ML20082H677
| ML20082H677 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 08/12/1991 |
| From: | Dignan T PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#391-12117 LBP-91-24, OLR4, NUDOCS 9108260230 | |
| Download: ML20082H677 (22) | |
Text
)
j :z//7
, d [ '. I '.
- g. ,a
'91 Atr; 13 P 2 :13 ,
August 12, 1991 UllITED STATES:OP AMERICA before the
!!UCLEAR REGULATORY COM!4ISSIO!1 In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPAllY Docket llos. 50-4 4 3 -OLR4 OF 1/EW llAMPS!! IRE, p1 al. 50-444-OLR4 (Scabrook Station, Units 1 (Offsite Emergency and 2) Planning Issues)
ON APPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD LBP-91-24 (MAY 30, 1901)
BRIE'/ OF LICENSEES Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.
Ropes & Gray One International Place Boston, MA 02110-2624 617-951-7511 Counsol for Licensees 91-24tR.$5 9108260230 910812 PDR 2 O ADOCK 05000443 ~~#
PDR 'l)
' 6 (i
t
TADLE OF CONTENTS TABLE Or AUTilORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 STATEMEllT OF Tile CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 ARGUMEllT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
- 1. Tile PROCEDURAL ERROR I.9SERTED BY Ti!E APPELLANTS COMES TOO LATE - NOT liAViliG DEEli ASSERTED DELOW AS REQUIRED BY Tile REGULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 II. Tile SUBSTANTIVE ARGUME!1T MADE IS WilOLLY WITiiOUT MERIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
TABLE OF AUTl!ORITIES Pago (B)
Administrative Decisions: ,
Public Service Company of Indiana (Marble !!ill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-459, 7 NRC 179 (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Public Service Company of New llampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
A LAB-92 4 , 30 NRC 331 ~1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Public Service Company of New llampshire (Scabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
A LAB-9 3 9, 32 NRC 165 (1990) . . . . . . . . . . 5-7, 9, 11, 14 Public Service company of How llampshire (Scabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-94 5, 33 NRC 175 (1991) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9, 14 Public Service company of New llampshire (Scabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
CLI-90-3, 31 NRC 239 (1990), aff'd, Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. NRC, 924 F.2d 311 (D.C. Cir. 1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Public Service company of New llampshire (Scabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
LDP-88-32, 28 NRC 667 (1988) . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Public Service Company of New liampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
LDP-89-33, 30 NRC 656 (1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
LDP-90-12, 33 NRC 427 (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3-6 Public Service Company of New !!ampshire (Seabrook Station,' Units 1 and 2),
LDP-90-20,.31 NRC 581 (1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4, 5 Public Service Company of New-liampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1.and 2),
LBP-91-8, 33 NRC 197 (1991) .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-9 Public Service Company of New llampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
LDP-91-24, 33 NRC __. (May 30,-1991) . . . . . . . .-10-12, 14
i I
h I
i- ,
Rogulations: 4 10 C.F.R. 5 2.749(c) . . . * * * * - * * * * - . . . . . . . . 12
- s i.
l .
I
{
P I
l l
l i
s.
1 i
e 4
I: ,
t
-lii-a
- . f
. , - - - , 4 --- - .~ _ ,..,. _. .-.,-.. . ,,-, ....-,,,.. ,-,-- , . . . , , , ,,.e - - + , ... - , ~ , , < . . . - e , +
.. - . . _ . = . _ . - - . - . - - . _ _ - - - . _ - . - . . - - . - - , _ .
UNITED STATES OF A!4 ERICA before the 11UCLEAR REGULATORY CO!4141SSION In tho Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-443-OLR4 OF NEW llA!1PSilIRE, at; al. 50-444-OLR4 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 (Offolto Emergency and 2) Planning Insuon)
ON ATPEAL FROM A DECISION OF THE ATOM 1C SAFETY AND L1 CENSING BOARD
. L))P-91-2L_(( JAY _ & 1991)
DRIEF OF LICENDEED DTATX11ENT OF TRE_92SI This appeal brings before the Commission what the Licensing Board aptly doucribed an the "last vestigo" of what has como.to bo known ao the "Now llampshiro Iloach Population Issue" in tho Seabropj; procooding. It in an issue which has life to this dato solely because The Commonwealth of Maasachunotta insluta that it known botter than the Stato of New pampshiro what measures are nooded in an omorgoney plan of tho State of Now llampshiro to protect personn en a Now ifampshire beach. In addition, undergirding this issuo's continued survival 10 the refusal or b
?
