ML20235G469
| ML20235G469 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 07/02/1987 |
| From: | Curran D HARMON & WEISS, NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#387-3982 OL, NUDOCS 8707140263 | |
| Download: ML20235G469 (24) | |
Text
,
3972-July 2, 1987 00WUQ1 L"?mc UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BIdRDlDL -9 P4 :25
)
cc In the Matter of
)
)
}
Public Service Company of
)
New Hampshire, et al.
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL
)
50-444 OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2)
)
OFFSITE EMERGENCY
)
PLANNING ISSUES
)
NEW ENGLAND COALITION ON NUCLEAR POLLUTION'S OPPOSITION TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION ON CONTENTION NHLP-6 Introduction The New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution ("NECNP")
opposes Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of NECNP's i
Contention NHLP-6.
As discussed in the introduction to NECNP's I
Opposition to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition on Con-tention NHLP-4, Applicants bear a heavy burden of proving that they are entitled to summary disposition on this issue.
NECNP demonstrates below that Applicants have not met their burden.
Contention NHLP-6 asserts that The local emergency response plans do not provide for an adequate range of protective actions, 10 CFR S 50.47 (b) (10), because they contain inadequate means of relocation or other protection for those with special needs, those without private transportation, school children, or persons confined to institutions or else-where for health or other reasons.
Moreover, the resources available to the towns for these purposes are inadequate to provide a reasonable assurance that the public will be protected in the event of an accident.
The admitted portions of the contention's bases challenge the adequacy of telephone communication systems for providing notifi-cation and assistance to people with special needs; the adequacy 8707140263 870702
{DR ADOCK 0500 3
y L
i
. of the State's pre-designated bus route system for protecting the health and safety of. transit-dependent people; and the adequacy of the State's provision for protection of school children.
Reculatory Requirements NRC regulations at 10 CFR S 50.47(b) (10) require Applicants to demonstrate that "a range of protective actions has been developed for the plume exposure pathway EPZ for emergency l
workers and the public."
NUREG-0654, SS J.10.d and g. also require that. emergency plans contain "means for protecting those persons whose mobility may be impaired due to such factors as institutional or other confinement;" and "means of relocation."
Reasons Summary Disposition Should Be Denied Applicants base their summary disposition motion on a number of claims, all of which are in serious dispute.
They are dis-cussed below.
1)
Telechone Notification Contention NHLP-6 challenges, inter alia, the adequacy of EPZ telephone systems for notifica' tion of people with special transportation needs.
Applicants state that notification of those with special transportation needs will be given by the Emergency Broadcast System and not by telephone.
As a preliminary matter, it should be noted that Contention NHLP-6 not only challenges the adequacy of the telephone system for notification, but also for the rendering of assistance to individuals with special transportation needs who have already been alerted and call their Emergency Operations Centers.
, Applicants have made'no allegations with respect to the adequacy of the telephone systems in the EOCs for handling calls for i
assistance.-
l Second, it is clear from the plans themselves and by the instructional material that the State purportedly intends to dis-tribute to.the public that the State intends local.EOCs to make significant use of telephones for notifying and assisting those individuals with special transportation needs.
For example, Revision 2 of the New Hampshire RERP for the Town of Seabrook 4
provides that:
[TJhe Selectman (Welfare Officer) in Seabrook maintains confidential lists of Seabrook citizens with special notification needs.
These include handicapped persons within the town who have made themselves and their needs known to the Town.
These persons will be notified by telephone, by dispatch of police cruisers or other emergency personnel, or by other suitable means devised by the Seabrook Fire Chief.
Vol. 16 at II-9 (emphasis added).
Similar provisions are also made in other local plans.
See, e.a.,-Vols. 17, 18, 19, 21, 26, 27, 29 at II-7.
The "1987 Emergency Plan Information Calendar" that purports to contain guidance to the public regarding transportation for i
J the handicapped also instructs members of the public with special transportation needs to use the telephones to obtain assistance.
On page one, the calendar states that "the Civil Defense Agency is prepared to help you in an emergency" and lists the phone num-i bers of each local government EOC, to be called by those who i
"need special help" or "are handicapped."
Calendar at 1.
(Pages
{ :.
1 1-3 of the Calendar are attached.)
The calendar further states that " handicapped people who have returned the special needs card in this calendar or answered a Civil Defense special needs survey would be notified by emeraency workers."
Calendar at 3 (emphasis added).
Presumably, this notice would be given by telephone.
)
Finally, the calendar tells handicapped individuals "For extra help during an emergency,' call your Emergency Operations Center."
l Id.
Thus, the New Hampshire RERP clearly contemplates the use of telephones to provide notification and assistance to handicapped individuals.
Given the significant discrepancy between Applicants' assertions and the RERP itself, this factual issue remains in substantial dispute.
2)
Pre-desianated bus routes I
Applicants attempt to defend the pre-designated bus route system by asserting that "a procedure has been designed so that broadcasts can be made as to when buses begin traveling the routes, so that persons will know when to go to the place to be picked up, and will not be outside unnecessarily."
Applicants' Motion at 2.
Applicants also assert that the August 1986 RAC i
l Evaluation of State Response states that the concept of pre-j designated bus routes is " adequate."
Statement of Material Facts as To Which There is No Dispute,T1.
In this cursory statement, however, FEMA assesses only the bare " concept" of pre-designated bus routes, and does not evaluate the crucial issue of whether the New Hampshire RERP provides for safe and effective utiliza-tion of the pre-designated bus route system.
Neither the RAC
. Review nor Applicants' summary disposition motion addresses the concerns expressed in the basis to Contention NHLP-6 that a) it will be virtually impossible for transportation dependent indi-viduals to estimate the time of arrival of buses at any given t
point; b) people without transportation may be left standing out-side for an undetermined amount of time, with potentially high and unacceptable exposure to radiation; or that discouraged evacuees might further risk exposure by returning to their homes and giving up on evacuating.
Applicants claim that the New Hampshire RERP makes provision for notifying the transit dependent population of what time buses will begin travelling the pre-established bus routes.
Statement of Material Facts as To Which There is No Dispute, t2.
- However, the plan makes no provision for estimating the time at which buses will arrive at their pickup points.
See State of New Hampshire's Response to NECNP First Set of Interrogatories, Interrogatories 21 and 22.
If a bus pick-up point is several miles from the origin of the bus route, it may be minutes or hours before a bus arrives at the pick-up point.
