ML20236D408

Transcript of 871023 Hearing in Concord,Nh.Pp 4,539-4,659. Supporting Documentation Encl

ML20236D408
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	10/23/1987
From:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
CON-#487-4728 ASLBP, OL, NUDOCS 8710280195
Download: ML20236D408 (161)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:- a l l, o t OR GL\\A~ o UNTfED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i

g................................................................................ IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-443-OL-50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al., (SEABROOK STATION,-UNITS 1 AND 2) l i i O LOCATION: Concord, New Hampshire PAGES:- 4539 through 4659 j i l DATE: October 23, 1987 c.......a. d............................===..=.===...=.............==..=.=.....=, I l l Heritage Reporting Corporation OViciel Reporten 1220 L kna N.W. Washangton. D.C. 20005 (202) 628 4444 8710280195 871023 PDR ADOCK 05000443 T PDR

t i- .s 4 4538 .,e T_7-1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i l' ' 2 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD PANEL i 3 4 In-the Matter of: ) ) Docket Nos. 5 PUBLIC bERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al., ) 444-OL j 6 ) (SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) ) 7 i 8

Friday, 1

9 October 23, 1987 10 Hall of Representatives New Hampshire Statehouse 'll Concord, NH 12 .The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, 13 f,(, ) pursuant to notice, at19:01 a.m. 14 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 Bocrd Panel 1 10 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ) 19 JUDGE GUSTAVE A. LINENBERGER, JR., MEMBER j 20 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2) Washington, D.C. 20555 22 (Continued on next page.) 23 24 25 i G tg. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

i n l i 4539 (. (5f 1 APPEARANCES: l 2 For the Applicants .3 THOMAS G. DIGNAN, JR., ESQ. GEORGE H. LEWALD, ESQ. 4 KATHRYN A. SELLECK,-ESQ. Ropes & Gray { 5 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 i 6-t For the NRC Staffs 7 SHERWIN E. TURK, ESQ. 8 ELAINE I. CHAN,.ESQ.. 1 Office of General Counsel 9 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Washington, D.C. 20555 10 For the Federal Emergency Management Agency: 11 H. JOSEPH FLYNN, ESQ. 12 GEORGE WATSON, ESQ. Federal Emergency Management Agency 13~ 500 C Straet, S.W. -(). Washington, D.C. 20472 14 For the State of New Hampshire: 15 GEORGE DANA BISBEE, ASST. ATTY. GEN. 16 .GEOFFREY M..HUNTINGTON, ESQ. State of New Hampshire 17 25 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301 18 For the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: 19 STEPHEN H. OLESKEY, ESQ. 20 ALAN FIERCE, ESQ. One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor 21 Boston, MA 02108 ) 22 For the New England Coalition Against Nuclear Pollution: 23 DIANE CURRAN, ESQ. 24 Harmon & Weiss 2001 S Street, N.W. 25 Washington, D.C. 20009 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

a 't ~, 0 4 l '4540-1 V l ~,

l(i,)

l 1 APPEARANCES - (Continued) 1 2

For the Seacoast Anti-Pollution Leagues 3

ROBERT A..BACKUS, ESQ. Backus,-Meyer, & Solomon 116'Lowell Street-L Manchester, NH 03105 5 E ' JANE-DOUGHTY l 6 Director L Seacoast Anti-Pollution League 7 5 Market. Street Port

• touth, NH 03801 l

8 For the Town of Hamptons 9 PAUL MCEACHERN, ESQ. 10 MATTHEW T. BROCK, ESQ. Shaines & McEachern 11 25 Maplewood Avenue P.iO. Box 360 12 Portsmouth, NH 03801 13 For the Towns of Hampton Falls and North. (): Hampton and South Hampton: 14 ROBERT A. BACKUS, ESQ. l 15 Backus, Meyer &_ Solomon 116 Lowell Street 16 Manchester, NH 03105 17 For the Town of Amesbury: 1 18 WILLIAM S. LORD, Selectman 19 Town Hall Amesbury, MA 01913 20 For the Town of Kensington: 21 SANDRA F. MITCHELL 22 Civil Defense Director Kensington, NH 03827 23 24 25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

) i 4541 . (J-I'N D E X t WITNESSES: D1R CROS REDIR RECR VRDR. EXAM i i L Panel (recalled): l ANTHONY CALLENDRELLO PAUL FRECHETTE RICHARD STROME by Mr.. Fierce 4547 l ANN HUTCHINSON (prefiled)4562 f i .by Mr. Brock 4549 o by Mr. Bisbee 4564 J by Mr. Turk 4573 ~ by Mr. Backus by Judge'Linenberger 4575 by Mr.-Brock 4576 by Mr. Backus' 4577 by Mr. Bisbee 4579 . Panel-(recalled): EDWARD THOMAS EDWARD TANZMAN (prefiled)4583 by Mr.-Flynn 4581 by Ms. Curran 4584 [) by Mr. Backus 4612 by Mr. Brock '4642 by Mr. Turk 4644 by Ms. Curran 4648 byLMr. Flynn 4649 l 1 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 __.____m.

l.

M, ~ 4542 . ~. f'N '() ' INSERTS Description Page 45'62 Prefiled Testimony of Ann Hutchinson. State:of New Hampshire Cross-Examination Plan on Ann Hutchinson 4563 FEMA. Panel Prefiled Direct Testimony' 4583 SAPL Cross-Examination Plan for FEMA Panel 4611 O k I 1 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 Ei--- - _ -- _ _

4543 rmV LIMITED APPEARANCES APPEARANCE Page EDNAPEARL PARR 4621 DEAN MERCHANT 4626 i i I l pb, l l t1 V Heritage Reporting Corporation ] (202) 628-4888 i \\

i. 4544AS45 3 'T(,,BMAR~ .1) P R-O-C E.E D.I N G S . 2: . JUDGE SMITH: Good morning. 3' Are there any preliminary mattersfto be dealt with j 4 ~ now? 5-MS. SELLECK. Yes, Your Honor. 6 I have copies for the Board of Applicant's Exhibit 7-Number 11 that was admitted yesterday. A copy has been served-0 on'the parties here. 9 JUDGE SMITH: Okay, thank you. 10 Any other preliminary business? 11 Whereupon, q

12 RICHARD STROME 13 ANTHONY CALLENDRELLO "O

14 MICHAEL SINCLAIR 15 PAUL FRECHETTE 16 were called as witnesses, and having been previously duly .f 17 sworn, were examined and, testified as follows: 18 THE WITNESS (Sinclair): Your Honor, I am Mr. l 19 Sinclair on the panel? .1 20 JUDGE SMITH: Yes? 21 THE WITNESS (Sinclair): On Wednesday afternoon, Your 1 22 Honor, during cross-examination by Ms. Curran, I was asked a 23 question and I asked leave of the Court to check the accuracy l l 24 of my answer. I 25 If it is appropriate, I would complete the record, at j Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i i i_______.__..

t '4546 'l this time? 2. JUDGE SMITH LLAll right, wouldLyou please?' 3 -THE-WITNESS (Sinclair): The reference'in the .4 1 transcript is on'page 4271, lines 11 through 20 and the i I 5 question concerned the existence of a communications link I i 6 between the incident' field office and the. sher.lff's deputies.' 7 And that-communications link'does, in fact, exist.: ) i 8 JUDGE SMITH..Okay. 9 For planning purposes, : thin morning, at 11:25 we will 1 10: lxa taking two limited' appearance statements from the Members of 11 the New' Hampshire. House of Representatives from the towns in 12 the EPZ. 'i i ). 13. Mr. Fierce or was it Mr. Oleskey and Mr. Fierce going' 14 to inquire? J 15 MR. FIERCE: -Thank you and good morning, Your Honor. 16 JUDGE SMITH: Good morning. 17 MR. FIERCE: We have the pages from the transcript 18 that are the ones that I would like to ask some questions '19 regarding are those pages that begin on page 4386,.with Mr. 20 Bisbee questioning Mr. Strome regarding the amendment process. ] 21 We would like to request leave, at this point, to 22 reserve a series of questions that we would have-for Mr. 23~ Strome, regarding what Mr. Bisbee described in his questioning, 24 as a complete picture of what the amendment process is. Our 25 questions, we believe, would fill in with greater specificity, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 _m_U___-_m.____

' PANEL - RECROSS 4547 1-what that. full, complete amendment process is. 2 We do not think that was described accurately, in the 3 questioning by-Mr. Bisbee, but we would like to reserve leave 4 to pursue that line of questioning at a time, when we are a S lead ~1ntervenor on a panel where Mr. Strome is sitting. i 6 What I wanted to do last night and what I want to do, 7 this' morning, is just clear up what I think is an important 1 8 ambiguity in one answer that Mr. Strome gave to the last ) 9 question that he was asked, which is on page 4391. .10 CROSS-EXAMINATION i 11 BY~MR. FIERCE: 12 Q And I will ask Mr. Strome, whether you recall 13 yesterday being asked this question, "What I am asking you is A\\l 14 whether there are any other amendments to the plan, other than 15 housekeeping amendments that concern any of the subject matters 16 that'are covered by contentions in this proceeding, that have 17 not already been mentioned or indicated in'the testimony that 18 has been prefiled in this proceeding?" 19 Do you recall that question, Mr. Strome? 20 A (Strome) Yes, sir. 21 Q And do you recall giving the answer, none that I can 22 recall? l 23 A (Strome) Yes, sir. 24 Q Now, my question is, first, I want to clarify, did 25 that answer refer only to the testimony regarding (~) v Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I ____ _ _ L

q [ 'j ~ PANEL',. RECROSS. ~ 4548 -l-transportation that_was drafted by the panel on which you.were 2-sittingiyesterday or did -it pertain 'to:all of it? 3~ A (Strome) 'That answer pertains to all of the.prefiled-a 4 testimony to which I am a party. 5 MR. FIERCE: Thank you, very mucih, I have no further ,6 questions. ~ 7 JUDGE SMITH: Are there any other questions on that' j .q

8

' question?- l 9 (No response.) 10 JUDGE SMITH: All right, then, gentlemen, you may .11 step down. l J '12 (The witnesses were excused.) 13 JUDGE SMITH: Ms. Selleck, these copies of your .~.( 14 Exhibit Number 11, are they for us or are they the three copies

15 '-

for the Reporter? 16 MS.'SELLECK:. The reporter already has three copies, 17 Your Honor. 1 JUDGE SMITH: Thank you. 18 19 MR. BROCK: Are you ready for Ann Hutchinson, Your 20 Honor? 21 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 22 MR. BROCK: Fine. I 23 1 <.. 24 j l; 25 LO Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 __._________._h______.___..._

1 s 'HUTCHINSON - DIRECT ~4549

w.

