ML20147A886

Atty General Jm Shannons Memorandum in Opposition to Entry of Permanent Protective Order Re Portions of Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities (Spmc) & in Support of Motion to Compel Disclosure Of...Components.* W/Certificate of Svc

ML20147A886
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	02/19/1988
From:	Fierce A NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20147A860	List: ML20147A854 ML20147A886
References
OL, NUDOCS 8803010383
Download: ML20147A886 (19)

Text

. - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

, Before Adm*nistrative Judges:

Ivan W. Smith, Chairperson Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.

Dr. Jerry Harbour

)

In the Matter of ) .

) Docket Nos.

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW ) 50-443-444-OL HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. ) (Off-site EP)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )

) February 19, 1988 ATTORNEY GENERAL JAMES M. SHANNON'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO ENTRY OF A PERMANENT PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PORTIONS OF THE SEABROOK PLAN FOR MASSACHUSETTS COMMUNITIES ("SPMC") AND IN SUPPORT OF HIS MOTION TO COMPEL DISCLOSURE OF ALL SPMC COMPONENTS Attorney General James M. Shannon hereby submits this memorandum in opposition to entry of a permanent protective l order regarding certain redacted portions of the Seabrook Plan l for Massachusetts Communities ("SPMC") and in support of his Motion, filed herewith, to lift the temporary protective order and compel disclosure of all portions of the SPMC not yet disclosed. The Attorney General asserts that there is no legal basis or demonstrated need for any form of protective order pertaining to this infornation. The temporary protective order which has been imposed by the Board should be lifted. To the extent that all components of the SPMC have not already been disclosed, this Board should compel disclosure.

g3010383seOps, o ADOCK 05000443 PDR i

a .:-z:

2 D

BACKGROUND i

Last September, when the Applicants filed their  !

compensatory utility emergency plan for the Massachusetts i i

portion of the EPZ and served it upon all the current parties

~

to this proceeding, substantial information was deleted. The )

deleted information included, inter alia, (1) [from Appendix C]

the names, addresses, contact persons, and compensation '

agreements for companies, providers and individuals who have entered into letters of agreement; (2) (from Appendix M] the  !

identification of host facilities for schools, day care

, I centers, nursery schools, nursing homes, homes for the mentally retarded, and hospitals; an inventory of road crew companies;  ;

names, addresses, and telephone numbers of bus, ambulance, snow removal, and wheelchair van companies; the names, addresses, l contacts, and phone numbers of congregate care centers, host school facilities and host special facilities; a listing of the reception hospitals indicating for each the "total beds / average capacity"; and (3) (from Appendix H] the names and phone '

numbers of hundreds of members of the New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response Organization.

In a letter dated September 18, 1987, accompanying submission of the SPMC, George S. Thomas, Vice President for Nuclear Production at New Hampshire Yankee, stated that

'(t]hese redactions have been made to assure that there will not be any unwarranted invasions of personal privacy of individuals and organizations needed to implement the Plan and certain members of the general public." (Thomas letter, at 4.)

SubseqJently, on November 25, 1987, _the Commission stated that '[w]hile [it could) well understand why the Applicants i

right wish to withhold individuals' names and phone numbers given the emotionally charged atmosphere that surrounds this particular plant, that concern must eventually give way to the needs of staff and FEMA to review the emergency plans." Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units-1 and 2), CLI-87-13 at 6.

Thus the Commission made it "a condition of low power operation" that the Applicants "provide to the staff and FEMA any of the deleted information that the staff and FEMA deem necessary for detailed full power review of the .

emergency plan." Id.

In addition, the Commission expressed its concern that the information not be withheld from the other parties:

Also prior to low power applicants should  !

clearly state for the record their willingness  ;

to provide the detailed information to the other l parties to the proceeding, if necessary under  :

appropriate protective orders from the Licensing Board. The Commission is confident that the 4

Licensing Boar 6 can fashion appropriate orders i and procedures to allow full litigation of the '

contested issues without unnecessarily violating personal privacy.

i Id., at 6-7.

t Thereafter, by letter dated December 23, 1987, i

Mr. V. Nerses for the NRC staff requested that the Applicants l

- provide certain redacted information necessary to support review of the SPMC by FEMA and the NRC staff. None of the redacted information from App 6adix H (members of the offsite response organization) was requested, however. In a letter dated December 30, 1987, from Mr. T.C. Feigenbaum, New

)

'O Hampshire Yankee (NHY) submitted to the NRC the information that the NRC Staff had requested. Mr. Feigenbaum, however, requested that the information being provided be withheld from public disclosure pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.790. Mr. Nerses, for the NRC staff, granted this request by letter dated February 5, 1988, and stated that, "based on the requirements and criteria of 10 C.F.R. 2.790 and, (sic] on the basis of Mr. Feigenbaum's statements, (the NRC staff had) determined that the submitted information sought to be withheld contains proprietary commercial information." No further explanation for this determination was provided except to note that the versions of the submitted information marked r Sprietary would be withheld from public disclosure "pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.790(b)(5) and Section 103(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended.*1!

