ML20236A327
| ML20236A327 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 03/08/1989 |
| From: | Smith I Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | MASSACHUSETTS, COMMONWEALTH OF, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE |
| References | |
| CON-#189-8251 LBP-89-10, OL, NUDOCS 8903170079 | |
| Download: ML20236A327 (19) | |
Text
.
RS)
DOCKETED i
45NPr LBP-89-10 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '89 MM -9 A10:17 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
i
".,p u n rr";.
+
ATOMIC' SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD [
i Before Administrative Judges:
Ivan W.
Smith, Chairman SERVED gyg-g }g83 Dr. Richard F.
Cole Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom
)
In the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
)
50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
(ASLBP No. 8 2 -4 71-02-OL)
NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
(Offsite Emergency
)
Planning)
(Seabrook Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
)
March 8, 1989 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Ruling On Motions by Seacoast Anti-Pollution League and Massachusetts Attorney General Concerning Waiver of Commicsion Financial Qualification Rules)
Backcround On January 25, 1989, Seacoast Anti-pollution League
("SAPL"), supported by the New England Coalition On Nuclear Power ("NECNP"), filed a motion requesting the Board to
" reopen the record in this portion of the licensing proceeding" (pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.734) to accept a late-filed contention (pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.714) regarding the ability of the Seabrook Station's owners to i
g;P Tici NdP p z.
Ie
?
4.*A
~ 21-operate the nuclear facility in aLsafe manner if a-full power license were to.be issued tofthe plant.1
_{
D SAPL's contention alleges: '
-l The Seabrook Applicants have not. demonstrated that' they can provide reasonable assurance'that they-i either have or can obtain the necessary funds to',
l
' safely operate the Seabrook plant,' contrary to the' l
b.
li requirements of sec. 182(a).of the Atomic Energy Act and 10 C.F.R. sec. 50.33(f)(2) and sec.
50.57 (a) (4).-
i SAPL Motion at 8.
i 4
On February-1,.1989, the Attorney General of Massachusetts filed a separate motion (pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.758) requesting a waiver of or an exception to the public I
utilities exemption from the Commission's requirement that a demonstration of financial qualification be made prior to the issuance of a full power operating license.2 The l
petition seeks a determination by the Licensing Board that l
the Attorney General establishes a gring facie shcwing that i
the financial qualification rule should be waived in this i
1Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's Motion To Accept Late-Filed Contention On Financial Qualification In Response To NRC Order CLI-88-10 ("SAPL Motion") (January'25, 1989).
2Massachusetts Attorney General's Petition For A U9iver of or An Exception To The Financial Qualification Rules For Full Power Operation (" MAG Petition") (February 1, 1989).
4 f.
c:
' r-proceeding and that the. issue 'should int certified' directly; to'the Commission.
MAG Petition at 6-7.
i-Since both the SAPL motion and MAG petition involve the same subject matter, we address both -in this. Memorandum 'and.
Order.
c SAPL's Motion Contrary.to NRC regulations, SAPL seeks to litigate'the issue of the financial qualifications of Seabrook's. owners.
. Parts 10 C.F.R. 2.104 (c) (4 ) ', 10 C.F.R. 50. 3 3 (f), and 10 C.F.R. 50. 57 (a) (4 ) clearly exclude electric utilities from the class of applicants required to demonstrate their financial qualifications to operate a, nuclear facility safely at full power.
SAPL's motion neither seeks a waiver of these regulations nor requests certification of the waiver' issue directly to the Commission pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.758.
Instead, SAPL argues that the Commission L
waived the application of the financial qualification exclusion, as it pertains to Seabrook's full power license, in Public Service Comoany of New Hampshire (Seabrook 3In his petition the Attorney General incorporates by reference a similar motion filed by his office on March 7, 1988 regarding the issuance of a low power license.
Massachusetts Attorney General James M. Shannon's Petition Under 10 C.F.R. 2.758 For A Waiver Of Or An Exception From The Public Utility Exemption From The Requirement Of A Demonstration Of Financial Qualification (March 7, 1988).
l 1
Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-88-10, 28 NRC
'(December 21, 1988). ("CLI-88-10").
