ML20235K946
| ML20235K946 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 09/30/1987 |
| From: | Flynn H Federal Emergency Management Agency |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235K894 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8710050285 | |
| Download: ML20235K946 (17) | |
Text
- _ _ - - -
September 30, 1987 g
- w. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'k A
)
', In the Matter of )
)
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire, ) Docket No. 50-443-OL et al. ) 50-444-OL
) Offsite Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2) ) Planning Issues
)
)
RESPONSE OF FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY TO INTERVENERS' MOTION FOR SUSPENSION OF HEARINGS The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) neither supports nor opposes NECNP'S, SAPL'S, Town of Hampton's, and Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Motion for Suspension of Hearings with Respect to Contentions Involving O
(_) Transportation Availability, Reception Centers, and Response Personnel Adequacy, dated September 28, 1987. However, FEMA provides the following information on the process by which it reviews material pertinent to the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan (NHRERP) in the belief that it will be helpful to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in deciding said motion.
FEMA's regulations, which appear at 10 C.F.R. S 350.1, et seg., commit the agency to reviewing radiological emergency response plans submitted by a state and field exercises of those plans. Under a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), FEMA provides interim findings and expert testimony, as necessary, to support the NRC's regulatory process. Although FEMA will, on request, provide technical assistance to a
(
k).)
8710050285 870930 PDR ADOCK 05000443 0 PDR
state which is preparing a plan or amendments to a plan, the agency's findings are limited to issues about the edequacy of the plans and the axercises. It is FEMA's ' policy not to comment on materials submitted by a party other than
- the state or materials which are not part of the plans themselves.
j Once a state has submitted a plan or an amendment to an existing plan, the appropriate FEMA Regional Office submits the documents to the Regional Assistance Committee (RAC), the function of which is described in 10 C.F.R.
S 351.10, g seg. The conclusions or recommendations of the RAC are reviewed l I
by the Regional Office which then submits its views to FEMA headquarters for l further review. This process requires a minimum time of 60 days.
In support of their motion, the Interveners refer to the recent filing of a " Summary of Personnel Resource Assessment for the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan" (" Summary"), as well as other information in the Applicant's testimony whien might be construed as changes or additions to the NHRERp. The " Summary" has been submitted to the RAC for review in the nature of technical assistance since the State of New Hampshire has advised FEMA that the " Summary" does not constitute a change in the plan but does address the adequacy of personnel resources for the State of New Hamphshire and communities within the Emergency Planning Zone. FEMA cannot project when this review will be completed since there are no meetings of tha RAC scheduled during these hearings. In fact, since the chairman of the RAC, Edward A.
Thomas, is FEMA's prinicpal witness, it is FEMA's judgment that such meetings would conflict with the agency's committment to present testimony at the hearings.
FEMA and the RAC are not reviewing the additional material to which the Interveners refer in their motion because the State of New Hampshire has not O
O amended the NHRERP to incorporate such changes. It would be premature and inappropriate for FEMA to proceed on an assumption that the State will do so.
If the Stato does make such plan revisions and submit them to FEMA for review, f
that process could not be completed before the end of the currently scheduled i hearings. There are other materials which the State has submitted to FEMA for review, but without designating them as plan revisions. See the attached letters of September 15, 1987 from Edward A. Thomas, Chief, Natural and Technological Hazards Division, FEMA Region I, to Richard Strome, State Emergency Management Director and August 26, 1987 from Richard Strome en Henry Vickers, FEMA Regional Director. In addition, FEMA would have the Board note that it anticipates being asked in the near future to review the Applicants' emergency responce plan for the portion of the Seabrook Emergency Planning Zone which lies within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and the Commonwealth's plan for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Plant.
Because its review of the materials in question either has not begun or is not yet completed, FEMA is not prepared to offer findings or conclusions about materials more recent than Revicion 2 of the NHRERP. FEMA is prepared to offer testimony about its findings and conclusions with respect to Revision 2 and the exercise thereof.
Respectfully submitted, A .
