOWLEDGED WHEN THE OWNERS SOUGHT THIS COMMISSION, T FROM A CONSTRUCTIO AND THEY WERE ACKNOWLEDGED WHEN THIS COMMISSION IMPOSED THE NEW EMERGENCY MILE ISLAND. ER THREE PLANNING RULE IN BOTH INSTANCES MASSACHUSETTSSEDAND OTHER INTE THE ISSUE OF EMERGENCY PLANNING, IN BOTH INSTANCES THE NRC AFFIRMED THAT THE PLANT WOULD NOT RESOLVED, OPEN UNLESS TH ES WERE ' DID ANYTHING AND IN BOTH INSTANCES NEITHER THE PLANT NOR
. I THE TO RESOLVE THE ISSUES.
/
J 4
\ ',.
'/ **
"NE
, .m
;1.
j
J *
\
l 3 i , NOW, YEARS LATER, THE PLANT HAS BECOME-A WHITE ELEPHANT. A l WHITE ELEPHANT, I MIGHT ADD, THAT CANNOT MEET EXISTING ,y EMERGENCY PLANNING GUIDELINES AND WOULD INCREASE THE COST OF ENERGY TO THE CITIZENS OF NEW ENGLAND AT A TIME WHEN THE COST l OF ALTERNATIVE EN$RGY IS AVAILABLE AT HALF'THE COST. $.
- s. ,
IN FACT, TWENTY SEVEN (27) SMALL POWER P R*00 U C ER S HAVE ALREADY OFFERED PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE THE EQUIVALENT i . OF THE SEABROOK PLANT OUTPUT AT LITTLE MORE THAN HALF OF THE , i ~ - COST. WHAT HAS PUBLIC SERVICE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE DONE7 0FFERED j TO PAY MANY OF THESE PRODUCERS NOT TO PRODUCE THE POWER!! , IN SHORT, WHAT YOU ARE PROPOSING IS THE NUCLEAR EQUIVALENT OF CUTTING THE NUMBER OF LIFEBOATS FOR THE " UNSINKABLE" TITANIC 4 BECAUSE IT WOULD REDUCE THE SPACE FOR PASSENGERS AND MAKE'THE 1 VOYAGE UNPROFITABLE. I THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS COMMISSION WAS SET,UP TO D0. THAT'S NOT J WHAT GOVERNORS ARE ELECTED TO D0. AND THAT'S NOT WHAT THE CONGRESS INTENDED WHEN IT GAVE YOU--AND ME--THE-RESPONSIBIt'ITY TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. .
'l 9
h
. .s . . , f.'
~.6 3,1
's
-a . = ac -
o tsong ""iT ilWE 2R g. o 9p UNITED STATES
- STF-.FAC..v.,p ..,,y,,, %
g 1= g 3 g y. I ' > s., p, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION . 5 j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 ,g ug g ,
. . o, e : p g. -
% * .w.,e 4
;f CHAIRMAN February 27, 1987 '87 WR -4 PS :36 1
+ l
; gg ,
,s, 7s The Honorable George J. Hochbrueckner-
- United States House of Representatives Washington, D. C. 20515 y
Dear Congressman Hochbrueckner:
- Thank you for your letter of February 6,-'1987 commenting on the ?-
. proposed rule which the NRC staffrecently forwarded to the
. c-Commission for its. consideration. That proposal-calls for a .]
'f'3 ; , change in the Commission's emergencv planning rules.. It.
l- addresses those. rare instances in which a state or local - 4 l government elects not to participate in the emergency planning process for a nuclear power plant. It provide'ithat s non -
'1.lj participation would not necessarily precludeJissuance of an i operating license to the plant.- Under the proposa.1.a utility ^
plan would be evaluated.against a. series of acceptance; i j criteria, including the existence of measures designed to , compensate for the non-participation of.the state or locality.. in the planning process. -
, The Commission determined on February,26, 1987'to-issue the-t proposed rule for public comment. Yo'u r letter, as' well- as' 4 ; others which we have received from elected:public officials, 4 ;!
will be.given careful consideration. LYour letter will he
, placed in the record of the rulemakirg. '
li 4
-1 Sincerely, ; ,
g q-
- Ze5 , Jg.
Lando W. s ,[ j 4 4
; .i
~ t' J l
.] .-I j
a w
*w , as., e- '.' ., .
I'
- s.
f5' .,
.s) ' !
4 I .
r: . p sacco,
,. % ,,%' UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION I[3..[ Y ry 3h WASHINof0N, D. C. 20$65 q, ,W s,%;%.,+f./.y f February 27, 1987 CHAIRMAN 87 MR -4 P5 :36 .
D: T' ,.<.
~j Q
- . ni. i a!
- The Honorable Thomas J. Downey 'J i linited States House of P.epresentatives .ij Washington, D. C. 20515 -
Dear Congressman Downey:
'. Thank you for your letter of February 6, 1987 commenting on the proposed rule which the NRC staff recently forwarded to the ,'. '
4 J Commission for its consideration. That proposal calls for-a. change in.the Commission's emergency planning rules. It. addresses tho'se rare instances in which a state or.. local i government elects not to participate in the emergency planninq ,, il ' process for a nuclear power plant. It provides'that non- ' participation would not necessarily preclude issuance of an . operating license to the plant. Under the proposal a' utility
; plan-would be evaluated against a series of acceptance l criteria, including the existence of measures designed to j compensate for the non-participation of the state or locality l ;. in the planning process. -
The Commission determined on February 26, 1987 to issue the proposed rule for public comment. Your letter, as well as~ - others which we have received from elected public officials, ; will be given careful consideration. Your letter will be ~ j placed in the record of the rulemaking.. i Sincerely,
)
Gv. / ' l Lando W. Zec ,Jr.' i 1 A'i
. A!> !
> t 1
.J 17 l
.g>
i
, e
$1
' ' ,(,
q
.. , . n. -
+<
n t- , e >
* /ps atog
\ '
I
, oc UNirED STATES
;[\
J-([) v.,( ;,,...t . NUr.\g(4Q ' % ASHINGTON,REGUL D. C. ATORY20$35 COMMISSION
.,7 p -
I ,
,. n, t ! S ~'
*..... g- . .i .!
CHAIRMAN 's # i February 27, 1987 g *g7 gg -f p $ q
- ,, l 7
n ;.
' ( \ j.
,, ' , . AjN.i.
kll
. . n .
a 4 i.1 4
;4 l s ,
y> The Honorable Robert J. Mrazek i' j' - j ' linited States House of Representatives / ' \
.1 -
Washington, D, C. 20515 4 , hl
)
Dear Cne peypman Mrazek:
' s 7 l Thank you foh youb letter of Februa?y 6,1987 commenting on the i proposed rule wHeh the NRC staff 'ecentiv forwarded tc the~. , ,)
Commissf an for its / consideration , lhd' proposal calts for'r , i change in ,the Commission's emergency planning' rules. 70
' 3 3 ,. j ! addresses Ithose, rare instances in ishich a state cr locEl ' A!
i government' elet,ts not to participtte is thes emergency planning , l procers for a' nuclear power pir.nt.. It provides that non- y participation would not necessari?y priclude issuance o d an ! operating. license'to the p} ant. Udderithe proposal.e utility j l plan von 1d be eveluated aptinst a seFies of acceptance ! criterfs, including the exista.nce of measures designed to j
; compensate for the non-participa(iori3cf the state or locality , j in the planning process. s
.i i The Co:imission determined on Febru$ry 26, 1987 to issue the
- proposed rule for public comment'. '/Your letter, as -well as .
,j others whtch we have received fram elected public officials, will be given careful connideration.4 Your letter will be placed in the record of tr$ rul,emaking. '*
^
. \ , )
i , 1 Sineprety, 'i j
; _ a!
Q ( . et$ tv. s " l (a n do 14. Z e e , J, r ' . ' i s l . i 't f '. s l )
'i i
/ 1/
; , x .
.,/ ?! ' j
[ i
' f) 4 .
l,. \ ye
, c yJ d a r .; .g
,,; i r y y ,' n
-s .v
\ e, ' a, .. w
/r (Mj y ..'
j i
) d .# -
\
g
'( ,
;' qf. .
-r
}
j( > , j
},
,e < -
f ~,
.mq
* '. . GEORGE 1 HOCHBSUECKNEQ 'l
, . Iss oiewuct htw yoc* ,
Congregg of tfje THntteh Aptates T:'
%ottge of Eepresentatibes Masfjington, BC 20515 87 MR -4 P5 :36 ..
6 a f i;j y 9
, February 6, 1987 n:vic[ .i
,, - zu '
.' ~)t
.M The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr.
Chairman , , kl e Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Scre, ? , N.W. 1 Washing t.p n, D.C. 20555 - l 1
;}
Dear Mr. Chairman:
,f s!
~~
We are writing to express our outrage at a change in NRC licensing :) 3 rules proposed by the staff of the NRC. This proposal would allow the NRC , i ec issue an operating license where emergency evacuation plans have not g
.; been approved by state and local officials.
j , 4 As we understand it, the draft NRC rule change would ef fectively deny ll i state and local authorities any meaningf ul role in the emergency planning i process which precedes the issuance of a full-power operating license. l
.! The proposal allows the Commission to dispense with the normal emergency l planning process and grant an opt ?ating license in spite of unresolved _
{ public safety concerns. We beliese that, were the Commission to adopt this ! i t.pproach, it would be seriously abusing its Congressional mandate. ! Further, it raises several Constitt..:ional issues. It is perplexing to us that the Commission is even entertaining such a proposal -- particularly in 3 the wake of the disaster last year at Chernobyl, U.S.S.R. ' l l
} As members of Congress representing' the people of Suf f olk County, New l ., York, we are* very concerned about the health and safety threats posed by j
the Shoreham nuclear power plant. We strongly urge that you reject this proposal. l! j {
.l Sincerely, j
; i l . .{
' MbNAW G'eorge f. p' chbrueckner 2 Y< sm Thomas J. Downey [ !'l h
)
h "' % % - 1 M -
'i RobertJ.gazek (,) ;}
a
. . . . , . . M cc: Members of the Commission , .d {
Q.. P \ . i
. ..a
, poC8cg "'0I(ET NUMMR '
'*1 ? UT!L, FAO,.yft.,,}]1 - CL-3 P fog UNITED STATES .. . , ..%% ,%.