SAPL Motion at'3.
p First, SAPL states correctly-that CLI-88-10 " determined that financial = qualification would not be a significant-safety issue for low power testing."
SAPL Motion at 3.
"However," SAPL continues, CLI-88-10 shows "by clear implication" that the Commission has determined that financial qualification is an important safety issue for full power licensing.
Id.
SAPL cites the following paragraph from CLI-88-10 to support its argument:4 Whatever may be the legitimacy of this safety
-purpose for full power operation, it stretches reason to suppose that the safety rationale would have any bearing on a limited license for low power testing.
Shortcuts in safety at full power conceivably cculd avoid shutdowns or derating and thereby contribute to greater plant availability and revenue for power sales.. But shortcuts in low power testing safety will not' lead to generation of more revenue that would benefit the plant owners.
SAPL Motion at 2-3, cuotina CLI-88-10, suora, slip op.
at 32-33.
SAPL proceeds to argue the merits of its late-filed contention motion and avoids any further discussion of exactly how and where the Commission waived the rule in CLI-88-10.
4The Attorney General distances himself from SAPL on this issue.
His petition states that it ie "not clear" CLI-88-10 waived the financial qualifj;ation rule respecting Seabrook Station's full power license.
MAG Petition at 1, n.1.
i
j
. I our reading of the Commission's decision in CLI-88-10 has been thorough and we have reached the following conclusions:
The question of whether the financial qualification rules should be waived in the context of I
Seabrook's full power license was never presented in CLI-88-10; the Commission never discussed the waiver of the rule in the context of Seabrook's full power license gun sponte; there is no way CLI-88-10 can be read responsibly to make a finding that the financial qualification rule has been waived by implication; CLI-88-10 has no bearing, as a legal precedent, on the financial aspects of Seabrook's full power operation.
For the foregoing reasons SAPL's motion is denied.
Attorney General's Petition Procedural Standards Governina Waivers of NRC Rules It is well established that a party may not directly challenge a Commission regulation in an agency adjudicatory proceeding.
See 10 C.F.R. 2.758(a).
However, the Rules of Practice contain a limited exception to the proscription against challenging NRC regulations and provide that a party to a licensing proceeding may petition for a waiver of a regulation.
See 10 C.F.R. 2.758(b).
The Commission has placed a heavy burden on a party seeking such a waiver or exemption:
The sole ground for petition for waiver or exemption shall be that special circumstances with respect to the subject matter of the particular
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - - -~
--6<-
proceeding are such that application of the rule or regulation (or. provision thereof) would not serve the purposes for which the rule or
-regulation was adopted.
Id.; ggg Northern states Power Company (Monticello. Nuclear Generating Plant, Unit 1), CLI-72-31, 5 AEC 25, 26 (1972)'
(waiver petitions should-not be granted in absence of
" unusual or compelling circumstances")..The Commission defines a "cpecial circumstance" as " facts, not common to a large class of applicants or facilities, that were not.
1 considered either explicitly or by necessary implication in the proceeding leading to the rule. sought to be waived."
CLI-88-10, suora, slip op. at.28.
Special circumstances must be "such that application of the rule.
would not serve the purposes for which the rule or regulation was adopted."
10 C.F.R, 2.758(b).
"[A)t a minimum, the special circumstances must be such as to undercut the rationale for the rule sought to be waived."
CLI-88-10, sup.En, slip op.
at 28.
A petition for waiver or exemption must also
" indicate that a waiver is necessary to address, on the merits, a significant safety problem relating to the rule sought to be waived."
Id.
The party seeking the waiver or exemption must establish a crima facie case in a petition that application of the subject regulation would not serve its intended purpose.
See 10 C.F.R. 2.758(c).
Commission case law establishes a orina facie showing as one that "must be l
i
1 er t
7-legally-sufficient to establish a fact or case unless disproved."- Pacific Gas and Electric Comoany (Diablo Canyon Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-653, 16 NRC 55, 72 (1981).
