Text

Objects to Proposed Amends to 10CFR50,App E Wherein Successful Completion of Emergency Preparedness Exercise Would Not Be Required Prior to Aslab or ASLB Issuing Decision Re Full Power Operation
	ML20082B150
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	01/08/1982
From:	Biggi H, Healey J, Marston W; HAMPTON, NH
To:	; NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
Shared Package
ML20079F081	List: ML20079F079; ML20079F278; ML20079G616; ML20079G620; ML20079G748; ML20079G889; ML20079K188; ML20079Q381; ML20082B113; ML20082B121; ML20082B125; ML20082B133; ML20082B142; ML20082B150; ML20082B151; ML20082B202;
References
	FOIA-83-388 NUDOCS 8311210023
	Download: ML20082B150 (1)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:.- ,..~==*-~1

- - - ==--?~,,m,%

y~,,__ ,"T* ~ - - M **" ~ ~ ~eso a.=**dn%.v. e%m W.* ~ * = ~ ar t S,..c " tEcton of R$ampton falls gM4 %gp* $210 %MpffJirt 0384 January 8, 1932 . omes or uucrm Secretary of the Corr:lissbn Nuclear Regulatory Cc= mission 'dashington, D.C. 2C555 Attention: Docketing and Service Branch Sir: We wish to register our objections to the proposed amendments to Appendix E of Part 50 of the Commission's regulations, wherein the successful co=pletion of an emergency preparedness exercise would not be required before an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board or an Atc: ic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board could issue a de-cision on issues involving full power operation of a plant. Since the Seabrook nuclear power plant, now under construction, lies on the border of Seabrook and Hampton Falls, our entire town lies within a little over 5 miles of the plant, with at least half within 2 miles. The popula@n of pe_ anent residents in N.H. (not counting Massachusetts) within 10 miles of the site is 83,000, with an addi-tionall25,000 to 200,000 tourists / transients during the summer months. It is, and has been, the contention of =any of the elected officials, both local and state, that evacuation of the population at this site cannot be done in a ti=ely fashion. To suggest, now, that the rules be amended to further complicate mat-ters is not in the best interest of the safety of our people. 1 Very truly yours, \\ t cc: State Representatives i n,%El _, ce m State Senator William Marston, Chairman Washington Delegation Boad of Se1 en Gov. Gallen / PUC N.H. Attorney General Jo[ me HeaIey' M/ / l Harrison A. Biggi [l[ 8311210023 830802 PDR FOIA SHOTWEL83-380 PDR

h[ 6 Il y Q Q[ a uc

p s'o UNITED STATES yh.- q[,i NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS'ON 1

s i W ASWNGTON. O. C. 2C555 N* 'o[M@f, ! % m..< f JAN 191982 Docket Nos.: S0-443/444 APPLICANT: Public Service Company of New Hampshire FACILITY: Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2

SUBJECT:

MEETING

SUMMARY

On Cecember 1-2, 1 931 the NRC staff conducted an environmental site visit as part of the review process for issuance of the OL-DES. A meeting notice and agenda are attached as Enclosure 1. Advance publicity was reinforced by a press release from the "RC Region I Office of Public Affairs (Enclosure 2). Letters of invitation to attend the meetings and participate in the preparation of the OL-DES were sent to the following agencies: New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, Concord, N.H. New Hampshire Water Supply and Pollut. ion Control Commission, Concord, N.H. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Waltham, MA. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Boston, MA. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Concrod, N.H. National Marine Fisheries Service, Gloucester, MA. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, Washington, D.C. Positive responses and participation were received from all of the above except. the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. At the opening session on December 1,1981 the applicant distributed an information package (Enclosure 3) including a list of attendees, and 4 presented a brief introduction and overview of the project. A bus tour was then performed on site and off site to a radius of approximately 15 miles. The tour lasted most of the day and was designed to cover areas of interest identified by the NRC staff with stops being made at selected points along the route. After the bus tour, additional discussions were held by two groups of agencies to clarify points of interest and the sco;:e of specific areas of the review. On December 2,1981 table discussions were held between the applicant and the NRC staff. Topics addressed focused on the applicant's responses to previously submitted requests for additional infomation that had resulted from the staff's initial review of the Environmental Report. Particular attention was also giv.en to reviewing the scope of the environmental review. Points of interest identified by the applicant and l the staff during the tour and meetings at the end of the p-evious day sere also highlighted. The meeting was adjourned and the site visit l was thereby completed. f1 ',t ; Y' -h/ S' M.c m a, 9 0 e -

ek e, MEE'ING

SUMMARY

DISTRIBUTION Docket File 50 4/M3 k W. Johnston NRC PDR

5. Pawlicki Local PDR NSIC V. Benaroya Z. Rosztoczy TERA W. Haass LB#3 Files D. Muller H. Denton R. Ballard E. Case W Regan D. Eisenhut A. Toalston i

R. Purple R. Mattson R. Tedesco T. Speis B. 'J. Youngblood M. Srinivasan A. Schwencer O. Parr F. Miraglia F. Rosa E. Adensam

8. Sheron, Acting J. Miller 2(1 G. Hulcan G. Lainas Q, Houston

,,p s. Wambach, n,cting W. Gammill B. Russell F. Congel D. Crutchfield L. Rubenstein T. Novak W. Butler S. Varga C. Berlinger T. Ippolitto R. Clark F. Schroeder J. Stolz K. Kniel R. Vollmer D. Skovholt J. Knight G. Knighton R. Bosnak M. Ernst F. Schaush A. Thadani R. Jackson W. Minners G. Lear S. Hanauer Project Manager L. Wheeler H. Thompscn Attorney, OELD D. Vassallo J. Lee P. Collins CIE (3) D. Ziemanr. ACRS (16) V. Moore NRC Participants RBores (RI) RCodell (HGEB) GGears (EEB) CHickey (EES) MKaltman (SAB) JLer.r (EEE) L0'Reilly (RAB) Lcc: Applicant & Service List t

- 44 ~ o ~ 1 d 1601 ,_,g'd 2-An expanded discussion by the Environmental Engineering Branch of the status of interagency coordination and new issues to be addressed is at.tached as Enclosure 4. Environmental Engineering, Radiological Assessment, and Siting Analysis Branches have all provided additional requests for information that have been forwarded under separate cover to the applicant, ff Louis L. 4 heeler, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 3 Division of Licensing

Enclosures:

As stated cc: See next page. i ( 0 t y, r - y --e c g

14 ~ SEABROOK William C. Tallman Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Public Service Company of New Henpshire P. O. Box 330 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 John A. Ritscher, Esq. E. Tupper Kinder, Esq. Ropes and Gray Assistant Attorney General 225 Franklin Street Office of Attorney General Boston, Massachusetts 02110 208 State House Annex Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Pr. Bruce B. Beckley, Project Manager Public Service Company of New Hampshire The Honorable Arnold Wight P. O. Box 330 New Hampshire House of Representatives Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Science, Technology and Energy Committee State House G. Sanborn Concord, New Hampshire 03301 U. S. NRC - Re^gion I Resident Inspector 631 Park Avenue 4 King of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406, Seabrook Nuclear Power Station c/o V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ms. Elizabeth H. Weinhold P. O. Box 1149 3 Godfrey Avenue Seabrook, New Hampshire 03874 Hampton, New Hampshire 03842 Mr. John DeVincentis, Project Manager Robert A. Backus, Esq. Yankee Atomic Electric Company O'Neill, Backus and Spielman 1671 Worcester Road 115 Lowell Street Farmingham, Massachusetts 01701 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 Mr. G. F. Cole, Project Manager "o r. nan Ro s s, E sq. United Engineers and Constructors 30 Francis Street 30 South 17tn Street

rookline, Massachusetts 02146 Post Office Box 8223

~ Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Karin P. Sheldon, Esq. Sheldon, Harmon & Weiss Mr. W. Wright, Project Manager 1725 1 Street, N. W. Westinghouse Electric Corporation Washington, D. C. 23006 Post Office Box 255 Pittsburg, Penhsylvania 15230 Laurie Burt, Esq. l Of fice cf the Assistant Attorney General Thomas Dignan, Esc. Environmental Protection Division Peoes ard Gray i One Ashburten Place 225 Frar.klin Street i Ecsten, Massachusetts 02108 Boston, Massachusetts 02110 D. Pierre G. Cameron, Jr., Esq. General Counsel Public Service Company of New Hampshire P. O. Box 330 'ianchester, New Hampshire 03105 e

- .9=

. 7 '. gon nav9 ft 70,;. UNITED STATES 3.[4,2NI 5., g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y ...E WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 i /5 January 20, 1982 l MEMORANDUM FOR: Theodore R. Quay, Acting Chief Accident Evaluation Branch Division of Systems Integration FROM: Frank G. Pagano, Chief Emergency Preparedness Licensing Branch Office of Inspection & Enforcement

SUBJECT:

TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO AEB FOR EVALUATION OF INPUTS 0F PLANT ACCIDENTS - INPUT TO DES FOR SEABROOK Pursuant to your October 19, 1981 recuest for technical assistance from the Emergency Planning Licensing Branch, please find enclosed the Emergency Preparedness DES Input and evacuation time data. The evacuation time esti-mate data was submitted by the licensee on October 5,1981, as part of the Seabrook Final Safety Analysis Report, and in response to staff comments. Tcm McKenna (x24531) questions regarding this material please call Should you have any / Frank G. Pagano, Chief - Emergency Preparedness Licensing Branch Office of Inspection & Enforcement

Enclosure:

As Stated cc w/ enclosure: M. Thadani 0 0 / 's / c L

\\ ~ ENCLOSURE SEABROOK DES INPUT 5.9.'2.1.3 Mitigation of Accident Consequences (1) Design Features (2) Site Features (3) Emergency Preparedness The Emergency Preparedness Plan for the station has been submitted to the NRC and is undergoing review. The State and local plans for the areas around the site have not been submitted to FEMA for review. 4 In accordance witn the provisions of 10 CFR Section 50.47, effective November 3,1980, no operating license will be issued to a nuclear facility applicant unless a finding is made by the NRC that the state of onsite and offsite ener-gency preparedness provides reasontble as:urance thst adecuate protective mea-sures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency. Among a ~~ ~ the standards that must be met by these plans are provisions for two Emergency ~ Planning Zones (EPZs). A plume exposure pathway E?Z of about 16 km (10 mi) in radius and an ingestion exposure' pathway EPZ-of about 80 km (50 mi) in radius are required. Other standards include appropriate ranges of pro-tective' actions for each of these zones, provisions for dis, semination to the public of basic emergency planning information, provisions for rapid notification of the public during a serious reactor emergency, and methods, systems, and equipment forl assessing and monitoring. actual or potential off-1 site consequences in the EPZs of. a radiological emergency condition. b. ....,,._p.,.._...........-....._____.,.....

^7 %., Page 2 of Enclosure NRC and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) have agreed that FEMA will make a finding and determination as to the adequacy of State and lochi government Emergency Response Plans. NRC will determine the adequacy of the applicant's Emergency Response Plans with respect to the standards listed in Section 50.47(b) of 10 CFR Part 50, the requirements of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, and the guidance contained in NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1, " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants," dated November 1980. After the above determinations by NRC and FEMA, the NRC will make a finding in the licensing process as to the overall and in-tegrated state of preparedness. The NRC staff findings will be reported in its Safety Evaluation Report (SER). The overall objective of emergency response plans is to provide dose saving (and in some cases immediate life saving) for a spectrum of accidents that could provide offsite doses in a.:;ess of the Enviromental Protect:or. Agency and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Protective Action Guides. However, the presence of an adequate and tested emergency plan can not assure that there will be no offsite health effects in the event of a extremely Icw likelihood accident. l y

f[9un ' q",( ' UMTED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g 7.,c, g g Jf .E WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 4 / JAN 2 S 1532 Docket Nos. 50-443 50-444 MEMORANDUM FOR: L. G. Hulman, Chief Accident Evaluation Branch, DSI FROM: Daniel R. Muller, Assistant Director for Environmental Technology Division of Engineering

SUBJECT:

INPUT TO SEABROOK 1 AND 2 DES (0L) In accordance with Mr. Houston's November _ 19, 1981 request, we are submitting the Antitrust and Economic Analysis Branch input to the accident impact section of the captioned CES starting with the sentence: "There are other economic impacts..." This was prepared without reference to other parts of the accident impact section and it will, therefore, be necessary for someone to carefully check the references to other parts of the Section, i.e., 6.1.4.4 and Table 6.1.4-2. Also, you may want to show the reference to the Comptroller General's report 'at the end of the Section rather than at the bottom of the page. $/ e n f /f]?'; L b L Daniel R. Muller. Assistant Director for Environmental Technology Division of Engineering

Enclosure:

~ ~ ' As stated cc: M. Thadani a J' // TQ x' / 7,.

