ML20043A812
| ML20043A812 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/18/1990 |
| From: | Reis E NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#290-10374 ALAB-924, LBP-90-12, OL, NUDOCS 9005230155 | |
| Download: ML20043A812 (20) | |
Text
.
/t237t" COCKLi[D USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 30 Mn 21 A8 28 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BpARS or srcREtt,RY 00CK[Tif4G A SE HVICf.
BRANQi In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-444 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, at al.
)
Off-site Emergency Planning
)
(Seabrook Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RELATED MOTION AS TO LBP-90-12 Edwin J. Reis, Deputy Assistant General Counsel for Reactor Licensing i
May 18, 1990 t
.4 9005230155 900518
{DR ADOCK 05000443 PDR
9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOJ M In the Matter of
)
}
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-444 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, 3.t al.
)
Off-Dite Emergency Planning
)
(Seabrook Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
1 NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RELATED MOTION AS TO LBP-90-12 i
i Edwin J. Reis, Deputy i
Assistant General Counsel for Reactor Licensing May 18, 1990
x,
(
l 3
I s
h-
)
INDEX i
Introduction 1
Discussion 2
y; l
1.
The Intervenors' Request That The Licensing Board Be Directed To l
Defer Consideration of the Sheltering Issue Should Be Danied 2
3 m
2.
Intervenors' Requst That The Notice of Appeal and Attach Documents Should Be Accepted As A Brief on Appeal Should Be Denied 10 3.
The NRC Staff Intends To File 4
Motions To Dismiss All Matters Noticed In The Appeal From LBP-90-12.
11 Conclusion 12
/
l.
l l
I, 1
I y
4'
- t.. '.
2..
4 4
t 4
i
+
.11 TABLE OF CITATIONS CASES P
Alabama Power Co.,
(Joseph M.'Farley Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-27,
- 14 NRC 795 (1981) 8 1
. Allied-General Nuclear Services (Barnwell Nuclear Plant Separations Facility), ALAB-296, 2 NRC 671 (1975):
3,4,9 Cleveland Electric Illuminatina Co..(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units.1 and 2), ALAB-706, 16 NRC 1754 (1982) 10 Cleveland Electric Illuminatina Co. (Perry. Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-675, 15 NRC 1105 (1982) 10
+
Drake Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Power Station, i
R Units 1 and 2), ALAB-687,16 NRC 460 (1982) u modified,-CLI-83-17, 17 NRC 1041 (1983) 10 l
Kansas City Gas & Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-4 24, 6 NRC 122 (1977) 11 L
Louisiana Power &' Licht Co. (Waterford Steam f
Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-121, 6 AEC 319 (1973) 6 y
- Metrocolitan EdiG.C0_E2 (Three Mile Island
[
l.
. Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-84-17, L
20 NRC 801 (1989) 4,8 Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-158, 6 AEC'(1973) 4 Publy; Service Co. of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-90-3, 31 NRC __ (1990) 9 Public Service Co. of New Hamoshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-916, 29 NRC 434 (1989) 10
-1 1.
iii Public Service Co. of New Hamoshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-894, 4
27 NRC 632 (1989) 9 Public Service Co. of New Hameshire (Seabrook
~
Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-865, 25 NRC 430-(1987) 8 Public' Service Co. of New Hannshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-88-32, 28 NRC 667 (1988) 5,7 Public Service Co. of New Haneshire.(Seabrook Station, Units l'and 2),
31 NRC (May 3, 1990)
.. passim Toledo' Edison Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), ALAB-385 5 NRC 621 (1977) 4 Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station) ALAB-300, 2 NRC 752 (1977) 9 i
~
L REGULATIONS.
l 10-C.F.R. S 2.762(a) 1 1
d
[
10 C.F.R. S 2.762(b) 10 L
10 C.F.R. S 2.762(d) 10,11 10 C.F.R. S 2.788(e) 3,4 1
l l
t.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD w
In the' Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-444 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, Rt A1
)
Off-site Emergency Planning
=
)
(Seabrook Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
=
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO NOTICE'OF APPEAL AND RELATED MOTION AS TO LBP-90-12 Introduction-On May 11, 1990, the Massachusetts Attorney General, th-l Seacoast Anti-Pollution League and the New England Coalition on Nuclear rollution ("Intervenors") filed a " Notice of Appeal and Related Motion as to LBP-90-12" (" Notice").which consisted of a notice of appeal and a motion asking (1) for-interlocutory review-of those portions of LBP-90-12 not appealable as of right; (2) for an order staying the Licensing Board from' conducting any further proceedings on the sheltering issue remanded in ALAB-924 until this Board rules on those aspects of the sheltering issue for which review is sought in the Notice of Appeal; and (3) for an 1
The Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL) has withdrawn from the proceeding (see LBP-90-12, at 5-6),
and cannot appeal as it is no longer a party.