In determining whether a party has established a prima facie case for the purposes of 10 C.F.R.
- 2. 758 (c), the presiding l
officer must consider not only the waiver petition itself,.
but responses, affidavits, and other information submitted.
i Egg 10 C.F.R. 2.758(c).
If the petition fails to establish a prima facie case, it must be denied.
Id.
Conversely, if a orina facie case is established, the presiding officer is i
to refer the matter directly to the commission.
Egg 10 C.F.R. 2.75B (d) ; Public Service Comoany of New Hamoshirg (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-895, 28 NRC 7, 11 l
(1988).
Only the Commission is authorized to grant the I
petition and waive a rule.
Egg 10 C.F.R. 2.758(d).
To summarize, the party requesting a waiver of or j
exception to a Commission regulation must establish a prima i
facie showing (1) that "special circumstances" exist which (2) " undercut the rationale" of the rule sought to be waived i
and (3) a waiver is needed "to address a significant safety problem on the merits."
See CLI-88-10, suora, slip op.
at 27-28.
The Attorney General's Case The Attorney General asserts numerous arguments relating to the Applicants' financial condition to establish the existence of "special circumstances" to justify a waiver
. 1 of the Commission's exclusion of electric utilities from financial qualification review.
See 10 C.F.R. 2.104 (c) (4 ),
10 C.F.R.
- 50. 33 (f), and 10 C.F.R.
- 50. 57 (a) (4 ).
Two of the assertions in his pleading are factual allegations (Public Service Company of New Hampshire ("PSNH") is currently under the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court, Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company ("MMWEC") is currently in default of financial obligations to Seabrook) while the remaining assertions are purely conjectural allegations (PSNH will remain in bankruptcy at the issuance of a full-power license, MMWEC will remain in default of its financial obligations; PSNH may be taken over by the State of New Hampshire; Northeast Utilities has offered to buy PSNH's non-Seabrook assets leaving Seabrook to its unsecured creditors and security holders; increases in rates after full-power licensing will lead to a decreased revenue to Seabrook's owners due to lowering of ratepayer demand; the New Hampshire Public "tilities Commission will lower PSNH's non-Seabrook rate base).
MAG Petition at 4-6.
All of these circumstances are alleged to support the gravamen of the Attorney General's petition, that the owner of Seabrook Station will not be in a secure enough financial position to ensure safe operation of the plant at full-power operation since full-power operation is costly and the owners would have incentives to take shortcuts in safety to save money.
MAG Petition at 4, para.
6, and at 6,
para. 10.
I 1
l l
l
- We find that PSNH's current bankruptcy tends to' fit within the scope of " facts, not common to a large class of applicants or facilities, that were not considered either explicitly or by necessary implication in the proceeding leading to the rule sought to be waived."
CLI-88-10, supra, slip op. at 29.
However, the~ remaining assertions in the Attorney General's pleading are merely conjectural statements that do nothing more than highlight the current uncertainty surrounding the future ownership of Seabrook Gtation.
As we explain in detail below, we do not find that this uncertainty in itself calls into question the ability of whoever ultimately becomes the owner of the Seabrook Station to operate the plant in a safe condition.
- Instead, our analysis turns to the Attorney General's effort to make a urina facie showing that the special circumstances he pleads tend to " undercut the rationale for which the rule was enacted."
The Financial Qualification Ruin The original rule requiring financial qualification review, promulgated in 1968, required a finding, prior to operating license issuance that the utility " possesses or has reasonable assurance of obtaining the funds necessary to cover the estimated costs of operation for the period of the license og for five years, whichever is greater.
5 Elimination of Review of Financial Qualifications of Electric Utilities in Ooeratina License Review and Hearinas (Footnote Continued)
. In CLI-88-10, the Commission stated that the only justification for conducting a financial qualification review is "to provide some added assurance that a licensee would not, because of financial difficulties, be under pressure to take some safety shortcuts."
CLI-88-10, suora, slip op. at 32.
At most, the Atomic Energy Commission, in drafting the rule, must have intuitively concluded that a licensee in financially straighted circumstances would be under more pressure to commit safety violations or take safety " shortcuts" than one in good financial shape.
Accordingly, the drafters of the rule sought to achieve some level of assurance, prior to licensing, that licensees would not be forced by financial circumstances to choose between shutting.down or taking shortcuts while the license was in effect.
Id., quoting 49 Fed. Reg. at 35749 (September 12, 1984).
However, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission exempted electric utilities from the requirements of the financial qualification rule in 1984.
See 49 Fed. Reg. 35747 (September 12, 1984).
According to the Commission, the
" essential rationale" for this exclusion is that:
case-by-case review of financial qualifications for all electric utilities at the operating license stage is unnecessary due to the ability of such utilities to recover, to a sufficient degree, all or a portion of the costs of construction and sufficient costs of safe operation through the ratemaking process.
(Footnote Continued) for Nuclear Power Plants, 49 Fed. Reg. 35747 (September 12, 1984), at 35747-48.
l l
72 'in
}. l,[ i ~
4 CLI-88-10,;suora,-at 30, quoting 49 Fed.. Reg. at 35748..
-The Commission made it.quite clear.that the scope of its concern was not the adequacy.of.the-rate base-established by the.ratemaking; process as~a whole,;but:'
[The. Commission's)fconcern is'thatrreasonable and'
- prudent 1 costs of safely maintaining and: operating nuclear' plants will be3 allowed-to be recovered through' rates.
This concern does not extendito-any level of profit or. rate.of; return beyond those.
operating expenses.
.The. commission's concern is-
~with safe operation, not profits.
49 Fed. Reg. at 35749.;
The Commission offered an example of the type of showing which must.be.made before an electric utility p
applicant would be' required to demonstrate its financial qualifications if a waiver of the' regulation was. granted under 10 C.F.R.-2.758:
[A]n exception.... might be appropriate where a threshold showing is made that, in a particular case, the local public utility commission will not allow the total' cost of operating the facility to be recovered through rates.
49 Fed. Reg. at 35751.6 We agree with the Staff that the Attorney General has failed to make a prima facie showing in his petition because 6It should be noted that both the Appeal Board and the Commission have stated that the example set forth immediately above is not the only way to make the showing required to warrant a waiver.
Egg CLI-88-10, sup.ra, slip op. at 27; Public Service comoany of New Hamoshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-895, 28 NRC 7, 17 (1988).
+
... he has not offered any allegation that would meet the test set forth in 10 C.F.R. 2.758(b).
He has made his point p
that there is uncertainty surrounding who will ultimately be the owner of Seabrook Station, but he has neither alleged,.
nor approached a orina facie showing, that those owners, whoever they may be, will not be allowed to recover sufficient operating expenses in the rate base to allow for safe operation of the nuclear facility.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court has upheld the right of Seabrook's owners to recover the costs of operating the facility at such time as Applicants receive a full power operating license and provide electricity to consumers.
See Petition of Public Service Company of New Hamoshire, 130 N.H.
265, 539 A.2d 263 (1988).
Moreover, we find nothing in the Attorney General's petition to keep us from j
applying a Commission presumption that Seabrook's rate base will, if a full power license is issued, include the costs of safe operation which is prudently incurred.
See 49 Fed Reg. 35747-48, citina FPC v. HoDe Natural Gas Co.,
320 U.S.
l 591, 605 (1944); Bluefield Water Works and Improvement Co.
Public Service Commission of West Vircinia, 269 U.S.
679 v.
NRC Staff Response To Massachusetts Attorney General's Petition For A Waiver Of Or An Exception To The Financial Qualification Rules For Full Power Operation (February 21, 1989), at 8-12.
l I
i i
__.__.___._______.___-._________.__.__.____.--__E
j l
1 l
(1923); sag Duauesne Licht Co. v.
Barasch, 109 S.