\\ There are other economic impacts and risks which are not included in the cost calculations discussed in Section 6.1.4.4 that can be monetized. These are accident impacts on the facility itself that result in added costs to the public, i.e., ratepayers, taxpayers and/or shareholders. These costs would be for decontaminatior. nd repair or replacement of the facility, and replacement power. Experience with such costs is currently being accumulated as a result of the Three Mile Island accident. If an accident occurs duririg the first full year of Seabrook 1 operation (1985), the economic penalty associated with the initial year of the units operation is estimated, based on Three Mile Island 2, at 1 between S950 and 51600 million for decontamination and restoration, including replacement of the damaged nuclear fuel. For purposes of this analysis, staff used the conservative (high) estimate of $1600 million and in addition assumed the total cost occurs during the first year of the accident. In reality the costs would be spread over several years thereafter. Although insurance would cover $300 million or more of the S1600 million, the insurance is not credited against the $1600 million because the insurance payment times the risk probability should theoretically balance the insurance premium. In addition, staff estimates additional fuel costs of $365 million (1985 dollars) for replacement power during each year the Seabrook i unit is being restored. This estimate assumes that the energy that would have been forthcoming from the unit (assuming 60", capacity factor) will be replaced primarily by oil-fired generation. Assuming the nuclear unit does not operate for 8 years, the total additional replacement l power costs would be r.pproximately 52920 million in 1985 dollars. If the probability of sustaining a total loss of the original facility is.taken as the sum of the occurrences of a co're melt accident (the surr, of the IReport to the Congress, by the Comptroller General.of the United States. EMD-81-106, August 26, 1981

v; e -.,--.x

W probabilities for the categories in Table 6.1.4-2) then the probability of a' disabling accident happening during each year of the unit's service life is.4.8 X 10-5 Multiplying the previously estimated costs of $4520 million for an accident to Seabrook 1 during the initial year of ite operation by the -5 above 4.8 X 10 robability results in an economic risk of approximately $217,000 (in 1935 dollars) applicable to Seabrook i during its first year of operation. This is also approximately the economic risk (in 1985 dollars) to Seabrook i during the second and each subsequent year of its operation. Although nuclear units depreciate in value and may operate at reduced capacity factors such that the economic consequences due to an accident becomes less as the units become older, this is considered to be offset by higher costs of decontamination and restoration of the units in the later years due to inflation. The economic risk to Seabrook 2 (in 1985 dollars) is also approximately $217,000 during its first year and each subsequent year of operation due to the balancing ef fect cf ascalatior, and the presert worth di:ccant factor. The $217,000 ann'nl risk for each unit in 1985 dollars is equivalent to an annual risk of $135,0'00 in 1980 dollars, assuming a 10 percent discount rate. s 9 .+. n. : -- 7..,,.,...

[ 'o... UNITED STATES

}*

] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION E E WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 FE3 0 91992 MEMORANDUM FOR: Walter Pasedag, Leader Radiological Analysis Section Accident Evaluation Branch, OSI FROM: Irwin Spickler, Leadeh )x i Meteorology Sectio V.-) Accident Evaluation Branch, DSI ~

SUBJECT:

METEOROLOGICAL INPUT FOR CRAC CODE ANALYSIS FOR SEABROOK The meteorological input for the CRAC code analysis for Seabrook has been given to Mohan Thadani of your section. The data.was from the Seabrook site with wind speed and direction measured at 13.1 meters.and stability determined by temperature differential between 63.7 and 13.1 meters. Precipitation was also measured at the site. The mixing heights for Seabrook are as folicws: Mornino Afternoon Winter 700 m 900 m Spring 700 m 1400 m Sumer 500 m 1450 m Fall 600 m 1100 m The data was formatted for the original CRAC code. 'Irwin Spickler, Leader Meteorology Section Accident Evaluation Branch, DSI Xe r.

m o o -f_- L: , ~ ~ - .--n. w. 5 I SEABMM SWIM AUBLIC SEAVICE l Companyof New Hampshsre 1671 Worcesser Road Framinohom, Messachusetts 0l701 (617). 872 8100 I ? P!I 9 Februa ry 12, 1982 f s SBN-213 O c3 T.F. 3 7.2.2 M ') Q ~y United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission J

g Wa shington, D. C.

20555 -l yA 7 o V)d

;f
i f

G t Attention: Mr. Frank J. Miraglia, Chief Ii Licensing Branch No. 3 p Division of Licensing /g g, d.

References:

(a) Construction Permits CPPR-135 and CPPR-136, Docket Nos. J 50-443 and 50-444 (b) NRC Letter f rom F. J. Miraglia to W. C. Tallman, Public Service Company of New Hampshire, " Request for Additional 4 Information - Seabrook Station," dated January 18, 1982 (c) YAEC Letter from J. DeVincentis to F. J. Miraglia, USNRC, " Submittal of Responses to Requests for Additional Information (RAI), Seabrook Station ER-OLS, dated g February 10, 1982 Su bj ec t : Submittal of Responses to Requests for Additional Information (RAI), Seabrook Station ER-OL_S

Dear Sir:

In response to your request in Reference (b), which was received j Janua ry 25, 1982, I am submitting five (5) copies of our responses to the following RAI: .l 291.20 st 310.6a 470.90 310.7 470.10 ,y 310.8 470.11 -) 310.9 470.12 With the submittal of these responses and those provided by Ref erence (c), all RAI in Reference (b) have been answered. Please note that Reference (b) ] RAI Nos. 310.6, 470.6, 470.7, 470.8, and 470.9 were renumbered at the verbal a f rom your Mr. Louis Wheeler to be 310.6a, 470.9, 470.10, 470.11, and ..] request 470.12, repsectively. -3 l.] If you have any questions on this material, you can contact our Mr. Rocco A. Marcello, Jr. at (617) 872-8100, extension 2407. I ~j Very truly yours, I QOO I YANKEE ATOMIC ELECTRIC COMPANY f / [ l 82022196833 820212' ' ~~ l 7j PDR ADOCM 05000443 C py J. DeVincentis lD, Manager of Projects ' r; j JD/bef L 3

r e e n: i,- g, ,o s,, R,.. / e 4 j h . 04 291.20 Characterize by volumetric flowrate, general composition and influent sources, the settling basin effluents during station j operation.

RESPONSE

During normal operation of the station, the only influent sources to the settling basin will be treated sanitary wastes, storm water j runoff and secondary floor drainage. The treated sanitary wastes, the characteristics of which are given in ER-OLS Table 3 7-2, will i .have an average flow rate of 50,000 gallons per day or less. The i runoff and floor drainage are aperiodic and therefore difficult to characterize in tecas of flowrate and composition.~ ~~ ~~ -} Storm water runoff from rainfall or snowfall events will mainly be fresh water with small amounts of soil picked up during its A overland flow to the stora drainage system. During transit 6f the ], settling basin, most of the soil is expected to settle out, so that :he settling basin effluent during these events will be clear 4 fresh water. The flow from the settling basin during these storm events will be proportional to the amount of rainfall which enters the stona drainage system. Secondary floot drain effluents are from buildings and areas that 3 do not contain radioactive materials. Where such drainage may i contain oily wastes, th'e oil is separated from the floor drain water before it enters the storm drainage system. These flows are expected to be infrequent and of reall volume (as compared to the volume of the settling basin and the volume expected from storm runoff). i 6 3 L M 4 a 8 0 a s v f

G._ s w m 2. .m i ~ w v-310.6a The applicant should review the data, sector by sector, in ER / Ffgure 2.1-5 and Figure B-1 in the report entitled, " Preliminary Evacuation Clear Time Estimates for Areas Near Seabrook Station" (CTE), because the data for the 1983 populacion differs in both figures. The Applicant should explain the methods use,d and assumptions made in developing the population data.

The Seabrook Station Environmental Report (ER-OLS Figure 2.1-5)

RESPONSE

and the Preliminary Clear Time Estimates for Area Near Seabrook i I Station (CTE Figure B-1) both present estimates of the 1983 l permanent resident population within 10 miles of Sestrook Station. The ER-OLS distributions were based on the following: j ? o Between 0 and 1 Miles: Distribution of population within one mile of Seabrook Station was based on an aerial survey ] housing count aupplemented by an on-site survey. The j resident population was estimated from an aerial photomosaic supplemented by a count of houses made during a field survey conducted in December 1978. An average household occupancy factor based on 1970 U.S. Cansus of Housing data was applied. The rates used were 3.25 persons per household for Seabrook and 3.75 persons per household for Hampt'on Falls. i o Between 1 and 5 Miles: A system of concentric circles and radial lines was superimposed on a map of electric meter reading routes (or pattern areas) within towns between 1 and a 5 miles of Seabrook Station, excluding a small portion of j North Hampton located between 4-1/2 and 5 miles north of the j The residential electric meter data, which broke down site. = 3, towns into relatively smaller geographical areas, provided j the basis for allocation of the resident population to the T-{ defined sectors. Of the six towns within 5 miles of the site, the electric meter reading patterns divides this area -s into over 60 subsections. Portions of each meter reading routes were assigned to the various sectors, and counts of j residential electric meters were made in order to estimate the number of residential dwelling units that were associated j .,{ with each sector. The proportion or fraction of residential meters in a sector to those included within an entire town

l was determined. Population estimates on the town level were then nultiplied by these same fractions to distribute the y

,] town's permanent population to each sector. For that portion of North Hampton within the 5-mile radius, equal area j allocation was used to distribute the town's resident .J [j population, since electric meter data was not available. ~ ]I o Between 5 and 10 Miles: The distribution of population between 5 and 10 miles of the site was based on equal area allocation in conjunction with a review of town boundaries as f found on area maps. The fraction of a town's area within each sector defined by the grid of concentric circles and radial lines was determined. The same fraction of that town's total population was assigned to the particular sector. J y.]

z M

l O;_.?. u.. a.L -. ~.. w. .c,, _ ; w ,...,,a m, ? I.y The ER-OLS population distributions were modified for use in the CTE report, since more disaggregated data was required. The distribution of resident population presented in the CTE was based on the following: o Between 0 and 5 Miles: The distribution of resident population between 0 and 5 r.11es of Seabrook Station was based on the previously used 1979 electric utility meter data, including the area between 1 and 5 miles,* thus applying a unifor:a methodology for distributing the area's

I population over the entire 5-mile radius.

-' ~ ~

l i

o Between 5 and 10 Miles: Distribution of the 5 to 10-mile, in ( one mile increments, resident population was based on a g combination of equal area allocation and a review of area topographical maps. Disaggregations were developed not only for sector divisions, but also along town boundaries. For 3 those towns located both within and outside of the 5-mile I radius, the population within 5 miles of the plant (estimated d from the electric utility meter data) was subtracted from the j town totals. The remaining population for each town was then -t distributed outside of the 5-mile area using the previously 8 mentioned area allocation methodology. This accounting for each town's total population due to the changes in methodology at the 5-mile radius was not applied in the ,j ER-OLS. For those towns located within 10 miles of the 1 plant, but further away than 5 miles, equal area allocation and a review of area topographical maps were used to 4 .l distribute the resident population. 't 1 Table 310.6a-1 presents the 1983 resident population estiastes by sector as presented in both the ER-OfS and the CTE report. This f" table also presents a corrected CTE estimate, since a few typographical errors were included in Figure B-1 in the original ) CTE report. The clear time estimates in the CTE report are not .1 affected by these typographical errors in the population data base. 4 9; Figure 2.1-5 in the ER-OLS contained one typographical error in j the WNW Sector, between 4 and 5 miles of Seabrook Station. A j population estimate of 740 residents was reported. The correct d value is 470 persons (rounded). In addition, typographical errors which appeared in Figure B-1 of the CTE report are as follows: 2 li o Sector NNW, 5-6 miles - within the Town of Hampton, 220 residents should have been reported. .i r. k Sector NW, 5-6 miles - within the Town of Exeter, 67 l o '3 residents should have been reported. a M 2

Except that for the Town of Kensington, a further review of the data warranted a redistribution for that area within 4-5 miles of Seabrook Station h

(Sectors WNW and W). 8 i1

il

'2

~ ~ ~ ~ 1.wW=h*L "" e a

.. - -- :s..>..

-G'. s' l l 3 ) A Sector WNW, 2-3 miles - the value of 257 residents should o have been reported as 274 residents. Sector SW, 2-3 miles - the value of 60 residents 'within the o Town of Seabrook should not have been included., !n Sector ESE,1-2 miles - the value of 22 residents within the '( o lj Town of Hampton should have been reported as 221 residents.

j 4

A 3 d 1 !) 4 .9

5 3

4

\\

2 I d 1 ' lb

1

! 61 ' rj >HW . i.] g li

.s.'

