ML20151V940
| ML20151V940 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 04/29/1988 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#288-6312 ASLBP, OL, NUDOCS 8805030251 | |
| Download: ML20151V940 (41) | |
Text
-
ORIGINAL O UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
)
In the Matter of: )
) Docket Nos.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-443-OL t1EW HAMPSHIRE, et al., ) 50-444-OL
) OFF-SITE EMERGENCY (SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) ) PLANNING PREHEARING CONFERENCE O
l a
l LOCATION: Bethesda, Maryland PAGES: 9973 through 10011 DATE: April 29, 1988 i
...................--...---------------===================
- 0. b f -
N g
C HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION O osaw **-<-
1224 L Stron N.W., Seite 600 WanWagton, D.C. 200H 8805030251 830429 PDR ADOCK 05000443 T DCD
1 %
9973 1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Sec50T&I 3
4 In the Matter of: )
) Docket Nos.
5 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al., ) 50-444-OL 6 ) OFF-SITE EMERGENCY (SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) ) PLANNING 7
8 PREHEARING CONFERENCE 9
Friday, 10 November 29, 1988 11 Room 428 East-West Towers W. .
12 4350 East-West Highway I Bethesda, Maryland "
13 14 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, '
15 pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m.
16 BEFORE: JUDGE IVAN W.-SMITH, CHAIRMAN ,
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 17 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 18 JUDGE JERRY HARBOUR, MEMBER 19 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 20 Washington, D.C. 20655 21 JUDGE GUSTAVE A. LINENBERGER, JR., MEMBER Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 22 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 l 23 j 24 25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I 1
~9974
! 1 APPEARANCES:
2 For the Applicant:
3 THOMAS G. DIGNAN, JR., ESQ.
Ropes & Gray 4 225. Franklin Street Boston, MA 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, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20472 12 For the State ~of New Hampshire:
13
() 14 GEORGE DANA BISBEE, ASST. ATTY. GEN.
GEOFFREY M. HUNTINGTON, ESQ.
State of New Hampshire 15 25 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301 16 For the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
1 17 JOHN TRAFICONTE, ASST. ATTY. GEN.
18 CAROL SNEIDER, ASST. ATTY. GEN.
STEPHEN H. OLESKEY, ESQ.
19 Commonwealth of Massachusetts One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor 20 Boston, MA 02108 i 21 For the New England Coalition Against_ Nuclear Pollution: F 22 ELLYN NEISS, ESQ.
23 Harmon & Weiss 201 S Street, N.W.
24 Washington, D.C. 20009
, 25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation !
(202) 628-4888 i
- s
- 9975
-( ) 1 APPEARANCES: (Continued)-
'2 For the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League:
2 3 ROBERT A. BACKUS, ESQ.
Backus, Meyer, & Solomon 4 116 Lowell Street Manchester, NH 03105 ,
5 6 For the Town of Hampton:
7 MATTHEW T. BROCK, ESQ.
Shaines & McEachern
-8 25 Maplewood Avenue P.O. Box 360 9 Portsmouth, NH 03801 10 For the Towns of Hampton Falls and North Hampton and South Hampton:
11 '
ROBERT A. BACKUS, ESQ.
- 12 Backus, Meyer & Solomon 116 Lowell Street 13 Manchester, NH 03105
.O 14 For the Town of Amesbury:
15 (No appearance.)
16 For the Town of Kensington:
i 17 (No appearance.)
18 39 20 21 22 23 24 25
(
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
9976
$ 1 PROCEEDINGS 2 JUDGE SMITH: We're on the record now.
3 We had previously scheduled a prehearing conference 4 this afternoon hoping that we could address those issues 5 pertaining to FEMA's past and proposed testimony which remain 6 for us to consider given the Appeal Board's order partially 7 suspending proceeding.
8 MR. BROCK: This is Matt Brock. I'm having great 9 difficulty hearing you.
10 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, I don't think we have a very clear 11 connection.
12 Can anybody else hear me all right.
13 MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I can hear you fine.
O 14 MR. OLESKEY: Barely, Judge, in Boston.
15 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. It would be better, I assume, 16 then the Boston and out-of-town people -- Ms. Weiss, how about 17 you?
18 MS. WEISS: I can hear.
19 JUDGE SMITH: I'm going to ask Mrs. Moran to call the 20 operator and do a better job. It's Boston and Massachusetts, I 21 mean Boston, and what's that other state, New Hampshire?
4 j 22 (Laughter.)
23 MR. HUNTINGTON: This is Geoff Huntington from the 24 Attorney General's Office. You are very soft for us as well.
25 JUDGE SMITH: All right, but everybody else can hear
- (
Heritage Reporting Corporation
- i (202) 628-4888
9977
'O -1 e11 r1 9ht2 2 All right, I am going to ask her to fix that up.
3 We're off the record.
4 -(Discussion off the record.)
~
5 JUDGE SMITH: I'll start from the beginning.
6 The original purpose of asking the parties to join us 7 in this conference was to see what portion of the hearing 8 respecting FEMA's' testimony we could go ahead with.
9 Has everyone received the April 29 memorandum from 10 the Appeal Board which --
11 Mr. Oleskey, you are not on?
12 Off the record.
13 (Discussion off the record.)
O 14 JUDGE SMITH: We'11 begin again.
15 We originally had requested this telephone conference 16 call because the Board wanted to set a schedule for that aspect 17 of the hearing which was not suspended by the Appeal Board's 18 order which was -- the suspension was partially lifted on April 19 27th.
20 My question is, has everyone received the April 27th
. 21 memorandum from the Appeal Board. I understand that it has
- 22 been read to you if you have not.
23 MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, you referred a litt1e earlier 24 to an April 29th memorandum.
i 25 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, I'm starting from earlier on l (
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
e
< 9978 f~'s .
(_) . -1 because nobody received that.
2 MR. FLYNN: Okay.
3 JUDGE SMITH: So on April 27th,Lthe Appeal Board
'4 lifted, and I am quoting here, "We decided to lift in part the 5 suspension of the now scheduled evidentiary hearing. That 6 hearing may go forward but it is not to include, pending our 7 further order following disposition of the directed 8 certification motion, the receipt of evidence from witnesses on 9 behalf of FEMA."