Subsequently, on February 10, 1988, and on two previous occasions (see Tr. 8398-8425, 8987-9004), the Board and the parties discussed the entry of a temporary protective order t'o allow the redacted portions of the SPMC to be provided by the Applicants to the parties without further delay. While the counsel present for the Mass AG on February 10 did not object to the entry of a temporary order pending receipt of arguments 1/ At the same time that the NRC Staff was assessing the Applicants' request to have the NRC withhold this information pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 2.790, the Staff was considering a FOIA request for this same information. That request, made by the Rockingham County Newspapers in January 1988, has been or soon will be rejected according to statements made by counsel for the NRC staff at the NHRERp hearings on February 10, 1988. At that time the NRC's counsel also indicated that the reason for denying this FOIA request would be "economic impact."

and a decision on the merits regarding the necessity for a permanent protective order, they strongly urged the Board to decide ultimately that no protective ^ order is necessary. The steps agreed to by the parties on February 10 were, first, that counsel for.the Applicants would draft a proposed protective

, order and form of affidavit and, next, that these would be circulated to the other parties for their quick comments.

However, the Board pre-empted this process on February 17, ,

1988, by issuing, with minor revision, the draft temporary I protective order. See Memorandum and Order (Revising Schedule  ;

and Approving Protective Order) dated February 17, 1988.2/

ARGUMENT i I. The Applicants have not made a sufficient showing that i

, disclosure of the entire SPMC without a protective order will necessarily result in any legally cognizable invasion of personal privacy or other specific harm.

1 A. The legal standards i

This is to be sure an unusual situation.

The .

intervenors want certain redacted portions of the SPMC; they want to be able to use it fully to prepare for and litigate the a

j contested issues; and they want the public to have it, tihile j the NRC Staff apparently has some of the information sought, a

they do not have it all (e.g., the names and phone numbers of 1

i i

2/ That same day the Board allowed the ex parte motion of the l Attorney General, agreed to by counsel for the Applicants and the NRC Staff, for (1) an extension to February 19, 1988, to

, file the instant memorandum and (2) a pro rata extension of 1

the previously scheduled dates for the Applicants and the NRC 1

Staff to respond with memoranda on this issue of the redacted information.

5-a

. w . : ..

hundreds of members of the New Hampshire Yankee Offsite Response Organization contained in Appendix H). This therefore, is not a motion by the intervenors pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.744 for production by the NRC of documents withheld from public inspection pursuant to 10 CFR 2.790. Nor is this a o formal "discovery" request made pursuant to 10 CFR 2.740 seeking a matter "which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the proceeding . .. "

10 C.F.R. 2.740(b)(1). This is a request for portions of the "subiect matter" itself.

Clearly the formal discovery stage of the SpMC case will not .  ?

4 .

occur for months, after contentions are filed. Similarly, this i

is also not a premature formal request for "discovery" of relevant information prior to and for the purpose of framing I contentions and their bases. What the intervenors want is j simply a copy -- a complete copy '- of the SpMC itself, a t

document whose contents the Commission has indicated in l

! CLI-87-13 they are to receive. That decision is key here, for

it provides the only applicable legal standard -- no specific .

NRC regulation applies. The key language states as follows: l Also prior to low power applicants should clearly state for the record their willingness to provide the detailed (deleted) information to  :

j l the other parties to the proceeding, if j necessary under appropriate protective orders 1 from the Licensing Board. The Commission is l confident that the Licensing Board can fashion appropriate orders and procedures to allow tull 2

litigation of contested issues without unnecessarily violating personal privacy.

j CLI-37-13 at 6-7 (emphasis supplied).

The , legal standard imposed on the parties and the Board is, therefore, whether any protective order is "necessary" to

)

protect personal privacy. If the Board determines that a protective order is "necessary," then the protective order must be narrowly drawn so as "to allow full litigation of contested issues." Id. Such order should prohibit only those disclosures of private personal matters which are not necessary to a full litigation of the contested issuet.2!