[.4 z.{ a;

A

. h?e ' hi

.-)

,, 'l ~! l r.< 1 l ~, ! 6 4 Y w 41 r i.e O

t u arre _t, o * .T _.u.-- ,1 ~ ? -' s e ^V a. s,_ p. ,a 1. ,a ~ 1 k, i G K N. Table 31o.6a-1 1983 PERMAE NT RESIDENT POPULATICN ESTIMATE Sl1 NARY, t EP* CTE1** CTE2**** i N 0- 1 20 0 0 ~ l 1-2 1:0 82 82 2-3 530 528 528- - 3-4 800 798 798 ,3 4-5 47 0 466 466 j 5-6 2,061 2,061 j 6-7 1,471 1,471 7-8 5,19 0 566 566 8-9 507 507 9-10 507 507 '.1 1 Subtotal 7,090 6,986 1 ? 4l l NNE 0- 1 0 0 0 t 1-2 0 0 0 2-3 1,930 1,928 1,928 3-4 2,250 2,247 2,247-1 4-5 430 429 429 yj 5-6 589 589 6-7 839 839 i,I' 7-8 8,820 770 770 j 8-9 2,262 2,262 =1 9-10 3,490 3,490

r. j' di

^ Subtotal 13,430 12,554 '.i A d E 0- 1 0 0 0

j 1-2 70 74 74 l

2-3 ~ 900 896 896 .A 3-4 1,540 1,535 1,535 4-5 940 941 941 7: 5-6 589 589 4 Jl 6-7 604 604 l l' 7-8 1,140 603 603 f 8-9 603 603 9-10 604 604 4 ci l' Subtotal' 4,59 0 6,449 l '. :-] 1 ;7 ~ a

~. '%r.! '. r w. ' L : A. v :+. z w - L_* 2 ..==1 r. ' __n a % e e ?' Table 310.6a-1 (continued) I 1983 PERMANENT RESIDENT POPULATION ESTIMATE SLNMARY 1 ER* CTE1** CTE2+++4 ENE 0- 1 0 0 0 j 1-2 500 503 503 9 2-3 930 933 933 123-- -- 3-4 120 123 4-5 0 0 0 ) 5-6 0 0 6-7 0 0 5 7-8 0 0 0 q 8-9 0 0 j 9-10 0 0 1 .1 1 Subtotal 1,550 1,559 a1 3 1 1 E 0- 1 0 0 0 1 1-2 540 540 540 2-3 0 0 0 ~71 3-4 0 0 0 4-5 0 O O 5-6 0 0 . il 6-7 0 0 1 7-8 0 0 0 A 8-9 0 0 ~ 9-10 0 0

!j Subtotal 540 540 g

0 S il ~$ ESE 0- 1 0 0 0 d 1-2 1,040 1,042 1,042 2-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 3-4 h 4-5 0 0 0 [l 5-6 0 0 slg 6-7 0 0 i:, 7-8 0 0 0 8-9 0 0 J 9-10 0 0 L ,l l -;~ 'j Subtotal 1,040 1,042

5

'.[M 'f

nSf

I . er: ira -, + : '._. a ^ >._ 1 l s ( Table 310.'6a-1 feentinued) 1983 PERMANENT RESICENT POPULATION ESTIMATE SLM4ARY ER+ CTEl++ CTE2*+E ~ SE 0- 1 0 0 0 1-2 60 60 60 2-3 57 0 567 567 3-4 0 0 - ~ V ~~- .s t 1 4-5 0 0 0 F6 0 0 l 6-7 0 0 'i 7-8 0 0 0 8-9 0 0 9-10 0 0 I' .s j Subtotal 630 627 ,9.j SE 0- 1 10 0 0 h{ 1-2 100 100 100 1 2-3 280 279 279 3 3-4 330 330 330 ] 4-5 520 524 524 5,6 0 C ,j 6-7 1,355 1,355 ] 7-8 4,420 216 216

l 8-9

--O O 'A 9-10 0 0 . p] 1

j Subtotal 5,660 2,804 d

. il h ~' ~ S 0- 1 140 174 174 1-2 270 274 274 _ 2-3, 600 592 592 .i 3-45 580 577 577 , 4-5 1,010 1,011 1,011 (( 5-6 0 0 aj 6-7 5,100 5,100 1,303 c.) 7-8 7,760 1,303 1 4 8-9 1,'087 1,087 651 2 9-10 651 ~ .2 it l[ Subtotal 10,360 10,769 + ' Ti i

2

,s

i e a--._.__n-l Table 310.6a-1 (centinued) j 1983 PERMANENT _ RESIDENT PTULATION ESTIMATE St.NMARY ER* CTE1** CTE2*++P* SSW 0- 1 280 174 174 1-2 310 307 307 3 2-3 440 436 436 3-4 510 514 514 4-5 400 404 404..-- 3 5-6 6,012 6,012 ? 6-7 2,839 2,839 7-8 9,160 929 929 i 8-9 443 443 4 9-10 A43 443 5 Subtotal 11,100 12,501 3 1 'i 1a SW 0- 1 60 87 87 1-2 750 747 747 2-3 390 453*++ 393 3-4 230 231 231 ] 4-5 3,350 3,345 3,345 1 5-6 1,220 1,220 6-7 1,203 1,203 I 7-8 11,930 1,276 1,276 8,9 1,6A8 1,648 j 9-10 1,168 1,168_ _____ _ w%] Subtotal 16,710 11,318 TJ ?i s

)

.WSW 0- 1 0 0 0 -1 1-2 750 747 747 2-3 710 714 714 a 7.i 3-4 310 313 313 1] 4-5 3,420 3,422 3,422 5-6 7,574 7,574 l ~4 737 737 l 6-7 N 7-8 7,800 1,049 1,049 lQ 8-9 2,036 2,036 9-10 2,036 2,036 1 hh Subtotal 12,990 18,628 E M .,n i l$ e bC=w-s...r:.?

e 0 w,: - c . :_e n. 1 - - s ~ c ~. - c a-) Table 310.6a-1 (continued)

s. 3 1993 PEMANENT FiESICENT POPULATION ESTIMATE St.HMARY ER+

CTE1** CTE2+ W 0- 1 120 160 160 ~ 1-2 750 754 754 2-3 29 0 293 293 a 3-4 360 288 288 j 4-5 740 735 73 5_. 1 5-6 179 179 'j 6-7 172 172

1 7-8 2,560 444 4A4 l

8-9 1,411 1,411 W, 9-10 1,337 1,337 3 Subtotal 4,820 5,773 d il ~l 1 WNW 0- 1 18 0 80 80 1-2 80 79 79 2-3 270 257*++ 274 i 3-4 80 152 152 1 4-5 740+++ 470 470 Jj 5-6 146 146 6-7 14C 146 "l 7-8 2,960 383 383 i 8-9 414 41A 9-10 859 859 -1 -1 Subtotal 4,310 3,003 ? i I il NW 0- 1 30 0 0 l ' '. 1-2 240 239 239 j l 2-3 16 0 163 163 i ~ 3-A 120 123 123 l 'i 4-5 120 123 123 .j 5-6 49

116 Ti 6-7 1,776 1,776 d

7-8 6,760 4,380 4,380 l] 8-9 3,650 3,650 9-10 802 802 .i Subtotal 7,430 11,372 A 2 n._. a g@ h 4 g

-cm _. 1<.m _1. _r, q.m_. Table 310.6a-1 (continued)

l 1983 PERMANENT RESIDENT POPULATION ESTIMATE SLJMARY

@+ CTE1** CTE2+++,+ -l 'j NNW 0- 1 30 0 0 1-2 280 284 284 il-2-3 16 0 156 156 3-4 200 19 6 196 1 4-5 330 332 332 5-6 339*++ 559- -- 6-7 414 414 j 7-8 4,050 599 599 1 8-9 532 532 I 9-10 713 713 Subtotal 5,050 3,785 s*. 4 TOTAL 107,300 109,710 1 's l ..f I s i } e 4 l . r 2 ') As presented in the Seabrook Station Envircrnental Report-OLs Figure 2.1-5 As presented in the Preliminary Evacuation Clear Time Estimates for } ++ ,1 Areas Near Seabrock Station, Figure B-1 Typcgraphical Errors

++

i Correct Estimates ++++ b '.i -2 4 l

m. __._1 m _, _4g,.. m __c_. r, ..,,2 s*J.' g,_ ,_,,l'm' i 310.7 Which of the above figures most accurately portrays the projected 1 1983 population distribution? .j

j

RESPONSE

The distribution by sector of the 0-1 mile population, as shown on ER-OLS Figure 2.1-5, represents a more detailed estigation of the

1 close-in population. However, in terms of disaggregated data by 1

1-mile increments out to 10 miles, the CTE population estimates j presented in the right-hand column of Table 310.6a-1 portray the best overall estimation 1983 population projections. The 1 distribution method used to develop these estimatea Ts presented if in our response to RAI 310.6a. 'A 's i d i l a 4 ? 1 'i e'1 .d .i -l '.E 1 W se l' .'.i

w_..., , ____,z, m 3 m- . c j 310.8 What is the reason for the discrepancy between ER-OLS Figure 2.1-18 and CT Figure B-87 How does the Applicant explain a number less than 10 in the SSW Sector, 2-3 miles in ER-OLS, Figure lj 2.1-187 i,

RESPONSE

Figure B-8 in the CTE report included typographical errors in Sectors SW, 1-2 miles; SSW, 2-3 miles; S, 1-2 miles; and S. 7-8 miles. Employee estimates for these sectors are 98, 5, 80 and 72, J respectively. The data presented on Figure 2.10-18 of the ER-OLS g is correct. Table 310.8-1 presents this data in Inhular form. In the SSW Sector between 2 and 3 miles, an estimate of 5 employees y j was developed for a small machinery company located within this sector. (Note: Major employment estimates for areas within 10 l miles of Seabrook Station were updated for the FSAR per NRC Acception Review RAI 310.6. This updated listing is present'ed

4 N

herein as Table 310.8-2. (I N JJ J .i.] ~) '.] '5hy E 'S:ssl 73 -:.y .) p ai J, < ~NI ,2" s .4 > Y,3-;

.a t

..t i '((l .iif ,7 lEs

e e

.w....-__.

' ^^-'

Ma G. > d.

1 TABi2 310.8-1 J PORLATION OF MA.JOR EMM.O(ERS Sector 0-1 Mi 1-2 Mi 2-3 Mi 3-4 Mi A-5 Mi 6-6 Mi 6-7 Mi 7-8 Mi 8-9 Mi 9-10 Mi Total n N O 26 0 280 125 0 0 0

0..

74 505 l J NE O O O O 46 0 0 0 0 0 A6 ".j NE, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 '] ENE O O O O O O O O ~T 0 0 E O O O O O O O O O O O 3 -q d ESE O O O O O O O O O 'O O '1 '] SE O O O O O O O O O O O

i SSI O

O O O O O O O O O O S 0 80 0 0 54 0 279 72 0 0 485 SSW D 0 5 0 20 1409 497 0 0 0 1931 SW 0 98 0 0 938 396 302 0 0 0 4734 WSW 0 950 95 0 19 4 15 0 0 188 0 1442 W 0 All 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 423 'I WNW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 NW D 9 0 0 0 0 0 508 394 0 911 NNW 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 400 0 0 400 l Totals 0 1574 112 280 1377 1820 1078 980 582 74 7877 'i l' l i q c.j i e, Sq' ~ .ea a.5 d2A ". N T.i,Q :,. 21L,N :1 M L e a w~ - M A'. ~.. L-w-~ ww~ - - - -.+~;-- l ~ w

e.tn. t' kU.h q,. .4.. %e TABI.E 310.0-2 (Sheet 1 of 11) l D NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES _ MAJOR EMPLOYER '; WITHIN 10 HILES OF Tile SEAOROOK SITE AND ESTIMATE I Approximate Number of i Employees Address (Sector) Type of Hanufactarlng i Name of Firm 40 Hampton Polyethylene coated paperboard Scott Road. J.D. Cahill Co. (N 4-5) Leather and rubber soles 14 1 70 High Streett Charles Greenman Co. (NNE 4-5) Tannery equipment repairing 30 Exeter Road Hampton Machinery (N 4-5) Special industrial machinery 3 Colonial Circle r Hopkin Hunt Co. (N 4-5) Sheet metal for heating and 62 Lafayette Road I ventilating 35 Palmer & Sicard (N 3-4) Contract leather finishing 7 Kershaw Avenue Pearse Leather (NNE 4-5). Non-woven textiles 12 Foss Boad Foss Manufacturing (N 3-4) 1 Welding 6 Kershaw Avenue Whites Welding (HNE 4-5) i 25 l 432 Lafayette Road Speakers Advanced Speaker (N 4-5) Nedical instruments 5 70 High Street Exeter Instruments (NNE 4-5) Water and sewer N/A i 52 High Street Hampton Water Works (NNE 2-3) 011 heating equipment I 20 1 Lafayette Road I 180 Wands Inc. (N 1-2) Pollution control systems Liberty Lane I Wheelabrator-Frye Inc. (N 3-4) 4 Lumber l 5 Dearborn Avenue t Carnet Lumber Co. (NNE 3-4) P i i'

1 s...... . 6.c c,.u.__ r.. m. _ _._.2.a u,;,,,, _u ;_,._,, .= rante 310.a-2 kh (Sheet 2 of 11) !M Approximate !ll 3 Humber of b.7 Name of Firm Address (Sector) Type of Manufacturing Employees h 6 .Q fp Herrill Lumber Co. 5 Deaborn Avenue Lumber (NNE 3-4) 6 4; 12 Evergreen Road Duckles and bows 4 Hibo, Inc. (N 3-4) 12 , afi Rockingham County Depot Square Newspaper publishing

p (HNE 3-4) 2 3 '.t Newspapers 40 Sweetbriar Lane Leather material f

Stark-NacDonald, Inc. (N 3-4) 7 ,n TDR Electronics 625 Lafayette Road Time delay relays f;' (NNE 3-4) E, llampton Falls .\\ C Colden Eagle Coppersmiths Lafayette Road Weathervanes and lanterns 10 (N 1-2) 9 l, Stillmeadow Glass Works Lafayette Road Blown glass for labs ( NW 1-2) Kensin0 on L f)(' t L f' i None f North llampton h'gr 1 Arc-Way Welding 203 Lafayette Road Steel fabrication I l (N 4-5) 16 Giant Lift Equipment Co. 136 Lafayette Road Vertical lift equipment! (N 4-5) LTP Enterprises Inc. 34 Lafayette Road Structure fiberglass 10 L Inc. (N 4-5) 6 llampton Pattern Works 91 Post Road Wood and metal patterns (N 5-6) ~ F P" [

1L 9fb M M & Mf E s t3 1ts m s a ; c h _,a ;c m a.,, a n u,._.t..z.2 m.a. m m m .....; m _ i e r i F TABLE 310.8-2 I_ (Sweet 3 of 11) '~ Approximate Number of Name of Firm Address (Sector) Type of Manufacturing Employees Seahrook Adhesive Machinery Corp. Folly Hill Road Hot melt adhesives and 38 (Ornsteen Chemicals) (WSW 2-3) applicating equipment Cargocaire Engineering Route 107 Industrial dehumidifiers 20 6 Corp. (W 2-3) Circle Machine Co. Stard Road Shoe Machinery 48 (W 1-2) Hale Bros. Stard Road Small chains 8 (W 1-2) ( g ). House of White Dirches Folly Hill Road Publishing books and magaz'ines 32 [ (SW 1-2) h } K. J. Quinn & Co. Folly Hill Road Industrial coatings and poly-40 's (SW 1-2) urathane elastomers 'j Rockingham Fireworks Lafayette Road Fireworks 4 Manufacturing Co. (W 1-2) v Spherex Inc. Walton Road Light duty wheels 75 i I (S 1-2) Tower Press Inc. Folly Hill Road Magazine publishing 50 0( (SW 1-2) USH, Dalley Division Lafayette Road Plastic, rubber, and metal 930 L (WSW 1-2) [ i Welpro Inc. New Zealand Road Ladies shoes 350 t (W 1-2) Withey Press Lafayette Road Commercial printing 24 (SW 1-2) j 25 Protective Materials Folly Hill Road Firearms parts Corp.* (WSW 2-3) i i, D.G. O'Brien Inc. 1 Chase Park Electrical connector,.stomic 100 (W 1-2) reactor parts Amesbury Machine Shop (W 1-2) 50

Data from Town of Seabrook Planne,r y

e l

' WN15Z$$5ly I' M'M h * '. ytl. x _L b.'.s.'. e..>.

