ML20247M211
| ML20247M211 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 09/20/1989 |
| From: | Dignan T PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20247M187 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8909250156 | |
| Download: ML20247M211 (21) | |
Text
. --
o i -d '
IR KL ? E.n Uwc September 20, 1989 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
- h..
pp before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
i l
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL l
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, at al.
)
50-444-OL
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1
)
(Offsite Emergency and 2)
)
Planning Issues)
)
APPLICANTS' MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO STRIKE THE COMMENTS OF MASSACHUSETTS ATTORKEY GENERAL ON APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO APPEAL BOARD ORDER OF AUGUST 30, 1989 INTRODUCTION On August 30, 1989, this Appeal Board issued an order directing that the Applicants furnish to the Appeal Board the following information:
A.
Numerical figures utilized by the Applicants in the mathematical model for calculating evacuee loads for registration and monitoring in each of the four host communities, including:
1.
The peak population (PP) figures for EPZ communities assigned to each host community; 2.
The Special Facilities Population (SFP) for special facilities in the assigned communities; 3.
The transit dependent (TDP) in the assigned communities; ABRQMSME.SB 8909250156 890920 PDR ADDCK 05000443 g
o 4
l l
B.
Citations to the record where the numerical figures are indicated; C.
Descriptions of any calculations or assumptions necessary to arrive at the numerical figures:
D.
Population figures (with record citations) and calculations which support the Licensing Board's finding that "the [ evacuee load] planning basis works out to be about 25% of all evacuees."
In addition, the Appeal Board stated, in the Order, that:
" Interveners shall file and serve any comments on. applicants' responses to this Order by September 15. 1989."1 Under date of September 7, 1989, Applicants responded to the Order.2 Under date of September 15, 1989, the Attorney General of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts (MAG) filed a document styled " Comments of Massachusetts Attorney General on Applicants' Response to Appeal Board Order of August 30, 1989" (hereafter referred to as " MAG Comments").
ARGUMENT 1
The MAG Comments should be stricken.
Rather than commenting upon the information set out in the Applicants' Response, MAG elected to utilize his comment privilege to put forth entirely new legal and factual theories for finding the staffing and equipping of reception centers to be inadequate.
Indeed, the MAG Comments do not challenge at all the 1
Order at 3.
2 Aeolicants' Response to Acceal Board Order of Aucust 30, 1989 (hereafter referred to as
" Applicants' Response." - _ - _ _ _
o correctness of any of the information set forth in the Applicants' Response; rather, MAG attempts to argue new theories as to why the information does not support the result reached by the Licensing Board.
MAG does this despite the fact that he neither filed any proposed findings on the relevant issues, nor did he adopt the proposed findings of SAPL, the only party which did file proposed findings in this area.3 In addition, MAG did not raise, on appeal, any issue having to do with evacuee loads and reception centers, nor did he adopt the arguments of any other party in this regard.4 In addition, a review of the filings of GAPL, which was the only party to file proposed findings and rulings and an appeal on this aspect of the case, will demonstrate that none of the theories set out in the MAG Comments was raised by SAPL either.5 Given this state of affairs, MAG is without standing, under the Rules of Practice as amended as of the time this 3
Massachusetts Attorney General James M. Shannon's Proposed Findinas of Fact and Rulinas of Law (May 19, 1988), passim.
4 Massachusetts Attorney General Brief on Acceal of the Partial Initial Decision on the NHRERP LBP 22 (March 24, 1989), passim.
5 Egg Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Proposed Findinas of Fact. Rulinas of Law and Cor.clusions of Fact (May 9, 1988) at 54-69; Seacoast Anti-Pollution Leacue's Brief on Acceal of the Partial Initial Decision on the NHRERP LBP-88-32 (March 21, 1989) at 42-57.
4 l l a
l
filing was made, to make the arguments and assertions made.
"An intervenor-appellant's brief must be confined to issues which the intervenor-appellant placed in controversy or sought to place in controversy in the proceeding."6 CONCLUSION The Motion to Strike should be granted.
In the event the motion is denied, the Appeal Board should'take cognizance
~
of the. analysis attached hereto and marked "A" which responds to the merits of the new issues raised; we so move.
Respectfully submitted, Thom(s G.
Dight (n, Jr.
George H. Lewald Jeffrey P. Trout Jay Bradford Smith Geoffrey C.
Cook William L.
Parker Ropes & Gray One International Place Boston, MA 02110-2624 (617) 951-7000 counsel for Applicants 1
6 10 CFR S 2.762, as amended, 54 FR 33168, 33182 (Aug. 11, 1989) effective Sept. 11, 1989.
