ML20236D768
| ML20236D768 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 03/17/1989 |
| From: | Berry G NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20236D756 | List: |
| References | |
| LBP-89-03, LBP-89-3, OL, NUDOCS 8903230258 | |
| Download: ML20236D768 (19) | |
Text
,_-_ _. _ _. _.
hTIL fA M 4
P duk&wda "J/eder @
'89 tua 20 P4 :06 4 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,
u BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD" ..$ -
In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50- -(f1' g' PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 50<4f 1 NEW HAMPSHIRE, ej al. On-site Eme,rgency Plann g and Safety Issues (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )
NRC STAFF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO ELIZABETH D0LLY WEINHOLD'S APPEAL OF LBP-89-03 l
- Gregory Alan Berry Counsel for NRC Staff
. March 17, 1989
$k g
Sob!k 05000443PDR 7
l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of )
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL-01 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 50-444 OL-01 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. On-site Emergency Planning (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO ELIZABETH DOLLY WEINHOLD'S APPEAL Oi LBP-89-03 I
Gregory Alan Berry Counsel for NRC Staff March 17, 1989 I
i
_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _m______o
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page
- 1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
BACKGROUND ......................... 2 ARGUMENT .......................... 4
. I. Appellant's " Seismic Contention Was Barred By The Doctrine of Collateral Estoppel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 A. The issue raised by Appellant's seismic contention was litigated and adjudicated in the construction permit proceeding to which Appellant was a party and was material to the outcome of the proceeding .................. 6 B. ' There has been no material change in circumstances which make application of the doctrine inequitable . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 II. The Board Correctly Determined That Commission Precedent Barred Litigation Of Appellant's " Emergency Planning" Contentions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 III. Assuming They Were Appropriate For Litigation, A Balancing Of The Five Lateness Factors Would Have Weighed Against Admission Of Appellant's Contentions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 G
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page JUDICIAL DECISIONS Commissioner v. Sunnen, l 333 U.S. 591 (1948) . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,6 Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351 (1877) .... ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,6 1 Lawlor v. National Screen Service !
Corporation, 349 U.S. 322 (1955) ............... 5 !
I ADMINISTRATIVE CASES Commission:
Commonwealth Edison Com]any (Braidwood ;
Nuclear Power Station, Jnits 1 and 2), l CLI-86-8, 23 NRC 241 (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,11 {
l Pacific Gas and Electric Company l (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, i Units 1 and 2), CLI-84-12, 20 NRC 249, l aff'd sub nom. San Luis Obispo Mothers !
For Peace v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287 (1984), ,
aff'd en banc, 760 F.2d 26 (D.C. Cir.1986) . . . . . ... . . 2,9 l Southern California Edison Company (San Onofre Nuclear Generatin CLI-81-33, 14 NRC 1091 (1981)g ................. Plant), 9 l 1
Appeal Board:
Alabama Power Company (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-182, 7 AEC 210, remanded on other grounds, CLI-74-12, 7 AEC 203 (1974) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,6,7 ]
Carolina Power and Light Company 2 (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Dlant),
ALAB-837, 23 NRC 525 (1986) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Mississippi Power and Light Company (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 l and 2), ALAB-704, 16 NRC 1725 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,11 1
ii
South Carolina Electric and Gas Com)any
- TVirgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Jnit 1),
ALAB-642, 13 NRC 881 (1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Licensing Board.
Public Service Company of New Hamsphire, LBP-76-26, 3 NRC 857 J,1976), aff'd, ALAB-422, 6 NRC 33 (1977) and M -561, 10 NRC 410 1979 , remanded, CLI-80-83, 12 NRC 295 1980 , on remand, ALAB-667, 15 NRC 421 1982 ....................... 7 Public Service Company of New Hamsphire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
LBP-89-03, 29 NRC (Jan. 30, 1989) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . passim REGULATIONS 10 C . F . R . 5 2. 714 ( a ) ( 1 ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 10 C.F.R. Part 100, Appendix A, V(a) ............. 6 l
l i
1 1 '
l 1
- iii L_________ _ _ _ _
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of )
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL-01 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 50-444 OL-01 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. On-site Emergency Planning and Safety Issues (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO ELIZABETH D0LLY uEINHOLD'S APPEAL OF LBP-89-03 INTRODUCTION On February 27, 1989, Elizabeth Dolly Weinhold (" Appellant" or "Ms.
