ML19325E017

Applicant Answer to Intervenors Second Motion to Admit Contentions on 890927 Emergency Plan Exercise.* Motion to Assert Addl Bases for Original Onsite Exercise Contention JI-Onsite Ex-1 Should Be Denied.W/Certificate of Svc

ML19325E017
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	10/20/1989
From:	Dignan T PUBLIC SERVICE CO. OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ROPES & GRAY
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#489-9344 OL, NUDOCS 8910310203
Download: ML19325E017 (18)

Text

- - - - - ...- - - -- -.

I y

'I COCKETED UiNiT October 20, 1989 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '89 OCT 23 P4 :08 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION (rr,<,

hefore the Dh i; j T

ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ,

t

)

In the Matter of )

)

PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, at al. ) 50-444-OL

) ,

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 ) (Offsite Emergency ,

and 2) ) Planning Issues)

)

APPLICANTS' ANSWER TO INTERVENORS' SECOND MOTION TO ADMIT CONTENTIONS ON THE SEPTEMBER 27, 1989 EMERGENCY PLAN EXERCISE INTRODUCTION ,

Under date of October 13, 1989, The' Attorney General of The commonwealth of Massachusetts (MAG), on behalf of himself, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League '(SAPL) , and the New

( England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (NECNP) filed a motion -

g

! atyled "Intervenors' Second Motion to Admit contentions on the September 27, 1989 Exercise" (the Motion). The purpose of the Motion is to (1) assert additional bases for its original onsite exercise contention (JI-Onsite Ex-1),1 and (2) proffer an additional contention (JI-Onsite Ex-2) .

1 Applicants have already responded to the original prof fer of this content. ion. Aeolicetts' Response to Intervenors' Motion to Admit Contentions on the Seotember 27. 1989 Emercency Plan Exercise, cassim (Oct. 11, 1989).

DCColGLE2.SB 8910310203 891020 PDR G

ADOCK 05000443 PDR p

. t As additional bases for JI-Onsite Ex-1, MAG alleges the ,

following: The Staff Report on the Exercise (hereafter

" Staff Report") " indicates" that no PARS based upon dose assessment or other factors were actually prepared or implemented during the exercise. Thus, MAG argues there is ,

no assurance that Applicants have the capability to timely ,

identify adequate and relevant information, formulate appropriate PARS, communicate the PARS offsite, or adjust the PARS based upon changed meteorological conditions. It is

also alleged that the Staff Report " indicates" that offsite field monitoring teams only demonstrated sampling procedures, but "(njo monitoring procelures or activities were tested even by mini' scenario. Therefore, there is no assurance that Applicants are capable of adequately implementing procedures for plume tracking or related monitoring activities."

By JI-Onsite Ex-2, MAG seeks to have litigated the issues of whether the failure to exercise the vehicular alert t

l and notification system (VANS)2 or to demonstrate a shift change means that the scope of the exercise was insufficient.

Herein Applicants reply to the Motion.

l I. THERE IS NO REGUIATORY BASIS FOR THE CONTENTION PROFFERED.

In the portion of Attachment A to the Motion in which he 1

l spells out JI-Onsite Ex-2, MAG, as he did in his initial 1

2 The short complete answer to this question is that l

VANS is part of the offsite emergency plan not the l

onsite emergency plan.

1 1

motion to have an onsite exercise contention admitted, continues to rely on a misconstruction of Commission regulations leading to the invalid legal theory that the regulations require that the exercise run on September 27, 1989, comply in scope with the definition of full participation exercise as set forth in 10 CFR 50, App. E 5 IV.F.1 n.4. That footnote defines the term " full participation" as used in the phrase " full participation exercise." The exercise run on September 27, 1989, however, was not, by definition, a " full participation exercise." It was an exercise run pursuant to the third and fourth L sentences of 10 CFR 50, App. E $ IV.F.1 which is the exercise to be conducted when, as, and if there has been a full participation exercise run within two years of licensing, but not within one year of licensing. Thus, the regulatory I

i language which forms the underpinning of the contention as l pleaded simply has no applicability to the September 1989 i

onsite exercise. This being the case, the motion is groundless and must be denied.

l l II. MAG HAS FAILED TO ALLEGE, AS IS REQUIRED, FACTS WHICH, IF BELIEVED, WOULD DEMONSTRATE' THAT THE FAILURE TO INCLUDE THE ACTIVITIES WHICH MAG CLAIMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN l THE EXERCISE RESULTED IN A SITUATION WHERE AN l EXTANT " FUNDAMENTAL FLAW" WOULD HAVE AVOIDED l

DETECTION.

