ML20235V422
| ML20235V422 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 10/07/1987 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#487-4625 OL, NUDOCS 8710150145 | |
| Download: ML20235V422 (253) | |
Text
- -
L O R G ,\ A O
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
,,,, t JUNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL In the Matter of: )
)
EVIDENTIARY HEARING +
) DOCKET: 50-443-OL
) 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) OFFSITE EMERGENCY
) PLANNING NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al )
r )
(SEABROOIC STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) )
e t/
Pages: 2952 through 3174
_ Place: Concord, New Hampshire
_ Date: October 7, 1987 g Heritage Reporting Corporation Official Reporters 1220 L Street. N.W.
Washington. D.C. 20005 (202) 628-1888 DR D 0 43 T PDR
)
2952 1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL Sec50T&I a
4 In the Matter of: )
) Docket Nos. l 5 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-443-OL l NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al., ) 50-444-OL )
6' ) )
(SEAP' $ CK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) ) i 7
0 Wednesday, 9 October 7, 1987 I I
10 Hall of Representatives j New Hampshire Statehouse 11 Concord, NH 12
.The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, l 13 1 i
lll 14 pursuant to notice, at 9:00 a.m. !
BEFORE: JUDGE IVAN W. SMITH, CHAIRMAN ;
15 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel !
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 16 Washington, D. C. 20555 17 ,
JUDGE JERRY HARBOUR, MEMBER Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel 18 U. S. Nucleat' Regulatory Commission
, Wash inijt on, D. C. 20555 19 JUDGE GUSTAVE A. LINENBERGER, J R. , MEMBER 20 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 21 Washingtor, D. C. 20555 22- (Continued on next.page.)
23 24 25 i
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
't ',
AN,>
n >
(, M
.I L
l:
i l;
",_ 2953
..O APPEARANCES:.
! ' L_J: 1 2 For the Aqplicanti.
3 THOMAS G. DIGNAN, J R. , ESO.
GEORGE H. LEWALD, ESQ.
4 KATHRYN A. SELLECK, ESQ.
Ropes'& Gray 5 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA O2110
'6 Epr the NRC Staff:
7 SHERWIN E. TURK, ESG.
8 ELAINE I. CHAN, ESO.
Office of General Counsel 9 - U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 10 For the Federal Emeroency Manauement Aaency:
11 H. JOSEPH FLYNN, ESQ.
12 WILLIAM R. CUMMING, ESQ.
EDWARD A. THOMAS
, , 13 Federal Emergency Management Agency I 500 C Street,.S.W.
b-}' '14 Washington, D. C. 20472 15 For the State of New Hampshire:
1.
! 16 STEPHEN E. MERRILL, ATTY. GEN.
L GEORGE DANA BISBEE, ASST. ATTY. GEN.
17 GEOFFREY M. HUNTINGTON, ESO.
State of New Hampshire 18 25 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301 19 For the Commonwealth of Magsaphusetts:
20 JAMES M. SHANNON, ATTY. GEN.
21 CAROL SNEIDER, ASST. ATTY. GEN.
FRANK OSTRANDER, ASST. ATTY. GEN.
22 S. H. OLESKEY, ESQ.
JOHN TRAFICONTE, ESD.
23 A. FIERCE, ESO.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts 24 One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, MA 02108 25 APPEARANCES: (Continued) 7' ,
IL l Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888
=- - - - -
l 2954 j y 4
')
( -1 For the New Enaland Coalition Anainst Nuclear
'2 Pollution 3 LI ANE CL'RRAN, ESQ. 1 Harmon & Weiss 4 2001 S Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20009 I
.5 For the Seacoast Anti-Pollution'Leagger 6
ROBERT A. BACKUS, ESQ. I 7 Backus, Meyer, & Solomon i 116 Lowell Street !
8 Manchester, NH 03105 1 9 JANE DOUGHTY j Director 10 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League 5 Market Street 11 Portsmouth, NH 03801 12 For the Town of Hampton: l 13 PAUL MCEACHERN, ESD.
MATTHEW T. BROCK, ESQ.
. e( ) 14 Shaines & McEachern l
25 Maplewood Avenue l 15 P. O. Box 360 Portsmouth, NH 03801 -j 16 Eor the Towns of Hampton Falls and North j 17 Bampton and South Hampton: i I
la ROBERT A. BACKUS, ESQ.
Backus, Meyer & Solomon :
19 116 Lowell Street Manchester, NH 03105 20 For the Town of Amesbury:
21 WILLIAM S. LORD, !
22 Selectman l Town Hall l 23 Amesbury, MA 01913 I
l 24 r 25 ,
APPEARANCES: (Continued) !
Heritage Reporting Corporation ;
(202) 628-4888 l
l-l
~l i
2955 !
l-For the Town of Kensinaton l 2'
Sandra F. Mitchell i 3 Civil Defense Director j Kensington, NH. 03827 !
4 5 ,
6 7 l 8 ,
i 9.
1 10 !
1:
l 11 l
1.- 12- l l
l -
13
.n),
(
i
.u g4 15 16 !
17 10 19 20 l 21 22 23 24 25 L.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
{
L _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
1 1
l i
)
2956
/').
(., . 1 INDEX I
2 WITNESSES: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS' EXAM j
3 Panel I Paul Frechette j 4 Anthony Callendrello l Richard S+, rome 5 by Mr. Bisbee: 2971 ,
by Mr. Flynn 2980 ;
6 by Ms. Chan 2994 !
by Judge Linonberger 2998-7 by Mr. Bisbee 2 (Resumed) 3016
- 8. by Mr. .Dignan 3026 by Mr. Backus 3037 ;
9- by Mr. McEachern 3049 :
by Mr..Oleskey 3058 10 Panel:
11 Edward Thomas (prefiled) 3088 Edward Tanzman- l 12 by Mr. Flynn 3081 by Mr. Dignan 3092 '
l
. 13 by Mr. Oleskey 3132 by Mr. Dignan 3142
(~ ) '14- (Resumed) by Mr. Backus 3146 15 by Mr.-McEachern 3149 by Mr. Backus 3154 16 (Resumed) !
by Mr. Flynn 3158 17 by Mr. .Dignan 3162 by Mr. McEachern 3171 la (Continued on next page.)
19 20 21 22 23 l^
l 24 25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l-l L__.__..______
2956A 1 INDEX
)
2 EXHIBITS: IDENTIFIED RECEIVED REJECTED DESCRIPTION 3 Town of Hampton:
4 No. 1 2970 2970 Berry Transportation letter of agreement ;
12/20/85 5
6 No. 2 2970 2970 Berry Transportation >
letter of agreement 7 8/7/86 8 No.' 3 2970 2970 National School Bus
- . Service, Inc. letter 9 of agreement, 4/22/87 10 No. 4 2970 2970 National School Bus 11 Service, Inc. letter of agreement, 12 4/22/87 13 No. 5 2970 2970 Marinel Transportation 3
w/ 14 letter of agreement, 4/22/87 15 No. 6 2970 2970 National School Bus 16 Service of North Chelmsford letter of 17 agreement, 4/22/87 18 No. 7 2970 2970 National School Bus Service, formerly 19 Berry Transportation, 20 letter of agreement, 4/22/87 21 No. 8 2970 2970 Marinel 22 Transportation letter of agreement, 23 4/22/87 24 No. 9 2970 2970 Jan-Car Leasing letter of agreement, 25 8/3/86 O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ ~ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____ _______ ____ ______ __ __ _ _
2956B i 'l INDEX 2 EXHIBITS: IDENTIFIED RECEIVED REJECTED DESCRIPTION 3 FEMA:
4 No. 1 2994 2994 9/30/87 letter from Office of
'S Emergency Management to 6 Vickers 7 Applicant:
i 8 No. 6 3032 3033 Flatley Company
. letter of l
9 agreement, 9/28/87 10 No. 7 3034 3035 Ryder Student 11 Transportation Co.
letter of agreement 12 8/25/87 .
13 Massachusetts Attorney General:
k 14 No. 1 3058 3070 9/15/87 letter to Strome from Thomas 15 No. 2 3058 3070 8/26/87 letter to 16 Vickers from Strome 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Y
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 2956C 1 I NDEX z '
L j 2 INSERT DESCRIPTION: PAGE:
3 Attachment 7 to Applicants' Direct Testimony No. 1 (Letters of Agreement), Letter 7/14/87 to Mark H. '
4 Wentworth Home from Frisbie Memorial Hospital 2974 5 FEMA. Cross-Examination Plan 2993 6 NRC's Cross-Examination Plan 2997 7 Index to FEMA Pre-Filed Testimony Direct Testimony of Edward A. Thomas, Edward A.
8 Tanzman, and Bruce J. Swiren on Behalf of FEMA 3088 9 Applicants' Cross-Examination Plan for the FEMA Panel on SAPL 15 10 Applicants' Cross-Examination Plan re FEMA General Testimony 3090 11 Interveners' Cross-Examination Plans 3153 12 13
< ) 14 15 16 17 -
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 mi Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 1
2957 1 PROCEEDINGS 1
JUDGE SMITH: We have a few preliminary matters. One 2 )
l 3 is that the Board will not require outlines of proposed i l
4 rebuttal testimony. I was reminded that was done and what we I
5 thought was required by the ALAD. And since it seems to assist 1 6 no party, we see no point in it.
7 But Mr. Turk has an announcement, I believe, along 1
8 that line. l l
9 MR. TURK: Thank you, Judge Smith.
10 Yesterday evening before we concluded, I indicated 11 that the staff had prepared a rebuttal outline which we were ,
l 12 considering submitting. In fact, which we were prepared to 13 submit, but that I wished to hold off submittal until I saw 14 what the Board would do with the determination which you have 15 Just reached.
16 After the close of the session yesterday, I 17 telephoned my office and was informed that a copy of the 18 outline with the cover letter had in fact already been mailed 19 to the Board and parties. I had left that over the weekend 20 before coming. So the Board and parties will find a draft 21 outline, and it's labeled as such, with a cover letter; a draft 22 outline of Proposed NRC Staff Rebuttal Testimony dealing with 23 the beach shelter issue, and that will be in the mail when we 24 all return to our offices.
25 JUDGE SMITH: Okay, thank you.
- S Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
2958
?-
3 )%l 1. We can disregard, or they can make of'it as they-2 will.
3 MR. TURK: Given the Board's determination this 4' morning that the outlines will not'be required now, I' would
'5 reserve the right to modify thatLoutline if necessary --
- 6. JUDGE SMITH: Yes, certainly.
7 MR. TURKS -- at a.later point in the hearing.
8' JUDGE SMITH: We have placed two copies of the 9 verbatim transcript of yesterday's proceedings on the table on i l
10 that side of the room. One copy belongs to NRC staff, and one 11 copy belongs to the Board. As stated, they are there as 12 something of a temporary public document room so that members' 13 of the public and the press can look at them.
- o. 14 I would ask that -- you have one, Mr. McEachern?
15 MR. MCEACHERN Yes, I do.
16 JUDGE SMITH: Who has the other one? Would you tatue 17 responsibility, could you take responsibility for those, and if 18 somebody wants to borrow them, insist that they return them, 1
L 19 and we will collect them at the end of the week then.,
20 We had previously ruled that the various motions l
21 objecting to prefiled testimony would better be heard in the 22 cont ext of that testimony at the time the issue arises. But I
( o23 then it occurred to us that -- no one protested that, but i.t l
l 24 occurred to us that that really puts a hardship on sponsoring I (
l 25 party to expend the money to bring somebody here and they might j l
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
w_____.__
l 2959 l
't?7 ' 1 j(,f 1 not be able to testify, and that's not what we .had in mind at .[
'2- all.-
3 So we think_that probably we should just back off of 4 that decision and schedule arguments and consider those motions 5 as early as we possibly can:so the affected people can know 6 what's going to happen.- We Just didn' t think it through'when 7 we said we' ll listen to the arguments when the issues arises.
8 So very soon we will schedule arguments on the 9' motions attacking the testimony, if you wish. Does that make 10 sense? Who are the people sponsoring? I think.you are i I 11 probably going to be very much involved in that. i 12 MR. OLESKEY: Two of those motions attack our 13 testimony, Judge. !
? 1 a~o 14 We have some of the other lawyers back at the office j i
15 working on a response, but I won' t be able to review it j i
16 probably until Monday. f 17 JUDGE SMITH: Okay.
i 1
18 MR. OLESKEY: I would appreciate it if we could hold 1 1
19 any argument on it until the next session bed i nning the third ]
1 20 week in October. l 21 JUDGE SMITH: Well, that certainly is fine, because {
22 you are the chief beneficiary of an early ruling in case it's i
23 negative, in case it's against you. So that's one. l 24 Are there others that we will have before us, or is 25 it just that one panel, Sholley, BA7 Do we have others?
.gq.
Ew/
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
t 1 l
l w______1___._._____._.____ i
j l
1
'i
'2960
_ ,.x
~ (,)I 1- MR. .DIGNAN YourjHonor, the Applicant has filed all I 2 of the motions'that it knows it's going to make at - this ' time.
3 If you recall in the cover letter, I reserved-the right. It is 4 conce'ivable that.the Applicant will file to exclude certain of j 5' the FEMA testimony, but whether or not such a motion is made 6 willidepend upon answers I get on cross-examination with* q
'7 respect to the general covering. testimony. 'I 8 So I 'd on' t know yet whether I will be-seeking to 9 exclude certain of that testimony until I hear answers in 10 cross, but I can advise the Board there may be such a motion.
11 JUDGE SMITH: Very Dood. But what I' m trying to :
,1 1
12 accomplish now is where an objection-is such a nature that the.
13' entire testimony may.not be received, then we will want to E 14 schedule early so that those witnesses don' t travel needlessly.
15 MR. DIGNAN: Any motions that the Applicant has.that 16 the entire testimony not be received have been filed.
17 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, and I' m asking -- they are . back' in 18 our office that we' re using. I' m asking would you tell me what 19 they are again?
l 20 MR. DIGNAN: Yes, Your Honor. Could I have a moment?
21 (Pause.)
22 MR. DIGNAN: A motion which is one of the motions in 23 limine is directed at an entire piece of testimony is we have f
24 moved on what I would call the Sholley testimony filed by the 25 Commonwealth, i
Heritage ReportinD Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ _ i
b _ , .. . 2961
+
b 1_/~ 1 JUDGE SMITH: That's the only one I remembered, and
}-;.
2 we ha<e Just. discussed that one. That willibe' scheduled --
. 3 MR..DIGNAN: The others, let's see, well,- why don' t , I 4 review them all.for you.
1 L 5 There is a small piece of Mcdonald's -testimony which L I L 6 was filed'by'SAPL, but that's not .the entire testimony.
i 7- JUDGE SMITH: Right.
8 MR. DIGNAN: .There is a motion on the Hutchinson 9' testimony which is sponsored by the Town of Hampton, Your 10 Honor, and that.is directed at the entire testimony. !
11 JUDGE SMITH: All right, now, let's take that u p. Is 12 that a local witness? Is there much planning involved in that?-
13 MR. MCEACHERN: It is a local witness, Your Honor.-
y-t a > 14 JUDGE SMITH: So it would.not be a big disaster if a 15 determination is made on that relatively late.
16 MR. BROCK: Your Honor, she is employed full-time, 17 but compared to some of the others --
18 JUDGE SMITH: She is employed full-time, but compared 19 to some of the other witnesses she' is --
i f
20 Are you hearing him? I think your microphone is off.
21 Mr. Dignan, can you identify anymore which --
22 MR. DIGNAN Yes, Your Honor. The motion in limine 23 directed at the Pennington test imony, Pennington, et al. It's 24 that large panel. That gtes to the whole testimony, not just 25 to a portion of it. And that is sponsored again by the Town of IL Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
- _ - _ - __ _ i
]
1 1
1 l N 2962 . 1
\
ex.
(,) .
1 Hampton. ]
i 2 I would point out'to the-Board that even if local, it i
3 is a piece where there is a large nurnber of panelists. Th at ' s j 4 the-one with all-the teachers on it. l 5 JUDGE SMITH . Yes.
6 MR. DIGNAN: Okay. So that one'is directed that the I l
7 entire piece. l 8 The only other.one we have filed is directed at the J
9 Luloff testimony, but it is only at a portion of it. In other j 10 words,-Mr.-Luloff would, or his panel would be here in any ;
11 event even'if you sustained our position.
1 12- JUDGE SMITH: So'that t eachers' panel should probably ;
13- be addressed rather early, because it woul'd be a lot of ;
-o' 14' inconvenience.
.15 ' MR. BROCK: That's correct, Your Honor.
16 JUDGE SMITH: All right. .i 17- MR. BROCK: Your Honor, I would just. point out that I 18 am looking at copies of t5ese motions for the first time. I am 19 not saying the Applicants did not obviously serve us. But if 20 we were served, it must have been at the very end of last week, 21 and I have not seen those motions until right now.
22 JUDGE SMITH: We will take it up at your earliest-23 convenience because it is your witnesses who are the 24 beneficiaries of an early ruling on it. So you let us know, 25 will you, when you want that to be heard?
D'%J .
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
l I
w_-______._
L l
l-l i
1 2963 i ri
]; j 1- MR. MCEACHERN We will.
E' i
2' JUDGE SMITH: Thank you. j l
3 MS. CURRAN: 'Your Honor?
4 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
]
5 MS. CURRAN: This is Diane Curran.- I don' t know if 6 you can hear me.
7 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
8 MS. CURRAN: I would just like to raise a 9 housekeeping matter that I think is brought up by this.
10 I understand'that some of these motions were filed on 11 Friday before the hearing started; is that right?
12 MR. DIGNAN: The motions were all served by Federal 13 Express going out of our office on Thursday, and should have b6 14 been received by everybody on Friday if Federal. Express did 15 what they claim they did.
16 MS. CURRAN: All right. Well, maybe there was a 17 glitch in the mail.
18 MR. DIGNAN: No, we deliberately filed them on 19 Thursday and deliberately used Federal Express so people would 20 have them on Friday.
21 MS. CURRAN: Okay. I would just like to ask as a 22 courtesy as it sounds like this was a problem with the mail, 23 that I leave before I even get to the office on Monday morning, 24 and if there is something people want to serve on us, please 25 give us a copy during the hearings, r; ^ a u.J Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l 1
W 2964 I v- I 1,)ff. 1- MR. DIGNANs. Ms. Curran, I think I have done that in j 2 the 10 years I'have been. involved in-this case every time. j
.-3' MS. CURRAN: It's a general request, Mr. Dignan. . l l
4 JUDGE SMITH: I might point out in that respect the 5 very idea of filing well in advance motions in limine, objected 6 to testimony is itself a courtesy. They could wait until the 7 last minute and make the objections when the testimony is l I
8 offered.
9' MR. OLESKEY:. We have been giving some thought to 10 filing one motion that deals with a panel that's still sometime i
11 way off. If we do that, I would propose to do that next week l 12 with our response to the Applicants so that you-have everything
~
13 in Washington, and all the parties would have it before we get
-- -14 back'to New Hampshire.
15 JUDGE SMITH: I would appreciate that.
16 MR. DROCK: Your Honor, Matt Brock for Hampton.
i 17 I believe that we would want to file written ;
i 18 responses, as pointed out by the Mass. AG. We would also like 19 to file written responses to these motions in limine regarding 20 the New Hampton witnesses. As a practical matter, we could not 21 prepare those until next week, and I assume the Board could 22 rule possibly the first day, or whatever is convenient for the 23 Board for the second week of hearings, but not this week.
24 JUDGE SMITH: Well, we will move at the pace that you 25 wish to move at. We will try to Det these decisions, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
1 i________._
H 2965
. . 7(,/
1 determinations out as-early as we can. So we do whatever you
.2 want Sto do to accomplish that.
3 MR. BROCK: . Thank you, Your Honor.
4 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, could I bring up another 5 housekeeping matter,. or maybe it's not housekeeping?
6' The Board has not, and I guess.with the agreement of j 7 all parties', said there will be no need for meeting'that 8 advanced rebuttal deadline. Could the Board advise us at its 9 convenience as'to how the Board basically wants to treat 10 rebuttal?
11 That is to say, does the Board wish the rebuttal'to 12 be taken up, for instance, if there was rebuttal to the phase 13 of the case or category .that's being done right now, will it be p
b- 14 taken up right after the direct, or is it the Board's feeling 15 that all rebuttal will come in a later phase of the case?
f 16 I bring that up just so that we can be sure we time l f
17~ our filings to give parties proper' notice of rebuttal in that
! 18 context.
~
19 JUDGE SMITH: We hadn' t even thought about it. The l
20 Board has expressed a desire to have issue-by-issue j l
21 presentation. On the other hand, there is the need to give l I
22 your adversaries as much notice as possible. )
23 Why don' t we, during the break, why don' t you see if )
l 24 the parties can come to an agreement as to what they prefer. i 25 However, I think as a general rule along that line, parties are l
- .~c 3 .
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4688
s.
t i 2966
,> s '
s :1. underfa duty as soon as they. identify a need.for rebuttal =
2_ testimony to make that ' fact known. That's cont inuously the 3 requirement. As'soon as a need for rebuttal is.know, thatLfact 4 should.be. announced as a question of notice.
5 So during the break or some time have a meeting of 6 counsel and see what the. parties think is better.
7 Any.further housekeeping business?.
8 MR. MCEACHERN: Lastly, Your Honor, I think -- Paul.
9 McEachern of Hampton. I have the exhibits that we discussed
~
1-0 yesterday,.and I would like to introduce them now. Hampton 11 Exhibits 1 through 9.
12 -JUDGE SMITH: Did you intend to give any to the 13- Doard? Have you provided three for the reporter?.
14 MR. MCEACHERN Yes.
15 MR. BISBEE: Your Honor, if I could.ask that these-16 exhibits be identified on the record with the corresponding 17 number.
18 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, I think that's what Mr.'McEachern /
19 intends to do now.z i
20 MR. MCEACHERNs They are marked on the bottom with s' l 21 number. The first Exhibit No. 1 is the original Berry l i
22 Transportation letter of agreement dated 12-20-85.
23 Exhibit No. 2 is Berry Transportation letter of Q
24 agreement dated 8-7-86. {
l l
- l. 25' Exhibit 3 is National Bus -- i L () Heritage Reporting Corporation i
(202) 628-4888 ;
I
>- 1 1 i I
L- -- _
__ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___________j
>W
./
2967 1 MR. BISBEE:' What was that,date? Wait, 2- MR. NCEACHERN: 8-7-86, Exhibit 2.
3 Exhibit 3Eis National School Bus. Service. Inc.,-
4~ formerly Berry. Transportation Company,;1etter of agreement-15 dated 4-22-87.
6 Exhibit 4 is' National School Bus Service dated 7 4-22-87.
8 JUDGE SMITH: We have so far two-exhibits that'are-l 9 described' identically. I observe that Exhibit No. 3 alludes to i l 10 National School Bus Service.
l~ ~
11 MR. MCEACHERN And I'added, formerly-Berry' 12 Transportation Company.
l l
13 JUDGE SMITH: That's the distinction.
1_ y~e l- 5
- l. Ao' 14 MR. MCEACHERN: That's the distinct ion.
15 Exhibit'4, for identification purposes I' ll say 1
. School Bus Service of North Chelmsford to distinguish
[ 16 National l
l 17 it from Exhibit 3 further, and that's dated 4-22-87.
18 Exhibit No. 5 is Marinel, M-A-R-I-N-E-L, 19 Transportation, Inc., 4-22-87.
20 Exhibit No. 6 is National School Bus Service of North 21 Chelmsford, again dated 4-22-87.
22 Exhibit No. 7 is National School Bus Service, 23 formerly Berry Transportation, dated 4-22-87.
24 Exhibit No. 8 is Marinel Transportation, 4-22-87.
EndT31 25 And Exhibit No. 9 is Jan-Car Leasing dated B-3-86.
q~
L Heritage Reporting Corporation ;
(202) 628-4888 i l
i i____________ ;
I ) g )
IM >
t 2968
(
- ()
..f 1- ' JUDGE SMITH: Are there any objections?
l; , 2= MR. DIGNAN: It is'my understanding,'Your Honor,:that l
3: Nos.-3 through 8, these are the exhibits involving the Guadagna o 4 letter,. so-called'one and blank, one with'the number filled in, 5: are being. admitted only.,de. bene subject to being connected up i
6- as ry broth 9r indicated he would.by Mr..Guadagna' coming'in and
' '7 affirming what was'in.that cross-examination'. plan.-
18 JUDGE SMITH:: ;That's my ' memory of the understanding, 9 although I' m not certain about' the exact exhibit numbers.
. 10 . M R. MCEACHERN: That's correct, Your Honor.
11 JUDGE SMITH: All right.
12 MR. DIGNAN: With that understanding that they are
' 13 admitted only de bene subject to being connected up by
'( ' 14 testimony.of Mr. Guadagna, the Applicant has no objection to' .
15 the admission of Exhibits 1 through 9.
. 16 -JUDGE SMITH: I just have one further question. Will 17 this.be a self-affecting ruling, or will somebody take the 18 responsibility to come up at the end of the hearing and point I
19 out that it's been connected or not connected? l i
20 MR. DIGNAN: I' m sure my brother. will take the 21 responsibility to say it's been connected. And I can assure 22 the Board I will take responsibility for bringing it to the 23 attention of the Board if it is not connected.
24 MR. MCEACHERN: I would just point out that !
25 regardless of that, there has been testimony in the case 10 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
- x_a-_-_.--. .--.-.s -
f i- t-t
- (
O x ,
L ; '2969 g . 1 regarding these exhibits which has not -- there has'been no !
, - 2' mot ion to : strike that, Land .that's valid testimony regardless' of q
1 3 what happens to these-exhibits. ,
1 4 MR. DIGNAN: Well, could we find out? My i
.5 ' understanding was Mr. Guadagna was going to be produced-as a.
6 witness to connect this up. I thought that representation, I s
7 may have been wrong, was made yesterday. And on-that basis 8: Your Honor overruled 'some of: my objections.
9 Now is Mr. Guadagna -- I respectfully request the 10 Board to ascertain =from counsel'whether Mr. Guadagna:is going o '
i 11 to testify or not, because if he's not, I suggest we should '
12 exclude them.
13 JUDGE SMITH: You suggest he should what, be nNe 14 subpoenaed?
15 MR. DIGNAN: Excuse me, Your Honor?
16 JUDGE SMITH: You say if he's not coming, he should 17 be subpoenaed?
i 10 MR. DIGNRNs No, I am saying that if Mr. McEachern is 19 not going to produce him as a witness to connect these up, they 1
20 should be excluded. My understanding is we were told ,
21 yesterday, and I may have misheard Mr. McEachern, that Mr.
22 Guadagna was going to come in here and testimony and connect I
23 this up.
24 JUDGE SMITH: That's ri ght.
25 MR. DIGNAN: And now I' m hearing that, well, maybe if i l
n.
hw]
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) G28-4888
- g. o L .
0 '>
h l-f- 2970 4 1
i l- 7(~)%
L X .1 they; aren' t' connected up, ' they have got another'use. And .I' m j
- 2. asking.the Board to-ascertain now wisether.or not Mr. Guadagna
'3 is coming in.
.4 JUDGE SMITH: That's not wh'at I heard him say.,
5 MR. MCEACHERN: It's our fintention to call Mr. _
. . i 6 Guadagna, and he has previously told us that'in the second week !
7 of hearings he is available. And if that doesn' t turn out to 8 be the case, we will ask'to be allowed to subpoena hira.. !
9 JUDGE SMITH: Your arguments never met, but I' m q 10 satisfied with the state'of the record as it is.
I 11 MR. DIGNAN: I withdraw the suDgestion, Your Honor. l 12 (The documents referred to-13 were-marked'for identification d 14 as Hampton Exhibit Nos. 1-l
- 15. 'through 9, inclusive, and were- j 16 received in evidence.)
17 JUDGE SMITH: As I understand, somebody had some 18 homework to do from that panel, and I forget what it is.
19 MR. DISDEE: If I may, Mr. Chairman.
1
- 20. JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
t 21 MR. BISBEE: There was one piece of testimony that 22 was to be filled in today. I am prepared to elicit the answers t
23 necessary. I was proposing to do so at the conclusion of j
24 FEMA's cross-examination of this panel. If that's the Board's I i
1 25 desire, we can do it then, or if it chooses now, we can also do j 1
l
/~
- k. l Heritage ReportinD Corporation 1 (202) 628-4888 l
- _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _-_-__----___-_-A
2 -
,c . ;
CALLENDRELLO,'FRECHETTE,.STROME - CROSS- 2971 j
-,7
,) 1 it now. 1 2 JUDGE' SMITH: I missed the first phrase'that you 3 spoke.-
4 M R. BISDEE: There was one piece of. testimony.that' i
5 was to be filled -in this morning relating to one letter of l J
GL agreement. We are prepared:t'o fill in~that gap now if the ;
'7 Board' chooses. '
l O JUDGE SMITH: Okay. Well, let's do that.
9 MR. BISBEE ' Fine. If I may remain seated here to-10 ask the questions, that may be' faster. i 11 ~ JUDGE SMITH: Does anybody object? I think it's 12 neater this way.
- 13. MR. DIGNAN: No,.Your Honor. ]
?~i .
bA 14 MR.-BISBEE: These questions will be directed to Mr. l 15 Strome.
16- Whereupon, 17 PAUL'FRECHETTE I la ANTHONY CALLENDRELLO 19 RICHARD STROME 20 having been previously duly sworn, were called as witnesses 21 herein and were examined and testified further as follows:
22 CROSS EXAMINATION 1
23 BY MR. BISBEE:
24 Q Mr. Backus was questioning you yesterday, Mr. Strome, 25 with regard to the host facility for the Mark H. Wentworth Home l
l 7"1 L/
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME CROSS 2972
>dg
- (,)f 1~ in Portsmouth.' He: indicated that the Epsom Manor, Inc. in 2 Epsom, New Hampshire was the desiDnated host facility for the:
3- Mark H. Wentworth Home.-
4 Do you recall that, Mr. Strome?-
5 A (Strome) Yes,; sir.
6 Q And there is.no letter of agreement submitted.for the 7' Empson Manor, Inc. for the Mark H. Wentworth Home; is that B correct?
9- A (Strome) That's correct, sir.
10 0 Now would you tell-us whether the Epsom Manor, Inc.
L 11 is still'the planned host facility to the Mark H.-Wentworth 12 Home?.
I
- 13. A- (Strome) No, sir, it is not.
.(\ .
14 :Q. Could you tell us which facility.is?
15 A .Strome)
( My understanding currently that Frisbie is
[ 16 the host facility.
l . . .
17j Q Frisbie Memorial Hospital?
10 A (Strome) Yes, sir.
19 Q Do you have a letter of agreement with-the Frisbie 20 Memorial Hospital establishing that that will be the facility 21 for the Mark H. Wentworth Home in Portsmouth?
22 A (Strome) That's correct, sir.
23 MR. BISBEE: If I may, Mr. Chairman, distribute 24 copies of that letter.
25 (Pause.)
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
t k 'q CALLENDRELLD, FRECHETTE, STROME - CROSS ~ 2973 !
's m.
()[ .1 'BY MR. BISBEE:
2 Q Mr..Strome, I' ve placed before you, and I' ve given 3- copies to the parties a document. Can you identify that 4 document?
5 A (Strome) Yes, sir.
6 Q What is it, sir?
7 A (Strome) This is the letter of agreement that was 8 signed by Frisbie Memorial Hospital; specifically, Jeffrey 9 WP .t e, Executive Vice President,. offering to accept'the 10 resins'ee from the Mark H. Wentworth Home in the event of an
- 11 evacuation due to Seabrook Station, of that area emergency.
12 MR. BISBEE: Your Honor, at this time I would ask 13 that this document be marked State of New Hampshire's Exhibit i r1 b2 14 and be: entered in evidence.
15 JUDGE SMITH: This is a'-- how does this differ from 16 the documents that have been attached to testimony? It's just
.17' another one of the same -- incidently, we didn' t get copies of 18 this.
19 MR. DISBEE: Yes, I will provide you copies, Your
, l' 20 Honor.
21 This is a document similar in nature to the others-22 that were attached, but it's a new one.
23 JUDGE SMITH: Still making it a freestanding exhibit l 24 then, why don' t we designate it as an attachment to the l- 25 previously accepted testimony, give it to the reporter, and l'
h Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l'
L . .
CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME'- CROSS 2974 1J just-l bind .'it in.
2 - M R. BISBEE:-'That would-be fine.-
'3 JUDGE SMITH: That reduces the amount:of. paper;and 4 bookkeeping.
5 Is that; satisfactory?
6: MR. BISBEE: That's satisfactory. with me. I guess we 7 would label it Attachment 7 to the. Applicant's Direct Testimony t
, 8 No. 1.
9 JUDGE SMITH: Are there any objections?
l
'10 ~ MR. DIGNAN: 'No, Your. Honor.
1 f li JUDGE SMITH: Then it is-received at-this point in l
- l. '12 the transcript.
1 L .
13 (The document previously I\ f- 14 mentioned as, Attachment 7 to 15 Applicant'ssDirect Testimony 16 No. 1, was received in evidence 17 and-bound in the transcript.)
18"
.. e 19 20 21 22 23 24
.25 o Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
l l
< Y-
' ~ ' ~~ ~- ~
TR}
'W'
- d
~~~.
Friobic Mcmsrial'Hes:pital 4
- f?
Whitehall Rotd .
Rochester, New Hampshire 03867 !
I
' % Tr 3 M--
' Te!.: 603/332 5211 - /
'y -*
. -4.,
_ wl4. m y ,
- .l
,, July 14, 1987 _q a.
't ;
Mr. Donald Reeves ~
Administrator
- Mark H. Wentworth Home
- .346 Pleasant St.
- Portsmouth, NH 03801
[
' Dear Mr.-Reevess; e B
,ThisLletter will confirm the willingness of Frisbie Memorial Hospital, Rochester, NH to accept' residents from the Mark H. Wentworth Home in the -
event 'of an' evacuation due to Seabrook Station'or other area emergency. *
- This, of course, is contingent upon the fact the Frisbie' will have the -
staff and facilities available to accommodate your patients and that' we
- .'are not' called upon to provide care for more acutely ill/ injured patients transferred from other area hospitals or the scene' of the accident. - While it is impossible to determine, in general, with any degree of accuracy how many patients we could accommodate on the average, we believe that, on a short-term basis, with your. assistance as well' as that of the NH Office of Emergency. Management, we could accommodate up to 45 patients.
It is understood that we will be contacted directly by an administrator :
- or. designee from your facility in the event of an emergency and that your
' response to the disaster situation will be coordinated through the NH 1 office of Emergency Management which will provide. temporary cots, bedding, food, water, equipment, etc. 'as appropriate. 'It is further understood that if such a transfer is to take place, you will make arrangements to transport appropriate medications,' plans of care, and support and clinical personnel to provide the. care for your residents. -
Finally, I have been. advised that, upon the activation o.f this plan, the hospital will be reimbursed for all Hocumented expenses incurred in the provision of the services outlined above. i We are pleased to be able to assist you in the development of this -
contingency plan. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely, l
L-M[ . .
Jeffrey G. White
' Executive Vice President JGWieb cca Richard H. Strome,/
[ Helen F. Wilson, and t
Neal Boucher e NH Office of Emergency Management 107 Pleasant St.
Concord, NH 03301
~' "
,,,,_,_c u ._,
- -.L__..______._:..____- __ , _ . . _,. .,,n _, _ , , _ _ _ _.__ _,y__._,._3__,.__
':( ? ,
Y d T i
CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME CROSS 2975
,[ 1 : MR. BISBEE: Now, as an attachment, Your Honor,-to 2' the testimony, does that require three' copies'for the reporter 3 still 4 JUDGE SMITH: No. Well, you might give us one.
5 MR. DISBEEs Yes, we will provide.one each for the 6- Board and'one~to the reporter.
7- JUDGE SMITH: All right.
8- BY MR. BISBEE:
9 O Now just a couple of follow-up questions, Mr. Strome, f~ -10 With that' letter of agreement now in hand, is the 11 statement on page 6 of the' Applicant's prefiled testimony that, 12 "No other host health care facility letters are outstanding"
~ 13 now accurate?
.(
so- - 14' -A (Strome) As far as I know, it is, sir.
15 Q The letter agreement with the Frisbie Memorial 16 Hospital for the Mark H. Wentworth Home should have been 17 included in the. package; is that correct ?
' 1B A (Strome) That's correct, sir.
I 19 O And why was it not?
20 A (Strome) Oversight, I' m quite sure. I l 21 M R. BISBEE: Thank you, Your Honor. That concludes 22 this area of inquiry.
F 23 MR. BACKUS: Your Honor, I have a couple of questions f !
24 for the witness on that exhibit that was just, or attachment to 25 his testimony that was just put i n. If I could ask them at Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l -
4
., y -
fg , - i ,. t,
.;J
' :;9 , y t'
.v. ,
a
- p y.t
[ ~ ./
~
d' %. 2976
,o A(/-
1' this time,,or.if you prefer, until another time.
lE 2 ,/ JUDGE SMITH: LI think that that should fall into the sj.
'l
=
i 3 category of recross-examination. lit doesn' t really matter. We j l.
4 will cdme~back to.ibu at that time.
5 JUDGE. SMITH: Do you have'any examination of thinu l ,
l T. 6 parte 17 -
h~
t' j '7- MR. BISBEE: Yes, Your Honor, there was one other i.
8 area of inquiry that.I hoped to pursue. I thought'that the 1 .
9 epp'ropriate time would be,.as'I said esi' lier, at the close of j i- . .
10 FEMP s cross.
l j 11 .JL'DGE SMITH: Oh. '
l 12 MR, BISBEE: But I' m willing to proceed at;Your -
13 Honor's desire. ,
I
\ -
14 JUDGE SMITH: I am hiving difficulty hearing.
It1 MR."BISDEE: I am $repared to proceed whenever you .l 16 wish, Your Hond. l l' '?. 'l 17 JUDGE. SMITH: Off the record.' ;
, i 14, (Discussion off the record.) J 19 JUDGE SMITH: No one objects to that procedure. I l 20 would say when this arisos again that you probably have more 21 privity of interests than this particylar panel with the-4 ,
22 sponsoring party, the Applis: ant. ,Go logically, you should have f:
23 followed them ir.the examination, but it doesn' t really matteer.
24 n Ne v.i l l take whatever,you wrat if no one is objecting.
25 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honoe, if I may indicate so that Heritage Reporting Cceporation (202) 628-4680 g
n J
2977
--,g
.j 1- the: Board understand.
2 As I indicated in my opening, as you know, the.
3- Applicants and the state, if you will, collaborated in the 4 preparation of this testimony.- However, I obviously as a
--5 private. attorney cannot represent fully the interests of the 6 State of New Hampshire, and.Mr. Bisbee does as Attorney-7 General.
.8 JUDGE SMITH: .I understand that.
9 MR. DIGNAN: Therefore, Mr. Bisbee' I' m sure will 10- cc c6 t me if I' m wrong. The Board should.look on'Mr. Bisbee' s .
i 11 exar . nation such as this as really a portion of. redirect. That L
12 is to say,'the testimony is' coming in and I will take the lead l 13- in defending the panels as they undergo cross-examination, k
y n o: '14 although.Mr.-Bisbee will object if he thinks the state interest.
(
L '15 in particular needs to be protected.
l 16 And that being the case, I think that's why Mr.
l 17' Bisbee.was suggesting, other than to clean up that matter of a t-l 18 letter, is proper place would be to go after the last cross-1 E 19 examiner which I understand will be the FEMA counsel, and then l'
20 I will have redirect on the panel as a whole.
21 Mr. Bisbee will confine himself to matters throughout j 22 this proceeding, as I understand it, which affect the interests l of the state qua the state, and the Applicant's counsel will be 1 23 j l
24 doing the general redirect, and he has one particular matter he 25 wishes to redirect on, j l
7"' !'
1-Heritage Reporting Corporation !
(202) 628-4888 1
I
p b'
d j
i l
b 2978
/
[/)'L i
l' There will -be no' occasion - 1. can' t say never, . but I
( 2 will . be surprised -- there will be no occasion where Mr. Bisbee l
l 3 would have additional direct beyond the panel testimony ~which 1-
.l 4 has been filed. He will have an interest in doing what'is 1
5 really in the. nature of redirect to the extent that~that' ;
l 6' affects 'the state ' interest which he has to represent and I 7 cannot. 1 8 JUDGE SMITH: Everything you said is-certainly true, r 9. and I see the logic in the-sequence. When I said' privity, it.
l 10 is a general privity, not a direct privity at all. He does l'i ' have a legitimate, interest in assuring that his witness is 1
.12 fully understood and there is no confusion of the-facts.
13 MR. BISBEE : If I could just briefly follow up on !
14 that.
15 I want to make it perfectly clear that our interests 16 are distinct from that of the Applicants.
17 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, there is no question.
18 MR. BISDEE: And as we indicated in our opening-19 statement, the state is in a unique role here, and it's in that 20 role that the witnesses appear, and it's in that role, as well, ;
i 21 that the Attorney General's of fice is' here representing those j 22 witnesses as well as the state at large.
23 And I agree fully with your view of where our 24 examination should fit into the progress of examination. I 25 don' t know that it would be called technically correct where we O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_ _ _ _ - - _ - _ - . _ - - i
2979 44.u
(,)-- 1- did not' sponsor the tectimony, but I think logically that's -
2' where'it'should. fit-in the. progression.
3 JUDGE SMITH: That's . fine.
4 Now'does any Intervenor and the Commonwealth of 5 Massachusetts have any cross-examination that they felt could' 6 not have been covered by the designated lead. Interveners'on the J7 issue?
8 Then I guess we are ready for ' FEMA's examination.
9 (Pause.)
10 JUDGE SMITH: I didn' t see you there. A111right,.you 11 may proceed, Mr. Flynn. I thought:that you had. stepped out.of.
12 the room.
13 MR. FLYNN: I' m sorry, Your Honor. I surprised you Y\'
bM 14 by sitting in a different seat. Good morning'to the panel, to 15 the Board.
16 I have given to.the judges and also to the witnesses 17' and attorney for all parties represented here a copy of my 18 cross-examination plan. I have also distributed to these same 19 people an. exhibit which I will refer to during my cross-20 examination, and I will refer to this exhibit as FEMA Exhibit 21 X-1; X for cross-examination to distinguish it from the exhibit 22 which we intend to of fer later during direct examination.
23 With that, I am ready to begin my cross-examination
'24 of the panel.
25 l-
! Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 l
l' E -
I i
l R i l
CALLENDRELLO,'FRECHETTE,~STROME'- CROSS 2980 l '. (f3
,) 1 CROSS EXAMINATION I 2 BY MR. FLYNN:
3 Q Good morning, Mr. Callendrello, and Mr. Frechette'and -
4 Mr. Strome. Most of my questions, if not all of my questions, 5 will . txe addressed to Mr. Strome.-
s 6' The purpose of my initial line of questioning willLbe 7 to establish the extent'to which the letters of agreement which 8 are attached as exhibits to your direct. testimony are identical 1
9 to those which were earlier submitted to FEMA for its review, j 10 The' place to start is with the letter that I have i 11' provided you with. It's dated September 30th, and-it bears 12 your signature, Mr. Strome. It's addressed to Henry S.'
13 Vickers, Regional Director of the Federal Emergency Management 14 Agency.
15 Do you have that letter before you?
16 A (Strome) Yes, sir.
17 Q And you have had a chance to read it over?
18 A (Strome) Yes, sir.
19 Q You are familiar with it?
20 A (Strome) Yes, sir.
21 Q And, in fact, that is a' letter which you sent to Mr.
22 Vickers on September 30, 1987?
23 A (Strome) Yes, sir.
24 O In some of the cross-examination which occurred 25 yesterday, there was a reference to technical assistance, and O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME - CROSS 2981 7~ .
i; 1 there is also a reference to' technical assistance in this 2 letter, and I'want to ask you a-few questions.about that. But' 3 before I ask the questions, let me refer specifically to the
~
portions,of.the 1etter that I am referring.to now.-
1 0 5 In your second paragraph, you say, "Both the l
6 personnel assessment and the shelter study for beach areas 7 constitute data which is considered by the New Hampshire. Office 8 of Emergency Management in the development of state response i
9 plans.. We desire that FEMA and the RAC develop technical 10 assistance: comments relative to these documents and we'look.
11 forward to receiving the benefit of that planning assistance."
12F I read correctly from the letter. ;
.13 Then the next paragraph goes on to say, "The letters
.,~
- b. 14 of agreement constitute updates to the letter of agreement 15 volume of the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response 16 Plan (NHRERP). This volume, perhaps more than any other, will' 17 undoubtedly undergo continual update throughout the life of the la plans. The narrative included with the letters of agreement is 19 meant to provide some clarification previously raised by' FEMA 20 in its review of the NHRERP."
21 Again, that is indeed what the letter says.
22 Now what I want to discuss with you_the distinction i 23 between technical assistance and review of the NHRERP. I take 24 it by the format of your letter, your organization of the 25 letter, that andeed you intended to make such a distinction?
I r~3 a l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
{
l
P 1
l.
b CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME - CROSS 2982
. p).,
1 A. (Strome) I-think that.I did.- I' m not sure I I
2 understand your question, though, counselor.
3 Q Well,'what.I am getting to is,I want:to elicit from
'4 you your understanding of what the difference is between.
- l. 5 technical ~ assistance and review, formal review of the NHRERP.
- 6 Would 'you agree that=there is a difference?
7 A- (Strome) That's correct, yes. I'do.
8 O Thank you.
9 JUDGE SMITH: The answer.is there is'a difference.
10' MR. FLYNN: And I understood his answer to~be that.he 11, intended to make.such a distinction. ,
12 JUDGE SMITH: Distinction.
13 BY MR. FLYNN:
14 Q Have I interpreted your answer correctly?-
15 A (Strome) That's correct, yes.
- 16. I think I should clarify. There is no question in my 17 mind of'what I intended,to say in this letter, and I think I 18 did say it, is that I' m not asking you to formally review two 19 of.the submissions, the submission with respect to personnel 20' assessment in the shelter study as part of the plan. I did not 21 intend that that was what you do.
