ML20207C601
| ML20207C601 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 12/22/1986 |
| From: | Brock M, Mceachern P HAMPTON, NH, SHAINES & MCEACHERN |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1984 OL, NUDOCS 8612300188 | |
| Download: ML20207C601 (39) | |
Text
.. ? kh DOCKETED USNPC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEC 23 P3 :53 before the NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION C FT:
U00 l
AND ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
~
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos.
50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444-OL
)
Of f-site Emergency
(
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2
)
Planning Issues
)
)
INTERVENORS' JOINT MOTION EDE IMMEDIATE M QE ASLB PROCEEDINGS NOW COME the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Town of Hampton, Seacoast Anti-Pollultion League, Town of Amesbury, and New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution (hereinafter Intervenors) and request the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to ORDER an immediate stay of all proceedings and events leading to commencement of hearings on the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan.
See MEMCRANDUM AND ORDER ESTABLISHING HEARING SCHEDULE ON OFFSITE ISSUES RAISED BY IGIRERP, dated December 4, 1986.
Alternatively, in the event this Board declines to grant this stay as requested, or f ails to act on Intervonors' motion prior to December 29, 1986, Intervenors request the Commission, pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.718(i), to direct the 'ASLB to certify to the Commis -
sion the question of the stay, as raised by this Motion, and to grant Intervenors a stay as prayed for herein.
g23gg 75
$3 G
0
])5 SHAINES & McEACHERN = pooresso. 6 assoc aea eeven e,e so mansecoo 4veisus. po aos sea. annesmerwww ase eseos
____a
t In support of this Motion, Intervenors state:
1.
The New Hampshire Radiological Em er gen cy Response Plan Revision 2 (NHRERP) sets forth emergency pl ans for the 17 New Hampshire towns located within the ten mile EPZ for Seabrook Station.
The NHRERP consists of approximately 31 volumes, of hundreds of pages, including highly technical data and information.
This Board has already admitted 28 contentions for litigation and has pending numerous other and supplemental contentions filed by Intervenors in this case.
These contentions consist of dozens of pages which, in summary, set forth significant health and safety concerns of residents of the 17 New Hampshire Towns located within the ten mile EPZ including:
a.
lack of adequate manpower to evacuate the tens of thousands of EPZ tourists and beach goers during the summer months; b.
lack of personnel to supervise and direct evacuation of EPZ schools; c.
lack of adequate drivers or buses to f acilitate an eva-cuation of EPZ residences; d.
lack of an adequate evacuation time estimate study to provide reasonable predictions f or emergency planning in the event of radiological emergency at Seabrook; lack of an adequate rogd system to permit reasonably e.
prompt evacuation f rom the EPZ l For example, the Town of Hampton presently has admitted to this proceeding 3 contentions, with a 4th pending before this Board, which consist of several dozen pages addressing the above-referenced health and safety concerns.
A copy of CONTENTIONS OF THE TOWN OF HAMPTON TO NEW HAMPSHIRE RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN REVISION 2 is attached hereto and incorporated by ref erence herein as Exhibit A.
The Town of Hampton represents only 1 of the 17 towns within the ten mile EPZ.
Intervenors Seacoast Anti-Pollution League and New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution have additionally filed detail.ed contentions addressing numerous health and safety deficiencies psed by the NHRERP concering all 17 New Hampshire EPZ towns.
Additional contentions have been filed by other participants to this proceeding.
2 SH AINES & McEACHERN. eskwes o.a6 aseor.ae y, een o.
w se eraneocn>o ave %s eo sus s.o. poets ove osso.
2.
Necessarily, litigation of the numerous issues posed by the Intervenor contentions would require a substantial allocation of Intervenors' resour ces to f ully and properly prepare these issues for final hearing.
3.
By Memorandum And Order dated December 4,1986, this Board established a schedule of events leading to a hearing on NHRERP which pr ov ide s that Intervenors sh all comply with certain deadlines established by this Board.
For example, commencing on December 29, 1986, Intervenors are mandated to reply to Applicants and Staff responses to Intervenor contentions.
A copy of this Board's Memoran-dum In Order is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
4.
Under filing dated December 18, 1986, Applicant s' submitted to this Board and to the Commission APPLICANTS' PETITION UNDER 10 CFR Section 2.758 and 10 CFR Section 50.47(c) WITH RESPECT TO THE REGULA-TIONS REQ UIRING PLANNING FOR A PLUME EXPOSURE PATHWAY EMERGENCY PLANNING ZONE IN EXCESS OF A ONE-MILE RADIUS which requests that the ten-mile EPZ for Seabrook Station be reduced to one mile.
5.
Applicants' Petition is unprecedented, lacks technical support, and is contrary to the underlying purposes of Commission regulations.
Nevertheless, Applicanto' Petition is premised upon highly technical data and immediately jeopardizes emergency planning protection for EPZ towns located more than one (1) mile from Seabrook Station.
These issues require Intervenors' full and immediate atten-tion.
6.
Appl ica nt s' Petition seeks to eliminate 15 of the 17 New Hampshire towns presently entitled to Em er gency Planning Protection under Commission regulations and would render moot the NHRERP as presently drafted, f or a ten (10) mile EPZ.
7.
By its Petition, Applicant itself rende rs the pr esent NHRERP, which is premised on a ten (10) mile EPZ, no longer operative.
8.
Judicial economy thereby mandates that Appl icant s' petition to reduce the EPZ be f ully litigated, and the merits finally deter-mined, bef ore proceeding any further with the schedule established by the this Board under its December 4, 1986 order.
9.
Fundamental f airness requires that Applicants' petition be f ully and finally litigated before proceeding f urther with the IIIRERP schedule, since Intervenors to this proceeding have severely strained resources.
Plainly Intervenors cannot continue to comply with this Board's schedule on the NHRERP, and to litigate contentions raised thereunder, while simultaneously litigating Applicants' petition to reduce the EPZ.
3 SH AINE S & Mc E ACHERN.==orse o as soma to a eron=a o se maat s ermo ave %e n o som s.o one'easov = sem o s.a.
e
10.
