ML19332D725
| ML19332D725 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 11/21/1989 |
| From: | Traficonte J HAMPTON, NH, MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#489-9504 ALAB-924, LBP-88-32, LBP-89-32, OL, NUDOCS 8912050164 | |
| Download: ML19332D725 (17) | |
Text
'
Of c (t
['0CKEi ED JMDC UNITED STATES:OF AMER'ICA NUCLEAR REGULA"ORY COMMISSION
'89 NOV 24 All :19 .
- 4. Before the Commission:
' cro .
Kenn'eth M. Carr, Chairman- UC-Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner.
- Kenneth C. Rogers, Commissioner James R. Curtiss, Commissioner i
) .
In the' Matter of- ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL -!
) 50-444-OL 1 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) (Offsite Emergency
-OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, EI AL. ) Planning and Safety Issues) ;
) (
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) ' November 21, 1989
)
'INTERVENORS' PETITION i FOR REVIEW OF ALAB-924 The Massachusetts Attorney General, the Seacoast Anti-Pollution. League, the Nuclear, Coalition on Nuclear Pollution-and the Town of Hampton (the "Intervenors") hereby petition for review of ALAB-924.1/
l 1/ Intervenors seek Commission review of the issues identified herein but oppose such review on the issues identified in
. Applicants'-November 10 Petition for Review of ALAB-924'for
. reasons-set forth in Intervenors' Opposition also filed this day. Also,'Intervenors state that this filing as well as all i: other.Intervenor efforts made after November 18, 1989 to seek additional intra-agency appellate review of the Seabrook l'icensing action reflected in LBP-89-32 reflects no intention or purpose tx) elect to continue such intra-acency review i_D deroaation of Intervenors' rights to have " final agency licensing.. action" (which LBP-89-32 under Commission regulations, federal statutes, and case law constitutes) r reviewed by the' cognizant Court of Appeals. Instead, Intervenors file all such pleadings only to ensure that no argument will lie at any later date that they failed to exhaust administrative remedies. In this regard, Intervenors note that they have no appeal as of right of ALAB-924. See cenerally (footnote continued)
~
8912050164 891121 PDR
- ADOCK 05000443 PDR S03
7 3
,qC ;
0;p .
?
The Decision Below On November 7, 1989, the. Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board issued a decision (ALAB-924) affirming in part,.and
- reversing and remanding in part, a portion of the Partial ,
Initial Decision of the Atomic' Safety and Licensing Board' dated December 30, 1988, LBP-88-32, 28 NRC 667 (1988). In ALAB-924 '
the Appeal board agreed with'the Intervenors that the PID was in error in four specific areas concerning letters of agreement
'for teachers, the special needs survey, special facility ETEs and1 implementing procedures for sheltering. The Intervenors do i
not now seek to further controvert the findings made by the Appeal Board in that decision, except as set forth below, i Issues Raised Before the AcDeal Board r The issues raised in this petition for review all were-raised in briefs and submissions to the Appeal Board.2/
SECOND SHIFT STAFFING AT DECONTAMINATION AND RECEPTION _C_Fl{TR E i
The State of New Hampshire's Radiological Emergency Response Plan ("NHRERP") provides for only one shift of personnel to operate decontamination and reception cr;nters.
The Licensing Board in the PID held that having only one twelve
-hour shift of workers at those centers is adequate. PID, 28 NRC 667, 721 and 724 (1988). The Appeal Board apparently did (footnote continued)
B.J. McAdams. Inc, v. I.C.C., 551 F.2d 1112, 1114-1115 (1977);
Samuel B. Franklin & Co. v. SEC, 290 F.2d 719, 723 (1961';
Chicaco and North Western Railway Co. v. U.S., 311 F.Supp. 860, 862-863 (1970); Steere Tank Lines. Inc. v. I.C.O., 675 F.2d 763, 765-766 (1982).
2/ Attached are sections of LBP-89-32 which were not available and therefore not put before the Appeal Board on review of LBP-88-32.
4s.-
i 4.