The seminal case with respect to the necessary scope of an emergency exercise is the decision of the Appeal Board in Lona Island Lichtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,

nb l

l Unit 1), ALAB-900, 28 NRC 275 (1988). Therein the hppeal Board set the standard by which the scope of an exercise ,

would be judged as: "that the exercise itself must be comprehensive enough to permit a meaningful test and evaluation of the emergency plan to ascertain if that clan is fundamentally flawed."3 Since that time, the Appeal Board has also held that if the flaw revealed is one which can be 1 readily corrected or can be corrected by supplemental training of personnel, it is not a " fundamental flaw."4 -

We are unenlightened by MAG's filing as to how the failure to engage in any or all of the various activities which MAG claims were improperly not included in the exercise l precluded the ascertainment of any " fundamental flaw (s)" in the plan. Moreover, preclusion by reason of exercise scope  ;

is not even alleged. In light of the Appeal Board's l

l standard, this is a necessary allegation of basis with respect to a scope contention, and the failure to include such is fatal to the effort.

Prescinding from the foregoing pleading deficiency, an

. analysis of MAG's allegations fails, in any event, to reveal the suggested presence of any " fundamental flaw" in the L onsite plan which presently remains undetected, but would l

3 ALAB-900, 28 NRC at 286 (emphasis in the original).

l 4 Public Service Comoany of New Hamoshire (Seabrook l Station, Units 1 and 2) , ALAB-918, 29 NRC 473, 485-86 (1989). Egg also Lona Island Lichtina Co.

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-903, 28 NRC 499, 506 (1988).

F 1

, l

.. 1 have been discovered through execution of the activities MAG suggests should have been undertaken. J l

Tne additional PAR activities MAG deems necessary would have uncovered, at best, only training inadeguacies. These are not " fundamental flaws". The same can be said for the 1 further activities he claims should have been, but were not, carried out by the offsite monitoring teams. Similarly, the ,

only problems which might have been demonstrated by a shift change also would have been of a personnel training nature.

And, insofar as the allegations of not demonstrating staffing sufficiency are concerned, the staffing of a plan is as well 1 demonstrated by personnel rosters and personnel records as by ,

an exercise and need not be demonstrated by such activity.

Indeed, thh existence of sufficient staff is usually viewed as a planning issue, not an exercise issue. Finally, the allegations as to VANS gain MAG nothing. The regulations require only an exercise of the onsite plan. Mobilization and deployment of VANS are performed in accordance with the offsite plan. App. Ex. 42, App. G & IP 2.16.

III. THE PROPONENTS OF THE NOTION HAVE NOT SATISFIED THE PROVISIONS OF 10 CFR 5 2.734 FOR REOPENING THE EVIDENTIARY RECORD.

In the Motion, as originally filed, MAG persisted in his t position that there is no need to satisfy the requirements for reopening the record set out in 10 CFR $ 2.734 in order to have the contention at issue admitted for litigation. In its recent decision denying the Intervenors' motion to admit

. . ~ . . . - _ - _

1 l

1 l

low power testing contentions for litigation,5 this BoaLd ruled that the Intervenors are required to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR E 2.734 in order to have any contention arising out of post-hearing tests or exercises 1 admitted.6 In light of this decision, MAG has now filed a l

document styled "Intervenors' Motion to Amend Intervenors' Motions of September 29, 1989 and October 13, 1989 to Admit Contentions on the September 27, 1989 Onsite Emergency Plan Exercise" (" Motion to Amend")'. This motion attaches as Attachment "A" MAG's attempt to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR E 2.734. On the assumption that that motion may be allowed, we address the showing attached thereto.

To begin with, MAG's attempt includes no affidavit of any kind. The absence of an affidavit is fatal. The regulation is clear:

1 "The motion must be accomeanied by one or more affidavits which set forth the factual and/or technical bases for the movant's claim that the criteria of naraaraoh (a) of this section have been satisfied. . . . Each of the criteria must be separately addressed, with a specific explanation of why it has been met."7 There is no leeway here. The Motion must be accomoanied by an affidavit. Each criterion must be seoarately addressed, 5 Public Service Company of New Hamnshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-89-28, 30 NRC (October 16, 1989).

