ML20154P724
| ML20154P724 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 09/26/1988 |
| From: | Berry G NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#488-7147 OL-1, NUDOCS 8810030162 | |
| Download: ML20154P724 (21) | |
Text
,
7/Y 7 0 '.
- i. ;j =
Uti!T ED ST ATES OF AMERIC A N U C L E A P R E G UL A T O P, Y C O MMISS10 fl
'88 SEP 26 P6 :06 B EFO RE T HE C OMf'ISSIO N [f'j{ ,, ; , ,
E, : t. u i In the f atter of )
Docket Nos. 50 443 OL-01 P U f:lIC SE P.VIC E C O MP A N Y O f 50-444 OL-01
- f. E W H A M P S HI P E , et d.
(Oand n-site SafetyEmergency Issues ) Planning (Seabrook Statier, Units 1 er,d C)
NRC ST AFF RESPONSE TO JOINT If4 T E P VE N O R S' APF LIC ATI0 f: F O R S T A Y O f 0 Fi D E R AUT HORIZIt'G ISSU ANCE OF LOW P0llEP LICENSE B
t Gregory Alan Berry Counsel for flR C Staff Septem ber 26, 1908
$$k00 SON >E o
)54
i, UtlITED ST ATES OF AMERIC A NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of )
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL-01
, PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF S0-444 OL-01 f4 E W H A M P S HIR E , et ,al.
(On-site Emergency) and Safety Issues Planning
,. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
NRC ST AFF RES"0NSE TO JOINT ItiTERVENORS' APPLIC A';I0f; FOR ST AY OF ORDER AUTHORIZIMG ISSU ANCE OF LOW POWER LICENSE Gregory Alan Berry Counsel for N R C Staff September 26, 1988
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE IflTP,000CTIO!! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................... 2 DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 A. Jurisdiction Over Joint Intervenors' Applicction Lies With The Appeal Board ........ 6 B. The Temporary Stay Souqht By Joint Inter-venors To Prepare "Full" Applications For Stay Of The Board's August 8, 1988 Order Is Not Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 C. A Staf Of The August 8,1988 Order Is Not Varranted . . . . . . . . . . . ............ 10
- 1. likelihood of success on the merits ....... 10
- 2. Irreparable harri, harm to others, the public interest ................. 12 CONCLUS10fi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
- ii -
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
, PAGE Cuomo v. NRC, 772 F.2d 972 (Dr. Cir.1985) 11, 13 Long Island Lighting Co. (Shorehan Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1),
CUI-85-12,21NRC1587(1985) 11, 13
CLI-84-21,20NRC1437(1984) 11 I
4 ALAB-901, ?8 ?!RC (1988) 7 Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station,
" linit 1) CLI-84-17,20NRC801(1984) 12 ALAB-699, 16, NPC 13N (1982) 6
! Public Service Co. of New Ham 3 shire (Seabrook Stttion.
I Units 1 and T) 3 l.I-37-02, 25 NRC 267 (1987) 3 CLI-87-03, 25 NRC 075 (1987) 3
) ALAB-091, 27 NRC, 27 f.PC 341 (1988) 3 ALAB-803, 27 NRC 43 (1988) 3,4,5 ALAB-875, 27 flPC 751 (1988) 3
} ALAC-865, 25 NPC 430 (1987) 11,1?,13
, LBP-87-10, 26 NRC 177, aff'd in_ part, rev'd in part, ALAB-875, ?6 NRC 251 (1987) 2 LBP-CC-6, 27 NRC 245, aff'd 27NRC485(1988) 3 i'
1 l
- - . - _ , . - , . . . - - - . - -,- .-,.--,.-,,_e__. ,m-,e-,,na,
9/26/88 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE COMMISSION In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-443 OL-01 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 50-444 OL-01 NEW HAMPSHIRE, g al. On-site Emergency Planning and Safety Issues :
, (SeabrcokStation, Units 1and2)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO JOINT IflTERVENORS' APPLICATION FOR STAY OF ORDER t i
AUTHO,R,1 ZING TMI'ANCE OF LOW POWER LICENSE INTRODUCTION On September 6,1988, the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL), Town
! of Hampton, New England Coalition On Nuclear Pollution (hECNP), and the Massachusetts Attorney General (collectively "Joint Intervenors") filed an application requesting the Comission to "inpose a stay of ten days of any future order authorizing the issuance of a low-power license for the l 1
Seabrook Station." Joint Intervenors' Application at 1. The Joint Interverers state that the purpose of this request is to give them the opportunity "to file timely and full" applications for a stay of any future order authorizing the issuance of a low power license int the l l
SeabrookStation.1/ Id. l
. 1/ Joint Intervenors are inenrrect in assuming that no order authorizing
~
the issuance of a low powar license has been issued. As explained elsewhere in this response, the issuance of a low power operating license for the Seabrook Statien was authorized by the Licensing Board en August 8,1988. See Memorandum and Order (Re Low Power ;
i' (F0OTNOTEC0tlTINUEDONNEXTPAGE) i
_ . _ _ - - _ , , _ _ _ , - _ _ , . ~ . _ _ . _ . , .
