We believe that further delay of emergency response planning is not in the interests of residents living near a facility, whether it be Seabrook Station or Vermont Yankee. Many decisions involving safety design and warning systems should be made as soon as possible and not put off until the safety of residents is compromised. Finally, allow me to review how the selection of this firm was conducted. In the first round of proposals earlier this year, the firm ultimately rejected had placed first overall according to the selection review committee, which is comprised of employees of the Civil Defense Agency; the Office of State Planning; the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency; and a member of our staff. Costello, Lomasney, and deNapoli had placed second in the rankings. In the second round, several of the proposals had been greatly improved, including the Costello, Lomasney and deNapoli proposal. In this round, the firm was the unanimous choice of the committee. The proposal includes extensive use of computer-based information systems, enabling the emergency response plan to be revised at any point during the life of the plant. The proposal will study the feasibility of the plan, and take an objective look at all the needs required for a safe plan. The staff comprising the design team includes some of the most experienced people in the country for this job. And the initial cost of approximately $800,000, paid by the utility, is for design of the plan only. Purchase and installation of equipment required by federal regulations will come after extensive work with local officials. The State of New Hampshire has a responsibility to provide for the health and safety of residents of the state. Moving ahead with emergency response planning, rather than ceding this responsibility to the utilities, is in the best interest of all the citizens of New Hampshire. It must be done at Seabrook, which is under construction, and it must be done at Vermont Yankee, which is operating currently. Danton Roman Dayton Duncan DD/mp ANNOTATIONS 1. Authority delegated The delegation of legislative authority to the chairman of the public utilities commission in this chapter is extremely narrow and almost ministerial in nature. Appeal of Hollingworth (1982) 122 NH 1028, 453 A2d 1288. 2. Appeal Nothing in this chapter specifically authorizes an appeal from an assessment made by the chairman of the public utilities commission for the cost of preparing a nuclear response program. Appeal of Hollingworth (1982) 122 NH 1028, 453 An appeal from the assessment of costs by the chairman of the public utilities commission in connection with the preparation of a nuclear emergency evacuation plan could not be brought pursuant to RSA 365:21, governing rehearings and appeals of complaints to, and proceedings before the public utilities commission since that section governs appeals from decisions of the full commission, not those of the commission's chairman alone. Appeal of Hollingworth (1982) 122 NH 1028, 453 A2d 1288. 107-B: 1 Nuclear Emergency Response Plan. I. The civil defense agency shall, in cooperation with affected local units of government, initiate and carry out a nuclear emergency response plan as specified in the licensing regulations of each nuclear electrical generating plant. The chairman of the public utilities commission shall assess a fee from the utility, as necessary, to pay for the cost of preparing the plan and providing equipment and materials to implement it. II. The director of civil defense shall conduct an annual review of the nuclear emergency response plans for those municipalities located in the emergency planning zone, as defined in Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulation Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50. Source. 1981, 549: 2, eff. June 30, 1981. Statement of purpose. 1981, 549: 1, eff. June 30, 1981, provided: "The legislature finds that in order to protect the health and welfare of the citizens of this state, particularly those in close proximity to nuclear electric generating facilities, it is essential to initiate a program to provide for the formulation of radiological emergency preparedness plans and procedures 112 and for the implementation of those plans in conformance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulation Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 50. The legis lature further finds it appropriate that the utilities operating these facilities bear the costs associated with preparing and implementing plans to deal with the effect of nuclear incidents or accidents. The legislature, therefore, hereby establishes NUCLEAR PLANNING AND RESPONSE PROGRAM 1288. 