ML20216D407

Jf Doherty Third Petition for Leave to Intervene.* Petitioner Contends Applicant Should Not Be Granted OL for Facility Because Applicant Has Shown Untrustworthy Character & Unfit for NRC License.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20216D407
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	05/11/1987
From:	Doherty J DOHERTY, J.F.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#287-3855 OL, NUDOCS 8706300518
Download: ML20216D407 (7)

Text

l m_

s 43NE se MAY 11,1987 W:

5 p\\

q

^

I'

\\

j Docam:o r

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l' FAY 15798 M -H y_

]

NUCLEAR REGULATORY-COMMISSION g

7' BEFORE TFE ATOMIC SA TY & LICENSING BOARD PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF

-DocketNos.50-44{OL 50-44 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE,

& a_1_.

)

(Seabrook' Station,- Units 1 & 2)

)

.......l..........................

JOHN' F.1DOHERTY' S' THIRD PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE B

John P., Doherty,T of,18 Maugus Avenue, Wellesley Hills,-

1 Massachusetts, now files this-Third Petition for Leave'to In-tervene pursuant'to 10'CPR.2 714 of;the. Code of_ P$deral Regu.

lations.

Pe,titioner filed Contentions.in this proceeding 1

on September 6, 1983, and March 22,'1984.

The Contentions

.were dismissed by this Board.

The first Contention was'. denied on Appeal' ( ALAB-750, January 1984 ) by. the ' Appeal Board in this proceeding.

l i

JTANDING 1

The Staff in its, "NRC STAFF OPPOSING JOHN F. DOHERTY'S PETITION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE'", didinot challenge Petitioner's" standing'to__ intervene in this proceeding. (Seer p. 4,Lof this'

_ Sept. 26, 1983, filing).

Petitioner resides 46 siles from the. site of.the. subject reactors.

Petitioner.is within the'moneof effects'of pathways of radiation exposure as' expressed in Section 5 9 3 1, (p. 5 22)

.of the' Final Environmental Impact _ Statement.of'this facility, NUREG-0895, December, 1982.

Such exposure is discussed and' con.

sidered1in Regulatory Guide l.109,: Rev.1,.used to model. and-Q - predict public_ exposure to radiation from' the-facility, wihhin a Qo 50 mile' radius.1 Petitioner thus.will becinjurediinsfact by oper.

RC ation1oflthe facility subjectrof..these proceedings..Moreover PetitionerLuses-the.Seabrook andDHampton; Beach areas-for recre-

m:c 18 ational; purposes and frequently' travels:on Route 195:to. Maine ihere khree famil'y.meidbWis reside.

ThisLhighway.isLapproximately n.

( 3' miles' from the s site of, the Seabrook reactors. Petitioner fre-:

{

o quently eatsLaeafoodisome:of;whichLis>fishedTor caught 1withinL

[y

p

2-50 miles of-the Seabrook site.

Such seafood are effected by releaseg both radio-active and non-radioactive.,in liquid sf-fluent from the. subject reactors.. Radioactive materials'

'i from1these effluents are concentrated byLmarine animal physi -

ological-processes into the edible; flesh resulting in a

, dose to' Petitioner.

-In his residence, travel and recreation, Petitioner.is effected by: radioactive emissions from g,eabrook, such as those listed in Table D.1.(p. D-4) of NUREG-0895 For the above reasons, Petitioner has standing tofinter-l Vene in the;above mafter, because his heal'th and. safety inter-l eats 'from radiation in his environment will be effected by the determination of conditions.of operation lfor;the' Seabrook reactors by. the Board.

Petitioner desires-to' participate as a' party.

CONTENTION Petitioner contends Public Service Company of,New Hampshire (Hereinafter: Apolicant) should not be-granted an operating-license for the Seabrook Station.because!it;has shown untrust-worthy character, making it unfit to: be, an: NRC licensee.

10 CFR 2,' Appendix A, VIII (b) requires. this licensing -Board find the-Applicant.will operate theLSeabrook Station with

" reasonable. assurance... that such activities wille beLeonduc-tedLin compliance with the. Commission s' regulations." (10 CPR 2, e

Appendix A, VIII, (b)(3)).As shown below,,Abolicant is sMiikely.

to do so.

Petitioner bases this' Contention-on the conduct of Appli-cant, in that.it it established'a non-profit organization,-

called, " Coalition for Reliable Energy",.for theLpurpose.of in-fluencing public opinion through. media messages;which contained no information that. funding;for such messages (on Boston Badio; Station WEEI, other radio stationsfand at)1eastione Boston. net-work television station'.-(VHF))f was' more than 90%L provided by.

Applicant.' One' widely circulated video message concludedT" Sea-brook". was - needed to' prevent New England from "... running out:

of time.",(in~providingLenergy forcthe region)'.' Purther,,Appli-

\\.s

.C

.i.

