ML20148U525
| ML20148U525 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 01/25/1988 |
| From: | Dignan T PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5472 OL-1, NUDOCS 8802040046 | |
| Download: ML20148U525 (27) | |
Text
. , . . . -
i' SV7 t
00CKEIED U5NRC January 23, 1988 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 0 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION FFICE CF EEcycy,4y before the XE7ghCh$
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
)
In the Matter of )
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, EI AL. ) 50-444-OL-1
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 ) (Onsite Emergency and 2) ) Planning and Safety
) Issues)
)
APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO "CONTENTION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES M. SHANNON ON NOTIFICATION SYSTEM FOR MASSACHUSETTS AND MOTION TO ADMIT LATE-FILED CONTENTION AND REOPEN THE RECORD" Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.
George H. Lewald Kathryn A. Selleck i
Ropes & Gray 1
225 Franklin Street l Boston, MA 02110 l
(617) 423-6100 Counsel for Acolicants i
l 8802040046 800125 PDR 0 ADOCK 05000443 -D D l PDR gD
e i
TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii STATEMENT OF PRIOR PROCEEDINGS AND FACTS . . . . . . . . 1 ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 A. The Commonwealth Should be Precluded From Seeking the Relief It Does by the Doctrines of Estoppel and/or Waiver . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 B. The Criteria for Reopening Are Not Met . . . . 9 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 b
i s
I i
I 6
i l
i 11 l
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Pennsylvania v. New Jersey, 426 U.S. 660 (1976) . . . . . 7 R. H. Stearns Co. v. United States, 291 U.S. 54 (1934) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 9 Armed Forces Radiobioloav Research Institute (Cobalt-60 Storage Facility), ALAB-682, 16 NRC 150 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Armed Forces Radiobioloav Research Institute (Cobalt-60 Storage Facility), LBP-82-24, 15 NRC 652 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Carolina Power and Liaht Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 - 4), A LAB-52 6, 9 NRC 122 (1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Kansas Gas & Electric Comoany (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), LBP-84-26, 20 NRC 53 (1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Louisiana Power and Licht Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAb-732, 17 NRC 1076 (1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Louisiana Power and Licht Cc. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-753, 18 NRC 1321 (1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Louisiana Power and Licht Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3) , ALAB-786, 20 NRC 1087 (1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-756, 18 NRC 1340 (1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Portland General Electric CSA (Trojan Nuclear Plant), ALAB-53 4 , 9 NRC 287 (1979) . . . . . . . . . 2 Eublic Service Company of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) , ALAB-4 59, 7 NRC 179 (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 111
O The Toledo Edison Comoany (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-300, 2 NRC 752 (1975) . . . . . 7 Union Electric Comoany (Calloway Plant, Unit 1),
ALAB-750, 18 NRC 1205 (1983) . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Jteaulations 10 CFR S 2.714 (a) (1) (1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10 CFR S 2.734 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 10 10 CFR S 2.734(a) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10 CFR S 2.734(d) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10 CFR S 50.47 (c) (2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 45 Fed. Reg. 55402 (Aug. 19, 1980) . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 47 Fed. Reg. 30232 (July 13, 1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 51 Fed. Reg. 19535 (May 30, 1986) . . . . . . . . 8, 10, 11 Statutes Massachusetts Civil Defense Act, Mass Acts 1950, c. 639, as amended by Mass. Acts 1979, c. 796, Ann. L.
Mass., Spec. L. c. 31, 552, 2B, 17 . . . . . . . . . 5 iv s
O UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
)
In the Matter of )
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET hL. ) 50-444-OL-1
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 ) (Onsite Emergency and 2) ) Planning and Safety
) Issues)
)
APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO "CONTENTION OF A'ITORNEY GENERAL JAMES M. SHANNON ON NOTIFICATION SYSTEM FOR MASSACHUSE'ITS AND MOTION TO ADMIT LATE-FILED CONTENTION AND REOPEN THE RECORD" STATEMENT OF PRIOR PROCEEDINGS AND FACTS Under date of January 7, 1988, the Attorney General for The Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Mass AG) filed a nine page document (with attachments) entitled'. "Contention of Attorney General James M. Shannon on Notification System for Massachusetts and Motion to Admit Late-Filed Contention and Reopen the Record" ("The Motion"). The thrust of The Motion is to have the previously closed evidentiary record with respect to the so-called "on-site emergency planning and safety issues" reopenedl in order to litigate a contention to l In point of fact the evidentiary record in the "onsite" phase of the case is now reopened for the limited purpose of resolving two other discrete safety issues (steam generator tube inspection program; biofouling). However, this reopening is not general in nature and does not confer upon l
the effect that there is now no means, in the event of an emergency, to provide early notification and clear instruction to the municipalities located within that portion of the "10-mile radius" plume emergency planning zone (EPZ) for Seabrook Nuclear Power Station (Seabrook) located within The Commonwealth of Massachusetts.2 In addition, The Motion, without specifically asking for a ruling to that effect, suggests (at p. 9) " . . . an operating license for operation not in excess of 5% of rated power should not issue until the Applicants have demonstrated the means to provide early notification and clear instruction to the populace of (the Massachusetts portion of the EPZ) in the event of a radiological emergency." Mass AG correctly fails to ask for such a ruling at this time because such a ruling would be premature. Only if, as, and when the record reopene on the issue of early notification of the Massachusetts population would it be in order for the cognizant adjudicatory tribunal 3 to address whether the pendency of such a proceeding any adjudicatory board the jurisdiction to hold evidentiary hearings on the issues sought to be put to litigation by The Motion. Carolina Power and Licht Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 - 4), ALAB-526, 9 NRC 122, 124 (1979);
Portland General Electric Co. (Trojan Nuclear Plant), A LAB-534, 9 NRC 287, 289-90 n.6 (1979). Thus, Mass AG must independently establish his right to a reopening with respect to the issues at bar.
