ML20148R045
| ML20148R045 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 01/28/1988 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5530 OL, NUDOCS 8802020081 | |
| Download: ML20148R045 (59) | |
Text
, ,
. a \. -
UNntD STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
..O--=-------=------=----------------=--=-====--------=---"------=-------------===
In the Matter of: ) Docket Nos.
. ) 50-443-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-444-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) OFFSITE
) EMERGENCY (SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) ) PLANNING TELECONFERENCE O
LOCATION: Bethesda, Maryland PAGES: 9080 through 9137 DATE: January 28, 1988
.=.....=.==.......=======.......,.=......=====.....====.=.====..== =.===.==. .=.===
g ol O Heritag Reporting corporation Official Reporters I200 L Strat. N.W.
Wunington. D.C. 20005 (202) 628-4484 880DOD0081 8801gg PDR ADOCK 05000443 ,
PDR v . _
b
1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 3
(';
l 4 In the Matter of: ) Docket Nos.
) 50-443-OL 5 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-444-OL NEW HAMPSIIIRE, et al., ) OFF-SITE 6 ) EMERGENCY (SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2)) PLANNING 7
8 TELECONFERENCE 9 Thursday January 28, 1988 10 Room 428 11 East-west Towers 4350 East-west Highway 12 Bethesda, Maryland
(') 13 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, 14 pursuant to notice, at 1:24 p.m.
15 BEFORE: JUDGE IVAN W. SMITil, CilAIRMAN JUDGE JERRY HARBOUR, MEMBER 16 JUDGE GUSTAVE A. LINENBERGER, JR., MEMBER Atomic Safety and Licencing Board 17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 18 19 20 21
- f. 22 (3~)
2a 21 25 Acme Reporting Company
,,u..>.,,,..
9081 1 APPEARANCES:
2 For the Applicants:
3 THOMAS G. DIGNAN, JR., ESQ.
,e n Ropes & Gray
(_) 4 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 5
For the NRC Staff:
6 SHERWIN E. TURK, ESQ.
7 Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8 Washington, D.C. 20555 9 For the Federal Emergency Management Agency:
10 H. JOSEPH FLYNN, ESQ.
Federal Emergency Management Agency 11 500 C Street SW Washington, D.C. 20472 12 For the State of New Hampshire:
l'*) 13 GEORGE DANA BISBEE, ASST. ATTY. GEN.
14 State of New Hampshire 25 Capitol Street 15 Concord, New Hampshire 03301 16 For the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
17 JOHN TRAFICONTE, ASST. ATTY. GEN.
STEPHEN OLESKEY, ESQ.
18 Commonwealth of Massachusetts one Ashturton Place, 19th Floor 19 Boston, Massachusetts 02108 20 For the New England Coalition against Nuclear Pollution:
21 ELLYN WEISS, ESQ.
22 Harmon & Weiss h7- 2001 S Street NW 23 Washington, D.C. 20009 24 .
l 25 Acme Reporting Company u u. .,.....
9082 1 APPEARANCES (continued):
2 For the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League:
3 JANE DOUGHTY, DIRECTOR g^3 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League V 4 5 Market Street Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801 5
For the Town of Hampton:
6 MATTHEW T. BROCK, ESQ.
7 Shaines & McEachern 25 Maplewood Avenue 8 PO Box 360 Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801 9
For the Town of Kensington:
10 SANDRA FOWLER MITCHELL, EMERGENCY PLANNING DIR.
11 Town Hall Kensington, New Hampshire 12
/9 V
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 99 p -
v 23 24 25 l Acme Reporting Company i ,na,.>. ...
L______._______.__ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . .
9083 1 P ROCEEDINGS sgn348 2 JUDGE SMIT!!: All right, proceed. Who wishes to 3 report?
~.
(_/ 4 MR. DIGNAN: Well, Your Honor, this is Mr. Dignan.
5 JUDGE SMITII: All right.
G MR. DIGNAN: I think probably the first people we 7 would like to hear from is the State, and I'm reviewing it on 8 this basis. It was my understanding that the thrust of 9 Mr. Turk's motion -- and he will correct me if I'm wrong, I'm 10 sure -- was to defer the shelter issue on the basis that the 11 State may wish to file with FEMA some sort of a response to 12 the FEMA prefiled testimony which could then subsequently be
(~>'; 13 reviewed by FEMA and looked at to see if it satisfied the s
14 concerns expressed in that testimony.
15 And then FEMA theoretically would have maybe the 16 same position or another position, and off of that would go 17 litigation.
18 If I've misstated Mr. Turk's motion, I cpologize.
19 So I would suggest that the first question before 20 the house is whether and when the State does wish to do that, 21 assuming the Board went down that route.
22 JUDGE SMIT!!: Yes, that's what I thought it was, ff 23 but I didn't think you were concerned about that. But I 24 think that's appropriate.
I 1
25 Mr. Bisbee?
Acme Reporting Company l ,u,.,,....
1
9 9084 1 MR. BISBEE: Yes, Your !!onor.
2 First let me say it's great to be back. I missed 3 yesterday.
,y, i.) 4 We had spent yes:erday afternoon and this morning 5 considering Mr. Turk's motion, and we've come to the 6 determination that we are prepared to provide a response to 7 the concerns raised by FEMA in their supplemental testimony.
8 We're prepared to do that within a two-week period.
9 JUDGE SMITH: '.'s that -- are you referring to a 10 response to FEMA?
11 MR. BISBEE: Yes.
12 JUDGE SMITH: Within two weeks?
t')
(
L 13 MR. BISBEE: That's correct.
14 MR. FLYNN: This is Joseph Flynn. Then the next 15 question becomes, is FEMA prepared to review that within the 16 period of time that Mr. Dignan suggested yesterday, nanely, 17 30 days, and the answer to that is yes, we are.
18 And implicis. in th3t is that we would then file 19 additional testimony to reflect the review of what the State 20 sends us.
21 JUDGE SMITil: That would be at the end of 30 days?
gm 22 MR. FLYNN: 30 days fron receipt of the State's l
i (_)
23 submission.
(
24 JUDGE SMITil: Mr. Dignan?
25 MR. DIGNAN: Your llonc'r, assuning, with those Acme Reporting Company
'2021 6ggdess
9085 1
commitments, it would be the Applicants' view that Mr. Turk's 2
motion should be allowed, and that we should go that route.
3 I would like to add that I think the appropriate,
('") 4 from the Applicants' point of view, the appropriate thing would 5 be then to allow Mr. Turk's motion, which is for a deferral of 6
that, with a view that in approximately six weeks we would 7
have a FDIA position, and at which time the Board could then 8
schedule, or maybe the Board would want to indicate after 9
some thought in a written schedule that so many days after 10 FEMA comes in with supplemental testimony, the other parties 11 could file on that basis their testimony, and then maybe a 12 week later rebuttal to the various testimonies that are filed,
() 13 and then go to hearing on the issue.
14 I would respectfully suggest that if the Board is 15 amenable to r. hat approach on sheltering, that what we do in I6 the week of hearings that are presently scheduled for Boston 17 on the 8th is that we wrap up all the other issues, close the 18 record, and set a schedule for filing proposed findings and 19 rulings. I don't know whether the Board would want to issue a 90 partial initial decision on that part of the case, or await 21 I would urge the filing of a the resolution of shelter.
no partial initial decision, because it would get that much of
{]
'~
23 the case out of the way, but it would seem to me we could wrap 24 up the -- all aspects except sheltering in the form of 25 proposed findings and rulinas, in any event.
Acme Reporting Company 120Ji 670 49Be
9086 1 JUDGE SMITH: You would not anticipate the need for 2 hearings on February 22nd?
3 MR. DIGNAN: Well, I would be reluctant in this case (O) 4 to suggest that the Board give the hearing room up, simply 5 because -- and I'm as guilty as anyone else of this; people 6 have been estimating cross-examinations, and it turns out 7 they go longer -- it's my thought that the rebuttal ex the 8 shelter testimony that has been filed, however, would probably 9 be taken care of in five days of hearing. I've got a pretty 10 good feel for how much cross-examination we would have of the 11 rebuttal that's been filed, and I just don't know how much 12 others would have of the rebuttal we have filed, but I would ID
%J 13 think it could be done in five days.
14 But I would respectfully suggest that the Board 15 hang or.to that week until we' re sure we' re going to finish.
16 JUDGE SMITH: You're talking about a hearing on the 17 sheltering issue in mid or late March -- mid or late April.
18 MR. DIGNAN: Yes, doing the calculation, it occurred 19 to me that if the State came in in two weeks, that's the 20 middle of February. If FEMA turned it around, that would be 21 in the middle of March, and then giving time to file testimony, 3 22 you're talking about the shelter issue being heard in April.
d Lest -- so all my cards on the table, Your Honor, 23 21 when we get to the scheduling of the Mass. plan, I do not 25 think the Mass. plan, starting the contention process on the Acme Reporting Company e . .....
9087 1 Mass., plan, should have to await the finish of the shelter 2 hearing on the New Hampshire side. Seems to me there's slack 3 time in there to do some work on that, too.
^
f g
(._) 4 JUDGE SMITH: All right. Does anybody else wish to 5 be heard on this?
G MR. OLESKEY: Certainly.
7 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Oleskey?
8 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, Your Honor. The Intervenors were 9 discussing some joint concerns in the last 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, keyed 10 around whatever New Hampshire said, which we've now heard.
11 I guess preliminarily I'd like to ask Mr. Bisbee 12 through you if he can clarify anything about what it is the 13 State proposed to do in the next two weeks, that is, what
( })
14 kind of filing in general that we could expect them to come in 15 with in two weeks.
16 MR. BISBEE: Should I reply, Mr. Chairman, is that 17 permissible?
18 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, please.
19 MR. BISBEE: Mr. Oleskey, what the planners have in 20 nind here is to provide a written response, of course, to the 21 concerns raised. Just what the response will be and what 22 form the content will take isn't known at this point. That's
, -)
\_J 23 what the two weeks is for.