~
not feeX-the lack of second shift staffing at the ,
- .V :
decontamination and reception centers was a critical issue and z affirmed the finding of the Licensing Board. ALAB-924, Slip ,
op, at 46-47, n.125. t This issue is'important enough to merit further-review by the Commission. 'It is unquestionable that decontamination and reception centers play a major role in providing for the protection of the health and safety of EPZ residents and emergency response workers. The overall objective of emergency planning is to " provide dose savings" to the public. It is by
'means of decontamination and reception centers that there'is an i assessment of the dose: received by the public and emergency
- workers and provisions made for decontamination of those-persons. Those centers must be able to function in a manner i
that.will afford real-world protection to such persons.
l.
L Provisions for only one shift of personnel to staff decontamination and reception centers do not provide reasonable L
assurance of adequate protective measures for the public and emergency workers.
L There are two key factors that render single shift staffing at the centers in the NHRERP inadequate. First, the staffing of the decontamination and reception centers takes place pritm to the time that an evacuation is ordered.2/
l~
L 2/ Ege,.e.c., Manchester Host Plan,Section III, Emergency Procedures (New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency will request activation of reception center when emergency conditions at l Seabrook "may result in an evacuation or have resulted in an evacuation recommendation.")
p
- - - - . ~. .-
Mi-4 Once the centers are staffed, the personnel may wait.for a '
considerable period of time running to several hours before an
-evacuation is ever actually ordered. Second, the Applicants most recent evacuation time estimates show that evacuation times for the EPZ may be as long as 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> on a summer-weekend. Given those long ETEs it is extremely unlikely that decontamination-of arriving evacuees could be accomplished
- within 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />.of-the commencement of an evacuation.
The consequence of these two factors with respect to the NHRERP means that the currently planned-for staff at the center:
may be on' duty for 15-20 hours or more before their tasks are completed. That will result in the centers workers being on duty for longer than a 12 hour1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> shift during which they might reasonably be expected to perform their duties in an efficient manner. That will invariably impact on the workers' ability to monitor evacuees within the time guidelines contemplated.
'There must either be sufficient emergency personnel in the principal response organization to provide second shift capability under Criterion II.A.4 or, if the NHRERP is going to rely on outside personnel resources, there n.ust be letter of agreement to ensure that they will be available. The NHRERP is lacking in both respects.
As'further grounds for taking review, the Commission should note that.the Licensing Board treated this issue inconsistently in LBP-88-32 and LBP-89-32. In LBP-89-32 the Licensing Board
v.
J. O.-1 x3 Lat: 1 5.12'(194-195) cited to the testimony of FEMA witness RichardIDonovan.which acknowledged the necessity of providing second shift capabilities at decontamination and reception 1- centers.d/"
SHELTERING OF THE BEACH POPULATION 1
t Intervenors specifically challenged those portions of LBP-88-32 dealing with the sheltering issues. Egg, e.0,, Mass.
AG March 24, 1989 Appeal-Brief at 48-76. As the Commission.is. '
i aware,.in ALAB-922 the Appeal Board made certain rulings of law
~
and certified a question for decision. To the extent, ALAB-924 made rulings on specific issues regarding sheltering that are-based in turn on the Appeal Board's rulings in ALAB-922,. the Intervenors incorporate by reference their briefs filed on October 27, 1989 to the Commission ot; the certified question and.ALAB-922 as grcunds for this petition for review of
- ALAB-924.M S.gg ALAB-924 at 58, n.164.
, To the extent that the Appeal Board's rulings in ALAB-924 on. sheltering are independent of its rulings in ALAB-922, the Intervenors seek review on the following issues:
s 1
Af The Applicants have attempted to make provision for second shift staffing of decontamination centers and reception centers for Massachusetts communities by entering into a letter of agreement with the Yankee Mutual Aid program. Such provisions
- do not exist for the decontamination and reception centers in New Hampshire.
5/ In keeping with the exquisite procedural complexity of this case, Intervenors simply note that the October 27, 1989 brief of NECNP to the Commission on the certified question was styled in the alternative as a petition for review of ALAB-922 in which all Intervonors jojned.
