ML20245A694
| ML20245A694 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/12/1989 |
| From: | Jonas S MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#289-8781 OL-1, NUDOCS 8906220122 | |
| Download: ML20245A694 (34) | |
Text
. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ - - _- . _ _ _ . _ _ _
77F?
e .. . j
.9 CDCKE i[~~,
l UMkT I
19 P3 :57 -
UNITED STATES OF, AMERICA-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e l. .t t. ..
Uti n .
(Aq;:, ,,...
i ATOMIC SAFETY AND' LICENSING BOARD .
Before Administrative Judges:.
Peter Bloch; Chairman .
I Emmeth A..Luebke ]
Dr. Jerry Harbour-
)-
)
In the Matter of )
1
/
) Docket No.(s)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-443/444-OL-1 NEW-HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. .
On-site EP (Seabrook~ Station, Units 1 and.2)- )
) June 12, 1989~
-) ;
)
MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S PROPOSED. FINDINGS AND RULINGS OF LAW WITH RESPECT TO SIREN-ISSUES
- 1. On June 2, 1988, this Board issued a Memorandum and-j Order (unpublished) admitting for litigation in this proceeding l j
a single contention with numerous bases raising the issue of i the adequacy of the public alert and notification system (PANS).
i
' for that portion of the population in that portion of the l Seabrook^ Nuclear PowertStation-,(Seabrook), plume emergency
.l i
planning zone (EPZ) located in the Commonwealth of l Massachusetts (The Commonwealth).
l
- 2. The system which the Applicants propose to use is ;
This is a l called a Vehicular Alert Notification System (VANS). '
I transport:able- system con. sis, ting 4 0f., trucks which will proceed to I
'T 8906220122 890612 PDR ADDCK 05000443 9 PDR 3
1 8
certain preset locations, raise a siren above the ground by means of a hydraulic telescoping boom, and then, as necessary, sound the siren to alert the public. The Applicants propose that, at the same time the sirens are sounded, prescripted emergency broadcast messages will be broadcast over the emergency broadcast system (EBS) to which the public will have been referred by various preemergency notification devices (calendars, notices, etc.). Sgg aenerally, App. Exs. 11A &
11B; App. Dir., p_nat II. 75, Attachments A-G.
- 3. On March 3, 1989, this Board issued a memorandum and order in this matter which granted, in part, and denied, in part, a summary disposition motion filed by Applicants with respect to this contention and all of its bases. Public Service Company of New Hamoshire (Seabrook Station, Units I and 2), LBp-89-09, 29 NRC __ (March 3, 1989), hereafter referred to as "LBp-89-09" and cited to the slip opinion.
4.
In LBp-89-09, this Board left open for litigation the following issues with respect to the PANS:
A.1-1. Whether sound levels in excess of 123 dBC cause enough discomfort so that the Board should not approve the use of sirens at a higher level of sound?lI 1/ The Board also noted that this question involved a legal issue as to what standard should be applied to determine the possible relevance of discomfort and invited briefs on that ques tion.+
~
4
- O A.1-2. If there is some level higher than'123 dBC that the Board should allow, what is that level?
A.1-3. Whether Applicants' sirens can provide adequate coverage if used at sound-levels that are not unduly uncomfortable?
A.1-4. Whether Applicants' position on the sound level resulting from their sirens is an under estimate because of sound reflection from buildings?
A.3-1. Whether the appointed destination locations, including VL-03, VL-06, VL-07, and VL-12, are !
sufficiently level for the safe deployment of the VANS vehicles?
A.3-2 Whether or not VANS vehicles may gain physical ;
i access to VL-03, VL-06, VL-07., and VL-12? I A.5-1. What is the appropriate conservative estimate of the length of time it would take drivers.to I
take the necessary actions before their vehicles leave their stations during conditions likely to prevail at the. time of l
need? '
i i
._ - __- D
L.' .
t s' A.5-2. Given that there is snowfall of 0.511nches or-more'duringH5.5V of the days of:the year, would:a conservative: estimate of travel times.
'l to VANS acoustic locations.irclude the somewhat prolonged travel 1 times. anticipated during snow conditions? If so, what time i
' estimates.should be included?
A 5-3. What is an appropriate conservative estimate-of-the length ofLtime it?would take people within'five miles of'Seabrook to receive-the informational message'to be broadcast over the EB5?
l A.5-4. What is an appropriate' conservative estimate of the' total length of: time for alerting and-informing people within five miles ~of' Seabrook? Is'that estimate within acceptable guidelines? (If it is longer than 15 minutes, what are the factors we are to consider in deciding whether the time period'is adequate?).
LDP-89-09 at 37-38.
l E 5. The issues denominated "A.3-1." and "A.3-2."'above, have been resolved by stipulation of the parties.
- 6. The remaining issues came on for hearing before this Board on May 2, 1989. A total of 2 days of hearings were held on May 2-3, 1989, in Boston, Massachusetts.
, s
- L___.__.____ _ . _ _ _ _ _
t e
- 7. The parties to the proceeding were the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (Mass AG), the Applicants, and the Staff of the United States' Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Staff).
- 8. Applicants presented a panel of witnesses consisting of Edward W. Desmarais of the Independent Review Team for New Hampshire Yankee Division of Public Service Company of New Hampshire, David N. Keast, Principal Consultant, Warning System Services, Karl D. Kryter, Staff Scientist, Bioengineering Division of SRI International, Edward Lieberman, President, KLD Associates, Inc. and Louis C. Sutherland, Deputy Director and Chief Scientist, Wyle Research, Wyle Laboratories.
(Qualifications, post II. 38); Agg. DjI. post II., 75, passim.
- 9. Mass AG presented a panel of witnesses consisting of Ruth Kanfer, professor, University of Minnesota, Karl S. Pearsons, Senior Consultant, Acentech, Inc.,
Charles B. Perrow, Professor, Yale University, and Gregory C. Tocci, President, Cavanaugh Tocci Associates. Mass AG Dir. p. cat In 454, passim.
- 10. The Board finds each of these witnesses competent to l
testify with respect to the matters as to which he/she testified.