24 JUDGE SMITH: Well --
(
25 MR. OLESKEY: Does that -- just one more question, l
l l Acme Reporting Company
.,w .,.....
l
9088 1 I guess -- does that mean that you might not change your --
2 the State might not change its position, Mr. Bisbee?
3 MR. BISBEE: No decision has been made on what r~) We've had a very limited
'x_/ 4 response to provide at this point.
5 opportunity to review it. We think two weeks will do it, but 6 at this point the State isn't able to state how or if the 7 position will change.
8 MR. OLESKEY: We do have some concerns, Judge Smith, 9 that if the State position changes, and FEMA therefore files 10 a more final position, that the Intervonors be allowed some 11 time along the way here to do some discovery of a type that 12 would have been done earlier if the positions had been laid
('T x/
13 out in the fashion they may now be, earlier than they would 14 have been, if I haven't lost you in my verbiage.
15 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I think I lost some of it, but IG I think I have the idea that you want -- you'd like to inquire 17 into the basis for any response by the State of New Hampshire.
18 MR. OLESKEY: Yes, and thereafter, if -- well, then 19 FEMA, if FEMA takes a position, and Mr. Flynn's filing of last 20 week suggests that's at least at the level of possible, if FEMA 21 now takes the position that appears to be in any significant 22 respect different than that of the September filing.
f~)
LJ Finally, of course, and let me put on the table now,
?,3 24 we remain concerned at having the NRC Staff articulate where 25 its position, if any, will follow all this, so that we don't Acme Reporting Company a ,.......
9089 1 all get back to hearing sometime in late April or early May 2 and find out that they're still considering a position and 3 about to take one, after which we will have no discovery and
/~l
\_/ 4 no chance to prepare.
5 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Turk, would you care to respond to 6 that?
7 MR. TURK: Yes, I would. I'm trying to decide how I 8 can best respond.
9 There has been a round of discovery. Incidentally, 10 in the hearings I indicated it was in June; that was a mistake.
11 It was in March of 1987. But there has been a round of 12 discovery against the Staff and FEMA. There were two people I')./
13 who filed it, or two parties, Town of !!ampton and NECNP.
14 We will reexamine on behalf of the Staff, I will 15 reexamine the responses that we gave to determine if they 16 require supplementation. That's really the --
17 JUDGE SMITH: What does that mean to us?
18 MR. TURK: Pardon me?
19 JUDGE SMITH: What does that mean to the Board?
20 MR. TURK: I'll have to determine whether the 21 responses that we gave to discovery require updating under fs 22 the rules of discovery.
(_) Well, you realize, Mr. Turk, that 23 JUDGE SMITH:
that tells the Board absolutely nothing. I mean, that just 24 25 doesn't tell us anything about where the Staff might be on the Acme Reporting Company
, m ,. .....
9090 1 positions advanced by New Hampshire and FEMA.
2 MR. OLESKEY: Well, our recollection, Judge, is that 3 the prior response by the Staff was alor.g the lines of we O
(./ 4 don't have any position yet. And all we're trying to do here 5 is to get a commitment from the Staff as to when they would be 6 prepared in a penultimate sense either to say we have a 7 position and here it is, or we will not take a position in 8 this case on this issue.
9 And then if the -- if it's the former, they're 10 taking a position, we'd like some discovery.
11 MR. TURK: You want additional discovery beyond the 12 initial set of discovery?
13 MR. OLESKEY: Well, as I recall, and Ellyn Weiss, I'l a
14 who filed the discovery can correct me, little or nothing was 15 forthcoming from that discovery. In any event, since the 16 Staff has never taken a position, if you do now take a 17 position, presumably there's more to say about it than 18 anything you previously responded.
19 MR. TURK: Mr. Oleskey, my point is I will 20 reexamine the previous discovery responses.
21 MR. WEISS: Well, I don't -- this is Ellyn Weiss --
- 22 I don't think that your obligation ends with supplementing the A/ Everybody 23 discovery that's been outstanding for nine months.
21 else had multiple rounds and followup rounds, and --
25 (Simultaneous voices.)
Acme Reporting Company
.v,,.,....
9091 1 MS. WEISS: Excuse me -- excuse --
2 JUDGE SMITH: Wait a minute. Ms. Weiss, just a 3 minute.
/
(_) 4 The difficulty is when we have a telephone 5 conference like this, some people using speakerphones override 6 everything else, and the record is much more -- the transcript 7 is much more difficult to produce. So please be careful not 8 to interrupt.
9 MR. TURK: I apologize.
10 JUDGE SMITH: Don't overtalk, because it's all lost.
11 The only exception to that is that I think my speakorphone 12 just wipes out everybody else, and you'll just have to put up
(~)
\_/
13 that.
14 MS. WEISS: Well, my point --
15 JUDGE SMITH: Ms. Weiss, would you make your point 16 now, please?
17 MR. TRAFICONTE: That may not be an electronic 18 reason, Your Honor.
19 MS. NEISS: The point that I was trying to make is 20 that all other parties were subject to multiple rounds of 21 followup discovery, and the Staff's been laying back and has 22 never given us a response to the first round, and I think
-)
V 23 that it's, you know, we are certainly not -- we should have 24 an opportunity to follow up beyond the belated responses to 25 that nine-month-old discovery at this point, if the Staff is Acme Reporting Company
9092 1 finally going to come in and take a position. If they're not, 2 I really don't care. Bat if they are, I don't think that we 3 ought to be disadvantaged by the fact that that's a year n
(_) 4 later than all the other parties.
5 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, this is Tom Dignan in 6 Boston.
7 May I respectfully suggest that we had this round 8 once when FEMA had indicated they were going to do 9 . supplemental testimony. I respectfully suggest that what 10 ought to happen is, assuming the motion's allowed and FEMA in 11 six weeks or so files something else er doesn't file something 12 else and changes its position or doesn't change ats position, it then becomes relevant for somebody to argue to the Board
(]) 13 14 that events have taken place which require that they have 15 further discovery.
16 I don't see how the Board could even rule on the 17 question of whether discovery be allowed until we see what 18 FEMA does. If FEMA comes in with exactly the same position 19 they've had all along, why does anybody need discovery? If 20 they come in with a position that's 90 degrees, maybe the 21 Board will say, well, there ought to be seme discovery. If
~ 22 they come in on 100, maybe the Board will say there should be x-23 some discovery, and a lot will depend upon the reasons they 24 give for any changes they make.
l 25 Ard I don't know how we're going to resolve today l
Acme Reporting Company
,,m..u..
L_
9093 1 whether and how long there should be a discovery period after 2 FEMA files, until FEMA files.
3 MR. OLESKEY: Well, I -- this is Steve Oleskey,
(~)/
x_ 4 Judge -- conceptually that's right. The problem is that 5 Mr. Dignan has laid out a possible schedule ending up with a 6 date for the hearings.
7 MR. DIGNAN: No, I haven't.
8 MR. OLESKEY: That -- all right, I --
9 MR. DIGNAN: I haven't done that.
10 MR. OLESKEY: -- that was where we were heading --
11 MR. DIGNAN: I have said, I think, tentatively wo 12 ought to look to the fact that if FEftA comes in, the Board
~l 13 might want to set some tentative dates for the filing of two (G
14 rounds of testimony. But presumably if FEMA comes in and 15 somebody thinks they need discovery, they'll cone squawk. And 16 at that point, the Board has full authority to move testimony 17 filing dates, or anything else.
18 I t -- I just don't see how a discovery question can 19 be decided at this point, because nobody knows what FEMA's 20 final position's going to be.
21 MR. OLESKEY: I agree with that, Ton.
22 Judge, if -- as long as the Board understands that 23 the Intervenors, at least, and possibly Mr. Dignan, have these 21 concerns about discovery, given changes in position, and that 25 the entire schedule for resumption of the hearing on Acme Reporting Company
.n o, .z. ...
9094 1 sheltering is flexible to that extent, it gives us some 2 comfort. But it doesn't answer the question of when the NRC 3 Staff would have to cut bait or fish, as we say.
/^1 (l 4 MR. DIGNAN: Well, how can they take~a position on 5 whether they're cutting fish or baiting, to use a phrase, 6 until the FEMA position is known?
7 MS. WEISS: Well, they could --
8 JUDGE SMITil: May I interrupt just a moment?
D The Board wants to take just a moment out to talk 10 among each other, and so we will just take a brief recess here.
11 !!ang on the phones.
12 (The Board confer.)
[) 13 JUDGE SMITil: We're back on the line.
14 The Board has a couple observations, but before we 15 get into anything further, this whole business of discovery --
16 can I be heard now?
17 MS. WEISS: Yes.
18 MR. DIGNAN: Yes.
19 JUDGE SMITil: This whole discussion of discovery 20 arose from the fact that Mr. Turk elected to present the 21 Staff's position in terms of whether they would supplement 22 their discovery or not, leaving it to Ms. Weiss to explain (s that that means that they would supplement their previous 23 21 position of having no position with taking a position.
25 Why can't you just go directly to it, Mr. Turk?
Acme Reporting Company
.u , .,.....
rm - - ,-
9095 1 Just go directly and tell the Board what it is the Staff is 2 going to do or wants to do or planning on doing, or what's in 3 your mind.
gw (l 4 MR. TURK: All right, Your Honor. If I can, I never 5 had a chance to address Mrs. Weiss's statement. Let me do that 6 and address yours at the same time.
7 First, in respect to your comment, I don't think it's 8 any mystery to anyone in the proceeding, based upon Dr. Bores's 9 appearance in the proceeding; based upon the RAC representative ,
10 Dr. Dores's, memo of last June; based upon the rebuttal 11 outline that I submitted to all parties in October, that the 12 NRC Staff has a view that the shelter issue has been wrapped Os/
13 up, 14 JUDGE SMITH: Okay --
15 MR. TURK: Now, let me --
16 JUDGE SMITil: -- that the shelter issue is what?
17 MR. TURK: -- let -- I'm sorry?
18 JUDGE SMITil: That the shelter issue is what?
19 MR. TURK: !!as been, I said, wrapped up; in other 20 words, it --
21 JUDGE SMITil: Oh, okay, right.
22 MR. TURK: -- that the regulatory requirements have i
s 23 been met by the State.