[ocit -
P
- 1. The Appeal' Board apparently ruled that at this
.particular site, sheltering is not necessary for the
- 50. 47 (a) (1) and (b) standards to ha met unless planners should determine that it is necessary:
Nor do we read 550.47 (b) (10), as intervenors do, to impose such a requirement (that a range of.
protective measures that are " adequate" be provided).itself. It'is apparent that under section 50.47 planners should consider whether to
. employ sheltering as part of the " range of protective actions" for a particular emergency plan. . . . Nonetheless, the situations in which sheltering is adopted as the recommended protective action ultimately will depend, as here, upon the site-specific circumstances.
ALAB-924, 58 n.164. For reasons already set out at Mass AG's October 27 Brief on the certified question at 4-10, this ruling L
1 reduces the legal standard from adequate protective measures (in.the' sense of " effective") to apprporiate protective measures (in the sense of available under site-specific circumstances). Obviously, as the Appeal Bonrd noted in ALAB-922, this issue is a significant legal issue.
Intervenors' position has been (for at least 10 years) that the lor.g ETEa for the close-in beach population recuire at this site-a sheltering option that is-itself an " adequate"
- protective measure, that sheltering as described in the NHRERP is not such an " adequate" measure and that even if available l
l sheltering were utilized by a plan, the result would still not be in conformance with the regulations. See Mass AG's Appeal Brief at 48-49. By leaving it to the planners to decide based l
).. '
~!
3" q t
on'whatJis'available at the site whether sheltering is
. .necessary, the' Appeal Board again translates a normative
. judgment about'" effectiveness" into an empirical judgment about
' " availability."
2.. The Appeal Board rejected Intervenors' challenge to the Licensing Board's determination that sheltering at this site would be:of limited value because of its inherently poor quality and because evacuation is always preferred over sheltering as the dose-minimizing protective action.5/ Has i
t k Mass AG's Appeal Brief at 48-52, 56-71; ALAB-924.at 57-58. The Appeal Board noted that the Licensing Board decision on this matter is based on the testimony of Keller. ALAB-924 at 56.
[
As the Intervenors established before the Appeal Board, -
Keller's theories concerning the relative efficacy of evacuation as compared to sheltering are either generic and therefore cannot simply be assumed to be true at the Seabrook s
L site'(at which long ETEs_ lower the dose savings achieved by evacuation), or site-specific based on Keller's rather casual knowledge of the sheltering situation. The Appeal Board s/ Again, Intervenors believe that ALAB-924 is predicated in this regard on ALAB-922 and the certified question.
Intervenors argued that dose-consequence comparisons between evacuation and sheltering at this site is evidence relevant to any determination that evacuation is the "most effective option in achieving maximum dose reduction" as set forth in the
.NHRERP. 'ALAB-924 at 50. This evidence was excluded and thereby Intervenors were prevented from proving that even using the poor sheltering in the beach areas would result in more dose savings than evacuation during summer days. See ALAB-922 at 16, n.37 (last paragraph).
l - . ~ . _ _ - _ _ . . ~ . _. _ _ _ . . - _ - - -_. _ _
7.;
o f
. appears to have read Keller as making a site-specific comparison between the efficacy of evacuation compared to ,
sheltering. ALAB-924 at 57. Indeed,.the Appeal Board even
' i cites the. Mass AG's witness, Dr. Robert Goble, for the i: 1 proposition that sheltering is a limited option for the beach
~
-population. ALAB-924 at 52. The issue, however, is not how ooor shelterina as an ootion is,but instead, whether it is still better than a vehicular evacuation durina the summer, as the Board found and the NHRERP reoresents. Aaain, this'is an
- emoirical' auestion that simolv cannot be answered rationally
- 1. . .
l! without dose-consecuence comoarisons which were excluded by the l_
Licensina Board as irrelevantz Therefore, there is no rational basis on which to conclude that evacuation is dose-minimizing l-l as compared to. sheltering.2/
1:
- 3. The Appeal Board also erred in affirming the lower l Board's-exclusion of evidence offered by the Mass AG on June 1
[ 14, 1988 and again on July 6, 1988. Een Mass AG Appeal Brief at 66-88; ALAB-924 at 69, n.196 (second paragraph). The reasons given to the. Licensing Board for the Mass AG's delay in 1 .
l l 2/ The Licensing Board was more taken by the generic aspects of Keller's theorem which is a misapplication of the theory of rational choice. Egg Mass AG's Appeal Brief at 64-70. In its view, aeller's theorem means that at every site, and therefore L .at Seabrook, evacuation should always be the protective measure of choice. The Appeal Board saw the theorem as based more on Keller's assessment of the specific circumstances at Seabrook.