Without any reliable way to estimate the time at which evacuees should leave the comparative safety of homes or shelters to get on a bus, evacuees will have the choice of risking significant radiation exposure by waiting outdoors at the bus stop until the bus comes, or possibly missing the bus by waiting too long indoors before going to the bus pick-up point.
Under these circumstances, there 1
l
1
. l can be no reasonable assurance that the health and safety of transit-dependent individuals can be protected.
We note that in its review of Revision 2, the Regional Assistance Committee ("RAC") has also posed criticisms or ques-tions regarding the manner in which the State arrived at its estimate of the total number of buses required in the EPZ, l
whether an adequate number of bus drivers has been provided, and l
the State's manner of calculating bus capacity.
See Statement of Material Facts In Dispute Regarding Contention NHLP-6,116, 7,
and 8.
3)
Latch-key Children In paragraph 3 of their Statement of Material Facts as To l
I Which There is No Dispute, Applicants assert that " latchkey" l
children are accounted for in the RERP by allowing parents to l
l return to the EPZ to pick up their children.
However, this will i
not accommodate the needs of latchkey children whose parents work a significant distance from home and who may not be able to get in touch with their children to tell them to wait at home.
Those children may attempt to leave because they do not know what else to do.
In that case, they may not understand how to get a ride from one of the special buses.
4)
Adecuacy of Transportation Resources In claiming that the RERP makes adequate provision for pub-lic transportation, Applicants make a number of assertions that are in signficant dispute.
First, Applicants state that "there exist adequate plans and procedures for handling school chil-
. dren."
Applicants' Motion at 2.
In support of this assertion, Applicants cite the Strome affidavit, which in turn merely cites the sections of the RERP that relate to transportation of i
school children.
A recitation of the sections of the RERP that address school transportation issues does nothing to resolve the concerns raised by NECNP in the bases of its contention.
Applicants next claim that more buses are available than are needed.
Id.
By Applicants' own admission, the exact demand for I
buses remains unknown.
- Sgg, e.g.,
par. 6 of Applicants' State-ment of Material Facts, which acknowledges that information on transportation requirements for each New Hampshire town in the EPZ is "being updated."
The 1986 RAC Review also questioned the manner in which the State of New Hampshire arrived at its estimate of the total number of buses required in the EPZ.
See NECNP Statement of Material Facts, par.
6.
In addition, RAC has questioned the State's method of calculating school bus capacity.
Id., par. 13.
Third, Applicants assert that while only 547 regular drivers are available, the Teamsters "can provide a back-up pool of up to approximately 1500 qualified drivers."
As discussed extensively in NECNP's Statement of Material Facts, pars. 7 and 8,
- however, the availability and reliability of Teamsters drivers is far from clear.
Not only has FEMA raised significant questions about the availability of drivers and the State's ability to match them with vehicles, but the deposition of Teamster official David Laughton demonstrates that the Letter of Agreement between the
. State and the Teamsters has no binding effect on individual Team-sters or their employers; that the estimate of available drivers is a rough one at best; and that the Teamsters membership was given little or no explanation of the exact nature of their duties should they volunteer during an accident at Seabrook.
The 1986 exercise of the New Hampshire RERP also showed sig-nificant deficiencies in the transportation system for the Seabrook EPZ, such that FEMA cannot make a finding of adequacy unless and until another exercise is completed and conducted suc-cessfully.
See NECNP Statement of Material Facts, pars. 10 and 11.
Finally, Applicants fail entirely to addrest two significant issues raised in Contention NHLP-6.
First, neither Applicants' motion nor the Strome affidavit address basis (d), which chal-1enges the State's cumbersome plan for coordinating school bus evacuation in the Seabrook EPZ.
It should be noted that FEMA has concluded that "there is some discrepancy in the plan and proce-dures as to where the buses that evacuate schools report to.
The logistics for mobilizing evacuation buses to the schools need to be clarified and made consistent in the State and local plans."
FEMA Position Document at 46.
In view of Applicants' failure to address this issue at all, it remains a litigable issue in this proceeding.
Second, Applicants have failed to address the logistical problems raised in section (e) of the basis to Contention NHLP-6.
These problems are not solved by the existence of letters of
. agreement with employers.
They include the unavailability of drivers who have second jobs, live far from the bus company, are unteachable in between runs, and have no radios in their buses.
}
In addition, regular schools buses are not in the parking lot all day in between the start and the end of the school day, but are on the road for special runs and field trips as much of the time as possible.
Role conflicts also play a significant role in deterring bus drivers from carrying out their emergency response roles.
Sag NECNP Statement of Material Facts, par. 12.
Applicants fail to even mention any of these issues.
Conclusion Applicants have failed to demonstrate that there exists no dispute as to material facts or that they are entitled to summary disposition as a matter of law.
For the foregoing reasons, Applicants' motion for summary disposition must be denied.
-Respectfully submitted, N
(
{,
e.
DineChfran HARMON & WEISS 2001 "S" Street N.W. Suite 430 Washington, D.C.
20009 (202) 328-3500 July 2, 1987 I certify that on July 2, 1987, copies of the foregoing pleading were served by hand or overnight i3iQ', as designated on
/
the enclosed service list.
/y (j',
L
- - ~,.
Diane Curran
i
=
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS IN DISPUTE l
REGARDING CONTENTION NHLP-6 1)
In the body of their motion for summary disposition, Applicants state that the inadequacy of the telephone system in the Seabrook EPZ, as asserted by NECNP, "does not exist," because
" notifications will be given not by telephone but by.the emer-l gency broadcast system."
Applicants have failed to demonstrate j
l that no dispute exists as to this' issue.
j First, Contention NHLP-6 not only challenges the adequacy of i
the telephone system for notification, but also for the rendering j
of assistance to individuals with special transportation needs l
who have already been alerted and call their Emergency Operations l
Centers.
Applicants have made no allegations with respect to the adequacy of the telephone systems in the EOCs for handling calls for assistance.
Second, it is clear from the plans themselves and from the l
instructional material that the State purportedly intends to dis-tribute to the public that the State intends local EOCs to make significant use of telephones for notifying and assisting those individuals with special transportation needs.
For example, j
Revision 2 of the New Hampshire RERP for the Town of Seabrook j
i provides that:
[T]he Selectman (Welfare Officer) in Seabrook maintains i
confidential lists of Seabrook citizens with special notification needs.