Unless an immediate stay is granted in this case, Interve-nors lack of resources to simultaneously litigate the NHRERP, and Applicants' Petition, will deny Intervenors a f tir hearing as provided by l aw.
11.
In the event this Board denies the stay as requested herein, or f ails to act on said request prior to December 29, 1986, by simul-taneous filings of this motion with the commission, Intervenors hereby request the Commission, pursuant to 10 CFR Section 2.718(i), to direct this Board to certify to the Commission the question of the immediate stay raised herein, and to grant an immediate stay as requested.
Dated:
December 22, 1986 Respectf ully submitted, SHAINES & McEACHERN Attorneys f the Town of Ha ton By:
P ul McEachern
\\
P C
U c.,
By:
}
CU Matthew T. Brock The undersigned f urther say that they are authorized to submit this joint motion on behalf of all the named petitioners.
Respective y submitted, All th named p itioners y,
thorized Representative _.
/
(-
q_
CLu ke V
' ^~C yt, Authorized Representative 4
sw Aists a me a Acne as.
e,..
...oc,...
l (Braidwood Station Units 1 and 2), Docket !!os. 50-456, 50-457, 4/24/86 at p.4, and the Town of !!ampton therefore believes it has fully and adequately addressed this factor as set forth above.
The Extent To Mbich The Petitioner's Particioation Will Broaden The Issues or Delay The Proceedina.
The issues raised in the Town of Hampton's contentions on Revision 2 are substantially related to the contentions previously filed by the Town of Hampton on the lack of personnel, equipment, transportation, and related matters, which render the !!HRERP, as presently constituted, an unworkable plan.
These contentions should therefore not significantly broaden the issues for decision by this Board, since these issues have been consistently raised by the Town throughout this proceeding.
CONTEfrPIONS OF THE TOWN OF HAMPTON TO MEW HAMPSHTRE RADIOLOGICAL EMERCENCY RESPONSE PLAN REVISION 2 IllTRODUCTION:
On September 9, 1986, the Town of Hampton was served with a copy of the New Hampshire Radiological Emercency Resoonse Plan Revision 2 (hereinafter referred to as !!HRERP or Revision 2) including an RERP for the Town of !!ampton and other municipalition located within the EPZ.
The Town of flampton hereby submits the following contentions in 8
swaists uaoecan a u cacur=8. o o..e w...ec4.+o.
n...t, woo.........
.., w- ~., o,.n.
opposition to Revision 2, which is based upon inaccurate and unreasonable assumptions, incomplete or biased data, and otherwise fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be implemented in the event of radiological emergency at Seabrook Station.
10 CFR 550.47 (a) (1) and (b).
COMTENTIONS I.
II.
V.
VII Contentions I, II, V, VII of the CONTEMTIOMS OF THE TOMN OP liA!1PTOli TO RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAM FOR THE TOWH OF IIAf1PTOti. NEW ffAMPSIIIRE. NOVEMBER, 1985, previously filed by the Town of !!ampton with this Board, and bases for same, are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference herein.
REVISED CONTENTIO!! III TO REVISION 2 The Evacuation Time Estimate Study (ETE) prepared by KLD Associates, Inc., Revision 2, Volume 6, is based upon inaccurate and biased factual data and unreasonable or misleading assumptions, fails to comply with !!RC regulations, and fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken, or that adequate facilities, equipment, or personnel will be provided to 9
SM AtNES M A0miC AN a Mc t ACH E RN
- mtie+o*a ** toc aro=
as useitwooo a,ews a o oos iso ace'twov'= N= otam
the Town of Hampton, in the event of radiological emergency.
10 CFR 5 50.47 (a) (1), (b) (1) (10) ; NUREG-0654, App.4.
BASIS:
The basis for Hampton Revised Contention III set forth ir ffEftORAf!DUM ON 10 CFR 92.714(alfl) AND REVISED CONTENTION III OF THE TOHN OF HA11PTON TO EVACUATION TIME ESTIMATE REDORT BY KLD ASSOCIATES.
IHC. is hereby realleged and incorporated by reference herein.
By way of further basis:
(A)
Population Estimates.
KLD lacks adequate data to compute the permanent and transient population for the Town of Hampton since KLD computes beach populatior capacities by examining only the beach above the high tide line, Vol.
6, p. 2-12; counts parking spaces rather than motor vehicles, including vehicles in transit, Vol. 6, p. 2-1; counts beach blankets rather than people, Vol. 6, p. 2-12; utilizes a vehicle occupancy rate of 2.4 based upon two " field surveys" performed on weekends of i
frequent rain and poor beach weather, Vol. 6, p. 1-10; and counts beach populations using a limited number of photographs, of unspecified date or time, although KLD concedes the beach populations vary widely depending on weather, time of day, and day to day.
Vol.6, i
l 10 9
SM46Ntt M 408'G AN & Mc t ACHE RN
- oe'**e=*$ at eoc'*o=
at weettwooo avesus ee nos s.o one'twow'=== eieo, I
p.2-10.
KLD thereby unreasonably reduces the actual population for the Town of Hampton and distorts this " critical" factor in computing erE.
Vol. 6, p. 2-1.
(B)
Weather Conditions.
While recognizing that weather represents a " major factor" affecting ETE, Volume 6, p. 3-1 and 2, KLD concedes that it has
" limited empirical data on the effect of adverse weather conditions to reduce ETE." Vol. 6, p. 3-1.
KLD proceeds to arbitrarily reduce the ETE for rain and snow conditions for the Seabrook EP,Z by 20 and 25 percent respectively, Vol. 6, p. 3-11, although KLD lacks any site specific data on the extent of delay caused by these road hazards.
KLD acknowledges the " issue of ocean fog," yet fails to provide any data on the impact of fog on ETE, Vol. 6, p. 3-11, and fails to respond to RAC concerns regarding wind changes, which may require contingencias for the redirection of evacuation vehicles, Egg Hampshire Renponse Actions to RAC Review. August. 1986,Section VI, pp.
7, 12, (hereinafter RAC Review. Aucunt. 1986) with additional delay to traffic and an increase in ETE.
KLD does not even estimate the effect of ice storms on ETE.
(C)
Road Capacities.
