ML20206D740
| ML20206D740 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/17/1986 |
| From: | Pirfo O, Reis E NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| References | |
| CON-#286-635 OL, NUDOCS 8606200179 | |
| Download: ML20206D740 (20) | |
Text
'Q$
W g
of acerte UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 0 b86b NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION st
{c j
BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BO y
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL NEW IIAMPSHIRE, et _al.
)
50-444 OL
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE MOTION FOR DIRECTED CERTIFICATION (ON DENIAL OF MOTION TO AMEND TRANSCRIPT)
Edwin J. Reis Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel Oreste Russ Pirfo Counsel for NRC Staff June 17,1986 0606200179 060t,17 PDR ADOCK OD0004'13 o
e
~
l/
/Q cocaw
-3
.UUN181986* C Nd UNITED STATES OF AMERICA EE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N Mc
. s'N BEFORE TIIE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL NEW IIAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444 OL
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE MOTION FOR DIRECTED CERTIFICATION (ON DENIAL OF MOTION TO AMEND TRANSCRIPT)
Edwin J. Reis Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel Oreste Russ Pirfo Counsel for NRC Staff June 17,1986
-i-I s
TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE T AB LE O F A U T HO RITIE S......................................... 11 I.
I N T R O D U C T IO N............................................... 1 II. DISCUSSION.................................................2 A.
Directed Certificate is Appropriate...................... 2 B.
The Licensing Board Erred in its Purported Direction to the Reporter and In Its Refusal to Consider the Merits of SAPL's Motion to Amend the Transcrip t.................................. 7 1.
The Official Transcript Is To Be A Verbatim T ran s c rip t......................................... 'i 2.
The Licensing Board Had to Consider Proposed Amendments to the Official Transcript............. 7 III. C O N C L U S I O N.............................................. 12 i
O
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES COURT CASES PAGE
. Andrews v. Olin Mathieson Corp., 334 F. 2 d 4 2 2 ( 8 t h Cir. 196 4 )..................................... 6 Grau v. Procter & Gamble Co., 32 F.R.D.
19 9 ( M. D. Ala. 19 6 3 )...................................... 8 -9 International Business Machinea Corp. v.
Edelstein, 526 F. 2d 37 (2nd Cir. 1972)................ 4-6,9-10 New Mexico Savings & Loan Assn. v. United States Fidelity & Guaranteo Corp., 454 F.2d 328 (10th Cir. 1972)...................................................
6 Parr v. United States, 351 U.S. 513, 76 S. C t. 912, 10 0 L. E d. 13 7 7 ( 19 5 6 )............................ 4 Stans and Mitchell v. Galiardi, 485 F. 2 d 12 90 ( 2 n d Cir. 19 7 3 )................................... 4 Treasure Imports v. Henry Amdur & Sons, 12 7 F. 2 d 3 ( 2 n d Cir. 19 4 2 ).................................. 9 Un8ted States v. Carter, 347 F.2d 220 (2nd Cir.1965)
~
cert. denied 382 U.S. 888 (1965)........................... 12 United States v. Smith, 433 F.2d 14 9 ( 9t h Ci r. - 19 7 0 )......................................... 11 NRC CASES Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant.
Unita 1 & 2), ALAB-541, 9 NRC 436 (1979)................. 2 Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-691, 16 NRC 897 (1982)............... 10 Houston Lighting & Power Co. (South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-639, 13 NRC 469 (1981).............. 5
- 111 -
Kansas Gas & Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-424, 6 NR C 122 (1977).................... 3 Kansas Gas & Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-3'7, 3 NRC 40 8 (1976).................... 5 Northern Indiana Public Service Co. (Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear 1), LBP-80-22, 12 NRC 191 ( 19 8 0 )............................................. 1 1 Public Service Co. of Indiana (hlarble Hill Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-405, 5 NRC 1190 (1977).......... 2-7 STATUTES 5
U.S.C.
I 556(e)..................................................6 28 U.S.C.
I 750..................................................8-9 28 U.S.C.
I 2 112 ( b )................................................ 6 NRC REGULATIONS 10 C. F. R. I 2. 713..................................................... 10 10 C. F. R. I 2. 718 ( i )................................................... 2 10 C. F. R. I 2. 7 5 0.............................................. 6, 7,10,11 10 C. F. R. I 2. 7 6 2 ( d ) ( 1 )................................................ 3 10 C.F.R. Part 2, App. A V. (a) (1 )................................ 7-8
?.IISCELLANEOUS Fe d. R. A pp. P ro., R ule 10......................................... 9,13 Fe d. R. App. Pro., Rule 16............................................ 6 Fe d. R. Civil P ro., Rule 7 5............................................ 9 S. Rep. No. 275, 97th Cong., 2nd Sess., reprinted in 1982 U.S.