Weinhold"), an intervenor in the long since completed Seabrook construction permit proceedings, filed an appeal of the "off-site" Licensing Board's decision in LBP-89-03. 1 In that decision the Licensing Board denied her request to admit one general late-filed contention which challenged the adequacy of the Seabrook Safe Shutdown
! (SSE) earthquake in view of the recent occurrence of the earthquake near Quebec, Canada and five specific contentions, each of which alleges an adverse effect on Applicants' emergency response efforts should an earthquake of the magnitude of the one which happened in Quebec occur during a severe reactor accident at the Seabrook Station. 2/
1/ Public Service Company of New Hamsphire (Seabrook Station, Units 1
~
and 2), LBP-89-03, 29 NRC (January 30,1989).
. 2/
See Petition For Nuclear Regulatory Commission Review And Evaluation UT The 6.4 Magnitude Quebec, Canada Earthquake For The Express (FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
I The appeal should be denied. As explained in this response, the Licensing Board correctly found that litigation concerning the adequacy of the Seabrook Safe Shutdown Earthquake was barred by the doctrine of
~
collateral estoppel and that litigation of Ms. Weinhold's other l
contentions was precluded by the Commission's decision in Pacific Gas l
and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2),
l CLI-84-12, 20 NRC 249, aff'd sub nom. San Luis Obispo Mothers For Peace v.
NRC, 751 F.2d 1287, 1305-09 (1984), aff'd en banc, 760 F.2d 26 (D.C. Cir.
1986), which held that the effect on emergency planning of an earthquake occurring contemporaneously with a severe reactor accident need not be considered by an applicant in developing an emergency response plan.
Moreover, the Board correctly concluded that even had Ms. Weinhold presented litigable contentions, her petition must be denied because a balance of the five lateness factors would not weigh in favor of admitting any of the proffered ' contentions. For these reasons, the Appeal Board should deny Ms. Weinhol<i's appeal and affirm LBP-89-03.
BACKGROUND On December 5,1988, Ms. Weinhold, an intervenor in the Seabrook construction permit proceedings, filed a petition for review with the eff-site Licensing Board in which she requested the Board to: (1) review, i evaluate, and compare the dynamics of an earthquake which occurred near Quebec, Canada or. November 25, 1988 with the Seabrook Safe Shutdown .
1 (FOOTNOTECONTINUEDFROMPREVIOUSPAGE Purpose Of Comparative Analysis With The Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) Of The Seabrook Units And The Evacuation Planning Report (December 5, 1988) (hereinafter " petition").
l i Earthquake (SSE) and order that the Seabrook SSE be upgraded to withstand
. an earthquake greater than the one occurring in Queaec and (2) order that j the evacuation plans for the Seabrook Station be revised to take into account possible damage resulting from such an earthquake.
3/
The Staff and Applicants opposed the petition. Agreeing with Applicants that the petition was "hardly a model of clarity," the Staff advanced three separate reasons why the petition should be denied. See NRC Staff Response To Petition For Review And Evaluation Of Quebec Earthquake (December 30, 1988). First, the Staff argued that the Board lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition because it raised issues beyond the scope of the off-site emergency planning issues over which the l Board was appointed to preside. J_d. at 2-3. Second, the Staff argued that the petition should be denied because litigation of the late-filed contentions which Ms. Weinhold sought to raise was barred under Commission case law. J_d d . at 3-6. Third, the Staff argued that even had Ms.
Weinhold's contentions raised litigable issues, the contentions could not be admitted because she had not carried her burden of demonstrating that a balancing of the five factors listed in 10 C.F.R. 6 2.714(a)(1) weighed in favor of admitting the late-filed contentions. Jd. at 6-8. Applicants' opposition to the petition was premised on each of these objections as well as the additional ground that the doctrine of res judicata precluded 3/ See n.1, supra .
litigation regarding the adequacy of the Seabrook SSE in this
- proceeding. U On January 30, 1989, the Licensing Board issued an order (LBP-89-03) denying Ms. Weinhold's petition in all respects. The Board determined that it haJ jurisdiction to entertain Ms. Weinhold's petition, (slip op.
at 9-10), but found that litigation of her " seismic review" contention was barred as res judicata, (M. at 11), and that Commission case law precluded litigation of Ms. Weinhold's late-filed emergency planning contentions. Id. Additionally, the Board found that a balancing of the five lateness factors would not in any event favor admitting her contentions since the third and fifth factors weighed heavily against her.