. y,4 3 y,c g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION. O
. ;l .p WASHING TON, D. C. 20666 .. .,
%..v...,o/
CHAIRMAN I6DEUdfy 27# 19b7 37 y,s -4 P5 :37 ,, 'h 't M p m .
} l 2
$1 l The Honorable Alfonse M. 0'Amato l 1l United States Senate 3
j Washington, D. C. 20510 i1
Dear Senator D'Amato:
a
- Thank you for your letter of February 13, 1087 commenting on the ;
i proposed rule which the NRC staff recently forwarded to the ai Commission for its consideration. That proposal calls for a
'.i
,Il i change in the Commission's emergency planning rules.- It addresses those rare instances in which a state or local yi government elects not to participate in the emergency planning .
i j
' . process for a nuclear power plant. It provides that non- -
l
, participation would not necessarily preclude issuance of an ,
operating license to the plant. Under the proposal a utility ) plan would be evaluated against a series of acceptance [
! criteria, including the existence of measures designed to , l t compensate for the non-participation of the state or localit.v ! ; in the planning process. -
i The Commission determined on February 26, 1987 to issue the i proposed rule for public comment. Your letter, as well as . l others which we have received from elected public officials, will be given careful consideration. Your letter will be ! placed in the record of th.e rulemaking. ,l l Sincerely, MbM Lando W. Ze h, J
/ ,
1
~ . o, . ' a a
e ; 34
+
w + *i - * = j ( h s' ' ' ?? l u i a / } j et
_ . _ ~ , . _
$ , , ALFONSE M. 0'AMAf0 ,
- nm yp4 Enited $tates Etnatt .
WA$HINGTON, DC 20$10 O "' 'f E .
'87 MM -4 PS :37 .
i t February 13, 1987 . g.g[ ,
+
,I The Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr. '! j
~
- Chairman .
Nuclear Regulatory Commission dl i j 1717 H S t ree t , N.W ,j Washington, D.C. 20555 . j
Dear Mr. Chairman:
1 l I am writing to express my strong reservations with . '1
; respect to your staff's recommendation that the Commission l ) ; publish for public comment a proposed change in - the NRC's . - ' N emergency planning rules concerning the roles of State and > ' local governments.' I believe the proposal is an unsupportable '
and misguided effort to circumvent the rights and powers a reserved to the states and their nunicipalities. It does the i NRC great harm even to associate itself with,such a proposal. I This proposal deeply undercuts the fundamental principle of . ' .f -! federalism and Congress' mandate in Secticn 274 of the Atomic 1 1 Energy Act that the NRC cooperate with tre states. - l The Staff's proposal appears to be one core atterpt to
' provide a rationale for licensing Shoreham at any cost. . I do 'l l not believe this adequately addresses the prinary issue -- the i safety of the people of Long *sland.
j SPoreham should not be licensed for scurd nr.d eetablished ~
; )
'; factual reasons: it is impossible to safely' evacuate the
, publics the courts have upheld-the exercise of police powers by )'" ]j New York State and Suf folk County; and President Reacan has ]
pledged that there would be no effort to use the. force of i
! federal authority in this situation. Cn Octcber 11, 1984, the ,
I President wrote in a letter to forrer Congressman Carney of rew. i York, "(T]his Administration does not favor the frposition of federal governraent authority over the objectior of state and local governments in catters regarding the edequacy of an j
; emergency evacuation plan for a. nuclear power planc such as Shoreham."
.i 5
1
- a. '.
.)
, m v
' 4
^w
r -- _ _. . e. . . . . . . . - ._ o I l 1 The Honorable Lando L. Zech, Jr. j i February 13, 1987 i Page Two ,
.,. .s.. ,l a 4
~j- l
. It is time that the NRC face these legitimate concerns. ; l Too much time has been squandered by the Commission in - 4 l repeatedly seeking new devices to facilitate the licensing of ~ * ,
Shoreham. The staff's proposed new regulation is simply ' j I urge the Commission to reject.this ! another such attempt. proposal. 3 e ; Sincerely, . 4 ' 4 f fon M. D'Amato l Unite States Senator _ , AMD:enm ,
, cc: The Honorable Frederick M. Bernthal
( The Honorable Thomas M. Roberts , The Honorable Kenneth Carr The Honorable James K. Asselstine i i i ! l
)
i l J [ i a
' ..% . . .f
$ .i th
,. . ),}7 M $ty i
, , ..._.....a n _ q
..y,
,i x
' '-~'f2 . & mpg. . f. . . .-O1:-) / Cls:f i' ' O.i NUMt:R1. %
. .,vrverr UTlL. em- FAC.<jfed'Nk/W-C ,
i
' .'. e7 Numr STATEMENT CF SENATOR JCSEPH R. S:DE:!, @R. H ' mq '
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION HEARI.'l0 FEBRUARY 2a, 1987 i ,87 HM -5 A8 :39 87 r . , n_ , 1 t' 3 2: .?' Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, I apprecta:e . .. qqq the opportunity to comment on proposed changes 1.n theIYole.of . O v!ct state-and local governments in emergency plann'ng'for i nuclear'3'.* power plants. A hearing on the merits of the pr:posal a: ? p ' this early stage is an unusual step for the Ccamission, bu: not as unusual as the proposal itself. l, As I am sure other witnesses will attes:, . the opinien of 'I state and local governments as to the feasibility of . evacuation plans cannot be set asice. They are the enes ' ultimately responsible for the health and safety of their I citizens, and are in the best position to assess the * (
. . effectiveness of che plan. , t 1 .;
o i The Salem Nuclear Fewer Plant, across the Celaware River , i from my home state, has over 11,000 Delaware residents in its' ' '
- 10 mile emergency planning :ene. There are-three nuclear ., y
' reactors in operation at the' Salem complex. The 10 mile j emergency planning zone for the Salem facilities was not the 1
subject of the intense opposition that has affected the Seabrook and Shoreham plants, but that is a reflection of the general public acceptance that emergency evacuation would be. . } i possible in the event of an accident. ' In 1983, the Salem plant came too close to putting the. 3 emergency plan to the test. Without going in:o detail, s. ! number of valves. in the plant failed to operate correctly .and j i I the ' fail-safe' safety system did not automa ically shut deu-the plant as it was supposed to, both wi-hou a recc;ni:icn ' by plant operators and supervisors that an 'even:' wa: . 1.. - occurring, b ' Mr. Chairman, the investigati n of.this even 1ed 7: a number of changes in the way the NRC rev;eus ascidence, r.: : in light of the proposal before us, it als: high'ights the _ 'i importance of a ' orkable emergency plan. Tht nuciaar *
. industry assured us that a Salem-like even: S. ule never 1
occur, but it did. 'de were assurec that ,a Three Nile '1 Island-like event was an impessibility, bu 1: happened, Events at nuclear power p;an s that are n:: su;peced to - happen are occurring all ::c frequen:1". Jn ;; the nucle:r
, industry improves its operating record, a demcns:. a:e; and ,;
regularly practiced emergency evacuation plan cnly increases : in importance. .
, a i
2 m, e, o w 5 i
, 1
-Li h
1
*i em
, , , . - i -l
~
The NSC's proposal seems to assume'that an emergency ' plan on paper can be put into practice the'first time, withcut a hitch. This assumption runs against experience with emergency. situations, and is contrary to common sense. I have no doubt that if an emergency evacuation was needed. around Seabrook or Shoreham, that police, fire, and other j, i emergency personnel would not stand idly by, watching plant A perscnnel attempt to coordinate activities. But even after , O they step in, full-time emergency personnel would face a .; situa-ion of complete madness. Without practice, chaos would y reign. 'This is no way to ensure the public's safety. 3 ,
, The solution contained in the Commission's proposal is i to impose a plan on those communities that have concluded.
safe evacuatien is not possible. It is the wrong approach ,
, for geveral reasons. .The familiarity and knowledge of local conditions -- the major factors that will determine the ;
success or failure of any evacuation -- reside in' state and " 1 ( Iccal officials, not in Washington. The federal government , , should not establish a. policy that places the~ health and ., safety of citizens 1.n a secondary position to investment .: J l risk. 0: 7 The proposal also lacks the criteria that will be used i to determine whether non-cooperation of state and local governments is based on a determination that the emergency plan is inadequate, or on ' political' reasons, as charged by some utilities. Development of this criteria will; be
, difficult at best, but it is vital if-the public is to believe that safety concerns are not just being brushed aside
~
for the utility's convenience. The lack of such criteria raises further doubts about how this proposal will be put to i j use..
- 1
{ t' ; The operating experience of nuclear-power plants in~this ! 3 country shcws that an effective emergency plan is not a minor i i considerstien in the site selection and operation of a .( plan . Repes;ad experience with emergency evacuations for j! ncn-nuclear disaster: shows tha; state and local a pae:i: ipa:icn and practice is essen:ial for the plan :c. ; opers 3 as drsWn up. The Commission's proposal-to everride sta a snc *.cos'. concerns is the urong direction to go. 1 - j; joir r. f-11:w witnesses in str ngly opposing the C:m:'i:2ica's proposal, jj u: s
^
i rg
.1
.)
= = , - - . y, q
'h I 1: ' ;
% l
.\
.L ,
~
$,-$cf0)}yL-3)-oLf'- T C.S YYY a ..auca
'l 'j C
! '87 MAR -5 A8 :38 - ,
- For Insertion into NRC Hearing Record - ?
2/24/87
- n. .. t
.]M i
j'
.~
4
~
3p l-' .d j
- ] ' f 7
- 3
. , j STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY (D-MA) .- j 1
BEFORE THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION . j February 24, 1987_ , dj
-,3
., ,1 Af ter many years of enjoying the view f rom the dais, I welcome the opportunity to sit before the commission and present my views. ,
I add my voice to the chorus you have heard today opposing the NRC !
; staff's draft proposed rule that would strip State and local j governments of their rightful role and' author'ity. .The NRC is !' sworn to uphold the law and the constitution, and the actionit -: 1 i
l i. J1 contemplates would violate that pledge. .Most importantly,- , however, the proposed action would violate the commission's. obligation to protect public health and safety f rom the hazards of
.-} 5 nuclear power. And for that reason, above all others, it must be rej ected. ,
It is also disturbing that the staff has granked that this rule ..j change is based on no new scientific evidence, but rather on vague 3'j
' ' ~ M'
" regulatory policy considerations" -- whatever titat means. In j., .?