.. 1 a w n: :z,x, w m u a

.u TADIE 310.8-2 (Sheet 4 of 11) Approximate Number of i Name of Firm Address (Sector) Type of Manufacturing Employees South flampton None s Sa lisbury_ Austin Precision Tool 40 Ferry Street Precision parts and gages 4 (S 4-5) Ba rton Corp. 40 Ferry Street. Custom shipping boxes and 25 (S 4-5) crates Hanson Boat Works 68 Brid e Road Boat building and repairing 25 0 (S 4-5) Tucker Machine Corp. 284 Elm St. Rte. 110 Screw machine products 10 (SSW 4-5) .Vaughn Corp. 386 Elm Street Stonelined water heaters and 65 (SW 4-5) tanks, solar heaters Vaughn Woodworking Inc. 386 Elm Street Wirebound boxes and crates 9 b f (SW 4-5) ~ Weld Machine Corp. 47 Lafayette Road Machining, prototype hand screw 5 (SSW 2-3) milling Elm Knoll Farm 240 Main Street Lumber 3 l (SW 3-4) Prints, booklets, etc. 10 Handicapped Artists 8 Sandy Lane ? (S 4-5) h Amesbury I L Advanced Absorber 10 Morrill Street Microwave absorbers and rado'mes - 21 F Products (SW 4-5) [' 5 Amesbury Chair 63 Clinton Street Chairs (WSW 4-5) f Amesbury Metal Products 39 Dekland Street Metal stamping, fluorescent 100 (SW 4-5) 110hting fixtures, metal plating l l. t I,

m.au u u ; h ;,u :.g.,e, M., L Q w j a a,_,

m_,, a,.,,,, _

_m,_..__ e g.* . s L f i j U TABLE 310.8-2 y~ (Sheet 5 of 11) ( y[' Approximate j Humber of r fI ,(t ~ Name of Firm Address (Sector) Type of Manufacturing Employees I; 2[ Vulcan Plastic Inc. Hoel Street Injection molder and finisher 200 g I! ~ (SW 5-6) d. Amesbury Tool & Die Corp. 24 Dakland Street Tool and die stampings 11 e 70. (SW 4-5) g' Ba rtley Machine and Water Street Machinery parts 19 l C Hanufacturing (SW 4-5) '( Bocra Engineering R Street Special tools and dies, jlgs 24 (WSW 4-5) and fixtures v 4j Cado Fabricating 144 Elm Street Transit cases, consoles 65 'g (SW 4-5) (machine work only) h Cargocaire Engineering 6 Chestnut Street Dehumidifiers, heat exchangers 150 f, I (SW 4-5) 'f New Plant Building Monroe Street 150 (SW 4-5) Dalton Ma'ufacturing 5 Clark Street Display fixtures and educational 6 j n (WSW 4-5) materials J ( Durasol Drug & Chemical 1 Dakland Street Erasers, dental adhesives, 20 (SW 4-5) cleaners Henschel Corp. 14 Cedar Street Marine signal systems, com-150 (WSW 4-5) munication systems E LeBaron-Bonney Co. 14 Washington Upholstery and top product kits 55 (SW 4-5) (J MAT Reinforced Plastic 79 Elm Street Molded fiberglass products 20 (SW 4-5) 58 Mill Street Iron castings, brass, bronze, 50 1 ,l Mer:Imac Valley Foundry - (SW 5-6) aluminum North Shore Weeklies 21 Elm Street Newspapers and printing ;- 60 (SW 4-5) j I Dakland Industries 11 Gakland Street Sheet metal fabrication 35 E (SW 4-5) R&G Hanufacturing 63 Clinton Street Metal kitchen cabinets 65 i r ( Amesbury Chair) (SW 4-5) + l i i 4 4 7 I

b bi bl.1i,2.. .._.l f.eL 2 3/14;;sZ m..;;..

w.-.it;

. _. _,,a ;;u ug,ug. m ..e,, { narz 310.0-2 (Sheet 6 of 11) Approximate Humber of [ Name of Firm Address (Sector) Type of Manuf acturing Employees Reid Foundry Mill Street Grey iron castings f 25 (SW 5-6) 11 Sagamore Industrial Rocky Hill Road Industrial finishes e 5 (SW 4-5) Scandla Plastic 36 High Street Extrusion of plastic tubing 32 Finishes t, (WSW'5-6) Alexander Syvinski 38 Collins Avenue Leather tanning and finishing 99 (SW 4-5) 10 Merrill Street Boat building and repairing 9 Dreamboat Corp. l (WSW 4-5) 4 Whittler Press and 21 Elm Street Commercial printing North Shore Weeklies (SW 4-5) 80 3 e Brazonics, Inc. Haverhill Road Primary metals l (SW 6-7) 50 t Chestnut Street Flexible hose Flexaust Company (SW 5-6) Haverhill Gas Company Hunt Road Natdral gas 139 (SW 6-7) T i 56 60 Merrimac Street Toys and furniture f Maple Wood Products Co. (SW 5-6) 40 Inc. Michele Silverware & 36 Main Street Jewelry Jewel ry Co., Inc. (SW 5-6) Haverhill Road Printed circuit boards 190 Microfab, Inc. (SW 6-7) 3 Christesen Machine Co. Haverhill Road Machinery and parts Country Kitchens (SW 6-7) 2 - 34 Pond Street Kitchen and bath vanity j-Inc. (SW 5-6) . cabinets ~ Denis Brass Foundry 250 Main Street Brass and aluminum castingsg 10 9 (SW 5-6) 3 1.' [ R.E. Kimball & Co. 73 Merrimac Street Jellies, jams, and re.lishes (SW 5-6) i i r

.$).35' I.l.2iEE-N '2..l i h R d m 4--a 3 C " #

E 1 * " "

Y bh

u

~ 7 'r TABLE 310.8-2 ~. - ,h (5heet 7 of 11) p' 'i Approximate 3 Humber of - 1.f ' A. Name of Firm Address (Sector) Type of Manufacturing Employees I. t - :( Lowell's Bost Shop 459 Main Street Boats 6 l % l yI. :! (SW 5-6) { l 0,' Erikson-Hedlund 39 Dakland Street Tools, dies 8 I ' hk Stamponic Co. (SW 4-5) l hi The Old Newbury 36 Main Street Silverware 10 y; Crafters, I.nc. (SW 5-6) i Herrimac l- ' 'Is Metal Finishing, Inc. 2 Littles Court Metal finishing 23 l! 3 (WSW 8-9) EnDel-Lewis Counter Co. Liberty Street Shoe counters 150 L Inc. (WSW 8-9) l-Will-Hor Engineering Co. 27 East Main Street Tools and machine parts 15 Inc. (WSW 8-9) f [ Newbury 4 Newburyport Press, Inc. 80 Hanover Street Printing 18 (S 7-8) Parker River Marine Route lA Marine equipment 6 [ I (S 9-10) Newburyport v. r A. Rhodes Co., Inc. 46 Water Street Shirts 27 (S 6-7) Amesbury Specialty Co. Parker Street 50 Inc. (S 6-7) Bay State Carbide 126 Herrimac Street Tools 1 30 k i Tool Corp. (SSW 5-6) Berkshire Manufactured 116 Parker Street Precision stampings 75 Products, Inc. (SSW 6-7) 'I I 6, i ~ i I n ww

e e n d sil.T_ Z Z, G ;.,,..,. e y,L i s,: .,

m,;..,., 1,;.3, _,, m. _,,,, , m.m_, _, _ _., _,., _ _ _ _ _ (- TABIE 310.8-2 0* (Sheet 8 of 11) Approximate Number of i Name of Firm Address (Sector) Type of Manufacturing Employees Circle Finishing,.Inc. Rt. 1 Traffic Circle Plating 22 '[ (S 7-8) Coca-Cola Dottling Co. 504 Herrimac Street Bottling 19 i (SSW 5-6) Newburyport Trnpke. Heat exchangers 37 Conthern Corp. s (S 7-8) Geonautics, Inc. 44 Herrimac Street Plastic molds 40 (SSW 5-6) Gould, Inc. 374 Herrimac Street Fuses 500 (SSW 5-6) Kentron Electron 14 Prince Place Electronic components 25 (S 6-7),imac Street Bottling 80 Products. Inc. 504 Herr Leary's Deverages, Inc. (SSW 5-6) M & V Electroplating 5 Greenleaf Street Electroplating 64 Corp. (S 6-7) Newbury Tanning Corp. 12 Federal Street Leather finishing 80 l (S 6-7) Newburyport Daily News 23 Liberty Street Newspaper publishing 30 (S 6-7) Owens-Illinois, Inc. Parker Street Plastic products 200 7 (SSW 6-7) S. Statensier, Inc. 5 Perkins Way Fabrics 99 (SSW 6-7) Stride Rite Corp. Perkins Way Footwear 100 i (SSW 6-7) 1,000 Towle Mfg. Co. 200 Herrimac Street Silverware (SSW 5-6) Waverly News Co., Inc. 17 State Street Printing 22 (S 6-7) Essex Tool & Die, Inc. Bridge Road Precision tools an'd dies 5 (SSW 5-6) International Light Inc. Dexter Industrial Electro-optical instrumentation 19 I Green (SSW 6-7) [ l E ?" [*.

56551AA.C - I:lsirh... ... ~ u.i.. ; .u..... _. w_._.. u uu,g. - -m._._..,. ..___m .t. 2 TABLE 310.8-2 (Sheet 9 of 11) ~ Approximate i Number of [ Name of Fire Address (Sector) Type of Nanufacturing Employees Littlefield Press-2 Federal Street Commercial printing 9 (S 6-7) i 2 Piel Craftsmen Co. 307 High Street Ship models i (SSW 5-6) Rivco, Inc. 10 Prince Place Rivet setting tools-5 (S 6-7) Stem Chemicals, Inc. 7 Nulliken Way Chemicals 16 (SSW 7-8) Lewis D. Bartley 7 Spofford Street Netal stampings 3 L. (SSW 5-6) Alfa-Laval, Inc. Route 1 Heat exchangers 37 (SSW 6-7) West Newbury None Exeter A1 rose Shoe Co., Inc. 1 Rockingham Street Footwear 150 i (NW 8-9) Brockhouse Corporation Exeter Industrial Netal fabrication 200 j r Park (NW 8-9) g. Cheetan Co., Inc. Hampton Road Leather chemicals 20 g-(NW 7-8) Clemson Automotive Chestnut Street Textile finishing I 200 Fabrics (NW 7-8) Exeter Footwear, Inc: 93 Court Street Women's footwear i 100 l ( NW 7-8) l Exeter Nachine Products Court Street Screw machine products 22 6 (, (NW 7-8) Exeter News-Letter Co. 255 Water Street Newspaper publisher 58 (NW 7-8) I F !uI b t

TfGhy4M.W2.