- 11. Staff presented the testimony of Kenneth M. Eldred, Staff Dir. nosi II. 310, passim, and the testimony of Falk Kantor, Staff Qir. post II. 310, passim.
i
_;_-___-. - - __ ._ - - - - _ - - . . _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ = _ -
I us.-
- l- ; 12. : TheLFsderal: Emergency Management Agency'has issuedLa-f'inding that the VANS system design meets'the'requirementsLof.
~
l L FEMA-REP-10; : Staff Ex. A-1,LTr. 359-361. 'In some cases, that' approval would~; create a rebuttable presumption'of adequacy which would have to-befovercome by oppos,ingfparties. '10 C.F.R.
S 50.47(a)(2). .Despite the absence of.a sponsoring witness for the FEMA' approval'andfoyer the objection of.the MassiAG, the' Board allowed thel approval into evidence. :Tr. 291-309.. 'The.
Board indicated' prior to hearingLt'estimony on theLnature of'the FEMA approval that its evidentiaryLweigh't would be slight. Tr.
298.
- 13. ..The Board finds it unnecessary.to consider.any legal.
arguments on the presumption'because, upon exploration of the-
-nature of the FEMA approval with respect to the' VANS system,'it is crystal clee.r that it is entitled to no weight and.whatever.
1 presumption may have initia11y' applied no' longer applies. The ~ !
two FEMA documents'at issue are Staff Ex.'A-1 and its'
\
1 i underlying document, a preliminary' review of thel3yst'em by .l 1
FEMA. Tr. 364. No final review-has been-completed. ,T_r,. 364.
l There was also some suggestion that FEMA's' approval was based on witnessing the June,1988 graded exercise: of Seabrook 's emergency. response plans. Tr. 364. It'is apparent.from the_ i i
Staff's witness, Mr. Kantor (the only witness available to 1
)
i i
i i
l
t 8
testify concerning the FEMA approval) thatTFEMA'did not address,.or even purport.to' address, any of the factual or legal issues raised in this hearing.. Ir. 365-370. 'Moreover, the exercise had nothing'to do:with these-issues. .II. 365-367.
- 14. The Board cannot-and;will not give any weight ~to-FEMA's approval where it had' absolutely nothing-to do with the issues we are concerned with hereEand which we cataloguedfin.
LBP-89-09. Therefore, the burden of. proof1 on the adequacy.of the VANS system remains with the Applicants ~.
- 15. The sirens to be utilized in the VANS system' operate at a frequency of 550 Hz and.are rated at.134 dBCiat 100 feet on axis. Agg. ' EL. Il-B a t 2 2-3.
- 16. NUREG-0654, FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 3, App. 3-8 provides:
l The maximum sound levels received by any member-I of the public should be lower than 123 db,~ the level which may cause discomfort to individuals.
The consistency of the VANS system with that requirement involves both factual and'1egal issues. We treat the factual issues first.
- 17. The Mass AG' takes the position that the VANS system; violates this standard both in terms of the sound pressure.
levels received directly by the public and in terms of increased levels due to building reflection. Mass AG Dir., TI.
463-4'67. Applicants claim that the height and' focused beam of the siren.and its rotating nature prevent direct-exposure 1to the public except for short durations. &gg. Dif. pagt II, 75 at 5-8. The limited exposure is due to'the fact that no excess
_ . - _ _ _ - . - - _ - =
1 .a.
exposure will occur at 51 feet, the normal operating height'of the siren, but will occur for the period of siren' activation while-the siren is being raised from 25 feet to 51 feet.- Ann.'
Dir, pnst II. 75 at 4-5. .With respect to the' building reflection issue the Applicants believe, at least as indicated in their Direct Testimony, that it is too theoretical a possibility to be considered here. Ang. Dir. post II. 75 at 16-17.
- 18. As to direct exposure, there is no' dispute that members of the.public could well be exposed;to significantly
~
greater sound pressure-levels than 123 dBC when the sirens.are initially sounded. We use Attachment H to Applicants' Direct Testimony as a guide,.although it appears to be somewhat of an underestimate because of its reliance on one'(out of three) 1 sets of measurements.from a smaller, less powerful siren than the one to be used by the VANS system. II. 175-178. We also note that the siren in question, a dual Whelen 4000, is apparently so loud that it could not be tested at.the laboratory of its manufacturer. II. 184. Therefore, we are left to rely- l on a vertical directivity pattern (Attachment H) which is, in essence, a mathematical model derived from field measurements. I II. 158-159. !
- 19. In their attempt to meet the'15 minute notification criterion, the Applicants have designed their system to begin ;
sounding the sirens when they are 25 feet above the ground and 'l ascending to their operational height of 51 feet. Ang. Qir.
I i
i
4 post II. 75 at 5. By sounding the sirens early, the Applicants would shave off between 40 and 50 seconds on their full activation time. II. 94-95.
- 20. At 25 foot activation, members of the public could well be exposed to sound levels (not accounting for building reflection) as high as 131 dBC. Ann. Ril. EqEt II. 75, Att.
H. While at 25 feet, listeners located between 30 feet and 340 feet from the siren, would be exposed to sound in excess of 123 dBC. II. 225-226. As the siren goes to 30 feet, the range of exposure in excess of 123 dBC is 50 to.320: feet;from the siren. II. 226. At 35 feet the range is 80 to 310. feet. II.
226.
- 21. The Board has also considered the likelihood that members of the public would be in positions sufficiently close to the sirens to be so exposed. For consideration of that matter, acoustic survey maps bound into the transcript I
following page 231 are helpful. Judging from those maps, VANS acoustic locations VL-01, VL-03, VL-04, VL-06, VL-09, VL-10, VL-13, VL-14, VL-15 and VL-16 have structures within the distances where sound pressure levels would exceed 123 dBC. We also note that most of the structures are residential homes making it reasonable to conclude that members of the public will be nearby.
- 22. The Applicants claim that 25 foot activation will only occur in the " rare case" where there is an immediate Site Area Emergency (SAE) or General Emergency (GE) and no prior ALERT stage. Ann. Dir. post II. 75 at 5. That is significant in i
9 their view because where en ALERT precedes an SAE or GE, plenty of time will exist to dispatch the VANS trucks and raise the sirens to their full height prior to siren activation. ARn.
i RLI . pnst II. 75 at 7-8.