- g a
.]
i Analysis of MAG's comments On Aeolleants' Rennente to Aeeen1 Beard Order of Aunutt 30,1989 i
Issue la The MAG states the capacity of each reception center as 9,667 cvacuees (MAG reply at 4).
Resoonse l
As stated in the Applicants' Reply to Appeal Board Order of August 30,1989, at 2, 9,667 represents the largest evacuen load at the largest reception center. The actual capacity of cach reception center is 9,340 evacuees. (See Applicants' Direct Testimony No. 4, at Attachment 3).
Additionally, the MAG's discussion of reception center capacity comp!ctely ignorcs the capability of the secondary reception centers. (See PID at 5.10). The capacity of each of the four secondary centers is 1,440 persons (Applicants' Direct Testimony l
No. 4, at page 15).
Since the secondary center for Manchester also served as the emergency worker I
monitoring facility, the Board recommended that a replacement secondary reception center be established. PID at 5.4g states:
"In order to ameliorate this situation, the Board recommends that the Hillside Junior High School should not be used as a secondary reception center for the general public except to the extent such use is actually found to be necessary i
during an cmcrgency. The Board also recommends that further consideration be given to identifying and using such other facilities that could be available on an ad hoc basis to provide additional shower capability." See also PID at 5.90.
This replacement secondary reception center has been identified and will be reflected in the next revision of the NHRERP. This center also has a capacity of 1,440 persons. If necessary, the secondary center can be utilized to provide additional evacues handling capacity.
IA31t l.h Aggregating the individual capacities of multiple reception centers to determine an average of the total population that can be processed at the centers is incorrect.
AAAAAAR l
As the Mass. AG recognizes on page 4 of his reply to the Applicant's response to Appeal Board Order of August 30,1989, aggregating the capacities of the reception centers to determine an average of the total population that can be processed at the centers is " reasonable only if either: ;).... or 2) excess staff and resources at Rochester were sent to Manchester if needed there." This reallocation of staff and resources is, however, assumed to take place. As stated by witness Bonds at Tr.
4984 85:
"With capacity crowds and everybody needing to be monitored in terms of their o
n
[ contamination), I have indicated that we would look toward other resources for augmenting, supplementing the staff at the facility. We would look toward other decontamination centers in cocration not exoerieteina oesk crowds who may have staff that's available? [ Emphasis added].
l Issue 2n "The Hampton PP on page 3 of the response (22,647) actually contains over 8,000 beach transients who are located on r.orthern Hampton Beach but not counted in the Hampton Beach total of 13,609.
Reseense The Applicants' planning basis assum:s the host community for "Hampton Beach" is Manchester und the host community for the other beach areas in the municipality of Hampton is Dover. "Hampton Beach" is defined as that portion of the beach area in the municipality of Hampton which lies south of Great Boar's Head. This beach area, which is commonly known as "Hampton Beach", is the only Hampton beach area within ERPA A.
The beach areas in the Town of Hamoton located north of Great Boar's Head and south of North Hampton are not in ERPA A. This area, which is commonly called
" North Beach" (not Hampton Beach), is located in ERPA D.
Allegations that "it is clear that 1]I of the Hampton Beach transients are directed in accordance with the NHRERP to Manchester center" are false for the follow:.ng reasons:
Volume 6 of the NHRERP, Appendix J, states that the host community for the portion of Hampton Bes.ch in ERPA A is Manchester (see Id. at J-1).
Additionally, the host community for that portion of the beach area in Hampton " north of Route 51" (i.e., ERPA D) is Dover (see Id. at J-6).
Witness Callendrello clearly stated on the record at Tr. 4941 that a portion of Hampton Beach is assigned to the Manchester reception center and another portion is assigned to the Dover reception center.
The Public Information Calendar's description of evacuation routes anc.
reception centers for each community makes the appropriate distinction between *Hampton Beach" and
- North Beach". The Calendar states that "Hampton Beach (residents) and North Beach"[both residents and beach transients) go to the Dover reception center. It also states that "Hampten Beach (visitors only)"[i.e., beach transients] go to the Manchester reception center. (See Public Information Calendar at page 8, Attachment A hereto).
Note that the EBS messages of record (NHRERP, Rev. 2,8/86) were in error in that they instructed all Persons residing, working, or visiting beach areas in the towns of Hampton and Scabrook from North Shore Road and Ocean Boulevard, to the north, and Route 286 and Ocean Beulevard to the south, to go to the Manchester or Salem reception centers. These messages also instructed the town of Hampton and North Hampton to go to the Dover reception center. (NHRERP Volume 4, Attachment 2. message F and G).