.m TABLE 310.8-2 (Sheet 10 of~II)

Approximate Number of Type of Nanufacturing Employees Address (Sector) Name of Fire 110 Inc. 156 Front Street Sport shoes i Blue Ribbon Sports,* (NW 8-9) 500 l GTE Sylvania, Inc. Portsmouth Avenue Electrical equipment (NNW 7-8) 12 } Industrial Park, Tapes and adhesives i Ideal Tape Co. off Epping Road r (NW 8-9) 12 Prescott RE Mfg. Co. Inc. 10 Railroad Pump equipment r (NW 8-9)

20 Hampton Road Fuel catalyst system i

Vaporpak, Inc. (NW 7-8) N/A Electronic controls P.O. Box M Hampshire Controls (NW 7-8) 5 g 43 Water Street Draperles Curtain Shop (NW 7-8) 5 256 Front Street can crushers Dreta-It Corp. (NW 8-9) 3 l l Miljo Chemical Co. Inc. 94 Epping Road Leather coatings l (NW 8-9) 2 17 Court Street Printing I Squanscott Press (NW 7-8) 33 Electronic Tyco Laboratories, Inc. Tyco Park I t (NW 7-8) 139 Exeter & Hampton Electric 225 Water Street Electric light and power (NW 7-8) N/A Co. Freedom Shoe Co., Inc. 15 Front Street Sport shoes l [h Chestnut Street Industrial cotton finishing ~ (NW 7-8) .200 Milliken & Company (NW 7-8) 300 f 156 Front Street Shoes Wise Shoe Co., Inc. [ (NW 8-9) 8 96 High Street Rawhide laces Raw Thong Corp. (NW 7-8) h, f

s.,., .. e '.. s.aa.... L,,;..g,,m.,, _ A,.,, ,,. g.1,,. 3,.

r..,,

wy t g{y,w,,,,.n. 6:, : 4 e. TABLE 310.8-2_11) (Sheet 11 or Approximate Number of Address (Sector) Type of Manufacturing Employees Name of Firm N/A 'F Industrial Park, Sheet metal fabrication Donnelly Hfg. Co. Epping Road (NW 8-9) N/A i Industrial Park, Leather Imports Import Leather, Inc. Epping Road (NW 8-9) 13 Laurel Farms Dalry, Inc. Pickpocket Road Dairy (NW 8-9) 4 i. Regall Coatings, Inc. 94 Epping Road Coatings for plastics (NW 8-9) i. A Greenland 74 f GTE Sylvania; Inc. Route 101 Glass tubing (N 10) 7 755 Portsmouth Ave. Sweeping compounds p-Ocean and Forest (N 9-10) Products Co. I l t f. I a i [ o I I I t I N

=:,;isuJWMC + c +< < 1 z,m z.= m_ -z_. - _ ~ ^ __._. e Information in ER-OLS, Section 2.1.2.3.e. and FSAR, Section j 310.9 2.1.3.3.e, on Route 1 shopping center parking lot capacities l dif fers from data in CTE Figure B-5. The Applicant should explain I the reasons for the differences. Section 2.1.2.3.e in the ER-OLS, and Section 2.1.3.3.g in the j

RESPONSE

FSAR, identified parking lot capacity estimates for*the major These -{ shopping centers along Route 1, within the 10-mile EPZ. estimates are as follows: ,i Lot Vehicle t Capacity

EstimateI '" ' 5~ector Shopping Center j

710 W, 0-1 miles 4 o Seabrook Plaza 730 SW, 1-2 miles 2 I, o Seabrook Southgate 50 S, 3-4 alles 1 o Convenience shopping Center s l 4 750 N, 3-5 miles o Eampton Court } 140 N, 5-6 miles a 3 o North Hampton Village Shopping Center i 1 550 NNE, 9-10 :.iles d o Southgate Plaza I Total 2,930 1 In addition to these, the estimate developed for the Evacuation M 1 Time Estimate Study included restaurants and other smaller commercial establishments along Route 1**, identified in Table 4 -j i 310.9-1. S II Accordingly, the total vehicle lot capacity estimate for shopping d centers and minor commercial establishments is 5,150. Figure B-5 in the Evacuation Time Estimate Study presented this data in rose l 1 format.

jj j

l 4'l4 As noted in both the ER-OLS and FSAR, vehicles parked at these facilities Observations were were recorded for 10 days during the summer of 1979. '? made between 1:00 p.m. and 5:00 pm. on both weekday and weekend periods. f Maximum vehicle observations were significantly lower than the capacity at ~ ,) J all facilities. It should be emphasized that inclusion of these additional parking lot M capacity estimates was an added conservatism used for the development of M evacuation clear times. Although it is reasonable to assume that some 9 double-counting in terms of vehicle demand is included, inclusion of this vehicle demand is considered appropriate for use in estimating clear times. 3W '$h t !7, 0". \\ jay j. ?? H %1

t Table 310.9-1 Route 1 Parking Mt Capacity Estimate

8 i

I Lot Vehicle Sector _ Establishment Cacacitv+ Estimate l 5,4-5 mi. 7 o David's Fish Market S,*4-5 mi. o Ann's Diner 10 l S, 3-4 mi. J i o Kendrick's Restaurant 26 SW, 1-2 mi. O King of the Road Seafood 15 13 SW, 1-2 mi. e o Snack Bar SW, 1-2 mi. i o Sunshine Fruit Stand 10 ~SK 1-2 mi. 66 l o Burger Chef Restaurant SW, 1-2 mi. o Mcdonald's Restaurant 86 SW, 1-2 mi. o Food Shoo 16 WSW, 1-2 mi. ] Dunkin Donuts 12 o SW, 1-2'mi. 40 4 o Tcny's Restaurant ] o K's Country Rib House WSW, 1-2 mi. Restaurant 25. W, 1-2 mi. 1 o Bondi's Restaurant 35 W, 1-2 mi. 3 o Hawaiian GaIden Restaurant 58 WNW, 0-1 mi. o Muffi's Breakfast House 20 o The Big Apple Farmer's House 15 WNW, 0-1 mi. 43 NW, 1-2 mi. Elegant Farmer Restaurant 9 o Silver Seahorse Gifts 24 NNW, 1-2 mi. 1 o Jerry's Restaurant and A Winds Lobster Pound 58 N, 1-2 mi. o Galley Hatch Restaurant 81 NNE, 2-3 mi. 4 o Pizza Hut Restaurant 27 NNE, 2-3 mi. o a 47 NNE, 2-3 mi. z o Friendly's Restaurant m E, 3-4 mi. o Golden Hen Snack Bar/ Grocery 12 o Simone's House of Pancakes 10 NNE, 3-4 mi. j o Conversation Piece Gifts 9

E, 3-4 mi.

Fisherman's Landing Restaurant 80 ME, 3-4 mi.

j The Ship Restaurant 42 N, 4-5 mi.

o Q o Newburyport MJniCipal S, 6-7 mi. l o 280 Parking Lot Newburyport HJnicipal Parking S, 6-7 mi. ] o and Marina 250 4 o Michael's Harborside 50 SSW, 5-6 mi. g ?3 o Italian Sub Base Restaurant 30 S, 5-6 mi. S, 5-6 mi. Clipper Marine Co. & Bait Shop 100 1 o o Riverview Restaurant 89 S, 5-6 mi. j 3 o Blue Roof Restaurant 45 S, 5-6 mi. 8 N, 5-6 mi. o Soldati's Snack Bar fj Hector's Country Kitchen 140 NNE, 7-8 mi. y o Red Lion Restaurant 120 NNE, 9-10 mi. o g P o Hector's Restaurant 82 m E, 9-10 mi. M o Mr. Pancake Man Restaurant 50 NNE, 9-10 mi. 89

E, 9-10 mi.

o Burger King Restaurant Total 2,220 1 cxcluces Major snopping Centers .N e E -c .s . 'l

a.:4' h a

m..:. -

__w__ la i i I 470.9 Update Tables 5.2-13 and 5.2-15 to include all of the parameters and assunptions used to calculate both the maximum in,dividual a and population dose estimates from the liquid and gaseous pathways, respectively. 1 j Respense See updated Seabrook ER-OLS Tables 5.2-13 and 5.2-15; attached 1 as RAI Tables 470.9-1, 470.9-2. .I 3 1 I s i i -t i 1 ra 9 4 3 ^k ( J 8 J.ri -1 ._j .l e l,-i 'l a c.1 l l s .J b s '., k

n 1

.t . :t E dij

c4

c_ . _.m m. c.:;u, ^ SB 1 & 2 i ER-OLS 1 TABLE 470.9-1 (Sheet 1 of 3 ) PARAMETERS AND ASSUMPTIONS USED TO CALCULATE BOTH MAXIMUM i INDIVIDUAL AND POPULATION DOSE ESTIMATES FROM THE LIQUID PATHWAYS I Liquid Release Radionuclide Source Ters: 1 Ei fa'ble 3.5-18 4 Curies Released per Year per Unit ER Table 3.5-18 Liquid Release Concentration (pC1/gs) i Reconcentration Factor 0.0 i Maximum Individual Specification and Usage Factors: 1 i Shor'evidth Factor 0.5 8.0 Dilution for Aquatic Foods 8.0 Dilution for Shoreline Activities N/A Dilution for Drinking Water 0.0 Discharge Transit Time (hr) N/A Transit Time to Drinking Water (hr) 21.0 Fish Consunption (Kg/yr) Adult 16.0 Teen 6.9 Child 0.0 Infant 5.0 Invertebrate Consumption (Kg/yr) Adult 3.8 Teen Child 1.7 0.0 Infant l 0.0 Algae Consumption (Kg/yr) Adult 0.0 Teen 0.0 Child 0.0 Infant N/A Water Usage (liters /yr) Adult N/A Teen N/A Child N/A Infant I Shoreline Usage (hr/yr) Adult (1) 334.0 \\ 67.0 Teen 14.0 Child 0.0 Infant 11 8.0 Swimming Usage (hr/yr) Adult 45.0 Teen 28.0 Child 0.0 Infant 29.0 Boating Usage (hr/yr) Adult 52.0 Teen 52.0 Child 0.0 Infant 1 d L'

s ~ . ;; m. m ;,,_._ m

x

..o, .3 ; m,a SB 1 & 2 ER-OLS TABLE 470.9-1

l (Sheet 2 of 3)

PARAMETERS AND ASSUMPTIONS USED TO CALCULATE BOTH MAXIMUM f INDIVIDUAL AND POPULATION DOSE ESTIMATES FROM THE LIQUID PATHW (Nota 1) Selected Location Specification and Usage Factors: 1 Population Dose Specifications and Usage Factors: i a 7 1 3.5x10 Sport Fish Harvest (Kg/yr) 247.0 i Dilution Factor 0.0 Transit Time (hr) 7.0 j Distribution Time (days) (Note 2) i E Location 7 9.9x10 h Cotunercial Fish Harvest (Kg/vr): 'i. 247.0 .f Dilution Factor 0.0 j Transit Time (br) 7.0 Distribution Time (days) (Note 2) Location 5 1.6x10 Sport Invertebrate Harvest (Kg/vr): i 247.0 9 Dilution Factor 0.0 'd Transit Time (hr) 7.0 Distribution Time (days) (Note 2) ~.i J Location 7 1.4x10 n Connercial Invertebrate Harvest (Kg/yrl: sj 247.0 Dilution Factor 0.0 l Transit Time (hr) 7.0 Distribution Time (days) (Note 2) f l Location J N/A l Population Drinking Water: Population Shoreline: ? 7 2.7x10 - {s Usage (man-hours /yr) Adult 2.8x107 Teen J Child \\ 7.5x106 fi 0.0 Infant q 247.0 3 Dilution 0.0 y Transit Time (br) 0.5 a Shorevidth Factor (Note 2) d' Location ,y em a y $I As

e e, ,, <_. q 3 _, J .i n_ w _ _. n a : _5, x.. -->y- ] SB 1 & 2 ER-OLS-1 TABLE 470.9 ' I (Sheet 3 of 3) i J PARAMETERS AND ASSUMPTIONS USED TO CALCULATE BOTH MAXIMtM INDIVIDUAL AND POPULATION DOSE ESTIMATES FROM THE LIQUID PATWAYS 1 Population Swi::: ming: 4 8.0 '] Usage (man-hours) Adult 45.0 Teen 28.~0 Child 0.0 Infant i 247.0 ~ '.3 Dilution 0.0 ii Transit Time (Note 2) B Location %'} Population Beating: 9 1 Boating doses = 1/2 svi:: ming doses 1 N/A 1 Irrigated Foods; Population and Individual: -j -A .0 M

n

?k wi N ,~:1 ! hk. -C 'y .id P; .tN ~1 i*7 = 'CD

1'd Note (1) - The adult shorcline usage f actor has been increased from the nominal s

lEJ value of 12 hr/yr to 334 hr/yr to account for popular non-commercial l l;l# clam digging within the immediate area. The basis is 2 hr/ day for i.e 167 day /yr. IQ Note (2) - An average dilution factor (247) has been determined for commercial -{gg and sport fishing and shoreline activities within a 50-mile radius, i thus specific locations have not been used. m25 71 f l

Ok '_ ^ dr' 8h_ ,,g %",u % -_ y W g A J9 J. Dh SB 1 & 2 i ER-OLS 1 TABLE 470.9-2 (Sheet 1 of 3) i ASSUMPTIONS AND PARAMETERS USED TO ESTIMATE DOSES TO THE MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL AND POPULATION FROM THE GASEOUS PATHWAYS 1 Site Specific Information: 250.00 The distance from the facility to the NE corner of the US (MAINE) in miles. 0.50 ed i Fraction of year leafy vegetables are grown F (default value = 1.0). 0.50 Fraction of year cows are on pasture (deft. ult E value = 1.0) [See Reg. Guide 1.109-8]. s d 0.76 i Fraction of crop from garden (def ault value = 0.76 f rom USDA) [See Reg. Guide 1.109-7]. 1.00 Fraction of daily intake 'of cows derived from 1asture while on pasture (default value = 1.0) 'i lSee Reg. Guide 1.109-28]. 8.00 . :3 Absolute humidity over growing season, relative n ,,) (%) value if T is supplied. When H and T are 3 is used. blanks a default value of 8.0 g/m 5 N/A f'.I Average Temperature over growing season (deg. F). h .50 1 Fraction of year goats are on pasture (default value = 1.0). '1 1.00 Fraction of daily intake of goat from pasture pj while on pasture (def ault value = 1.0). t3

j 50 Fraction of year beef cattle are on pasture M

JI (default value = 1.0). O 1.00 d Fraction of daily intake of beef cattle derived hj from pasture while on pasture (default value h, = 1.0). A .;2] Poculation Title Card: 4,426,100 - Seabrook -2 Total population within 50 mile, plant name and 1&2-2000 yr. i year of projected population. i 3 ? f' A l i F1 l

o . _.. w. g n. . _2 I SB 1 & 2 ER-OLS

]9 TABLE 470.9-2

!l (Sheet 2 of 3)

j ASSCMPTIONS AND PARA)ETERS USED _ O ESTIMATE DOSES
4 T

[ TO THE MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL AND POPULATION FROM THE GASEOUS PATHWAY

k y

i A Population Data Control Information: d User option - 50 0 for north, Compass sector for starting data: mile population data li. 1 for south (defaults to north). The 50-mile is presented in region is divided into 160 subregions formed by ER-OLS Tables 2.1-2

1 sectors centered on the 16 compass points (N, NME, and Table 2.1-3.

