ML20214N141
| ML20214N141 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1987 |
| From: | Dignan T PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3577 ALAB-865, OL-1, NUDOCS 8706020076 | |
| Download: ML20214N141 (22) | |
Text
i
^4 00LEETEP U%RC Dated: May 21,_1987
' 'Eg MY 26 P4 :11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA CFFIS V ~ " "
before the 00CKEM ti ^ 9'M BPAMC4 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
In the Matter of )'
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) 50-444-OL-1
) (On-site Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) Planning Issues)
)
)
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION AND SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE FOR STAY OF LOW POWER OPERATIONS AT SEABROOK STATION BASED UPON THOSE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE APPEAL BOARD IN ALAB-865 i
- Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.
- George H. Lewald Kathryn A. Selleck Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 ,
(617) 423-6100 Counsel for Applicants 8706020076 B70521 PDR ADOCK 05000443 g PDR 9503
e TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................... 11 STATEMENT OF PRIOR PROCEEDINGS AND FACTS ................. 1 ARGUMENT ................................................. 2 Introduction ......................................... 2 A. Irreparable Harm ................................. 3 B. The Likelihood of Success ........................ 6 C. Injury to Other Parties ......................... 10 D. Public Interest ................................. 13 CONCLUSION .............................................. 14 l
-i-
e TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page(s)
Cuomo v.'NRC, 772 F.2d 972 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ................................. 3,5,7 Wisconsin Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ..................................... 3
. Administrative Decisions Alabama Power Co. (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-27, 14 NRC 795 (1981) .................................. 2,6 Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co. (Perry Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-820, 22 NRC 743 (1985) .................................... 3 Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.
(Indian Point Station, Unit 2), ALAB-414, 5 NRC 1425 (1977) ................................. 5,13 Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Unita 1 and 2), ALAB-282, 2 NRC 9 (1975) ...................................... 11 Kansas Gas & Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-424, 6 NRC 122 (1977) ..................................... 5 Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station), CLI-85-12, 21 NRC 1587 (1985) ............................ 7,12,13
- Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station), CLI-85-1, 21 NRC 275 (1985) .................................... 7 Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station), CLI-84-9, 19 NRC 1323 (1984) ................................... 7 Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station), CLI-83-17, 17 NRC 1032 (1983) ................................... 7
Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3),
ALAB-732, 17 NRC 1076 (1983) ......................... 9 Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-84-17, 20 NRC 801 (1984) .................................... 3 Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-789, 20 NRC 1443 (1984) ................................... 4 Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3),
ALAB-221, 8 AEC 95 (1974) ............................ 6 Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3),
ALAB-158, 6 AEC 999 (1973) ........................... 6 Public Service Company of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-437, 6 NRC 630 (1977) ................... 3 Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
CLI-77-27, 6 NRC 715 (1977) .......................... 3 ALAB-865, NRC (March 25, 1987) ............. 2,5 LBP-87-10, 25 NRC (March 25, 1987) .......... 1,2,10 ASLB Mem. and Ord., unpublished, (March 25, 1987) ..................................... 9 ASLB Mem. and Ord., unpublished, (Sept. 15, 1986) .................................... 10 ASLB Mem. and Ord., unpublished, (May 11, 1983) ..................................... 7,8 LBP-82-76, 16 NRC 1029 (1982) ........................ 7 Public Service Company of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-508, 8 NRC 859 (1978) ........................... 4 Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), ALAB-385, 5 NRC 621 (1977) ..................................... 6
-iii-
_. _ = . - .. . . _ . . . _ _ . _ . = - .. . ---. . _ _ _ . ~ . . . - . -. . _ . .
