ML20011E626
| ML20011E626 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 11/17/1989 |
| From: | Sawyer R MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20011E619 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 9002220040 | |
| Download: ML20011E626 (22) | |
Text
_ . _ . . . . . . .
n,.
November 17,,1989;
[Q? ? Nit" -EXHIBIT A
' STATEMENT OF ROYCE H. SAWYER RE: NEW HAMPSHIRE YANKEE During the latter-part of October ,
1989, I was contacted by Ms. Leslie Greer of the Massachusetts Attorney General's.(AG) office.
lis. !Greer forwarded to me a copy of an af fidavit relative to New: Hamp-shire Yankee (NHY) and NHY's commitment to the Massachusetts Emergency -
m; Broadcast System (EpS).
-o
-During the period from October 22, 1989 to November 3, 1989, 1..
was absent from the Civil Defense Agency due to surgery and-subsequent recuperation. During that period of recuperation, I was contacted by the AG's office and requested to sign the aforementioned affidavit and return it to the AG's office, lon November 3, 1989, I met with Leslie Greer at the Civil Defense Agency and requested that the State Director, Mr. Robert J. Boulay, be present. Ms. Greer insisted that the document be' signed that day by myself as I was considered to be the most knowledgeable person in the Civil Defense Agency on the Massachusetts EBS. I indicated to Ms. Greer that if the document was to be correct there were several changes to be madeLin the wording, however, I was informed that-the changes would not affect the original intent of the document. Two hand corrections were made on the affidavit at that time but-there were other changes brought to Ms. Greer's attention and not. included.
Although I was shown documents on November 3, 1989, that indicated certain' equipment had not been supplied to the radio station WCGY by NHY and that as a result WCGY was removing itself from the EBS system, I had not been involved for a period of more than two years with any planning objectives by NHY. Instructions to this agency and passed down by the State Director to all employees informed us to refrain from participating l
I 9002220040 900213 gDR ADOCK05000gg3
or : communicating ~ with NilY in. regard to the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant.
...- Under pressure from Ms..Greer that'a deadline had to be met, I signed the' fdffidavit on-November =3, 1989.
During the weekend of November 4 and 5, 1989, I had time to review the-affidavit and to assimilate the information contained in letters con-
.cerning WCGY and NilY. For the most part, the information contained in the affidavit is correct according to my knowledge, that is, how the-EBS system
,' operates in Massachusetts. Information unknown to this agency due to the
" hands off" policy may alter or significantly affect plans and equipment in support of notification procedures. Furthermore, the existing dedicated communications systems now in place between the NilY, Civil Defense and WROR does provide a path into the EBS system in the Merrimac Valley area.
My concerns with the affidavit of November 3, 1989 were outlined in detail in a memorandum to the State Director on November 6, 1989 (copy attached) and I requested in that memorandum that the document be recalled.
After careful review on November 7, 1989, I outlined changes that I wished to_have.made in the affidavit, and, should they be accepted, I would-then
-feel comfortable with the document. liowever, the AG's office would not
-consider the changes and my name was removed from the document and the
.name of the State Director was substituted. I was informed by telephone on November 7, 1989, by Mr. John Traficonto of the AG's office, that my
~
signed document would not be submitted.
The foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. _
/ P$ ke
- y
- V Royce N. Sawyer i
, THE C3MMONWEAl.TH OF MASSACHUSETTS I 3 j axtivieve paPARTME ;7
.. e o,, e, Me,ie. o n...n.
esevvo.nC.919n P. , Doit test , load
,,WM.NOHAM. Matt 91F0649.,
M10HAEL 3. DUKAKIB eoven on RODERT .J. 900 LAY o.n cton DATE: November 6, 1989 TO: Robert J. Boula FROM: Royce N. Sawyer
SUBJECT:
Affidavit for Seabrook On November 3, 1989, I signed an affidavit in the matter of Public Service Company of New llampshire. As you may recall, Director, at that meeting I stated that the document should have been signed by management or the Director of the planning group.
