ML20151P096
| ML20151P096 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 04/14/1988 |
| From: | Backus R BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON, SEACOAST ANTI-POLLUTION LEAGUE |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#288-6127 OL, NUDOCS 8804260086 | |
| Download: ML20151P096 (41) | |
Text
(a/W.
RELATED CORKE2PpftDq
. u k f ; t,_
h%c '
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA gg AR 19 PS:20 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before Administrative Judges:
OCX{ dj y,-jj[~j~
Ivan W.
Smith, Chairman URANCH Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Dr. Jerry Harbour In the matter of:
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL Public Service Company of
)
50-444-OL New Hampshire, et al.
)
)
(Seabrook Station,
)
(Offsite Emergency Units 1 and 2)
)
Planning Issues)
APPLICATION FOR SUBPOENAS REQUIRING ATTENDANCE AND TESTIMONY OF PARTICULAR NAMED PEMA EMPLOYEES PURSUANT TO 10 CFR S2.720(a) and NRC EMPLOYEES PUESUAUT _ TO S 2.7 20(h) ( 2)_
Pursuant to 10 CFR S2.720(a) and S2.720(h) (2), Seacoast Anti-Pollution League, New England Coalition on Nuclear Pollution, the Massachusetts Attorney General and the Towns of Hampton, New Hampshire and Amesbury, Massachusetts hereby apply to this Board to issue subpoenas (in the forms attached hereto) for the attendance and testimony, before this Board 's next scheduled hearing, of:
Edward A. Thomas, Chief of the Natural and Technological Hazards Division, Region 1, FEMA; General Julius W.
Becton, Jr., Director of FEMA; Grant Peterson, Associate Direc tor for FEMA for State an6 Local Programs and Support; David McLoughlin, Deputy Associate Director, State and Local Programs and Support, F EMA; Richard W.
Krimm, Assistant Associate Director 8804260086 080414 PDR ADOCK 05000443 T
=
of the Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs, Craig Wingo, Chief of the Field Operations Branch Technological Hazards Division, FEMA; Henry Vickers, Regional Director of Region 1, F EMA; and George Watson, FEMA Associate General Counsel; and in addition for Victor Stello, Executive Director of Operations, USNRC; Robert Bores, Technical Assistant, Division of Radiation Safety and Safeguards, USNRC, and Sherwin Turk, Supervising Trial Attorney, NRC, and say in support of this Application as follows:
1.
As to the FEMA employees for whom subpoenas are sought, 10 CFR S 2.720(a) provid es :
"On application by any party, the designated presiding of ficer Will issue subpoenas requiring the attendance and testimony of witnesses or the production of evid enc e.
The of ficer to whom application is made may require a showing of general relevance of the testimony or evidence sought, and may withhold the subpoena if such a showing is not made, but he shall not attempt to determine the admissibility of evidence."
2.
The evidence available f rom each of the FEMA witnesses is generally relevant to the issue concerning the decision to change the FEMA position on the beach population required to be made pursuant to 10 CFR S 50.47(a) (2).
This section provides that NRC "will" base its finding on a review of FEMA "findings and determinations" on the adequacy and implementability of the state and local of f site emergency plans.
F EMA 's f indings "will" constitute a rebuttable presumption on the issue of adequacy.
FEMA's position in this proceeding, as set forth in the pre-filed testimony of September 11, 1987, was that the New Hampshire 9
i 5
i Radiological Emergency Response Plans (NHRERP) were inadequate.
This position is substantially changed in the March 14, 1988 testimony.
3.
This Board appears to have already established that the process by which FE}M arrives at its findings and determinations pursuant to 550.47(a) (2) is an important and relevant matter.
In the transcript of November 4,1987, during the second "voir dire" of Mr. Thomas, Mr. Flynn raised an objection to questioning of the f
witness by Attorney Dignan on the grounds of relevance.
The questioning concerned whether or not Mr. Thomas had any objective f
way of knowing whether or not a majority of the RAC agreed with the f ormer FEMA position.
j Judge Smith:
I just don't even understand that argument from the very basis, from the very beginning, I just don't understand l
how you can come here and tell us that FEMA's finding, which is entitled to a rebuttable i
presumption by this Board, which in turn, is based upon a RAC review, collegial review, l
and then to tell us that the process of that l
collegial review, is irrelevant.
You had better explain that better.
(Trans. 5117) l Previously, Judge Smith had also stated that the process by which FEMA reached its position was "relevant and appropriate so would you (Thomas] please answer?"
(Trans. 3120)
The intervenors I
agree that the general process by which FEMA arrives at its l
position is relevant to this proceeding, particularly in light of i
the information obtained through the deposition of Mr.
Thomas i
3 i
a
4 that FEMA may have considered matters not related to the f acts of the Seabrook case in arriving at its new position.
At page 5110 of the November 4,1987 transcript, the following appears:
Judge Smith:
The credibility of this panel [the FEMA witness panel) on how they come out with a RAC position is important to Mr.
Dignan's case, and we have to give him his right to make his case within bounds.
Moreover, as a member of the Board, I am confused about how they come out of a RAC meeting carrying a RAC position.
It seems that since your position are rebuttable presumptions, they are by regulation subject to analysis in the hearing. (Trans. 5110) 4.
The general relevance of the testimony of each FE}m person sought to be subpoenaed is as follows:
A.
Edward A. Thomas, Chief of the Natural and Technological Hazards Division, Region 1, was the sole FEMA witness to sponsor the prior FEMA position on the inadequacy of the NHRERP as to the beach population.
Mr. Thomas has testified, in deposition, that FEMA's change of position may not have been based on new f acts, but on pressure f rom NRC.
In particular, Mr.
Thomas testified as follows:
Generally, I can't give you much about what went on because I was excluded from the meetings that were held with the NRC, and the meetings that were held internally; 4
b r
with PEMA to discuss the beach population, but I was told on the 19th ky. &t19In21 rivnn --
t THE WITNESS:
Shall 1 E2 forward?
MR. FLYNN:
121
. that George Watson had called.
[
George had been at a meeting with a large meeting with the NRC.
I understood that Vic Stollo and I believe Attorney Turk were at this meeting, along with Grant Peterson and Dave McLoughlin and Dick Krimm and his staff, and the repori_ ital was given to me was that we negotiated _a S
way, a negative finding at a meeting with Stello.
f I was then told additional information i
about that meeting which had, according to my information, taken place from one 3
j o' clock until 6:30 p.m. on the 19th to the
(
effect that Stello had indicated that the i
NRC wouldn't engage in total war with FEMA if we didn 't change our testimony in the beach population.
Grant Peterson had held up very well, but had agreed to
[
i make changes. ["Wouldn't" should be j
"would"]
Thomas Deposition 3-50.1 Mr. Thomas further testified as follows:
i l
A.