The revised EBS messages (dated 11/88) clarified this by stating "[f]er Hampton @
.L..
l Beach arca visitors the reception center is at. Manchester? Additionally,"{f]or-Hampton Falls and year-round residents of Hampton, the reception center is.in Dover." (NHRERP Volume 4 Attachment 2, message F and G). However, these messages will be further clarified in the next revision to state that only those visitors to Hampton Beach south of Great Boar's Head are to utilize the Manchester reception center.
luue %
1
"[1]f thesc 8,138 persons are added to the Hampton Beach total of 23,609 and are allocated to the Manchester reception center, the existing present capacity of that center (9,667) will no longer represent 20.5% of the evacuating population directed to that center. Instead, the planning basis would actually bc 17.4%." (MAG reply at10).
Resoonse As indicated in response 2a above, the allegation that 8,000 additional persons should be allocated to the Manchester reception center is misplaced. Even assuming that this is the case, if the capability of the secondary reception center is considered (as recommended by the Board, see PID at 5.48) and actual capacitics are utilized (as opposed to evacuee loads), the capability is 20.4% of the peak population.
canneity 9.840 + 1.440 = 0.204 47,147 + 8,138 111E 2.
[To establish] "the actual percentage of the total evacuating population which can be monitored in light of the existing reception center staffing and resources,1988 rermanent resident estimates and not 1986 estimates should bc (and should have been) used."
Reseense An analysis was performed to evaluate the impact on reception center evacuce loads of utilizing Luloff's 1988 permanent population estimates as contained in his i
supplemental testimony Post Tr. 821), in conjunction with the 1440 vehicles in-transit in the beach areas. This calculation involved replacing the permanent population estimates contained in NMRERP Volume 6, at Appendix M, with Luloff's estimates. The population increases associated with Luloff's estimates were assumed to be uniformly distributed throughout the town (i.c., at the origin centroids).
Additionally, the 1440 vehicles-in transit in the beach areas were accounted for in the beach area vehicle counts. The peak populations for each town were then calculated following the methodology described in Applicants' Response to Appeal Board Order of August 30,1989. The following presents the resultant evacuce loads, peak populations and the percentage of the peak population that can be accommodated at each host community. _ _ _ _ - - - _ _.
t.
g Evacuee Cneneity (eerson_s)
% of PP Accommodated
_ Load Primary Primarv +
Primarv Primarv +
Secondary Scenndarv Manchester 50364 10310 9840 11280 19.5 22.4 Dover 45093 9729 9840 11280 21.8 25.0 Salem 31612 6603 9840 11280 31.1 35.7 Rochester 34730 7394 1834.0.
11280
- 2L3, 311 Total 161,799 39,360 45,120 24.3 27.9 Thus, even utilizing Luloff's population estimates and the 1440 vehicles-in-transit in the beach areas there is capacity to process more than 20 percent of the peak population.
Issue da The peak beach area vehicle estimate of 39.000 should have been utilized for calculating the evacuec loads at the reception centers.
Reseense Allegations that the reception center evacuee loads should be calculated using the 39,000 beach area vehicle estimate are contradictory to the PID. While the Board found that 39,000 is a reasonable estimate of beach area parking capacity (PID at 9.119) they clearly note that this is not a good estimate for planning purposes, "the actual maximum peak is an clusive and ficcting moment which suggests that the information is not valuable to the protective action decisionmaker.' (PID at 9.108).
Additionally they found merit in Dr. Urbanik's opinion "that the reasonably expectable peak, not the ' peak of the peaks,' is the better premise." (PID at 9.106).
Note that at 9.122, the Board found that "31,000 is an appropriate number fer reasonably expectable peak occupancy."
Issue 4b
"[W] hen it came time to calculate the staffing and resources needed for the vehicular monitoring that the NHRERP calls for, the Applicants applied a PPV in reverse (i.e., divided evacuees by a PPV) to derive a vchicle count from the vehicle-derived population estimates."
Resnonse An analysis was performed to evaluate the impact of utiliaing direct vehic!c counts (instead of dividing the peak population by a PPV of 2.6) for the calculation of reception center vehicle monitoring capacity. The calculation involved summing the vehic!.e estimates for each population category (i.e., residents, transients and employees) for cach town assigned to each reception center. Resident vehicles were determined by dividing Lutoff's permanent population estimates by 2.6 persons per vehicle (see App. Ex. 5. Vol. 6 at 2-5). Transient and employce vehicle counts for the non-bcach area towns were obtained from NHRERP Vol. 6. App. M. Permanent. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _.