24 At the same time, as Dr. Bores indicated when he was 25 on the stand, the Staff is not opposed to an enhancement of Acme Reporting Company
. m ..,.....
9096 1 the plan to address the extent to which sheltering might be 2 made a protective response for the beach population.
3 Now, the discovery that has been pressed against the x
) 4 Staff until now asks what the Staff's position is. In March 5 of this year, when we responded to that discovery, we stated 6 that we did not have a position different from that of FEMA.
7 And at that time, FEMA had not yet taken a position, and in 8 essence we were following the normal course of NRC Staff 9 participation in offsite emergency preparedness litigation.
10 whereby we do not present a case; we don't take a position in 11 the proceeding.
12 The witness that's proffered is the witness made available by FEMA, and the Staff abides by, in the usual
() 13 14 cource, the Staff abides by the views of our sister federal 15 agency, except in a case where we would disagree with that 16 view.
17 Now, the problem that the Staff had had until now 18 is that the FEMA position had never been elucidated clearly 19 enough for us to say here is an error that we're -- we must take on and present rebuttal testimony on. Now, we've come --
20 21 we've had different instances in the proceeding where we've
- 22 come close to that, but I think that it's been my perception, 23 and I think that of my agency, that until we actually saw what 21 FEMA was qoing to say on the witness stand, we simply could 25 not say with certainty what their view was and what the Acme Reporting Company
,m ,.>.....
9097 1 rationale for the view was so that we would know whether or not 2 we'd have to file a rebuttal piece.
-3 And I guess at this point, until we see how FEMA
/~
(s} 4 will address whatever it is that the State of New Hampshire is 5 going to do, we still don't know if we have a disagreement 6 with FEMA.
7 JUDGE SMITH: Well, you don't agree with the 8 testimony that they filed Monday, Tuesday, or whenever it was.
9 MR. TURK: Well, the essence of that testimony was 10 that FEMA expressed a need to have further information --
11 JUDGE SMITH: And that the plan is inadequate unless 12 they have further information.
() 13 MR. TURK: Well, I don't read it that way, Your 14 Honor. I think that --
15 JUDGE SliITH: Oh. All right. Nnll, very good.
16 That -- let me --
17 MR. TURK: I read that testimon't as saying that _
18 PEMA does not yet know if the plan is adequate until they get 19 that additional information. It's an interim position where 20 they simply do not know yet, and the Staff has absolutely 21 no objection, and in fact favor the course of action whereby 22 the State provides the information and allows FEMA to make a 23 decision. And we support the process whereby the State 21 provides information and FEMA can make a decision.
25 When FEMA makes that decision, evaluate it, and Acme Reporting Company e ,,. .....
!/ $ bi 5
6 2. 9098 1 then come to: the' Board : and . to the other parties with a 2< statement'of what our position will be. . Tlua position could be 3- that:we-simply do not. agree with FEMA, or it.could be that we f) And'if we do' agree with~ FEMA, theres no use'for
- V '4 do. agree.
5 me to put a witness on inIthe proceeding. And there's 6 similarly no'need for anyone to have-discovery against the 7 kind of case I'd be putting on, because I would.not be putting 8 on a case.
9 JUDGE SMITH: - Well, could --
10 MR. TURK: I want to respond to something that 11 Ms. Weiss said.
12 JUDGE. SMITH: All right, wait. Let me ask you this.
() 13 We recognize the memorandum of understanding and the 14 - regulatory _ scheme in which the' NRC allows FEMA to take the 15 . lead on this, but the fact is the NRC has now taken a position 16 on the merits of the issue, notwithstanding FEMA's position.
17 Why can't the NRC just simply submit its -- Mr. Bores's views, 18 together with the rationale for them, and cut- out all of that?
19 Because at least it will be relevant to -- no matter what FEMA 20 does.
21 MR. TURK: Even if the Staff does not put on a case?
22 That's my problem. If I don't put on a case, then 23 why do I have an obligation to respond to discovery about what 24 our case is?
l l
25 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I don't know what to say about f
l 1
l Acme Reporting Company
.,o,,.,.4...
s ,-n, -,, -r, , -- - - , ,~,,-nn, w , - - , , - - , , - , - - - . - . . , - - .w,, n -,nn-, e-- . , - - , , , , , -
o 9099.
i.-
1 that. It~seems-to make sense, but also it seems to me that
'2 we're stalled here on one aspect of it.-
- 5 3 MR. TURK: Your Honor, Ms. Weiss conceded the point.
g;
~ JE 4 .We.had a telephone conference-call, and I believe it was 5 yesterday when it came up, if.not in a prior one. I believe 6' it wa's yesterday, possibly earlier. But'Ms. Weiss agreed with 7 me-that obviously, in her words, and she used the word 8 "obviously", if I don't put on a case, she doesn't need-9 discovery against me.
10 MS. WEISS: Mr. Chairman --
11 MR. TURK: Now, if I may, before Ms. Weiss begins, t 12 I want to respond to one other thing she indicated. She had
() 13 stated that all parties were subjected to multiple rounds of 14 discovery, other than the Staff, because the Staff had simply 15 said we are not taking a position different from FEMA.
16 My recollection of discovery on these issues is that
. ~
17 there was one round allowed this past March, and that was it.
18 There was no followup discovery.
19 JUDGE SMITH: The parties seem to be fascinated, 20 obsessed, with discussing this case in terms of discovery'and 21 discovery rounds, and the Board is frustrated in trying to 22 talk about the issues.
lI i
23 MS. WEISS: Mr. Chairman, may I just say that the j
24 question before the Board, the ques', ion Mr . Oleskey asked, is L 25 can we set a date, a firm date, by which the Staff tells us, L
Acme Reporting Company
, m ,. . ....
9100 1 are'theyl going to file-testimony, are they not. .;An -d then we-n
- 2 would. simply - .we should acknowledge thatnif-they are_ going 3- to file testimony that we have an opportunity to do the ,
4- discovery that1we have not.bden able to do after that.'
5 I mean, that's the request before the Board; 6 JUDGE SMITH: All right, here -- so we may have this 7 . scenario as that New Hampshire 1 files a -- something in two 8 weeks, and they say, well, we've looked at your supplemental 9 testimony, and we think you're wrong, and we're not going ~to 101 do anything more. So-in that event, I don't know what 11 happens.
12 But let's assume that they say, well, you're'right,
() 13' we are going to take into account, we're going to consider, 14 sheltering options, and our sheltering study will be a part of And then at the end of that, FEMA comes back and says, as
~
15 it.
16 they suggested, well, hey, we don't like the sheltering study 17 and it doesn't tell us enough. And then NRC Staff says, well, 18 FEMA still hasn't taken a' position and we don't if we're going 19 to put on a case.
20 And in the meantime, nothing is tied down. It is 21 a floating schedule.
22 Mr. Turk?
v O- MR. TURK: Well, Your Honor, I don't anticipate 23 24 that we'll find ourselves, you know, in a position where FEMA 25 will say we don't know yet, and leading the Staff to say, well,
! Acme Reporting Company
,su,. .....
i 9e ,---w--rwr vv-w- v-m,-er,r-,-me-e -amr.w ,,- er>w n-~,m-m- e --ms - -
ye .
. ffj y.1 ,
9101 a '
1R
,' ;1- I don't'know if.I'm going to be putting'on a-case.
2 'What'I'm' anticipating is'thate.'thesState is going to 3 ma'e.a k very good faiEh effort.to satisfy the concerns which' D, - 4 FEMA has. expressed.
-5 JUDGE SMITH: Well, Mr. Bisbee_ won't give us.that 6~ comfort.
~7 MR. DIGNAN: Well, I think Mr. Bisbee would give us 8 the comfort that.the State will make a good faith effort to 9 satisfy the concerns as they're expressed.
10 MR. BISBEE: I think I said that.
- 11. JUDGE SMITH: 'He said respond to them, respond. ,
12' MR. BISBEE: We don't know whether or not it will be acceptable in the ultimate sense, but we will certainly --
(]) 13
-14 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, I think it's important to 152 keep'in mind that -- and I don't like to --
1 d
16 JUDGE SMITH: Wait, Mr. Dignan, did you --
17 Mr. Dignan, can you hear ne? ,
18 MR. DIGNAN: Yes, I can, Your Honor.
19 JUDGE SMITH: I don't -- Mr. Bisbee is -- cannot be 20 heard very well, and you just overrode him. Hang on a second, 21 will you, please?
22 Mr. Bisbee?
23 MR. BISBEE: Yes, thank you, Your Honor.
24 I think we said as much as that we will. respond, 25 and it certainly will be in good faith, to the concerns raised Acme Reporting Company aav.>....
- -- ,_m , . . . -~ , - - - . - , , . . . . . _ , . _ - - . _ _ _ _ , , _ , - . . . . . _ , , , - . _ _ , . _- . . . . . _ - . ,,, - - . . , -
. .- . - - - ~ . .
,.7 ._
9102
~
, 1. by FEMA.-
What I.. don't know is whether.those concerns will or 2 will not. satisfy FEMA'in the long.run.
- b. . JUDGE SMITH: Oh,-I ---so you, the State of New (sf. 4 Hampshiro: intends to try to satisfy the concerns of' FEMA. You 2
5- don'.t know how successful you'll be, but you're going to-give' 6 it an effort. Is that --
'7 MR. BISBEE: Correct.
8 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. See, lee didn't understand that'.
9 I thought you were still trying to decide whether you would .
10 'try to satisfy the concerne as compared to making some other 11 type of response', which could possibly include, well, we're 12 happy standing pat.
'.But you intend to try and satisfy those concerns?.