- 23. The Board rejects this point because the 15 minute notification requirement itself is designed primarily for the fast-breaking accident requiring immediate protective' action where no prior alert would be given. II. 381. Ene Einal Rule on Emeroency Planning, CLI-80-40, 12 NRC 636, 637-638 (1980)
(15 minute rule designed for immediate release. situation and where accident goes unnoticed for several hours). We find unpersuasive the notion that a standard can be met in part by showing that the accident scenario which prompts the standard is unlikely to occur. II. 381-383.
- 24. The Board notes in passing that the Applicants claim to have altered the boom hydrolics so as to allow the siren to be lifted from its rest position to 51 feet in approximately the time it had taken to be lifted from its rest position to 25 feet. Ann. Dir. oost II. 75 at 19A. The point of this amendment is to suggest that 25 foot activation is no longer required to meet the 15 minute requirement.
- 25. The Board does not consider this change in lifting mechanism for two reasons. First, the Applicants knew of the 25 foot problem in early 1988. II. 94. The issue was joined at summary disposition in the fall of 1988. Egg Answer o_f Massachusetts Attorney General in Oooosition to Acolicants' Motion for Summary Disapsition of Amended Contention on s
Notification System at 16 (October 11, 1988).
't
- 26. The Applicants did not' attempt toLalter the system l
t nntil-mid-April 1989.. II.'82-84. . Tests of the alteration were ,
done on April 121Jbut counsel for the Applicants elected not'to notify the Mass AG until the afternoon of May 1, the dayIbefore the hearing. 'II. 66,;90-92. Under the ci~rcumstances, it would be. unfair to the Mass'AG,'who.has had no opportunity to address this issue, by discovery or otherwise, to permit the Applicants to rely upon it. Moreover, counsel for the Applicants made' clear at the hearings that they;would defend the-25 foot-activation height.- II. 93. ~
- 27. With respect to. building reflection, .all parties' experts in the area agreed that increased sound levels due to building reflection would occur, and that the effect would be to add up to 6 dBC to.the direct exposure level. Mass AG Rir.
II 463-466; Iri 194 (Mr. Sutherland); Itm 401 (Mr. Eldred).
-There was also substantial agreement that regions.in front of the buildings, and not just at the. building face itself, would experience increases of up to 6'dBC andEthat the space average Ij in the vicinity of the building would be 3'dBC. Mass AG Qir. f J
l II. 463-466; II. 194, 400-401. The experts from the Mass AG and the Staff also agreed-that the area of greatest sound I
increase was up to one half of the smallerHof the width or
]
i height of the building. Mass AG Dir. II. 465-466; Ir1 402. '
The Board finds it reasonable to conclude that this area (in front of and near to one's home) is sufficient 1y'likely to.be ~
occupied by people such that concern about building reflection 1 increases. I
% \
' . . e
/
- s. 28. The parties presented'a substantial. amount of testimony regarding the appropriate interpretation of the 123
~
dBC standard. Agg. Dir. post II. 75 at 8-16; Staff Dir. II. .
l' 321-325; Mass AG Dir. II. 456-462.
- 29. The-Applicants take.the position that.the standard should be read to reflect the purpose.of FEMA Document cpg l (March 1, 1980), the background document to cpg.1-17, BBN Report No. 4100, and the underlying' document to BBN-Report'No.-
4100, namely " Hazardous Exposure to Intermittent and Steady-State Noise," Report of Working: Group. (WG)-4/E; National-Academy of Science - National Resource Council (NAS-NRC),
Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and Biomechanics (CHABA),
1 January, 1965. They conclude that these background documents were not concerned with discomfort, but rather hearing damage and that when adjustments of sound frequencies, exposure frequency, and time duration of exposure are made to reflect the VANS system, it is less harmful than the level frem which the 123 dBC was ultimately derived. Agg. Qir. oost II. 75 iz !
8-16. '
i
- 30. The Staff takes a'similar tack, concluding that the l standard should be interpreted to permit the sirens "as loud as j
1 possible without causing permanent harm to any person nearing ;
the siren." Staff Eir. II. 322. That standard would go well l beyond the point of discomfort and beyond the creation of f temporary threshold shifts in listeners. II. 409. The sound level well-recognized to cause pain in listeners is i i
i l
4-approximately 140 dBC. Mass AQ Rir. II.'4; i. The' Staff's view-of the appropriate standard could well go beyond therthreshold of pain -- because'it would not necessarily-cause. permanent'.
. hearing damage. II. 429.
! ~
31'. The Mass'AG. relies upon the actual language of the l.
standard and proceeds from the economical view that a standard which says " discomfort" means " discomfort." Mass &Q Rir. II.
l 456-462. In support of that view they cite Silverm'an, Harrison and Lane, " Tolerance for pure Tone' and for Speech in: Normal and Hard-of-Hearing Ears," (St. Louis: Central Institute for'the- :!
Deaf, OSRD Report 6303, 1946) ("Silverman study").
~
- 32. The Silverman study investigated ~ tolerance levels for both pure tones and speech in individuals with normal'and l j
i defective hearing. Ann. Ex. 12-A. The. study reported "three
-)
clearly distinguishable thresholds," identifie'd as follows in the published article:
l
- 1. Discomfort threshold, defined as the' point at which the subject feels he.would. cease to listen because the stimulus was uncomfortable.
t l 2 Tickle threshold, defined as the point at which {
i the subject experiences a definite' tickling' sensation in the ear.
l 3. Esin threshold, defined'as the point at which the p- subjec6 experiences? au defird tensensartioina af sha rp + +j l pain, as opposed to more discomfort deep.in the i ear. ,
l
- 33. Thresholds for discomfort,-tickle, and pain, using i
pure tone and speech, were determined over a 6-week period of. !