6 LBP-89-28, Slip Op. at 14.

7 10 CFR S 2.734(b) (emphases supplied).

l 1

L.

l' with a specific explanation of why it has been met. The criteria to be addressed include timeliness and materially different result as well as the existence of a significant safety issue. None of the criteria are addressed by affidavit. This is fatal. i l

MAG's motion basically turns in the first instance on the legal issue of whether Footnote 4 to 10 CFR 50, App. E i IV.F.1, applies to the exercise of concern. Plainly it L does not for reasons stated above. However, assuming i

arguendo the contrary, the result would not establish the existence of a significant safety issue. Nor would it obviate the need.for MAG to explain why these additional activities he desires to have carried out are necessary to assure the  !

discovery of otherwise undiscoverable fundamental flaws which would be a minimum prerequisite to showing a significant safety issue existed. Thus, MAG cannot avoid the need for an affidavit by the argument he makes that the scenario and Staff Report can serve as a surrogate for the affidavit.8 Neither of these documents purport to address the reasons why or why not the activities MAG asserts should have been 8 That staff or applicant documents might serve to substitute for an affidavit may have been an acceptable practice when motions to reopen were ,

governed by decisional authority. Egg Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Coro. (Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station), ALAB-12 4 , 6 AEC 358, 364 (1973).

However, the requirement for an affidavit was specifically included in 10 CFR $ 2.734 (b) and thus wiped out that case law, criteria for Recoenina Records in Formal Licensina Proceedinas, 51 Fed.

Reg, 19535, 19537 (May 30, 1986).

l 1

included would be necessary to uncover otherwise undetectable fundamental flaws or why a materially different result would l

obtain from a reopening. Indeed, the Inspection Report, j inasmuch as it endorses the scope of the exercise, refutes, rather than supports, MAG's position. The lack of an affidavit is plainly and simply fatal to this motion.9 Furthermore, there has been no sufficient showing, by affidavit or otherwise, that any significant safety issue is involved. The basic showing made in the Motion 10 is that, under MAG's legal theory, the regulations require the various additional matters he wanted done, to be done. Even assuming arauendo that his legal theory were correct, and therefore there has been a failure to meet a regulation, this is not, in and of itself, enough to demonstrate that there is a significant safety issue. Rather, by affidavit, there must be a showing that the necessary factual result of particular alleged noncompliance will be to create a meaningful threat -

l to the public health and safety.ll l 9 Lona Island Lichtina Co. (Shoreham Nuclear Power l Station), CLI-89-1, 29 NRC 89, 93-94 (1989); Public L Service Company of New Hamoshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-915, 29 NRC 427, 431 (1989).

10 M2 tion to Amend, Attach. A at 3-6.

11 As recently as October 19, 1989, the Commission has commented on the phrase "significant safety problem" which, it would seem, must be shown to be likely in order that there exist a "significant safety issue," as follows:

"The Commission used the terminology

'significant safety problem' to Nor has there been the necessary showing that "a patorially different result would be or would have been ,

likely."12 MAG states that under his legal theory, if correct, Applicants would be barred from receiving a license.13 .This is hardly the case. The most he would have established at that point is a regulatory basis for his contention. And even if he satisfies this Board that he somehow has met the "significant safety issue" criterion, the RQat that he could possibly accomplish is some further delay while a remedial drill was run before full power operation-under the license was authorized. That a given result will be delayed is D21 the same thing as it being materially i

different.

In short, the showing made falls far short of that required by 10 CFR 5 2.734, both procedurally and '

substantively, l

( note that it intended to require something more than a theoretical--or conceivable--

issue, but insisted on there being a real matter that required resolution."

Public Service Comoany of New Hamoshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-89-20, 30 NRC (Oct. 19, 1989), Slip Op. at 18. It is submitted that no lower standard should be applied here.

12 10 CFR $ 2.734 (a) (3) (emphasis added).

13 Motion to Amend at 7.

L.'