unwillingnons of The Commonwealth of Massachusetta to accept the viewn of of ficials of the Stato of 110w flampshiro as to what Now llampshiro'o own radiological omorger.cy responso plan says or does not say and t.onns or doon not moan. The ionuo's continued vitality can, and should, be viewed an a memorial to tho ability of the legal profession to coo differences imperceptible to all others. The relevant background 10 no follows:
In 1988, the Liconning Board hold that it was unnoconnary for the 110w llampshire Radiological Emorgency Responso plan (1111RERP) to contain co-called implomonting proceduros for choltoring the "bonch population" in a general emergoney becauon auch was not the preferred protective action for this population, and its implementation van extromoly unlikely.' Almost one year lator, the Appeal Board reverned this ruling of the Liconning Board on the basic that if there was any pocoibility that a shelter option would be invoked for this population, it was noconoary that thoro be implementing procedures included in the N!!RERP.# Thoroafter, in its "im!..ediato offectivonoso" decision permitting Sonbrook Station to operato pending resolution of I
Enhlic Servico Company of flow ila_mpf2hirq (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LDP-88-32, 28 NRC 667,-769-70 (1988).
- P ublic Service Cginyany of Now ilampshire (Scabrook Station,:
Units 1 and 2), ALAB-924, 30 NRC 331, 370-72 ( 1991)-.
-~2-s - .-- ,>y -
n p - v , ,y,-, , wmm--, -----g-----w..-
v- , -en, -r-- rnw- e.vy-. . , - --
,.n.,, e,-g --w-.m..,
intra-agency and judicial appeala,3 thin commission observed: "
"On the bacio of our effectivenoun review, we agree with the Appeal Board that no long an nheltering remains a potential, albolt unlikely, emergency respont e option for the beach population, the 11111ERP chould contain directiono as to how thin choice in to be practically carried out. "'
The next adjudicatory decinion to addrenn this matter was a decinion incued by the Licensing Board on May 3, 1990 end denominated LBP-90-12.5 Therein, the Licensing Board indicoted that its review of the record before it demonstrated that the probability of actually ordering sheltering for the beach population was even omaller than the Appeal Board had thought.
To begin with, the Licensing Board noted that the record revealed no cano wherein shelter would be ordered under what was known no
" condition (1)," the "puf f releano neonario." The Liconaing Board next went on to observo that the Appeal Board simply misunderstood the reason for ansigning shelters to the small portion of the population which did not have its own transportation, that uhelter being solely for purposes of 3
The Licensing Board had previously addressed the issue and decided that the remand of thin matter was not something that had to be resolved prior to authorization of a full power licenso for Seabrook Station. P_uhlig_ff nig.o Cgypany of _flev llampallirs (Soabrook Station, Unita 1 and 2), LP"-89-33, 30 NRC 656, 672 (1989).
'Imblic Service company _of New Hampelliro (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-90-3, 31 NRC 219, 248 (1990), (11.C d ,
Commonwealth of MursachusettJ1 v. UJ1Q, 924 F.2d 311 (D.C. Cir.
1991)..
5 Public Soning__CQrcany__g.f__1 ley ljamoghing (Soabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LUP-90-12, 31 NRC 427 (1990).
..m.. , . . . . . . . . _ . . . . .__ __. J
providing protection while waiting for the bus to evacuate, evacuation being the contemplated protective action. Finally, the Licensing Board stated that it would proceed forthwith to address the problem of implementation in the only other possible circumstance, known as " condition (2)" which was the case where a physical impediment to evacuation existed: the " snow storm in July" scenario.6 In addition, the Licensing Board, having made the foregoing observations, referred its rulings as to " condition (1)" and the *uling as to the transients without transportation to the Appeue 'o.rd and sought guidance from that body as to certain o,b xe :ers.7 Among the matters as to which the Licensing loard 'ught guidance was whether or not the Appeal Board requirec ..no Licensing Board to force implementing detail on New Hampshire if New Hampshire, given the extremely low likelihood of the utility of such provisions, was reluctant to include it.8 After the Appeal Board had accepted.the referrals, but before it had addressed them, the Licensing Board, on June 27, 1990, issued another decision, denominated LBP-90-20,' with i respect to the beach sheltering issue. Therein, the Licensing Board pointed out that The Commonwealth of Massachusetts had
'LBP-90-12 at 439-53.