Code Cong. an d A d Ne w s............................ 8
e ff
~
\\
y wxam
'y 5
UUN181986* r 6-\\
pocenNG&
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
- ( ERV;CE BRANCII-NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C
'C"8C g
/
N BEFORE TliE ATOMIC SAFETY AND. LICENSINO APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL NEW HAMPS!! IRE, et_ _al.
)
50-444 OL
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE MOTION FOR DIRECTED j
CERTIFICATION (ON DENIAL OF MOTION TO AMEND TRANSCRIPT)
I.
INTRODUCTION On April 10,
- 1986, intervenor Seacoast Anti-Pollution League
("SAPL") filed a motion with the Licensing Board seeking to amend the transcript of the prehearing conference held in this proceeding on j
March 25, 1986.
See " Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Motion to Amend Record of Prehearing Conference of March 25, 1986" (attached to the instant SAPL motion).
The motion to amend dealt with the transcription of an exchange between the Board's Chairman and SAPL's attorney on the 4
admission of a contention.
Tr. 2098-99.
On the basis of the attorney's recollection and a local radio station's unofficial tape recording of the proceedings, SAPL stated that a portion of the exchange hid been deleted from the official transcript, or altered, by the official reporter as a result of an oral direction by Judge Hoyt to the reporter. Motion at 1-2.
i On March 26, 1986, the day after the purported exchange between the Board Chairman and SAPL's counsel, SAPL attempted to orally move to amend the transcript to reflect this exchange.
Tr. 2308-09.
The l
t
, Board stated SAPL should proceed by written motion for transcript corrections.
Id.
SAPL then filed its written motion of April 10, 1986, to correct the transcript.
By Order of April 15, 1986, the Licensing Board denied the motion to amend on ground that "[t]he sole official transcript of the proceeding is that prepared by the official reporter...." SAPL now moves the Appeal Board for directed certification of the question of whether the Licensing Board acted arbitrarily and capriciously in refusing to amend the transcript. O The Appeal Board must decide initially whether the discretionary exercise of directed certification authority is appropriate on this issue and, if so, then the merits of SAPL's' motion.
For the reasons set forth herein, the Appeal Board should direct certification of the question and reverse the Licensing Board's ruling which refused to consider the material submitted by SAPL in its motion to correct the prehearing conference transcript.
II.
DISCUSSIO_N A.
Directed Certification is 3ppropriate The intervenor SAPL seeks interlocutory review by means of directed certification of a Licensing Board rulings dealing with the creation and I
amendment of the transcript in this proceeding.
In Public Service Co.
of Indiana (Marble 11111 Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),
-1/
While SAPL's motion is styled as being filed pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
t 2.718(J), the applicable provision of the regulations is 10 C.F.R.
I 2.718(i).
See Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plants, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-541, 9 NRC 436 (1970).
4.
ALAB-405, 5 NRC 1190, 1192 (1977), the Appeal Board stated that in almost all cases interlocutory review was granted "only where the ruling below either (1) threatened the party adversely affected by it with immediate and serious irreparable impact which, as a practical matter, could not be alleviated by a later appeal or (2) affected the basic structure of the proceeding in a pervasive or unusual manner." (footnote omitted) d.
The application of the Marble Hill tests to the instant appeal reveals that both tests are met and directed certification should be granted.
First, the petitioner would suffer immediate and irreparable harm if review is not now granted.
The petitioner alleges that the Licensing Board ordered that an exchange between its counsel and the Licensing Board, concerning the extent of oral argument which counsel would be permitted to make ' n the admission of a contention, be stricken from the o
record, and that the Licensing Board then refused to examine the record to see if the record reflected what transpired.
Motion at 1-3.
Should the record not reflect what transpired at a hearing, incorrect rulings (if they were made) could not "be alleviated by later appeal."
Section i
2.762(d)(1) of the Commission's Rules of
- Practice, 10 C.F.R.
l 2.762(d)(1), states that: "For each issue appealed, the precise portion of the record relied upon in support of the assertion of error must also be provided."