11
. mis vio
,o.~. va c ca~...~s..o
.<...e<..,~
3 0 w..t g ecoO ave %9 8 6 9d.14 86.'94 04'* 9" o n.m o
tihen computing the " major factor" of r' cad network capacity, and its impact on the time required to effectuate an evacuation, Vol. 6,
- p. 3-1, KLD makes numerous and unsupported assumptions including:
1.
All roads will remain passable during evacuation. Vol.
6, p. 10-70.
This assumption ignores the obvious and anticipated vehicle breakdowns, gas shortages, overheating of vehicles, roadways becoming impassable from snow or ice storms, gridlock between evacuating private vehicles, commuters, and emergency vehicles attempting to enter the EPZ, and snowplow operators who either refuse to plow during radiological emergency or are unable to reach their designated routes due to evacuation traffic congestion.
2.
KLD assumes that the " recommended traffic control tactics are in effect."
Vol. 6, p. 10-70.
This assumption is unsupportable in view of the avowed position of the Town of Hampton, and other towns within the EPZ, not to implement the NHRERP if called upon to do so.
The assumption is further unsupportable following R&C Exercine Annennment and Review of the NHRERP which " cast (s) doubt" on the State's ability to provide adequate evacuation transportation.
RAC Review, August. 1986,Section VI, p. 9.
Finally, the State has failed to demonstrate an ability to provide sufficient law enforcement and traffic control personnel, FE!!A, Final Exerciso Assessment, 6/2/86 12 (H A:NCS waORid AN e McE ACHERN..orses.omas se.-oce+oas at we.ts*ono e,s%: e o son too oce*,wov
. e s.o.
e
t 4
at p. 46, to compensate for non-participating towns.
Accordingly, f
3LD's reliance upon the State to supply adequate equipment and personnel for traffic control management in without reasonable foundation.
3.
KLD assumes that 3,000 "through" vehicles will be traveling through the EPZ at the time of notification of an emergency.
Vol. 6, p. 10-3. No support is provided for this assumption, which is I
rendered absurd by KLD's own calculation of " peak hourly flow" on I-92
]
of 6,912 veheles.
Vol. 6, p. 3-11.
Since I-95 represents only one road within the 200 square mile EPZ, the 3,000 "through" vehicle estimate represents a gross distortion of roadway demand.
l 4.
KLD concedes that its " estimates of available capacity may overstate the actual accessible capacity."
Vol. 6, p. 10-70.
KLI thereby admits that its highway capacities relied upon to compute ETE, and which represent a " major factor" to calculato the time required for evacuation, Vol. 6, p. 3-1, would generate an unreasonably low ETE, and would not reflect actual conditions.
4 5.
KLD unreasonably assumes that 25 percent of the EPZ l
population will spontaneously evacuate, Vol. 6, p.
10-3, and estimates llampton employees who work at the beach, both during the week and on weekends, Vol. 6, p. 5-6, apparently by simple guess I
I 13 i
i s**mce v no. ois. o, cae e au...e,......,...x..
.....u...%.
. - 4, 3
work.
KLD thereby lacks adequate data to compute road demand for
!!ampton employees during evacuation or to compute ETE when only partial evacuation of the EPZ is ordered.
6.
KLD fails to adequately account for the impact of disabled vehicles on reducing ETE.
Given the thousands of vehicles tc be evacuated, numerous disabled vehicles must be anticipated.
KLD's claim that such vehicles will simply be pushed aside by evacuees, without impacting on ETE, is unsupportable.
Vol. 6, p. 12-4.
(D)
ETE Preparation Time.
Without statistical support, KLD assumes that 90 percent of the EPZ population will be notified of an emergency within 15 minutes, Vol. 6, p. 4-8, assumes that beachgoers will be able to leave the beach and access their cars within 30 minutes, Vol. 6, p. 4-12, although KLD concedes it has "no empirical data to support this d,istribution," Vol. 6, p. 4-11, fails to allow for " staging area p'reparationtime"asrecdmmendedbytheRACincbmputingETE,BAC Review, Augunt. 1986,Section VI, p. 10, and grossly underestimates the adverse impact on ETE of 95 percent of workers returning home, within 30 minutes, to prepare for evacuation following notice of radiological emergency.
Vol. 6, p. 4-9.
(E)
Growth.
14 gnaiNte MacaK1 AN 4 Wa TACHE *N
..cettome s aos v ** om 4, us.$ e acon eve %e. o.no e.o
.e.*s w%t a== + n.4 e -
KLD recognizes the "significant growth" in employment within the Town of Hampton between 1980 and 1984.
Vol. 6, p. 5-1.
It is also common knowledge that the southern New Hampshire population, including the population of the EPZ, is one of the fastest growing in the country.
In computing ETE, however, KLD has wholly failed to account for this reasonably anticipated and substantial growth in population and motor vehicles within the EPZ, has failed to obtain any data on projected changes in population distribution within the EPZ, and has-otherwise presented a plan which, even assuming its accuracy at the present time, will soon be outdated and will not serve as a reasonable basis for emergency planning.
(P)
Choice of Ilost Locationa.
KLD unreasonably accumes that evacueen will choose to evacuate tc i
their assigned host communities.
The accumption in unsupportable, particularly in view of the large number of beachgoers and transients within the EPZ during the nummer who may be wholly unfamiliar with auch host communities an Dover or Manchooter.
But see Vol. 6, p. 10
(" virtually all drivers" familiar with EPZ roado).
Indeed, during the evacuation exercino, even bun drivorn under letter agreement
" consistently experienced problems in getting to where they should be 15
..m. v. o.,o ~. v a e, = ~..e,... >
.s.......
.....i......
......u..~.o.
l needed," FE!!A, Final Exercise Anssesment, 6/2/86 at p.43, and the RAC has recommended that KLD increa_se ETE to allow for " drivers getting lost or misdirected."
RAc Review August. 1986,Section VI, p. 12.
Accordingly, if Hampton Beach transients' chose to evacuate to
!!assachusetts or to 14aine (as might be more logical) rather than to fianchester (as assigned), already crowded evacuation routes would be rendered impassable by the additional traffic and ETE thereby would be substantially increased.
KLD has thereby selected a theoretically optimal, yet unrealistic, model to minimize ETE.