IV. THE BALANCING OF THE "FIVE FAC'ICRS" DOES NOT FAVOR ADNISSION OF THE PROPOSED CONTENTION FOR LITIGATION.

The Motion fails in its showing with respect to the "Five Factors."14 Assuming that there exists good cause for the late filing on the theory that the contention could not -

have been filed before the documents attached thereto were received, and conceding that, as is almost always the case, the less weighty 15 second (protection of the novant's interests) and fourth (exte,nt to which that interest is represented by existing parties) factors favor the Movants, the fact is that analysis of the third (assistance in development of a sound record) and fifth (delay) factors reveals a balance which tips decidedly against allowance of the Motion.

Commission " case law establishes both the impurtance of the third factor in the evaluation of late-filed contentions and the necessity of the moving party to demonstrate that it has soecial exoertise on the subjects which it seeks to raise. (Citation omitted.) The Appeal Board has said:

'When a petitioner addresses this criterion it should set out with as much particularity as possible the precise issues it plans to cover, identify its prospective witnesses, and 14 Motion at 2-8; 633 10 CFR $$ 2.734(d), 2. 714 (a) (1) .

15 Commonwenith Edison Comoany (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-86-8, 23 NRC 241, 245 (1986); South Carolina Electric and Gas ,

Comoany (Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station, Unit 1),

ALAB-642, 13 NRC 881, 895 (1981).

s summarize their proposed testimony'.n16 MAG, in his showing, proffers no witness. He does so on the theory that his e contention presents only a question of law and no witnesses are necessary. As noted above, the viability of MAG's l

proffered contention does turn in the first instance upon the l

resolution of a legal question, as to which we believe his t

i views are erroneous. However, even if he were correct that i

the regulations required the exercise to include the events ,

he desires, he still will need a witness to establish that the failure to include those events within the scope of the exercise would result in a situation where a " fundamental flaw" (1 3 a flaw (1) in the plan (not in its execution),

(2) which is not correctable by further training of l

personnel, and (3) not otherwise readily correctable)l7 would remain undetected. These are not pure legal questions; and to prevail on then MAG will need expert witness testimony.

The Motion flunks completely on the third factor.

16 Commonwealth Edison Comcany (Braidwood Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-86-8, 23 NRC 241, 246 (1986), citina with anoroval, Mississinoi Power and Licht Co. (Grand Gulf Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-704, 16 NRC 1725, 1730 (1982)

(emphasis added). Accord, Public Service Comoany of New Hamoshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),

ALAB-918, 29 NRC 473, 483-84 (1989).

17 Public Service Comoany of New Hamnshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-918, 29 NRC 473, 485-86 (1989). S.gg Al.E2 Lona Island Lichtina Co.

(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1), ALAB-903, 28 NRC 499, 506 (1988).

]

MAG concedes that the fifth factor favors the Applicants.18 Thus the two most important factors weigh against admission of the contention and it should be rejected.19 i

V. THE NOTION FAILS 'to COMPLY WITH 10 C.F.R. I E 2.714(b)(2) AS AMENDED. l The Motion fails to address the requirements recently added to 10 C.F.R. $ 2.714(b) for:

"(i) A brief explanation of the bases of the contention.

(ii) A concise statement of the alleged facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing, together with references to those specific sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the petitioner intends to rely to establish those facts or expert opinion.

, (iii) Sufficient information (which may include i

information pursuant to paragraphs (b) (2) (i) and (ii) of l this section) to show that a genuine dispute exists with l _

18 Motion at 8.

19 Intervenors cite no support whatsoever for their extraordinary argument that, if they prevail as to the firs 1 factor, "the other factors must be considered much more lightly since they impose a burden on the intervenors. . . . " Motion at 3.

l This failure to cite any authority is hardly I

surprising, since, in essence, intervenors are asking the Board to amend 10 CFR $ 2.714 (a) (1) and wipe out factors (ii) - (v). Even more to the point, this Board has already stated that failure l to carry factors (iii) and (v) -- the factors which the intervenors flunk here -- can be suf ficient to preclude a late filed contention. Public Service Company of New Hamsshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-89-3, 29 NRC 51, 59, aff'd, ALAB-915, 29 NRC 427 (1989) ("even were we to assume that f actors (i) , (ii), and (iv) weigh in favor of the Petitioner, factors (iii) and (v) do not and, in this situation, would be controlling").