2 The actual words of the contention are set forth in The Motion at page 7 thereof.
3 Presumably the Licensing Board unless this Appeal Board should elect to conduct the evidentiary proceeding itself.
2
precludes low power operation of seabrook.4 In order to put the issue facing this Appeal Board in proper perspective, a fuller than usual exposition of history is appropriate. As of the time the evidentiary record in the onsite phase of this proceeding closed, October 3, 1986, II.
1026, there was neither admitted, nor pressed,5 any contention with respect to the early notification system for Seabrook. This is not surprising because there had been designed, and was being implemented, a perfectly adequate system. After the evidentiary record was closed, two late-filed contentions were brought by Mass AG and Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (S APL) , respectively, concerning certain
'x e
- m.p(
discrete portions of the early notification system; both V
'~s contentions were rejected and that rejection has been 4 It is by no means a foregone conclusion that ongoing litigation of the issue of prompt notification of the Massachusetts portion of the EPZ would foreclose low power operation. The regulations themselves, 10 CFR 5 50.4 7 (c) (2) , l as well as certain regulatory history, see 47 Fed. Reg. 30232, 30233 (July 13, 1982), recognize that prompt notification capability to a full 10-mile radius may not be necessary during low power operation. In any event, this is an issue to be decided at a later date after full briefing and argument thereon.
Son April 20, 1982 Mass AG filed a contention which mentioned "prompt notification" in its statement of basis; it was rejected with leave to file at a later date. On June 23, 1983, Mass AG filed another siren contention; it was admitted in reworded form in 1983; it was mooted by the filing of the New Hampshire RERP in 1985 and the subsequent order of the
, Board requiring the refiling of all contentions and any new l contentions regarding emergency planning. Thereafter, Mass l AG never filed any early notification system contention.
3 1
affirmed by this Appeal Board.6 During the time that the efforts to reopen with respect to the discrete portions of the early warning system were ongoing, and since their rejection, The Commonwealth of Massachusetts (see Attachments 1, 1A & 1B to this Brief), its agencies (see Attachment 2 to this brief) and its political subdivisions (see Attachment 3 to this Brief), aided by Mass AG (see Attachments 4 & 4A to this brief), have systematically set out to destroy the in-place fully adequate early notification system. These efforts have met with complete success and have been undertaken by The Commonwealth, its political subdivisions, its agencies and its chief law enforcement officer despite the existence of the following law of The Commonwealth:
"There is hereby created within the executive branch of the commonwealth a division of civil defense to be known as the ' civil defense agency,' which shall be under the direction of a director of civil defense hereinafter called the '
' director'. . . .
"The director shall designate certain areas of the commonwealth as ' nuclear power plant areas'. For purposes of this section, said areas shall consist of all communities located within a ten mile radius of a nuclear power plant, whether or not said oower olant is located within the commonwealth. F "The director shall annually publish and release to local officials of each r 6 ALAB-879, Dassim. r 4
political subdivision within areas preparedness and response plans which will permit the residents of such areas to evacuate or take other protective actions in the event of a nuclear accident. Copies of such plans shall be ,
made available to the public upon request ;
for a fee which is not to exceed the cost of reproduction.
"The director shall also annually publish and release through local officials to -
the residents of the said areas emergency public information. Such information shall include warnina and alertino orovision, evacuation routes, reception areas, and other recommended actions for -
each area. . . . " (emphases supplied).7 Having successfully destroyed the siren system (which :
was in place and operable), The Commonwealth now comes to this Board seeking to employ its self-create 3 state of affairs to gain a further hearing and consequent delay in the licensing proceeding now pending.
ARGUMENT A. The Commonwealth Should be Precluded From Seeking the Relief It Does by the Doctrines of Estoppel and/or Waiver The argument immediately hereinafter set forth is, ;
admittedly, a novel one in NRC jurisprudence. The essential issue being put before this Appeal Board is whether, when a I
party to an NRC proceeding purposefully disables a nuclear 7 Massachusetts Civil Defense Act, Mass Acts 1950, c.
639, as amended by Mass. Acts 1979, c. 796, Ann. L. Mass.,
Spec. L. c. 31, 552, 2B. This same statute also provides that: "No organization for civil defense established undar the authority of this act shall participate in any form of political activity, nor shall it be employed directly or indirectly for political purposes." Id., 517.
5
power plant system, should that party then be afforded further discretionary hearing rights (to which it has no absolute entitlement) because its own acts against the facility have created a regulatory deficiency. What the Commonwealth, its agencies, and political subdivisions have done to Seabrook is indistinguishable from the action of a private individual who somehow gains access to a nuclear power plant and deliberately renders a safety system inoperative. Should such an individual then have the benefit of a reopened hearing bestowed upon him to reward him for his acts? Indeed, if one accepts the argument that the language of the Massachusetts Civl,1 Defense Act places an affirmative duty upon The Commonwealth to engage in productive emergency planning for Seabrook, which, we respectfully submit, it does, the issue then becomes: "Should a State Government which disables a warning system in violation of its own State laws, (as well as in contravention of the reasonable expectations of this Commission),8 be rewarded with further hearing opportunities before this federal agency?"