1() 13 14 MR. BISBEE: Your Honor, I don't want to -- I_ don't 15 know that.the -- the State has not yet determined what 16 -position it's going to take in that response.
17 JUDGE SMITH: Well --
18 MR. TRAFICONTE: Your Honor, could I make~an effort 19 to clarify'the situation? It's John Traficonte.
20 If I understand Mr. Bisbee's hesitation, he could l
21 satisfy the FEMA position in one of two ways. He could ,
22 attempt.to devise a sheltering plan, or he could provide a 23 technical rationale for why there is no sheltering plan and 24 will not be one. As I understand what he's trying to say, 25 he doesn't know which of those two possible responses the Acme Reporting Company i,o,,.,.4...
- - , , , - . ,_ - , , - , , . . . - - , , , , , . - - . . - . _ , , ,-,,.r_m...,-. - - _ . , , . . . . - - . . - . _ -
, 1 1.v _
'9103
-( State is. going to make'.
2 JUDGE. SMITH: And as I understand it, either i
4 .. 3 response, if adequately-supported, would satisfy FEMA's A ; 4' -concerns.
5 - MR.- TRAFiCONTE: Well, depending on what you mean
~
6 by satisfy. Mr. Flynn might be'better able to answer that, 7 but clearly-it's not clear to the Mass. AG's office that a 8 rationale for why there is no sheltering, it may superficially 9 satisfy FEMA's concerns, but we will obviously consider it -
10 possible that it would still find-the plan inadequate.
11 JUDGE SMITH: Right. Exactly. But we're' talking 12 now about getting FEMA's position. '
MR. TRAFICONTE,: Procedurally to satisfy, yes.:
-( ) 13 -
14 - JUDGE SMITH: Right.
i 15 MR. FLYNN: This is Joseph Flynn.
16 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Flynn.
17 MR. FLYNN: It's not just the procedures that we're looking to satisfy here. It's not that we want two or three 18 [
19 sentences on a piece of paper that says, well, we thought I
20 about it and here's our opinion.
-21 No, we'd like to see, if the State of New Hampshire l .
22 chooses to use no sheltering _or no more sheltering than is
! 23 - already in the plan, then we'd like to see, as our technical end348 ~ 24 people put it, a robust rationale for that.
25 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, Joe, that plan's still a good IBU96A370 Acme Reporting Company
,uos,.a..... -
- . a a ,:. _ _ - _ _ . . . _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ , _ _
~ . - - ..
~
. 1 9104 a sa >
)gn349 I -1 .
one, which is that rationale would satisfy you at this
' ~
ap[ _ 72 juncture in terms of the process here, but_your supplemental
- v. ;
3 testimony does not indicate'to the' Board or the other parties 7s LK). 4 whether a~ technical rationale would'then lead you to conclude 5 that the plan as it exists provides reasonable' assurance.
6 That's an open issue.
7 .MR. T'U RK : With respect to the' beach shelter issue?
- 8 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes.
9 MR. FLYNN: John, I'm sorry, I've --
10 -MR . TRAFICONTE: Did you miss the last half of that?
11- MR. FLYNN: I heard what you said, I'm not -- but 12 'I'm not sure I understand your point. The reasonable assurance doesn't hang on the beach issue alone. That's what
(]) 13 14 we were trying to say.
15 MR. TRAFICONTE: No, but it hangs in part on it.
16 MR. FLYNN: Yes, o 17 MR. TRAFICONTE: And my point is a simple one. If 18 the State decides to come back with a technical rationale for why there is no sheltering, FEMA has then to decide 10 20 whether the plan without any sheltering provides reasonable 21 assurance, at least with regard to the shelter issue for the 22 beach people. And that is an open issue, is it not?
O 23 JUDGE SMITH: Do you understand that, Mr. Flynn?
24 MR. FLYNN: Yes, I understand the question.
25 I think what we said in the testimony was if the Acme Reporting Company
.mo,,. .....
m _ _ - . _. . . _ ,_ .. .
i
9105-
~ ,5 f
v.
,_ _ f.
1 ' element is: rated adequate,.that"is, in applying NUREG-0654, we a
2 come~to the conclusion that NUREG-0654 hasn't been met, that
[' 3' may or may'not lead to_a conclusion'that the plan is '
%) 4 inadequate.
5 But there's another side to that, and-that is if the i 6 element is rated adequate, can we then go on, despite that, to 7 find that there's no reasonable assurance. Now, number one, I
.8 don't think we're presented with that situation, so we don't 9 have to decide that yet. But the other thing is-I. don't'-- it ,.
10 seems to me we'd be awfully hard-pressed to devise a rationale 11 for saying that the plan as a whole didn't provide reasonable 12 ' assurance if all the elements were rated adequate.
13 Am I following you, John? Is.that your question?
14 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, I, you know, I don't want to 15 cros3-examine you, Joe, but I would put it in simpler terms. ,
16 If there's a technical explanation by the'5 tate as to why-p.
17 there's no sheltering in the plan, I take your answer to be 18 that you've not yet decided whether you would find an 19 inadequacy or an adequacy under the issue of range of 20 protective measures, for example.--
21 MR. DIGNAN: The question's a legal question at that 22 point, Mr. Traficonte, anyway.
23 MR. TRAFICONTE: -- as a whole inadequate.
l l-
! 24 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Dignan, don't overtalk.
25 MR. DIGNAN: I apologize, Your Honor.
l l
Acme Reporting Company
.,o,,. .....
- , , . - . . , , , , , . - - , , _.--- ,- ,_ .--,. ,- - ,- ,.,, ,.,.c,,, -
,-,,,_._.-.._,,---__-n-- -.n. .,,,.,,.,,.n,,, , . . , - . -
+
--3
, p-yc .
9106 1;
g-jf;h ,
3 e -
r6 s c o
1 JUDGE SMITH: Did you hear Mr. Traficonte's
, lr question,JMr. Flynn? ,
if MR.-FLYNN: Yes, I heard the. question. ,
s 4' LJUDGE SMITH: What do you understand the question to
- .be?'
5' j, 6 MR. FLYNN: He's separating, as we did in our.
~7 testimony, the issue of adequacy in the contextp of.the 8 . application of NUREG-0654 from the overall qu,estion of s e s. o O reasonable assurance, and he's asking if the inadequacy goes 10- away, are we then' prepared to say-that, at least with respect
~
11 to that feature of the plan or that aspect of the plan, there 12 -is reasonable assurance.
I And my answer to that is if you have to ask the (J 13 4
14 question, you haven't read our testimony. What we're saying.
15- is that they're separate issues, that we don't make 16 reasonable assurance findings as to individual parts of the
.s s
17 plan. The reasonable assurance' finding goes to the entire 18 plan.
19 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Flynn, let me ask you some i
' - '- 20 questions about your testimony to see if I can enhance my
(
t' .21 understanding of it.
22 As I understand it now, you do not categorically, 23 rule out finding a plan adequate because it does provide 24 for sheltering.
-25 MR. FLYNN: That's correct.
Acme Reporting Company uo,,.,.....
,,%., e --.. , , .,, ,-
. , m c.-,-.-m, ._~,-------,,m -,,,,,,m....---- . _ - - - - . . . . , , , - - - - - - . , - - - ---
f g
9107-
}.}j[ 't
, 1 JUDGE SMITH: You do re'uire,q however,~ that a 2 .well-reasonedJconsideration as.to whether shelteringfis ,
3 . appropriate be. submitted?
4 MR.-FLYNN: That's'also correct.
5- JUDGE SMITH: If New Hampshire submits to you a 6 well-reasoned'-b' asis sufficient'to you or persua'sive to you 7 why they do not include sheltering in their plan, you would 8 accept that and not find the plan inadequate on that account?
'9 Too many negatives, right~, in my question?
10 MR. FLYNN: Yes, I understand your question, Your 11 Honor, and the basic answer to that is yes, it's also correct.
12' I would like to reinforce one distinction that we made in the
~
testimony, and that'is we were attempting to be precise in our
). 13 14 use"of the-term "adequate" and reserve.that for a discussion 15 of whether the elements of NUREG-9654 have been met or not.
16 JUDGE SMITH: Right. . You don't want to give away 17, 'the= rest of the case.' We're talking now about the sheltering 18' issue.
19 MR. FLYNN: YeG.
20 JUDGE SMITH: Only the sheltering issue.
l l
H 21 MR. FLYNN: Right. If we were to find, for the l
- 22 reascns that you suggested, that that element is satisfied and 9
i
- 23. the plan is adequate in that respect, then that would not --
1, 24 would no longer be an obstacle to our finding of reasonable 25 assurance.
1 L
Acme Reporting Company non . . ...
9108 1 JUDGE SMITH: All right. Now, as I understand 2 Mr. Bisbee, they are now prepared to state that the State of 3 New Hampshire will either incorporate a sheltering plan, or
't) 4 they will provide a well-reasoned basis for not doing it.
5 MR. PLYNN: That's my understanding, too.
6 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Bisbee, is that correct?
7 MR. BISBEE: That's basically correct, Your Honor.
8 JUDGE SMITH: All right, and that's what you meant 9 about respond to their concerns?
10 MR. BISBEE: Yes.
11 JUDGE SMITH: But you have not yet decided which of 12 those options you will pursue?
Well, I hesitated in the last two
() 13 MR. BISBEE:
14 answers, Your Honor, only because shelter is already built 15 into the plan, and that's clearly reflected in the profiled 16 testimony that has already been filed here. But certainly for 17 purposes of what the response is going to be in two weeks, it 18 will address both of those two issues. It may or may not be 19 one over the other, it may be -- it may treat the issue to 29 some extent, but basically you've got the two options laid 21 out.
22 MR. FLYNN: Another point that I'd like to make,
,7-
,Y 23 Your Honor, is that we are not going to make a determination 24 on the adequacy of what the State submits before we see it.
25 I'm not prepared to tell you today that if they submit what Acme Reporting Company 12021 626 dage
9109 1 Mr. Bisbee has described in general terms, we will therefore 2 find it adequate. There's a lot of technical review that will 3 need to go into it.