I Li. at 453-54.
l s
pg ,
l
'Public Service Company of New Hampshira (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-90-20, 31 NRC 581, 583-85 (1990).
conceded at a recent pre-hearing conference that " Condition (2)"
the " snow storm in July" scenario could not occur, and that the Licensing Board had received clarification as to the other
" scenarios" from the State of New Hampshire and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). In light of those concessions and the received clarification, the Licensing Board ruled that the beach sheltering issue was resolved." As a result, said the Licensing Board, it no longer needed the guidance requested in LDP-90-12, and therefore recommended that its referrals in that decision which had already been accepted by the Appeal Board be vacated."
Undaunted by the Licenc>ing Board's recommendation and the Commonwealth's concession, the Appeal board nevertheless went on to address the referrals anyway in a decision denominated ALAD-939." Most of this decision was devoted to explaining why the Appeal Board felt its erroneous understanding that NHRERP
, contemplated the possible sheltering of upwards of 50,000 people at the beach during a " puff release" "was one that was reasonable and supported by.the record."n Having so concluded, the Appeal Board then went on to state that the need for implementing detail "has for all practical. purposes been-vitiated,;given the State's "Id. at 584.
"LBP-90-20.at 585.
"Public Service:Cqmpany of New Hampshire-(Seabrook Station, Unita 1 and 2) , ALAB-939, 32 NRC 165 (1990).
u ld, at 178.
post-romand assertions concerning the intended ecopo of the sheltering option under condition (1)."" Seizing upon an observation in LBP-90-12 that thoro was confusion between the Licensees and the State as to the finer details of sheltering in NilRERP," the Appeal Board went on to find it dincumbent upon the Licensing Board" to assure that certain other matters woro
" clarified."" The clarifications ordered were (1) tno basis on which New 11ampshiro was distinguishing, assuming a Condition 1 shelter ordor, between persons insido buildings who would shelter and those outside, who would evacuate given that cars provido no dose reduction, (2) the distinction between suitable and unsuitable shelter, assuming that to be relevant, and (3) the EDS messages which would be used in Condition 1."
Following the issuance of ALAB-939, the Licensing Board first sought written advice from the parties on how to address the new romand and also held a telephonic prehearing conference with respect to the matter." Following the prehearing conference, the Licensing Board issued an unpublished Memorandum and Order in which it (a) announced that in light of the possible changes in position of cortain of the parties articulated during the prehearing it would certify a question to the Appeal Board "Id. at 178.
U LBP-90-12 at 454.
"ALAB-939 at 179.
"ALAB-939 at 179.
"II. 28,453-99.
. 1
for guidance in resolving the matters remanded in ALAB-939, and (b) directing the Licensees to prepare a " Common Reference Document" which would lay out the changen which had occurred with respect to the protective actions for the beach population since the issuance of Revision 2 of NHRERP, version actually received in evidence and litigated during the evidentiary hearings." The Licensees complied with this directive on January 28, 1991, by filing the Common Reference Document as directed by the Licensing Board.20 Also, as directed in the unpublished Memorandum and Order, the Licensees sought and obtained a stipulation from all parties that the Reference Document was "sufficiently complete and accurate for the purposes stated in the Board's Memorandum and Order of January 24, 1991."21 On March 12, 1991, the Licensing Board issued a Memorandum denominated LDP-91-8.22 Parenthetically, the Licensing Board did hold that two of the three concerns expressed by the Appeal Board in ALAB-939 were resolved by evidence in the record, assuming it to be a fact that the NHRERP still contained a shelter option of the beach. population.23 However,_the main thrust of the
" Unpublished memorandum and Order (January 24, 1991.
20 Licensees' Response to Memorandum and Order of January 24.
1911 (Jan. 28, 1991).
21 Stipulation (Feb. 12, 1991).
22 Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-91-8, 33 NRC 197 (1991).