REVISED cortrEttriott tv To nEvisiott 2 Revision 2 fails to provide for adequate emergency equipment, fails to demonstrate that adequate protective responnus can be implemented in the event of radiological emergency, and fails to correct deficiencies in emergency response capabilities apparent from the emergency exericse.
10 CPR 550.47(1) (8) (10) (14).
16
.., ~ e. u. e. w.. u. r e e a *...~......,...oe...,,
.....am.........
4.
4
.~...,2 ~
-c.~
u.
BASIS:
The bases for Contention IV set forth in CONTENTIONS OF Tile TmIN OF HAftPTON TO RADIOLOGICAL Ef1EROENCY RESPONSE PLAN FOR THE TalH OF MAf tPTON. MEN HAMPSHIRE. NOVEf1BER, 1985, and revised Contentior IV set forth in CONTENTIONS OF TIIE TOWN OF HAMPTON TO REVISED RADIOLOGICAL EMEndENCY RERPONSE PLAN AND TO COMPENSATORY PLAN FOR T!!E TOWN OF HAMPTON, NEW HAMPSHIRE are hereby reallegsd and incorporated by reference herein.
By way of further basis (A)
Emergency Resources and Equipment.
Revision 2 fails to allocate adequate buses or EMS vehicles to the Town of Hampton to reasonably support,an evacuation on grounds including:
1.
The State indicates that the bus companies under Letter Agreement will provide 553 buses and 496 drivers to support an evacuation in the event of radiological emergency.
Vol. 4, App.I-1 and 2.
These figures are inaccurate and misleading.
Many of the l
l buses to be provided by a particular bus company lack sufficient l
l drivers and, conversely, other bus companies are prepared to provide I
drivers, but have no buses for tjhem to drive.
Id.
FEMA correct >1y l
notes that only " bus-and-driver pairs" under agreement should be counted to determine the maximum number of emergency vehicles 1
t 17 SwaiNtg ua0mioAN 4 Met ACMt#N
- e'este=a6 aseccano=
as wastawooo.veuve se oos s.*
- as'tuovt=== esem
+-
available to support an evacuation.
FEMA, Final Exercise Assessment, 6/2/86, at p. 39.
The state, however, can only demonstrate 431 bus-and-driver pairs, Vol. 4, App. I-1 and 2, or 13 bus / driver pairs less than the 444 necessary minimum required to carry out an evacuation, Vol. 4, App. I-8, even using the State's own unreasonably low EPZ population figures.
2.
The bus-and-driver pairs under Letter Agreement with the State represent an " absolute maximum," FEMA, Final Exercise Assessment, 6/2/86, at p. 39, and do ant provide reliable figures to I
measure available evacuation buses or personnel.
FEMA, rinal Exercinai Annessment, 6/2/86, App. I at p. 233.
Both common sense and conversations between FEMA and the bus companies indicate that'in fact the actual bus-and-driver availability would be substantially less than as specified in the Letter Agreements, id, which could reasonably be expected to be reduced by reason of bus breakdown, driver unavailability, drivers who may get lost enroute to the EPZ, or who i
may become imbedded in outgoing evacuation traffic thereby substantially delaying or prohibiting a driver from timely reaching the EPZ.
RAC Review. August, 1986,Section VI, p. 12.
I 3.
In an apparent effort to address FEMA's concerns on the inadequacy of available personnel and transportation resources, the 4
l
{
l j
i i
l 18
=
$M AINt$ M AQMIC AN & McEACHERN..orstec%at assoc a'om
(
st wa.LtwooO avt%g..o aos iso.n.ftwoutu ase 03.a*
._. - _. ~. _ _ -....., _ _ _ _
__.__.,_,,___,_,,[
[ _.. _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _. _ _,, _ _ _ _ _ _
___._.__,..._,_.,.c__._
4 State has entered into an agreement with the Teamsters Union, apparently for the purpose of providing additional bus drivers for evacuation.
Vol. 4, App. I-11.
Revision 2, however, fails to demonstrate that the Teamsters under agreement are in fact adequately trained to drive the school buses and emergency vehicles for the mobility impaired to properly effectuate an evacuation, fails to specify how these backup drivers promptly will be notified and coordinated with availatie buses, and fails to support the purported agreement with the Teamsters with Letter Agreements executed by the individual members of this union.
(B)
Emergency Exercise.
The February 26 exercise only confirmed the consistent position of the Town of Hampton and other intervenors that evacuation of the' EPZ around Seabrook Station is not feasible and that the personnel and equipment allocated to support an emergency response are inadequate.
For example, the State could not satisfy even the limited demand for buses of communities participating in the exercise, FEMA, Final Exercise Anaennment, p.40, could not provide adequate EMS or ambulance service, FE!!A, Final Exercise Assesment, pp. 42, 44, no buses were allocated for summertime employees, RAC Revieti. August 1986,Section VI at p. 9, the State failed to demonstrate that adequate backup buser 19 sus,nes unce,aan a wesceeen...vuse-.ssee.ro-89 tesettwo00.vtmut 80 see iso posetwowtw mw ojetw
were available to support an evacuation, FEMA, Final Exercice Annansmant, 6/2/06, p. 42, and the State did not allocate transportation for those individuals who may have a vehicle in the household, yet the vehicle may be unavailable at the time of an emergency.
RAC Review, August 11&&,Section I, p. 71.
Revision 2 fails to correct these and related deficiencies.
Additionally, if the State was unable to reasonably carry out a limited and preplanned evacuation exercise, with no requirement for coordination with Massachusetts, and in the dead of winter, an actual evacuation of the summertime beach population is wholly unrealistic and unworkable.
(C)
Special Needs Population.
4 Revision 2 calculates the special needs population for the Town of Hampton based upon an " annual survey."
Vol. 18, p. II-30.
This
" annual survey" is in fact a mere " postage paid mail back card" sent out by the State purportedly to all persons residing within Hampton.
Id.
Less than 2 percent of the Town responded.
Vol. 18, p. IV-34..