These include handicapped persons within the town who have made themselves and their nceds known to the Town.
These persons will be notified by teleohone, by dispatch of police cruisers or other emergency personnel, or by other suitable means devised by the Seabrook Fire Chief.
Vol. 16 at II-9 (emphasis added).
Similar provisions are also made in other local plans.
- See, e.a.,
Vols. 17, 18, 19, 21, 26, 27, 29 at II-7.
o____._____________________._____.______________..__________
. l The "1987 Emergency Plan Information Calendar" that purports to contain guidance to the public regarding transportation for the handicapped also instructs members of the public with special
}
transportation needs to use the telephones to obtain assistance.
On page one, the calendar states that "the Civil Defense Agency is prepared to help you in an emergency" and lists the phone num-bers of e.ch local government EOC, to be called by those who "need special help" or "are handicapped."
Calendar at 1.
(Pages 1-3 of the Calendar are attached.)
The calendar further states that " handicapped people who have returned the special needs card in this calendar or answered a Civil Defense special needs survey would be notified by emeraency workers." Calendar at 3 (emphasis added).
Presumably, this notice would be given by telephone.
Finally, the calendar tells handicapped individuals "For extra help during an emergency, call your Emergency Operations Center."
Id.
Thus, the New Hampshire RERP clearly contemplates the use of telephones to provide notice and assistance to handicapped indi-i viduals.
2)
Applicants assert that the August 1986 RAC Evaluation l
of State Response states that the concept of pre-designated bus routes is " adequate."
Statement of Material Facts as To Which There is No Dispute, par.
1.
In this cursory statement, FEMA assesses only the bare " concept" of pre-designated bus routes, and does not evaluate the crucial issue of whether the New Hampshire RERP provides for safe and effective utilization of the pre-designated bus route system.
Neither the RAC Review nor
1 Applicants' summary disposition motion addresses the concerns l
expressed in the basis to Contention NHLP-6 that a) it will be virtually impossible for transportation dependent individuals to estimate the time of arrival of buses at any given point; b)
~
people without transportation may be left standing outside for an undetermined amount of time, with potentially high and unaccep-l table exposure to radiation; or that discouraged evacuees might further risk exposure by returning to their homes and giving up j
on evacuating.
3)
Applicants claim that the New Hampshire RERP makes pro-l vision for notifying the transit dependent population of what I
time buses will beain travellina the pre-established bus routes.
j Statcment of Material Facts as To Which There is No Dispute, par.
l 2.
However, the plan makes no provision for estimating the time at which buses will arrive at their pickup points.
See State of New Hampshire's Response to NECNP First Set of Interrogatories, Interrogatories 21 and 22.
If a bus pick-up point is several miles from the origin of the bus route, it may be minutes or I
hours before a bus arrives at the pick-up point.
Without any reliable way to estimate the time at which evacuees should leave the comparative safety of homes or shelters to get on a bus, evacuees will have the choice of risking significant radiation exposure by waiting outdoors at the bus stop until the bus comes, or possibly missing the bus by waiting too long indoors before going to the bus pick-up point.
Under these circumstances, there
_.__________________o
]
. can be no reasonable assurance that the health and safety of l
transit-dependent individuals can be protected.
a 4)
In paragraph 3 of their Statement of Material Facts as j{
To Which There is No Dispute, Applicants assert that " latchkey" children are accounted for in the RERP by allowing parents to l
return to the EPZ to pick up their children.
However, this will l
not accommodate the needs of latchkey children whose parents work a significant distance from home and who may not be able to get in touch with their children to tell them to wait at home.
(Note that all EPZ residents are instructed to refrain from telephone use except in person 1 emergencies.
See, e.g.
"pages from "1987 EPZ Calendar," attached to Strome Affidavit in support of Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Contention NHLP-4.)
Those children may attempt to leave because they do not know what else to do.
In that case, they may not understand how to get a ride from one of the special buses.
5)
NECNP does not dispute paragraphs 4 and 5 of Applicants' Statement of Material Facts as To Which There is No Dispute, which attest to the existence of provisions in the RERP for transportation of school children.
However, it is the ade-quacy of the plans, and not their existence, which is in dispute here.
6)
Paragraphs 6 and 8 of Applicants' Statement of Material Facts as To Which There is No Dispute assert that the State and local plans provide summaries of transportation requirements for each New Hampshire town in the EPZ.
Paragraph 6 also states that
_3_
this information is "being updated."
This statement demonstrates that Revision 2 of the New Hampshire RERP does not currently con-tain accurate information regarding transportation resources for the 17 New Hampshire towns in the EPZ.
In fact, the 1986 RAC Review questions the manner in which the State arrived at its estimate of the total number of buses required in the EPZ.
Eeg RAC Evaluation of State Response to RAC Review-of the State of New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan For Seabrook,Section I, page 74 of 134.
The accuracy of the State's estimates regarding transportation requirements remains in dispute.
7)
In paragraph 7, Applicants claim that letters of agree-ment with bus and ambulance companies, Teamsters Local No. 633 of New Hampshire, and the New Hampshire School Transportation Asso-ciation show that these organizations "should be able to provide transportation resources in excess of the numbers required."
This assertion is in dispute.
First, FEMA is not satisfied that the Letter of Agreement with the Teamsters provides a reasonable assurance that adequate Teamster drivers will be available.
"[T)here are no details in the plans as to how the supplementary Teamsters' Local No. 633 bus drivers will be notified and coor-dinated with available buses, or, for that matter, how many Team-sters will be released by their employers for emergency response duties."
" Current FEMA Position On Admitted Contentions on New Hampshire Plans for Seabrook," filed June 5, 1987, at 46 (hereafter " FEMA Position Document").
. )
8)
The deposition of Teamster Local 633 Treasurer and Let-ter of Agreement signer David Laughton, taken June 16, 1987, also raises other significant factual issues regarding the reliability
{
and availability of Teamsters drivers.1 According to Mr.
Laughton, the Letter of Agreement places no obligation on indi-vidual Teamster members, who may exercise their own judgment in deciding whether to respond to an accident at Seabrook.
Deposi-tion Transcript at 22-23.
Moreover, even if those individuals decide to respond to an emergency at Seabrook, they must be released by their employers.
Id. at 58.
The' Teamsters could not obligate an employer to agree to release employees for an emer-gency response; nor does the list of Teamsters employers provided to the State reflect any commitment by employers to release their employees.
Id.