I further stated that I have not been involved in the planning process f or New llampshire Yankee. Furthermore, in that regard, this agency has not been authorized to participate in planning for public safety with New Hampshire Yankee.
I am particularly concerned with the statement in paragraph 3 of that affidavit which states "The import of WCGY voiding its prior letter of agreement with NilY and withdrawing from partici-pating in the emergency planning means that the EBS for the Herri-mac Valley operational area cannot be activated by HilY as called for in the SPMC." 'I am also concerned with the wording in para-graph 4 that states "there does not exist any provision for insur-ing that notification is made to the public in the Massachusetts emergency planning zone for Seabrook Station within the 15 minutes required by HUREG 0654, FEMA-REP-1, Revision 1 Appendix 3."
Because 1 (and the agency) have not been authorized to plan with New Hampshire Yankee, this agency does not have informa-tion relative to emergency communications f rom New llampshire Yan-kee to radio stations in Massachusetts.
Due to recent surgery and my absence from the agency, I have not had ample time to review the affidavit at length with either yourself or the planning group.
After careful deliberation, I must state that 1 am not in
. complete agreement with the referenced statements in paragraphs 3 and 4 and that there may be equipment in place to activate an EBS radio station in the Herrimac Valley operational area by New llampshire Yankee. Furthermore, Massachusetts Civil Defense, if notified by New Hampshire Yankee of an incident affecting public safety, could activate the Emergency Broadcast System from this agency's headquarters.
~ - - - . . .
3---
C- I DirGetor Boulsy.-l - November ,6', : 19 8 9 '-
PcgG 2 -
1 g _'f '
~ ij > y ,
L I' request that:this agencyjrecall the affidavit and that
-'.l4 legal counsel- bei retained priot to the execution of . this tiocument.
l-In summary,-.1 believe that 1:.was4 pressured-into signing-of the-
' affidavit without.-that legal advice and to. meet'a deadline _ imposed-
, by,the: Attorney; General's-office.
A
$f y
1[
E 4
4 af-I e t
a F
4, 5
t 4
x, . :
(% ' .
8 a 'THE COMMONWEAL.TH OF MA88ACHUSETT8i -
, j '-: EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT ' _
I ?"N-7
- < OfvfL DEFENSE A9tNCY AND OFFICE OF EMtHOENCY PREPARSONGS$ ,
h I
k.- ,
~ " M'x"" ." ^*
FRAMtNOHAM, MASS. Dtf9143tf h.'
ICHAEL 8. DUKAKIS Ro8ERT J. DoULAY 90WEflNOR ; DIRECTOR DATE:- November ~7, 1989
_TO ~ Robert J. Boulay- /2r FROM- .Royce N. Sawyer
- 1 5
SUBJECT:
Affidavit for Seabrook +
If I'am to sign the_ affidavit presented by Leslie Greer, November 7,-1989, through the Attorney General's office, I re uest the fol'1owing changes:
-_1.. Page'2 line 17-and 18 should reads
-" local operational area basis may be made'by directly -
contacting the operational area's primary" -
,2. Page 3 11ne.'2 should read:
." signal followed by the informational message to the -
adjacent operational"
- 3. Page 3 line 5 should read:
'N "in: the adjacent local operational areas. &nd are tuned to-WROR. There are" I..
w- . 4 , - Page 3-line 14. No exhibit 1 included with documents.
- 5. Page 4 line-'1B should read:
" Letter of agreement with WLYT _(F.M. ) /WilAV (A.M.).
V
[ .
. WLYT/WilAV cannot activate the"-
't
^
I 16 . _Page 4 line 24 and 25 should read:
. "of_the public who do not happen to be listening to' radio
[
stations WilAV or WLYT."
f .7. Page 5 paragraph 4 should be eliminated in its entirety.
8.- Page 5 line 11-should read: /
"other than through commercial phone. Commercial telephone V may"
- e
=
S
- m- mii,siimumme -i-um - - = umm-imummis
( J- ;
6 I State of New Hampshire Rockingham,ss' ' Februa ry 13, 1990 Then appeared before me the above-subscribed Royce N. Sawyer, and made oath that the= statements-set forth in the foregoing memoranda dated November 6 1989: November 7,,19893 and November 17, 1989, areitrue to the best of his knowledge.