.Q ~1 Whereupon, 2 ANN HUTCHINSON '3 was' called as a witness, and after having been first duly 4 -sworn, was examined and testified as.follows: 5 MR. BROCK: Your Honor, for the record, I have now 6-provided the one correction on the errata sheet, indicating a 7

name change with' respect to-the Berry Transportation Company-8' and'with that' exception, the testimony is, as was originally

,9 prefiled in the proceeding.. 10-DIRECT EXAMINATION 11 BY MR.-BROCK: 12 -Q Ms.,Hutchinson, would you state your name and address 13 for the record, please? "O 14-A (Hutchinson) My name'is Ann Hutchinson. 3 -15 Is this on? 16-(Pause to correct microphone.) 17 THE WITNESS (Hutchinson): My name is Ann Hutchinson 18 and I live at 59 Hobbs Road in Hampton, New Hampshire. 19 BY MR. BROCK: 20 Q And did you previously submit testimony in this 21 proceeding through counsel? 22 A (Hutchinson) Yes, I did. j 23 Q Is that testimony true and accurate to the best of 24 your knowledge and belief? 25' A (Hutchinson) Yes, it is. ) (I L Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 i =_ _

e Ji 3 e i HUTCHINSON'- DIRECT 4550' -l L1-MR.< BROCK f Your' Honor, I -would move ' at$ this time - 2 -that that.prefiled testimony ofLAnn Hutchinson be. moved into 3' evidence,.and', bound into'the transcript.o 4-JUDGE SMITH ' Are'there objections? 5 MR. LEWALD We have some objection to some-problems 1 6. with the testimony,-as corrected. 4 Y The. correction appears to -- on the errata --:says a-that all. references to Berry Transportation' Company should' .9 read,; National School Bus Service. - 10 And 'if we. literally do that with' the' testimony, we 11' are changing; documents.that are in.theitestimony. And, for 12-Linstance, on the second page, or rather -- if you could bear 3 13 with me for'just a. moment? ~ )i 14~ t JUDGE' SMITH: Well,-you are goingJto have to bear 15 with us,-because we did not bring our copy of,the testimony to 1 16 the bench, scr that it is a draw. - J j 17 Do you have extras or should we go.get ours?' q ' 18 MR. BROCK: Yes, I do, Your Honor.' 19 MR. BISBEE: Mr. Brock, excuse me, do you have a copy 1 - 20 of the errata sheet, also, that I could have? 21 MR. BROCK: Yes, certainly. 22 (Counsel is proffered document.) 23 MR. LEWALD: Your Honor, on page 2, of the testimony, 24 as' filed, if corrected, the answer to the question -- the 25-question is, what role does Berry Transportation.have with ] l ..b y Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 w__-__-____

-j o \\,- HUTCHINSON - : DIRECT 4551 . Wl j) 1 l respect to the New Hampshire: Radiological Emergency Response L 2 Plan?

3 And>the~answerfis, the Berry Transportation Company 4.

has-signed.a letter of agreement with'the New Hampshire Civil-5 Defense Agency, which in relevant 'part 'provlites: 6 ThisLrefers to:an actual: letter of agreement that was 7_ . executed in the past, and it is illogical to try to' substitute; 'I 8 la'new party'to that. agreement, which is-no longer in effect, y 9 because the~ Berry Transportation' Company, as we have been told,. l q 10: is no longer-in existence.- ( 11 And we have no document before us, that the National i 12-Bus Company has assumed the Berry Transportation Company letter i -13 of agreement. .14 So,.what we are saying is that you'just cannot 15 substitute National for. Berry throughout and have the testimony; 16 make any sense. 17 MR. BROCK: Your' Honor, I don't believe that there.is ~18 this substantive difficulty. I don't read it that way as 19 Counsel has just interpreted it. 20 .I think that the letter of agreement, the present 21 letter of agreement with National School Bus Service, Inc., 22 (formerly Berry. Transportation Company) was an attachment which 23 . Applicants, themselves, submitted in this proceeding. l 24 And this is simply to clarify that what was Berry 25; Transportation Company is now National School Bus Service, and I ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i i I

~ HUTCHINSON DIRECT 4552: ~ f(,j _ 1, Lthat this change occurred some time, when the original letter l 2. of agreement was signed, it was then Berry Transportation.and h l 3 there has since been a name change. 4 That is all that-this errata sheet is to inform the i 5' . Board, formally of that change. 6-But, as'I say, Applicants have.already submitted a 7 present letter of agreement indicating the same change. We EL don'tisee a difficulty here, Your Honor.; ] l 9 MR. LEWALDa' The old letter of agreement, the one l 10 with. Berry, says, has on page 2,-the number of buses available ) i 11. for. transportation purposes'during an emergency, is j 12 approximately 62. 13 And the next paragraph says, the number of drivers l ( ). 1 L 14 available for buses and vans, during an emergency response is j l 15 nine. These are not at all the figures that are represented in l 16 the National Bus Company letter of agroement.- g 17 JUDGE SMITH: Where are you getting the figures that 18 you just read, the -- 19 MR. LEWALD: The Berry figures are on page 2, of the 20 Hutchinson prefiled testimony. The National Bus figures that I 21 was-referring to, are an attachment to the transportation needs 22' . testimony that was filed by the Applicants with the prior panel l 23 -that has just been excused. 24 I,believe that it was an attachment. l 25 MR. BISBEE: Your Honor, if I could add a thought on ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l l

HUTCHINSON - DIRECT-4553 i )'

1 that?

2 Dana Bisbee, over on this-side, I think'that the 3 references to the present tense in the testimony are 4 appropriately changed to the new company name.- I'think that 5 Mr. Lewald is correct in indicating that.there'are references-6 to past events, one oflthem being the former letter of 7; agreement with Berry. L 8 The testimony, I would think, should reflect that 9 that.-letter'of agreement, the specific one, was with Berry, ~10 rather than with the new company and there is a new letter wit 11 the new company. 12 There is also a reference on page'2,-to the 13 participation of Berry Transportation Company in the February. O. 14 1986 exercise..And I think that we are just offering counsel 15. and the witness cut opportunity to reflect cn1 whether the -actual-16 company name, in' February of 1986, was Berry as opposed to the 17 new company name? 18 MR. BROCK-We don't dispute that, Your Honor. 19 We don't think that the errata sheet has indicated i 20 that that is our position. We are simply saying that~what was i j 21 the Berry Transportation Company is now, National School Bus 22 Service, Inc. 23 And if the Applicants have a problem with the errata 24-sheet, we simply wanted to formally notice the Board of that 4 x 25 name change. We think Applicants have already submitted a O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

ni 'HUTCHINSON'- DIRECT 4554 1-

document indicating the same,'to this Board, under the present 2-letter of~ agreement.

And we do not -- we.will not continue'to~ i 3: press 7 to have.the' errata sheet included, if. Applicants wish to -l 4 oppose it. 5 It was: simply.to notify the Board of a name change, 6 'that is all, Your. Honor. 7 JUDGE SMITH: The' point still eludes me, asito why: 8 you are objecting, because I1see, looking at the letter of .9 agreement, it is precisely as described, and-is. offered:by you-10 as National School Bus Service, Inc., formerly. Berry 11 Transportation and your quarrel seems to'be.with the numbers, 12 which I would take to be-a different issue, rather than the-

j

( 13 name. 14 I mean, the numbers, maybe it is. inaccurate, but it q 15 seems to be parallel. 16 MR. LEWALD: We do think that it is a different issue ~ 17 'and the testimony that was presented was with regard to the old 18 letter of agreement, not the-new letter. 19 And frankly, we did not come here, today, to examine 20 the witness with respect to any other letter of agreement.than 21 the one in their testimony. 22 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I think that your problem is that -23 this is the testimony and whatever its weaknesses are, you can 24 establish, that it is the testimony that Ms. Hutchinson is 25 offering here. -A A~sl Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

u, i >;) s v HUTCHINSON DIRECT 4555[' l f.J) 1 'And, again, I: Just don't see how you:are hurt by it?' j l 2 MR. LEWALD: Well -- 1 3 JJUDGE' SMITH: She has not changed anything.: l t '4 MR. LEWALD: She is. purporting to change itk by 7j 5- . changing the letter of agreement that the testimony referd to, 6 This changes the entire scope of the testimony as.we'see it.. 7 MR. TURK: Your Honor, could I have -- u J 8' JUDGE SMITH: Just a moment. 9 '(The Board confers.) g O-10 -JUDGE' SMITH: I think that you have a problem here.,. i i .3 11 because none of the Board, not one of the three of us 4- 'i 12 understand what your problem is. 13 So'do you want to just start fresh..We just don't. A'J l 14' understand anybody's argument and I am not assigning fault or 15 anything, we just don't understand what you are talking about. 16 MR. LEWALD: I think that the Applicant position is, 17 in light of what is presented -- ~1-8 JUDGE SMITH: Well, why don't you start again, maybe 19 we will be more attentive. Just again, explain what your ] 20 concern is? l 21 MR. LEWALD: What concerns us, is that what has q 22 transpired here, apparently with these amendments, when l .23 National Bus is to be substituted, all the way through the j 1 1 24 prefiled testimony or the testimony that is subject to 25 admission here, is that it changes the substance of the 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation ( (202) 628-4888 L

3 HUTCHINSON - DIRECT 4556 . r') 1< t'estimony. s t ( 2 .The' testimony. refers to an agreement that was in lc) existence in the past, and what the witnesses experiences were, 3 -t 4 44that followed an exercise'in relying somewhat.upon~that, j ! : 5.

agreement.

,3 4 ji 6 To now substitute.a new agreement, a new agreement, 1 1 7 that has'nothing to do with~the old one, - - - 8 JUDGE SMITH:" Is the old agreement in force?- l 9-MR. BROCK: Your Honor, could I just'make d comment? n s 3 10. Hamptonihas already-submitted exhibits, we have h. 11 submitted Exhibits Numbers 1 through 9. Included in,5that ( Yn7 N .12-package, which were adml,yted, -- 13' JUDGE SMITH: Ifremember that. (b, ('\\. m 14 MR. s DROCK: -- included the original let'er of t I i 11 5 -agreement with Berry Transportation, and the second letter'of 16 agreement, to which is referred.on page 2, of Ann Hutchinson's $m 17 testimony, indicating that nidh drivers would be available. N 18 And then the most recent letter, with Berry l 19 Transportation, now National School Bus Service, indicating i .) 20 that there would be 65 available. 5( 21 All three are already in evidence. It has been a NN ' ' Ef. 22 1 progression of three agreements with this same company. We are ja w.. A b !. 23 not changing the substance of anything. It has just been a (24 development with three letters of agreement. u 1 25 It is already in evidence, and I don't understand f/m i U Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 s ll.

k 4 HUTCHINSON - DIRECT 4557 pg --s-fyl .- T what the problem is.- .R. LEWALD: Your Honor, the testimony relates to, it 2' M 3 does calculat' ions, and percentages as to how many drivers 4-showed'up in relation;to how many were promised.- t 5-And it does these calculations in the testimony. You j 6 canno't'do that with respect to the new document. You just 7. cannot substitute documents that have different numbers and l 8_ have those enlculations have any meaning at'all. 9 . JUDGE SMITH: Which is something that you can l 10 establish on cross-examination. Now, let's go back. -11 was there, indeed, at one time, a business entity 12 known as Berry Transportation? .13 MR. LEWALD: That is true. l I('% 1 ] 14 JUDGE _ SMITH: And is that successor to it, it is 15 National School Bus Company a successor organization? l 16 A (Strome) So we understand but we do not understand 17 that the successor corporation adopted all'of the pre-existing 18 letters of agreement of Berry Transportation Company. ) 19 JUDGE SMITH: Well that is what we will find out, 1 20 won't we? 21 MR. LEWALD: Pardon? .c 22 JUDGE SMITH: That is what we will find out from the 23 witness,-or will we? 24 MR. LEWALD: Well, if we can ask her. 25 MR. BROCK: Your Honor, I don't understand what he i /~T l

q)

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 e

k HUTCHINSON - DIRECT 4558 () 1 means, adopted prior letters? There was a third and new letter 2 .of agreement.with Berry Transportation, or National School Bus 3 Service, formerly Berry Transportation. 4 JUDGE SMITH: That is where I go slipping off the 5 -logic, too. I mean every time you get to that point, I pick up 6 a letter of agreement which I am looking at here, which was 7 attached to that testimony, and sure enough, there it says, 8 National School Bus Service, Inc., formerly Berry 9 Transportation, your own Exhibit, your own offering. 10 Now, what is, where is the logic breaking down? 11 MR. LEWALD: There are different numbers in that than 12 there are in the National Bus Company letter of agreement. 13 JUDGE SMITH: I am sorry, we shove it as hard as we O 14 can to understand your objection, and unless you can explain it 15 in a different way, I am giving up. I don't understand, I just 16 don't understand. 17 MR. LEWALD: Your Honor, we are talking about two 18 different letters of agreement. 19 JUDGE SMITI: All right, only one of which is valid. 20 MR. LEWALD: Beg your pardon? 21 JUDGE SMITH: Only one letter of agreement, I would 22 assume, is valid, if any. No more than one letter of agreement 23 is valid. 24 MR. LEWALD: I am not getting the last words. 25 JUDGE SMITH: Well, you have valid, only one letter O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

f .4 9' HUTCHINSON DIRECT 4559 f- .Q:- Lof agreeraent is valid, at La time, 1 ;- t i.- 2:

MR. LEWALD

_There is only one letter /of agreement 3h Lthat is: current.-

i '4~ JUDGE SMITH: Current. 5 MR. LEWALD: And it is.not the-letter of agreement 6 that is referred to in-Ms. Hutchinson's testimony. l. '7 JUDGE SMITH: Perfectly appropriate' cross-t 8

examination.