Mr. Laughton's deposition also showed that the estimate that 1500 Teamsters will be available is a rough estimate, at best.
For example, in reaching that figure, Mr. Laughton did not con-sider the geographic location of the members.
Deposition Tran-script at 36-37.
Moreover, while the State of New Hampshire requires all bus drivers to be licensed to drive a bus, a sig-l 1
Copies of the Laughton deposition have been served en the Board by SAPL in conjunction with its opposition to Applicants' summary disposition motions.
nificant number of Teamsters members do not have bus driver licenses.
Id. at 32, 47-48.
Finally, little or no effort was made to inform the union i
members of the exact nature of their responsibilities if they should volunteer to assist during a radiological emergency at Seabrook.
According to Mr. Laughton, the Letter of Agreement was only described to the membership in general terms.
Id. at 45-46.
Mr. Laughton did not specifically inform the membership that their duties might include going into the EPZ to retrieve people.
l Id. at 36.
Moreover, there were probably only about 200 people at the meeting IId. at 15), and Mr. Laughton was not aware that the Letter of Agreement had been mentioned in any Teamster publi-l cations.
Id. at 46.
Thus, the Letter of Agreement does not l
'l reflect any commitment by individuals teamsters, nor does Mr.
l Laughton's deposition show that the Teamsters membership actually I
understood the full nature of the duties they might undertake under the agreement.
1 9)
Applicants have failed to address the logistical prob-lems raised in section e) of the basis to Contention NHLP-6.
These problems are not solved by the existence of a letter of agreement.
They include the unavailability of drivers who have second jobs, live far from the bus company, are unteachable in between runs, and have no radios in their buses.
In addition, regular schools buses are not in the parking lot all day in between the start and the end of the school day, but are on the L______________________.__._.__..___________.______
s
[
I.
road for special runs and field trips as much of the time as pos-l sible.
Applicants fail to even mention these issues.
10)
The affidavit of Ann Hutchinson, Division Manager of l
'{
Berry. Transportation Company, dated April 13, 1987, demonstrates that a significant number of bus drivers were unavailable or refused to participate in the 1986 exercise of the New Hampshire j
RERP.2 par.
5.
In addition, those bus and driver pairs actually
}
l attempting to implement the RERP further experienced mechanical problems, delays, miscommunications and lack of information from the State.
par.
6.
11)
FEMA has reported that "the' Final Exercise Assessment of the February 26, 1986 Exercise documented many deficiencies in the State's ability to provide evacuation transportation resources in a prompt and coordinated manner.
Remedial actions i
to correct these deficiencies will have to be successfully l
l demonstrated in a future exercise."
FEMA Position Document at 17.
12)
A significant portion of the bus drivers relied on during a radiological emergency at Seabrook are likely to attempt to assist their families before or instead of performing their 2
The original of the Hutchinson Affidavit was filed by the Town of Hampton on April 15, 1987, in support of its opposition to Applicants' notions for summary disposition.
A copy is attached for the Board's convenience.
. duties under the emergency plan, gee Affidavit of Donald J.
Zeigler, " Role Conflict During Nuclear Emergencies," dated April 1
13, 1987.3 Moreover, emergency response workers who might other-wise perform their emergency response functions may assist their families first because they are unable to contact their families by telephone to assure that they are safe or are being assisted by someone else.
See Zeigler Affidavit.
See also "1987 EPZ Calendar," attached to Strome Affidavit in support of Applicants' Motion for. Summary Disposition on Contention NHLP-4, which asks EPZ residents not to use the telephones during a radiological emergency.
13)
In paragraph 9 of their Statement of Material Facts, Applicants state that "in each case, the capacity of buses allotted surpasses the number of students that may require trans-portation assistance."
The State's method of calculating bus capacity has been called into question in the FEMA /RAC review of Revision 2.
See RAC Evaluation of State Response to RAC Review I
of the State of New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan For Seabrook,Section I, page 74-a of 134, which states that f
i
" based on Table 11-7, Appendix E, Vol.
2,
- p. 39, the average load l
3 The Zeigler Affidavit was submitted in support of SAPL's Response to Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Conten-tions 8A, 15, and 25, dated April 15, 1987.
A copy is attached for the Board's convenience.
. of each bus used to evacuate transit dependent persons is I
estimated to be 24.
Thus, for transit dependent residents only I
about a third of the seats available on a 65 seat bus are effec-l tively available.
Seat availability is therefore not an appropriate indicator of bus adequacy."
A material issue of fact exists with respect to the question of adequacy of school bus j
capacity.
14)
Applicants have failed entirely to address basis (d) of Contention NHLP-6, which asserts that the State has established an extremely cumbersome procedure for coordinating school bus responses, thus inviting confusion and delay in the evacuation of school children.
As discussed in the contention, by having some buses go directly to schools wh'ile others go to staging areas, the State creates a need for extensive communication between schools, the EOCs, and bus drivers and companies, making it extremely difficult to effectively coordine.te an emergency response.
It should be noted that FEMA has concluded that "there is some discrepancy in the plan and procedures as to where the buses that evacuate schools report to.
The logistics for j
mobilizing evacuation buses to the schools need to be clarified and made consistent in the State and local plans."
FEMA' Position Document at 46.
In view of Applicants' failure to address this issue at all, it remains a litigable issue in this proceeding.
1
1!
l
~
1
.t y y n
a c c i0 t
t o
0 h a
r n
r t
l n
enh 0 o
h I
y e
gaI 0 ym0 e
c n
t g
n es n
o AgrO u0 s
r a
e e nbeO pr8 r me e
i O
i e
ih g
t msi mimal b
A m
a r
t t n u 0 os s 000 0000 f
000W00 0000 E e Dn8 cai ma o e
r u0 f
j 000 0000 n e eh r u ge s
bin 000W0 0000 n
n 00040 0' 000 e ist e
0 a D r.
ih ob N i n e
t r o f
I h s s
m e
ul e
k((
0000 g
- l. i b
,l 000W0 e
t i
.i m l ea u n d a D
e 000 0
0000 n
v l
r e
I i
la k n r Cu e
.n o n c k
l
[
u ncb nos h o v
n i
e D
rl n mat P
y a0 i i i
i
.i o h
t cs n C
Y4 n h r a uYaT y e 4
m" cn t
e e
e0 o
st eS c ug r3 r -
n n
pn us i ke e
\\
r r
n qr 9 i3 i
i o
i mc ohh ob g
m p 3_
p) o o
t y
a e h
h 3 7
a 9
p p
t t
s sl ar
,Ts r e l
y. pnm i
ml o
e m
m u.