See Kansas Gas & Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Plant, Unit 1), ALAB-424, 6 NRC 122,126-27 (1977).
The absence of a complete and accurate record of what happened at the hearing undercuts i
a party's ability to cite the record so that he may appeal; and thus creates an "immediate and serious irreparable impact which, as a practical matter could not be corrected by latter appeal."
Marble Hill, supra. 2,/
o The appropriateness of interlocutory review of questions involving the proper compilation of a record was recognized in International Business Machines Corp. v. Edelstein, 526 F.2d 37, 40 (2d Cir.1975).
There the court granted a petition for an interlocutory writ of mandamus to review rulings wh'ich, inter alia, kept certain filings of the petitioner from being incorporated into the record.
In accepting the petition for a writ of mandamus the court emphasized:
The errors complained of are not errors involving improper exercise of discretion; see Stans and Mitchell v. Gallardi, 485 F.2d 1290 (2T Cir. 1973);
rather they concern actions which, petitioner has charged, are entirely outside the permissible bounds of the trial court's discretion, and which exceed the trial court's jurisdiction.
Such actions are properly reviewable by writ of mandamus.
See Parr v. United States, 351 U.S.
513, 520, 76 S.E 912, 917, 100 L.Ed. 1377 (1956).
Moreover, appellate review will be defeated if the writ does not issue, for petitioner's claims are not of the kind that will be merged into any final judgment and thus capable of correction on appeal.
This, too, is a proper ground for the issuance of a write of mandamus.
Parr v. United States, supra.
Although the IBM proceeding dealt, in part, with the action of the court below in. refusing to file a party's papers, the actions here of purportedly 2/
The eract nature of SAPL's proposed objections or argument as to the substantive matter being discussed at the relevant transcript pages is unclear.
However, it appears from the radio station tape recording transcript that the classification of certain emergency workers was of concern to SAPL.
Motion at 2.
At this point the question is not whether the Licensing Board was correct in preventing counsel from making his statement ; but whether the transcript should have been reexamined and corrected, if necessary, to reflect counsel's attempt to make a statement and the Board's directives.
ordering that arguments and rulings not be recorded in the transcript and declining to see if the transcript was a true record of the hearing
+
are of the same kind.
It similarly prevents the creation of a record for possible appeal.
See id. at 45-46. 3_/
The irreparable nature of the injury that might be caused was implicitly recognized by the Appeal Board's Orders of May 30,1986 and June 2, 1986, in this proceeding when it ordered the Licensing Board to preserve the stenographic notes and other material reflecting what was said at the March 25-26, 1986 prehearing conference.
From a practical point of view,
as the proceeding goes on and time elapses, the appropriate references that can be used as a basis for correction of the record will be of less reliability and may be lost b These references include, most notably, the recollection of the judge and the recordings of the reporter.
Here, as recognized by the Licensing Board, some
~3/
The Court of Appeals noted that whether an actual substantive appeal is taken is immaterial in determining whether all submitted material should be in the record.
See id. at 46, n.11.
-4/
In a pre-Marble 11111 decision, the Appeal Board in granting directed certification stated that, while it is not dispositive, the consideration that an interlocutory ruling by the Licensing Board must be reviewed immediately or not at all favors directed certification.
Kansas Gas & Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-327, 3 NRC 408 (1976) (denying protective order);
see also Houston Lighting a Power Company (South Texas Project,
Uiilt 1 - and 2), ALAB-639,13 NRC 469 (1981) (reversing Licensing Board order directing Staff to -reveal identity of informers).
In the instant case, if the practice of refusing to reexamine the transcript to see if material has been omitted from the official transcript is allowed to continue, a viable record for appeal purposes will be jeopardized.
Thus, the "immediate or not at all" criteria in the Wolf Creek case favors certification of the this matter for interlocutory appeal.
. recordings have e.lready been destroyed. 5_/ An incorrect transcript may have an impact which, as a practical matter, may not be alleviated by a l
latter appeal. 6/
Further, although the individual rulings here challenged may not yet affect the proceeding in a pervasive or unusual manner; such rulings, if continued, would prevent the creation of the record required by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. I 556(e), and this Commission's regulations, 10 C.F.R. I 2.750.
See also 28 U.S.C. I 2112(b) and Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Appeltate Procedure, on the nature of the agency record to be filed for court review.