22 I asked that FEMA, in its role as RAC, and in its 23 role, statutory role of providing assistance to the states, 24 look at these documents in exactly the way that I stated; as a 25 way of assisting the state in putting together fully developed LO Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_ _ _ - = _ _ .
k l
CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME - CROSS. 2983 .)
L F~S . ... l fg)- 1 plans.
21 0 ,I> appreciate that information. ;
3 Mr. Strome, I' m .not challenging what' you have done l I
'4F here. I understandywhat'you are saying, and.many-of tha people 5 here do. But what I~am.trying to do here.is make.it clear to l I
6 the Board so that when they review the record . later they will. j
~
7 have an understanding of what that distinction is.
i 8 A (Strome) And I didn' t mean to imply that you were 9 challenging me. I just wanted to make sure that we both- I J
10 understood each other fully. l "11 Q I thin'k we do.
i 12 The more normal relationship ~with FEMA then is the -- {
, 13 and the more formal relationship is the review of'the plans
. l
~
14' submitted by the state'under Part 350. 'That is to say,'. Title
'i 15 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 350. j
.16 Is that a statement?
17' A (Strome) Counsel, I --
1 18 Q I'm asking you would you agree with that.
i 19 A (Strome) I think there is a dual role. I mentioned 20 it yesterday. There is no question that the 350 process is a 21 part of our relationship with FEMA. That's clearly outlined in 22 statute.
i 23 But the other role, and I consider it equally ,
24 important, and as a matter of fact, I would say if I had to 25 characterize it time-wise, is that of assistance. And we spend l Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 l
CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME - CROSS: 2984 n
l) 1. a great deal.of time working with each other in the development-I21 of planning documents, and not specifically..related totthe 3 formal 350 submission.
4 Q Okay, I understand.your point. Perhaps I 5 mischaracterized~the' weight to be given to.those two
' 61 relationships.
- 7. '
What I-am getting at is that a 350-review carries 8 consequences-with it that are not implicit inntechnical" 9 assistance .which is to say that if, FEMA approves, give you "
10 formal 350 approval of a ~ plan, that's the : end of the process. .
11- There's nothing more to' be done.
12 'A- - (St rome') es, that's my understanding. That.may be.
l 13 FEMA's posit ion. .
1:
L O ...
14 From the standpoint of the state, these~ plans are l
L 15 never done, and I'would like to make that ' clear on the record.-
l 16 This is an evolving process,-dynamic process. Even if FEMA.
ll i.
,1'7 - were.to give us a 350 approval of these planning documents, the 18 State of New Hampshire on its own would continue the planning 19 process as outlined in our statute, 107(b), which defines that' 20 responsibility on a continuing basis.
21 O And it's also true that if FEMA were to go through 22 the 350 process and disapprove your plan, that carries certain 23- consequences too; namely, that it puts the burden on the state 24 of correcting whatever the identified deficiencies are within a 25 certain period of time.
O. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l
l-j ..
l-j ,
-CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME - CROSS 2985 i- "7"T.
b . 1_] .- 1 A '(Strome) . Absolutely.
i 2' O Now to go to the other side of these different 3 processesLto focus-for'a moment on technical assistance, that 4: relationship is more of an advisory on, wouldn' t you 'say? .
.5- A (Strome') I prefer to characterize it'as a 6 partnership. The. federal-authorities,, I' m 'sure, is interested,
'7 as the state authorities, in ensuring that we are providing-8 adequate protection for the citizens ~of.the United States'and 9 New: Hampshire.
.10i -Q' I would accept that.
11 If during the technical assistance process FEMA,"with 12 the assistance of the regional assistance committee, identifies, 13 certain weaknesses, perhaps the const. pence of that.is simply
. p. .
Iss 14 thatithe State of New Hampshire is alerted to those things and
~
15 can take whatever action it deems. appropriate.
16 A '(Strome) Absolutely.
17 Invaluable, it provides invaluable assistance to the EndT32 18 state planning effort; no question about that counselor.
19 (Continued on next page.)
20 21-22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 {
--_ _ _ _ 1
l 4
2986 j 1
-3 J3 1 BY MR. FLYNN 2 .O So,.from this discussion'then, I take it that what.
3 you intended and what, indeed, you~ asked FEMA to do, with the 4 personnel assessment summary and the shelteristudy, was to -
5' review 'it L with the ' idea of giving pou backyits comments, its; '
6 advice on how it might be improved.or1 -- well, I'will stop 7- there,cwith how it might be improved?
8 A (STROME) Certainly,-I intended or I had hoped that" 9 FEMA would give us comments.with respect to the particular .j 10 documents that were submitted. I would have hoped that those i
11 comments:would have been technica'l in nature, 'and' provide us 12 with, perhaps some guidelines to go' forward and'get additional.
13 data, if needed, so that we could move the prices.
4 -
e > -
141 -0 And the results of your intention, that the two
-15' documents-that I have just referred to, are not'part.of the 16 Plan?
17 A (STROME) Not specifically part of the Plan, that is.
^j 18 correct, sir, j
~19 Q And on the other hand, there are certain things which l
20 you have submitted to FEMA, which do constitute part of 'the 21 Plan and those are the documents that are referred to in your 22 third paragraph?
23: A (STROME) Yes, sir. ,
l 24 0 And specifically Letters of Agreement? l 25 A (STROME) That is right.
1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE,..STRO'ME'- CROSS 2987 L1g l
); l' O And.they are updates to Volume 5,aof the NHRRP?
.2 .A (STROME) Yes,_ sie.
3' .O And now' , I also want.to explore:with you, the extent l
4- to which the. set of documents which you submitted to FEMA,Jon-or before Sept'mber e 30th, is' identical.to the set of documents
~
b 5 1
- 6 that isl attached to your testimony.
7' Is the context clear?
8 A~ (ST ROME) ' Yes, sir.
9 Q There are some documents that' appear in both_ sets? l
' 1'O A (STROME) Yes,-sir.
11~ 1 am acceptingfyour characterization on that. ,
12' G Well,'we'will goLthrough this and you will have a 13
~
chance to point out which.are and which are'not.
14- A (STROME) . Okay.
15 0 I am referring now to your' testimony, Attachment 5, 16 which corsists of four separate documents. And -- ;
17 A .(STROME) I have the testimony and11 think before 18 that.
- 19. O Okay, the first Letter which is identified as one of 20 four, is from Goodwin's of Exeter.
21 A (STROME) Yes, sir.
22 Q And two of four is from the Clipper Home of 23 Portsmouth.
24 A (STROME) Yes, sir.
25 Q Three of four is from McKerley Health Care Center, is Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
'l
'CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME_- CROSS- 2988 L 1 that right?. !
i 2 A (STROME) Yes, sir.
i 3 0 .And the' fourth one is from the Lemire Enterprises, is:
4- that correct?
5' A (STROME) :Yes,-sir.
6 'O Now, theseufour documents.which are part-of yourE I 7 testimony or attached to your' testimony, are also among the 8' documents which.you submitted.to FEMA, is thatLright?.
9 A '(STROME)- I would have to refer back'to the original' 10' submission and I don' t have that in front of.me.
l l l 11 Q I will show you --
l l
12 MR. DIGNAN: I think, Mr. Flynn, if you will-i 1
1 13 represent that,that is the case, I would be happy to stipulate
.,b k~ 14 it with you to save time.
i.
1'
( .15 MR. FLYNN: Oh, fine, yes, I would be pleased toL 16 stipulate it.
'l 17 MR.'DIGNAN: It is so stipul.ated, Your Honor, that 18 the documents were in the package sent to FEMA.
19 JUDGE SMITH: Any objections.to that?
20 (No response.)
21 BY MR. FLYNN:
22 O Now, Mr. Strome, the next set of questione am about 23 to ask focus on the documents which are in the testimony but 24 not in the package submitted to FEMA, would you like to see the 25 package?
!l-us Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l-
CALLENDRELLD, FRECHETTE, STROME - CROSS 2989 .
O j f.
h -
'1 MR. DIGNAN: Again, if you say that certain documents ,
2' are not in.the testimony and are in'the package, I would'be.
l' ' 3 glad to stipulate that fact with you, Mr. Flynn.
4 MR. FLYNN: Is it all right with you-if I show this 5 to.Mr. Strome?
6 MR. DIGNAN: Certainly.
7- (Witness is proffered documents and examines them.)-
8 BY MR. FLYNN:
9 Q Mr. Strome, what I have just handed you is a package 10 of materials with a cover letter which purports to be signed by 11 you.and it 'is to Henry Vickers, and it transmits the documents ;
1
- 12. of which we have been speaking.
13 If you would like a few moments to look that over, O
V 14 feel free.
15 (Pause, while witness examines documents.)
16 BY MR. FLYNN:
17 O Have you had a chance to look it over?
18 A (STROME) Yes, sir. f
.19 - 0 Now, I will refer to Attachment 1 to your testimony.
.20 A (STROME) Okay. 3 l
21 Q The first of three Letters is from Al's Service ]
22 Center, and the second is from Sergeant's Service Center, and !
i 23 the third one is from Armand's Auto Body, is that right.
24 A (STROME) Yes, sir. ]
i 25 Q And it is also true that the three Letters which I 1 O Heritage Reporting Corporation ;
(202) 628-4888 l
1 CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME - CROSS' :2990
!1 have just.referre'd to, were not among those which were 2- submitted to FEMA, in the end of August?
3 A (STROME) I, without looking.through every. single'one J 4- of these, if you say that that is the case, I'am sure that it 5- is true.
6- Q You don' t dispute that?
7 A (STROME) No, sir.
'8 O And I am'now referring to Attachment 3 -- Attachment 9' 3, to your. testimony and'that consists of two documents, the l 10 first of which is from the' Boys and Girls Club of Salem and the l.
- 11 second of which is from Squamscott Home Health Incorporated.
1 1
12 A (STROME) Yes, sir,,I have that.
[
l 13 0 ~You see those?
p'N' I' M / 14 A (STRCME) Yes, sir.
15 Q And would you also agree that those were not.among 16 the documents submitted to FEMA?
17 A (STROME) I will accept that characterization-from ;
i 18 you, counselor.
19 Q I am now skipping over to Attachment 6, and in this 1 20 case, there are 11 documente. These documents were the subject 21 of Mr. McEachern's cross-examination yesterday and in each
- 22. case, they purport to commit employers of Teamsters of drivers 2 31 to the task of driving buses in the event that they are needed.
24 25 Without going through a catalogue of what these Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
[. +L
[.
CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME . -- CROSS 2991 1 '. Letters are and who they are from, would you also agree that 2 they were not among.the documents submitted to FEMA?
3 A (STROME) I wi11' accept that characterization, 4 counselor.
5 0 I want to conclude my cross-examination by asking you.
6 a question or two about the National' Guard.' In-your-direct 7 testimony, you have. indicated that in.the. event that. additional 8 drivers are needed, the State'will. call upon the Nationa'. Guard 1 9 in New Hampshire Department of Transportation to fill-in, to 10 provide additional drivers. I
- 11. I believe thet'that appears at the bottom of page 6,.
12 and at the top'of page 7, of your' testimony. j 13 '- Now, my question is, peop1'e 17. the National Guard 14- don' t do'that full-time do they?
15 A (STROME) No, sir, except for a small cadre of l 16 permanent duty personnel.
I 17 G But --
18 A (STROME) But you are right, the bulk of the people 19 in the National Guard are part, spend part-time at the d l
20 particular duty.
21 0 So the usual case is that the people in the National 9 22 Guard have other jobs which are full-time jobs?
q 23 A (STROME) Yes, sir.
I
-24 O Naturally you don' t know in every case, whether that j 25 is true, but for the most part that is true?
O Heritage Reporting Corporation i
(202) 628-4888
7_.
CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME - CROSS .2992 n
o 2_f 1' A (STROME) We make the assumption that they'are all a gainfully. employed..
~
L
- 3. Q So it could be true thap some of the people'who you 4 would call 'upon, to drive buses from the National Guard, might l 5 also have roles assigned'to them in your Emergency. Response-l i 6 Plan?
f 7- A (STROME)- That would be a possibility, yes, sir.
L 8- G. And the only way that you can really tell that'would i ..
9 be:ifEyou had rosters of all of the people who were called upon -
l 10 to respond,in the-event of an emergency? l 11' 'A '(STROME)' Well, certainly'a roster would'give~un an 12' indication, of whether an individual had dual responsibility, 13- yes, sir.
'l
-%m
- : 1:4 O But at the moment, there is no such Posters?
15 A (STROME) That is correct, sir.
16 b:R. FLYNN: Thank you, I have no further questions.
17 JUDGE SMITH: NRC Staff?
18 Mr. Flynn, this would be a good place to bind the 19 cross-examination into the record.
20 MR. FLYNN: Yes, indeed, Your Honor.
21 JUDGE SMITH: Could you do that, do you have a copy?
22 MR. FLYNNt I have already provided the Reporter. I 23 also move that FEMA Exhibit Number X-1 be admitted into 12 4 evidence.
25 See, Your Honor, it has been pointed out to me that 7~
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l i
'l'
.r 'CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME - CROSS 2993 !
1- the-premise of onelof'my. questions was. incorrect,'and-may I q 2 clear that up?,
i; 3 JUDGE SMITH: Please?
4 BY MR. FLYNN: i u
5' 'O Mr. .Strome, I asked.you a few moments ago, whether' j
- 6. the 11 Lett'ers-relating to'the Teamsters were in the, submission i
'7. toLFEMA but not in'the testimony? '
)
l 8 I.underntand that I got that backwards. What-is-the <
9 case, is.that they are in your testimony, but not,in the q 10 submission to FEMA?
11 A- ~ ( STROME) . .Yes. ;
12' MR. FLYNN: .Thank you.
.i.
. 13- (The document previously referred l- .
14- to as FEMA's Cross-Examination l3 -
l .
15 Plan,.was bound ~into the.
l h 16- record.)
I 17
'18 l 19 20 j 21 22 23 24 25
- O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
,, . '/
hv- -
'(( n d !~ v%
L' 7 .6 4 'T r;_-3 3 k:
I "t t I t, .!
fs, - ,/ g'yf! .1 p i,) '
l' FEMA Cross-Examination Plan
'1. Letters of Agreement
. Applicants'. Witnesses Letter of Agreement with National Guard Absence of Rosters l National Guard members may have other roles j Letter of' Agreement with NHDOT Meaning of "4th.or 5th Level" responders Extent of commitment, agency & individuals Extent to which a light comrrirciel license qualifies drivers to drive buses.
R.
(G Extent to which Letters in August 25 submittal are the same as those in testimony. Intended to be incorporated in NHRERP.
O
= _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ - _ - _ . __ - .. _ - _ - - _ - - _ . _ _ .,
$i 8,t >
g
. m
.43
.t,
!CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STRDME - CROSS' 2994 V" j
- L_j 1 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Flynn has offered into evidence,
-2: FEMA Exliibit . Number 'X-1 for identification, which is n' Letter .-
3 of. September 30, 1987, from the Office- of EmerDency Management 4 to: Henry Vickers, Regional Director.of Federal Emergency 5 Management Agency and are there any objections?
'6 ! MR. DIGNAN: No objection, Your-Honor.
7- MS, CHAN: No objection from the Staff.
8 JUDGE SMITH:' Then the Exhibit =is received.
- 13. (The_ document'previously >
10' referred to, was marked i
11 as FEMA Exhibit 12 Number.X-1,-and-was received 13 into evidence )-
i5- 4 14 MS. CHAN: Good morning, Your Honor, and the Panel, 15 royiname is Elaine Chan and I am from the Off' ice of General' i
16 Counsel NRC, and I would like to address the Panel. !
17 CROSS-EXAMINATION 10 BY MS.. CHAN:
19 O In reference to, FEMA Exhibit Number 1, Counselor-20 Flynn asked you whether or determined that there were a number 21 of Letters of A Dreement not transmitted in the September 15, 22 letter from Mr. Strome to Mr. Vickers, and I would like to find i4 23 out, these Letters, if they were not transmitted in that 24 package, are they not part of the Plan?
u l
p 25 A (STROME) May I confer for a second, coanselor?
L l Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888
.t_ -
5 i' .' i o s s , .,
- ?! ' "
CALLENDRELLO,'FRECHETTE, STROME - CROSS '2995 .
~
.) ~ '1 0 -
. Excuse'me?
- . 2 A- -(STROME) May I confer for a' moment?
3' O .Yes,;you'may.
- o 4- (Witnesses confer.) !
5= THE WITNESS: (STROME) Please restate the question, 6 counselor?
7- -BY1MS.' clans.
y' -B. ,0- Yes, I'would be happy to, p
.9- .In the cross-examination:by Mr. Flynn, he introduced l
L. , ' 10. FEMA Exhibit Number X-1, paragraph 3, Letters of Agreement 11 package that was submit'ted to FEMA on September 15, 1987, and 12 then:he.went,through a number of Attachments t'o the O '
E I L .
13 Applicant's . Test imony -- Attachments' 1, f 3, and 6, which were-l- .p M' 14' ont transmitted'with the September 15th~ package.
l-15 And I-would like to know if these Letterm'were not-
.i 1
16 included in that package, does that.mean that they are not part i 17 of'the Plan?
18' A (STROME) -I think that in. answer to your-question, 19 counselor, we intend that all Letters of Agreement be 20 incorporated in the Plan.
21 O Will these be formally submitted to FEMA?
22 A (STROME) If they have not been formally submitted to l
23 FEMA, they will be formally submitted to FEMA.
24 O Thank you.
25 And in your direct testimony, you mentioned i
LO HeritaDe Reporting Corporation .l (202) 628-4888 i
n .
l l
4 J s
. g. ,g i
CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE,LSTROME - CROSS' 2996
'( j'I _ _
- 1.I.
= , + .
ass'istanceifrom the National . Guard ~ and the New Hampshire
'i' 2: Department.of Transportation.
3 ,
Can you please explain the. basis for the' reliance on -
4 '4. theseitwo groups? Do you have Letters'of_ Agreement?f ,
5? A. :(STROME) Counselor, I am having a little bit of 4
. 6; trouble hearing you, but I think that ILdid understand your-g ,
7J question.
O We ' cio, in fact, have correspondence'with both the'New 9 Hampshire DOT, Department of Transportation and with'the 1 10 National Guard,: the New Hampshire National, Guard, . whichLis 11 indicative of;their support, in the event'that we had to 12' exercise these documents.
13 Q And will this correspondence be formalizsd in the 14 form of. Letters of. Agreement?
\
15 A (STROME) I doubt it. -There is no need, as far as I 16 can see, as far as I know, for any requirement to do'that, 17 especially with respect to the National Guard, since they are 18 already committed under the Federal Emergency Response' Plan,.as i
19 part of a DOD resource.
1.
1 20 AlthouDh at the time, they would probably be h 21 activated on State status.
22 Q My final question relates to these commitments by the
[
23 National Guard and New Hampshire Department of Transportation, f; 24 and I understand that previously it was the Teamsters who were 25' primari'ly relied en for a response for drivers.
!!I Heritage Reporting Corporation I
(202) 628-4888 l
_-__L_________-_ _ _ - - _ -
.x a:
.v +
- i. ;
/ '
CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME - CROSS 2997
.%(,7.
- ... 1 Can~you please clarify;the extent to which the Plan
, 2 continues to rely on the Teamsters to implement the Plan?
- 3. A' (STROME) I think'that the numbers of the individuals.
'4 that we rely;upon from'the Teamsters is on the order of 50.
5 But they are;not primary, a primary resource. And we feel"that
- l. 6. they are part of that excess pool that might be called upon 'n-i l
L 17 the event,'for whatever reason there is insufficient drivers 1.
b 8 from the primary pool of the bus providers.
l-L .9' G When you say, the primary pool of bus providers, are l'
E .10' you including the National Guard a'nd New Hampshire Department t
1:
I ,
11 of Transportation?
D 12 A (STROME). No, Ma' am.
13 MS. CHANs. Thank you, I.have no further questions.
. ,s
- 3 14 At this time,-I would like to. provide copies of'the 15 Staf f's Cross-Examinat ion Plan for the record, and the parties.
16 (The document previously 17 mentioned, as NRC's 18- Cross-Examination Plan 19 received into evidence and l
20 bound into the transcript.)
21 (Continued on the next page.)
22 23 24 I 25 I
l O Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l
l l
L C _ _ - _ _ _ -- _---_ _- i
c- [] .
,[yj 2 -h , $/ - %
fl';~ ,
,; , g; 7 ;;9 g NRC STAFF CROSS-EXAMINATION PLAN: LETTERS OF AGREEMENT Determine the . status of letters of agreement produced subsequent to the issuance of NHRERP Rev. 2.
Clarify the status of unsigned letters of agreement in NHRERP Rev. 2.
Clarify the basis for reliance upon assistance from the National Guard and the New Hampshire Department of Transportation.
Clarify to what extent the NHRERP continues to rely on Teamsters to implement the Plan.
9
m ,
2
~2998
-DMAR- 1: JUDGE LINENBERGER: Gentlemen,-ithe Board has a'few.
2 questions, and mostly I think that we would address them to Mr.
t
-3 Strome, and by the way.how do.you prefer that your,name be-4 4 pronounced,.Strome or Strome?
5 ETHE WITNESS: (STROME)' Strome,-sir.
6 ' JUDGE LINENBERGER: . Thank you.
7 And Mr.'Strome, I would like to understand-a little a bit' better' than I do, how your Agency' functions with respect!to 9 division of, responsibility between let's say, . nuclear events, 10 and natural events?
1 11 1 presume that floods, hurricanes, snow' storms, etc.-
[ 12 t anker ' t' ruck ' spi lls, cc whatever, come under yourfumbrella ofz 13 responsibilities, is that a correct. assumption?
L O* ; 14 THE WITNESS (STROME): That is basically. correct, Y 15 sir, but I would hasten to add that ' when we are involved in.a~
l l 16 serious. contingency of that type, one of the responsibilities l
L e 17 that we have as an Agency, as an Office of Emergency Management-18 is to coordinate response functions and that entails the use of 19 a number of resources within the State -- the State Police, .
, 20 Department of Safety and the Department of Transportation, so j 21 that I would not like to imply that we are the whole team. We 22 certainly are not.
23 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Thank you.
24 Given a let's say a 12-month period of time in which 25 there are no major events of any type, what would you Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 ,
b_i____:_____ __ __ _z_ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ -._ l
,m , !
1
{
2999 b 1 personally, estimate to be the breakdown'of time devoted by.
2 your Agency 'to. planning and organizing and being ready for
'3 nuclear events,-versus non-nuclear events?-
4
- 4. Do you have alballparkffigure-for that?
5 HTHE WITNESS (STROME): No. I don' t have a ba11 park' 6 figure right.off of'the top of my head, Your' Honor,.but.I.do:
7 know that early on in the process, shortly after I began my 8 tenure, that_we instituted a Division of Technological-Hazards 9 similar to that of our sister Federal Agency, to' deal 10 specifically with planning for fixed' nuclear sites.
~
11 That is not to. say that we don't' ask them' do other 12- things =as well, because we are a small agency andswe ask people 13 in many cases to perform additional duties.
-.O 14- so obviously we could look at that particular 15- division within the Agency and say that they spend the bulk'of 16' their time dealing with fixed nuclear sites -- Vermont Yankee, 17 Seabrook Station, Yankee Rowe, and that would be quite easy to 18 break out.
19 There are other people within the Agency when we dea ~1 j 20 with training and so forth, with respect to outreach, with 21 respect to fixed nuclear sites, devote time to that process as 4
22 well.
l 23 I would have to say as a very, very rough estimate l
' 1 I 24 that a good 25-to-50% of Agency time, is devoted to this kind l L l L 25 of activity, planning for fixed nuclear sites.
l
($)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l l
~
p 9-
.x.
ll
'3000 1 JUDGE LINENBERGER: .I am sorry,<I' missed the last.
2 part of that. sentence,-is devoted to what?
3' THE WITNESS (STROME): To planning +for the 4 contingencies that.might arise with respect to fixed nucleary 5 sites.
6 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Thank.you.
J7 THE WITNESS ~(STROME): ButithatLeeally is a rough-8' estimate, Your Honor.
9 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Understood.-
.10 Well, let's narrow the scope down a L 11ttle bit, . and l
p 11' ask'about,you, personally, I will.ask the same question with 12 respect to youf personally.
3 sc 13 In.a 12-month. period,'devoidLof any substantive
)
interruptions, 1s t's say, .how would you estimate your ' time ' as 11-4 !
15 divided between nuclear and non-nuclear considerations?
16 THE WITNESS (STROME): For the last year, I would 17 have to-say at least 50% of my time has been devoted to the 18 planning efforts for the fixed nuclear sites that' impact on.the 19 State.
20 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Focusing upon'the= nuclear 21 matters, and more specifically upon the Letters of Agreement i 22 aspect that we are dealing with right now, the sorts of 23 planning that these Letters of Agreement tend to support, it j l
24 seems to me may have need for readjustment in the event that ,J 25 certain agencies, or organizations who make commitments to you, .i 1
l Heritage Reporting Corporation
! (202) 628-4888 <
1 1 l
__z_____u.._. __;_________ ]
V T L
l i
Q L.
[..
l ..
3001 L.
1 have changes with'in their own operations and'somebody commits
~
- 2. seven drivers, for, example,.and a year 1ater, he may have more 3- and he may have less.
4 And now,, forgive my' ignorance, but I am not aware of
'5 having seen'or read anything that indicates that your Agency 6- wi11' undertake any sort of routine updating of the status of 7' .. things. Have I missed something, and is this indeed, something 8 that;is planned and is codified in some kind of, procedural way?'
9- THE WITNESS (STROME): There is not a specific 10 codified procedure' to do that. What w:2 do have, though, is the 11 basic' statute, which tells us that the Plans'should be ongoing 12 and subsequent to the issuance of a license, if'that is,-
,' g 13 indeed, the outcome, we will exercise the recurring feature of.
l 14 107-D, which tells us to work on an annual basis, essentially 1'
15 on an annual basis, to continue the refining process.
L 16 And I might point out that with respect to the l
l_ 17 current initial planning process, that we have people in the
[ That information, perhaps and L 18 field, on'a continuing basis.
1
[
1 19 intelligence of the sort that you mentioned, flows into the 20 Agency, and ptople do update, as has been indicated in the l
l 21 testimony, the documents when, for example, a company goes out l'
22 of business, or something of that nature takes place.
23 With respect to Vermont Yankee, we have field reps 24 assigned to that area, a field rep in technological hazards 25 specifically, who is very familiar with the area, and knows the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
,; . y. =-
- ; 3.,[ ' s d- , .' t fi$&N m ag
- I yA
, j; , :o 3002 7" }l M ' '
.{k }J - f[
, ,c 1 cor[iunies Tiknd(the resources that are required, and knows.- the
.n.
people'weli'.~ ~ 9
~
N 2' ,
3 , And that intelligence. flows back and into the 4 g planning process quite well. It is not specifica1'ly formalized
' $, though, you are' correct. #
. y
' i ii w. .JyDGE.LINENBERGER: Should..I. infer then, from your i t
.).
7 answer, tnat your Agency assumes responsibility.for a routine is the shoe on the[. otherl foot,; and you y :8 updating of ~ matngrs, or
)
,2 ,
9 wait for 'an aDroement crDanization to como'infand teli .you that 10 t mething has changed? - s;j 11 THE WITNESS , GaTROME) : . .Well, 1;think that itLworks.
12 both ways. As 1' pointed out,'it'.is not formalized and-we are 13 quite aggressive about. seeking that ' kind of information, t 'and 14 ourpeopleareabar*fkhat these changes take place ann tha$ 4 15 they can take place, and seek it out. Dut it is,not; 16 formalized.. f i
17 JUDGE LINENBEP7eR' Okay.
. e 18 And ' one minor , facet of the non-nuclear 19 # responsibilities that 1 overlooked'asking ,you about, is the
- q .i 20 , question of whether your Agency interacts with FEMA with i
21 respect to natural disasters?
22 We have had considerable exposure to all kinds of n
23 Interaction with FEMA for nuclear, but I am .just --
24 THE WTTNESS (STROME): We are in the process, right 1
l 25 now, Your Honor. We had floods this y2er, and indeed, went l
t.
[ 8.J L Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 L
L
\. -
i i
i 3003 i 1
b' A )C j
s J .1 through the. FEMA network and pathway to President. Reagan,-for a
.2 Presidential Declaration'which we received, and we have' worked ;
i 3 very, very closely subsequent to that time,-putting the funding 1 4' necessary that' -- the funding process in place to get money to 5 the communities that were damaged during the floods, and 6 citizens.
RD 7 And we are currently involved with some litigation. 3 I
8 planning with respect to that.- We have a very close working ;
9 relationship with the disaster assistance side of'the house, at l i
.10- FEMA, and we-would like to take this opportunity to praise j L 11 their efforts. They are an outstanding' organization.
l 1 l
l 12 I might add to that, because I don' t mean to except i 13 the Technological Hazards Division, they have been very.
L.f'Y l
i
.s
~! 14l cooperative in the process, too. We have a good working L
i L !
15 relationship with the whole range of the Divisions and the' l l 16 Subdivisions within FEMA, Region I. ,
L l l 17 JUDGE LINENBERGER: And now, Mr. Strome, narrowing 1 l-o .
18 down to specifies with respect to your pre-filed direct 19 testimony, I opened somewhat at random to Ottachment 6, page 20 11, of 11, and I note that that item bears a similarity and 21 format to a number of such Agreement forms that accompany your 22 testimony.
23 And what I should like to inquire about, with respect 24 to this particular one that I have referred to, the number of 25 drivers asked about there, or committed there, is answered in r'
V)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l e =- .
Cn
]'
-3004 7m.
l1 what appearsEto be'a3 handwritten number 2,-andiif I chose to be
<v 2 suspicious.about the whole thing,s I.might'say,fwell,'my gonh, 3 anybody could have put that number'2, inDthere.
4 So, how is it that the Board or anybody else is~to be 5' satisfied that=that number 2, was inserted by the person-who 61 executed this document on behalf of the agency contacted?- i 7 Now, I am more-interested in an overall answer to 11 8 this. There are several instances where these numbers are 9 handwritten so that I would like you to address your: remarks
'10 generally 1here. I am not, I.use this one for example, but I 11 would likeLto bear a response to my concern, here.
12 THE WITNESS (STROME): Well, I am not;sure that I'can
. y 13 respond.in a legal sense, because from my personal' standpoint, 0 1 <4 I'have always. felt that these.were legally sufficient-15 documents. .I f, in fact,.the Board points out that they'are.
16 not, then we will take remedial steps.
17 JUDGE LINENBERGER: No, sir, I am orienting the 18 question a little differently. It is not really the Board, at
~ 19 least in the first analysis, that has to be satisfied here, it 20 is your Agency. And now, when something comes to you with a 21 handwritten number like this in it, how do you or your Agency
- 22 look on this with respect to the reliability, integrity, 23 veracity, _ or whatever of it?
24 'lHE WITNESS (STROME): Well, I certainly don' t l
p 25 question the integrity of anyone within the Agency. Nor do I, g L 1 l-n L.) > 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation 1 (202) 628-4888 f
l
__L--------_------ -
3005
/%-
T- J 1. nor:would I, I. don' t ' think question the : integrity off any 'ofithe 2' signatories to'a document.of:this type. There is-no question
.3: in myLmind, that_ number was,: these numbers were. affixed 4f honestlyrand without deceit. So, that I have no reason to.
S'- question th'e fact that these are valid documents. That thought 6 has. never: crossed my mind,- except when we put the documents;
'7 ' together I tried to ensure, by checking with counsel,.that they 8 were, legally tenable and sufficient documents, at least basic 19 documents,- before signing.
l L 10 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Well, not to belabor this'too 11 much,-but Ict me tell you the' kind of thought that' crosses my l
i, 122 mind.
L 13. .Again you must go back to the example that'I speak-to.
j.
14 here, of Attachment 6, number 11 of 11, and that.is regarding 15 Custom Carriers Limited. Now, that handwritten number.2 may 16 have originated with Custom Carriers Limited. It is.
conceivable to me, and I speak off'the top of my head here,
~
17 18 that ' Custom Carriers said, well, we can probably make three'or 19 four available and somebody in your organization filters this 20 and says, well, let's prit them down for 2, because they said, 21 three or four.
22 Now, is that the kind of thing that might happen 23 within your organization?
24 THE WITNESS (STROME): That would be possible, in the 25 context in which you place it, Your Honor, but as far as I Li:) Heritage Reporting Corporation L
l (202) 628-4888 L ?
o l L
___-_ _ --___ ____ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l
[v l>
l l
N 3006
--g '
A_lc '1 know,.that never occurred.
l 2- But.the. negotiation processithat.might haveEtaken-3 place,,I:am not saying thait. that . is ' outside the pale' of-.
4 possibilities.-
- 5. JUDGE LINENBERGER: So, I' infer from.thatfanswer,
~6 then. that.you,7yourself, are not really.sure that that' number.
- 7 2,:per se, came from Custom. Carriers,.in this case, is that-8' correct?!
9- .THE WITNESS (STROME):
I.think that - go ahead, I am L10' sorry I interrupted.
~
11 JUDGE LINENBERGER . I say, is that a correct-112' inference,on my part, that'you, personally, don' t know what
~
13 that number represents?
14 THE WITNESS-(STROME)i I would.have to answer'that I 15- don' t have absolute assurance but /I am confident thati the T
1 L
16 number"is correct.
17 TJUDGE LINENBERGER: Of course the process could ogn b 18 the other way'and' Custom Carriers might have said to somebody,
! i 19 well, shucks we are in no position to commit anybody, but in ;
20 filtering this response, somebody in your Agency might well.
1 l 21 have said, well, they have 795 employees, let's put them down l}
L22 for at least two, they ought to be'able to do that.
p 23 And going in that direction, if things were to go in l l 24 that direction, this would really tend to bollex up your 25 overall reckoninD, I would think. J 1
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l;
3007 in f(sk 1 Are you confident that that sort of. thing has not 2 occurred?
3: THE WITNESS ,(STROME): I am confident-that we:have 4 good numbers, Your Honor.
5 JUDGE.LINENBERGER . All right', sir.
6 Let's go to the last page of your typewritten 7 testimony, in which you speak to the~use of or the' testimony
! '8 speaks to the use of'Omne Mall as a-transportation staging l
.9 area.
.10 If I recall; correctly, it came out in cross-11 examination. yesterday, that Omne Mall is.one of1 two 12 transportation staging areas that are: relied on, or would be
. ,s 13 relied =on in the event of an incidentLof some sort.
QI ~ 14 - THE WITNESS (STROME): That11s correct.
15 . JUDGE LINENBERGER: Specifically what I should like-16 to ask, in this case, with respect.to Omne Mall, although it 17 probably applies to the other one also, is that in the-first 18 place, what is the function of a transportation. staging area?
19 What is it you are relying on it to accomplish?'
l 20 THE WITNESS (STROME): Well, in general, sir, what we j 21 would do is try to position the bus resources in these areas, 22 for dispatch and we would have individuals there who would be 23 handing out the individual maps, the transportation staging j 24 officials, would be handing out the individual maps for the L i 1 1 1 25. bus drivers to go to the specific routes, or to their specific g'
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
i.
t
\ - - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _
p +
L...
? -% .
L '
?
. 3008
-l' assignments, as-well'as dosimetry and..other' equipment thatl
+
2' might;be needed in the event of.an emergency.
r 3 And'they are really gathering spots.forfthe resource.
4 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Who has the' responsibility'for-
'5 assigning a dispatcher or a dispatch system to these two
.6- staging areas?
- 7. . Is there somebody' named specifically or envisioned
~
8 spec'ifically to fulfill that function?'
9 THE WITNESS (STROME):: The Rockingham; County 10' Sherif f's Department has the . essential responsibility . and the 11 prime responsibility-for those functions.at both staging areas.
12 JUDGE LINENBERGER: The Sheriff's Department?
13- THE WITNESS (STROME): Yes, sir.
^ ' "
14 JUDGE LINENBERGER: All right, sir, now, then, aDain, l 15 with respect to transportation staging ' areas, of which Omne 16 Mall is one of two, I have seen nothing that tells me how to 17 compare the availability of space in a transportation staging 18 area, with'the' requirements for that space in terms of number 19 of buses, other vehicles or so forth.
i 20 Now, obviously, you are not going to call ~some 21- parking lot with 10 spaces, a transportation staging area if 22 you are going to try to dispatch a 1 50 buses out of that.
23 So, what I am leading up to is, what has been 24 accomplished to assure you or your Agency that these staging 25 areas, will accommodate the numbers of vehicles that your Plan Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L. . . .
-r -
g- - ,
' 1.
- -> : -3009 fN -
,..1
\/' :1 foresees that need to be accommodated?
2 (Continued on the ' next: page. )'
-3 4
r ,
i' 5 6
7.
i ,-
9 10.
11-12 1 13
~.
34 15-
' 16 17; 18' gg:
l 20
!- 21.
1' l- 22 I
23 24 l
- 251 l
pQ
! .. Heritage Reporting Corporation L- (202) 628-4888 r
l L
l-
p +
p l-I' 3010 1/'O .
,a(_j5-BMAR! 1
.THE WITNESS (STROME): I had trouble hearing part of.
L ,
2l what you said,;Your Honor, but I thinklwhat you are askinD me,.
3- is whether and correct me if.I am wrong,'is.whether_the areas 4 are large'enough to hold the~ bus rersucce, and whether we haver 5- actually measured:that?
6 JUDGE.LINENBERGER: That was my q'uestion.
7' THE WITNESS (STROME): I am not aware of any; specific.
O research.about that, not personally aware, but I can check'on 9 that for you. I:know that.both areas'are large and1they have 10 larUe car parking capacities, and I am sure-that between the
'11 two, they could probably hold the bulk of the resource that 12' would be dedicated to transportation resources.
13 But I'am not personally, I have no personaloknowledge 14 of whether the areas were actually measured. q 15 JUDGE LINENBERGER:- Is there someone in your
' 16 - organization that acts as a check. valve, if you will- such 17 that, if the -- for example, the Omne Mall staging area', has a 18 practical capacity for 150 buses, And the Plans call for 200.
19- buses, somebody blows a whistle and says, we cannot live with 20 that. Even though you are personally not aware of this, is 21 that a function within your Agency?
22 THE WITNESS (STROME): It certainly should if it is 23 not. Professional planners normally check that kind of detail.
24 And I have always made the assumption that they would, but now 25 that you have raised the question, I guess I can go back and Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l
i1 U,
h' ,
]
t
.I L. . .
3011
~
1 ask the-question. I l-L s 2 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Finally, and I realize that we ,
4 L 3L williget into this in more detail later on, but I am-just a --
1 1 L . . - -
. i i
4 little bit curious _about' the subject of' ETE's --' evacuation . .;
l . . .
L 5 time estimates -- and the. extent to which inputs from the ETE ,
6 study results are used by you or your1 organization to assess 7 the realism:of, for example, even.using a-transportation l
8 staging area?
l '
9 L And I can envision mass' confusion around a
-10 transportation staging area, dependinD on what the dispatchers 11 are asking,various vehicles to do. And so,. I am. curious to 12 what extent this concept of a transportation staging area has
_ 13 been evaluated-as being compatible with the things that you.see
- f# -
14 from an ETE study?.
15 THE WITNESS (STROME): Well, I think.that a great- b 16 deal of attention has been given to that. In' fact,.both of the
.17 staging areas, outside a 10-mile. circle of the Seabrook' 18 Station, and we have relied heavily upon the ETE's that have 19 been done to determine what kind of a resource would be needed 20 and the feasibility of.getting the resource to the spot where ;
21 it-is actually required.
22 There is no question that there is a tremendous 23 amount of resource that has to be put together. And, in fact, 24 we envision a scenario where time would be involved that we 25 Dather that resource well before, there is any requirement to ,
T.
wl Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 .I a
m__m._.-__. __
g h
.3012 n
V -1E use'it.
2l ' As. a matter of- fact, ' I ..think that :our Plans call for .
3 the identification of the resource, at the alert. level, 4' Emergency Classification Level, so that we try to anticipate 5 getting - the resource together ' well - in advance 'of when it is 6 actually.needed, so that there would be less confusion.
'7 JUDGE LINENBERGER:~. Finally, and'Mr.'Dignan feel free -
8- to stomp on me,.here,-if I get into an area that is better-9 covered later. But I am curious about the concept of an 10 evacuation time study applied to the management of a nuclear 11 ovent, vis-a-vis the same kind of information that I would
. 12 think that your Agency wants to be current with respect to in' l .
'13 the management of a non-nuclear event.
LO I 14 Let n:a focus a specific question .on that.
i.. '15 I would imagine, and it is my imagination, that there 16 are a number of types of non-nuclear events.that you people l- 17 have to cope with that require a pretty detailed feeling for- j I
18 what traffic patterns are' going to be like, evacuation' patterns l .- 19 are going to be like, and so forth, is that' correct?
1' I
20 THE WITNESS (STROME): We are certainly getting into' 21 that area of management and the fact of the matter is that the- i 22 planning for fixed nuclear sites, is a major instigator in that 23 research process. We are heavily involved in Title III, the 24 Superfund and the hazardous material incidents that might l
25 occur, in the State. There are requirements, certainly, at the. l l
f l Heritage Reporting Corporation ]
(202) 628-4888 l 1
\
_ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ _ _ _ . . _ l
.m.
1 f V
J 3013 (x_JJ 11 State'1evel.. I chair the commission that hastbeen established' 2 for Title III in the State, Superfund. .The-local communities-3 '. are being'-- responsibilitiesLare being delineated;for local 4 communities'with respect to planning. .There is.no. question-5 that evacuation planning with respect to those, kinds of 6 incident s, will have to be put in place.
'7 That process'is an ongoing process, certainly not.
8 complete. 'And the Federal Guidelines areEjust'now being-9 published for that. But we are trying'to be responsive to.
10 those kinds of,; incidents,- and some of the planning,.obviously, 11 you cannot-plan-specifica11yrfor every single kind of accident 12 that could occur,.but the generic kinds of. planning we put in 13
~
j_q place, we feel give us the necessary direction to do ad hoc for U
14 the other. kinds of emergencies that might; occur, a good
.'15 background to proceed from.
16 JUDGE-LINENDERGER: I guess that leads me to my final' 17 question then, and that i s, .in this situation - 'and[byf this 18 situation I mean, Seabrook and the ramifications.that affect
- 19. you -- had there been no contracted-for outside'ETE study, 20 provided, as'I gather there has been here, would your Agency 21 have felt obligated to ask for such a study or do you feel.that 22 your Agency,.as a whole, has the resources to guide you with L 23 respect to management of people, transportation and so forth?
1.
l 24' In other words, if you had not had this ETE handed to 1
25 you, would you have had to ask for it, or would you have gone fi.
LO i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l i________________________... _.
y__7m_____
J]
-l '
D
, 3014 !
-l about' youribusiness' deriving something to guide you?
- s~v/ .
L 1-
]
.2 .THE WITNESS (STROME): Well, first.of,all,.Your 3- Honor,6 this is'not.the firsETELwhich t has-been utilized inithe !
..i 4' planning' effort. =In fact,.early on, shortly!after I>came.on l Si board,' and-asea-result of'some contractual ^arrangementjthat had. {
6'. been let, by. 'the Agency,: an ETE was~ produced. So that.there 7 had been several ETE's . involved inLthe process.
'8 I'am'not sure'that.I'had the-expertise, I am quite
- 9. sure that I ' don' t have the expertise in-house, Lto produce the
'10 technical ETE required,for this kind of a situation.
I: :11' I have encouraged:and the production of this' latest
, 12' ETE.and, in fact, invited this ETE which was, as 11 understand 1
. .13 it,. originally: requested by the State of. Massachusetts,.andi LO. 141 encouraged--the individuals,; Mr.-Lieberman, to come to1the. State 15 of New Hampshire and to perform the ETE in association with his' 16 agreement with.the State of' Massachusetts, so that, certainly, 17 I-am always looking for now, and better data,=empirica1' data,.
18' upon which to base the decision-making process and the. planning 19 process.
20 If I have an opportunity to in the future, or'think- I l
21- that one of required, I certainly have a statutory pathway in l
- 22. place, to see that that, in fact, takes place.
23 And i f, in the future,-and intend in the future to
< 1 24 coratinue that process. l 25' JUDGE LINEt ERGER: Thank you, very much, Mr. Strome, 4::> !
Heritage Reporting Corporation l L (202) 628-4888 I
L L- _ _ _ - _ _ -- _ _ . .. i
M
. . y' 0 1
-)7 i a F-3015
' M'
' L fV..- 1 that is all that-I have,,Mr. Chairman.
2 :. JUDGE-SMITH: We will now take a 15-minute break.
3 (Whoreupon, at 10:37.a.m.,'a 15-minute recess was.
4 taken, the- hearing to , resume the same . day, at 10:52 a.m.)
5 6
7-p .;
a 9
10 L
-11 h- 12
-q
~ 13 f:wa. [}. g4 15
- 16. -
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 i
l
-25 g n i LJ Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 l l
l l
1
i f
l 3016 6-BMAR 1 JUDGE SMITH: Back on the record, at 10:52 a.m.
3 MR. BISBEE: Thank you, Your Honor.
4 I have two general areas, of inquiry, that follow-up 5 on Judge Linenberger's quest ions.
f 6 CROSS-EXAMINATION (RESUMED) 7 BY MR. BISBEE:
8 Q The first is addressed to the panel as a whole.
9 Just Linenberger asked Mr. Strome how confident he
(
10 was of the numbers that appear on the Letters of A Dreement that 11 deal with the numbers of bus drivers available?