e v e tl':
m 3, m3 r
mcnmhan6 mhansr a r 0
l s
nsl a"
k am o w t
gla6 l
f u no a oah nl of a l
el a e 1
l o
h Nargal So6 E
n er ei l l
,l t
_{
i sCe t
ut b o
t I
Gtoh rh I
r1 n o omwowe t
emwst gwwwt bt a r es r
nn8 o yn eg en n
r
" au r o h amr e u
ee e o Ieot uo4 f s i
i efNr c3 N
n Ng Nl KNNNN"I SSS F Th i
o i i I
e r
n e
d.
a h
e e hwy np s
t l
o i
al r e ot c
t e
e e r
c h
oyn y
d ht n
es c e c
i ee nl t
lp/u ng n
r r e
l t
a e
r e
s y aaiCn o/ i e e
ge g
r c
p c
pndnA m A
e n
e u e s o 0000000 0000 0 00 i
e r opnh. 0000000 e
o/e e e
b e
pys o p p f
nS gr is1 dt el 00 0 0000 s n s
m i
s ot na r n 1
e eas 0000000
/
c e
oe u
m y yer eh 0000000 m
nf n tce N
f c c n eh d 0090000 r
r/ cdp rD e oa ei pt e
E nnrO
,ee i
t l
Di n
gg yn e e o ouNh i l e
/
o e
.yc
/
H v
n a Ar e c no t
r nn
.ieC o
ed neh f
a g emi e gw t
ur h
n u
r m
s r
P s u o et n e gr e
eT x
s o r i
s ar e e n
H xGhu r
en e ml o
a H
e r
ri i
u h
t u
eademe
. n f
l t
p i
Ss a
DneEn n
D o
s F n t
nI o
nepo v~
.p l
e d g i
I o
s ny m
r n
p o I
i p
n n nt a
if e l
a v-I iu
,r a
o i mo o g t
r, l eme i
n v
r da r
c iod u gh wKrl t
t i
n v
c rl o
Cyeo aMHi eupgi I
r i
nt t
l 1
f pyi nt.t g e a
I s
Tn nn ei wl c
hw p
e p pl r y r
e s e Mn a e c
P n N pl t
i l
i ie n
o h e al ul r ax aQw in c
o e r l
c a n
c S
RN F
Thi cDo iEE HK I
I l
I s
, yo s
s wn c
e r e oat lp ci d a y
e y
eh iA e
i t
np c
h n h
c t
e na
-a
-.i. a t
d h
mhi r s c e f
si aN t o n
, nc h u at s
S e irl r s t f n no eI t
e maioo i
f S
rl e e l
w id r l
eok r u ph h yI ed a
R ay g
l i
n b e
t o n eh st t b
oo cp A
l i ee i h e d c e pt t A
p noi h
os weli k xt eD s a e
t l n
e t
rt t
, l s aya ek o r e a r uvh n o e c eNr po mN. ah s
gt rib h woe a a o
rh n
t t
nimd ewd w e
t el n
awt EE e
e w yS p i
c i if l
ro i
eaki o w u o e ar pb f
d enle. r d, e e u r e n n o d
eLC e
h wTyas nu s
s s
,l e
h e ohAA sl D
ne sd c us c
l s
n ea s
t i
er e
bl r
y CL nw l
pl i o oc ni ei s a
e l
o t
ec we s
P s
nt i
ape eG x en h gFl c
l kS e
v i
l i
a s 2_ mP r
h a
t e
i u ri s ob e nt A. i isl al Y sW C
i hh t
et l r
nTeSah oat g a geei ht iD ue e
s c i
.h k e s s
r er eT h
sit l
t t s
N qr e
p h ove po s
a l
t l
n cI fI n
oc e
r no m ac e n o. a l' o
t u s,hamy l
p gf el s eElA yb i2 m
pwir u Er n a dl s o e c nm h 9 t
l o awI o s, d s n n e ga rk' El a
s7 y
h ek Da>
a u
p3 a
c$ u l
u c
rI i
a n n i
t a
uI h
po KD en l
n r y e e
i e o S ew c i n a grl e wy
.N v
m2 is r
oi t r
t c
w g
t ne nc r ag a5 pn ew m wivae nn nyA h n no r yct aN a no e
l l
8 t
h o a el ea et eti t e
s leCs sLt i
N mc otnik I
1 l
t rl gi E uw 0
o e pg s
e r o '
f pr0 a
upen o n m. d i pr e e
e eF oo. w0 r
r er r AY o
s e N
h marA y~ l u e8 d
e oih n" h
i m
l e
n d o r h mai n h eht o
fb
(
y N1 o oi D Ayt ct b TccSa Tps o aI Tt ecS i
iI
nn
. iUl x d a g
e
,E t o
t t
m a
e od
.t sl r o(
3 au nt
.t o
r e e e e
o s
o o ch wh yr T3 uah s
a o cr et a
rt r a om.d i
r a o i l9 E
t r
erd o rh oed u c e s
o t
e s
e dt o n gd pd s
s o ao o
s el e y s
e o
yl anion t
ist a cC h vl
_ Et u
nS tust t
a t i
/
l o
u h
. ot wauyn lpnl n m
4_
h t t i s o e ol e
. e s
c n
w u
rv
.o at dh noh s r f
r e
e r ul nef i ur-l d
. gid,,4 r
a i c e u
%(_
n yi c nio u s aI oh d
}
o d pi f
r st a d o a
ns i f e o
y r a r w agmk t
s nyo o
h c
f n
pi pe n s n ns nyo
[.f;!
,fr wi ui n.
/'
d h
ol it fo! t o i t c
i yaf r s t
i t
i o
b s
o b y a o u
o s
t r
j, HY i " e ael u gu n or ut o
,I
- ed e r
rd e
a o
a o
h n t
G'KI KCTt iT aDfi-S g i
4[
t d
\\
di%'p,'
k } _
n n
o ni o
,M, i, N '
@h.f o
n e ci i
,i
/.
y i
ysi le e a o a y' '
pcN t
c ta ei imnht i s
. t d
u
(/
t o
l eh t
t i n ci e
uZ r,
h
!i n
s
.Y A-], k(
h
/.
e 0 a u a
.3 7I l
c#
- [/
c o,
g a o
e e g
j
(
p s
n e m
uh h v1
(\\
wg p;E,b; g
n, i r e s wo fyE t
r wind ir a
[g' h
wt d nh 3
e
- nI o me e n e t
e l
s ui g
T
.,/ ( *
.N m
edI' t
a 3
sl n l
f' a
. ini c wyvt oh m'H ic r f;
X e
n e
.M y ' y['
4 ~
Enn o
lp nt e ahr y
a ly t.