H. sephJfynn At eney Yor the F eral Emergency Management Agency Dated: September 30, 1987 at Washington, D.C.
y
)
1 J Federal Emergency Management Agency N i R
Region I J.W. McCormack Post Office and Court House e' q
. . Boston, Massachusetts 02109 September 15, 1987
- Mr. Richard Strome State Emergency Management Director y Governor's Office of Emergency Management State Of fice Park South 107 Pleasant Street Concord, New Hampshire 03301 Dear Mr. Strome on August 31, 1987, my of fice received New Hampshire's submission of
" Summary of Personnel Resource Assessment For The New Hampshire Radiological l Emergency Response Plan, data $ August 1987." In your 1stter of transmi ttal l to Mr. Vickers, you indicated that this document is not part of the NHRERP I per,se, yet it addresses those issues having to do with personnel resources necessary to implement the NHRERP. Since the material did not appear to belong in emergency plans, but apparently as fonnulated to assist in developig plans, as you requested, FD4A has initiated the process of reviewing this document as a form of providing technical assistance to the State in Regional Assistance Committee for their conments. Following the comment 9 accordance period FD(A and with the RAC44 willCFR develop350. a technical Thereview material to assist has the been distributed t State in Ats ef forts to plan for providing of adequate staf f to carry l out the plans.
On September 2, 1987, my of fice received two egies of another submission from New Hampshire, dated August 281, 1987, transmitted from you to Mr. Vickers.
This material consists of a variety of letters of gremoent, along with explanatory narrative dealing with hospitals and health care host f acilities, transportation resource planning, special needs surveys, e tc. On September 9, 1987, my office received three copies of a " Sheltar Survey for the Beach Areas near Seabrook, a transmitted f rom James Saggiotes of your office to Henry Vickers on September 4, 1987. In your transmittal letters, you indicate the 1:: formation is not part of the plans, but it is beim provided tc FD(A in accordance with 44 CFR 350. However, unlike the Personnel Resource Summary, these documente seem to be the type of material usually associated with State / local emergency plans. This raises several ques tions which both this of fice and FD4A headquarters feel require clarification in order . to proceed with analyzing this material.
Those questior.s are
- If these submissions are not part of the New Hampshire plan, then what is it7 Certainly, the letters of agreement would normally be part of the plan, an:1 some of the narrative could be viewed as implementing procedure.
9
o e
,C - How do you wish FilMA to treat this material? Should we treat it in a
( similiar manner to the Personnel Resource Summary, that is, sending it to the RAC and developing technical assistance comments? Do you wish the material to 1,4 reviewed with the idea of amending the existing RAC Review?
If the State wishes the RAC to review the material for ceraments then you will need to provide my office with 18 additional copies of this material.
Please indicate to us as soon as possible your wishes on how rn4A should treat this material, so that we may proceed in a manner that is in accordinance with your desire, that also complias with our established procedures.
gr Sincerely,
/
/
M wrd A. osas, Chief Natural and Technological Hazards Division l'
V O
O
[ .%
[
l STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
,m y EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT ..
g .p s
(
^ ^ '
ltI f ' OfNce of Emergency Idenegement State Office Park South
[
k - pf 107 Pleasant Street
- Concord, New Hempshiro 03301 '
603/271 2231
- JIHN H. sUNUNU 1 800-452 3792 Governor RICHARD H. STRoME l
Director
- JAMES A.SAGGloTEs Deiwry Ovector v
m:=
August 26, 1987 Z 5 ,,
H -
c r ao l Mr. Henry G. Vickers, 9egional Director g 0; 2 Federal Emergency Management Agency _. ,j Region 1 .< = .
+
J.W. McCormack Post Office and Court House ef Boston, Massachusetts 02109 i
Dear Mr. Vickers:
l I respectfully recuest that you formally accept for review in accordance with 44 CFR 350 the enclosed Summary of Personnel Resource Assessment dated (T August, 1987. For your information, this will be formally served to parties to the New Hampshire Offsite Emergency Planning hearings and to FEMA.