The principle upon which this argument is made, is, in the words of Mr. Justice Cardozo, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court:
i
" . . . fundamental and unquestioned. 'He l who prevents a thing from being done may l
not avail himself of the non-performance which he has himself occasioned, for the 8 See, g.g., Emergency Plans, 45 Fed. Reg. 55402, 55404 [
(Aug. 19, 1960).
l 6 l
. r i
i F law says to him in effect "this is your l own act, and therefore you are not l
, damnified."' (citations). Sometimes the r resulting disability has been !
characterized as an estoppal, sometimes l as a waiver. The label counts for l little. Enough for present purposes that the disability has its roots in a l principle more nearly ultimate than -
!- either waiver or estoppel, the principle ;
.that no one shall be permitted to found any claim upon his own inequity or take ,
advantage of his own wrong. (citation). ;
A-suit may not be built on an omission "
induced by him who sues. (citations)."9 The doctrine of estoppel is hardly foreign to NRC
- practice.10 And, we submit, what is presented at bar is a i i i .
l 9 R. H. Stearns Co. v. United States, 291 U.S. 54, 61-62 !
(1934). Also of note are the words of the Supreme Court in a l l par curiam opinion refusing the exercise of its original j jurisdiction in an interstate tax dispute.
"In neither of the suits at bar has the $
defendant State inflicted any injury upon i the plaintiff States through the imposition of the taxes held . . . to be !
i
' unconstitutional. The iniuries to the claintiffs' fiscs were self-inflicted. I l resultina from decisions by their [
- resoective state leaislatures. . . . HQ i l Elpte can be heard to comolain about j
, damaae inflicted by itstown hand." !
l !
l Pennsylvania v. New Jersey, 426 U.S. 660, 664 (1976). ;
i 10See Armed Forces Radiobioloav Research Institute I (Cobalt-60 Storage Facility), LBP-82-24, 15 NRC 652, 658, [
l reversed on cther arounds, ALAB-682, 16 NRC 150 (1982) >
I (estoppel held to preclude finding of untimeliness when !
l putative intervenor was relying on Staff advice as to i
! deadline for filing petition); The Toledo Edison Company 1
, (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station) , ALAB-300, 2 NRC 752, ;
i 766-68 (1975) (having accepted benefits of stipulation, one ;
I is estopped from challenging it); Kansas Gas & Electric i l Comoany (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), LBP-84'26, t 20 NRC 53 (1984) (same). See also Public Service Company of r i Indiana. Inc. (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units j 1 and 2), ALAB-459, 7 NRC 179, 196 (1978).
i l
7 i
+
i l
r s
-- .__,,--,m_--- r- - - - - . ------w.- --
w-- - ~ - - - - - - - " - = - - ' " ~ - - - - " * ~ ~ " ' ' - - " ' ' ~ ' - " ' ' '
case that cries for its application.
In considering this argument, it is important to note what is not involved here. First of all, if the Appeal Board denies the reopening, this does not mean that there will be <
no appropriate early warning system in place. The Staff will l have to pass upon the appropriateness of any early warning system which Applicants devise to replace the lost sirens.
And it has been recognized that since notification systems can be objectively judged under objective criteria, there is no bar to leaving the issue of whether an early warning system satisfies the Regulations to Staff oversight.ll Second, The Commonwealth is not here seeking a run of the mill hearing to which it is entitled as of right. It is seeking to reopen a closed evidentiary record to raise an issue never therein adjudicated. The Commission itself has characterized the action of reopening a closed record as "extraordinary.n12 Is it good law or policy to grant extraordinary relief, to the detriment of another, to one whose own deliberate actions created the necessity even to consider the question?
Third, this is not a case where the Applicants were seeking to go forward with some aspect of the plant in the face of opposition and failed. This is a situation where the i
11 Louisiana Power and Licht Co. (Waterford Steam l Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-732, 17 NRC 1076, 1104-05 (1983).
- 12 Criteria for Reopening Records in Formal Licensing l
Proceedings, 51 Fed. Reg. 19535, 19538 (May 30, 1986).
l 8 l
l l
siren system was in place, serving a public function, and was deliberately disabled by The Commonwealth. Is the reward for such action to be further hearings before an adjudicatory tribunal of this agency?
Finally, as noted above, we are not arguing at this time for the proposition that The Commonwealth's action should be '
deemed to result in Seabrook operating without an adequate early warning system in place for the Massachusetts portion of the EPZ. Rather, the proposition being advanced is simply that the Commonwealth, and those in league with it in the effort to destroy the siren system, should not be afforded the reward of an adjudicatory hearing on the system finally devised. "A suit may not be built on an omission induced by him who sues."13
, B. The Criteria for Reopening Are Not Met The criteria for granting a motion to reopen a closed evidentiary record are set forth in 10 CFR 5 2.734.
The required showing is that the motion be timely, address a L
sianificant safety issue, and "demonstrate that a materially f
, different result would be or would have been likely had the ,
, newly proffered evidence been considered initially." 10 CFR S 2.734(a). In addition, where, as here, the reopening is for the purpose of raising a late filed contention, the motion "must also satisfy the requirements for nontimely contentions in i 2.714 (a) (1) (i) through (v)." 10 CFR S 13R, H. Stearns Co. v. United States, supra, at 62.