12 And I think that it was a fair characterization to
,_ 13 say that Mr. Strome was confident in those numbers. In fact, I
)
14 would ask to further explain the basis for that confidence, for
{
15 the panel to address how those Letters of Agreement are 1 16 obt ained and how the numbers, specifically the numbers of bus
{
17 drivers appear in these Letters?
f 18 A (STROME) I think that I would defer that question, l, l
19 if it is all right, with you, counselor, to Mr. Frechette, and j i
20 Mr. Callendrello, who have been actively involved in the f 21 process.
t 22 A (CALLENDRELLO) There have been a number of ways that i t i
23 Letters of Agreement were obtained. By and large, the bulk of 24 them were obtained by going through a listing of potential )
25 resources, for example, bus companies, or ambulance companies tr~ t h
L
>; l i
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
,w >
q l I I
J P
L :ps CALLENDRELLD, FRECHETTE, STROME - CROSS 3017 h.hk_)._ 1 and a~ mailing to those' companies of two copies of'a signed l E i
- 1. ;
letter,.and. it'would have been signed by the New Hampshire 2 ;
i i L' 3 CivilfDefense Agency or~a representative of'the New Hampshire L
]
~
4 Civil Defense Agency. And the provider:or the potential ?!
1 5 provider of the services, was instructed to review the Letter, {
I 6 if there were changes made, there was another exchange of
.7 Letters because of language changes.
'8. But the final product was a signing of the, at least j 9' one of the copies of the Letter, by the party, and that Letter' 'l
'10 being returned to the Civil-Defense Agency. ] .
11- Prior to it being returned, the information that was. i 12 requested would have been entered. If it was entered in by I 13 hand, it was entered in by hand, ' prior t o being . signed and
- (~% :
~
14 returned and it was that copy of the Letter that would be i 15 present in Mr. Strome's files.
16 Q And getting now into a specific set of Letters of 17 Agreement, in particular, those Letters which are now entered 18 here, in this proceeding, as Town of Hampton Exhibits, Numbers 19 1 through 8, I would like to ask -- excuse me, Mr. Strome, do 20 you have a copy of those Letters before you?
21 A (STROME) I have a copy of the original Letters which 22 are contained in the file at the Office of Emergency 23 Management.
F 24 MR. DISBEE: May I ask that the Exhibits, themselves 25 be provided to the Witness Panel?
~
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
= - _ _ - .- .- - --_ . _ _ . - - - _ __ ._. _ - _ _ ___ - _ ______ -__ __--_-__ -
11_
It CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME - CROSS. f3018 kY3l .
,L_]f 1' '
(Witness' Panel is proffered documents ~and'examinesi 2- them.)
3' HBY MR. BISBEE:
41 Q' And.now, we have already' established that you'arew
'5 familiar.with'those' documents, Mr. Strome, is'that right?'
.6- A (STROME) Yes, sir..
i 7 Q. Now, there-were questions raised' yesterday,:by Mr.'
8 McEach ern', about specifically. Exhibits. Numbers.3 through 8 in 9 this package. H 10 '- As I recall, I believe a fair' characterization of l 11 your; testimony, was that you were not personally involved in q H '
l 12 obtaining these Letters, is that right?
. . i
[
.,s y 13 A (STROME)- That.is' correct, sir.
l' 1.
14 Q Now, after _the close of yesterday's hearing, have.you=
15- looke'd further into this matter?
L 16 A (STROME) Yes, sir.'
l 17.. I had the individuals who were involved in the 18 process,. staff-out a chronology of what took. place, 'and I. asked 19 that the origina1' Letters that were on file, at the Agency be 20 brought to me for my inspection.
21 And that process has been. accomplished.
- 22. Q Now, those Exhibits Numbers 3 through 8 from the Town 23 of Hampton, consist of six Letters of Agreement with three l 24 separate companies.
25 One is National School Bus Service, Inc., formerly 1
[~'s v
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 t
11___2______.____..___.____.._._. )
CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE,fSTROME CROSS- 3019
(- )
.D) /
1> Berry-Transportation, and'one is National School Bus Service, 2 Inc.,sof North Chelmsford, Mass.,,and'the. third is Marinel y 3 Transportation Inc.
4 For'each of these three companies,-there'is one 5 Letter of. Agreement with.a' number'of drivers provided, and 6 there~is,another' copy of the same Letter with the number blank, 7 is that correct?
8 A' (STROME) Yes, sir.
9 0 Now, having consulted with your staff, do you'now 10f have an answer to Mr. .McEachern's question that you were - not 11_ able.to, provide yesterday, 'as to why there are these two. ]
'12 separate documents for each company, one with the' number 13 provided and one with the number' blank?
fx0
14 'A (STROME) Well, in fact, I'think that I answered his 15 question yesterday, and that was that I told him that I had, 16 without looking directly into the matter, that it was 17 indicative of a job in process, and'in' fact, that was the case.
18 The final documents, we had in our file, signed by 19 Mr. Guadagna, and. countersigned by an individual from the 20 Agency, with the numbers filled in.
21 And having inspected the documents,'and I am not a 22 handwriting expert, but there is no question in my mind, that 23 they are valid, completed documents and the information that 24 Counselor'McEachern presented yesterdey, at least seems to me, 25 not fully developed.
o Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I.
CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE,'STROME - CROSS 3020 sq
- L_j: l' O. 'Now, when you'say that you~ inspected the documents, 2- are you referring to the original Letters'which.are.in your 3 files?
4 A (STROME) That'is. correct, sir.
g S MR. BISBEE: Your Honor,;because Mr. Strome has-6 referred to those originals, it may be useful'if we.took-a.
7 minute for you to review them and for any other party, just'to L.
L 8 glance at the original documents.
L -
l-
.9 (Pause.)
l~
L 10 -- . MR. BISBEE: If any counsel would like to look at j 11 them, by definition, that is the only copy that we have of the l
l' 12 originals.
,7 .
13 (Pause.)
14 JUDGE SMITH: We are with you no far.
15 MR. BISBEE: If there is no one else that wishes to
~
16 look at them, I will proceed with a few more questions.
17 BY MR. DISDEE:
18 Q Mr. Strome, I'think that it would be helpful if you 19 could describe briefly, the process by which these Letters of ;
20 Agreement with the three transportation companies were l 21 obtained?
22 Would you please do so?
23 A (STROME) I will try, counselor.
24 The initial contact, as I understand it, was made in 25 January of 1987, where a telephone conversation took place with l 7~ 1
, s_/
I Heritage Reporting Corporation
- l. (202) 628-4888 L
J' t- t ij#,
D CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME - CROSS 3021 ,
l
(')
(_- ' 1 ..
a Mr. Steve Abel, who was the manager of_'the New Hampshire.
2- Operation for the Marinel Transportation. Company.
3 He referred to Mr. Coogan, who made the contact, to a 4 Mr. Sal GuadaOna, General Manager of the National = School Bus ,
5 Company's operation in North Chelmsford. There was another 6 telephone contact on the fourth of February and with Mr.
7 Guadagna covering;the requirements of the process, and on the 8 5th of February, I am sorry, the 4th of February there was the-
- 9 telephone contact.
l 10 And.then on the fifth of February, Mr. Nawoj of our
~
I 11 Agency, wrote Mr. Guadagna, and sent him a copy of a Letter of'
. 12 Agreement.
~
13, Q Excuse me, Mr. Strome, are these'all dates occurring. j
~ 14 in 198??
15 A (STROME) That is correct, sir. l J
16 O Thank you and continue, please? '
17 A (STROME) He sent copies of 'the LOA's to Mr. U 18 Guadagna, and asked that they. sign the LDA's and return them to i
19 the Agency. .l i
20 In late February of 1987, Mr. Coogan, again, j l
21 contacted Mr. Guadagna, and discussed the LOA request and tried i
22 to answer questions-and concerns, and as he recalls, Mr. 1 1
23 Guadagna informed him that he wished to confer with legal l 1
24 counsel. 1 I
25 A meeting was arranged for March 26 of this year, at I
. f^h . 1
%f 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation !
(202) 628-4888 l 1
.____ __. _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . ._ J
p h '
, 'CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME - CROSS 3022 v
' l(~}>
L;; - 1 9:30;a.m., with Mr. Guadagna . to review . the: LOA's . and' answer any 2 questions'or concerns. That.was attended by Mr. Guadagna'and
, ., 3 by Mr.:Coogan and Mr. .Pishon,Ewhofi s a field rep for the New Li; h < 4 Hampshire: Office of Emergency. Management.-
L l <
5 At that. meeting, Mr.~ . Guadagna, agreed to update the 1
6 LOR with'.the Berry Bus Company, which his company had-l'.'
7 purchased.
And based on that discussion, he drafted at Mr.
u 8- Guadagna's request,' three sets of' LOA's. One with'the National' 1:
l 9 Bus Company, formerly . Berry' s, and the National' Bus Company of.
10 Chelmsford, and'Lowell,cand'Sanford, Maine, owned by National 11- School Bus Service, and then a third setiwith Marinel O . . .
12 Transportation Inc., for the buses in Milford, and-Marinel.
, 13 .On' April 13, 1987, Mr. Nawoj sent a letter up to Mr,.
O.
14 Guadagna, which summarized the March 26th meeting and requested 15 that' his company . execute the three separate LOA's, : and at ' that i
16 timo, they also' requested an opportunity to schedule training 17 for the buu drivers.?
18- O Excuse me, Mr. Strome, do you know how many copies of 19 each LOA were sent to Mr. Guadagna?
20 A (STROME) Yes, sir, there were two copies of each LOA 21 sont, one of which -- both of which were to be si D ned, and one 22 of which was to be retained by Mr. Guadagna, or the companies 23 that he represented.
24 Q And was there a number of bus drivers included on the 25 two copies sent to Mr. Guadagna, at that time?
I t l Heritage Reporting Corporation l- (202) 628-4888 i
L 1
i.
CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME - CROSS- 3023
^
A_j' 1 A (BTROME) No numbers were included on those copies.'
2 Those were to be filled in by Mr. Guadagna,.himself.
3 Q And then what happened subsequent to that?
4 A (STROME) Then, I think that I.was telling the Board 5 that on April-13th a letter was sent'to Mr. Sal.Guadagna, and.
6 which' summarized the March 26th meeting and requested that his 7 company execute the three LOA's.
8 On April 29th, the three separate LOA's. were signed, 9 or about, by Mr. Guadagna with the number of bus drivers 10 written in pen on each LOA.
11 And then subsequent to that time, I assumed,'I did 12 not assume at the time, but having looked at the documents, L . 13 they looked like valid documents to me, and on or about the 6th.
b I~i I l - 14- of July, Mr. Coogan contacted Mr. Guadagna and offered RERP l
l 15' Training for the Company's -bus drivers.
[
l 16 O Excuse me, Mr. Strome,-Mr. Guadagna submitted to your-17 Agency in April of this year, the siDned copies, is that" 18 correct? !
i
}
19 A (STROME) I would have to look at the date stamp, it l 20 was received April 29th.
21 0 So that completed the process of obtaining those 22 Letters of' Agreement?
23 A (STROME) That is correct, sir.
24 O And then, just to make sure here, as to what
.2S transpired, the numbers of drivers, indicated on those three Heritage Reporting Corporation ,
(202) 628-4888 i t
,p, f ild A .CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME - CROSS 3024
~Yy ,
q) .1 Letters of Agreement, were provided by Mr. Guadagna,_andlnot 2 filled in by anybody from your Agency?
3 A (STROME). That~is right, 1 have no reason to think'
!! 4 otherwise, and I cannot believe that any kind of influence has 5- been made that deceit was involved in the process.
6 O And then, there is one other area I would=like to get i 7 into, Mr. Strome.
8 And that again relates back to Judge Linenberger's 9- questioning of you, and that deals with the annual updating of.
10 the Now Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan. ,
11 You have already indicated prior to today in your l 12 testimony that'you are familiar with the provisions of NUREG
'13 0654.
p ;
14- A (STROME) That is right. l
, 15 'O That includes, I take it, Section 2-P-4, dealing with 16 the requirement for Letters of Agreement and 'a requirement that-17 they.be updated annually. Excuse me, that' among othar things, 18 that the Letters of Agreement be updated annually? -
.19 A (STROME) That is right, sir. -
-20 0 Are you also familiar with the Volume I, page 3.3-3, l 21 of the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan?
22 A (STROME.) Yes, sir.
l 23 Q Do you have a copy of that Plan?
24 (No response.)
25 MR. BISBEE: Cou'Id I ask to have a copy of that Plan (
t- t
.Um Heritage Reporting Corporation L (202) 628-4888 )
U f E M _ _ --_-. -- _ -
- b
, CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME - CROSS f3025 I
- 1 provided to.the witnesses?
2' (The witnesses are proffered.the-document and examine 3 it.) <
4- .BY MR. BISBEE:
~5 0 Again, I'am referring to page 3.3-3, of Volume._I.
1' 62 A (STROME) Yes, sir,-I have it,'
7 Q And now, Mr. Strome,.without. quoting it directly, is a it a fair characterization to say that that Section provides 9: that the planning provisions incorporated in'the entire New-10 Hampshire: State Plan will be revised on a continual basis and 11 that there will be at least an annual update of the Planning l 12 Documents?
o o '
I.
. ~ 13 A. (STROME) That is clearly outlined in-the citation,
) 14- counselor.
15 Q And Mr. Strome,.do you fully intend to carryout'the 16 requirements of that provision?
17 A (STROME) Yes, sir.
18 MR. DISBEE: That is all that I have, Your Honor. ;
19 JUDGE SMITH: All right, then, is there anything q 20 further by Mr. Dignan?
1 21 MR. OLESKEY: Judge, Steven Oleskey for the '
^'
22 Commonwealth, and at some point, I would like to ask a few 23 questions by way of cross-examination, following-up a point j 24 that Judge Linenberger made, and also following-up a point made ,
I 25 by Mr. Flynn for FEMA. j Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 4 i i 1
i l
l j
CALLEAJRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME - REDIRECT p .
3026 8
k_J1 1 So whenevar'you think that it is appropriate I would 2 like to do that and if you want me to wait until after Mr.
3 Dignan, I would be happy to do .so.
4' JUDGE SMITH: That would come under the category.of a 5 request which would follow Mr. Dignan.
6 MR. OLESKEY: Thank you, Judge.
7 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 8 BY MR. DIGNAN:
9- O Mr. Strome, I am about to bring over and place before 10 you, a copy'of SAPL Exhibit fiumber 1, the depocitfon of David 11 Laughton.
12 (Witness is proffered Exhibit and examines it.)
, .,s 13 THE WITNESS (STROME): Thank you, sir.
I b~ 14 BY MR. DIGNAN:
15 0 And now, Mr. Strome, yesterday, and for the 16 convenience of the Board, I have referenced particularly to 17 transcript 2882, and following.
18 You were asked some questions by my learned friend 19 who represents SAPL, concerning a certain portion of that j 20 deposition, and in particular, certain portions of it that I 21 appeared beginning on page 22 thereof.
22 And I would like you to take the time, now, sir, to 23 review the pages 23 through 27 of the deposition and also page i
24 33. i 1
l 25 And if you would do so and signify to me, when you I
!~)
j Heritage Reporting Corporation ;
(202) 628-4888 j l
1
.- --- --- ,-- , .- -- . . - _ ~ - . .- . - - - - . - - _ - _ -- .--
)
i
,CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE,'STROME - REDIRECT ~
~
_ 3027
'I have.-done so.
2~ MR. DIGNAN: 'And the-record'will-show, Your Honor, my
. 3. reference to.the deposition is to SAPL Exhibit Number 1.
4 (Continued on the next page.)
5 6
7
-B 9
10 11 12' 13 O.
V .' - g4 1
16' 17 18 19 20-21 22 23 24' 25 i
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 e = ._ _ - _ - - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - -
=- ._ .
-]
CALLENDRELLD, FRECHETTE, STRDME -. REDIRECT j 3028 '
~
/'
!.,,)( .1 JUDGE SMITH: What pages? <' -
i 2 MR. DIGNAN: Pages 23 through 27,'and page 33.
.3 -(Pause.).
4 THE WITNESS: (Strome) Sir, I' ve - read through - those ' q 5 pages. I 6 BY MR. DIGNAN: ,
l 7 Q And, Mr. Strome, after I-ask the question, I do, ift 8 you feel you have to review any other part of the deposition, j 9 feel free to do so. But my question is simply this.
10 Having reviewed the transcript that I drew your 1
-11 attention to, sir, are you satisfied as the. director of your.
12 aDency that in the event of an emergency the Teamsters can-in 13 fact make a significant contribution to the backup driver pool?
' .O 14 A (Strome) Well, I don' t think there is any question a
15- that the Teamsters would provide a very valuable resource ~to )
16 the state in any kind of an emergency. They made that quite ,1 a
17 clear in the deposition. >
'i 18 O Now, sir, I would now like to direct .the pas,el's . 1 I
19 attention, Mr. Callendrello, do you have at the table a copy of {
1 20 Volume 6 of the plan? !
21 A (Mr. Callendrello) No, I do not. e 4 l
22 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, the record will show that I l i
! 23 have put before the witness Callendrello a copy of Volume 6 of I !
24 what has been marked as Exhibit 5, Applicant's Exhibit 5. And
]
l \
l 25 for the convenience of the Board, I would reference yesterday's j
)
}; Heritage Reporting Corporation L (202) 628-4888 l
l l-
CALLENDRELLD, FRECHETTE, STROME - REDIRECT '3029 7
._j_ 1 transcript at'2894 where certain questions were asked with 2- respect to the matters I am about to inquire.
3- BY MR. DIGNAN:
~
4 'G Now,.Mr. Callendrello, my learned friend representing.
5 SAPL drew your attention to certain matters on page 12-4 of the .,.
6~ volume in front of you.
4 7 Do you have that page in front of you, sir?
8I A .(Callendrello) 'Yes, I do.
ga b 9 D 'And, in particular, .he drew your attention'to the 10' statement, "These tow trucks should all have communication-4 11' equipment linked either directly or indirection with EDC."
l L 12 t< Do you recall that?
I '
l 13 A- (Callendrello) Yes, I do.
o 'ba 14 0- And I' m sorry, I should say Mr. Strome's attention l
l 15 was drawn to this, not yours.
p L 16 First of all, from a review of the entire paragraph,
~
17 could you characterize what those statements in that paragraph 18 are.
19 A (Ca11endre11ei The paragraph contains the 20 recommendations of the author of the evacuation time estimate, 21 KLD Assoc'iates, as to a way to handle impediments on the p- 22 roadways. That page and the following page, Table 12-1, j c1 23 contains recommended tow truck locations and a recommended 24 strategy for utilization of tow trucks.
. 25 The state has taken that recommendation and is l Heritage Reporting Corporation L (202) 628-4888 y
- a 1 p.
l CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME.- REDIRECT '3030 ,
li ]"
' (.-) 1 implementing it in a way.that is more in line with the routine L 2 way,of dispatching tow trucks; that is, two> trucks providers' l 3 that are located near the perimet:er of. the . emergency planning 4' zone have been identified, letters t of agreement have,been .)
1 5 obtained~with.those companies, and there has been a l 6 communications network established. And this communications f 7 network is the communications network that is normally used'by i
8 the state in the' response to accidents. l
/ \'
9 And that is,'the state police dispatcher for Troop.A-10 has a listing of the tow truck provider companies who contact 11 them by telephone, and those companies,- in turn, will dispatch' 12 their own vehicles and maintain contact with them by two-way
-l' 12 radio if.their trucks are so equipped. (
14 Q And are a number of truck so equipped ;
i 15 A (Callendrello) Yes, they are. i 16 Q And is a listing of that equipment available to 17 , dispatchers -- excuse me -- to the planner 18 A (Callendrelle Yes, it is.
- '19 1 Q' And just so the record is complete, 43 is also true 20 thatisome of the companies are . not so equipped; is that riDht 21 , A (Callendrello) That's correct. .
,- 1 22 ; GI And in 'ihe case ;f those companies, the dispatch I 23 would be done by trie state police to the company, but the "
g
. 24 company.will have no ubility to contact the truck until it 25 returns to its place of business; is that right h)
Q. '. .& '
Heritage Reporting Corpora. tion
[ (202) 628-4888 r
+ ,k'k o .
CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STRGME - REDIRECT' 3031
- p,, -
hId-I 1 A. '(Ca11endre11o) - That's correct.
?2 0 'Now-there was some discussion yesterday:of what l' 3' Director Strome, you.and the other professional planners l
y 4' involved here:meanLby:the term "available". And I believe it 5 was.you who' indicated you1were.fu11y aware that some' members of-
.6. a. pool,on a given day may not be'available, and-correct'me if I 7- am misstating your testimony, because they would be on vacation 8' or their equipment.was broken.down..
9 My general. question to you is this, sir. . How do you, 10 as an'overall' matter in planning, account for the phenomenon 11 that on the'given' day.they are needed not all members of a
'? 12 given pool of resources may be standing by.and ready to go?
J13 They may be in Maine on vacation, or in Florida. Could you
-(_
O' *) 14 address that for us?
15 A' (Strome) Yes, sir, let - me t ry t o t ry t o do, and'I 16 think anyone who is involved in the planning business will do 17 this,'is to seek out. additional resources so that'there is a 10- surplus amount of resource available to ensure that the minimum 19 base level is available.
20 Q Now during- yesterday's examination, and for the 21 benefit of the Board and the part ies, 1 have particular 22 reference to page 2858 of the transcript yesterday, the 23 question was asked as to whether Rev. O of the New Hampshire 24 Radiological EmerDency Response Plan had LOAs attached to it.
25 I believe you indicated, Director Strome, that you Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
f i
CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, 'STROME -- REDIRECT = 3032 '
h Dqsg .1- would.be prepared to' inquire and give.a definitive answer on-2 that.today.
Have you made an inquiry with respect to that. matter,.
4 and'can you enlighten us?
5 A (Strome) Yes, sir. In fact, the LOA package was not 6' included with'Rev. O but was sent to FEMA as an addendum within 7 about a month'or so-after the original submission. As'a. matter 8 of fact,'I think it was sent in February. I don' t have the
-9 exact date at hand, approximately.
10 (A document was marked for 11 ident i ficat ion . as . Applicant's
'12 Exhibit No. 6.)'
. - 13 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, the record will show that I
'O. 14 have asked 'the reporter to be marked as Applicant's Exhibit 6 15' for identification a letter of agreement between the New 16 Hampshire Office of Emergency Management and.the Flatley 17 Company. This is the same letter of agreement that.was 18 distributed yesterday during the cross-examination concerning 19 the question of whether the Omne Mall letter had been received.
20 And I so represent, and if there be no objection, I can same-21 the time of asking the witnesses, I would offer this as 22 Applicant's Exhibit 6 to complete the record.
23 JUDGE SMITH: Are there any objections?
24 MR. OLESKEY: Could we have the date on that, please?
25 MR. DIGNAN: There are two signature dates on it, but O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
._ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - - __ - - - =-- - _ . _ _ - _.
9
< .CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME -' REDIRECT 3033 1 the. date- of the Flatley Company signing is 9-28-87.' I would 2' hasten to point out to the Board, as was indicated yesterday, 3 this was = taken from a. transmitted copy of the letter. The.date 4 10-05-87 at the' time, my understanding is a telecopy date' rat 5 on the telecopy machine.
.. . l 6 JUDGE SMITH: If there are no object' ions, the, exhibit' 'I 7' is received, 8 (The oocument referred to, 9 having been previously. marked 10 ~for identification as 11 Applicant's Exhibit No. 6 12 was received in evidence.)
,g , 13- ' JUDGE SMITH: By the way, whatever happened to 1 k*
14 through 4?
15 MR. DIGNAN:. One through 4, I commented on.- Remember 16 when I introduced the plan, I-said we had premarked 1 through 17 4.
18 JUDGE SMITH: Okay.
-19 MR. DIGNAN: I hope that does not confuse -- it's .i 20 just an inevitable byproduct of the way prefiled filed 21 testimony comes in. .
)
22 JUDGE SMITH: Well, it is approaching, but hasn' t j l
23 arrived at our threshold of confusion. ]
!~ 24 MR. DIGNAN: I apologize.
l i
- i. 1 25 (Pause.)
l .
1 l r 1 o is-- l l Heritage Reporting Corporation L (202) 628-4888 j o {,
t
t; ,
4 CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME - REDIRECT- 3034 j' .( A; document was marked for.
'2- identification.as Applicant's
- 3. Exhibit-No. 7.)
4 - MR. DIGNAN:- n Your- Honor, the record will'show:thatE I 5 have asked the- reporter 1to mark- as. Applicant's Exhibit 7 for 1'
6 identification a certain document which appears _to beJa letter-7! of' agreement between Ryder Student Transport Company:and New-I l
8 Hampshire Civil. Defense. And before offering'it,-I would like-9- to make some preliminary inquiry. . ;
, l 10- BY MR.'DIGNAN:
11 Q- 11 would address this to the panel, whoever wishes to-i 12 answer it.
L There was testimony yesterday, and I refer in l
o.
14 particular for the convenience of the Board and the. parties, t o'-
l 15 page 2930 of yesterday's record, that Jan-Car Leasing had gone.
l 16; out of. business.
17 Do you gentlemen recall that7 testimony 18 A- (Callendrello) Yes.
19 Q Thank you.
20 Could the panel tell me'what happened to the.Jan-Car' H i
21 assets when they went out of business 1
22 A (Callendrello) The bulk of the Jan-Car assets have
~
23 been taken over by the Ryder Student Transportation Company of 24 Nashua. ,
25 0 Okay. Director Strome, if you would take and put in
]
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
~CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE,.S'iROM'E -' REDIRECT 3035
- M? .
1'
- L// front
- of you what has been marked Exhibit 7 for identification,1 q
- y. 2 couldIyou tell'us what,that document is?-
'3 A (Strome) It's a . letter of agreement .. with ,Ryder 4 Student Transportation Company which delineates the buses 5- available from that organization.
. 6, MR. DIGNAN: Thank you. ,
At this time I would offer'into evidence'as Applicant's Exhibit'7 the document previously marked as-8 9 Applicant's Exhibit 7 for identification.
10 JUDGE SMITH: :Are'there'ob,jections? ,j 11 The exhibit is received.- l 12 (The document referred to,
'13 .having been previously marked
14 for identification as 15 Applicant's' Exhibit No. 7-16 was received in evidence.) R 17 MR.'DIGNAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
18 BY MR. DIGNAN:
1 i
19 O Mr. Frechette and Mr. Callendrello, it was brought i
.I 20- out during the ' colloquy concerning the Jan-Car situation that 21 the Jan-Car letter is still. attached to a piece of testimony l-22 that has been prefiled in this proceeding, p
L 23 Do you recall that 1 ,
24 A (Callendrello) Yes, I do.
(
25 Q Now in that piece of testimony which will be offered O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L_ _ - _ _ = . .-__
3
.I CALLENDRELLO,.FRECHETTE, STROME - REDIRECT 3036 ~!
1 at.ailater date, why was that. letter included -
2 A (
.Callendrello) It appears that.in the haste of 3 getting that testimony'out the wrong letter was included as an 4 attachment to that testimony.
5 -Q. , And the correct attachment would have been what is y l
6 now Exhibit 7 7- A (Callendrello) .That is correct. j B However, I?would.like to add, though; that there are i 9 numbers that are contained within the body of'that testimony L - 10 that address the number of available buses,. drivers and; driver i 11 and bus pairs. Those numbers have been adjusted to reflect the l 12 letter of agreement with Ryder Transportation Company.-
l 13 O And,'in short, the package as it stands is. complete 14 and correct right now except for the fact that the wrong letter l i
15 was' attached- '
16 A (Callendrello) That's correct.
17 Q And the figures in the body of the testimony reflect 18 the Ryder letter of. agreement 19 A (Callendrello) Yes, they do.
20 MR. DIGNAN: Thank you. That is all I have, Your 21 Honor.
22 JUDGE SMITH: Did you offer 7?
]
23 MR. DIGNAN: Yes, I' m sorry, Your Honor. Thank you l 1
24 for catching it. I did offer it, and I don' t believe you have f I
25 admitted it yet. 1 o Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i-l-
1.
p a- ,
p ;.
p .
L
'CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME.-LRECROSS L 3037 7~1_.
' jt l1 1~ ' JUDGE SMITH: No-objections.1 Eshibit 7 is received.
n.
.2 Are you --
3 MR..DIGNAN:
I' m through, Your Honor.- :Thank.you. .
4- . JUDGE SMITH ; All right,Lthen we will begin with 5- recross.
6 Mr. Backus.
17- RECROSS EXAMINATION 8' BY MR. BACKUS:
9 Q Mr. Strome, you were asked to read a portion of Mr.
10 Laughton's testimony in your redirect by Mr. Dignan. I believe 11 that included pages 23 through 27; is.that correct?-
12 A (St rome)' That's correct, sir.
13 O So I take it that you read the statement, the first
.14 full sentence on the top of page 26 where the witness says, "I 15' don' t think that the document guarantees we are going to.
16 provide.and require 1500 people in order to evacuate Seabrook.
17 I don' t read it that way and do not intend it that way."
I 18 A (Strome) Yes, sir, .I read that.
19 Q And you were including that portion of the part you 20 read when you gave your evaluation of the availability of 21 Teamster personnel to assist in an emergency response?
R2 A (Strome) I think the testimony stands for itself.
23 The fact of the matter is is within this same grouping Mr.
24 Laughton indicates that there is considerably more than 1500 25 people available. l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l, CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME - RECROSS: 3038 :
l
'/~TL .
l -(_/' 1- . JUDGE SMITH: While we are on this particular
- 2 point'---
3 THE WITNESS: (Stromo) As a matter of fact, ' I' ll 4 give you the citation.
5 On page 33,.and I will. read.it' aloud.for you. The-6 question that was' asked, "The'1500 mentioned,.-is-that your; 17 approximation of the' approximate number of your members'in New:
8 Hampshire who have-light. commercial or higher.cateh - 'Neavier.
9 equipment license?"
- 10. And Mr. Laughton .goes. on to. say, "A: No, no, I.would' 11 think the number would be significantly higher."
12 "Then where did you come up'with the.15007 .That's
. _ 13 the question."
14 A: "Well, I figured that is less than half of. our 15 members."
16 Question: "Just intended to be a very conservative 17 number?"
18 "That is right."
1 19 So I think the. clear indication from his testimony 20 that there would be more than 1500 available.
21 JUDGE SMITH: I was going to make an observation 22 here.
23 There is no question that Mr. St rome' s interpretation l 24 of what the Teamsters would do or won' t do is important. It's 25 relevant because he has to act upon it. But the Board as a l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 .
l I
___ - -. I
. 1 UY ,t . 4 l
i CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME - RECROSS 3039 s3 i x_,[ 1 rule ~does not. favor.having any. witness spend a lot of. time i 2 explaining to the Board what another witness had to say. It is l 3 not the highest quality of-evidence that we might expect to 4 receive, nor is it.really necessary, j 5 'I' m not : saying ' don' t do it. I' m j ust saying as'a- .
)
15 general rule in your planning, you can count on the Board 1being 7: able to understand for-itself what.an absent witness.might.say-8 and not having somebody else expla'in it to us. l l
9 MR..DIGNAN: Your. Honor, the purpose of the. offer.was !
l 10 not to do'that. -And'if I didn' t - make that clear through my l 11~ questioning,.I apologize.
12 The problem I had is you will recall Mr. Backus was
._ -13 asked and allowed to put the question to the witness as to what 14 this witness had said, confining it to a single question and l
l .- .15 answer, and maybe two. And all I was left with on the record 16 was his admission that on that basis he couldn' t say the {
L 17 Teamsters would show up. And I just wished to -- -l l
l 18 JUDGE SMITH: I understand that.
19 MR. DIGNAN: -- indicate that his prior confidence in 20 the Teamsters had taken into account the entire thing, and it-21 was the credibility of his own testimony I-was concerned.with,.
22 not putting Mr. Laughton before the Board.
23 JUDGE SMITH: I understand that. But I am just 24 saying-that look for opportunities for efficiency along that 25 line when the need arises again.
n~a b Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L
u . - .
'L y) e a J.
l
'CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE,-STROME - RECROSS 3040 >
A.
(sh ' 1- MR..BACKUS: Well, I' m s sure the . Board 'will ' take the 2' exhibit and view it'in.its own wisdom and evaluate it, and I 3 have no further questions along the line anyhow.
4' BY'MR. BACKUS:
5 0 You have' introduced here through your redirect from 6 Mr. Bisbee, I believe, the letter you say should be substituted 7 -- well, strike that. <
8 .I want to go to Attachment 7 to your' testimony that 9 was introduced this morning which is the Frisbie Memorial 10 Hospital letter to Mr._ Reeves of the Mark,H. Wentworth Home. If 11 you have got that in front of you, Mr. Strome.
12 A. (Strome) Say again, sir?
13 O What has now been added as Attachment'7 to your
- O 14 testimony is the letter from the Frisbie Memorial Hospital?
15 A (Strome) Yes, sir.
16 O And that letter, I am to understand, when added.to 17 your t OOimony,, as it-has been, makes accurate your statement 18 in your direct testimony that there are no outstanding letters 1
19 of agreement needed with host communities.
]
20 A (Strome) That's correct. As far as I know, there 21 are no outstanding letters. 1 i
I l 22 O All right. And I would like you to just, if you i
L 23 would, again on Volume 21-A on the Portsmouth Special j L
24 Facilities Plan, on the Special Facilities Plan for the Mark H.
lj j
)
25 Wentworth Home at page 8-B, am I cc-rect that the resident L (21 i l Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 i
1 i__ ' __ _
CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME - RECROSS 3041 p-L/ 1 census for the Mark H. Wentworth Home is 52?
2 A (Strome) Sir, I would have to have that document in 3 front of me. Could you provide it to me, please?
4 MR. BACKUS: And I will ask counsel for the State or 5 the Applicant can provide a copy of 21-A to the witness so he 6 can satisfy himself.
7 Well, let me just represent to you, sir, that that's l
8 what it says subject to your counsel getting it so you can l 9 check if you are willing to do that. ,
l l l
10 MR. BISBEE: Can we take a couple minutes and just I
( 11 get the volume in front of him?
End37 12 MR. BACKUS: Okay.
.T38 13 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Backus, could you give us that page i '(ID '
14 number again, please? f 15 MR. BACKUS: Your Honor, I' m on the volume I was on 1 16 yesterday, 21-A. The page is only described as B-1. It's an 17 Attachment B to the Radiological EmerDency Response Plan for i
18 the Mark H. Wentworth Home which is found about two-thirds of i l
4 19 the way throuGh the volume.
20 (Pause.) l 21 THE WITNESS: (Strome) I have the letter, sir.
22 BY MR. BACKUS:
l 23 Q All right. Have you satisfied yourself that the 1
i 24 resident census identified there for that facility, the Mark H.
25 Wentworth Home, is 52?
g V
iLJ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l l
E__._____._
.. y h.L l :-
l-D L CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE,'STROME - RECROSS 3042 .
w ;.. .
[ '1 A (Strome) Yes,' sir, that's : the average census as -
t-2 pointed out on the form.
13' O And as I read the letter you/just. introduced as' f
4 Attachment'7, the'Frisbie' Memorial. Hospital is saying that 5- subject -to' .the availability' that they!might have, needing to l
6 first. care for their own patients, they could accommodate up to 7 45 patients; isithat. correct?
.8 A- -(Strome) That's what 'the -letter - says, sir.
9- Q Are you aware that the Mark H. Wentworth ~Mome is'
- 10. undergoinD a major. physical expansion right now?
11 A. '(Strome) .I am not personally aware of that. But-12 certainly we1will take that planning consideration into'the
~
13 process at some future time.
O b# 141 Q And how would you take.that into consideration? By 15 finding another host facility to be added to the plan, is that
- 16. what.would. happen?
17 A (Strome) That would be the normal process, sir.
18 Q Now in the examination by counsel from FEMA, Mr.
19- Flynn, you were asked about the letter that you sent to Mr 20 Vickers of September 30th. It was marked FEMA Examination 21 Exhibit No. - 1.
22 Do you have that?
23 A (Strome) Yes, sir.
24 Q- And the second paragraph starts off saying, "Both the 25 personnel assessment and the shelter study for the beach areas O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
Y CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME - RECROSS 3042 2_j . 1- constitute' data which is considered by.the New' Hampshire Office 2 of Emergency Management in the developrnent of the state
~
13 response plans."
4 Sir, is.that considered in-the development of the
-5 plan thatLwe have marked in evidence here.Rev. 27-6; Aj (Strome)- May I confer on that, sir?
7 -Q .Well, you may, Mr.-Strome, but I understood this was 43 the state's plan, and I note that 'two members on. the panel, with '
9 you'are not state employees.- And I am wondering if you need to; 10 consult with them about whether or not-these documents are.
- ,. 11 considered part of the state's plan.
12 JUDSE SMITH: Well, if you are going to test.his
,7 13 mastery of this subject matter, you can simply say no.
4
. o'0 14- MR._BACMUS: All right.
15 lBY MR. BACKUS:
16 Q No, I would rather get your answer.
17' A .(Strome) In other words, you are saying I cannot.
18 confer, Mr. Backus.
- 19. Q I would rather get your answer to this question as i
20-the state official in charge.
21 A (Strome) I asked whether I could confer. Are you 22 going to give me an answer to that question?
23 0 -The answer is no.
24 A (Strome) Thank you, sir.
25 JUDGE SMITH: Well, wait a minute.
l l' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l i
p l
l p>
L CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME - RECROSS 3044
,. l '
-1 THE WITNESS: (Strome)' Would you please restate your 2 question?
t 3 JUDGE SMITH:-~ Excuse me. When I try to int arrupt, 4 would you please be sensitive to it? 1 5 Did.you say " infer" or " confer"?'
6 THE WITNESS: (Strome) Confer.
- 7. JUDGE SMITH: No, you were told no. You cannot.
'8 THE WITNESS: (Strome) Thank you, sir. f 9 Would you please. restate your question, counsel? 1 10 -DY MR. BACKUS:
11 . Q. This;is your language in your letter-to Mr. Vickers I i
12 am asking about, Mr. Strome.
~
13- Where you say, "Both the personne1 assessment and the .
'5 14 shelter study for beach areas constitute datafwhich is 15 considered'by tho'New Hampshire Office of Emergency Management i
16 in the development of state response plans."
17 And I am asking you, were the personnel. assessment 18 and the-shelter study considered in the development of.the 19 document marked here in evidence, the Plan Rev. 2 which is 20 Exhibit 5. l 21 A (Strome) No, they were not, sir.
22 O So are they being considered for a revision to that 23 plan?
24 A (Strome) I have never said they were being 25 considered for a revision to that plan, counselor.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 a - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ .
7
.l , t i-
.p
- h. CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME - RECROSS 3045 K EI~3- .
Iz li /L 1 JThe planning' process, ast we pointed outiseveral :!
[, . .
2 times;inithe past, is a dynamic-process. When-itLis necessary 13 - to do something.to update the plan,.we'certainly intend to do
- 4. that. .Dut in the=meantime, we are gathering as; technical'datar 5- that will . assist us . in creating updates . to the : plan.
-p
-6^ Astyou. pointed out earlier', things change. Nursing 7- homes enlarge.- . We wantito be. responsive to that process. And 8 at some point ;in the future, 'we will:make the updates that are 9 necessary in every. single instance.to keep-the plan as current.
-10. as:possible.
11J Q Well,'I think we'can.be clear,_can we not,. Mr.
12 Strome,- that the plan : that's been introduced here in evidence 13 as Exhibit 5, which we-have also referred to as Rev. 2, it's k
"N" 14 your opinion'that!that plan can be viewed as adequate to meet 15 the federal criteria for emergency planning for nuclear 16 facilities without' regard to the resource assessment or the 17 sheltering' study; is that right?
18 .A (Strome) I think we have made the characterization- j l
.19 with respect to the submission already, counselor.
.1-20 Yes, I think it is adequate. That does not mean, 21 however, that we consider the planning process complete, and I- ,
i 22 think I have made that point before, too.
'23 Q So when you say that the two studies are being i'
24 considered by the New Hampshire Office of Emergency Management i
25 in the development state response plans, you are not speaking Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
7m . ',
I, !
,, , 'y 1 , .
I'
- .j . -
t L 1. I ' 1
'i
.CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME.- RECROSS 3046 O'% A Af "
-l i
of them:being used for a revision,of those. plans,-but some 2 supplementation of: somd 'soht ; is.that the idea?
13 .A (Strome) The' exact . form hasLnot been determined,' i l
j 4' counselor but,obviouslyfwe are interested.in making; plans as-1 5- complete:as possible.. y 1
1
'6: ,
G Just two other things. '
'7 On several of the letters'of. agreement you'have with 8 transportation' companies, perhaps even all of them, I notics.
9' that you have signature spaces not merely for the company, but 10! for" local'; union stewards in Teamsters Union 633. Am I. correct j
-11 about;that?.
12 A- (Strome) I think I. noticed that same signature q 13 block as well,. counselor.
) G And in several of thosei etters of; agreement, that.
1 11 4 ( l 3
15 particular. signature is'omitted, is.it.not?
16 A' ' ( St rome ) Yes, sir.
17 O Is there some . intent 'on :the part of your agency ton 1-8: actually complete'these'1etters of agreement by also having
. 11
' 19 l signatories from the Teamsters Local stewards for these j
- 20. companies? I 21 -A. (Strome) Well, I would have to confer with my staff, i
[22l but from my own personal standpoint, with a signatory from the 23 company and with a signatory from the Office of Emergency
- 24 Management I' m satisfied that ' they meet the legal requirement 7 25- for a letter of agreement.
L-
' 7 p Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
l:
=_
l<
.CALLENDRELLO,_FRECHETTE,.STROME'- RECROSS 3047
\-
.;mg 1 O And lastly, there has been some discussion here,.as 2 there was yesterday, about Rev. O, the.first plan _that was
-p 3' subtaitted under your letter; of December 9, 1985.
4 . Sir, is that the plan that.was subject to-the FEMA j 5 graded ~ exercise' held-in February of 19867 6 'A- -(Strome) I' m quite sure. it was.
7 Q And am-I correct that the FEMA determinations on that 8, plan included some 55 deficiencies?
9- A (Strome) .1 can' t ; recall the exact number, but there
.10 certainly'were some deficiencies that were pointed out.
11 Q Does that sound'approximately~ correct, 55 J12 deficiencies? ,
,q- .1' 3L .A (Strome) As I pointed out, I can' t recall the exact t*~d. 4 -
9
. 1'4 number. :
.15 MR. BACKUS: Okay. Mr.-Chairman, thank.you very 16' much. Thank the members of the panel. That's the end of my
~ 17 - recross.
18- JUDGE SMITH: . Will you be having recross, Mr.
19 McEachern?
20' MR. MCEACHERN: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
21- JUDGE SMITH: So that we won' t be interrupting you l 22 during your recross, let's take our lunch break now and you can l
23 begin right after lunch at 1:00.
'24 MR. MCEACHERN: Thank you.
25 (Whereupon, at 11:42 a.m., the hearing was recessed, t
7m h-Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
. s_m.-_m_.. _
~ .
c ,,
g e..m- ,
1
y :, , i i:.
- ),;.
- ;= ; ,
T '
1, CALLENDRELLOi-FRECHETTE,'STROME - RECROSS- '3048 -
1, ?i%
A) ,1,;
tol resume at_:1:do p.m., this same day,-' Wednesday,' October.7,
- 2. 1987.-)
. 3:
- p
.5.
,g l7 .
. . , 8) 9'
'10 i
11 T 12' ,
i 13 k 14 j
'15' 16 17 s
18.
19 !
J
.20 21 ,
1 22, j 1
. 23-
' 24 l
[ 25 i.;
10 Heritage Reporting Corporation l- (202) 628-4888
[.
L l
w-,, - -
ll a p514 1 :;j7 d -
f h- '
W ,
'1
'CALLENDRELLO,JFRECHETTE, STROME - RECROSS.
4 a 3049 '
^
' %J{'"V is,,1 ' 1- '
A F:T E R N O O N S E S S'I ON 1 2 (1:00 p.m.)' ')
.I
'3 1 JUDGE-SMITH: You may' examine, Mr.'McEachern. l j
4 MR.lMCEACHERN: Thank you .Your Honor.. >
-5E : RECROSS EXAMINATION'
" 6~ BY MR. MCEACHERN: 1
> '74 O Mr. 'Strome, . I' m. going to refer ' you. for- these few l
~8' questions.that I:have to Hampton Exhibits 1 through 8.which-I; 9' believe your. counsel has furnished you.
. 10 .A .(Strome) Say-that again,-sir. I mi'ssed~that last '
(-
l 11- part of your statement.
12 ' . O I'm going to' refer you to 'Hampton Exhibits l11through 13 8 which I believe your counsel has-furnished you..
- 14 MR. MCEACHERN: Well, one counsel did.- I' referred to l
15 the wrong counsel.
f-:-
p - 16 THE WITNESS: (Strome) .I think I have it, sir.
I:
l - 17: BY MR. MEEACHERN:
l-I 18 0 Now, is it fair to say that following my questioning I
- 19 of you yesterday you undertook to review the situation after 20 the hearing and before today, your testimony today?
I' ' -
21 A (Strome) Yes, sir.
22' Q And is it fair to characterize your testimony as 23- concluding that there were more than one set of original 24 documents here?
/. 25 A (Strome) The set of original documents which I have o Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
y , - -- --
t ,
s ;
4.- ,
CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME.- RECROSS' 3050 .i
- _J' 1 on file is one set. i 2
2 Q Okay. And would you aDree with me that Exhibit 6, 7-3' and 8 ~~'first of all, would you agree that Exhibit'6, which~I l l
at- 4 furnished you yesterday which'io in blank'as far as.the. numbers S- of drivers, is signe'd by the State. of' New H' mpshire? a - J
, 6' .A- '(Strome) It - looksJ1ike _ it's signed by the State - of 7 New Hampshire.
1 8 Q It ? looks like it's . signed by Michael M. , is'it Nawoj?