Q Although this document is not a part of the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan (BNRERP) per se, it does address the adecuacy of personnel resources for the State of New Hampshire and the New Hampshire EPZ communities. J Also, it addresses several technical review comments of the RAC on the New Hanpshire state and local plans. The comments generally concerned the {
capability to meet NUREG-0654, Criterion A.4 l l
The Summary deals with all 17 communities within the New Hampshire portion of the Seabrook Station EPZ. The State of New Hampshire agencies considered in the summary include those that have been assigned responsibilities in the I NHRERP for assisting local communities with implementing emergency response i operations.
The Summary is based upon the dynamic process to systematically' assess the resources recaired and available to implement the plans. It is the result, wherever possible, of an active dialogue with the town officials so that the State, the Utility, and the local communities may assist each other in achieving the most efficient utilization of personnel resources needed to inclement the RERP.
.m (over)
(]
4
~
Mr. Henry G. Vickers, Regional Director Page Two August 26, 1987 e
In addition, the Summary is responsive to the ASLB's inquiry of July 6, p 1987, regarding your position on the several contentions related to the personnel resource issues.
Sincerely 2 .
O Richard H. Strome Director RHS/sjc Enc. j 6566B g cc: Mr. Edward Thomas l
/\
U l
i
1
- Federal Emergency Management Agency f Region I J.W. McCormack Post Omce and Court House {
dg Boston, Massachusetts 02109 July 21, 1987 j
j Helen F. Hoyt, Chairperson i
! Atomic Safety anc Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l Washington, D.C. 20555
Dear Judge Hoyt:
In your correspondence of July 6, you requested that FEMA provide you with any additional information it may have regarding this Agency's position on those contentions impacted by the Personnel Resources Assessment Study prepared by New Hampshire Yankee.
FEMA's position remains unchanged from that expressed in the April 15, 1987 l
NRC filing to the Board opposing certain Motions for Summary Disposition, the June 5,1987 FEMA filing to the Board in Appendix A. Current FEKA Position On Admitted Contentions On New Hampshire plans For Seabrook, ano most recently
.he July 2,1987 NRC filing to the Board opposing certain Motions for Sunnary
- ,isposition.
Briefly reviewing the chronology of this situation, FEMA requested directly of New Hampshire officials that if they wished us to consider the Resource Assessment Study, and other materials also referenced in the applicant's p March E5,1987 Motions for Summary Disposition, that they directly submit those materials to FEMA Region 1 Office. On April 10, 1987, a utility rep.
"esentative hand-delivered 2 copies of the craft Resource Assessment Study' 1repared by New Hampshire Yankee. FEMA indicated to the State that this did n)t :enstitute a State Submission under FEMA's regulations. ;
Cn April 28, 1987 Mr. Strome was contacted in writing by my office regarding !
the need for the State to inform FEMA whether it wishes the utility's Resource i Asse::. ment Study to be considered by FEMA as part of New Hampshire State l pia ning. Enclosed with this letter is a copy of that correspondence, which alsn explains the ways in which FEMA can receive and review emergency plans.
EMA has never received any response from the State, and therefore, can only interpret this silence as a non-endorsement by the State of this occument.
FEMA feels tnat it has clearly made its position known on this matter, and i nas made every effort to acconinodate the State of New Hampshire and this {
licensing board by remaining willing to consider all materials submitted i eight up to FEMA's filing deadlines in these proceedings. I hope this correspondence assists your Board in its efforts to formulate rulings on the applicant's motions.
Sincerely, l l
1 t' s Edward A. Thomas, Division Chief
( Natural & Technological Hazards EnclCsure l
W"
2 k s ucuq (
UNITED STATES
,/ \ m i
r- 0 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION M*
AfoMIC $AFETY AND LICEN1tNG BoARO PANEL 2g; (j}
g ,7 .~ / ff usm~croN.o c mes
- . Q x0.nh e?