9 MR. TURK Your Honor, before you rule on the 10 objection,-I would like to see if I can help sort it-out.- 11. JUDGE SMITH: Yes? 12 MR. TURK: I think that I understand, maybe I am-13-going to misstate, and if I do, I hope that Mr. Lewald wills R.. '~ 14

correct me.

15 The testimony refers to efforts made by this witness 16 to contact bus drivers employed by Berry Transportation q 17 Company. ] 18 And it relates also to the exercise of 1986, which, .19 in part, involved Berry Transportation. 20 There was another company, at that time, as I l 21 understand it, called the National School Bus Service, which { 22-has now apparently acquired Berry Transportation. 23 I understand Mr. Lewald's objection to be one of 24 maintaining a clear record, that witnesses talking about the l 25-predecessor company, known as Berry, and he would like the (. Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 ) 1 l 2____ 1

q 5 j j . r _. g,, HUTCHINSON'- DIRECT. .4560-h 1 ~ p l. 1-testimonyLto.refle'ct-that. ~ Q

2;

.I think that there is.a good compromise,.and that is, J W cr 3 that in order that-Ms. Hutchinson would have correct testimony, '4- -I'.would'suggest'that answer number one, to-'herftestimony, in >I L 5-which)she states, I am Division ~ Manager of Berry. I 6 ' Transportation, that is certainly subject to correction.now,-to; -7 indicate'her current employer. l 1 8L And I think.that with that correction, there-is no l 9 need~to correct the balance'of the testimony,..since she is 110 . speaking about the predecessor company throughout the 11 testimony. BeginT-67'12-And if Mr.. Brock, for the Town of Hampton-would ] '13 agree, _perhaps we could simply stipulate that,.Lindeed, Berry ,,g ~ ~ 14 Transportation has.been acquired by National School Bus 15 '. ~ Service, and. apart from this first amendment to the testimony, .J 16 no further revision is necessary. .j ) 17 MR. BROCK: I would certainly stipulate that National-R 18 School Bus has acquired Berry Transportation. I 19 What was your second point, Mr. Turk? 1 i '20 MR. TURK: That the only correction to the testimony 21 that we need to make now, is the anower to the first question, j 22 where she indicates where she is currently employed? i 23 And as to that answer, indicate that she is currently 2d employed by National School Bus Service, formerly Berry 2., . Transportation. LO 1 i: deritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 j

i .,t-t 4561-HUTCHINSON - DIRECT ~1 MR. BROCK: If that-is satisfactory-to counsel, that ~2. is: satisfactory to.us,--Your Honor. i3 MR. LEWALDs. We would'have'no' objection.. If that- -4 were the stipulation for the change of testimony, I would not i 'S-be raising the-objections that we:have. 6 JUDGE SMITH: It seems like a rather simple solution' 7 totthe problem. All right, if that is the testimony, do you- .1 4 8' .agreef.that that is the way that the testimony should be? 9 THE WITNESS (Hutchinson): That would be fine, sir. A l - 10 I have no-problem with.that. l 11 JUDGE SMITH - Well, why don't we physically change it~ 12 on the copy that goes into the record? 13 Just give it to the witness. I don't really.have all l - 14 the confidence that I now that changes are being made here. 15' She now works for National School Bus Company. I 16 MR. LEWALD: I assume that the errata sheet is 1 -17 something that we can now disregard.. 18 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, that is the process that we would 19 prefer, in any event, that the actual testimony would be 20 . corrected. 21 MR. BROCK: We tried to do that, Your Honor, and I 22 appreciate that we were not able to on this one. We will try . 23 to do that in the future. 24 JUDGE SMITH: See, at the very least, the copy goes 25-into evidence. i Heritage Reporting Corporation f (202) 628-4888 i D 1 i _.___M______-______.

1 + J ' l 4562 HUTCHINSON'- DIRECT-i 1 'MR.' BROCK: ..I-understand. ~ 1 2 Your Honor,fif all the corrections.and preliminaries 1 1 /3-are taken care of, then Ms. Hutchinson:is'available<for cross-j 4 -examination. 5 . JUDGE SMITH: Have you corrected that, Ms. p '6 .Hutchinson?" 1 '7 THE. WITNESS'(Hutchinson): 'If it'is. required, I can' 8-write.it;in on my copy, yes, Your Honor. l f9 JUDGE SMITH: Here I will do'it. See there is a copy . 10 that.is ' bound-into the transcript. Now,'.'you are a division-11 manager of. National School Bus Company, is-that what'you'are? 12 .THE WITNESS-(Hutchinson):- Yes, sir. 13 .We.are called.the. Berry. Division ofiNational School. ~ i 14 Bus.. .i . 15 JUDGE. SMITH: Okay, I am going to change that now, 3 16 the Berry Division of the National School' Bus Company. 17' (The. Board corrects copy of document'.)' .18 This morning is to American jurisprudence what this 19 week was to Wall Street. ) '20. (Laughter.) -21 (The prefiled testimony of 22 Ms. Ann Hutchinson followsi) i l7 23 l 24 ) l l 25 L Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 _ L ___-__ l

flh; i-js ' pj I MM v: i 'f l. .x

UNITED STATES OF' AMERICA.

b o Y $ ~(a Q' fff; (- l NUCLEAR. REGULATORY COMMISSION' before the' ATOMIC,SAFETYLAND LICENSING' BOARD ~ l ) ~ In:the: Matter.of. ) -) PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY lOF- )- , Docket Nos. 50-443-OL NEW) HAMPSHIRE,-etlal". ) 50-444-OL' ) Off-site-Emergency .(Seabrook Station,3 Units 1 and 2) )' Planning Issues ) ) 4 PREFILED TESTIMONY OF ANN HUTCHINSON REGARDING TOH REVISED' CONTENTIONS III, IV AND VI 'AND SAPL CONTENTIONS 8,--8A, 15, 31','AND 37 1 C Please state your name and occupation. -Q: .A: 'My=name'is-' Ann Hutchinson. I am D-ivir M Manager of 4 Berry LCMs1x sy'I JUWkd ZeArt-C t% &~Lu & ' TransportatictLCc.panyr North Hampton, New Hampshire. I-have been em-ployed.;by Berry Transportation for 24 years, and the last 9 years in a supervisory. capacity. Presently, I am responsible for overseeing operations for the company, including instruction and training of bus drivers. 1 '{ 'Q: What ir the purpose of your testimony? l A: This testimony addresses Town of Hampton Revised Contentions III, IV and VI and Seacoast Anti-Pollution League Contentions 8, 8A, i O SHAINES & McEACHERN PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 2S MAPLEWOOD AVENUE. R O SOX 360 PORTSMOUTH, N.H 03001

e i 15, 31 and 37, and specifically concerns certain deficiencies in the i (') New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan (NHRERP) apparent i v-from the emergency exercise conducted in February 1986. Q: What role does the Berry Transportation Company have with I respect to the NHRERP in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station? A: The Berry Transportation Company has signed a Letter of l I Agreement with the New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency, which in relevant part provides: The number of buses available for i transportation purposes during an emergency is approximately 62 The. number of drivers available for buses and vans during an emergency response is 9 In the event of an emergency and in /')N coordination with the State, and subject (- to driver availability,. Berry Transportation. l Company, Inc. will make all efforts to deploy its vehicles to those local emergency operation centers as requested by New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency. Q: In the event of an actual emergency at Seabrook, do you-believe that Berry Transportation Company will in fact be able to provide the nine drivers specified in the letter agreement? A: No. As the agreement states, whether the company is able to provide the nine drivers is " subject to driver availability." In my opinion, therefore, no driver is obligated or required to drive in the event of an emergency at Seabrook. Based upon my experience supervising the buses and drivers for Berry Transportation Company during the February 1986 emergency ) O V 2 { SHAINES & McE ACHERN PROFESSIONAL ASSOOATION 25 M APLEWOOO AvCNUE P O. BOX MO POFtTSMOUTH. N N OMot

,..I I exercise, and upon-my discussions with theLcompany drivers, I would estimate.'thatithe maximum number of drivers that' Berry Transportation C ' Company 1would have available to respond to_an' actual emergency at Seabrook would be approximately six, or only 67% of those specified.in the' Letter of-Agreement._ These six drivers: represent approximately 10%Lof the total of 57 drivers employed inr the company. In my opinion,- during.an actual emergency,'therefore, approximately 90% of the company's drivers would refuse, or otherwise be unavailable, to drive. l Q: Please explain your involvement with the February:1986 emergency exercise, and how you formed the opinion that only six 1 drivers would make:themselves available to drive in the event of an actual emergency at-Seabrook. A: On' February 26, 1986, at approximately 8:30 a.m., I received i a' call from the New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency and was advised' that there was an alert / drill in progrecs for Seabrook-Station. Pursuant to the company's letter agreement, I was. requested to contact, and make available, as many of the company's 57 drivers as possible, I = and to-notify the State as soon as the number of available drivers had j been determ: ned. In response to the State's request, I attempted to contact the 57 drivers of the Berry Transportation Company with the following l l l results: t 1 I /~T V 3 l 1 SHAlNES & McEACHERN. PROFESSIONAL A$50CsATIOrd 25 MA>JWOOD Ak PNUE + P O BOX 360 PORTSMOUTH. N H 03801 --._---_-_-____a

- Unable to contact 15 drivers - Refused to participate 16 f . Agreed to drive only ( ) c. 'l to Brentwood, but no further into EPZ 3 - Agreed.to drive into Epping only, but not into EPZ 3 - Refused due to illness 3 - Refused due to vacation 3 i - Not available due to time / scheduling conflicts 4 l - Agreed to drive for purposes of exercise, but not in actual emergency 4 - Agreed unconditionally to drive buses both for exercise and actual emergency 5 - Agreed to drive van 1 3 Total Drivers 57 } Total Available 6 l 1 Based upon my experience supervising the emergency response, / \\ i ' -) r and my discussions with the company's drivers, I therefore believe that the nine drivers specified in the Letter of Agreement between the company and the State of New Hampshire represents a theoretical maximum. During an actual emergency, the number of drivers who would in fact make themselves available to drive would be substantially fewer than agreed. i Q: How many drivers actually participated in the drill for Ber.y Transportation Company and what problems, if any, did these 6:1 vers have in carrying out their assignments? A: Although the State requested that mcre drivers be made available, the State only requested that three drivers for the Berry Transportation Company actually drive a bus for the February 1986 m 4 SHAINES & McEACHERN a PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION

' L. o exercise ~. Two of these three: drivers experienced mechanical problems D, \\ or delays, or received inadequate or. incomplete information from the State Civil' Defense' Agency. As a result.of these problems, the exercise was'not properly completed. In addition, during the' emergency exercise, the New Hampshire Civil' Defense. Agency stated that a general _ emergency had been declared and informed me there would-be a simulated evacuation of the schools in-Seabrook,~Hampton and Hampton Falls. To evacuate these schools i^ l - would have required that,each of the si;e available drivers of the'_ Berry Transportation Company tc complete at least nine round trips J between-the schools and the reception center in Dover, or a total of at'least 54 round trips. Under normal conditions, each'round trip-takes approximately 1-1/2 hours. For the exercise, each bus would ({} have needed at least 13-1/2 hours to complete its runs. Under actual' emergency conditions, with' increased traffic congestion, this' estimate b would be likely to increase. There'were not enough drivers available, nor would there be during an actual emergency. In spite of the lack of available drivers, the State of New j Hampshire announced that the evacuation of the Seabrook, Hampton and Hampton Falls schools, for purposes of the exercise, had been completed in two hours. i I also was consistently unable to contact New Hampshire i Civil Defense concerning the lack of available drivers, since that agency's phone lines were continually busy. I had to wait for a call l in from the State.