Ct. 609.,
l 102 L. Ed. 2d 646 (1989).
We know of no current impediments to the application of this presumption to the matter before us.
The Attorney General avoids discussion of this presumption in his petition, except in passing (MAG Petition at 5), for good reason -- it simply defeats the purpose of his pleading.
While it is of little use to go further.in this analysis, it should be stated again that the gravamen of the Attorney General's complaint is that the Applicants will not be in a strong enough financial position to ensure that the Seabrook plant will be operated in a safe condition once a full-power operating license issues.
His reasoning is that the owners, if financially strapped, would have incentives to take shortcuts in safety.
MAG Petition at 4, para.
6.
Applicants have provided what the Board views as succinct rebuttal to this claim.9 8Regardless of legal precedent, we find absurd the notion that any public utility commission would set rates below what is necessary for safe operation of a nuclear plant once the matter is placed before it.
9Affidavit of Edward A. Brown, supplementing Applicants' Response To Massachusetts Attorney General's Petition For A Waiver Of Or An Exemption To The Financial Qualification Rules For Full Power Operation (February 13, 1989).
~
(
.. Mr.-Brown, the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of New Hampshire Yankee, sets forth in his affidavit several reasons for his view that the Attorney General's' safety concerns are unwarranted.
Of particular importance are paragraphs 3(d), 7 and 10(a):
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has resident inspectors supplemented by additional inspection and audit teams who regularly. review safety natters and. compliance with quality and license requirements.
These independent reviews would not tolerate such " shortcuts in. safety" as alleged by l
-the Massachusetts Attorney General.
[I]n actuality, today's generation of U.S. nuclear power plants have been left little choice on whether or not to have an optimum maintenance program for nuclear safety related systems and components.
Following the issuance of a license, licensee compliance with the specific license conditions and commitments is rigorously monitored for the life of the license.
After the issuance of a license, negotiations with the NRC to reduce the stringency of the initial license conditions are only infrequently attempted and even less rarely do these negotiations result in significant reductions to the standardized regulatory specifications and codes.
The relationship between the Joint Owners and NHY
[is that] PSNH has one vote out of five on the Executive Committee.
NHY management, not the Joint Owners' Executive Committee, makes the decisions on safety-related issues, plant operation and plant shutdown.
y,.
1 ORDER For the foregoing reasons:
1)
The Seacoast Anti-Pollution League's motion to reopen the record and to accept a late-filed contention pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.734 and 10 C.F.R. 2.714.is. denied; 2).
The Massachusetts Attorney General's petition pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.758 for a waiver of.those' portions of 10 C.F.R. 2.104 (c) (4), '10 C.F.R. 50. 3 3 (f), and 10 C.F.R. 50.57 (a) (4) ' which exclude electric utilities from the class of applicants required to demonstrate their financial qualifications to operate a facility safely at full.. power is hereby' denied certification to the Commission.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
/dW
+
Ivan W.
Smith, Chairman ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland March 8, 1989
m __
^
i 3...:
' UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR RESULATORY COMMISSION-In the Matter of I
.I PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW
.I DocketLNo.(s) 50-443/444-OL HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.
I
. (Seabrook Station ' Units 1 and 2)
I i
l-CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing LB M&O-(RULING ON MOTIONS...)
have been. served upon the following, persons by U.S. mail, first. class, except as otherwise noted and in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Sec.~2.712.
Administrative Judge.
Administrative Judge Alan S. Rosentha'1, Chairman Thosts S. Moore Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board U.S. Nuclear-Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Administrative' Judge Howard A. Wilber Administrative Law' Judge Atoalc Safety and Licensing Appeal Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Administrative Judge Administrative Judge s
Richard F. Cole Kenneth A. McCollos Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cassission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 l
Administrative Judge Robert R. Pierce, Esquire James H. Carpenter Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Alternate Technical Member U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Edwin J. Reis, Esq.-
Lisa B. Clark Office of the 6eneral Counsel Attorney U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the General Counsel Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 I
-.m_______._____.___.__._..-__.__m._____
Docket No.(s)50-443/444-OL' LB H&D (RULING ON MOTIONS...)