M. at 18. After receiving a copy of the Board's order, Ms. Weinhold timely filed the instant appeal.
ARGUMENT I. Appellant's Seismic Contention Was Barred By The Doctrine of Collateral _ Estoppel In LBP-89-03, the Board held that the issue regarding the adequacy of the Seabrook SSE had been adjudicated in the construction permit proceeding and therefore Ms. Weinhold's attempt to litigate this issue in the operating license proceeding was barred by the doctrine of
- res judicata. On appeal, Ms. Weinhold appears to dispute this 4_/ Applicants' Response To Petition For Nuclear Regulatory Comission j Review And Evaluation Of The 6.4 Magnitude Quebec, Canada Earthquake For The Express Purpose Of Comparative Analysis With The Safe Shutdown Earthquake (SSE) Of The Seabrook Units And The Evacuation Planning Report (December 19,1988) (" Applicants' Response").
determination. See Appeal at 3-6. As explained below, the Board's
. determination was correct and should be affirmed. El It is well settled that the doctrines of res judicata and its cousin collateral estoppel are applicable in NRC licensing proceedings. E_.1 Alabama Power Company (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2),
ALAB-182, 7 AEC 210, remanded on other grounds, CLI-74-12, 7 AEC 203
.(1974); Carolina Power and Light Company (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant), ALAB-837, 23 NRC 598i (1986). Res judicata, applies where the following elements exist: (1) a tribunal of competent jurisdiction has rendered a final judgment on the merits; (2)the party against whom res judicata is asserted was a party, or in privity with a party, to the j earlier litigation; and (3) the claim to be precluded was or could have been litigated in the earlier proceeding. Farley, 7 AEC at 213, citing Cromwell v. County of Sac, 94 U.S. 351, 352-353 (1877); Commissioner v.
Sunnen, 333 U.S. 591, ~597 (1948); Lawlor v. National Screen Service Co.,
349 U.S. 322, 326 (1955).
Litigation of an issue will be precluded by the doctrine of collateral estoppel where the following elements are present: (1) the party against whom the estoppel is asserted was a party, or in privity with a party, to the earlier litigation; (2) the issue to be precluded is the same as that involved in the prior litigation; (3) the issue was litigated and decided in the earlier litigation; (4) resolution of the 1
5/ To be precise, Appellant's seismic contention was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel rather than res judicata. This circumstance has no practical bearing on the vafTHlty of the Board's l
determination since it is clear the Board applied the standards l
governing the application of collateral estoppel.
L__ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ . - _ _
- issue was relevant and material to the disposition of the earlier litigation; and (5) there are no material intervening circumstances which would make it in equitable to apply the doctrine. Farley, sup a, 7 AEC at 216. 6/ As discussed below, each of these elements was present with respect to Appellant's seismic contention.
A. The issue raised by Appellant's seismic contention was litigated and adjudicated in the construction permit proceeding to which Appellant was a party and was material to the outcome of the proceeding.
As the Licensing Board noted in the decision under appeal, Appellant's " seismic" contention challenges the adequacy of the Seabrook SSE on a claim that the magnitude of the recent Quebec earthquake (6.4) was greater than the Seabrook SSE (6.0) and that the Seabrook SSE should be increased to account for this phenomena. LBP-89-03, slip. op. at 8.
Appellant's claims that the Seabrook SSE should be increased is premised on her assertion that the Seabrook Station and the area in which the Quebec earthquake occurred are located in the same tectonic province. M.
at 8, 13-14. See 10 C.F.R. Part 100, Appendix A. V(a). In the construction permit proceeding, where Appellant was a party, it was I determined that the tectonic province in which the Seabrook Station is l
l located is different from the one in which the Quebec earthquake l
6/ The doctrine of res judicata, or " claim preclusion," is to be distinguished from the doctrine of collateral estoppel, When it
~
applies, the former bars litigation of all claims that were or could have been litigated in the prior proceeding between the parties.
Cromwell, supra, 94 U.S. at 358; Sunnen, supra, 333 U.S. at 598. On the other hand, when applicable collateral estoppel precluded future litigation of an issue provided that issue actually was litigated, decided, and material to the outcome of the prior litigation. Sunnen, supra, 333 U.S. at 599-600; farley, supra,7AECat213.
l L-_-__-__________________-________.___________
1 l
occurred. 7/ - As the Appeal Board stated, "there !s a well documented
. seismic gap between the New Hampshire-White Mountain zone (in which the q site is located) and the Montreal-Ottawa zone." ALAB-422, supra, 6 NRC at
- 61. Quebec is located in the latter zone. It is clear from the foregoing [
that the collateral estoppel doctrine is applicable. Appellant was a party to the construction permit proceeding, the issue to be precluded was adjudicated in the construction permit proceeding, and the adjudication of 1
that was material to the disposition of the construction permit proceeding.
B. There has been no material change in circumstances which.
make application of the doctrine inequitable, Commission case law teaches that neither collateral estoppel or 1
res judica,t_a a should be applied in administrative proceedings where there '
has been a material change in circumstances or there exist " competing policy factors which outweigh those supporting the application of the doctrines." Farley, supra, 7 AEC at 213. The Licensing Board correctly determined that there were no intervening material factual, legal, or policy considerations which would defeat the invocation of the collateral estoppel doctrine. LBP-89-03, slip op. at 14-17.
Appellant asserted that the Seabrook Station was located in the
- " southerly extension of the Quebec, Canada Seismic Tectonic Province."
Petition at 6. Were this assertion supported by competent, reliable, and probative evidence, it might well have defeated the application of the 7/ Public Service Company of New Hamsphire, LBP-76-26, 3 NRC 857 (1976),
aff'd, ALAB-422, 6 NRC 33 (1977) and ALAB-561,10 NRC 410 (1979), >
remanded, CLI-80-83, 12 NRC 295 (1980), on remand, ALAB-667, 15 NRC 421 (1982).
l l
l 1
doctrine. However, as the Licensing Board observed after careful l
consideration of Appellant's claim, "no scientific expert is cited as a basis for the claim" which appeared to the Board to be based on nothing
. more than " pure speculation." LBP-89-03, slip op. at 15. Nor was their anything in Appellant's petition which could have provided a basis for the l
Board to conclude that she was qualified as an expert in seismic matters.
For the above reasons, the Appeal Board should uphold the Licensing Board's application of the collateral estoppel doctrine to preclude litigation of Appellant's seismic contention.
II. The Board Correctly Determined That Commission Precedent Barred j Litigation Of Appellant's " Emergency Planning" Contentions l In her petition before the Licensing Board, Appellant sought the !
admission of five late-filed contentions, each of which alleges a deleterious effect on the efficacy of Applicants' offsite emergency plan ,
should an earthquake of the magnitude of the one occurring in Quebec take place during a severe reactor accident at the Seabrook Station. See Petition at 9-10. 8/ As explained below, the Board correctly determined that none of the contentions raised a litigable issue.
8/ The contentions are:
- a. The emergency sirens and other emergency communications systems may not be operable due to the collapsing of telephone lines.
- b. The major evacuation roads may be blocked due to collapse of soft soils in the marshaland areas of the north-south exit roadway -- Route 1A -- and the western exit highways, Route 51 (Exeter-Hampton Expressway) and Route 286 in Seabrook.
(F0OTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE)
i
-9 In Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-84-12, 20 NRC 249 (1984), aff'd sub nom. , San Luis Obispo Mothers For Peace v. NRC, 751 F.2d 1287, 1305-09 (D.C. Cir.
l 1984), aff'd en banc, 760 F.2d 26 (D.C. Cir.1986), the Commission held that an applicant need not consider the effects of an errthquake greater than the SSE because " expenditure of additional rescarces to cope with seismically caused offsite damage under those circut. stances is of doubtful value considering the modest benefit in overall risk reduction which could be obtained." 20 NRC at 252. The Commission also held that because of the low level of probability, an applicant need not consider the effect on emergency planning of a contemporaneous occurrence of an earthquake and a severe reactor accident. Id.; see Southern California Edison Company (San Onofre Nuclear Generating Plant), CLI-81-33,14 NRC 1091 (1981). Since Appellant's late-filed contentions were premised upon the contemporaneous occurrence of an earthquake and a severe reactor accident at the Seabrook Station, the Board properly excluded them from litigation on the basis of the precedents cited above. LBP-89-03, slip op. at 7.
i i
(FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE
- c. There are natural gas lines running along the soft soil roadways
~
of Route 1A and Route 51, shich may rupture and cause fires that will block bridge exiting and roadways.
I d. Lack of communication by telephone, radio or television, may I cause undue stress and panic among residents living within the vicinity of the nuclear facility and cause confusion along the evacuation routes,
- e. Individuals who do not have battery operated radios, etc., will not be able to communicate with the civil defense teams, and will not be aware of the necessity to evacuate the region. .
1
l
~
III. Assuming They Were Appropriate For Litigation, A Balancing Of The Five Lateness Factors Would Have Weighed Against Admission ')'
Of Appellant's Contentions 1*
l As discussed below, the Licensing Board correctly determined that a
]
. . balancing of the five lateness factors listed in 10 C.F.R. I 2.714(a)(1) weighed against admission's of Appellant's contentions. LBP-89-03, slip op, at 17-19. Consequently, Appellant's contentions could not have been
! admitted by the Licensing Board even had it determined that the issues 1
raised in Appellant's petition were appropriate for litigation.
The Board assumed the first factor - " good cause for failure to file on time" -- weighed in Appellant's favor since the petition was filed only ten days after the' occurrence of the Quebec earthquake upon which the contentions were based. Good cause for filing late is one of the more important of the five lateness factors. Commonwealth Edison Company
'(Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-86-8, 23 NRC 241, 244-45 (1986). The second and fourth factors -- the availabily of other means and parties to protect Petitioner's interest -- similarly were weighed in Appellant's favor. But as the Commission has emphasized, these are the least weighty of the five factors. M. at 245; accord South Carolina Electric and Gas Company (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1), ALAB-642, 13 NRC 881, 895 (1981).
The third factor, the extent to which a petitioner reasonably can be expected to contribute to the development of a sound record, weighed
. heavily against Appellant. LBP-89-03, slip op. at 18. The purpose of this inquiry is to determine whether a petitioner possesses any special
- expertise on the subject sought to be raised which will assist the licensing board in reaching a sound decision. Mississippi Power and Liohl 1
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I
l Company (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-704, 16 NRC 1725, 1730 (1982). With respect to the third factor, both the Connission and Appeal Board have emphasized that when a petitioner addresses this factor, it should " set out with as much particularity as possible the precise issues it plans to cover, identify its prospctive witness, and summarize their proposed testimony." Braidwood, supra, CLI-86-8, 23 NRC at 246, quoting Grand Gulf, supra, ALAB-704,16 NRC at 1730. Appellant's petition did not address this or any of the other five lateness factors.
LBP-89-03, slip op, at 17. Appellant not only made no effort to summarize the proposed direct testimony of any witness, but she also failed to identify a single prospective witness who will testify in support of her contentions. Nor did Appellant provide the Board with any other basis upon which it could conclude that she possessed special expertise on the seismic matters she sought to cise.
Since this proceeding is nearing its final stages and would be delayed substantially if the parties were required to litigate the seismic issues raised in Appellant's petition, the fifth factor -- the extent to which Petitioner's participation will broad the issues or delay the proceeding -- correctly was weighed against Appellant. J_d.at18.
On balance, Appellant's failure to provide any basis upon which the
- Board could conclude that she could contribute to the development of a sound record, in conjunction with the significant expansion of the issues and delay in completing the proceeding which would ensue were her contentions admitted and litigated, outweighed the three factors in her favor. ;
a CONCLUSION For the reasons stated in this response, the Appeal Board should deny Ms. Weinhold's appeal and affirm LBP-89-03.
R y etfully submitted, l
regory A' n Bei ) --
f Counsel f( NRC taff I
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 17th day of March 1989 l
l l
t
00L Ei. ii.n l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA UWL 1
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
_BEF0PETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGAPPEALBIS0iDMM 20 P4 :0 In the Matter of ) mn. ,
l Docket Nos. 502443'OL-01g m
. PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 50-444 OL-01' NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al,. On-site Emergency Planning '
) and Safety Issues (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) )
l CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO ELIZABETH DOLLY WEINHOLD'S APPEAL OF LBP-89-03" and "NRC STAFF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE OUT OF TIME" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, as indicated by double asterisk by telecopier, this 17th day of March 1989:
Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman
- Peter B. Bloch, Chairman Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Jerry Harbour
- Thomas S. Moore
- Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Washington, DC 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Administrative Judge Howard A. Wilber* 4515 Willard Avenue Administrative Judge Chevy Chase, MD 20815 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Thomas S. Dignan, Jr., Esq.**
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Robert K. Gad, III, Esq.
Washington, DC 20555 Ropes & Gray One International Place !
H. J. Flynn, Esq. Boston, MA 02110 Assistant General Counsel Federal Emergency Management Acency Ms. Elizabeth Weinhold** ;
500 C Street, S.W. 3 Godfrey Avenue l Washington, DC 20472 Hampton, NH 03842 l
h '
f 1
Philip Ahrens, Esq. Judith H. Mizner, Esq, i Assistant Attorney General 79 State Street' l Office of the Attorney General Newburyport, MA 01950 P State' House Station
' Augusta ME 04333 Robert Carrigg, Chairman Board of Selectmen
. Stephen A. Jonas, Esq. Town Office Assistant Attorney General Atlantic Avenue Office of the~ Attorney General North Hampton, NH 03862 One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, MA 02108 William S. Lord Board of Selectmen Geoffrey Huntington, Esq. Town Hall --Friend Street Assistant Attorney General Amesbury, MA 01913 l0ffice of the Attorney General 25 Capitol Street Mrs. Anne E. Gocdman, Chairman Concord, NH 03301 Board of Selectmen 13-15 Newmarket Road Diane Curran, Esq. Durham, NH 03824 Harmon, Curran & Tousley 2001 S Street NW Hon. Gordon J. Humphrey Suite 430 United States Senate Washington, DC 20009 531 Hart Senate Office Building Washington, DC 20510 Calvin A. Canney i City Hall Peter J. Mat e a.., Mayor .
126 Daniel Street City Hall Portsmouth, NH 03801 Newburyport, MN 01950 Allen Lampert Michael Santosuosso, Chainnan Civil Defense Director Board of Selectmen Town of Brentwood South Hampton, NH 03827 20 Franklin Exeter, NH 03833 Ashod N. Amirian, Esq.
Town Counsel for Merrimac William Armstrong 145 South Main Street Civil Defense Director P.O. Box 38 Town of Exeter Bradford, MA 01835 10 Front Street Exeter, NH 03833 Robert A. Backus, Esq.
Backus, Meyer & Solomon Gary W. Holmes, Esq. 116 Lowell Street Holmes & Ellis Manchester, NH 03106 47 Winnacunnet Road Hampton, NH 03842 Paul McEachern, Esq.
Shaines & McEachern J. P. Nadeau 25 Maplewood Avenue Board of Selectmen P.O. Box 360 10 Central Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Rye, NH 03870
i 1
Charles P. Graham, Esq. Atomic Safety and Licensing McKay, Murphy & Graham- Appeal Panel (8)*
. 100 Main Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Amesbury, MA 01913 Washington, DC 20555 Sandra Gavutis, Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Board of Selectmen Panel (1)*
RFD #1, Box 1154 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Kensington, NH 03827 Washington, DC 20555 R. Scott Hill-Whilton, Esq. Docketing and Service Section*
Lagoulis, Clark, Hill '!hilton Office of the Secretary
& McGuire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 79 State Street Washington, DC 20555 Newburyport, MA 0195C Barbara J. Saint Andre, Esq.
Kopelman & Paige, P.C.
77 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 V Gregfr / Alal E'e rry r Counkal for WRC Staff
{
O s
I