O l

s l SHAINES 6: McEACHERN

• PROFESSIONAL. ASSOCIATION 25 MAPLEWOOO AVENUE P O. BOX 360 PORTSMOUTM. N H. 03801

Q: Based upon your observations and participation in the - r-]x L. emergency exercise of Feb'ruary 1986, what is your opinion concerning that exercise and the State's emergency preparedness to implement the NHRERP in the event of an actual emergency? A: The exercise was only a paper evacuation. The State re-quested that drivers be provided, but there were not sufficient drivers available. The State, however, still claimed that the evacuation of the schools had been completed. From the exercise, I do not have any I reasonable confide'nce that the NHRERP could be implemented in an actual emergency at Seabrook. Since 90% of my drivers refused or were unavailable to participate in an emergency drill, I would expect that i at least as.many drivers would be unavailable to drive in the event of l an actual emergency. i /9 (_) In addition, in my opinion, the State significantly under-i estimated the time required under actual conditions to complete an 1 l evacuation of the EPZ schools. ) I believe that the problems to which I have testified regarding the lack of adequate drivers to implement the NHRERP would l ) be typical of all bus companies attempting to locate and mobilize drivers to respond to an actual emergency at Seabrook. l l 6 ( SHAINES & McEACHERN. PROFESSIONAL ASSOC'ATION 2S MAPLEWOOD AVENUE P O. Box 360 PORT 5 MOUTH N N. 03801

i Q: .Does this conclude your testimony? ,~\\ l 4 () A: Yes. Respectfully submitted, TOWN OF HAMPTON By Its Attorneys SHAINES & McEACHERN Professional Association 1 By Paul McEachern Dated: October 1987 By Matthew T. Brock P(j' F } l I l i i I 't4., ,i 1 7 SHA!NES & McCACHERN. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCLATON PS MAPLEWOOD AVENUE P. O BOX MO. PORTSMOUTH, N M. 03t101

,m__-_--.--- 1 _HUTCHINSON-CROSS. 4563- .l j '. i, ! 1 JUDGE SMITH: Now, you'may inquire, - the' witness is-2' availa'ble. 3 MR.- LEWALD - 'Your Honor, we have no cross-examination l 4 on the direct testimony as corrected. l

i 5-

. JUDGE SMITH: Any other.intervenor? ] i 6 MR. BISBEE: I have a-few questions, Your Honor. I 7! JUDGE SMITH: All right, proceed. 1 i i l8 (The New Hampshire Attorney 9 General's OffJce Cross- { 10' Examination Plan follows:) 11: 12 13 -() 14 l 15 s 16 17 l s 18 19 1 1 20 ) 1 21 l l 22 1 23 24-25 Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 ,b' =_- - _ - - _ - - u

b-2 f 0 #3 4 i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3 (,) : NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ) In the Matter of -) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL ) and 1 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-444-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE ) (Off-Site Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2 ) Planning Issues) ) October 23, 1987 1 STATE OP.NEW HAMPSHIRE'S CROSS EXAMINATION PLAN FOR TESTIMONY OF ANN HUTCHINSON A. Availability of Drivers from Berry Transportation Company 1. Status of Letters of Agreement 2. Status of Berry Transportation - Bought out by National Bus Service, Inc.? 7,) t 3. Clarification of the discussions you had with the company's drivers (see pages 3 and 4 of gre-filed testimony) B. Availability of Buses - You are not disputing the availability of approximately 62 buses? l C. Elaborate on problem with phone lines (see page 5 of pre-filed testimony) I O) \\~ J

37 c y ~ HUTCHINSON-CROSSL 4564 .L1 ; . CROSS-EXAMINATION n 2- .BYJMR. BISBEEt 3-Q

Good morning, Ms. Hutchinson, I

am Dana Bisbee:from 4

4 . the Attorney General's. office'here,-in Concord. .5 'A

(Hutchinson) LGood morning, sorry,-from what office,

.61 please?- l 7 -Q-The Attorney General's: Office. 8 AL (Hutchinson) Very. good. 9 -Ql .I have:some. questions-for you about.the availability. 10 of drivers and:the availability of buses,.and also the question 11-: you. raised about~ phone line problems in.your testimony. 1 1 '12 A (Hutchinson) Okay. 13 Q. LLet's get'right-to the issue.that Mr. Lewald was Ak' concerned about earlier, and that is the status of-letters of- -14 $15L ' agreement.with Berry' Transportation Company, formerly,Jand now, q (16' ~ the~ National' School Bus Service, Inc. ? i <17 Are you aware of a letter of agreement that was [ ~ ] 18 entered into between Berry Transportation Company and the State ] .19 of New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency on or about December'20, 20 19857 1 l 21 A (Hutchinson) Yes, I am. I 22 Q Do.you recall whether that letter of agreement c l 23 provided for approximately 65 buses and approximately 60 24 drivers for those buses? 125 A (Hutchinson) Yes,.it did. U 1 ( ir s 1 i ~ (1 l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I E l i l \\i 1 1 -

.HUTCHT.NSON-CROSS '4565' Y 1 Q And subsequently a second letter'of. agreement was 2 entered into and this one by Berry Transportation Companyi ~ 3 Inc.,.with the New Hampshire Civil Defense. Agency. ~ That one was dated.around' August 7,.1986, do you 1 4 1 5 recall-that letter?. l J 6 A (Hutchinson) Yes, I do. '7 Q Now,.it was -in that letter that the 62 buses 'vrere ] 8 'being provided for by Berry Transportation "ompany and 9 .approximately nine drivers?

10 A

(Hutchinson) That is true. ] 9 11 Q .And.that in April of this year, April 1987, a letter 112 of agreement between National School Bus Service, Inc.,. i 13 formerly Berry Transportation Company was entered into with the .O 14 State of New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency, is that:right? '15 A (Hutchinson) I only know about'that through being: 16 .,. told by my supervisor. I was not present or had any direct 17 knowledge of-it. I i 18 Q And so you were personally involved with the first 19 two letters of agreement that I referred to? 20 A (Hutchinson) Yes. I l 21 Mr. Berry showed me the first one and I have the copy l l 22 in the files, of course, and I wrote the second one. 23 Q Now, you were a division manager of Berry 24 Transportation Company when the first two letters of agreement l. 25 were entered into? L l [ l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L b __U

4 -e ~ HUTCHINSON-CROSS 4566 .fM. : Q -1

A:

(Hutchinson) .I was nots under a title at.that time,-I ~2J was.-essentially.an assistant manager, vith Mr.~ Berry being'.the .' 3 president of the company. 4-Q' .And then~when. Berry ~ Transportation Company was I .S acquired.by National School BusiService, Inc., your title 6~ became. division manager? 7 A (Hutchinson) Yes, sir. 8 Q Now, in your role as division manager, well, were you-i '9 division manager as of April of this year? 10 A (Hutchinson). Yes, I was. '11 Q; But you were not involved in the letter of agreement 12 that was entered into with the State, at that time? 13 A-(Hutchinson) No, I was.not. oL 4 14 0 When did National School Bus Service Inc., acquire 15 Berry Transportation? f 16 A (Hutchinson) Technically as.of August 31, 1986, and. 17 I believe the papers were signed October 21st, 1.986, and it was 18 retroactive. I 19 Q Retroactive until when? 20 A (Hutchinson) To August 31st of that year. i 21 0 19 -- 22 A (Hutchinson) 1986. l 23 Q Okay. 24 And Ms. Hutchinson, on pages 3, and 4, of your 25 profiled testimony, and I am referring specifically to the D' V Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

, d- .'( HUTCHINSON-CROSS 4567 i ~s () 'l first line at the top' of page 3, and then again in the second 2 line of the first. full paragraph on page 4. 3 You talk about discussions'with the company's-4 drivers?. 5 A (Hutchinson)' Yes,' sir.. 6 Q And what-discussions are you referring to on:those 7 two pages of your testimony? l 8 'A (Hutchinson) Discussions with drivers,. individually, 9 .after the.first agreement was signed and that they had not been ] 10 consulted when the original 65 driver thinc 'acd occurred. 11 And a poll later was taken and.I spoke with the l 12 drivers on a day-to-day basis and they did turn in individual 13 sheets as to whether they would or would not participate and I. I j_ U 14' talked with drivers at driver meetings, and when things occur 15 that they comment upon. ' 16 Q So these are discussions that you have had on j 17 numerous occasions over several years? 18 A (Hutchinson) Yes, it is an ongoing conversation with 19 my drivers. 20 Q Now, getting back to the letters of agreement, is it i 21 your understanding that the most recent letter of agreement, 22 the one dated April 1987, superceded the first two that have 1 23 been entered into with Berry Transportation? 24 A (Hutchinson) I don't have a capacity to judge that. 25 1 only know that it exists. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

1 M' 1 ( 'HUTCHINSON-CROSSL 4568 , Q< v '1; Q Okay. L 7 p m L

2 :

The number of available drivers had changed'from the j l 1 13 .first letter of agreement that we talked-about earlier, which-H 1 q 14~ swas 65, as I-recall, excuse me,: 60=to nine. 5 A ~(Hutchinson) ~Yes? .4 '6 Q. The second'one was entered into.. ~7 A (Hutchinson) Yes,11t did. l 8. Q- -Was.that change. based upon the discussions that you o 9 -were just now referring to? 10- ')L (Hutchinson) It was based'upon-a poll of the 11 drivers,. In which they turned in a written slip stating under 12-what conditions.they would participate in an emergency drill. 13 Q Was that a poll 1that Mr. Berry.had initiated? .[~l 1 \\'E .14 A. (Hutchinson) Yes, it was, due to resistance of the 15 drivers to the published number. 1 16 - Q -- Now, all three.lettersoof agreement refer to the -] 17 availability of buses as well as drivers, is that not right?. q 18 A '(Hutchinson) That is true. 19 Q And your testimony today does not dwell upon the 20 issue of the availability of buses, but rather only the 21 availability of drivers, is that correct? 22 A (Hutchinson) This written testimony does not address 23 that issue. l 24 Q Are you presently involved with the process of 25 working with the State of New Hampshire on letters of O. Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 i ) = _ - - _ _ - _ _ = _ _ _ - i

s

il HUTCHINSON-' CROSS:

4569 j -:r~q , ;( y}. 1' agreement, forLNational School Bus Service, Inc.?- 4 2 A (Hutchinson) I'have:not been contacted by anyone in j i 3 regard to that. j 4 Q Would you be the one to contact? Or would-it be: .5 somebody else now? 1 6 .A. (Hutchinson). I am' physically the supervision,'and. l l 7 'would'have'to go through me to get to my buses or my drivers. 1 8 Q' .But you report to someone within the company,-~is that 3 -9 right? 10 A' (Hutchinson) In North Chelmsford, but not:on a day- ,'i d 11 to-day basis and certainly not in regard.to the' disposition of l 12. my daily vehicles. Only for the total. operation'of my .l 13 division. ) ( '14 -Q I understand that, but for purposes of letters of 15 agreement, with the-State of New Hampshire, would you be.the-16 oneinow to sign them or work with the State on them? -17 A (Hutchinson) The equipment belongs to National i 18 School Bus Service, and therefore, I do not have the ability to i 19 commit it. It is not mine. I am not a stockholder. I 20 Q Okay, so -- go ahead. 21 A (Hutchinson) I am sorry. If they called in and i 22 said, I need buses, then I have the option to dispense them, i i 23 the same as I would for any other charter trip. l 24 On the day-to-day operations, I would do it without 25 specific authority if the call came in, I suppose. () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 __ii__._.__

4 570? ] 4 -HUTCHINSON-CROSS-1 ,hg 1 0 .Okay, is'it.Mr. Guadagna who is now. responsible ^at. ] 2' the level of, National' School' Bus Service, Inc.?, 3 .A (Hutchinson)' That'is true. He.is the general. .4 manager for our company,and Marinel Transportation, formerly.c j 5 ~ Marine 1~ Transportation,~and now, the Marinel Division of j 6 National School Bus. 7 Q Okay, so that he would be the one that the State of-8 New Hampshire would best work with? 9 A .(Hutchinson) Probably,_yes'. 10 0 To complete my question, to work within, in working i 11- 'out letters of agreement? 12 A .(Hutchinson) Yes, as far as a legal agreement would. 13-go,'yes. I would think that he would consult with me.and my .O. J 14 people before committing them. 4 15: Q Finally, Ms..Hutchinson, I just wanted to ask you 16~ about your testimony on the next to the last line on page 5. 17' A' (Hutchinson) Okay. 18 Q There you reference your efforts to contact the New l 19 Hampshire Civil Defense Agency, I take it, during the February 20 1986 exercise? l 21 You say, excuse me, on the fourth line up from the 22 bottom of that page, you say that you were consistently unable 23 to contact the Civil Defense people. I 24 Were you able to make some contact? 25 A (Hutchinson) Yes, they -- there were incoming calls l O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ( I i

i f i i HUTCHINSON-CROSS-4571 /~ j 1-' from-them. 2

Q.

Here you-ever able to make contact by your initiating l 3 -the' call first? 4 A (Hutchinson) No, I'was not.- t 5 Q Okay, so that you were' completely unable to contact ] 6 the Civil Defense Agency,-at your initiative, during that day? 7 .A-

(Hutchinson)

I was unable to get their lines in 8 order to return their request for the number of available .9 drivers. 10 Q How many times -- 11 A (Hutchinson) I was asked to do this originally. 12 Q Excuse me? '13 A (Hutchinson) The first call of the morning asked me 7_\\)- 14 to report back with the number of available drivers and I was 15 unable to do that because I could not'get through and I did get 16 the number when they finally got through to me, j 17 0 'lkne many times did you try to reach.the number that 18 you were calling? 19 A (Hutchinson) Probably at least a half a dozen over 20 the space of an hour or two. It must have been an hour, 21 Q Okay, and then at the end of that hour you were 22 contacted? 23 A (Hutchinson) That is correct. 24 Q By the Civil Defense Agency? 25. A (Hutchinson)

Yes, qD Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

HUTCHINSON-CROSS 4572 c,e'( l 4_). 1~ -Q Was'there any other occasion for you to'try to 2 ' attempt to reach'the Civil Defense. Agency that day?. j '3' A (Hutchinson) No, there was not.' 4 Q; Do you remember what number.you were actually i 5 calling,.not the actual number, but the location.of the phone 6 that you.were trying to reach? 7 A (Hutchinson) -I believe that it'was a Concord number, i 8 and it was 271-2231, which I understand is the Civil Defense 9 Headquarters' f i 10 Q You recall specifically that that was the number 11 you -- 12 A (Hutchinson) I have the number written in my own 1 13 notes. L([) 14 Q Just two follow-up questions, Ms. Hutchinson. j 15 You refer to a written poll of your drivers? 16 A (Hutchinson) Yes, sir. i 17 Q Do you still have -- excuse me, were the responses to 18 that poll in writing, as well? i 19-A (Hutchinson) Yes, they were. 20 Q Do you have that material? 21 A (Hutchinson) I do not have it with me, I do have the 22 slips that they returned at my office. 23 Q So would you have any problem if we were to ask you i 24 to review those materials? 25 A (Hutchinson) Certainly not. D - \\.) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4C98 i

Y 5 4573 HUTCHINSON-CROSS .m. (_)I ~1 LMR. BISBEE: I.have no further questions. 2 Thank you, very much. l 3 JJUDGE SMITH: Mr. Flynn? j 4 MR. FLYNN I,have'no questions, Your Honor. 5 ' JUDGE; SMITH: Do you have any questions? 6 MR. TURK: I only have one question of one small line 7 .of questioning, j K 8' CROSS-EXAMINATION 9 BY MR. TURK: 10 . O Good morning, my name is Sherwin Turk and I am with j 11 the Office of General. Counsel with the Nuclear Regulatory i 12 Commission. 13 A .(HItchinson) Yes, sir. l ,a ~/ 14 Q I would like to ask you something about a statement p 15 that appears on page 6,'of your testimony. 16 JL (Hutchinson) Okay. 17 Q. In the final paragraph on that page, you indicate, 18 and I quote, "I believe that the problems to which I have 19 testified regarding the lack of adequate drivers, to implement 20 the NHRERP would be typical of all bus companies, attempting to H21 locate and mobilize drivers to respond to an actual emergency 22 at Seabrook." 23 Is that statement based upon the results of your 24 experience with Berry Transportation Company? 25 A (Hutchinson) Yes, I think so. Actually I am almost

pij Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 r

} -4 i 1 HUTCHINSON-CROSS' 4574 1 [f 1 the onlyl company within a 10-mile radius. :I think that'any 1 2 -company, bus companies tend to be pretty much alike, and any 3

company might experience the same problems.as we did.

l .4 -Q Have you'had any communications with other bus 5 .companiesLregarding1the extent to which their-drivers.would be l 6. willing to participate in the evacuation? 7: A (Hutchinson) I have spoken with the owner / manager of 8' a bus company in Keene, who is involved in a plan, I believe, 9 for one of the Vermont Nuclear Plants, and he discussed similar 7 10 feelings. 11 Q His own feelings? 12 A (Hutchinson) His own feelings and so forth, about 13 his people and the situation up there. j g, I _'14 Q _ Apart from your conversation with him, I take it that i 15 you have not really spoken to owners of companies who might be 16 called upon for assistance in the event of a radiological 17-emergency at Seabrook? 18 A (Hutchinson) The sound is bad, but I think that I am 19 -answering, if I say that I have not specifically talked to 20 other bus companies and said, how do you think that your i 21 drivers would respond to something of this nature, is that what 22 you are asking me? 23 Q Yes. 24 A (Hutchinson) Yes, I did not. 25 MR. TURK: Okay, thank you, I have no other Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 o

DJ q LHUTCHINSON-CROSS 4575' c W(,) l' questions. 2 -JUDGE LINENBERGER, Ms. Hutchinson,:following on just. 3 a bit from the thrust of 10:. Turk's questions, on page six of. 4 your testimony, you make the statement that the State, however, ~ 5 still claimed that the evacuation of the schools had been 6 completed. 7 My' question to you is, do you have a basis -- no, let 8 me start that question ov r again. 9 Do you have explicit infor, nation to indicate to you, 10 that that was indeed, an inaccurate claim on the part.of the 11 State, or'does that. statement represent a surmise on your part, 12 that because of your experience from your Berry Division, point 13 of view, that you would conclude that the State's claim was n' 14 inaccurate? 15 Can you tell us which it is? 16 THE WITNESS (Hutchinson): I am referring only to 17 that specific exercise, Your Honor. 18 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Unders,tood, 19 THE WITNESS (Hutchinson): When we were told that a 20 general evacuation was to be held of three towns directly 21 around the plant, the time was noted, and when I spoke with 22 Michael Colton, who was my contact in Concord, that morning, 23 later on, he said that they have now decided that they are 24 going to evacuate Exeter, and all of this. 25 And I said, hey wait a minute, I have not had time to O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

1 HUTCHINSON - REDIRECT 4576 .,m() 1 get my kids home out of Hampton, Hampton Falls, and Seabrook, i 2 yet, how can we possibly be going over to Exeter now? 3 And he said,.oh, they announced at 1:00 p.m., on the 4 radio that the evacuation simulation had been completed of your ( ) 5 schools. j l 6 I could not have done that. / 7 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Thank you, i 8 I have no further questions. j ) 9 JUDGE SMITH: Anything further? j j 10 Any redirect? 1 11 MR. BROCK: A couple of redirect, Your Honor. I 12 JUDGE SMITH: Fine, then proceed. l 13 MR. BROCK: Thank you. 14 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 15 57 MR. BROCK: 16 Q Ms. Hutchinson, I understood that the -- with 17 reference to a couple of questions by Mr. Bisbee, that you f 18 agreed with him that there was a change in the number.of bus 19 drivers, designated as available by the company, from the first j 20 letter of agreement, which I think specified that 60 drivers 21 would be available, to the second letter of agreement which 22 provided that only nine drivers would be available. 1 23 Is that not correct? j 24 A (Hutchinson) That is the way that they were written, ) 25

yes, q

i Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 I

..,4 ' w '_j HUTCHI,NSON.- REDIRECT 4577 7(,ji l' .Q And I believe.that you testified.that you were'the- '2 'one who wrote the'second letter of agreement indicating'that' u 3. only nine' drivers would be available? 1 4 ~ A (Hutchinson) I did after we had. participated in this 5 emergency, suggest.to Mr. Berry, that perhaps'the f!rst one'was 6 not.really; adequate, and we based upon this and our poll of the '7 . drivers wrote another agreement, which.we forwarded to Public l 8 Service. 9 And this was done probably in March and they got it j 10 back to us in' August. -11 0 So the second letter.of agreement indicating that: 12 nine drivers would be available, is the result of the~ polling 13 that you did of your drivers, and of the em.ergency exercise, is-4 7_ : 14' that correct? 15 A (Hutchinson) Yes, to the best of my recollection, it 16 was. '17 Q Do you have'any~ reason to believe that if your l 18 drivers were called on today, to respond to an actual 19 emergency, that the number of drivers indicated in the second 20 letter of agreement, the nine drivers, would that be 21 substantially the same or would it be different in your 22 opinion? 23 A (Hutchinson) I think that probably it would remain 24 pretty close to what it was. 25 MR. BROCK: Nothing further, Your Honor. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

g - y,;- 3 <u h .HUTCHINSON-' RECROSS .4578 [ShTd68 1l -JUDGE SMITH:. Mr F Lewald?: '2 'MR.-LEWALD : We have nothing,..Your Honor. Li .3 'MR.,BACKUS:l May I ask a' follow-up question.to

j u

54 Attorney' Brock's last_ questioning?. ] .5 JUDGE. SMITH :.Okay. 6l. - . RECROSS EXAMINATION i .7. BY'MR. BACKUS ' j '4 18 Q- 'Ms. Hutchinson, I wonder if you could tell us.or.give i m l 9' us a typical' description of one.of your, drivers?. l ~ .t 10. What sort of person.are these drivers,Ltypically? j d - 11 'A' _(Hutchinson) Well, they fall into.two categories. 1 ] 12 really ~We have the group like myself, whose children.have 13 grown and have been driving and involved'with buses for'a great , ('. i 14 ' deal-of time, basically 10 to 15. years'or more. R 15 And we have a group in their, oh,? late 20's,'or early .1'6. 3'0's, who may have a preschool child and two children in 17 school,:something of that' nature. 18 Q How many of them are women? 19 A (Hutchinson) About 98%. 20 Q And most of them are parents, themselves, I take it, 21 from what you are saying? 22 A (Hutchinson) Yes. 23 MR. BACKUS: Thank you. 24 JUDGE SMITH: Anything further? 25 You are excused.