)
m/ 4 But I will also make the point that we have an open 5 mind.
6 JUDGE SMITH: In the meantime, has there been any 7 progress made in satisfying FEMA's reservations about the 8 adequacy of the sheltering study?
9 MR. FLYNN: Well, nothing has occurred in the last 10 week or so, but what the State of New Hampshire submits to us 11 may moot that question, it may put it in a different light.
12 I think it's prudent at this point to wait and see what New f) 13 Hampshire does.
v.-
14 MR. TURK : Your Honor, incidentally, on that point --
15 this is Sherwin Turk -- I transmitted by telefax yesterday a 16 copy of Dr. Bores's memo addressing the adequacy of the 17 shelter survey, and the Board also will be receiving a copy 18 of that by letter. But I telefaxed to Mass. AG as lead 19 Intervenor, and to the Applicant, and this morning telefaxed 20 to New Hampshire.
21 JUDGE SMITH: So the only way that the Staff would 22 be called upon or would decide it wanted to present a case on
- 7-)
G' 23 this issue would be if FEMA finds unsatisfactory either 24 response by New Hampshire.
25 Is that right, Mr. Turk?
Acme Reporting Company
,,o,s....
-9110 1 .MR. TURK: .I wouldn'.t want to put so categorically, 2 Your Honor. lI would say that we would look at what PEMA says, 3 and it's possible.we might disagree'with a portion ~of what
- 4. FEMA says, and want to address.that portion.
5 So'I don't want to rule out the possibility we might 6 file, even if we agree with.90 percent of FEMA and only 7 disagree with 10. percent of FEMA's finding.
8 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I'm talking about FEMA's 9 conclusions now.
10 MR. TURK: Well --
11 JUDGE. SMITH: If FEMA --
12 MR. TURK: -- I would like to leave open the 13 options for us to review.what FEMA has to say, and then make 14 a decision. The oddsoare that if FEMA provides a good 15 discussion of its views and the basis for its views, and if r
16 those views are consistent with the view of the NRC Staff, ,
- 17 there's no reason for us to file any testimony, and we would 18- not be filing a thing.
19 JUDGE SMITH: Well, what if FEMA says we have 20 considered New Hampshire's submittal and the reasons why they 21 do not wish to further provide for sheltering, and therefore 22 we cannot make our finding of adequacy, c p 1 l (I l 23 What would the Staff do then?
24 MR. TURK: Your Honor, assuming that FEMA does not -<-
! 25 well, I would like to avoid having to state what I would do, Acme Reporting Company 12026 620 4888 l
l l.
, , ,- 4. - - , . . , , . _ ~ . . m. . . . . . , , . . ._.,.,,,,,,,__,..,_,.,.,-_m. , , . , , . ...m.,, _ , . , , - , . . . . . ,-. ,..-..,,...m. _ , - , . -
~ - _
. .9111
- n. -
1 because I reallywould:havetodiscussit'withmyglient.
9
- 2. JUDGE SMITH: ~ Okay . - Well, the problem is you're a-3 floating unknown'here, and how can we possibly schedule.a-
~
$~} 4 hearing? . We're -- all'of this should have been resolved in 5 discovery.
~
6 So the fact is, Mr. Turk, we cannot schedule a 7 : hearing.
8 11R . TURK: Your Honor,'I -- one way.to~ approach it-
- 9. 'i s for me to look'at the prior discovery requestscand instead gy 10 of interpreting them to require response based upon what 11 position we.might advance in the hearing, look at them simply-
.s 12 asking what.the Staff believes about the-issues, regardless of n
() 13 - whether we're going to put.on a case.
~
14 - JUDGE SMITH: That's right. 'Mr. Bores has arrived 15 at some feeling-for NRC position, as he stated at the hearing.
16 Can't you provide the rationale and the bases for it 17 now?'
18 MR. TURK: It would be a sort of a -- well, Your 19 Honor, I'd really have to go back and look at the discovery a 20 requests. I'm not going to agree'.that-we should be subject to 21 a new round of discovery. I think, if anything, we have an 22 obligation to respond to -- to supplement prior responses if i O, -
23 those responses are no longer deemed accurate, and potentially 24 misleading. So I will review those.
25 I'm not going to agree to anything beyond Acme Reporting Company (2026 628 4888
, , , - - , . ~ . , - . , - ,,,v.---,,, ,,,-,,,-.n., --,,--e, ,,...n...,.,,.., , . . - - , . _ , , ~,v.,,,n . , , , . . . . , - - , - _ . - - . , , , ,
A 9112 s
1 reexamining--that' discovery. I-will attempt to sce.if we'can s
2 ~ respond'to the discovery.on.a. conditional. basis, whereby 3' inherent in the response would be a statement which would say.
4' if we had to'put on a case, this is what we would say.
5' And perhaps that would solve the scheduling problem 7 6 of'the Board.
7 JUDGE SMITH: 'Does anirbody else see a --
8 MR. TURK: And incidentally, I really want to run 9 that by my management before I make a definite commitment, B 10 but --
11 JUDGE SMITH: You mean your management-isn't there?
12- MR. TURK: In the roo'm with me?
JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
) 13 14 MR. TURK: No.
15 JUDGE SMITH: Oh. Well, I thought we had an 16- understanding th'at this meeting would -- this conference 17 would be attended by either counsel with full authority or 18 have authority present.
I 19= MR. TURK: Your Honor, if you'll allow me 30 20 seconds, I'll see what I can do about that, t
21 (Pause.)
i 22 JUDGE SMITH: I hear somebody's word processor in L
23 the background. It's --
1 l 24 MR. TRAFICONTE: Must be Mr. Dignan's.
25 JUDGE SMITH: If you have any secrets to protect, 1
i Acme Reporting Company
. m .,......
l
. - . . _ _ _ _ ,-_._-- _ _. _ ,_ _ - . ....._. .~ . ..,..m....._,_.,__.---,..-._,.,...__.,..m ,m,, , - , , -_ _ . . . . _ _ , - - - . .
9113
- s.
'1 you.know there's-techno]7Jy now that can interpret.those-2 -sounds.-
3' MR .' OLESKEY: Rest assured that Massachusetts can't l ,4 afford it, Judge.
.5- MR. TURK: Your Honor?
6 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Turk.
7 7 MR. TURK: Yes,'I'm.back in the room.
8 I will.do what-I'have indicated I could do, and that is to respond with the inherent's'tatement that, you know,- if :I
^
9 10 was going to put on a case, this is what.I would be putting on, 11 JUDGE SMITH: And the rationale for it?
'32 MR. TURK: Yes, of course.
13 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, okay.
14 MR. TURK: To whatever extent the discovery exists.
15 JUDGE SMITH: And this is an accommodation so we can 16 move on with trial scheduling?
17 MR. TURK: Yes.
18 JUDGE, SMITH: And the Staff doesn't give up 19 anything, none of your prerogatives; it's just an 20 accommodation?
21 MR. TURK: Yes, Your Honor.
22 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. Now what do you think we have 23 now, Mr. Dignan, as far as scheduling?
24 MR. OLESKEY: Just one more point there, Judge.
25 This is Steve Oleskey.
W Acme Reporting Company
- i. . m .......
,B u,, ,a.,,._. _ _ , _ . . . , _ , , _ , _ , _ _ . , . . , _ _
'- 9114.
- 1. I think that's helpful, but I only want to iterate
~
2 that"either after.that filing or after a filing of a position, 3 we would, at a minimum, and I think the other Intervenors 4' - agree, want to depose Mr. Bores,before he goes on the stand.
5 _ JUDGE' SMITH: Well, you'll have to demonstrate.the 6 need for it.
7 MR. OLESKEY: Yes, okay.
8 MR. TURK: And, Your Honor, not just the need, but 9 that is significantly out of time. There was one round.of 10 discovery permitted by all parties last March. There was no 11 opportunity made available at that time to schedule 12 depositions.
() 13 MR. OLESKEY: Of course not, Judge Smith, because
< 14 the Staff has said, even up through today, that they haven't 15- reached a position. . This is exceedingly circular.
16 JUDGE SMITH: It strikes me as being circular, s.
17 Mr. Turk. What kind of a deposition'would you have taken as 18 to somebody who has no position? The nasis for no position?
?
19 I don't know, I wasn't here tl'en. I don't know l 20 what happened. But it just --
21 MR. TURK: Your Honor, that discovery was in the 22 March 1987 time frame. At that point, nothing had been said l- O 23 by FEMA or the Staff with respect to positions. Things were
[
l still in flux and under review. Discovery closed.
24 25 MR. OLESKEY: Mr. Turk, I believe there was a 3 l
Acme Reporting Company
.aea. . > . u . .
l
- ~ + - a ,=m--,n.,,,,. . , . , _ _ . _ - . _ , , , , _ . _ _ , _ , . , _, ,
.~. -
.i
, 9115?
1 second round of discovery in June available, and I know we.
2 didn't take any of you~because you didn't have any positionTto
- 3 discover. It would have been two rounds, and.we're still U 4 waiting. And~that's all I'm saying.
5 MR. TURK: I'm'not aware of'that. I'm going'to go; 6 back and check.the file.. I don't recall that second round'in 7 June.
8 MR. OLESKEY: All~right.
9 MS. WEISS: Your whole argument is based on the 10 premise that you can avoid all~ discovery by simply.not taking
- l 11 a position until the last minute, and that's the premise that ,
12 we don't accept.
13 MR. TURK: Your Honor, I think the best course at'
([])
14 this time is for us to make the responses I indicated I could 15 make, and if the Intervenors feel a need to commence 16 discovery after that through depositions --
17 JUDGE SMITH: Ask for it. -
18 MR. TURK: -- they can ask for it, and we'll oppose 19 it in due course.
i l
- 20 JUDGE' SMITH
- All right.
21 MR. OLESKEY: Could that be done by February 15th,
, - 22 when New Hampshire's going to file, so that we'd have the j' p
E 23 most time available to make those motions and the- Board could 24 consider it?