^
];k 1 p
1 9
**a=i 9---
l
__ : ., y q fact, this rule is economic regulation - not saf ety regulation. [' 'I I i- 1 1 This rule proposal can be summarized succinctly in just two words: W 1l 3
"Seabrook" and "Shoreham." I understand that in the eyes of the gj
- i .
-}
I' nuclear . industry, the need to license Shoreham
, s and Seabrook is.. 3 paramount. But the perceived economic needs of,the nuclear l industry, or any particular utility, are not and should not be the .-
.. controlling f actor in determining regulatory . changes that are
.a first and foremost designed to protect the public health and . ,
safety. This is not a case of the fox guarding the chi.cken coop. j l . ,
- j. This is a case of the fox trying to make the chicken coop a .'., d wholly-owned subsidiary. l 4
When responsible State and local governments have made a , good-f aith decision not to develop or implement emergency plans ] l ,; because they conclude it would be impossible to adequately protect the public in the event of a serious reactor accident, the NRC should support that decision. Instead, the Commission's staff has proposed a rule change that would circumvent this historic and I essential role of the States to protect the health and safety of . l their citizens. 1,l
. j q
Let us remember the origin of the current emergency planning j requirement which the staff is trying to jettison with this jl1 l rulemaking. In 1979, in the wake of the Thres Mile Island 4 accident, the Congress adopted language requiring that the ..,
, J, adequacy of State and local emergency plans be Jcoristde' red as part gj
;Q
; i 1 . -
e l l' 1
u.
, .y , ,
a i
, of the' licensing process. During the 1979 debate, Congress ! explicitly rejected an amendment which would exclude the role of ; . State and local governments. ~3 j I,, .
q i- - 3l
. The proposed rule the Commission is considering is totally ,'l inconsis' tent with the lessons learned f rom Three Mile Island. ;[ ,- Indeed, the post-TMI emergency planning regulations nandated by j Congress and promulgated by the NRC strongly and appropriately .;
i l emphasize the importance of the role of State and local .. :i i governments. -
] . .. -u !- l The Rogovin report, the NRC's own investigation into the TMI.
accident, examined the question of how to effectively protect the , public health and safety. I quote from their conclusions . j t i i The principal planning responsibility for protective action including evacuation lies with the State, with
- )
FEMA's assistance. However, the ability to carry out an .l
. !d evacuation plan in the area of a nuclear plant depends ~ "
much more on the existence of adequate county and local ,
.! >1 emergency plans than on a FEMA-approved or NRC-approved jl state plan. We believe that too little ' attention has i
been devoted to this aspect of emergency planning . . . !I a The county and local levels are where the action is and ' ' where the specific details of this plan $ust be worked j 4. out. <
. . , . . ft ,
., s 14 t # e
. . . . . .~. . . . .. .. . _ . .
-__,__,__n_
4 I
'l. In promulgating the existing regulations, the NRC I 1'. 3; acknowledged that emergency planning considerations could affect i
> l the operation e" a plant. Correctly, they placed safety before economic expediency and recognized the appropriate role of State government in. the emergency planning process. Let me quote f rom the Commission's own words: .
The-Cemmission recognizes there is a possibility that _
!' the operation of some reactors might be affected by this ,
rule through inaction of State and local governments or . an inability to comply with these rules. The Commission , believes that the potential restriction of plant l
- 1 operations by State and local officials is not ,
significantly different in kind or effect from the means ) already available under existing law to prohibit reactor { operation, such as zoning and land-use laws,
! certification of public convenience and necessit , State financial and rate considerations, and Federal
, environ.;:ntal laws.
T i
> 1 The Congressional action requiring that State' and local emergency 1
plans be considered as part of the licensing process was partly based on a Report to Congress by the General Accounting Office in the aftermath of TMI. The GAO also had recomdended that the startup of nuclear plants should be made contingent upon workable .
. e kj ,
i emergency plans. Addressing criticism that this "r' q'ui' e resent may , l id , 11 i
- 1 l
l= t
. ;._ q 1 .
o na t i . give opponents of nuclear power a tool in stopping plants, the GAO
> '. was clear in its position: TJ li !
i Ii l Public health and safety must be the primary . 3 1 1! consideration rather than whether this will provide . ,; ,
~; ,
1i intervenors a means of preventing the operation of : I nuclear powerplants. l i i!
; 3i
. The Congressional response to Three Mile Island in requiring -
Sjk improvements in emergency planning and preparedness were clearly 9] warranted. The disaster at Chernobyl emphasizes the wisdom of
! i that action. Surely we should not retreat from these commitments.
, 4 l' The principle that I lay before the commission can be stated in a !
i single word: Safety. If the public is ever going to accept ; i nuclear power, if the public is ever going to have f aith in the j i l NRC, if the public is ever to believe in the credibility of the ! regulatory process, then there must be a clear signal that the goal of protecting the public health and saf ety. is the primary ,i
.. ]
consideration, and economic regulation and bailing out utifities " j
;t comes second. , .!
i 1! i!
-t The job of- this Commission is to protect the public health and ,
s1 safety. The job of this proposed rule is to get two problem 'l I plants on line by gutting the legitimate concerns of State and' -
)
, \
local governments. I ask the Commission to examine its own -l
'1 charter and to do its job by rejecting this ill-considered and
. . , . - '.]
l ill-conceived staff proposal. s Mj 1 Wp
.: ..y 9 l
ny e.--
.mo m.a n e. So-a z 2- W .3 g- .9,,,,; --
' m.- . . .
.c OFFf C E OF THE S U PE RVISO R Tow""^" '87 FEB -9 P12:01 .
OYSTER BAY N. Y.19 7 71 4
,4 y ,,
d January 28, 1987 OQCf losses cossy
. u .< . ,. s a .
Y' 8516eeat.saoo } Mr. William J. Catacosinos _ t i Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ,
>ERVED f E3 0 9 gg7 l Long I.sland Lighting Company ,1 '
175 East Old Country Road Hicksville, New York 11801
- l i
Dear Mr. Catacosinos:
o : We, the undersigned, representing a majority of the Oyster Bay Town ; Council, are writing in reference to LILCO's emergency evacuation plan -l l for the Shoreham nuclear power plant. The members of the Board have become aware.that-portions of Revisio1 1 of the LILCO plan designate its Hicksville facility on Old Country Road as a " reception center." We understand that the Hicksville facility would in-clude services and structures necessary to process 40,000 evacuees and their vehicles. ~ Actions to be taken at the center would include the moni-toring of the evacuees and their vehicles for radiation and, if necessary, ' decontamination measures would be taken on site. . To date, the Hicksville facility has been used by LILCO as an offic'e-and operation center to assist the utility in its effort to' supply Long Island with electrical power. LILCO's plan for a new and,, expanded use at' . Hicksville by designating it as' a reception area was never discussed with Town officials, and we have been advised by our Town,A,ttorney, that any representation by LILCO of the subject property as'being used as a "receptior. l
- center" or as permitting the new and expanded use described by LILCO in j Revision 9 of its emergency. plan is contrary to the present zoning classifi- l cation. Any attempt by LILCO to use the Hicksville facility-in this manner would violate local zoning' laws, j J
~ I Sj!:PH CPLBY d '
t 1 upprvisor
, nneth S.
[Diam 6nd ' pgXti Verfdi't to" j -
~rouncilman 'r C cilman .
$ 4m & 1ll2 Dellig t1 ugl Counci tan
. H3 es Aniyd.o A.
Councilman ]jT' q cc: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission . o,_ _ w_ _ w I W WY WUSY- )f ' j
~ ' ~'
[ % UNITED STATES i )$ j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION jkg j ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL ' (( 3
<, s,j g W ASHIN GTON, D.C. 20555
'87 JAN 15 P 4 :56 January 14,1987 .-
ori l ' Dec 4
.i MEMORANDUM FOR: Docketing and Service Branch C'3 ' AN I 61907 FROM: Kathaleen Kerr a Secretary to Judge Morton B. Margulies
SUBJECT:
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) . Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 Please serve the attached letter dated January 6,1987 from Douglas , J. Hynes to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to the parties in the Shoreham/ Emergency Planning proceeding, Docket No. 50-322-0L-3. Also add Mr. Hynes, as a non-party, to the Shoreham OL-3 Service List. . 1 l Attachment . i As Stated j
+
h i
/ -
1 3 u i =w , , ,
~. .. . . ... ..- . _ . ~
.h I'
.J$ _'
l Sown Seasd of Cy644 May'87 JM 15 P4 ;56 TOWN HALL g ,,, OYSTE?. BAY, NEW YORK 11771 00C'_ i ..
' (616) 922 6400 i OOUCLAS J. HYNES COUNCILMAN j l
January 6, 1987 j } ) L l Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
- Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 ATT: Judges Kelley and Margulies
Dear Sirs:
In connection with my duties as an elected member of the Oyster Bay Town Board, will you. kindly enter my
< name on the docket of'your proceedings or your mail-ing list in order to ensure that I receive copies of , all pleadings, documents, memoranda or other records submitted in connection with the ongoing proceedihgs for the full licensing of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant. Will you also kindly consider providing me with all such. documents from June 1, 1986.
Thank you very much for your kind attention to this j request. 1 Very truly yours, , t . ( [ . se.
- p. L DOUGLA 7"J J. HYNES COUNCILMAN DJH/ml pc: Docketing and Services Branch Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Att: Emile Julian, Esq.
-4 s
h ; e TU I VN h t Id - L
.h % .