NE, etc.) and annuli at distances of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 20, 30, 40 ar.d 50 miles from the center of h the facility. Each sector will require 10 population data entries. jq 10.00

q Total No of annular population values to be

,y read for each sector: 0, or 10. If KT = 0 the 50 mile total vill be uniformly distributed 23d over all sectors and annu11 and card 4.2 vill follow (see below). Otherwise KT = 10 and 16 .!!? pairs of sector population data cards must 'l follow. ,m See ER-OLS Tables Sector population data cards (16 paits required, 2.1-2, 2.1-3 for 'r G ? sach with KC values). Sector population.

ff 9

See ER-OLS Table !5 Annual Milk Production in Liters. 5.2-20 (revised a V Table in RAI 470.M.

g.5 See ER-OLS Table Anmmi Meat Production in Kilograms.

5.2-21 (revised /e f( !P-Table in RAI 470.M. h .See ER-OLS Table ' t.u Annual Vegetation Production in Kilograms. 5.2-22 (revised to E Table in RAI 470.O. D~ (.l. .See ER-OLS Table ,h Annual release in C1. (Usually determined by 3.5-10. I '2 GALE Codes or equivalent.) c Turbine Bldg. d Data source, date, height, release point, etc. . releases are ground. level - all other .-E sources are ele-vated from plant !<x g, l w - - = 4 r-

2> a .x _._;- SB 1 & 2 B4M TABLE 470.9-2 (Sheet 3 of 3) 1 ASSUMPTIONS AND PARAMETERS USED TO ESTIMATE DOSES ) TO THE MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL AND POPULATION FROM THE GASEOUS PATHWAYS d 1 .I _See.ER-OLS Tables Sector X/Q data cards (16 required, each 5.2-2, 5.2-3 for 0-50 j - with KC values). miles X/Q data - Table l _ -j 5.2-4, 5.2-5 for max 2.- .j Special Location Card: mum individual X/Q. 1 Maximum individual ] - Selected indivic.iual dose maximum of 5. These resides at worst resi-cards supply MET data, dential locatiott 2398 meters, ESE sector, and consumes 100% Ja vegetables harvested N, from a backyard garden. The following pathways were evaluated at this location, inhalation, direct radiation and ingestion of vegeta'bles. s Consumes goats milk from NW sector, 3862 meters and meat'from I W sector, 3219 meters. . f. 1 Rocks j Special Location Name .a ENE 13, Compass heading from site to special location. 0.20 miles )f Distance in miles. See ER-OLS Tables 5.2-3, X/Qforthislocatgen(sec/m) 5.2-4 for " Rocks" .y X/Q decayed (sec/m ) 3 X/Q decayed an depleted (sec/m ) meteorological data. i d'.; Deposition (n- ) .I h Controls Plume Pathway j 4 Yes -l Il Ground No l' d Vegetation No U Meat No ,) Cow No j Goat Yes l Inhalation Yes Direct Radiation i '.It 9 f .?! FN }}q6Y

- - x;, - - ,~c- .2: ..a .a ~ n. l .{ 5.2-20, 5.2-21, and 5.2-22 to include the latest Update Tables 470.10 information available and specify the date of the data used in ai] preparing these tables. 1 Tables 470.10-1, 470.10-2 and 470.10-3 reflect the lates't available infor-

Response

mation on agricultural production within 50 miles of Seabrook j Station and reflects updated data to that given in ER Tables 5.2-20, j 5.2-21 and 5.2-22. } indicates the estimated annual producticE of milk Table 470.10-1 This information represents 1981 data as co.-ipiled on a by sector. 3 county basis by the Massachusetts Department of Food and Agriculture, 1 Dairy Division, Boston, Ma. indicates the estimated annual meat production in the Table 470.10-2 Meat as defined for Table 470.10-2 3 site area out to 50 miles. includes the number of cattle and calves, hogs and pigs, sheep and 3 ] lambs, broiler chickens, and turkeys sold on a county basis in 1978 ej as reported in the final 1978 Census of Agriculture Reportst Parts 19, 21, and 29 (Volume 1) for the States of Maine, Massachusetts, and c [; New Hampshire. These reports were issued in March, 1981 by the The total number s, U.S. Department of Consnerce, Bureau of the Census. 8 1 of livestock sold as reported in the census data was multiplied by ) j an estimate of the average dressed weight of each animal in order to determine the mass of meat production for each principle county j .] within 50 miles of the site. The average dressed weights used for ) j J each of the various meat animals was: j ' Cattle (and calves) 265 Kg Hogs (and pigs) 76 Kg J.i 3 Sheep (and lambs) 23 Kg h , Broilers 1.24 Kg 6.99 Kg d' Turkeys ') gives an estimate of the annual vegetable production bf Table 470.10-3 sector for the s'ite area. The source of this data is also the 1978 Census of Agriculture Reports noted above. Vegtable product as defined ( includes the following categories as listed in for Table 470.10-3 f " Vegetables, melons and sweet corn", " Irish b agricultural census: potatoes", and " Apples". The average yields (lbs/ acre) for apples. and j potatoes as detereined by the county data was used to estimate the mass ~ 4 An average yield value of 2.0 Kg of produc-tion for.these food crops. per. square meter (USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.109) was used to estimate the y mass of vegetable production per,apre for each pounty for the category of -j " Vegetables, melons and sweet corn". l An equal area allocation method was used to distribute the ccunty 9 production data by sector out to 50 miles from the site, i i.? dh1 II l $ 16 1m '~

~ 'L* /~- . es_., ;n g, u, q. E 9 a~. C O O O O O C C o C O O O O O C C C O I C. C. C. Q O. C. C. O. O. O c o. C. c .c c o o o m C C C O O O C in m at m e C O co in O N to C O g o c3 cc arr O. c. N. v. v. C. c. -it m. m. N N M N N N N g N C N N o M C m l O O O O O O O O O mo O O O O O O O O O O w co O C C O C Q C O

v
i e--

C C C o C C C - co c

C C

C Q O C o ci. eo e o O m r% m v 'm m v r% o o os e. to. o. N. N. v. c. oa m o. N N N N N O r% " N N ..eo s., O O O C O O C c m >t

)

O C O C b O O O C.. O. C. O. O. &w 1 O. O. O. C. O. vg 3 i-o C. C. '4 m m O O O O O O O nn WG c c c c c e o O m to O CD Ca CO =r e v1 c') M. r* r%. J so l o crt m to m. f%. m. o. m. N in. v. e= e e c= m c= m e an ab e aC 3 e e= M .A w r g g m, O O O O O O C & V O O O o O C C O C C av-h & L 'i o O O. O. O. O. O. O. C. O. ci k C m O C C C to W nn to aC 4 E o O. O. O c c c c c ,1 M e o m C C C e N N N M r% O W Ct CO N. N. N. O. C3 CO CO O rs. c u o T e cs 4 th e-w e= ."O gj o 4 g O O O C o o W 3

+

C O O O O C O I 44-G- e C. C. C. C. C. O. O. C. o. 4 g g C O C. C. c o o o o o ci ci c4 cs c to N W w C W c c Un C O ct O C C m CL 4 g c - gs U s C N N N N N N N N e' N C c m N N e { g n g .a a ~ y C Z y 4 c-e o j CC W g O Q-C O c c CD W W C O e o o a o 'f f r* s in, es. r. N. o o o o o o. C.

o. r.

r f%. r. f, m . cc v_ o o 4 J 4D to 4D to W

tP er C3 O

i. C m cv) m eq N N cJ N crt 4 C g g air gO N M j E N N M g 3 ..i Y f o e o o C o e C o C e O O O O O O m 4

1

n W. C .;1 4 3 I o O C C C C C C O C' C C C C C C C o em* =. y o p n.

4 C1 em\\

n P W .1 g .' l. y m o. W at 6 J U m ' ?s + r m w w w w 3 m Z W Z en w m us 3 m 3 E o o s., E Z Z W W W tt) M M M 4/1 3 3 3 2". H M 4 ,

e 6

F.% b ~' 's ss i Qc i ~.-,.,,,y._ mm -- hb$ 4 b.:, . 1 0.S.U A.' ). _1.....'.. '".... a._ .u.J.M.";C2.N Eu m.: h a.a. _.__e... FCC So ra TABLE C o. w 2 lieat Production mi sedr Per Sector Distance (Miles) Sector: 0-1 1-2 2-3 3-4 4-5 5-10 10-20 20-30 30-40 40-50 t H 0 0 1.400 1,900 2,400 20,400 133,000 264,000 580,000 745,000 i Il llNE O O. 1,400 1,900 2,400 20,400 165,000 414,000 580,000 745,000 i NE O O 1.400 1,000 600 0 0 0 0 0 ENE O O O O O O O O O O E O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ESE O O O O O O O O O O l l l t SE O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E ? b SSE O O O O O O O 68,000 0 0 S 0 0 1,700 2,900 3,700 30.600 122,000 136,000 05,000 53,000 j SSW 0 0 2,000 2,900 3,700 30,600 122,000 215.000 248,000 194,000 L SW 0 0 2,000 2,900 3,700 30,600 122,000 220.000 330,000 425,000 HSg 0 0 1,700 2,900 3,700 30,000 102.000 150,000 281,000 361,000 b W 0 900 1,400 1,900 2,400 20,400 81,000 136,000 231,000 297,000 t WN 0 0 1,400 1,900 2,400 20,400 81,000 136,000 241,000 310,000 tg 0 0 1,400 1,900 2,400 20,400 81,000 136,000 196,000 242,000 t HNW 0 0 1,400 1,900 2,400 20,400 75,000 113,000 159,000 182.000 l TOTAL 0 900 17,200 24,000 29,800 244.800 1.084,000 1,938,D00 2,941,000 3,554,000 } Total All Sectors: 9,994,000 i State and County Data l 1978 Census of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the unsus: Source: Vol.1. Part 185 flaine (AC73-A-19) ? Vol. 1. Pa q 21,lla:sachusetts (AC78-A-21) f Vol.1. Put 29 New Hampshire (AC78-A-29) s E r ,h _ _ N_N '_ _ VW a s 2 g- .=..w-l'

' L

)

o O o O O O O O o e O O o o o o o o o o o O o C C. C. C. C. C. O. o. Q o. C.

o. g3 e

e N N O O c c c o m m to c3 C m - gg N in CO O O N o o O O sn Ln Cf3 tn CO M.c , w La Ln. C. m. a air o - L N 40 LD t% M NQm N N M au Cm r% Q C C Q C C C C C O O .OT.>., o O o o o o o C o Cr4 a C O C. C. O. O. Q C. C.. O. C. o.ci C o o 2 ~6 e e O C C C C C Cs Cn O C) M e.n N o go.. U w a e e M M N to O M m 1 C r% rw 06 C) 03 Lo. ut 1 m to. c. in. Ln. f%. to. L =g e c= M al3" En LD N C3 O C e== NW m 4 ma ugg 1 C C Q C C C C 4 J C C C C 8 e o o o o o o o o e C o-u m O. C. O. o. O. Q C. O. C. C. C. QC .s a m j C to 1a C C C C C r% M C C e W W 4 f% e N C. CD C c=

r LD W

P% f% f% o f% - ** h m W9 m CD.s 3 N. M. M. CO. f%. f%. f%. C3 c-- OOM e N M (9 N e e= NWC 4 GJ d O 4 8 8 .e o CCo e o O o O C o e 1' o C C o e o o e o o o C. O. C. C. O. C. C. O. C. O. C. 1 O N c o o o o o N N N CO w w 'tr C .O 1 W e 1 nn C M C1 C4 CS Cr. N 40 to LD Q C5 Ln. O. Q Q r% C. J CM r% CO

C.s C.i 3

c= M m W e .i D. m c'= CJ GJ L i v.) CE 3 3 aC CO W C >= w C O C C C ("" C C C C C J .C.e o o C C C C o o o 's. O C Q GJ C. O. C. C. C. O. C. O. O. 'I G-C. o. U Nm O M U e C C C C C C r en CO CO CD LO SD LD 9.D Cf3 L e.3. l <y C Ln LD to M CD C) C4 to to to CO O -O Z m LD to 4 ac gir sig. g N N N N LO W N N o e M o ,ee W 4 mW J H U CQ O Q e aC. D - C1 C C C (") O O O O C O O O NN t O Cc C O C tS O C O O C C e e 4

C *C D.