.~
transient and employee vehicic counts for the beach area location were obtained
' from the aerial photograph counts presented in Applicants' Direct Testimony No. 7.
The 1440 vehicles in transit in the~ beach areas were also accounted for. The following presents the resultant vehicle load and capacity at each reception center.
Vehicle Lead Veh. Monitorina Caeacitv' Manchester 4160 7920 Dover 2738
~7920-Salem 2657 7920 Rochester 2937 7920
- Applicants' Direct Testimony No. 4, at Attachment 3.
Thus, even utilizing Luloff's permanent population estimates,1440 vehicles in transit, and directly observed vehic!c counts where available, it is seen that all reception centers have excess vehicic monitoring capacity.
l 1
j 4')
a e
o
>" N a$ ".#
n d
d "3 t
iu ns s, u o
t i
t o
e o
n ui t o ei r uNn or a yh t e
- r&d s sya n
"e e,e st ah
" e e
o e
nt "h
e m e fh g N" y,h C" B - 0 dmt nt ns o t
vuor ee o
I e uto e
o o
gIeh' gt t nt e
snt a "
n"i o
"# ' pu a i
n a r r ui n p " ai'dt ht o dyos
- se"e n # "'
8 u
ss"he"g sot e el t
i "
C iy y uninh i
t "ca#t el t
h i
ru or rt I'nm t s"7 t
t t at Wrtvuof e
s u
o fimo i
al 3
ffo Il h.
5 g
a
,6 e 6
o l
td 9
n r
t t
r 53 1
'h oR. 1 d
8n 92R h
I i
t
)
o o
Nl l
t e
t e
0e I
o 0r n
1 l
ct t
t v
t i
pA1C u
Il 51 o R r.
shA p
k o
.ntoRst e
a
/
.N py t
.l 1
et m
et
.e
. 7 r rov e
5Woh r
ait set 5tTa STt t ege eaot o 9
RivnnWt f) t t
R9ags. g drat rD fC Nu o 9i o niW t(
l e. fR l
x oii hn
- 5 nre n oE D y a 9 g gt o u S.k oI e
o f1 8 a ot hau hhntM.iist o00m.
dn s
a d
t i
niU e ht I l e (r /s eh 1 1 sr t
rt siarMfLt is ot ut t
t t ht
.t e
t t a n
,l s r t
s u ). ftRAhcu eee o o r v r
o rI e o axpo po ot o o6 goo WI R( D l
I I
n (OtoWNEESNt TNSS gt 1 t t c
o P
RS t
i I
l l
h 5
g a
6t t 6
5 9
n 53 e a 1
r r
s t
t t
n o9 oocg.
d 8n 92 a
I' i
.Wh t
e e
Nt ri n o
t 1 t
t 5
n 0e sf i t l
I u k1C nt9g R r.
sadRt n t
e p
sto 9. k o 1
ii a
/
oR.i e
.arluo x) e py u:Wt tTa STt tI p p r
7 n gete( rov e pt tEt 5
e a9 yh a t
ot o t
nnR Af)rD RBtuSthl ei t
ph (S HICWxgs.geRix oii 6n Enre nk oE Dyao1 gt o e
rt o
a f1 ioniat S. 1 oour do01
.d i st.hhntMt t
(
a
.is
.mtNot s
n 1 5hl hau he/eh Ute r
ht se Sn e is ot t t t
ut
.t t t r s arMfkr tl e
f t rRh cu r
r, R r ee ck8 v
uuI t
at t o
i p0 /Co opo po I
o o
o goo n
or IRRRNSNt TNSS gN t loiRS o
O_t P c T 17 D 3h n
h h
o 5
t o
t o
)
t o
o
)
t o
o d
9 3 9
)
t t
92 u8
)
o2 hoh e
t3 u8 1
4 t
4 c
t 3 u8 heho o1 31 S t t t m e. 3 9 o2 ho o o
9 2
t.th f e. 3 i
t ut e
S t
- 2. S.
o S. I c
r t
/.
r r
t9 2 / e.
odh rt r
t of t9 t
a n o1 e.
o s
/
t o dt at oshtUot a
t e.
- 1 o
rR31 I
thiI e Ne n RR.
t t r rI 3I t r i
oiR e NRtoNst S.1 t r Net et t
tt
. e t
r
. - oiI e tt Bn Wor s n oA a
t t x( s A Wo h S. I s
t t
t n S. R n
t t
n x( s AoNI ah n
x( s o
t suet.e
.Gt e
o t
nc ID NE h
d.