10 Then it goes on to say that the parties are notified 11 of this and the parties were also informed, "...that our action 12 was without prejudice to the entitlement of each party to seek 13 such additional relief from the Licensing Board with respect to
! (
14 the upcoming evidentiary hearing as might be thought ,
15 warranted."
16 On April 28th, yesterday, the Licensing Board 17 certified to the Appeal Board a question, and we quoted that 18 language in our opening paragraphs of the certification. And 19 then we stated, "The Licensing Board understands the 20 restriction against 'the receipt of evidence from witnesses on
- 21 behalf of FEMA to mean that we may not require Intervenor or 22 any party to confront witnesses who are presenting FEMA's 23 position in the proceeding until the Appeal Board considers i 24 Intervenors' April 22 motion for directed certification. This
- 25 understanding is based in part upon Intervenors avowed need for Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
9979
,- \ ~
(_): 1 further discovery before being required to cross-examine the 2 FEMA panel whose prefiled written testimony was served.'"
3 Then we went on to state that the Licensing Board is 4 not confident that it understands the reach of its authority to 5 entertain requests for additional relief.
6 We pointed out that there is pending before us the 7 Intervenors' April 14th application for subpoenas, and that the 8 Intervenors stated in the motion for direct certification that 9 they intend to subpoena still others as a part of the 10 Intervenors direct case.
11 Then we stated this, that the Board itself has need 12 for additional evidence from FEMA witnesses'to satisfy its own 13 concerns about the quality of the evidence already submitted.
O 14 We observed that there is pending before us the April 15 15th application for subpoenas which would require certain 16 named FEMA employees to attend the hearing, and that the 17 Intervenors stated in the motion for directed certification 18 that they intend --
19 Mr. Oleskey, are you still there?
20 MR. OLESKEY: Yes, Your Honor.
21 JUDGE SMITH: Let me take the role quite quickly.
22 Mr. Dignan. Mr. Dignan, you're not there?
- 23 MR. DIGNAN
- Yes, Your Honor, I'm here.
4 24 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Turk.
i 25 MR. TURK: Yes, sir.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation
.i (202) 628-4888
9980
). 1 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Flynn?
2 MR. FLYNN: Yes, I'm here.
3 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Huntington and Bisbee?
'4 MR, HUNTINGTON: Yes.
5 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Oleskey?
6 MR. OLESKEY: Yes, sir.
7 JUDGE SMITH: Ms. Weiss?
8 MS. WEISS: Yes.
9 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Backus?
10 MR. BACKUS: Yes.
11 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Brock?
12 MR. BROCK: Yes.
13 MR. TURK: Your Honor, I hear some clicking over O 14 here. Maybe people are pushing their mute buttons. Maybe 15 that's the interference.
16 MR. OLESKEY: We hear the clicking, too, in Boston.
17 JUDGE SMITH: Well, let me go on.
18 Did everyone hear me read from our certification that 19 the Board itself has the need for auditional evidence from FEMA 20 witnesses to satisfy its own concerns about the quality of the 21 evidence already submitted and proposed to be submitted by 22 FEMA?
23 MR. CLESKEY: Yes, Your Honor.
24 JUDGE GMITH: We stated that we assume that the I
25 Appeal Board's order would not prohibit the compelled O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
. -9981
) 1 attendance of named. FEMA employees if'the purpose of their 2 . attendance is to testify not on behalf of FEMA, but say as on
. 3 cross-examination by Intervenors or perhaps as Board witnesses.
4 However, we stated we 6re not free from doubt on that 5 score given the Appeal Board's strong action in suspending the 6 aspect of the hearing pertaining to witnesses appearing on 7 behalf of FEMA. Therefore, we requested further guidance.
8 This morning we received from the Appeal Board the 9 following.
10 "In response to its April 28, 1988 certified 11 question, the Licensing Board is advised as follows: The.
i 12 single limitation we have imposed upon the conduct of the 13 evidentiary hearing scheduled to begin on A!ay 2 is that pending O 14 our further order no person in the employ of the Federal i
15 Emergency Management Agency or under contract to that agency 16 may be called as a witness by any party or the Licensing Board 17 for the purpose of explaining, defending, or challenging any 18 FEMA position on the beach sheltering issue."
1 19 There is a footnote at that point. This is the 2
20 footnote. "We do not know whether the Intervenors intend to 21 seek the testimony of one or more FEMA employees who might be
- 22 in disagreement with the current agency position. Although i
l 23 such an individual would not be appearing 'on behalf of FEMA' i
24 within the meaning of our April 27, 1988 memorandum, it
, 25 nonetheless seems advisable to subject his or her testimony to l
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 9982-1 the limitation."
2 Going back to the body of.the-Appeal Board's i 3 memorandum, "Subject to that limitation, the Licensing Board-4 remains free to grant such request, if any, for relief in 5 connection with the hearing as it'may deem neritorious in the 6 circumstances."
7 We don't understand yet from the Appeal Board.what 8 relief we might be able to grant in connection with the FEMA 9 presentation. We assume that we had been remained free to 10 grant requests for relief on other aspects of the hearing 2
11 because that never was involved.
12 Nevertheless, it is clear that we cannot take the 13 testimony of any FEMA witness called by any party, as I can d
.() 14 see, for any purpose unless that FEMA employee is known to L 15 disagree, and then we'd better not do it then.
16 In other words, although the Appeal Board did not
! 17 answer the very question we wanted answered, you cannot call an 18 adverse witness from FEMA and cross-examine them.
19 As far as I can see, we are shut down entirely for j 20 proceeding on the FEMA position. I don't know any other 21 possibility except calling a FEMA witness that Intervenors may 22 know disagrees with FEHA's current position, f 23 MR. TURK: Your Honor, this is Sherwin Turk.
24 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
25 MR. TURK: I think it might be useful if the parties i
i (
! Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
- ,,n-,-.---,-,.,.., - , - - - - , , .
9983
() 1 indicated to you what transpired in our telephone conference 2 call with the Appeal Board prior to this call today.