[
I i
2.734(d). The burden of satisfying each of the criteria is upon the moving party, and it is, indeed, a heavy one.14 Assuming, arguendo, that The Motion should be deemed timely filed, this still leaves the question of whether a significant safety issue is involved and whether a different result is likely. Turning to the last point first:
When the Commission codified the rule with respect to reopening closed evidentiary records, 10 CFR S 2.734, it paid particular attention to the "materially different result" criterion codified in subparagraph (3) of subsection (a) of the rule. The Commission noted that theretofore there had been articulated in the case law two differently worded standards: the so-called "might have been reached" standard and the "would havs been reached" standard.15 The Commission went on to say:
"The actual inquiry to be performed falls between the two standards. The 'would' standard may be read to imply that an ultimate conclusion must be reached before all evidence is considered. The
'might' standard implies that reopening could be ordered even where a board is uncertain whether or not the new evidence is important. The inquiry should be, and has been, the likelihood that a different result will be reached if the information 14E.g., Louisiana Power and Licht Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-786, 20 NRC 1087, 1090 (1984); Pacific Gas and Electric Co. (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-756, 18 NRC 1340, 1344 (1983); Louisiana Power and Licht Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALA B-7 5 3 , 18 NRC 1321, 1324 (1983).
15 Criteria for Reopening Records in Formal Licensing Proceedings, suora, at 19536-37.
10 I
l
is considered. Egg 3.g., Union Electric Comoany (Callaway Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-750, 18 NRC 1205, 1209 (1983).
Accordingly, the commission is modifying the standard of 5 2.734 (a) (3) to require that a materially different result would be or would have been likelv had the newly proffered evidence been considered initially."16 Because this is an operating license case, there is, in a sense, a logical disconnection between the regulation and the procedure involved. Like all operating License Licensing Boards, the Board which issued the initial decision below was confined in its jurisdiction to the contentions before it.
Thus, even if the information which forms the gravamen of The Motion were available to the Licensing Board, the "result" r
(1 3., the rulings on the contentions before it) would not have changed. Therefore, the question now becomes one of deciding how the "materially different result" criteria is to be handled in operating license cases where the new information does not affect the resolution of any contention heard by the Licensing Board, but rather allegedly gives rise to a wholly new and disparate contention never litigated.
In this particular case, the seemingly sensible course is to withhold ruling on the motion to reopen until a new warning system has been proposed and late filed contentions are made. Then a logical assessment can be made as to whether it is likely that a materially different result, 1 3., nonlicensure, "would be likely." It was for this 151d. at 19537, 11
reason that the Applicants sought to await the design of the new system before responding to the motion at bar.
Similarly, awaiting such a course of events permits a realistic assessment of the significance of the safety issue involved.17 Mass AG, in The Motion, seeks to satisfy the "materially different result" criterion in a two sentence footnote.18 The footnote wholly ignores the "logical disconnection" referred to above and makes no attempt at this juncture to argue that no satisfactory substitute is possible. Similarly, the brief "significance" discussion in The Motion is predicated solely on lack of information. In short, very little has been done by Mass AG to satisfy his heavy burden.
CONCLUSION The motion to reopen should be denied on the basis of estoppel for the reasons set forth in part A of the argument above. If the Appeal Board rejects this argument, it should withhold any ruling as to the reopening of the record until such time as a substitute early warning system has been 17 Early warning systems are hardly exercises in esoteric or unknown technologies. At present, Applicants are at work on a system for the Massachusetts portion of the EpZ which would employ proven siren technology and helicopters to cover areas which could not be reached by the sirens, which helicopters would be backed up by mobil ground-based sirens.
, None of this involves cutting edge technology, and, as noted l
earlier, the standards by which it will be judged are entirely objective. Such matters hardly ever give rise to "significant" safety issues.
18The Motion at 7 n.8.
12
devised and submitted, and contentions, if any, are late-filed with respect to it.19 Respectfully submitted, Aup m y Y Thomas G. Dijyffan, Jr.
George H. Lewald Kathryn A. Selleck Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100 Counsel for Acolicants 19As noted earlier, the present state of affairs, as it -
affects low power operation, is a subject for later resolution by the cognizant tribunal. In the event the Licensing Board should authorize low power operation prior to resolution of the various issues now pending before it, the i Commonwealth will have at least ten days to bring to the attention of this Board the question of whether low power operation must be forbidden pending design and implementation of a substitute early warning system.
13 I
.. . . ~~
M g- ,.
jzgg/fs,
' L& ^Cntmani a v v -
5 ' recad d h o &$6 fy
=tse am.h g6 Chules
- Bury p3 ,y ggg ,
.v. E MC R AND:lM 00: ROBERT CO*d LAY .: C. R OF IV L OEFENSE FROM: PET .
g3 "<'., SISTANT SECRETARY OATE: JANUA.Y 4, 1955 RE: SIRENS . .! THE SEAERCv ' Ep2 TOWNS
- l. In accordance with ou; earlie: conversa: ion, you should contact the Civil Def ense Direc cts of each of :he Seabrook EPZ ccamunities and advise them as follows:
(aJ The Ccamenwealth of Massachuset:s continues to oppose any eme:gency planning activities relating to the Seab:cok plant and is net enagaged in any such activities, and as iceal 1 directors they should confo:n their ccemanity's policy to the state's policy:
tb) inere is nc requirement in the SARA Title I!I law for sirens pr any such devices to te used for alert and nctifica :en aid :ne.: ex s:;ng rad:o and te'.ephone systems are l
! sufficient te comply with SARA Title I:::
(c) Under no ci:cums:ances should a local civil defense I d. recto: c: staffer advccate that si:cnc that were erected or installed as part of the en:1:e: planning for Seab:cok be retained, kept in place, or erected for any purpose.