JALAB-924 at 57, n.162. In fact, Keller was repeatedly indetermincte in response to examination on this pivotal issue although he did state that his testimony relied "in no way on data, assumptions or evaluations specific to the Seabrook site." Tr. 14192.
4
.; >e -:. - '
s v,
b submitting rebuttal testimony in response'to Keller's position m.
on sheltering. included the fact that the nature of that testimony 1(whether site specific or generic) was not clear until Keller.was cross-examined (if even then). This extremely importantl confusion continues as noted above. Moreover, the importance of the rebuttal testimony (which disproved Keller's ;
theorem) for a proper disposition of this case makes.this evidentiary-ruling (although discretionary) an important legal issue' worthy of' review.
'ADEOUACY OF THE MONITORING CAPACITY UNDER THE NHRERP Intervenors seek Commission review of a ruling by the :
Appeal-Board that significant safety issues presented to it in response to an opportunity for further briefing are nonetheless
" freshly hatched" and-can be disregarded.
ALAB-924 at 45,
'n.120. Although normally issues not raised before a trial tribunal cannot be presced for the first time on appeal, under NRC~ practice this rule has a notable exception for " serious substantive issue (s) as to which a genuine problem has been demonstrated." ALAB-924 at 39-40 citing cases. In pleadings n filed with.the Appeal Board on September 15 and September 25, 1989, the Mass AG and SAPL established that: 1) under present arrangements the NHRERP cannot monitor or decontaminate 20% of the New Hampshire EPZ; 2) no clear arrangements are made for some 8000 potential beach evacuees from Hampton Beach; 3) the capacity assumptions of the monitoring centers contradict the
- . ' . {
b :o 4 I
Applicants' own testimony-and the NHRERP's procedures; and 4) the Licensing Board assumed the vehicular monitoring capacity
's i double what.is actually set forth in the'NHRERP. Egg Mass AG's September 15, 1989 Comments on Applicants' Response to.
Appeal Board Order of August 30, 1989 and Mass AG's September .l o :
25, 1989 Response to the Applicants' Motion to Strike'the' Mass AG's September 15 Comments. At present, the NHRERP cannot ]
1 monitor or decontaminate 20% of the evacuating population of th'e New Hampshire EPZ'.
l CONCLUSION l
The commission should reverse the Appeal Board's rulings to the extent and for the reasons set forth above. ;
Respectfully submitted, JAMES M. SHANNON .
ATTORNEY GENERAL f f s
/ ~ &
f/36hn Traficonb6 c/' Chief, Nuclear Safety Unit Leslie Greer Assistant. Attorney General Nuclear Safety Unit One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-2200 Dated: November 22, 1989
F
_, _ _ . - - -.- -~- - ~~ '
i ,<
t.
r LBP-89-32 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY'AND LICENSING BOARD ,Si C 13 Ai :(2 Before Administrative Judges: I: 4.
i
'Ivan W.. Smith, Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom W In the Matter of PUBLIC' SERVICE' COMPANY OF-NEW HAMPSHIRE, R A1 .
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL 50-444-OL (Seabrook Station, Units-l'and 2) (Offsite Emergency Planning)
ASLBP No. 82-471-02-OL t
Y PARTIAL INITIAL DECISION L (Seabrook Plan For Massachusetts communities and 1988 FEMA Graded Exercise).
T Volume'I November 9, 1989 t'
,,,,__..-_-m--- - ~ * * ~ ~ '
' ' " ' ' ' ' * ~ ~
, , - , . - - - . - - ~ ^ ~ ~ - ^
- 2. ; v TL
- Li - 'A
- a. J. ; i 3- 4 - 194 -
- ) ; .. . - 'i.
I
[
receive-training and orientation before they are dispatched i to the field.