23 LBP-91-8-at 206. The concern about the dose reduction factor with respect to cars was resolved because the record contained evidence from New Hainpshire Officials to the effect x i
Memorandum was to point out that the Reference Document and the filings of the parties (particularly a memorandum filed by the State of New Hampshire, the factual statements in which had been sworn to under oath by the cognizant state official during the telephonic prehearing conference") had revealed that, in fact, the NHRERP had not contained a shel ar option for the beach population in a general emergency since at least October 1988.D In light of these facts, the Board deemed that it could not comply with the directive of ALAD-939, which had proceeded from the now clearly erroneous promise that NHRERP still contained a shelter option for the beach population. However, the basis for the Licensing Board's knowledge was not contained in the evidentiary record, but rather in the statements under oath at the prehearing and in the stipulated-to reference document.
Hence, the Licensing Board certified the following question to the Appeal Board:
"May the Licensing Board treat the posthearing amendments to the (NHRERP) and the January 10, 1991 Memorandum of the State'of New Hampshire, attested to byf Mr. Iverson (Tr.
28,493), to the effect that evacuation is the only planned protective action for the general beach populationfin ERPA-A at the that "timn, thus-doses, would be saved by not_first moving the-unsheltered population to sheltering," Id. As to the distinction between " suitable" and " unsuitable" shelter, there was evidence in-the record that " suitable" was the equivalent of
" indoor locations." Id.
"II. 28493. ;
D LBP-91-8 at 205.- ,
l
e r
General Emergency Level under N!!RERP as .
resolving the mattern posed in AIAD-939?"d The Appeal Board responded to this question by telling the Licensing Board that it could so treat the matters alluded to in the question provided that these matters and any appropriate response in connection therewith became part of tne decisional record "through summary disposition or other appropriate procedural avenues. "27 on March 26, ]991, the Licensing Board directed the Licensees to " forthwith proceed through summary disposition or other appropriate procedural avenues to present any information necessary" to the resolution of the matters of concerning ALAD-9 39. Licensees complied with this directive by filing a Motion for Summary Disposition seeking to have the issues identified in ALAB-939 declared to have been mooted and, thus, resolved.28 The Staff filed an answer in support of the Licensees' mo t ion . 29 The Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (MAG) and the New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECND) filed a joint opposition supported by an affidavit by one Jefferey llausner.30 The thrust of this 26 LBP-91-8 at 208-09.
27 Public Service Company of New IIampshire (Scabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), A LAD-9 4 5, 33 NRC 175, 178 (1991).
28 Licensees' Motion for Summary Disposition of Record Clarification Directive in ALAD-939 (March 29, 1991).
i'NRC Staff Response in Support of Licensees' Motion for E_ummary Disposition of Record Clarification Directive in ALAB-222 (Apr. 22, 1991).
30 Qpnosition of Mass AG and NECNP to the Licensees' Motion l
for Summarv 01sposition (Apr. 22, 1991).
l l l
9 opposition was to the effect that the Hausner Affidavit and other relevant portions of the record gave rise to two genuine issues as to which a hearing.was necessary. These were, according to the Intervonors:
"1. Whether sheltering is an anticipated and thus, planned, protective action under the NHRERP.
"2. Whether sheltering as it is presently a protective action option under the NHRERP accomplishes the stated goal of maximizing dose savings for the beach population of ERPA-A under the current provisions of the plan which contain no implementing procedures for that option and which apparently distinguish between different classes of beach goers."
On May 30, 1991, the Licensing Board issued the decision at ba r . 3' The Licensing Board began by reciting a brief history of the more recent procedural events leading up to the issuance of the decision.32 The Licensing Board went on correctly to describe the licensees' motion as being based upon the common reference document, the stipulation as to its accuracy, and the New Hampshire memorandum and the attestation thereto by_the cognizant state official.33 The Licensing Board proceeded to point out that the statement-of issues in dispute by-MAG and NECNP were not models of clarity, and, with_ respect to No. 1 were patently incomplete, inasmuch as the issue was sheltering: of the 3'Public Service Comnany of New Hamnshire:(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-91-24, 33 NRC (May 30, 1991), hereinafter referred to as LBP-91-24 and cited to the slip opinion.