. As explained below, Joint Intervenors' application should be considered by the Appeal Board in the first instance. In the event the Comission detemines to exercise its inherent authority to entertain Joint Intervenors' application, the Comission should deny the request since additional time to prepare applications for stay is unnecessery.
Joint Intervenors currently are in a position to file "timely and full" applications for a stey of low power operations. Moreover, on September 02, 1988, the Ccmmission issued an order which, though not directly related to the pending request, effectively provides the relief sought by e Joint Intervenors. Additionally, for the reasons stated herein, there is i re cerit to any of the argurents which Joint Intervenors intend to raise i
in support of an application for a "full" stay of low power operations. l
)
BfACKGROUND
- The Licensing Board initially authorized the Director of flRR to issue J
a low power operating license for the Seabrook Station on fiarch 25, 1987.
See Public,, Service Company of fj,ew Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and i 2), LBP-87-10, aff'd in part, rev'd and ren'd_ in part, ALAB-875, 26 NRC j -
251 (1987). No low power license was issued at that time, however, j '
] (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FR0t! PP.EViollS PAGE)
Authorization) (August 8,1988) (unpublished). The Licensing Board, however, stayed the effectiveness of this order "until such time as ;
the Comissien via rulemaking may remove the public notification issue as an obstacle to low power."
1 Id., 311p op, at 13. The ;
Licensing Board also conditioned the effectiveness of its order on i the Staff's compliance with a request for certain infomation which might be made by the Comission. Id. To date, however, the Comission has not requested the StafFto provide the infomation 4 described by the Licensing Board. ;
i ,
! i
I I
because in an unpublished order issued on January 9,1987, the Comission had stayed the Director from doing so. See Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrock Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-87-02, 25 NRC 267 (1987);
see also M ..CLI-87-03, 2.5 NRC 875 (1987). Although that stay was lifted by the Comission on November *5,1987, see Public Service Corpany of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-87-13, 26 NRC 400 (1987), l there remained four impediments to the issuance of a low power license.
These consisted of four contentions which were remanded to the Licensing Board by the Appeal Board for further litigation. See ALAB-875, supra, 26 NRC at 275-76 (NECNP Contentions 1.Y. relating to f rservice inspection of steam generator tubes, and !Y, concerning accumulation of aquatic organisms in cooling systems); ALAB-883, 27 NRC 43, 55 (1988) (admitting and remanding to the Licensing Board the Massachusetts Attorney General's lai ofiled alert notification siren contention for litigation); ALAB-891, 07 ORC 341 (1988) (remanding NECNP Centention I.B.2 concerning envit anantal qualification of RG-58 coaxial cable).
Under applicable regulations, low power operations may be autholized by a licensing board prior to the resolution of a pending contention if the board determines that the contention involved is not relevant to the safe conduct of low power operatiers. See eg. 10 C.F.R. 5 50.57(c);
Public Service Corpany of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-892, 27 NRC 485 (1988). Pursuant to Comission and Appeal Board direction, the Licensing Board preceeded to concider whether remanded NECNP Contentions I.V. IV, and I.B.2 need be resolved before low power operations could be reauthori:ed and concluded that they need not.
Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station Units 1 and 2),
_4 LBP-88-6, 27 NRC 245, afd, ALAB-892, 27 NRC 485 (1988) (NECNP Contentions I.V and IV); Memorandum, and Order (Re Low Power Authorization)
(August 8,1988)(unpublished)(NECNPContentionI.B.2).
These decisions, however, have not empowered the Director v ISR actually to issue a low pcwer license for '.5e Seabrook Station because in remanding the Attorney General's late-filed contention, see ALAB-883
. supra, the Appeal Board held that 10 C.F.R. 5 50.47(b)(5) precludes the issuance of a low power license so long as any contention relating to the adequacy of an applicants' alert notification system, such as the one filed by the Attorney :eneral, remains unresolved. 27 NRC at 53-55.
Applicants' petition is pending before the Comission for review of ALAB-883. The Comission has stated that it would consider this petititon after it completed its action on the "public rotification" 2_/ rulemaking.
See May 4, 1988 Commission Order at 1-2.
Because of the pending rulenaking proceeding, the License Board stayed the effectiveness of its August 8,1988 Order "until such time as the Consnission via rulemaking may remove the public notification issue as an obstacle to low power." August 8, 1988 Order at 13. Shortly thereafter, Joint Intervenors filed the instant notion which essentially requesta the Comission to stay the August 8, 1988 crder for ten additional days after it beccees effective on October 24, 1988.
On September 20, 1988, the "public notification issue" was
. essentially removed as an obstacle to the issuance of a low power license.
"/
2 See "Emergency Planning And Preparednass Pequirements for Nuclear Mer Plant Fuel Loading And Low Power Testing," 53 Fed. Reg.
(September 20,1988).
.S-i On that date, the Comission amended 10 C.F.R. ! 50.47(d) to make clear that the issuance of a fuel loading or lew power licenso is not dependent upon an applicant having in place the means to provide "prompt public :
notification in the event of an accident." 53 Fed. Reg, at _ . This I amendment to the regulation is effective on October 24, 1988. It is !
likely that the Commission soon will act on Applicants' petition for j
, review of ALAB-283 in a matter consistent with the new rule which will l
! obviate the condition imposed by the Licensing Board in its authorization order of August 8,1988.
On September 22, 1988, +ha Cemission issued a further stay of the ;
i Seabrook low pewer license. The Comission stated "that before low power may be authorized, [A]pplicants must provide reasonable assurance that adequ :e funds will be available so that safe decomissionir.g will be reasonably assured in the event that low pcher operatien has occurred and j a full power license is not granted for Seabrook Unit 1." _Public Servie.e f Company of ?!ew Ha;mhf re (Seabrook Station, Units 1 ard 2), CLI-87-07, 28 l NRC , slip op, at ? (September 2?, 1988). Applicants were requested by ;
the Comission "to provide the basis on which a finding of the recessary reasonable assurarce" night be made on or before October 22, 1988. J,d ,
l After such a filing other parties will have 10 days to file a motion to reopen the record and admit a late-filed contention challenging the ;
adequacy of Applicants' plan for funding the decomissioning of the f
, facility. !_d. at 3. Parties opposing any such motion were afforded ten !
days after that time to file their respenses. Ld .
\
i 6-DISCUSSION r
A. Jurisdiction Over Joint Intervenors' Application Lies With The Appeal Board As explained above, the August 8,1968 Order authorizes the issuance ,
- of a low power license, subject to the fulfillment of one condition: that
, the Cemission adept the proposed rule on alert notification systems. See August 8, 1988 Order at 13. That condition was satisfied on September 20, lo88, when the Comission adopted the rule in final form. See Fed. Reg.
. It is this order which Joint Intervenors nust seek to have 1
stayed. E As explained below, Joint Intervenors, hcwever, have submitted ,
their stay application to the wrong forum, On August 23, 1988, intervenor NECNP filed a retice of appeal of the August 8, 1908 Crder with the Appeal Board. Jurisdiction to entertain an i
]
applicatien for stay of the neder thereupon passed to the Appeal Board.