J y
~
. 50 -3] 2 -0L-3 si i y
'1n T g ']: ,
'l Edma A. Valentine, Sr., Chairman , _ , {
Douglas W. Pierce. Treasurer Joseph Colo, secretary 24 WEST SHORE ROAD ROSLYN, NEW WRK 11576 9
= Carmine Cipriano, susiness Manaser ($l6) 621-7710
)
l January 8,.1987 l l 1 Federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission j Washington, D. C. 20555 s To whom it may concern: ! s Recently the Board of Water Coarnissioners of the Roslyn Water District ; learned of the Long Island Lighting Company's (LILCO) plan to use its { Roslyn Heights facility as a nuclear emergency de-contamination site, i, Needless to say, this plan raises many serious concerns relative to the ; protection of our precious ground water supply, not to mention other en- ! vironmental health hazard concerns. , 1 It is our obligation to protect our water supply system to the full extent of the law. We, therefore, must go on record as saying that we l are vehemently opposed to LILCO's decontamination site plan as a threat to our ground water source of supply. _ Presently, the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC-) has ! placed " caps" on pumpage throughout Nassau County's water districts due l to what they allege as a potential shortage to our ground water supply in the future. To potentially further threaten our only source of water with radioacivity would be ludicrous. ] The Roslyn Water District has since 1910 had a long and proud history d of providing its consumers with pure and plentiful water. It is our sin- ^ cere intention to continue this record of responsible water supply and conservation. We respect fully ask that this de-contamination site plan be abolished, as it cannot be accomplished in a 100% safe and responsible manner. We i would also ask that we be included in any further communication or con-siderations this site review plan may generate. Sincerely, I j M* a t E g n A. Valentine, Efr h
)- >>
\ 'm
~
Av.e- 3 h d '-#M Dou(las Q ierce 6, / 6, ,. . - Jos/phtalo - 0 Ro'slyn Water District "j Board of Commissioners
- CA ~~ ~
6% % . F f
,8 ' ~
+
,, r- ,
l
=
n '.? Llwin A. Valentine. Sr., Chairman < Douglas W. Pierce, Treasurer
+ v ,
Joseph Calo. Secretary 24 WEST SHORE ROAD 1
',, ROSLiN, NEW YORK 11576 ,
= '
Carmine Cipriano, Business Manager ($l6) 621-7770 ) , i l l
}
't f)
January 8, 1987 l 1 lj Copies to: , d Supervisor John Kiernan l Senator Michael J. Tully, Jr. ;l Assemblyman Daniel Frisa Mr. James Darcy, LIL Co Mr. Harry J. Siegel Senator Alphonse D'Amato * ' Congressman Robert J. Mrazek , l l l l l l l l 1', l I
- ! l l
\
1 I
# 1a 1 '. i
- ),
m. O
7: --
. .L . ,-
1 . . , 1 ' , .
. . ..p* * %q,f t
. . UNITED STATES ,
[TM '.
'S-
'f NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL (g
(g...../ W ASM GTON, D.C. 20555 q- . r December 23, 1986 '86 DEC 24 All :36- ,i
- i. a; ! .;
1 -
.! l MEMORANDUM FSR: Docketing.and Service' Branch -
FROM: Kathaleen Kerr '- 0 II ' 2 4 dd
- Secretary to Judge.Morton B. Margulies l
SUBJECT:
LONG ISLAND LIGHTIN'G' COMPANY 1 (Shoreham Nuclear' Power Station, Unit 1) ;
; Docket. No. 50-322-OL-3 1
'\
3 Please serve the: attached letters to the parties in the . .I
- Shoreham/ Emergency Planning proceeding, Docket No. 50-322-OL-3. ,
- 1. Ltr. dated December 9,1986 to Judges Margulies, Kline and' Shon j from Ronald A. Putsis.. !
- 2. Ltr. dated December 11, 1986 to Judge .Frye from J.,8. Kiernan, .
! G. W. Cunningham and J. A. Guarino. . ;
I 3. Ltr. dated December 15, 1986 to Judge Margulies from Maurice- I 1 Barbash attaching ltr. dated December 16, 1986 to D. L'. Prestemon from , j
; Maurice Barbash.
I a 4 Attachments :
,' As-Stated :'
. .t 1 i
a e a >l 4
;i j
.31 yq
- l 1
y , e h a il L _ .j.
'O S
! . e
. Roslyn Heights Civic Association 147 POWERHOUSE ROAD, ROSLYN HEIGHTS, N.Y.11577 December 9,1986 f,,
' 'C{'[," [, ,
Mr. Morton B. Margulies, Chairman Dr. Jerry R. Kline 7 j p,. om J
. peran o Co((PA u Mr. Frederick J. Shone ! ' Administrative Judges
['c']',*'",,, r,..., Atomic Safety and Licensing Board itss oovoNi U .S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission .j '
**],[,,,u,ya,, Washington, D.C. 20555 Past #ve.ic.<w .
COMuiTTit CHAlaPERSONS CELPMINE Mct, TAN Commumy Acnon NAalN o00L,S8Y The Roslyn Heights Civic Association is comerised of s NoenseN a densely cooulated community of 1200 families. ' Our southern l touceoa boundary is the vestbound Service Road of the Long Island Ex-i JOHN & MAmiON MAMNKIN oressway (L.I.E.) which runs beside and carallel to the L.I.E. ['[,'$ and will be used to evacuate uecole and vehicles around the , soc
- a w-. Long Island Lighting Comoany's (LILCO) Shoreham nuclear olant, ,
1 JovCa wAna:N should a nuclear accident occur. This also outs a number of I
,[ouZy" l coa a.o, our homes near the eastbound Service Road on the other side nw o f the L. I . E. , along which is LILCO's Roslyh Heights facility 4
at Willis Avenue. We are also bisected by Willis-Mineola f Avenue along the five most heavily trafficked blocks in Nassau i C ount y. At almost any time of day,. traffic on the L.I.E. can be heavy. The LILCO facility on Willis Avenue has been se- q 1ected by LILCO to be one of three decontamination centers in 1 the event of a nuclear accident .at 'Shoreham, 40 ' miles away. l LILCO's first cla'n was to evacuate 100,000-150,000 cersons a and 15,000 contaminated vehicles to the Nassau Coliseum for l ]> decontamination. A drill was cerformed there in February'of i this year and in February,1987, the Nuclear Regulaton Com-
, mission (NRC) olans to complete its- evaluation of that drill, j and on the basis of its findings may issue a license for . , LILCO's Shoreham nuclear olant. Since February, 1986, however, the use of the Nassau Coliseum as a decontamination site has been barred. The result of this action led to LILCO's new plan, LERO, which proooses to use its facilities in= Roslyn Heights, Hicksville and Bellmore for decontamination. 'The i NRC, thich has accroved the olan, does not, accarently, think' it necessary to hold another drill at these three sites. We find this incomorehensible. Comearison cannot be made between a drill at the large Nassau Coliseum and these' three small sites. We request, therefore, that a drill be oerformed at' I
A the sites in Roslyn Heights, Hicksville and' Bellmore. In the event of a disaster, the traffic congestion will be horrendous. It is not as though LILCO vill have a clear route f rom its Shoreham nuclear olant to Roslyn Heights and the two other sites. In addition to evacuees, one million residents of Suffolk County and 6C% of Nassau County residents clan to leave if there is a nuclear accident at Shoreham.- There~ is little doubt that these citizens' will take every vestbound j
' route on Long Island. nd We vould like to invite you to exoerience our traffic and to envision the exodus of evacuees and refugees along our.
]'
1 major vestbound highways. 'It is imoossible to credict* that . C' / .EMIfj
~
Nf '
4 y,S :
$ a nuclear accident will occur conveniently at 2 :00 A. M.- and !
. the highways should be viewed during rush hours as well as l normal daily hours. Nor can the weather be credicted, and in the event of rain, the trail of contamination will be a long one. The thought of such an evacuation of Shoreham seems un-
! realistic. 'i
., It is our understanding that only municioalities and town; can make olans for evacuation of nuclear olant accidents and i
~,
select sites for decontamination and relocation. The wisdom .j of . Executive Law 24 is obvious : towns are cognizant of their Ji zoning laws, environ- !
; land use, occulation mental considerations, water systems, traf ficetcroblems, densities, c. Ther dfore, LILCO's plan, aoproved by the NRC, would seem to be illegal.
{ Additionally, such a plan must include a relocation site for evacuees to Roslyn Heights. The Roslyn High School has not accented use of its facilities for this ourcose, and, in fact, the Administration was not consulted by LILCO for oermission to list the school in LERO. Towns are. resoonsible for the welfare, safety and health of lI their citizens, but . it is our understanding that the NRC is also- I i resoonsible for the welfare of the people, and not simoly an
'{ organ for assisting utilities to obtain a license for a nuclear l olant. For u- to consider all environmental issues would be -
l an enormcas task, but we question the ability of LILCO to contain. ! contam3.tated water and, in the event of rain, there seems little likelihood that our ground water and wells will not become un-
! drinkable. 1 > We have learned only very recently and through the cress of }
o LILCO's plans to use its small facility in our commun.ity for ! d econt amination. We do not consider the olan to be realistic, l feasible or safe. For this reason and others mentioned in this !'
-l 1etter, and because we have had no say in LILCO's olans, we request an open oublic hearing as provided by Federal Law 95-641 of 1972, as amended 1979, which guarantees the people's ,
right to know. Sincerely 6 d M,ap -
- Ronald A. o u tsis (
, President ,,
- l 4 i
i
;q I
I t 1i 1* l l ,
. .. l
- ' JOHN 8. KIERNAN SUPERVISOR l l
i OFFICE oF THE SUPERVISOR , TOWN oF NORTH HEMPSTEAD , q i TOWN H ALL. MANH ASSET. N. Y.11 o3o TELgewoAt tS I 61627 0590 ' l l December 11, 1986 n Honorable Administrative Judges . Hon. John Frye, III, Chairman i Atomic Safety and Licensing Board United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ,, . ,. l Honorable Administrative Judges. Please be advised that the Town of North Hempstead objects to the designation and proposed use of the Long Island ) Lighting Company's (hereinafter called LILCO) facility at ' ' l Willis Avenue and the south service road of the Long Island Expressway in Roslyn as a reception and decontamination center 1 as part of an evacuation plan in the event of a radiological j accident at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. Under no l circumstances should this facility be approved or designated l I as an evacuation center. Indeed, we believe that the traffic , problems, environmental dangers, the size of the facility i i itself and local zoning laws render such a proposed use j illegal and inappropriate. i The property was acquired by LILCO on March 17, 1923. Since that time, the property has been used only for the normal business operations of LILCO--general operations yard, office, building and substation. From time to time, - from the 1920's to the 1950's there was also a farm stand operated on part of the property. It has never been used for anything approaching an evacuation center in the event
, of a adiological accident. Such a use is not an ordinary use by a public utility and is not a permitted use under the zoning code of the Town of North ~Hempstead.
