ML20235T374

Requests ASLB Reconsider Decision to Limit Active Participation in Hearings to Representatives of Towns within 10-mile Zone & Specific Intervenors.Emergency Plan Cannot Succeed W/O Cooperation of Citizenry.Served on 871007

ML20235T374
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	09/30/1987
From:	Gregg J HOUSE OF REP.
To:	Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
References
CON-#487-4567 OL, NUDOCS 8710130064
Download: ML20235T374 (2)

Text

. _. _ -_- - - __ _ _ _ -

JY,T' h

(!g f .7 .

. DOCKET NUMBER PROD. & UTIL PA .. _ . _ _ _ -

3gO --m

\

Ca ..'6-

, a ,~

....,.m.,

,"y mg . . . .

UWC e 88Se8*

cw' "u m "~~

<. m , a r.m C011grr$6 Of flJr $11(fth Statr#

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 87 OCT -7 A8 52 _ J_ "

WASHINGTON, DC 20515 FIC?. Gi . % d W !

September 30, 1987 CKCijyjggEPVICE SERVED OCT -71987 Honorable Lando Zech, Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1717 H Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Commissioner Zech:

I write in response to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board memorandum of September 25 which attempts to explain the rationale behind the decision to limit active participation in the hearings scheduled for Concord, N. H. next week to representatives of towns within the ten mile zone and certain specific interveners. In my judgement,. the reasoning outlined in this memorandum is seriously flawed and I would ask that the ASLB reconsider its decision.

One of the major reasons given for not taking public comment )

during the Concord hearings are the opportunities which were provided for public input during hearings in August, 1983 and September, 1986.

However, the August hearing is totally irrelevant, since neither the New Hampshire nor Massachusetts evacuation plans had been formulated at that time. Obviously no knowledgeable comments could be offered at l that time. Similarly, the 1986 hearings were held when the New Hampshire plans had very recently been revised and the Massachusetts plans were not even in the early stages of conceptualization. Because ,

of the proximity of the states and the necessary interdependence of l the two emergency plans, it is essential that members of the general  !

public be allowed to express their feelings and criticisms in regard I to the overall protection being provided. To do otherwise will only further erode the level of public confidence and add to the perception that the commission and the utility are determined to proceed with the operation of the plant, even if adequate safeguards are not achieved.

The other major reason given for the ASLB decision was that all towns within the EPZ were invited to participate in the hearings, thus assuring that all citizens of the Zone have an opportunity to be represented. The falacy in this line of reasoning is that it assumes that only those who are permanent residents of the Zone are directly  ;

affected. However, because of the nature of the Seabrook area as a '

summer resort, many people who are not permanent residents of the Zone spend considerable amounts of time within the Zone during the summer.

They certainly are justified in their contention that their views should also be taken into account by the ASLB. Furthermore, any evacuation would result in an influx of evacuees into many surrounding ,

areas which are located outside of the Zone. The residents of these l areas will be directly affected and also have a need to be heard.

7/

0710130064 870930 c,0 PDR ADOCK 05000443 g PDR

I remain convinced an emergency plan cannot succeed without the cooperation, or at least acquiescence, of the affected citizenry.

This can only be achieved if the citizens feel.that they are involved and treated fairly during the planning and licensing process. On this basis alone, the exclusion of'public comment from any ASLB hearing seems to me to be highly counterproductive and I would strongly recommend that the ASLB decision be reconsidered.

Sincerely, udd Greg Member o Congress JG:rb l

l

_ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _