ML20067C508

Ma Atty General Response to Appeal Board Dtd 910122.* Identifies Two Issues That Potentially May Be Resolved. State Will Continue to Investigate Facts Re post-hearing Events That May Effect Pending Issues.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20067C508
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	02/01/1991
From:	Greer L MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF
To:	Bollwerk G NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
CON-#191-11379 OL, NUDOCS 9102120092
Download: ML20067C508 (22)

Text

_ .-

li . = . -

I kf S?

4:

" DOCFETCO usttuc

-UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATSRY COMMISSION '91 m '-5 P 5 :11 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD Before Administrative Judges:

G. Paul Bollwerk III, Chairman Alan S. Rosenthal Howard A. Wilbar In the Matter of- ) Doc '.et Nos. 50-443-OL

) 50-444-OL FUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY )

OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. ~) '

r < -

)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and-2) ) February 1, 1991 1

_ __ )

MASS AC'S RESPONSE TO THE APPEAL BOARD'S DATED JANUARY 22, 1991 In its order dated January 22, 1991 the Appeal Board directed that the Massachusetts Attorney-General (" Mass AG")

explain why he had pursued an-appeal.of the Licensing Board's rejection:of Mass'AG Contention 56,-Ba61s h whan-the issues. J

--addressed in that contention-had-benn_ resolved =byEchanges in the version'of the SPMC reflected in the evidentiary = record.--

The Appeal Board further directed that the_.MassfAG " indicate whether there are'other and yet undecided issues raised by his pending appeal that are either (1).similarly.now concededly _

resolved;-or (2) susceptible of resolution by stipulation on- 1 the basis of'SPMC changes or otherwise." The following is-the the-response of the Mass AG to the. Board's directive.

1 91021120092 910201 PDR ADOCK 05000443 0 PDR

< 6nk ,

1

_ __j

__. 1 The Mass AG was not aware when he filed his acoeal brief that the ingues in Contentien 56 had been resolved.

While the joint stipulation filed with the Licensing Board on January 18, 1991 reflected an acknowledgment by the Mats AG that the issues contained in Mass AG Contention 56, Basis A have been resolved in Amendment 6 to thu SPMC, the Mass AG was '

-unaware of that fact until a matter of days prior to the filing b of the joint stipulation.1/ Although Amendment 6 of the S?MC had been in existence for a substantial period of tino before the Mass-AG filed his appeal on LBP-89-32, the changen in the SPMC contained in Amendment 6 that resolved the issues of Mass l AG Contention ~56, Basis A, were not brought to the attention of a

the_Mann AG prior to January 10, 1991. On that day a member ot' the Mass AG's staff attended a meeting at the offices of the i Applicant's counsel to discuss the three matters that were.

scheduled to be addressed atua pre-hearing conference before the Licensing Board on January 23, 1991 . After an initial

-discussion of proposed changes in the SPMC that would resolve the: remanded = issues- concerning the staffing of- Holy - Cross -

j- College, counsel 1for the-Applicants-showed-the representative-of the Mass AG a-draft affidavit written by Anthony-

-Callendrello. .(Exhibit 1.)'

1/: Amendment 6 of the SPMC was the version of the SPMC that was introduced 11n the evidentiary record in-the hearings on the SPMC.

t-m - e i

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

i e

Counsel for the Applicants stated that the draft affidavit denenstrated that the issues raised in Mass AG Contention 56, Basis A had boon addressed and resolved by Amendment 6 to the SPMC. The Mass AG was informed that if the PAR jesuo contained 5

in Mass AG Cont jntion 56, Basis A could not be resolved by stipulation, it was the intention of the Applicants to file a motion sooking mie:ary disposition of the issue on the basis of Mr. Callendrello's affidavit. The Mass AG staff member reviewed the draft affidavit and agrood to discuss the matter with persons knowledgeable about the contention and its underlying factual basis to ascertain whether the issuo contained in the contention could be resolved by a joint stipulation.

After the mooting on January 10, 1991, the base AG submitted the draft affidavit of Mr. Callendrello and the rolovant portions of the SPMC to an export in the area of PAR l

) decision making for his opinion as to whether the changes to 3 the SPMC identified and addressed in the draf t af fidavit rcsolved the lasues raised in Mass AG Contention 56, Basis A.

After review and consultation, the export agrood that the changes to the SPMC identified and discussed in the callendrollo affidavit had resolved the issues raised in the contention. On the basis of that export's opinion, the Mass AG h

-3_

w

. _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ - - _ _ - - - - - . . . ~ . - _ - _ . . - _ . _ . - - _ - ._ a

agrood to enter the joint stipulation by which he withdrew his Contention 56, Basis A.

Prior to the meeting of January 10, 1991 the Mass AG was unaware that the issusf. raised in the Mass AG Contention 56, Basis A had been resolved by amendments to the SPMC after the Illing of his contention. Before that dato no one had directed to the attention of the Mass AG the changes in the SPMC reflected in Amendment 6 that resolved the issues raised in Mass AG contention 56 , Basis A. At no time during the pondoney of the appeel of LDP-89-32 was a suggestion of mootnons or a mo.lon to dismiss the issue because of mootness filed. Nor, has the Mass AG been able to identify through a review of th> relevant pleadings including the Applicants' and NRC Staff's briefs on the Mass AG's appeal of LDP-89-32 any suggestion that the issues contained in Mass AG Contention 56, Basis A, were moot. The Mass AG has been unable to find any reference in the Applicants' Brief to Mass AG Contention 56, Basis A, and the hP' Staff's brief challenged the Mass AG's appeal on this issuo not on the basis that it was moot or

'esolved, but rather on the grounds that it was untimely.

There are no_qthgr issues condina on anneal that are concedolv resolvedt while there may be two issues that are susceptible _of resolution, the Mass AG does not have enouah information on thogo issues to assess the likelihood of their beina resolved.

Prior to January 31, 1991, the Mass AG was unaware of any other and yet undecided issues raised by his pending appeal

l .

b that were resolved or susceptible of resolution on the basis of

• f changes in the SPMC, and was prepared to so inform the Board in  !

[ this pleading. During the afternoon of that day, counsel for i the Applicants informed the Mass AG by telephone that the s

Applicants had reviewed the Mass AG's appeal brief and had j identified certain issues that they believed may have I

potentially been resolved by planning changes. counsel for

Applicants then undertook to telefax to the Mass AG a do; aent i

Indicating the issues that the Applicants believe potentially t

[ may have been resolved.

That document identifies eight issues addressed in the Mass AG's brief that the Applicants believe potentially may have

-been resolved by planning changes or other events. While it is possible that a few of the issues indicated in that document may be susceptible to resolution, on the basis of that document the Mass AG is unable to conclude that the issues have been .

resolved,A/ Seemingly none of the planning changes or other events potentially effecting issues on espeal were reflected in the evidentiary record that was before tho Licensing Board L since they apparently all occurred after the_close of the record, Given the lack of time between receipt of the document and 2/ Part of one of the eight issues, the staffing and duration of use of Holy Cross has been resolved by stipulation.

l 1

_- ,. _ _ _ _. - --- - - -- - ----- -- - - - - - - - - " ~ ~ ' '

the filing deadlino for thin responso, the Mass AG has boon unable to exploro and investigate the factual basis underlying the Applicanto' belief that the issues listed in the document may have boon resolved or ausceptible of resolution.

However, after a review of the document alone, it appears that cortain of the issues identified by the Applicants are highly unlikely to bo susceptible of resolution. At this point, the Mans AG can identify only two issues that potentially may be susceptible of resolution. Those issues J concern bathrooms for the handicapped at the Westborough facility and the use of the Haverhill staging area. The Applicants represent in the document that FEMA has ovaluated both facilition and found them to be adequato and that the llaverhill facility has boon used in drills and the 1990 exorcise. Unfortunately, on tne basis of those representations alone, the Mass AG is unable to conclude the issues have boon resolved.2/ The Mans AG has often difforod with FEMA's findings of adequacy. Nor, does the Mass AG otherwino have enough information about the post-hearing events offecting the issues to concede that they are resolved.

2/ FEMA previously evaluated Shriners Arena and found it to be adoquate for all special populations in the Massachusetts EPZ oven though the Applicants own assessment showed that it was largo onough to house only about half the number of people that they woro intending to house there. Tr.21453.

l l  !

l

. _ _ - _ _. - - . _ _ . . . _ . _ . .-. . . - - . - _ - _ . . _ . _ _ - - . ~ .

The Mann AG will endeavor to investigato the facts concerning post-hearing events that potentially effect still pending innues on appeal and will report to the Board if he concludes that they are resolved, l

Respectfully submitted, l l

SCOTT HARSHBARGER ATTORNEY GENERAL

(

By: Leslio B. Greer, Assistant Attorney General Nuclear Safety Division one Ashburton Place 1 Boston, Mannachusetta 02108 l 617-727-2200 Datet February 1, 1991 1970n

4 A .

m., A m ,ammh taJLJA D u a A4 em-w h.- A s n pl. &. 4J h4r---a-4-4 A.-- -i-W J L _S ai4h M Ah,.s m A> F'NN hWM45 - -

=m_ M- J N4-As a4-a'*-fW-4W..um hed-3A&

I i

e i

l1

- I h

j i i

1 ,

'I 4

i <

1 i

i J

EXill!!IT 1 k,

O r

6 r

r

/

9 0 '

4 9

e j

"y WgMT(+d=w:r=-g+-v+g*$3 -*--Wf.I*4 +N q 394 =q v y4 # g *- , -d.* g- - e,..-,a gp p-,.y-.gyg-ww---g p*gm, ,pg---g-, g Q w eg

January xx,1991 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DRAFT OF 1///91 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

) <

in the Matter of )  !

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF -) Docket Nos. 50 443 OL 1 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) 50-444-OL 1

) (Offsite Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and P ) Planning and Safety

) Issues)

)

AFFIDAVIT OF ANTHONY M. CALLENDRELLO 1, Anthony il Callendrello, being on oath, depose and say as follows:

1. I am the Licensing Manager for New Hampshire Yankee. A statement of my professional qualifications are a matter of record in this proceeding. I have testifled before this Board regarding the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Com' unities (SPMC), in addition, I have testified before this Board regarding the protective action recommendation process utilized in the New Hampshire Radlological Emergency Response Plan.

2. This affidavit addresses MAG Contention 56, Basta A, as remanded by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board in Al.AB-942. Specifically, this affidavit establishes that the SPMC's overall Protective Action Recommendation (PAR)-development process includes the factors which the.

contention alleges are deficient in the predetermined PAR generat% process. Further, this affidavit

^

explains that the predetermined PARS during a General Emergency classification are not solely based 1

1

- - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ - _ - - - _ - - 1

v on radiation levels inside the containment.

3. The SPMC provides specific criteria for determining plume exposure EP2 protective action strategies during an amergency. The criteria are emergency classification, in enntainment radiological cond,itions, meteorological conditions and do projections based on field measurements or sample analyses 4SPMCgon 3.4.2, Table 3.41 and IP 2.5).

4. The New Hampshire Yankee Offsito Response Organization (NHY ORO) Radiation Heelth Advisor is responsible for formulating protective action recommendations. At a General Emergency, the PAR development process considers all of the following: (1) predetermined PARS, (2) protective actions based on dose projections nd (3) potential evacuation / sheltering constraints. (SPMC IP 2.5, section 5.2). n desrel,yed 4.end;k'oas $ '

5. SPMC, IP 2.5, Plume Exposure Pathway Protective Action Recommendations, directs the choice of predetermined and other FARs. In the version of that procedure (Revision 0, Amendment 3 attached as 'A*) that was current during the filing of contentions on the SPMC, the only predetermined PAR based on reaching a General Emergency classification was the closure of the Parker River Wildlife Refuge. All other predetermined PARS for a General Emergency classification were based solely on in-containment radiation readings, i

6. In the version of the SPMC admitted as Applicants' Exhibit 42, (Revision 0, Amendment 6)

IP 2.5, Attachment 1, entitled " Communities Affected by Plume Exposure Protective Action Flowchart for General Emergency,' (attached and marked 'B'), provides predetermined PARS for the general public based on emergency classification, in-containment radiation levels and wind direction.

However, once a General Emergency classification is reached, Attachment 1 provides a predetermined PAR if there is no indication of elevated in containment radiation levels, SPMC IP 2.5 2

Attachment 1, speelhcally providea for the following:

If a General Emergency has been declared, a predetermined PAR of closure of the Massachusetts beaches is always reached independent of post LOCA monitor readings or wind direction.

if the post LOCA monitor indicates that containment radiation levels are less than 5.000 R/hr (which includes the condition where there is no indication of elevated in.

containment radiation levels), and the wind direction is towards Massachusetts, then sheltering is the predetermined PAR for Amesbury and Salisbury, if the wind direction is towards New

. Hampshire, no protective actions other than beach closure are recommended.

if the Post LOCA monitor indicates that containment radiation levels are between 5,000 and 10,000 R/hr, and the wind direction is towards Massachusetts, the predetermined PAR la evacuation for Amesbury and Salisbury and sheltering for the other Massachusetts EP2 communities. If the wind direction is towards New Hampshire, the predetermined PAR is sheltering for all six Massachusetts EPZ communities.

Il the Post LOCA monitor indicates that containment radiation levels exceed 10.000 R/hr. and tne wind direction is towards Massachusetts, the predetermined PAR is evacuation i for all six Massachusetts EPZ communities, if the wind direction is towards New Hampshire, the predetermined PAR is evacuation for Amesbury and Salisbury and sheltering for the other Mar.sachusetts communities.

7. ORO personnel need not wait for in containment radiation readings to reach the trigger levels bgeylectingSARs. O_RO personnel are also directed to evaluate PARS based on dose projeMons 3

l

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ - - - . _ . - . I

$91 i .

for actual or projected releases of radiation, (SP C IP 2.5 at 5.2.3,5.2.5 and 5.3).' There protective actions kre based on a calculation which compares'the'tio60-of-sheltering to that of evacuation.

\ /

SPMC IP 2.5, Attachment 2, entitled

• Protective Action Recommendation Worksheet,'(attached and j l marked *D*) is utilized for this calculation.

' hq.sP f T ,

8. Prior to the formula non of a PAR, the Radiation Health Advisor also confers with the Assistant l l

Offsite Response Directo regarding meteorological factors, conditions interfering with sheltering, and conditions interfering with evacuation. (SPMC IP 2.5 at 5.2.4 and 5.5.1).

.l

g. The ORO Offsite Response Director will recommend PARS to officials of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and must, by procedure, await the authorization of the Commonwealth prior to notifying the public to take any protective actions. Officials of the Commonwealth therefore have the final word on any protective actions to be taken.

10. Based on the foregoing, at a General Emergency, the SPMC's overall PAR development process considers not only predetermined PARS, but protective actions based on dose projections  ;

and constraints to implementation of PARS. In addition, predetermined PARS are not based solely on post LOCA monitor readings.

Anthony M. Callendrello -

Rockingham County, NH lanuary xx,1991 The above subscribed Anthony M. Callendrello appeared before me and made oath that he had read the foregoing affidavit and that the statements set forth therein are true to the best of his knowledge.

Before me, 4

Notary Public My Commission Expires:

5

l 4

I f

i ..

1 ATTACHMENT A a

9 a

f A

4 a

4 I

e e

1 i

I i

I 1

4

&NAW% -

i q

Amenoment 3

IP 2.5 Dage to i Rev. O Attacnment

• l Page 1 of 1 l

s PLUME EXPOSURE PROTECTIVE ACT!ON FLOWCHART j FOR GENERAL EMERGENCY

, (wind cirection is towere Massachusetts; t.e. wine from 304' to 101')*

CENEM.

ETAGDCY

.f J

4 38 CONT!NVE 00SE YES Post LtcA NO ASSE!! MENT G WTm r USING IP 2.5, R ) $a00 R/*? IP 2.6 AND -

o p g3 IP 2.2 6.

il POST LOCA un d MONITOR -  :

9 )l8JEB R/m?

c e 2

YES u

RECOMMENDEO EVACUATION OF MASSACHUSETTS COMMUNITIES (ll. IF POST LOCA MON! TORS FAIL. MAKE WITHIN A 5 MILE RA01U$ DECISION USING HATCH MONITOR

' AND 18 MILES DOWNWIND. REA0!NO OF 4.000mR/HR.

(AMESBURY. SALISBURY. NE WBURYPORT.

HERRIMAC. NEWBURY $ WEST NEWBURY) If POST LOCA MON! TORS FAIL. MAKE (21. DECISION USINO NATCH MONITOR REA0 LNG OF 10.000mR/HR.

b RECOMMENDEO EVACUATION OF MASSACHUSETTS COMMUNITIES bETWEEN A 2 MILE RA0!US AND 5 MILES DOWNWIND _

. (AMESBURY, SALISBURY)

SHELTER ALL OTHER AREAS WITHIN THE MASSACHUSETTS PORTION OF THE PLUME EXPOSURE EPZ-(NEWSURY. NEWBURYPORT. MERR!MAC l AND WEST NEWBURY)

• IF WIND 15 HEA0!NG TOWARD NEV HAMPSHIRE USE ATTACHMENT 2 TO DETERMINE kHICH COMMUNITIES ARE AFFECTED BY THIS PROTECT!YE ACTION FLOVCHART wewe---s t~ew e- arew e =b sme r -e mww me 9pe M t r yOhutmT +tw-we.yt.gme g +,ec eay4 ~ vgrwen -eWem 94 9-yp-4 ,W7y g. ye gW.pr-nn-a g g*v gr -+teme--.-orw--mem---g>W y-r/'gr-g*--9--y4---e---t-TPm -gT-P@+98-M--"-""4- ' - '

.- - - . . - - - - . _ _ . - . -~ . -- - _ _ - - -. . - - . _ - . -

a. .

no Atenement 3

P 2,5 Fage

• 4ev. 0 Attachment 2 8 age 1 of 1 COMMUNITIES AFFECTED BY PLUME EXPOSURE {

PROTECTIVE ACTION FLOWCHART FOR GENERAL EMER0ENCY FOSt .00A MONI :: winc Otre:tten

-: *anare* (yacuate Sneite-

>3,000 cat 0,000 wassaunwsetts Amesoury, Newoua y. Newoury: ort. '

Sal'soury werrt ac, west Neno.ry i

>E,0CC out s10,000 hew ramosniae Amesoury, Newoury, Newouryo0rt, Merrimac, -

Saliseury, West ,

Newoury  ;

10,000 Massacnusetts Amesoury, Newouay, hewourycort,  ;

Merrimac, SGitSDury,  ;

West hewoury i l 4

}

$'0,000 New nampsnire Amesoury, Newoyry, Newouryocat.

Salisoury Merri ac, west Newovr/ ,

• n'no *$ 00nstoered neaoing toward Massacnusetts if it is from NW, NNw, N, I NNE, NE, ENE or E (from 304' to 101'). ,

l l

1 l

l I

l

..i-.n. . i.- - - , , - - - - - - - - -- - - - -' ' ' =- == '- - ' - - -- -- ' ' - ' " ' ' ' = = ' - - .,ii, - - - - - - , . - . . . . , , . , , , ,

• 6 4 0

49 ATTACHMENT B l

4 i

l I

~l 1

L 1

I i

6 J

i J

Amen ment 4 tP 2.5 Page 12 Rev. O Attachment 1 Page 1 Of 1 PLUME EXPOSURE PROTECT!YE ACTION FLOWCHART FOR GENERAL EMERGENCY (Wind dircCtion is t0 Ward HassaChusetts; i.e. Wind from .104' t0 101')*

(A CENEhAL EMERGCNCY l

TONTINUE DOSE

,I

\ ASSESSMENT USING IP C.".

vES FUSILCA N s No IP MON!tCR >

s , ano t.03E C.EMLUM ANOISLANC IF 2.2

~~ > tece R/HR1 ' EE ACH Pt.RKER river

" gg NATICNAL 'ntLOL1FE REFUCE.

SALISBURY BEACH AND

\\ CCEAN ACCESS IS N' POST LCCA NO s

MON 1 TOR ,-

>10,000 R/HR7/

/

s (2) /

\/

YES v

ACCOMMENDED EVACUATION OF MASSACHUSET TS COMMUNITIES (1). IF POST LOCA PONITCri! FAIL. MAKE DECISION USING HATCH MONITOR WITHIN A 5 MILE HA01US AND 10 MILES DOWNWIND. RE A0 LNG OF 4.000rnR/HR.

(AME SBURY. S ALISBURY. NE WBURYPORT.

MERRIMAC. NEWDURY & WEST NEWBURY) (2)* IF POST LOCA MON 170RS FA!L. MAKE CECISION USINO HATCH MONITOR RE A0 LNG OF 10.000mR/HR.

RECOMMENDED EVACUATION OF MASSACHUSETTS COMMUNITIES BETWEEN A 2 MILE RADIUS AND 5 HILES COWNWINO (AMESOURY. SALISBURY)

SHELTER ALL OTHER AREA 3 _

~

VITHIN THE MASSACHUSETTS FORT 10N C' THE PLUME EXPOSURE E*2 (NEWBURY. NEVBURYPORT HERRIMAC AND VEST NEV8URY)CLOSE PLUM ISLAND BEACH ANO P ARKER RIVER NATIONAL

{ WILCLIFE REFUGE

• IF WIND 15 HE A0 LNG 10VARO NEW HAMPSHIRE USE ATTACHMENT I TO CETERMINE WHICH COMMUNITIES ARE AFFECTED BY THIS PROTECTIVE ACTION FLOWCHART

Amenoment 4 IP 2.5 ' age 13 Rev, O AttaCnment 2 Page i of 1 COMMUNITIES AFFECTED BY PLUME EXPOSURE PROTECTIVE ACTION FLOWCHART FOR OENERAL EMER's1NCY Post LOCA Monitor Wino Direction IR/He1 Towaro* Evacuate Shelter

>$,000 but <10,000 Massacnusetts Amesoury, Newoury, Newburyport, Salisoury Merrimac,~,4est Newoury Close Plum Islano I Beacn anc Parker River National Wildlife l Refuge (

>5,000 but <10,000 New namosnire Amesoury, Newbury, Newouryport, Merrimac, Salisoury, west Newbury, Close Plum Islano Beacn, Salisbury Beacn ano Parker River National  :

Wildlife Refuge l

>10,000 Massacnusetts Amesoury. 7,, .

Newouryport, Merrimac, Salisoury, West Newoury i

>10,000 New Mampsnire Amesoury, Newoury, Newburyport, Salisbury Merrimac, West Newoury Close Plum Islano l Beacn anc Parker River 8 Nat1onal Wildlife Refuge

• Wino is considereo henotng towaro Massacnusetts if it is from NW, NNW, H, NNE.