The survey is a grossly inadequate vehicle to compute the special needs and transit dependent populations of the Town of Hampton and i
unreasonably places the burden upon handicapped, mobility-impaired, and other transit dependent or opecial needs individuals to affirmatively request transportation or be ignored under the State's l
1 20 1
..,~ n u.o.,ois e ua c c.8...e,.....,...ec <...
>....u~....
The State itself recognized the inadequacy of its owr survey since it increased by 50 percent the transportation allocation for the special needs populations for all towns, in view of the "small sample sizes" received from each community.
RAC Review, &ggggia 1186,Section VI, p. 6.
As the RAC pointed out, however, no statistical justification has been provided by the State for this 50 percent increase.
Id at p. 5.
The special needs populations for the Town of Hampton, and for other EPZ towns, therefor represent an unknown quantity for evacuation planning.
(D)
Compensatory Plan.
FEl4A has recommended that the State Compensatory Plan be revised "to anticipate the non-participation of any of the local jurisdictions in the Seabrook plume EP3."
FEMA, Final Exarcina Ammanamant. 6/2/86,
- p. 44.
Based upon the FEMA recommendation, and f rom,the avowed non-participation of the Town of Hampton and numerous other towns within I
the EPZ to implement the NHRERP, the State has promulgated a compensatory plan consisting of only five pages.
Vol. 2, App. G.
As i
presently drafted, the Compensatory Plan wholly fails to allocate l
adequate personnel, equipment, or recources to implement an evacuation on grounds including:
1.
The plan erroneously assumes the cooperation and participation of flampton ochool officials, although no letter l
l I
L h
21
{
t snaiNas uaomoaN e wetAcatmN
- weno=*6 a.ooe**o=
it asanggwo00 avt%(.o seeled Poe'twovN 4m 09.m
,n.-v.
n------,--.,-.-
n,
.-.,,---T-n.
l
agreements confirming this participation have been obtained.
Vol. 2, App. G-2.
2.
Acide from vague reference to the coordination of " law enforcement activities and traffic control," Vol. 2, App. G-3, the compennatory plan wholly fails to specify where this additional law enforcement personnel will be obtained to make up for those local police who will not participate in the implementation of the NHRERP, including the llampton Police Department.
Either the plan erroneously annumes local participation in the face of the expresa vote of the 1
Town of llampton not to no participate, or the plan relien upon the l
inadequate number of personnel in State Police Troop A to carry out l
l local law enforcement duties.
With its 35 troopers, however, Troop A does not even have aufficient personnel to ataff access control pointe l
for the EPZ, as required under Revision 2, let alone take over the I
traffic management and security dutien presently assigned to llampton I
and other local police departments.
fella, Final Exercine Annenament, l
6/2/86 at p. 46.
3.
No letter agreements have been obtained from the bun drivers who have primary renponsibility for transporting the l
t 22 gHa:Ntg wad #toaN 4 Mc Facet #N
- otet.o**6 a..oo*' o*
etme.tswoon. e=ve.e.oei.a.aste%% a.= ciem i
I population, including school children, out of the EPZ in the event of radiological emergency.
On its face, therefore, the five page Compensatory Plan offered by the State in response to FE!!A's recommendation for a plan to anticipate the non-participation of any or all of the EPZ towns is vague, inadequate, and unworkble.
(E)
Transit Dependent Individuals.
Revision 2 adopts a " concept of pre-designated bus routes" to evacuate transit dependent residents and transients without private transportation.
RAC Review. Aucunt. 1996,Section I, p. 73.
f l
Appparently this procedure has been adopted to purportedly increase the speed of evacuation, by eliminating the need for door to door pick ups of transit dependent individuals as provided in the prior NHRERP.
These pre-designated bus routes, however, will require individuals, l
l including the " mobility-impaired," to leave their homes during a radiological emergency, to locate the pre-designated bus routes, and to remain outdoors subject to increased radiological exposure, awaiting evacuation busen which FEttA han already indicated may, reasonably be expected not to arrive.
FEttA, rinal erareine i
Ancanament, 6/2/06 at p.
40.
This procedure uncoaconably comprominet I
i 23
..,%c o.o..o.8.u.cc.r ~....
.s...
.~,
,,.4
the public health and will not adequately protect the Hampton population f rom radiation injury.
Additionally, the transportation allocated for the Town of Hampton under Revision 2, Vol. 18, p. 34, does not include busen for the substantial number of transients, including the beach population.
Vol. 4, App. I-8.
l A
REVISED CONTEHTION VI TO REVIETON 2 Revision 2 fails to demonstrate that adequate personnel are available to respond, or to augment their initial response on a continuous bacia, in the event of radiological emergency.
10 CFR 550.47(b)(1)(10).
BASIS:
The bases for Contention VI set forth in CONTE!rffolla OF T11E TOWN OF HAMPTON TO RADIOLOGICAL EMERCEHCY RESP 0HAE PLAN FOR THE TOWU OF HAMPTOU. NEW HMtD AH f RE, NOVEf tBER. 1985, and revised Contentior VI set forth in CONTENTI0HS OF THE TOWU OF HAMPTON TO REVISED RADIOLOGICAL E111ROEHCY RESPONSE PLAU AND TO C0f tPENSATORY PLAN FOR THE TaWu 0F llAMPTOU, NEU llAMPSilIRE, are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference herein.
Dy way of further bacini (A)
Revision 2 provideo that 20 local traffic guards are required for the Town of flampton and flampton Beach, Vol. 6, p. 8-11, t
24
.. a m e e u.e. n. %. w o u....-............+.%.
.......................... ~
~ ' '" ~*
although the Hampton Police Departmen. only has a total of 24 full time officern in the entire force.
Vol. 18, p. IV-41.
Even adopting the State's implicit, and unreasonnable, assumption that the entire Hampton police force would be immediately available to respond to a radiological emergency, the force simply does not have adequate personnel to man the traffic control points, Vol. 6, p. 8-11, Vol. 18,
- p. IV-43, to provide EOC necurity, Vol. 18, p. IV-42, to provide security patrola throughout the Town, Vol. 18, p. IV-43, to provide those people within Hampton at the time of emergency with backup public alotting, Vol. 18, IV-il, or to close and patrol the town beachen.
Vol. 10A App. G-3.