8 Before me, ,
N Charlie H. Heckscher Notary Public My Commission Expires February 28,' 1993 i
g 1.
(;-
~
p 1 .
li l.
l-
- i.
1
,. . = . . . - -.
L' -:
EXHIBIT B '
t';
.)
- i s
S,.
f[ . UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY. COMMISSION.
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING-BOARD Before the Administrative Judges:
. Ivan'W. Smith, Chairman i Dr. Richard F. Cole Kenneth A. McCollom
)
.In the Matter.of. ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
) 50-444-OL E 'PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) '
y OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. )
).
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and-2) ) November 8, 1989' >
)
l L
l' WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION r
, The Intervenors hereby withdraw the Intervenors' Motion To -
l Admit A Late Filed' Contention And Reopen The Record on The SPMC L -
. Based Upon The Withdrawal Of The Massachusetts E.B.S. Network and-WGCY that was filed on October'30, 1989.
~
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
JAMES M. SKANNON ATTORNEY GENERAL John Traficonte, Chief, Nuclear Safety Unit l Leslie Greer I: Assistant Attorney General L Nuclear Safety Unit h i (f - Department of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place C - -Seston, MA 02108-1698
/ (617) 727-2200 E_ _ _ __ ___ _ _ _ E _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . - - _
.?- '
l
' EXHIBIT C -
i
- ?
l
?
' I In any' event, it is quite obvious that as a result of its I
~
licensing _ action the Board has effectively. denied all.pending
/; . motions for further hearings prior to licensing. Not deciding, I in these circumstances, is a form of decision.- Therefore, the ,
only possible justification for-this procedure is that a n pending motions were subject as a matter of law to the motion to reopen standard of 5 2.734 and that none_of these motions met that standard.EI/ As discussed below, the EBS contention did meet that standard and nothing the Board s'ays in its
" explanation" contradicts this. Further, the contentions L challenging the scope of the 1989 onsite exercise as a matter L of law could not be subiect to that additional standard and by applying that standard, the Board's actions further support a
(] judicial presumption of bad faith.
. 1. The EBS Contention The Applicants lost the capacity for utility-initiated operation of the Emergency Broadcast System ("EBS") in the r l
relevant operational area of Massachusetts'on October 20, 1989 19/ Intervenors believe that by not providing its reasons and- ,
findings in this regard on either November 9 or November 20 the Board has violated the Administrative Procedure Act. The point in the' text, however,:is that, analytically,'whenever the Board says whatever its going to say, as a matter-of law on November 9 it denied all pending motions on the grounds that the motion to reopen standard had not been met. (There is no serious challenge on the facts to " timeliness.") Intervanors'-
rights to a prelicensing hearing under the AEA entitle them at the vorv least to some decision (in this instance one without findings or reasons) on all pending timely requests for such a prelicensing hearing.
3 7
. ;) ,
i
- Uhen the EBS " gateway" station'with whom Applicants had had a hD contract declare 6 that contract void because of Applicants failure to provide necessary equipment. At or near that time, the non-public entity called " Massachusetts EBS" notified Applicants that EBS no longer recognizes the utility response organization as a " recognized responsible" organization under EBS regulations. These-events were made known to the Smith Board directly upon their occurrence by the NRC Staff.
On October 30 the Intervenors submitted a late-filed contention and sought to reopen the record in this regard.
-( However, because Intervenors' af fiant (Sawyer) informed the Mass AG on the morning of November 8 that he did not wish to testify in this proceeding, the Intervenors withdrew the october 30 motion by fax at approximately 11:30 A.M. on 3[)
November 8. At that same time, Attorney Traficonte telephoned Robert' Pierce, Esq. and explained why and under what circumstances the october 30 motion was being withdrawn.