.tU ouUehEt e
.yuUehEt pt
. e heo I
I t t
h t
h TWS oS g
ot h uoS os h uoSc c
. gd e l o c
eR dd
. 1 1 1 RRit hsmto o T. S h o t r o T. S h o e050.
t not s ot wn e n R ii m t t
l t 1 1 1h4 3 wn o
wn pot t
R1 ti
- 9. t lho a Rh t tht a
Rhg a
aset set ml I
.t t
M r, t s sss r Prc s3ul M tl tl s
.tl i M t l er c s3 "l
s,
r l
r, a n S. t eee eI ui u eeae ai rf t H (v Oi t R N R t S W in O_S W W W W N B P.i W Ie 9 oWi O_WLURPiW1e9oWi t ot o
o oyor i
a or o
n n
l I c
S c
S l
o o
5 5
g a
,6 t t 6
n r.
o 3 h t
t 9
n 53 e a 1
o e
t t
r s
39 u) 9 t t
h h
f o 1 s ho. 92 8
, I' o1 a I
i 8 n 92 t
t o2
.Wh t
.e h
d t
tS.31 S cd r
t an:
o s eh t 9 k' n t
,0 e t
c:
et 0 e o5 l
I t
e r
ak1C nt9g Rr.
a) 1 h o tU1 o1/ e.
u o
l t
B )a h Net e
i s
ot t r
./
. r e
c y h
), e
. c e 7 r. o R t t -
l t
. vt en Ne othiRe r sI py p p t
c WI. oatTa STt c( rov t eget ot o Unrd st a Wt t
s a) A ovAeRM A
tt x(.s t
g eRi v n n E Af)rD nt ed
.D S.NEixgs n o hsuEt e
I x oii 6n osNl dWs e
.Ct eo h
I onBu nkoE e
e U1 1Enr ist e
U e0oWSoS o
at Dyao1 gt o 1
r c
t t r n
eo i
1 pd h n t 0 50
.d ntMth e /s eh I al a
.i st poAna15m)
(
t N4 3 wn t
s1 1hl a rWf k r.hh s
t h
i R1.s
.t mit ut u
ho a t
t 1 t
ht mi.eh ot e 5 e. 9 M
t ti ot t t sr n o
I tl t e o o r,ter ee r u).ft rRhcu s ecgc ee r, t cs I ul r
ct t opo po ot o o goo i t I
ai I
i 9t o
l ( N (c O_R a ItRNSNw TNSS gN toiRS H(vR(tOi s
t t o SWin R(hW OiI I
e l
l I t t
l u
5 g
a
, fg t 6
o 9
n 5
a 1
r
- h id 8n t
9 t
t h
t I
n ",g i c'
A h
r 0 e o
.n cd l
l t
g n
an:
,N ko u
C R"
a
/
n B )a h e
py h
o r
o o
p c
5 tTa S
e 't g
ot o
,(
i t
s a Af)rD 9ags Ri n
t a
o nt e g
x 6
c n pd liops onB
,I nr e o t
t e o
m oE DI u
p 1
t t
d u
e '/s eh hau hn st
(
a aeoht arMf ms ut s
t t i
ht n
ti s
,W SNt
'NSS f, R h f
v n
uJI c u e xpo o ot go o i
S I
l r o
oiRS A
I I(
tl 8 *'
E(
l
- l l'
.4 YeseTzA
- spels, l *l 8 Cucesse "
sappeari se.
A ay sis os M Ao's Cou r.a v s e4 A p si c. *a rr-zesgades g c.At tre s==
cansa es Av ost so, i nD p
SstaE 3
- T IZEcGpisoh C(,4*rE rk L6Ab$
0 C I J ts (u bc>FF h l>$3 g eL% Adg/4 'l~
);
m.
ng.
aerintar pp v a re.A poje c.ri.u t, cea watb a a $c
,a b ias. =v ' 'T..sn o u
( s 2./t4 /5 7) A 4b mic.te r - ;o - T.ve*s ir (qp, ges. n.
e r).
e.s
,vo stA c H. A utx 5 o 16 AT
- r D...
ga A ac.
asa c H McA co~mune ross A
vae rons a o.r vt.i a.t ro col l-cF t u toPP 'S fo/0 'a veod As A s soa t h Ar Au c E *r* o t b s.
n c.rs rr.,
7o.. e tt.sesp vow.
6, Atf A
^ *f" M/ 7*0064
- f/
- t.wx avon ~Ap a r-I - 13; f
,s (fon up *mo &*c" Vt"cd
- Aq. Omre r rusn au s. i a~
6EA3.noc( ;
M##h
?
cc.arnois 5"/ 2 780i f.