(D)
In an effort to compennate for the lack of local personnel to adequately reupond to a radiological omergency, Revision 2 provides i
that the New Hampshire State Police will provide " assistance to local police departmento for law enforcement and traffic control."
Vol. 1,
- p. 1.3-20.
State Police Troop A is the only State Police force in reasonable proximity to the CP2.
Since Troop A, however, has only 35 troopers, and 44 officorn are required to ataff the acceso control points for the CP2, FEMA han properly concluded that Troop A doen not even have sufficient poroonnel for accoon control, FCitA, Einal preccinc_annonnment, 6/2/06, p. 46.
Moconaarily, Troop A has no 1
25 I
... n u.o.o.
.u..c
...~,.4~.,...~..-
n...............r....
4...,..-
additional personnel to assist local municipalities, such as Hampton, Vol. 1, p. 1.3-20, lacks resources to provide any traffic control beyond access control within the EPZ, will be unable to respond to requests f rom DOT to provide road barriers, signs, or road clearance during evacuation, or otherwise to perform the excessive number of duties assigned to the State Police under Revision 2.
Vol. 2, p.
1.3-20 and 21.
FEMA has therefore properly noted that "even with help from other troops, the State Police force could be seriously depleted and law enforcement possibly impaired."
FEMA, Final Exercise Assessment, 6/2/86 at p. 46.
(C)
Revision 2 additionally fails to provide reasonable assurance that adequate personnel are available to implement the NHRERP in the event of radiological emergency on grounds including:
1.
The Hampton Public Works Director is responsible for transporting transients out of the EPZ, Vol. 18, p. II-28, although it is unclear where this additional transportation may be obtained; 2.
The Hampton Town Manager is responsible for insuring 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> staffing of all town departments during an emergency, Vol. 18, p.
IV-9, although Revision 2 fails to specify what personnel is.available to insure an adequate personnel pool; i
l l
I I
i n
26 l
SH AtNES. M ACRiGAN tt McEACHERN - poortssc=AL associanom as w*PLEWOOO AvtNut PO BCE 360 *0svguouT*e N** 03eos m
m
1
)
3.
The Public iforks Department is required to keep.
evacuation routes free during evacuation, Vol. 18, p. IV-27 to 33, although most members of the Public iforks Department are not trained for, and have no experience in, traffic control management.
Vol. 18, App. C-3.
4.
There is no showing that the Rockingham County Sheriff's Department has adequate manpower to carry out its duties under Revision 2.
See e.g. Vol. 18, p. II-16a.
5.
There are no letter agreements with Hampton school personnel, many of whom have indicated, understandably, that in the event of evacuation, their first duties would lie with their families, and not in carrying out their duties under Revision 2.
REVISED CONTENTION VIII TO REVISION 2 Revision 2 fails to provide adequate emergency equipment, facilities, or personnel to support an emergency response and fails to demonstrate that adequate protective responses can be implemented in the event of radiological emergency.
10 CFR 50.47 (1) ( 8) (10).
27 SHAlNES. M ADRIGAN & McEACH ERN -.ao*Essc=*L associano%
as wasttwooo astmut eo son 3eo - poetswoutw== osom
BASIS:
The bases for Contention VIII set forth in COMTEMTIONS OF THE TO67H OF HAMPTON TO RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN FOR THE TOWM OF HAMPTOM. MEN HAMPSHIRE, NOVEMBER, 1985, and Revised Contentior VIII set forth in CONTENTIONS OF THE TOWN OF HAMPTON TO REVISED RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN AND TO COMPENSATORY PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF HAMPTOM, NEN HAMPSHIRE, are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference herein.
By way of further basis:
The Seacoast Health Center is a residential fecility for the elderly located in Hampton, New Hampshire.
The State has indicated that evacuation of handicapped and special needs individuals is a
" municipality responsibility."
RAC Review, August, 1986,Section I,
- p. 66.
Since Hampton will not implement Revision 2 if called upon to do so, and, as evidenced by the exercise, the State is unable to provide local communities with adequate bus transportation, FEMA, Final Exercise Assessment, 6/2/86 at p. 40, Revision 2 fails to provide reasonable assurance that the 107 elderly residents of the Seacoast Health Center will be properly and timely evacuated in the 28 SHAINES. M ADRIGAN & McEACHERN - soortsscNat assocaTCN as wa*trwooo avtNut. eo som seo acewovm Na om
...~._. -.. _... ~
event of radiological emergency.
Vol. 18, Attachment B-1.
Additionally, the State assumes that 40 special facilities-individuals, including residents of the Seacoast Health Center, may be boarded on an evacuation bus, with personal belongings, medical supplies, and related items, within 10 minutes.3 RAC Review, August. 1986,Section VI; Vol.18A, Seacoast Health Center, pp.13, 14, irrespective of time of day, time of year, variations in staff depending on shif t, or number of residents which may happen to be bedridden for medical reasons.
The proposition is absurd.
- Finally, the State relies upon an unspecified " technical assessment" of the sheltering capabilities of the Seacoast Health Center, which will form the basis for ordering protective actions, including ordering staff and residents of the Health Center to shelter, while the general population evacuates.4 Vol. 18, p. 15.
Absent further 1
3 A similarly erroneous assumption is made to compute evacuation times for Hampton schools.
Since school children will be evacuated by bus only if their parents have not already picked the children up at school, Vol. 18A, App. F,
- p. 1-5, a major traffic jam at the schools must be anticipated.
4 Revision 2 is unclear whether a similar " technical assessment" for Hampton schools has been compiled, as part of emergency planning.
29 SH AINES. M AORIGAN & McEACHERN.cortssomat associseon 23 wa.LEwoOO avtNo E 8 0 Bon 360 - *CRMMOUTH mea c3eos
documentation in Revision 2, such a procedure would appear to avoid the inherent and substantial difficulties in evacuating this special needs population, by relying on the expediency of sheltering, notwithstanding the increased threat of radioilogical exposure to the residents.
Dated:
October 31, 1986 Respectfully submitted, SHAINES & McEACHERN Attorneys for the Town of Hampton
'\\
By: V Matthew T. Brock 30 l
SM AINES. M AORICAN & MCEACHERN *eortssc%at *SSocianom 25 waattwooo avtwut so son seo ponMuoum== osace
3me DEC-5 Bn UNITED STATES OF AMERICA D X ME T E.'