L 9 A (Strome) Nawoj, sir.
10- ,Q Chief of your Technological Hazards Divisioni.and 1
11 that.wasisigned, .according to the document, on April 12th.
L e- ,
12 A (Strome) 'Yes,-sir.
l . .
L 13 O And you have no reason to disbelieve that iszhis
! ,_.,T
/ -
A 'I t '14 signature?-
15 A (Strome) No, sir.
I 16 Q Did you ask him that last night?
,17 A (St rome') I didn' t ask him if that specifically was w
18 his signature. I recognize it. That is his signature.
19; O So that Exhibit 6 is signed by Mr. Nawoj. Exhibit 7 20 is signed by Mr. Nawoj, and that's in blank as far as drivers 21 is concerned, correct?
22 A (Strome) Yes, sir.
23 Q And Exhibit 8, which I also supplied yesterday, is 24 only signed by Mr. Guadagna.
25 A (Strome) Yes, sir.
7, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
= = - _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3[
~- - ~
< a
,s i;c d L
Id;d ', y.
,) .
- - ; gf , ,
b .CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STRDME - RECROSS- 3051
- A'
,d.,[ 1'- Q- .And.not by Mr. Nawoj.:
L
, ,x 3 21 .A - ( St rome ) -- That's correct, sir.-
3- ,Q- . And 'is it' - fair to conclude from'. that; that Mr. Nawoj.
Lg( p ,6 4- and Mr.'Guadagna signed at11 east two letters of agreement which- ,
9 15 areLidentical inlallfrespects'except forythe number being lefte blank on! Exhibit' 64and^7?
G. -
L '/ >
.A (Strous) ;I' m not' 'sure ' that's completely accurate.
.q 8, The third <1etter that we just-discussed.is:not signed'by'Mr.
o 9 Nawoj.
'/>
10 'Q- I :know, and- I' m trying to treat that separately.
- il - A . (Strome) Okay.- But the other'two' documents were o
L12'1 siDned byLthe:two signatories. 'I
-13 Q- And ' youL have no reason to disbelieve that Mr. ' Nawoj:
.A V[ 14 signedLit on April 12th?-
- 15. .A ('trome)
S .Not so far as I know.
16 Q And you have no reason to disbelieve that that number 17 was blank;when he signed it?
18' A -(Strome) My understanding is'that it was blank, and
,19' that. dup'icate l copies of this signed document was sent to Mr.
'20 Guadagna. -!
21 Q So that your agency signed it in blank as far as 22 numbers for drivers.
23 A (Strome) Sent.it'down with agency signature, no 24 numbers filled in for drivers; that's correct.
25 Q Okay.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i
. . , . s .
o 0 -
N. . l
> , c <
. -CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE,.STRDME RECROSS 3052 j E 7~7 i
, x,j: 1- f} . (Strome) That's my understanding. 'i 1
And is it also your-testimony.that the number was, 2 Q m .1 ~
3- furnished'sometime after the 12th, probably 'cn1 or about the q 4 22nd by Mr. Guadagna?
l 5 A' (Strome) My' understanding is that the. documents were ;
6 filled in by Mr..Guadagna, along with the numbers of drivers- ,
- 7[ that.would be available.
- 8 -Q And you made an investigation of this to determine
, m .
l '. ;
9 this fact last night.
10 A (Strome) Say that again, sir.
L 11 Q You made an investigation of your own~to determine L 12 this fact last night.
13 ft (Strome) I' m sat isfied that the representations made
\
b'(d 14 by these three original letters of agreement are legally 15 tenable.
16 O And whom did you talk with?
17 A (Strome) I talked with Mr. Nawoj, I talked with Mr..
18 Coogan specifically about these letters of agreement; both of :)
'19 whom were involved in the process.
20 0 Did you talk with Mr. Guadagna?
21 A (Strome) No, I did not, sir.
22 Q Don' t you think that would have been important?
23 A (Strome) That thought occurred to us, but we did not 24 want to appear to be intimidating anyone in the process. We
.25 thought we' d go with what we felt were legally tenable L Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l
.w c
a .: CALLENDRELLO,'FRECHETTE, STROME RECROSS 3053 m
I V.; .:1 ,
documents.
,2 Q As'ide from that, on'tbese documents and all of the 3- lettersfof agreement that represent there are personnel going o 4~ to be .available to the State in the event of an emergency, have
.5; you indep'endently, to your knowledge, tried to assess.whether 6= or notLthe: personnel will'be available or not?
17 A .Strome)
( From a persona 1' standpoint, the~ answer is 8 no. .
9 Q .From an agency --
10 .A (Strome) . .That-does not mean, however, that I have-11' any reason to disbelieve the individuals who are signing the-12 letter.of agreement.
,_ 13 .Q. I-understand that, and I didn' t expect that you would 14' answer personally. I know you are the head of the agency, and 15 you have got'some other things to do.
16 From an agency standpoint, does the agency have any 17 procedures in place when you are told on a letter of' agreement, 18 for' instance,.looking to Hampton Exhibit 4 where you are bein2' 19 told.that there are 170 drivers available for buses that are 1
20 all garaged in other states, do you have any procedures just-to i 21 verify that that is in fact a true representation on the part ] .)
22 of the person making that representation? j 23 A (Strome) I' m not personally aware of a strict 1 1
24 procedure. However, I think that would be incongruous of me to ] l 25 ask someone who is providing a resource to us to verify numbers
<:) ij Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l d
d f
4
CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME - RECROSS 3054 L, , I which they attest t o.
2 O I guess you never --
3 A (Strome) I guess the expression is, an officer's 4 word is his bond.
5 Q I guess you have never heard of the joke about the 6 Texas frog farmer.
7 A (Strome) I' m afraid I haven' t , counselor. Would you 8 like to relate it?
9 O No, I wouldn' t .
10 And can you answer the same answer for your agency as 11 well as for yourself personally?
12 A (Strome) Please phrase the question, counselor, so I 13 know what I am answering to now.
)
14 O Does your agency have in place any standard procedure 15 to verify the accuracy of a number that is supplied to you by a 16 supplier of personnel?
17 A (Strome) We do not have a definitive process in i
18 place. However, I think that there certainly is a rational 19 basis to make a determination. If we know that someone has 100 20 buses, then they have in most case the resources to drive them.
21 So that there is a correlation between the two.
22 O For instance, in Exhibit 4 you have got 30 buses that 1
23 are garaged in Sanford, Maine, not Stanford, Maine. Woul dn' t 24 you agree with me that Stanford is probably close to two hours 25 away from Seabrook, or one hour and 40 minutes?
l L.d l l Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 l l
W__.~-._ _
5 j
h4
~
p hM' '
'CALLENDRELLO,LFRECHETTE, STROME -' RECROSS 3055 1 : A. '(Strome) If.you: characterize it:as being that-far, l ~
l: 2 counselor, I would.'have to go back and check ~the distances.
i'.
3 That is Sanford,-I guess.
t-4L Q- I t ' ' i s. .
l 5- 'A (Strome)- .Not St anford'.
6 -Q Ri ght.~ _ ,
7 'A- (Strome) So I' m not sure that I understand where you-
-8. are going with this. There-is a distance between the two t-9- placess ,
l 10 O And it's possible that some .of the drivers could live .l i
- 11 L on theother side of Sanford.
. 12- A (Strome) That would certainly be.a possibility;. live,
~
13 within'the environs-of Sanford.
-ij 14 0 And in spite of this, there is no procedure i n ' p l a'c e -
15 to check whether or not .the representations of this letter -
16 agreement are in fact' reliable.
J 17 A' (Strome) Well, I guess in this case I' d have- to I
18 believe Mr. Guadagna. j l
19 MR. MCEACHERN Thank you very much. j 20 JUDGE SMITH: Mr.LOleskey?
(
21 MR. OLESKEY: Thank you, Judge. --
22 I' d like to have two documents marked for j 1
23 identification by the reporter as we begin. l l
24- . JUDGE SMITH: I infer from your request to cross-25 examine that you did not believe it was practical for you to O Heritage Reporting Corporation li (202) 628-4888 i
.i l
y nn- = . .
,ei
, r , ,
'.f,
'{
} g
- > n'
- ~CALLENDRELLO,-FRECHETTE,'.STROME. ' RECROSS,
- 305E y, ca n ( W
- L_f 1 work 1your!questionsLin with.the lead .Intervenor. >
c I
'2: >
MR.-'OLESKEY: That's' true, because the matters that' I'
'3. am principally' interested.in came up in' connection'with'Mr.
4 Flynn's examination for FEMA, 'and f my . secondary questions relate 5- to a matter. pursued by Judge.Linenberger; neither ofLwhom'was;-
6 obviously-a -- "
Ql >- f 7 JUDGE SMITH:. Linenberger.
-8 MR. OLESKEY: Linenberger,. excuse me.
9 JUDGE SMITH: Well, proceed with.yourfexaminatid$f'
- 10. but I,would think it would be even so a better practice.'if_ l 11 follow-on cross-examination, if it's1 possi ble,s i f ^1t's s
12 practical, to be worked.into the lead Intervenor. flf L it ' s' not,-
13 don' t waste time now.
' 14 ' MR. OLESKEY: Surely.
15 Could I have marked as Massac'usetts h Attorney General 16 Cross-Examination Exhibit 1, letter of. September 15,11987, to 17 Me, Strome, the witness, from Edward A. Thomas,-Chief,. Natural-18 and Technological Hazards Division, Federal Emergency t'
19 Management Agency?
20 And as Exhibit 2, Massachusetts Attorney General L 21 Cross-Examination a letter dated --
i<
L 22 JUDGE SMITH: Do you intend to offer these into p
L 23 evidence?
l L
E 24 MR. OLESKEY: Yes, because -- yes, I do. ]i L
i s j' 25 JUDGE SMITH: All right, then let's don' t complicate j l i L Heritage Reporting Corporation L (202) 628-4888 j i
i 1 1
^
I,
I 1 a;
1 CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME - RECROSS 3057
-Il~):
i /7 ,-
.1 it'by calling'it; cross-exam'i nation exhibit. It's' just simply-2' anLexhibit.
3 MR.-OLESKEY: Fine. The second exhibit then,. Judge,
'4 for the Attorney General would be this. letter of August 26,
. l:
5' 1987, from'the. State of.New Hampshire,~ Office of Emergency-6 Management, Mr.. Strome,2 to Mr. Henry Vickers at FEMA.in: Boston.
v.
7 JUDGE SMITH:; Would you'just give me a moment to get, !
, 8 my papers in' order before you proceed, would.you, please?
9- 'MR. 0LESKEY: Yes, surely. 4 l" i i 10 (Pause.)
! i L 11 ' JUDGE SMITH:. 'What documents did you just hand us?. i 12 MR. OLESKEY - I hope we handed you in addition to a 13 copy-of FEMA Cross-Examination No. 2 which.Mr. Flynn offered.
1 14 JUDGE SMITH: Yeah, why did you do that?
4 a
15- MR. OLESKEY: Just for completeness to counsel and ~j 16 the Court, because that document, in turn, leads back to the l n 17 Exhibit i I have offered which is a September 15. document.
)
18 JUDGE. SMITH: 'Okay, but if I have that document which-19 was offered into evidence this morning, I don' t need the one '!
20 you have given me. '
21 MR. OLESKEY: I understand. It war only an effort to l 22 be complete should the panel not have that document now l 1
23 available. ;
24 25 I l
l Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 ]
1
_ _ _ _ - - - - - - _ - - - - - . _ _ - J
~ '
( " '
- F4Lf Xl T/
p;;-lNl p
ou e- ,
g p. . g%
fQ' 'a , ci >
\
n,... r. s !: .
p,. s , COLLENDtEt,LO,. FRECHETTE, STROME -. RECROSS 3058 LM i
. }i L.. M b /d 11 j.(.y (The documents referred to' U v .
W- .. ,
t k;
]:> fy l' 2 were marked for identification
.l !-
3' "
~
. @f .pff as Massachusetts' Attorney w
4f' , h. t 4 f / General Exhibit 1Nos. 1'.and 2.)
5 RECRGSG EXAMINATION '
.h y 6 BY MR..OLESKEY: -
, s .2 . .
~ 7- ,
.0' .Mr. Strome,-do you_havEsyopies of both those letters,.
- 8. Massachusetts Attorney. Gene'rnJ 1 and 27.
y .
.- c .s >
.., 9, j A. lStromd,);$11m quite'sure'I do, sir.
J g, 1 / $J., ,1 O' Do you have . there in Tent of you now, because'I asked:
- e. > . n .2 11 Mr. Keough to' head-them to-you?)
. 3' !
12 A - (St rome) - Yes, right.' C ,
'13 Q' A11'right. Can youcidentify Exhibit'L1,:the '
letter'of, f
September 15, 1987 as the let'ter sent'to you by'Mr.;1 Thomas.
.. :14 J.
f 1$^ which is referred / to inf yourdletter of ' September 30, 1987,+
'l c 16 which was mcrked as' FEMA Cr6f3n-Examingt ton Enhibit No. 17 3 w .s y
' 17 . A -(Strome). .W ell, #1' m tat sure of all the markings. If '
l
,/. 18 you just'get.into the specific" letter. .
s q.) .19 ; G Sure. ' Can you ;identit'y the September 15 letter, 20 which I have asked to have marked as Exhibit 1, as the. document
/#
21 sent.to you by FEMR and described in your letter of Ceptember ,
, 21' 30, which you saw this morning?
~t; 23 lA (Strome) Yes, sir. !
24 Q All right. And can you identify the letter of August j
.(
25 26, 1987, which I have offered as Exhibit 2, as your letter to
- -). f Heritage Reporting Corporation
) - (202) 628-4888 no _-
eg . , . .
L I 4
'CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME - RECROSS 3059 ~
s [g (,[, , i
- i. FEMA which is. referred to in the letter of September 15, which 12 you have just identified?
3 ,A (St rome) - Yes, sir.
i g i 4- MR. DLESKEY: 'I would like'to offer both those. q w' '
5 letters'at this time, Judge.-
6- JUDGE SMITH: Are there any objections?
-7 MR. DIGNAN: 'I object. May I be heard?
-B' JUDGE SMITH: Certainly.-
9 ' MR. .DIGNAN: Relevance,.Your Honor.
10 Mr. Flynn, in his usual cogent style, conducted a 11 cross-examination on FEMA.1 leading from the fact that FEMA'1 12 had enclosed:some letters of agreement, and as I understood the
.e.
13 thrustfof the-cross-examination which Mr.- Flynn' conducted i '
, 14- expeditiously, the point being that there was a difference in:
1 15 >rms of-the breadth.of.theLletters attached to'the testimony 1
'16 and those that have been transmitted by the letter' referred to 17- in FEMA 1.
i l
18 Now'I would ask the Board to puruse the two documents 19- which have been marked Mass. AG 1 and 2. I don' t see the words -l 20 " letters of agreement" in there anywhere. Now it may well be 21 that these will come to be relevant in another category in this 22 case, I don' t know, but I fail to see their relevance to 23 anything that has Done on in cross and direct in this. phase of
" 24 the case which is all the evidence that's in at this point. q I
25 This is recross examination coming off a prior i;
i Heritage Reporting Corporation L (202) 628-4888 1 I
4
e
- r 'CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME.- RECROSS- 3060 .
N1 x-( . t 1 cross-examination, and the cross-examiner who conducted.that o
.2 priorscross-examination,-I suggest,.got into nothing that.has 3 to d6 with the sole subject matters of these two letters. .which 4- is-the' transmission of the so-cal' led shelter and/or personnel.
5 studies, which;may come up.later.. I' m not saying they' won' t'
- 6. become relevant,.but at this time,I fax 1 to see theirl relevancy 7 on1 recross of a cross. j 8 MR..OLESKEY: May'1 respond, Your Honor?
9 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
10 MR. OLESKEY: Mr. Flynn began his cross-examination 11- by making inquiry of the Witness Strome regarding ' paragraph two-12 of the letter of September 30, 1987. 'Specifically,.he asked, E . .
- 13, in substance, what the difference was between the technical b5 14 assistance requested.in that. letter and described in paragraph p<
- 151 two, and the more formal review which~the agency also I 16 undertakes pursuant to different aspects of_.its authority'in
l.
17 considering a plan as opposed to technical data underlying the
- 18 plan.. >
- 19 The witness responded that there was one, there was 20 such a distinction. -
21 Mr. Flynn then inquired further about the witness' g 22 understanding of the ditference between a technical review of' 23 data augmentinD or underlying a plan and actual changes in the 24 plan. I have my own notes of that.
25 Then, and the witness discussed his view of planning l
,, \
Lal '
Heritage Reporting Corporation !
(202) 628-4888 l
M - A o .i . . .
CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE,.STROMEL- RECROSS '3061
[/"')i pss :
1 in_thisirespect'as_a revolving process, that.the plan wougid-2' never beifinish'd, e and so on.'
3' :So whatever Mr. . Dignan's objections may. have been, AL Mr.-Flynn, without objection, went substant'ially-into this 5: area,.lalbeit under the' heading of letters'of'agreementJat-the 6 time he conducted his cross-examination.
7- _I would'like very much at this' time, in view of 'the - l
/
'8 motion of yesterday-and your raling with respect to the. key 9 issue to all the Interveners of what the status of the plan is, 10 whichiis.important to. FEMA, obviously, as well as all'the-El l - Interveners, toLeomplete --
- 12 JUDGE SMITH: What rulings?
13- MR. OLESKEY: The ruling you'made yesterday with' D 14 respect to' motion to postpone or strike in wh'ich you made 15- some -- you.made a ruling aft'er' lunch, as you.may recall, that. l
.16, turned on the argument we madeLin'the morning about our 1 71 inability to totally understand what the State means between.
'18 the. Revision 2 an a plan, which is considered to be a final-19 plan, and therefore subject to review by this body, and changes 20 or augmentations which may be suggested hereafter.
22 The reason I would like these two letters offered at 1 1 p 22 this time is to follow up FEMA's cross-examination. These l l
! 23- letters precede the September 30 document offered without i
I:
l; 24 objection, give a fuller view of the State's understanding of i
h 25 this dymnamic planning process, and directly follow upon Mr. g l
l'L j( L l
Heritage Reporting Corporation L (202) 628-4888 l:
l 1
U - __ - -__- --__ -__ ._ __-__________ ___ _
g...,. .
y c
+ ,
( ':} Q ! .
I' ~ rb i ,
CALLENDRELLO,'FRECHETTE, STROME - RECROSS ~3062 2 1' ' F1'ynn's l cross-examinat ion.
U'2 'So it was a, point of; issue, it ; was . wit'hout ' object ion,- , 'l
'3 and I ~would simply like'to complete =it';nobviously afmatter I
+ 4 couldn' t foresee when-FEMAeb'gan:its cross-examination. ,
l j
5 MR. DIGNAN ,'Your Honor, may I just note something l 61 for the Court. I made.a misrepresentationito you -- .!
7- JUDGE SMITH: A11'right.- )
.i 8 MR.-DIGNAN: - . inadvertent'ly, and I' apologize.
.9 'In.the zeal of my argument, I said the Board would.
P 10 review these11etters and not find letters of agreement,.the. ,
,11' phrase,. appearing anywhere. It has been called to my
.12 attention,' and correctly so,.by,my learned friend from the 1 13 Staff on myfright, that'in fact the phrase " letters of' !
.,( ), I .
- 14. agreement"'does appear in the second paragraph.. !
l 15' 'However, I would point out1that'it is in-the context .
i 16 of describing the. prior communication, and not as pertain'--
1 I
17' thic~1etter pertaining to letters of' agreement. -But I did l
18 misrepresent that,.and I a pol o g i z e.' 'It was inadvertent, I )
~l
'19 assure you. 'l 20 JUDGE SMITH: Thank you. I appreciate that. l
.21 I still have not sharply focused on what evidentiary ~!
22 use you intend to make of these letters. If they get into 'l L23 evidence, what proposed finding might you urge us to find on i
24 this? l f
l 25 MR. OLESKEY: Proposed finding will turn on the steps .l
- t .' ,
Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 i
It t
s t . 'O A
, lCALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME - RECROSS 3063 L
4es[ ,
)(,/I 1, that the . State hereaf terotakes1with. respect to . any' formal-2 changes:by.way of publication, and.waht we have been referring 3: as Revision 2 to.the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency
-4 Response Plan.
5 DThere=is a. key question.that I'believe, and I htink 6' the other Interveners and FEMA agree is before'you, and that
[7' is, what is the status of the plan under review. That11s,;to.
c 8' what extent is it considered to'be'a finished plan, and even 9 more importantly, what is there that's no underway by, the State <
- 10 of1New Hampshire and derivatively working'with the. Applicants
. 11. that would appear'to.be intended to be a formal.l amendment to be 1L2 published to'the plan that.would affect the issues.you are'now 13 considering in'such. areas as the September 30th letter:
14 indicates as personnel, shelter, and.as Mr.-DiRnan has also.,
- 15' indicated.. letters of agreement.
16 But it's very important, uas I said yesterday, to pin.
17 down precisely whether there are going to be any chanDes coming 18- in the plan as early as possi,ble so.thatt everyone can plan for.
L
- 19. their rebuttal as you have asked'us'to do, and so that~you --
20 JUDGE SMITH: What is it that we'ask you to do?'
l 21 MR. OLESKEY: You asked us today, as I understood it, l
. 22 Judge Smith, to identify any rebuttal testimony as soon as we I
23 believed'it would be necessary.
24 JUDGE SMITH: Right.
25 MR. OLESKEY: All right. I' m trying to understand l
l Heritage Reporting Corporation L (202) 628-4888
[ .
g, . _ __ __
_ _ ~ - .. .
) '
t s
p:,
)
CALLENDRELLO,'FRECHETTE,_STROME -RECROSS L3064 i i gr% L 'l
- ;7 t i, fromEtestimony'that-Mr. Strome is;giving to what extent -l l
i E2. submissions-~ he's made to FEMA i,n August and September 'of 1987 - >l
'i l ~3' mayLbe intended in.the next month or two to'be-parttof a' formal. d i
! > 4 .- revision'offthe. plan -- 'I i
- 5 ' JUDGE' SMITH:. .Right.
O.
i l- '6 - MR. OLESKEY 1 -- so that I,can'tell whether ll.have to l g .
- 7 ~ rebut that evidence;now,.or should wait until.after the i
- )
8- hearings are closed-and see whether any publication..is made at I
9 that time.-
. 10 -(Continued on next page.) :I y .11 12 13
/
- 14 ;!
i 15 i 16:
17 .
t-18 19 i
- 20 21 l 22 23 24 25 r}
w-Heritage- Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888
.y.
~
+ ,
l 3065
'"7 L . l JUDGE SMITH: . What is the ruling we made yesterday-
. 3-BMAR. -1 :l 2- to which.you. refer?' ,
i 3; MR. OLESKEY - Yesterday, as-1 understood you,lyou l 4 said'that you would deny the Motion to Postpone with : respect- to 5 sheltering, I th' ink, technological,t transportation,'of course, l 6 and1other issues. And but would be inclined to give'a more t
7L liberal scope, among other things, to cross-examination, j
8' because of the, argument that.we have made, that we are 9 surprised by this apparent attempt by the State to make ;
.10' amendments in the Plan,.after these hearings have begun or:at ill least signaling-an intention to do that on the eve of the 12 commencement'of the hearings.
~
13 JUDGE SMITH: And then you have given us this single-
[^" -14 spaced typed document, which I.have.not have a~ chance to read,.
15 and I guess maybe we had better read it, before we go into:it' 16 any-further.-
17' MR. OLESKEY: Certainly.
18 (Pause, while the Panel reads' document.)
19 JUDGE SMITH: Here is where I think that the 20 proceeding is tending to get confused.
21 How does the Massachusetts Exhibits Numbers 1 and~2 22 relate to the direct testimony and the contentions to which the 23 direct testimony pertains?
L 24 That is a separate question, aside from what Mr.
25 Flynn did. Just answer that question.
f
[) Heritage Reporting Corporation l' (202) 628-4888 l
L__-____-_- __
+
3066
- tN
/ssb 1 MR. OLESKEY: Well, Your. Honor, Exhibit 2, the August-2 26th letter, deals in'part, as you will note, with the view of 3- the State Agency responsible-for the Plan with how it is 1
4 conducting its planning and its revisions.
5 .And the revision and the planning that.is now under q k
'6 discussion of the Letters of Agreement, so that part of the 7 letter, leaving aside as you.said,;Mr. Flynn's cross-
~l 8 examination, relates to the Panel's understanding and? the 9 Parties' understanding'of the Letters of Agreement.
I: 10 JUDGE: SMITH: 'I am missing about-half of your words, 1-h 11 ~ here, I am just having a very difficult time.
12 MR. OLESKEY: I am sorry, you couldinot hear me, f -4 l 13 Judge? I i l-14 JUDGE SMITH: Try it without the mike once? '
16 There is a discussion in Exhibit Number 2, toward the 17- end, of.the summary that is enclosed as: part of the State's 18 understanding of how the planning process for the New Hampshire 19' Plan proceeds, and it is termed, in substance, Part of the 20 Dynamic Process to Assess Resources, and in this case, 21 personnel resources.
22 And it would be my view that that is relevant to the 23 Panel's understanding and the Partiec' understanding of every ,
24 Panel issue you have before you, including Letters of 25 Agreement, which is the specific issue that has been under ,
.O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
L L _____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3067 '
j47 i 2._) 'l discussion.-
t
- 2. -JUDGE SMITH:- This'is where I fall down. I'mean, I 3: saw that contention as being somewhat more ' limited, and that is-4 that well, it pertained to Letters of Agreement and'some of l 5 them were not signed, and this does not pertain to that.
6 So, on that basis, I' don' t think that it relates to 7 the direct; testimony. You show me the direct testimony that it 8 relates to.
9 MR. 0LESKEY: As ILtried to indicate in my earlier j
10 remarks the reason that I did not ask any lead Intervenor to 11 deal.with this on cross is, that I did not foresee it arising 12 on cross, because I agree, in the first instance, it did not
, , , . '13 appear to be something that will be pursued under --
[}
^~' 14 JUDGE SMITH: That is not my question. Don' t slip 15 off my question. My question is, point to the direct testimony 16 that this letter relates to.
17 MR. OLESKEY: I have indicated, Judge,' that I do not 18 think that it relates to direct testimony, which is why I did l
L 19 not ask any lead Intervenor to include these questions in their-l 20 cross.
l l 21 JUDGE SMITH: Okay, it does not relate to the direct 22 testimony, then, again, tell me why are you offering it because !
l l
23 of what Mr. Flynn did?
24 MR. OLESKEY: Yes, that is correct.
g ;25 JUDGE SMITH: And so this is probably the first time l'
1 r-LLJ l Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 l
L L 1
I L
y l
'3068 l: j3 that we:are' faced.with what can be a common' thread of2 a problem
, 4 %,lf [1; j .2 throughout the hearing.. We have Applicant' with the burden of proof, Interveners opposing,,and we,have New Hampshire' Attorney-3 .
l L 4- General and NEPA.without'any particular position, who I: i L
(- '
'S nevertheless, has an interest in representing their Agency,. q
. i 6 FEMA..
~
l 7 'Now, what does the Board do,ewhen in the course of-u . .
l; 8: representing their Agency, and clarifying the record,'the b
L 9 issues'are seen to have been broadened,'or for that matter,. J
{
10 when a Board-Member asks questions which broaden"the issue, l 11 what do'we do with that?
- 12. Do we let it go wherever it will go or do we insist' 13- that it stay within the confines of the issue? .For the Board's
-o 14 part, we will try to exercise discipline in trying'to keep our.
15 questions 1 wit'hin the framework of contentions and direct 16 testimony, as the proceeding unfolds, i 17 For, FEMA and the Massachusetts Attorney General, we
- c 18 have to somehow accommodate their requirements if they wish the- )
.19 record to be clear as to their Agency, but let.us ask them, 20 also for restraint, that you stay within it, otherwise the 21 issues go wandering all over and they will be out of control 22 like a bunch of ants dropped out of a bottle.
23 For the reason that you have given, I just will 24 consult with the Board. 1 25 (The Board consults.)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l l
C___.____m
- i i
i ,
.3069 m
3 ta_/; 1'- JUDGE SMITH: All'right, this is the first, time that
'2 this has'comc up and gentlemen, you can.see the procedural ]
l' 3 problem that it'has createdEwhen, for the best _' possible' i
4' purpos'es,_youEtry'to expand'and~ clarify the record, to'make !
.5 sure that there is no confusion about the individua10 entities- q 61 that are involved in this proceeding. On the other. hand,-
7 fairness would'seem to allow everybody to follow you down that 8 line,-if they want.to. And.they may have it, for purposes
'9 different than yours, but nevertheless, the questions and 10 answers in the record, are being made available for proposed 'i
-11 findings. !
12' I am simply at'a' loss,to know what tofdo'with'this. ;
13 offer. I don' t wish, at this early stage of'the hearing to see? I
.[~h, -
L !
- Y'"5 ' 14 a totaliloss of discipline, where we go into every issue.any L
15 time.that we want t o, no matter what the direct testimonyL is. ;
1-f 16 I will wait unt il tomorrow, when the transcript is l-i . -
l 17 produced, .and you can point out to us, then exactly what Mr.
l l
L -18 Flynn had to say that you wished'to address and we will; l
- . 19 reconsider. l L
20 For now, however, your' offer for the Exhibits is 21 rejected and subject to your right to offer thum again, !
22 tomorrow.
- 23. MR. OLESKEY: Okay, so that for the moment, they will 24 just be marked for identi fication Exhibits, as I understand it?
25 JUDGE SMITH: Identification is there, that is no l
- M
?~l' L
HeritaDe Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L----__--------
~
. , 3 ..
a <
n? 4 l
i -3070 l fl%l 3,s: 1 problem,-but.today you have sa. rejected Exhibit, and that;is j
b l
2 whatethe transcript.will show and that is what my records;will y j
- 3 show.' '] 4 i
.4 (The documents referred 1 1
1 5 ' t o, having-been previously Lj J
.. 1 p 6' numbered for. identification l E7 as Massachusetts Attorney
.8. -Genera 1' Exhibits Numbers -n i
9 1 and 2, were rejected.)
l l
10F MR.-OLESKEY: All right.- ]
-?
' 11 In so far as I had premised cross-examination cni j
'l 12 offering and acceptance of those Edhibits,nI'will defer that- '
l 12F untiliyour ruling of tomorrow, obviously. 't
/"}~ - l
. 14 JUDGE SMITH: That'is.right.
15 And I say, if I understoodLalso that you are tryingL d
16 to develop a record,' from which you'will base an appeal from i 1 , 17 th'e Board's ruling as to not granting those motions, if~that"is l 18 one of your purposes, you can take these papers and do whatever 19 you want with them, but you cannot use our time and our 20 evidentiary record for that. ;
21 MR. OLESKEY: Judge, what I am trying to do is to l I
22 follow-up on your ruling of yesterday, which 1 interpreted as l p I
- l. 23 telling me to go ahead in this proceeding, in so far as the ;
(- !
24 Panel is willing to allow me or anybody eine, to put questions j l !
L 25 and to make examination to answer the question about what is i
C]> :
l
!, Heritage Reporting Corporation L (202) 628-4888
['
r 1
1 Is.
w
> a 3071
- F~T , .. . ..
L L 1: 1 the' status of:this Plan -- ,
l i
2 JJUDGE' SMITH: Right.
3 MR.'OLESKEY: - and what Plans, what intentions did I 4[ the State have to revise it in a way that.might' affect the
'S' outcome of thes e proceedings?
6 JUDGE. SMITH:' That is right,.and we did specifically 7 recognize that'the finality or non-finality or the inclusion.or 8- eWelusion of these modifications in,the. Plan, is i a legitiraate j
'l 9 .
evidentiary consideration.
10' I am'not denying you-that' aspect, I am.just.saying:
l 11 that the proceeding.has to proceed in some type of' order and 12; that the. Letters of' Agreement, I. don' t see, or do you see as 13 being part'and. parcel of that consideration?.
l It y 1 14 MR. OLESKEY: I wanted.to.make this inquiry, as I L .15 tried-to make clear, because it, having-been opened with FEMA,
.16 - it is an area in which I have a great deal of interest'because 17, of what it holds for rebuttal and' cross-examination later. And 18 I . don' t feel that -- i 19 JUDGE SMITH: I don' t question your interest. I am 20 talkinD about -- you are going to find sort of a categorical, 21 literal person and I want issues to be issues, and well 22 defined, and evidence -- that is the only way that I can handle 23 it on the Board -- evidence on a particular issue to relate to 24 that issue, and not to have it threading throughout the whole l '25 proceeding, unless it is totally necessary.
LK1 {
I l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
_ _ - _ _ _ -. 1
1 L 1 4
~
L 3, L
1 o
L 3072 e d I i_)' [1- MR. OLESKEY: I guess, I - don' t '. want to belabor this,
[' .2' but,;I just want to make one more. point --
^3 ' JUDGE SMITH: It f is not belaboring, I~am really E4f probing your --
L5 MR. OLESKEY:- --
let.me, I guess that what I would 6 say in response is this, I see thefissue of the Plan's~ status
- 7. is.it ~ final, are' revisions planned, and when will they . come l8: out, to.be'the kind.of' issuethat cuts across every contention 9 that you have before you.
- 10 And therefore, there is no point that is more 11 appropriate than any other-to address it.
12 ' JUDGE SMITH: That is a consideration and I think
- _ 13 that the Board' is going to have to deal with and. see if what~
g- 14 you say is' correct. What ~ do'you say to that, Mr. Dignan?
15 MR. DIGNAN: I think thatLthe observation of the-16 Chair'was right, that to the. extent that it is being pressed.
i= 17- upon you:that this issue cuts across. When the time comes, I 18 will argue whether it cuts across. I don' t think that it 'does.
19 I have given one argument that I don' t think that tne 20 question of whether it has to be in or out of the Plan, to me, 21 i s, I may be wrong in my law here, is a non-starter, I think 22 that the Appeal Board decisions are clear.
1 23 On the whole question of the problem that the Board 24 is wrestling with, I do want to make this one observation. And i
25 that i s, the Board will recall that I expressed the preference i
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 a--_____________________-_ _ _ _ . _ !
t -
~
h t
'3073 T~Y .
n/ 'l 1.. to put my.caseLin' straight tbrough,'and the. Board ruled that~it' 2 would_ prefer 1to have the' case come i n, issue-by-issue.,And I .-
-3 have abided;by thatl ruling.
4 My.. brother from the New Hampshire Attorney General-.---
. I IS ,indeed, I think-.that every Party except the Applicant, not;the ;
6 Staff,-necessarily, pressed to you to that. ruling._I was-the.
7 only one who wanted to go straight through'and if I am wrong, 8- on that, I-apologize, but I think.thatiI am. correct. No one
- i. 9 else wanted to go straight through.;
10 Now, having gotten the ruling.that we were going to i 11 go; issue-by-issue,-I respectfully suggest.that we ought to go 12 issue-by-issue.
-_, 11 3 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, but is:the issue of.the finality;
- y 14' of the Plan ~ cut across all of the issues? ,
-)
' 15 MR. DIGNAN: In'one sense, yes, because71t is clear,.
16' I may be wrong on this, but I think that it is fair to say that 17 at least~in all of'the categories that we'are dealing with, 18 here, every piece of testimony that we have. pre-filed, I.would .i i
19 think, without exception, has phrases to the effect of the Plan
' 20 will be'later accommodated. I know that and 1 said at the
- 21. opening day, I am confident in the Appeal Board rulings as to -l 22 what the degree of finality has to be that we have got the
' 23 I
finality to go to hearing.
24 The Board, as I read the Appeal Board decisions, will .
- 25. eventually reach a decision which is not so much a question of i
L 7"'t - .
L (J
- Heritage Reporting Corporation {
[ (202) 628-4888 I
E.
g-
~
h N n -
W k .
V, b 4' 3074
-l Ji(') :) ;
- '1' law, but'rather a question of the Board's' feeling on.what it 1
l 2 ;. needs'to complete the record,.to its satisfaction to.make a
=3 reasonable decision. And that is,"the-Board will finally face 4 the question. of'whether on a given issue, it wishes to wait - -
5, until FEMA gives it more information or not. , i d
6 And that will be the Board's choice, andL I don' t 7 think that.anybody can tip-it over whichever way the Board 8 goes. But I; don' t see why we are belaboring this question.-
9 No one is over here contending that;the testimonyf .j i
10- does not say that there have to be changes eventually or should.
I
'11 be changes eventually in the Plan. 'And it seems to me that ana s
12' are belaboring something here, that is not.an issue.
.13 JUDGE SMITH: See, I think that you did~not p)
V 14- appreciate our ruli ng yesterday.' And we made a ruling that, .
]
l -1 l :15 whether or not certain matters are included inithe Plan,.would I:
16- be an evidentiary issue, in that, the matters offered ~in 1
L 17 support of your: case, may.be more or less operational or-t 1
18 effective or whatever, depending upon whether or not they are .I 1
h 19 at a plant. To that extent, we thought that that was an l
D 20 evidentiary, possibly an evidentiary matter.
21- But we made no ruling to the effect .that the Plan had j 22 to be final and presented to this Board, during the course of 23 this hearing. In fact, we found that that was not a 24 requirement.
25 MR. DIGNAN: That was my understanding of your I O
V Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
--. = - - - -- --
x# : n- ;
- ' l? n ,
F-c w.
t Ub:
3 .
. )
l ,
?) .}
, 3075 ;
rnn . .
gg,[D 61 ruling, Your' Honor. ],
' 'i JUDGE SMITH:
~
j.
TE L 1 So',.we.would all'ow, where it is l
, W
, , l3, appropriate,'as'to.a.particularxissue, evidence that'--
4 shelteringLcomes to mind -- sheltering'may or'may not"be as:
j
'5- effective;as it could be, depending upon whether-or:notbit is l
- 6' in a Plan,'an'd we would have to=. accept evidence.- ;
i f7' 'This offer'Just to'me, is totally confusing.' I don' t ~1 i
18 understand it, ' and I don' t' know what DI would do 'ifg it were -in j i
9E' and I' don' t think that .the Letters of Agreement in or.out of a
- 10 Plan, . pert ain to the ruling that we made as to' the' evidence.
11 That would be,my ruling right now, if I had to rule forith'e.
12 Board.- ,
.l 13 I don' t think that ' your offer right now, comes within
~*
7_f 3'~] 14 the scopec of the evidentiary consideration of the . finality-of.
15 the~ Plan. I don' t see how ' it would' matter.- l <
'16 MR. OLESKEY: . Well, let me be quite clear. I have to 1
< 17 make a decision'for my office ~in the case.of sheltering,
-18 whether . to file a motion to ' eliminate, to exclude Applicant's 1 19: Direset 6, which if,.not intended to be incorporated into a Plan 20- to be' considered by this Panel, in my view, in large measure, 21 does not deserve to be heard here.
I22 It is not relevant material.
23 JUDGE SMITH: I don' t want to hear that argument, 24' that is not the argument that I.want to hear now. I'want you ;
25 to be careful to try to answer questions and keep your i Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888
yy -_- _ - . _ _ _ _ _ . - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
~
p ,-
Qd
- 3076
[y b M .! '
1- arguments Within.the scope of"what-.we~are. talking about. :You- '
9 n' .
(2' have=a' tendency,.I'ask.you a. question'and'the. floodgates open
- 3_' andf.you go'alllover..
4 .For.now,~pending tomorrow, your. coming.back and 5' showing 1us that Mr. Flynn's examination ' requires .you to put 6 thesel Letters in, it is' rejected. It-is rejected.on the, basis JE 171 thatiour. ruling'as to the evidentiary. consideration to be given .
=
- 8 the finality; orlnon-finality of 'the Plan, does not.seem, you 9' have
- not 'shown how it relates to these Letters. =
l 10 '
, Now, you'can proceed.. g b '
I . 11 MR. 0LESKEY . Well, as I said, on the basis of.your E -
L 12:
ruling,;.Your Honor, I do not have anyLeross-examination which: ]
?\
~
h .,y -13 1 can make because the' cross-examination turned .on the : premise . -l UL V i N ' '#
.14 that' you would'all'ow those Letters to be offered into evidence, b
15- JUDGE-SMITH:- Okay, there is one other problem. .I I ..
': 1 L 16- said that.you'could have another chance at it tomorrow, after.I 1 I 17; looking through the transcript, but this panel may not be here. ,
i 18 I-expect that they won' t.
19 MR; DIGNAN: It so happens,-Your Honor, that that is 20 not a problem. These three witnesses would be present in any 21 event, because .they' are on the next Applicant's panel a' Iso.
l 22 JUDGE SMITH: All right, then you will have your 23- chance tomorrow.
a .
r 24 MR. OLESKEY: Thank you, Judge. 1
~
I 25 JUDGE SMITH: All right, do you have anything ),
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
c_ ____1
a
{?N
.i i ; ,
r.
O, m
y L
b? . ' . ; , , ,
3077
- m-H further?- 4
%.d.,,.
7-1 1
l 2 MR.-0LESKEY:
No.
L3. JUDGE SMITH: '.'How aboutLthe. questions that you'had-QC pertaining Ito Judge Linenberger's questions?
5' MR. OLESKEY: .Well, let'me try those at this. time.- -
EJ DY-MR. 0LESKEY:- s 7 Q Mr.-Strome,.you were asked some questions by Judge 8 Linenberger$which went to the makeup and nature of the Office a
9' of Emergency' Management _.and theLState offNew -Hampshire,1-do you 10 recall _those questions generally?
-11 A (Strome) You could refresh-my memory.if you have 12 specific questions'to ask in regard;to.them, counselor.
jrs, 113 0- Fine,-the first question that,I wanted to.ask you --
1 M
1
'14- -- 0 (Strome): - incidentally, counselor, I am having--a. .f>
4 15; difficult' time hearing'you.
'H g
. 16 .MR. OLESKEY: May I-try it by-standing up and trying.
17- it without the microphone,- Judge?-
18 JUDGE 1 SMITH: .How do you get along, Mr. - Reporter, _ l 29; without-the microphone?
G2O (Response from the Reporter.) .j 1
21 JUDGE SMITH: I hear you fine, without the l
- 22 microphone.
22L MR. OLESKEY:- All right.
24 i 25 m)
-s.-.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
p , , ,
-g-
^ %.l ,
w ;. m
[9 ' .
CALLENDRELLO, FRECHETTE, STROME - CROSS 3078
'O j. -
k,-s . -
li ' :BY'MR. OLESKEY:
1-r -
~
w-- 2. ;Q', Mr.iStrome,.let,me ask you justfa"few factual-
[ , 3 questions 1about-your Office. How many'ful'l-time employees'are 4- there in! the Office ~of EmerDency Management?
L5 .A. . (St rorae) As of.today,-sir?
.6 L 'O Lyes, sir.:
,f '7 A- .(Strome) I wouldfguess about 40 or 41..
8< Q ,h ; And you' referred in answering the Judge's questions 9 toLa. Division of Technological Hazards, did you not?
fy .1 CL A' . (Strome) Yes, sir.
11' O .And -how many persons are there in that-subdivision
'12 or. area of;your office?
B* 13- A- (Strome) Approximately 10.
., .j,1 144 Q- ' .Did I Junderstand you to say -that persons in'that. >
3
- ' 15 Division have . responsibility for the State's Emergency -
t
_16 Oversight . of three nuclear plants, one'of which is Seabrook?
17' A (Strome) 'They are'directly responsible for.the 18 planning activity.in the Agency with. respect'to-fixed nuclear 19" , sites, that in-correct.
20 But that does not mean to imply that they are the 21 only ones in the Agency who work the job. I, for example, do 22 not work in that division, and certainly have a concern and
~ 23. spend-a great deal of time in that effort.
24 Q Of course,.and as I understand it, that is the 25 Division that has the particular staff responsibility for i.
p Heritage Reporting Corporation f '
(202) 628-4888 .
yh9 ," 2 ,
- 3. ;. .
ni
- l l ,
i gm < '-
, ' sf '
J G LCALLENDRELLO,,FRECHETTE,ySTROME - CROSS !3079
(
i p"[T.
'l dealing with 'the ' nuclear. plants, including Seabrook?
~2- LA' '(Stromell Yes; sir. :
w, # .1 g
4
, 3,'- < QL And is'there a person who is the chief of that 4 particular?section?
oc .
5- A -(St rome) . Yes, sir..
6 -Q' And who11's that?' ,
7-A; (Stroma)= Mr. Michael Nawoj.
4 8 -0. And you also~ referred to'a person assigned ~
il substant ially full-t ime to work' on. Seabrook Nuclear, Power Plant
-[p.
' 10- matters'for' division, did you not?.
is A' (Strome) I don' t recall referring to.a specific
- 12- individual who has been given that-responsibility.
, , , , ,13 Q' But you said --
i D( d.
- 14 A. -(Strome) .Mr. Nawoj, in fact, overseesit hat activity.
15 ^- G .So-that when you referred to somebody'who has 16 familiarity with the Plant'because he' works on11t substantially 1
17: full-time, it was Mr. .NawoJ?
\
l 18. A '(Strome) ~ Mr. Nawoj does work on it substantia 11y' I
19' full-time, but he is responsible for all of the fixed nuclear l -,
-i 20 sites'that impact on the State.
L 21 Q And there is not anyone who reports to him, who is,
(~
L 22 in effect, the caseworker assigned to the Plant at Seabrook?
,, '23' A (Strome) There are neveral individuals who would LE 24 report to him who would have responsibilities for Seabrook.
I b, 25 That cuts both ways. Whenever we need to do some l
l 79 L t I.
U Heritage Reporting Corporation s (202) 628-4888 l.
I E; . ~ .
' sJ y
r ,
-CALLENDRELLD,'FRECHETTE, STROME - CROSS. -3080 t/~T. >
$_/'
- 1- workion VY, frequently I move personnel aroundito work-LVY and 2- vice-versa.-
p
-3 L MR. OLESKEY: That'is all thatf1 have Judge, 'thank
< 4 you.