32 LBP-91-24 at 1-4.
33 LBP-91-24 at 4-6.
- l
beach population in a general emergency only.3' The Board then went on to construe the subissues as pleaded in a light most favorable to the intervenors as asserting that:
"' shelter-in-place' remains a planned protective action option in the NHRERP for ERPA-A summer beachgoers in a general emergency (sub-issue 1) ; therefore, the issues remanded in ALAD-939 are not moot; thus they remain as ggnuine issues to be heard (sub-issue 2)." '
The Licensing Boa 7:d noted that the statement in the Hausner affidavit that New Hampshire did anticipate implementing shelter was valid if one was concerned with a " site area emergency", but '
the issue on remand was actions to be taken in a general emergency, and the reference document made clear that in a general emergency the planned response was evacuation in all circumstances, a f act which Hausner did not dispute.36 The 1
Licensing Board then went on to state that the only basis left for Hausner's assertion in the context of the general emergency that New Hampshire anticipated sheltering the beach population was his apparent reasoning that New Hampshire should so anticipate in the NHRERP.37 -This argument that New Hampshire should be required to include the shelter option despite its views to the contrary, had, the Licensing Board pointed out, been
. made and lost many times at all levels of the Commission's.
1 3'LBP-91-24 at 7-8.
35 LBP-91-24 at 8..
36 LBP-91-24 at 9-10.
37 LBP-91-24 at 10.
_ . - _ _ . - .. . .~.
l i
adjudicatory hierarchy." As a result, the Licensing Board held that there was no genuine issue as to whether the option was in the NHRERp and therefore the issues raised with respect to the option were moot and the motion was, therefore, granted.
This appeal followed.
ARGUMEET I. THE PROCEDURAL ERROR ASSERTED DY THE APkELLANTS .
COMES TOO LATE - NOT HAVING DEEN ASSERTED BELOW AS REQUIRED BY THE REGULATIONS.
The first error alleged in the Brief of the Appellants is one of procedure." The claim apparently is that the Intervenors should have had the benefit of discovery before having to respond to the Motion for Summary Disposition. The regulation governing i Summary Disposition provides for the case whero a lack of discovery precludes an opponent from properly being abic to oppose a summary disposition motion:
"Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that he cannot, for reasons stated, present by affidavit i facts essential to justify his opposition,
- the presiding officer may refuse the application for summary disposition or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or make such other order as is
, appropriate and a determination to that effect shall be made a matter of record."'O 30 LBP-91-24 at 10-11.
3' Appellants' Bricf at 14-15.
'0 l
10 C.F.R. 9 2.749(c) (emphasis added).
i
s e
Nowhere in their cpposition did the Intervenors assert that they needed discovery in order to defeat the Motion for Summary Disposition. They did state their view that the motion should be denied and a hearing held, which hearing should encompass a prehearing right of discovery, but nowhere did they assert a need to have discovery before addressing the motion on its merits and having it defeated. This is a classic case for applying the doctrine that "[A party] must make a reasonable effort to have a procedural error corrected, not hoard it for use as a ground for reversal in the event it does not like the ultimate decision on the merits. "42 The failure of the Intervenors clearly and promptly to advise the Licensing Board that they could not adequately address the motion without further discovery is fatal to the assertion of the procedural error claimed here.
II. THE SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENT MADE IS WHOLLY WITHOUT HERIT.
The substantive argument made in Appellants Brief at pages >
15-21 is not a model of clarity. The Intervenors apparently concede that under the applicable law "if sheltering was no longer a protective action option for the beach population . . .
the issues of ALAB-939 may have become moot."'3 However, the
'I Onnonition of Mass AG-and NECNP to the Licensees' Motion for Summary Disposition (Apr. 22, 1991).
42 Public Service Company of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-459, 7 NRC 179, 189 (1978).
'3 Appellants' Brief at 16.
~ - - - . -. - . _ - __ .. . . . . - . . . _ - _ .- - -.
Intervenors thereupon engage in a semantic exercise attempting to demonstrate that there is still extant a cheltering option for the beach population in the NHRERP. This effort includes emphasis on the fact that in a January 10, 1991 pleading the State of-New Hampshire referred to evacuation as the " planned" protective action as well as emphasis on the reference to it as
" preferred" in the plan itself. All of this, according to the Inte rvenors, means that sheltering remains as an'" unplanned" option. All that is required in any emergency plan is implementing procedures for the " planned" protective actions. If an action la not " planned" then there is no need for implementing detail. Thus, as surmised by the Licensing Board, the Intervenors argument, despite their attempt to disavow it, comes down to an argument that the NHRERP is required to contain a l " planned" sheltering option for the beach population in'the general emergency situation. And as the Board pointed out they have lost this argument at each and every level of.this agency's adjudicative structure."