The property was rezoned by the Town on August 16, 1955, from Residence C to Business A. Although LILCO has i
)
not submitted any applications to the Town for a zoning code j change or variance or any detailed plans for the proposed evacuation and reception center, the Town has reviewed a . 1
; drawing indicating how the site would.be used. LILCO , d l, R$ .
nd ! i d
~.
o , Administrative Judges December 11, 1986 3 Page'Two- - 1 I
"J proposes to store equipment and decontamination trailers in ,'
the northeast corner of the property. The storage of such lf trailers is not a permitted use under the Business A zone "l and would violate the Town Zoning Code. ..
]
Moreover, LILCO's' proposal to use trailers ~for / monitoring and decontamination brings into play'some other
- p?ovisions of the Town's Zoning Code. Section 70-203 states -
j in part as follows: - Section 70-203. Public' health, safety and general. . i
; welfare. l 1
] A.. No trade, industry, purpose or use_shall be,' ']
' conducted in such.a manner as to. create corro- ;
- sive or toxic fumes, gas,, smoke or' odors, ob-I noxious dust, vapor or wastes, offensive noise , j or vibration, which may be detrimental.to the public health, safety and general welfare. .-
It is.our position that any decontamination acti- l vity on the site would violata this'section. l 3 Our examination e; LILCO's drawing also indicated '
]
,' that the site itself-is totally inadequate to accommodate. "j
.the proposed use and handle the expected volume of people
' and automobiles. Our records indicate thatlthe site is-approximately 600,000_ square feet (or about 7.3 acres),_and. approximately 35: percent of~the site is' presently covered i ( 3
.with buildings or landscaping. That"would: lea ~ve'about , 390,000 square feet left for the evacuation center activity. ,d It is our further understanding that .LILCO's' proposed plan would direct approximately'40,000 people to this site. l1 3- Putting aside for a moment the other traffic. problems in the. '
area, we believe that a conservative estimate would be'that , some 13,000 cars would be directed to this site (12,100 is the number contained in LILCO's traffic study). In discussions with both our Planning Department, ; Building Department and our Boardiof Zoning and Appeals ! personnel, it is our calculation (using parking space' sizes. , e and aisle and exit lane dimensions below our code standards). 3 that LILCO will not-be able.to handle more than'1,100 cars at ' any one time on the site. .In. fact, we believe-that is.a r generous estimate. Clearly, given,the confusion and' fear which would accompany an actual evacuation and the. time nec- J essary to' check.each vehicle and the occupants,:this sitefjust ' I is not big enough to handle thefprojected volume. It'should - ! be noted that the Nassau Veterans Memorial-Coliseum parking w area. designated in the previous LILCO plan is approximately 53- ~, /;f{' L; 3! w 1 (,
- Og, Administrative Judges December 11, 1986 Page Three acres. Many critics of this earlier. plan using the Coliseum
; thought that the site was inadequate. Therefore, we would il request that you carefully consider whether.the three msw LILCO sites are sufficient to meet the projected demano. 'The Town is concerned that there would be thousands of ' cars backed 5' up on line waiting to gain entrance to the site.or that there would be cars driving through the surrounding neighborhood ~
. trying to gain an alternate access route to the site, jq "4 i We have reviewed the traffic report prepared tur i I
KLD Associates in connection with LILCO's proposed plan. - ., The Town does not share the view that the traffic could be
; properly handled. The exit from the westbound Long Island t
Expressway for Willis Avenue is one of the worst in the - County. Under normal rush hour conditions'there are traffic , tie ups at this exit. We urge you to carefully review the.
, traffic report and to make an independent assessment of the )
l traffic conditions. The Willis Avenue /Long Island Express- ' way intersection is one of the most important for north- ! south travel'in the Town of North Hempstead. .i Finally, the Town is concerned ab'out'the effect ! l that the use of this facility for decontamination purposes could have on the quality of our groundwater supply. The
, j l
contamination of~the groundwater from wastewater runoff l could threaten the health and safety of our residents. This 1 1 issue should not be treated lightly. .As you know, Long i Island has no alternate source of' drinking water and'the ]. possible dangers.to our groundwater must be given paramount
~
consideration. We respectfully request that you reject ~ the use of the Roslyn facility as part of the LILCO evacuation j plan. V uly yours, - John B. iernan , Superv o j c h j Jerome J. Weinstein Ge t -W'. Cunn gham Councilman C un 1 man ,
/
f ,4 hD & d,/(,uuk
.- j' '
C '/' #, . 3!
/' Charles J. Fuschillo Joseph A..Guarino j JBK 1 3 -
x
.i...=m..i.a.-p
e; CITIZENS TO REPLACE LILCO 1 265 WEST MAIN STREET, P.O. DRAWER 0, BABYt,0N, N.Y.117o2 / $l6-66NU6 4 4TEERING COMMITTEE Maurwe Barbash. Chearman Elawie Benson Nora Bredes Leon Carnpo adi Chaleff
, [',*"6%""*"' December 15, 1986 ,)
Leonard Goldschmadi Lou Grasso '(
? .J , Jack Greenbaum
'i Kathenne Honede Judge Morton 8. Margulies 'q
' Juk Honeneerge' Administrative Judge 1
$,'<'y" K$"jy*" Atomic Safety & Licensing Board I
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission f D"ms Laf,*m'O, *,"S,. Washington 0.C. 20555 14 Wilham Mausno ! l 8/,*,dy,$,'""
Dear . Judge Margulies:
/ l
, Deborah Perry .] j N"",,PL,n,,
, [ngjosed are the following; y{
Ted Sheibler i Ana Sa*2de 1. December 3,1986 letter from Donald L. Prestemon I
#Ma$eid" R which is intended to be an answer to my letter i l
Tom Twomey of November 26, 1986 to you. 1J g Dave WiHmott j
, mrv C MMirTEE Senator Kenneth LaValle
- 2. My letter dated December 15, 1986 to Mr. Prestemon. ] j Ammeiymn Pui Huenbeg As you know, Senator Moynihan has requested congressional
~
8
! ' d$N'n'yneP t hearings on the nature of Mr. Nofsiger's work in Washington f ; Supervisor Judith Hope Supn an for the Long Island Lighting Company. I would continue to. ,
i s. ,lntes hope that, if you have any opinion on the fairness of the .,
, j senaior canu Trun40 Shoreham licensing proceeding, you would inform us at this . ,
iam"n Arthur Kremer time. As Iwrote Mr. Prestemon, the Code of Judicial Conduct L'c k 5aam' Anemblyma i Ammblyman winiam B.weni. Jr. which he quotes. Virtually mandates that a judge make this l Anembbman Roberi Gaffney Auemblyman Painsk Halput type of publlC disclosure. - Assemblyman John Behan j Auemblyman Lewis Yevoli . I look forward to hearing from you. l Anemblyman Joseph Sawwks Anemblywoman Barbara Paston - - 5 Ammelywoman May Newburger Very truly yours,, ! Auemblywoman Gerdi Lipschuta
^ **
c"', ,I**"i,#""'""' CITIZENS TO PLACE LII.CO. Legniator Rose Caraeappa , Legislator Donald Altgrove .l Legulator Joseph Rizao e legislator Gerard Glats e
- f t
Legniaior Michael D' Andre Legniator Patnck Mahoney +3
.- fi, s
Legniator Steve Englebnsas Maurice Barbash -q
< Lantaior Sieven Levy Chairman ' 1 Lgniamt John Foley 4 OgD '
Legislator Jane Deune
; Legislator Sondra M. Bacheir En' closure , ;
Legniaior Tony Bulloch j i Legniator Philip Nolan, Jr. # j
) Town Snerds: 1 Smtratown a f
Supersnor Patnck becchto 'I J Coustiman Bradley Harm /' Counciman Mwhael Lanzarone Counciman Eugene Cannataro
} Counalman Micnael Sulhvan armkheven - ',
3,,,g,gg g,y,,,, l Supervnor Hennetis Acam,, ora Supervnor Frank Murphy
, Mayor Gilbert Hanse 4 Councima Gee Gerrard Councilman George Penney ## ##
i Councilman Donald Zimmer Trusiee J:hn Rinklm Tru"stee Victona Segel l Counolman Roy Ed*sids Trustee John Vidovich h Counciman Amhony Losquadro Councilwoman Jean Cochran Trusin Gayle Labenow 8#N8'er fjm n pn his Counalman James Schondebate islandea Trustee Eli T"arpiin > 'l Counciman John LaMura SMer Irled - Trum William LeStrange, Jr, Lurden4urst 5*!h'*PN " ~" Counalman" Theodore Alpert o' uni $an f ed fu "'**"U'#""
" "8 "" "I d Canc11 man Kenach Lewin Trustee'M" Burke Counalwoman Patrica Neumann
*'4 Hempftead Trustee Linda Sendienski Frank 4 i Counciman George Stavropoulos Trustee Gerald Preuer ' g,,,3 g,ff, 1 i Counalma Amon o Gil. Sr. Town Cluk John Davanao Orcen Bach Mayor Lowell Kane M D. i Eart Humoron Couna me thunca Trunta Ill aes:
lue'&'w Mayor Thomas Sehwart fruster Barnata Brunner g.,g, g " aj l Councilman Randy Parson, Mayor George Butts, Jr. Trusies Marvin Fneoman Rocert Mor8an. Jr- s I Counctwoman Joncie Edwards A mt!Pt/re HNd of:be Harbor O*' Wk .! 1 Councilman Pete Hammerle Trustee Peter Casterly Truuee Robert White E''" Mayor Stanley Cohen g Huntmgron Glen Cove Trtmee Glenn Wilhams Others j j Supervisor John Owedi Counalman Joseph Casun seite ferre Supervisor Bruce Nyman ; l ah Counalman James Gaugnran preepon Mayor Vincens Bove y[ o,n 84by/,n Councilma wilham Dalcol Trustee James C' ark East Hempron ge/tpors Mayor Frank Trotta, Jr* Former Assemb6yman O
) i i
Reverhud Edwm Sherrill. Jr, Trustee Roger Terret Cuol,S,w pa, ,3n,u,,, 3,,,,,, ,e l
.' Trusies Edwm Horsley - \'
Supervnor Joseph Janoski arte Nere Prage James Morso, SC Dir.. Housing J l Couno! man Robert Pike Mayor Allan Gussack Greenoort Joen Scherb, Counse'. DEC . Counalman John Lomeerdi Esec. Am. Mayor Edward Hall
' 'l" Trustee Gail Horron ' Tnastee Bruce Field -
Counciman Loun Boscheui Trustee Jean Celender Trustee Oswid Kapell Trusiee Cathy Lesser ' ?T Counalma Victor Prusmowski Trunee Robert Roseganen Trussee Wdham Liebten Town of East Hampion . Ha se f e m%n g ;4 g-<- W l J
Lif CITIZENS TO REPLACE LILCO. ; 269 WEST MAIN STREET, P.O. DRAWER 0, BABYLON, N.Y. 18702 / $14669 3236 i
- O
%TLF. RING COMMITTEE i uauna suonh, Chmr December 16, t986 4
' 1 Elaine Benson Nora Bredes
- l 1 I con Campo 841 Chaieff . ,
j [',*n"$'"*"' Mr. David L. Prestemon 1 Leonud coMschadi c Legal Counse1 11 U"$,'e'1,um U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission xaian= Heviude Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel l{ f ' l
',*',,'," l""l"'4"
, Washington, D.C. 20555 NaMy xeMey j l 8 *8 L>k'
Dear Mr. Prestemon:
S"havon Locombe ' wdham Marran, St. i' wdha= Muuno I have received your letter of December 3,1986 regarding -
$*,Q,'"" my correspendence with Judge Margulies. 3
, Decorah Perry
.t j M",y*,,',,, Your quote from the canon of Judicial Ethics is selective, '
red shoei, in that it ignores many other of the code requirements for 1 5a*d*a members of the judiciary. For example, immediately after !