I had had a conversation with i
Attorney Flynn the previous week (previous to the filing of the l
January 25 supplemental FEMA testimony) l at which he indicated that FEMA, l
in essence, was doing a 180-degree i
shift in its position with respect to the Seabrook beach population.
l 0
Who had said that?
A.
Attorney Flynn had indicated that to me, and that we were going to say that with respect to any problems that 1 The Board will recall that on January 13th, Mr. Flynn stated that he had talked to Washington and had been told that FEMA was HQI going to change its basic position.
(Tran. 8960) 5
E might exist with the beach population concerning NUREG Elements J9 and J10M, the inadequancies were minor and did not block finding of reasonable assurance; that this had been promised at a meeting with Stello and -- well, that he and I had discussion about this; but based on this conversation, I indicated that the testimony that was prepared was at a minimum, misleading, and certainly not the truth, if we, in fact, had reached a.dif f erent view with respect to the protection of the beach population.
I indicated I would not be party to such a filing.
Based on that, that issue was revisited with Dave McLoughlin and with Grant Peterson, and Grant Peterson came in and said that the thrust of the testimony was that New Hampshire should submit additional information and that he Grant Peterson, would not accept just any old thing that was filed by the State, and that we had not reached a dif ferent view with respect to beach population as of that date, the 25th of January, but that we would wait and see what the State sent in.
With that understanding, I said that I could support the submission of that testimony.
Q.
Did you have any further discussion with anyone as to why the week before a position l
had been taken that FFJM was going to shif t its position and on the 25th, you were l
being told that it wasn 't?
A.
There were a lot of conversations during this period about the direction in which the agency was moving as of the 21st and 22nd.
I shared my concerns with my supervisor, Mr. Vickers, and it's my understanding that he shares his concerns with Grant Petersonc Dave McLoughlin, personally about the apparent shift in the testimony; and based on that and my concerns that the testimony as filed if we, in fact, had reached a 6
- w'N dif f erent conclusion was misleading and certainly not true.
Based on that, Mr.
Peterson indicated that he, in essence, would wait and see what New Hampshire sent in.
(Thomas Deposition, 3-80 and 81)
Mr. Thomas ' testimony has general relevance to the question of the background for, and reasons for, FEMA's change of position.
B.
General Julius Becton, Jr. is the Director of FEMA, and as such, has general responsibility for the overall supervision of FEMA, and although not yet identified in uny deposition as a party to meetings concerning the Seabrook plane, may have received input which was relevant to the FEMA change of position, may have been involved in the decision to change the FEMA position, and in any event would have had general responsibility for the agency 's overall position on the Seabrook litigation.
C.
Grant Peterson, Associate Director for FEMA for State and Local Programs and Support, was identified in the deposition of Edward A. Thomas, and of William Cumming, as the person who "signed of f" on the new FEMA position.
He is said to have presided at a FD'a meeting on March 4,1988, at which the formal FEMA decision on changing its position to that stated in l
the March 14, 1988 testimony was made, and at which witnesses to I
defend that position were secured.
Mr. Peterson is also reported l
to have been the person who "negotiated a way, a negative finding at a meeting with Stello" on January 19,1988 (Thomas Deposition l
3-5 0).
f D.
David M. McLoughlin, Deputy Associate Director of FEMA l
for State and Local Programs and Support, is a witness on the 1
January 25, 1988 FEMA "transition
- cr "interim" testimony, but is 7
not going to be voluntarily produced by PEMA.
According to Mr.
Thomas ' deposition, Mr. McLouglin, who was acting director of FEMA's Directorate of State and Local Programs and Support f rom mid 1987 until Mr. Peterson was confirmed as Associate Director in December, 1987, said in June, 1987, that FEMA would "never agree to approving plans that did not provide a reasonable assurance to protect the public" even if the plans met the strict letter of '
NU REG - 06 5 4.
(Thomas Deposition 2-37)
Mr.
McLoughlin is subsequently : aid to have stated on January 5,1988, that "we should be changing the position that was articulated in the beach testimony, saying what was needed was the best reasonable dose savings considering the nature of the site."
(Thomas Deposition, 3-40)
Mr.
McLoughlin was also at the March 4,1988 meeting, presided over by Mr. Peterson, at which the formal agency decision to change its position was said to have been made.
E.
Richard W. Krimm, Assistant Associate Director of the Of fice of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs, has been identified in the deposition of Mr. Thomas as a person who had numerous contacts with NRC staf f regarding the Seabrook litigation, and as a person involved in the decision to replace Mr. Thomas as the sole person to support the (f ormer) FDM position.
He indicated that there was "great unhappiness with me
[ Thomas), because I had gone to a meeting called by Senator Kennedy to discuss Seabrook (Thomas Deposition, 3-45)
He 8
4 e
is also identified as having attended the NRC/ FEMA meeting of January 19, 1988, at which Mr.
Thomas was told FEMA "negotiated a way a negative finding at a meeting with Stello."
According to the Thomas deposition, he also told Mr. Thomas on February 15, 1988 that he felt "that the pre-filed testimony was extremely controversi41 and had to be changed."
(Thomas Deposition, 3-97)
Mr. Frimm was also in attendance, according to the testimony, at the March 4,1988 meeting at which FEMA made the final decision to change its position.
F.
George Watson, PEMA Associate General Counsel his been identified as having attended the January 19th NRC/ FEMA meeting, and as having reported the results of that meeting to Attorneys Flynn and Cumming, who in turn had reported it to the witness Thomas.
(Thomas Deposition, 3-50)
G.
Craig Wingo, Chief of the Field Operations Branch of the Technological Hazards Division, FEMA, along with David McLoughlin, George Watson, Grant Peterson, and some others, is said to have attended a January 5,1988 meeting at which Mr. McLoughlin stated that the testimony would have to be changed, and that "what was needed was the best reasonable dose savings considering the nature of the site."
(Thomas Deposition, 3-39 and 40)
Mr. Wingo also attended the March 4,1988 meeting at which FEMA formally decided on its change of position.
H.
Henry Vickers, Director, FEMA Region 1, was either involved in the decision, or conmunicated the decision to replace Mr.
Thomas as a FEMA witness in regard to Seabrook.
Much of the 9
s,
.ji n, l
~
information about-the changing of FEMA's position testified to by Mr. Thomas came through Mr. Vickers.
Mr. Vickers also attended
, the March 4,1988 FEMA meeting.
5.
As to the NRC 's employees cought to be subpoenaed,10 CFR S2.720(h) (2) provides:
the presiding officer may, upon a showing of exceptional circumstances, such as a case in which a particular named NRC employee has direct personal knowledge of a material f act not known to the witnesses made available by the Executive Director for Operations require the attendance and testimony of named NRC personnel.