Such rulings would then affect the basic structure of the proceeding in a pervasive or unusual manner, for as we have detailed, it might foreclose the basis of an effective appeal at the conclusion of the proceeding.
See IBM v.
Edelstein, 526 F.2d at 46-47; New Mexico Savings & Loan Assn v. United States Fidelity & Guarantee Co.
454 F.2d 328, 325 (10th Cir. 1972);
Andrews v. Olin Mathieson Corp., 334 F.2d 422, 428 (8th Cir.1964). U
-5/
See " Certification of Licensing Board (Record Reporting of Seabrook
, Prehearing Conference on March 25-26, 1986)" June 3, 1986, at 2.
-6/
Often statements or proffered evidence are " stricken" from the record during the course of a proceeding.
However, this " striking" is noted in the transcript and the record reflects what was stricken.
l To strike something from the record does not entall omitting any reference to it so as to make any reviewing tribunal, and the parties before that tribunal, unable to discern what was stricken.
7/
It is unnecessary to determine whether the apparent deletions or
~
alterations reflected in the transcript originally resulted from the official reporter heeding the apparent direction from the presiding officer or whether these inconsistencies resulted from recording or transcription errors.
The Board must assure that matters stf.ted "on-the-record" are reflected in the transcript.
Thus, both of the tests in Marble Hill for interlocutory review are met, and the motion for directed certification should be granted.
B.
The Licensing Board Erred in its Purported Direction to the Reporter and In Its Refusal to Consider the Merits of SAPL's Motion to Amend the Transcript 1.
The Official Transcript Is To Be a Verbatim Transcript The Commission's regulations provide:
A hearing will be reported under the supervision of the presiding officer, stenographically or by other means, by an official reporter who may be designated from time to time by the Commission or may be a regular employee of the Commission.
The transcript prepared by the reporter shall be the sole official transcript of the proceeding.
10 C.F.R.
I 2.750(a).
Appendix A to 10 C.F.R. Part 2 states:
"A verbatim transcript will be made of the hearing." Appendix A V(a)(1).
Corrections to these transcripts may only be made by the presiding officer in the manner provided in 10 C.F.R.
I 2.750(b).
These corrections are to be included as an appendix, and pages are not to be substituted "but, to the extent practicable corrections shall be made by running a line through the matter to be changed without obliteration, and writing the matter as changed immediately above."
Id.
The regulation also gives explicit directions for the insertion of material which may not have been transcribed.
Id.
It is thus implicit in the rules that all statements made on the record at a hearing are to be in the transcript, and that a presiding officer should not direct that "on-the-record" statements be left out of a l
r-
- +.-
-v
i
, transcript. -
As 10 C.F.R. Appendix A states, a " verbatim transcript" is to be made.
Where corrections are necessary the original transcription is to be retained, with the corrections shown.
Plainly, these careful controls over the content of a transcript show that a presiding officer should not order something more or less than what was said at a proceeding to be recorded in the transcript.
Although no Commission precedent can be found on the duty of a presiding officer to assure that an accurate transcript of a proceeding is made, a decision under 28 U.S.C.
I 753(b) which provided that court sessions "shall be recorded verbatim," SI provides guidance in the interpretation of the Commission's Rules of Practice.
In Grau v.
i Proctor & Gamble Co., 32 F.R.D.
199 (M.D. Ala. 1963), the court was asked to strike certain portions of the certified transcript of the proceeding where the reporter had indicated laughter by defendant's counsel and by one of the jurors.
While 'there was no claim that the Inughter recorded in the official transcript did not occur at the trial, the moving party stated that the recordation of the laughter would unduly clutter the record on appeal.
Id. at 200.
The court ruled that where 8/
"Off the record" discussions and comments are not required to be transcribed for all parties have either impliedly or expressly agreed or stipulated that such material might be left out of the record.
Cf.
28 U.S.C. I 753(b).
9/
Although language in 28 U.S.C.
I 753(b) was added in 1982 referring to the verbatim recording being trade " subject to the discretion and approval of the judge," the legislative history indicates that this language relates only to the court's approval of the means of recording (e.g., shorthand, sound recordings) not the sum and substance of what is to be recorded.
See S. Rep. No. 275, 97th Cong., 2d Sess.,11, reprinted in 1982 IEY. Code Cong. and Ad. News, P.L. No.97-164, 11.
~.
there is no error in the transcript, no corrections are to be made as the district court is without authority "to include or exclude" material.