Attorney Traficonte stated that the Mass AG had verbal agreement from Robert Boulay, Director of the Massachusetts civil Defense Agency and Sawyer's superior, that he, Boulay, would testify to matters set forth in the Sawyer Affidavit.IE/ Traficonte further stated to Pierce that because it was unclear whether Boulay would be able to sign the 12/ The Affidavit sets out the working of the EBS in Massachusetts. Boulay is conversant with these matters and had reviewed earlier the Sawyer Affidavit before it was filed on october 30.
. (r '
-- I t i lllll
I jhf.[ affidavit that day (November 8) or the next day (Hovsaber 9),
the Intervenors felt it necessary to withdraw the October 30 filing and' refile it either that day or tho'next. Traficonte stated that there was no question that it would be immediately refiled. Pierce stated that he would communicate these facts and circumstances to the Licensing Board.- Traficonte Aff't at On November 9 it was refiled by Express Mail. Attached 1 4.
as Exhibit 4 is a copy of the Certificate of Service.
( Notwithstanding these facts, the Smith Board stated:
El' This (EBS) motion dated November 9, 1989 and served by first class mail that date was received by the Board after LBP-89-32 was rendered (November 9) and. served (November 13). An apparently identical earlier motion with the same title was dated October 30, 1989. The October 30 motion was withdrawn by a faxed " Withdrawal of Motion" dated November 8, 1989. Thus, it is not literally true that the EBS motion was pending before this Board when
- ( [ LBP-89-32 issued. However, since no appeal had been taken from LBP-89-32 when the second EBS motion finally arrived, this Board continued to have-jurisdiction over it. The fact remains that the Board did not know about the November 9 EBS Motion when it rendered the partial initial decision, LBP-89-32.
These-statements are simply false. The Board's assistant had been told precisely what was occurring. The November 9 Motion was filed by Federal Express and pursuant to 1 2.701 filing is complete upon mailing. Moreover, the important issue presented by the November 9 Motion was already described in detail in the virtually identical October 30 Motion, and the underlying facts were known to the Board even before that.
When the PID issued, obviously, there had been no response filed to the November 9 filing and no response had been filed by November 8 when the October 30 motion had been withdrawn.
s
~ " -m - . . . , . . , , .
Even by November:20,-when it issued.its " explanation," the Board had not received the Staff response.II/
Nonetheless, the Board states:
the: fact that it-[the EBS motion).was-submitted, withdrawn, and resubmitted,.and that the matter is not_yet fully briefed indicates that its potential effect of.(sic)_the
-outcome of the-proceeding is too speculative-to have warranted deferring or recalling our decision authorizing a foll power operating license. We'have nevertheless '
examined those papers:and find nothing sufficiently grave
- to justify any delay.
.( obviously, if the November 9 motion filed even Supp. at 40-41, before the PID was' docketed meets the applicable standards then Intervenors have g, riaht to litiaata this issue crior to licensina. of course, that right has now been denied. The 2nly basis for this denial set forth in anything the Board has.
written is-the last sentence in the portion of the Supplement quoted above, which indeed is the last sentence-of the Supplement. This is hardly " reasoned decisionmaking" (5 U.S.C.
5 557(c)), particularly when the Board's significant safety
" judgment" is made before the responses are even filed and in direct contradiction of governing law as cited to the Board in both the october.30 and November 9 motions:
Extended discussion should not be necessary with regard to the-obvious safety significance that attends upon compliance with the Commission's regulation designed to provide the members of the public located inside the EPZ with "early notification and clear instructions" in the event of a radiological emergency.
11/ The Staff response was filed on November 20.
- - - . ~ . . . . . _ ~ _ _
r i I
, .j
[.. a i
f :l f Seabrook, ALAB-883, 27 NRC 4 3, 50 (1988) (footnote omitte'd). N
- 2. The Scope Contentions
-No extended analysis of the disposition ~of Intervenors' 1 scope contentions is.necessary. D The September 1989 :
exercise was material to any Seabrook licensing action. App.
h
!: E.IV.F.1. CLI-89-19. Intervenors had a right to litigate it.