6.
The named NRC personnel, Victor Stello, Executive Director of Operations, Sherwin Turk, Supervising Staff Attorney, and Robert Bores, Technical Assistant, Division of Dadiation Safety and Safeguards, NRC Region 1, should be made available due to exceptional circumstances, to wit:
A.
The testimony of Edue.,d A. Thomas has provided information suggesting that FEMA's new position on the adequacy of protection for the beach population may have come about as a result of FEMA "negotiating away" its position with NRC, which negotiation is said to have occurred at a meeting on January 19th in Washington.
(See Deposition of Edward A. Thomas, page 3-50.)
According to Mr.
- Thomas, Sherwin Turk and Victor Stello attended this meeting, and Victor Stello said "NRC would engage in total war" if FEMA's earlier position was not changed.
F EMA 's "inter im" or "transition" testimony was filed shortly theretfter, on January 25th.
There is further evidence that the drafting of 10
<Ar
+
(
8 e
t I
the final FEMA testimony began in the first week of February i
(Deposition of Joan Hock, Volume 2, page 66.)
This was prior i
I to the receipt of the New Hampshire information on i
i=
sheltering.
B.
Robert Bores, who han previously testified - about discussions at the RAC meetings, was described in the Applicant 's January 6,1988 "Motion for Order (Lnd/or 4
Subpoenas)" as having "unique personal knowledge of facts bearing on the development of FEMA's position on the beach issues, the events at RAC meetings, and the basis underlying the original, favorable to Applicants, position of the RAC, i
i I
and the subsequent negative position submitted in FEMA's pretrial testimony."
I l
7.
In further support of the Subpcena request as to all 1
witnesses sought, the intervenors stats as follows:
I (a)
The testimony and evide.nce sought to be compelled i
by means of the subpoenas is not only of "general relevance" within the meaning of $ 2.720(a), as set for th at paragraphs 2-6, l
supra., it is also not subject to any valid claira of privilege.
(b)
The intervenors specifically deny that there is any valid privilege, whether denominated executive privilege, I
l deliberative process privilege, or attorney-client privilege, and i
l l
l i
11
further say that even if such 'a, claim of privilege could be otherwise found appropriate, it has been waived.
(1) The claim of executive privilege has been waived.
This Board has already ruled that a claim of executive or deliberative process privilege would be unlikely to succeed in an attempt to bar inquiry into discussions between NRC and F,EMA regarding the adequacy of the NHRERP f or the beach population.
On October 7th, the issue of discussing inter-agency communications between NRC and FEMA as to this issue came up at the first voir dire of Mr. Thomas.
The issue was raised by Thomas himself, at page 3121 of the transcript.
Mr. Thomas noted as follows as he was discussing which agency representative in the RAC might have withdrawn certain information that Mr. Thomas considered critical to the FrJa position:
The witness (Thomas):
My concern, as a program person, not as an attorney, is that we tremendously value open, frank discussions with the Regional Assistance Committee.
FEMA needs that input and I am just concerned with answering these questions that some of that input is going to be throttled back and that is why, sir.
Judge Smith:
That is a very good point, and that is the fundamental reason why there is what they call a deliberative process privilege or the Executive Privilege. But in this instance it is not being raised by those who have standing to do it, and in the second place, this is something that FEMA was inevitably going to have to face anyway, because it is not a pure deliberative process in the sense that you are taking credit f or this deliberotive process, or this collegial process as you present your findings.
12
=-
And you cannot, on the one hand, and you are not attempting to, assert a deliberative process privilege, and on the other hand, say, here is our product, as the golden result of the deliberative process, either, without having that p.rocess orobed.
Sc, I was pretty much aware of the problem of what you are giving up, when you do that, but I think it had to come sooner or later anyway.
On the next page, Mr. Turk interjected as follows:
Mr. Turk: Your Honor, Mr. Flynn turned to me, off the record, while the question was pending and asked whether I was going to interpose or had intentions of imposing Executive Privilege.
And my answer was, no, I think that_the facts should come out.
Judge Smith:
I might say that I don 't think that it could have been-successful if asserted anyway.
(Trans. 3121-3122)
(ii) Further evidence of the waiver of any privilege, particularly in light of this discussion of the very privilege under discussion, comes at page 3-50 of the Thomas deposition.
Mr. Thomas states as follows:
i l
Generally, I can 't give you much about l
what went on because I was excluded from the meetings that were held with the NRC, l
and the meetings that were held internally j
with FEMA to discuss the beach population, but I was told on the 19th by Attorney _
Flynn l
l Mr. Thomas then evidently hesitated, and stated :
"The Witness:
Shall I go forward?
Mr. Flynn:
Yes."
Mr. Thomas then resumed describing the meeting of January 19th, and what he was told by Attorney Flynn.
This is a 13 t
9 r
l
. 'l a
conclusive waiver of any claim of privilege, whether deliberative process,, executive privilege, or attorney-client privilege.
l
)
-(iii) The intsrvenor applicants would further note that Mr.
Flynn never interposed, at the time of the. Thomas' deposition, any claim of delfpe]rative process or executive
-m privilege...Insteod, long after he had expressly told Mr. Thomas that he could go ahead and describe what he had learned about the meeting of January 19th f rom Attorney Flynn, Attr eney Flynn subsequently attempted to claim attorney-client privilege.
Mr. Olesky:
But you feel you can now invoke, I guess, it's the attorney-client privilege in connection with this action, is that right?
Mr. Flynn:
That 's what I am doing, yes.
(Thomas Deposition at 3-60)
(iv)
Ir. addition, Mr. Thomas had already extensively testified about conversations with Attorney Flynn.
For example, at page 3-7 of the deposition, Mr.
Thomas testified about a communication from Attorney Flynn concerning l
l comments made by Attorney Dignan.
l Over the weekend, I recalled, of course,
that there was a reaction from the utility during that period of time.
Q:
What was that?
t A:
This was communicated to me by Attorneys Flynn and Cumming, who indicated that Thomas Dignan had called with respect to the testimony concerning the beach population, and he had indicated that in essence, if FEMA did not change its testimony, there was going to be blood on floor and he was going to take FEMA as a witness, whichwasme,agt.
9 Attorney Flynn,had indicated this to me in a general way, add apparently had had a longer cbnversation with Attorney Cumming, and Attorney Cumming passed on ' o me additional details of t
the conversation.
I believe it was a private conversati6n between Attorney Flynn and Thomas Dignan.
Q:
What was it Cumming added to whet Flynn had already told you?
A:
The part about the blood on the floor.
(Thomas Deposition at 3-7 and 8)
Another example of the witness being permitted to testify about conversations with the FEMA lawyers, without anf claim of privilege, is found at page 3-40 and 41 of the Thomas deposition.