1
- 2. You also snculd advise the local directors that if they c any town officia'.s have anv cuestions about these matters Oney should cen ac: me direc:ly, cc: Frank Ost: anger, Assistant Attorney General l
l l
l
.._. ,e.,s.e . _ e.,
Board says 'no' to i gift of n-plant sirens The emergency sirens will come Seabrook remains unchanged. Loc-down. The only question is who will al civil defense directors are in-pay? structed to conform to state policy.
Selectmen Monday night reaf- The letter states further that fitmed their position on the "mier no circumstances should a emergency sirens installed by New local civtl defense director or staf.
Hampshire Yankee for use m its fer advocate that sirens that were Seabrook evacuaton plans, noting erected or installed as part of the that the deadline for removalof the earlier planning for Seabrook be re-strens had passed last Wednesday. tained, kept in place or erected for New Hampshire Yankee. in a New any purpose."
Year's letter to the five Mas- ' Selectmen directed Town Mana-sachusetta communties surround ger Michael Basque to authorue.
ing Seabrook stauon.had effered te immediate disconnection of the give the sirens to the towns as a gift sirens by Massachusetts Dectric.
The sirens will no longer be in- According tol.ord there are AC and cluded in the plant's eyacuaton DC hook ups involved. The AC con-plans.New Hampslure Yankee will nections are to be disconnected by still have to identify a means to Massachusetts Electric. The warn residents of a plant emergen- town's DPW crew will disconnect cy. under federallaw. the DC back up and return the The rejection of the offer by packs to the plant operators. There selectmen is congruent with the ts no charge from Massachusetts official;osition of the state. Dectric for the disconnection.
Selectman William Lord read a the town is working at the state letter from Peter Agnes Maintant level, according to Lord, to deter-Secretary of Public Safety to mine if there will be financial Robert Boulay, Director of Civil assistance forthcommg for the cost Defense. The letter stated that the of removalof the poles. Selectmen positioe of the Commonwealth in also may need to get authoruation regard to emergency planning for from the Finance Committee.
Newburvoort Ocilv Nows Twendcv Jc N or,$ '4!!
Memo: Stay out of siren issue in some communities to retain the said the midnight, Dec. 30, dead-By ANNE M REIDY warning systems- line the board set for Pubhc Ser.
Daily News statt "EIhthg rede and vice Co.
M",',*md M nmoy p,of New Ham {"shire toeg,1 ieA ,,, n Sa g , g g iterates the
, ,t p, t 8
rneene yesterday that neced te also sir reinforce the decisten by them and state's official ition that it will Town Mana r Michael Basque selectmen from four other towns not take part any emergency said he is waifing for Massachu-
- Newbury, West Newbury, Mer- evacuation olanning or cruls re- setts Electric Co. to give him a to order date when they will disconnect rimac and Saltsbury k nuclear lated to the seabrookplant. power to the 10 Amesbury strens.
owners of the Seabroo
( power plant to take down their IArd su ested that towm em-State officials and some offt- ployees co@d then remove back-
'*gDC ' PO g cials from each of the six Massa-chusetts communities within 10 b m M Boulay miles of the Seabrook plant have battery backs antle from t strens, "andeach stren, if (Sea-and his W hts - tnany said they do not beluve the area brook owners) want, drive them up to the plant gate and unload the h 8Y81**
emergencies -
g e, g, could be safelbevacuated, accident to take that brook plant.
were occur at the ifSea-an truck.
"'Ihe board's vote to dismantle posithn any longw, Gov. Michael Dukakis has re- the strens was clear," said Gau-fused to approve emergency plans det. "The only question that re-
"Under no circumstances developed by Seabrook owners for mains is funding," if Seabrook should a local civil defense direc' submisalon to the federal Nuclear owners refuse to remove their tot or staffer advocate that stress Regulatory Commission (NRC). equipment, Lard said he is exploring ways that were erected or lastalled as Unoer federal regulations, such part of the earlier plans for Sea
- plans must be submitted for each to get some state funding for me brook be returned, aspt La place, community within 10 miles of a removal costs, which has been es-or erected for any " reeds nuclear plant before an operating ttmated at between $500 and $900 the memo, signed eier Agnes, license can be granted.
assistant secretary of the state Amesbury Selectmen Chair- per(pole,1 state funding is not available, man Robert Gaudet read Agnes' Gaudet said, the board wt11 have office of public safety.
The memo declares that no mems last night, and suggested to go the the Finance Committee, provisions in the federal Super
- the board file it and take no other meeting, for a transfer to enateof money, a budgetor fortothe town fund law require communities to action. He had been the lone dis-have stren warning systems in easter in the board's 3-t vote, se- project. Board members asked Basque place, to warn residents in case of ye.a1 weeks ago, to have the poles a chemical disaster locally or on aMstrens removed. to continue his research on remo-l nearby highways - a case made Eut Selectman William Lard val costs.
l l
l l
l 1
l l
ATTMCWMSM \S
'YPat Dmly News. Tuesday. December 22.1987 Deabrookvotes toremove s'ren poles Environmental Management, and Merrimac were seeking to He said Attorney Genera {
i
%EARLBE3ENOE said the agency resmoved and West Newtnary in defense of Jasnes maa==== snay help the j Demy News eenN etored the pelo aner the utMMy towns' posMien against the towns renewe the airens, if the foundledese. Poles. adMet does met. But Grattaan as-l SArmansIRY - One Seabrook IMRS, utdds ananages the ree. *llee towns claim the state sta- le elderase en ther stes's
" "e*** town plaat -
has hemalateni eresuma, sessmed to renew a per. tute under which the selectmen Pl a""
l siren in gg ger Wie pelo in Octsher. AAer l'"-d permMa for the poles does Scanzoni said the plant has not down and alpd smore are abselehe Sie ashed that sie pLe he not y to alreas, snaking the yet decided how to deal with the hweerty eestimamah the invalid. removal of the Saltstmary Beach I *fhe h==== lost agget voted sisenhe . In Ks chal , PSNH claimed Pole and threatened removal of 1 to send Padunc Servloe Os. et New But a day later, the stren was due Pran==a met been followed strensinother tomas.