NRC law is clear.that contentions that challenge the scope of :
an exercise are admissible. Finally, it is not permissible for i the agency to apply the motion to reopen standard to such g exercise contentions. To do so supports a judicial presumption of' bad faith. San Luis obisoo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 751 #
F.2d 1287, 1312, 1316-1317 (D.C. Cir. 1984)t UCS v. NRC, 735 Ig F.2d 1437. S.at glu Seabrook, ALAB-918, slip opinion at 13 n. ,
21.
f.2/ It'is obvious that-the Smith Board can.not now reach any
. reasoned judgment on any of these pending matters because,
- t. inter alia,1to admit any contention at this poir.t would be an L acknowledgement by the Board that it denied Intervenors' hearing rights on November 9. For this reason, the.Intervenors sought-in their November 15 Motion to the Appeal Board to have that Board.take jurisdiction over these'still pending matters.
In its November 16 Order transferring' jurisdiction back to the Licensing Board thereby denying Intervenors the relief sought, l: the Appeal Board noted, no doubt ironically, that
- we think it appropriate for that Board to consider the i contentions in the first instance.
L November 16 Order at.1. (emphasis supplied).
41/ The Supplement at 34 n.19 identifies the pleadings. In any~ event, Intervenors are simply unable to comprehend the Board's " analysis" set forth at 37-40. Little hinges on this, since the Board clearly applied the motion to reopen standard to these contentions and found them of no safety significance.
Supp. at 39.
. . . _ . . _ _ _ _ ~ .
A
,. [ >
-EXHIBIT D i
[r.
impartial consideration of.the merits of that contention occurs, no' operating license should issue. -
COMMENTS ON THE EBS CONTENTION The SPMC contemplates the use of the Emergency Broadcast f
-System ("EBS") as the primary means for notifying the public in
'the event of a. radiological emergency at Seabrook Station. In a letter dated october 20, 1989 John F. Bassett, manager of ;
WCCM(AM)/WCGY(FM) ("WCGY"), repudiated WCGY's prior agreement to 9
participate with New Hampshire Yankee ("NHY") in emergency ,
planning and to activate the EBS in the event of an emergency at Seabrook Station. Without the cooperation of WCGY, the Applicants will not be able to activate the EBS servicing the Seabrook Emergency Planning Zone ("EPZ") in Massachusetts. '
4 0 Without the activation of the EBS, the Applicants will not be I abic to provide notification.to the public in the event of an emergency in accordance with the SPMC and as required by applicable law and regulations.
[ In response to the withdrawal of the EBS and WCGY, the
. Intervenors filed a late-filed contention challenging the L adequacy of the SPMC's provisions for notification of the public :
.in the event of a radiological emergency. In support of their .
motion for the admission of the late-filed contention and to reopen the record, the Intervenors submitted affidavits of Robert Boulay, Director of the Massachusetts Civil Defense Agency, and A. Anthony Kelsey, Vice President and General Counsel of the Arbitron Company.
s.
a?
' I J : Mr. Boulay's affidavit demonstrated that the import of WCGY's i
non-cooperation is that NHY will not be able to contact and
! activate the EBS as called for in the SPMC, nor is there any
, assurance that an EBS activation.can be accomplished by the government of Massachusetts within the 15 minute requirement of
. .NUREG 0654. A/ Mr. Kelsey's affidavit demonstrates that the one radio station that has a current LOA with New Hampshire Yankee is listened to-by a very_small percentage of the population over. age 12 in the county containing the Massachusetts EPZ.A/ Based upon this he concluded that relatively few people would hear an emergency message transmitted only over that station.
The lack of a mechanism by which to provide notification of a radiological emergency to the populace of the EPZ poses a E({) significant safety issue that should be resolved prior' to the -
issuance of any operating license.
1 1/ The NRC Staff are apparently under the false impression that since. statewide downstream EBS activation can be accomplished within-eight minutes from a transmission by WROR, the Massachusetts primary relay station, that activation would s meet the NUREG-0654 criterion. The NRC Staff overlooks the fact that that eight minute downstream activation of the EBS would take place after the EBS message is provided to WROR.