25 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Turk, did you get that question?
Acme Reporting Company ,
,soa,. .....
[
. _ . - . . - ,_ . ~ .-,,,-.-. _ . ,. . -.-_ . - .. .-. - ,. . ,_...-.. , .... ..,
- . ~ .
-ll '~
9116
- (\.
1 MR'. ' TURK : Yes. The question as I hear it is will' 2 t'he Staff furnish its supplemental response to outstanding 3 discovery'by February 15.
4' Yes. ,
5 MR. OLESKEY: Thank you, Mr. Turk.
6 JUDGE SMITH: All right. Well, I -- the Board's 7 going to consult. Is there any -- anybody else wish to 8 comment on the state of affairs now?
9 MR. TURK: One question, Your Honor. Will the e
10 transcript of yesterday and today's telephone --
11 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
12 MR. TURK: -- available?
4
() 213 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, this is transcribed. This is on S
14 the record. This is as if we were in the hearing room.
15 Does anybody else wish to comment?
16 MR._OLESKEY: I guess we've left discovery now that 17 as soon as-New Hampshire and the NRC file, the parties raay 18 make any request of the Board that they deem appropriate.
19 JUDGE SMITH: Well, that's always the case. ;
20 MR. OLESKEY: Okay. I just wanted to be clear, 21 Judge. Thank you.
22 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Dignan, do you have anything 4 23 further?
21 MR. DIGNAN: I'm sorry, was that directed to r<e, ;
25 Your Honor?
Acme Reporting Company 12026 625 4888
- ~~ , _ . - . - , _ - , . .. _ , , , , , _ , , . , . . , . _ . , . . _ . . , _ _ , _ , . , _ . , _ , , - , _ - , , - . _ . _ , - - ~ , , _ _ _ . _ _ . _ , _ . , _ _ , , , , - , . , - - ,
9117 1 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
2 MR. DIGNAN: No, Your Honor, I -- other than, I 3 guess, the Applicants' position is apparent now. I believe i 4 that Mr. Turk's motion should be allowed. I would recommend 5 that we -- well, it's just what I said at the outset, that we 6 go forward with the other hearings, wrap that up, set 7 proposed findings and rulings, perhaps, at the Board's 8 discretion, set some tentative dates for the filing of 9 testimony with respect to sheltering on the assumption that 10 the FEMA position would be in six weeks or so from today, and 11 then I think I would like at that point we should address the 12 scheduling of the Mass, plan. But that's where I come out.
13 MR. OLESKEY: Judge, the Mass. AG is willing, on the
)
14 type of schedule that's being discussed, to file proposed 15 findings of fact with respect to the issues that are 16 substantially if not wholly completed now, but we would not 17 want to see a partial initial decision come out until all the 18 evidence is closed, because we feel that it's entirely 19 possible that aspects of the case in the sheltering would play l
20 back against especially the ETEs.
I 21 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, they can't have it that 73 22 way, I submit. They were the ones -- I keep reminding the i 5 O
23 Board of this -- it was every party but the Applicant that 24 wanted this case split out issue by issue.
25 JUDGE SMITH: All right. Mr. Dignan, as a practical l
Acme Reporting Company
,,as,.>.....
9118 1 matter, let's say that we close the record in mid-February on 2 all other issues.
3 MR. DIGNAN: Right.
(_) 4 JUDGE SMITH: And we have proposed findings, let's 5 say, in 30 days, as is typically the case.
6 MR. DIGNAN: I assume the Board would -- I'm 7 prepared to shorten my time period, giving the parties, you 8 know, their 10 days beyond me, but if the Board wants, I 9 would assume the Board -- the regulation, I believe, indicates 10 that unless you otherwise order, it's a 30-40--
11 JUDGE SMITH: All right.
12 MR. DIGNAN: --50 schedule, is it not?
( '; 13 JUDGE SMITH: Let's take the regulatory period.
wi 14 MR. DIGNAN: And if that's so, if we closed in 15 mid-February,the last of the proposed findings, which would 16 be my response to the proposed findings of others, would come 17 in approximately in mid-- the earlier part of mid-April.
18 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, that's right. Exactly when the 19 Board's getting ready, we hope, to go to hearing on the 20 sheltering issue.
21 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, on the question of a
, ~s 22 partial initial decision, I indicated my view was I would
- 1
'V 23 like to see one, but obviously it's up to the Board as to 24 whether it wishes to go forward with a partial initial 25 decision. I see some advantages to it if the Board has the Acme Reporting Company
.ao . .>. ....
9119
-h 1 time and the predilection. Obviously, if we're' headed in'to 2 the-hearing, it would not-be possible for the Board to spend 3 time. writing while they're also hearing evidence. I'm not
~
A.s) ' 4 standing on that as -something that I think has to be in the 5 order.
6 I think maybe the Board would want to make a final 7 decision as to what to do with those proposed findings, 8 depending upon what the status of everything else was at the 9 time they were filed.
10 JUDGE SMITH: I think that it is unlikely that we
{
11 would be coming out with two initial decisions, given the i 12 schedule that we're looking --
MR. DIGNAN: All right.
{ )' ,
13 14 JUDGE SMITH: . -- looking down -- looking at.
15 Anything further?
4 16 MR. DIGNAN: But I would like the order to be -- to 17 wrap up the proposed findings and rulings on the others 18 before, on a schedule coming off of the February hearings.
19 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, I think that would be desirable, i
20 except we always have the problem that Mr. Oleskey refers to, ,
- s. 21 and that is if the testimony we receive on the sheltering i issue has an impact upon the other issues, we would have to
~
22 ,
Om 23 make an opportunity for supplemental proposed findings, 24 perhaps. I don't know.
25 MR. DIGNAN: All right.
Acme Reporting Company
^9120 s . 1 JUDGE SMITH: All right. Is there anything 'further?-
m 2 MS.' WEISS': I just --
3 MR .7 TURK: Your Honor, I have'one. thing'. This.is' i 4 Sherwin Turk.
5 I have committed to a February'15th response on 6 discovery. It slipped my mind that we'll be in hearing =the 7 whole prior week, and the 15th is Washington's Birthday. So 8 I'd like to have our responses to discovery, our supplemental ;
9 responses to discovery, filed the following Monday, the 22nd.
10 Or I'll even cut back to the 19th, that Friday, if 11 necessary, if anyone has a problem with the 22nd.
12 JUDGE SMITH: That seems reasonable.
() 13 MR. OLESKEY: That would be helpful,~Sherwin, the 14 19th, thank you.
15 MR. TURK: Well, will you give me the 22nd?
16 I have to be the world's worst negotiator.
17 JUDGE SMITH: No, wait a. minute.
18 Mr. Turk is -- perhaps you've noticed -- Mr. Turk 19 has been at the hearing most of the time alone.
20 MR. OLESKEY: 22nd is fine, Judge.
. 21 JUDGE SMITH: All right. .
- 22 MR. OLESKEY: And Mr. Turk is a brilliant 23 negotiator, by the way, as witness the fact that he's been 24 able to get in with no position so far.
- i. 25 MR. TURK: I must be good if you're happy with what !
Acme Reporting Company a n s, ... n..
1
91'21 1 I'm doing.
2: ~
MS. WEISS: Mr. Chairman?
J >
3' ' JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
l 4 MS. WEISS: This is Ellyn Weiss. I'm going to have.
m 5 to leave this conference call. I'm sorry. I think that, you 6 know', I feel comfortable' leaving it in the hands of 7 Mr. Oleskey and the other Intervenors.
8 I would just want to make one point when you get to 9 the Macs. plans, and that is to reiterate from the standpoint 10 of the smaller Intervenors, the Coalition, SAPL, and the 11 towns, that it's extremely important to us not to overlap the 12 work on the Mass. plans with the work on-the New Hampshire plans, as it's not possible for us to do all that, particularly
(]) 13 14 the Coalition'is now involved in those renanded proceedings 15 on some safety issues also, and we're just stretched to the
~
16 absolute limit now.
17 And I just want to. leave you with that thought. j 18 before I depart the line, with the permission of the Board. 1 19 JUDGE SMITH: All right, Ms. Weiss, thank you.
20 MS. WEISS: Thank you, d
21 MR. BROCK: Your Honor, this is Matt Brock for 22 Hampton, and I would just support Ms. Weiss's statement on 23 that. Massachusetts and Applicants have different resources.
i 24 We hope the Board will keep in mind, though, that other 25 Intervenors are not as blessed, and that there therefore not Acme Reporting Company
,,o,,. . ....
, - , - - , - . , , - ,--,,,,.-,_,...n-n, -- - , , . . , . - - , . ,
~
9122 1 be an overlap in the schedules of New Hampshire'and Mass.
2 plans.
3 JUDGE SMITH: All'right. .Thank you, Mr. Brock'.
I. 4 MS. DOUGHTY: And this is Jane Doughty for the' Sea--
5 JUDGE SMITH: You, too, right?
6 MS. DOUGHTY: -- concur in that position.
7 JUDGE SMITH: She concurs. All right.
8 MS. MITCHELL: Town of Kensington also.
9 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, got you.
10 MR.'TRAFICONTE: Your Honor, one further point.
11 John Traficonte for the Mass. AG's office.
12 One further point on the schedule. I'm anticipating
() 13 that you might issue a scheduling order as a consequence of 14 today's session, and I wanted to reiterate we've been taking 15 some notes, and as we see the schedule lying.out here before
[ ,
16 us, we have a two-week period now for the State to take a 17 position; Mr. Flynn's indicated that FEMA would come back with l-18 a position 30 days later.
19 We just want to reiterate, and we thought we heard 20 Mr. Dignan also state, that there should be a period of time 21 for the other parties to prepare a response to whatever FUm's 22' position is, and that time frame has not been articulated.