Hasupeldre, the comapemy owning reemanarled and the plant re- la West Newbury and that the "the plant has tested a hels-
, the largest share of ese plant, a apsented an amb=amamarative hear. y*s conathutional rights copter-carried warning system letter ^ - "" grosserad,byJan- leg en the um.anar 1he respneet had wwas,ma 'the utility also and pavposed using 18 to replace 2 of the strems was denied as Dec.1. maid the setecimen had the author Newburyport*s strens. 'Ihe plant
"* ""d'af . town reade. Plant spehessman David Scan. My toleeue thepermus also has proposed using strens
- The state al's nemi said atterneys filed Ier a tessa. ' Grah. m sold that with the ap- mourned on "cherry - ker" utl-l @ towns restraining order in U.S. court's stacamaan, each of the IMy trucks to cover 3 etAce has suged %o rummove the in severe weather that would misve i t Cesert in mm.a en wul probabl
, (BL los," said Towa Counsel Dec.17 apelmot reanoving thepele. aindlarto*" ^ -,y send
- s. letters ground the helicopter 2, P. Grahman. amid DE98 -
y Wuhout sense Isrun of warning ,gg, g,,,,, s e m os helere re-spa m , the samma cammel win ap- thmetres.
p er - - - paans ser wh le sh,Approvalef ,,,,, ggQ utMiyenned
~ ^
- asus>t toal- de the\N 4 an , pian le the last ab- rems last spring, but was chal-maareatolhe "^ 'SkthMuen
^
lament in the FkW District Court, plant's 3mes. these t8ee Fird District Court of \N i l 1-^- p rummeved aim by PaddleService.
of 80911streinsownedbythecMy. weett, the appeats court nos the Bret utsty+omed strun an=&amt an injuncuem by to be Aereed down by app ====da of Paddle Servlee that have the yeast was -*-' nad Meched West Newinery troen die-wgek at Mme W Beedt h maamillag time pekensiented strums mennenstem. umts the suit is setoed la thelower !
i MM
- ser the idaea 88 court. '
Sonet ry Amesbury, Newtsury ,
i
l l
Newburyport Dody News MondQy Decemtier 21 1987 i
)
Board to review Sireil dec. .ision I.ord, the town's liaison on Sea.
By ANNE MARE MY broot matters, said last night he Daily News staff plans to update his colleagues on 1
AMESBURY - What was to be what the decia6on in the Weet New-a routine meeting to finish up and- case roeans to Ameetnu7 of the year license renewals and stree p in dispute was Lnetailed as part of the nuclear g$ $a iktle tonip[ ' plant's proposed emergency eva-thanks to a recent court decis40n "" ""'
involving the owners of the See- Federal law requires all nu-broot nuclear power plant. clear plant operators to develop The selectmen are scheduled to such plans for communities within discuss the recent decision by the a 10 mile radius of their site. Six of U.S. First Ctreult Court of Ap- the 17 communities that lie within I peals, allowing West Newbury to 10 miles of Seabroot are la Massa-remove poles and warning strens chusetta: Amesbury, West New-astalled by the owners of the bury, Nowbur , Salisbury, plant. Merrimac and The selectmen had }oined West Newbury's court battle to remove depees,have AR sta oessseunities, VM to pree-the and ettseelast year, ease of the and strees, any-c at actice came after the he resmoved to board decided that Seabrech plant . kAshast Dukakts' de-owners had not ser the esseen met to ap permits lastantag evnenettenpleas, prove Senerest and stressin Amesbury. 1he h are also sched-own Canesel Barbara St. An- uled to held heartap on electric-dre of the firia of Espetman & and phoneservice et 7:10, Palga, advtsed the beard at that vote one day of service time not to reuneve anythtag unta heirs for local restauransa and court disputes la the West New- clues holding New Year's Eve case were settled. parties, and renew food service rensat West Newbury dec6- licenses for Jackson's and sies cesse la federal eeurt, not la naernanand's, the state court case Asasseury The selectmen meet at 7 p.m. in had said Selectman W5- their second floor Town Hall llam offlee.
l l
l AW M t W M .7 1
~~,N...,-.-..
Selectmen put timelimit on s ren removal
~ -
useful to the town in emergencies not related to the court that the towns can remove the poles and strens By Y Seabrook plant 1he towns argue that the perndts under which the Deny News staff 1he other selectraen - 1Ard, James 'Ihivier up Hets a settee of specific Poles and alrens were and Neil Merrissey - said they were sterely uses - like radio, telegraph, and cable AMESBURY - Amnesbury adecimen sold last forward wHh a dochston the board first made en June service - - but snake no snesetten d airens 1 hat makes nW tiney wul glw ownsa of time W muclear 29, weiesi they decided that perndts i==na.we in 1994 - the perenMs used la erecting the poles and strens power plant etWit more days to remow le emnergency by an earlier board - for the erectlen of the le airtes lavalid, the towns saw~
D warmlag eerens freen town. -
and pebes were not valid.