Egg 10 C.F.R.
+
S 2.762(a).
It is noted that no appeal has been filed on SAPL's withdrawal and dismissal from the proceeding.
5
. l order deeming the Notice and the pleadings attached to that Notice as intervenors' brief and argument on their claims-of error in LBP-90-12.2 Notice at 12-13.
By an order of May 14, 1990, this' Appeal Board directed the Staff and' Applicants to file by noon on April 18, 1990, responses to Intervanors' requests that-the Appeal Board
" direct the Licensing Board to defer further consideration of the sheltering' issue pending our resolution of intervenors' appeals"; response to the request that the Intervenors be permitted to have the issues they submitted considered on the basis of their May 11 filing and the attachments thereto; and to state whether they intend to move to dismiss any portion of the appeals and the grounds for such motions.
The Staff herein opposes the grant of Intervenors' requests and indicates it will file motions to dismiss all' portions of the appeal of LBP-90-12 on various grounds.
e l'
Discussion i
1.
The Intervenors' Request That The Licensing Board-Be L
Directed to Defer Consideration of the Sheltering Issue Should Be Denied.
I L
2 l,
Intervenors also question the NRC's jurisdiction to act in L
this matter in view of their' appeal to the Court of Appeals
'from earlier Seabrook rulings but do not press that argument before. this Appeal Board.
Id. at 1-2, 12.
The Staff has responded to those arguments in "NRC Staff's Response To L
Intervenors' Memorandum of Law Regarding This Board's Jurisdiction," dated April 5, 1990, and will not here detail those arguments since Intervenors have failed to detail l
their arguments on that matter.
L L
T t 4 Although the Intervenors have not labelled-their request that the Appeal Board issue "an order preventing the Smith Board from any further processing of the shelter remand issue until this Board rules on those aspects of that issue for which Appeal Board review is now sought" (Notice at 12) as a request for a stay pending appeal, that is in reality what they seek.
Ee.g A Rigj-General Nuclear Services (Barnwell Nuclear Fuel Plant Separations Facility), ALAB-296, 2 NRC 671, 677 (1975) (intervenors' request to enjoin resumption of hearings construed to be a request for a stay).
In such a situation, the Appeal Board will determine if a stay is justified under the usual criteria governing the grant of a stay.
M.; gag 10 C.F.R. S 2.788.
- However, the Intervenors do not discuss the factors for a stay, let alone show grounds to-justify such relief.3 l-The Commission's Rules of Practice, 10 C.F.R. $ 2.788(e),
provide that the following factors will be considered in l
3 In LBP-90-12, the Board discussed its views on the sheltering issue at length, as well as-its uncertainty about how to proceed in light of the remand order in ALAB-924.
L Slip op. at 24-53.
In light of its uncertainty, the Board i
requested additional guidance and specifically referred to.
the Appeal Board its finding that the New Hampshire L
Radiological Emergency Response Plan does not provide for actual sheltering of the general beach population under certain circumstances (condition 1) and that no implementing details for actual sheltering under those~ circumstances are required.
M. at 53-55.
Pending receipt of the requested
- guidance, the Licensing Board stated it would proceed without delay to comply with the remand order with respect to condition 2.
M.
at 55.
The Staff's position on the instant Notice should not be interpreted as opposition to the grant of the guidance requested by the Licensing Board.
sim r
e determining whether to grant a stay of the effectiveness of I
an action'or a decision, pending resolution of an appeal:
1 (1).Whether the moving party _has made a strong showing that it is likely to prevail on the merits;
\\
(2) Whether the party will be irreparably injured unless a stay is granted; (3) Whether the granting of a stay would 1
harm other parties; and (4) Where the public interest lies.