O- But we would expec: a 30-day period after FEMA's filing for 23 f
24 all of the other parties, depending on how it plays out, to 25 file their testimony either to rebut or support FEMA's Acme Reporting Company a n . .....
e L 9123
~
1 MR. DIGNAN: I couldn't agree less, Your Honor. 'The 2 ' FEMA position will be out there, people have-been thinking 3 aboutLthis issue. The FEMA position's either going to remain (k 4 the same, in'which case you can go with the testimony you've 5 got;;or the FEMA position is going to reverse, and everybody 6- .can think about what they're going to say if the FEMA position 7 reverses.
8 I don't see any need to put a 30-day built-in 9 period on top of that.
10 JUDGE SMITH: Well, you have to remember that FEMA's 11 position will reverse, remain the same, or whatever based upon 12 what New Hampshire submits, and that will be made available
() 13 to the parties within two weeks.
14 MR. DIGNAN: That's correct.
15 JUDGE SMITH: However, there has to be some 16 opportunity to evaluate FEMA's position, and certainly there's 17 going to be some opportunity to address FEMA's position.
18 ~ Whether it be 30 days or not I don't know, Mr. Oleskey. The 19 Board will have to -- or, Mr. Traficonte.
20 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes.
21 JUDGE SMITH: The Board will have to consult.
22 MR. TRAFICONTE: But on that point alone, we would
.O refer the Board to the ALAB-864 opinion of last year, when 23 l
21 the Appeal Board addressed c similar problem, which was the i 25 time frame for the parties to generate their testimony after a Acme Reporting Company
.,as,.>.....
9124 1 "full statement" of FEMA's-position was available,'and the 2: Appeal Board indicated that 30 days would be ' appropriate in-
'3 -that circumstance.
4 JUDGE SMITH: Well, the Appeal Board'didn't 5 undertake', I'm sure, to set the Board's hearing schedules 6 indefinitely. I think that they had a particular matter in 7 mind. I don't know what the rationale was.
8 But it's our responsibility and not the Appeal 9 Board's to set the hearing schedule.
10 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, apropos of these questions 11 of the Mass. plan and the pleas for not overlapping, I would 12 point out to the Board as it thinks about when to schedule 13 starting contentions of the Mass. plan that as this schedule 14 breaks, assuming we finish up with the other issues in this 15 first week of -- in this week of hearings scheduled in 16 February, week of February 8th --
17 MR. BROCK: Your Honor, I cannot hear Mr. Dignan.
18 MR. DIGNAN: -- February 8th --
10 JUDGE SMITH: Can you hear him now, Mr. Brock?
20 MR. BROCK: Yes, Your Honor. Mr. Dignan is -- his t
21 voice is fading out. It's hard to hear.
22 MR. DIGNAN: Then at that point the situation will 23 be this: the only people who for the next 30 days have 21 anything to do are the Applicants, who have to draft their 25 proposed findings; the State, and to the extent Applicant Acme Reporting Company
,,o,,.....
l n a
, . ,, - . . .~ -
9125, 1
technical people make a contribution to the State response.
, 2 ytyy - probably have. responded, or if they haven't.quite finished 3- responding, will be cleaning that up; and then FEMA's got' a
..fg D -
4' lot of work to do, who doesn't file any proposed findings or 5
anything else anyway.
6 And so it seems to me there's 30. days in there when 7
people can address the Massachusetts plan, think about their 8 contentions, and indeed maybe draft their contentions.
9 The second point I wish to have made is, while I'm 10 sympathetic to this concept of the small Intervenor, and I 11 always have been, I would remind the Board that -- let's not 12 kid ourselves -- the main controversy in the Mass. plan is I3 going to be between the Applicant and the Commonwealth of 14 Massachusetts. And the last time I looked, they had more
, 15 lawyers working on the case than the Applicant does.
16 So in terms of what will undoubtedly be the lead 17 Intervenor on the Mass. plan, the resources are equal here.
IO Indeed, I find when I used to approach the criminal bar I9 reminding the jury that there I was representing a poor 00
~
client against all the majesty and power of the Commonwealth.
21 And so I think that resources thing can be overblown in this r
22 case beyond what it should be.
23 MR. BROCK: Your Honor, I'd like to respond to it.
o4
- I could not hear the first part of Mr. Dignan's comments --
5 l this is Matt Brock.
Acme Reporting Company
<so,, . . ....
t
9126 1 But with respect to his comments about the smaller 2 Intervenor, whatever the resources of Massachusetts, and we 3 would agree they would be, I suppose, lead Intervenor in the g.
(f 4 sense that they will probably be address'.ng more issues than 5 any other Intervenor, but we believe that we have our own 6 rights under the regulations to have a reasonable opportunity, 7 given our resources, to develop the issues for our clients.
8 And whether or not Massachusetts may choose to also address 9 those issues, or if there's overlap, if we have -- that we be 10 given that right to develop the issues, to confer with our 11 clients, to explore what we perceive may be deficiencies in 12 the plans.
[')
v 13 And so however Mr. Dignan may view this, as a 14 contest netween Applicants and the Commonwealth, there are 15 other players here who do have rights that we think should be 16 considered.
17 MS. DOUGHTY: This is Jane Doughty for the Seacoast 18 Anti-Pollution League, and I'd like to agree with that- and 19 further, that we do represent a constituency, and we will not 20 be able to adequately represent our constituencies just 21 relying on the Commonwealth --
-, 22 JUDGE SMITH: We can't hear you.
( )
s/
23 MS. DOUGHTY: I'm sorry. Can you hear this a little 24 better?
25 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
Acme Reporting Company aon,.a.....
9127 1 MS. DOUGHTY: Okay. Take, for example, the Town of 2 South flampton. It's a town across the border in New Hampshire 3 that they send their schoolchildren to Amesbury, Massachusetts,
(_) 4 for education. That's a constituency that's not going to be 5 represented by the Commonwealth, and members of SAPL who live 6 in South llampton will be relying on us to represent them 7 fully.on that kind of an issue. And there are other issues 8 like that which I can't think of off the top of my head.
9 But we are entitled, we believe, to have a full and 10 fair opportunity to represent our constituencies.
11 JUDGE SMITH: All right.
12 MR. BROCK: Your Honor, if I could just follow up,
() 13 with respect to the Town of Amesbury, at least, we have not 14 had extensive discussion among Intervenors, but I would expect 15 that given the more global perspective of the Commonwealth 16 that they will be addressing issues which would impact on all 17 of the Mass. EPZ towns principally, and that we see our role 18 as ferreting out issues that may be specific or unique to 19 Amesbury and --
20 JUDGE SMITH: That's right.
21 MR. BROCK: -- and the other towns who may be p- 22 represented, maybe doing similar kind of grassroots
()
23 development of issues.
24 JUDGE SMITH: That's right. That's what your 25 perspective should be. You better concentrate -- this is Acme Reporting Company a w .i.....
9128 1 advice, not an instruction -- you better concentrate on your 2 Particular interests, because we cannot pace a large, complex 3 hearing here on the assumption that the party with the least
,3
(..) 4 resources will address every issue.
5 MR. BROCK: I appreciate that, Your Honor, and I was 6 not stating that we would. It's just simply that there -- I 7 understood Mr. Dignan to say that esse. lally the 8 Commonwealth would be addressing all issues and therefore
' Intervenors could ride on their efforts, 9
10 JUDGE SMITH: No, you -- no.
11 MR. BROCK: And we see our roles as somewhat 12 different.
I'h U
13 JUDGE SMITH: The very purpose of your -- of 14 interventions such as yours, the very purpose is to be able 15 to present your particular interests, and I rr. ally recommend 16 that you concentrate on them, because we won't make a 17 schedule, and nor is anyone asking for a schedule, which 18 assumes that you and Ms. Doughty and Ms. Mitchell address 19 everything in that Massachusetts clan. It just wouldn't work 20 that way.
21 And we're not permitted, we're no* permitted, to
,s
, 22 pace a hearing, by Appeal Board precedent, pace the hearing Ol based upon the resources of an under-resourced party.
23 24 MR. TRAFICONTE: Your Honor, could I ce heard on 25 Mr. Dignan's comments? This is John Traficonte for the Mass.
Acme Reporting Company
, m ,. .....
o '# , .
s$[ I -- ._
3 9129 1 AG's office.
2 ' JUDGE SMITH: Yes, you can, the. Traficonte, but I
.o 3 hope;we don't:get into a discussion:wherein parties are D)
~
( 4 penalized by the number of. lawyers that appear in the hearing
'5 room. That's ---it's.-- we're not'particularly counting 6 lawyers like that.
7 MR. TRAFICONTE: My comments don't have to do with 8 relative staffing strength, but instead they have to do with 9 what I think is a kind of myopic view on Mr. Dignan's part of 10 what we would be doing in the next 30 to 40 days in the event 11 of a delay.
12 Let me say first that we already believe that we're being reasonable in agreeing to filling-this delay time with
() 13 14 work on proposed findingt. First of all, it's', as is obvious 15 to the Board, the Mass. AG's office is not responsible for to another six-to-eight- or 12-week delay in the New Hampshire 17 hearings. This is not our doing. In fact, I think we're on 18 the record yesterday as basically saying we should go forward.
19 But if there's going to be delay, I think we're acting 20 reasonably in agreeing to fill in that time with some i
21 constructive-work.
22 The problem we have is Mr. Dignan wants that work to 23 be drafting Mass, contentions, or contentions on the Mass.
24 plan. What happens to the -- what happens to our proposed 25 findings? Mr. Dignan seems to ignore that the 30 days he l
f Acme Reporting Company a n, u.....
_m
s 9130 I would be spending drafting his proposed findings would also 2 be spent by us drafting our proposed findings. We would 3 certainly not rely on a 10-day period between the 30th and
(~'
(T/ 4 40th day to do what really I believe is going to be an 5 enormous amount of work.
6 So that time frame is not empty by any means. And 7 since it's none c,f our doing, we think it would be unf air to 8 load onto that time frame an additional burden which we're 9 not arguing from a staffing perspective, but clearly as to the 10 parties it'd be a staffing problem, to add into that time 11 frame the additicaal burden of drafting written contentions 12 on the Massachusetts plan.