.r- - ~-

4 the applicant on a material issue of law or fact. This showing must include references torthe specific portions of the application (including applicant's environmental report and safety report) that the petitioner disputes and the supporting reasons for aggh dispute, or, if the petitioner believes that the application fails to contain information on a relevant matter as required by law, the identification of mash failure and the supporting reasons for the petitioner's belief.n20 NAG attempts to justify his failure to comply with 10 C.F.R. 5 2.714(b) on the basis of the language in the Statement of Basis which accompanied the promulgation of the amendments to the Rules of Practice to the effect that the l

rules concerning contentions would not apply to contentions I filed in proceedings commenced prior to the effective date of the amendments.21 Prescinding from the thorny issue of l 1

whether a regulation can be made effective, but denied l 1

I.

i general applicability, by a statement in the Statement of Basis as opposed to language in an actual regulation, MAG q l

cannot take advantage of this statement. He is estopped from l doing so because of his assertion to the Commission just a few weeks earlier, in arguing that possible litigative delay l

, did not warrant exempting Applicants from being required to hold this Exercise, that the new requirements of 10 C.F.R. 6 L 2.714(b) would apply to any contentions filed concerning the l

. Exercise.22 Having argued to his advantage to the Commission l: 20 54 Fed. Reg. 33180 (August 11, 1989) (emphasis added).

21 Motion at 9; 54 Fed. Reg. at 33179.

22 ResDonse of Mass. AG to ADolicants' Aeolication for l

an ExemDtion from the Reauirement of 10 C.F.R. Part

50. ADnendix E.Section IV.F.1 at 18 (August 21, 1989).

l l

that these "recent rule changes restricting the admissibility l of contentions," id., do apply to contentions concerning this Exercise, MAG is estopped from now arguing to this Board that l the rules do not apply.23 And, having admitted that the requirements apply, MAG's failure even to address them is grounds for the denial of his motion out of hand.24  !

The argument set forth immediately above was first articulated in the Applicants' response to the first motion filed by MAG for the admission of exercise contentions.25 In the Motion MAG seeks to respond to this estoppel argument with three short points.26 The first is a non seuuitur; the second is irrelevant because the estoppel arises from MAG's act, not from any response the Commission might have made to it. The third point is that NECNP and SAPL should not be l 23 Illinois ex rel. Gordon v. Camnbell, 329 U.S. 362, 369 (1946); Wilcox Dev. Co. v. First Interstate l

, Bank of Orecon, 590 F.Supp. 445, 452-53 (D. Or.

1984), rev'd on other arounds, 815 F.2d 522 (1987);

but EAR Note, The Doctrine of Preclusion Acainst Inconsistent Positions in Judicial Proceedinas, 59 KARV. L. REV. 1132, 1136 (1946).

24 EAR Mpmorandum and Order (Rulina on Massachusetts I Attorney General's Exercise Contentions 8.C.1.

j. 8.C.3. 18. and 21.C) at 12-13 (January 13, 1989),

I and cases cited therein; EAR AlR2 Georaia Power l Company (Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-86-41, 24 NRC 901, 927-28 (1986),

modified, ALAB-859, 25 NRC 23, aff'd, ALAB-872, 26 NRC 127 (1987).

25 Aeolicants' Resoonse to Intervenors' Motion to Admit Contentions on the Sectember 27, 1989 Emeraency Plan Exercise (Oct. 11, 1989) at 16-18.

26 Motion at 10. '

-le-l

l- I L .4 a 1

i estopped in any event because it was only MAG who made the I estopping argument. The rub is that both NECNP27 and SAPL28 ,

F joinedLin MAG's response to the exemption request, and thus

(

- estoppel runs against.them to the same degree and for the same reasons.

CONCIRS19l[ ,

The motion should be denied, and the proffered I contention excluded.

i' Respectfully submitted, L'

l 1

y

-/

Thornas 't. Digrran,' Jr.

George H. Lewald ,

l Jeffrey P. Trout '

Jay Bradford Smith Geoffrey C. Cook I

William L. Parker '

Ropes & Gray >

l One International Place L Boston, MA 02110-2624 (617) 951-7000  ;

counsel for Applicants -

27 New Enaland Coalition on Nuclear Pollution's Oooosition to Aeolicants' Reauest for an Examntion from the Reauirement to Exercise the Onsite Emeraency Plan Within a Year Prior to the Issuance of Operatina License or, in the Alternative.

Reauest for Hearina on Aeolicants' Aeolication (Aug. 21, 1989) at i n.1.