46 normal ears and 46 hard-of-hearing ears. It. 459. A total.
of 16A00'observatienscwerencedaduring" tire-course ~ ofs the-n !
investigation. <
\ - 13'-
i 7 34. TheLinstruction given to' subjects was: -
You'will hear a. tone whichfwill get louder ,
and louder. Tell me when you reach'the j point where the tone is uncomfortable, 1
'that':is,1when you would no longer care to listen or when you feel like. removing the earphone'from your. ear.3 :When.the uncomfortable point:is reached, say
' uncomfortable' and ILwill' shut off the tone. We shall then repeat the procedure with.anotherLtone. Are'your; ready?) '
App. Ex.'12-B at 662. . Signals were presented'in'an " ascending-staircase" with each. level being 2 dB higher than the preceding one. The duration of'each level was 1.5. seconds with no off time between successive' levels. The first-level of. exposure was 100 dBC. App. Ex. 12-B at 663.
- 35. The test results concluded that average-discomfort level thresholds, for people with normal hearing unaccustomed to high noise levels, is 110 dBC for sounds lasting 1.5 seconds and at 500 Hz. App.'Ex. 12-B at 675. For individuals with a-history of exposure to high noise levels,-the threshold'might be raised to 120 dBC at the same frequency. App. Ex. 12-B at 675.
- 36. . Based on the Silverman study and.using an acceptable j standard deviation, the percentage of people whose threshold of discomf.o.r.t.. wou.1d. be. ex.ceeded. by...a..,pu re, t.onero f e 123....dBC. 24. 5M Hz would be 84%. Maas AG Ri.r. II. 462.
- 37. Dr. Kryter, one of the Applicants' experts noted that the Silverman study might actually be conservative in this f
s d
U 4- *
)
4
_.._1__ ______________ _ J
setting because in the free field, as opposed to the head phone situation in the study, " naive" subjects would have reached thresholds of discomfort at 105 dBC rather than 110 dBC and
" experienced" subjects at 115 dBC rather than 120 dBC. II 214.
38.
The Board finds the Silverman study to be reliable and authoritative for setting the level of discomfort. First, the experiment is appli~ cable here because the duration element i's quite similar to the VANS system.
The average " naive" subject was exposed to only seven and one half seconds of sound before discomfort was reached and exceeded. .It 217-218. Second, the Silverman study was uniquely valuable in that it was a careful and extended experiment on live subjects. Dr. Kryter suggested that such an experiment would be difficult if not impossible to replicate in this day and age because of the." ethical questions" of exposing individuals to such extraordinary sound levels. II. 272.
Third, the Silverman study has been extensively relied upon by a large number of experts in the field.
Mass AG Rir. II. 458-459. In his book, "The Effects of Noise on Man," 2d ed. SRI International, Manlo Park, CA, Academic Press (1985),
Dr. Kryter himself relies on Silverman 4 as a " standard reference" for the proposition of the discomfort threshold and sets it av i,n anc me ,1B-219. Leo Beranch, Mr. Eldred's close friend and the founder of the firm at which he worked for eight years similarly viewed Silverman as authoritative on this precise subject. II. 404-406.
1 i (
r-i l
39 While some attempt 11s made'to' disparage the~Silverman study based'on-its stated objective of gathering data for the-p 423-424; the obvious scopefand design.of hearing aids, II.
l usefulness of the study, particularly'give"n its large following, is much broader.
- 40. The position taken'by the Applicants'andithe St'aff'41s'
_Indeed,.
that the. Board should rewrite the NUREG-0654. standard.
the Staff witness Mr. Eldred was quite explicit:that'the substance of his testimony was'that he wouldichange both the sound level limit from 123 dBC to 135 dBC as.well as the II. 409, 412-413 standard from discomfort to hearing damage; We view that as a fundamental problem where the standard is quite clear (as well as defensible based on Silverman and his
- v. La following) on its face. E.g., Escondido Mutual Water Co.
Jolla Indians, 466 U.S. 765, 772 (1984); Suburban Transit Coro<
- v. ICC, 784 F.2d 1129, 1130 (D.C. Cir. 1986); United Science l
NLRB, 762 F.2d 1027, 1032 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
Artists Local 889 v. :j
- 41. That problem is compounded by the' fact that none of.
the witnesses had anything to do with the writing of i
NUREG-0654. I.t . 273-274.
]
- 42. The Board is also concerned thol.CPC 1-17, while' i plainly adopted from Mr. Keast's work, BBN-4100 is a FEMA t publication and it is by no means" clear that FEMA adopts all of l the interpretations placed-on cpg 1-17 by Mr. Keast. l
- 43. Although Dr. Kryter and Mr. Keast consistently argue that the sound output limit should be tailored to the frequency ~
i
i s l and duration ofithe particular siren at issue, CPG l-17 is .
quite general in setting'a 123 dBC: limit-for' frequencies ranging from-300 Hz to 1000 Hz and with f a 3'to 5 minute :
l 1 L duration. Ir. 228t CPG l-17?at 2, 8,.17.--In addition,-CPG i-1-17 is apparently concerned with' community'" disturbances" from- -
? -l L the siren as'well as hearing damage. CPG.1-17 at 8. Finally,.
judging from Figure 3 in cpg 1-17 a siren-with the ratedLo'utput of the' dual Whelan 4000, 134 dBC, is literallyL"off-the-chart" :
and would require a mounting height'of'over1100. feet to avoid.
risk of hearing damage to pedestrians. ' II., ' 228 ; CPG ~1-17 at~15.
- 44. .Even if~we were to look beyond the plain words.of
)
a NUREG-0654 and the discomfort standard, we would conclude'that l its authors recognized a distinction between hearing damage-and q discomfort and chose the latter as a more conservative
\
standard. The Applicants and the Staff, in.a sense, have l proven too much. From their testimony,it is apparent that if the authors of NUREG-0654 were concerned with temporary-1 threshold shift, permanent hearing damage or_even pain, they ;
would not have chosen the 123 dBC limit. It is too-low for a 3 to 5 minute siren of limited use.- Ir. 265-266. Simply put, f
when they said " discomfort" they must have meant it. !
l
- 46. The Applicants put a new twist on the standard'in. !
paragraph 46 of their proposed findings. They argue that i discomfort should be jettisoned as'a standard because 123 dBC i
-is not "the lowest level at which any member of the public will '
experience-discomfort." The NUREG-0654 standard does not say '
i 4
1
> ~
that 123 dBC.is the-lowest level at which any member'of the public will experience discomfort:but rather, that sound levels. '
L received by any' member should be' lower than1123 dBC, the level I '
which may cause discomfort to' individuals.