I See itetropolitan E_dison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1),16 i:PC 1324, 13?6-27 (1982). That appeal has not been acted upon. !
Thus, Joint Intervenors' terrporary stay application therefore should have i
4 been filed beiore the Appeal Peard.
J
) While it is of course true that the Comission has the authority under 10 C.F.R. I2.718(i) to direct the certification to it of any
~
i
. 3/ The temporary stay imposed by the Comission in its September 22, 1988 Order does rot alter this fact. That order only stays the issuance of the low pewer license authorized by the August 8,1988
- Ordei until Applicants provide the Comission with a basis upon which it can conclude that there is reasonable assurance funds will be available to decennission the Seabrock Station after low power cperation in the event a full pcwer license is not i "Jed to Applicants. See Ct.I-87-07, 28 NRC (Septettber ??, ih r Once
- (FOOTNOTE CONTINVED CN NEXT PAGE) [
i :
I
question pending before an inferior tribunal, Long Island Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-901, 28 NRC , slip op, at 7 n.4 (September 20, 1988), no sound reason has been advanced by Joint Intervenors -- cnd none readily is apparent -- why the Comission should divest the Appeal Beard of its jurisdiction over the instant request.
Since the Appeal Board, not the Comissicn, is the appropriate forum for
. considereirg Joint Intervenors' reouest, the Comission should dismiss dotat Intervenors' application.
B. The Temporary Stay Sought By Joint Intervenors To Prepare "Full" Applications For Stey Of The Board's August 8, 1988 Order Is Not Needed _
Joint Intervenors state that they intend to make the following argunents in support of their stcy applications Ia) that the Comission's proposed rule change on public notification systerrs, if adopted, is arbitrary, capricious, and centrary to law; (b) that snould the Comission deny the petitions for waiver n" the Comiss*on's financial cualifications rules filed by the Attorney General and the other intervenors, such denial is arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law; (c) the issuance of a low pcwer license for the Seabrock Station prior to the resolution c/ all issues material to full power operation violates the Atenic Energy Act and is erbitrary and capricious; and (d) that a separate or supplerental environrental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared before a low power license can issue. ,1, d, .
(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE) that assurance is provided, the Director of NRR will be free to issue the low power license for the facility unles_s the August 8, 1988 Order is stayed or reversed.
Joint Intervenors do not attempt to explain, however, why they are unable to prepare those arguments now. There is no issue they seek to raise which they have not known of for months and they could have long ago prepared these legal arguments. In this connection, it should be I 4
emphasized that the last two of these arguments -- that a separate EIS l must be prepared prior to low power license and that the Comission lacks
. the legal authority to authorize the issuance of a low pcwer license prior to the resolution ef all issues affecting off-site emergency planning --
already have been fully briefed before the Commission. 4/ Thus, there can be no merit to any suggestion that additional time is needed to research t-ord brief these issues.
Joint Intervenors also should be prepared to present at this time the reasons why they believe t; at any action taken by the Comission to adopt the proposed rule change on public notification systems or to deny the Massachusetts AtSrney General's waiver petition regarding the financial qualification rule would be invalid. With respect to the first point, it i should be pointed out that more than four conths have elapsed since the >
Commission first published the reasons supporting the proposed rule change l l cn public notification systems. See 53 Fed. Reg.16435 (May 9,1988).
Joint Intervenors have bad ample tire to fonnulate their challenges to the adoption of the proposed rule. Indeed, Joint Intervenors filed corrents with the Commission in which they had the opportunity to argue against
- t I 4/ See e.g. Attorney General James M. Shannon's Applicatien For A Stay
. UT Licensing Board Order Authorizirg Issuance Of Operating License To l Conduct Lew Power Operations at 3-5, 6-8 (May 13,1987); NECNP Motion f For A Stay Of Lcw Power Operation Pending Full Power Decision Or [
Appellate Review at 3-7 (May 14, 1987). ,
.g.
adoption of the rule change on the identical ground raised here: that it would be arbitrary capricious and contrary to law. The substantial amount of time requested by Joint Intervenars is not needed and should not be !
granted to present this argument again.