Thus, the legal standard to be applied here is not a balancing test which requires the Board, in shaping a protective order, to weigh the privacy interests at stake with the needs of the parties to conduct a full litigation. Cf.

C.F.R. 2.790 (b)(5) (Commission to determine, inter alia, "whether the right of the public to be fully apprised . . .

outweighs the demonstrated concern for protection" (emphasis supplied)].

3/ The Mass. AG also believes that, by virtue of his constitutional office, he has a responsibility in this case (as in many others) to continue to speak out on the many issues of concerned to the public in the Commonwealth. Details of the, Massachusetts Plan will be of great interest and concern to the citizens of Massachusetts, both within and without the EP2, so long as the licensing process continues. In this circumstance, strict scrutiny of any extensio:. of the present tenporary protective order would be required by the First Amendment, even if only private parties were affected, to determine whether the ' practice in question (furthers) an important or substantial governmental interest unrelated to the suppression of exprestiion' and whether "the limitatica of First Amendment feedons (is] no greater than is necessary or essential to the Protection of the particular governmental interest involved." (Citations onitted)

Seattle Times v. Rhinehart, 104 S.Ct. 2199, 2207, 467 U.S. 20 (1984)(Protective order issued in litigation between private parties pursuant to rules of discovery does not offend the First Amendment where entered on a showing of good cause (respondent's associational rights of privacy and religious expr1ssion), is limited to the context of pretrial discovery, and does not restrict the dissemination of the information if gainedfromothersourcesinadgitiontodiscovery.

B. There has been no sufficient showing of the necessity fot any protective ordet.

Apart from the oral statements of Applicants' counsel cn various occasions at the hearings, the only fornal p,tesentations by the Applicant of the necessity for a protective order are contained in (1) the lettet from NHY's George Thomas dated September 18, 1987, accompanying the Applicants' submission of the SP!!C, and (2) the letter and affidavit from NHY's T.C. Feigenbaum, dated December 30, 1987.S/

The sta ents in the Thomas letter do not support a showing of racessity. Only one sentence in the letter is relevant, and it states: "These redactions have been made to assure that there will not be any unwatranted invasion of personal privacy of individuals and organizations needed to implement the plan and certain members of the general public."

Thomas letter, at 4. No details or justification regarding this purpotted "unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" are l provided.

The Affidavit of T.C. Feigenbaum is marginally more j informative, but the assertions made are all frankly j speculative. For exanple, it states: i 1

(S]uch disclosure could potentially subject

[the individuals and entities involved in 1 cartying out the SPMC] to unnecessary contacts and interruption of theit private lives by members of the public at large . . . and create real ootential for undermining 1/ If Applicants, in ordet to further justify the necessity of a protective ordet, submit any additional information or affidavits with theit response to this memotandum, the Attorney General requests an opportunity to file a reply brief responding to any new information.

efficient implementation of the Plan duting routine exercises of the Plan ot in the unlikely event or (sic) a real emergency at Seabrook Ctation; , . .

Feigenbaum affidavit, at 2. Again,'no specific reasons are given as to wny this "potential" is othet than speculation.

Further on, aftet cepeating the formula for a request for 2.790 protection, Mr. Feigenbaum alludes back, apparently, to the above-quoted statement: "As indicated above, premature disclosure of the information could undermine the viability of the plan and the commitra 4t of those entities and individuals l

to its successful implementation." Id., at 3 (emphasis l

supplied).

Conclusory speculation of this sott has been found by NRC licensing boards to be insufficient to support requests for ptotective orders in other similar contexts See, e.g.,

Houston Lighting and Power Co. (Allens Creek Nucleat Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377, 400 (1979) (insufficient factual foundation presented to justify a protective order to prevent public revelation of the identity of members of a potential intervenor organization, an anti-nuclear group, which h'ad alleged that disclosure would occasian an invasion of the members privacy and subject them to natassment of various types at the hands of utilities and government agencies).

At the heatings, Applicants' counsel has stated the concerns in similui general terms:

i

'I just want () a protective order so that I can protect these people from possible harassment who have agreed to cooperate."

(Tr. 840, emphasis supplied)

"you know, there's no kidding what this is all about, your Honor. You have, as you always do, delicately put it. [T]here is a thread of indication that agreements that we have with people come apart, and we want to protect those names as long as we can."