Then, upon reporting to a specific TCP,. thel!
first-shift' Traffic' Guide will brief the second-shift J Traffic Guide on the existing situation and procedures to bd .
followed. SPMC IP 3.2, Attach 2, B17, at 12-13;-IP 3.2, e M at 4, 5, 7.
5.11.
- Those personnel used to staff the~ evacuation.
support second-shift positions have the required technical
. skills and are capable of performing the required functions.:
The only training required for them at the time of an i
emergency would be orientation to the'ORO, that.is, as to where, when,.and to whom they report. Information such as s
the specific report forms utilized by the ORO~for. recording L
and reporting information and the particular. equipment and-gggg techniques to be employed are supplied by ORO personnel when l' reserve personnel report to their assigned locations.
Tr. 19163-64, 19174-75, 19177; Tr. 22613, 25512. -See A122 App. Ex. 42, IP 2.9, at 7, 10; Appendix J, at J-3, IP 3.5, at 4, 5 and Attach. 2, at 3.
3 5.12.
- FEMA witness Donovan testified that the Applicants demonstrated shift change capability at both-reception centers during the exercise, including shift change capability for evacuation monitoring positions.
Tr. 18685, 19163. Ega Alte App. Ex. 43F, at 240. Personnel
- [,
provided through the Yankee Mutual Aid Program would be L
55&~ + *i
'~
drawn from a group of people who already have pre-1 l.
e ^s. .
- 195 -
identified skills and knowledge of radiation monitoring equipment and otbur knowledge necessary to be able to
. perform designated tasks. Tr. 18688, 19126. 133 1112 app. '
I ~
. j Ex. 41, at 658, 662, 663. FEMA observed from;the exercise that those Yankee Atomic Staff designated as the second I shift for' monitoring positions were as adequately trained as I
first-shift personnel. Tr.-18686, 18691,-19160. FEMA- j observed that the second shift was able'to step in, receive
~
- a. turnover shift briefing and use the. instruments and demonstrate.its proficiency just as the first shift did.
Tr. 19164-65, 22613. FEMA witness Donovan. testified that the supervisors for the'second shift have been pre- J i
identified and trained. Tr. 18687. -i_
S 5.13. Evacuation-specific personnel for which there -
t is only one allocated shift in SPMC include dosimetry record keepers and route guides and the contract personnel for i vehicle drivers and road crews. Dosimetry record keepers are to be mobilized at the alert stage, and rcute guides are i
I to be mobilized at the site area emergency stage. SPMC f Figure .2.1-1. Even though these personnel will only be -
l needed through the period of an evacuation, some evacuations under the SPMC have evacuation time estimates as much as ,!
-nine hours. For the most part, evacuation time estimates -
are in the six to seven hour range. App. Reb. No. 16, ff.
Tr. 26661, Attachment D. In an emergency where it takes >
longer than three hours to move from an alert, or site area I.
.k
r
.4 f -DONOVAN - CROSS 18685 g :1 orstwo shifts provided for.
2- Q Let's. walk it through, I think I'm.following you. '
3- If it's'an evacuation support.related position it 4 gets two' shifts. If it's an. evacuation specific position'it
.5 gets one shift. ~ Monitoring personnel,that' led um down this 6- road is an evacuation support position, correct?
7 A . (Donovan) Yes. That's my understanding of the I
8 plan and my understanding after discussing.it with them..
9- Q Well, maybe my question wasn't quite clear.
10, A (Donovan) Monitoring position is an evacuation l .
11 support position.
1 12 Q And in a broader vein our Mass Exhibit 63 13 indicates.that it#s.a FEMA policy or guidance that it be a 14 two shift position? Monitoring personnel be two shifts; 15 correct?
16 A (Donovan) That's correct.
17 Q. Now, am I to understand from the paragraph that 18 we're reading from on 2.1-1 that monitoring personnel who 19 are identified as evacuation support-personnel are two 20 shifts in the SPNC?
21 A (Donovan) They plan to provide two shifts. They '
22 demonstrated shift change capability in the exercise. They 23 demonstrated shift change capability for certain positions 24 in the exercise that were evacuation monitoring positions.
25 Q Now, if you press on a little further in this Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- - . :. a . -. . --- _-____--- _-_-.__ - __ :
= . ,.