- "M NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPHISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 86 DEC -5 A10:42 Before Administrative Judges:
Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson GFF ::
'IC Enuneth A. Luebke Jerry Harbour In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-443-GL 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY (ASLBPNo. 82-471-02-OL) 0FNEWHAMPSHIRE,etal.
J (Offsite Emergency Planning) 1 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
December 4, 1986 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Establishing Hearing Schedule (On Offsite Issues Raised by NHRERP) the State of New Hampshire, through its On November 12, 1986 The Board notes -
Attorney General, reported on the status of the NHRERP. -
m.
...-l-v' <
'- ~ the progress of the New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency in distribution,
.i
of.the copies of the NH plan, Revision 2 to cogtrolled copy holders and -
l O
_ the continued review of the plan by state planners as well as questions
.' t. T.
.x.. _.-
~
~, and consnents by the holders of the contFolled hopies~, FE} Wand the i
~~
~
'?.h:,Q. s ;cy.fs up, ji.;., :
2,. :. s.S y :.._;
T i~
T. ~4.:. 2 Regional Assistance Conunittee. reviewers With the early filing of 1 T
l
.....y_......._y.
.---a.
~
i G.b b. contentions.by several parties based on Revision 2,~the Board has seen->
':. 5._ _..... ; ;.
> :3. 3.._3.q v. <:
z._.... __
[
f; :~$~;l.j.' 5 % ?!3. ' T:."~
.. a.; ~ i..f;
-ithat' parties..td..this proceeding h'ainii'alsh been engaged in review and
.2
'4':
.:6. n.
- T: : "
RU&TT.
~
.Y. ",.
questions on the NHRERP (Revision 2)-. fonnulated as' late-filed --
.F l
= :....: n....p -.;,r
~ ;. ->
u n., y- ; u:.
..n
(
cont.entions."We liote also the two'ta'sks thit a~re"o'ccupying the' NHCDA
~
~* "
5~i "
- 7' 2
7 '- ^'.J l
1,.
l
.. g.( ~
are the final development'on..a program for training'of, emergency t
responders which will permit training efforts to begin soon'~ The second t
2
' f. (.' ',
. 3: '.l A -
t'.n P :..
.. g.,
2 j
task is the hardware side where NHCDA is conducting a review of the resource requirement for the state and local entities and an inventory of the emergency equipment already purchased and installed to date. The towns within the Seabrook EPZ.are being asked to identify any remaining resource needs.I
The resource inventory and needs determination will 4
be cross-checked with Revision 2 of the NHRERP to ensure that all resources identified in the plan will be in place." (Reportofthe Status of the NH RERP, November 12,1986,page2).
In response to our Order of November 14, 1986 requesting that I
parties submit a proposed hearing schedule for contentions based on NHRERP, we have received several schedules varying from a start for these hearings in March 1987 or September 1987.2 We note that four
'.y 1
The Board urges the towns within the Seabrook EPZ to identify any
(
I
)
remaining resource needs for the NHCDA since a failure to do so k
~
would impact on this Board's determination of whether a town's E
resource needs questioned through a contention were genuine or not.
.2 i
~;
l
~,'
{.,
Applicants' Proposals for Scheduling Order for NH Offsite Emergency Planning Contentions - November 20, 1986; 5APL's Res1onse and
' ;I C
Objection to Memorandum and Order of November 4,198i5 and Motion
. 8 '-
for Clarification and Reconsideration - November 15, 1986; Town of i
Hampton Response to Board Order of November 4, 1986 and Motion to l
Defer Hearing Schedule and Alternative Proposed Schedule -
November 19, 1986; Response of State of NH to Board's November 4, i
1
- A. %.
1986 Memorandum and Order - November 20, 1986; Town of Amesbury's q
Proposed Hearing Schedule - November 20, 1986; NRC 5taff's Proposed A.-f
,7 I Schedule for Hearings on the NHRERP - Novenber-21,1986; NECNP's
- i
~l Motion for Reconsideration and Resoonse to Licensing Board's
"$4 Memorandum and Order of November 4,1986 - November 21, 1986; and Attorney General Francis X. '3ellotti's Response and Objection to Memorandum and Order of November 4,1986 and Motion for Reconsideration - November 21, 1986.
- f. N-
3 intervenors (MASS AG, NECNP, T0H and SAPL) filed nearly identical schedules.
The Board has considered those proposed schedules in addition te our understanding of the continuing dynamic process for the NHRERP described to us by the State of NH in its November status report.
The Board finds that there has been a strong showing by NH that the NH plan is ready for litigation and there is no reason to reconsider our November 4,1986 Order. The matter of " integrated hearings" (NH and MASS RERP) is a non-issue and will not be revisited by the Board. Our determination that all contentions based on the NHRERP would be heard in one series of hearings is reaffirmed. To accomplish this task, we set forth the 'following schedule:
I"~
Schedule for NH Offsite Emergency Planning Contention _s
~
s
.u r n
Deadlines
. ec.
Date
- ...a..:.:-
a+
-re December 1,1986.
- Late-filed contentions arising out of NHRERP Rev. 2 due.
h t.i.. c... :
in December 16, 1986 Parties other than Staff respond.
Lae.t.&.c vw3ema,n.
a.
SF[ ' December 22,.1986 Staff response to contentions.
December 29, 1986 Replies of Intervenors to Applicants
. ;f fs p
--J
- and Staff Responses.
- ,,_:.;G;'. c
.g,'
~,
0." ? '
/
. January 16, 1987 Board Order ruling on contentions.
7, g g.
- GjC '*
discovery comences.
.Q.U..-
r February 3,1987 -
72-Discovery closed (last discovery
~
r;, y..
request due). /. --
y,,
.$'E. rD.
!$5:,
'75'c i 2 9.n.
4-
, -r i - -
4
L 4
February 16, 1987 Answers to last interrogatories due within 14 days after the close of discovery.
February 23, 1987 Deadline for motions for sumary disposition on late-filed Rev. 2 Contentions admitted or for other contentions as to which circumstances have changed such that sumary disposition is now appropriate.