1 1

cant benefitted by this arrangement since by concealing the fact it was paying for these announements, media did not have

.to offer equal time for opposing views under usual-' fairness doctrine rules of the Federal Communications Commission, a

which would make broadcasting.of the messages less attractive to media sales persons.-

In addition,'by. concealing that the

]

messages were payed for by.the g Jicant,.the messages took

]

a greater appearance of objectivity which would benefit the

')

Applicant,.since the Applicant appears to the public to bene-

]

. fits financially if resistance ' to Seabrook is, decreased.

]

The intentional concealment of setting up'the Coalition for Reliable Energy and paying over 90% of its costs is con-.

j I

duct which should concern this Board in its determination.

-It is conduct indicative of willingness to. conceal violations of Commission regulations in the operation of Seabrook Station over the lifetime of the operating license, and.this-consti-tutes a danger to' Petitioner's health and safety interests.

1 jyPPORTING STATEMENT ON TIMELINESS FOR THIS CONTENTION At the end of-January, 1987, the Coalition For' Reliable Energy (Hereinafter: SERE) revealed it received $2.8 million-from the 12 utilities who own shares of Seabrook Station and g20,000 from-non-utility sources.

This. revelation sparked a response from the Massachusetts Attorney General to attempt-to gain equal media time for opposing views for other non.

i profit' organizations.' This equal' time'or a like remedy.was.

)

I gained ~in-late' April after dispute. -The facts with regard to benefits to the utility were unclear until it could be shown the Applicant had concealed something to,its benefit. That is, j

if equal time had been disallowed then' Applicant would-not have

)

obtained the benefit of not being opposed on the media by the 1

t 4

f

-4_

]

less well financed opposing groups. When this occured in April, Petitioner then had a basis for filing this contention.. There had been allegations Applicant' Lhad participated and financed CPRE-from the start in 1986, but this was not clear then for lack of evidence.

ll 1

Petitioner knows of no party to this proceeding who has raised :the issue of Applicant's character or trustworthiness.'

Moreover, the Board should be appraised of any evidence the Applicant may not follow Commission regulations since the Com-mission.cannot monitor the dozema,. of systems and' components

- l of a large pressurized water reactor with an intensity suffic-ient to always detect lack of candor.-

The Commission relies on. licensees to report problems,' events, test results, etc.,

, because their occurence cannot-be~ detected with-certainty by-NBC inspection teams. The question of trusting a utility to be candid withLthe NRC has arose in the South Texas Nuclear Project licensing and has occupied:thatlicensing board over a long period of time, evidencing its great interest.

Here, Peti-tiener has questioned Applicant conduct'with person-outside the NRC, but lack of candor is a transferrable trait to dealing with'the Commission.

Concealment 1Nr facts,'by knowingly per-mitting others to believe things that are notutrue can only curb attempts at regulation'.

Failure:to obtain'the' facts.in-the gZag matter would be a serious omission for this Board.

Petitioner believes that an' inquiry.into what Applican,t,-

did or did not do in the SEBE matter would assist'inLdeveloping a better record.

At the moment no inquiry into this isEsched-1 uled although the fact of deception is clear.

Whereithe Commis-sion will be trusting Applicant to operate the plant according to rules and regulations that are highly complex, it should in-quire since trust 11s the. heart of tegulationtor,the licensee.

Evidence of. deviance and distrustful behavior iby a' licensee is important to a finding there is

• reasonable ' assurance...that:

such activities' (operation of a. nuclear. plant). will be: conducted in compliance with Commission regulations.* (101 CPR Autppendix A,'

VIII, (b)(3).

This Contention deserves.the additional time toi i

i l

1

(

....i..wa.

.......a-...i..

... W

.5-p be heard it may require because the finding of "resonable assurance" $f compliance is wellanear:the_oentral finding of-L

- an operating lioensing.

Without a finding-on the SZag matter the only issue of doubt'on what the Anolicant will do with the specified operating-requirements would be unjustly neglec-ted.

Petitioner's participation (as in 10 CPR 2 714(a)(1)(iii)

- may be~ expected to aid in the inquiry on this matter.

Petitioner has had extensive experience in Commission licensing proceedings and is a recent law school graduate.

Since the Contention con-templates but an inquiry into the facts of the CFRE matter as related io the media messages,-the Contention does-not have i

broad scope.

It would. broaden and lengthen the proceedings, but allowing the ADD 11 cant's behavior to be considered by the 3l Licensing Board would strengthen the record to offset loss of time in considering the issue raised.-

l Petitioner thus urges the Board'in this proceeding to admit this Contention and let discovery begin.

i 1

1 Respectfully, h0 John F. Doherty

)

i m

l..

r

e o

50-4430L, -4440L j

~

y CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

)

-~

I certify copies:of " John F..Doherty's Third.Petitiop h M.! $ '?

j i,

prior to or on this date,. cMay t1,1987, via First Class for Leave to Interven8'were served on the parties belowj 1

i

/

x.