These factors in 10 C.F.R. 5 2.788(e) are to be examined l
in seeing whether a stay of a proceeding is justified.
MetroDolitan Edison co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-84-17, 20 NRC 801, 803 (1984); Allied-General o
Nuclear Serviggg, supra.
l a)
In regard to the showing of likelihood of success l
L on the merits, a movant must show not that_there is a possibility of error, but that there is a strong probability L
of error.. Philadelohia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic 1
Power-Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-158, 6 AEC 999 (1973);
Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2'and 3), ALAB-385, 5 NRC 621, 634 (1977).
Although l
Intervenors label the Licensing Board's action on sheltering as " egregiously wrong", they fail to make the strong showing r
of a likelihood of success on the merits of the Licensing h
Boards' interpretation of sheltering provision in the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan ("NHRERP").
First, they have failed to show anyplace in the NHRERP where-
5'-
l any sheltering, other than " shelter-in-place", is or has been provided.
Not one provision of the plan is cited as providing for any other sheltering.
The " shelter-in-place" concept defined in finding 8.35 of LBP-88-32, 28 NRC 667, 758 (1988), is particularly addressed in the portion of the findings labelled "8. Shelter of Beach Population".
28 NRC at 750.
Previous filings of New Hampshire and the Federal Emergency Management Agency _have both emphasized that the 1
only sheltering in the NHRERP is " shelter-in-place".'
As those pleadings show, New Hampshire and FEMA knew that the only sheltering for dose minimization would be shelter-in-place.
The Board specifically inquired into why other shelter should not be provided for dose minimization and it specifically concluded that other sheltering was not a practical option.
Findings 8.75-8.77, 8.96, 28 NRC at 769-70, 775.5 l'
" Response of the Federal Emergency Manage: tent Agency To Emergency Motion of the Intervenors to Reopen the Record As to the Need For Sheltaring in Certain Circumstances,"
February 16, 1990, at 2; " State of New Hampshire's Comments Regarding Applicants' Response To Licensing Board Order of January 19, 1990," dated February 16, 1990,-at 3.
U Intervenors cite Licensing Board findings 8.36 and 8.37 to show that there was sheltering other than shelter-in-place.
Notice at 7.
They ignore that the preceding finding defined the sheltering provision in the NHRERP as
" shelter-in-place".
1 8.35, 28 NRC 667, 758 (1988).
If any confusion as to the Licensing Board's use of the term ' persisted, it was cleared up in LBP-90-12, at 24-25, 34-36, when the Licensing Board explicitly stated that sheltering under the NHRERP always meant
" shelter-in-place".
While the Intervenors appear to question the truthfulness of these statements (Notice at 6),
no basis is given for such allegations.
Personal attacks on Licensing Board members
i I
. Moreover, the Massachusetts Attorney General
(" Mass AG")
1 recognized that sheltering was not to be provided for the general transient beach population, but that the general.
-beach population was to be advised to evacuate in their own a
vehicles if they did not have access to an indoor location.
Goble Panel, ff. Tr. 10,963, at 18-19, 21.
After quoting the provisions in the NHRERP for " shelter-in-place" (NHRERP, Rev. 2, Vol.
1, section 2.6, p. 2.6-6), his expert witness testified:
The decision criteria presented in Figure 2.6-6 (p. 2.6-25) are unambiguous:
under all circumstances evacuation of Hampton and Seabrook beaches would be recommended.
Further evidence of what would happen comes from the prepared emergency messages in Appendix ~G to Vol.
4, NHRERP, Rev.
2.
These messages are intended to be used as is, when appropriate, in cases such as a fast developing accident in which there is insufficient time to prepare special messages.
None of the messages in Appendix G direct people on the beach to find shelter.
Nevertheless, the Applicants' recently filed testimony on sheltering, which includes recently proposed amendments to the NHRERP, does indicate that sheltering of the beach population would be considered by the State in certain limited unspecified circumstances.
It is clear from the testimony, however, that the State of New Hampshire has no present intention of amending the NHRERP to include i
plans for implementing a sheltering strategy for the beach population (Egg Applicants' Direct Testimony No.
6, dated 4/15/88).
have no place in NRC proceedings.
E e g
'.,o u i s i a n a Power and Idgh(_,Gg. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3),
ALA9-121, C AEC 319 (1973).