March 16, 1987 Response opposing or supporting motions due within 20 days.
March 27, 1987 Opposing parties may file responses to new facts and arguments presented in statements supporting motions for sumary disposition.
April 10,1987 Board Order ruling on motions for sumary disposition.
April 20,1987 Prefiled testimony due 10 days after Board ruling on motions for sumary disposition.
No sooner than Hearings comence.
April 27,1987.3 The Board directs'that service of papers relating to offsite
~
emergency plannir.g contentions be effected by express mail or personal delivery in any instance where normal service would not result in actual l
-' ~
l receipt of those papers on or before a deadline for the filing of those g..j ;, -
papers. As has been this Board's custom, the date for filing of any j
l
- 2..
.i t
llC)"(.
v, l
T, 3
The Board has left this date uncertain depending on arrangements for space and location. Board will issue an order when it has completed the arrangements.
l 1
l j'.'...
n,
A E
5 pleading means that the pleading be delivered in hand to the parties and this Board on that date.
FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICE ING BOARD X
t
....,i hem F. Hoyt, Chairpe Administrative Judge Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 4th day of December 1986.
I l
t'
.. f DOLKETED yppc UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
'85 DEC 23 P3 33 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AHQ LICENSING BOA h gy. l,,h 2 n w. "
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos.
50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444-OL
)
Off-site Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2
)
?lanning Issues
)
)
CERTIFICATE DE SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of INTERVENORS' JOINT PETITION EQE APPOINTHEHT QE ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE AHQ REQUEST EQE HEARING and I.NTERVENORS' JOINT MOTION EQB IMMEDIATE STAY QE ASLB PROCEEDINGS in the above captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, or as otherwise indicated, on this 22nd day of December, 1986.
Lando W.
Zech, Jr., Chairman Thomas M. Roberts, Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission 1717 H Street 1717 H Street Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 James K. Asselstine, Commission Frederick M. Bernthal, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 1717 H Street Commission Washington, DC 20555 1717 H Street Washington, DC 20555 SHAINES & McEACHERN - pooresso.a6 associata arrom.sys te esapLEo000 avtsout - *O mon 3 0. pO.?Sasourm asu ca.ot
a Kenneth M. Carr, Commissioner Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory' Of fice of the Executive Commission.
Legal Director 1717 H Street U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Washington, DC 20555 Commission Tenth Floor 7735 Old Georgetown Rd.
Bethesda, MD 20814 Administrative Judge Helen Hoyt Dr. Jerry Harbour Chairperson Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Board Panel U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission East West Towers Building East West Towers Building 4350 East West Highway 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Bethesda, MD 20814 Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Mr. Edward Thomas Atomic Safety and Licensing FEMA, Region I Board Panel 442 John W. McCormack Post U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office and Courthouse East West Towers Building Post Office Square 4350 East West Highway Boston, MA 02109 Bethesda, MD 20814 Robert Carrigg, Chairman Stephen E. Merrill, Esquire Board of Selectmen Attorney General Town Office G. Dana Bisbee, Esquire Atlantic Avenue Assistant Attorney General North Hampton, NH 03862 Of fice of the Attorney General 25 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301 Diane Curran, Esquire Richard A. Hampe, Esquire Andrea C. Ferster, Esquire Hampe and McNicholas Harmon & Weiss 35 Pleasant Street Suite 430 Concord, NH 03301 2001 S Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20009 Atomic Safety and Licensing Robert A. Backus, Esquire Appeal Board Panel Backus, Meyer & Solomon U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 116 Lowell Street East West Towers Building P.O. Box 516 4350 Eact West Highway Manchester, NH 03105 Bethesda, MD 20814 l
2 l
l SHAINES & McEACHERN -.= cess.o.a6 associa,o. amvs l
,,..n,-...-...,.~,.-,..
i r
Atomic Safety and Licensing Mr. J. P. Nadeau Board Panel Selectmen's Of fice U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 10 Central Road East West Towers Building Rye, NH 03870 4350 East West Highway Bethesda, MD 20814 Thomas G. Dignan, Esquire Carol S.
Sneider, Esquire R.K. Gad II, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Ropes & Gray Department of the Attorney 225 Franklin Street General Boston, MA 02110 One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Mrs. Sandra Gavutis Mr. Calvin A. Canney Chairman, Board of Selectmen City Manager RFD l-Box 1154 City Hall Route 107 126 Daniel Street Kensington, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Angie Machiros U.S. Senate Q1 airman of the Board of Washington, DC 20510 Selectmen (Attn: Tom Burack)
Town of Newbury Newbury, MA 01950 Senator Gordon J. Humphrey Mr. Peter J. Matthews 1 Eagle Square - Suite 507 Mayor Concord, NH 03301 City Hall (Attn: Herb Boynton)
Newburyport, MA 01950 Mr. Thomas F. Powers, III Mr. William S. Lord Town Manager Board of Selectmen Town of Exeter Town Hall 10 Front Street Friend Street Exeter, NH 03833 Amesbury, MA 01913 H. Joseph Flynn, Esquire Brentwood Board of Selectmen Office of General Counsel RFD Dalton Road Federal Emergency Management B rentwood, NH 03833 Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, DC 20472 Gary W. Holmes, Esqui~re Philip Ahrens, Esquire Holmes & Ells Assistant Attorney General 47 Winnacunnet Road Department of the Attorney Hampton, NH 03841 General Augusta, ME 04333 3
SHAINES & McEACHERN - amorasso.46 aseoomeo nevoawes as maatseooo avenus. ea nos sea. aonesasouem oseos
s Judith H. Mizner, Esquire Charles P. Graham, Esquire Silvergate, Gertner, Baker McKay, Murphy and Grah Fine, Good & Mizner 100 Main,ptreet 88 Broad Street Amesbu 'g MA 01913 Boston, MA 02110 pl McEachern
\\
(--- --h..
,b W X 'p hdx5 e
s Matthew T. Brock s
4 I
i 4
SHAlNES & McEACHERN = amorasso.a6 associares armmern as maatsecoo avvevs ao aos neo.womaune woseo,
_ - _.. _ _... _... _, _ _ _._