3- The Applicant had indicated to the Appeal Board that 4 there was no reason to delay hearings.on the Applicant's panel 5 of witnesses or on the prefiled testimony which Intervenors had l-6 submitted. And I believe that's the relief that the Appeal 7 Board granted when they released the suspension of hearings 8 except to persons appearing, as they put it, on behalf of FEMA.
9 So as I read the current Appeal Board directive, it's l'
10 that we go ahead on all witnesses other than people appearing 11 on behalf of FEMA or other FEMA employees, even if they are ;
12 being called by other parties than FEMA.
13 JUDGE SMITH: That's what I read the answer to our l O 14 certified question, yes. I don't read that in the memorandum.
15 I just don't understand it. But I do understand quite clearly 16 that we cannot compel or accept the testimony of FEMA witnesses ,
{ 17 until further order of the Appeal Board.
l 18 MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, did I understand you to say 19 that you no longer have jurisdiction over the request for 20 subpoenas?
I 21 JUDGE SMITH: I don't think that we could sign them, 22 no. I don't think we can force anybody to attend. I think '
23 that's taken away from us.
24 MS. WEISS: Well, you know, it seems to me that just ,
! 25 as a matter of logic that any argument on the subpoenas would
() Heritage Report ing Corporation (202) 628-4886 i
-9984-
.. n k_) 1 be deferred until after the Appeal Board decides on whether 2 it's going to take certification or not since it really is the 3 same issues involved in the subpoenas as involved in the 4 discovery ruling.
5 JUDGE SMITH: We certainly do not have the power to 6 compel the attendance of any FEMA employee for any purpose that 7 I can see that that might come, and that is to explain, or 8 defend, or --
9 MS. WEISS: I certainly agree with that.
10 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
11 MS. WEISS: I certainly agree with that, but I think 12 that's just logical.
- 13 JUDGE SMITH: What I don't understand, though, the O ~ 14 thing that is left open, though, is I don't understand what is 15 the other relief in connection with the hearing that the Appeal i 16 Board is allowing us to grant?
l 17 I mean, what, you go to the restroom or what? I 18 don't know. So we'll just let that go.
l 19 MR. OLESKEY: Well, we had a point, Judge Smith, at i-20 the Mass AG's office that I guess really arose after the i
21 argument with the Appeal Board, but I think it would fall
! 22 within the scope of the language and respond to your question.
l E
23 Carol Sneider, if we may, would like to present that 24 now?
25 JUDGE SMITH: It's not necessary. I think I may have O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
o 9985
( 1 digressed. I think that everyone agrees that whatever the
, 2 Appeal Board intends for us to do, it is not to proceed on the 3 FEMA testimony in any way now. ,
- 4 But apparently we can do anything else-with respect F
'S to the other witnesses, and the other aspects of the hearing 6 which I would have assumed would have been the case anyway if 7 we're allowed to go ahead with that hearing. I don't know.
f 8 But do you want to be heard on it, Ms '. Sneider?
9 MS. SNEIDER: Yes, Your Honor. We're concerned about
.10 going forward with our cross-examination of the Applicant's 11 witnesses on Monday in light of what we have just --
12 JUDGE SMITH: Now wait a minute, this is different.
13 This is back to the main case, right?
O 14 MS. SNEIDER: That's correct.
15 JUDGE SMITH: All right. Does everyone agree now 16 that we're shut down on the FEMA testimony?
17 Does anybody disagree?
18 (No response.)
19 JUDGE SMITH: All right. So go ahead, Ms. Sneider.
20 The Board rules that we can't proceed on the FEMA i
4 21 testimony.
l i 22 All right, Ms. Sneider.
I 23 MS. SNEIDER: Yes, Your Honor, at 5:00 last night I
- 24 received a phone call from an employee of New Hampshire Yankee I
25 who informed me that New Hampshire Yankee was serving us with I Heritage Reporting Corporation
! (202) 628-4888 l
l
9986 e 'l extensive revisions to the New Hampshire plan some time late' -
2 next week.
3 I a3ked if there was.any way it could be delivered 4 today. She told me no. She said these revisions were too
- 5 extensive to be mailed, and that they are all-encompassing is 6 my understanding.
7 I think it crestes real problems for us going forward 8 with Applicant's witnesses before we,have seen these revisions.
9 A number of them., it's my understanding, do pertain to the
~
10 sheltering' issue, and 1t's also my understanding there are 11 amendments to the plan that are not included as attachment to 12 Applicants' testimony, i 13 Now we are already served with Applicants' testimony 14 one amendment that I consider very extensive that we clearly 15 had enough time to address which goes to the decisionmaking i
! 16 process. We're expecting that the new amendments will cover
! 17 such things as EBS messages which are very critical to our 18 cross-examination, plans to shelter the transient beach l
19 population, implementing stages for sheltering, and I just 20 think it's quite impossible for us to go forward until we have l
l 21 seen what these amendments are.
l 22 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Dignan?
23 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, the -- well, I couldn't hear l
l 24 all of that, but I gather what the pitch is, is that the plan l
l 25 amendments somehow should slow the hearing down.
C:)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L
?, M 9987 1 I had 7y people go over the plan and call me. There 2 are about five revisions in all these amendments. Again, the 3 box is going to be big, but they are barred and, as usual, the-4 questions, you have to produce a lot of pages. It doesn't mean 5 extensive changes. .But there are maybe five that affect the 6 so-called sheltering issue.
7 One thing we have done is alter the language, if you 8 recall the famous language of sheltering may not be considered 9 feasible and that sort of thing. As we testified, that 10 language has been altered as everybody knows. I don't think it 11 has anything to do with anything anymore.
12 Appendix F and U are coming in. That was Attachment 13 1 to our testimony which was filed back on the 15th. They have
(:) 14 had that since our testimony was filec.
15 There's a very minor change in the decision criteria i 16 that is set forth in the decision "blocked tree" type thing 17 that's in Attachment 2 to our testimony. They have had that 18 since we filed it.