- 5 JUDGE SMITH: Any'further questions of this Panel?
6' MR.EDIGNAN ' The Applicant h'as.nothing further, Your "a'
'7 Honor. 1 Y
.8 JUDGE ~ SMITH: All right, gentlemen, you may step.down 9- or-remain seated and constitute yourselves into the next panel. j
.10 Are_we ready for the next panel?'
11L MR. DIGNAN: I believe that-there is Direct Testimony
'12 to'be offered by FEMA on this same category. l w" .(
L" 13 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, excuse me, right. !
14 (Whereupon the witnesses heretofore testifying were
-15 excused.) '1 16' JUDGE SMITH:. Mr. Oleskey, you did give the Reporter T- .17 three copies of these Exhibits, did you not?
18 MR. OLESKEY: We only gave the Reporter one copy and l 19 I'will now give him three copies, Jud De. d 20 JUDGE SMITH: Okay,.because we have what is known as 21 a rejected evidence file, and even though it is rejected, he i
22 would still want to have it in evidence in that file.
2.7 MR. OLESKEY: Yes, thank you for that reminder, Your ;
I J 24' Honor.
~25 (Pause.) >
G l
Q I Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 1'
l' l
L e i 1
I
7-- ,
g, M q. a:~ ->: .,
,t s
t$.:D. . JsF ,
- -g.
p' 't.
>t
,. n > 3081 w
- i. . : %E .2 ' DIRECT-EXAMINATION
,- 3 '- BY MR.LFLYNN:
'4 ' . D .. .Mr.. Thomas,-williyou. state your~name-and'the-Agency:
5 thatJyou work for?
.I y
f' 5 A- -(Thomas) My name is Edward.H. . Thomas, and I-am an-
- 7 employee-of the Federal Emergency' Management' Agency.:
78} '
Q- And what isLyour1 position withEFEMA?.
9: <A -(Thomas)' IsamItheLChiefrof the Natural and
.10 Technological Hazards Division,in FEMA Region'I. '
h .
l' 11- QL And Region I is located in Boston?
\;
- 12' -A :(Thomas) Yes, sir,Eit is.
1' ..
1.
n, g 13 .O Mr. .Tanzman --
- Iv,
- i3+ -3 4' ,
-JUDGE SMITH:
We were not quite ready for the Panel,'
1, ,
t
.h ;15 for~intthe1first place,,we haveJto swear'the panel and then-we b .. . . .
L 16 go.into di.~ect. So let's do that now.
I
'17 Whereupon, 18 EDWARD THOMAS
- 19 EDWARD TANZMAN
- c 20 were called as witnesses, and.after havinD been.first duly 21- sworn,.was examined and testified as follows
22 JUDGE EMITH: Proceed.
23 MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, do.you want me to reintroduce
-h 24 the wit'nesses?
1?5 JUDGE SMITH: No, that will be fine. Just proceed.
?h Ls.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 .
l Sl
W'_ ;.. ,-
y 6 'l-NO' '
i F..L -
3082 -
I,[.:.j@%
'1 B Y, M R .'. F L Y N N : -
[ .: .'i' .
h- 2$ Q. Mr. Tanzman,-would you st~ ate your namerand who you-3' work'for? 4 4.: 4 A -1 (Tanzman). Yes, my name'is Edward A.~--Tanzman.and I I'am
~
5' employedSby Argonne National Laboratory,-Arsonne,'Ill'inois.
j 6 Q What11s'your position with-Argonne National .
q
- 7- Laboratories? d 8- A' (Tanzman)
- "I am an energy:and environmental programs 9 attorney.-
- 10. Q ,And can you tell us briefly what the relationship 11s.
11- between Argonne and FEMA?
j 12 A .(Tanzman) Argonne National = Laboratory-is under
. 13- contract'tofthe Federal Emergency L Management 1 Agency-to~ provide
.k . . .
4
..1. analytical support.with respect to.the Mdiological emergency L15t preparedness program.
16 D .And gentlemen ILamigoing to ask you a couple of 17 questions about.your resumes, but before I do that.I want to-18 explain the document.in which they are. contained, so I will ask'
'19 you to bear with me for a moment.-
20 I refer you first.to a document that is has the
-21 headinD, Index To FEMA Pre-Filed Testimony, and do you have 4 - L22 that-before you?
A (Thomas) .Yes, we do.
24 '- MR. FLYNN: And I will just point out for the record,
.25 that in the lower right-hand corner of this document, and the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
= _ _ _ _ -
a' 9
E '
4 3083
'1' two'. documents ~to which.I wil'1-. subsequently l refer 1to, that there
@g. . , 2 are:page. numbers. appearing in parentheses. .These page numbers of 3 are consecutive'throughout'the three documents. . ' And they 'will':
1
, 4' be.offeredoas~a single document.
dp)$ ,
ch ,
- 5j Inithis. case,~the page numbers are Roman Numeral i-t: 6! and 11. .
7- BY MR. FLYNN -
8: .O Next, I refer?you to a document which bears the-
-e 9' heading, List of Corrections to Testimony of FEMA Witnesses.
10 q .Do you'have that before you?'
.h 111 A. (Thomas) One moment please, and yes, we do.
.E. l12 JUDGE' SMITH: I understand that these corrections
)t gis '13 have-already been incorporated into the=-- you actually marked
'i l'
.M d: L 1
14'. them-in there,.as I observed?
-15 MR.-FLYNN: Yes, Your Honor.
4 16: And 'I : was - about L to ask the witnesses that.
17 JUDGE SMITH: Okay, well, fine, proceed.
..4
!!8 BY MR.LFLYNN: '
)
3 19' O Now, this particular document consists of four pages',
20 which are also numbered in the lower right-hand corner, in this 21- case,. Roman Numerals iii through vi.
22 Do you see that? ,
l 23 A (Thomas) Yes, we do.
I-
- 24 0 Have the corrections which are listed in this
- 25 document, have those corrections been made to the Pre-Filed
[-
c r-- , .
1
[k_ i r
Heritage Reporting Corporation
? (202) 628-4888 l.
0 >
L_1__xL >
i
myg - -
, y;.
~ -
o f'
n i N3 .
M :3084 B X/4e .
,,jm/J l' Testimony which was fi' led'with.this, Board, in September?1 l gi as
'2 :A. (Thomas) .Yes, those corrections,have boen madeVand, 4'
, 134 incorporated 1into the. Pre-Filed Testimony. -
L4 .Q- Were thone" corrections made.under your direction?
5: '
A (Thomas)l Yes, .they were, a
61 0 AndLthat-brings us to the tnird of therthree
'7 documents which I have referred to, which bears the: heading,..
8 FEMA Pre-Filed, Testimony and it consists of several_ parts.
Dut1again, there'is s' consistent numbering?that ' l SF x
10- appears in,the 'lowerLieft-hand corner, beginning with'page?cne, 11 Arabic' Numeral 1,.through1page 105. 4 e
lac Do you have that.before you?
13 A ..(Thomas) ' 'Yes, we do.
k )- 11 4 Q And was this prepared under.your direction?!
. i e15 .A .(Thomas) Yes, it.was.
16 Q And now, I will ask you to refer -- u 171 MR. DIGNAN: Mr. Flynn, my problem is that you'are
'18 referring to.a numbering system that-is foreign-to me. I am .t 1
19 sure that the. problem may be one of simply reproduction but i 20 what I have in front of me, does not have this numbering.- q 21 And I don' t have any problem if I can have< ntore of a U 22 description of the pages that we are dealing with. ,
.> 23 JUDGE SMITH: Well, let's go off the recora, heit,. -j A
24 for a moment.
25 (Off tne record, at 1:53 p.m.)
.'(n) .
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
j-a.
/
LTHOMAS, TANZMAN - DIRECT '3085 :
.p*> t.
LA j .1 L l JUDGE 1 SMITH: Go ahead, Mr. Flynn. >
p'y ' 2 '- ' B Y. M R .-' F L Y N N':
3' :Q. I may havel asked before we went off the racord, but:I j . t i d
'4 don' t recallsL so.. I will ask at this time.
,7 5' HaveJthe corrections which are' listed on the f.our-
'6 page listlof. corrections that were' referred to earlier been 71 made 'in the' version of prefiled testimony which you have before t .. . . .
8- you and which has been filed with the Board?
@' ., 9 A (Thomas) - Yes, they have.
yjo -" ;v ;
10 D' I teill.now:ask you to refer.to page No. (8) in
.v. :> h i
. li '
parenthesis, which purports to be a-resume for Edward A.-
T ~ 12 Thomas, or.the first page.of.such; resume.
,g 13 Do you h' ave that.before)you?.
- ' i 9
- 14; A- (Thomas)- Yes, sir, I.do.
y-j! l15 'O Does this in: fact. state'your professional d
16 qualifications?
17 A_ -(Thomas) Yes, it does.
18 0- Mr.-Tanzman, !_will'.ask'you to refer to the document ~
sg Ek , 29 beginning at paDe.No. (13) in~ parenthesis.
y '
Do you have that before you? g-tjp g 1( NO 4 , t-
, 22- A -(Mr. Taraman) Yes.
I
~
22 G And what is that? l s
^4 5 j' 23 A '(Mr.
Tanzman) -That is my resume.
- 24' O' And this sets forth your training and experience in dj l
~25 matters pertaining to radiological emergency preparedness? 7 b
D- Herittge Reporting Corporation b . , M.J (202) 628-4888 or l
l
? ; _ ,. i (O k- -_ __ _____-___2__-____--____-----_
s.3 . !
.b yw gpx 1 x ,. .
gl c.' :# l THOMAS, TANZMAN~- DIRECT.
-S A ,
3086 j
,. n-L- -1 ^
-(Mr. Tanzman) :Yes, it does. !
-( l 2 0' Next, I will ask you.to refer to pages-(82) in y ;,
3 pare,nthe is,.through~p9h(90) in' parenthesis. This is also.
d
.j referred [to in the upper right-hand corner of thosetpages'as i
4' !
'p- ,
% .. . l o-
,D( ;;
5 pagesf(6S{/I That'page numbering. system refers internally to g 'f
./: .
4> 6 1 ,
Attachrhnt A' to y)our ( prefiled ,
testimony. !
+ :g1 Er . Do 'yott havet the pages'before.you which I-hav? asked. j m . , % ;
{ you'. to refer to?1 I '
i1 x1 .8. o f p- l L 9' A 4Thomaw) 3 Yes,' we ' dol / 1 0
10' Q Does that, set fort h yo r .f;esti nony 'on SAPL Contention
,1 ,'.
(
r-11 157- ;
l L 12 - .A' .$ (Thomas) Yes, it.does.
g l'
[,o 13 b Do you now adopt this Ms yourftectimony?
~
b
'O 14
'+A
.- 4Thornas) Yes, I do'.
.c g",* :
l a A ,
~ 15- Q-I~will also ask that of Mr.- Tanzman. i
,+ tj 16 A (Mr. Tanzman): Yes. d' ,
, ,w, 17 . MR. Ft.YNN : At this time, Your Honor, I will offer 18 into evidence and ask that the pages which I w:12 identify be 19 bound into the record. I am referring to.pages (2) through !
20 (10), in parenthesis, of the --
21 .'luDGE SMITH: How about the index? Put that i n, 22 please. ,
23~ MR. FLYNN: Yeu, Your Honor.
- 24 In which case, it is pages (i) and (ii) -- l 25 JUDGE SMITH: - Ent it led Index to FEMA Prefiled ,
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 J.
i m.m_-1__A_ ..______._-.a __
Fm( "- - -
P( >
- i.,
4
,, 4 d
"{ , ,
THOMAS, TANZMAN - DIRECT- f3087 o Q u, L_/ . 1' Testimony.
.2. '
MR.tFLYNN: Yes. And then[from the prefiled
.3 testimony.itself,=from the-direct testimony of Edward A.'
v .
1
- 4; Thomas,' Edward A. Tanzman.and Bruce J..Swiren, I am offering _
'5', pages (3) f through ? (10) ; also, pages (13) _through (16). ' Th at ' s
~6- the resumecof Edward Tanzman; and pages (82) through (90), the 1
7: testimony specificcto SAPL 15.
2" 8 JUDGE SMITH: All right. Don' t you ,think we should 9: strike Bruce J. Swiren from^the title of what has'been inserted 10 and. offered!and received today?
11- MR.-FLYNN: 4Yes, Your Honor. j
' 12- JUDGE SMITH ' All right, let's do that.
- ,. - 13 Is.he' going to testify later?
'^ 14 MR.,FLYNN - He.will appear on some of the subsequent
~ 15' panels. !
16 JUDGE: SMITH: Okay, then you can modify it at that
- 17. time.
. 18 Are there any objections?
19 MR. DIGNAN: No objections.
l' - 20: MR. TURK: A request for clarifi ation.
. 21 The staff would_not object to the admission of the- f I
h 22 testimony.if it's understood that there is a portion of it p
'e which we believe is cross-examinal under different pertions of 23 L
h 24 testimony to be submitted in connection with other issues in I-
- 25 the proceeding.
py Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
Mmm A.____-__.-._.______,________________________________,m______________._______.________m . ._..____..a_ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ . _ _ _
g - ,
').'
e s 3088 1-' lSo that I would not ~ intend to' eross-examine on .this
. 2, piece now, Tor do any'voir dire on'it now,.and reserve the,right-4 3 for that when the other issue arrives to-which the. testimony 14 relates. ,
l SJ 1 JUDGE SMITHe' That's . in i pages (81).thecugh (90)?. j 6 MR.. TURK No,-at ~ pages'(21:throuDh' (7). f 7 .MR.LFLYNN: Your Honor, to' accommodate the other 8 parties, we'will reoffer'that-portion with the' subsequent'
- 9 panels.-
'10 JJUDGE SMITH: Well, it's clear .that ithe general part H 111 wil1# be openf to scross-examination whenever it'.s relevant.
12 MR. TURK: Thank you. !
. 13 JUDGE SMITH: Any'part relevant to Issue No. 1 that.
14 we. ore hearing right now .is (81) to (90) . .
- 15. MR.. TURK: Thank-you.
16 JUDGE SMITH: If there is no objections, the pages p
17' identified by-Mr. Flynn are received into evidence and bound i 18 into the transcript.
L 19 (The pages of the document t.
l ' 20 referred to above were received t-L
. in the 21 in evidence and bound 22 transcript.)
23 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, before I go down'a road that 24 the Board doesn' t want .me -to, it had been my intention to 25 conduct a cross-examination today of the general piece. I knew Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.b 4l} .A
^%'
UNITED' STATES OF AMERICA
' ' NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION.
BEFORE THE-ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING 1 BOARD, c.
~1 )
In the Matter of )
-).
-Public Service Co. of New Hampshire, ")- Docket No. 50-443-OL.
et al.' ) .. .
50-444-OL.
) Offsite.Emergencyj
.(Seabrook Station, Units 1 &~2) -) Planning Issues
)
):
.r INDEX TO FEMA PRE-FILED TESTIMONY c
- 1. ' Letters of Agreement
-m SAPL' Contention 15....................................Page (82)*
)
- 2. Response Personnel Adequacy Hampton Falls Contention 2.............................Page (21)
South Hampton Contention 2.............................Page (25)
.Hampton: Revised Contention 2 to Revision 2....'Pages (43) - (49) .
Kensington Contention 1. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pages ' ( 51) - ( 52 )
NECNP Contention ~NHLP-2.......... 4. ...........Pages (61) - (64)
SAPL Contentions 8 & 8A.'...............................Page (81)
~
- 3. Transportation Availability & 9mergency Support Services NECNP Contention NHLP-2, Basis D........................Page (63)
NECNP Contention NHLP-6........................Pages (65) - (69)
South Hampton Contention 3.....................Pages (26) - (27)-
South Hampton Contention 8............................Page (Irt)
Hampton Revised Contention 2 to Revision 2.....Pages (30) - (s2)
Kensington Contention 6.........................Pages (55) - (56)
SAPL Contention 25.............................Pages (93) - (95)
, FEMA's Pre-Filed Testimony conststs of a six page overview and numerous attachments wtth.their page own numering. For the sake of clartty. FEMA has added global page numeering appearing in parentheses in the lower right hand corner of each page. The page numbers used in this index are to that globat system. The Pre-rened Testimony contains references to contentions which have teen dismissed since the principal attachment was prepared, but those pages
.have been retained for continuity.
(i)
L-. .
i t
l f
i L.
s A )
v
- 4. Reception Centers
?
SAPL Contention 7..............................Pages (79) - (80)
SAPL Contention 33.....................................Page (97)
~.
5 i
- 5. Evacuation Time Estimates l Hampton Revised Contention III to Revision 2...........Page (29)
Hampton Revised Contention IV.to Revision 2, Basis E....................................... ......Page (33) ,
Hampton Revised Contention IV to Revision 2, 1 Furthe r Basis A. 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pages ( 35 ) - ( 3 6 )
Hampton Revised Contention VI to Revision 2, Basis A (Revision.1).................................Page (45)
SAPL Contention 18...........................,..........Page (92)
SAPL Revised Contention 31.............................Page (96)
SAPL Contention 34.....................................Page (98)
SAPL Contention 37.....................................Page (99) ,
I 1
,s 6. Shelter
/ \
s i
\- / Hampton Revised Contention 8 to Revision 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . Page (50 )
NECNP Contention RERP-8........................Pages (59) - (60)
SAPL Contention 16.....................................Page (91) l
- 7. Notification / Communication Hampton Falls Contention 4.....................Pages (22) - (23)
NECNP Cont e ntion NHLP-4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Page ( 101 )
g U
f (ii) ;
UNITED STATES T ' AMERICA -
, i-
- NUCLEAR REGULAT RY COMMISSION
-('V)
BEFORE TIE A'IOMI'.' SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of )
)
. Public Service Co. of New Hanpshire, ) Docket No. 50-443-OL et al. ) 50-444-OL
)
- Offsite Emergency
. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 t, 2) ) Planning Issues
.).
DIRECT TESTIl0NY T EDARD A. DIOMAS, ED&RD A. TANZMAN, AND BRUCE J. SWIREN CN TIE NEW HAMPSHIRE RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN PRESENTED ON BEHAIF T DIE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY The witnesses whom the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) .is sponsoring on the admitted contentions having to do with the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Re9ponse Plan (NHRERP) in the Event of an Accident O Q, at Seabrook Station are:
Edward A. Thomas, Chief Natural and Technological Hazards Division Federal Emergency Management Agency Region I Boston, Massachusetts l'
Edward A. Tanzman Energy and Environmental Programs Attorney Energy and Environmental Systems Division Argonne National Laboratory .
Argonne, Illinois i
and Bruce J. Swiren Emergency Management Specialist 1 Nature.1 and Technological Hazards Division i Federal Emergency Management Agency Region I Boston, Massachusetts U)
CA)
7
- - A )
- v ..x .
. Our Statements of Professional Qualifications are attached to this Direct Testinony and are incorporated herein by reference.
~
In general, the purpose of our testimony is to address the admitted
' contentions and supporting bases. As explained below, our testinony is limited to certain contentions and bases. As noted in the Statement of Position, the Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission (NRC) is sponsoring the
- testimony of Dr. Thaaas Urbanik on certain contentions having to do with the validity of Evacuation Time Estimates, and so FEMA is not sponsoring testinony on those contentions, namely:
Revised Hanpton Contention III to Revision 2
' Revised Hanpton Contention VI to' Revision 2, Basis A (Rev.1)
SAPL Contention 18 SAPL Revised Contention 31 SAPL Contention 34 SAPL Contention 37 FEMA considers its statement about the transient beach population largely to involve matters of policy. Edward A. Thomas is the FEMA official in Pegion I who is responsible for explaining, applying, and carrying out FEMA's policies as they apply to the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program. For this reason, Mr. Thanas is the single witness as to those contentions having to do with the lack of shelter for the ]
transient beach population,'namely: 1 I
Revised Hanpton Contention VIII to Revision 2 j SAPL Contention 16 j NECNP Contention RERP-8 I l
Durirg the period of time when Bruce Swiren was employed by HMM I Associates, he worked on obtaining revised or renewed Letters of Agreement
.3 1 Nj
r frm- hospitals, ambulance companies, towing companies, and bus companies. In 7rder to avoid even the possibility of the appearance of a conflict of interests, Mr. Swiren has renoved himself as a witness on contentions and bases having to do with these le'ters t of agreement and the determination of the number of Teamsters to be made available by their employers in the event of an energency. For this reason, E5 Ward A. Thmas and Edward A. Tanzman will testify on those contentions and bases, namely:
Revised Hampton Contention IV South Hampton Contention 3; Bases 1, A, B, C, E, and Further Bases A.l. , A.2. , and B Town of Kensington Contention 6 NECNP Contention NHLP-2, Basis D NECNP Contention NHLP-6, Bases d and e and HP-1-e SAPL Contention 15 SAPL Contention 25 l
All three of us will address the remaining admitted contentions and V bases.
The attached document entitled " Current FEMA Position on Admitted Con-tentions on New Hampshire Plans for Seabrook" (hereinafter referred to as the " Statement of Position"), dated June 4, 1987, has previously been made a part of the record of this case. That Statement of Position was attached as Appendix A to the Response of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to Massachusetts Attorney General James M. Shannon's Off-Site Emergency Preparedness Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents to FENA (Set No. 2) and is herein identified as Exhibit A.
The language of the contentions and their bases is set forth in that Statement of Position and so is not repeated herein.
Exhibit B to this testinony, entitled " Current FEMA Position on South Hampton Contention 8 and NECNP Contention NHLP-4", and dated June 26, 1987, C'\
U is a supplement to FEMA's Statement of Position and is also a part of the record of this case.
N)
_ l }1 Exhibit C is a copy of a letter dated August 7,1987 frm H. Joseph Flynn to Thomas G. Dignan, Jr. It reflects FEMA's position on the issues discussed therein. We individually incorporate by reference those portions of Exhibit A, B, and C which are pertinent to our respective testinony.
The positions which FEMA has taken on the NHRERP, the exercise of the NHRERP, and the contentions which this Atmic Safety and Licensing Board has admitted were arrived at through a collegial process of review by FEMA's Regional Office in Boston, consultation with FEMA's Regional Assistance Cmmittee (RAC) and Argonne National Laboratory, and review by FEMA's State and Local Programs and Support Direct
- rate in Washington, D.C.
The RAC is an interagency canittee constituted in each of the 10 standard Federal regions pursuant to 44 C.F.R. @351. The cmmittee is camposed
(
of representative.s of FEMA, the NBC, the Environmental Protection Agency,
( /.
~
the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Hunun Services, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Agriculture, the !
(
Department of Ccanerce and the Department of Interior. I FEMA and the RAC have provided comments on New Hampshire draft planning i for Seabrook dating back to submissions in 1982. However, the cutrent plan, which is under litigation, dates back to 1985. In December, 1985, the State of New Hanpshire submitted the NHRERP (Revision 0) to FEMA. New Hampshire submitted extensive changes to the NHRERP (Revision 0, Supplement 1) in February,1986, which included: I 1
- 1. Volume 5 NHRERP, " Letters of Agreement in Support of the NHRERP";
- 2. Volume 7 NHRERP, "Seabrook Station Alert and Notification System Design Report";
3 3. Evacuation Time Estimate (ETE) Study materials (Prcgress l (V Reports Nos.1-6) frce KLD Associates; I
l (r)
L_
t-I L
.t 1
'd 4. Revised procedures for the New Hampshire Department of Resources and Econanic Developent;
- 5. Compensatory Plan outlining the means used by the State to protect citizens in towns within the Seabrook EPZ when raunicipal govenments cannot ot wil) not carry out tasks assigned by the local plan, and;
- 6. Draft public information material.
The February,1986, revisions were served on the parties on March 11, 1986. The State of New Hampshire filed additional plan changes in April,1986, (Revision Oc Supplement 2 of the NHRERP) consisting of the following:
- 1. KLD Progress Report No. 7;
- 2. A revisicn to the Department of Public Health and Safety (DPHS)
Procedures.. including replacement and new appendices to the DPHS Procedures;
- 3. Rockingham Ccunty Couplex procedures, including those for the Rockingham Coanty Nursing Home, Rockingham County Jail Facility n ,
and Rockirghan County Dispatch Center; and
- 4. Procedures for the decontamination of personnel at the Manchester Decontamination Center, along with Appendix F to those procedures.
A full-scale exercise of the NHRERP was conducted on February 26, 1986.
During the first several nonths of 1986, FEMA and the RAC were involved in extensive reviews of the December NHRERP (Revision 0), the February revisions ..
J (Supplements 1 and 2 to Revision 0), and the February exercise. .In April, l
1986, FEMA sent the following documents to the State of New Hanpshire: 1 le FEMA's report of the deficiencies observed during the Febru- j ary 26, 1986, exercise of the state and local plans to protect j the public in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook; i
- 2. Final Draft Report of the Exercise of the emergency plans for Seabrook held February 26, 1986;
- 3. Final review by the RAC of the state and local plans submitted by New Hampshire in December,1985; and
- 4. Draf t RAC Review of the state and local plans subnitted by New fs. Hampshire in February,1986.
(
D) These documents have been served on the parties to this proceedirq.
(6)
1 1
)
On June 3,1986, the State filed another revision of the NHRERP (Re-vision 1) responding to the ccraments of the RAC concerning the plan and the exercise of the plan. The ETE Study prepared by KLD Associates,.
which had recently been released in a final draft, was incorporated into i the NHRERP at that time. )
On June 23 and 24,1986, the RAC met with representatives of the State of New Hampshire and the Applicant and explained in further. detail the concerns identified in the documents described above. On September 8, 1986, the State of New Hanpshire submitted another revision of the NHRERP (Revision 2, dated August,1986) addressirg the concerns identified by the RAC. FEMA submitted the FEMA /RAC Review of Revision 2 of the state and local plans to the State of New Hampshire on December 12, 1986. This document is the basis for nest of the (3 positions taken by FEMA in this licensing proceeding and has also been served
(*) on all the parties.
On April 15 and July 2,1987, the NRC filed FEMA's positions on the parties' various Motions for Summary Dispecition of Contentions. On June 4,1987, FEMA filed its Statement of Position as part of a response to Interrogatories frcm the parties. This reflects FEMA's current position, even though the State of New Hampshire submitted a Sunmary of Personnel Resource Assessment for the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan in late August,1987, ard additional information in early September.
The review period for material which a state subnits to FEMA as part of a radiological emergency response plan is normally at least 60 days.
'Ihese materials are not reflected in this testimony principally because they were not received early enough to have been reviewed by FEMA and q the RAC and because the State of New Hampshire has advised FD4A that the 1 e b' material submitted in September is not part of the NHRERP.
(7)
( ")
Edward A. Thomas Chief of the Natural and Technological Hazards Division i Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region I EDUCATIO1 NEW D4 GLAND SCHOOL T LAW, Boston, Massachusetts J.D. Magna Cum Laude 1986 BOSION UNIVERSI'IY, Boston, Massachusetts Partially completed work for MA in Urban Planning (1973-1975)
HYDICILGIC D4GINEERING CD1TER Certificate in Hydrological and Hydraulic Concepts (1975)
FOREHAM Q4IVERSITY, Bronx, New York Bachelor of Arts in History,1969 PFTESSIONAL FEDERAL EMERGU4CY MANAGEMENT AGH1CY, Boston, Massachusetts EXPERIH1CE Division Chief for Natural and Technological Hazards, December 1981 - Present.
Manages emergency preparedness programs to assist State and local governments prepare for floods, earthquakes, nuclear accidents, and dam failure. Manages the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program in FEMA's Region I (New England). Chairman of the Regional Assistance .Ccmnittee.
(~)'N
( Oversees the review of State radiological. emergency response plans arx1 the field exercises of those plans for the 6 operating nuclear power plants in New England and for Seabrook Station. Had overall responsibility for conducting, reviewing and following up on 22 full-scale exercises and several remedial exercises. Has testified before Congressional committees and served as an expert witness in administrative hearings and other legal pro-ceedings concerning the National Flcod Insurance Program.
- Divicion Chief for Insurance and Mitigation, April 1979 -
December 1980 Managed the National Flood Insurance Program in New England.
Working with state bankers, insurance agents and government officials to prcrtote the concepts of safe and proper flood plain developtient. Supervised staff of approximately 20.
Appointed chairman of intergovernmental flood plain manage-ment task force. Established streamlined procedures for adminsterirg agency post disaster hazard reduction efforts.
A b
cs)
E
y.
,m. _
-A f U.S. DEPARIMENT CP HOUSING AND UBBAN DEVELOPMENT, Boston,
[
i Massachusetts L Begional Director, Federal Insurance Administration, June
- 1974 - April 1979 .
Primary responsibility was the management of the flood loss reduction activities of the National Flood Insurance Program.
Managed activities of. between four and sixteen staff. . Created new and successful means,of achieving program goals with limited staff. Successfully Nnonstrated post-disaster hazard mitigation program that was used us national model.
Housing Specialist, June 1969 - June 1974 Coordinated HUD Holising Program in several areas of Massachusetts. Responsible for coordination between HUD local officials, attorneys, bankers, developers, citizens and the media. Prepared environmental impact analyses.
Mediated disputes between conflicting interests.
- PPTESSIONAL ACTIVITIES Guest lecturer en housing, planning, emergency preparedness and environmental affairs at many institutions including Harvard University, MIT, Boston University, Hampshire College, e s and University of Connecticut.
(
\
. Appeared on TV and radio hundreds of times. Has made professional presentations to'over one thousand groups on subjects related to emergency planning.
SELECTED RADIOLOGICAL EMFEENCY PREPAREDNESS REEORTS Principal author of or major contributor to:
"Self-Initiated Review and Interim Finding for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, Plymouth Massachusetts," dated August 4, 1987.
" Analysis of Emergency Planning Issues at Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station Raised in a Petition to the Nuclear Regulatory Ccmnission, dated July 15, 1986," dated July 29, 1987.
" Current FEMA Position on Admitted Contentions on New Hanpshire Plans for Seabrook," dated June 4,1987.
" Final Exercise Assessment Joint New Hampshire State and Iocal Radiological Emergency Response Exercise for the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant February 26, 1986," dated June 2, 1986.
V " Analysis of Issues Related to the Evacuation Time Estimate for the Maine Yankee Nuclear Power Station," .
dated February 1985. 1 (0
i l
l
_,s '
\
v'
" Analysis of Issues Related to the Evacuation Time Estimate for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station,"
dated May, 1984.
" Analysis of Emergency Planning Issues at Pilgrim !
Nuclear Power Station Raised by the Massachusetts y Public Interest Research Group (MASSPIRG)," dated November 3,1983.
SELECTED OIHER PUBLICATIONS "The U.S. Supreme Court and the Taking Issue" (with John Kusler, i Esq.) in Natural Hazards Observer, Septonber 1987
" Floodplain and Wetland Coordination National Wetlands News-letter March-April 1987
" National Flood Insurance Program" (with Alexandra Dawson, Esq. )
in Wetland, Tideland, Floodplain, and Groundwater Regulation, Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education Foundation,1986
" Legal lending and Flood Insurance" - University of Maine Center for Real Estate Education, July 1980
,~
" Flood Plain Management Aspects of the National Flood Insurance (v) Program" - Proceedings of the New England Rivers Conference, October 1978
" Lawyers Perspective on the National Flood Insurance Program" -
Note in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly 1976
" Regional Policy Statement on Flood Plain Management in New England" - New England River Basin Comtission, February 1978 (Significant Contribution to a Task Force Effort)
PRTESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS Massachusetts State Bar Massachusetts Bar Association {
American Bar Association i Boston Bar Association !
1 C
U t
/0) 1
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ i
y
[) Edward A. Tanzman Energy and Environmental Programs' Attorney Energy and Environmental Systems Divsion (EES)
Argonne National Laboratory (ANL)
Education Background J.D. 1976, Georgetown University Law Center; special course work in legislative policymaking; Notes and Cmunents Editor of The Tax Lawyer law review B.A. 1973, Political Science , University of Chicago, with Honors in the College and in Political Science Professional Experience 1979-Present Energy and Environmental Programs Attorney Energy and Environmental Systems Division, Argonne National Laboratory Provide analysis of how state and federal laws affect energy technologies, hazardous waste litigation, and possible arms control regimes. Current activities include: reviewing empliance of state and local governments with federal nuclear power plant radiological emergency preparedness require-ments; analysis of the Soviet offsite response to the Chernobyl accident;
- evaluating an emergency plan to protect carmunities surrounding a federal (d facility frm hypothetical toxic gas releases frm that facility; helping a federal-agency prepare for hazardous waste litigation; and, analyzing potential legal problems created by on-site inspection to verify American empliance with possible arms control treaties. Past research has included evaluating impacts of energy policies on minority groups, analysis of legal problems by the proposed Satellite Power System, studies of socioeconomic problems created by energy bocas, analysis of regional institutional conflicts created by projected future energy growth, study of how eminent dcnain proceedings are used to acquire energy. transportation corridors, analysis of federal hazardous waste regulation, and analysis of legal trends toward state regulation and taxation of the energy industry.
Past experience with FEMA's radiological emergency preparedness program has included participation in approximately 30 exercises of radiological emergency preparedness (REP) plans. Mr. Tanzman also served as lead writer for reports of 2 of these exercises. This included consolidating all observer ccanents for integration into the final report document. On other exercises, he served as a contributing writer. As a result of his participation in the February 1986 exercise at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, he was deposed in Docket 50-322-OL-5.
(13) w_- _-
Y~N- EDWARD A. TANZMAN 2.
b.
Professional Experience (Cont'd)-
Mr. Tanzman has also prepared regional analyses of plans and preparedness for approval under 44 GR 350. He has also served as an instructor for the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Evaluator Course at FEMA's National Emer-gency Training Center. in Emmitsburg, Maryland.
July 1980- Counsel, Palau National Congress, Republic of Palau,
- February 1981: U.S. Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands (Ieave of absence frm Argonne National' Laboratory)
Served as lawyer for the legislative branch of the government of the Palau Islands (located 500 miles east of the. Republic.of the Philippines) during its transition frm U.S. administration to constitutional republic.
Responsibilities included drafting legislation, researching and writing legal opinions, serving as parliamentarian, providing staff assistance to legislature officers and comittee chairman, and supervising a staff of seven assistants.
1976-1979: Legislative Assistant to U.S. Senator John A. Durkin (N.H.)
Responsible for Senator Durkin's Energy and Natural Resources Cmmittee assignment. Activities included supervising a staff geologist and planner in O
'V
. all aspects of the Senator's Cmmittee work, notably debate over the President's National Energy Plan. Specific duties included hearing, markup, and floor debate preparation,, legislative draf ting, and constituent work.
l Publications: Journal Articles Tanzman, E., Constitutionality of Warrantless On-Site Arms Control Inspections in the United States, fortheming in Yale Journal of International Law (Fall 1987) . .
Tanzman, E., Camerce Clause Limitations on State Regulation and Taxation of -
the Energy industry, 13 Loy. U. Chi. L. J. 277 (1982); also published as ANL/EES-TM-192 (July 1982) and reprinted in VII Public Utilities Law Anthology (1982-83).
= Tanzman E. , and B. Graham, Note, The Limits of the Section 7602 John Doe Sunnons, 28 Tax Lawyer 377 (1975).
- i l
d-U uy) a______-_ _ - .
y '
s l
[
l-3 i ) Edward Tanzman v
l Publications: Reports Tanzman, E., Y. Klein, E. Levine, D. Poyer, A. Teotia, D. Wernette, and R. Winter, The Impacts of the Residential Energy Tax Credit on Minorities, i Department of Energy, draf t report (August'18,1983). j
- i Tanzman, E., B. LaBrie, and K. Lerner, Overview of Hazardous Waste Management j Regulation at Federal Facilities, Argonne National Laboratory ANL/EES 'IM-182 i (May 1982). ,
Santini, .D. , J. Clinch, F . Davis, L. Hill, E. Lynch, E. Tanzman, and D. Wernette, A Preliminary Evaluation of Crisis Relocation Fallout Shelter Options, Argonne National Laboratory, ANL/EES 'IM-227, Volume I (March 1982) and Volume II I (December 1982).
Ta:u: man, E. , and K. Lerner, An Assessment of Eminent Dmain as it Relates to Land Use Issues in Energy Transportation Corridors, Argonne National Laboratory, ANL/EES fIM-194 (September 1981).
Whitfield, R., L. Habegger, E. Levine, and E. Tanzman, Environmental and Econcmic Comparisons of the Satellite Power System and Six Alternative Energy Technologies, Argonne National Laboratory, ANL/EES-TM-136 (April 1981).
g
() Barisas, S. , S. Ballou, P. Dauzvardis, M. Davis, M. Gabriel, J. Gasper,
~
J. Levenson, P. Michel, W. Parker, K. Robeck, D. South, and E. Tanzman, Regional Issue Identification and Assessment, Second Annual Report - Regions V and VII, Department of Energy, review draft (January 1981).
Santini, D., E. Tanzman, and C. Hotchkiss, Education and Other Financial Problems of Areas Experiencing Energy Inducted Bocm Growth, Argonne National Laboratory, ANL/AA-25 (July 1980).
Wolsko, T. , C. ' Brown, R. Cirillo, J. Gasper, L. Habegger, K. Hub, E. Levine, D. Newscm, M. Samsa, E. Tanzman, J. VanKuiken, and R. Whitfield, A Preliminary Comparative Assessment of the Solar Power Satellite (SPS) and Six Other Energy Technologies, Argonne National Labotatory, ANL-AA-20 (April 1980).
Publications: Conference Papers Fingleton, D., E. Tanzman, and K. Bertram, Development of a Model Emergency Response Plan for Catastrophic Releases of Toxic Gases, presented at the 79th Annual Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association, Minneapolis, m, June 22-27, 1986.
Tanzman, E. , PURPA and Associated Federal Regulations that Impact Energy Production, presented at the University of Wisconsin - Extension professional development seminar entitled " Disposal of Municipal Refuse By Utilization As A Fuel," Madison, WI, January 16, 1985 and January 30, 1984.
O V
(Is)
4 Edward Tanzman Tanzman, E., Community Planning for Nuclear Power Plant Emergencies, vesented to the Science and Techrology Ccmnittee of the Chicago Bar Association, Chicago,IL, April 5, 1984.
r.
Santini, D., G. Shaw, and E. Tanzman, Fiscal Impacts of Energy Facilities on County Governments: Some Implications for Revenue and Expenditure Modelling, p Proceedings of the Pittsburgh Modellirg and Simulation Conference, Pittsburgh, l PA, May 1-3,1980.
1 Presentations:
Tanzman, E. (Organizer and Moderator), A. Adler, M. Anderson, C. Archambeau, l F. Frank, and S. Garfinkle, National Security Classification and the Individual Researcher, symposium presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Chicago, IL, February 18, 1987.
Newsom, D. , V. Wingert, J. Keller, E. Tanzman, K. Lerner, and G. Kaszynski, Radiological Emergency Preparedness Exercise Evaluation, presented to the National Emergency Training Institute, Emmitsburg, MD July 27-31, 1987, January 12-16, 1987, and September 15-19, 1986.
.Tansman, E. Overview of Present Policy and Technology, presented to the Chautauqua Workshcp entitled Hazardcus Waste Management: Technical and Societal Issues, Argonne, II, March 26, 1986.
Tanzman, E. , U.S.' Supreme Court Treatment of Econanic Problems Posed By the Energy Industry, presented to a ccanittee of the Young Lawyers' Section of the Chicago Bar Association,1982.
Donnelly, P.F ., Evans, A.E. , Kier, P. , and Tanzman, E. , Energy and Environment, presented to Northern Illinois University School of Law, November 12 and 14, 1979.
Tanzman, E. , Hydro arri Wind, presented at the Engineering Foundation Conference on The Systems Approach to Emtgy Supply and Demand Controversies, August 15, 1979.
Tanzman, E. , National Energy Policy, presented to the Faculty Institute On Energy Planning at Argonne National Laboratory, July 23, 1979.
Professional Organizations:
Bar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois District of Columbia Bar Illircis State Bar Adjunct Faculty - National Emergency Training Center, Emmitsburg, MD.
O (lb)
L. ,
SAPL C:ntenthn No.15 - 61. {
~
I
~ SAPL reasserts Redrafted SAPL Contention No.15 and the basis for that . contention'in SAPL's filing of April 8,1986.
- ) Redrafted SAPL Contention No.15 q -
l l
. . The letters of agreement that have been subr.itted by the U.H. Civil !
Defense Agency in . Volume 5 of the State plan fail to meet the require- )
ments of 10.CFR 550.47(a)(1), 850.47(b)(1), 550.47(b)(3), 550.47(b)(12), I
- Appendix E.II.B. and .NUREG-0654 II. A.3. , II.C.4. , and II.P.4. because they do not demonstrate that adequate arrangements for requesting and
- effectively using assistance resources have been made, that the T ; emergency responsibilities of the various supporting organizations have-been specifically established, that each principal response organization has staff to respond or to augment its . Initial response on a continuous basis, 'or that agreements are being reviewed' and certified to be current on an annual basis as is required, i
1 FEMA' RESPONSES ( AMENENENTS AND FURTHER BASIS)
FENA has addressed the redraf ted and amended Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL) Contention No.15 and its basis of -inadequate letters of agree-ment by applying Planning Standards A, C, and J (Evaluation Criteria A.3, C.4, )4fJ.10g) in FEMA-REP-1.
,' cd Ph
- 5. December 15, 1986 RAC review of the State and municipal plans reflect
- FENA_'s views on this issue. Specifically, FENA's review conments on the New Hampshire State plan on this issue are provided on pages 10, 12, 19 and 74-b of Section I, and on pages 1 and 2 of the Istters of Agreement subsection of Section IV. FEMA's review ccanents on the municipal plans on this issue are provided on page 3 of Section III.
FEMA relied upon the following documentsin forming its conclusions on this issue: Revision 2 to the New Hajinpshire State plan; Revision 2 to the municipal plans.
FEMA does not yet have assurance of the adequacy of the written agree-ments. As noted in the Decenber 15, 1986 RAC review, evaluation criteria i
element A.3 is considered inadequate due to the fact that the State plo does not contain all letters of agreement which have been referenced in the inst ccmrunity plans (see pages 10 and 12 of Section I RAC review).
Other aspects of resource assistance and letters of agreement are generally considered adequate by the RAC. Pesponses to specific contention issues are provided belcw.
l (S4 E
P SAPL '15 (Cont.) 62.
' (X .
- By _way of: amendment and ' statement of' further basis, SAPL holds as-(/r followsi P 1) Though the Coast Guard and Hew Hampshire Towing Association agreements are now signed, the USAF agreement has wholly disappeared.
(- There . is thus no assurance that Pease AFB will' make its hospital and runway. facilities - available, which are key _ in the emergency response j
effort for Seabrook Station. Civil Air Patrol flights must be able .to fly
' y' into Pease for transport of officials and radiological samples. : The agreement with the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard has also disappeared.
FEMA RESPONSE
- 1) The written agreements with the U.S. Air Force (Pease AFB) and ,
Portsmouth Naval Shipyard have been deleted from the plan. Inclusion of these letters is not required since assistance by these federal facilities
'could be provided under the Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan (FRERP). A copy of the FRERP is now provided in Volume 5 of the State plan. In' a separate letter included in Appendix H of State plan Volume 2, the.U.S. Air Force Hospital at Pease Air Force Base has indicated its willingness to make its hospital facilities available during a radiological. i
-emergency to the extent that such care to civilian casualties does not interfere with 'its prinary responsibility to active duty military personnel.
v)
~
- 2) There are no letters of agreement with the reception centers and mass care facilities in the local communities and letter agreements are missing for certain of the ' host care facilities for special facilities in the EPZ (egs. Goodwin's of Exeter, Eventide Home, Seacoast IIealth Center).
The RAC specifically asked these agreements (Reply to RAC, P.10 of 134).
. FD4A RESPONSE -
- 2) The Anerican Red Cross ( ARC) is responsible for providing mass care to individuals evacuated from the plune exposure EP2 (see State Plan, page 1.3-17). . A written agreement between the ARC and the State of New Hanpshire is included in Volume 5 of the State plan. As noted on page 10 of the Decenber 1986 RAC review of the State plan (Section I), the RAC
- found that the Red Cross letter of agreement adequately denenstrates an ability to open and staff planned mass care facilities. However, as noted on page 12 of the PAC review (Section I), other letters of agreement are referenced in the host connunity plans as being available in Volume 5 of the State plan (see page I-19 of Manchester and Salem plans, and page I-20 of Dover and' Rochester plans). The RAC found this item to be inadequate because no letters of agreement related to mass care are present in Volume .l 5 of the State Plan for the following private organizations:
)
(TN
SAPL 15 (Cont.). 63.
- Salvation Army
- New Hamoshire College
- Notre Dame College and Parochial School O
- District Nursirg Association
- Salem Boys Club- *
' Pochester Catholic Sctrol l-
- Pochester Day Care Center 4
Although not specifically noted in the RAC review, it is correct that there are also no letters of agreenent in the plans from the hest facilities g for residents of the following special facilities: Goodwin's of Exeter (Volume 26A), Eventide Hane (Volume 26A), and the Seacoast Health Center (Volune 18A).
Page A-2 of Attachment A of each of the preceeding special facilities have been received, written confirmations are " currently under review." These written agreements should be provided in the plans.
- 3) Though the N.II. Towing Association letter is now signed, there is still no letter of agreement with Rockingham County to assure that the Dispatch Center can be used. This facility is key in the emergency notification scheme.
FEMA RESPCNSE O 3) A letter of agreement with the Rockingham County Sheriff's Department is present in Volume 5 of the State plan. Notification procedures for the Rockingham County Dispatch Center are also fully described in the Procedures section of the State plan (Volume 4B).
- 4) Though a letter of agreement has been secured with the Federal Aviation Administration, there is still no letter of agreement with New England Telephone. The November 1985 draft of the NHRERP stated that it was "on file. " It has not yet surfaced in the plans.
FDiA RESPCNSE
- 4) Volume 5 of the State plan does not contain a letter of agreement with New England Telephone. However, the need for such a letter is not aoparent.
l' O
(n)
'n ,
SAPL 15 (Cont.) 64.
- 5) The letter of agreement with Teamsters Local'No. 633 does not s
provide the requisite. reasonable assurance that sufficient drivers will be
]
^
hvailable to make up the shortfall ~ of- drivers indicated by the letters cf L sgreement with the specific bus companies.* Many of .the drivers woulc
' have prior cccmitments to be coing other jobs, the individus! members cf the union have in no way demonstrated their willingness to perform these .
functions and are there is no indication of how the buses.
drivers would be notified or where'they relative to the location of the
, FEMA RESPONSE ;
- 5) ' The PAC has concluded (see page 74-b of Section I of PAC review of State plan, and page 1 of Section IV PAC review of letters of agreenent) that the State plan properly allcws for the fact that not all bus cernpanies have~as many drivers willing to serve as they % buses that would be made _ f4W ;l available. . The letter of. agreement with Teamsters Local No. 633 of New Hampsnire
.(Volume 5 of State Plan) provides for the I.ocal to provide as many as 1,500 personnel, a number well in excess of any foreseeable needs, to drive trans-portation vehicles as needed during major emergencies. However, FENA does not yet have assurances that there are procedures in place for mobilizing the Teamsters from their places' of employnent.
V 6) The letter signed by OMNE Partners II on July 31,1986 may or may not remain current for a reasonable period of time since OMNE is in a bankruptcy proceeding. Therefore, there is no assurance that this transportation staging area will indeed be available.
FEMA RESPONSE
- 6) The letter of agreement with ONE Partners II provides for the availability of the CNNE Mall parking areas as a transportation staging area. Theletter of agreement also clearly states that, "this agreement is subject to renegotiation at such time as ownership of the property is conveyed frcm ONE Partners II to another party."
l-gO i
_ __ n__ _ _ _ _
5 SAPL 15 (Cont.)
, ' B ASIS: 65.
g' NUREG-)654 II. A .3. requires that each plan include written letters A- P of agreement referring to the concept of operations between Federal, State; and local agencies and other support organizations having an emer-(V -
gency response role within ' the EPZ. The agreements are supposed to
, identify the emergency measures.to be provided and the mutually accept-able criteria for their implementation and specify the~ arrangements for the
- exchange of information. NUREG-0654 II. C . 4 states that each organi-
- stion shall identify nuclear and other facilitics , organizations or individuals which can be relied upon in an emergency to provide assistance and that such assistance "shall be identified' and supported by y
.. appropriate letters of agreement."' NUREG-0654 II.P.4 states that each organization shall update.its plan and agreements as. needed, review and certify it to be current on an annual basis. The letters of agreement in
. Volume 5 'of the State . plan do not suffice to satisfy these requirements for the following reasons:
c) Some of the letters of agreement bear no signature. The New England Interstate Radiological Assistance Compset has no signature page to validate it. The letter of agreement between New Ilampshire Ycnkec and the State of New Hampshire and Massachusetts is' neither completed, nor signed. The Memorandum of Understanding with the Coast Guard has a' typed in name, but no signature. The agreement with the New liampshiro Towing Association is not signed. (A prospective date of 11/27/86 appears on. the agreement.) The Memorandum of Understanding Between the USAF and the State of New Hampshire is nct signed nor dated.
n v .
FEMA FESPONSE (BASIS)
(a) Many of the letters of agreement have been updated for Revision 2 to the plan. With only a few exceptions, the letters and agreements have been signed. Letters of agreement / which are unsigned include:
- Agreenent between New Hampshire Yankee Division of Public Service Ccrnpany of New Hampshire and the states of New Hampshire and Massachusetts (unsigned by Massachusetts representative, as noted on page 2,Section IV RAC review of Letters of Agreement).
- New England Interstate Radiation Assistance Plan (no signature page included).
i
- Agreements between radio stations WCYT/MNH, NJNH and the New )
Harpshire Civil Defense Agency (unsigned by either party). '
- Memorandum of Understandirx; with U.S. Coast Guard (includes typed-in name no signature of Coast Guard representative).
All other agreements have been signed, including the one with the New Hampshire Towing Association. The menorandum of understanding with the U.S. ,
p.j Air Force has been deleted frcm the plan (as noted above in item #1 of amended )
basis). 1 v
(50 !
SAPL 15 (Cont.) 66.
b) There are no letters of agreement with many of 'the key response organizations and governments. For ex ample , there are no f"] letters of sgreement with the 17 N . II . local communities nor are there
\ / letters of agreement with the host communities . Thus, the requirements of NUREG-0654 II. A.3 are not met.
FEMA RESPCNSE (b). There are no letters of agreement with the 17 New Hampshire EPZ communities or with the four host ecmmunities. The concept of operations for emergency response by the local ccumunities is provided in the radiological emergency response plans for these communities. If specific communities '
are unable to implement their plans, the State of New Hampshire would assune responsibility for implementation of the plans under provisions of the State compensatory plan.
c) Some of the agreements date back a number of years. For example, the New England State police Compact is dated 6/69. Clearly ,
the specifics of any emergency response for the area surrounding Seabrook Station were not contemplated when this compact was signed.
This is contrary to the requirements of NUREG-0654 II.P.4.
p
()
FEMA RESPWSE (c) Although the fact that an agreement is old does not necessarily negate its applicability, it would appear prudent for the state during its annual .
review and update of the plan to confirm that old agreenents, such as the New England State Poli Compact, are applicable to a radiological enercyancy response at Seabrook. A d) There are not letters of agreement with School Administrative Units , schools , teachers, owners of towing companies (other than the unsigned postdated agreement with the New England Towing Association mentioned above), day care centers, nursing homes, Rockingham County Dispatch, but drivers or other organizations or individuals to be relied upon to provide assistance in an emergency as reouired by NUKEG-0654 II . C . 4.
FEMA RESPCNSE j (d) Letters of agreement with individual teachers and bus drivers are not included in the plan. However, letters of agr9enent with those organir.a-tions supplying bus drivers (e.g. , bus ccmpanies ad Teamsters Local No. 633) d(7 are present in Volume 5 of the State Plan. Lattars of agreenent with towing canpanies are also ncw present in Revision 2 of the plan (Wlume 5). Also see FEMA response to items #2 and #3 of the amended basis given above for letters of agreenent which are present or absent frcm Rev. 2 to the plan.
(67)
SAPL 15 (Cont.) 67.
e) There is no showing that the FAA Concord Flight Service Agreement or the agreement with New England Telephone are sufficient to j' establish the responsibilities of those organizations as required by V 10 C.F.R. 150.47(b)(1) because those letters are not provided in Volume 5 but are said to be "on file."
FEMA PISPONSE (e) Pavision 2 of the Stateplan (Volume 5) now contains a letter of agreement with the FAA. As noted in the above FEMA response to item #4 of the amended basis, there is still no letter of agreement with New England Telephone. However, the 'need for such a letter is not apparent.
i l
1 f) The letters of agreement with hospitals include a number of letters from hospitals which are not listed in the New Hampshire State Plan (see p.2.8-5 for the list. ) It is very clear to SAPL why these f letters even appear in Volume 5. For example, the October D,1985 letter -
from Alice Park Day Memorial Hospital in Lebanon, New Hampshire states
"...because APD is a small hospital with extremely limited resources, it is unable to handle radiation victims. " The October 7, 1985 letter from (V] Valley Regional Hospital similarly states, ".. .the pflysical design of our facility, and in particular our emergency receiving area, would make '
appropriate isolation of the contaminated patient impossible. " SAPL ,
believes that all extraneous letters from entities not to be counted upon l in an emergency response should be removed from Volume 5. It seems ]
SAPL that it would only add to the difficulty emergency responders face q in making appropriate referrals to have non-applicable information to sift i throu gh . I 4
The letters from hospitals that are listed in the State plan do not demonstrate that the requirements of 10 C.F.R. $50.47(b)(12) have been met. There is no letter for Newport ilospital, which is listed in the state p lan . Pease Air Force Base Hospitkl states, "We are willing to cooperate fully with civilian hospitals and disaster authorities is assisting with care of civilian causalities to the extent that such care does not interfere with I our primary responsiblIities to active duty military personnel." (emphasis 6dded) There is, therefore7 no assurance that this hospital's resources will be available to civilians. Further, as was stated previously in SAPL Contention #4, Please is just a short distance beyond the EPZ boundary L and could under certain circumstances need to be evacuated. The letter provided for Iluggins Hospital is illegible. The letter for Lakes Regional General Hospital in Laconia dated 10/15/85 states " ...we recognize our responsibilities to treat such cases that occur in our service area and to help neighboring hospitals that may be faced with more casualties thit
! they can treat as a result of a disaster situation." (emphasis added) 1 A Seabrook Station and its EPZ are not in the Lakes Region General Hospital Q service area nor are the hospitals in the S eabrook EPZ neighboring hos pit als . The letter from Catholic Medical Center dated 10/17/65 stater
\
b
< SAPL 15 (Cont.) - 68. 1 that a letter written by Dr. Windler on 1/6/04 still holds. No copy of the
(")
q ,/
1/6/84 letter is provided. For these and other reasons, the letters of agreement from hospitals included in Volume 5 of the State plan do not provide support for a finding that adequate arrangements for medical services for contaminated injured individuals have been made.
FD4A RESPONSE (f) The letters of agreement with hospitals havirg radiological emer- l gency capability are presented in Appendix H of the State plan (Volume 2, i Rev. 2). H e letters are now consistent with the listing presented on
, Table 2.8-1 of the State plan (pages 2.8-5, -5a, and -5b). A letter from Newport Hospital is also included in the revised plan. 1 he letter frcm Pease Air Force Base Hospital indicates that this military hospital is willing to cocperate and assist in the care of civilian casualties to the extent that such care does not interfere with the hcspital's !
" primary responsibility to active duty military personnel." Although there l is no assurance that this hospital's resources will be available to civilians, its inclusion with the other hospitals is appropriate in the plan since it i represents a rescurce which potentially might be available in a radiological !
emergency.
{
The letter frcm Lakes Regional General Hospital reflects the hospital's responsibility to " treat such cases that occur in our service area and to help (q
v) neighboring hospitals that may be faced with more casualties than they can treat as a result of a disaster situation." he fact that Seabrook Station <
and its EPZ may not literally be "in the Lakes Pegion General Hcepital service area," and the hcepitals in the Seabrook EPZ may not literally be
" neighboring hospitals" probably does not negate the hospitals' willingness to provide the specialized medical services in a radiological energency.
Both the 10-17-85 and the earlier 1-6-84 letters frcm the Catholic Medical Center are now included in Appendix H of the revised State plan (Volume 2).
g) Many of the letters are too non-specific and do not demonstrate that adequate arrangements for requesting and effectively using assistance resources have been made. The concept of operations is not clearly defined. For example, the R.S. Landauer, Jr. & Co. letter of 12/30/83 does not tell how fast the company can provide film badges.
(The letter also needs to be updated as required by NUREG-0654 II.P.4.)
The flemorandum of Understanding between the USAF and the State of New Hampshire makes no reference to an accident at Seabrook, and, as was mentioned above, it is unsigned and undated.
FDdA RESPONSE (g) An updated letter frcm R. S. Landauer, Jr. , & dated 3-3-86
(" is now included in Revision 2 of the State plan (Volune 5). The letter
(,g / provides information on the required logistics and time frame for providing readouts of badges which are being supplied, he Memorandum of Understanding with the U.S. Air Force has been deleted frcm the State plan. (Also see FD4A response to above item #1 in the amended basis. )
(U)
, _ f y'f SAPL 15 (Cont.) 69.
h) The letters of agreement with bus companies provide no assurance that bus drivers will' be available to drive buses inte the EPZ.
.vf ). In some ~ cases their [ sic) are too few drivers for the number of buses to be provided by a company under the plans. JanCar Leasing Corporation, for example, is to provide 197 buses, but only lists 150 orivers. SAPL .S also is concerned that some of the buses that are alleged to be available during emergencies might be chartered out or otherwise not available.
FEMA RESPCNSE (h) In regard to the availability of bus drivers to drive evacuation buses, see the FEMA response to above item #5 in the amended basis.
7 i) The letters of agreement with ambulance companies do not support a finding of reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be taken. Most, if not all, of the companies listed are a minimum of I hour's drive from the EPZ. None of the companies except Berlin Emergency Medical Services, Inc. state how many ambulances ud what personnel are available. That company's letter notes that "If the patient is in a hazardous area, we usually have to wait on the outskirts until the patient is brought to us. This might be signifi-cant in the event of a disaster involving the nuclear plans."
( For all of the above cites reasons, the letters of agreement fall to support the requisite 10 C.F.R f50.47(a)(1) finding of reasonable assurance that adeouate protective measures can and will be taken in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station.
FEMA RESPCNSE (i) Ambulance providers are located both within and outside of the EP2. As noted in State Plan Section 2.8.3 (page 2.8-2), ambulance providers frcm outside the EP2 will provide nonenergency medical transportation (i.e. ,
evacuation) of nobility-impaired persons. Emergency medical services from within the EP2 will maintain emergency medical transportation. I.attersof agreement with ambulance providers are included in Volume S of the State plan. All letters in the revised plan (Rev. 2) now state the number and type of medical transport vehicles available as well as the number of EMTs.
The August 1986 letter of agreement with Berlin Drergency Medical Serices no longer states that "if the patient is in a hazardous area, we usually have to wait on the cutskirts until the patient is brought to us."
The RAC review indicated (pace 10 of Section I) that according to estimates of ambulance needs, an adequate number of letters of agreement with ambulance ccmpanies have been signed. In addition, names and addresses
, of numerous ambulance ccmpanies for which there are no letters of agreement are provided as an additional resource.
x
't
~8
!f
, s.
y
}Q 1
\ 3089 .
f.
4 1 it was being offered and I had a cross-examination plan
.D.
Q y 'n 2 prepared for that.
3 ,
Now I just heai-c Your Honor indicate that perhaps all
~~
4 that would be in order'for cross-examination today was the l
g, 5 piece on sheltering and whatever one could. tie exactly to that.
x., O
~'
,E 6 JUDGE SMITH: Y e s., we --
-)v s, i
,r, 7 MR. DIGNAN: If'that is the Board's ruling, I will
,. 8 follow.it. I don' t want to tread on the Board's ruling. 1 had l,( '
9 planned to do a full cross, or such cross as I wished to do, it
. n ,?
H . !
10 won' t be that long, of that entire general piece And so we p
n 11 yre all straight up, I had indicated to the Board earlier that,'
fy [
- 12. depending on'cortain answers I got on cross, it may influence
,13 whether or not I' m going to move in limine cn' parts of this 14 testimony.
15 However, I don' t want to tread on any ruling of the 16 Board, and if the Board's ruling be -that I must hold that 1
j ,
( <, 17 cross, I will do so. 'i l
v / l-i
,' 18 JUDGE EMITH: Let's look at this general testimony.
l 1 19 "U (Pause.)
i l
-20 JUDGE SMITH: Well, if you cross-examine on much of 21 that, you would be cross-examining across every issue we are 22 going to hear.
I 23 MR. DIGNAN: In a sense, Your Hono), I could perhaps 24 clarify. Understand, I am prepared to abidri by wnatever ruling
, i, .
p 25 the Board makes.
I Heritage ReportinD Corpe, ration !
q(( (202) 628-4888 l l l l
I f
L_ _ _ - _ 1
3090 8 1 Would it assist the Board if I handed up my cross-2' examination plan, because'the_ cross will.not be long'in any 3 event? But it is true that in cross-examining that piece I did 4 not plan to confine myself simply to so much of that piece that 5 directly bore on the individual pages later.
6 I am prepared to abide by whatever ruling the Bourd 7 would --
S JUDGE-SMITH: 1 recognize you are. We have to 9 , estle with the best, most efficient system that I can see 10 from that preliminary piece, 11 MR. DIGNAN: Would i, a"sist you if I handed you --
12 JUDGE SMITH: Yeah, I think so.
) 13 (The Applicant's Cross-14 Examination Plan was given 15 to the Board and bound in 16 the transcript.)
17 18 ,
19 1
20 <
1 1
21 !
22 j 1
23 1 24 1
j HeritaDe Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l
y n-4 4 5 '
.j i,? *
- c. .
n;
' , l
\
, ;i
- f. fN; 'S,
, il
( .-+)
f: ' '
,y Af. .p i
{I l '[
' UNITED STATES OF. AMERICA. i
< NUCLEAR REGULATORY-COMMISSION' before'the' ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD- .
i.
(
) {
- In'the: Matter of ) -[
". i
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY : -) : Docket-Nos. 50-443-OL' '
OF:NEW HAMPSHIRE,.ET AL. )- 50-444-OL ,
~ . . ')
.{
. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 ) (Offsite Emergency.
and 2) )- Planning. Issues)
- ), Li i
APPLICANTS'. CROSS EXAMINATION. PLAN :
,!v
-FOR THE FEMA' PANEL ON SAPL 15 G
'The only; point.which the' Applicants wish to make for the $
Q.); - . -
record is ' that the' testiimony, as filed', -does not Ltake ?into account letters e19 received,since Rev. 2 of NHRERP.
Respectfully submitted .;
- i
- i
.i 1
.] 4 i
Thomas C..Dignan,-Jr.
George H. Lewald 1 Kathryn A. Selleck Ropes & Gray l
~
225 Franklin Street ,
Boston, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100' Counsel for Aeolicants 1
0 \
l g"
l
. u.% .l_ _ i_.__... _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . . _ . _.____-._m -_ ..~~._,.,.-m .,-..m.. ...em. ..~me*. . .2.
w- ,
, , e
-+ ,.:N : - ls ' , ,
[
r
,a
- i
_l
- t m :. ,
+[j l
.t.
y
-UNITED: STATES OF AMORICA'--
. NUCLEAR-REGULATORY. COMMISSION. 4
- j. before the i sg ,
j ., , : ATOMIC SAFETY AaD LICENSING BOARD
, ) '
~-In' the-Matter of.. )
)-
-PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY. ). Dockets.Nos. 50-443-OL ?
.OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.. ,) 50-444-OL'
. . ) .
- (Seabrook Station, Units-1 ) (Offsite Encrgency
.and 2) i
) Planning Issues) , ,
)
< ij
(" !
APPLICANTS' CROSS-EXAMINATION: PIAN RE FEMA GENERAL TESTIMONY
..q .I.- The first page of_the testimony says that the review:is l kf ongoing; are they ready to change'anything'at this-point, and, if so,;what.-
j ^
II . . Pace 4 of khe Direct ,
.i
'A. ' Describe the collegial process, who was involved? j!
1.' Was it' by majority vote ;
2.' Was an expert given the last say .f
- 3. What'was the input _of the RAC in the collegial process; was anyone but the chairman present ,
3 B. Describe how the RAC worked 9 9
9 L 1. . In particular what weight given to NRC '
member's positions
'f g
a
, i m - - _ -- -- __
L
i 0 .;
y' ;. .:-
Y . .
III.. Exploration of Why Oniv The'Reaional' Director is a ,
Witness on Shelter-A.- Establish that this is really a legalfposition :
I
- 1. It is simply an. interpretation of NUREG-0654 (
! r :
- 2. Was NRC Counsel Consulted-on thefposition f
^
taken !
.B. .Was the positionLtaken discussed at the RAC.
. , . I
- 1. If no - why not .
l-2 .- If yes-- What'was the position of l
- a. NRC 1
b .' Others j
, t C. .Does Panel Member Tanzman also agree with'the l position; he is a lawyer also j
.l. ilf. no - lets here why not. l kl 2., if'yes - why is'he not supporting it as a witness !
IV. ' Exhibit C '
.l A.. ,Did'any of the witnesses write it'or assist in !
I writing it B. It too'is a legal position is it not 1 C. Was advice of NRC Counsel Sought l
i o
i i
l 1
i I
2 l I
x;
_ ______-___-__a
j
- s. p. L h
iI
.. /-- q
\s : tu
/ Nj V. On Page'6 of the direct, what is the " additional ' 'l information" referred to seven lines from the bottom IJ Respectfully submitted, ;
Thomas G. Dignan, Jr.
George H. Lewald '
Kathryn A. Selleck Ropes & Gray 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 (617) 423-6100 Counsel for Acolicants '
1 m s V -
i t
)
1 5
d
,J s >
3
, J L _. I
3091
.i
. 1 JUDGE SMITH: Where is your Exhibit C?
2 MR. FLYNN: You don' t have that, Your Honor?
3 JUDGE SMITH: I was just asking. !
4 MR. DIGNAN The last two pages of the package, Nour '
i 5 Honor.
6 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, I didn' t avail myself of your 7 index.
8 MR. FLYNN: Well, you wouldn' t actually find that in 9 the index. Exhibit C is my letter dated August 7th to Tom 10 Dignan. It's the last two paDes of the package.
11 I would point out that that's not being offered at i b
12 this time.
) 13 JUDGE SMITH: It is not being --
14 M R. FLYNN: Not at this time.
15 JUDGE SMITH: The last two pagis of my packet is a 16 letter dated December 24, '85.
17 MR. FLYNN: Oh, you have some things there which are 18 not strictly part of the testimony.
19 JUDGE SMITH: All right, they were forwarded by the ,
20 same IC ter. I see the letter to --
21 MR. FLYNN: If you will indulge me for a moment, Your 22 Honor, I ccn find it.
23 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, I remember your letter now.
24 What am I doing with this operative guidance 25 memorandum?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
1
.l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
3092 1 MR. FLYNN: Not everything in that packet was 1 2 intended to be testified to. It was provided for the 3 convenience of the parties. -
4 ' JUDGE SMITH: Okay. If I just reread your letter, I -
5 know it's all in there, but just let me see Exhibit C.
6 (Pause.)
7 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Dignan, can I propose that you 8 undertake to cross-examine on SAPL 15 and then save everybody's I
9 time tryinD to Det on top of your approach, and we do that I
10 doinD the break.
11 MR. DIGNAN: That will be fine.
12 JUDGE SMITH: You will just have to change your order 13 of cross-examination.
14 MR. DIGNAN: That will be fine, Your Honor.
15 May I proceed, Your Honor? i 16 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, please.
17 MR. DIGNAN: Thank you.
18 CROSS-EXAMINATION 19 BY MR. DIGNAN: { <
20 0 Members of the panel, Mr. Thomas, in particular I 21 notice that since we last saw each other in any official 22 capacity in this case, you have graduated from law school with i 23 dist inction aria become a member of the bar. My
]
i 24 congratulations.
A A (Thomas) Thank you, Mr. Dignan.
t Heritage Reporting Corporation i
)
l (202) 628-4888 i i
l i b __ __-. _ _ l
M .
?
?%
- 0 -
c1 n .
-THOMAS, TANZMAN - CRDSS
.7 3093
~
!;1; O' And welcome to:the'.bar.
, J2 A' - (Thomas) - Thank.you.
~
10 .0, Mr.LThomas, I have a:.very simple. question for either 4' y o u l o r - M r'.~ Tanzman.
Lt:
.With respect to these pages which,have been admitted
- 6 concerning SAPLe15, am I correctt that,.like the restDof the 7 testimony, the' conclusions expressed therein do not takezin';o 18- account letters and other things. received since'Rev.'2*of*:he
[ 19. plan; is that;right?
- 1 01 'A (Thomas) That is correct, sir.
r l-11 MR. DIGNAN: Th at ' s ..a l l I have.. .
- 1j2 JUDGE. SMITH: Then we-will take our--15-minute-r; , . 13: midafternoon' break.and wrestle with the. rest of your L
+ '-
1 L1'41- examinat ion.-- I mean, deal with it, or consider it.
1EndT42a 15' -(Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
".T 4 3 . 16 MR. FLYNN: Apparently.what1 happened was Atiwas.
.17 offered,.or at'least the relevant ~ portions of his testimony 18 were offered. You asked whether there were objections, and
~19' there were none, but.there was not a formal ruling that.the 20 portions of the evidence were offered were admitted. It was?
- 21. Okay.
22 JUDGE SMITH: My memory is that there was.
23 We had a bench conferer.ce as.to scope of cross-
/
24 examination, the general and preliminary aspects of the FEMA 25 testimony. Mr. Dignan proposes to cross-examir.e as a voir dire i
L Heritage Reporting Corporation L (202) 628-4888 f
a
7
^
4 'N O
7-t
.3094 q,
n33 .
,, l 14 with respect [ to parts.;of L the testimony which are not.' yet 4, # H2 offered.or' received,Jand that is~ parts that'would relatecto r 3- sbeltering; is thatl correct?> d L4 MR. DIGNAN - Yes, Your Honor. I guess'I.would prefer
- 5. to-phrase it that!the, cross will be confined to'the'so-called-
~
- 6' introductory piece which has been received.
s 6
y "7 . -. JUDGE SMITH: That's right.
_; , 8 1MR.-DIGNAN: .But by nature, it will inquire of"
' y.
-9
- matters in that 3 introductory piece thatibear'on7 things other
- 10. than letters of agreement, and for the most part.will almost
~11 : ,
exclusively be sheltering..
t.
L 12- JUDGE SMITHS Right. And the purpose'is to' establish
.13 a basis Efor objecting to ' testimony when it is 'of fered.-
14 MR. DIGNAN: That is~ correct, Your Honor.
15' JUDGE SMITHz That's why I termed it1somewhat as a .
16 voir dire.
17 Massachusetts Attorney General and other Interveners, 18 but-Mass. AG, . in particular, are concerned . that they weren' t 19 prepared to go into other'insues than the substantive issue
-I 20 today, and in particular, sheltering. l 1
21 However, the way I understand it, the cross- l EMI examination on the. introductory aspects will not be available -
for use to propose substantive findings as to any of the 12 3 -
]
24- issues.
25 MR. DIGNAN: That certainly would be my view, Your M
u Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l s !
m________.___: _-_1_
.. -- - 7 u
h c h
b 3993 k (I7~'t k il . _ , '1 Honor.
] .
j
..2' JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
l.
j -. 3 .MR.EDIGNANa- And I'm perfectly prepared to so o
i R 4: represent. .If I L havelto come back and get' something, I' ll get.
l l' l
- 5- it later.
p ..
L GJ JUDGE SMITH: If you have to come back and pick'it upf -
N 71 at the time, you are free to do:it. But this session this-n 8 afternoon would not be available for proposed findinDs.
i .:
9'
~
'My.; inclination'is,. absent strong' objection on'the 10 '- other parties, is-totat'least~ start with'that. understanding,
'11- because;I 'do believe that it will. give maximum notice to :the
.121 other' parties as:to what'the basis, if-any,( of objection.to.the.
13 testimony will'.be, so you will be prepared ' when and if it's
.3q) '
1
'*- 114 -l nade, and that'all call -- it's going - to be an important 15: matter, apparently,7and it all can be handled in a much more
'16
~
o '- .
deliberate way.-
17' Well, what so you? What is your' position?'
18, MR. OLESKEY: Thank you, Your Honor.
19 I have tal'ked to the other Interveners, and I think 20! that we would prefer not to see that cross-examination'done 21 this afternoon.. We would prefer to see it done at an agreed 22 upon later date in advance of the offer so that one of us by.
H23 agreement can conduct at that time or have the opportunity to 24' prepare appropriate cross-examination designed to affirm, as 25 appropriate, the credentials of a witness.
) .
n.J Heritage ReportinD Corporation (202) 628-4888 ah
' [ .
m
' y' p ,
I I
.. j. 7 3096
, q~ q 1(.f ; 1' AsiIlno'ed t in:the conference.before the break,_none c , ,
- 2) of"us,Jas'I understand it,'among.the Interveners were prepared
~
, 3 to- havelthis happen 'today. 'I had discussed with Mr. .Flynn-last
{
.4-. night the; fact that'_although-because his testimony-is of a-SL piecei itLwould all,b'e' incorporated.in the record. H e. w o u l'd .
26- not'be presenting testimonyLthrough Mr. Thomas.that went to 71 other issues.. .And although I appreciate , the panel's '
8 willingness to assist Interveners, I would rather have us have 9 the opportunity nay on the' Monday when we reconvene L in October
'10 tofhave this:done, and make a~ judgment between now and then and
' 11 atLthat. time whether we want'to do voir' dire ourselves, 112 I have justIhad too much experience with. lasting 1,
(' y '
11 3 impressions'getting Inftiwhere one. party goes ahead even on the r,
L ' d' ;14- limited basis you.have proposed. Then you try to come back .two J l '
15' or three weeks later and undo an impression that you could have l
l .16 undone,at that' time if you had been prepared.
J . .
'17; . JUDGE SMITH: Well,'would you have'any objections-to 18f doing what you'would like~to do this afternoon next Monday,.I 19 mean Monday.when we reconvene?
i 20 MR. .DIGNAN: The answer is probably no,~but can I 21 make'a couple observations, and then I' m going to, as I'say,
- 22. subside,.Your Honor.
23' First of all, I have no intention, and I don' t ' know
-24 why somebody thinks 1 do, to challenge the credentials of the 12 5 Chief of.the Natural and Technical Hazards Division, or his o
i Heritage Reporting Corporation H (202).628-4888 !
V.
h
. M '
'(
.BY' t p
4 li:x 3097
- ,1 l colleague sittingathere. . The Board:knows-what.is in that. plan.
t ,-.
This notTa qualifications cross, or.a credentials: cross.
2-4 . .
3; Thatts1 point ~one. ;.
Lil 4' Point,two, I:am frankly at the point now,..Your Honor, 9 l
i g
a: 5' where ' I thinkI made an offer' and it hasn' t. been accepted. .So 1
1 , . .
6 nowlI-am about ready to take;the. position that:when, as and if OW. +
~-
7' this, testimony comes:on the dock, I' ll ask'for.voir. dire, I' ll -,
8 do-it, and- I' ll hit them with an oral motion, and they can do
- 9. as well-'as they'can with it. - That's my attitude right now.
10: But:11f 31t's the Board's1 preference th'a t I come in= ,
11 here.and;we break.up Monday morning --7 excuse 1me -- the'fi'st r i
12- order of business Monday'to do.that, and Mr.. Thomas and Mr.?
g, .
13 Tanzman are willing, ,then I would be glad to do it ' if it's the
~ '~j . .
- Nd; 14 Board's preference.
i 15 Could-I-ask this?' Could we do it~ Tuesday' morning? 'I a 16' referred" earlier to the Board that my partner has a problem J17: that would delay him1being here on Tuesday, and it might be --
,18 ' that his r panel'is up, and if we want:to schedule it'for Tuesday' ]
.i
, 19 morning, - and :lf Mr. Thomas - doesn' t mind, ' and if Mr. Flynn
'20 doesn' t mind, fine.
21 JUDGE SMITH: I Duess I still think you are missing a 22- bet here. I think that you are well qualified to represent .
.7 . -4 23 your own interest. But I think that you are missing a bet. j l
24 I think that you should have allowed him to go ahead (25 with his cross, study the transcript, and take your part.of it 3 i
7')
xs
) 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 1
1_1 z_2. _ _-- . I
t 5 2
1 s i
e 3098
[{
f9N_i: ,
11 wh ile ' we . reconvene.= - LIfEyou want to addressithe' points.he is 2 making,Ldo that.
, 3; MR. 7 DLESKEY: .Would_you be' prepared tolhave.us
.4 address any points we _ think need to be addressed when we o
~5 reconvene that Monday or. Tuesday rather.than' wait until the 6' sheltering testimony __ cornes along?
s.
L 7, < ~ JUDGE-SMITH:- Sooner or later, whatever points'he t
h, 8 develops,-covery.interestedfparty has an opportunity 1to: address.;
L -
9 That's _ always present ~in everything that ever happens_in this
~
L' '
L >
I
.10 proceeding.-
b ,
11 We'~ recognize that.you are not prepared to. respond L12 today. . -It may,--in fact, be neater to do it-next. week. On the:
'13 other' hand, if-hefdoes it today, they"are)here, .it is being;
[ d' .
14L offered today.
This is the logical time _to do it,:and ILthink)
_15-' thatLyou"can reserve your opportunityfto address the points ---
l
'16 I;meaniyou have made'it.quite-clear'that it was not on the.
-17 schedule, that'it does relate to issues 1that weren' t scheduled 18 tocbe heard, and,you.should have.an opportunity --_you.would ..
19 ha've an' opportunity to address the point that's been made. I .;
1 20 would it will be done better and more efficient after-you have L
21 had an' opportunity.to know what it is that he's' doing. !
22 So I think with that -- I' m sorry, go ahead.
23 MR. _OLESKEY: If you can schedule an. opportunity for 24 us to do that when we come back in the next week well in 25 advance o'f the time we actually have to face the offer of the
" f"3 '
' LJ ;
L Heritage Rcporting Corporation L
lr (202) 628-4888 b :
{ - -- - a
/
3095
! M, '
ii.) .;
, 1 sheltering' testimony, I would be willing to have.Mr. Dignan go' 1; . El aheEditoday.
, 3 ' JUDGE 1 SMITH: Yes. You;do agree, do you not, that.
.g
- E4'- they. must : have_ an opportunity to address - the points that 'you .
5; are going toa be' making this afternoon? .
6 ' MR. .,DIGNAN: I sure do, .Your Honor. I'think a, lot of- f i . 7, 7 people are looking for a hidden motive here --
8 JUDGE SMITH: Well.
9 :MR. DIGNAN: -Let me explain right out. The testimony
.t 10' is admitted.. . If I don' t cross it now, if I don' t make the move 11 I did, somebody could say'later, you passed your opportunitysto 1
i: ,12- cross this piece.. I may move -- i i
I
- 13 JUDGE-SMITH: .RiDht.
'(*'
14 MR. DIGNAN: -- if no'one wants:me to cross ~it now,
-15 fine. I' 11 cross it.whenever anybody says. My record is-
'16 - protected that:I have the.right to cross it, and 11' m at
,17 everybody's pleasure ' as to whether I do it now or later.
18- JUDGE SMITH:- You.see, the Board has an interest, 'f 19 too. The like to have as much ' notice as possibic, . too, of the 20' problems we have to rule on. And I am not quite sure what's
(
21 going to happen here, but I am sure that it's not ' going to be I
)
- 22. easy.
(23 And so I think with that, to give the Board and the !
l l
24- parties the maximum' notice, and recognizing that as a
]
- 25 fundamental principle of any adjudication we conduct that you l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L__________ __ __ _
9; . }l ,
^
4's n.,
'#s ,
i f ,
- n., , S.
^
3100 ,
a" m< l
(
- f- . : 1? cannot.be burdenedLwith.anything you have not had a.~ full. .l v m' l
., 24 opportunity,to confront,E we will~ proceed, . and' then we will...sen - 3
- )
.. ~
2 3: what-your needs are as it unfolds. 1 i4' I So proceed,-Mr."Dignan. Then ' I don' t know if you are 5- withdrawing your.ob'jection orLwhatever. . But on that1 basis, I. 3 1
6, 1 am. overruling it'. 1
.s i
I g , "7f ' M R .' DIGNAN:, Before I-begin,'Mr. Flynn,.I am-cor' rect. '- 'l
< ^ :8~ that global page 1 has'not been' offered.=
^
SL . MR. FLINN:- No, that'was' simply-a page;with1my.
10 ' signature on11t' identifying the'prefiled testimony.
11' MR.uDIGNAN: Your, Honor, I brought that out --
f Sectionll:o' fmy cross-examination plan goes by the board'at 112 <
- 13 ^ that - point ; because the page hasn' t , been of fered.
>f~) w '
^q)16 14 JUDGE SMITH: Was what?
, a
'15 MR. 'DIGNAN . Roman' numeral.I on my. cross-examination 16 plani .I will.not interrogate on that.
1 m 17L JUDGE SMITH: .Oh,Jokay. l 118 .MR.'DIGNAN' Because it has not been offered,Lthat
.19 first-page.
20 JUDGE SMITH: Are you sti11' talking about page 47 ;
21 MR.. DIGNAN: That's where I am startinD. It's II, 22: page 4. ]
23i JUDGE SMITH: Which is global 4.
24 MR. DIGNAN: And it was page - .the reason I wrote 25 down page 4 is that's the typed number. It is global 5.
Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 1 !
b-Lix_--
~
7~+;<g, v .
.-v
[j
.&<' I -
O' s
~
I m . j f '
3101 1 JUDGE SMITH: 'Let's use ' the global numbers ' here to. -' ~
- 2 -; <
MR. DIGNAN All right, fine. 'When I typed.this 3 .. out,Lall I had was,the one-without global numbers. :
I g 41 MR. 0LESKEY: .I st ill- don' t . understand what ' page- you 1 5- arefon.
"6- JUDff SMITH: Mr. Backus.
~.7, M R.~ BACKUS: I.just couldn' t understand 'it. Did;yous j 8; say. global SLor ---
L5- .MR.iDIGNAN: Global 5. I l 10' MR..BACKUS: The numbers at the bottom ~of the page-11' MR. DIGNANs. Yes.
. ~l 12 LMR.-BACKUS: ..Okay.
, 13'- LJUDGE SMITH: See,;the global numbers start at.the l
- *~ '
14 veryibeginning, and go ll.the way through the very end through i
15 thocentire submittal.
l 16 ' MR. BACKUS: I got'it.
l}
- 17. CROSS-EXAMINATION ,
q
'1B BY MR.cDIGNAN: l
- 19 O Mr. Thomas, would you be kind enough to turn to 20 global 5,.and you, too, Mr. Tanzman?
' 21 - On that page you make the following statement. "The JM! - positions'which FEMA has taken on the NHRERP, the exercise of 23 the-NHRERP, and the contentions which this Atomic Safety and 24' Licensing Board has admitted, were arrived at through a i" l 25 collegial process of review by FEMA's regional office in Boston Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ,
1
l' d '
a 1
1
- w; , -
jf.;
1 : THOMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS 3102 1 &- [
,! A 1- in ; consultation with - FEMA's JreDional assistance. committee and
! '+ ;2' Argonne National Laboratory, and. review- by -FEMA's state: and -
32 local programs and support directorate in.WashinD ton, D.'C."'
4
( .41 lAnd my,first' question is, could.you expand for me tho' 2
- 5. collegialJprocess.you refer to.there? Could : you tell us a?
6 little bit about'what went on and!who participated?
7, A ( Th o ,1as) 'I' m f not . sure I' understand the question.- If'
, 8 youfwould like. I could.try'and'make.a stab.at it. 'f
, 9' O. Please.try.
l 10 A (Thomas) Okay. Further on, on.that.page, we list >
[ 11 membership of a ' regional assistance committee, . representatives 1 -
4 4
12 from'nine federal agencies. And the collegial process that we s 13' were making' reference to has to-do with a process:whereby when D
L14 plans. are - submitted tx> FEMA, - they are distributed to these nino L15 aDencies'who review the plans, particularly,;in.their: areas of' I
l- '16 expertise;. send those. reviews into FEMA.
'17 We:then'have staff coordinate those reviews land we-18 will sit down and,have one or more. meetings of this regional 19 assistance . committee to - develop a RAC review and RAC position.
I 20' The most-recent RAC review has been served on the 1 l
- 21. parties, and you can see the detailed nature of the review that i
"2EL is done by consensus in the regional assistance committee. !
- 23 ' O Mr. Thomas, do I understand from your answer.then, 24 the collegium that was involved in the collegial process you j 25 refer to was the RAC?
[ .
Heritage Reporting Corporation
.n (202) 628-4888
.h i ce-_----____--__ _ _ _ . -
l k F 2
- m.
't a-i
~
LTHOMAS, TANZMAN -' CROSS 3102 j
$.f7~$fLp
- gA. (Thomas) . .It-;is the RAC, i'ncluding the FEMALstaff j T1T 2' members.-; JThe Argonne; National Lab serve, in essence, as FEMA ~ !
i a
a ,
4
- 3- staf fl assistance to .the regional ~ assistance committee. So the-41 FEMA; presence on'the RAC,. the.collegiumLare several FEM 4' staff,-
5 assistanceffrom the Argonne National Lab, and sometimes t$ere 6: also will .l be: Linput from our h'cadquarters office,in Washi'ngton
<7; as well.
<8" 10. All.righti So' then the RAC was a part . of the 9: collegium rather than the. collegium as a'whole. R i t -
10' 1A (Thomas) FEMA isLa member of.the.RAC.
L '
l 1 1 -- Q I. understand that, but in the collegial process you zl2 are ' referring Lto -- I' m just trying to Det one thing' clear. :
_, .a 13' If'I heard-you correctly, the RAC was partlof'the' s
14 collegi.um. .It was not the whole. collegium.-
l* '15- .A, (Thomas) .The wayEI.~1ook at it,;the membership.of the 16 RAC, the agency representatives,- in some ' cases such ' as- FEMA's-1, 17 case, there are many-people that would serve'as assistance to' 18 the RAC.
19~ 'We,:at'least for our purposes, describe the j 20 collegium, if you would, as the red i onal assistance committee, -j 21 including FEMA and its staff assistants.
22- I don' t ' necessarily object to your characterizing it.
23 as the -- the collegium as the members of the-RAC plus FEMA
.24 staff' assistants-if you would like.
.25 -Q No, I' m not trying to characterize it. I am trying l'
L.L ' '
Heritage Reporting Corporation l.C ' (202) 628-4688 1
1_u_ _ 1- - _ _ a
m ,g jp y-
- i. q -
~
. i/
.s "n.n, + s es 1
- - . , i f,-
' THOMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS. 3104 y-yggy -
'}
.) -1 to ? find s out' j what ' I'.m .trying to c find out in this . statement' is -
2 this. '
4 s
<3- LI could.look atl-- when youisay collegial process, I 14 assume 1that's ra' process .gone throughs by ~ a collegium. L And ' what'-
ib -
'5; I' m trying to figure out is..who L are . the . members.
3 f 6.- LThe members of.thetcollegiumoreferred tnLin'your-m s 17F phrase "collegialfprocess", if'I hear you correctly, are more v '
4 8 than. simply 1the RAC members, y - ,9 A- (Thomas)M That is correct.
}10 Q- Okay.. So the RAC l is only a part of the collegium.
! 11 A (Thomas). That is also corrects.
' 12L 'O :Okay. LNow,.when -- I understand collegial-process 1 v
13- has.a. broad. meaning,.but.would.-it'be' fair;to characterize that b .
' - N . 14= a majority vote prevailed on'posd.tions?'
15_ L AL (Thomas) Thuszfar in oeveloping RAC positions in my.
.16 region, which is the only reDion I can testify about,.we have .
- 17' been able . toh develop our : positions based upon'aLeonsensus. So 18' we attempt'to have a meetinD of the minds,'as it were. And 19' again, the RAC -- L I don' t want to mislead you. The RAC is the 20 b'ulk of.this collegium.
m ~21 When we sit down-and talk about these issues around T
l' l 22 the table, the predominant participants are the representatives' l:
23 that serve -- the representatives of the nine federal agencies L'.
I 24 that serve on RPC.
E' L 25 The input from others is generally done through a 1
h04 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 LL: =--_=__ - - _ - - - - _
p y-
..s
,4
~
L 'g i ,
s,IS.,,,
y, _
v ,
THOMAS,LTANZMAN - CROSS .3105 L_j;; . ,1 staff; process,0and in . terms of writing documents; and developing tu4 4
' ~
s $. [2 positions.
' .':v " 7: 3' 1 0 So then :the college didn'.t consist of RAC with.one ,
4:' vote,-;and then ai. bunch of other' people with.a vote.; It, J,
5l rather,fis RAClwasfpart'of it,.and.indeed the main force;in 6 .- reaching ~the consensus;.is thatLfair to say?=
~
7 ' A' -(Thomas)' Yes, that's fair to say.
8l O' ; Okay. ,
L i9" /A' (Thomas). 'May 17 also add, you have two thoughts"in p,<
-10'
,- t here. '- !One 11s ~ thought of..las a ' vote. . As.I indicated, thus far--
' 11' wel have Lhad ' nd occasion to. take. a -vote per se on the positions-12: developed:byithe Region 1 regional assistance committee.
c
.It;
.; g 13 has-been reached throuDhJaiprocess of consensus.
1 b :10 .O You are the chairman of . tlie RAC, incidently, in your 15- pos'it' ion; is thatLnot correct,: sir?
16- A - (Thornas i That istcorrect.
17 O Is it - could you describe-for me, and I' m ' not
- .1
'10 trying to restrict 1your answer in any-way, to what degree is
).
'19' particular expertisa given weight in the RAC which, as I 205 understand it, is a group of people drawn from different
- 21. disciplines and different departments of government if I fairly 22: characterized it?
23 A- (Thomas) In terms.of reaching a consensus, certainly
^
24 we are going to listen very, very closely, for example, if the i.
m '25- representative of the United States Department of
[L l' r.
O
, ' Heritage Reporting Corporation b[. '.
b (202) 628-4888 p
n b
h 4
1 i
l THOMAS,.TANZMAN - CROSS 3106 I i
{ 1 Transportation who is employed by the U.S. Coast Guard were to 2 make a particular point about boating safety, I think, in 3 reality, it would be listened to very, very closely, and .
l l
4 possibly even be considered conclusive. l l
5 O Now if you would turn, sir, to page global 3. There l
)
6 is a statement there, " FEMA considers its statement about the i I
7 transient beach population largely to involve matters of l 8 policy. Edward A. Thomas is the FEMA official in Region 1 who I
9 is responsible for explaining, applying and carrying out FEMA's I 10 policies as they apply to the Radiological Emergency 11 Preparedness Program. For this reason, Mr. Thomas was the 12 single witness as to those contentions having to do with the 13 lack of chelter for the transient beach population; namely,"
14 and then the contentions are listed.
15 Now is it fair for me to say, Mr. Thomas, a f t ta-16 reviewing the FEMA position on the sheltering, that one major 17 basis of that position is an interpretation which is being 18 given to portions of NUREG-0654?
19 A (Thomas) Yes, I think that's a f air statement.
20 0 Without getting into the nuances between regulations 21 and reg guides, but as brother lawyers, is it in an essence we 22 take NUREG-OS54 to be a regulation without stipulating that is 23 so, is the pooition based mainly on a legal conclusion as to 24 what that document means?
25 MR. FLYNN: I object, Your Honor. It seems to me O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
m . 't
_-y.
r 3 ,
['
^
h 1
' THOMAS,.TANZMAN'- CROSS --3167
, LM b L/,: :l 1 that'the' question!itself calls for a_leDal conclecion'which is l'..-
j F EndT43: 2( exclusively within'.the province.of the Board.
~
P '
[-;"<T44L 23 ' JUDGE SMITH:- Not1necessarily., What_if it's not ' a -
4 lega11 conclusion? There's a wordffor 'this : type of -- is that b 5: an objection?
0' 6" L MR. FLYNN: Yes,- Your' Honor,1 it~is an objection.
7" JUDGE' SMITH: Overruled.
9 Q Would you like~to have thefquestion. repeated,.Mr.
l'O Thomas?
11: A (Thomas) . No,Esir, I ' don' t need that. <
-#12 ..Q Thank you. e 13- ..A (Thomas): May 11 start by just' pointing,out I don', t f), . '
0'# 14 again want to mis 1ead.anyone. I am.not appearing here as an 15' attorney' employed by the United States Government. You~have-16- mentioned that we are brotherrlawyers, and I.do appreciate the i' 17 kindness.
l 18 1 am appearing here as'a program person.' I am,not 19 employed byfthe U.S. Government asLan attorney.
20' G I: understand that, Mr. Thomas, fully.
21 A (Thomas) The answer to your question is no.
22 A (Mr. Tan: man) May I add also that I am not appearing q l
23 as'an attorney on behalf of the United States Government or on ]
24- behalf of Argonne National Laboratory, just so the record is i 4
i 25 clear on this. l 1
"7"*[ ,
1 n h_l- )
Heritage Reporting Corporation ]
i'02) 626-4888 j
< . . . , t
~
[:
r g' l ~ '
' ~ ;]
.t
!w 4 i ) _j t
u .q: '
[- , l
- 4. a ho 94- -
THOMAS, L TANZMAN '-- CROSS . 3108 'j l1= Di 'Andlyou -- ILwant;to make sure. .Your answer-in,,no, .
- j 2l in tyourijudgment .if' one ' accepted NUREG-0634 to be a regulation, i
j
>i
'3- the position does not depend upon a legal conclusionfas.to what >
)
~
~C- that document means?
5 'AT (Thomas). <Perhaps I should have asked that'the- .
1 6' question be repeated.
7 Q Okay, that's what I was' afraid of. ;
Lo ,0. A- ~(Th'o mas) - The answer to that question - : ,
'9 O All right, let's answer that one.
- j 10 A (Thomas)- If it depends, or .if there are. legal -]
i l- 11 analyses' involved,--to the-extent that you would want to call l n >
l I
'1 2 , t'he interpretation of the>1anguage inTa regulation, en a ,l l
- l. '13 program document, which is normally done, which I in fac't had
- .o J 14 beenudoing as.an employee of the'U.S. Government.for 18. years,
, 115 along before.'I;became an attorney.
16 To the extent you'may.want to consider that to be:a j 17 legal -- legalities miDht be ent' wined with it, the answer is a ;
1 18 qualified yes.
,1
- g. 19 1.had thouDht that your question was, was this a
)
. 20 legal conclusion, and that answer to that is no. '!
21 Q Well, I want to be-sure we -- because you prefaced 22' your first answer with something.
23 I fully understand you are not appearing as an j
, 24 attorney, and maybe I . shorthanded my questioning and shouldn' t
. 25 have. But as a Draduate, and as I said with a rather n
[ ,
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202).628-4888 l j
1 l) '
^
I j
l
-u..:2..m2.-__ . - _ _ . _ - _ _ _ m. 2
$l
, 2 ,
- i. 1 g V
ur
~
THOMAS,LTANZMAN - CROSS- 3109
~
._ II distinguished record;in law-school, maybe a1recent-l graduate, 2[ you: fully understand and appreciate the.differencecbetween a
" p 3- legaliconclusion'and a factual conclusion as lawyers use that 4- term, do you.not?
m 5 A- t(Thomas) I believe I understandfit adequatelytto 6 answer your: questions.
- 7. Q-. Okay.. Now, is the position that. FEMA has taken on 8 sheltering basedEon a factual conclusion or a legal: conclusion?
9 A . (Thomas) The conclusion is based upon the facts of1 J 10' the Seabrook-situation.
i11 Q And an interpretation of now NUREG-065 relates to 12 those facts, correct?
13 A- (Thomas) That is also correct, sir.
14' -JUDGE SMITH: Now, we overruled Mr. Flynn's. objection 15 although it was not devoid of merit. You just'put a question 16' to. him which- I don' t think was totally fair.' You gave him'twol 17 options, and 1-think that perhaps neither option was --
18 MR. DIGNAN: I' ll be glad to put the question open 19 again, Your Honor.
20 JUDGE SMITH: The one problem you are going to have 21 is without a good explanation of how that process works, you i
22~ are going to have a difficult time getting any witness to
'23 explain to this Board what is a legal conclusion, or what is a -)
24 factual conclusion. We are just going to decide that for r 28 ourselves.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l c
g my; , g n , ,
~
y y m e a a y s s .7- a *
. .n r , c' m $ma%q#3[ ed y@p y vl wj{r ry p %% pvg4pm- ' ,
^
m 7 4'- ,
p3' s a > tyr4
.j. ww x x et, , 7
+x, :~
r y' ' ;; .
e' x i
c '4 ' "- '
a d'
3 l4 - Of 'Ay r
[f- 1
.g0 /W , J1,y/ .'Q p. - +
- f J ' & '...., ,, . . ,
- j
. . .TANZMANL~ CROSS, l3110 (m '
. 4 E -f. THOMAS,3: -
.d a ..... #
N"
-4 iM j Nm[- . ,~: 4 :' 3 ;; < ,s 'y, # i
, .L .;, ii
- n -s -
1
>. 'MR.fDIGNAN: [I' m. fullyjaware : of. that', ;Youri'Honorn i. [' rg i;Qsf M m 1( s 'e %,92 '
6 " '
i E;k. ,h ' [ , * ' k, ,,, .g. , ,
.. , , . .. g4 .
T M X "~ ,6 l'3
- J
\*M MR.JDIGNAN:l I' vei got L no ; problem.,
,1 7I ~ ,N _
N*
^
j .. - . .
M
$p$povaQ' 43 <,m IBYTMR.iDIGNAN ,
ag: .n u
- D, b * [. .-'Ai pg -,_ ;5J ]? Q) JIn'reachingLthel position that FEMA'did,,the policy bm
- 3,f[w c.j.;. wl
, y$:[. t
>/ .
l 97 Q ' i' y 4 ;
~
e .
gg;
- x. 3 m a
$g 6; position,?wanlthere any consultation'with. counsel fon' FEMA?i,
} -
I:obvio'uslyfdon{t1want? aby. attorney / client; privileged k ;ki] hg J 7[ >
' ~
L
- i 33h WW; US$ ' relatioris. * /I? want tol
- know was .there consultation' withScounsel '
~
Pii m.ww1.x 7 . .
i l
mg' " ~
gwR 'w,.
~ ;
', 9 ' for1 FEMA.y ; ij 8
gcm '
t 4 >
>1 M
gym.
E ," " ^ i104 :A- S(Thomas); MayfI;again; start by just^ correcting I j
n r , <t; . , ,. , ,i 4 1 L113 perhaps.a nuance. t I w
-. # a
- -4L g 4 -g - . . , ;
)
MNd Wl p12} , WNNtakeythatthisSis21argely._aq'uestion:.of. policy.. h. *
- 'e sw e,,
e
.,I
.p
<s fl ny ShouldiIjrefer;youLt'o;that?.
. ;,y . _ . . <. < . , , , 3 .
gpy.y 4713: ,f*
%J f , A -
O Y y, u[< .-jw . Ik -
x yQa Dyes,JI.know you' dor 1,1 knowsyouldo.
w ps <
1 M ff / I f15;' , (A
^
CThomas) ' .'Okay,.you said'it was one of? policy. . "It isi ;j~
@:' , <n E;'g (16>' not J one; of'. policy. : It is;1argely one'of= policy.
w e
- u. ,
u . f~ '
,4 M171.
i .;
o
.. ./.
LQ. x ' Fine.3 jIn reachingithis' position which is 'largely one h[ p- .
j18) of policy,.was ccunselsfor'. FEMA consulted ~inl reaching'it?-
. .e >
ua
+ s
' f. g. ' $19-
.' A ? (Thomas)' Yes. ._
g a
e m Tg e
, f 20 ,-
mQ . Was any counsel for the' Nuclear-Regulatory Commission ! i y;W c
g
- 21L y<
consulted in' reaching it?
A- '(Thomas) 4 ,
. pg ' 1 22i-1 Yec.
i
.i.
J
[w ,mg m
'23' ,
'O -Did" counsel .forLthe' Nuclear Regulatory Commission i i
W f,,+ ,
, 124L evidence concurrence inLthe positdon?
V;Wlli X
yc li n, '
1 ' , n;( , '25 .A -(Thomas) No, they did not.
.m m';q9,Q)m19 m eu,f.1
'4- r. t;. t t ym QM ' 0'a , ,
"~
, Heritage Reporting Corporation 6,
L- %, , '. m (202) 628-4888 4lRn l[lJp-$t N '.Q~ '
- bfr f(4;tM;a.
f f g. .
j e, 1 Qvf:c g ,
i
. 2- ,,
M n = , %.
- .p . . . .
i
.-r . - -
4 ,
m - n = ---. -- =- - -- -
a
(;Qg%
bp 6 ~ <
f e w y% h'y7
- .u 13 ,;
1<>
s Q:']Q1, b s f; s;> > s F.
f@ ,
3 J THOMAS,:tTANZMAN - CROSS .3111 -
h,l. p#-g t
[ ,
e Gil Di . Was the ' position - this is one of those opening it AJa. ,p 1 ,
y ;c l ..23. up(questions.: :I'know'you have. answered this-and I don' t mean m 4: '
' '3 [ t o .make [it . big. ..
, s
[ . 4'
- But?the~ position, l' assume, was disebssed at the RAC.. .i
,1
[
A ,
.5- , A- '(Thomas) .I ' don' t want to mislead'you,.so if I may -
, Y' l6: .Ql 'Please,?Mr. Thomas, don' t '. feel confined.
di
75 A :- .(Thomas) Yes, the position was discussed in the RAC.
ki. i>?}k l~ - '
T 8 The position was discussed in-the RAC after it was developed by l , 9f, FEMA in . response to the Board's request - that FEMA develop a n.
E' e r T10, ' position - and serve it on the parties : by early June.
I believe m
11 it was served June 4th.
112; :The" position had been --1the position. developed by
, _ 13. FEMA was.-notadiscussed in" the~ RAC , or with the RAC members -
,7
, (L [.- ,34: the 7 position as it was served on the parties was not discussed
- 15 in the<RAC prior to: FEMA' distributing it.
s
% 16; Later, it was discussed.in the.RAC, as well.
, 17i ~ D .. <This!is.what;I want to, and I do not want to put
.15 wordsLin.your mouth on this at all, and stop me if I' m being 19: unfair..
-s j 20. 'If I heard you correctly then, the RAC had no input m yt 21 as such into the reaching of the decision that was published.
ste
{ ',4 ' " ,
-: 22 ; ' MR. OLESKEY: . Well, I object. I think -- Stephen u , . .
L23: Olenkey,. Judge.
- 24. The witness' testimony is clearly to the contrary so 25~ far, and' that's an argumentative and misleading question.
.g a.
Heritage ReportinD Corporation (202) 628-4888 e
' .. m
fy. , <
4 g7 y[ , THOMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS 3112 -
11 MR. DIGNAN: Your. Honor,'if I heard the witness 2 correctly,.he.was very-' careful to state to me that the position
'3' was discussed at the'RAC'but'only after.it had been. reached.
4 BY MR. DIGNAN'
'5 A. .Am I correct, Mr. Thomas?- ,
6 JUDGE SMITH: . Well, in the first place, I don' t.
7 understand the grounds of.his objection.
'8'
.MR.~DIGNAN: I' m sorry.
9 ' JUDGE SMITH: What are the Drounds for.your l 7
10 objection?
l 11 MR. OLESKEY: I thouDht.that the answer had a'Iready.
.1 12 been given clearly lto the contrary, and therefore, the question
.13 was misicading. I'think'the witness ~--
)' 14 JUDGE SMITH: I do think that the question needs some i
l
)
15 clarification, because that.was my impression, too. He 16 described -- 1 think=he needs a point in time -- j 17 MR.' DIGNAN I thought I had, but I' ll ' go back, and fj l
18 maybe I misheard Mr.. Thomas.
19 DY MR. DIGNAN ,
20 -Q Did I hear you state, I had asked you about the RAC, 21 you said it was' discussed in the RAC, but it was only' discussed j 22 in the RAC after the position had been reached by FEMA and )
23 published to the parties? I thought that's what I heard you- h4 I
24 say.-
L 25 A Ghomas) The -- I said the position that was I \
Heritage Reporting Corporation )
l-l (202) 628-4888 )
p
- 1
d LTHOMAS,.TANZMAN 1 CROSS 3112
[ [- 11 developed Jand.. served on the. parties was discussed in the RAC j 2- after it.had been served.
3 And if I saay, I think I could be helpful and just 4 clarify?-
5 0 . Feel free, Mr. Thomas, q l-6 A (Thomas) This issue with respect to'Seabrook'has 7 been.one of lively debate within -- and discussion within FEMA 8' and the NRC and the members of the RAC. literally for years. It-9 was particularlyfone.of discussion ~from the.end of 1985, 1986,.
10 1987.
11' So as I. understood your question a little bit ways.
12 back, you said that the RAC had-no input.. 'That certainly is
, . 13 not correct.
14: G. Okay, that's what I wanted to be sure of,'because-I
- 15 wasn' t sure. what the answer meant.
16 ~Could you describe for me what.in put the RAC as the 17 RAC, not the single members who may have. advised-you or talked
- 18 to you, but what' input did the RAC as the RAC'have to'the
- 19 position.that FEMA has on sheltering?
20 A .(Thomas) If I may, it is normally FEMA's policy, in 21 order to promote the collegiality of the process within the 22 RAC, not to get into detailed discussions. I would be happy'to 23 generally describe it to you if that's possibic, and then we 24 will take it from there.
25 The formal input from the RAC per se began with a Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
-,7 - ..
3 L
^
c)
'l 1
- 8
$ LTHOMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS 3114 .
1L memorandum!wh'ich Irwrote'at the end.of-December ~1985 to Y 2 initiato discussions with all of' the RAC members. We'had'had 3- discussions with..various members of'the .RAC'over the yearsfat 1
4 various,exercisesLin RAC meetings,'and I want'ed to focus'and' 1
5 formalize 7 the discussion.concerning, specifically concerning 'l 6f whatz we call the beach' population. That's to say the transient. ]
7' visitors that we normally refer to as day trippers,-and'also .l l
'8 the occupants of unwinterized accommodations in the area. I l 1
9 wanted to focus in' on that, and I initiated a memorandum at the- l 10 end of 1985.
11 Following that, we had several discussions'in the' i
12 RAC, in. general, about that. Some of the RAC members prepared:
13 detailed memoranda on the subject. !
'k 14: In-approximately' April 1986, - I' m sorry, , I can' t -
- 1
.15 imagine-how I'have forgotten the day, I just. can' t quite- ;
' 1 16 remember thefdate,'wa. received what was basically-the end:of l
.17 ' the written input that we needed to discuss'this in the RAC.;
l
~18' We had a RAC meeting on this particular issue. Came to a.
19 conclusion.
20 Unfortunately, followinD that meeting, a part of.the ;
21 input.which we had relied upon very, very heavily, was 22 withdrawn by the agency involved. And, in essence, we were 23 running out of time to comply with Judge Hoyt's request that we 24 provide a position on the beach population -- on all issues 1
i 25 that were in contention.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
Se- i
.e q l
4 4 1
. THOMAS, TANZMAN -' CROSS 3115 j f,
4 1.= Ol . So ' -- I' m sorry, excuse me.
2' "A) (Thomas). Let me just.go on for just a second.- ,
e o L3/ O Please do. 1 l
4 A '(Thomas) Therefore, we took'the input that we did 5 have'available to us at that time, which'was.an amended letter j 6 from the agency involved that had withdrawn a chunk that'we had 7 used to reach a collegial result in the RAC, FEMA took all'the -
8 input d a t's , includinD the new input'from the RAC member, and 9 prepared;another position which-the-agency adopted.
10 In preparation.of that, we had discussions with-11- individual members of the.RAC and also discussions with FEMA 12 attorneys, FEMA headquarter's personnel in Washington, and then 13' that position was issued in June of 1986..
- I-
- 14 Q Was the position that.had been. set by the RAC where
~
' 15 one, agency withdrew the same as the position that was finally.
16 articulated. to:the parties 'in this proceeding?
17 'A '(Thomas) No,_ sir, it.was not.
18 Q- Was the prior position of the RAC that indeed the 19 Seabrook shelterinD situation was satisfactory under the l i 20' regulations?
21 A (Thomas) Again, I don' t -- please forgive me. I 22 don' t want to mislead you. I am not trying to be unresponsive 23 to your question.
1 24 Q Mr. Thomas, you have been very responsive, and I 4 25 understand these are difficult questions. And if you will O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 j i
I .
u ,<
l- -
P A THOMAS, TANZMAN.- CROSS ,
^3116 jf- >
7 'f ' 'i. noticef . I' haven' t 'done any of. thisiyes or no stuff. I want.you (2' to answer completely and' fully. .Taka your' time.
-3 A . (Thomas) The literal" answer to your question is no.
4 'O What's the figurative answer?
s 5- A L(Thomas) . The more expans'ive answer perhaps is that s'
6; the issues' involved'that would Icad;to.a noLanswer.were.of a-7' much lesser magnitude,'and were -- can-I'just take alminute? I-8 want to phrase it l properly.'
l9 (Pause.)
- 10 ' 'The answer developed by the RAC was, if I may l 112 summarize it,-was still a:no, but with the caveats on that.no.
12 were generally considered by the RAC members to.be extremely. ,
'13 minor and'readily solvable by some plan changes'and some
~
'14- research and possibly by some' colloquy with the State of New
'15 Hampshire.
EndT43 .16 (Continued on next' page. )
17 18
-l 19
-20 21 22 23 j
.24 1
25
); '
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
< j I
I
- ---__=___. _ _ - _ _ - !
I 3117 (3 l
'\d 5-BMAR 1 BY MR. DIGNAN:
2 Q Now, you have indicated that the position changed l 3 from one where the difficulties were, I believed that you used I
4 the word minor, to the present position, after the withdrawal 5 of certain information.by one of the Agencies who had a member l 6 in the RAC, is that correct?
I 7 A (Thomas) I think that I used the wor ,, minor, before a I reflected. There were major difficulties, and I think that I 9 indicated that they were readily solvable though. In terms of f
10 comparison, between the issue, and the difficulties tnat we 11 have articulated with this, they are -- maybe minor is not the I l
i 12 ri0ht word, we are still talking about people's lives -- they i l \
l 13 are of a much lesser order of magnitude. I prefer to use that l
(
.O - 14 word.
4 l
l 15 O Why don' t we use the phrase, readily solvable, and I 16 will rephrase the question, rather than minor. j 17 Wheri the position, as I understand one of the 16 instigating factors of the change of position, from one where 19 the problems were readily solvable, to the present position, 20 was the withdrawal of certain information that had been part of 21 the input by one of the Agencies which had a member on the.RAC, 22 is that correct?
23 A (Thomas) Yes, that is correct.
24 Q And what was that Agency?
25 Which was that Agency?
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ l
1-I u THOMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS 3118
.y m L k_) 1 MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I wish to interpose an j p 2 objection, - but before I do that, I have to consult with the NRC l' i 3 lawyers.
4 JUDGE SMITH: Okay.
5 (Counsel consults.)
6 MR. FLYNN: I have no objection, Your Honor.
7 JUDGE SMITH: You have no objection, Mr. Flynn? !
8 MR. FLYNN: I withdraw my objection which I suggested 9 that I had earlier.
10 BY MR. DIGNAN:
1 11 Q Would you answer my question, please, Mr. Thomas? 1 1
12 4 (Thomas) Again, if I can state, just.as a program
.p. .
13 person, we generally very, very much prefer not to get into j
! 1
^"i' 14 this type of discussion.
15 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, as I understand it, the very 16 able counsel representing the witnesses, has no objection and I 17 ask respectfully that the witnesses be directed to answe .
18 MR. OLESKEY: Well, let me object then.
19 M R. FLYNN: I would like to elaborate a little, Your 20 Honor.
21 The reason that I suggested that I had an objection, 22 was for the protection of the Agencies involved. We, early on 23 in the proceeding in the discovery phase, we asserted Executive 24 Privilege, and we wanted to protect the confidentiality of the 25 deliberative process. yy 7'3 kM Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
THOMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS 3119 .
(~'\
You know, without divulging the answer to the
(_,/ 1 2 question, let me just say that I consulted with the NRC 3 attorney and was advised that NRC does not wish to interpose 4 any issue of Executive Privilege in response to this question. !
5 That - is why I withdrew the suggestion of an objection.
6 JUDGE SMITH: But I would recognize you as having 7 standing to raise the Executive Privilege. (
8 MR. FLYNN: Well, it was not FEMA's participation 9 that I was trying to protect. It was the other Agencies' i 10 participation.
L 11 JUDGE SMITH: We are getting pretty close to being l
12 able to guess who it is.
13 MR. FLYNN: Indeed.
14 JUDGE SMITH: Answer the question.
15 MR. OLESKEY: Well, Judge, I was simply going to 16 object on the grounds -- Steve Oleskey from Massachusetts.
17 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, proceed.
18 M R. OLESKEY: I was just going to object on the basis 19 that I think that we are getting very far afield, not Executive k 1
20' Privilege, which is not mine to raise.
K 21 I think that the witnesses have testified at great
]
22 length to a, what appears at least to me, to be a great j l
23 thoughtful process, that there is no particular probative 1 j
24 value, especially on voir diring, getting into whatever i 25 differences there may have been at some time a year or two ago, j l
l Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 l l i
} 4
i THOMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS 3120 l
- F~Y 4 IL,j. 1 before FEMA arrived at its final position.
2 -JUDGE SMITH: Well,_in that event, we can not pay 3- much attention to it, but it is relevant and appropriate, so 4 would you please answer?
5 THE WITNESS (Thomas): Your Honor, may I have i
6 permission to consult with FEMA counsel before I answer?
7 JUDGE SMITH: Certainly if you want t o.
8 THE WITNESS (Thomas): I would be happy to explain 9 to you why, Your Honor.
10 MR. FLYNN: Well, no, may we? ;
11 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, go ahead. ,
12 (Witness and counsel confer.)
13 JUDGE SMITH: Do you have an objection? j
- -")
1 14 MR. FLYNN: No objection, Your Honor.
- 15. JUDGE SMITH: All right, would you answer please?
16 THE WITNESS (Thomas): Yes, sir, it was the Nuclear 17 Regulatory Commission. Is it permitted for me just'to state !
18 why I was concerned about answering this, is that allowed?
I g 19 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, you can do that, go ahead, and do l
20 it.
l 21 THE WITNESS (Thomas): Just that, as a program 1
22 person, again, I am not --
Judge Harbour is this easier for -
23 you to hear if I --
24 JUDGE HARBOUR I can hear with one ear, anyway.
I 25 THE WITNESS (Thomas): Okay, I was just concerned, s J
l Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 L
1 l
I
THOMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS 3121 r~V i._) 1 excuse me, sir.
2 My concern, as a program person, not as an attorney, 3 is just that'we tremendously value open, frank discussions in 4 the Regional Assistance Committee. FEMA needs that input and I 1
5 am just concerned with answering these questions that some of.
l l 6 that input is going.to be throttled back and that is why, sir.
7 JUDGE SMITH: That is a very good point, and that is
(
8 the fundamental reason why there is what they call a i
l l 9 deliberative process privilege or the Executive Privilege. But [
I 10 in this instance it is not being raised by those whom have 11 standing to do it, and in the second place, this is something la that FEMA was inevitably going to have to face anyway, because 13 it is not a pure deliberative process in the sense that you are 14 taking credit for this deliberative process, or this collegial i
15 process as you present your findings.
16 And you cannot, on the one hand, and you are notl 17 attempting to, assert a deliberative process privilege, and on 18 the other hand, say, here is our product, as the golden result j 19 of deliberative process, either, without having that process 20 probed.
21 So, I was pretty much aware of the problem of what 22 you are giving up, when you do that, but I think that it had to 23 come sooner or later anyway.
24 THE WITNESS (Thomas): Thank you, Your Honor.
25 MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, may I also note for the l O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l.
THOMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS 3122 In L_j 1 record, that neither does the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2 assert the privilege. And I would be glad to --
3 JUDGE SMITH: That is right, that is why, nobody has 4 asserted it.
5 MR. FLYNN: -- pass that question over to Mr. Turk to 6 ask if he agrees with that assertion.
7 MR. TURK: Your Honor, Mr. Flynn turned to me, off 8 the record, while the question was pending and asked whether I 9 was going to interpose or had intentions of imposing Executive 10 Privilege? And my response was, no, I think that the facts 11 should come out.
j 12 JUDGE SMITH: I might say that I don' t think that it l
l , , .
13 could have been successful if asserted anyway. j ll] ^~ 14 Mr. Dignan?
i l';
j 15 BY MR. DIGNAN:
16 Q Mr. Thomas, now after the position was published, you I
- 17 said the RAC then discussed the position, is that correct?'
'18 A (Thomas) Yes, sir, it is.
l l
19 O And in that discussion, was there any attempt to l
l 20 reach what you referred to earlier, as a consensus as to !
21 whether the RAC concurred in the position as published?
22 A (Thomas) Yes, sir, there was.
k 23 O There was an attempt made, and was a consensus 24 reached? !
I 25 A (Thomas) No, sir, it was not.
P~3
[% J l Heritage Reporting Corporation !
(202) 628-4888 l i
1 >
l
l THOMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS 3123 l
, (es ._)' 1 Q Was a vote taken of any kind?' g
\
2 A' (Thomas) No, sir, it was not.
1 ,
3 The decision was reached by the RAC, well, there was l
4 a decision reached by consensus, and I don' t want to mislead L 5 you.
i 6 The decision reached by consensus was that we were 7 not ready to decide the day of the RAC meeting that FEMA was 8 going to go back, look again at the documents, and look again l 9 at information that ' was provided to us by one of the Agencies 10 that day and think about some of the discussion topics that , had ,
11 come up in the RAC, and revisit that issue, at some later date.
12 O Did any, first of all, did the NRC-RAC' member attend
- 13. that meeting? l O
i' k" '14 A (Thomas) Again, I don' t want to mislead you, but the 15 NRC has a RAC. representative concerning Seabrook and he happens 16 to be different than the RAC member.
17 Q Let me back.t4) and maybe I misunderstood.
18 You said to me that the FEMA position that has been.
19 published to the parties was discussed by the RAC, is that )
20 correct?
I 21 A (Tliomas) Yes, sir, I did. !
1 22 Q Was there an NRC person at that discussion?
23 A (Thomas) Yes, several.
24 O Was that person a member of the RAC?
25 A (Thomas) Thinking for just a second, if I may?
s f
U Heritage Reporting Corporation ;
(202) 628-4888
THOMAS,-TANZMAN - CROSS 3124 p, -
L_s 1 Q Yes,-take your time.
2 (Pause.)
3' THE WITNESS (Thomas): Again, I don' t know if it is 4 an1important point. To the best of my recollection, the NRC 5 representative at the meeting, is not.the person who is .'isted.
6 as the RAC member.
7 On our list of names, he is listed as the~NRC 8 representative concerning Seabrook issues. We essentially 9 treat him as the RAC member with. respect to Seabrook, but he is l
10 not the NRC RAC member.
l' 11 -Q All right, well, let me ask you this, has he 12 participated -
going away from sheltering -- has he l
L
_c 13 participated-in the process of reaching consensus on other, l
l
^~^)
?
'14 let's say, less controversial issues?
15- A (Thomas) Yes, sir.
16 Q Okay.
17 Did that NRC member, at that meeting, express la disagreement with the position that FEMA had taken?
(Thomas) 19 A Yes, sir.
20 Q Did any other member of the RAC express disagreement 21 with the FEMA position?
22 A (Thomas) I am thinking.
23 Q Take your time. 1 l
24 (Pause.) ]
25 THE WITNESS (Thomas): I have to answer your p"~]1 is- ,
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
J 1
THOMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS 3125 ;
pjm[
(- ~1 question as being no. And let me be, but again, I don' t want to 2 mislead-you. .;
3 There were a lot of very pointed questions directed 4 at FEMA. Disagreement, I would have to say, no. But there 5 certainly were -- I don' t want to b'e accused of misleading you 6 -- ti.are certainly were a number of RAC members who had a lot 7 of questions in their mind that they felt needed to be resolved c
8 before they would endorse that position.
9 Q And in particular, did any member of the RAC, who 10 engaged in the pointed questioning, suggest that the~ FEMA 11 position was a wrong interpretation of NUREG 0654?
12 A (Thomas) I am sorry, could you repeat the question?
13 I am trying to remember --
0 14 Q Let me rephrase the question, because it probably, as 15 usual, was not'a very good one.
16 Let me try it this way.
17 Did any member of the RAC, who engaged in what you 18 referred to as' pointed questioning, take the position with 19 FEMA, that the FEMA position included or constituted, whichever 20 word that you chose, a wrongful interpretation of NUREG 06547 21 A (Thomas) No, sir.
22 Q In particular, just to be sure that we have your 23 answer, it is your testimony, that the NRC individual did not 24 indicate that the position constituted a misinterpretation of i- 25 NUREG 06547 LO I '
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 f
p _____m_ _ _ _ _ _ _ m._ __- --
9 THOMAS, TANZMAN'- CROSS 3126 F1 A- (Thomas) That is'why I asked that the question be 1.__]i 1 a repeated. The NRC representative, or RAC member, if you want to
~3 call him that, disagreed with our position.
.4 And I thought that you were excluding him from the 5 universe of -
6' O No, I said, anybody, but let's be sure that the 7 record is clear for both of our sakes.
8 The NRC member, in fact, did take the position that 9 the FEMA announced position, included or constituted a wrongful 10 interpretation of NUREG 0654, is that correct?
l (Thomas) 11 A Again, let me think about that for just'a 1
12 minute. -
13 Q Fine.
k) 0-^ 14 A (Thomas) The answer to your question, is yes.
15 Q Did any other member of the.RAC, understand that you 16 have probably answered this, but I know that you want'it clear 17 as I do, did any other member of the RAC, take that same 18 position with you?
19- A (Thomas) No, sir.
20 0 Did any other member of the RAC, whether or not they 21 took a position with you, indicate concurrence in the NRC 22 position?
23 A (Thomas) No, sir.
24 MR. DIGNAN: May I have just a moment, Your Honor? ;
25 JUDGE SMITH: Surely. .
i 7'
) L- ;
l Heritage Reporting Corporation !
l (202) 628-4888 :
i l '
! I
)
l-t _
4
p l
-THDMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS 3127 b
ls). 1 (Pause, while counsel confer.)
- 2. BY MR. DIGNAN:
3 Q Now, Mr. Thomas, and Mr. Tanzman, I don' t mean to 4 leave you out but he shouldered the policy burden all by 5 himself, but both of you may be -- would you turn to the 6 document that is marked as Exhibit Number C, and I agree that 7 it has only in for identification, as this point, but it i<s the B last two pages of the package.
9 And it is mentioned in the Direct' Testimony I am 10 examining on, at the top of Global page 5. l 11 MR.-FLYNN: I think that it would be helpful for me 12 to point out that the letter that you are referring to,-appears 1
13 on pages 104, and 105.
( 14 ^ MR. DIGNAN: Thank you, that is a good idea, pages l
15 104 and 105 of the package, the last two, Your Honor, l l
l 16 BY MR. DIGNAN:
f 17 -Q .That is a letter from your counsel, Mr. Flynn, to me, f
\
l L 18 is that correct?
! l
- j. 19 A (Thomas) Again, from FEMA counsel, Joseph Flynn to 4
20 you. l I I l 21 Q Right. Mr. Thomas, did you assist in writing that l.
22 letter at all?
l 23 A (Thomas) Yes, I did. l l
24 O And Mr. Tanzman, did you have any role in the l l
25 composition of that letter? 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
THOMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS 312E F's l lb' .. 1- A (Tanzman)- No, I did not.
I 2- Q Okay.
l- 3 And was any advice sought.by you, Mr. Thomas, in i
l- 4 connection with your input to that letter from FEMA counsel or l '
5 did you;just send certain input down to him?
6 A -(Thomas) I am sorry. !
l 7' Q' I would like that as a yes or no, because I have no 8 intent' ion of inquiring into conversations between you'and 9 counsel.
l 10 MR. FLYNN: Excuse me, I am confused, by the l 11 question.
l 12 Could I ask for clarification of what you mean by,.
,_, 13 consultation? !
< 3 1 Well, if I said, consultation, I should I 14 MR. .DIGNAN:
15 not have said it, so why don' t I withdraw the question and-try 16 it again, because I do not want to tread on any attorney / client 17- privilege. )
18 BY MR, DIGNAN:
19 O Mr. Thomas, you indicated that you assisted in the 20 drafting of this letter, am I correct?
21 A (Thomas) Yes, I did.
22 Q And what I wanted my question to elicit is, that did 23 your assistance consist of, you got some information and gave l 4
24 it to your counsel who, then drafted the letter, or was the I
25 assistance in the nature of actual drafting of the letter?
7~j ua
}
Heritage Reporting Corporation -
(202) 628-4888
THOMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS 3129 ,
(3
(.)
i 1 And all that I want is a yes, or a no, because I !
2 have no intention of inquiring into privileged. matters.
3 I gave you a or question, strike it, I am sorry.
4 Did your assistance consist solely of sending 5 information to your counsel? f 6 A (Thomas) I am sorry, could you please just tell me 7 what you mean by faformation? I don' t want to mislead you.
8 Q I am sorry, I could not hear you. l l
i 9 A (Thomas) Could you please tell me what you mean by 10 sending information? l t
11 Q Let me try it'another way. I have not been a model j l
l 12 of clarity here, obviously. ]
l 1 13 Did you markup a draft of the letter? j 1
('T 14 A (Thomas) Yes, I did. ;
i !
15 0 And so the process was that your counsel drafted it l
16 and sent it to you and you marked it up and so forth, is that 17 correct? )
i 18 A -(Thomas) Yes. I don' t want to mislead you, you 19 said, a draft? !
l 20 0 Yes. l i
21 A (Thomas) The answer to that is, yes, but it was not 22 just one draft. l 23 0 You marked up a number of drafts?
24 A (Thomas) Yes.
25 Q And then a final product came out in the form of the em Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l
-THOMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS 3130
,.7'i .
.L.)' '1- letter that.was finally sent to me?
2 A (Thomas) Yes, sir.
3 Q Okay. q
)
4- Was any advice, to your knowledge, sought from 5 counsel' from the NRC in.the drafting of that letter?
- 6. A (Thomas) I am sorry, I am thinking, I am trying.to 7 remember.
8 I am sorry, I just don' t , either I don' t know-or I 9 don' t remember. I.just cannot recall.
10 Q In any event, it is clear, that there was no attempt 11 to get, or if there was one, there was no concurrence 'in the-12 letter received from any NRC counsel, is that right?
13 A (Thomas) I am certainly not aware of it.
,_;),
T b~" 14 (Continued on the next page.) !
15 l
16 17 18-19 ,
20 21 22 l
- l. l 1
l 23 l
l 24 .j 1
25 {
l
?\
- 2. 2 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation !
(202) 628-4888 )
i 1
i l
I
+ - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . >
p 1 i k- 3131 ;
('3 t_,6-BMAR -1 BY'MR. DIGNAN:
L 1
1 2 Q On page Global 7, seven lines from the bottom, the I
3 phrase appears,- Additional Information.
4 And do you see that, Mr. Thomas?
5 A (Thomas) Yes, can I just read the contents?
6 0 Yes, please do, I want you to do that. {
7 (The witness reads document.)
8 BY MR. DIGNAN:
9 Q And what does the phrase, Additional Information 10 refer to, sir, what particular stuff?
11 A (Thomas) There were three transmittals by the State 12 or New Hampshire, and I -- can I approximate the dates? .
, 13 I believe that the dates were approximately sent to
14 us August 26th, August 28th, and September 2nd.
15 Q That is a pretty good approximation.
16 A (Thomas) Thank you, and those are the three items 17 that - - the three letters and including information.
18 Q And was one of the items the Shelter Study so-19 called?
l
]
20 A (Thomas) Yes, it was. I i
21 MR. DIGNAN: That is all that I have, Your Honor, I 22 thank you, very much. j l
23 JUDGE SMITH: Under the ruling that permitted Mr.
I 24 Dignan to go forward, no one was required today to follow on or I l
25 to cross-examine on this issue, is that your desire? )
I
() Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 l l
i 4
THOMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS 3132 !
1 MR. OLESKEY: Could I ask a few questions, Judge, to 1
2 clarffy without waiving any right to explore this more fully as i 3 you offered?
4 JUDGE SMITHg All right.
5 MR. CLESKEY: Thank you.
6 CROSS-EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. OLESKEY:
8 G Mr. Thomas, those last three letters that Mr. Dignan 9 asked about, which you put at the end of August and early 10 September, those include a sequence of letters, which included 11 the letters that I attempted to offer into evidence earlier 12 this afternoon, back and forth between FEMA and the State of
. 13 New Hampshire, concerning additional information being supplied
'O',
14 to FEMA by New Hampshire and its significance?
15 A (Thomas) I think that I heard three questions.
16 0 You did, if you can answer them, go ahead, and if you 17 cannot, I will back up.
18 JUDGE SMITH: It is an identification question, is it 19 not?
20 MR. OLESKEY: Yes.
21 JUDGE SMITH: Well, why don' t we just show him in the 22 letters?
23 MR. OLESKEY: Thank you, Judge.
24 (Witnesses are offered the documents previously 25 referred to, and examines them.)
[O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
THOMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS 3133
, l' BY MR. OLESKEY:
2 Q l would reask the question, Mr. Thomas?
3 A (Thomas) Would you, please?
4 0- Surely.
5 A (Thomas) Thank you.
6 Q Mr. Thomas, you referred, in answering Mr. Di gnan' s 7 questions about this additional information supplied to FEMA by 8 the State in early September, to what you recalled is three 9- letters in late August and early September, do you recall that?
10 A (Thomas) Yes, sir, I do.
11 Q Let me ask you if one of those letters is-the letter 12 of August 26th, 1987, which was marked as Massachusetts ;
13 Attorney General Exhibit Number 2, for identification, earlier r
U~ 14 today, which I put in front of you.
15 A (Thomas)- The information that was given to us was 16 this letter and enclosures to the letter.
17 0 Yes.
18 And was another of the letters which was described in ,
19 the testimony which Mr. Dignan was inquiring into, the-letter 20 of September 15, 1987, which was earlier marked for 21 identification, as Massachusetts Attorney General Exhibit 22 Number 17 23 A (Thomas) No, sir, it was not.
24 MR. OLESKEY: I would like to offer the Massachusetts 25 Attorney General Exhibit Number 2, at this time, Your Honor?
r^v l
(_) i' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l l
l i,
i l
l i
THOMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS 3134 ym L ): 1 JUDGE SMITH: Any objections?- j 2 MR. DIGNAN: I object, Your Honor. The same objection L . .
l l 3 as I had before, relevance.
4 JUDGE SMITH: Is it relevant to your voir dire, l 5 today?
l 6 MR. DIGNAN: I don' t think under the -- it may well L 7 be' relevant later, but voir dire, today, no. I agree that I 1-l 8 asked Mr. Thomas to tell me what he meant by additional I 9 information and he named three items, and but I what I was 10 really looking for and which he gave me, was the Shelter Study.
11 But how that makes this letter relevant for an 12 unbridled offer is fine. If counsel wants to offer it.with the
, ,_j 13 restriction that it is being offered only to illuminate what I )
- ^ '"
14 documents Mr. Thomas was referring to in answering my question, 15 I have no objection.
16 But as I understand it, this is an unbridled offer 17 for all purposes.
18- JUDGE SMITH: Well,-that is right, the cross-19 examination of Mr. Dignan is for a very limited purpose. Any 20 . clarification that you make of that by offering an Exhibit, 21 would be limited for that purpose. ;
22 Is that what you want that letter for?
23 M R. OLESKEY: I will take it with the limitation, but l
24 I really did offer it, as Mr. Dignan, referred, generally, and 25 I do so offer it now.
7~\
sJ l Reporting Corporation Heritage j (202) 628-4888 j 1
I l
1 1
_ _____________-___A
THOMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS 3135 7') 1 JUDGE SMITH: Well, --
\._4 -
2 MR. OLESKEY: To expand on that, Judge, I will simply 3 say.that I have to prepare for the same in limine motions with 4 respect to sheltering but coming from my perspective, as I 5 said, earlier, with respect to Mr. Dignan's - -
6 JUDGE SMITH: Is that why you are getting it?
7 MR. OLESKEY: -- testimony.
8 JUDGE SMITH: See, I understood you so far to want 9 this letter for general purposes that can be cited for any 1'O reason that you wish on any issue in proposed findings.
11 MR. OLESKEY: My limited interest at this time, is in 12 having it available to use in defending against his in limine
- 13 motion to strike to our sheltering testimony, and in the
\~# 14 possible preparation, which is a decision I have not yet made, 15 of our own motion to strike Applicant's Number 6, their 16 sheltering testimony. j 17 JUDGE SMITH: Offer it then. It has been identified, 18 and offer it then.-
19 MR. GLESKEY: In connection with the motion?
20 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
i 1
21 MR. OLESKEY: All right, I will do that.
22 BY MR. OLESKEY:
23 G Now, let me ask just a couple of additional questions 24 and then we will hold the rest, as 1 have indicated.
25 Mr. Thomas, as I understand a portion of your f
k)J Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
THOMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS 3136 g
E l_.) 1 testimony, some time in 1986, the RAC for Seabrook arrived at a 2 consensus with respect to a position that might be taken by 3 FEMA, on sheltering, except that one Agency disagreed, is that 4 correct?
5 A (Thomas) No, sir, that is not correct.
6 O All right, in what respect is that summary incorrect, 7 sir?
8 A (Thomas) We developed, the RAC developed no position 9 in 1986.
10 0 All right, let me ask you then, because obviously I 11 misunderstood the date, when you testified to a meeting which 12 took place after FEMA published a position to the RAC members,.
13 at which one member disagreed.with some conclusions, as you
^
14 described, when in time, did that meeting take p' lace?
15 MR. DIGNAN: Could I impose a formal objection, Your 16 Honor?
17 That the question that was put to the witness, if I 18 heard it correctly was about a meeting at which "one member had 19 objections".
l 20 Now, Mr. Thomas did not testify, that "one member had 21 objections". He testified quite clearly that only one member 22 of the NRC member took the position that NUREG 0654 had been 23 i nt erpret er, , but I thought that the witness had been quite l 24 careful to say to me, whether one articulates these as l 25 objections or not, that he received pointed questioning, if you l
l l Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 e
l I
THOMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS 3137
/~T
(_/ 1- will recall, from a number of the RAC members, so that I do not i 1
I 2 think that the question has a foundation as it is phrased. i l
3 Now, if the counsel wants to ask a foundation l C l 4 question as to whether the criticisms were (exclusively those of j i
5 one raember and go from there, I would have no objection. !
6 Dut, at this point, I would respectfully suggests, l 7 lacks foundation.
8 MR. OLESKEY: I thought that the question --
i 9 JUDGE SMITH: Let's hear from Mr. Flynn. l 10 . MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I would like to suggest that l
f 11 the problem is actually more simple than either councal han 12 suggested, and that i s, I believe that Mr. Thomas said, in ;
i l(
(
13 14 response to one of Mr. Dignan's questions, that there was a meeting'in June of 1986, apropos of the development of the I
15 State position, and he was, if indeed, that was his testimony, 16 he was incorrect as to the year. It was actually.in 1987.
17 And I think that if Mr. Oleskey were to rephrase his i
18 question and to ask~--
l
'19 JUDGE SMITH: He agrees. He is nodding his head in 20 agreement with you.
21 MR. OLESKEY: Thank you, counsel, I appreciate that, j 22 BY MR. OLESKEY:
1 23 0 With that clarification, let me ask you if it is 24 correct that the roeeting, which you described in answering Mr.
25 Dignan's quest ions, as being one where the NRC member at the O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l l
l
lc , ,
h L'
l I; e (2 : THOMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS :3138 ,
l!,
ry i.s . '1?
RAC, disagreed with ' FEMA's position, was in June of.-1987?
l=. .
..And it was almost 2- < A (Thomas) It.was in 1987.
L 3 .- certainly'not.in June. My best recollection is that it would 4 have.been in July.
., 5 Ilhave my.. calendar here, and I could consult'it,-if. j
. '6 ' that is necessary..
7 D' - Why don' t. you ' either consult your calendar or the 8 testimony that-;is in front of.you, if that would help you to' ,
9 refresh' your recollections because I would like.you to be ;
a
'10 precise about-this? j 11 A .(Thomas) The. testimony would:not, but if ILmay go-12 over to ' my { briefcase 'and ' get my calendar, I believe that I-can y 13 find the exact.date. .j L -
14 . MR., 'OLESKEY: It is agreeable to me, if it~is.to.the
'I 15 Bench.' , ,;
.. '\. . ,,:' .~
16 c.^ JUDGE SMITH: Cert'a i nly. t A '
.t 17 Whp, witness inaves thus stand to' procure d'oeument,. I e
y v. .
f
..18 ! previously referred to, and returns to the stand. ) i j
.-. j
, .N ztd THE WITNESS (Thomas): I am ready to answer the 1 l .y y .)
i $CU L question, if I may?
1 1
.21' , g, (.
, M R. OLESKEY: Certainly. ,
1 ,, - ,
( :\. ,- 22 p. i THE WITNESS -(Thomas): The answer to yl.sur question, h
,x
"~
l.
l 23 i ts.that khe meeting was Julys30; 1987.
w.
s
. m n
J +g x
1 .
l 24 s -
4.MR, ' bCEcKEY : All right.
-o q
- h i ,.
j
, as . <, ,
~
Heritage Reporting Corporation Q, ; (202) 626-4888 str . I
% 3
.x i;N g k ..
THOMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS 3139
/~T ,
.' uj 1 BY MR. OLESKEY:
{}
2 O Now, had the FEMA position that you described, been I 3 disclosed or published to others than members of the RAC, as of 4 the date of that July 30, 1987 meeting, that i s, _ persons j 5- outside the Federal Agencies taking part in that review?
1 L 6 A (Thomas) Yes, sir, it had. The position that was i b
7 developed by FEMA that was the subject of -- well, it was the-
- f. 8 basic subject of the RAC meeting at July 30th -- was i'
- 9 distributed to the Parties to this proceedings, as I. hope that.
f 10 I indicated, now, I hope that I did not screw up on my dates --
11 as a part of our answer to the Massachusetts Attorney 12 General's ' interrogatories, which I believe we served on or 13 about June 4th, 1987.
~' 14 And which included the Statement of FEMA's position, 15 on all contentions as had been requested by the NRC Board in l
16 this proceeding.
17 0 Which is almost two months before this meeting that l
, 18 you describe?
l' 19 A (Thomas) That is right, sir.
l fil 20 0 And after the meeting, did FEMA revise or change its 21 position as given in those interrogatory answers, in this 22 proceeding, up until today?
23 A (Thomas) If I may, rather than ask for I
24 clarification, just let me say that FEMA has not revised its
- j. 25 position on this issue, concerning the beach population, up i:
N Le Heritage Reporting Corporation t
n (202) 628-4888 I
I .
- _ _ _ x _ _- _ ----_-_-- _ - _ _----_- _-- - _ - - - _
k l -' .
I <
LTHOMAS, TANZMAN'- CROSS 3140 3_/(
A 1 until this day.
2 O Detween July 30th and today, the position is the one
.3 taken in response to the interrogatory answers in early June of 4 this year, correct?
5 A (Thomas) Yes, sir, thatuis correct.
6 O And during this same period, in June, July and 7 August, was FEMA preparing its direct testimony which is the 8 subject of this panel?
9 A (Thomas) .May I just think for a second, please?'
10 Q Yes, of course.
11 A (Thomas) To the best of my recollection, we did not 12 begin the actual preparation of the testimony in this 13 proceeding -- I am sure that we'did not do it, anc fou said,
(,1 2'-
'14 June, July and August?
15 Q Yes.
l 16 A (Thomas) We did not do it in June, we did not begin 1
17 preparation in July either. It was basically after that date-l l
18 in August and September.
I' 19 O After the meeting at which the NRC representative l-20 expressed this point of disagreement, you testified to?
21 A (Thomas) Yes, sir.
22 Q And so that you had full knowledge of the position of l 23 the NRC with respect to FEMA's views about sheltering and other 24 subjects, when you prepared your direct testimony for this ,
25- case, is that not correct?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
THOMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS 3141
-['i -
(m/ -1 A (Thomas) If I may say, we had full knowledge -- we i 2 had a RAC meeting -- we had. full knowledge of --.we had full 3 input from everyone who was present and.I may state, just 4 again, I don' t want to mislead anyone -- but there were a 5 couple of RAC members who were absent but we basically hhd 6 input.from everyone'on this tabject.
7 Q On the subject of the testimony to be given here,.
8' correct?
9 A (Thomas) Yes, sir.
10 0 Did that include the NRC?
11 A (Thomas) Yes, sir.
12 O And following that, did you say if it was one meeting 13 or more than one meeting on the testimony?
I' 14 A (Thomas) There was, I hope that I did not say that 15 there was any meeting on the testimony, per se. There was a 16 meeting on the issue of the beach population.
17 0 All right.
18- A (Thomas) Not on the testimony, per se.
19 Q All right.
20 A (Thomas) But there was only one meeting on that 21 issue of the beach population. ;
1 22 Q All right, and you had the full, as you said, the 23 full benefit of the views of the members present at that
?4 meeting, prior to the filing of the testimony, including the 25 view of the NRC?
?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
u______:_________.
g . . .
w THOMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS 3142 3 .
1- A' (Thomas) Yes, sir. I 2' Q 'Did.you~ offer, at-any time, as'the District' Director 3' of FEMA to.make drafts'of the Direct Testimony that'has now 4 been filed here, available to.the NRC for review,. before:it.was '
5- filed?
6 "A (Thomas) .If I may. state,.thank you for the'
~7 promotion, I'am not the' District Director of FEMA, andlin.my 8 capacity as.RAC': Chairman, and doing.the job that I do, I 9 honestly don' t remember making that offer, myself.
j 10 Q Do you know'if anyone'at FEMA offered.to make the h
11' proposed Direct-Testimony of FEMA ~available to the NRC for 12 review, prior to the time that it was filed.here?
, , 13' A- (Thomas) That is my understanding, yes, sir, it is
- e. . .
14 my understanding that that offer was made.
15 0 All.right.
16 And do you know what the result was of that offer?
17 A (Thomas) It is my understanding that offer was 18 declined.
19 MR. OLESKEY: That is all, Your Honor.
20 M R. DIGNAN: May I ask one follow-up question?
21 JUDGE SMITH: All right, you may proceed.
22 MR. DIGNAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
23 FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION 24 BY MR. DIGNAN:
25 0 -Sir, were you ever advised why the offer was declined Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 u_ :_ _ _ _ -_
THOMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS 3143 f.
V 1 by'.the NRC7 2 A. -(Thomas) It was my understanding, that the offer was 3- made.to NRC counsel, who, it is again, my understanding, this 4 is from several conversations that I have had, felt that' it 5 would not be-appropriate for them to look at this, in view of G the fact that they may be taking a position at variance:with 7 the one that we were taking concerning the beach population.
8 0 I am sorry?'
9 A (Thomas) That they may be taking.a position that was 10 at variance with the one that.the Federal Emergency Management 11 Agency:is taking with respect to the beach popul'ation. And' 12 therefore, felt that looking at drafts of the testimony, would 13 not be appropriate.
O
.d 14 O In short, the NRC counsel took the honorable position 15 that any. lawyer would that he should not get an advance look at 16 testimony that he might have to cross-examine?
17 MR. OLESKEY: Objection.
18 JUDGE SMITH: Overruled.
19 BY MR. DIGNAN:
20 Q Is that not right, Mr. Thomas?
21 MR. FLYNN: I will object, that calls for a legal L 22 conclusion.
i 23 JUDGE SMITH: Beg your pardon?
l 24 MR. FLYNN: That calls for a legal conclusion. 1 25 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, no, it does not, it calls for a ]
LO l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
I' l
l L
7----
THOMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS 3144 q
L) 1 factual answer, if he knows the answer.
2 MR. FLYNN: Well, but Mr. Dignan characterized it as 3 the position that any honorable attorney would take.
4 MR. DIGNAN: I will strike any honorable attorney.
5 And I will just say that t;e took the position as an attorney.
6 that he should not get an advance look at testimony that he j
i i 7 might have to cross-examine, is that not correct? f f
8 THE WITNESS ( Thomas) : That is my understanding, l
l 9 yes. .
I 10 JUDGE SMITH: You struck the word, honorable --
i 11 MR. DIGNAN: Well, that is what he asked me to do but-l 12 now, I will ask Mr. Thomas another question, he is a lawyer.
l 13 BY MR..DIGNAN:
I J'^)> 14 Q And would not~any honorable attorney take.that 15 position?
16 JUDGE SMITH: Now, that is not necessary. That is --
17 if you want to object to that --
18 MR. FLYNN: I don' t.
19 It is withdrawn.
20 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, okay.
21 MR. DIGNAN: My only problem, Your Honor, is that it 2P. is left with the idea that there was something wrong with the e
a j- refusal.
24 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, I understand what you were doing.
- 25. MR. DIGNAN: And I think that it should be put on the
[I'!
oJ Heritage Reporting Corporation {
j (202) 628-4888 l
l e
l
3 i ;
I '
N
-t c .
~3145 .
- - j - 7 3 -
11- record,.that itiwasLan-honorable: refusal.
2 .. M R .; F L Y N N : May I say that'I1am not impugning the k 3' honor'of any. attorney. And'my, the. point of my objection;was 4 very simple, and that.was that~it called for a' legal 5 conclusion, and that.is all that there was to it. It has been 6' disposed of.
- 7 MR.' TURK: Your Honor, in the course of-the last' 8 questions by Mr. Dignan, and the follow-up questions, by Mr.-
9 Oleskey, various doors were' opened, which I believe that I may'
'10 be able to close at some point.
4 111 Frankly, I.was not prepared to.do cross-examination 12 on this issue today, as Mr. Thomas indicated, there was a
.u 13 member of the NRC member present at that RAC meeting and he'is-10--
14 not with me'here,.today..and we have not had extensive 15 consultations on preparation.for cross-examination, and.for 16 that reason, I was interested previously, and expressed the 17 interest in reserving my cross-examination, on this piece until 18 the shelter issue was introduced.
L t
l: 19 JUDGE SMITH: Or, yes, or? Until this panel returns l=
L for the express purpose'of completing this anticipatory voir b
l-
'21 dire.
22- MR. TURK: Yes.- And I would ask that if possible,'if
~23 the panel is going to be returning for the follow-up of this
- 24- voir dire, that I be permitted to present my examination at k 25 that time.
'O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1,
U- . _ _ _ __ _ _ __ .__ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ . _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ - . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
3146 n
x) 1 -JUDGE SMITH: That was the understanding and an
, 2 important basis for allowing that to go' ahead this afternoon, L 3 that ene recognize that -it was not scheduled and that' 4 reservation was given to everybody.
5 Okay, anything further on this particular subject?
l-p 6 MR. BACKUS: Yes,.Your Honor. With the panel's 7 permission and, Your Honor's permi'usion, I would like to also 8 ask just a very few, probably just three clarifying questions
- 9. reserving my right to interrogate on the substance of this
'10 testimony as you have outlined.
11 I would also like to say, Judge Smith, and Members of 12 the Board, that I'was not expecting this testimony to be
_, 13 elicited from this witness, and this is new testimony about the hi > 14' process by which the FEMA decision was arrived at, or at least 15 it has greatly expanded over what we previously knew and I 16 would like the opportunity.to file some written discovery -- I 17 am not anticipating needing to take any depositions -- but I 18 would like to file some written discovery with the counsel for 19 FEMA which I will do very promptly so that we could have that, 20 I would hope, when we come back for the week of the 19th.
21 And I will get that discovery out in written form 22 tomorrow.
23 CROSS-EXAMINATION 24 BY MR. DACKUS:
25 Q The questions that I would like to ask Mr. Thomas, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l i
i 3147 l
.I
, ~)
(_/- 1 are just a very few.
2 All of this or substantially all of your testimony, 3 here today,. revolves around the statement in what I now have a- )
4 new word, Global Page-3, that FEMA considers its statement 5 about the transient beach population largely to involve matters 6 of policy.
7 And I just want you to confirm that the position 8 that FEMA has about the transient beach population is, indeed, 9 the FEMA position?
10 A (Thomas) Yes, the, I'am here appearing as a witness 11 on behalf of-the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the 12 position.which vue developed and served on the' Parties on June i 13 4th, as it has been modified with errata sheets, is the
! 14 position of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
l 15 Q In all that we have heard about RAC reviews, and j 16 Agency participation and the non-participation of one Agency at 17 a particular time, all of that is the process by which FEMA 18 gets to make the position, which it has taken in this 19 proceeding, that it has had since its June 4th submission to 20 the Board and the Parties, is that correct?
21 A (Thomas) It is correct with the exception that I 22 don' t think that we talked about the non-participation of any-23 party, we talked about a disagreement.
24 O All right, I thought that you said that there was a 25 period of time during which one member of the, one Agency O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L__-_____.
h- 3148 f~']',
1_ 1 member or, representative to the RAC' panel was not participating 2 or not providing information that is all that I meant to refer 3 t o.
4 A (Thomas) To clarify for everyone, if I may, there 5 was one meeting at which there were two members of RAC who were.
6 not present and that was answered in the question, had FEMA 7 received full' input from the RAC.
i 8 And we had had a valid RAC meeting and received _the 9 input and all the input data we needed. I hope that I did not 10 confuse anything.
11 Q. I just wanted to make it clear on the record,~all the.
12 testimony that we had about RAC review, RAC meetings, different
_ , . 13 interpretations of NUREG 0654, they are part of the process I) 0-~
14 that your Agency uses to arrive at the position which was 15 stated on your June 4th submissions and is stated in your
'16 testimony that you will be defending here, at a later time? f 17 A (Thomas) Yes, sir.
18 MR. BACKUS: That is all, Your Honor.-
19
)
20 21 ,
22 l l
23 24 l
25 7~ 1
- Is.I-3 !
Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 l 1___ . . _ _ _ _ I
3149 s.
- ;_J ) 1 JUDGEfSMITH: Are you ready to cross-examine on the 2: contention?
MR. BACKUS: Yes. I think Mr. McEachern-may have 4 something to add on the --
5' ~ JUDGE SMITH . Oh, on the loss' issue.
6 MR. BACKUS: -
voir: dire.
7 MR. MCEACHERN No, 'I' m just on the contention. I do 8 havo just one brief inquiry on that.
9 CROSS EXAMINATION 10 DY MR. MCEACHERN:
11 Q Mr. Thomas, you are an 18-year federal employee?-
'12 A (Thomas) This is my. nineteenth years;;yes, sir.-
,,_, 13 0 ~ And you are a career government employee? I I
's 14 A- (Thomas). I guess I am. '
15 Q I couldn' t help but notice that your answers in this 16- proceeding are perhaps the most deliberative ans>#ers that I 17 have ever heard from a witness.
18 Do you have any concerns here that the answers you 19 give may affect that career?
20 A (Thomas) I would hope that i f, as with anyone, I am 21 normally doing a good job in a proceeding like this, is 22 considered to be a good mark on your career.
23 Q My question precisely was do you have any concern h 24 that the answers you may give in this proceeding may be a 25 detriment to your career.
,)
lL_.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
m
t e THOMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS 3150 1- JUDGE SMITH: You're talking about his position on 2 the substantive issues?
3 MR. MCEACHERN: His testimony, Your Honor.
4 THE. WITNESS: (Thomas) I am not going to worry about 5 that.
6 MR. MCEACHERN Thank you.
7 And then I have just one brief series of questions on 8 the letters of agreement if I may. That's the issue that we 9 started with.
10 JUDGE SMITH: Yeah..I thought Mr. Backus was the lead 11 Intervenor on that.
12 MR. MCEACHERN: It'd be three minutes less.
7 13 JUDGE SMITH: It's up to up to you. Go ahead.
.s 1-
~' 14 Mine is very'brief, and I have no -- it MR. BAIMUS: l 1
15 doesn' t matter.
16 JUDGE SMITH: If that's the case, go ahead. As long ]
17 1
as your feet are warmed up, go ahead. 4 18 BY MR. MCEACHERN:
19 Q Mr. Thomas, you are here and present when I elicited f I
20 from Mr. Strome the fact that his agency has no standing audit !
21 process to determine the reliability of the figures given for 22- personnel to be supplied by contractors.
23 A (Thomas) I was here; yes, sir. ;
24 O Does your agency, in your review capacity, look 25 beyond the numbers on the page?
1 LO Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 l
THOMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS 3151 I\ -
- L 1- '1 A- (Thomas) The short answer to your question is yes.
2 And may I say that,.again, I hope that you are misled. There 3 is a process thatLis established for the federal government to-4 look at whist the state is doing to verify the numbers. And 5 what we do is review the results of the drills, and the 6 exercises, and the training which they themselves do to verify 7 and audit, if you would, the numbers that are supplied to them.
8 We, in turn, if you would, look over their shoulder, 9 and review the results of their drills, and exercises, and
- 10 training programs for the purpose of making sure that all j 11 aspects of the plan are sufficient so as to provide ' a 12 reasonable assurance of public safety.
. _y 13 O' But isn' t it true that the only exercise is on Rev. O !
l $
- b2 14 in this particular matter?
l l 15 A (Thomas) And again, let me be very precise. The 1G only exercise, as FEMA and the state uses the term, was on I
i 17 Rev. O. That is exactly correct.
I l 18 O And most of the letters of agreement, if not all, i
L 19 that we have been discussing here today and yesterday have l'
20 originated since that exercise and probably as a result of it.
21 A (Thomas) In answer to your first question, they havc 22 generally come in since the time of the exercise, and I think a 23 fair answer to your question is that they may well largely be a 24- result of the exercise, yes.
25 Q So that the process of audit review that you have L
Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 l
l
l l' .
l l ,
-THOMAS,.TANZMAN -' CROSS 3152 l /~T other than to determine any redundancy in the numbers hasn' t' l -(/ 1 1.
L 2 yet had an opportunity to take place.
3 A (Thomas). It certainly hasn' t been completed. It 4 certainly has been done. Part of our audit is the plan review 5 itself-where we compare the numbers and make sure that they all 6 make. sense. But we certainly have not'gone any further than 7 that. It's just- a beginning of the audit process, it.you 8 would.
i 9 Q' And specifically on the 300 bus drivers in question 10 on exhibits from the three bus companies, Mr. Guadagna,-you 11 have not made any specific review of those numbers.
12 A (Thomas) ' Sir, we.-- the short answer to your 13 question is, no, we did not.
O. 14 MR..MCEACHERN: Thank you.
15 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Backus.
16 MR. BACKUS: I'have a very modest handwritten cross-17 examination plan that I.would be glad to furnish.
18 JUDGE SMITH: This is fine, Mr. Backus.
19 MR. BACKUS: Thank you, Your Honor.
20 JUDGE SMITH: We may need some help with it.
21 MR. BACKUS: By the time you need help, I trust that 22 this will be over, but that is this examination. It's not 23 going to be very long.
24 25
'OV Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
-_-___-__-__-___a
i i
i THOMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS 3153 y d iI /1 (The Intervenor's Cross-2 Examination Plans was submitted 3 to the Board and bound into !
4 the tr'anscript.) l 5 .-
6 q .. 7 8
9 i~
10 '
l
( 11 l ;
I- 12 l 1.
l
! 13 j;
't>- g fg 15 16 i
17
]
18 19 20-
.I 21- :
22 ]
23 24 25
- ri\
$J-Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L_____--___.-
1 i
ut % -~~ n m .
Me.- rip _..- x . . - . - - -
4
}
- - j
._ .. _a _ . . . . _ . _ . _ . . . __
/fC - - M .....- WW5X ridr .7 fA?$Y.:--.------..-
M rs ,% : ls.;$wrsse I +-- .-- -. $W C f z.---._. W y r k T S - _ . - . . . - - -
- i.- #WexM..? . - - - - - - . .
Wsr . . /1r644._ . 99 W Afd3C W P-hh-.,._._ . - . . - ?W$ ~-
-. . . l. . - . .
/. t,- .
rfter Apyf r &/M.Q._-
.f
. jer F
j % tri --. /44 o p m s er.?
.. Cownys
,. W NY &f{ fl Yh/
..-4
/v W-
,., - .. 44,/ f M .*
4/ 44fQuAcy . .
f 9
4
L'
, THOMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS 3154
. (.
(_/_ l' CROSS-EEMMENSFIpW.)
l-2 BY MR. BACKUS:.
3 Q Mr.' Thomas, turning to your testimony on letters of 4 agreement which starts on global page 82, typed page 61, the 5 last paragraph starts off saying, " FEMA does not yet have
'6 assurance that the adequacy of the written agreement," and the j 7 rest of the text of the testimony details in some ' specificity 8 the inadequacies you found; is that right?
9 A (Thomas) Yes, that's correct.
10 0 Now in line with the question that you.were just li' asked, has FEMA had any opportunity yet, or has it: reached the 12 point in their process yet where they would take a position on y, 13 the letters of agreement that have been furnished as 1U 14 attachments to Applicant's Direct No. 17 15 A (Thomas) No, sir, we have not.
I 16 Q Have you reviewed that testimony and thot.e 17 attachments?
18 A (Thomas) Yes, we have.
19 O Just d2recting your attention to the, for example, l 20 the letters from the two mass care facilities that are in 21 there, perhaps it's three, Salem Boys & Girls Club, 22 Squamscott's HOme Health, Inc. I guess there are just the two.
23 In order to make a determination as to the adequacy 24 of those letters as part of the letters of agreement 25 requirement to the plan, what would have to happen?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
m, THOMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS 3155 j
']
1L U 1 A (Thomas) May I just take a minute to look at them,
- 2 please?
3 O Sure. It's Attachment 3, and there is two i l
JC Attachments 3 to the Applicant's Direct Testimony No. 1. )
5' (Pause.) .
~
6 A (Thomas) Okay. We will take them in order.
7 With respect to the Boys & Girls Club of Salem, the ;
L i j 8 first thing that'would strike us about this is that we would l 9 normally expect this to be included in a plan amendment, and 10 that plan amendment has since been furnished to us, or 11 supplement to the plan or whatever you would like to call it.
i 12 We would normally refer that -- excuse me, I think I
_ , , 13 may have misspoke.
/< ,
' ^")'
May I just have a minute to consult our notes here?
14'
)
l 15 Q Oh, sure.
16 (Pause.) f I
17 A (Thomas) As I understand it, it's a procedural
]
)
18' question. I' m sorry for not asking first whether I could I
19 consult. I had planned on just looking at this sheet. l 20 Your question, as precedural, what would we have to
'I 21 do in terms of reviewing it.
22 Well, the first thing that we would normally do is to j
23 expect to receive this from the state as a replacement or a ]
i 24 change-in the letters of agreement in the state plan. And 1
25 checking again on my notes, that has not happened as yet. l 1
p'"1 ;
IN J I Heritage Reporting Corporation !
(202) 628-4888 i
l:
g l
THOMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS 3156
- (
(m), 1 If we were to receive something like this,'or when 2 we receive something like this, this is the kind of thing that 3 we would refer out to the RAC members, particularly looking'for-4 the expertise of the FEMA staff personnel associated with the 5 Ameritan Red Cross, ano determine whether or not we had any-6 reason to believe the. facility was not suitable for the purpose 7 intended. And we'would want to match up.the purpose of the 8 facility, the mass care, the number of folks and things like 9 that. That would be our normal process.
10 With respect.to the Squamscott Home Health Center, we 11 would again -- the first thing that we would do, if we got this i 12 from the state, is to call them and say, what is it,for, 12 because' we can' t understand what this is for. We don' t know 1-0,_
i 14 what' purpose this would serve in the plan. It's not clear to 1 L
l 15 us.
l l 1G And once we get that clarified, we would ses if it l
17 seemed to make some sense, and we might involve a RAC member i
L 18 from the health and numan services, the U.S. Department of 19 Health and Human Services in reviewing this, or perhaps not.
20 If it was something that was fairly obvious, it would just 21 simply be inserted in the plan.
22 Q Well, when you say you don' t know in regard to 23 Attachment 3, Squamscott Home Health, Inc., you don' t know what 24 it's for, are you referring to the fact that it does not i 25 mention anywhere radiation, radiological emergency, nuclear Heritage Reporting Corporation ,
(202) 628-4888 l
3
. THOMAS, TANZMAN - CROSS 3157 1k_ p): .1 power station or anything like that, or did you have reference-l 2 to something else?
i 3 A (Thomas)- Well,-no, I really wasn' t . thinking of any 4 reference to radiation. 'Just looking at.this, we don' t ' know 5 what the nature of the support services.is that these folks are 6 willing to provide. We just don' t know how this fits into the 7 plan.
8 Q Would you, before furnishing any of these-letters, 9- forEexample, to the RAC for review, have any process by which 10 you would ask for greater specificity in the letters themselves 11 as to what.their intended purpose is?
- 12. A (Thomas) That would be exactly what we would do.
13 Our normal process is when something comes in from the state is "I \
i' 2 14 the first thing we do is screen it to make sure that we 15 understand it, FEMA staff understands it. And if we don' t 16 understand.it, then we will usually consult with the state and 17 get it clarified in order that we don' t waste the very, very 18 valuable time of the RAC members.
19 Q Now understanding that these letters have not been 20 submitted to the RAC for review, are you able to take a 21 position on the adequacy of these letters at this tima as
- 22. meeting the requirements of NUREG-0654 applicable to letters of 23 agreement?
24 A (Thomas) Let me be very clear in my testimony. j 25 FEMA cannot take a position on these letters, nor can
.G~\
kJ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ,
i
__--__-_-_-A
f THOMAS, TANZMAN - REDIRECT 3158 1 I'as a professional or an expert take a position on these.
2 MR. BACKUS: That's all I have.
3 JUDGE SMITH: Any further cross-examination.
4 Any redirect?
5 MR. FLYNN: Yes, I have some redirect, Your Honor.
6 JUDGE SMITH: Excuse me, I forgot the Board.
7 Redirect.
8 MR. FLYNN: 'Thank you, Your Honor.
9' THE WITNESS:- (Thomas) If I may, Your Honor, can I
. 1 'O have permission to consult with FEMA counsel before the l
l 11 redirect.' Is that permitted?
I JUDGE SMITH:
12 Yes.
1:
13- THE WITNESS: (Thomas) Thank you, Your Honor, fM 14 '(Witness and counsel confer.)
1 15 REDIRECT EXAMIN.7 TION 16 BY MR. FLYNN:
17 Q Mr. Thomas, you concluded your answers to the last 18 series of questions by saying, no, you were not able to take a 19 position on the letters of agreement.
20 My question is, what is the reason why you cannot?
l 21 A (Thomas) Well, as I articulated, the first reason 22 with respect to the Squamscott, S-O-U-A-N-S-C-O-T-T Home Health 1 23 is we j ust don' t -- I can' t ascertain from looking at this how j 1
24 this fits into the plan. I just don' t know.
25 With respect to the Salem Boys & Girls Club, I have L )
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
i L_:___ _ _
' A.5 THOMAS, TANZMAN - REDIRECT 3159
- p-
. li_! : 1 not had an opportunity to' match up the services of.the facility l
2 that they.are going to provide with the services that are
'3' desired, and I have not had the. input from the person from the !
l 4 Red Cross who would normally give us this, nor from any of the i
5 RAC members.
6 Q Yes, my next series of questions has to do with Mr. c;
' t
- 7. Dignan's voir dire. There was a fairly lengthy discussion of t 8 the disagreement, if we can characterize ft as that, within the
. . i 9 RAC as to the position which FEMA developed on the beach 10 population. f 11 Tell us.what it was'that'was provided and later 12 withdrawn that changed your position, or changed FEMA's-
'13 pos it i o'n.
Y' ^ 14 A' (Thomas) The information which was provided'and was -l l
l 15 later withdrawn, the details of that have already been served 16 on the parties in this proceeding. There are two letters from.
~
17 Dr.. Robert J. -Bores on behalf of the NRC. I believe the second 18 letter is signed by his supervisor, T. T. Martin, for him,'but 19 they are both from Dr. Bores, that set for NRC's posit ions.
20 The difference in these was that, in the first 21 position which was a substantial part of the RAC consensus of l 22 a l ?, nine agencies talked to the essential fact, or talked to 1
23 what was put forward as a fact that the times to a release, the L 24 probability of a release at Seabrook were much, much lower than l
l 25 envisaged in the appropriate sections of NUREG-0654. We often
! .us[Il Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l-1
i^
g THOMAS, TANZMAN - REDIRECT 3160 p.
.(_/ 1 refer to that as the containment issue. The containment is 21 just absolutely. enormous. It's our understanding it's the
'3 strongest in the world. And that the times that are listed in 4 NUREG for the initiation of a release,'the duration of release, 5' and even in fact the severity of the release are dramatically 6 different for Stabrook than they are for other sites.
7 0 Where did you get the information which you have just l ;8 related about Seabrook containment?
9 A (Thomas) I am elaborating on the information whicht
- 10. was provided by the NRC in Dr. Bores' first letter which I.
11 think is dated February 18, 1987, or thereabouts.
12 0 'And your testimony then, if I may paraphrase it,.is 13 that it was the information about the containment which was D' 14 offered and later withdrawn?
15 A (Thomas) In essence, the -- yes, the basis of it is 16 the containment and the implications of the containment were 17 withdrawn, yes.
18 Q Now I want you to tell us what the impact of that 19 withdrawal of the information was on the position?
20 A (Thomas) Well, in essence, it -- as we understand 21 it, it required FEMA to develop a position using the standard 22 parameters for emergency planning which are set forth in 23 NUREG-0654, FEMA Rep. 1, Revision 1, the joint guidance 24 document issued by FEMA and the NRC, and not to give special 25 consideration, t o, in essence, disregard the special features Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
THOMAS, TANZMAN - REDIRECT 3161
! P"3
[ . (L / . 1 of the containment at Seabrook.
2- 'And using that information in NUREG-0654 or FEMA 3 Rep. 1,- using that as a base, together with the facts offthe 4 situation at'Seabrook, led to the development of the FEMA
'5 posture.
6 MR. FLYNN:- Your Honor, if were to delve' deeper into 7 this, I would be getting into shelter issues. At this time'I 8 will simply reserve the right to do that at the time that we 9 get to the. shelter issues. I think I have covered the. aspect
'10 o f --
11 JUDGE SMITH: We have no intention to cover that-12 issue. ,
l I
, 13 MR. FLYNN: Yes.
14- JUDGE SMITH: Okay, I understand.
15 MR. FLYNN: Then I have no further questions at this 16 time.
17 JUDGE SMITH: Anything further?
18 MR. TURK: The Staff, again, may wish to pursue the 19 line of questioning opened by Mr. Flynn, and we reserve the 20 right to do that when the issue is next addressed by the 21 licensing party, either on further voir dire, or crots-22 examination, as appropriate.
23 JUDGE SMITH: Anything further?
24 MR. DIGNAN: Yes, I would like to follow that last 25 line of FEMA's? .
I i
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 THOMAS,.TANZMAN - RECROSS 3162
. s/lq s 1 RECROSS' EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. DIGNAN:
3 -Q- I want to be sure, Mr.' Thomas, I - understand what - went-4 on.
5 As I understand it, a. consensus was reached on the 6 RAC and indeed there was a FEMA position that the sheltering 7 situation was alri;aht at.Seabrook other than those matters 8 which you have referred to as more easily solved at a time when 9 you had certain input which permitted you to consider the 10 peculiar design features of Seabrook in your decisionmaking 11 process; is that correct?
12 A (Thomas)~ It's correct. It's more than .just that
~
13 FEMA was permitted to consider the special design features.
/^%
Q- 14 FEMA was given input from the authoritative source which is the 15 Nuclear' Regulatory Commission, not just --~a very elaborate 16 permitting.and explaining these special design features and 17 their-impact on emergency planning.
18 Q All right. Now when NRC withdrew that information 19 from you, was this. withdrawal premised, did you understand,,on 2O_ the idea that the information you had previously been given was 21 erroneous?
22 A (Thomas) No. Rather, the nature -- if I may expand 23 on that just a little bit.
24 Q As I have indicated to you, Mr. Thomas, I have no l' 25 intention of cutting you off or anything. You feel free to I
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
l-
l l
l THOMAS, TANZMAN - RECROSS 3162 7m; E_/ 'I answer these questions in any way you see fit.
2 MR.-BACKUS: Your Honor, I would like to. interpose an 3 objection atlthis time. And the objection is this.
4 All of this discussion about the containment at.
5; Seabrook that may have gone into a deliberative process at FEMA 6 at the RAC, I. believe was associated with the utility's 7 petition filed on December 18 regarding the emergency planning 8 zone size. There was a petition, as I' m sure all of the 9 members of- the Board are aware,. to reduce the Seabrook 10 emergency planning-zone from 10 miles to one mile on the l
L 11 grounds'that there were' extraordinary and. unique safety i.-
12 features in the Seabrook plant.
1 13 .This Board'has denied that request for an exemption 1
b-^)s
't
'14 from the emergency planning requirements for Seabrook which was L
l; 15 made pursuant. to 2.75(a).
1.
I 16 No appeal has been taken from that ruling that I' m 1
1 17 aware of, and to my understanding, the attempt to have the la emergency planning requirements at Seabrook removed -- I' m 19 sorry -- reduced, is no longer before us.
20 JUDGE SMITH: Is that what you see them doing this 4
)
21 afternoon?
i 22 MR. BACKUS: That's precisely what I see happening, 23 and I don' t know, but I' m sure that if this gentleman from the !
I 24 NRC that'was participating with Mr. Thomas withdrew this about l
25 containment, I --
1 7"1 ,
Ll 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation f (202) 628-4888 '!
{
4
THOMAS, TANZMAN - RECROSS 3164 i_) l' JUDGE SMITH: If that's what they are trying to do,
'2 it's' going to come back to haunt them when they come up with a 3 motion in limine for Sholly and beach and that panel. I don' t 4 think that the testimony they are going into is necessarily for 5 the-purposes that Mr. Dingnan was inquiring. I don' t know why 6 they are going into~it.
- 7. MR. BACKUS: Well, my objection, Your Honor, to be
-O. precise about fit would go to relevance in view of this Board's 9 ruling, unappealed ruling that the reduction in the emergency 10' zone, which was an --
- 11. . JUDGE' SMITH: Right.
12 MR. BACKUS: -- modify the emergency planning
.. .13 requirements.at Seabrook wou:J not be entertained.
14' JUDGE SMITH: None of this testimony this whole 15 afternoon is relevant to any issue before us, any substantive 16 issue before us. It is a limited purpose testimony.
17 Now if they had testified that the containment was 18 made.of cream cheese, it would not have made any difference to 19' us on any issue before us, any of the contentions.
Ip0 MR. BACKUS: Well, that's why I am raising the
- 21. objection at this point on the grounds of relevance to further
. 22 pursue this question.
Y 23 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I think that you may -- on that b
l 24 basis you may have a good objection; at least superfluous if l
ES 'not relevant.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I~
L a - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ - __ _ . _____- _ _________ ______ - _
., j l l ni
{ THOMAS, TANZMAN - RECROSS 3166 )
V,'?'s 3 i
() i the. position that certain information should not be utilized as j J
i 2 a matter of law, t,he position had to chunDe, and I think that j l
_?i' 3 butthessesmyargument-Iwillmaketoyouthttwhathasbeen f
,JP '
q 4' given you is a very good legal brief, but it isn' t testimony. 1 KnEndT47 5. JU7GE. SMITH: All right. :I appreciate why Mr. Backus
'"T48 6 is nervous about this situation.
,m . - .,
7 q ' ( Mr. Bar>kus, it is abr2.v).esely true that-this testimony x 1 B abz.ut c'ontainmont is totally worthless for the substantive 3 3 9 content of it, and nobody argues that it is; is that correct,
@j 10 Mrs Dignan?
3' That's correct, Your Honor.
11 MR. DIGNAN:
12 6Y MR, DIGNAN:
0 >
13 D', Mr. Thomas, maybe I should rephrase tlye. question.
r's: ,
/ 14 My question sus I put it to you was, was it your
( 15 undnestanding that the information which we have beer, 16 di'scussion was withdrawn by the NRC because a conclusion had
, .1 '7 been reached that the infortsat ion was erroneous?
18 1
'A (Thomas) If I can espand on that to make sure that L <
10 u$t dre not misleading anycne s and I think this arm,wer gets to 20' kthe nr.ture of what's goind on in the RAC, why is there a 21 disagreement.
s 22 '
It's sirap1y this. That'the NRC very clearly feels 1
23 that, and they verbalized thin to us, that in fact Seabrook 24 l shou 1% have special treatment;
- hat the walls are, as -I i 1 1 e 25 'under st and it, four and a half feet thick, and there is a 5 s
O G
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-9888
\
l '
L .
?& , ,
n
.lif i
THOMAS,.TANZMAN - RECROSS 3167 f [,
, ]L [ 1. foot vacuum. space.and'an 18-inch, another containment, and
,t 2 there is an inch of steel in there-someplace, too, and it-3 should have special' treatment,.and that this whole issue'of the 4- beach population is really quite, if'I may say. silly in the is 5L mind of a number of the RAC members and the minds of the NRC 50 folks.
7 The information was withdrawn, as I understand it, 8 because the -- what was articulated to me was that the NRC was 9 not willing to carry forward litigation.
10 MR. TURK: Objection. I think we are getting into an m
11 area that the witness has no personal knowledge of.
12 JUDGE SMITH: Well, that's been my concern. all along
,,_ 13 here as he's testified.- I understand that the intent is his.
('"4 '
14 understanding of those reasons, but he is not the best source.
15 Dut it's their testimony that you are going to be. challenging 16> anyway, so he's developinD it, as I understand it, for the 17 limited ' purpose of this witness' understanding-of the NRC --
18 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, why don' t I try to rephrase 19 the' question with more precision, and hopefully obviate Mr.
20 Turk's concern.
21 BY MR. DIGNAN:
22 Q Mr. Thomas, were you ever told by anybody at NRC that 23 the information had been withdrawn because it was technically 24 in error?
25 MR. BACKUS: And I' ll interpose the same objection, 7'
- . . J Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 1
THOMAS,'TANZMAN'- RECROSS 3168 -
,-v l i)s 'l Your Honor, for the record.
1 2 JUDGE SMITH: Technically in error as compared to'
]1 3 MR. DIGNAN: In error as a technical matter.
(Thomas) 4 .THE WITNESS: No, absolutely not; quite the 1
5- cont rar,v.
I 6 MR. DIGNAN: Quite the contrary, all right.
7 BY MR.;DIGNAN:
8 G My last' question is, do I understand then from this 9 entire colloquy that had NRC allowed that information to remain 10 in a position where RAC and FEMA could have.used it, FEMA' s h 11 position would not have changed?
I
'12 MR. BACKUS: Your Honor, again I object, and - I l
1.
13 suggest this is a totally -- both on relevance, and this is a 10 14 wholly hypothetical situation in view of the fact that the l
l 15 present state of the law of this case'Seabrook is not be l'
L 16 treated as a unique plant entitled to any lesser degree of I 17 emergency planning protection than any other plant.
18 We all know there is a possible rule change pending 19 before the NRC that may bear on this. That has no bearing on 20 this proceeding at this time; neither does the purported 21 attempt to argue for a reduced emergency planning zone or a 22 reduced emergency --
23 JUDGE SMITH: Exactly right. You don' t have to beat 24 the point. You made it before. You prevailed on that point.
25 MR. DACKUS: Well, I didn' t --
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I<
THOMAS, TANZMAN - RECROSS 3165
~ .h.R) 1 JUDGE SMITH: But that's not what's happening.
~
2 MR. BACKUS: Okay, I didn' t think my objection had 3 been ruled'on,"Your Honor. That's all.
4 JUDGE SMITH: Overruled.
5 'THE WITNESS: (Thomas) Mr. Dignan, could you please 6 rephrase the question? I didn' t understand it.
7 MR. DIGNAN: 'That's quite all right.
B BY MR.'DIGNAN:
9 O Do I understand from our conversation this afternoon 10 that had NRC not withdrawn this informat' ion you have referred 11 to, that_the FEMA position would not have changed?
12 MR. OLESKEY: And I object as well, Judge.
,,_g ,13 JUDGE SMITH: Object what?
'w'5 14 MR.JOLESKEY: I object as well.
15 JUDGE SMITH: On what basis?
16 MR. OLESKEY: Same basis argued by Mr. Backus.
17 JUDGE SMITH: Overruled.
18 THE WITNESS: (Thomas) May I answer now? I should 19 answer now?
20 JUDGE SMITH: Well, yes, yes, right.
21 THE WITNESS: (Thomas) Again, I' m sorry I can' t give 22 a simple answer to you. Forgive me.
23 FEMA never developed -- as I understand your 24 question, FEMA never developed a position per se as an agency 25 concerning the beach population other than that which is t k
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
t THOMAS, TANZMAN -- RECROSS 3170 j ym
(-) 1 articulated -- was first' articulated on June 4th. I 2 What I had indicated to you was that the regional -
3 assistance committee, of which FEMA is a member, had~ reached 4 congruence on a position. It had not yet been adopted by FEMA, 5 and that may be a source of misunderstanding to you formerly in 1
6 your' question.
7 BY MR. DIGNAN:
8 O All right. Let me ask the question this way. I-9 understand you are being very precise.
10i If I have heard you correctly, had NRC-not withdrawn 11 this information, the RAC position, as far as you are aware, 12- would have remained the same as it was before that withdrawal; 13 is that correct?
4 14 A. (Thomas) Yes, that is exactly correct.
15 Q Now is it fair to say that in all likelihood had that 16 occurred thu FEMA position would have been that of the RAC7 17 MR. OLESKEY: Objection.
18 JUDGE SMITH: On what basis?
19 MR. OLESKEY: Wholly speculative and hypothetical.
20 MR. DIGNAN: I' ve got the head FEMA chairman of RAC l
21 here, Your Honor.
j 22 JUDGE SMITH: No, overruled.
23 THE WITNESS: (Thomas) I' m chairman of the Region 1 3 1
24 RAC, not the head.
i 25 1 think that is fair to say. !
l l !
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _b
l THOMAS, TANZMAN - RECROSS 3171 q
E p/ 1: MR. DIGNAN: Thank you, sir.
2 JUDGE SMITH ' All right,"anything further?:
3' MR. MCEACHERN Your Honor,'I just have one or two 4 questions based on Mr. Dignan's examination.
5 JUDGE SMITH: All right.
6 RECROSS EXAMINATION 7 BY MR. MCEACHERN:
8 O Mr. Thomas, you indicated, if I could and correctly, 9- that the NRC felt the whole issue of the beach people are 10 silly. On what do you base that answer?
11 A (Thomas) I hope I didn' t mischaracterize it, but I 12 used the wordivery deliberately. I based it on, and this, may
, _ , , '13 I say, is.not just the NRC. A number of the members of the RAC b ^'- 14 have said that'they are concerned that we are adopting a 15 position on this issue based upon the facts of the situation 16 and the guidance of NUREG-0654 without looking at this enormous 17 containment. And the statement.is that.our understanding.from, 18 our former understanding at least, was that the chances.of --
19 that there essentially was no chance of an early release of 20 radiation from Seabrook in any foreseeable circumstance.
21 That, in fact, the guidance in NUREG concerning an 22 early release in as little as a half an hour from initiating 23 conditions really was not applicable to Seabrook because of 24 this enormous containment. And that the issue of the beach 25 population -- not to minimize the -- you know, we are here to Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
s THOMAS, TANZMAN - RECROSS 3172 ;
es
- 'n,) ~1; protect public lives -- but that, in fact, it was a non-issue 2 orEa silly _issuo because we would have eight to 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> of 3' notice prior to a release, and in- that period of time we would j i
4 be able to initiate an evacuation, and therefore protect the 5 people. .;
6 O' 'I' ve already noted your careful deliberative way of 7 testifying.- And is your use of the word " silly" considered?
8 A (Thomas) Considered what?
9 Q Is it considered.as an appropriate word?
10 A (Thomas) I apologize if anyone is offended by it. ,
\
11 That was a word that was used to me by one of-the RAC members.
'12 MR. MCEACHERN: Thank you.
l
_ 13 JUDGE SMITH: All right, is there any further 14 questions on this?
15 Then I'believe we have concluded the examination on 16 the issue and on the voir dire. And this panel's testimony is 17 completed as I understand it.
18 Mii. Ct.ESKEY : Well, as I understand it, Judge, we do 19 have the opportunity which Mr. Backus and I and NRC counsel
-20 reserved specifically at a later date to ask further questions 21 by way of voir dire.
22 JUDGE SMITH: Yeah, I think we have discussed that 23 quite a few times this afternoon.
24 MR. OLESKEY: I' m sorry. That's fine.
25 JUDGE SMITH: You are excused, gentlemen.
'(
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.3172 71, A_) 1 1 (The: witnesses where thereupon excused.)
2 JUDGE SMITH: Is there anything further this evening?
3 You should probably schedule among yourselves the i 4 time-that they have an opportunity to follow-up on voir dire, 5, and,let the Board know. I think it should be at.the earliest 6 poss'ible time on'the next week's session.
3.
7 The hearing is adjourned.
8 (Whereupon, at 4:56 p.m., the hearing was recessed, 9 to reconvene at 9:00 a.m., Thursday, October 8, 1987.)
10 11 12
-13 7-4 b2 34 l '15 l
l 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
'24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
g , - - - - .. - - - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - . - -- - - - -- - - -- ---- - - -
= - -
1 7h r +
4 l$ N:. _ .
l u h..{.'(l
> ~
A J '
L <
.3174
~
1 3V [1 .
CERTIFICATE >
l 1 J ,
L2:
w '
This:is to certify that the attached" proceedings before thel 1; [3 L l
- 4- United States Nucyear RegulatoryLCommission in the' matter' oft-
- 5. Names-PUBLIC SERVICE ~ COMPANY OF-
[ :- #
'6' NEW HAMPSHIRE d" ,
'7 DocketjNumbers '5-443-OL, _ 5-444-OL tB; Place: CONCORD, NEW: HAMPSHIRE '
Jg 9 Date: 'OCTOBERL7, 1987
'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.reducedito typewriting by me or underythe direction-
- .s 14 of.the court. reporting company, and that.thejtranscript is a
=
, '15- true and accurate reco : of- ' I fchegoin proceedings.
16 ./S/-
W 17 (Signature typed): KENT ANDREWS 18 Official. Reporter 19 Heritage' Reporting Corporation 20 21' H i
22- j
-23 24 {
l
- 25. I l
1(i i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i l
1