Q:
Who had advanced that position that you described initially at the January 5 meeting [the position discussed at the January 5 meeting, according to Mr.
Thomas, was that FD'A needed to change the beach testimony because what was needed "was the best reasonable dose savings considering the nature of the site."!
A:
It was a discussion of--I really don't recall who led it.
Myself and possibly others were describing what we understood the NRC to be saying to us.
I had had conversations earlier that day or, perhaps, the day before one on one with Mr. Turk talking about what advice the NRC had with us with respect to the beaches, and we had a long conversation, and he summed up or I summed it up by saying "We are saying you do the best you can with the site you got,right?
He said, r
I "Yes, that 's about it."
At that point, that seemed to be the direction that the NRC was going and that FEMA was going in with respect to changing the beach population testimony; and after reflecting on it 15
'40 and saying.that I was just at a loss to find that concept in at least FEMA 's regulations, I discussed it with Attorney
^
Flynn and Attorney Watson, and they agreed that that was not a legally viable reason to change the beach population testimony.
(Thomas Deposition at 3-40 and 41)
(v) As to Mr. Cumming, he specifically had Mr..
Flynn state on behalf of FEMA, at the beginning of day two of Mr.
Thomas' deposition, that he "waived any objection" to any matters' that may have been communicated to him in his prior capacity as counsel.
On page 2-9 of the Thomas Deposition, Mr.
Cumming went on to state:
I would also assume that that waiver continued through the course of the hearing.
Do you so state, Mr. Flynn?
Mr.
Flynn:
Yes.
Mr. Cumming:
And FEMA has waived any objections based on privilege, attorney-client privilege, to any testimony or answers I may give.
(Deposition of Mr. Edward A.
Thomas 2-9)
FEMA cannot maintain that Mr. Cumming can be asked about any communications to him, with a complete and general waiver, but other ?EJm witnesses can be selectively instructed not to answer what they learned from Mr. Cumming, who is now appearing as a witness, and had completely waived his attorney-client relationship for all matters pertaining to the Seabrook case, including matters arising before his formal withdrawal of appearance on January 25, 1988.
16
8.
CONCLUSION.
The testimony and evidence sought by the subpoenas applied for is relevant, material, and not subject to any valid claim of privilege.
This is all established by prior rulings of the Board, as well as by the statements of counsel for the par ties, particularly FEMA, in this proceeding.
In view of the foregoing, and in light of the need to expeditiously file this request for subpoenas, the intervenors who are applying for these subpoenas have not undertaken to brief whether or not deliberative process, attorney-client privileges or work product could be available, had they not been waived.
The intervenor applicants believe that these privileges are not applicable in the circumstances of this case, whether or not there was a waiver, and will brief this issue should the Board determine to deny the subpoena request on the basis cf a motion to quash asserting that one of these, or perhaps some other privilege, applies.
Respectfully submitted, Seacoast Anti-Pollution League By their Attorneys, BACKUS, MEYER & SOLOMON Ad-By :' Rod e r t N. B ac'k u s, Esqu i r e 116 Lowell Street P.O. Box 516 Manchester, NH 03105 (603) 668-7272 I hereby certify that on the IT day of April, 1988, copies of the foregoing Application for Subpoenas have been mailed to the attached Service List.
/[M -
Robert A. Backus, Esquire 17
{
' '.. W
-Ivin W. Smith, Chairman Roberta Pevear Edward Thomas Atomic Safety and Licensing State Rep. Town of Hampton FEMA Board Falls 442 J. W. McCormack (POCH) n USitRC Drinkwater Road Bostottht k' b2109 t?ashington, DC 20555 Ha=pton Falls, Nh 03844 E APR 19 P5 :19 Dr. Jerry Harbour Docke ting & Serv. Sec.
j sgl'gttapg' quire Atomic Safety and Licensing Of fice of the Secretary Ropes g Ig,gu Board USNRC 225 Franklin Street USNRC Washington, DC 20555 Boston, MA 02110
!! ashing ton, DC 20555 Office of Selectmen Gustave A. Linenberger Jane Doughty Town of Hampton Falls Atomic Safety and Licensin8 SAPL Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Board 5 Market Street USNRC Portsmouth, NH 03801 Washington, DC 20555 Phillip Ahrens, Esquire Joseph Flynn, Asst. Gn. Cnsl.
George Dana Bisbee, Esq.
Asst. Atty General Fed. Eme rg. Mget. Agcy.
Attorney Generc1's Office State House, Sta. #6 500 C. S t.
So. West State of New Hampshire Augusta, ME 04333 Washington, DC 20472 Concord, NH 01301 Richard A. Hampe, Esquire Sherwin E. Turk, Esquire Sandra Gavutis NH Civil Defense Agency Office of Exec. Legl. Dr.
Town of Kensington Hampe & McNichols USNRC Box 1154 35 Pleasant Street Washington, DC 20555 East Kingston, la. 03827 Concord, NH 03301 Gary Hoces, Esquire Judith H. Mizner, Esquire Charles P. Graham, Esq.
Homes & Ellis Silvergate, Gerner, Baker, McKay, Murphy and Graham 47 Winnacunnet Road Fine, Good & Mizner 100 Main Street Hampton, NH 03842 88 Broad Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Boston, MA 02110 Diane Curran, Esquire Paul McEachern, Esq.
1:1111am S. Lord, Selectman Harmon & Weiss Matthew Brock, Esquire Iavn Hall
~
20001 S Street NW 25 Maplewood Avenue Friend Street Suite 430 P.O. Box 360 Amesbury, MA 01913 Washing.on, DC 20009 Portsmouth, NH 03801
-x+
S nator Gordon J. Hua.phrey Ashod -N.
Amirian, Esq.
~ US Sanate 376 Kain Street Washington, DC 20510 Haverill, MA 01830 Attn: Janet Coit-
~.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel USNRC Washington, DC 20555 Mr. Robert Harrison Pres'. & Chief Exec. Officer PSCO-P.0, Box 330 Manchester, NH 03105 t
eSaYe7yan[ Licensing
- vAo Board Panel USNRC Washington, DC 20555 J. P. Nadeau Town of Rye 155 Washington Road Rye, NH 03870 Mr. Angie Machiros, Chrman Town of Newbury Town Hall 25 High Road Newbury, MA 01951
. Carol Sneider, Esquire Assistant Atty. General One Ashburton Place i
19th Floor Boston, MA 02108 i
,4,.
,-..ce w--,
,.im~,.
w.
._,,,,._,_,..,_.,,m..,
m.,
,,_r, y_-,.-
.,,_-r
Unitch 3tates of Aintrica NUCLEAR REGULATORY COhihilSSION v
in the matter of: Nblic Service Omnany of S'ew He.gshire, et al.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
> DOCKET NO.