, Al"M $dd "
R"j hm T=o=y n , the admonition you cited regarding public comment, there l
} appears this additional sentence. "This sub-section does
'"*'*" j l not prohibit judges from making public statements in the '
fi ^ Z ,"" C " ' " course of their official duties or from explaining for public ; l senaior xenneei i lavalie Assemblyman Paul Harenberg information tne procedures of the court". j l ll ONCIa'y'n?P$1.i A complete reading of the code moreover. nyeals requirements ' t l Supervisor judith Hope ! Compelling a judge to act to " uphold the integrity and in.' 4 U"['",,"' '"' dependence of the judiciary". Canon i says: "An independent i I ( senior Cusar Trunao and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our s0Clety". Canon 2A says: "A judge should respect and comply l Un"/v7n'A ut kreme, I Amme6mn winiam aiocni, e. with the law and should conduct himself at all times in a e i Ammmymu Roden Gefar manner that promtoes public confidence in the integrity and
^',0*7y*n'a"jo$',Ca'l[* Impartiality of the judiciary". !
- i Anemruymu inwa vono
'As^"s nn b a an\on In the case of the Shoreham licensing proceedings: there is '
Ammmywomn May Newoursu much circumstantial evidence which raises grave questions M*E'T"h37,M"," m regarding the integrity of the process. Why ,for example,
- c==y Luwimte has a known White House influence peddler, Lyn Nofsiger, been !
tuniaint Row Cuscappe
" ^' said approximately $700,000 for his assistance to the Long '
OEU% J neNR l,8' " Isla.1d Lighting Company? Why have Judge Margulies and one i egniaior Ge,ard Giass of his colleagues been shifted off parts of this case . i i UNE $,"N^de',' immediately after they heard three days testimony from Long Legniam, siov engion,igw Legniame sioca l"v Islanders? These and other questions are extremely troublesome Legniator John Folev to the large segment of the public which has an interest in Legniaior jene Doi = the proceedings. ,1 ); Legislator Sondra M. Bacheiy
- Legnlato# Tony Suliock i egniator Phthp Nolan, Jr.
'r-l j Toen Rostds:
tmthrowe Supermot Pairick Vecchie
'l
}
Councilman Bradley Harris Counctiman Michael Lanzarone j Councdman Eugene Cannataro , Councilman Michael Sulhvan l Bronkhewn gon,gogg
+
,j
! Suriermot Hentwua Acampore g,g ,y, r Supervnor Frank Murphy Councilman Gene Oerrard Councdman George Penney Mayor Gilberi Hanse
. Truwee John Rmkhn
# i-Councdman Roy Edwards w a segd Councilman Coimcdman Amhony Donald Losqu Zimme'adro Trunee John Vidoncti i p is Cousicilwoman Jean Cochran Trunet Gayle Laeenow 8 eh'**'e'8 Coquilman James Schondubare
] 3*## #'# d li/undse T"usies r EH Tarpim Counalman John LaMura Supcvisor'"Jeffrey Simes Truwee Wilham LeSirange, Jr, Lurenhursi <
g ,, .g.,3,,p,,, Trusin Manhew Senatore Couni a Theodore Alperi " "^ Trumes Doug Morris unci man kuneth Lems Port Jefferma Counalwoman Patricia Neumann Truwee Linda Sendiendi Truure Frank Burke Councilman George Stavropoulos North #rmentred Truuee Geraid Prens'- Counalman Amomo Gd, St. Town Clerk John Davando AurM Mvr t Orron Bror4 Mayor Lowell Kane, M D. ' Kau /fami'ro,, liesm \taynt Thomas Schwirt j Counsdman Patrick Trunro - e /fdff # Truun Harnara Urunner 3rithamptosi Ae Councaman Randr Parmn, Mayor G"eorge Duns Jr. Robert Mor8an,'Jr* }' Trunee Marvin Friedman , CouM11 woman JuMine Edwards Amtryntie Hrod nfihr Herhnt N* U"' Counalman Pee Hammerle Trusies Peter Cauerly Truute Roorn White O'a"yo'r M 5tanley Cohen y
$k n,,gt,ne ma Glen Cove Truute Glenn withams Oeers I Superviuw John O'Nedi Councaman Joseph Cassm setir raw Supernsor Bruce Nyman Coutwllman James Gaughran ferranet Mayor Vmsent Bove Y "8 Ch Behykm Trusnet James Clark Bellport
, 4 i Councilman William Dako6
#,wrhrerf Eder //depton Edwin sherrdt, Jr.
Mayor Frank Trous, Jr. Trunee Roger Terrel c, g),,^ N , . Y) !'j
' 7,,,,,3,,,,g,,,,,
Supervnor Joseph Janoski Gerer heck Ptere Trvun Edwin Horsley CouncHman Robers Pike James Morgo, SC Dir., Houung ! Mayor AHan Gunach Gwnport loan Schert, Counset DEC Ia Councdman John Lombardi Eiec. Assi. Mayor Edward Hall Trune, Gad Horton ld ) Councdman Louis Deschein Truues Bruce Field I Trunee Jean Celender Trumee David Kapell Trunes Cathy Leuer Councdman victor Prvunowski Trussee Robert Rosegatten Truwee Wuham Lie 61em Town of Eau Hampion'
, Ma se
,l a i _ r ., % c s .
- o a - m) i
[**e i l Mr. David L. Prestemon December 16, 1986 j , 4 Page TWO Again, we ask Judge Margulles for nis opinion. ; ire these proceedings being conducted in a fair mannar? We y think that the Code of Judicial Conduct requires an .
< .o answer, ,
Very truly yours, , CITIZENS T PLACE LILCO .; Maurice.Barbash . ' Chairman , nib I i . I ; a e 1 e
.4
.k n.
##@R 8I49f*'o' ONITED STATES
!" > #, c n NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASM+pC 70N. O C 20555
.[ ' {
%,, - jf December 12, 1986
....a CHAIRMAN i
The Honorable Daniel Patrick Moynihan l United States Senate l Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Senator Moynihan:
In a December 4, 1986 letter, you requested all records of contacts, since 1980, with NOC adjudicatory employees by "Mr. [ Lyn] Nofriger or his associates...by present or former White House staff or employees o# the Executive Office of the President, including Mr. Edward Rollins, or present or former members of the Department of Energy," concerning the Shoreham nuclear plant. Reviews of Shoreham docket files, files of the current Commissioners, of the current Appeal Panel, of the current Licensing Board Panel, and of the Office of General Counsel produced four documents which appear to be within the scope of your request, copies of which are enclosed. They are: A letter dated July 13, 1984 from Nunzio J. Palladino to Honorable Edward Markey, placed in .the public record on July 16, 1984 Enclosures 1 & 2 of the letter are also included. (Enclosures 3-9 are voluminous and not within the scope of your request.) Three affidavits of D. Schweller, DOE, filed with the Shoreham Licensing Board and served on the parties on or about February.13, 1984 (Voluminous attachment does not appear to be within the scope of your request and is not provided.) Sincerely,
,%.so w.2uA .
LandoW.Ze[1, Jr
Enclosures:
As Stated s
- l O bel [^
q-
's l
3 v , . w
j { UNITED 8TATES i e NUCLE AR. REGULATORY COMMIS$10N w e n o7oN o.c.acess {
,,**"* July 13, 1984 cmainuam pgsW C0Cuyrn7 geg,y .
N M 26 Mo:05 O The Honorable Edward J. Martey, Chairman l Subcomittee on Oversight and Investigations Mrruon,". .l Comittee'on Interior and Insular Affairs. United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515
Dear Mr. Chairinan:
In~ further response to your letters of March 28. April 12, April 24, 1 May 4, and May 10,1984 regarding the .Shoreham proceeding, we want to l take this opportunity to address previously unanswered matters raised in ! that correspondence. In your letter of March 28, 1984, you expressed your inability toL understand the Comeission's decision of June 30, 1983 with' regard to 4 emergency planning and low-power' operation of Shoreham,'and you requested clarification. That order, CLI-83-17,17 NRC 1032, simply j said that 10 C.F.R. 50.47(d), which authorizes grant of a low-power license notwithstanding the absence of an approved emergency plan, is premised on the low risks associated with low-power operation. For a full-power license.to be granted, the emergency planning requirements for full power must be met. The Commission s order said that in this respect, emergency planning is no different from any safety issue which i requires resolution prior to full-power operation but not prior to , low-power operation. The order made clear that a finding that a par- ' ticular issue need-not be resolved prior to low-power operation, and the grant of a low-power license, in no way assure that the applicant will receive a full-power license.