Id. at 19.
Thus the Mass AG recognized at the hearing'in 1988 that beach transients would generally be told to evacuate.
Cf. Notice at 8-9.'
Nor do the Intervenors show that they have a strong
(
likelihood of success on the merits of their' appeal of the denial of their motions to reopen in relation to the sheltering issue.
Sgt Notice at 9-11.
As noted above, they point to no part of the NHRERP which provided for-any sheltering, but " shelter-in-place".
If Intervenors believed that such sheltering was insufficient, they should have pleaded this as part of their original contentions, and not submitted it as the basis for a motion to reopen the record.
Further, as we have shown, the testimony Intervenors provided at'the hearing reflected their knowledge that under the NHRERP the general beach population was to be evacuated and not sheltered.
In addition, Intervenors do not detail why the Licensing Board's conclusions on the last two factors in 10 C.F.R.
S 2.734 were wrong, and why a lack of sheltering is significant, considering the low probability of its choice as a protective action.
Comoare Notice at 11 and LBP-90-12 at 39.
Lastly, the Intervenors state that the Licensing Board's scoping of the issue of sheltering, when evacuation is not The Licensing Board recognized that it had permitted too much litigation on the amount of shelter in view of its limited use.
LBP-88-32, 1 8.79, 28 NRC-at 770.
i l
i
l il s
mi i
p s. '
l._, possible, is " meaningless", but they do not give any hint of why the Licensing Board's analysis-may be wrong.
333 Notice at 11-12.
Thus Intervenors have not shown any strong possibility of success on the merits as to any matter which they seek to appeal in regard to sheltering.
(b) The most crucial factor in determining whether to grant a stay is the question of irreparable harm to the movant.
Alabama Power Co. (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-27, 14 NRC 795 (1981) ; Metrooolitan Edison Co. (Three-Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1),.CLI-84-17, 20 NRC at 804.
It has been emphasized that the expense and bother of administrative proceeding, "even substantial and unrecoupable costs, (do] not constitute-irreparable harm."
Metrooolitan Edison Co.,
supra; Public Service Co. of New Hamoshire (Seabrook-Station Units 1 & 2),
ALAB-865, 25 NRC 430, 437-38 (1987).
Here, the harm although not explicitly stated, is apparently their submission of a 15 page filing on May 30, 1990 and taking part in a prehearing conference.
Egg Memorandum and order, May 3, 1990, at 55-56; Notice of Prehearing-Conference, May 3,
1990.
In sum there is no cognizable harm to the intervenors.
(c) The Staff will leave it to the Applicants to brief any harm which they might suffer by a stay.
- However, as to where the public interest lies, we repeat the words of i
s 4
n the Commission in CLI-90-03, slip op.-at 64', where it i
stated:
(W)e do.believe strongly that a stay at this point would be contrary to the public interest which-underlies the mandate.
in 5 U.S.C.
S 558 to_ complete license application within a reasonable time with due regard to the rights of the parties.
In sum, there is no basis for this Appeal Board to prevent or-stay the Licensing Board from going forward on the sheltering issue.7 7
In addition, the Licensing Board's rulings regarding the
-sheltering-issue 'are interlocutory.
There is no final determination of the sheltering contentions so as-to permit an appeal on that issue.
No major segment of the case is resolved.
jiLeg Toledo Edison Co.
(Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station),
ALAB-300, 2
NRC
- 752, 758 (1977);
si.
Public-Service Cp.
of New Hamoshire (Seabrook - Station, Units 1 &
2), ALAB-894, 27 NRC 632, 634 (1988).
Although-Intervenors-claim there are final rulings (g.gg Notice at 5), they fail to. identify any.
As an appeal does not yet lie from-the sheltering issue rulings, no basis exists.to issue a stay pending :an appeal of those rulings.
Egg Allied-General-Nuclear Services, supra.
Intervenors attempt to justify interlocutory review of the Licensing Board's order on the claim it causes irreparable harm and af fects the proceeding in a pervasive or unusual way'--
because a sham legal process is a form of irreparable injury and affects its basic structure and because further processing by the Smith Board of the sheltering issue as it now remains after the Board's literally absurd interlocutory rulings concerning its nature and scope, is a waste of judicial resources and itself a further aspect of the sham character of this proceeding.