- 47. .The Board concludes!that the Applicants' VANSjsystem will cause significant levels ofidiscomfort to;the exposed-public. That will occur both through~ direct-exposure.as well.
as building reflection. (Because the standard spe'aks to anz-m_ ember of the public," we reject Applicantsand Staff's attempts to again rewrite the NUREG-0654' standard;1this time.to impose an exception of-excessive sound levels: caused only by.
building reflection). The VANS system'does not' meet the-123 dBC' limit in NUREG-0654 and we find it inadequate.
- 48. Should the output of the VANS' sirens _be reduced to acceptable levels, the extent of sound coverage provided by the VANS sirens would be-inadequate. II. 206. We note in closing on this issue that neither the Applicants nor the' Staff have offered any technical reason why sirens with lesser' sound outputs, akin to those already in use in.the~'New Hampshire portion of'the Seabrook EpZ (Egg App. Ex. ll-A at Table 2-1, p.
2-31), could not be used in the Massachusetts portion of the.
EpZ. The impediment is obviously that these sirens would also -
provide lesser sound coverage and, consequently, more sirens J would be required.
- 49. .The Board now considers the issue of whether the VANS system satisfies the 15 minute requirement for alerting.and notifying the public.
, s
)
- = _:__-___ _ -- 1
Once again,.NUREG-0654, Appendix 3,' derived from 10-
. 50. .
C.F.R. Part 50 App. E.IV(D), provides the minimum acceptable standards for the system:
a) Capability for providing both an alert- .
j signal'and an' informational or instructional
l message to the popul'ation on an area wide.
basis throughout the 10 mile EPZ, within 15 minutes.
b) The initial notification system will assure direct. coverage of essentially 100% of the population within 5 miles'of the site.
c) Special arrangements will.be made to assure
]
100% coverage within-45 minutes of the 3 population who may not-have received the initial notification within the. entire plume exposure EPZ.
- 51. We are also, guided by the exhortatio'n of conservatism j in FEMA-REP-10. According to FEMA, the design. report must include the calculations that the 15 minute requirement is met for mobile systems'like VANS. "Such calculations.should include j i i conservative estimates of the time required to execute any-
! necessary procedures, [and] to obtain or position'any necessary
" 1 equipment . . . . FEMA-REP-10 at E-11 (emphasis added). !
l
- 52. As described in App. Ex. ll-B, the duration of.the VANS alerting function can be determined by summing the time to alert the operators (alert time), the time to dispatch the ,
vehicles from the staging areas (dispatch time), the time to travel from the staging areas to the acoustic locations .
-i
~
(transit time), the time to raise the sirens at.the acoustic ;
locations (setup time), and the time to provide;the alerting signal (siren activation time). Aun. Dir. post II. 75 at 19B, 1
The time to notify the public is, of course, an issue here.
_ 19 _
.(:
T v
't o.
,9o l t.
53, We'have raised'a question concerningLthe;a er l- "How long willfit' take'if
- component ~at 21.of LBP-89-09. l phone: Voice-electronic activation fails'and-radio:or te e es necessary?"- ~ The undisputed' answer :is one.
contact becom ds.for electronic activation..
minu.te., as opposed toL10.'secon i1&u.se . .one ., ,
In the interests of conservatism / we<w,
_Tl.4121.. in our:ca lculations.-
minute:as.the appropriate alerting _ time' d yl in' r'ange.
54.
The Applicants' dispatch figuresE(w ich var
' l based on,a testing l to times greater than 50 seconds) were t pages'20-21. JAs we-program which we. discussed in LBP-89-09 ncernsathatithese; noted there, however, we have continuing co would be4 that.they tests, where the operators were aware dictionfof.what repeatedly called, do not provide a fair pre forewarning.
would actually happen in an event with no The focus of our concern"is subsequently lap-89-09 at 20.
"Over years of plant operation, how-stated in our decision: ill be.actually likely is it that each of the VANS operators.w l
(e.g. not in the rest room / not away from-available and alert l not believing that the situation is.a fa se post on break, LBP-89' 09 = at is received?' ,.
atarm)-at the time an alert message 20-21. they have imposed procedures.
Applicants point out that 5 5. - d readiness.
at the staging areas to-ensure driver, alert an Those procedures take the following forms: (
a) training'of VANS operators in Ip 2.16~f AA D._ -
Dir. Qost Tr. 73, Att. G). And. proper use o the equipment; b) requiring VANS operators to perform daily non-emergency actions;
. 2 0 7 -, --
j t
. , +
~
c) 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> staf fing with shif ts of one:
supervisor, twenty; primary _, VANS operators,!and 1 four'backukp VANS operators; I d) a rule that VANS operators ~are not to leave their duty station until relieved;- j e) prioritized. dispatch; .
f) Venicular Alert:and Communication System (VACS);
g)~~ dispatch at the alert stage.
'apn. Dir.:pr.st II. 75 at.20-24.:
- 56. The Staff' witness, Mr. Kantor, had.nothing to;offerLon
~
this issue. He acknowledged that the. VANS; system isiunique~in--
terms of alert and notification systems and had no? experience-in reviewing the system for the job. motivation and boredom
. I concerns raised by the Mass AG and did not do so in this case.
II. 374-377. Moreover, we note that neither of_the Staff's-witnesses even reviewed the-Mass AG's testimony prior to filing.
their own and gave it only minimal review thereafter. II 392. 1 i
1
- 57. The Mass AG offered testimony of a behavioral' psychologist, Dr. Ruth Kanfer. MassAG Dir. II. .468-472. The I
Board finds based on her testimony and the nature ofithe jcb.of 3 1
VANS operator.that its excessive boredom'is likely,to lead to
(
absenteeism problems and engaging in non-work-related !
i oclivities including particularly leaving the staging' areas fo'r ] '
extended periods of time for activities which-are not. !
work-related. Aside from the thoroughness and reliability of the Mass.AG witness on'this issue, the Board would be hard I
pressed to reject it because neither the Applicants nor the Staff presented any contrary testimony on the behavioral issues. i 1
l
\
I
__________________________1_____________.___._. _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ ___:._:._.__
. .a .