} 1
.a', g oo n c u c y oi a
wk sd sl
[
z 1 -
o f
.l k.M'g4N'[/N T~
5 'j a n j
r y[fc g
eZ i gh aiuc a e n s et f
"c a g ei n o
%Q. ;
,M; %d l
d n J
i i
s t
3I "e I"t ot r
c e r i
giu t
i e e r M n mQ md y
<i" e
oh e -
i pn -
.U -
%. P ** A n
oh i
I e i v i T ta e a
m~~M.$f~
n s
c e
n e
. et 0 n mh ni d
yw t
h J.Y 4
al h 7
t t
a al c
a n
u n
e S u 1
i '
,t ned
. M,'
gy',M%9@yp'.,-
ear lei s
h wt o e h
- o p
s o
" u i w t
al e t
l r*
y r
n s
r fI:!.
.jji r
'/
hl e
ei e a
e c
t o
nl e k
/
c H
o p eiah T Ph h mk TiTal
'e ud cT s
i 7 o
f 4/@
I nd lhd r s
.dem or s
a e
e l
u a e
i mn nc t
e s y$
I o
e a
t e
o u h m s rf nc ei e e y
lpe.
4gw t
f t
s y e n ut Ty I
wo e
s t
eh d t
s l
t i ;f yy r
tys eu o s o n eub gyS loma y
ecient o yi e. hb e e las s
u r
rl s
mt rh et c r
I,M qp t
go t
nr uy w S a t
rd e v B n ui mc sG n
e og a t
s i a la t
c e n mo si n o o
t h
et ad dt s e
o a es et le a n
a n
dgu fp.,.
js-s
.O 4 f eamo l
aa nh e nt c ef a pl f
u o r o o nC g['A.
r o
v r edh oh os.mnt t
l o
r ij c,i i
u e yl u naTew el uo p o oI uf W. e J y.
e o
r c -
t n nt r,. p oh. a io o
h s
sah
- If.
pe,I9.7 myg - l,T v yu
,r, t
r e r
g o ed l
o e a
o y la
, i l
t o
c t
e p g
W e
e s nib a f
c py fI r e nyol d
o i d 4A!]
4 t
En r gl eal s ad R iN ab e
i gq n r rl i nhi edbhle d o ut uy c
r u nue, s st wt l
i n
s i t
aa d l
ut nr o c
e ae i t o a i
y/bMe c nt I
e uh o i e w yi o ani a a c n hd e
r ddl e
, d
, 7 ;e.
a e d
i o u wd n a s g d
t t
e ys Y
hla4t s
yo o r h[
t eer ncil l
w n
!nt b s a a ei -
H m
wu er t
aun l
n n s nd l
e r
at rE n.
h e s e ne s e eI n
f r e l
y awahi gnt e e u or od h i yi n e nl iyd
' )-
e t
7. D o
e s
o a
lu
. %+g f'U.
o k oi eil c p e s ei r
yd t
uT e n s v e at E
HaTt mI rEs wi l.
gh gt t s
nw b
r e
ma o. h e oih ol k
o o a
r t
e a rl h
h I
a t
s '
2
,l i!
a.t n
o e
k!
ge__-
t
~
s :n m
e mu t
n o
s ur c
sd c
ip y go u a d
nYo en i
ut
)
i m}Tc t
h.
A
.g 4
g
.h u r
d qa
, M y4'1 i
o a
nd wy u
e eh m
t oe ef nh t
s n
.g-rt ef on ao l
i s
y/__u e n e
G ci d u t
h a
pe t
,s r
i pm d a k
l rl rg uio sd u
nc 2'n a
d s ip aG
'n i
wf n e u o
i i
s
- d-yu eh s o a
,e u
,i
- L t
e q
d n omt ao t
i f
o f
t r
Y oyo e s
l e
e l
ad s
g r
(
l t h e ep G
ci 7.@
l t
a 5.
g-s_
ie
~
l h aa mh co t
)
ya ni t r s
h t
s ec o
i t
n e
d s
o omp ee
(
wk wr e e
i ae fk gs "n
i ps s r s nms l i r
c.
k ya aiel pipu r iecn e
pt e
t i
k oaaT dht c ur q pk ic t
, e e
l a
h Tw.
nt u
s c e pol t
i y '. b T y. ays e ol r sl o uh s l
t o
a a e a s
r r
l l l r
o u ea ac n a
t r
t c
c y k e
)
ohd c ao eipi n yc v n
t t
e oy sr sl t d d a e s
l b ei t
y
~
d w.i t ri s e d e ah r
'x a
nhl e h x eoa n
s oi uf T, E P T pM a M roul CD t
3-h l
o V Dwca
,I T
m l o,s
.l.l o
u l
r nl e l
i) klt i a v nhi e
o i
c n a s r t
- ih..' \\'dfh; o e c ish n e
f-
~
ohi a ee t
.eiI8 i 5 {i l
.f.
f.iN r
r s o1 ayrbl
, j %*,4' -
l i i e
I b
ea ee of nh
' e *,$l lI o oinh
- y
, Msh
((
.\\
t ek s o o ge hi s
,- n
.[s
' leta "otal sdCt e S
=
c a al
.hk u
gN.f
[./{I :I,JE g S
cd i
u odt d s e s ga h
ni l o
ri t
i.
yt a :
wu r v-
- yM,f o
j
_yo' nl sht h el
. m.'
y.J.. r*ai g,*
. ~
e o I
. j r
- ' \\'
iT o
}
rh e
gt o oYwct t
l r
o :
o j
r e o h. i l 4,y, "
/
s d
?-
k eh u ma nf e el
,g:
7, r
c
[,.
mt t
o a h.
r h
'i
?
- .'t
?.
',O$
a eh e si i
/
a u o
t r
g di ah e u o
.l T
nigi
%Sg ((.
s eiib nh amot s
d e
r u I
u e a
d 3 t :
,-["
F'.*M,-
e w
O s oh rd l
1 n
As.