NE, ENE or E (from 304' to 101').

I

4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ' H if E

'N NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOAR 91 FC0 -5 PS :11 Before Administrative Judgoat

'8 s.. . o , f, , ,

)

G. Paul Bollwerk III, Chairman "* $ s'i,,a Alan S. Rosenthal ' '# M ' i Howard A. Wilbor  !

In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL

) 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY )

OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. )

)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) February 1, 1991

)

fJ:RTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Leslio Greer, hereby cortify that on February 1, 1991, I mado service of the onclosed Mass AG's Rosponse to the Appeal Board's Dated January 22, 1991 by Fodoral Express as indicated by

(*) and by first class mail to:

Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Kenneth A. McCollom Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 110*/ W. Knapp St.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Stillwater, OK 74075 East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 I

Dr. Richard F. Colo Robert R. Pierco, Esq.

Atomic Safoty & Licensing Board- Atomic Safety & Licensing Board i U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l East West Towers Building -East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway Bethonda, MD 20814 Bothosda, MD 20814 i

• Docketing and Servico

• Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.1/

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ropes & Gray Washington, DC 20555 One International Place Boston, MA 02110

• Elaine Chan Mitzi A. Young, Esq. Philip Ahrens, Esq.

Edwin J. Rcis, Esq. .

Assistant Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dopartment of the Attorney General Office of the General Counsel Augusta, ME 04333 11555 Rockville Piko, 15th Floor Rockville, MD 20852 H. Joseph Flynn, Esq.

• Atomic Safety & Licensing Assistant General Counsel Appeal Board office of General Counsel U.S. Nucicar 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 agulatory Commission 116 Lowell Street Washington, DL 20555 P.O. Box 516 Manchester, NH 03106 Jane Doughty Diano Curran, Esq.

Sancoast Anti-Pollution League Harmon, curran & Towalcy Fivo Market Street Suite 430 Portsmouth, NH 03801 2001 S Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20008 Barbara St. Andro, Esq. Judith Mizner, Esq.

Kopelman & Paigo, P.C. 79 State Stroot 77 Franklin Stroot Second Floor Boston, MA 02110 Newburyport, MA 01950 Charlos P. Graham, Esq. R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esq.

Murphy & Graham Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton & Rotondi 33 Low Stroot 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Newburyport, MA 01950 Ashod N. Amirian, Esq. Sonator Gordon J. Humphrey 145 South Main Stroot U.S. Senato P.O. Box 38 Washington, DC 20510 Bradford, MA 01835 (Attn: Tom Burack)

Senator Gordon J. Humphrey John P. Arnold, Attorney General One Eagle Squaro, Suite 507 Offico of the Attorney General Concord, NH 03301 25 Capitol Street (Attn: Herb Boynton) Concord, NH 03301 1/ HanddeliverywasmadeonFgbruary4, 1991 by 10:00am ,

O Paul McEachern, Esq.

Shaines & McEachern 25 Maplewood Avenue, Portsmouth, NH 03801

• G. Paul Bollwerk, Chairman

• Alan S. Rosenthal Atomic Safety & Licensing Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board, 5th FL. Appeal Board, 5th FL.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814

• Howard A. Wilber Jack Dolan Atomic Safety & Licensing Federal Emergency Management Agency Appeal Board, 5th FL. Region 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission J.W. McCormack Post Office &

Bethesda, MD 20814 Courthouse Building, Room 442 Boston, MA 02109 George Iverson, Director H.H. Office of Emergency Management State House Office Park South 107 Pleasant Street Concord, NH 03301 Respectfully submitted, SCOTT HARSHBARGER ATTORNEY GENERAL bE . 22, l Leslie Greer Assistant Attorney General i Department of the Attorney General l One Ashburton Place l

Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-2200 Dated February 1, 1990 l

. - -. - . . . . - _