7.Esins<r Vtw AT soG3 Qm 4 96 h.
gjyg s,Jottnd :
Sit as 17t itorn r popusanon Ar 70 G 3 fm foy, f p(y. pg, "_
3t38 e.g ryg ga rg g.
gsegsoong escoeg.ar popussygs; (7b) l 988\\
is t oso n-t its c e o s.sv geg. ssrs Arr
'2 C ts Ve.ws c se occopancy f6ct Pe sientri
/
$~
t 1
Lu t,.s e f g oy j ey.
Tont. /2(rioc.,r gis a. =
f.,. g
= 3ooe Qg,,
ilcl.
- ?
t l
PP =
sooo S r.(,, 4- [ ( s o 4 o - 4so) + vo + cc2 6 + i sco] n 2 4 Jti
.+
\\ m.s 1.A
+ to8A s t.16 =
t o.5 9 C p eopt s SS S3
- ven,
=
i 1
1 1
_ - _ _ - _ _ _ 1
f l.
"2./8 QuGfti.
V gT =
signic,gs$,
i4 tTtAr43 iT" 7.A t5
- 17tMS#& Y V6M QCCsafAnc l_. l $ -
12 Empt ey CL C C 4,1f Au Vt w PP es Pess py yssnaa NA%ptoa MC.H !
COnfrtofb 7,30 i T 3 70 M
e SE S, Vtw A Y'
-T, I o f gogo E.6
/
cA.ITttes O s
- E l O L l15* + e t r +
- L' 7_G
\\tS90 M.I S VE R
@ S.
Vse
- T
-t t c "t
=
X 11O5
- O (aore.prca I.c.,)
HA
.w EEAcM Yh$s'{s.cr 4ss. =
I2Y*fz.G*
"**/'*' #"h ATS8 ""*
-t s r u vir
?P =
2 Ir n 7 4, ( 3 3o 5 - T i r) x,.4 t
tro y.
24 25/3r
+ o
=
gefg
=
104 CS" Veu.
HAmpTod (wnw tbw h.A c i+\\ :
PP = (4 V SS - 21 f) 4 4 + (2%9 + C f + "r't. t 1 6 4 + l if + 2.9 viT
+ 64 + (37tt - 4 341, x 24+
too %-EA
+
-70 6 5 1.16 e 2 2A SC pp v
9343 Vow.
1 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _
l l
l l
3 /5 l
eJo n, ru 14 Av roJ t C.C4Mo 405 2og4 8'E t i40 3 7f8 0 e s. Vsw af 2io$
g
,,g
_ X
- .EZ9 Vie t us.pe
~37
- t. C "
144f Ved To rA L pnicer vt 3 =
E' P? =
144 5' x t. 6 + ( (3o 8, r 19) + 15 143 + es-) x t.4 t
vtv
+
to 3 s 1. A
-+ AUT < t.IL
- S~3 2 8 ffofte.
sr g3oT VE M.
-h cram oins t os 6 nsts a 4 0 + 1 4 A + t. 4 A 4 2 4 A S'o*3 0 g g y,,,
2.6
[2 e s. U c e A,-
- r. t t t g34g
, t t 1, e
S03//~24 W'*"
2
- 9 35 vcw*
-TEreAL ne.s to 9f VEH
- r var
??=
I95s 1. 2.G +
(3 A ~f A ~ 955) x 2 A + 2 o % 6 '1 A
}.
+ 9C % t.14==
1 64 y paege
-).I
=
4746 Vu.
EEAic PoputAftoA.s Ar EA C.H Re.ce p risa Ce.4 mrt.
~
s o
- u. us g M i e g6 nes, +
sus..eF
/44desssrn :
PP rn va ss a. i p opos.r s Jej s. pa, l 2 g z,
.f.
1 s v.5
" Ii D E. klassrod
/$5s 2 o33
-v t's & 3
=
ey(3
(
arerurscoa
-t o 3 3
~
- 6sra, g g.r c )
\\\\T44
+- t t. Y S E " 14403
= lS33 13 S T
+
\\A P K2dssac7cn g5 6A Il ? 4 n etJ FtrL b.r 114 7 66B
+
S49 H% pron SEA C H *.
'2 SI 3 5'
( Fm~ p t 't)
_g_
- 4, 4
A./ 8
~ron l. :
So3G4 psyue a my, (Ag. En. S, vou. Is - 2 e}
-Vi - TM suc !
w
'+
e stE y Vot. (
A r-a-9 fowen.wwwo t Sa4 Ees.