- Comissioner Asselstine adds:
i I disagreed with the Connission's June 30, 1983 order regarding emergency planning and low-power operation at Shoreham. At the time, I expressed the view that the legal and policy issues involved were not nearly as simple or clear cut as the majority had indicated,'and that the Comission should have obtained the views of.the parties before reaching a decision on this matter. ' Apart from this~ defect in the majority's approach to decision-making I. > believe that it would be unwise to allow low-power operation at Shoreham prior to the issuance'of an initial decision by the licensing board on the emergency planning and preparedness contentions. - The emergency planning contentions in the Shoreham case differ from most contentions in nuclear plant operating license proceedings. Most such contentions, if decided in favor of theLintervenor, are correctable through additional inspections,. license conditions or hardware or procedural changes to the plant. However, the - cns.^ m 8tf =q.q ;
' ' " - . 1 L ,- '
",; s m !
,;,' ,t ,-
' lg \j
. 'b ,
i t
I t <,, i, 4 l
\ l
,' j l,,'
1, , i j The Honorabic Edward J.' Markey '/ 2 '
.' )
l l ii
,j eme.gency. planning contintions in Shoreham, if decided,in favor of '
the intervenors, would'11kely prevent fulbpower eperation of the-plant. 'In such circumstances, it Mkes little sense toLallow. low-power operation of the plant >ptMpnIthat would. contaminate , the facility and compMcate subsph.entLmaintenance-.until the ' emergency planning contentiontair resolypid. j l In your April 12 letter, you strodgly criUcized thV Licensina D', p ruling of. April 6, stating that "the board did ret (a) specificallye ' <M resolve or even resprad to the arguments of intervanors that an r I expedited schedule would prejudice their right te,a full and fai ,
'l hearing; and (b) state why it appare.1tly belims q expedited heariny4' i is necessary." You added, "I resp 6ctfully reqJest that ^.he Commission formally ask the board to respond to these two issues." Strice Maui time, the Comission',s actiontvacating the Boarfs schedule hanin3ted the two. issues. Marnver, we do not believe that svnh 4 requesk should be made lest the Subcommittee be percetVed as rittendit.g to affect the ' , f.
outcome of the adjudicatory process. i3' f ty < ,
> ~
1 x In your April 2A,19M letter, you asked (M i more C0kl e explanttion.L e "that resolves 111 kaown facts" concernin/ the events preceding the l Licensing Boarti's order in an expedited Ianeing. This explanation wasv furnished both orally and in my preparedfwritten testimony d611veredq e m"/ the May 19,1984 hearing before the'SuRomittee on Energy andcthe j
. , . 9 Environment., ,
1 ,,
.J ; ,
f In your Fay 4,19BM 1stter you reepstod a record of all sty comunica- ' tions witt Executive Branck and federal agencies that rotate te,ener-- < gency planting or the Shoreham prdceeding. On~ April 12, 1984, I met ; with Secre ary Hodel of the Departzent of Energy and discussed a number of topics, including emergency' planning. On April 20, 1984, I attended ~ 1.~l a luncheongith Louts GuSffrida Director of the Federal' Emergency. . Management 1gency.. The discussions' addressed the question of how to 1 improve the NRC/ FEMA working roletionship and a discussion of how to improve public unders2andirig of FEMA's emergency, preparedness evaluatioq 7
- (
a.ctivities'. ifo pedi 41fcenefog cases or issues were discussed. Finally, on AprW26,1984, treceived a call from Secretary Hodel' - -(. i
; concerning!the U.5 Gistrict Court's decision in the shorthat case.
't Documents nlating to these' contacts are enclosed (Enclosure 1)F ' ,
1 l Some men 6ers cf my staff have also had comunications with 00E and FENA relating to emergwy planning or Shoreham. ' A sumary of recollections 'l of such comunications'is presented in Enclosure 2. In the interest of thoroughness and 'to! supplement our responses'to your letters of April 12 - 3 ar.d May 4,1984, ny fellow Comissioners have further examined their; records.. I also reqwsted that relevant Comission and staff andoffices Licensing. do thei Boardsame. Asr a 'the. Fanel provided esuTt./the documentsChairman in Enc!ciNre 3, ofandthe' lthAtomic Safety / shed documents in Enclosure 4. Comissioner 1 developed' the list Asselstine provide'd andifur(Mim dated Mag 14y)B4 (Enclosure 5);l a,memort > re x!' ,, <6 7. / [
~
.( 's,, ,
' , % [A[J j
]
z l M /, e _- [;
p, .- t The Honorable Edward J. Markey 3 N othePConsnissioners responded. Based on discussions with your staff, L this NRC staff list includes all comunications regarding the Shoreham facility and other comunications of a general nature concerning emer-gency planning but does not include routine comunications regarding routine correspondence to and from FEMA other specific regarding FEMAfacilities findings,(g,ttals transmi to FEMA of proposed and admitted contentions, transcripts of hearings, requests for responses to inter- ' rogatories (and corresponding FEMA responses) and similar communica-tions). These documents include notes of oral comunications where they Nevertheless, as you must be aware, exist or could be recreated.
- infomal comunications with.such agencies routinely occur in the ordinary discharge of this agency's functions and often, in the absence of notes of a particulcr discussion, the nature of such comunicatiois simply cannot be reconstructtd.
In your May 10, 1984 letter you state that you believe that I must-explain fully why I should not recuse myself from any future decision-i making role in this proceeding. On June 6. 1984, I received a formal request for recusal filed by Suffolk County and the State of New York. , A copy is enclosed for your information (Enclosure 6). In addition, on ! June 18, 1984 I received coments (see Enclosure 7) from LILCO on the femal recusal request from Suffolk County and the State of dew York. ! On June 21,1984 (per Enclosure 8) I asked for coments from the NRC { staff, the third party to this proceeding before I respond to the I recusal request; in that document I indicated that until I respond to this request I do not plan to participate in any further Shoreham '1 proceedings. [ Staff. coments provided July 5,1984; see Enclosure 93 ; Therefore, it would be inappropriate for me to coment on this matter j }/ ' while it is pending before me. My decision on this subject will be a matter of record in the proceeding and will-be made available to you. f f; Sincerely, i) gMJ- - il Nunzio J a ladino
Enclosures:
- 1. Documents re DOE & FEMA contacts
- 2. Sumary of Recollections of Comunications
- 3. ASLBP documents
- 4. NRC staff list & documents ,
- 5. Memo, 5/14/84 Comissioner l
- 1. <, Asselstine to Comission
- 6. Ltr, 6/6/84, Suffolk County
.& NY to Palladino !
- 7. LILCO's Response, 6/18/84 l
( l
1
< r l
The Honorable Edward J. Markey 4 f
- 8. 44etnorandum to Parties, 6/21/84
- 9. NRC Staff Response to Suffolk County
& State of NY Request for Recusal of Chairinan Palladino cc: The Honorable Ron Marlenee 1
}
l l D ess 9 4 0 0 0 i (' .
- ',g , n v a :.-n n c v v - ni w,......w v. ,
f wumotow, o. e.asss . j .7, j.- e-
. p . ... . o w .,e]
' April 17, 1984 cwsuu ,
MEMORAHDUM FOR; Commissioner Gilinsky Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine i Commissioner Bernthal Hunzio J. Palladino f0 FROM: 1 MEETING WITH SECRETARY H0 DEL l
.., SUBJ ECT:
Last. Thursday, April 12, 1984,. I met with Secretary Hodel. The principal purpose was to follow up on my earlier testimony to our oversight committees regarding initiatives to clean up Three
. Mile ' Island Unit 2.
The secrete.ry indicated that there was a relue'tance I pointed on out the part that I' I of Congress for a government " bail-out." do not view as a " bail-out" c government initiative to get the cleanup done first, and worry later aboutwould It likely how the money be from GPU, is but q reimbursed to the government. it may also be that: the entire Us S. nuc1' ear induttry.. cont.ributes. The Secretary said he.would have his people look into the nati,ar , f rom this perspective. . . . I also met on Monday, April 16, 1984, with Concerned Mothe'rs of Middletown. They also expressed cone' n about the slow pace of cleanup. i To fo11ew up on both of these, meetings, I am asking Bernie Snyder to put .together a summary of cost data and available funding for cleanup, wjth special emphasis on the impact of By j Pennsylvania PUC rulings on the availability of GPU funds.
. copy, I would like the EDO to forward thi.s' data to the CommisslN l "
within about two weeks.- Another topic that would be of general interest to the Commissier was my discussion with Secretary Hodel concerning the general r,alaise of the nuclear industry, and the confidence of investors-in nuclear power. The point here was that.even those plants not in trouble could. be af fected by loss of confidence.' Two issues i ' in particular were raised b Secretary: (a)~ construction quality assurance; and (b) emergency y -the planning. : t! KITED 01STRIBUTION f l P
1
. 2.
On construction quality assurance, the Secretary expressed ) interest in our CAT program of visits. to various sites.. By copy 1 I would like the E00 to provide a listing of both past CAT l visits as well as those planned for the' future. On emergency l planning, tTe Secretary indicated that DOE was working with FEMA i about specific ways the government may .be able to provide police powers shen state or local governments do not participate I in emergency planning. The Executive Branch may have more to { say on this general subject later. . l i i ec: EDO OGC ' Secretary Hodel
. ]
- 1
- 1
, j i f
)
)
. . . q
. :~. ...
S
. b f
1 1.IMITED DISTRIBUTION . l 1 l l r l
lI - l TOP 1CS FOR CHAIRMAN'S~ MEETING lilTP GE'.'E: 4L G10FFRID 1, CONTINUITYOFGOVERNMENT (CATEGORY A, B, OR C FOR NP.C) i 1 I i SPECIFIC FEMA REACTION TO CHAIRP.AN'S LETTEA 0F
-JANUARY 23, 1984
-- DISCUS $10N OF OTHER AGENCY RESPCNSES TO DATE
- j 11, NRC - FEMA INTERACTION ON O'FSITE EMERGENCY PLANNING
-- ROW ARE OUR lNTERACTIONS WORXING?