Similarly, regarding whether denial of the Attorney General's petition to waive the financial qualification rule would be arbitrary.
. capricious, and contrary to law as Joint Intervenors claim, no more tine ;
is needed to present this argument. Joint Intervenors have already presented their views to the Com%1on en why it must grant the waiver petition. See eA R( pense Of Hassachusetts Attorney General James M.
Shannon To Comission Order Of July it.,1988 (August 2,1988); Intervenors ;
Peply To The Responses Of The NRC Staff And Applicants To The Comission's Order Of July 14, 1988 (August ?, 1988). In short, the ten days requested by Joint Intervenors simply is not needed to to prepare applications for a stay of low power operations. The request should be denied.
Fira11y, f n view of the further stay of low power operation inposed j by the Comission's September 22, 1988 Order, the relief sought by Joint ;
Interverers' has been substantially provided. As noted earlier, on September 22, 1988, the Comission issued a further stay of the Seabrook low power license stating, "that before low power may be authorized.
[A]pplicants mast orovide reasonable assurance that adequate funds will be available so that safe decomissioning will be reasonably assured in the
- event that low power operation has occurred and a full power license is not gronted for Seabrook Unit 1." Publi,e Service Company of,New Hampshire (Seabrook Station. Units 1 and 2), CLI-87-07, 28 NRC , slip op, at 2 (September 2?,1988). Applicants were afforded 30 days "to provide the
basis on which a finding of the necessary reasonable assurance" might be made. M. Af ter such a filing other parties have 10 days to file a motion to reopen the record and admit a late-filed contention challenging the adequacy of Applicants' plan for funding the decomissioning of the facility. Ld.at3. Parties opposing any such motion have ten days after that tine to file their responses. M. In these circumstances it is unlikely that a low power operating license will issue within the next 50 days. This emcunt of time is more than sufficient to enable Joint Interverors to prepare "full" applications for stay of low power operations sheuld they elect to do so.
i C. LS,tay Of The August 8,1988 Order is Not Warranted 1
As noted above, Joint Intervenors state that they intend to advance four reasons why Icw power operations should be stayed pendente lite. The i determination whether to grant or deny an application for a stay depends [
upon a consideration of the four factors set forth in 10 C.F.R. ,
$ 2.788(e). The Staff will briefly explain why none of the arguments Joint Intervenors intend to raise are likely to succeed on the merits and why a consideration of the other three criterion set forth in 10 0.F.R.
l 6 2.788(e) would rot militate in favor of granting a stay of the low power l i
i operations.
- 1. Likelihood,of success on the merits hone of the four arguments which Joint Intervenors state they intend to raise in support of a stay pendente lite of the August 8,1988 Order is l
likely to succeed on the eerits. The argument that "the issuance of a low l
l power license prior to hearings on all emergency planning issues violates [
the Atemic Energy Act " Joint Intervenors' Applicatien at 2, previously t
l
- i l
m _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . , _ _ - -_ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ .,
1 has been considered and rejected by .t Comission and the Appeal Board.
Long Isler_d, Lighting Company (Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1),
CLI-84-21, 20 NPC 1437, 1440 and n.6 (1984); Public Service C,ompany of _
New Harpshire, (Saabrook Station Units 1 and 2), ALAB-865, 25 NRC 430, 439 (1987); as has Joint Intervenors' claim that "a separate or supplemental ervironmental impact statement . . . is required for a low power license in this case." Shoreham, supra,CLI-85-1?,21NRC1587,1589(1985);J_d.,
CL1-84-9, 19 NPC 1323, 1326 /1694); Seabrook, supra, 25 NRC at 439; accord Cromo v. NRC, 772 F.2d 972, 974-76 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Thus, these argunents have no likelihood of success on the r.erits, t Similarly, Joint Intervenors are not likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Cornission's adoption of the final rule relating to alert notification systens is arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with law. In the preanble issued in connection with the adoption of the final rule, the Comission considered and rejected this argument. See 53 Fed. Peg. at . Joint Intervenors have pointed to re new reason why the Comission should abandon a position adopted less than a week ago.