Diane Curran, Esq.
Thomas G. Dianan, Jr., Esq.
Harmon, Curran k Tousley Ropes & Gray 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 430
'One International Place Washington, DC 20009 Boston, MA 02110 Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Paul McEachern, Esq.
Backus, Meyer & Solomon Shaines & McEachern 116'Lowell Street 25 Maplewood Avenue. P.O. Box 360 Manchester, NH 03106 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
Judith H. Mizner Holmes & Ells Silverglate, Gernter, Baker, Fine,
' 47 Winnacunnet Road Good and Mitzner Hampton, NH 03842 88 Broad Street Boston, MA 02110-Charles P. Graham, Esq.
Jane Doherty McKay, Murphy and Graham Seacoast Anti-Pollution League 100 Main Street 5 Market Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Leonard Kopelman, Esq.
Ashed N. Amirian, Esq.
Kopelman and Paige, P.C.
376 Main Street 77 Franklin Street Haverhill, MA 01830 Boston, MA 02110.
Secrge W. Watson, Esq.
Edward A. Thomas Federal Emergency Management Agency Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
442 J.W. McCormack (PDCH)
Washington, DC 20472 Boston, MA 02109 i
1 George D. Bisbee, Esq.
Suzanne Breiseth
{
Assistant Attorney General Board of Selectmen Office of the Attorney General Town of Hampton Falls 25 Capitol Street Drinkwater Road Concord, NH 03301 Hampton Falls, NH 03844 lj
p v
Docket'No.(s)50-443/444-OL LB M&O (RULINB ON MOTIONS...)
Carol S. Sneider, Esq.
Matthew T. Brock, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Office of the Attorney General Office of the Attorney General One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor One Ashburton Place, 19th Ficor Boston, MA 02108 Boston, MA 02108 The Honorable Peter J. Brann, Esq.
Edward J. Markey, Chairman Assistant Attorney General ATYNa Linda Correia Office of the Attorney General Subcommittee on Energy Conservation and State. House Station #6 Power Augusta, ME. 04333 House Committee on Energy and Commerce Washington, DC 20515 Richard A. Hampe, Esq.
J. P. Nadeau Hampe & McNicholas Board of Selectmen 35 Pleasant Street to Central Street Concord, NH 03301 Rye, NH 03870 Allen Lampert W1111ae Armstrong Civil Defense Director Civil Defense Director Town of Brentwood Town of Exeter 20 Franklin Street 10 Front Street Exeter, NH 03833 Exeter.NH 03833 Sandra Gavutis, Chairman Calvin A. Canney Board of Selectmen City Manager PFD #1 Box 1154 City Hall Kensington, NH 03027 126 Daniel Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Anne Goodman, Chairman William 8. Lors Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen 13-15 Newmarket Road Town Hall - Friend Street Durham, NH 03B24 Amesbury. MA 01913 Peter J. Matthews Mayor of Newburyport Michael Santosuosso. Chairman City Hall Board of Selectmen Newburyport, MA 01950 South Hampton, NH 03B27 m
Docket No.(s)S0-443/444-OL j
LB M&O (RULING ON MOTIONS...)
R. Scott Hill-Whilton,Escuire Stanley W. Knowles, Chairman Lacoulis, Hill-Whilton & McGuire Board of Selectmen 79 State Street P.O. Box 710 Newburyport, MA 01950 North Hampton, NH 03862 b
Norman C. Katner Sandra F. Mitchell Superintendent of Schools Civil Defense Director School Administrative Unit No. 21 Town of Kensinaten Alumni Drive Box 10, RR1 Hampton, NH 03042 East Kingston, NH 03827
\\
The Honorable Gordon J. Humphrey ATTN Janet Coit United States Senate Washington, DC 20510 Dated at Rockville, Md. this
/r 9 day of March 1989
.... N......................
Off a of the Secretary of the Commission
_