28 SAPL's Resoonse and Obiection to Aeolicants' Aeolication for an Examntion From the Reauirement of 10 CFR. Part 50. Anoendix E.Section IV.F.1 (Aug. 21, 1989) at 3.

/

I V

Y L ,

i l

• * [Qp i l

'89 DCT 23 P4 :08 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ,

I, Thomas G. Dignan, Jr. , one of the attorne $ Nobbthe Applicants herein, hereby certify that on October 20, 1989, I '

made service of the within document by depositing copies thereof with Federal Express, prepaid, for delivery to (or, where indicated, by depositing in the United States mail, first class postage paid, addressed to):

Administrative Judge Ivan W. Smith Adjudicatory File Chairman, Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Licensing Board Board Panel Docket (2 copies)

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatcry Commission Commission East West Towers Building East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814 L Administrative Judge Richard F. Cole Robert R. Pierce, Esquire Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board East West Towers Building U.S. Nuclear Regulatory  !

4350 East West Highway Commission Bethesda, MD 20814 East West Towers Building '

4350 East West Highway l Bethesda, MD 20814 Administrative Judge Kenneth A. Mitzi A. Young, Esquire McCollom Edwin J. Reis, Esquire l 1107 West Knapp Street Office of the General Counsel l Stillwater, OK 74075 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North, 15th F1. f 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852 John P. Arnold, Esquire Diane Curran, Esquire Attorney General Andrea C. Ferster, Esquire George Dana Bisbee, Esquire Harmon, Curran & Tousley Assistant Attorney General Suite 430 Office of the Attorney General 2001 S Street, N.W.

25 Capitol Street Washington, DC 20009 Concord, NH 03301-6397

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esquire Appeal Board 116 Lowell Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P. O. Box 516 Commission Manchester, NH 03105 Washington, DC 20555 l'

1 1

Mr. J. P. Nadeau l

Philip Ahrens, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Selectmen's Office l Department of the Attorney 10 Central Road l General Rye, NH 03870 Augusta, ME 04333 Paul McEachern, Esquire John Traficonte, Esquire Shaines & McEachern Assistant Attorney General 25 Maplewood Avenue Department of the Attorney P.O. Box 360 General Portsmouth, NH 03801 One Ashburton Place, 19th Fl.

Boston, MA 02108 Chairman Mr. Calvin A. Canney Board of Selectmen City Manager 95 Amesbury Road City Hall Kensington, NH 03833 126 Daniel Street Portsmouth, NH 03801

• Senator Gordon J. Humphrey R. Scott Hill-Wnilton, Esquire U.S. Senate Lagoulis, Hill-Whilton &

Washington, DC 20510 Rotondi (Attn: Tom Burack) 79 State Street 01950 Newburyport, MA -

• Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Barbara J. Saint Andre, Esquire One Eagle Square, Suite 507 Kopelman and Paige, P.C.

Concord, NH 03301 77 Franklin Street (Attn: Herb Boynton) Boston, MA 02110 Mr. Thomas F. Powers, III Mr. William S. Lord Town Manager Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Town Hall - Friend Street 10 Front Street Amesbury, MA 01913 l

Exeter, NH 03833 H. Joseph Flynn, Esquire Judith H. Mizner, Esquire Office of General Counsel 79 State Street, 2nd Floor Federal Emergency Management Newburyport, MA 01950 Agency 500 C Street, S.W.

l Washington, DC 20472 Gary W. Holmes, Esquire Richard A. Hampe, Esquire Holmes & Ells Hampe and McNicholas 47 Winnacunnet Road 35 Pleasant Street Hampton, NH 03842 Concord, NH 03301

_.-- _-- .. . _ _ _ _ . ~ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ __. _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

(

,. 1 l

l i

l. .

Mr. Richard R. Donovan

, . Federal, Emergency Management i Agency .' I Federal Regional Center 1

-130 228th Street, E.W. l Bothell, Washington 98021-9796

^g Ashod N. Amirian, Esquire 3 145 South Main Street' l P.O. Box 38 Bradford, MA 01835 i

.- _-f '

l

. -MJ2 m l

otss CW71gnan, Jr.

1 L (*= Ordinary U.S. First Class Mail)

, i l i fl h

1 l: .

i ,\

l 3 -- j l

.i: . . - - - , , .. - . , _ - . , - _l .. _-._ _ ,