Notice at 6,
- n. 7.
<.y mj 2.
Intervenors' Request that the Notice of Appeal and Attached Documents should be Accepted As A Brief on Anneal Should Be Danied.
In their action, Intervenors'ask~this_ Appeal Board to issue an order deeming their notice of appeal, along with the pleadings. attached thereto, "as.Intervenors' brief and argument on these specific claims of error in LBP-90-12 l
identified herein".
Notice at 11-12.
This request should be rejected as'in direct contravention of 10 C.F.R.
[
S 2.762(b) and (d) which require an appellant to file a supporting brief which, if in excess of ten pages, includes 1
a table of contents, with page references, and a table of cases, statutes regulations, and other authorities cited, 1
This hyperbole does not _show irreparable injury or a
pervasive or unusual effect on the proceeding.
The only.
o L
possible harm may be the noncognizable need to engage in an unneeded hearing.
Een Cleveland ' Electric Illuminatina Co.
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-706, 16 NRC 1754, 1758 n. 7 (1982).
No pervasive or unusual'effect is
~
- shown which is any more than would.be caused by the failure to admit proper contentions or many other rulings.
En Cleveland Electric Illuminatina _Co.
(Perry Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-675, 15 NRC 1105, 1114 (1982);
gf. Public Service Co. of New Hamoshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and.2) ALAB-916, 29'NRC 434, 437 (1989) (determining that a rejection of a contention for lack of jurisdiction may. affect the " basic structure" of a proceeding).
In any event, the Appeal Board has the question of the proper scope of litigation on the sheltering issues before it by way of the Licensing Board's referred questions in LBP-90-12, if it chooses to consider _them, and there is no reason for the acceptance of this interlocutory appeal.
Eu Duke Power Co.
(Cantawba Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-687, 16'NRC 460, 465, modified on other arounds, CLI-83-19, 17 NRC 1041 (1983)
(certified question may be accepted for consideration where interlocutory review is not
~
appropriate).
s 3;
'1 1 -
with references to the pages of the brief where they are cited.
Intervenors' notion further fails to satisfy the requirement in 10 C.F.R. S 2.762(d) that the appellant provide the precise portion of the record relied upon in support of each' assertion of error.
As the Appeal Board has said, all record references must appear in the appellate brief itself, not in-documents which are incorporated into the brief by reference.
Kansas Gas & Electric Comoany (Wolf Creek Generating Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-424, 6 NRC 122, 127 (1977).
Without a brief directly addressing the errors below, arguments on appeal are not focused, other parties are prejudiced, and the appellate tribunal is hindered in performing its tasks.
The instant request, coming from experienced practioners to have an appeal considered based on documents filed below and prior pleadings submitted to
=
this Board should be denied.s 3.
The NRC Staff Intends To File Motions To Dismiss All Matters Noticed In The Anneal From LBP-90-12 The NRC Staff intends to file motions or to support motions to dismiss all current appeals from LBP-90-12.
The Staff expects that it will file motions to dismiss appeals from the issues involving letters of agreement from teachers s
It is noted that the " Exhibits" Intervenors seek to supply
'in lieu of a brief, themselves contain " Exhibits" setting out additional briefs and documents.
and the adequacy of a 1986 special needs survey on the
' grounds that they have been abandoned by the sponsor of those contentions.
In addition, the issues involving.the 1986 special needs survey appear moot, as other surveyn and other means of identifying special populations have been employed since 1986.
Egg LBP-90-12 at 13.
g.:
The Staff anticipates that it will move to dismiss the appeal from the issues involving the evacuation-times for advanced life support patients and sheltering as interlocutory.
No final. decision has been rendered on those issues and they may not now be appealed.
CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, Intervenors' request for orders precluding the Licensing Board from conducting further proceedings concerning the issue of sheltering the beach population and deeming their notice of appeal and attached pleadings their brief on appeal should be denied.
The Staff will file or support motions to dismiss the appeal of LBP-90-12.
Respectfully submitted, Edwin J.
eis, Deputy Assist t General Counsel for Reactor Licensing Dated in Rockville, Maryland this 18th day of May, 1990 l
.q.