-- WHAT ARE,THE GOOD PolNTS?
4
-- WHAT PROBLEMS HAVE ARISEN?- (E.G. WITH RESPECT TO kk'NDLING.0FDEFICIENCIES, RESOURCES TO SUPPORT NRC SCHEDULES) i 1
1 s ! 4 k
*y
****'g-
' April 2 7,1984 munwu Commissioner Gilinsky MEMORAHDUM FOR: Commissioner Roberts Commissioner Asselstine Commissioner Bernthal FROM: Hunzio J. Palladino , j i
SUBJECT:
TELEPHONE CALL FROM SE'CRETARY H0 DEL
~; .
I received a telephone call from $scretary Hodel on April 26, / l 1984 in which he said his.-General Counsel was going to call my General Counsel to offer to help in responding to Judge Johnson's decision en Shoreham. I said I did not see how he
. i could help but that l' d leave.that to our General Counsel to '
, respond if 5'ecretary Hodel's General Counsel calls him.,
cc: OGC . c .~ - l' L1MITED D1577.1BUTION 0 6 0
l
SUMMARY
OF RECOLLECTIONS OF COMMUNICATIONS OF CHAIRftAN'S STAFF WITH 00E AND FEMA RELATING
, TO EHERGENCY: PLANNING OR-SHOREHAM Executive ' Assistant o Early_1984 (estimated); one or +wo conversations with an individual in 00E about news article suggesting 00E was considering approaches for. ,
federal assistance in' emergency preparedness in i conjunction with FEMA; DOE's commitmeht seemed l 1ess than the article indicated. j o April /May, 1984; communications involving:
-- call from D0E' requesting information about a Commission meeting on Shoreham (D0E requestor was referred to General Counsel's Office) 4
-- a returned call to DOE individual who said he had learned what he wanted about Shoreham and no longer needed to talk ~
cail from DOE on a matter not related to emergency planning or Shoreham, but during-which caller was referred to a Washington Post article on Shoreham; 00E individual ( then mentioned but did not discuss a recent l 1etter 'f rom Secretary Hodel to Governor - Cuomo i
-- ca.11 informing Secretary Hodel's office that Congressman Markey's staff had. indicated that he would. release to'the public Chairman Palladino's April.27,1984 memorandum concerning the Secretary's April 26, 1984 call (copy of memorandum'sent to DOE at that time)
Technical Assistant I
~
o February,1984; contact with 00E representatives at the Full Field Exercise at St. Lucie about DOE i emergency response facilities' demonstrated'during- ! the exercise. 1 o May, 1984; contacted'by 00E about. Commission's-position on Transamerica Delaval..Inc. diese) , generators (most of~ discussion'related to-specific problems at Grand Gulf; 00E individual- y sought verification that Shoreham diesel -
-generator f ailure .first- highlighted problems)
- seind>
l l Uti!TED mfts of AMRICA l ISM:1. EAR R300LA20tf CC80t!S81 5 l I l Beiere the Ateals safety and Idassaias Boar ( l
.Ze the matter of t u. > .sehe. .e. .
(sharehen Itastear Pouse statten ) Watt 1) ) AfflatM S se - 1m 99 8 SS
. 4 }-
Dev$d estess&&ar, enty sessa #W est says as ist. 1**be .
.r; : Yi n ..-
- : : .. 2 IIr eene .e Seped Astratier. I en Megger et the Depar maan et nemen , .
).-
W S W .peogres et the , l % 'es
.a apo d sen esserspete .
-.e ..l 1 I
e doctemeted RJW 9 tem Septais to em esta esnel anath. them e. eell for en emergemey response eense is, the Oeytata I -
< > l s1 ) f % s o l n -
Oi~ 'i0 i m est a m.cosess
__ = - 1 l l l
- l 2
( 1mmediately fanine a RAF Team of 5 4 individuals from a pre-established 1.ist of members of the radiological start of the trookhaven Wattenet 1,aboratory Safety and Enviressental P:r:ection Davision. Other ME, specialists la the fielde of 1 medicine, public informattee, and security may be he included as necessary to deal with the nature of a sg . tie tasident. The Team slee includes a Coordsmater free the Department of En. ergy's Brookhaves area office.
- 1. , -
1 1r ' subscribed and swers se betees as this f.28 ese w I 1 , ases.
-"' e ll 1
5 1 i I j
......i .
9 e
. 1
[ 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA j UCLEAR RECULATORY COMMIS$!ON I E: fore the Atomic Safety and Licensine Soard In 'the Matter of ) i l
)
LONG 13 LAND LICHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322 0L-3
) (Emergency Planning (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, ) Proceeding)
Unit 1) ) i AFFIDAV!T OF DAVID SCRWELLER ; IN SUPPORT OF LILCO'S MOTION FOR l StAgtARY DISPOS! TION OF PEASE !! I EMERGENCY PLANN!NG CONTENf!cti 44 (COWF!NUED AVA!! ABILITY OF ME-mA* REMJECES) l David Schweiler, duly sworn, deposes and says as fol. iows: , My name is David Schwe11er. I am Manager of the Depart. ment of Energy 3;,reckhavp.n Area Office.
- 1. Attachment 1 to this effidavit, entitled "The U.S.
DOE Radiological Assistance Program: Personnel, Equipment and i Resources,* by Andrew F. Biall, Alan V. Eeuhner, and Leigh F. Phillips, is a doesription of the Radiological Assistance Pro. , gram (RAF) of the U.S. Department of Energy.
- 2. The Srookhaven Area office, drawing upon the re=
sources of Broothaven National Laboratory for personnel, is prepared to provide a sustained response to a radiological. emergency over a period of several days, or even longer if h
~ - * - . . ,. , .m w a-m
l i c a r umst1rnces required. Also, as Attachnient I at page 20 i states, " resources from other DCE contractor facilities such as personnel, equipment, materials and services are available for l emergency operations . "
- 3. The DOE-RAP team have shown their capability for an e: tended response during the Three Mile Island emergency, where their presence was needed for several days. i i
David Kghweiler ' s h scribed and sworn to before ese this M day of 1983. My cosumission expires: 3/3e[tr wC./A : 46otar$Pubits -l 844W9 J. LAl**R g w pen State of R*w h
- St M .T.33M sept es d m 58*** Ceen .
Gemeessee tunes unres at tg 4 e
i
. i 4
,' UNITto STAit$ & AMEAlcA i
NOCLIAA REGULATORY COMMi$$10N ' e 8efore the Atomic $sfety and Licensino 8eard e l In the Matter of
)i I
LCMG !$ LAND LIGHTING C(MPANY h Docket No. 0 322 0L.3 (Emergenc'y Planning (Snorehas Nuclear Power Station. Unit 1) J[ Proceeding) 4 i AFFICAV!T QF DAV!O $CWELLER IN SUPPORT OF LILCO'S MOTION FOR j'
$UNWLY O!$P0$1710N OF PHA5E !! EMERGENCY PLANN s CONTENTION 49 (005t AS$t$$4 MT E TH005) j David Schweller, duly sworn, deposes and says as follows: !
% name is David Schweller. ! as Manager of the Depart.
aent of Energy Brookhaven Area office.
- 1. }
00t at its trookhaven Mattonal Laboratory has dedicated ! tsergency Equipment Kits and " state of the art
- equipment for both the j
detection and measurements of radiation releases.
- 2. }
trookhaven National Laboratory and 00E have personnel with expertise in dose calculation who could be called upon in the event of an incident at Shorehas. 3
, 3. i The close promfatty of shorehas to the SNL facility is '
expected to minin12e communications problaas with respect to transatssion of relevent data necessary to calculate dose assessments. i i
. **# b_... p$$@.
. .o ,
4 00t. through its RAP tears was able to perform dose assessment activit'ies at Three Mile Island with current dose asses models. end stallar resources are availaole for asststance in of a radiological emergency at $horeham. l l l l l l 6 1 David Schdller
. l
_hh Subscribed 1983. and sworn to before se this _ fMday of
$ consission expires: h*[if '
L nAk, i Motary(JPdel ic ~ rsit" w J t e s,;; . r.. S We of t r e * *'* D'selifeh if Neo i t;u2d
,4 e 9 h4E)4 tit. C86**e*'
14 W,fgJ [
I I ' l _
$B Attachment 1
=*
- l. '
. Al '
- 9tMA.nt9 2 l ,,
SEPTEMSIR 1940 GtilDANCE ON y OFFSITE EMERGENCY RADIATION... MEASUREMENT 4 SYSTEMS J . Phase 1 Airbome Release I
-NI
, t l
1 l (*) l l' '"
/ N' l
f .J
\
e.
\
; tes ,
I i , I . (1 - k .. . .- _- m4 e ~,~ ..-'.-a .- -q-.- r
- ~
cANIEL P, k.oYNIHAN mm vou 3Cnifeb Sfales Senafe WASHINGTON D.C. 20$10 December 4, 1986
Dear Chairman Zech:
1 As you.may know, I have requested hearings in the Nuclear Regulation Subcommittee to investigate allegations that Mr. Lyn Nofziger, retained by the Long Island Lighting Company, attempted to influence the licensing proceeding for the Shoreham nuclear plant. In that regard, I request that_the Commissioners, members of their immediate staff, other NRC officials and employees who advise the Commissioners in the exercise of their quasi ~-judicial functions, members of Atomic Safety and Licensing Boards and Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Boards and members of their= staffs provide me and the Subcommittee with the following information immediately: 1 I All records of direct or indirect contacts by Mr. - Nofziger or his associates, including _ written communications, notes of conversations, telephone logs and other such materials. All records of direct or indirect contacts since 1980 by -l present or former White House staff or employees of the ! Executive Office of th3 President, including Mr. Edward Rollins, or present'ot former members of the Department of Energy, regarding the Shoreham plant, including written communications, notes of conversations, telephone logs and l other such materials. 1 1 In all cases, please note which, if any of these-contacts, have not been placed into the public record. l I appreciate your prompt cooperation. ., e Respectfully, ,
/%
Daniel Patrick o .Q ynihan Honorable Lando W. Zech, Jr. Chairman , Nuclear Regulatory Commission ! Washington, D.C. 20555 i I f ___}}