Finally, should the Comistion deny the Passachusetts Attorney General's pending petition for waiver of the Comission's financial !
l qualificatien rules, en argument that such denial is arbitrary and j capricious or not in accordance with la is not likely to succeed. As the i
9 5
Staff has explained in previous filings _/, a petition for waiver must be denied where the petitioner fails to make cut a prima facie case that application of the rule or regulation in question will not achieve the purpose for which it was adopted. See 10 C.F.R. 62.758(b). For the reasons previously stated 6/, the Massachusetts Atterney General's waiver It would be hardly arbitrary petition failed to meet this requirement.
. and capricious for the Comission -- or any administrative agency -- to adhere 'to its own procedural regulations.
In suri, there is little, if any, likelihecd that any cf the argurents which Joint Intervenors' intend to raise in support of a stay low power operations will succeed on the nerits.
4 ,
?. ,Irrertrable, harm, harm to others, the public interest j 2 t
"[T]he most significant factor in deciding whether to grant a stay j request is whether irrepcrable injury will result in the absence of a !
i i stay." Seabrog, supra, ALA8-865, 25 NPC at 436; accord Three Mile ;
Jj: land, supra, CLI-84-17, 20 NRC 801, 804 (1984). A federal circuit :
i court, the Cemission, and Appeal Scard already have considered whether the issuance of a low power license pendente lite will result in -
f rreparable ham and each has concluded that it would not. See e.g. ,
i 1
l i
) 5/ See 14, 1988 !
i
~
TJuly_e.S. NRC 22,1988); Staff Respons.s To Ccmission Crder of JulyhRC Staff Respo ,
To File Additional Reply to Comission Crder of iluly 14, 1988 L (Septerber 14,1980).
I 6/ See n.5.
I h
1 l
Cuomo v. NRC, supra, 772 F.2d 972; Shoreham, supra, CLI-85-12, 21 NRC at
- 1590; Seabrook, supra ALAB-865, 25 NRC at 436-437. l The third factor -- hann to other parties -- would weigh heavily in !
Applicants' favor. As the Comission has noted, the primary benefit of .j prompt low power testing is "the early discovery and correction of i unforeseen but possible problems which may prevent or delay full power i
cperation at an enormous expense to the [ utility? and/or its customers." l
) Shoreh_an, eh supra, CLI-85-12, 21 NRC at 1590. l The fourth and final factor to be considered in duciding whether to j grant a stay request -- where the public interest lies -- similarly would ;
- favor Applicants. See ld_.
d ("the inherent benefits of early low power !
y testing cutweighs the uncertainty that a full power license may be l 1
l denied");accordSeabrook, supra _,ALAB-865,25NRCat439. t
! i i
1 00flCLUSION l
! Because jurisdiction over Joint Intervenors' recuest for a ten day i
stay of the Licensing Board's August 8,1900 Crder lies with the Appeal Board, the Comission should dismiss the request or refer it to the Appeal f f i i
Board. Should the Comission elect to exercise its authority and l entertain Joint Intervenors' request, the request should be denied because i the additional time sought is not ne.eded. Moreover, for the reasons set i
. v i f
- I l' !
l !
j t
- f i
t
}
i L
forth herein, a consideration of the stay criteria set forth in 10 C.F.R.
% 2.788(e) reveals that a stay of the low power operations would not be ;
warranted. i p ct'ully submitted. -
i V, LU) y letry g R an Counse for tC Staff Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 26th day of September 1988 l
l I
t b
)
i i
h i
)
i :
1
{
. I i ;
I !
I s
t
DoutTED UNIT M STATFS OF AMERICA N
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CCMMISSION
'88 SEP 26 P6 :06 BEFORE THE,COPNISSION In the Matter of (Fr in ..
d DocketNos.50-443*Di."-0W!b' Pl@LIC SFP.VICE COMPANY OF 50-444 OL-01 NEWHAMPSHIFE,etal. On-site Ernergency Planning and Safety Issues (Scabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICF
! hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TC JOINT INTERVENORS' APPLICATION FOR STAY OF ORDER AUTHORIZIt'G ISSUANCE OF LOW POWER LICENSE" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served en the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Coninissicn's internal cil systen, this 26th day of September 1988.