C. O. C. O. C. C. C. En C. C. C. C C C C C C e e W

tt N

N C3 C C O C N N N N C CO CO e a (*b M to t.D to M t's V nur 9% t% eoo c= L C) aC sc at ew W CL e C C C C O O O O O C C e at m tu W W C o o C O O o O C o Q e ML W C. C. C C C C C C. o. C.. C. C. C. C. C. . C3 d eGJ.= r% M Ln tn N e4 to LD to in to tn %D MUM U1 e air v v v N N N N w = ac; 3 C., N N to D w.C E Um . GJ m= 43 C W C C O O O C C o 6-m2 U 2"3". = D3 O O o o O O o o M C. C. O. C C C C C C. O. O. C. o. = N CD C3 CO LD M M to CO Cr3 CO CD N 3. *

e N

t') t9 N e-v U C) - C) e== e N e-NN L 1 C1M & M eC L L b O o o o o o o eom O C C C O O o % CL CL CL N O C C. C C C C C. C. C. C. C. o. o C e = 3 C--- GJ O C C W>>> 8 8 8 8 8 8 8ir. C C C , O N C C C C. C C C, m. Os C N N N N N N et J e \\ ) \\ .a l.&J U J u C eg CC W 6-. D O t.aJ SAA W W 3 3 g E C o w z e w m m 3 a.

= :::

$ n i .n = w w w m m m m m I W m in z !\\ - n0 50 Pwiq _ _ _ _. _,.,.;,e., z:~- ..a. _ ~. _ _.. _ n___,_... I I l> Update Table 2.1-14 to include any changes noted during the latest 470.11 land use census conducted, including the beef cow pathway. Table 470.11-1 includes the results cf the latest site yi*cinity

Response

survey which was conducted by Station personnel during the fall of 1981 for the purposes of identifying the nearest garden, milk 4 This infor-I cow and goat in each of the principal compass sectors. mation updates the data given in ER Table 2.1-14. i An additional survey is planned for the spring of 1982 which will t i update the information on Table 470.11-1 concerning the nearest beef This information is expected to be available cow in each sector. by June 1, 1982. i .i b e I i l 4 l 5 1 4 1 .3 eJ 3 .' b } O, t I i a e s I .- 1 1 i y) ) ,s a. .il q.. &N"

g., . g ~.;,..._. . n-

n. e SB 1 & 2 I ~

ER-OLS 't, i'l TABLE 470.11-1 8 LOCATION OF NEAREST AGRICULTURAL PARAMETERS (I) WITHIN FIVE MILES s 4 Compass Vegetable Milk Milk Beef (2) i Sectors Residence (miles) Carden (miles) Coat (miles) Cow (miles) Cow (miles) l 3.0 3 f N 0.7 0.7 NNE 2.0 2.0 NE 1.5 2.0 l ENE 1.6 1.7 i E 1.6 1.5 ESE I SE 1.$ t ,l SSE 0.7 2.2 ~ ~. - -.- 9 :.. :. 4.3 S 0.6 0.7 s i 3.0 .j SSW 0.7 0.8 3.2 4 SW 0.6 0.8 3.3 4 ^ WSW 1.1

1. 2 t

2 i W 0.6 0.6 3.8 f,. 4.4, "l WNW 0.7 1.4 J d NW 08 0.8 4.4 j NNW 0.7 1.2 0.8 2.5 3 a 54 ~3 1

Slash denotes that the category did not occur in the sector (1) Location of nearest agricultura parsneters within five miles identified during 3

site survey the fall of 1981, unless otherwise noted.

1 fj (1) Beef cow locations identified during survey conducted September / October of 1979.

4 1,' 4 ? t O p

e 1 = ..u, 2,wm a, 1 't 1 470.12 Update Section 5.2.4.4 of the Environmental Report (OL) to conform j I vith the infor=ation submitted in response to Acceptance Review l Question 470.4 and to reflect the latest information available pertaining to the annual production rates (in Kg/yr) for fish and invertebrates.

Response

See Seabrook ER-OLS Section 5.2.4.4, page 5.2-8, attached. The revisions reflect the changes to the total commercial fish and invertebrate harvest within the 50-mile radius of the Seabrook j Site as presented in RAI Response 470.4. Although ffsh add iavertebrate harvest values have increased, the 50-mile population 1 dose remains unchanged since fish and invertebrate harvest exceeds I i consumption. The excess fish and invertebrate harvested are assumed to be consumed by a fraction of the U.S. population. - The a effect on the total U.S. population dose from both liquid and j gaseous effluents as reported in ER-OLS Table 5.2-25 is less than f lot. The revised U.S. population doses are presented in Table RAI 470.12-1. -<.f Revised milk, meat and vegetable production within the 50 mile radius ^ i 1 of the site have been presented in RAI response 470.10. The effect of the increased produce on the 50 mile population doses is less than 'i 1 20 percent of the values reported in ER-OLS Table 5.2-24. The j revised U.S. population and 0-50 mile population doses are presented in RAI Tables 470.12-1 and Table 470.12-2 respectively. j i 1 .5 i 1 i 1 oh 1 I l.* l $0 .a a

1 m

e

h

~ z) y ?*? v. N \\ 4 lYww .n r-w -r -.. --n

--- L. a u,.. s p ; - E b SB 1 & 2 i ER-OLS d 4 4 An estimate of total population for the year 2000 was obenined from Section 2.1, Tables 2.1-2 and 2.1-3 of this report. Population fractions by age group were based on 1970 populations for Maine, Massachusetts and New Hampshire and are 2 0.016, 0.204, 0.132 and 0.648 for infants, children, teenagers and adults, respectively. b '~ j Section 2.1.3.5 of this report provides estimates of annual fish and invertebrate 3 harvests in the six counties within the 50-mile radius of the site. The total 6 Kg/yr for quantity of fish is estimated to be 9.9 x 107 Kg/yr and 6.4 x 10 j] invertebrates. Comparing these quantities against the total amount which could be consumed by the 50-mile population, using the average individual usage 9 ] factors, it can be seen that more fish and invertebrates are harvested than can j be consumed locally. It was thus assumed that all seafood consumption consisted .l of foods obtained locally. The excess fish and invertebrates that are harvested j have been assumed to be consumed by a fraction of the U.S. population. The dose via this pathway is discussed under United States population doses. j The population doses to the 50-mile population due to liquid effluents are shown in Table 5.2-19. The total whole body and thyroid doses are estimated to be O.044 man-rem / year and 0.451 man-rem / year, respectively. Gaseous Pathway Population Doses 3 l Annual 50-mile population doses due to routine gaseous effluents have been calculated through the major pathways of exposure. These include external irradiation from activity deposited onto the ground surface, inhalation, submersion in gaseous cloud, a and ingestion of vegetables, meat and milk products which have been exposed to plant effluents. .1 Meteorological dispersion coefficients used in the dose analysis can be found in 4 Tables 5.2-2 and 5.2-3. Two separate calculations were done according to the gaseous release point, either the unit stack or the turbine building vent. Agricultural characteristics of the area within 50 miles of the site are described I._ ;jq Tables 5.2-20 through 5.2-22 indicate the distribution and j in Section 2.1. i production of milk, meat and vegetables by sector for a 50-m11e radius, comparing the 50-mile food production against what could be consumed by the 50-mile popula-J tion, it is seen that the site area produces less than the amount which could be j consumed by the 50-mile population. Therefore, the entire 50-sile agricultural lH food production was assumed to be consumed within the 50 miles. '. i The dose models used for estimating the population doses from gaseous effluents are the same as those which are described in Regulatory Guide 1.109. Distribution and transport times were taken from Table E-15, and usage factors for the average .y individual were obtained from Table E-4 of the above reference. i x -ly y, 5.2-8 W

?.. \\ TABLE 470.12 1 U.S. POPULATION DOSE FROM BOTH LIOUID AND CASEOUS EFFLUENTS- (1) Man-Rem Whole Body Thyroid b-50 mile (2) 1.57E+00 2.60E+00 i f Fish and Invertebrate 6.42E-01 Ingestion (3) H-3 5.70E-02 Kr-85 4.60E-03 C-14 2.3E+01 Total 2.53E+01 2.60E+00 l l (1) 100 year dose commitment to U.S. population from one year's liquid and gaseous releases from one unit (2) From all radionuclides (3) Dose from ingestion of fish and invertebrates caught within 50 miles of Seabrook Station that are ingested outside the 50-mile population area. I 1 4 l' b .7

u: ; _- ;~ ,. _.s u . 3.?C ': '%- <, rw m~s

u. r: ner. e.:, - u.. a n - >_ n.

1.n a l TABLE 470.12-2 POPULATION DOSES DUE TO IODINE AND PARTICULATE GASEOUS RELEASE WITHIN 50-MILE RADIUS PER UNIT (man-rem / year) 1 Pathway Age Group Whole Body Dose ~ ~ Th# oid Dose .j Ground Plane Adult 2.42E-02 2.42E-02 j Teen 4.93E-03 4.935-03 . Child 7.62E-03 7.62E-03 'f Infant 5.98E-04 5.98E-04 I j Inhalation Adult 4.54E-01 6.98E-01 Teen 9.42E-02 1.56E-01 Eq' Child 1.32E-01 2.42E-01 Infant 6.07E-03 1.40E-02 C [ Stored Vegetables Adult 8.81E-02 1.17E-01 Teen 2.72E-02 3.65E-02 Child 8.75E-02 1.16E-01 Infant 0 0 ( Cow Milk Adult 2.80E-02 6.65E-02 Teen 1.27E-02 3.02E-02 Child 4.22E-02 9.74E-02 1.23E-02 3.27E-02 9 Infant

)

Adult 1.06E-02 1.08E-02 Ei Meat Teen 1.75E-03 1.78E-03 !j Child 4.61E-03 4.69E-03 h Infant 0 0 JJ G 1.04E+00 1.66E+00 W Total $u'N Bt p: 1 ? \\ i N;A p) Qn ~ 1,y l w? I 27

m

4 is Esc UNITED STATES ~ / 'o, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMtssION ~ ol [ l.e( Q WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 n. e c,.a,,yn j ; s, v f FEB 1 S 1982 1 II Docket lios. 50-443 lI 50-444 i; ME!*0RA!iDUM FOR: L. G. Hulman, Chief Accident Evaluation Branch, DSI )[ FROM: Wm. H. Regan, Jr., Chief Siting Analysis Branch, DE

SUBJECT:

SEASR00K UtiITS 1 A:D 2 DEIS IrlPUT Al:0 POPULATI0ft PROJECTIO:1S FOR THE YEAR 2000 i Attached, as requested by your branch, is the input for Section 5.9.2.1.3(2) Site Features cf the Seabrook DEIS, and the population projections for the year 2000 cut to a distance of 500 miles around the Seabrook site. The applicant's projections were used for the year 2000 permanent resident population within a 50 mile radius cf the plant. The corresponding transient poculation projections within a 10 mile radius were obtained from the i, applicant's 1950 transient population data by applying a crowth factor and appropriate weighting factors. The weighting factors werc used to cbtain average transient pcpulation estimates frcm peak weekenc and weekday transient cc;uiation values. The growth facter was ceterminec on tne basis of the SEA projections tc the year 2000. The 50-500 mile data are based on the relative SEA areas within the racii cf interest, in ccnjunction with the "SECPOP" cor.puter run usoig latitude 4053 ' 55.?" :: and longitude 7C050'58.7"U. Areas beyond the United States bcur.daries (i.e., Canadian Provinces) were included in the analysis and ..ere adjoined to the cceputer results for the CEA areas. The Canadian peculation numbers were derived frem the data in the Canadian Almanac and Directory,1978, the Webster's !!ew Geographical Dictionary, 1980, and the '<.'orld Almanac,19EO. This input eas prepared by K.:'. Carpe of the Siting Analysis Branch. ,,/ / Wm. k. Regin, Jr.,' Chief Siting Analysis Branch Division of Engineering-(

Attachment:

As stated l / j

l . ~. a t SEAER00K UNITS 1 AND 2 DEIS SITE FEATURES 5.9.2.1.3(2) The NRC's reactor site criteria,10 CFR Part 100, require that the site for every power reactor have certain characteristics that tend to reduce the risk and potential impact of accidents. The discussion that "follows briefly cescribes the Seabrock site characteristics and how they meet these require-ments. The site has an exclusion area as required by 10 CFR Part 100. The minimum exclusion area distance frca either reactor unit is. 3000 feet (914 meters). With scme exception's, the exclusion area is located within the 896 acre site owned by the Public Service Company of New Hampshire. The exceptions consist of the Ecston and Maine Railroad easement, the Exeter and Hampton Electric OcE:any underground ccwer transmissicn l' ice easement, and pcrtices of the Brown's River and Hunt's Island Creek. The applicants' authority to. determine 'all activities within the exclusion area with rescect to the above easements and waterways is still under review by the staff. The results of the evaluation will be reported in the staff's Safety Evaluation Report. Eejend anc surrcunding the exdlusion area is a Icw peculaticn z:ne (LPZ), also re;uired by 10 CFR Part 100. The LPZ for the Seabrock site is a circular area with a 1.25 mile (2012 meter) radius centered at the midpoint of the centerline between Unit 1 and 2 reactors. This-area encompasses the property owned by the applicants, as well as property not owned by them. The LPZ is traversed by U. S. Route 1 and several feeder roadways, as well 1

+ 2 as a spur of the Boston and Maine Railroad. There is one school within the LPZ, the Seabrook Elementary School, south of the site and near the LPZ boundary. The school enrollment (including school staff) was about 740 in 1978, and is currently projected to drop to about 705 by mid-1980's. The , principal industrial facility within the LPZ is the Bailey Division of USM Corporation, a manufacturer of plastic, rubber, and metal goods, and employing 930 people. There are several comercial establishments (i.e., shops, restaurants, etc.), as well as two shopping centers, within the LPZ. All of the above site features are located near the LPZ boundary in the western and southern directions from the site. Although a portion of Hampton Harbor and sections of several tidal brooks and rivers which are used for recreational purposes are located within the LPZ, the major beaches in the area are located east of Route 1A in Salisbury, Massachusetts and Seabrook and Hampton, !ew Ha ;: shire, and are outside the LPZ. The number of per 3r.ent residents within the LPZ at Unit 1 startup (in 1923) is estimated to be 2160 persons. This is projected to increase to about 4400 persons by the year 2025. Within the LPZ h the applicant must provide assurance that there is a reasonable probability that appropriate protective measures could be taken on behalf of the residents and other members of the public in the event of a serious accident. For a discussion cf the a;:plicant's protective actions, includin; evacuaticn of

ecple in the vicinity of the Seabrook site, see the foile;ing section on Emergency Preparedness.