(Tt. 8419, emphasis supplied)

"What I'm wottied about is when . . . I make it public some crowd, unnamed but sometimes thought of as having the same symbol as a shellfish we all know well, might just go down and raise hell on the front steps of somebody's place. * *

• I'm concerned about elements of the public, in the Comnonwealth of Massachusetts, who I think will put, exert, tremendous pressute and are answerable to no one like this Board, for doing so." .

(Tr. 9001, emphasis supplied)

In conclusion, there has simply been a wholly insufficient factual showing that a protective ordet is necessary in this circumstance. The mete disclosure of the names and addresses of the companies and individuals who will be relied upon for support and services violates no privacy rights whatsoevet. In any event, only individuals, not commetcial entities, have "privacy" tights. As to the namas and addressed of individuals, especially but not limited to those who have duties and responsibilities to the public, there is no protectable privacy interest whatsoevet under Massachusetts law. See Hastings & Sons Publishing Co. v. City Treasurgt of Lynn, 374 Mass. 812 (1978); Pottle v. School Conmittes_of Braintree, 395 Mass. 861,866 (1985).

At the federal level, in FOIA cases in which it is alleged I

that hatassment will occur if an individual's identity is 1 disclosed, the courts requite a specific factual showing of the likelihood of this harassment and make an exception to this l

10 -

l

4 t

. t requirement only in those' cases involving the identities of a l nattow range of law enforcement personnell for whom disclosure creates obvious discernable difficulties. See, e.g., Ingle v.

Dept. of Justice, 698 F.2d 259, 269(6th Cir. 1983)(FBI agents);

Millet v. Bell, 661 F.2d 623, 629-630(7th Cir. 1981), cert.

denied, 456 U.S. 960, 102 S.Ct. 2035(1982)(FBI agents); New L 4

England Apple Council v. Donovan, 725 F.2d(1st Cir.

1984)(investigators of labor tacketeering for the of fice of Inspectot General of the Department of Labot); Nix v. United, States, 572 F.2d 988(4th Cit. 1978)(FBI agents and Assistant O.S. Attorneys). In Nix, the court watned that even for highly j sensitive law enforcement personnel, protection of theit l identities in response to a FOIA tequest could not always be guatanteed: "The court recognizes that, in a mattet arousing greater public interest, non-disclosure of these official's identity might be overborne by the legitimate interests of the public. See Deeting Milliken, 543 F.2d at 1136-37." Mix, at j

1006.

Here, by contrast, with respect to the dispute over the  ;

adequacy of emergency plans for Massachusetts, there is 1

undisputably a matter of substantial public interest about the  ;

identities of individuals who lack the obvious and discernable i need for secrecy possessed by federal law enforcement officials. The Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts I

has stated that no set of emergency plans can afford adequate protection to the citizens of Massachusetts within the EPZ. ]

Now, in response, New Hampshite Yankee has assetted it can l

adequately tespond during an emergency with an undisclosed

group of private individuals whose qualifications and training are unknown. Substantial public scepticism ahounds about the efficacy of the utlity plan, some of it generated by the very fact that the identities of the responders, host facilities, etc., has been withheld. The public has both an interest and a right to know who these responders will be in order to judge fot itself how adequate the response will be.

Even though the Mass. AG asserts that a balancing test is not to be applied in deciding whether to keep or lift a ,

protective order, if such a test were applied the balance would sutely tip in favor of public disclosure here. The evidence advanced to suppott secrecy is highly speculative and generalized; in contrast, the public interest in disclosure is strong and weighty.

II. By refusing to permit public disclosure of critical components of this utility plan, tne Board is failing to allow "full litigation" of the plan in violation of the conniscion's order, section 189(a)(1) of the Atonic Energv Act, and tDe principles of due process.

l A. Potential new intervenots cannot fully assess how they I l

might be affected and are thereby unable to draft any numbet of contentions, and to allege a wide range of i hatmt, needed to petition to intervene.

"Full litigation' of the SPMC is not possible unless all those groups and individuals who are affected by the plan have a meaningful opportunity to scrutinize its essential elements, to assess whether the plan is adequate, and to seek to intervene or otherwise be heard, eithet to raise inadequacies not taised by othet intervenors or to assist in the development of a sound record in ways the cu: rent parties cannot. The 12 -

a Mass. AG-believes that throughout the Massachusetts portion of

~

tne EPZ there ate dozens if not hundreds _of persons who have concerns about who the respondets are for'them. Day care centers will want to know what theit host facilities are and what specific bus attangements have been made for them. Group homes for the retarded have similar concerns. There are hospitals, social service organizations of all sorts, community groups, neighborhood associations, local governments, service l providet organizations, medical associations, schools, large, and small private companies -- all of whom want to know what

the plans provide for them specifically.