58.
~
This; problem is compounded:by a number of: factors raised at the hearing. First,.'the.officefenvironment.'at all of.
the staging, areas- consists of a single. room for ' the operators l to sit, :restroom f acilitiesL and. a(garage to. stor'e 7the . trucks.
~
II. 103-105 That kind of minimalist office' environment is' noti likely'to' encourage operators, who are. acknowledged to'haveLsi'x.
hours out of every~eight hour. day.without work to do,1to: remain.
at their staging area. II. 106, 112. Second, each of'thefVANS l operators'will have his automobile at work, providing ready
-transportation should they desire to leave 1the areas. It.
118. Third, no! attention has been paid to'either special screening of workers to become VANS operators or to; regular rotation of workers in an'd out of the job. II. 115.
- 59. The Board also finds it unrealistic to. expect the-Applicants' procedures to significantly mitigate the problem.
First, the training of VANS operators in implementing.
procedures and the proper use of equipmen6 is procedural'and cognitive, testing abilities and skills, and is not --
motivational. Mass AG Dir. II. 471. .Second,:the' daily non--
emergency actions will take only two hours out of the total shift time of eight hours and will do little over the life of
'i the system to mitigate these problems. Ma.EE AG Dir. II. :
i 471-472; Tr. 106, 112. Third, the 24-hour staffing, prioritized' .i I
dispatch and sophisticated communicationisystem are effectiveL only to the extent that VANS operators remain at the staging areas. They.will help to' achieve a dispatch time' consistent with the Applicants' estimate if the VANS operators can be. !
i
, i d
._. _ - __-__ -_ 2 __________-_________________ ___.
4 reached by the communications system or can return within 5 _
i minutes (for purposes of a prioritized dispatch). These steps 1 do nothing for VANS operators who come into work late or leave ;
I the site during the course of their work, both likely events over the life of the system. tian AG Dir. l'I. 472.
- 60. We note that the staffing pattern in particular presents only the illusion of resolving the problem. The four backup drivers will be stationed at Seabrook Station and will 1
have other duties. II. 108-109. Both of these factors will prevent timely backup. The single supervisor is unlikely to be able to ensure alert and readiness, particularly from his location on-site. II. 118. The four supplemental, primary drivers will all regularly be on the road, engaged in route verification. II. 118.
- 61. The reliance of the Applicants on the dispatch of the VANS trucks at the ALERT stage is, again, misplaced. 622 Eif-post II. 75 at 23-24. That early dispatch will not be possible in the accident situations for which the 15 minute requirement is designed.
- 62. To the claim that possible disciplinary action would !
I ensure that drivers would remain at the staging areas and alert, Dr. Kanfer pointed to a closely analogous situation (
i involving railroad engineers. IL1 523-525. In a study done by Ralph Haber and Lynn Haber for the Illinois Institute of i Technical Research, it was found that railroad engineers who were prohibited, at the risk of being fired, .from leaving the cab during the course of driving the train did so regularly i
- ,- anyway. . :Ot . 5 2 3- 5 2 4 . This problem,-as well as similar' problems in other occupations, results'from the recent automation-of the locomotive 1and the resulting. limited-tasks I ~
for engineers over.their route. II. 525. .These types of vigilance studies are quite relevant to the job of VANS operator.
- 63. The Board notes that the Applicants.provided'no-substantive response to'these-points except to~. inquire of Dr. Kanfer what she'would do, as a' consultant.to the-Applicants, to solve these problems. III'525-527. Her response was that she would redesign the job to' provide the motivation necessary for driver alert.and readiness. II.'
526-528.
- 64. The Board concludes that the Applicants have not sustained their burden.of showing that the VANS. operators will' remain' alert and ready over the life of the VANS system.to respond in a timely fashion to a radiological emergency at Seabrook. Sag LBP-89-09 at 33. In this r'espect as well the-Board finds the VANS System inadequate.
- 65. The Applicants have taken the position that a.25%
reduction in speed factor should apply to calculate winter m.
transit times. Agg. & . oost L 75 at 25-30... They conclude that application of the factor makes no difference in the
- bottom line deployment and activation times because:
l 1) only three VANS trucks providing coverage within 5 miles would have-transit times exceeding the 10 minute maximum; i
4
____.__.__.__.____m__. _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- 2) one of the three'does not provide" sole-coverage of an area s during the winter;
'3)Jthe VANS trucks should' move through: snow more, effectively thanfpassenger cars, on which the 25% factor is-based; and
- 4) actual tests duringfseveEe. winter adverse.
~
weather.showLthat the.three t'r'ansit times should not materially exceed 10 minutes.
ADE. Dir. post.TI. 75 at 29-30.
- 66. -The Staff.had nothing to. add to this analysis. .II.-
380'.
- 67. The Board concludes'that the' Applicants' position is wide of the mark inLseveral respects.- TheirLexpert, Mr..
Lieberman, testified that from January 1980 to April 198'8, portland, Maine experienced 21. days in which snowfalls occurred of sufficient size to reduce speeds-from 27%'to 39%. II. 245.
It was not clear from.his testimony whether:the next day (s) of the storm would result in similar reduction factors. In any event and in the interests of conservatism, we conclude that a 40% speed reduction factor should be applied for adverse winter weather transit times. II 125-127.
- 68. We also conclude that there is no. sound reason to limit the application of the reduction factor to VANS. locations x .-
withi.ns 5, mi,les.. of, .theusitewc NUREG,0654, mquire s.mlech Muf 2 , i notification throughout the EpZ on an area wide basis within 15 minutes. NUREG-0654, App. 3 at'3-3. The Applicants must be capable of providing area wide coverage.within the EpZ.innthe winter as well as the other seasons. .
l i
, I
% l l l l
I
- _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ ~ - _ . ._ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _
l' ,
- )
./ . ~6 9'. The' Board concludes,1 based on Mr Lieberman's testimony, I
that the. wider tires,Ldeeperitreads and; greater weight.of the VANS. trucks are of little consequence 1.if, asLcan':be expected,- ,
- i they are following-' slower passenger. cars. 'Iri 261-262.