<3 July 6' 1987
., SEWED JVt. - 71987 TO: DOCKETING & SERVICES Olivia A. Sweeney _'c. 4 .u W /
FROM:
Secretary to Judge Hoyt
,.c
(
SUBJECT:
In the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ~ ~et al.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50 443-OL and 50-444-OL (Offsite Emergency Planning)
Please serve the attached letter to Edward A. Thomas Esquire, to the parties in the above-mentioned proceed.ing, o
G
- l. 4 f. ; ,' ' . 5 > i _T y
3 >
, * - -t .. ..
j
[ </'j,o/ . ascg,k,3, s , e f 4 Q;;, f j ,
(f j: , ,
D .) /e .,
.,. j UNITED STATk3
~M! T : ,. /; d'
'( NUCLEA8 REGULATORY COMMISSION asM N ton.o c.2as
'<j .. ;' 5 ,
3Q=), : ,
- / < ' July;6, 1987
--4 '
'r (
1i ' #'
.i Edward A. Thomas, Esquire .
l., '
Ftderal Emergency Maangen4nt i.gency '
l J. W. McConnack (P0CH)
Natural and Technological Harteds Division Rocs 462 .c Botton, Massachusetts 02109 ,
Dear Mr. Thomas:
,s On March 25,1937 the Applicants in the Seabrook proceeding filed
- r motions seeking m'aiary disposition cf numerous contentions relating to
-; off.. site emergwQ planning. Tho-Seal, rook licensing board having
- jurisdiction over wch matters is in the precess vf developing its
,/ / rulings on thosc 1 notions. On April 15, 1987 the MitC Staff responded to
^
c/ ,';those motiont; that response was supported by two' affidavits executed by
, , ,.r' you, setting forth the posittores of your Agency. In several instances !
' the statement _is_Jnadt_to_.tha t 3.f_e_ct_that.the f Agency position.cannot be
,-)b Q finalized untita_ personnel resources assessm'e'E study. released by
<W.irants early in April 1987, ha~s been properly submitted to your
- %uncy for analysis. ;
e s
"~ ~
At this time the Scard is unaware of whether FEMA is in a position to complete its asses'imnt of those contentions impacted by the fs insaurces assessment ).tudyb and, if, so, when you anticipate that the Agency position can bei.nade known.-
( + ,
n ,
Any Infonnation Nu can provide to the' Board on this matter will assist usiin our effort to 1ormulaw .wr rv'ttngs on Applican s' motions. .
(Sincerelyyours, 2 .
e 1.
K j b,oyt, Chairygeson
/OkTl
' Helen F.
Atomic Safety and t,*Isensing Board'
\
s l
I
.)
s O
4
?. .
.t
?
~ AY-_-._-_ _ _ -
Federal Emergency Management Agency Regirn I J.W. McCormack Pcst Office and Court Hcuse
. Boston, Massachusetts 02109 April 28, 1987 Mr. Richard H. Strome State Emergency Management Director New Hampshire State Civil Defense Agency State Office Park South 107 Pleasant St.
Concord, NH 03301
]
Dear Mr. Strome:
On Friday, April 24, Bruce Swiren of my staff discussed with you the process in wnich documents can be considered by FEMA in preparing written testimony on contentions filed in the Seabrook ASLB Hearings.
In FEMA's April 15, 1987 affadavits opposing certain Motions for Summary a Disposition, I indicated that FEMA could not consider the applicants Resource j Assessment Study, which was hand delivered by a utility representative to ny office on April 10, 1987, because it was not submitted under the 44 CFR 350 process. If you wish FEMA to (onsider this study, you should so advise us in writing ,that this study is to be considered part of New Hampshire's compensatory planning.
In addition, Mr. Swiren. indicated to you that if you wish FEMA to consider the Stone & Webster Sheltering Survey Study of beach area buildings around Seabrook, referred to in the Callendrello Affadivit supporting applicant's
~
Summary Dispositions f'or Sheltering Contentions, this too should be submitted ,
to FEMA by the State of New Hampshire under the f uspices of the 350 process. '
Finally, if you have any rdditional infern,ation in the way of letters of l agreement with companies employing teamstt:rs employees that you wish us to consider, they too should be submitted to FEMA.