O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

= - _ _ _ _ = _ _

Wl- =l e 4 HUTCHINSON-RECROSS 4579 11 MR.*BISBEE: : Excuse me,-Your Honor, I did have'one-1 l ~ 2' ~ follow-up' question'.. I' thought'that Mr. Lewaldihad'one'or two,- J m '3 I-did-not hear that.- 1

c 4

This follows-up on Judge Linenberger's line of I i '5; inquiry. !l 6-RECROSS EXAMINATION' .I l 7 BY MR. BISBEE:- 8 LQ .Ns..Hutchinson, about;your views-on;the February 1986 l 1 9 exercise,-on page 5 of your testimony, the second paragraph up 10: .from the bottom,.you state, "That despite the. lack of available 11 drivers, the State announced that certain schools have been 12-evacuated.* l 1 13 Is tha't not right? (dT -14 A (Hutchinson) This is what I just answered in the 15- ' Judge's question. 16 0-What.I wanted to ask was, the lack of available 17 drivers that;you refer to, is the Berry Transportation 18 Company's lack of available drivers, is that right? 19 A (Hutchinson) This is true. l i 20 Q You are not referring to any other company's drivers? l 21 'A (Hutchinson) I have no knowledge of anyone else's. l 22 MR. BISBEE: Okay, that is all that I have, thank 23 you. 24 JUDGE SMITH: You are excused, and thank you for i 25 coming. i O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l 1 1

< y;.:. y Ii s g ll c + y[ E 5G '4580 ] 'r'c g f(_)j 'l= .THE WITNESS, (Hutchinson) :.Thank you. 2: (The' witness wasfexcused.) 3 . JUDGE SMITH - Bill'Trahan? -4.

MR. FIERCE

-Your. Honor,. Alan Fierce from.the.

q

5 Massachusetts Attorney General's Office.

.l 6 JUDGE SMITH: Yes?- u 7 MR. -FIERCE:..I'am usually the one here who is the- '8' warmest, and in fact,'I am often found' sweating back here, but 9, I find it to-be_ extremely chilly'in here~this morning, and.I .l - 10 wonder if anybody else.does? 11 And if so, perhapsLwe could close the windows?

j 12 JUDGE SMITH:

Yes, we will ask the Sergeant of ArmsL .j 1 . 13 to do that. ~ 14 'Is Mr. Trahan going to testify? .15 Mr. Backus,-'I would think-that the next witness is 16 Mr. Trahan? 17 MR. BACKUS: He is Mr. Brock's witness. 18 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Brock's witness. Oh, okay. . 19 MR. BROCK: Your Honor, I apologize. I believe I 20 informed the Board, or at least the parties yesterday, that Mr. - 21 Trahan is not available today and won't be available until the 22 next week of hearing. And we have no further witnesses for 23 Hampton, today, Your Honor. 24 JUDGE SMITH: All right, then, I guess we are ready 1 25 to go to the evidence on reception centers. l O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

1 y 1 { PANEL:- DIRECTL 4581 ) '1'-- MR.jTURK: Your Honor,>I-.think!.that we will go'to 10 .2f FEMA'on. transportation.- 13 -JUDGE SMITH: Oh, yes, right,-okay, indeed, yes. 4 -MR.: TURK' Mr. Flynn'is' sitting;here, ready'to go,.I' 5 think. 6 Whereupon-j 1 7 EDWARD THOMAS 8 EDWARD TANZMAN 9' were recalled as witnesses, and.having been previously. duly - 10 Lsworn, was examined and testified as follows: l .I 'll-DIRECT EXAMINATION

• .i 12' BY MR. FLYNN:

13

-Q Mr. Thomas,10. Tanzman, I have presented'to the .t 14 Board and provided the Court Reporter-with one copy.of FEMA's 15 profiled testimony on Transportation Availability and Emergency' 16 Support Services. t 17 I believe that you have the same document before you, j i 10 do you not? f 19 A (Thomas) Yes, we do, 20 Q And have all of the necessary corrections been made i 21 on the copy? 22 A (Thomas) Yes, they have. 23 Q Do you adopt the testimony in this document, as your 24 own testimony and wish it to be bound into the record? 25 A (Thomas) Yes, we do. ] I

()

Heritage Reporting Corporation ] (202) 628-4898 ) l --x._

~,,e ~. 1 6l P -i r p.; w, tPANEL-~- DIRECT-L4582-- U ..(.' l'- - Qi

Mr..Tanzman?.

?2 A. (Tanzman) Lyes. 4 3. MR.rFLYNN: Your Honor, at this-time, I offer FEMA's. J 41 .prefiled' testimony on Transportation' Availability and Emergency. 5 Support, Services into evidence, and ask'that it'be bound into -6 .the record? E7 JUDGE SMITH: Have the other parties been made' aware-8- of the changes? 9 lMR. FLYNN ' Your Honor, these were served'before the i 10 hearing-began. 'j 1 11 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, all right,-so that'these-are not 1 12 changes sinceLthe original service? q 13 MR. FLYNN. That is correct. "( 14 JJUDGE SMITH: Are'there.any objections? 15 MR '. BACKUS. I just wanted to-be sure, Mr. Flynn, we ] 1 16 should look at the index that you have provided,-and.those page! 1 17 numbers are the pages that are now being offered, is that ] 18. right, underfthe heading, Transportation Availability and 19 Emergency Support Services? 20 MR. FLYNN: Yes, Mr. Backus. 21 MR. BACKUS: Okay, thank you. 22 JUDGE SMITH: No objections, the testimony is 1 23 received. l '24 1 25 ([) IIeritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 \\ ---_:2_________

+ 4- ' y ? t 1 ~ j 4 i >,,y: r s -) -PANEL - DIRECT '4583- ' 1. (The prefiled'testimonyf. oft 1 2' FEMAon Transportation-h L3- . Availability and. Emergency; 4 .-i L.4 Support Services'.follows:)- - j Pe ] - S-

.Fg_

1 7,' ] 8-o .9 ~ 10 1 1 -11' '12 j;. l0;[ ' 1l3. o F .15 1 11 6 ' 17-18 19 20 21 L 22 ~23 24 25 01 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

U-

1. _. l.._1._c,.... u..,1 t

g- ? .i q u.dh 3 1, b% f \\; 'j l J ..V

i D

j . UNITED STATCS OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i q BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFE"IY AND LICENSING BOARD j s, ) -l s' ) ] In the Hatter of ) Public Service Co. of New Hampshire, ) Docket No. 50-443-OL et al.. }- 50-444-OL .l ) Offsite Emergency . (Seabrook Station, Units 1 & 2) l' Planning Issues 4 ) ) l 1 i INDEX TO FEMA PRE-FILED TESTIMONY i 1. Letters of Agreement [' 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) NIENP Contention NHLP-2........................Pages (61) - (64). SAPL Contentions 8 & 8A................................ Page ( 81 ) j 3. Transportation Availability & Emergency Support Servi ~ces j 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 (102) Hampton Revised Contention o Revision 2.....Pages (30) - (42) Kensington Contention 6........................Pages (55) - (56) SAPL Contention 25.............................Pages (93) - (95) FEMA's pre-Files Testimony conststs of a seu page overview one numerous f l a t t a c heme n t s weth their page own numerang. For the same of clarney. FEMA has .e.e. ....a. p..e num.or.n. .ppe., .n p.renth.ses ,n the ,o.or r..ht h.n. ..s corner of each page. The page numbers used 6n this ineou are to that g6otal system. The Pre-Files Tes 4 mony contains references to contentions unech have been etemisses since the pr6ncipal attachment was prepares, but enose ps.es have toen retained for continuity. (i) i-j

j \\ -42. ) FDR RESPONSE. NCCNP CONTE NTION ' NHLP-2 ' (Cont.). When you factor.in the responsibility of providing security at the. local EOC and normal police duties, all-of which require 24-hr staffing. it is apparent that the-Town of. Greenland will need: outside assistance and -the Towns.of Kingston, E. Kingston, Newfields, and Stratham may need limited assistance due'to'the fact there are not alternates for all necessary-4 police personnel.. The Towns of Kensington, So. Hampton, Rye, Hampton Falls, and:Hampton have indicated their intentions not to participate in. the emergency response organization, thus shifting the responsibility for q emergency response onto the State. See comments at beginning of this l c Contention. \\ Basis:D l Letters of agreement for towing companies and bus-transportation com-panies are now found in. Volume 5 of the State Plan, and are -referenced. as such in each local plan. This is appropriate, since the. State now controls-. the distribution'of these resources. FEMA and the'.RAC found the State's I resources for removing impediments to evacuation were adequate (see page 85 l of the RAC Review of_ State Plan, item J.10.K). Additionally, the RAC found that the letters of agreement with transportation companies were generally adequate (see RAC Review of State Plan, pages 74 and 74-b, item'J.10.g; pg.1 of RAC Review of Letters of Agreement, items A.3 and C.4).- (O f Basis G The designation of volunteer firefighters'as local emergency workers is not-uncommon or inappropriate. As long as designated emergency workers can be reached at home and work, and can travel to their assignea posts q in time to fulfill their emergency responsibilities, there is no reason ] -to conclude that the use of volunteers is inadequate. j 1 FEMA has not determined whether the number of fire department person- ~ nel, both full-time and volunteer, is sufficient to cover assigned duties. in.all municipalities, since the State's Resource Allocation Survey is not yet completed and submitted to FEMA (see RAC Review of Municipal Plans, page 6, Planning Standard A.4). Basis H As stated above for Basis G, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with designating part-time personnel as local emergency workers, so long as they can be reached at work and home and arrive at their assigned posts in time to fulfill their responsibilities. Since emergency workers 1twh A Lbe mobilized 'c at the ALERT stage, thisMallow sufficient time to travel to emergency g response posts. In a more rapidly developing emergency the plan provides for alerting the public to take protective actions without fully staffing the State or local E0Cs. un

I 4 4 *' NECNP Contentirn NHLP-6 The local emergency plans do not pmvide for an adequate range of protective actions, 10 C.F.R. I 50.47(b)(10), because they contain i

• y) inadequate means of relocation or other protection for those with special needs, those without private transportation,. school children, or persons confined to institutions or elsewhere for health or other reasons.