[
e o n f
t f is u1 o n.,
. +
wyaof ono 3
- mib*' [P 1@T-Wrenme e n yl imt
.e iw:
i t
y s
a
- o ck ua odh q** i
\\
O init i ut s
a ot ol
.d
[,. }y w
r t il1
[
!.ji i!
!I' l
h m sh n a
t o o o c n s t
.I ij i }
l 1
STst at si i 1
y
' ki* i - ' '
o d
- a l
a pt e
,}r t /
t o
s en m
un mb al c
i
., j.
~
i u S
i l
d r
.f*j_.2 r
- y. /
t l i pI s
ed nTt lu a o I
b /
t l
s s
og.y wE r
i
/
j \\-
_nGnS o
s w
er s o k j; 7 o uc o up N n i.h f
Ne e
3 i
t h
l
.d s s 1
n sl rt 0.
n e g '
ori an. oO
_7 L
l '
t oh di e f io _ 0 0
,i e o
. C[I g
1
.N.
t a
d a a an yot a nM d _
ns
~
s-1 p
s oF
. Zl o e a _
i E h n t i h r s
.~f"-[m
{
t t
l
. t i
i
~
.l pl oa ee l
t
~
ge o s mta 5.
MEI mS I
t n, nie 7
_ VV hh U
(
e e e s
dh y 9
F. \\ \\
.k t t yaTc S e
s t
nI
. n l
e e t
Q s r i
i aia v n e u
9 t
K s
t o g l
c, r c i r
e 0
t c a o nt e EOd oI 01 mf V u o
5 5 n.
d c e a r
y a n gt eT l
i 71 nr c
s e c
aioi ic s
d i
n l
n S' n
hi n a. EV iF i
'f
- 4. p' i
l s
ou h i
a c e s
s I
e e rE1 er n r
o M
e
- N I
t i-t M. I 3 imnE h h i VV Nn u l'
j
.i o ns i
l s
o B11 3 a# r Tst A
\\ \\
a i
e n
t r p
)lj v
na o
e e y
./,
3 Y
l a
e n ec s
}'
h n e i
yvh rd h ni
.Ib fo e e y ]-
ol t
r t
i
- e. [
a yh gy '
f N
o s
h a a
t n
ea L
'n pc a
ur inh m3 f
i
_h t
r o
s ed xeo md t
ei d
nem1 c
y-u r
/;i a
n hh ot o
,TarEe g3\\'
% _ /.g?
g,\\ '
o h u
.f orTt r
eaY n
1 D
s o
4
- r. laFr g
+,
.h wor o o
hl ai
. u a p s.
P-I a
ye f
t k.~
dtnyop 1
t e
l t
f r e
%* w,/
n o paeg n
oe s C r
l l
ne yn N.
n e l
s y'
ed n o
wa oc I
u ol oH t
p e. C a p
l cngce
~
y&'\\.
e ai ad h
p s
f s
opc V
pd nn d
gr r
s on t
,V a
i o o s
/
u c i yi i
.n aueb uri
. M.TQh'J' l
f
.r n
ncl
,h y
t t d pnnr I
I k a a e t
cf h_
l u
l ne ae e i'
1,0 ' J
' l. ',f
[ f ~ /;
c rt es e uo mgI l
t id y
gt i k lpr n e
u pe pi o
mne Ni
=
deye e, C o
e
.ghh l
e h
l nOe r
oa n d
($-
rb niC s
u:s c
a
=a j-[9y;,:.#Npd'
.t u uyr g
cl ne t
i m_.
D o o c a r
i s
ab l
e w wyns k
e wgnn ei c
r g'
er v s n n e ior.
. h e
r a e ni 1
l.
g) e sf ge c
net t
a t
5
/
eI.rh a
e pu e p
o m gtad l
i
_ n p s
,n
[
nr n o s s e n s
ri r nir h ppe
, tut eie e ar pl e u iua r
2 u
a l'
cEnd B
Whit 1
a a
sh L
l T.
e nh I
, r i f d c
[
e r.
l l
p p;mM.
,}!
e o
a o
o et e. s y e-ml u e.s i
l e
l o
C i a d e
,r u
h r
1 r
e o
h rh h e e r 'n s
yf tah u o cb1 t
t t ie c
t r rb a
p h{T d
e lu s
e o
r a e o
a ow r
d vd n.e s r S 'a l
d n ot rt i
h h
el r e el ok I
ai
(
l s -
t i a h ei a
sl g
h
,n. a QQ'N.Y' l
o e d oh y
oo ost
- u. r d.
6 ni l
l c r nt udh n f
lc eh et t
1 h C s l
e
-t t
oh u
ee ol ui c
i n
ait g
1 W
u r
u o cA s
ed s
r r nae l
g.x s
c w o
e i ec nar o o ir o
u b e i n ot h c o t
e uu f a c un.
n Qnm. yM s.M >;K..
yp el i c o r
d na l
wn r n l
- h yh lpe u e x r
oo u i
ee s
ay as luyt l
s ct ioi tt h t
t r en i an o o
ri i v i
o e
eYyt y l
p o n t lan nt ins w e l
a eh et
,f g.
as l
I ep o Pu i o s c
wav ic i c e t
r rh g u wie yv rti v lp s
o o s C e op s i
[y;,,.~ '-
s v e an en ae l
t r a ai cl eii a
tp m. r r
el n s
ioll uSh n o o
s, wl i c h
n l
l e rt e o
t t tph e i o r
t e sl l
e l
et lpt m
B oh e o
e i e
i o
rt e e g h e rl H uI l
nt o
ib t
o nhi r ict 4
o o oh
' ni h ne s t
G il r
l sI -
n.
u r
l s
C o
a r
.i t
euh a o e al d
- ute s ch e s 1
t e
l nt et t
t n
od ey e e
t t
s.ly h h e T j P
- f. { _.
e"k lih st r c g
c.o 1 k t
o o
i r a ""
i wd 1
g en s sl s
r a it j in I.
c bY
. ei
.n t
t gt
, n V'd et;ie edI e o
e u a o e nh rk p l
u e rh a
l e
s n
i a
ui lbt I
lpot n hCs s
S s
iri o -
aat d cc n
h nwr a
i h cd W ""r__~
eI yt h
t t
s n e
.s l
e ut t
e c
en i nTa t
m "" d i pI e o R
o n el h
eU nt
.l u
o i tl oi o e il t o n e s l
le si ws a
a e ae u
t n
t e ph oh s n uh e
t l
n r
c r l 4
l
.f a o no o
.i o n t
s p t p
vp t
l N io r "
s e o u e e a ndt o I
r s ih t
o o v e oleh e l
si c
l it ES S
l d ad r t sit l
et y s e eh c s oi n i o c
.b" c
Mi pysTh t
- {
.w.t l
.T <
e 1d p'
l f
d j'
Jji kg.7'N1$M.
im I
i t.
i
]
n' W*M a
v t
s.
vvt
,?.