I have enclosed a copy of correspondence to Mr. Robert Boulay, for your l information, which explains in detail the ways in which FEMA can receive ,
and review emergency plans. Please let ne know as soon as possible what '
your intentions are regarding these issues.
Sincerely, t :
, d?/ '
. l
'Y I Edward A. Thomas, Division Chief Natural & Technological Hazards l
Enclosure O
I f ederal LIT 1crgcIlcy Avansac5558m a55'"'T Region ! J.W. McCsrm ck Post Omce and Coun House Boston, Massachusetts 02109 October 31, 1985 Mr. Robert J. Boulay State Emergency Management Director Massachusetts civil Defense Agency and Office of Emergency Preparedness P.O. Bor. 1496 Framingham, MA 01701
Dear Ma. Boul ay:
At the most recent Seabrcok coordination ' meeting we ciscussed in detail the pro-cedures which states may follow to suomit state and local radiological emergency plans for review by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Atomic Safety Licensing Board (ASLB). Since you were unable to attend the meeting, we thought you might be interested in receiving our thoughts directly.
I. THE ATOMIC SAFETY LICENSING BOARD PROCEDURES The ASL3 set forth the procedures for Seabrook plan review in its order of May 23,1983. As FEMA understands the matter, this order contemplates that the plans will be made available to the parties involved in the licensing shortly after the plans are sent to FEMA for full review. Service of the plans on the parties will trigger the entire off-site ASLB process. This process will run on a separate but related track to the FEMA and RAC plan review. Submission of 9 the plans to FEMA can be accomplished by any of the methods outlined in para.
graph 11 below.
!!. THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY PROCEDURES
'here are three possible ways in which state and local plans may be submitt c "EMA.
l A. Formal _Subf-ittel FEMA s Regulation as 44 CFR 350 et seq. describe tne procedures for ths i subnission of state and local plans for formal review by FEMA and the RAC.
Among the salient features of submission of the plans under the formal FEMA vuess are:
(1) The application for plan review must be from the "
Governor or another persen designated by the Govt (44 CFR 350.7(a)). j (2) The application by the state must contain a sta' ment tnat in the opinion of the state, the state and loca ;1ans are
"... adequate to protect the public health and u f ety of its citizens living within the emergency planning zones... by j O
l
., .t.
providing reasonable assurance that state and local govern >
ments can and intend to effect appropriate protective measures off-site. in the event of a radiological emergency."
(44CFR350.7(d)).
(3) Only a state may submit the pl ans 'for review (44 CFR 350.7(e)).
Once FEMA receives the plans, it will publish a notice in the Federa) Register a that the plans are available for review by the public. Following EEMA's review and correction of any gaps or deficiencies in the plans, an exercise of the plans and a public meeting on the plans must be scheduled, if the pl ans are acceptable, they are then forwarded to FEMA Headquarters for final review ano concurrence.
B. Submission of Plans by the State without the _Forwality of 44 CFR 350 According to the Memorandum of Understanding (M00) between FEMA and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), FEMA's reviews and "fincings" on off. site plans may be based on "... plans currently available to FEMA..." as well as on other methocs of plan review discussee in this letter. (MOU paragraph 1, Footnote 1). To carry out this process, FEMA would require only the submission of the plans. We would request that the plans be accompanied by a cover letter from an appropriate state official indicating, at minimum, that the plans were adequate for review and analysis by the ASLB, FEMA, and the RAC. Such a cover istter explaining the nature of the submittel would serve to avoid confusion by FEMA, the RAC, and the ASLB about the State's view of the completeness of the pl ans .
C. Submission of Of f-Site Plans Through the NRC/ FEMA Staartne Committee The FEMA /NRC MOU also provides that FEMA /RAC Review and findings may be based on plans submitted to FEMA through the NRC/ FEMA Steering Committee.