Moreover, the resources available to the towns for these purposes are inadequate to provide a reasonable assurance that the public will be l protected in the event of an accident. i FEMA RESPONSE 1 FEMA has addressed Amended NECNP Contention NHLP-6 and its basis of in-adequate means of relocation, and inadequate resources in host communities, by applying Planning Standards A.C,E,H,J, and L (Evaluation Criteria A.3,C.4, E.7,H.11 J.10.h,J.10.g,J.12,L.1,L.3, and L.4 ) i n FEMA-RE P-1. The December 15, 1986 RAC review of the State and municipal plans re-flect FEMA's views on this issue. Specifically, FEMA's review comments on the New Hampshire State plan on this issue are provided on pages 12, 34, 74, 74-a, 74-b, 74-c,113, and 114 of Section I, and on page 1 of the Letters of Agreement subsection of Section IV. FEMA's review comments on the Host communities municipal plans on this issue are provided on pages 10, 12, 15, and 16 of Section III. FEMA relied upon the followiny documents in forming its conclusions on this issue: Revision 2 to the New Hampshire State Plan; Revision 2 to the municipal plans. j, FEMA does not yet have assurance of the adequacy of plan provisions for means of relocation and resources at host communities. 1 Responses to specific portions of Amended NECNP Contention NHLP-6 are j provided below. k III. Amendments to Contention NHLP-6 i A. The following basis is substituted entirely for the bhsip 3 supplied in NECNP's contention N!!LP-6. dated February 24, 1986: a. In many cases there is a telephone number to call for those without private transportation who need relocation assistanen. Such a provision is inadequate not only because of the vulnerability of telephone systems in the vent of an emergency, but because even if the l telephone works, there is no assurance that the assistance will be available to all who need it. Moreover, the telephone system in the EOC may be overloaded. Fog example, there are 1,798 people in Exeter who l have no transportation. I-FEMA RESPONSE (a) The revised municipal plans no longer require telechone calls to the E0C at the time of the emergency to request relocation assistance. Pre-des 49"etee 6"> co"tes or 9 ckva ao4"ts ere "o* "see to acov4ae tre"sportet'o" O 4 for residents and transients requiring transportation. These bus routes are shown on public information material distributed annually to residents. EBS messages will also direct residents to these routes er pickup points (e.g., Exeter plan pages 11-32 and 33). Identification of those people with special needs is done by return of a special postage-paid survey card which is included (45}

1 y 1,- ,) NDCNP NES-6i(Cont.)

• ^

L"- in the public information material (e.g.,~ Exeter plan!page ll-33). _The ~ = listings of those people with special transportationtneeds is' held by._ local.- = Lofficials in the communities for purposes.of transportation resource planning. Itiis,7therefore, not' necessary for people to. call in to the local E0C ~to ob-- tain. transportation assistance,:except fo'r.those people who have not previously ~

notified,of ficials of -their. special needs, and-are-unable.to get' to.a < pickup i

point'on a-bus route. As noted in the local plans-(e.g., Exeter plan'page

11.33), these requests will be handled.on an ad hoc basis as the~ people call in to the EOC or State number provided in the compensatory plan to' request assistance.

D The contention refers to 1798 people in.Exeter who have no temportation.- The means'of obtaining that'information is not described and differs signifi - l cantly from the figure used by the State for planning purposes in Vol.%of _y < the State Plan. At this time, FEMA has no reason to believe the State's figures are incorrect. 4 b.- Residents requiring transportation will have to report to the ' nearest. bus ^ route location - for pick-up. During a radiological emergency, making an estimate of the arrival time of these buses at any .j given - point will, be nearly impossible. Thusi people without transportation may. find themselves standing outside during an emergency-for. an undetermined-amount of time, waiting for a bus, to come along the 'j route. Evacuees mar > be ' exposed to unacceptable levels of radiation while l waiting outside for.a bus. Discouraged evacuees might also further risk l

exposure by returning to their homes and-giving 'up on. evacuating.

^y " Latchkey" chilcren who are at home while their parents are at work may i also ; fail to call for help or to understand. directions regarding bus. . pick'-up. F_EMA RESPONSE ( b)' The plan anticipates that evacuation buses for residents requir-ing transportation _ will. make multiple runs along the pre-designated bus routes (see ETE, State plan Volume 6, page 11-1i; Hampton plan, Public Works l Director procedures, pages IV-31 and IV-32). Therefore, it will not be necessary for residents to arrive at pickup points at an exact time. The length of time people will be waiting outside for buses will also be mini-mized by this method. The times required to mobilize buses and evacuate the people have been estimated in the ETE. These estimated times will be used as one of the variables in protective action decision-making described u in State plan Section 2.6.7. In other words, the possibility of evacuees being exposed to radiation while waiting outside for buses will be taken into account in the decision to evacuate or shelter. l l (40 4

___x-_-.-- l ,'Lt. 1 46. { Nin? NWS-6 (Cont.) .j ,v j c. The. RERP does not provide a reasonable assurance of-i safety for' school. ' children who may 'he evacuated in a radiological { emergency. ' For example, the Hampton plan notes that "[i]n the event of' 'an evacuation. the. State Resource Coordinator will direct the dispatch of-q q buses from the State Staging Area to the Local Staging Area (EOC)'where l a they.will e provided maps and directions to the schools. " Vol.18 - at i .!!-29. The State. RERP. instructs the Director-of Pupil Transportation j Safety to "have: the available drivers and buses _ (which.normally service j 7 the. schools) report to their appropriate schools with adequate fuel in the j buses." Vol. 4B, Pupil Transportation Safety Procedures at 2. Thus, it j ~ is not clear where buses will go and from whom-they 'will receive directions. FEMA RESPONSE (c) Although not specifically commented on in the RAC review, there is j some discrepancy in the plan and procedures as to where the buses that.evacu- ] ate schools report to. For. example, the Hampton local plan (Volume 18, page 11-29) states that, "the State Resources Coordinator will direct the dispatch 'of buses from the State Staging Area to the Local Staging Area (EOC) where they will be provided maps and directions to the schools." A similar de-H scription is provided in the Exeter plan (Volume 26,,'page 11-31). Conversely, .l the State plan. procedures for the ' Director of Pupil Transportation Safety (Volume 48, p. 2) state, "have the available drivers ano buses report to' .i their appropriate scnools." The k.0C Resource Coordinator procedures in f Volume 4' of the State plan also state, "have the Director or rupii fr ans-portation Safety instruct available drivers.and buses to report to their appropriate schools" (page 7-3). The logistics for mobilizing evacuation buses to the schools need to be clarified and made consistent in the State and local plans. i I O (fo7) j

47* NTNP NHLP-6 (Cont.) i ) .( V d. According to Revision 2. the State of New Hampshire now intends to coordinate the dispatch of buses to schools in the EPZ. However, the State has not demovtrated that this can be done in an i efficient and timely manner. The cumbersome process of dispatching . school. buses invites confusion and delay. The bus companies wiu need to contact their buses and drivers, and be in continuous contact with the State staging area to update resource availability. If the regular drivers are not available, the Teamsters union' or other drivers who may act as substitutes wiu have to be contacted, get to where their designated bus is stored, and acquafnt themselves with tasks such as learning a route and familiarizing themselves with an unfamiliar bus. The State staging area will need to determine how many buses have gone directly to schools, and therefore how many are needed to go to local staging areas. The local staging areas will have to make their needs known to the State hgency, and _will therefore need to be continuously updated en the number of buses headed directly to the schools. The schools and the local staging area will need to be in constant contact as well, so that the school can inform the local staging area of the arrival of normal buses and make its needs known to the local staging area, which will transfer that information to the State staging area, who will be in direct contact with the needed resources. The amount of time involved in gathering all of the necessary information and coordinating a response from the State Staging area will be enormous: the task is far too cumbersome to assure adequate protection to the evacuees who rely on buses. (O 2 l FEMA RESPONSE I (d) Procedures in the State and local plans need to be clarified to ensure that the State can efficiently coordinate the dispatch of buses to the schools for evacuation. As noted in the preceding response for item "(c)," there are inconsistencies which need to be resolved in where the buses report to. Also, as noted in the response to further basis item A.3 in the response to revised Hampton Contention IV, there are no details in the plans as to how the supplementary Teamsters' Local No. 633 bus drivers will be notified and coordinated with available buses, or, for that matter' ow many Teamsters will be released by their employers for emergency resporise l O a 8>

!EGP NHLP-6 -(Cont. ) 1 o. The RERP indicates that the normal' drivers and buses will

• (V 4

be. counted on Substantially, regardless of the time-of day,: schedule of drivers,. and' availability of buses, to ' perform ' the functions.that they l perform ' at the beginning and. end. of. a school d6y. Vol. 4 B, Pupil transportation Safety Procedures: at 2. .This. assumes that the regular drivers are the same drivers that have been guaranteed in' the letters of L agreement. Nothing in the letters of agreement with the bus ccmpanies demonstrates that the same drivers, familiar -- with the route, will be [ available. For example, a driver with Timberifne in Portsmouth told us l'

• that many driven have.second jobs, live far from the bus company, or are

' unteachable in between runs. She also told us that the regular school buses were not sitting in the lot all day in between the start and the end-of the school day, but are on the road for special runs and field trips as much of the time as possible. In addition. many of these buses do not have radios, so even if they were close to the EP2, they. may not be-large number of the - normal school reachable. Thus, there may be a buses and drivers ~who will not be available - during a radiological emergency. i i FEMA RESPONSE (O (-) ^1 tao #9a ta # or er4v c=

1. d 6# > a'ca'"ac iis t = ^-t 1<t v '

school children will be used for evacuation transportation to the greatest extent possible, the plan provides for-supplementary resources as needed. As noted in the response to item A.1-in the further basis to revised Hampton Contention IV, the_RAC has concluded that, although there are numerous in-consistencies in ~ bus needs estimates, overall the numbers of buses and drivers available according to the Letters of Agreement in Volume 5 of the State plan are sufficient. (See pages 74, 74-a, 74-b, 74-c of December 15, _ i 1986 RAC review of State plan Section I, and page 1 of Letters of Agreement subsection of Section V.) However, as mentioned previously, FEMA does have a concern about the provisions in place with the Teamsters' employers to release them when needed. O m)

6. SOUTH HAMPTON CONTENTION 3 The RERP for South Hampton fails to provide reasonable assurance f because, contrary to NUREG-0654 C.4, it contains no letters of agreement from voluntary police officers, voluntary firemen, other emergency workers, school teachers, transportation companies and bus drivers. It ] also contains no agreements from Midway Excavators and personnel at ?he l Tweksbury Pond Campground. j B ASIS : The number of available personnel at the Tweksbury Pond Campground, which has a peak population of 1,500 (about twice that of the size of the town) is exaggerated. [ Limited as to sgreements with Transportation companies and midway excavators] board Order, d /1/86. FEMA RESPONSE : FEMA has addressed South Hampton Contention 3 and its basis that tne South Hampton plan contains no letters of agreement with transportation companies or with Midway Excavators by applying P1 anning Standards A, C and J (Evaluation Criteria A.3 C.4,J.lu.g, and J.10/k) in FEMA-REP-1. The December 15, 1986 RAC review of the State and municipal plans reflects { FEMA's views on this issue. Specifically, FEMA s review comments on the New Hampshire State plan on this issue are provided on pages 74, 74-b, and 85 of Section 'I, on p3ge 1 of the letters of agreement subsection of Section IV, and on page 50 of the Compensatory Plan subsection of Section IV. FEMA's review comments on the municipal plans on this issue are provided on pages 5 and 6 of Section 11. FEliA relied upon the following documents in forming its conclusions on this issue: Revision 2 to the New Hampshire State plan; Revision 2 to the municipal plans. The letters of agreement with transportation companies are present in Volume 5 of the State plan, and the RAC concluded that the letters are ade-quate. The South Hampton plan does not itself contain copies of letters of agreement with transportation companies. However, they are incorporated by reference. Appendix 0 of the South Hampton plan is a cross-reference index to appropriate sections of the plan where descriptive material applicable to specific NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1 Criteria elements are found. For those criteria elements pertaining to letters of agreement (i.e., A.3 and C.4), Volume 5 of the New Hampshire State plan is referenced (page 0-1, Appendix 0 of South Hampton plan). The letters of agreement with transportation companies are present in Volume 5 of the State plan. The RAC has concluded that the letters of agreement are sufficient to provide enough buses and drivers (see December 15, 1986 RAC review pages 74 and 74-b of Section I, and page 1 of Letters of Agreement subsection of l (:L 6)