The Massachusetts Attorney General is not capable of ,

knowing how the plans will affect all of these persons or of

! fully representing each of theit interests. "Full litigation" of these plans is possible only in the sunshine that permits all these affected individuals and groups to have a full opportunity to participate as parties or to be heard through cooperation with existing parties.

With a protective ordet like that now in place, further ,

intervention will be severely curtailed. Denying these potential intetvenots access to the full set of plans available to the cuttent parties violates (1) the Comnission's directive l i

that the Licensing Board "allow full litigation" of this case l l

(2) Section 189(a)(1) of the Atomic Energy Act, and (3) the due process and equal protection clauses. There is no sound basis for a protective order which offers full heating rights and opportunities only to the cutrent parties.

B. The cuttent Intervenots are being denied the full opportunity to gather all evidence otherwise obtainable from third parties about deficiencies in the plans.

Putsuant to the temporary protective order, the current intervenots will receive the "ptotected information" but can disclose it to only (1) their non-lawyet teptesentatives (if

' approved' by the Board) or (2) their technical experts and advisors. This imposes a tremendous hardship on the ability of the Intervenots to gather the information necessary to litigate the SPMC fully. While asking Intervenots' experts and advis6ts to review and comment on the SPMC is important to case preparation, it is equally important to be able to speak freely with third parties of all sorts about the SPMC responders, contractors, and host facilities in order to gather information and evidence regarding the probable adequacy of the services and the perfornance to be expected.

Fot example, if any Intervenor wants to know whether the host facility for a particulat group hone for the mentally retarded will be able to meet the needs of all who are telocated there, it cannot speak eithet to present or formet staffets about use of the host facility during an emergency at Seabrook.

There are hundreds of potential third party sources of information about the ' protected" portions of the SPMC who the present ptotective order prohibits the Intervenots fron contacting. tio t only is this a violation of due process, it is also wholly at odds with the public interest view that the 'nC and the Intervenots ought to share -- that emergency plans are 14 -

.  ::: ~= : ::: .. .- -

J

'E, .

2

-best scrutinized carefully by the people (whether "experts" or not) with the most specific knowledge or information. If the

'Intervenots cannot now turn to these "non-experts" and ask them-what they know about aspects of the ' protected" portion of the j

-plan, then they cannot fully litigate the case, j CONCLUSION ,

For the teasons set forth above, the Board should lift the .-

i

-temporary protective order and compel the intervenors to .,

produce all redacted aspects of the SPMC which have not already 4

been produced. -l i

Respectfully submitted, trJ.

i ei~

Allan R. Fierce Assistant Attorney General Nuclear Safety Unit ,

r Dated:

February 19, 1988 O

f I

i  !

i i

2 I i i

f l  !

i

{

J t

I a i

i i

00LKEiED UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UNEC NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION a88 FEB 26 P4 04 OrF g. c: Et u t .. # -

00CnE1*U '. "! bVd1

' )

BRaNui In the Matter of )

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW ) Docket No.(s) 50-443/444-OL HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. )

(Seabtook Station, Units 1 and 2) )

)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Allan R. Fierce, hereby certify that on February 19, 1988, I made service of the within Motion of Attorney General James M. Shannon to Lift Temporary Protective Order and to Compel Disclosure of all Those Pottiens of the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Comnunities Unich Have Yet to be Disclosed to the Intervenors and Attorney Genetal James M. Shannon's Menotandum in Opposition to Entry of a Permanent Protective Otder Regarding Portions of the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities (SPMC) and in Support of his Motion to Compel Disclosure of all SPMC Componente, by mailing copies thereof, {

postage pr epaid, by first class mail to, or by Federal Express to those individuals as indicated by *:

l l

Ivan Smith, Chairman Gustave A. Linenberget, Jr.

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nucleat 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 Dt. Jetty Harbout *Shetwin E. Turk, Esq.