13 In addition to that. I would state the obvious point (v) 14 that I've now made about five times, which is if we begin this 15 period in the middle of February, we have yet to see a major .
16 component of the Mass. plan, i.e., the redacted information.
17 And we continue to believe that the clock should not be 18 running on us to be drafting contentions on a portion of 19 that -- on a very significant portion of that plan.
20 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. Anything further?
21 MS. DOUGHTY: Jane Doughty again. And I understand the 30, 40, 50 days set out in the regulations. But I think,
-s 22
( )
(. ,/
23 in view of the extensive size of this evidentiary record, 24 which I have got to conclude is unusally large, probably, for 25 most licensing cases, I would wish the Board would consider Acme Reporting Company
,na, .>.....
7 ,
s.
J[ 9131
^ ~
JUDGE SMITH:
1- Well,-Ms. Doughty, one of the~ reasons
'2 ~wh'y the Board favors.the lead Intervenor approach to litigatior 1
~
3 is that it anticipates that the lead Intervenor will'take3the~
~
4- lead in the finding of proposed findings, too.
5 MR. BROCK: Your Honor, I would simply say, and I 6' .think we touched this point sometime previously, but.again, 7 while we will-be relying on Massachusetts in-terms of 8 developing those proposed findings, Massachusetts does not
-9 represent our constituencies, and it is an extensive. record.
to_ JUDGE SMITH: Well, Mr. Brock, we discussed, from
- 11 the very first moment that I got on this case, you objected to 12 the concept of-lead Intervenors, and-you were overruled.the'n,.
,O ta v "'re verr" *a " " ""* v "'" be"" verr"' * * * "9-14 So accept it. _Okay?
15 MR. TURK: Your Honor, this is Sherwin Turk. I 16 wanted to ask one question about the briefing of the issue 17 of whether the redacted information fo'r the Massachusetts
. 18 should be made available under a protective order.
10 Had we resolved that yesterday? I don't recall that i
a 20 we did.
21 JUDGE SMITH: No. This is the first at least I've 22 been aware of any consideration of briefing the redacted
O 23 information under a protective order. Are you suggesting, I
24 Mr. Turk, that your brief and Mr. Dignan's brief may contain 25 proprietary information?
l Acme Reporting Company
,,ev .a. ....
9132 1 MR. TURK: No, no, Your Honor. It was a question of 2 scheduling.
3 JUDGE SMITH: I guess I missed the point. Stato it x.) ,
4 again, would you, please?
5 MR. TURK: Yes, I recall yesterday we had talked 6 a little bit about a schedule for whether -- for filing briefs 7 on whether a protective order should be entered, or information 8 produced under a protective order, and I didn't recall that 9 we'd ever concluded on that. Maybe I just need to look at the 10 transcript.
11 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, no, I think we gave a schedule for 12 that.
MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes, I thought we had a schedule,
(~}
\ ,/
13 14 Your Honor, the 16th, and then the 23rd from the Applicant.
15 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, Mr. Dignan would bring his 16 position to the hearing, give it to us, and we would perhaps 17 arrange to argue it.
18 MR. TRAFICONTE: Except now we don't have that --
19 that week is no longer scheduled; assuming the -- Mr. Turk's 20 motion thac started this conference call is granted, we would 21 not be at hearings in the week of the 23rd.
l
- 22 JUDGE SMITH: Perhaps.
k MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, I was off the conference l 23 24 for a while. I don't know what took place.
25 JUDGE SMITH: Well, you're in big trouble now.
Acme Reporting Company
. m . .,. ....
9133 1 MR. DIGNAN: I am?
2 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
3 MR. DIGNAN: All right.
? s k~) 4 JUDGE SMITH: We were -- when did you leave?
5 MR. DIGNAN: Mr. Traficonte was going into the fact G that I was being unreasonable thinking the Mass. AG's office l
and349 7 could write findings and look at contentions at the same time.
8 JUDGE SMITH: All right. He did make that point, ign350 9 that they do have dual responsibilities there.
10 And then Ms. Doughty and Mr. Brock made the point 11 that they have special responsibilities to their clients, and 12 they have limited resources and they nood more than 40 -- 30, f~') 13 40, and 50 days to file proposed findings.
v 14 And I made the observation that the lead Intervenor 15 concept carries all the way through proposed findings, and 16 that that's one of the reasons why the Board favors it.
17 And then we came to a discussion as to was the 18 schedule set for the briefing of the protective order on the 19 redacted information.
20 MR. DIGNAN: My understanding that that was set.
JUDGE SMITH: That was set, but then Mr. Traficonte 21 es 22 pointed out that we no longer plan on a hearing for the 22nd, I
t-) and that --
23 ,
MR. DIGNAN: Par as I'm concerned, Your Honor, you 24 25 can decide it on the papers, or -- I don' t really care.
Acme Reporting Company
,,ez .,.....
' I'
,+ u
'9134
-s
- 1 JUDGE SMITH: All right. ,
2 MR. DIGNAN:- If Mr. Traficonte wants an oral 3 argument, we could do itiby telephone, or I'll join him~on a ,
(' 4 plane to. Washington and argue it down there with'you.
5 JUDGE SMITH: -All right. That shouldn't change the 6 schedule, in any event.
t 7- MR. DIGNAN: I don't think it should.
8 JUDGE SMITH: All right. So, Mr. Turk, that 9 schedule has been set.
10 MR. TURK: All right.
11' JUDGE SMITH: And you'll see. The transcript will
- 12. be -- we ordered two-day copies.
() 13 MR. TURK: All right. I appreciate that. I guess 1
14 I had not entered in a date for my own response. L assume I'll I 15 be responding on the 23rd. .
16 JUDGE SMITHi Well, I don't remember what we 17 provided there. ;
i 18 MR. TURK: I don't think we had discussed it all.
. 10 JUDGE SMITH: Well, then would you agree to respond i' i l
20 at the same time Mr. Dignan does? !
i 21 MR. TURK: Yes -- well --
22 JUDGE SMIT!!: Which is the 23rd.
' ( Yes, which is the day after I'm supposed 23 MR. TURK: ;
24 to respond to discovery.
25 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, all right. ;
l Acme Reporting Company i
,,o,,. .....
?
l-
7
,.J .
9135 1 MR. TURK: How about the 26th?
2 JUDGE SMITH: All right.
3 MR. TURK: Thank you.
) 4 JUDGE SMITH: Does -- can you -- does -- do you have 5 any better feeling for when the Staff will. decide on the 6 Freedom of Information Act request?
7 MR. TURK: No, Your Honor. The latest information 8 I have is as of yesterday, when Mr. Schumacher indicated that 9 the request is under consideration, and no decision had been 10 made yet.
11 I also asked Mr. Schumacher if he could estimate 12 when a decision would be made, and he was not able to give me
() 13 that estimate.
14 JUDGE SMITH: Okay.
15 All right, anything further this afternoon?
16 If there's nothinc further, we'll adjourn.
17 Anything further, last chance?
18 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor?
19 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
20 MR. DIGNAN: Just one minor point. I take it the 21 Board is going to be issuing an order on the -- formally 22 dealing with the motion and all the scheduling matters we've 3
G I assume everybody is relieved of the -- at least at 23 had.
24 this juncture -- of the current filing dates on shelter.
25 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, yes.
Acme Reporting Company
.,e,,.....
9136 1 MR. DIGNAN: Yes.
2 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, well, just give me just a moment 3 here. I'm going on off the record a second.
q k_) 4 (The Board confer.)
5 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. We certainly do now grant the 6 motion to defer the evidentiary hearing on the sheltering 7 issue from the 8th. We will be. working out the exact 8 schedule. However, as you can note, nobody really has opposed 9 the two-week and 30-day schedule, so I think you can pretty 10 well count on that, even though the Board has not formally 11 considered it.
12 Okay, anything further?
MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, just so I'm clear, we would
[~)
u-13 14 be continuing with the hearings on the 8th to wrap up the 15 rebuttal on ETEs, though?
16 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, right. We'll all be up there on 17 the 8th, and everything except the sheltering issue will be 18 wrapped up, either on the 8th or carrying over to the 22nd.
19 Everything else.
20 MR. TRAFICONTE: And can, Your Honor, can you 21 indicate whether you intend in the scheduling order you
,, -) 22 produce in response to this conference call, do you intend to
(._J 23 schedule the Mass, plans at this time, or are you going to 24 defer that?
25 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I hope we can, but I don't know.
Acme Reporting Company ev......
9137 1 It may be we give an interval schedule rather than a 2 concrete date schedule. I don't know. We'll have to talk 3 about it.
4 MR. TRAFICONTE: All right, thank you.
5 JUDGE SMITH: What we want to do is put all these 6 different things on a track and see where they rub up against 7 each other.
8 Anything further?
9 If there's nothing further, we'll adjourn, and meet 10 on February 8th in Boston.
11 Thank you for joining us.
12 CllORUS OF VOICES: Thank you, Your Honor.
~
(Ns 13 (Whereupon, at 2:39 p.m., the hearing in the Lj 14 above-entitled matter was adjourned, to reconvene at 1:00 p.m.,
15 Monday, February 8, 1988, in Courtroom 2, Thomas P. O'Neill 16 Federal Building, Boston, Massachusetts.)
17 18 19 20 21 7- 22 q,i 23
[
21 25 l
Acme Reporting Company n .a.....
1 CERTIFICATE 2
3 This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the 4 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
""*** Public Service Company of New Hampshire et al.
6 (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) 7 Docket Number: 50-443/444-OL 8 Place: Bethesda, Maryland 9 Date: January 28, 1988 10 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 11 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 12 Regulatory Commission taken stenographically.by me and, 13 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction 14 of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a 15 true and accurate reco/d of heforegoin(proceedings.
16 /S/ SAk W l]
17 (Signature typed): K nt Andrews i
18 Official Reporter 19 Heritage Reporting Corporation 20 21 22 23 24 25 O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.