Id.
at 201.
Similarly, in construing the statute governing court reporters i
t, (28 U.S.C. 9 753), the court stated that the reporter had no authority to edit the record to delete material when recording the proceeding or transcribing the record.
Id.
The court went on to note -- as is likely the case with the current motion before the Appeal Board -- that while the particular passages sought to be deleted were probably not essential to an intelligent understanding of the proceedings or to a decision in the case, it may be that in some later case such would be material and even critical to a determination on appeal.
Id.
In IBM v. Edelstein, which we have discussed, the court dealt with the lack of authoritf of a trial judge to determine what matters should be in the record.
It emphasized that because appellate courts cannot consider matters that are not part of the trial record, it is essential that all matters upon which parties might appeal be included in the record.
i 526 F.2d at 45-46.
The Court cited with approval Judge Clark's opinion in Treasure Imports v.
Henry Amdur & Sons, 127 F.2d 3, 4 (2d Cir.
1942), where he stated:
The record is in a somewhat confused state, owing in part to an order of the district court that several of the matters designated by defendants for inclusion in the record should not be so included or transmitted to 4
us.
[T]he Federal Rules do not permit the court to prevent parties from including in the record any part of t recurrences below which they wish thus included.
I 10/ Former Rule 75 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, there
~
referred to, has without change in substance, been incorporated into Rule 10 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.
f
The court in IBM v. Edelstein then concluded that trial courts should refrain "from exercising any degree of control of the trial record...
since Petitioner has no other means of presenting its arguments to the appellate court -- whether as appellant or as appellee -- save by making the necessary record at the trial level..." 526 F.2d at 46.
Similarly, here the Board had no authority to prevent arguments or evidence presented to it, be they in written or oral form, from being made part of the record.
The proceedings are to be recorded verbatim and the presiding officer should not refuse to include any part of that verbatim record in the transcript. b 2.
The Licensing Board IIad to Consider Proposed Amendments to the Official Transcript The Licensing Board denied SAPL's April 10, 1986, motion to amend the transcript on grounds that the " sole official transcript of the proceeding is that prepared by the official reporter."
Order (issued April 15, 1986).
The Licensing Board, although noting that SAPL had submitted a conflicting recording, did not go beyond the official tran-script or otherwise determine whether that transcript was in need of correction.
Id.
The Commission's regulations specifically provide for transcript corrections. 10 C.F.R. 9 2.750(b).
The mere existence of that provision
-11/ This is not to say that there are no means left the court or a Board
+
to restrict the argument of counsel or otherwise cont er,,
the proceedings. See 10 C.F.R. I 2.713; Consumers Power Co. C 'idland Plant, Units 1 & 2), ALAB-691,16 NRC 897, 916 (1982).
i.
of the regulations is recognition that there will be occasions where the official transcript as first submitted by the reporter is in error and that corrections should be made.
The regulation gives no express standard or procedure by which such transcript amendment requests or sua sponte determinations of a need to amend a transcript are to be decided by a Licensing Board.
There is little, if any, guidance in Commission decisions. E
- However, in federal courts, when questions arise on the accuracy of a trial transcript, judges examine sources outside the questioned transcript, including their own
- memory, to see if the transcript should be corrected. N See eg, U.S. v. Smith, 433 F.2d 149 (9th Cir.1970).
Although the official transcript is viewed as a prima facie correct statement of what transpired at a hearing, it should be amended if other evidence shows that it is not correct.
Id.
Therefore, irrespective of whether the material submitted in SAPL's motion was sufficient to compel correction, the Board's refusal to consider this material and determine whether the transcript needed correction was error.
It is the duty of a trier of fact to see that the official transcript conforms to what transpired 12/ See generally Northern Indiana Public Service Company (Bailey Generating Station, Nuclear 1), LB P-80-22, 12 NRC 191 (1980),
where the Licensing Board rejected tendered transcript as official record of proceeding because of poor quality.
13/ Rule 10(e) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure which provides:
If any difference arises as to whether the record truly discloses what occurred in the district court, the difference shall be submitted to and settled by that court and the record made to conform to the truth.
[ Emphasis added).
at a hearing.
See U.S. v. Carter, 347 F.2d 220, 221 (2nd Cir.), cert.
denied 382 U.S. 888 (1965).
The Board here erred in failing to consider whether the official transcript reflected what transpired at the hearing.