-00tKETED U$NkC U
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION nrricEOFSECiElMW BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPFAIDBOARDjUVid
- unam.
In the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-444'OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, at 31
)
Off-site Emergency Planning
)
(Seabrook Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE-TO NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RELATED MOTION AS TO LBP-90-12" in the above captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit -in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal' mail system, as indicated by double asterisks, by express mail, and telefaxed as indicated by a pound sign, this 18th day of May 1990:
Ivan W. Smith,. Chairman (2)*
Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.**#
Administrative Judge Robert K. Gad, III, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Ropes & Gray Board One International Place U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Boston, MA 02110-2624 Commission Washington, DC 20555 Robert A. Backus, Esq.**
Backus, Meyer & Solomon Richard F.
Cole
- 116 Lowell Street Administrative Judge Manchester, NH 03106 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Peter Brann, Esq.
U.' S. Nuclear Regulatory Assistant Attorney General Commission Office of the Attorney General Washington, DC -20555 State House Station 6 Augusta, ME 04333 Kenneth A. McCollom**
Administrative Judge John Traficonte, Esq.**#
1107 West Knapp Street Assistant Attorney General Stillwater, OK 74705 Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place 19th Floor Boston, MA 02108
)
' n Geoffrey-Huntington, Esq.**
William Armstrong Assistant Attorney General Civil Defense Director Office of the Attorney General Town of Exeter y
25 Capitol-Street 10 Front Street-Concord, NH 03301 Exeter, NH 03833 Diane Curran, Esq.**
Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
Harmon, Curran & Tousley Holmes a Ellis 2001 S Street, NW 47 Winnacunnet Road Suite =430 Hampton, NH '03842 Washington, W 20009 Barbara J.-Saint Andr&, Esq.
H.J. Flynn, Esq.
Kopelman and Paige, P.C.
Assistant' General Counsel 101 Arch Street-Federal Emergency Management Boston,.MA 02110 Agency 500 C Street, SW Judith H. Mizner, Esq.
Washington, DC 20472 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Jack Dolan' Federal Emergency Management Robert Carrigg, Chairman Agency Board of Selectmen Region I Town Office J.W. McCormack Post Office &
Atlantic Avenue Courthouse Building, Room 442 North Hampton, NH 03862 Boston, MA.02109 Mrs. Anne E. Goodman, Chairman Paul McEachern, Esq.**
Board of Selectmen Shaines & McEachern 13-15 Newmarket Road
'25-Maplewood Avenue Durham, NH 03824 P.O.
Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Hon. Gordon J. Humphrey-United States Senate George Hahn, Esq.
531 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Attorney for the Examiner Washington, DC 20510 Hahn & Hesson 350 5th Ave., Suite 3700 Richard R. Donovan New York, NY 10118 Federal Emergency Management Agency R. Scott-Hill-Whilton, Esq.
Federal Regional Center Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton 130 228th Street, SW
'& Rotondi Bothell, WA 98021-9796 79 State Street Newburyport, MA 01950 Peter J. Matthews, Mayor City Hall Allen Lampert Newburyport, MA 01950 Civil Defense Director Town of Brentwood Michael. Santosuosso, Chairman 20 Franklin Board of Selectmen Exeter, NH 03833 South Hampton, NH 03827
i 1
Robert R. Pierce, Esq.*'
Ashod N. Amirian, Esq.
Atomic. Safety and Licensing.
Town Counsel for Merrihac Board Pane]
145 South' Main Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory-HP.O'. Box 3 8 Commission.
1Bradford, MA 018351 Washington, DC-20555 o
Suzannem Breiseth Atomic Safety:and Licensing Board of Selectmen.
Appeal Panel ' (6)
- Town of:Hampton Falls
- (single copy)
Drinkwater Road U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Commission Washington, DC 20555 George 1Iverson, Director NH Officeoof Emergency Atomic Safety and Licensing Management Board Panel - (1)
- I State House Office Park South U.S. Nuclear Regulatory l
107 Pleasant Street-Commission Concord, NH 03301 Washington, DC' 20555 L
' Office of.the Secretary (2)*
L U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Attn:
Docketing and Service Section.
.- r u
4 x1 I L
Edwin J.
is, Deputy I
y Assistan General Counsel for R actor Licensing p.
1:
l j;
1 n
i,4
.