Samuel J. Chilk (15)* H. J. Flynn, Esq.
Office of the Secretary Assistant General Ccunsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Federal Emergency Management Washington, DC 20555 Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
Sheldon J. Nfe, Esq. Chainnan' Washington, DC 20472
- Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensina Board Calvin A. Canney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conrnission City Hall Washington, DC 20555 126 Daniel Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Dr. Jerry Harbour
- Adninistratise Judge Robert Carrigg, Chairman Atoc'ic Safety and Licensing Board Board of Selectmen U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission Town Office Washington, DC 20555 Atlantic Avenue North Hampton, MP 03870 Dr. Emeth A. Luebke Administrative Judge Judith H. Mizner, Esq.
. 4515 Villard Aver.ue Silverglate, Geriner, Baker, Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815 Fine, & Good 88 Board Street Philip Ahren. Esq. Besten MA 02110
. Assisterit Attorney General Office of the Atterrey General J. P. Nadeau State Hcuse Station Board of Selectnen Augusta. ME 04333 10 Central Street Rye, hH 03870 Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.
Robert K. Gad, III, Esq.
Ropes & Gray 205 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110
2 Carol S. Sneider, Esq. Mr. Angie Machiros, Chainran Assistant Attorney General Board of Selectmen Office of the Attorney General 25 High Road One Ashburton Place, Igth Floor Newbury, MA 09150 Boston, MA 02108 Allen Lampert George Dar.a Risbee, Esq. Civil Defense Director Assistant Attorney General Town of Brentwood ;
Office of the Attorney General 20 Franklin 25 Capitol Street Exeter, NH 03833 '
Concord, NH 03301 William Antstrong
. Ellyn R. Weiss, Esq. Civil Defense Director Diane Curran, Esq. Town of Exeter Harron & Weiss 10 Front Street 2001 S Street NW Exeter, NH 03833 Suite 430 :
Washington, DC 20009 Gary W. Holmes, Esq. >
Holmes & Ellis Robert A. B kus. Esq. 47 Winnacunnet Road
- Backus, Peyt '. Solomon Hampton, NH 83842 !
- 116 Lowell ! .'eet l Manchester, NH 03106 Atomic Safety end Licensing .
Appeal Panel (8)* '
Paul McEachern, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Matthew T. Brock, Esq. Washington, DC 20555 Shaines & NcEachern 25 haplewood Avenue Atomic Safety end Licensing i
! P.O. Box 360 Board Panel (1)*
Portsmouth,flH 03801 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington DC 20555 >
! Cherles P. Graham, Esq.
McKay, Purphy & Graham Docketing and Service Section*
4 100 Main Street Office of the Secretary t Amesbury, MA 01913 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Vashington, DC 20555 i Sandra Gavutis, Chairran Doerd of Selectmen Peter J. Matthews, Mayor j RFD #1, Pcx 1154 City Hall j
Kensington, NH 03827 Newburyport, MN 09150 .
1 .
. Willian S. Lord Asbed N. Amirian, Esq. l Board of Selectren Town Counsel for Merrimac ,
Tcwn Hall . Friend Street 375 Main Street
. Amesbury, MA 01913 Haverhill, MA 08130 Sheldon J. Wolfe, Esc.
Administrative Judge 1110 Wimbledon Drive McLean, VA 22101 k
i b
1.
3-i Mrs. Anne E. Goodman, Chaiman Michael Santosuosso, Chairman I Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen <
13-15 Newarket Road South Hampton, NH 03827 !
Durham, NH 03824 Hon. Gordon J. Humphrey ,
United States Senate 531 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 [
1 i
Grelory M an B< try '
, Counsel $r hRL Staff l !
i i
I i
h e
l I
l
. 1 i
t f
!