According to Mr. Boulay there is no assurance that WROR or WCGY could be provided the EBS massage within 15 minutes. The eight minute downstream activation of the EBS would take place after the elapse of time that would be required to put out a message over WROR.
2/ At any given time between 6am and midnight less than one-half of one percent of the 121 population listens to the station.
l
-B-i 7
l.
~
EXHIBIT E-M ,_
l.
~
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
! NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the' Commission:
. . Kenneth M. Carr, Chairman Thomas M. Roberts, commissioner Kenneth C. Rogers, Commissioner James R. Curtiss,-Commissioner
)
In the Matter of ) Docket Hos. 50-443-OL
') 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) (Emergency Planning Issues) 0F NEW MAMPSHIRE, ET &L,. )
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) } December-1, 1989
)
AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN TRAFICONTE I,~ John Traficonte, do make oath and state:
O 1. I an an-Assistant Attorney-General in the commonwealth of Massachusetts and Chief of the Nuclear Safety Unit i:a the Department of the Attorney-General.-
- 2. On occasion counsel in the Seabrook proceeding have communicated with the Licensing Board on various matters
'through Robert Pierce, Esq., a legal assistant to that Board.
This process has the approval of the - Board.
- 3. On November 8 at or around 11:30 a.m., I telephoned Mr. Pierce in Washington from my office in Boston to discuss two distinct matters: 1) I wanted to explain the circumstances-of a " Notice of Withdrawal" of an earlier filed October 30-j '
s-1 Intervanor Motion to Reopen-the-Record ("EBS Motion") vhich I
- was having' faxed to the Licensing Board at the time of my call; i
and 2) I wanted to state Intervanors' desire and need for the scheduling =of.a pre-hearing conterence with the Board and part!ies to address the impact of A1AB-924 which I had received -
~ the previous day.
- 4. With regard to the first matter, I explained the circumstances surrounding Intervenors' witness Royce sawyer's decision (finally confirmed by me by telephone at around 10:00 a.m. that day) not to participate further in the seabrook proceeding by testifying at any subsequent hearing.- During this discussion, Pierce used the accurate expression that sawyer had'aimply "gotten cold feet" about getting involved in the seabrook case. After explaining that sawyer's superior, LOL Raert ouzay, had agreed to sign a vireua11y identica1 affidavit, I stated to Pierce that I was unsure whether Boulay would be in my office later-that day or early the next to--sign it. In these circumstances, I stated that Intervenors believed it technically appropriate to withdraw their october 30 EBs Motion, since their earlier affiant was no longer availatie, -
and simply file another EBs Motion immediately upon obtaining the Boulay signatura. I told Pierce that Intervenors proceeded in this way because they anticipated that if Intervenors offered a substitute, although virtually identical, affidayit on November 8 or November 9 without the accompanying legal en op
,s_ .
?V M paraphernalia now required ---full discussion of the action to
- reopen and late-filed contention standards has been required of gy.aZg document or planding amendmant filed, pursuant to the Licensing Board's september 26 aUnauthorised Pleadings" order
-- they anticipated that the-staff, Applicants and the Board would characterite it as an 'Unauthorised Pleading" and summarily disregard it. I stated that the simplest solution appeared to be a withdrawal and a new filing of the identical motion, although_I indicated that I was. aware that the timeliness of this new filing could then be challenged. I told Pierce that I would file the new pleading that day or at the latest the next day. Pierce told me he would communicate the substance of our conversation to the Licensing Board.
- 5. With regard to the'second matter, I stated'that O Intervenors believed it was appropriate as soon as practicable to have a pre-hearing conference to discuss the impact of ALAB-924 en the course of the proceeding. In this regard,_I told Pierce that I had heard a rumor that morning from a third party that the NRC Staff intended to request that the Board issue a seabrook license authorization notwithstanding ALAB-924. I asked Pierce directly whether the Staff had made such a request. He laughed, indicated surprise concerning such a request and stated that no such request had been made to the- ,
Board. I then told Pierce that Intervenors obviously would wish to be heard prior to any licensing action regarding Q- .