Westinghouse Electric Corp. (Export to the Philippines), CLI-80-14, 11 NRC 631 (1980) .......... 3 Wisconsin Electric Power Co. (Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2),
ALAB-58, 4 AEC 951 (1972) ............................ 6
~
Regulations 10 CFR 5 2.734(a)(2) ................................ 9 10 CFR 5 2.788 ....................................... 2 10 CFR S 50.47(d) .................................... 7
.l Staff Guidance Materials
! NUREG-0737, Supp. No. 1 ............................. 10 j
i
-iv-
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA before the NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
In the Matter of )
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL-1 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) 50-444-OL-1
) On-site Emergency (Seabrook' Station, Units-1 and 2) ) Planning Issues
)
)
APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION AND SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE FOR STAY OF LOW POWER OPERATIONS AT SEABROOK STATION BASED UPON THOSE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE THE APPEAL BOARD IN ALAB-865 STATEMENT OF PRIOR PROCEEDINGS AND FACTS On March 25, 1987, the Licensing Board herein issued a Partial Initial Decision'and Order which authorized the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to issue a license permitting operation of Seabrook Station, Unit 1, up to and at 5% of rated power. Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-87-10, 25 NRC (March 25, 1987). On May 8, 1987, the Appeal Board issued a Memorandum and Order in which it denied a number of applications made to it for a stay pending appeal of
- LBP-87-10. Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-865, NRC ,
(May 26, 1987) (hereafter "ALAB-865" and cited to the slip opinion). On May 14, 1987, this Commission issued an order in which it directed that any party wishing to seek a stay of low power operation at Seabrook Station based on the j issues raised before the Appeal Board in ALAB-865 should I file its application for such relief on or before May 26, ,
1987. Under date of May 13, 1987, such an application was filed by the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (" Mass. AG App."); under date of May 14, 1987, similar applications were filed by the New England Coalition I
on Nuclear Pollution ("NECNP App.") and the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League ("SAPL App."). Herein the Applicants i reply to these three filings, addressing each of the factors l
l required to be addressed under 10 CFR $ 2.788, and say that for the reasons set forth below, all of the applications should be denied.
ARGUMENT I Introduction The burden of persuasion as to the four 10 CFR $ 2.788 factors is on the movants. Alabama Power Co. (Joseph M.
Earley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-27, 14 NRC 795, I
l-l t .
I t
797 (1981). As seen below, the movants herein have not satisfied the burden with respect to any of the factors.
A. Irreparable Harm "The most significant factor in deciding whether to grant a stay request is 'whether the party requesting a stay has shown that it will be irreparably injured unless a stay is granted.'" Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1), CLI-84-17, 20 NRC 801, 804 (1984) quoting Westinghouse Electric Corp. (Export to the Philippines), CLI-80-14, 11 NRC 631, 662 (1980). It is the crucial factor; without it the chances of obtaining a stay are extremely slight. E.g., Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-77-27, 6 l
l NRC 715, 716 (1977), Public Service Company of Indiana t
I (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-437, 6 NRC 630, 632 (1977). Speculative assertions of injury are of no consequence: "'(al party moving for a stay l 1s required to demonstrate the injury claimed is "both certain and great."'" Cleveland Electric Illuminating Co.
(Perry Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-820, 22 NRC 743, 747 (1985), quoting Cuomo v. NRC, 772 F.2d 972, 976 (D.C.
f Cir. 1985), which in turn quoted Wisconsin Gas Co. v. FERC, 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
Measured against the foregoing principles the motions at bar are well short of the mark. To begin with, it should be u
- _ - - ~ - - - _ _- - . . - - .. -.- - - - . . .- . . --.
pointed out that in the case of SAPL's application, no attempt has been made to make any demonstration of irreparable harm.1 2
As to the effects of the creation of high-level waste and contamination, Mass. AG App. at 8; NECNP App. at 7:
Assuming safeguards will be required for high-level waste,
- that is not an injury specific to any of the movants separate from society as a whole and, moreover, the amount i of such waste which will be generated is infinitesimal in amount compared to what exists already in the nation. The l
alleged potential loss of salvage value, Mass. AG App. at i
.i 8-9, is a potential injury to the Applicants not the movants. The same is true of the contention that the site allegedly becomes committed to long-term storage, Mass. AG App. at 8. All of these potential economic injuries to the Applicants as they affect the ratepaying public are not irreparable injuries cognizable in a stay context. Philadelphia Electric Co. (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-789, 20 NRC 1443, 1447 (1984);
i 1
SAPL has made no attempt to make a showing with respect to any factor other than the " likelihood of success" factor. This means its showing on that factor must be
" overwhelming" in order for a stay to be granted. Public Service Company of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-508, 8 NRC 559, 560-61 (1978).
---,.-,.,---,---.-.,,.,.-..--n.------ , - , . . , . , - , - . . . - ~ - - - - -
-n- ~ , - , , . -- - ,,,
Kansas Gas & Electric Co. (Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-424, 6 NRC 122, 128 n.7 (1977).
The alleged injury in the form of worker exposure, Mass.
AG App. at 8; NECNP App. at 7, is not injury to these movants. As to the argument that an opportunity to have review of the movants' issues is lost unless a stay issues, Mass. AG App. at 9: "[ilf meaningful review meant that every petitioner for review were entitled to a stay, the Commission would presumably have provided for one autcmatically." Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. (Indian Point Station, Unit 2), ALAB-414, 5 NRC 1425, 1433 (1977). In any event, the arguments that potential worker exposure and the need for " meaningful review" constitute irreparable harm have been rejected by the courts as grounds for a stay pending appeal in the circumstances involved here. Cuomo v. NRC, 772 F.2d 972, 976 (D.C. Cir.
1985).
The argument that an accident could happen, NECNP App.
at 8, is presumably an argument that the operation of Seabrook at low power creates a theretofore nonextant risk to the movants. The risks of low-power operation have been determined to be substantially below that which flows from
- full power operation, ALAB-865 at 9-10 & nn. 16 and 17.
Creation of a risk is not legally cognizable irreparable injury. And any nuclear plant creates an additional risk
)
(as does the putting of a new car on the road). If this j l
l l
- , ,,--- - ,-,--, -- --, -. n- - - ,, , - . . - - - - - - - - , - .---.,e -. --
---mww-,r,---- , , . - -,,a-m_n,,e,m-
o were to be viewed as cognizable irreparable injury, again, provision should have been made for an automatic stay.
B. The Likelihood of Success As to the likelihood of success factor, it is settled that there must be a greater showing than a possibility of legal error by a Licensing Board. Philadelphia Electric Co.
(Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3),
ALAB-221, 8 AEC 95, 98 (1974); Philadelphia Electric Co.
(Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3),
ALAB-158, 6 AEC 999 (1973); Wisconsin Electric Power Co.
(Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 2), ALAB-58, 4 AEC 951, 953 (1972). Mere establishment of possible grounds for appeal is not sufficient. Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units 1, 2 and 3), ALAB-385, 5 NRC 621, 634 (1977); Alabama Power Co. (Joseph M. Earley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-81-27, 14 NRC 795, 797 (1981).
And if the error alleged is one of fact, for purposes of a stay motion the showing must be that the finding is wholly unsupported by the record, i.e., there is no " substantial evidence" to support it. See ALAB-385, supra, at 629.
With the foregoing principles in mind we address the various points made by the movants. NECNP (NECNP App. at 5) and Mass. AG (Mass. AG App. at 3-5) argue that a separate Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for low power operation must precede any such activity. This Commission has already ruled that no separate EIS is required for low power operation, Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station), CLI-85-12, 21 NRC 1587 (1985); id., CLI-84-9, 19 NRC 1323, 1327 (1984), as has the D.C. Circuit. Cuomo
- v. NRC, 772 r.2d 972, 974-76 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Mass. AG and NECNP also argue that 10 CFR 5 50.47(d) is invalid. Mass.
AG App. at 6-8; NECNP App, at 3-4. However, this Commission has upheld this regulation and has ruled that it gives an unqualified right to a low power license even absent NRC or FEMA approval of offsite emergency plans and without the need for a predictive finding of reasonable assurance that a full power license will eventually issue. Long Island Lighting Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station), CLI-85-1, 21 NRC 275, 278 (1985); id.,CLI-84-9, 19 NRC 1323, 1327 (1984);
id., CLI-83-17, 17 NRC 1032, 1034 (1983).
With respect to the treatment of Class 9 accidents in i
the FES, SAPL App, at 2-4; Mass. AG App. at 6, the i
contention involved, SAPL Supp. 3, was decided on i cross-motions for summary judgment ASLB Mem. and Ord.,
unpublished, (May 11, 1983) at 10, 30-35. That contention as admitted, Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2), LBP-82-76, 16 NRC 1029, 1082 (1982), reads as follows:
"The applicable requirements of the Commission's Interim Policy Statement issued June 13, 1980, 45 Fed. Reg. 40101 on Nuclear Power i Plant Accident Considerations Under
1 the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 have not been met.o2 In an answer to an interrogatory SAPL acknowledged that this contention relates only to the Staff's compliance with the requirements of NEPA as specified in the Commission's Interim Policy Statement referenced in the above-quoted contention. SAPL's Responser to Applicants' Interrogatories, No. XXV-2 (undated, (approx. 1/13/83)).
See also SAPL's Motion for Summary Disposition (Contention SAPL Supp. III), passim (Feb. 11, 1983). In short, the issue was purely one of law, i.e., did the language of the EIS comply with the requirements of the Interim Policy Statement. It either did or did not; no evidence was necessary; the EIS speaks for itself. The May 11, 1983 Licensing Board decision thoroughly evaluated the issue and is unassailable.
With respect to the late-filed contentions on sirens, SAPL App. at 6-8; Mass. AG App. at 5-6: both contentions raised the question of whether, in fact, siren sound levels were adequate in certain areas of the EPZ. The contentions were not only late filed; hearing them would have required a reopening of the record. The Licensing Board decided that 2 This was the wording of the contention as reframed by Applicants, Applicants' Response to the Supplement to the Petition for Leave to Intervene and Further Statement of Contentions on Behalf of the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League at 4 (Apri) 26, 1982), and accepted by SAPL, Tr. 136 (May 6, 1982).
l such issues did not require opening the record, inter alia, because no significant safety issue was presented. 10 CFR
$ 2.734(a)(2). See, e.g., ASLB Mem. and Ord., unpublished, (March 25, 1987) at 13. This ruling is unassailable.
Because it involves measurements against wholly objective criteria, the audibility and operability of sirens is properly a matter committed to Staff oversight. Louisiana Power and Light Co. (Waterford Steam Electric Station, Unit 3), ALAB-732, 17 NRC 1076, 1104-05 (1983).3 As to the SPDS issue, SAPL App, at 4-5, there ir ample evidence on the record to support the Board's conclusion that waiting until full power operation to include certain 3 In its application, SAPL asserted that: "SAPL has learned that a court in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has also found the siren system illegal in that state." SAPL App. at 7. SAPL goes on to refer to the alleged fact that two tribunals (i.e. one in New Hampshire and presumably one in Massachusetts) "have found, after hearing, that the systems are illegal." Id. In the case of Massachusetts these assertions are simply wrong. What happened in Massachusetts is that one of the Towns, purporting to '
act under Massachusetts law, announced its intention to remove the siren poles in that town. The lead applicant, Public Service Company of New Hampshire (PSCO), cued in Federal District Court for, inter alia, !
a declaratory judgment that such removal would be illegal. In connection with the suit, PSCO asked for a '
preliminary injunction enjoining the Town from removing the poles. This was denied on the theory, inter alia, that there was no showing of irreparable harm because the poles could be replaced for some $75,000. The Court of Appeals, later that same day, upon application of l PSCO, issued an order granting an injunction pending appeal of the denial of the preliminary injunction. l
_g.
l
parameters in the SPDS did not compromise public health and safety. LBP-87-10 at 14, 27-46. SAPL's argument that the Licensing Board improperly reframed the SPDS issue, SAPL App. at 4, conveniently ignores the fact that the reframing took place as the result of a partial grant of a motion for summary disposition. ASLB Mem. and Ord., unpublished, (Sept. 15, 1986), passim. Indeed, the Board leaned over backwards to give SAPL the issue it did, which arguably was not even within the four corners of the contention.
Finally, NUREG-0737, Supp. No. 1, puts no specific time limit on when an SPDS in full compliance must exist. As to the witness issue, even assuming the witness had been called and testified as SAPL hoped, i.e., that a certain schedule l
of compliance had not been enforced for no good reason, that would not affect the basic finding that no compromise of public safety is involved and that " reasonable assurance" exists.
C. Injury to Other Parties In its application, NECNP asserts that: "the Appeal Board found for intervenors on the issue of harm to Applicants." NECNP App. at 8. It is not at all clear from the language of the Appeal Board decision that NECNP's l
characterization is correct. However, if it be that the i
O i
Appeal Board so found, it erred in doing so.* The Appeal Board reasoned that the Applicants were to blame for the fact that the Licensing Board decision was so recent instead of having come down in 1983, thus obviating the need to apply for a stay. However, the decision not to decide the case was the Licensing Board's not the Applicants'. The ;
l Appeal Board quotes from the transcript the statement of Applicants' counsel that he was not pushing the Licensing Board for a decision to resolve pending matters. That
~
remark was made in the afternoon oral argument on a motion "
for directed certification seeking relief from a then extant scheduling order, not during argument on the stay motions.
t Its context was a colloquy between the Appeal Board and counsel, wherein the Appeal Board was questioning whether !
t the Licensing Board had been dilatory in the past as contrasted with its desire to expedite matters at present.
Counsel was attempting to explain that in the context of the times the Licensing Board could not be faulted in that no one was pushing for a decision given the extant financial crisis. This was hardly intended as an admission that the i
[
While the Applicants were precluded from appealing the !
reasoning of the Appeal Board with respect to the injury .
to other parties' factor due to the fact that the !
Applicants prevailed below, the Applicants may, of l course, challenge that reasoning in defending the result. Consumers Power Co. (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-282, 2 NRC 9, 10 n.1 (1975).
7
Applicants were in any way to blame for the fact that the l
decisional process of the Agency had not functioned differently.'
The pace of a Licensing Board's activity in the past conceivably may have some relevance to an orderly scheduling i of hearing events in the future to achieve an even-handedness. But the Board having rendered a decision, whether or not that decision had been prodded by the Applicants offers little by way of relevancy to the question l of whether or not the decision once made should not be stayed. It is indeed a heavy burden this agency will be placing on those it regulates if they are to be somehow disadvantaged, in the event they do not constantly prod adjudicatory boards for decisions. It takes a brave lawyer indeed to tell any judge to hurry up and get his or her decision out. Furthermore, if, and to the extent that, the Applicants are to be charged with not prodding the Board, ;
the fact is that each of the intervenors likewise were content to sit on their hands knowing full well that, if the i 1
decision came out later rather than sooner, certain burdens and consequences may result.
I s
The Appeal Board also noted that it was not until June of 1986 that the Applicants tendered a motion for a low power license. This is true; but to have done so earlier was impossible given the fact that construction was not completed, or so near completion, as to make such an effort viable.
1 l
i I
I .
As this Commission has acknowledged in the past, the right to test at an early date is a valuable right and a real benefit, especially if a flaw should be discovered that requires a long time to resolve. Long Island Lighting Co.
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station), CLI-85-12, 21 NRC 1587, 1590 (1985). A decision to issue a stay will harm the Applicants by depriving them of that right.
D. Public Interest
- It in argued that harm to the environment and unrecoverable expense are injuries to the public interest.
Low power operation has no significant impact on the surrounding environment by releases of effluent. CLI-85-12, l supra, at 1590. The argument that the public interest l dictates a stay because the issues on appeal are important i lacks any merit. ALAB-414, supra, at 1433. The risks to l
the public from low power operation are negligible. There l is an affirmative public interest in getting this plant fully tested and thus fully ready for operation as soon as possible.
1 l \
l 1
l l l
o ,
CONCLUSION .
t The movants have made no substantial showing on any of
)
- the four factors. The applications for stay should be [
i denied.
i l Respectfully submitted, 1 .__ _
~
_4
! dht' mas"G. Sfgnan, Jr. l s George H. Lewald i Kathryn A. Selleck l'
- Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street
j Boston, MA 02110 ;
j (617) 423-6100 l I
Counsel _for Applicants i i
i 3 ,
[
j i
4 L
1 i I
! i I i i
4 l
! i 4 6
- i
. ~ _ _ - - - - _ - . - . - - . ~ --. . -- - - _ - -. . - - - _- .- . ---. - - - -
1 o l
4 00tKETED "Shkt CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE l I, Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., one of the attorne'93 fME 261eP4 :11 '
Applicants herein, hereby certify that on May 21, 1987, I made service of the within document by mailing c g ies.
thereof, postage prepaid, to:
..g.
80CNO'Ib $ JId.
Ef Ahm Lando W. Zech, Jr., Chairman Thomas M. Roberts i Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission i
Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 l James K. Asselstine Frederick M. Bernthal l
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Kenneth M. Carr l Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
Washington, DC 20555 Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman Howard A. Wilber Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Gary J. Edles Mr. Ed Thomas Atomic Safety and Licensing FEMA, Region I Appeal Panel 442 John W. McCormack Post U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Office and Court House Commission Post Office Square Washington, DC 20555 Boston, MA 02109 Administrative Judge Sheldon J. Robert Carrigg, Chairman Wolfe, Esquire, Chairman Board of Selectmen Atomic Safety and Licensing Town Office Board Panel Atlantic Avenue U.S. Nuclear Regulatory North Hampton, NH 03862 Commission Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Diane Curran, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Andrea C. Ferster, Esquire Board Panel Harmon & Weiss U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Suite 430 Commission 2001 S Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20009 L
c f
- - - - - - , , . - , . , , _ _ - - - , , , _ , - - - - .,,-,,--,-,-,n - , - . , _ , . _ __ __nn.n.-,-- ------n , - - ---.
4 Dr. Jerry Harbour Stephen E. Merrill, Esquire l Atomic Safety and Licensing Attorney General Board Panel George Dana Bisbee, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Assistant Attorney General Commission Office of the Attorney General Washington, DC 20555 25 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301-6397 Atomic Safety and Licensing Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire Board Panel Office of the Executive Legal 4
U.S. Fuclear Regulatory Director Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, DC 20555 Commission Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esquire Appeal Board Panel Backus, Meyer & Solomon
- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 116 Lowell Street j Commission P.O. Box 516 Washington, DC 20555 Manchester, NH 03105 Philip Ahrens, Esquire Mr. J. P. Nadeau
., Assistant Attorney General Selectmen's Office Department of the Attorney 10 Central Road General Rye, NH 03870 Augusta, ME 04333 Paul McEachern, Esquire Carol S. Sneider, Esquire Matthew T. Brock, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Shaines & McEachern Department of the Attorney General 25 Maplewood Avenue One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor P.O. Box 360 Boston, MA 02108 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Calvin A. Canney Chairman, Board of Selectmen City Manager RED 1 - Box 1154 City Hall Kensington, NH 03827 126 Daniel Street i Portsmouth, NH 03801 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Angie Machiros U.S. Senate Chairman of the Washington, DC 20510 Board of Selectmen (Attn: Tom Burack) Town of Newbury Newbury, MA 01950 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Peter S. Matthews One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Hall (Attn: Herb Boynton) Newburyport, MA 01950
! 1
d e
Mr. Thomas F. Powers, III Mr. William S. Lord I Town Manager Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Town Hall - Friend Street I 10 Front Street Amesbury, MA 01913 !
Exeter, NH 03833 I H. Joseph Flynn, Esquire Brentwood Board of Selectmen Office of General Counsel RFD Dalton Road f
Federal Emergency Management Brentwood, NH 03833 i
I Agency j f
500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20472 {'
Gary W. Holmes, Esquire Richard A. Hampe, Esquire f Holmes & Ells Hampe and McNicholas
[ 47 Winnacunnet Road 35 Pleasant Street Hampton, NH 03841 Concord, NH 03301 Judith H. Mizner, Esquire Charles P. Graham, Esquire Silverglate, Gertner, Baker McKay, Murphy and Graham Fine, Good & Mizner 100 Main Street 88 Broad Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Boston, MA 02110 s
l Thomas G. g an, D Jr.
i l
_ _ _ _ _ _ _