AAer smidmidst en Dec. 30, lleeudi, llee town wul 1he board had ordered the poles and stresas re- Mape====amanees og one General's to W and diesnamele time alrens and ansvedbyJuly l3 oldies most Saherdey wetIn and etty
- wMk resmul cuts and eterage to be ped 8er But on the advice of town counesi, selectmen aeMcNers from Asneshwy, Sausbury, Rderrtenac, He- ~/
Seebnek plant ownem dela any action to enforce that order unis a court vertdII, Nowhery and West Neutuary, and told thean g **I 18dak tids is y T.,, sold Selectman WHilaan w betwessa West Newbury and PSPtH -in wench to ahead andresnove the M tardd tard as Ine Ma letter detailing time town
- PSNH soudet te ldeck rounoval of five West Newfoury seM the General's efSee and Citi-g tien. *M*w had sta menties to manove 18eem.,s pas sees WRIhta the 30 tele (C-lel, an asildes-airemes- was settled.
E Board W weed SI to send tame letter to On Dec. 36, the lederal Court dealed an break ase scenereMag rennovel alternettves, 1 & Grey, the n==se m law firms that ..y.
Rey PWGE heap West Mouhury incess N amite romnewettne strees.
Service Co. of New Hasapehire (PSNH)* M taktsg doun the h M a related M is 'thesnas " - - " et C-le said his came to centrac-I" Primeownerof tameplast. ters have notb conclusive, but several have
% Oneirunan Robert Ganadet appened the sneve, say aattled A- ' hafederalametrictesurt.
- Salisbury, Newbury and tierrisnac - - ' laterest in a resnoval contract. He said has he ensu benews time warning stress could be have loinediIVest Newbeary'a arppuneet in the elletrict ceN estisaates have ranged freen 8500 to 3000 for each pole removal.
One pole and stren owned by the Seabrook power plant was removed en Saturday from the state reser-vallen in Salisbury, Imrd sald. "Ihe state had a centractor already working at the reservat6cn do the work. !
l Plant op90nents say the sirens are cructal to '
Seabreek plant owners otda6ntag an operating Il-cease for the 85.1 tdllion nuclear generator.
WKhout some form of warpang system, the plasd cannot wist approval of emergency plans for towns within 10 males Federal laws requare such emergen-cy plans be approved before an operatlng license is -
aranted.
~ If Amenbury has to remove and store the Seabrook strens, selectmen sa6d they will not give them back tantH Seabrook p s for those costs tard said a wate individual with "a secure and major-size tan 6 eng" that is empt> offered to store the poles and stresas, and tdll l'SNil L. ____ ~
Seabrook Roundup
't v w .o. , , . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . ,
By Deese Speru . plan PSNH =e=n*nad to the Secur- wn!be moeung to dmeuss future ac-Itles and Exchange Cennamsono taas retarding the poles.
last week is the best has the com-Bank files suit pany has somg forit n$t now. A against PSNH enn for cwt.d cuu. Hundreds speak st tas, the New York arm tryms to Seabriook hearing On Seabrook's financial froot, a develop their own restructuring New Jersey bank filed suat last plan for PSNH, sap there are no In a mbowof democracy.b anngs week to attaeb property of Seab. new developments on that bortson on New Hampshire's evacuation rook s main owner, Pubbe Service plans were open to the pubbe one Company of New Hampshire West Newbury wins day inat week. Residents of New Hampahin and Mass.communirjes (PSNH). Actmg oc behalf ofits boo- glpg g p olg g ylj near Seabrook were invited to dbolders. the Midlantic National Bank of Edison, N.J., said it Sled he town of West Newbury won a speak before the Atomic Safety and the suit because Public Service major Seabrook battle last week. L;icensing Board, a three man failed to pay princtpal and iaterest The First District Court of penal that wtU decide whetber to due in October. De bank is trustee Appeals in Bostos demed an inJune. accept the emergency plan.
for bolders of H25 million in boods. tion sought by PSNH that would Ongmally the panel only permit-John Cavanagh spokaman for have blocked West Newbury from ted written public testimony.
PSNH said be believes Midlantic ts dismantilng Seabrook's pole- sparkmg several disrupuons at the working against the interist of bec- ma-end strees unth a related suzt beertogs' outset in October. Since dbolders. "We plan to vigorously is seeded m a lower court, that time the panel had received oppose it tn court," be said last "It's not so much a question about several bundred letters from peo.
Week. takmg them down anytnore, but a Pi e requesting to speak. Chairman But Burt Kramer, a suurity quesuon of when we take them Ivan Sautb said the panel changed analyst for Paine Webber m New down." said town counsel R. Scott its mind because they thought it York, says the New Jersey bank Hill Whilton. was "the nght thmg to do."
Over 100 people were invited to had a legal duty to file the sust. Hill Whilton added that be ex.