Luto#
'bovC(L.
pp gwm 9.gur t
(%(>u sarea fte s. Pw.
cone 54tuo c441 s v Ts +
c3 34,,
2sfg wcu easTec v4 S -
co c i
+
B6\\
=
'3 %,9 HAmproJ I~Att.5 e oSo
\\474 4-IS 3C z gi t fly L '
i/(67 (see gas v.gs) dovera AAytoa:
f32i
-r t 4 55 V
Hwgroa :
-rg 450$7 fsyw gg,.
so--es umb ut' tter.
' m in e
- p v4.= teme
_Poew m *M ftc*. Po?
so 8 S" + 5435- - 5~5 s y g s.s ostos Sto?
4/40 i
asJroa y sor-3NA + d o 8 2.
=
h e H y r.4 13&7 6 S3
+ 6 fl
=
(733 hhag -
aoSM (Fa ~ t *'5-o
-,, + -
2i, i t y.
@oe-et srE# i s o-a s4 wmo sta6 stas twse*8
,./
p 3. ra.. sm. __
- p.,.sse a p e P**
p ears m ee rrt
", i Scd6
-z & SS \\ + r_s po.r =
r 4 7 3 4 psytc
'\\
l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
______-_____--_-_A
- f..;
o S~-f s Eancoec
- t. ems s w pey gecepygg e gg g g g,g g La**
wm
- e
=..-, i c.
sn. m,,,,,,,, a
,- w s.r
[PP - 3FP - Tbp'] n o.'t
'rby = EL
+
heaens ma.
(S'0364-Z SV - 3 7/) c.t t
3,'t i
=
to3Ic bovst t
( 4SO 93 - 1 ?T - 937)X O.t t 93E
- ST *? 3
% cur
(, 3 ( 4 2 - c - 3 s t ) y, e. t, t 3 r1
=
(663 (locus s rot. :
(24T30 457 - 6 74 ) x oL + 6 74
- 7 3 D A O ha % A 4y *.
P P (bot.eFIF 2 N Ac05L Vsw na vnMslr) to^b_4L) dyens na So34A Ib 3I O DoVfA ACO 93 D'*b
~*
S~ofs*S1
'J / C / E C603 fla c.ws s rra.
34930 93 9A 6:
/6/ 793 - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ -
[i*
4 k
~
$&b
-"C S SO E 4:
I? ECEPT'C 4 < EA rsat vs nictg.
L,cA b f SA stb e4 Aerogt VC t4 t e tt c o o
- T t, (OeEM AVAt t A% t t.),
-r-s e m.c a a = s u t.t i u.
tut.ars n,t - =d,- nariee r pogo t ettaa ss w aves Aao A ce.sy h vta c.scs -,a -
-emm, r-
<a rue racn mas.
ArJckesysn s J
e-c, s,..a ese cos.<-
ms.-
"Jr,; "-
-a si a,-
._,1.
u.
msm EA $ 7" R/d6STCd I '3 T3 T.6 3 83D
/T3 O
s 63
,,,-m...
c,3A.c -
30, e
o 30, z,,zp.c-ns2o ca.,,a m
au c>>a
- /.a =
ss, u
e an w.a~
w /2.<.
,m,~,
3m
-1.
,s4
,3, 2,,,p.c = m s4
,~,,. 4 -
o mz
,o 5
c o Sob de n.
89
/ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _.
w 7
/a 1
DovrA.
hoLomC (,hpI.NhEN
' O k' i
L a go pp --
?Wom. 48%.
i-popot4 Tame _
fE *4 s tss i N.4.g s p 4-r-Empseyg E.
-t*si A L,
2 234 [2.6 ES S.
E'E
.py
/ott c,rmaAtub
=
961/v.C
= 3 51 f7 0
3 E 4' wea os rte.
en-poa Fau $
- s y c[.e.6 = 591
' 9'4 9 5~
E80 y,)
fty s :
4y48 (s,ee caca*w s oases is. sos rJon-ru }kyve4 -
- z. y o v.
ih gvo4*-
934 3 18G 31 fe u.
~
49topp g g yg, g) App, LQboFl*
ygavis. (ta 1, popo te rs4J_
vomcsu s
-fttA 4 S M -r" W.W ptcy ta, w yAL Mi dG STO A 8*C TOM C
- 07 tf9T
~;
ao s+. c -
ino e
a
,,.,s n.nea
- s. - u ~,,
cm A c
= - ss w
a,,
bO k
N ON kk Y Q(
l3286 dry.