'70. We also note that the actual tests Dof ' adverse: winters weather transit times'were conducted under icy conditions. . Ann.
- j. Dir. post'II.r 75'at 28. It is unclear:whether'the speed reduction ~ factor discussedi by Mr. Lieberman wouldfapplyLto these-l conditions , IL.' 122-123,.'and'whether additional days of.the year should be added to. account for these conditions'.:" In any' event,
~
l -
the Board-finds it difficult-to place any weight on these tests without more informat' ion,-including temperature,: precipitation i
a.nount s , and the-amount of Jce on the~ roads. '
- 71. Employing th'e Applicants'. figures for. average transit time, AEn. Dir. post .II. 75 at 28, we conclude as'follows with' !
respect to the predicted adverse winter transit times'for each.of the VANS locations:
Average predicted' Adverse bcoustic Location Transit Time: Winter Transit' Time.g -
i 1 8:37 :12:04 L 2 5:03' 7:04
[ .. 2: 6 r2 7- 9:casu 4 U:00 0:00 5 0:00 _0:00- 1 i 6 3.09 7
4:25_ ~j 3:42~ 5:11. j 8 7:13 10:06. !
9 7:17 10:12 !
10 7:18 10:13' i 11" 7:32 10:33- i 12 8:25 11:47 13s 8 : 0'3^ ' 11 r16'" i 14 0:55 1:17- i 15 3:01' 4:13 l 16 11:43 16:24' 4
l
- 26'- '!.
q I
- 72. With respect to the issue of notification by means of informational or instructional messages, there is something of an initial legal question. The minimum acceptable design-objectives of NUREG-0654 require an informational or instructional message to be provided the population "on an area wide basis throughout the 10 mile EPZ, within 15 minutes,"
NUREG-0654, App. 3, at 3-3. 10 C.F.R. 50, App. B IV(D)(3) also requires that notification be " essentially complete" within about 15 minutes.
- 73. The Applicants intend to activate the EBS messages concurrently with the commencement of the siren sounding. Apo.
Dir. post Tr. at 30-31. The EBS messages that would be used in the most confining scenario are less than the three minute length of the siren sounding. Tr. 285. The Applicants conclude that notification would be complete with the playing of the first message, and, therefore, no time need be added to the three minute siren activation time to account for the notification. Agg. Dir. post Tr. 75 at 30-31.
- 74. Applicants also rely on the following language in NUREG-0554, App. 3:
A prompt notification scheme shall include the capability of local ~ and State ~ agenc"tes- ttr '
provide information promptly over radio and TV at the time of activation of the alerting signal.'
and in FEMA Guidance Memorandum AN-1, FEMA Action to Qualify 1
Alert and Notification Systems Against NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 and FEMA-REP-10, at page I-4:
i t
In confirming thatLthe alert and: notification
-system time requirements are satisfied, the <
evaluator.should begin. timing from the point at which the' decision to activate ~the alert and notification system is made. Withini15 or 45 (if applicable) minutes of1this: decision by offsite' officials,-the alert signal must1be-activated.and.an' instructional. message must-be-on the air.-
f
- 75. As f ar as : the Board is concerned,1tfie Applicants' ,
r argument amounts to the notion.thatfa'requi'ementithat!
notification by informational orEinstructional message be L
' complete can be satisfied without any assurance:that the-population"actually hears.the. messages. We reject Ehis view.
The plain import of a notification requirement is that the ,
population actually be notified.
- 76. The language from NUREG-0654 and FEMA Guidance Memorandum AN-1 is ambiguous. The sentence from NUREG-0654 is .1 f
equally susceptible of the reading simply that the message' should not be broadcast until after.the signal is complete. -
1 According to AN-1 the alert signal "must be activated'* within 15 or 45 minutes. But Noone argues with the proposition that; 1
the alert must be comolete within the 15.or'45 min'ute period. '
l FEMA must then be equating " activation", not with the step of turning on the signal, but rather with its full and complete sounding. A similar interpretation.of- the phrase "6n the'olt" is appropriate. Finally AN-1 says'nothing about whether the !
l message should follow the signal.
- 77. The Staff knows of no other case where-this issue has i arisen. II. 387-388. The Staff witness, Mr. Kantor,.took the position that the regulation and the guidance require "that N
A <
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ ]
people actually receive the message" and "be informed." II.
384. That position is indistinguishable from the one taken by the Mass AG and adopted here.
- 78. There is no dispute about the two essential factual components.of this issue. The first one is that a substantial,
' undefined portion of the population.will not. hear..a fu1L.EBS- -
message until after the 3 minute tone is complete. Mass AG i
Dir. II. 473-478; Ir 152-154 (Mr. Keast); II.. 386-387 (Mr. i Kantor). This stems f rom the f act that in:. order.. to hear an EBS message, the population must hear the. siren,. interpret its meaning, obtain access to a working radio, and tune into the appropriate EBS station. I Mass AG Qir. II. 473-478; Iri 149-150 '
(limited number of EBS stations; Applicants stipulate that it is unlikely that significant number of people will be tuned into the EBS station when "the balloon goes up."). A significant portion of the population will not complete these steps until after the siren signal is complete.
- 79. The second factual question concerns the time to complete the EBS sequence. It will begin with an initial announcement and a tone which together will take 55 seconds.
! IL. 147. Next,-one..of three. prerecorded-messages used~for-"
events requiring immediate protective action will be played, repeated twice immediately and subsequently repeated at 15 minute intervals. Ann. Dir. nasi II. 75 at 30-31. Those messages are, in minutes, 2:05, 2:03 and 2:38 in length. II.
2 8 5...
i
80.
1 Adding ~these numbers,-the Board concludes that the first EBS message, if khe_ longest is used, will not.be' completed.until 33 seconds.after the completion of the siren -
p '
- signal. The next message will: not be' completed until 3:11 after the siren signal ends. We conclude that the Applicants *'
system has the capability of.providinglan informational.and" !
instructional message to the population within-three minutes l
- and eleven secondsfof completing the siren signal.