U. 8. Postal Service froh Boston, Massachusetts.

Docare b MAY.L5 ses

=

1

-Respectfully, Docrm u SCE Ewn;;;;t P

/

ULUNma

[N

~

~

John F. Doherty '

N.4 18'Maugus Ave.

1. 101 Wellesley Hills Mass. 02181 (Pro,s,e, Petition, er) f Helen Hoyt, Esq., Chairman

. William S. Jordan, III, Esq.

k Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Ellyn'R. Weiss Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Harmon & Weiss Washington, D.C.

20555 1725'I Street, N.W., Suite'506

~

Washington, D.C.

'20006 g

Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke j

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Ms. /tr,e Verge, Chairpersen U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ioard of Selectmen Washington, D.C.

20555 Town Hall South Ea::gton, Ner TerpsHre Dr. Jerry Herbcur

'{

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Alan ' J. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman 1

~

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis~sion Atomic Safety and Licensino Appeal Board Washington, D.C.-

20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

?

Washinoton, D.C.

20555 Counsel for NRC Staff aoy. Lessey,.Esq. -

j Office of the Executive Legal Director Philip Ahrens, Esq.-

)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Assistant Attorney-Genera 11 Washington, D.C..

20555 State House Station', #6 Augusta, Maine; 04330

. Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.

Ropes & Gray Alfred V. Sarcjent, Chairman 225 Franklin Street

' Board of Selectmen:

Boston, Massachusetts 02110

. Town of Salisbury Salisbury, Massachusetts 01950 Public Service Company of New Hampshire i

D. Pierre G. Cameron, Jr.

Mr. Nicholas'J.-Costello.

General'Coun~sel~

-Commonwealth of: Massachusetts 1000' Elm Street House of Representatives Manchester,-New Hampshire 03105 State House Mr.' Calvin A. Canney

'B ston,.Ma..

02133 City Manager:

City Hall Paul A.'Ftitzsche,.Esq.

126 Daniel Street

, General Counsels ic ocate

-Portsnouth, New Hampshire 03801 Mr. Arnie Wight,' Chairman-

-Augusta, Maine 04333 i

House-Science.-6. Technology. Committee House of Representatives

'Mr. Owen B. Durgin,. Chai rman LConcord, New Hampshire Durham Board'of; Selectmen o

n

• - * ** ~ :

_ Town'ofeDurham(

(

.P.O.1 Box 2898-8

~

n "lu rham. L Now Hamnchiro En w A

e a

o

j.,

u

'I

' Board and parties - continued:

50-44 30L,.'-4440L Edward L. Cross, Jr., Esc.

Mr. J.P. Nadeau.

Assistant Attorney General Chairman of Selectmen Office of the Attorney General Town of Rye State House Annex 10 Central Road Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Rye, New Hampshire 03870 Howard A. Wilber Ms. Sandra Gavutis, Seleetwoman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Town of Kensington U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission RTD #1 Washington, D.C.

20555 East Kingston, New Hampshire 03827, Jo Ann Shotwell, Esq.

Assis tant Attorney General Rep. Rcberta C. Pevear I

Public Protection Bureau Town of Hampton Falls Department of the Attorney General Drinkwater Road One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Hampton Falls, New Hampshire 03844 Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Town Manager's Office Town Hall - Friend. Street Walter-Lormer, Chairman

~

Bocrd of Selectmen

' Town Hall Honorable Richard E. Sullivan North Hampton,'New Hampshire 03662 Mayor, City of Newburyport Office.of the Mayor Senator Gordon J. Humphrey City Hall U.S. Senate Newburyport, Massachusetts. 01950 Washington, D.C.

20510 ATm: Tom Burack Charles Cross, Esq..

Shaines, Madrigan &.McEache'rn P.O. Box 366 Robert A. Backus, Esq.

Portsmouth. N.H. :03801.

116 Lowell Street P'.0. Box 516

.Mr. Letty'Hett-Manchester New ifampshire. 03105 Town of Brentwood-RFD Dalton Road-Gary J. Edles, Esq.

.Brentwood..New Hampshire. 03833 Atomic: Safety and Licensing Appeal' Board U.S. Nuclear Requiatory Commission Brian P. Cassidy,'.Esq.

Washinoton, D.C.

20555

. Federal Emergency Management Agency

' Region I' J.W..McCormack POCH Boston, Massachusetts ~02109

~

Donald E. Chick, Town Manager-Town of'Exeter

-10 Front Street Mr. Angie Machiros, Chairman Newbury Board cf Selectn.en Exeter, New Hampshire 03823L Newbury, Massachusetts. 01950 70 Collins Street'

.Seabrook,!New Hampshire 03874'

~

T

/EN i.

.g

~

J.