The record is clear. There is only one protective action in the NHRERP for the beach population at a general emergency and that is evacuation." This moots-the issues remanded in ALAB-939, as stated by - the Appeal Board - itself in _ ALAB-945. The case q is over. Seventeen-years of litigation-before this agency
-hopefully has come to an end.
"See collection of citations in LDP-91-24 at-11._ l
" Reference Document at 103 Section 4.
QOF_CLUSION The decision of the Licensing Board should be affirmed.
Respectfully submitted, l'
M/]M P Dicfi1Mf, Jr.
Thom6s G.
Ropes & Gray One International Place Boston, MA 02110-2624 (617) 951-7000 Counsel for Licensees i
o-
~ ,
P k.
CERTIFLCATE OF SERVICJ I, Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., oneoftheattorney$l n013 P 2 3 3 for the Licensees herein, hereby certify that on August 12, 1991, I made service of the within document by depositing copies'thereof'with Federal Express, prepaid, for delivery to the individuals: listed below:
Ivan Solin, Chairman Kenneth C. Rogers, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission One White Flint North One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Rockville, MD 20852 Forrest J. Remick, Commissioner James R. Curtiss, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission One White Flint North One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Rockville, MD 20852 Ma rjoric Nordlinger, Esquire William C. Parler, Esquire Office of the General Counsel General Counsel One White Flint North Office of the General Counsel 12555 Rockville Pike One White Flint North Rockville, MD 20852 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 Administrative Judge Ivan Smith Administrative Judge Kenneth A.
Chairman, Atomic Safety and McCollom Licensing Board 1107 West Knapp Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Stillwater, OK 74075 Commiscion East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Administrative Judge Richard F. H. Joseph Flynn, Esquire Cole, Atomic Safety and Office of General Counsel Licensing Board Federal Emergency Management U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Agency Commission 500 C Street, S.W.
East West Towers Building Washinston, DC 20472 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 l
Mr. Richard R. Donovan Diane Curran, Esquire Federal Emergency Management Andrea C. Perster, Esquire Agency liarmon, Curran & Tousley Federal Regional Center Suite 430 130 228th Street, S.W. 2001 S Street, N.W.
Bothell, WA 98021-9796 washington, DC 20009 Robert R. Pierce, Esquire John P. Arnold, Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing George Dana Bisbee, Associate Board Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Attorney General Commiss. ion 25 Capitol Street East West Towers Building Concord, NH 03301-6397 4350 East West liighway Bethesda, MD 20814 Adjudicatory File Mitti A. Young, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Edwin J. Reis, Esquire Board Panel Docket (2 copies) Office of the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission East West Towers Building One White Flint North, 15th Fl.
4350 East West liighway 11555 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20814 Rockville, MD 20852 Leslie Greer, Esquire Robert A. Backus, Esquire Matthew Brock, Erquire Backus, Meyer & Solomon Massachusetts Attorney General 116 Lowell Street One Ashburton Place P.O. Box 516 Boston, MA 02108 Manchester, Nil 03105 Jeffrey Pidot, Esquire Suzanne P. Egan, City Solicitor Deputy Attorney General Lag (ulis, Hill-Whilton &-
Department of the Attorney Rotondi General 79 State Street Augusta, ME 04333 Newburyport, MA 01950 Barbara J. Saint Andre, Esquire R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esquire Kopelman and Paige, P.C. Lagoulis,' Hill-Whilton &
101 Arch Street Rotondi Boston, MA 02110 79 State Street-Newburyport, MA 01950 Ashod N. Amirian, Esquire Judith H. Mizner,- Esquire 145 South Main Street 79 State-Street, 2nd Floor P.C . - Box 38 Newburyport, MA 01950 Bradford, MA 01635 1
i
Steven A. Clark, Town Manager Seabrook Town Off3ces Lafayette Road Seabrook, NH 03874 Mr. Jack Dolan George Iverson, Director Federal Emergency Management N . li . Office of Emergency Agency - Region I Management J.W. McCormack Post Office & State llouse Offico Park South Courthouse Building, Room 442 107 Pleasant Street Boston, MA 02109 Concord, Nil 03301 g _- c j r AU fs
~
'i'h'ona's G7 Dign$7i, J r.
l t
f l