50-443-OL 50-444-OL TO Victor Stello (Offsite Dmrgency Planning Executive Director of Operations, USRC Issues)
U.S. S7C 1717 H Street Washington, DC "0555 YOU ARE HEREBY COhih1ANDED to appear.
in the city of........
on the..
.... day o f..
. 19...
..at.....
. 0* clock 51.
to testify on behalf of.......
in the above entitled action and bring with you the document (s) or object (s) described in the attached schedule.
(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE A)
BY ORDER OF THE ATO' llc SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l
BY l
l I
l "I9" ATTORNEY FOR f
TELEPHONE 10 C.F.R. 2.720 (f) recridiv officer or. if at is unianoble. tar On motion made promptly and in an) esent Commission one) (1) quash or modaf) the sub-at or before the time specified in the anbroens poens if it is unreasonable or rcquires esidence for complunct by the person to whom the sub-not rtlesant to ans matter in issue, or (,') con-rorna is directed. ond on notice to the party at dannn denial of the er nnon on just and vessonable whost instance the subporns ses issued the terms.
.e
Enitch 9tates af America NUCLEAR F.ECULATORY C051511SSION v
in the matter of: Nblic Service Cconpany of New'Hamoshire, et al.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 3)
>- DOCKET NO. 50-440-OL 50-444-OL.
TOSherwin Turk Stmervising Trial Attorney, SRC (Offsite Dnergency D1anning U. S. 9.C Issues) 1717 H Street Washington, DC 20555 YOU ARE HEREBY C05151ANDED to appear.
in the city of...
on the..
..da y o f....
.19..
....a t...
... 0* clock
.N f.
to testify on behalf of.
in the abose entitled action and bring with you the document (s) or object (s) described l
in the attached schedule.
l (SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE A)
I l
BY ORDER OF THE ATOMIC S AFETY AND LICENSING BOARD BY l
l l
l
.19..
l ATTORNEY FOR i
l TELEFHONE t
i l
I 10 C.F.R. 2.7 0 (f) recriding oft;cer or, of he is unsatistse, the On motion made promptly, and in sn) nent Commission may (1) Quash or modify the sut-et or before the time artcafied in the subroens roene if it is unreswnable or requires endence for compliante by the person to m+.cm the sub-not rrles-ant to any mattet in istut. or (.*) con-poena is dortered. and on notice to the party et danon denial of the motion on just end vesscuatIt whok unttonce the subporns met isned. Ent te rms.
t
e g
Nuitch &ates of 5merica E
NUCLEAR REGULATORY 'C051511SSIO.N O
~
in the matter of: Dublic Service Cogany of New Harroshire, et al.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
>- DOCKET NO.
50-443-OL 50-444-OL.
TO obert Bores (Offsite Frergency Planning RTechnical Assistant, Division of Issues)
Radiation Safety and Safeguards, USNP.C U.S. hTtC 1717 H Street Washington, DC 20355 YOU ARE HEREBY C05DIANDED to appear in the city of.....
on the..
..... day of......
.. I 9..
..a t......
...... 0*cloek 31.
to testify on behalf of......
in the abose entitled action and b.ing with ru the document (s) or object (s) described in the attached schedule.
(SEE ATTAC*r!ED SCliEDULE A)
BY ORDER OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD BY
.,1 9..
A70R.NEY FOR TELEPHONE 10 C.F.R. 2.720 (f) r esidint o//icer or. y er is un anal,ir, the On motion made fromptly, and in sn) rwnt Commsssoon msy (1) quash or modify the sub-at or Erfort the tsme sttrified un the sutroens porns if it is unreasonable or requires eviden t for complance by the person to mhem the sub-not relesant to any matter in issue, or (.') con-porns is detected, and on notice to the tarry at dution denial of the rnerian on just cod reasonable whose snstance the sub;oens mas assued. the te rm s.
.J e
t I
/
SCHEDULE A 1.
Any notes made at the meeting between NRC and FEMA 'that occurred on January 19, 1988, including, without limitation, any materials prepared either,fer you or st your request in preparation for the meeting, as well as notes memorializing the meeting.
2.
Telephone logs and notes of any telephone conversations to you concerning NRC 's position on:
(a)
Filing. rebuttal testimony to the previous FE}U4 position.
If any such material has previously been identified in the record, it will be sufficient if you identify that material with sufficient specificity to permit its ready identification.
3.
If verbatim records are available of any meetings between NRC and F EMA, or NRC and the Applicants, or NRC and persons in other federal agencies or the Executive Branch, please provide copies, or state when and where such verbatim records may be reviewed.
l l
Muitch 9tates of America NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0515flSSION v
in the matter of:
Dublic Service Comnany of New Hamshire, et al.
(Seabrook St ation, Units 1 and 2)
>. DOCKET NO.
50--143-OL 50-444-OL TO General Julius W. Becton, Jr.
(Offsite Dnergency Dlanning Director of.32!n, Issuesi Federal Emergency "anagement Agency 500 C Street, SW Washington, DC 20172 YOU ARE HEREBY C05151 ANDED to a ppear............................
inthecityof.................................................................................
o n th e.............d a y o f................
... I 9..........a t..................... 0 *cl o ck 51.
to testify on behalf of..........
in the above entitled action and bring with you the document (s) or object (s) described in the attached schedule.
(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE A)
BY ORDER OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD BY z
ATIORNEY FOR
.19..
i TELEPHONE l
t 10 C.F.R. 2.120 (f) presiding officte or. if he is unnaabit. the I
On motion made promptly, and in any esent Commission may (I) qussh or modify the sub-(
st or befort the time specified in the nobporne potne if it is unreasonable or requires endence for compliance by the person to whom the sub-not relevent to any matter in issue, or ( ) con-poena is directed. and on notice to the perty et dition denial of the monon on just and restonable whose sattence the sul>poont mes issued, the terms.
hitch 9tates of America NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0515tlSSION O
in the nutter of: Dublic Service Crmpany of New Hampshire, et al.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
> DOCKET NO.
50-443-OL 50-444-OL TO Daviel.ticioughlin (Offsite Frergency Plannin"*
Deouty Associate Director, State and Issues)
Incal Programs and Support, IT!A Federal Ibergency.'lanagement Agency 500 C Street,
Washington, EC 2M72 YOU ARE HEREBY CO5151ANDED to appear............
in t h e c i t y o f....................................................................
o n the........... day o f....
............. I 9.......a t................. 0'cl o ek 51.
t o t e s t i fy o n be h alf o f.............................................................................
in the abose entitled action and brii.g with you the document (s) or object (s) described in the attached schedule.
(SEE ATTACHED SCliEDULE A)
BY ORDER OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD BY ATTORNEY FOR
...,1 9.......
TELEPHON E 10 C.F.R. 2.120 (f) pres dm otticer or, if he is unvettable, the On motion made promptly. and in any ownt Commission may (I) qussh or modify the sub=
st or before the time specified in the stubpoena poena if it is unreasonable or requires eddence for compluner by the person to whom the rub-not relevent to any matter in issue, or (2) con =
poena is directed, and on notice to the party at dinon denial of the motton on just sed reasonsble whose instante the subpoens wes issued, the terms.
Enitch 9tates of America NUCLEAR REGULATORY COhlhilSSION v
In the nutter of: Nblic..cr/ ice Company of New Ha:"pshirc, et al.
(Seabrook Station, L' nits 1 and 2)
>. DOCKET NO. 50-413-OL 50-444-OL TO Richard E. Krim, Assistant Associate (Offsite Dmrgency Planning Director of the Office of Natural Issues) and Technological Hazards Drograns Federal Dmrgency P.a'tagement Agency 500 C Street, 317 Wshington, DC 20472 YOU ARE llEREBY C051MANDED to appear.
in th e ci t y o f..........................................
on the.......... day of....
............ 1 9.........a t................ 0'cl o ck M.
to testify on behalf of.
In the abose entitled action and bring with you the document (s) or object (s) described in the attached schedule.
(SEE ATTACllED SCHEDULE A)
BY ORDER OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD BY
... 19....
ATTORNEY FOR TELEPHON E o
10 C.F.R. 2.120 (f) pretidm ofj1cer o'. ti he is un veilebIr. the On motion made promptly. and in any esent Commistson may (1) quash or modify the sub-et or before the time specified in Enr ntporne porne if it is untresonable or requires evidence for compliance by the person to m *som the sub-not reirvent to any metter in issue, or (2) con-ponne is directed. and on nonce to the party et danon deniel of the motion on just end reesonable whose instance the subyvene mas issued, the terms.
Unitch 9tates of America NUCLEAR REGULATORY C051511SSION c
in the matter of:
Nblic Service Comnanv of New Hampshire, et al.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
>. DOCKET NO.
50-143-OL 50-444-OL TO Craig Wingo, Gief of the Field Operations (Offsite Emergency n1anning Branch Technological Hazards Issues)
Division, IT'A Federal Fhergency Management Agency 500 C Street, S','
Washington, DC 20172 YOU ARE H EREBY C05151 AN DED to a ppear...........................
in the city of.....
o n th e.............d a y o f........................ I 9.........a t................ 0'cl o ek hl.
t o t es t i fy o n beh al f o f............................................................................
in the abose entitled action and bring with you the document (s) or object (s) described in the attached schedule.
(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE A)
BY ORDER OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD BY
. 1 9..
ATTORNEY FOR -
TELEPHONE 10 C.F.R. 2.120 (f) petsiding ofpctr or, if he is unvet!&ble, the On morron mede prc mptly, and in any tant Commission may (1) qussh or modify the sub-et or befort the timt 8t'.ified in the gnbpotne PO9ne if it is unrtesoneble or etqulitt tvidenC4 for comp!&.ct by the p.rson to whom th9 sub-not relennt to any metter in issut, or (') con-porne is dettred. and on notste to the party at dutson denial of the motion on just and reesonable whose instance the subporne was issued. the 19tms.
Unitch 9tates of America M: ~
NUCLEAR REGULATORY C051511SSION O
in the matter of: Dublic Service Company of New Hampshire, et al.
(Seabrook Station, L' nits 1 and 2)
>. DOCKET NO. 50-443-OL 50-444-OL TO Ceorge Watson (Offsite Dnergency Planning FE'!A Associate General Counsel Issues)
Federal Dmrgency ?hnagermnt Agency 500 C Street, SW Washington, DC 2N72 YOU ARE HEREBY CO5151 ANDED to appear........
in th e ci t y o f........................................
o n th e..............d a y o f....................... I 9........a t.,............ 0 "cl o ek 51.
to testify on behalf of.............
in the above entitled action and bring whh you the document (s) or object (s) described in the attached schedule.
(SEE ATTACHED SCIIEDULE A)
BY ORDER OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD BY
.19..
ATTORNEY FOR TELEPHONE s
a
{0 C.F.R. 2.720 (i) perudin otticei or. It he is unvailable. the On motion made promptly and in any esent Commissson may (1) quash or moduty the sub-et or before the time specified in the nbpoena porne if it is unressonable or requires endente for compliance by the person to whom the sub-not relevant to any matter in issue, or (2) con =
potu is directed, and on nonce to the party at dnnon denial of the motion on just and reasonable dose snitence the subpoens was issued. the te rms.
hited $tates of America NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0515tlSSION v
in the matter of: Nblic Service Cavany of New Hampshire, et al. (3eabrook Station, Units 1 anel 2)
>- DOCKET NO. 50-443--OL 50-444-OL TO Grant Nterson, Associate Director (Of fsite Dnergency Planning for FDIA Issws) 500 C Street, S4 Washington, DC 20472 YOU ARE IIEREBY C05151ANDED to appear............
in the city of.......
on th e..............da y o f.................... 1 9......... a t.............. 0'cloek 51.
t o t es t i fy o n beh alf o f................................................................................
in the abose entitled action and bring with you the document (s) or object (s) described in the attached schedule.
(SEE ATTACHED SCliEDULE A) t l
BY ORDER OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD BY
.19....
ATTORNEY FOR l
~
TELEPHONE 10 C.F.R. 2.120 (i) presiding ofpcer or. If he u unvenable, the On motion made promptly, and in any rwnt Commission may (1) qussh or modify the sub-et or befort the time speciford in the subpcens poene if it is unressonable or requires evidener for compliance by the person to whom the sub-not erirsent to any metter in brut. or (2) con-porno is directed, and on notice to the party et ditson deniel of the motion on just end vessonable whose entrance the tubporns us issued, the terms.
i
3Huitch 9tates of America NUCLEAR REGULATORY COhihilSSION c
in the matter of:
Dublic Service Cernany of New Hannshire, et al.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
>- DOCKET NO.
50-443-OL 50-414-OL TO Henry Vickers (Offsite Dmrgency Plannins:
Regional Director of Region 1, FDIA Issues)
Federal 9mrgency.itanagement h;ency 422 McConmck Post Of fice Boston, !.!A 02109 YOU ARE H EREBY COhlM AN DED to appear......................
in th e cit y o f....................
on the............d a y o f.............
.... I 9..
..a t................. 0'clo ek M.
t o t es tify o n behalf o f....................................................
in the abose entitled action and bring with you the document (s) or object (s) described in the attached schedule.
(SEE ATTACllED SCHEDULE A)
BY ORDER OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD BY
.19..
ATTORNEY FOR _
l TELEPHONE l
presiding officer or.11 he is unvettable. the On motion made promptly and in any ownt Commission may (1) quash or modsfy the sub-at or befort the time specified in the s'abporne porne if it is unreasonsble or requires endence g
for complanet by the yttson to whom the sub.
not relevent to any metter in issue, or (2) con =
poens is awected, and on nottce to the party at dntion denial of the motion on lutt and resMnsble whose instssce the subpoena was issued. the termt
SCHEDULE A 2.-
All notes prepared by you, memori'alizing the discussion at any meeting where the adequacy of the NHRERP for Seabrook was discussed and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in particular any notes prepared by you at or as a result of the March 4, 1988 meeting.
2.
All materials utilized by you or other participants at inter-agency meetings between FEMA and NRC, including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the January 19th meeting between F EMA and NRC.
3.
All notes or materials bearing on the issue of dose reduction achieved or achievable by the NBRERP, telephone logs of any telephone conversations you may have had with others outside FEMA regarding the Agency 's position on the adequacy of the NHRERP in regard to the Seabrook beach population, and notes of any such telephone conversations available either in the Agency or to you personally.
4.
Any documentary material, not identified in the pre-filed tesimony of March 14, 1988 that you contend supports the position of FEMA as set forth in the March 14, 1988 testimony.
5.
Notes, memoranda, or any other documents from any superior to you in F EMA, if any, concerning the FEMA position on the NHRERP in regard to the Seabrook beach population.
i i
t l
l
e hitch 9tates of America l
l NUCLEAR REGULATORY C051511SSION O
In the matter of:
Public Service Ccnpany of New Hanpshire, et al. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
> DOCKET NO. 50--443-OL 50-444-OL TO Edward A. Thcnns Chief of the Natural and Technological (Offsite Emergency Planning Issues)
Hazards Division, Region 1 Federal Dnergency Management Agency 422 McCo1Tnack Post Office Boston, MA 02100 YOU ARE HEREBY CO3151ANDED to appear.
in the city of..
on the...
......d ay o f......
... 1 9......a t..
.... 0' clock bl.
to testify on behalf of.........
in the abose entitled action and bring with you the document (s) or object (s) described in the attached schedule.
(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE A)
BY ORDER OF THE ATO511C SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD BY
.19..
ATTORNEY FOR TELEPHONE i
c 10 C.F.R. 2,720 (f) p,,sising ofpcer or,,f he is u vaaable. the On motion rnaJe promptiv. and in any esent Commission may (11 quash or modify the sub-n' or before the time specified in the probroens poena if it is un tasonable or requires evidence r
for compliance by the person to whom the sub-not relevant to any matter in issue, or (2) con-porne is directed, and bn notice to the earty at danan denial of the monon on juvt and reasonabl whose instance the subpoena was issued, the termt r
"j
Enitch 9tates of America NUCLEAR REGULATORY C051511SSION C
In the nutter of:
Dublic Service Comoany of New lhmoshire, et al.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
>. DOCKET NO.
50-413-OL 50-444-OL TO General Julius W. Becton, Jr.
(Offsite Dmrgency Planning Director of E!A Issues)
Federal Emergency '!anagement Agency 500 C Street, Sr Washington, DC 20172 YOU ARE HEREBY C05151ANDED to appear....
in the city o f............
on the...
........ d a y o f.......
.... I 9..
..a t..
........... 0'cloek bl.
to testify on behalf of..........
in the above entitled action and bring with you the document (s) or object (s) described in the attached schedule.
(SEE ATTACIIED SCHEDULE A)
BY ORDER OF THE ATO5 tlc SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i
BY i
l I
ATTORNEY FOR 19 -
l 1
1 TELEPHONE t
l0 C.F.R. 2.720 (()
presi+ng orpcer or. if he is unsanable the On motion made promptly, and in any esent Commission me> (11 qu.tsh or mo&fy the sub-i et or befort the nme specifsed sn the subporne p>rne if it is unreasonable or requires evidence for compliance by the person to whom the sub-not reltrant to any matter in issue, or (,') con-poena is directed, and on notice to the party et denon denial of the monon on just e.sd reasonable whose instance the subporne was ssnotd, the term t s.
I
linitch 9tates of America NUCLEAR REGULATORY C051511SSION v
in the rnatter of: Riblic Service Ccrmany of Nev. Hampshire, et al.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
>- DOCKET NO.
50-443-OL 50-441-OL TO Daviel.\\tcloughlin (Of fsite Fmrgency ')lanning Deputy Associate Director, State and Issues)
Local Programs and Supnort, FI?!A Federal Dnergency."anagement Azency 500 C Street, SW Washington, DC 20473 YOU ARE HEREBY CO5151ANDED to appear...
in the city o f..............
o n th e..
.... day o f..
.19..
...at.......
. 0' clock 51.
to testify on behalf of...
in the abo 5e entitled action and bring with you the document (s) or object (s) described in the attactied schedule.
l (SEE ATT ACHED SCIIEDULE A) l f
BY ORDER OF Tile ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l
BY j
.19..
ATTORNEY FOR TELEPilONE 10 C.F.R. 2,720 (f) persidan, officer or, if he is un,anable, the O *t motion made prornptly, and in any esent Commission may (1) qu.uk or modify the sub-at or before the ttme specifted in the votivens poena if it is unressonable or requires estdence for compliance by the person to whom the sub-not relevant to any metter in issue, or f.*) con-poena is daracted. and on nottcr to the party st' dition denial of the metton on just and crasonable whose instance the subpoena was assurd the terms.
3!!nitch 9tates of America NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO51511SSION
--c 1
In the matter of: "ublic Service company oJ Ne'v Hampshire, et al.
(Seabrook Station, L' nits 1 and 2)
> L OCKET NO. 50-M3-OL 50-444-OL TO Richard T. Krim, Assistant Associate
( )ffsite Frnrgency Planning Director of the Of fice of Natural Issues) and Technological Hazards % grams Federal Ihergency '.'.a'1agement Agency 500 C Street,
.'N Wshington, DC 20472 YOU ARE HEREBY CO5151ANDED to appear...
in the city of...
on the..........
.. day of..
... 1 9....
..a t..
...0' clock bl.
to testify on behalf of............
in the above entitled action and bring with you the document (s) or object (s) descrit>ed in the attached schedule.
(SEE ATTACIIED SCllEDULE A)
BY OkDER OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD BY ATTORNEY FOR
.19 -
TELEPHONE 10 C.F.R. 2.720 (f) r,,,,a.,, officer or. If h e is un tena nt. the On monon made fromptly, and in any esent Commession may (1) quash or modtf} th e su b -
et or befare the nme specified in t* e ss tycena poena if at is unressonable or requters edJence for complunce by the person to m hem the su b-not vriesent to ens matter an issue. or ll) con-poene as darteted, en1 on notice to He f arty at dinan Jonial of the monon on just snJ reasonable 4019 anstante the subpvens was assued. Ike te rm s.
a
W A
Huitch 9tates of America NUCLEAR REGULATORY C051511SSION v
in the matter of:
Dublic Service Comnany of New Harrpshire, et al.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
>- DOCKET NO.
50-443-OL 50-444-OL TO Craig Winr:0, Chief of the Field Operations (r site D.ergency D1anning Branch Technological Hazards
- es)
Division, ITL1 Federal Fbergency Management Agency 500 C Street,
S",'
Washington, DC 20172 YOU ARE HEREb7 C05151ANDED to appear....
in the city of.
on the.....
.. day of....
.... I 9......a t......
. 0'cloek St.
to testify on behalf of.........
in the abose entitled action and bring with you the document (s) or object (s) described in the attached schedule.
(SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE A)
BY ORDER OF THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD BY l
l ATTORNEY FOR _
,,19...
1 l
1
{
TELEPHONE a
10 C.F.R. 2.720 (f) p-esising ofj1cer or. of he is unsailable, r8e On morton maJr pr mrtir. and in any esent Commissnon may (I) qusuh or modify the sub-at or before the time si ified in the subpoene earna If at is unrrssonable or requires evidence for complouce by the p.. son to whom the sub-ot vriesant to on,s matter in istur. Or ( ) con-poenn is dverttJ, and on notice to the part? et darwn Jensal of the monon on just enJ ressonable s.
whose mstance the rubyvens was issurJ, the terms 1
1
Muitch 9tates of America NUCLEAR REGULATORY C051511SSION C
in the matter of: Dublic Service Cor:pany of New Ilarpshire, et al.
(Seabrook Station, L' nits 1 and 2)
>- DOCKET NO. 50-143-OL 50-444-OL TO Coorge Watson (Offsite Fbergency Planning FE'!A Associate G3neral Counsel Issues)
Federal Thnrgency 'lanacement Agency 500 C Street, S'.7 Washington, DC 2N72 YOU ARE HEREBY C05151ANDED to appear...
in the city of.......
on the........... day of......
.... 19.......a t...
... 0' clock h!.
to testify on behalf of.....
in the abose entitled action and bring with you the document (s) or object (s) described in the attached schedule.
(SEE ATTACHED SCIIEDULE A)
BY ORDER OF Tile AT05 tlc SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD BY-ATTOR.NEY FOR
.19..
TELEPHONE 10 C.F.R. C.720 (f) presi-san.>:pctr or, of he is un vaiiabsr. the On mction made prompt!>. and in any esent Commisnon me) (1) quash or modnfy the sub-et or befort l'r time streifard en the Mrorna perne if it is knreasonable or trquires evidence for complance by the y erson to whom the sub-not trievent to sny matter in isstre, or (l) con
- porne is detected, end on notact to the ravty et danon dennal of the monon on just and reasonable whose instance the J1*broenn was issued, the tr em s.
.s
r 1
Enitch 9tates of America NUCLFAP REGULATORY COMMISSION o
in the nutter of: Dublic Service ccmany of New Hamnshire, et al. (Nabrook Station, Units 1 ani 2)
> DOCKET NO. 50-443-OL 50-444-OL TO Grant Deterson, Asax:iate Director (Of Tsite Fmergency Planning for FI21.\\
ssu s) 500 C Street, SW Washington, DC 20472 YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED to appear. 2..
in the city of.........
on th e.....
..d a y o f.............
.. I 9.......a t................ 0'c1 o ek M.
to testify on behalf of..........
in the abose entitled action and bring with you the document (s) or object (s) described in the attached schedule.
(SEE ATTACHED SCIIEDULE A)
BY ORDER OF THE ATO\\ llc SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD BY ATTORNEY FOR
.19..
TELEPHONE 10 C.F.R. 2.1 0 (f) presidsns ottJcer or. It he is unsailable. the On motion made promptly, and in en) esent Commission may (1) qussh or modify the sub-et or ttfore the ttml specifned in the nbrorng porna if it is unerssonabit or requires tyndence for compiksnce by the person 60 whom the tuh-not vtlesent to any matter in issue, or (.**) con-poena is directed, and on notice to the pe.O st 4,tnan deni.al of the monon on just and reasonabl(
whose intrance the tutpurns was t* utd. the te rms.
l' O
hitch States of America NUCLEAR REGULATORY C051511SSION v
in the matter of:
Dublic Service Ornany of New Hamnshire, et al.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
>- DOCKET NO.
50-443-OL 50-414-OL TO Henry Vickers (Of fsite Dnergency Planning Regional Director of Region 1, FDIA Issues)
Federal Frurgency.lanagement k;ency i
422 !!cCotTnack Post Of fice Boston, !.!A 02100 YOU ARE ilEREBY CO.\\151ANDED to appear.
in the city of....
on the....
.. d a y o f..................... 1 9....
....at...
.. 0' clock St.
to testify on behalf of....................
in the above entitled action and bring with you the document (s) or object (s) descrioed in the attached schedule.
(SEE ATTACllED SCHEDULE A)
BY ORDER OF THE ATONilC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD BY ATTORNEY FOR
.,19..
TELEPHONE 10 C.F.R. 2.120 (h presidint ottictr or. it he is unsailable. the On morfon made promptl.s, and in any tant Commisnon mm) (1) vish or modsfy th e tu b -
at or befort the time specifstd in the inbporna poene if it is unreasonable or requires evidence for complunce by the perton to whom the sub-not releverit to any matter in issue. or f.') con-poena is dsrected. e*d on nonce to the party et dsnon denial of the motion on just and reasonable whost in:tance the subpoena mas assued. the te r m s.
SCHEDULE A 2..
All notes prepared by you, memori'alizing the discussion at any meeting where the adequacy of the NHRERP for Seabrook was discussed and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, in particular any notes prepared by you at or as a result of the March 4,1988 meeting.
2.
All materials utilized by you or othe; ptrticipants at inter-agency meetings between FEMA and NRC, includlag, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, th e J anc e. < '< 19th meeting between F EMA and NRC.
3.
All notes or materials bearing on the issue of dose reduction achieved or achievable by the NHRERP, telephone logs of any telephone conversations you may have had with others outside FEMA regarding the Agency 's positica on the adequacy of the NHRERP in regard to the Seabrook beach population, and notes of any such telephone conversations available either in the Agency or to you personally.
4.
Any documentary material, not identified in the pre-filed tesimony of March 14, 1988 that you contend supports the position of FEMA as set forth in the March 14, 1988 testimony.
5.
Notes, memoranda, or any other documents from any superior to you in F EMA, if any, concerning the FEMA position on the NHRERP in regard to the Seabrook beach population.
l l
l l
l l
l
__