19 with respect to the big supposed changes to EBS t
20 messages, I understand the only thing they have done is they 21 have got an EDS message now that tells the transients to go to 22 shelter, if the elect to use it while they are waiting for the f
23 bus. Again, something we committed to in Mr. Strome's letter
, 24 to the state -- excuse me -- to FEMA at the time that the state I
25 answered the piece of PEMA testimony.
i
(
q Heritage Reporting Corporation j
(202) 628-4888
=
-. ". j . ,
k s
^
9988 ' -
! 1 So there is nothing in the plan which people haven't 2 had notice on. Or whether they have or not, the fact of the ,
3- -matter is nothing in the plan alters the testimony we are going !
4 to file, and it can be cross-examined without reference to this j r
5 plan change. ,
6 The reason for the timing of the changes was very 4 7. simple. FEMA has been pushing that some changes come in ;
t e because they are looking towards the exercise, and this, that- l 9 and the other' thing. But I think this is just the usual rerun 10 of the argument that says, that I thought had been decided a 5
11 long time ago against the Commonwealth that someone there has 12 to be a complete, unalterable plan in stone or we can't have l
( .
13 hearings. 5 l
' O 14 But there is nothing extensive, nothing that affects e
i 15 our testimony as it was filed. I see no reason for a stay.
- i 16 MR. TRAFICONTE: Your Honor, may I just be heard f 17 briefly? 7.t's Traficonte in the Mass. AG's office.
18 JUDGE SMITH: Just a moment, Mr. Traficonte.
19 Mr. Dignan, you stated somewhere in your remarks that f
20 testimony that you are going to file or are about to file? l l
l 21 MR. DIGNAN: No, that we have filed. l l \
22 JUDGE SMITH: Have filed, all right.
r r i 23 Mr. Traficonte. .
I 24 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes, just very briefly because of 25 Mr. Dignan's point that we don't need these amendments, or that l
O Heritage Reporting Corporation l
l (202) 628-4888 l
~
lg .
t 9989
() 1 _the-amendment does not require a delay in the hearings.- But
~2 -I'll just give you an example, a.very concrete example, 3 I was intending Monday afternoon when we begin to 4 wind up my cross-examination of Dr. M11eti who appears on the 5- sheltering panel. In that testimony package, there is a 6 representation that EBS messages are being prepared for the 7 beach population in the limited circumstances in which 8 sheltering would be the recommendation for that population.
9 Those messages have not been made available to us. I 10 have not read them.
11 MR. DIGNAN: I'm not relying on them to, win my case 12 either, and I put my testimony in with a "will be prepared".
~
13 And if that's not good enough to carry the day, I guess I lose.
O 14 or if you get this thing later, you can move to get M11eti back 15 and cross-examine him on it if you want to.
16 MS. WEISS: You know, if you already know what these 17 changes are, why in the world could we not have these? I 18 mean --
19 MR. TRAFICONTE: That is really where I wan going, 20 Your Honor. My point is simply a question of a practical 21 convenience to all the parties. And it seems to me now, having 22 gone through this argument about four times, even to the Board, 23 why are we always getting calls late in the day, being told 24 that we are about to be delivered a new amendment.
25 I don't disagree that the messages could come in and O . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
9990
() 1 I could get Dr. M11eti back. But if the messages had been 2 provided, for example, to me today or yesterday or I had some 3 notice of this, I could have read then and then intelligently 4 cross-examined Dr. Mileti on them.
5 It seems to us at least that this is just a 6 frustrating aspect of this that is completely unnecessary.
p 7 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Traficonte, I read from your letter 8 to Mr. Dignan that you had finally mastered the art of going 9 through these amendments, but apparently you have been 10 overwhelmed on it this time.
11 MR. TRAFICONTE: I haven't even seen them to -- I 12 haven't even physically seen this amendment yet. I could even 13 review these messages over the weekend.
) 14 MR. DIGNAN: Judge, to get in focus how important 15 this is to litigating the case, Ropes & Gray doesn't have the 16 amendment yet. That's how critical it is.
17 MS. WEISS: Well, how are we supposed to know that?
18 You have talked to your people about what's in there. How are 19 we supposed to know that?
20 MR. DIGNAN: I have them today, because I knew I 21 would face this argument, and I said, run it down for me. I 22 mean these things -- my testimony has absolutely no dependence I
23 on this amendment whatsoever.
24 MS. WEISS: Well, your testimony may not, but our l 25 cross might conceivably. I just can't understand why if your O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
t
9991
)' 1 people can tell you what these amendments are in such detail, 2 why they couldn't have been mailed to us.
3 MR. DIGNAN: They were put in the mail to you before 4 they were put in the_ mail to me because it takes awhile to 3 5 physically prepare an amendment, that's why.
6 The fact of the matter is --
7 (Simultaneous conversation.)
8 JUDGE SMITH: Wait a minute, you're off the record.
.9 Stop. You are overtalking. Just one at a time.
10 Ms. Weiss, would you restate your point?
11 MS. WEISS: The point was we don't -- Mr. Dignan may 12 or may not rely on these changes. I don't know what these 13 changes are. I haven't seen them, I haven't talked to people O 14 who have seen them. We may wish to rely on those for our 15 cross-examination, or they may change aspects of the cross-16 examination.
17 And my point is simply if Mr. Dignan's people know in 18 such detail what these amendments are, why in the world 19 couldn't they have been put in the mail to us so that we would 20 have them before we go up to New Hampshire. It's a matter of 21 simple courtesy.
22 MR. BACKUS: Judge Smith.
23 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, my point was they have got 24 all the amendments with the exception of the EBS message. They f
. 25 were in Attachment 2 and in Attachment 1 to the testimony.
(
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
9992 r
(_)/ 1 JUDGE SMITH: We're not going to stay the hearing, 2 but when we convene on Monday or sometime soon, the Board would 3 like to address the problem of the amendments and a way in 4 which the parties can get amendments timely; and more 5 important, understand -- not more important, but equally 6 important is to understand them without a lot of reading.
7 We'll come back to that, but we see no basis to 8 suspend the hearing. The main reason why we allowed Ms.
9 Sneider to bring it up today le to forewarn all the parties 10 that they are going to be arguing that on Monday. But we will 11 proceed with the' hearing on Monday as scheduled.
12 MR. BACKUS: Judge Smith, is this conference on the.
13 record?
O 14 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
15 MR. BACKUS: Okay. Well, then for the purpose of the 16 record, I understand what you have just said. I would just 17 like to say that it's our view that the hearing should be off 18 so that the Applicants' testimony, which basically deals with 19 the FEMA position, can be dealt with at one hearing session, 20 not separately.
21 MS. WEISS: I would just like to make a formal 22 request that we at least have the amendments in hand on Monday.
23 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Dignan.
24 MR. DIGNAN: The amendments, I hope will be down to 25 them. If they haven't been -- I know some of them, I thought, O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
4 9993 1 were in the hands of the Mass. AG today. I will see to it that 2 the people have the EBS messages with them.
1 3 MS. SNEIDER: This is Carol Sneider. I requested 3
4 that the amendments be delivered to me today, and I was told 5 that the middle of next week was the earliest'I could receive 6 the messages.
7 And I would also like to suggest if we could get the 8 message in hand on Monday, I would like to suggest that one
-9 approach may be if the Intervenors' witnesses went on first to t
10 be crossed so that we would at least have an opportunity to l 11 review the amendments before we had to cross the Applicants' 12 witnesses.
l 13 JUDGE SMITH: The difficulty the Board is having is
) 14 that we don't have a feeling of how important the amendments
[ 15 are to the prefiled testimony. We haven't identified the part l 16 of it. If, as it seems to be, a question of the EBS i
17 messages --
l 18 MS. SNEIDER: Your Honor, it's more than just the EBS I
- 19 messages. It's implementing the pages for the transit-l 20 dependents.
21 I might just add that Mr. Dignan made a 22 representation that the decisionmaking amendments were not 23 significant. We consider those major changes to the 24 decisionmaking plan that we have just recently been apprised l 25 of. So, obviously, our viewpoint is different in terms of j (
- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
J 9994
() I what's significant or what is not significant.
2 MR. DIGNAN: Mr. Sneider, what amendments are you i
3 talking about? Are you talking about what's in the attachment l
- 4 to the testimony, because.that's what's in the plan? .
5 MS. SNEIDER ' Yes, I am, and others1that we are 6 anticipating that you say are minor. I don't know based on all ,
i, 7 the evidence if they are minor or not, !
i 8 MR. DIGNAN: I.know of none that aren't in that 9 testimony.
10 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Dignan, would it be possible for a i
11 representative of your office, or perhaps New Hampshire Yankee, 12 but preferably your office to meet with the Intervenors on 13 Monday morning with the amendments?
() !
, 14 MR. DIGNAN: Yes, we could -- well, what I will do is !
i i i 15 I will ask New Hampshire Yankee to have a red-lined copy up i 16 there, and I will sit them down and they can ask'all the I i !
l 17 questions they want.
! 18 Understand something, Your Honor. I don't have it .
19 either. This thing might have been copied and filed the day l 20 after we finish the hearings up there, ,
l i
F 21 JUDGE SMITH: Well, that's a point that you make (
l 22 there that troubles me, too. And that is, it would be better 7
23 if there were greater control by you over these packages coming l 24 in here. P i i:
! 25 MR. DIGNAN: Well, Your Honor, it wouldn't be better {
l
! (:) !
l Heritage Reporting Corporation ;
l (202) 628-4888 ;
i l- !
i t
a i
1 9995 !
() 1 if there were greater control. The lawyer is not needed_to 2 control these. These things get filed on a schedule and put by j i
3 the state in as amendments.on a schedule that is their own. l 4 And you asked me at the outset of this case was I prepared to 5 try my case without an in-place, concrete plan. I said, yes.
6 I said, there is going to be amendments, and this, that and the [
7 other thing.
f G JUDGE SMITH: I understand that. l 9 MR. DIGNAN: And t he point we're making here is ;
10 because coincidentally with the start of the hearings there is 11 a set of amendments going in, now this is grounds for a stay .
i 12 all of a sudden. ,
t 13 All I am pointing out to you, Your Honor, is if the 4
O 14 work had been done at a later time, the amendment would have 15 come in two weeks from now, and there wouldn't have been this i 16 motion.
! 17 JUDGE SMITH: The request is simple.
i 18 MR. DIGNAN: The answer is, I will have people from 19 New Hampshire Yankee there, and from my officer there, and we
) 20 will --
l 21 JUDGE SMITH: At the hearing room.
I
- 22 MR. DIGNAN
- I assume they can bring a red-lined
- 23 copy, a lined copy up with them. They will sit down with the 1 24 Intervonors and talk to them all they want.
. 25 JUDGE SMITH: All right, let's set the time for that, i
(
- Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 I
e .
9996
() 1 Ten o' clock alright, everybody?
2 MS. WEISS: I'm not getting in to Boston until about 3 9:00 in the morning.
4 MR. BACKUS: Judge, this is Bob Backus.
5 I have a hearing that morning.
'6 JUDGE SMITH: Well, it's going to be available.
7 Those that can make it, fine. The Massachusetts Attorney 8 General can. Ten o' clock in the hearing room.
9 MR. DIGNAN: In the hearing room?
10 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
11 MR. DIGNAN: All right, Your Honor.
12 JUDGE SMITH: All right, Ms. Sneider.
13 MR. TRAFICONTE: We can get somebody there close to O 14 10.
15 JUDGE SMITH: All right. Anything further this 10 afternoon?
17 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes, we filed a motion which I hope 18 you have received by fax, having to do with a request for an 19 additional 10 days on our proposed findings on the main track.
20 The basis of the request is primarily just the ill health of 21 the lawyer who has been primarily responsible for working on 22 that, and he's been unable te devote his full attention this 23 week, and he is again ill tocay. .<
24 And although I have some responsibility for that 25 document, I intend to be up at the hearings next Monday and O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
S 9997
() 1 Tuesday, and then I have to go and have some medical work 2 myself on Wednesday ar.d probably through _the rest of next week.
3 And right now they are due on the 9th, and we would request 10 additional day for that reason alone.
4 None of the 5 other Intervenors request additional time in which to file the 1 6 proposed findings. SAPL would ask for 10 daysLfor it to file
- 7 an accompanying legal memorandum to the findings that it will 8 be prepared to file in accordance with the present deadline.
9 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Dignan, I understand that you were 10 consulted on this.
11 MR. TRAFICONTE: Mr. Dignan informed me this morning 12 or yesterday that his client would not permit him to agree to 13 the extension.
O 14 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor.
15 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Dignan.
16 MR. DIGNAN: Well, yes, that's put in a pejorative 17 way. Understand, I didn't force it on the client either.
18 I'll tell you, I've been giving every extension 19 that's been asked. Everyone got 30 days extra with the 20 blessing of the Applicant and everything else. Now, I said it 21 literally that way. I'm not extending. I fully understand 22 it's in the Board's discretion, and the Board has a better 23 control of whether they need these things 10 days early or not, 24 and I'm not going to make a large gripe whichever way you come 25 out. I've been handing out extensions right and O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
\-
9998 h' 1 left, and a 30-day extension h'as been granted on this thing 2 already, and I fail to see why another 10 days is necessary.
$ 3 JUDGE SMITH: All right, the Boar'd is going to 4 consult.
5 (Board confer.)
6 JUDGE SMITH: Here's our position on this.
, 7 Number one, we have noted that Mr. Traficonte as an 1
8 individual has rarely if ever, that I know, objected to a 9 reasonable and rather fast hearing schedule. He has acceded in 10 the past to schedules which clearly require hard work, fast 11 work when his representation of professional and personal need, 12 we accepted, particularly from Mr. Traficonte. So we want to 13 entertain his motion.
i 14 However, we also want, on another basis, too, and 15 that is if we give him five days, we might as well give him the 16 entire amount because we simply cannot use those papers 17 beginning on the 16th. There is no use for them, because we 18 will be, I hope, in hearing up in Concord. So we are inclined 19 to do it.
20 However, I would like to have some representation to 1
21 Mr. Traficonte, or the Massachusetts Attorney General, that the 22 additional time is actually needed and that it will not, other l 23 than the time involved, it will not put the Applicant to any i
24 litigative disadvantage.
25 In other words, about how long do you think that your O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
9999
() 1 findings are going to be?
i.
2 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, Attorney Pierce, who is not j 3 available right now, is the person who is drafting them and has 4 been working on them fairly diligently. I don't honestly know 5 how long they will be. I know how long the portion that I am 6 responsible for will be. It will be less than 20 pages. I 7 honestly don't know how many pages his final product will be.
8 JUDGE SMITH: If we grant this extension, and in 9 comes 800 pages --
10 MR. TRAFICONTE: No, no.
11 JUDGE SMITH: -- we are going to be upset, you know. ,
12 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, we have filed a document of ,
- 13 the endless number of pages, Your Honor.
14 JUDGE SMITH: I beg your pardon?
15 MR. TRAFICONTE: lie've already filed the document 16 that had a lot of pages in it.
17 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, I know. I understand that. I [
t 18 don't understand the relevance though.
19 Would you explain that again, Mr. Traficonte?
20 MR. TRAFICONTE: If you are afraid that giving us a 21 week or 10 days will produce another overly long document, we 22 would be simply preparing in this time what we -- it would not 23 add to the length of the document. We would do the same job we
- 24 would be attempting to do. We would just be able to do it 25 without having somebody basically work sick.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
10000
() 1 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. The Board will grant the
'2 extension.
3 MR. TRAFICONTE: .Thank you. ,
4 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, what does that do to the 5 timo for filing for the staff on proposed findings and my 6 reply?
7 JUDGE SMITH: You keep your schedule. We are also
.8 apparently then giving Mr. Backus an opportunity to file legal 9 arguments. Just keep the same interval.
10 MR.'DIGNAN: So just add 10 days to those two times?
11 JUDGE SMITH: Right.
12 MR. DIGNAN: Okay, I've got the calculation here, i
13 because I want to the Board to be aware of it'in terms of the l
O 14 timing.
15 On that basis, my reply will be on June 10th.
l 16 MR. TURK: What does that do to the Staff's date, j 17 Tom?
I 18 MR. DIGNAN: And that would move the Staff to,
! 19 according to what I have in my calendar, it would move you to 20 the 29th, which is a Sunday; the 30th is a holiday. So you 1
21 would be due in on the 31st of May, i
- 22 JUDGE SMITH
- Okay. Now you're going to keep the 23 same interval with respect to the other Intervenors, those who j 24 have not asked for an extension.
~
25 MR ., DIGMAM: That's s.ict I Wss going to ask. You
(
,qe Reporting Corps ion (202) 628-48S8 1 . _ - . --
. 3 . . :
10001
() 1 k'now,.you want me to file two replies?
, 2 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. But however I want Massachusetts 3 Attorney General to understand that they cannot, in'their 4 initial filing, address your response to other Intervonors.
5 MR. DIGNAN.* Well, I'm wcndering if I wouldn't_rather 6 just give everybody an extension and file one reply, Your
- 7 Honor.
8 JUDGE SMITH: It's up to you. You certainly are i 9 entitled to that.
10 MR. DIGNAN: I really think I would, and I'll tell 11 you why. Because my experience in these multiple cases is that
- 12 certain -- it will be for the first time know certain of the l
13 positions taken overlap, and it's easier to pick them all up in O 14 one reply and anawer them.
i 15 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, we agree. We agree with that.
16 MR. DIGNAN: So then the Intervenors will all have an 17 extension until the --
l 2
18 JUDGE SMITH: No. No, only the -- you will have the 19 extension with respect so all of the Intervenors' filings, but 20 the other Intervenors will not have an extension. We could be l
21 using those.
22 MR. DIGNAN: All right.
23 JUDGE SMITH: That's part of our ruling, too; that 24 there will be plenty for us to do.
25 MR. DIGNAN: All right, but my reply to everybody I Heritage Reporting Corporation 4 (202) 628-4888 i
l I.
e e --y.,,,,_,-wr ..-,,..,,w.e..,, ,,,--...,%.-_,
.e- .
10002
() 1 will be duo June 10th.
2 JUDGE SMITH: If that's the correct date, yes; if 3 that's the interval date.
4 MR. DIGNAN: Yes, it is, Your Honor.
5 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
6 MR. TURK: Your Honor, Sherwin Turk.
'7. on the Staff's response on findings, I assume that 8 our ploading will be due May 317 9 JUDGE SMITH: Would you say that again?
i 10 MR. TURK: Mr. Dignan indicated that the Staff's 11 filing moving out 10 days would then become due May 31st, and
! 12 our pleading will-also address all of the findings at one time.
i 13 JUDGE SMITH: We want to consult.
4
(
(Board confer.)
14 15 JUDGE SMITH: All right, Mr. Turk, as I understand it 16 now -- can I be heard?
, 17 MR. TURK: Yes.
4 18 JUDGE SMITH: As I understand it now, the Staff will f
1 l 19 be filing its proposed findings on May 31st?
20 MR. TURK: That's my understanding, Your Honor.
]
- 21 JUDGE SMITH
- All right, and then the Applicant on i 22 June 10th.
23 MS. WEISS: And everyone else's is due May 9?
24 JUDGE SMITH: That's right, except for Massachusetts 25 Attorney General, and SAPL's legal brief.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
-- 10003 1 MR. BACKUS: Does that mean, Judge Smith, that our
- 2- findings apart from the legal brief have to be in on the 9th?
3 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. That was the only motion before 4 us.
4 5 MR. BACKUS: All right. We may, Your Honor, in view 6 of that, choose to-file a brief at the completion of the entire
- 7 case instead of on the 19th, and go ahead with just our 8 findings on the 9th.
9 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I don't know if that option is 10 open to you, Mr. Backus. If you are going to file -- I_have no 11 particular objection to it, but normally we set the schedule
, 12 for briefing here, and we did provide for a separate briefing 13 on the -- other than the sheltering, and why would you do that?
e O 14 MR. BACKUS: Well, I think at some time it's -- I 1
l 15 would hope it would be helpful to put together all theno
! 16 discrete things that we're putting together in a findings of i
17 rulings and present the Board with an overall view of the case i
18 and how these things fit together.
19 You know, we break it apart pretty minutely in these
, 20 findings, and we would like to put together a document to show i 21 you how we think these parts fit together to arrive at ultimate I 22 conclusions.
- 23 JUDGE SPIE-il Well, I think -- you make whatever 24 legal arguments you want us to consider in that set of proposed
{
25 findings. And if you leave out any argument on that sct, well, l
i
(:) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l L -
.. . \
b 10004 m
() 1 it's at your risk. You can restate them at the end if you 2 wish. Yes, I guess that would be our ruling.
3 MR. BACKUS: So you won't --
4 JUDGE SMITH: Unless you are asking for -- oh, you 5 got your relief on the arguments.
6 MR. BACKUS: Yes. So you will not be asking for 7 briefs at the end of the entire case on the entire case.
8 JUDGE SMITH: We haven't gone to the end of the 9 entire case. I haven't even addressed that problem yet.
10 MR. BACKUS: No.
11 JUDGE SMITH: I assume that we -- yes, we are 12 required by the Administrative Procedure Act in the 13 Commission's rules to give you an opportunity to file proposed O 14 findings and proposed conclusions of law.
15 MR. TURK: I think Mr. Backus is hoping to make his 16 legal filing after the shelter portion of the case concludes.
17 JUDGE SMITH: . I know, and we said that if he -- that 18 he does that at his own risk; that we will be addressing the 19 proposed findings that are due on the 9th on the papers that we 20 receive.
21 MR. DIGNAN: Well, Your Honor, I object to his 22 getting any right to brief these matters after that. I am 23 supposed to have the last right of reply. That last right of 24 reply will be in on the 10th of June on all matters tried to 25 date. And if Mr. Backus comes in with a brief after that, it O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.* e:
10005
() 1 should be stricken, on those issues.
2 JUDGE SMITH: That's correct. The difficulty is'at 3 the end of the case, at the end of the case, including 4 sheltering, we will also be asking for proposed findings.
- 5. MR. DIGNAN: On sheltering.
6 JUDGE SMITH: That's right, on conclusions of law.
7 MR. DIGNAN: Right.
8 JUDGE SMITH: And I don't know how he would be 9 limited in what I would imagine would be very broad arguments 10 as to the whole case. I don't know. We haven't addressed that 11 yet.
12 MR. DIGNAN: I'm not concerned --
13 JUDGE SMITH: But so far you have prevailed.
O 14 MR. DIGNAN: -- right of reply to that.
15 JUDGE SMITH: How's that?
16 MR. DIGNAN: I am not concerned about that, because I 17 assume I have a right of reply.
18 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, that's right.
19 MR. DIGNAN: All right, fine.
20 JUDGE SMITH: But our point is that we will be free 21 to rule on those issues that are covered in the proposed 22 findings coming up based upon the papers before us.
23 MR. DIGNAN: Correct.
24 JUDGE SMITH: And if you withhold any arguments that 25 you want to put in later, you do so at your own risk.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
10006
() 1 I would guess, Mr. Traficonte, that your proposed 2 findings are going to include legal arguments which are rather 3 parallel to the legal arguments you made in your contentions, 4 your new contentions on the Massachusetts plan?
5 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, we would intend to put in some '
6 briefing, that's correct. But I believe that in light of the 7 portion of the case that we are handling, that the briefing 8 that we intend to be putting in and filing now has to do with 9 ETEs and our belief that there is in fact some limit to an 10 acceptable ETE. ;
11 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, okay.
12 MR. TRAFICONTE: But we would intend to brief that at 13 this juncture, yes.
CE) 14 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, all right.
15 Anything further this afternoon?
16 MR. DIGNAN; Yes, Your Honor, I have one inquiry.
17 With respect to this meeting on Monday morning in the 18 hearing room with our technical people, I am assuming that what i 19 people are interestod in going over is the shelter-related 20 amendments.
L 21 MS, WEISS: Correct.
l 22 JUDGE SMITH: That was my understanding. >
23 MR. DIGNAN: Because if -- that's what I wanted to be ,
24 sure of, because the people who will be available will be 25 available to address that. If we are going to address Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
i
.s a 10007
( 1 everything, we need an auditorium.
2 MR. TRAFICONTE: Jolm Traficonte, ,
3 Mr. Dignan, I may have misunderstood earlier comments 4 you made.
5 Do I understand that to mean that this amendment then 6 changes other portions of the plan in any substantial way that 7 are outside the sheltering area?
0 MR. DIGNAN: The amendment covers the whole plan, 9 John.
10 JUDGE SMITH: All right, so that meeting will -- is 11 intended to cover sheltering amendments, and the purpcse of it
[
12 is to prepare as much as possible the other parties for the l 13 hearing that's scheduled the rest of the week. It begins at I
14 10. !
15 Ms. Weiss, I understand that you will not be there 16 until later? I 17 MS. WEISS: Yes, that's right. I probably won't be 18 up there until lunchtime.
19 JUDGE SMITH: Anything further this afternoon?
l 20 MR. TURK: Yes, Your Honor. This is Sherwin Turk. l 21 I wanted to mention that the Staff will need an 22 extension of time to respond to the contentions. As of now our 23 response is due next Tuesday, the 3rd. We have been preparing ,
24 our responses, but then we also had other matters we had to 25 respond to this weeks which were not anticipated when the first !
( I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4088
,*e .
.10008
(_) 1 schedule was set up.
2 So we would like until the week -- we would like to 3 have the week after the hearing week to finish our response to 4 contentions. And what I am requesting is that we be allowed to 5 file our response to contentions on the 16th of May, on Monday.
6 JUDGE SMITH: Well, that's the earliest.that we could 7 poselbly use them anyway, so that's fine.
8 MR. TURK: In fact, we may even be in hearing that 9 week, depending on --
10 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, the 16th. I missed that. When 11 were they dite?
12 MR. TURK: They are due this coming Tuesday, the 3rd, 13 while we will be up at the hearing. But because of the other O 14 things we have had to respond to and the fact that we will be 15 in hearing next week that will keep us from filing next week, 16 and also the fact that we will be in hearing will keep us from 17 filing the next week because we won't have finished them yet, j
18 MS. WEISS: I would -- Your Honor, I would object to 19 that. There has been one piece of paper filed by the Staff.
l 20 It's not a lengthy brief, you know, and they don't have any 21 witnesses to present at this hearing, and I think they have had i
- 22 sufficient time, and I would just object to it.
23 JUDGE SMITH: How are you injured by that, Ms. Weiss?
i 24 MS, WEISS: Well, you know, we need to get to work
, 25 on --
(
i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
. . ~
a .. .. .
s 10009
, e-)
1 (Laughter.)
2' JUDGE SMITH: All'right, your: objection is overruled.
.3 , MR. TURK: Thank you,.Your Honor,.and;one other thing 4 1 wanted lto note.
L I don't know if you'had heard'before, I had 5 filed a letter ~today making some corrections to a page'of our 6 .brief' filed yesterday on'the subpoena. I don't know if you 7 will have any use for it this weekend, but I just wanted to let 8 you know that we had made some corrections to some citations 9 there.
- 10. JUDGE SMITH: All right. Is there anything further?
11 I do want to point out to the parties the 12 significance of ou certification to the Appeal Board, and that 13 is, providing that -the directed certification does not prevent 14 us from doing so, we do have our own questions and requirements 15 with respect to FEMA's previously submitted testimony and the 16 testimony it proposes to submit.
17 MR. FLYNN: Would it be appropriate to inquire what 18 you're looking for, so that I can communicate that to FEMA 19 management?
20 JUDGE SMITH: I think we'll wait. Yes, we'll wait 21 until there is more timo and a better opportunity. But our 22 intentien would be to grant a substantial part of the relief, 23 not all of it, but a substantial part of the relief that has 24 been requested by the joint Intervenors as far as FEMA is l 25 concerned.
i fs l %-)
- Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l
{
- y 10010 lj 1 All right, anything further?
2 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor,~there -- the only thing, in 3 light of the Board's last comment, the Board may_ recall that at 4 the last set'of hearings I filed a motion with the Board, which
~
-5 was rather thick, seeking the compulsion of Messrs.; Bores --
6 JUDGE SMITH: I have it on my desk right now before 7 me.
8 MR. DIGNAN: I was just going to say, I'm not urging l-9 a ruling or anything, but as far as I know that motion is still 10 alive and available to me and has not been denied. Am I 11 correct on that?
12 JUDGE SMITH: That's correct.
13 MR. DIGNAN: Thank you.
O 14 JUDGE SMITH: I'll sum up.
15 The Board has troubles right now with the original 16 FEMA position and the current FEMA position. And we do not 17 believe that there is a record that exists now that we can in 18 good conscious make a finding one way or the other, or it's 19 likely to be developed based upon what we know about it.
20 So we will wait, however, until that's all worked 21 out, and identify our needs because we are specifically 22 prohibited from proceeding along that line by the Appeal 23 Board's response to our certification.
24 Anything further?
25 (No response.)
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7
e =, -
10011 1 JUDGE SMITH: If there'is nothing further, we will 2 see you Monday, and I assume that we will be. proceeding with 3- the Applicants' panel as we usually do, but the parties are 4 certainly free to change that sequence.
5 MR. DIGNAN: My understanding, Your Honor, is there's 6 general agreement that we'll go with the Applicant, and-then I 7 don't know whether it's the Commonwealth that's going to go 8 next or there was testimony filed by Mr. Brock.
9 MR. TRAFICONTE: The Commonwealth, Your Honor.
10 MR. DIGNAN: Commonwealth will go second?
11 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes.
l 12 MR. DIGNAN: Okay.
13 JUDGE SMITH: All right, thank you.
14 MR. TRAFICONTE: Thank you.
15 JUDGE SMITH: We're adjourned.
16 (Whereupon, at 3:34 p.m., the prehearing conference 17 was concluded.)
18 I
l 19 20 21 22 l
23 24 25 l
O Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l
i
.a == o _
1 CERTIFICATE l O
3 This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the 4 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
5 Name: Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) 6 7 Docket Number: 50-443-444-OL 8 Place: Bethesda, Maryland 9 Date: April 29, 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 O 15 trueendeccureter3c d of t for ine ero e ines.
16 /S/ a x 17 (Signature typed): K nt Andrews 18 Official Reporter 19 Heritage Reporting Corporation 20 21
'2 l
23 24 l 25 l
l
!O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888