Y, f7ocHesrett.
V*' *4 si s r er., aG,Aer d(c Q 4 %,,
uos. re e.,- s
-rn.
.m e.t m
/
/000
"'2 't 6 "T.
/4687 bet:rsmo#m4 TS'90f[T.4'*//4'E5~
)
?
I i
's'
-. -s.
Bof8 S u = ~ arv.
a Vtwrete c.. c i o. co s)e n. wle%% g ery, Aa c #s.s w4 4/SO 79th Do vara
.3YJ8
? 9 to More
'ZG ET vpzo flo cna sisn, T.939 79t0 9
W e
a e
9 e
i0 I
1
}V
- e UCt Ei7 UM CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Thomas G. Dignan,Jr.,oneoftheattor$byhf e
Applicants herein, hereby certify that on September 20,'1989, I made service of the within document by depositing copies l),
thereof with' Federal Express, prepaid, for deli'veryatcp(or where indicated, by depositing in the United States mail, r
first class postage paid, addressed to):
Alan S.
Rosenthal, Chairman Howard A. Wilber Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory-Commission Commission East West Towers Building East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814 Thomas S. Moore Mr. Richard R. Donovan Atomic Safety and Licensing Federal Emergency Management Appeal Panel Agency U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Federal Regional Center Commission 130 228th Street, S.W.
East West Towers Building Bothell, Washington 98021-9796 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Administrative Judge Ivan W.
H.-Joseph Flynn, Esquire Smith, Chairman, Atomic Safety Office of General Counsel and Licensing Board Federal Emergency Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency Commission 500 C Street, S.W.
East West Towers Building Washington, DC 20472 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Administrative Judge _ Richard F. Cole Gary W. Holmes, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Holmes & Ells U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 47 Winnacunnet Road East West Towers Building Hampton, NH 03842 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Administrative Judge Kenneth A.
Judith H. Mizner, Esquire McCollom 79 State Street, 2nd Floor 1107 West Knapp Street Newburyport, MA 01950 StillvGter, OK 74075 i
L l
0 l
John P. Arnold, Esquire Robert R.
Pierce, Esquire
{
Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing l:
George Dana Bisbee, Esquire Board l
Assistant Attorney General U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Attorney General Commission l
25 Capitol Street' East West Towers Building Concord, NH 03301-6397 4350 East West Highway _
i Bethesda, MD 20814 l
Sherwin E.
Turk, Esquire Diane Curran, Esquire Office of General Counsel Andrea C.
Ferster, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Harmon, Curran & Tousley Commission Suite 430 One Whita Flint North, 15th Fl.
2001 S Street, N.W.
11555 Rockville Pike Washington, DC 20009 I
Rockville, MD 20852 l
Adjudicatory File Robert A. Backus, Esquire
-Atomic Safety and Licensing 116 Lowell Street Board Panel Docket (2 copies)
P.O.
Box 516 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Manchester, NH 03105 Commission East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 I
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. J.
P. Nadeau Appeal Board Selectmen's Office U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 10 Central Road Commission Rye, NH 03870 Washington, DC 20555 Philip Ahrens, Esquire John Traficonte, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorney General Department of the Attorney Department of the Attorney l
General General Augusta, ME 04333 One Ashburton Place, 19th Fir.
Boston, MA 02108 Paul McEachern, Esquire Mr. Calvin A. Canney l
Shaines & McEachern City Manager 25 Maplewood Avenue City Hall P.O.
Box 360 126 Daniel Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Portsmouth, NH 03801 i
Chairman R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esquire Board of Selectmen Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton &
95 Amesbury Road Rotondi Kensington, NH 03833 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
- Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Barbara J. Saint Andre, Esquire U.S. Senate Kopelman and Paige, P.C.
Washington, DC 20510 77 Franklin Street (Attn:
Tom Burack)
Boston, MA 02110
- Senator Gordon J.
Humphrey Mr. William S.
Lord One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Board of Selectmen Concord, NH 03301 Town Hall - Friend Street (Attn:
Herb Boynton)
Amesbury, MA 01913 Mr. Thomas F.
Powers, III Richard A. Hampe, Esquire Town Manager Hampe and McNicholas Town of Exeter 35 Pleasant Street 10 Front Street Concord, NH 03301 Exeter, NH 03833 Ashod N. Amirian, Esquire 145 South Main Street P.O.
Box 38 Bradford, MA 01835 G.
Paul Bollwerk, III, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814
..w- -- ro Thomas G.
Dftfnan, Jr.
(*= Ordinary U.S. First Class Mail.)
l l
l
! t
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - _