ML20154H667

New England Coalition on Pollution (Necnp) Response to Suggestion of Mootness Contained in Applicant Brief in Response to Necnp Appeal of Renewal of Low Power Authorization.* Svc List Encl

ML20154H667
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	05/19/1988
From:	Ferster A HARMON & WEISS, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
CON-#288-6354 OL-1, NUDOCS 8805260024
Download: ML20154H667 (17)

Text

- -_

bYY 00LKETED May 19, 1988 l'% K UN1,?ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSIOli

'88 MAY 23 PS :53 BEFORE T3E ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD OFFICEi.J M<

) DOCKL 1 J.'i *. ' f i V!U.

UN'NC" In the Matter of )

)

Public Service Company of )

New Hampshire, et al. ) Docket No. 50-443 OL-1 g/yy_CG-/

)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2) ) ONSITE EMERGENCY

) PLANNING & TECHNICAL

) ISSUES

)

NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION'S RESPONSE TO THE SUGGESTION OF MOOTNESS CONTAINED IN APPLICANTS' BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO NECNP'S APPEAL OF RENEWAL OF LOW POWER AUTHORIZATION Introduction This response is submitted by New England Coalition On Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) pursuant to the Order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board ("the Appeal Board") dated May 11, 1988, requesting that NECNP respond to the suggestion of mootness contained in Applicants' brief in response to NECNP's appeal of the Licensing Board's renewal of low power authoriza-tion. By Order dated May 12, 1988, the time for filing this appeal was extended by the Appeal Board sua sconto to 4:00 p.m.

on May 19, 1988.

BACKGROUND On March 25, 1987, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

("the Licensing Board") issued a Partial Initial Decision ("PID")

which authorizes Public Service Co. of New Hampshire

("Applicants") to operate the Seabrook nuclear power plant at 8805260024BBj0h43 g

PDR ADOCK O PDR 350

power levels up to and including 5% of rated power.1 on october 1, 1987, the Appeal Board issued ALAB-875, reversing and remand-ing in part the March 25, 1987 Licensing Board decision authoriz-ing a low power license for Seabrook. The Appeal Board ordered, inter alia, that the Licensing Board admit two of NECNP's conten-tions (NECNP Contention IV, regarding the accumulation of aquatic organisms in the cooling system and NECNP Contention I.V, regard-ing in-service inspection of steam generator tubes) and begin the litigation process for these improperly rejected contentions.2 The Appeal Board also ordered the Licensing Board either to find as-yet unidentified support in the record for its ruling that a class of electrical cabling is qualified to survive accident environments (NECNP Contention I.B.2), or to reopen the record on that issue.3 As a result of the Appeal Board's decision, the March 25, 1988, Partial Initial Decision authorizing low power operations was vacated.4 On February 17, 1988, the Licensi,ng Board issued a Memorandum and order which renewed its previous authorization for i

j 1 Public Service Co. of New Hampshire, et al. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-87-10, 25 NRC 177. Hereinafter, all adminis-trative decisions in the Seabrook proceeding will be cited only l by number and date. The agency's citation system denotes deci-

sions of the Licensing Board Panel as "LBP" decisions, of the

Appeal Board as "ALAB," and the Commission decisions as "CLI."

l 2 ALAB-875, slip op. at 13-20.

3 ALAB-875, slip. op. at 14, 20, 35-39.

4 A LAB-87 5, slip, op. at 49-50.

-3 -

operation of the Seabrook nuclear power plant at low power levels, after finding, under 10 C.F.R. 9 50.57(c), that NECNP Contentions I.V and IV were not relevant to low power opera-tions.5 The Licensing Board did not address the significance of remanded contention I.B.2 (environmental qualification), or its relevance to low power operation.

On March 3, 1988, NECNP timely appealed the Licensing Board's decision reviewing low power authorization. On April 7, 1988, NECNP filed its brief in support of its appeal, arguing, inter alia, that the Licensing Board had no authority under 10 C.F.R. S 50.57(c) and the Atomic Energy Act to authorize low power operations until all onsite technical had been resolved favorably to Applicants.6 Between November, 1987 and February, 1988, litigation of NECNP's two remanded contentions, NECNP Contentions IV and I.V, proceeded before the Licensing Board. Much of the discovery period was devoted to litigation over the scope of NECNP Conten-tion IV (accumulation of aquatic organisms in cooling systems) 5 LBP-88-6 (February 17, 1988).

6 NECNP has also contended throughout this proceeding that all offsite emergency planning issues must be resolved before author-ization of low power operation. However, because the Appeal Baord has stated that it will not entertain challenges to la C.F.R. 5 50.47(d) (See ALAB-865, 25 NRC 430, 439] this argument was not discussed in any detail in NECNP's April 7, 1988 appeal brief, although it was raised for the record. See "NECNP's Brief in Support of Appeal of Memorandum and Order Renewing Authoriza-tion to Operate at Low Power," dated April 7, 1988, at 5 n. 7.

-4 -

and spacifically, whether the issue of microbiologically induced corrosion (MIC) was within the scope of NECNP Contention IV.

It has consistently been NECNP's position that microbiologi-cally induced corrosion was within the scope of NECNP Contention IV. In support of its motion to compel Applicants to respond to NECNP's discovery questions regarding MIC, NECNP presented an affidavit from one of the leading experts in the country on the subject of microbial fouling in heat-exchange systems and numerous articles from scientific journals, including NRC sponsored studies.7 Despite the fact that neither Applicants nor the Staff presented any controverting expert opinion or documen-tation, on March 18, 1988, the Licensing Board ruled that micro-biologically induced corrosion was not within the scope of NECNP Contention IV, and that the contention was limited to only one of the adverse affects of the accumulation of aquatic organisms in cooling systems, namely, the accumulation of macro-organisms resulting in blockage and constriction of coolant flow.8 The Licensing Board also further constricted the time of allowable discovery for these remanded safety contentions, and directed summary disposition filings as to NECNP Contentions IV and I.V.

By letter dated April 22, 1988, NECNP notified the Licensing Board and the parties that it did not choose to litigate the 7 "NECNP's Motion for Reconsideration of the Board's Denial of NECNP's Motion to Compel, Dated February 17, 1988," dated March 1, 1988.

8 LBP-88-558 (March 18, 1988).

remanded contentions due to the Licensing Board's restrictive rulings which precluded NECNP from litigating the adequacy of Applicants' program for controlling microbiologically induced corrosion. NECNP further stated that it intended to appeal the Licensing Board's rulings on the scope of NECNP Contention IV, and allowable discovery thereunder, at the appropriate time.

Concurrent with the litigation of NECNP Contentions IV and I.V. the parties continued to brief the issue of whether the record should be re-opened with respect to NECNP Contention I.B.2, regarding environmental qualification of RGS8 coaxial cable. On April 25, 1988, the Appeal Board issued a Memorandum and Order reversing their part of the Licensing Board's March 25, 1987 PID to the extent that it found that the environmental qualification of the RG58 coaxial cable had been established, and remanding NECNP Contention I.B.2 to the Licensing Board for fur-ther proceedings.9 The Appeal Board did not address the extent to which its decision affected low power operations at Seabrook, stating that "low power operation is precluded in any event pend-ing the resolution of the public emergency notification issue remanded in ALAB-883."10 9 ALAB-891, slip opinion at 25-26.

10 Id., at 26 n. 66. IN ALAB-883, the Appeal Board stayed the director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation from giving effect to low power authorizaticn due to its remand of the public emergency notification issue, an offsite safety requirement that must, under Commission regulations, be resolved prior to low power operation.

i i

Despite the April 25, 1988 Appeal Board decision in ALAB-891, Applicants filed, on May 10, 1988, a response suggesting, inter alia, that NECNP's appeal of the Licensing Board's renewal of low power authorization was moot due to NECNP's decision not to oppose Applicants' summary disposition motion on NECNP Conten-tions I.V and IV. The Appeal Board has asked NECNP to file the instant brief in order to respond to Applicants' suggestion of mootness.

ARGUMEtIT I. Low Power Authorization Has Been Vacated.

Applicants claim that as a result of NECNP's decision not to oppose their motions for summary disposition of NECNP Contentions i

IV and I.V., NECNP's appeal of the Licensing Board's decision to 7 renew low power authorization is moot. As disciassed below in Section II, we'do not agree with Applicants' view. However, it -

now appears that our appeal is unripe for review due to the Appeal Board's remand of Contention I.B.2 in ALAB-891. .

The Licensing Board's March 25, 1987, PID, combined a ruling  !

on the merits of NECNP's technical challenges to Applicants' operating license request with authorization for the low power operation of Seabrook. The Appeal Board reversed that decision and remanded contentions IV and I.V. for 1.itigation.11 In addi-tion, the Appeal Board suggested that, assuming that the Commis-sion lifted the then-existing stay on low power authorization as 11 ALAB-875, slip op, at 13-20.

a result of the absence of emergency plans for Massachusetts, the Licensing Board must "determine expeditiously the appropriateness of a renewal condite lite of the low-power authorization con-tained in the March 25 decicion." ALAB-875, slip op. at 49 (footnotes omitted).

While the Appeal Board also found that the record did not support a finding in favor of Applicants with respect to the environmental qualification of RG58 cablo (NECNP Contention I.B.2), the Appeal Board did not reverse the PID with respect to that issue. Instead, the Appeal Board remanded the issue to the Licensing Board for further explanation of its decision. When, after two rounds of briefing and explanatory memoranda, the Licensing Board failed to satisfy the Appeal Board that its deci-sion was adequately supported, the Appeal Board, in ALAB-891, reversed the PID with respect to the cable qualification issue and remanded it to the Licensing Board.

By reversing this aspect the Licensing Board's March 25, 1987, PID, ALAB-891 had the ef fect of vacating the PID's author-ization of low power operation. Accordingly, that authorization cannot be "renewed" until NECNP Contention I.B.2 is resolved in favor of Applicants or the Licensing Board makes a determination under 10 C.F.R. 6 50.57(c) that NECNP Contention I.B. is not i

l m

-8 -

relevant to low power operations.12 Thus, NECNP's appeal of the Licensing ' 'rd's February 17 1988 renewal of low power author-ization, while not moot, as Applicants suggest, is not ripe for review at this time.

This construction of the legal effect of ALAB-891 is the only one that can be reconciled with past practice in this pro-ceeding, as well as common sense. Vacation of low power author-ization was precisely the legal effect given by ALAB-875's rever-sal of the March 25, 1987 PID with respect to NECNP Contentions IV and I.V. At that time, the Commission had stayed low power operation due to the lack of an emergency plan for Massachu-setts.13 However, when the Commission lifted that stay on Novem-bor 25, 1987, low power operation was then precluded by ALAB-875's raversal of the March 25, 1987 PID.14 Since that time, low power operation has been further precluded pending the resolution of the public emergency notification issues remanded 12 NECNP continues to believe that the Licensing Board has r.o authority under the Atomic Energy Act or 10 C.F.R. 5 So.57(c) to determine summarily that conteated safety issues are "not relevant" to low power operation. However, presumably the Licencing Board will entertain briefs from the parties on NECNP Contention I.B.2's relevance to low power operation, as it did earlier, and make this determination despite NECNP's continued assertion that such a determination is not permitted, see In Mat-

_ter of Public Service of New Hamoshire, (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-88-6, 27 NRC __ (February 17, 1988).

13 See the Commission's Order of January 9, 1987 [ unpublished).

14 See the Commission's Order of November 25, 1987 (unpublished).

l in ALAB-883.15 Thus, in ALAB-891, the Appeal Board did not need to address the legal effect on low power authorization of its reversal of the March 25, 1987 PID. However, as was the case etarlier, the intervening remand of contested safety issues on the merits has vacated the underlying authorization for low power operation. Accordingly, the Appeal Board's review of NECNP's appeal of the February 17, 1988 low power authorization, while not moot, should be deferred until such time as the now-vacated low power authorization is renewed.

II. NECNP's ADoeal Is Not Moot.

Irrespective of whether this appeal is ripe for review as a result of ALAB-891, the Licensing Board's dismissal of NECNP Con-tentions IV and I.V, of itself, does not render moot NECNP's appeal of the Licensing Board's February 17, 1988 renewal of low power authorization.

NECNP's appeal of the low power authorization focused on the inappropriateness of renewing low power operation prior to the resolution of NECNP Contention I.B.2, regarding environmental qualification of RG58 coaxial cable, as well as NECNP Contentions IV and I.V. Clearly, NECNP Contention I.B.2, which has now been remanded to the Licensing Board, has not been resolved. Nor har the Licensing Board made any threshold determination as to the appropriateness of low power operation in light of the partial reversal of a new aspect of the March 25, 1987 PID and the 15 ALAB-883 (February 3, 1988), slip opinion, at 24.

resultant pendency of an important, unresolved safety issue.16 The arguments made in NECNP's appeal brief regarding the inappropriateness of low power authorization prior to the resolu-tion of contested, onsite safety issues apply equally to NECNP Contention I.B.2. Accordingly, NECNP's appeal is not moot by virtue of the remand of NECNP Contention I.B.2.

Furthermore, NECNP's appeal is not moot because NECNP Con-tention IV remains unresolved. NECNP has announced its intention to appeal the Licensing Board's rulings which narrowly restricted the scope of NECNP Contention IV only to issues concerning block-age of cooling systems by macro-organisms, and which precluded NECNP from taking adequate discovery.17 It is NECNP's position that NECNP Contention IV encompasses the issue of microbiologi-cally induced corrosion, and other detrimental effects of micro-bial fouling.18 Until this issue is fully resolved through administrative appeals, the Licensing Board has no authority under the Atomic Energy Act to issue low power authorization for Seabrook. ,

I Finally, NECNP's appeal is not moot because it raises, for {

purposes of preserving the argument for further administrative l t

appeals, the argument that the Licensing Board may not authorize i

f i

16 Een note 12, suora.

17 As discussed further in Section III, infra, contrary to the  !

assertions made by Applicants and the Licensing Board, NECNP has l not abandoned Contention IV. {

t 18 gag Section III, below.

?

low power operation prior to the resolution of contested offsite t

emergency planning contentions.19 NECNP continues to believe }

that the Atomic Energy Act's guarantee of a prior hearing on con- i tested safety issues precludes the Licensing Board from authoriz-ing low power operation until the adequacy of Applicants' offsite

• emergency planning and preparedness for both the Massachusetts and New Hampshire sectors of the emergency protection zone (including emergency notification) has been litigated and resolved. .

In sum, the issues raised in NECNP's appeal are in no way l

mooted by the Licensing Board's dismissal of NECNP Contentions IV and I.V. Rather, the Appeal Board may still address the ,

appropriatenese of low power authorization prior to the resolu-tion of NECNP Contention I.B.2, and prior to the resolution of NECNP Contention IV, to the extent it encompasses the issue of }

microbiologically induced corrosion. These contested issues are continue to be unresolved and are in no way affected by the Licensing Board's dismissal of NECNP Contentions IV and I.V.

NECNP continues to be amenable to deferring the briefing of these [

legal issues until such time as they are once again broug?.t into l i

focus by NECNP Contention I.B.2 or the offsite emergency planning contentions.  ;

III. The Licensing Board' Dismissal of NECNP Contention IV May i Not Bar NECNP's Subsecuent Acceal of that Contention.

19 "NECNP's Brief in Support of Appeal of Memorandum and Order Renewing Authorization to Operate at Low Power," dated April 7,  !

1988, at S n. 7.

In this instance, the Licensing Board acted inappropriately in dismissing NECNP's contention, for two reasons. First, the record amply demonstrates that NECNP did not abandon NECNP Con-tention IV. Second, the Licensing Board is obligated under Com-mission regulations to decide Applicants' pending summary dis-position motions, which have neither been withdrawn nor re-captioned as motions to dismiss. Accordingly, the Licensing Board's dismissal should be given no effect. At the most, the Licensing Board's dismissal must be treated as if Applicants' sumnary disposition motions had been granted, in order to preserve NECNP's right to appeal those issues that NECNP had been precluded from litigating as a result of the Licensing Board's restrictive rulings regarding the scope of NECNP Contention IV, and allowable discovery thereunder.

The Licensing Board's dismissal of NECNP Contention IV was clearly inappropriate since NECNP plainly did not abandon NECNP Contention IV, either expressly or by implication. To the con-trary, NECNP has been extremely aggressive in its efforts to lit-igate the adequacy of Applicants' program to control the accumulation of aquatic organisms, and specifically, micro-biologically induced corrosion resulting from the accumulation of microbiologically organisms. The intent and import of NECNP's April 22, 1988 letter was to inform the Licensing Board that its procedural rulings on the scope of NECNP Contention IV had fore-closed NECNP from litigating the most troublesome safety issue i

raised by the contention, that of microbiologically induced cor-

. , i L

rosion. In its letter, NECNP sought, as a courtesy, to inform i the parties and tne Licensing Board, that NECNP did not choose to I take up the time and resources of the Licensing Board and the  ;

parties in litigating the narrow, issue remaining after the ,

?

Licensing Board's restrictive rulings on the scope of NECNP Con-  !

tention IV, and allowable discovery thereunder. At the same time, NECNP clearly communicated that it did not in any way intend to abandon the contention, and that it intended to pursue  ;

vigorously the issue of microbiologically induced corrosion upon [

appeal. This intention is plain from NECNP's April 22, 1988 let-  :

ter:  !

our decision (not to oppose summary disposition) also stems '

from this Board's procedural rulings on NECNP Contention IV, a which effectively preclude NECNP from inquiring into, or I litigating the adequacy of Applicants' program to control [

microbiologically induced corrosion, and other deterimental >

effects resulting from the accumulation of microbiological i organisms. NECNP continues to believe that Applicants' pro-gram for monitoring and controlling microbiologically i induced corrosion is not adequate, and that this issue is j within the scope of NECNP Contention IV. Accordingly, NECNP  !

intends to appeal the Board's rulings regarding the scope of  :

NECNP Contention the appropriate IV agd time. 0 allowable discovery thereunder at ,

NECNP's intentions D21 to abandon NECNP Contention IV were [

also made plain in its response to Applicants' motion for summary disposition on NECNP Contention IV. There, NECNP objected to the apparent breadth of Applicants' motion for summary disposition as 20 See Letter to Administrative Law Judges from Andrea Ferster, Counsel to NECNP, dated April 22, 1988. A copy of this letter, which was previously served on the parties, is attached for the convenience of the Appeal Board.

14 -

apparently encompassing the issue of microbiologically induced corrosion, and stated:

Given the plain implications of this Board's rulings regard-ing the scopo of NECNP Contention IV, it would be manifestly unfair if NECNP's failure to oppose the instant motion for ,

summary disposition were construed as barring or estopping NECNP from subsequently litigating the adequacy of Applicants' program for monitoring and controlling fouling by micro-organisms, or microbiologically induced corrosion, should it be determined on appeal that microbiologically induced corrosion is within the scope of NECNP Contention IV.

"NECNP's Response to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition on NECNP Contention IV," dated May 6, 1988.21 ,

Thus, it is clear from the foregoing that NECNP did not ,

intend to abandon NECNP Contention IV, but merely chose not to litigate the one issue remaining after the Licensing Board's restrictive rulings on the scope of NECNP Contention IV, that of blockage of cooling systems by macro-organisms. There is no i requirement that a party pursue each and every issue that may be i 1 j

encompassed within a contention in order to avoid having the con- '

tention dismissed in toto. Indeed, such a requirement would be wasteful of the parties' and the Commission's resources, and ,

result in unncessary, additional delay in the licensing process.

Accordingly, the Licensing Board acted inappropriately in dis-missing NECNP Contention IV.

The Licensing Board's action in dismissing NECNP Contentions  ;

IV and I.V is also contrary to the commands of Commission regula- l l

21 A copy of this pleading, which was previously served on the l parties, is attached for the convenience of the Appeal Board.

I

m_

tions governing summary disposition.22 Applicants' April 29, 1988 motions for summary disposition on NECNP Contentions I.V.

and IV are still pending. The Commission's summary disposition regulations recuire that the Licensing Board must render a deci-sion even if no opposing answer is filed.23 Since Applicants have not requested that the summary disposition motions be with-drawn, or that they be re-captioned as motions to dismiss,24 there is simply no justification for the Licensing Board's fail-ure to decide these motions.

It is critical that the Licensing Board's improper dismissal of NECNP Contention IV not be construed as barring any subsequent appeal of issues that NECNP is now precluded from litigating within the scope of NECNP Contention IV, such as microbiologi-cally induced corrosion. Such an action would have the effect of 22 10 C.F.R. 5 2.749.

23 10 C.F.R. 5 2.749(a) provides that When a motion for summary decision is made and supported...,

a party opposing the motion may not rest upon the mere allegaitions or denials of his answer; his answer by affidavits or therwise provided int his section munt set forthe specific facts showing that htere is a genuine issue of fact. If no such asnwer is filed. the decision soucht, if appropriate, shall be rendered.

24 Indeed, counsel for NECNP informed Applicants by telephone of NECNP's decision not to oppose any summary disposition motions to be filed by Applicants on April 20, 1988, and NECNP's April 22, 1988 letter was deliverd to Applicants by overnight mail. There-fore, Applicants had notice of N2CNP's intention not to oppose Applicants' summary disposition motion before the April 29. 1988 filing deadline for such motions, yet Applicants did not caption them as motions to dismiss, even in the alternative.

l 1

16 -

penalizing NECNP for its efforts, as a courtesy to the parties, to conserve the Commission's resources by limiting the litigation to issues that are contested, and encouraging parties to oppose i summary disposition motions as a mere formality, for the sole l

purpose of preserving their rights to appeal. Rather, the Licensing Board's dismissal must, at the most, be treated as if i

the Licensing Board had granted Applicants' motions for summary disposition, so that NECNP will be free, at the appropriate time, to appeal the Licensing Board's procedural rulings regarding the scope of NECNP Contention IV. Because the issue of the adequacy of Applicants' program to control microbiological 1y induced cor-  !

l l rosion has yet to be resolved, NECNP's appeal of the February 18, 1988 low power renewal is not mooted by the Licensing Board's dismissal of the separate issue of blockage of cooling systems by ,

macro-organisms.

Respectfully submitted,

1. 1. 1. j Andrea Forster HAR"ON & WEISS 2001 "S" Street N.W. Suite 430 Washington, D.C. 20009 j (202) 328-3500 l

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE '

I certify that on May 19, 1988, copies of the foregoing pleading were served by first-class mail, or as otherwise indi- i cated, on all parties listed on the attached service list.

Andrea Ferster -

!/g-

SEABROOK SERVICE LIST - ONSITE APPEAL BOARD Sheldon A Wolfe, Chairman

• 155 Washington Road Office of General Counsel Alan S. Rosenthal, Chairman

• U.S. NRC Rye,Newilampshire 03870 U.S. NRC U.S. NRC Washington, D.C 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C.20555

, Richard E. Sullivan, Mayor Dr. Jerry Harbour City Hall _

R. Scott liill.Whilton Howard A. Wilber*

U.S. NRC Newburyport,MA 01950 Lagoulis, Clark, liill Whilton U.S. NRC Washington, D.C. 20555 & McGuire Washington, D.C. 20555 Alfred V. Sargent, Chairman 79 State Street Dr.Emmeth A. Luebke

• Board of Selectmen Newburyport, MA 01950 5500 Friendship Boulevard Town of Salisbury, MA 01950 Apartment 1923N George Dana Bisbee, Esq.

ChesyChase,MD 20815 Senator Gordon J. Ilumphrey Geoffrey M. Huntington, Esq. 8$ g U.S. Senate Of" x of the Attorney General 9p g

Atomic Safety & Licensing Washington, D.C 20510 Sim House Annex T Board Panel (Atts. Tom Burack) Concord,NH 03301 D- ,p.c' U.S. NRC Washington, D.C 20555 Selectmen of Notthampton Allen Lampert E~4 $ ,y'[,

Atomic Safety & Licensing Northampton, New Hamp. Civil Defense Director Town of Brentowood

%[$r,?

]

shire 03826 g Appeal Board Panel Exeter, Nil 03833 w U.S. NRC Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Washington, D.C 20555 1 Eagle Square. Ste 507 Richard A. llampe, Esq.

Concord, NH 03301 llampe and McNicholas Docketing and Sersice 35 Pleasant Street U.S. NRC Michael Santosuosso, Concord, Nil 03301 Washington, D.C 20555 Chairman Board of Selectmen Gary W. Holmes, Esq.

Mrs. Anne E. Goodman Jewell Stt:et, RFD #2 Holmes & Ellis Board of Selectmen South Hampton, Nil 03842 47 Winnacunnent Road 1315 New Market Road llampton,NH 03S42 Durham, NH 03S42 Judith li. Mizner, Esq.

Sihrrglate, Gertner, et al. William Armstrong William S. le.'d, Selectman SS Broad Street Civil Defense Director Town Hall- Friend Street Boston, MA 02110 10 Front Street Amesbury,MA 01913 Exeter,NH 03833 Rep. Roberta C Pevear Jane Doughty Drinkwater Road CaMn A. Canney SAPL llampton Falls, Nil 03844 City Manager, City Hall 5 Market Street 126 Daniel Street Portsmouth,NH 03S01 Phillip Ahrens, Esq. Portsmouth, Nil 03S01 Assistant Attorney General Carol S. Sneider, Esquire State House, Station #6 Matthew T. Brock, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General Augusta,ME 04333 Shaines & McEachern 1 Ashburton Place,19th Floor P.O. Box 3fo Boston, MA 02108 Thomas G. Dignan, Esq. Maplewood Avenue R.K. Gad II, Esq. Portsmouth, NH 03801 Stanley W. Knowies Ropes & Gray Board of Selectmen 225 Franklin Street Sandra Gavutis P.O. Box 710 Boston, MA 02110 RFD 1 Box 1154 North Hampton, Nil 03826 East Kensington, NH 03827 Robert A. Backus, Esq.

i.P. Nadeau Backus, Meyer & Solomon Charles P. Graham, Esq.

Town of Rye 111 Lowell Street McKay, Murphy and Graham Manchester,NH 03105 100 Main Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Gregory A. Berry, Esq.

• Hand delivered.

_______