107-B: 3 procedure for the initiation, formulation, lingworth (1982) 122 NH 1028, 453 A2d and implementation of a nuclear planning and response program and for the assessment of the costs of the program against each utility operating a nuclear electric generating facility." ANNOTATIONS 1. Independent investigation This section could not be read to permit the chairman of the public utilities commission to independently investigate the basis for any assessment of the cost of preparing a nuclear response program requested by the civil defense agency. Appeal of Hollingworth (1982) 122 NH 1028, 453 A2d 1288. There was no indication in this section or its legislative history that the authority granted to the full public utilities commission to conduct investigations under RSA 365: 19, governing independent investigations, vested authority in the chairman of the public utilities commission to investigate independently the basis for assessments of costs of preparing a nuclear response program that were requested by the civil defense agency. Appeal of Hol 2. Preparation of plan Under paragraph I of this section, the only independent evaluation of requested assessments that the chairman of the pubIlic utilities commission is authorized to make is whether the cost is one of "preparing the plan and providing equipment and materials necessary to implement it." Appeal of Hollingworth (1982) 122 NH 1028, 453 A2d 1288. Chairman of public utilities commission did not act improperly in not approving certain personnel expenses incurred by civil defense agencies for overseeing the formulation of a nuclear emergency evacuation plan, where the chairman deter mined that personnel expenses were not properly considered a cost of preparing an evacuation plan, since paragraph I of this section authorized the chairman to withhold approval of requested assessments for costs not related to preparation of the plan. Appeal of Hollingworth (1982) 122 NH 1028, 453 A2d 1288. 107-B: 2 Annual Emergency Response Budget. The municipalities shall submit annually their emergency response budget to the director of civil defense who shall provide a reasonable opportunity for public comment and consideration. The director shall also receive and review the appropriateness of any budget request from any other state agency necessary for radiological emergency preparedness as outlined in the plan. The director shall then submit an approved total annual budget to the chairman of the public utilities commission for assessment against the utility or utilities. I. The cost of preparing, maintaining, and operating the nuclear planning and response program shall be assessed against each utility which has applied for a license to operate or is licensed to operate a nuclear generating facility which affects municipalities under RSA 107-B: 1, II, in such proportions as the chairman of the public utilities commission determines to be fair and equitable. II. Assessments under this section shall not be charged to the normal operating costs of any company before the issuance of an operating li cense. Source. 1981, 549: 2, eff. June 30, 1981. 113 107-B: 4 PUBLIC DEFENSE AND VETERANS' AFFAIRS CROSS REFERENCES Organization of executive branch of government generally, see RSA 21-G. 1. Cited ANNOTATIONS Cited in Appeal of Hollingworth (1982) 122 N: 1028, 453 A2d 1288. 107-B: 4 Collection of Assessment. The chairman of the public utilities commission shall certify to the state treasurer the amount to be assessed against each utility, and the state treasurer shall bill each utility for the amount assessed against it. The bill shall be sent by registered mail, and shall constitute notice of assessment and demand for payment. Payment shall be made to the state treasurer within 30 days after the receipt of the bill. If any utility shall fail or refuse to pay the assessed fee within 30 days, the chairman shall add to the fee a late penalty fee and certify the amount of the delinquent fee and penalty to the attorney general for collection. Source. 1981, 549: 2, eff. June 30, 1981. 107-B: 5 Fund Established. All funds collected under this chapter shall be deposited in the state treasury as "restricted revenues." The full amount shall be credited to the New Hampshire nuclear planning and response fund and shall be used exclusively for the New Hampshire nuclear planning and response program. Source. 1981, 549: 2, eff. June 30, 1981. 107-B: 6 Authority in Radiological Emergency. In the event of a radiological emergency at a nuclear electric generating facility where the responsible utility is unable to control the situation as necessary to protect public health and safety, the governor shall regulate the utility under RSA 107: 6. I am writing in reference to my letter of September 15, 1986, regarding the Subcommittee's ongoing investigation of various issues related to the licensing of the Seabrook nuclear power plant. То As you know, your written response was due on September 29, 1986. To date, I have received no response. I have not even received an explanation for why you have failed to respond. aggravate the situation, repeated Subcommittee staff telephone inquiries concerning the status of your response have been ignored or cavalierly dismissed. This is unacceptable. Let me emphasize that the September 15 inquiry is part of an ongoing Congressional investigation into the licensing process at Seabrook. As such, your full written response is not contingent upon the rescheduling of the Subcommittee's public hearing, and should be provided immediately. I hope we can agree that any activity short of full cooperation among all parties involved in the Seabrook licensing process is not in the best public interest. It is only through open and candid dialogue about all of the related issues that the public confidence and the integrity of the nuclear licensing process can be maintained. Therefore, please provide complete written answers to the questions contained in my letter of September 15, 1986 no later than October 24, 1986. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Ed Markey Edward J. Markey Mackey |