.d
\\l$b 1
1 r o l
1 oe e r h
1 e
c.
r o
0 if' i l
P p
h ri c o
eI. $[j wvN[M NR g'pj.4.
G%gg-e.
e P o t
V l
ah e.
h7 I
r s
/
r u
e t' ul s me e
o r c otl
\\
y~ r l
h i
e t
h l
s
% wg@CQ>
t
/+. '
h ob h
4 r
t H o r.;
.K y
t u a s e u lad s
o
- iwd sd p
o v
n at n y
a rd,
~
pk k % __
s t ie e a c.
d o ny p
t er a n
f ai l
t kh.' N'.
pf r r s'
1 a
t 4
4 i
r g u e 4
u rh ut a
s e
u f.
not 7
y Y h ig nc o
t o e o i iy h h ',k /
sA % Nh('
w k.
7 ywyae. _
t s
ig I lme
?
I s
l l'
il
[M.
^
eyAv d.
r
/ j i& T a
a o _
a e,
o tf N
i rah k tsbl h _
/L.5 e
n i
t ni 4l ;
r e i a
sM j
w i
l i
v l
f t
r o t
3 o 8
bNu.!l' 0 us i i d tot dlui h
b ud u t
y l
I o '"
4 (l (
i " e3d o
t o e o u
y.l i
h t
t t ki g
i "
c nws J
a r
a ' n u n m_
t 6'
h i
c.
o.
u o la uue
- u L s 4'
- ['
T pl e-o oh W
I
~jI YpyyI
~
ll
4
-}EAM00XSERVICELIST--offSITELICENSINGE0ARD 442 J.W. McCortack (FOCH) 3HelenF.Heyt,'Chairsan North Haspton, NH 03026 t,,
'a' foston, MA 02109 Atesic Safety and titensino goard J.F. Nadeau therwin E. Turk, Esq.
i dashington,D.C. 20555 155 Wdshington Road U.S. NRC
'87 dlb 4 rD I lox 1154Sgefa.gutis f
U.S. hRC icwn of Rye offiteofGeneralCounsel E
Rye, New Haspshire 0270 Washington, D.C.
20555 East tensington, kH 03027
< Dr. Jerry HarOcur Atcan Safety and Lnensing Rithard E. Sullivan, Marcr Mr.AngleMachiros,h..if san :
Charles;P. Grahas, Esq.
Ecard CityHall Bcard of Selectser F o Mcray, Marpny and Granas U.S. NRC Newburyport, MA 01950 Newbury, MA 01950 100 Main Street Washington,D.C. 20555 Ateitury, MA 01013 Alfred V. Sargent, Chaittan H. Joserh flynn, Esc.
e Gustave Linent>erger Board of Selettren Of fite of General Counsel
- by-overnight mail Atosit Safety and Litensing icwn of Salistury, MA 01950 FEMA fearc 500 C Street S.W.
U.S. NEC Senatcr Gor 5cn J. resphrey Washtraton, D.C.
20472 Warnington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Senate Washirgton, D.C.
20510 George Lana Elstee, Esq.
Attric Saftty ana Lic osing (Attn. Its Eurac h Geoffrey M. rWntington, Esq.
icard anei uf fice ct it;e Attorrmy 6eneral J.? hRC
'.electeen ct fortnarrtch State tause Anner Washington, D.C.
20555 Mrtnassten, New Haspsnite Contor o, M 03:01 03f2t At0 sit !afety anj i n endirg AllenLespert Ant.eal ioard hnel 9nat:r icrocn J. At;nrey L.vii.ef ense rirec tr'-
d.5. HEC
! ! die i n ere, ite 507 IA,0 cf frentcec5 l
nasningtcn,I.C. 0 555 Lchtorc, M,3301 Exeter. Ni 7
- ctietinQ an1 S-tvlce M.!(h tej !antosuctsD, t.a;rran Eltt
- oro A. "!'s;E, i n d.S. HEC foard ct 5&iettren rarr e or.c M r4:t r.r.:
i dasningitt:, D.C.
20555 b a! Street, iFD s 2 Z Hea< arit Ittt et
.cuth bat:tcn, t.H 03842 Lontcro M 03:01 Mrs, Anne !. Ocodean BDar$ ti Selttt an J)ilth H.
- r.er, Es a.
Gary W. noises, Esq.
13-15 rew M3f k U E0ad sl herginte, Gertner, Et al.
HDltes&[!!;
Lurnas,NH 0212 W Erca1 Street G i,2tt:acunnent Fcai E0stch, PA 02110 Hatpttri, M 03042 sillia S. Lcrs. Selettran l
Icwn Hall -- Fr.end Street isp. Rotert3 C. Fevear Willi;sArtstrcna e
I Arest>Ury, MA L1013 DrInnatEr Eta]
Livil Defense Direttcr ressten,Falh,NH C244 10 Front Street Jane Doughty Exeter, NH 03033 SAFL Thillip Ahrens, Esq.
5 Market Street Assistant Attorney General Calvin A. Canney Ferticouth,NH 03001 State House, Station I t, City Manager Augusta, ME 04333 City Hall Carol S. Sneider, Escuire 126 Daniel Street Assistant Attorr:ey General
- Thtsas G. Dignan, Esq.
Fortssauth, NH 03f:01 1 Asht'urton Flace, 19th floor R.P. Gad 11, Esq.
Boston,MA 02108 Ropes & Gray Matthew T. Prock, Esq.
225 Franklin Street Shaines & McLachern Stanleyd.Inowles Besten, MA 02110 P.O. Box 3t.0 1
EcardofSelect:en MaplewoodAve.
P.O. Ecx 710 Robert A. Pachus Esq.
Fortssouth, NH 03801 i
I Eachus, Meyer & Solcson 111 Lowell Street Edward A. 1 horas l
Mantbester, NH 03105 FEMA
?
I I I h
_ _ _ - _ - _ -