In sum, the Licensing Board erred in failing to assure that the official transcript was a verbatim record of all "on-the-record" remarks at the hearing.
III.
CONCLUSION For the reasons stated herein,
the SAPL motion for directed certification should be granted and the decision of the Licensing Board in refusing to consider the material submitted with SAPL's motion to amend the transcript of the prehearing conference should be reversed.
Respectfully submitted, 6
Edwin J.
is Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel M
Oreste Russ Pirfo /
Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland T
this' 17fday of June,1986 e
l
~.
'A
~
+
t N
O 00E181986**
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 6d sr.%av:ceanna Q
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
+
s1:ctma:
Nd BEFORE Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD N
in the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL NEW HAMPSIIIRE, e_t _al.
)
50-444 OL
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE IN SUPPORT OF SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE MOTION FOR DIRECTED 3
CERTIFICATION (ON DENIAL OF MOTION TO AMEND TRANSCRIPT)"
in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by i
deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mall system, this 17th day of June,1986.
I Helen Hoyt, Esq., Chairman
- Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke*
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Jerry liarbour*
Ms. Carol Sneider, Esq.
Administrative Judge Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One Ashburton Place,19th Floor Washington, ' D. C. 20555 Boston, MA 02108 Beverly Hollingworth Stephen E. Merrill 209 Winnacunnet Road Attorney General Hampton, NH 03842 George Dana Bisbee Assistant Attorney General Sandra Gavutis, Chairman Office of the Attorney General Board of Selectmen 25 Capitol Street RFD 1 Box 1154 Concord, NH 03301-6397 Kensington, Nil 03827 Richard A. Hampe, Esq.
New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency 107 Pleasant Street Concord, NH 03301 g.~.
Calvin A. Canney, City Manager Allen Lampert City Hall Civil Defense Director 126 Daniel Street Town of Brentwood Portsmouth, NH 03801 20 Franklin Street Exeter, NH 03833 Roberta C. Pevear State Representative Angle Machiros, Chairman Town of Ilampton Falls Board of Selectmen Drinkwater Road 25 High Road Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Newbury, MA 09150 Mr. Robert J. Harrison Jerard A. Croteau, Constable President and Chief Executive Officer 82 Beach Road, P.O. Box 5501 Public Service Co. of New Hampshire Salisbury, MA 01950 P.O. Box 330 Manchester, NH 03105 Diane Curran, Esq.
Harmon & Weiss Robert A.. Backus, Esq.
2001 S Street, N.W.
Backus, Meyer & Solomon Suite 430 116 Lowell Street Washington, D.C.
20009 Manchester, NH 03106 Edward A. Thomas Philip Ahrens, Esq.
Federal Emergency Management Agency Assistant Attorney General 442 J.W. McCormack (POCH)
Office of the Attorney General Boston, MA 02109 State House Station, #6 Augusta, ME 04333 H.J. Flynn, Esq.
Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.
Assistant General Counsel Ropes a Gray Federal Emergency Management Agency 225 Franklin Street 500 C Street, S.W.
Boston, MA 02110 Washington, D.C.
20472 Jane Doughty Atomic Safety and Licensing Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Board
- 5 Market Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Portsmouth, NH 03801 Washington, D.C.
20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Paul McEachern, Esq.
Appeal Panel
- Matthew T. Brock, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Shaines a McEachern Washington, D.C.
20555 25 Maplewood Avenue P.O. Box 060 Portsmouth, NH 03801 e
w w
Docketing and Service Section*
William Armstrong Office of the Secretary Civil Defense Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Town of Exeter Washington, D.C.
20555 10 Front Street Exeter, NH 03833 Maynard L. Young, Chairman Board of Selectmen Peter J. Matthews, Mayor 10 Central Road City Hall Rye, NH 03870 Newburyport, MA 09150 Michael Santosuosso, Chairman William S. Lord Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen South Hampton, NH 03827 Town Hall - Friend Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Mr. Robert Carrigg, Chairman Mrs. Anne E. Goodman, Chairman Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen Town Office 13-15 Newmarket Road Atlantic Avenue Durham, NH 03824 North Hampton, NH 03862 R.1;. Gad III, Esq.
Gr.1y W. Holmes, Esq.
Ropes & Gray Holmes & Ellis 225 Franklin Street 47 Winnacunnet Road Boston, MA 02110 Hampton, NH 03842 Lk t
Edwin J. Sfis Assistaryt' Chief Hearing Counsel e
e
-.