- .1 ,"' '
7
.i.
LDai.HD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D Ni?
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION. ,
Before the Commission: '89 Im 24 A11 :19~
Kenneth M. Carr, Chairman y;, 3. ,
Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner bbcEl , =v61 Kenneth C. Rogers, Commissioner E! MD James R. Curtiss, Commissioner-
)
'In the Matter of- .) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
) .
50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) -- (Emergency Planning, Issues).
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET. AL. )
)
'(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) November 22, 1989
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i.
I, John Traficonte, hereby certify that on November 22, 1989,
'I made service'of the within INTERVENORS' PETITION FOR REVIEW OF '
'ALAB-924 by Federal' Express as indicated.by [*] and by first p . class. mail to the following parties:
Ivan W.~ Smith, Chairman Kenneth A. McCollom l~
. Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 1107'W. Knapp St.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Stillwater, OK 74075
- East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway l 'Bethesda, MD 20814 Dr. Richard F. Cole Robert R. Pierce, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission East West Towers Building East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway l Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814
- Docketing and Service
- Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.
U.S. Nuclear ~ Regulatory Commission Ropes & Gray Washington, DC 2055S One International Place Boston, MA 02110
. .~ _ .. _ .
N:
- i& X '
s.@
4; m y s
>{d , . . . -
.J
- Marjorie Nordlinger, Esq. Paul McEachern, Esq. [
.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Shaines & McEachern Lt l Office of-the General Counsel 25 Maplewood' Avenue 11555,Rockville Pike,.15th Floor P.O. Box 360
'Rockville, MD 20852 Portsmouth, NH 03801 H. Joseph Flynn, Esq. Atomic Safety & Licensing Assistant General Counsel Appeal Board Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Federal Emergency Management Washington, DC 20555 Agency
- 500 C. Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20472 Robert A. Backus, Esq.. Atomic Safety & Licensing Board
, Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 116 Lowell Street Washington, DC 20555 P.O. Box 516 Manchester, NH. 03106 Jane Doughty Dianne Curran, Esq.
Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Harmon, Curran & Towsley
-Five Market Street Suite 430 Portsmouth, NH 03801 2001 S Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20008 Barbara St. Andre, Esq. . Judith Mizner, Esq.
Kopelman & Paige, P.C. 79 State Street
'77 Franklin Street Second Floor Boston, MA 02110- Newburyport, MA 01950
. Charles P. Graham, Esq. R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esq.
MurphyJ& Graham Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton & Rotondi 33 Low Street 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Newburyport, MA 01950 Ashod N. Amirian, Esq. Senator Gordon J. Humphrey 145 South Main Street U.S. Senate P.O. Box 38 Washington, DC 20510 Bradford, MA 01835 (Attn: Tom Burack)
Senator Gordon'J. Humphrey John P. Arnold, Attorney General One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Office of the Attorney General Concord, NM 03301 25 Capitol Street (Attn: Herb Boynton) Concord, NH 03301 Phillip Ahrens, Esq. William S. Lord Assistant Attorney General Board of Selectmen Department of.the Attorney General Town Hall - Friend Street Augusta, ME 04333 Amesbury, MA 01913
g . .. . - . _ -..
~1 'e.
.F v
>y, G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chairman Alan S. Rosenthal
. Atomic Safety &; Licensing. Atomic Safety & Licensing-
. Appeal. Board Appeal Board "
'U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-East West Towers Building East West Towers Building 4350 East West' Highway. 4350 East West Highway Bethesda,.MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814 7
Howard A. Wilber- *Kenneth M. Carr-Atomic Safety & Licensing Chairman
- Appeal Board- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike East West Towers Building Rockville, MD 20852 ,
4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814
- Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner *Kenneth C. Rogers, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville,.MD 20852 Rockville, MD 20852
- James R. Curtiss, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville. Pike.
Rockville,-MD 20852 Respectfully submitted, l JAMES M. SHANNON p ATTORNEY GENERAL 7- .P9 h,
l hn Traficoste Assistant Attorney General L Chief, Nuclear Safety Unit.
L Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 j; (617) 727-2200 l.
L Dated: November 22, 1989 l