10 CFR Part 100 also requires that the distance from the reactor to the nearest boundary of a densely populated are'a containing more than abcut 25,000 residents be at least one and one-third times the distance from the reactor to the cuter boundary of the LPZ. Since accidents more hazardous than those commonly

r. i b e ~ postulated as representing an upper limit are conceivable, although highly improbable, it was considered desirable to add the population center distance requirement in Part 100 to provide for protection against excessive exposure doses to people in large centers. The applicant indicates that presently the nearest densely populated center of more than about 25,000 persons is Portsmouth, N.H. located about 12 miles NNE of the Seabrook site with a 1980 population of 26,214 persons. The applicant has also examined future growth for nearer communities and has concluded that either Amesbury, Massachusetts, located 4 miles SSW, or Newburyport, Massachusetts, located 6 miles SSW could become the nearest population center. The-1980 populations of Amesbury and Newburyport were 13,961 and 15,910 persons, respectively. The pooulation center distance is at least one and one-third times the LPZ outer radius regardless of whether the nearest populaticn center were ~ designated to be Pcrtsmouth, Amesbury or Newburyport. The transient population associated with seasonal activity at Hampton and Seabrook. beaches about 2 miles east of the site is sufficiently large that the Atcmic Safety and Licensing A;;eal Board (ASLAB) in the course of the Construction Permit hearings, directed that the beach areas to the east of the site be considered the nearest densely populated center. The Board ruled that Route 1A to the east of the site serves as the real bounda'ry of the populated area. Since the nearest approach of Route 1A is 1.67 miles from the Seacrock site, the pc;ulation center distance is at least ene and one-third timas the LPZ, as required by 10 CFR Part 100. The largest city within 50 miles is Boston, Massachusetts, with a 1980 population of about 562.000 persons, located about O s. L 1

4-40 miles SSW of Seabrook. The projected population density within 30 miles of the site in 1983 is a maximum of about 530 persons per square mile at 2 miles from the plant. The projected population density within 30 miles in the year 2025 is also expected to reach a maximum at about 2 miles and is projected to be about 1150 persons per square mile. o l The safety evaluation of the Seabrook site has also included a review of potential external hazards, i.e., activities offsite that might adversely j affect the operation of the plant and cause an accident. This review 1 encompassed nearby industrial, transportation, and military facilities that t might create explcsive, n.issile, toxic gas or similar hazards. The risk ? to the Seabrook facility from such hazards has been found to be negligibly small. A more detailed discussion of the compliance with the Ccmmission's siting criteria and the consideration of external nazards are given in the'_ ' I staff's Safety Evaluation Report. a l i J 4 0 .4 3 3 _.,m._ _o,

t n . r- ? j b L i' OrAaRooK r n-p-snas ssnerz pao.rtcreo ro ne ren -tcoc. (m,,,,,s,ra , s-V

i.,. l,,. 2 -

.u.s - n > l..., - l.i. s,- l < i.., - l u.r.., - l in.2 - ns ici. ns ~. 3 n r. s ne [

a luur sva-fearI e I.r.se Ia I.r.sz

.a, V. ' o.i n 3: l I l l - l l [ ll ue. I ir l.ns I 3, e ss l 1.10s ' ' ' " l ' ' * \\ 'rs-i., ll ico 7 Isers l ir77 l s,1n I f - t s r=1 I .n.: 3.a ll i:+ct.ssoo l vr+ l 212 l - l - l \\ />>r ')

s. z-

\\\\ sral 71: l.r.a r e l - l I - l i, 7ti ,w r.r o ll 7easl u,4a+1 zeer l-l- l l 3,31* i o..,,, II.n.ao. !.r *, e co i as~ l l *?*

l '* "'

l-l \\\\3.:,re.l11,r0-l I-l- l - l '** Li* "* ^I ll,242 et!/8,noI l I -- I-l I~ u. e, l l,,.c, \\\\ s,9eo 43,3co\\ l-l - I-l' l-I ro.c, ll.cor i a.:,s.e l , m 1 I-I- I 1 J. '17 . j ca 7, i cao I rue 7 i e5 1 - I -- I I 'W 7c. e e-l i 9, Cl ? I !., h 9 I ?,39: l l-l I llI'!I# y 4 oe.ic, w ?.=* 'ia,s o i rir I i \\~ ' 72. ri7 '~ Q: li s 1.: i a,rc ; l -- I~ l ^ l + 8 i in.p.o ir,, no li i:,res i s.' o 7 l l l-l l \\ .e,- gr,\\\\ rr2.mlinsr+\\ su rn l m ir \\ io,ie: l ^ l~ y'-m .;rs -roo llara asl.no.mi sei rc \\ ue, erri ~ \\~l~ l 1 i ~ l' i I ; i- ~ _' h %, _ ~ 7-1 1 u ---,c w

p.--- k --r7 T t, 5" FI e I 9 i I 9 leis]. 8 -3 3c.1 l4 2s. 3 = l M/.2 = pts.2= l.J c2. 8 - l.i.is J. m lIn,.4 8 - l s t/. 2 = l 40 r,-o. s sw3 . tor s 2:s.] 3* o. 9

i *r ?

.21 n I' S I JSW l fd lWJW l W lWNWl NN lNNAI I ' en es l /74 l 4/8 l Jo l Jo (- ,o.f ll J/3 l d 'J l / #,2 l ll 1*d3 l 466l /. '!7 l UfJ~ l /,793 l 1.2 l 2 9+ l Jeo y.g ll 74 l f3 7 l 4+/l/,as?l 4/4 l J.2 9 l.2 07 l.co+ .g ll M1l Fr.C-l

! T3 l 378 l 3~23 l 93 l /,9 l 2 9,1 3.s O

ll /,4of l 4r4. l 3,1*+ l 2,7 7 8 l /,244 l / off l j~st l 489

1. c ll L' 978 l /q 4I"/ l /3, of7 l t,43/ l 4,44r l 4,865~ l ?/4r l Z g/9 r.p o ll 30,sse l 22,2c0 l 73,soo l e28,700l ;4,f oo l /4,200 l /.C too l /s, 960 pp.y ll /St Ce*l 177,4co l.:c.9,4Cok f,6Cc l 62,6C0 l /G,.100l 4, Joe l2C,7Co je.m N Misf**I M k* l /I4, c::l/f/.JCo l //9, f:s l 72,7co l/.t, too l /.(St:d y:.4o ll=/27,100 3 83,4Col /40,4 col <>, A col Jo,9 Co l=9o, s co l /Q, 8cc l 6;9 00

,\\ .s o. e-o { cc. s. lI 1964:s ! 25),6?2l /7l.,6&fl /20,418l If 7/o l /0, M 7 l So,730 l/C,4r o t' ll, o. 7 o ll /C7 G74 l /f/, /97 l Jt0,2:7 l.S7,3 Bf l 11,2.12 l.f'fys I lo, cro l 7,/ 98 7c a t ' ll 2/4,P3 I G47, s;71 /M, *SF l.t',.:t l f>~724 l 4,7,/7/ l /4, S et t 1861 lk ?!*Ico U J's.S:6 2:7,fioI f

fit i 2::,2o7: 2::;4 l. C 3/ 4,.. s &,*s~ l J a 2/

I l?$._tro Y 7,725~ 24~CAS '/,13,' 520 i177,;c. : 7:n 5Ef l /32,/34 /;Q/93 i14? 446 l CC 291 3,49;,1*eY 7/s,eg l;ig,5;sl27,7:ala'11,arsl82,ref Y /s*c _* co N ~ I29,.23L n:I2, 917, yn l1,If/, /& 8l 3'*8,74L l f f 9 Ei-l I7f c/s S w - 3s=2 l l 420 ~~~ l 44, U+ E ctr/22 l 4, f/t d>3l3, na, n t l 3 2 4,C/

h 22 0 '*C nJ'?s *44 iN n

. ira =fo o l ~ l' l

1.

F i; I i fi. g I [ t 1

h s.

L .w w., 1 C 1

t rI .c n + e P i I ^ eSrsaecox w ~ n rg u iz..ir,o:n w ios n,m,. to s u r. w e a rs ro n,e e m e x. V c.<,+.nl.a., - l u. >>> e lus - l n., - l..e. s,- I a,.,, -s. s li., Iin,.,. n s

n. 3 ns ici.

i-.., i 5,,.,,. r, luariive Irari r 1.r.se i es is.re ia l I i il

. I l

I l l o-, Y \\\\ i+ l ir i to s l 2,u.s or.n I sisi l .r o l s-i., \\\\.2 4 7 l 73 f.t s 7 l.t, c.r7 l ^ l ri r l /r.2 -t ll 94 I ro l/p24 l <ia l -l-l - I g.w-r 3-4 l-l s r.zi fi 90 l i.2 l a re l .) sc ll 3es l lM \\/,0.d1 l-13.310 r-r o w l l ll I-I - 7o.30 ll - I I-l I- ,e - 2 3 '[ ae eo II - I-I- I I - I-l- I-1, 11 -I I l - l _l-l l u,o ro - e. II - 1 I I I -I 1-l3 l c.. -vo 11 - I l l 1 - i -- I-I o.ee il - i-I I I - l - l ?! gr-i:o li - l - I l -l I - h f.y..co 11 l I i - I _ l - i T /rc _ o ll - I-I- I l I I I-I x-- 3r.,Il I I-I - l - l u -ar., coo l! - l l -- l._ l l-I I i l l d f t P e I. g

E.l.

.{ j' La O l. -.

r'-- -- ^ [ t r7 .r e i: l 1 L. m ;a.,s.a..,- ysa n pa,. e p u,. 3, p:a,s pm.2.- g.a n.. s. g.i.u 3,- ns v S,<,+. i r ur _ n 1 2 a n I I; $ l 3.tw l sw I w.5 W I W lWNHl MW lNNU ,, w b 'I .? I a l I a 1-1- I-o-, i ll // 3 l 9 C7 1 2 4r l f-d 3 l .t l /+ l 4e t.1 ll 3.2 l 27 /t l 47 I 8 I 9 I 17 l /+ 1-z ll 49 l /+ l 2 l S I B l J l /f I 74 24 ,l l

2. c ll 3 0 9 I /6 l Ja 4 I CG l 19 l l9 1 di r l 9

ll ff8 l 741 l 177 l 40/ l /3 r l /3 r l S9r l A/ 7 r.p o fo.,o 11 1-l l-l, I-l 1-II - l-I 1 l- -l - l-l- l _ e - 2., ll --- I I l l -l-l- I- /: n 4, i il - 1-l- l l _l - l l-s, co e I ro -s-II - t-I I -l l I-I co-7o ll - 1 --- l l -I I- }l c-g e Il l-l l -. 1 19. _re-ic, !! - i-I 1 l-1- I 'i; w.,c, il i I-f F- _m -2c,ll - I I -- l - I-I - i , a - 3r.,Il I I I I l I I - t,.w,i .ir., -ro. Il - I l l - l l-l l-I .i 3 1. f 6 h l l ! E IF. I E 2 ~M _( k ] E -e ea .}}

ML20082B150

Contents

Text

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Enclosures:

SUBJECT:

Enclosure:

SUBJECT:

Enclosure:

SUBJECT:

References:

Dear Sir:

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

Response

Response

Response

SUBJECT:

Attachment:

Navigation menu

ML20082B150

Text

SUBJECT:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Enclosures:

SUBJECT:

Enclosure:

SUBJECT:

Enclosure:

SUBJECT:

References:

Dear Sir:

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

RESPONSE

Response

Response

Response

SUBJECT:

Attachment:

Navigation menu

Search