9
e, ,
q A1AB-924's impact on the Board's capacity to issue a license. ,
) f Pierce again laughed and stated that'that seemed obvious to e him. Then, Pierce told me again that he would communicate my L requests to-the Board.
, 6. The following day, November 9, I prepared and faxed to -
,k the Board a formal request for hearing in light of AIAB-924.
In this document, I repeated some of the statements I had made .
. to Pierce the day before. I indicated that Intervenors believed that AIAB-92.4 required further hearings on the y adequacy of the NMRERP and also affected any decision that i '
L aight issue on the adequacy.of the SPMc. I did not make any express reference or otherwise repeat my oral request to Pierce concerning Intervenors' desire to be heard on the issue of the p:
Board's capacity to issue a license notwithstanding AIAB-924, h because I interred from the responses Pierce made to my i questions concerning the Staff's purported request, that the Board did not have any intent at that time to issue a license.
t Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury this 1st day of December, 1989.
le d W J Traficontfe 1
l
..a -_ _ _ _ _- _ - - - _ - - - - - - - - __ _- -___- .
E 00LKETED USNHC
( 90 FEB 14 P3:47 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I,-Thomas G. Dignan, Jr. , one of the attorneys hth y
' Applicants herein, hereby certify that on February 13, 3990'}
I made service of the within document'by depositing copies thereof with Federal Express, prepaid, for delivery to (or, where indicated, by depositing in the United States mail,_
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. Gary W. Holmes, Esquire Cole Holmes & Ells Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 47 Winnacunnet Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Hampton, NH 03842 East West Towers Building 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 Stillwater, OK 74075
7 -$_.
- r >
-9:
-George Dana Bisbee, Esquire Robert R. Pierce, Esquire Associate Attorney General .
Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of the Attorney General Board 25 Capitol' Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory-Concord, -)U{ 03301-6397- Commission East West Towers Building 2 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814
~Mitzi A. Young, Esquire Diane Curran, Esquire Edwin J. Reis, Esquire Andrea C. Ferster, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Harmon, Curran & Tousley U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Suite 430 One White Flint North, 15th Fl. 2001'S Street,=N.W.-
11555 Rockville Pike Washington, DC 20009 Rockville, MD 20852 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 Wect Highway Bethesda, MD 20814
- Atomic Safety and Licensing Suzanne P. Egan, City Solicitor Appeal Board Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton &
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Rotondi Commission 79 State Street
, Washington,.IMi 20555 Newburyport, MA 01950 Philip Ahrens, Esquire John Traficonte, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Assistant Attorney General Department of the Attorney Department of the Attorney General General Augusta, ME 04333 One Ashburton Place, 19th Fl.
Boston, MA 02108 Paul McEachern, Esquire Barbara J. Saint Andre, Esquire
'Shaines & McEachern Kopelman and Paige, P.C.
25 Maplewood Avenue 77 Franklin Street P.O. Box 360 Boston, MA 02110 Portsmouth, NH 03801 R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esquire Ashod N. Amirian, Esquire Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton & 145 South Main Street Rotondi P.O. Box 38 79 State Street Bradford, MA 01835 Newburyport, MA 01950
~ ~ ~
ich
.. q r i
- o. -!
l l
- Senator Gordon J. Humphrey
- Senator Gordon J. Humphrey
'U.S. Senate One Eagle Square,. Suite 507 H Washington, DC- 20510 Concord, NH 03301
=(Attn: Tom Burack) (Attn: Herb Boynton) ;
G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chairman George Iverson, Director Atomic Safety and Licensing N.H. Office of Emergency Appeal Panel Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission State House Office Park South East West Towers Building 107. Pleasant Street 4350 East West Highway Concord, NH 03301 Bethesda, MD 20814 Mr. Jack Dolan Federal Emergency Management Agency Region I-J.W. McCormack Post Office &
Courthouse Building, Room 442 Boston, MA 02109 b I J Thomas G. pighan, Jr.
(*= Ordinary U.S. First Class Mail.)
I t
ji i