(MOU Paragraph 1. Footnote 1). This procedure was followed for the review of the off-site plans prepared by the utility for use at the Shoreham Plant on Long Isl and, New York.
III. RECOMMENDATIONS As Chairman of the Region 1 Radiological Assistance Committee as well as the peason in charge of the REP program for FEMA in New Englanc, I offe- tne f ollowing recom encations for your consideration:
A. Submission of the plans through the FEMA /NRC Steering Committee is probably not appropriate to the situation at Seabrook, so we have not considered recommending it to you.
B. Submission of the plans under the formal 44 CFR 350 process may not be appropriate for the Seabrook plans since the plans may well be modified as a result of the extensive scrutiny they will receive during the licensing process. It would seem more ef ficier,t to delay the formal request for "350 Approval" until the Governor
O l
\ __ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
C. We believe that submission of the plans to FEMA in accordance with the procedures outlined in Paragraph II (B) of this letter may be
- a most efficient and logical way of proceeding.
If you or your staff have any questions, please call.
Sincerely, 49##
Edward A. Thomas, Division Chief Natural & Technological Hazards CC: Richard J. Strome, Director /NHCD John Quinn, Director, EPECC/SS O
i I
l
)
l O
1 ETE0 O DOC v c5e:
'87 OCT -2 A9 :27 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION hl[gggy ,I BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD I l
I.
l
)
In the Matter of )
)
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire, ) Docket No. 50-443-OL j et al. ) 50-444-OL
) Offsite Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2) ) Planning Issues
)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the following documents:
- 1. Index to FEMA Pre-Filed Testimony
- 2. List of Corrections to Testimony of FEMA Witnesses
- 3. FEMA Pre-Filed Testimony (With Corrections)
- 4. FEMA's Response to NECNP'S, SAPL'S, Town of Hampton's, and Commonwealth of Massachusetts' Motion for Suspension of Hearings with Resp?ct to Contentions Involving Transportation Availability, Reception Centers, and Response Personnel Adequacy, dated September 28, 1987
- 5. Current FEMA Guidance Memoranda
- 6. Correspondence dated July 21, 1987 from Edward A. Thomas to Judge Helen Hoyt
- 7. Memorandum by Richard Krimm on the Subject of montoring of (vacuees have been served on the following by Express Mail through the United States Postal Service on this 30th day of September, 1987:
O
{ .
9:
Ivan W. Smith, Esq., Chairman
' Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission East West Towers Building 4350. East West Highway
.- Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Dr.~ Jerry Harbour
. Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission l~ Bethesda, Maryland 20555 Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bethesda, Maryland 20555 Docket and Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Sherwin E. Turk, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tenth Floor
- 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, MD 20814 Thomas G. Dignan, Jr., Esq.
Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 Stephen E. Merrill Attorney General George Dana Bisbee Office of the Attorney General 25 Capitol Street Concord NH 03301-6397 Carol S. Snieder Assistant Attorney General Office ofJthe Attorney General One Ashburton Place,-19th Floor Boston, MA 02108 Diane Curran, Esq.
Harmon & Weiss
. 2001 S Street, N.W.
. Suite-430 Washington, D.C. 20009 Robert A..Backus, Esq.
Backus, Meyer & Solomon 116'Lowell Street Manchester, NH 03106 Paul McEachern, Esq.
Mathew T. Brock, Esq.
Shaines & McEachern Post Office' Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801 Edward A. Thomas Federal Emergency Management Agency O 442 J.W. McCormack (POCH)
Boston, MA 02109 Jane Doughty Seacoast Anti-Pollution League 5 Market Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Sandra Gavutis, Chairman Board of Selectmen RFD 1 Box 1154 Route 107 Kensington, NH 03827 J.P. Nadeau, Esq.
Selectmen's Representative Board of Selectmen 10 Central Road Rye, NH03870 Dated: September 30, 1987
'H. gSEP LYNN AssIsta General ounsel g Federal Emergency Management Agency L
l l
\ _ _ _ - - - . _____-_-__-_-____ _ _ _ -