- 81. The: Board.is-.in a position now to' add up the various components ofithe-deployment.and: activation time.for each of the VANS locations.. We base'this on~the information' described-above, information in the Applicantis' Direct' Testimony and _ l, information in the summary disposition materials.
I
, 1 l l i
l t
i i ,
i
________.___._.__m_.__________.__m___m.____. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ , . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ __ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _
r
._ e t g et sn uns 8894495067710179 bie .
l ri 0000021111352212 tsn aeW t v
- : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : )tuo 1689934999900035 0e i od 211 - 11111122112 2 sdt T A l'a - .
- ra tdac t 1734436712697957 anoo o 4034Q1412234 0504 ' gBl 2 e T : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : 9 7459922666677920 0beh 111 11111111 12 - ohc g .
9jTa 2 8 e a r s -
Po.r s 1111111111111111 Btyo e 1111111111111111 Ladf SM : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : ( ra B 3333333333333333 ees E spre l to r a n du n aSng o 0000000000000000 cNai i 0000000000000000 iA f S : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : lVt 3333333333333333 p rn p
peeo Ahli u t at t
e e- a 0000000000000000 hf yv S 0000000000000000 toli
- : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : tt 1111111111111111 f enc t ot ea i
ui s .
gt cd n 4450051623376734 nain a 0000021011341112 inf a r : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : t f T 2790045000011146 srut 1 111111 1 easn t
ti e e i huby l em srs cc o ren tell eta 7390092378253513 a pl p vnr 3020004111320504 p .ie diT : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : : sewd AW 8560033777788031 ih 1 dt yh
/
ec etha
- 2 hat e h th! r c
- tt n
t 3333333333333333 ao a 55555555555555S5 p
s
- : : : : : : : : : : : : t :
o,ht sv et d
i eogo
_ D ibni
- l air t
e de 0000000000000000
- l r
e 0000000000000000 1111111111111111 rdnp dtfd ro ei n
A anao o c n Bsse add +
o e d i h ,u3
_ t 1234567890123456 Tsl5 a 1111111 dc
_ c nee
- o /irh
+ L 2f pt
y I' . . I ', o
< f or ..,
.s. 1 ,
G '
- 82. 'The Board finds'and rules.~that the VANS' system.does-y, , .notLmeet;the 15' minute. requirement.for'9lofs16 acoustic:
locations ~ in' non-winter / conditions. and for 10iof ^161 locations-
'in. adverse winter. conditions.
- 83. The Board finds.and. rules'that.the Applicants' system.
- does not meet applicable Commission'. regulations and guidance and does=not' provide..adequateJmeans.to provide sarly:
notification and clear instruction to the. populace within the Massachusetts portions of the-Seabrook'EPZ.
Respectfully' submitted,- ;i.
JAMES M. SHANNON ATTORNEY. GENERAL-
.Q. W Stephen'A.:Jonas Deputy Attorney General, Chief, Public. Protection Bureau Pamela Talbot.
Assistant Attorney.' General.
Nuclear-Safety Unit One Ashburton Place-Boston,:MA 02108.
(617) 727-2200 l Dated: June 12, 1989 n
I i
L-_-___._- -- - . - - - - . --
f-7
, +* #
ct E ,r -
E s.,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '89 JW 19 P3 :57 un' ,
00 Chi i m , ,,o 2IUe *
)
In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1
) 50-444-OL-1 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY )
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, _ET_ _AL_. )
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) June 12, 1989
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Stephen A. Jonas, hereby certify that on June 12, 1989, I made service of the within MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RULINGS OF LAW WITH RESPECT TO SIREN ISSUES, and by First Class Mail, by Federal Express an indicated by (*),
by hand delivery as indicated by (**) to:
- Peter Bloch, Chairman *Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Atomic Safety & Licensing Board 5500 Friendship Boulevard l
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Apartment 1923N Washington, DC 20555 Chevy Chase, MD 20815
- Dr. Jerry Harcour
- Gregory Barry, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of General Counsel Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Washington, DC 20555 Rockville, MD 20852 Docketing and Service ** Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Ropes & Cray Washington, DC. 20555 One International Place Boston, MA 02110 H. Joseph Flynn, Esq. Atomic Safety & Licensing Assistant General Counsel Appeal Board Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Federal Emergency Management Washington, DC 20555 Agency ,
500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20472 Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Backuc, Meyer & Solomon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 116 Lowell Street P.O. Box 516 Manchester, NH 03106
j).
a+.
- ' Jane' Doughty- Dianne Curran,,Esq.
. Seacoast Anti-Pollution League .Harmon,: Curran & Towsley' Five Market: Street . Suite 430 Portsmouth, NH 03801 2001'S' Street, N.W. .
Washington, DC 20008 Barbara St'. And_re, Esq. Judith Mizner, Esq.
Kopelman & Paige, P.C.. '79 State Street l 77: Franklin Street Second Floor Boston, MA 02110 Newburyport, MA 01950
. Charles P. Graham, Esq. R. Scott. Hill-Whilton, Esq.
Murphy & Graham Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton & Rotondi' 33 Low Street 79 State Street Newburyport, MA' 01950 Newburyport, 104 01950 Ashod N. Amirian, Esq. Senator Gordon'J. Humphrey 145 South Main Street U.S. Senate '
P.O. Box 38 .
Washington,' DC- 20510 Bradford, MA 01835 (Attn: -Tom Burack)
Senator Gordon J. Humphrey ' John P. Arnold, Attorney. General' One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Office of the-Attorney General *-
Concord, NH 03301 25 Capitol Street-(Attn: Herb Boynton) Concord, NH 03301 Phillip Ahrens, Esq. Richard' Donovan Assistant Attorney General FEMA Region 10 .
. Department of the Attorney General 130 228th Street,-S.W.
Augusta, ME 04333 Federal Regional Center Bothell, WA 98021-9796 William S. Lord I Board of Selectmen Town Hall - Friend Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Respectfully submitted, JAMES M. SHANNON j ATTORNEY GENERAL Shu Q.Jm Stepheh A. Jonas 6
Deputy Attorney General I Chief, Public Protection Division !
Pamela Talbot 1 Assistant Attorney General i
' Nuclear Safety Unit ,
One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108 i (617) 727-2200 !
Dated: June 12, 1989 4
y
. s