Atomic Safety & Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of General Counsel Commission 15th Floot - One White Flint North East West Towers Building 11555 Rockville Pike 4350 East West Highway Rockville, MD 20852 Bethesda, MD 20814

t H.. Joseph Flynn, Esq. Stephen E. Mettill Assistant General Counsel Attorney General Office of General Counsel J ,

George Dana Bisbee Federal Emergency Management Assistant Attorney General Agency Office of the Attorney General 500 C Street, S.W. 25 Capitol Street Washington, DC 20472 Concord, NH 03301 Docketing and Service Paul A. Fritzsche, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office of the Public Advocate Commission State House Station 112 Washington, DC. 20555 Augusta, ME 04333 Roberta C. Peveat Diana P. Randall  ;

. State Representative 70 Collins Street

! Town of Hampton Falls Seablook, NH 03874 '

Dtinkwater Road .

Hampton Falls, NH 03844

Atomic Safety & Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esq. i j Appeal Board Panel Backus, Meyet & Solomon i

U.S. Nucleat Regulatory 116 Lowell Street Conmission P.O. Box 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03106 t

! Atomic Safety & Licensing Jane Doughty i Board Panel Seacoast Anti-Pollution League  :

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 5 Market Street  !

Commission Portsmouth, NH 03801 Washington, DC 20555  !

Paul McEachern, Esq. J. P. Nadeau Matthew T. Brock, Esq. Board of Selectmen Shaines & McEachern 10 Central Road l 25 Maplewood Avenue Rye, NH C3870 4 P.O. Box 360 j Portsmouth, NH 03801 1

Sandra Gavutis, Chairperson Calvin A. Canney '

Board of Selectmen City Manager l RFD 1, Box 1154 City Hall  !

Rte. 107 126 Daniel Street  !

E. Kingston, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Angelo Machitos, Chairman  !

U.S. Senate Board of Selectmen Washington, DC 20510 25 High Road (Attn: Tom Butack) Newbury, MA 10950

, Senatot Gordon J. Humphrey Edward G. Molin i 1 Eagle Square, suite 507 Mayor

Concord, NH 03301 City Hall j (Attn

Herb Boynton) Newbutypott, MA 01950 c l

1. I d

Donald S. Chick William Lord Town Manager Town of Exeter Board of Selectmen Town Hall 10 Front Street Friend Street Exeter, NH 03833 Amesbury, MA 01913 Brentwood Board of Selectmen Gary W. Holmes, Esq.

RFD Dalton Road Brentwood, NH 03833 Holmes & Ellie 47 Winnacunnet Road Hampton, NH 03841 Philip Ahrens, Esq. Diane Cuttan, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Harmon & Weiss Depattment cf the Attorney Suite 430 General 2001 S Street, N.W.

State House Station $6 Washington, DC 20009 Augusta, ME 04333

• Thomas G. Dignan, Esq. .

R.K. Gad III, Esq.

Richard A. Hampe, Esq.

Hampe & McNicholas Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street 35 Pleasant Street Boston, MA Concord, NH 03301 02110 Beverly Hollingworth 209 Winnacunnet Road Edward A. Thomas Hampton, NH 03842 Federal Emergency Management Agency 442 J.W. McCormack (POCH)

Boston, MA 02109 William Armstrong Michael Santosuosso, Chairman Civil Defense Director Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Jewell Street, RFD 2 10 Front Street South Hampton, NH 03827 Exeter, NH 03833 Robert Cartigg, Chairman Anne E. Goodnan, Chairperson Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen Town Office Atlantic Avenue 13-15 Newmarket Road Durham, NH 03824 North Hampton, NH 03862 i Allen Lampert \

Civil Defense Director Sheldon J. Wolfe, Chairperson Town of Brentwood Atomic Safety and Licensing 20 Franklin Street Board Panel i Exeter, NJ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 03833 Commission Washington, DC 20555 '

Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Charles P. Graham, Esq.

5500 Friendship Boulevard McKay, Mutphy & Graham Apartment 1923 Chevy Chase, MD Old Post Office Square 100 Main Street Amesbury, MA 01913 3-

!~

.k a

Judith H. Mi: net, Esq.

Silvergate, Gettner, Baker, Fine, Good & Mizner 88 Btoad Street i Boston, MA 02110

, a .Q d s t (L . e; 112AJ Allan R. Fierce '

Assistant Attorney General Nuclear Safety Unit i t Depattment of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place

. Boston, MA 02108-1698 (617) 727-2220 Dated: February 19, 1988

)

i l e a  :

d k I i I

l l

g h 1

l 4

0 r 1,

I i 1 l

J l

i I i 4- l 4

--, . _ , , _ , , - - . - - - . _ , , , , _ , . , , . . . . , , _ , , _ , , , _ , _ , , , . , , ,,,. - - - , . . , - - , , , , , , _ - , ,