"!at's say the bank never did that pects the other Sve Massaebusetts speak for a !!ve minute period.
and PSNH goes belly up. What are towns within Seabrook's evacua-the the boodbolders going to do? tion sooe to fouow West Newbury's NH Yankee runs ney d sue the bank because they lead in remonna the poles.
were supposed to be the watchmg PSNH erected 144 polesin the six GVaCuatlOn drlll out for the bonds " Maas. towns withm 10 miles of the But tf Midlanue's suit eth PSNH plant u part of their emergeoey New Hampshire Yankee, Seab-does end up in court, says Kramer, notificauon system. Acceptance of rook's managing company, con-PSNH ts the likely wmner stoce it an emergeney planis thelast major ducted an annual emergency dtd!
bas a nnancial restructuring plan obstacle to beensmg the completed last week at the plant that simu-on the table. 35.1 bill 4on plant. lated a shght radisuon release and That's wby Kramer predicts few Fraak Ostsander, head of the included a mock eyacuation of peo-bank.s. if any, will follow Midlan- Nuclear Safety Umt at Attorney ple from the plant and surroundmg tic's lead, which could push the General James TAannoo's office, area.
nnancially strapped company to says be was pleased by the court According to Scanzoni, the drill bankruptcy. dariamma "It paves the way for the went smoothly, and a wnttenreport "To me, Midlantic is history. Maassebasetts communines that submited by the Nuclear Regula-Restructurmg ts PSNH's last shot. have decided the siren systems tory Comminaion (NRC), wtuch su-
- bert's a deal on the table that has should be removed to do so." pervised the drt!!, is espected to be worked out." Ostrander also sees the doctsnon The PSNH plan offers the com- as a potential snas for the plaat get. In anshortly' oral report given the follow-pany's preferred enewiders and tag its low-power license. "A low- ing day by NRC officials, they bondboldert new common stock, power License requires a m be claimed plant employees "took the Also, ptovided the utihty receives in place that would notify public necessary steps to prov.act the pub-the 15 perceak requested rate in- wttbin 15 minutes of an accident, Lic's bealth and safety '
crease, it would freese rates for and PSNH relied on those strens to Scanzona added taere was a proo.
tbree peau, after;which there meet that regulation Now they .em onen oce pnone dada t fueeuon would be no taersaaes, except for have to come ap with somotlung property, and there were a few annual edpu3 usse hito changes else; other mtant prob & ems bish etereel m the ceist oHaving. Seabroot spokesman David communication, but overall the Kramar ses tar esetiveturing Scansom said seabrook attorneys drill weet well.
4 00CKETED U5hnC CERTIFICATE OF SERylgE -
I, Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., one of the attorneys for the T8 FB -1 PS :09 Applicants herein, hereby certify that on Janua 1988 made service of the within document by mailing thereof, postage prepaid to:
j25, g g g, I '
BRANCH R
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Howard A. Wilber Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Thomas S. Moore Mr. Ed Thomas Atomic Safety and Licensing FEMA, Region I Appeal Panel 442 John W. McCormack Post U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office and Court House Commission Post Office Square Washington, DC 20555 Boston, MA 02109 [
Administrative Judge Sheldon J. Robert Carrigg, Chairman Wolfe, Esq., Chairman Board of Selectmen Atomic Safety and Licensing Town Office Board Panel Atlantic Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory North Hampton, NH 03861 Commission Washington, DC 20555 Judge Emmeth A. Luebke Diane Curran, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Andrea C. Ferster, Esquire Board Panel Harmon & Weiss 5500 Friendship Boulevard Suite 430 Apartment 1923N 2001 S Street, N.W.
Chevy Chase, MD 20815 Washington, DC 20009 Dr. Jerry Harbour Stephen E. Merrill, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Attorney General Board Panel George Dana Bisbee, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Assistant Attorney General Commission Office of the Attorney General Washington, DC 20555 25 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301-6397 i
I Atomic Safety and Licensing Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire j Board Panel Of fice of the Executive Legal
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Director i Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, DC 20555 Commission Washington, DC 20555
. . . _ , . . . . 4 . .
.Ttomic Sadaty and Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esquire Appeal Board Panel Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 116 Lowell Street Commission P.O. Box 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03105 Philip Ahrens, Esquire Mr. J. P. Nadeau
- Assistant Attorney General Selectman's Office ,
Department of the Attorney 10 Central Road General Rye, NH 03870 :
Augusta, ME 04333 Paul McEachern, Esquire Carol S. Sneider, Esquire Matthew T. Brock, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Shaines & McEachern Department of the Attorney 25 Maplewood Avenue General P.O. Box 360 One Ashburton Place, 19th Flr.
Portsmouth, NH 03801 Boston, MA 02108 l Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Calvin A. Canney
?! irman, Board of Selectmen City Manager ,
RFD 1 - Box 1154 City Hall I Kensington, NH 03827 126 Daniel Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 !
Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Angie Machiros U.S. Senate Chairman of the i Washington, DC 20510 Board of Selectmen (Attnt Tom Burack) Town of Newbury Newbury, MA 01950
- Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Peter S. Matthews Ono Eagle Square, Suite 507 Mayor i
Concord, NH 03301 City Hall (Attn: Herb Boynton) Newburyport, MA 01950 Mr. Thomas F. Powers, III Mr. William S. Lord Town Manager Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Town Hall - Friend Street 10 Front Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Exeter, NH 03833 i
H. Joseph Flynn, Esquire Brentwood Board of Selectmen Office of General Counsel RFD Dalton Road Federal Emergency Management Brentwood, NH 03833
- Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20472 1 l i
I f
1
t Gary W. Holmes, Esquire Richard A. Hampe, Esquire Holmes & Ells Hampe and McNicholas 47 Winnacunnet Road 35 Pleasant Street Hampton, NH 03841 Concord, NH 03301 Judith H. Mizner, Esquire Charles P. Graham, Esquire Silverglate, Gertner, Baker McKay, Murphy and Graham Fine,. Good & Mizner 100 Main Street 88 Broad Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Boston, MA 02110
'p f)
- // w
/
Thomas G. DijirWifn, Jr.
~
/
\
l l
l L