7. SOUTH HAWTON CONTENTION 3 (Cont. ) i Section IV). However, in the case of complete evacuation it would be ~ necessary to use drivers provided by the Teamsters local no. 633, and it might be necessary to use some of the military vehicles listed in Apendix C i of Vol. 2 of the' State plan. The total number of buses providable under the letters of agreement are slightly in excess of the number required for full evacuation. The approximate equality of buses and bus requirements in the most severe emergency implies that any problems in getting buses from companies to comunities could exhaust bus company resources, requiring use of the National Guard. The Teamsters will have to provide drivers to those bus companies without enough drivers for their buses. A letter of agreement with Teamsters Local No. 633 is provided in Volume 5 of the State plan. In FEMA's April 15, 1987 Affidavit in Opposition to Summary Disposition of Certain Contentions, item 31 of that document, FEMA noted that there were not any assurances that the employers of the Teamsters drivers made available by that letter of agree-ment will be willing to allow them to leave their jobs to respond to an emergency. There is no letter of agreement with Hidway Excavating Company in either the South Hampton plan or the State plan, even though it is listed as a con-tractor in Appendix C (page C-3) of the South Hampton plan. The listing of Midway Excavating as a potential resource for the Highway Department implies that this contractor could be used for assisting in the removal of impediments to evacuation. Even though Midway Excavating Company may not be available to '(l the town of South Hampton, it appears that there would be sufficient other resources available from the State to remove impediments to evacuation. Letters of agreement between the State and 16 other towing companies are present in Volume 5 of the State plan. Because of these letters of agreement, the 4 listing of equipment provided in Appendix C of Volume 2 of the State plan, l the discussion of State 00T highway maintenance equipment in section 2.6.5 of the State plan, the RAC concluded that the plans adequately treated the issue of resources for removing impediments to evacuation (see page 85 of RAC review of State plan, Section I). J I O (3 7)

i n, . SOUTH HAMPTON CONTENTION 8 I l ?O l I 'The RERP for South Hampton fails to provide reasonable assurance because.. contrary.to NUREG-0654 J.10.d. it f ails to provide for adequate transpor-L tation arrangements for the evacuation of mobility. impaired individuals- '(subject to institutional or other confinement) and that adequate arrange - ments have not been made to identify and. transport persons who do not own an automoeile. Limited to eobility-impaired individuals and transport dependent persons. FEMA Response: FEMA has addressed Town of South Hampton Contention-8 and its basis l that the South Hampton local plan does not provide for adequate transpor-l tatior arrangements for mobility-impaired and transport dependent persons l l by applying Planning Standard J -(Evaluation Criteria J.10.d) in FEMA-REP-1. The December 15. 1986 RAC review of State, municipal, and Compensatory (Ol mens reneas nws revi-s on this issue. Specinony. nws revi-connents on this issue are provided on pages 66.and 67 of Section I. (State Plan), page 19 of Section II (Municipal Plans), and page 10 of Section IV (Compensatory Plan subsection). FEMA found that the procedures in the State and local plans were generally adequate to deal with transportation for mobility-impaired or otherwise dependent persons. However. FEMA at this time is still reserving t its judgment regarding the ability of the State to implement

• compensatory measures for local communities in this area. See RAC comments on pg. 10 -

y I of Compensatory Plan review, and FEMA's April 15,1987 position on the Motion for Summary Disposition of this contention. 4 _41A2-) i

y j

10. '

i TOkN OF HAMPION 7(N . REVISED CCNTENTION IV 'IO REVISION 2 j \\,.d j Revisfori 2 fails. to ' provide for adequate ' emergency equipment, fails - to demonstrate _ that adequate; protective. responses can be implemented in - the :. event of. radiological emergency, and falls to correct deficiencies in i emergency response capabilities - apparent from the - emergency exercise. f 10 C.R.R. I 50.47(1)(S)(10)(14), B ASIS: ~ forth. In CONTENTIONS OF i 7 he-bases-for Contention IV set THE TOWN'OF-!!AMPTON TO RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE l - PLAN FOR THE TOhN OF HAMPTON. NEW HAMPSHIRE. NOVEMBER. .j 1985, ano revised Contention IV set forth in CONTENTIONS OF THE l YUVN OF !!AMPTON TO REVISED ' RADIOLOGICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE l . PLA!L AND TO CO.YPENS ATORY PLAN FOR THE TOWN OF HAMPTON. NEW HAMPSHIRE are hereby realleged and incorporated. by reference herein. B ASIS: NUREG requires that each local RERP include written agreements

with any organization serving an emergency response role within the i

emergency planning zone. NUREG. page 32(3). The-State has entered ,) into 'three agreements with transportation companies to provide buses and .i l vans f to the : Town of Hampton in the event of evacuation. - Under the ,(fN V Compensatory Plan, however, only two bus companies will provide the . transportation for Hampton in the event of emergency.. Compensatory l Plan. ; page 7A-24. The transportation provided to the~ Town of Hampton l i under the Compensatory Plan and Revised RERP fall to provide reasonable assurance-of adequate protective measures mandated ; hy _10 C.F.R. 9 50.47( A)(1) for the following reasons: l i ,l FEMA RESPONSE I FEMA has addressed Hampton Revised Contention IV and its basis of inadequate evacuation transportation resources for residents, transients, i and those with special needs, by applying Planning Standards A, C,,J, and O U (D/aluation Criteria A.3, A.4, C.4,L.9, J.10.j, and 0.4) in FEMA-REF-1. J ) G. 2, i The December 15, 1986 RAC review of the State and municipal plans re-flect FEMA's views on this issue. Specifically, the RAC's review ccnments on the New Hampshire State plan on this issue are provided on pages 10, 64, 74, 74-e, 74-b, 74-c,127,128, and 129 of Section I, and on page 1 of the Latters i of Agreement subsection of Section IV, and on pages 3 and 49 of the Canpensatory j Plan subsection of Section IV. The RAC review comments on the nunicipal l plans on this issue are provided on page 17 of Section II. l l The RAC relied upon the following doctrnents in fortning its conclusions on l this issue: Revision 2 to the New Hampshire State Plan; Revision 2 to the i fO-municipal plans. i f ( 3o) _________.mm.__..._

p: ,.h

11.

t li 1' 'IORI OF HAMP' ION REVISED CCNTENTION IV TO REVISION 2 (Cont.) l ;. gA L M Because'of'the-need for resolution.and clarification of several . items,: FEMA does' not'yet have w l::: assurance of the adequacy of evacuationLtransportation' resources and procedures.

Hesponses to specific portions of Hampton Revised Contention IV are provided below.

( A) Under the Compensatory Plan, the Berry Bus Cortpany shall provide the 7bwn of Hampton with 40 buses. Page 7A-24. Under the terms of the ( -,: . !Atter of-Agreement with Berry Bus, however, see attached Berry Bus is 'only obligated to provide 31 buses in the event of emergency, or 9 fewer buses than even -the State acknowledges are necessary in the event of radiological emergency. FEMA PESIONSE: I ( A) The Istter of Agreement with Berry Transportation Company dated 8/7/86, located in \\blume 5 of the State Plan, indicates that it can provide approximately 62 buses and 9 drivers during an l emergency. However, the buses frcm Berry Transportation Capany are not specifically assigned to provide transportation for the Tbwn of Hampton. ' As noted in the RAC Review (page 1 of Istters of' Agreement subsection of Section IV), the State appears to have l eliminated the prior allotment of buses to canunities in its l compensatory plan and in letters of agreement. The RAC'has con-l -(C cluded that, overall, the nunbers of buses and drivers available according to the letters of agreements are sufficient for the needs of Hampton and other ccmunities (see RAC Review pages 74, 74-a, '74-b, 74-c of Section 1, and page 1 of IAtters of Agreement subsection of Section IV). i (B) The Compensatory Plan provides only one bus to evacuate i A sikn's Pride School, Happy Apple Nursery, and the Taylor School emergency. Compensatory Plan, page 7 A-7. Rather-than provide a van 4 to evacuate each of these schools in the event of emergency, the Compensatory Plan therefore requires a single bus driver to maneuver through heavy evacuation traffic an to proceed to each of the three schools to evacuate the children. Substantia] delay, if not impossibility. of requiring c single bus driver to evacuate three schools is unreasonable and would likely result in substantial delay in removing these children from the EPZ. FEMA RESPONSE l ( B) The revised plan (see page IV-34 of Hampton Plan, Eume 18) indicates separate evacuation vehicles (vans) for Aslan's Pride School, and the Taylor School. Happy Apple Nursery referenced in the contention, is not listed as one of the special facili*.ies in Hanpton. r. O y l ( 3/,) a j

p 12. ' ION OF HAWION REVISED CINIDTTION IV 'IO REVISION 2 (Cont.) (C) :The _ Compensatory Plan and the Revised Hampton RERP acknowledge that '23 emergency and special needs vchteles will be reouired: to evacuate - the Town in the event of emergency. Compensatory Plan. page 7A-7; Revised Hampton RERP, page !!-30. The letter agreements for Hampton's transportation needs, however. _ fall to aDocate a single emergency or'~special needs vehicle for the Hampton population. j FEK. FISP h T: (C) Tne revised State and Hampton local plans indicate the estimated need for two (2) special needs buses, six (6) bus conversion kits, four (4) vans, and tw: (2) reclinin; seat coaches for the Town of j Hampton (see Appendix I, page I-3 of Wlume 2 of State Plan, and page TV-34 of Town of Runpton Plan), in addition to 77 regular school buses. 'Ibese vehicles will be provided for Hampton from the resource pool of bases 'and EMS vehicles documented by ' letters of agreement in Wlume 5 of the State Plan. 'Ihe provision of these vehicles will be coordinated by the energency Medical Services (EMS) Coordinator located in the State EOC. (See EMS Coordinator Proce- ) dures in Witane 4B of State Plan). The.RAC has concluded that l there are adequate letters of agrearent to account for the estimated needs of buses and ambulances (see page 10 of RAC Beview, Section I). (D) The Revised Hampton RERP does not provide transportation for any vacationers, transients or other non-resident individuals who may lack their own transportation and may be present in the Town at the timc. { of emergency. In view of the substantial number of tourists and i transients coming to Hampton throughout the year, and particularly -{ during the summer months, it is only reasonable to assume that a i . significant number of a' ditional public transportation vehicles will be d required to promptly ~ carry out an evacuation. i I FEMt. PISPDF .Zr-26 5 - 2.9 ) (D) As noted on pages Man:Mf the Hampton Plan, transients l without access to shelters or vehicles in which they may evacuate l when sheltering has been reccrimended will be provided for by the Public Wrks Director who will provide transportation for those transients to a s:itable sheltering location. If eva:Jation has 3 been recommended, the plan also states that each municipality has i provisions for evacuating residents, including transients. In add-ition, the State is prepared to provide emergency transportation resources to those ecmrunities that have exhausted the local response capability. !bwever, the RAC has concluded that the issue of the i adequacy of transportation for transients will remain open pending l [ infomation to be supplied by the State on the number of transients need.in; transprrtsti;n (see FA7 Review cf element J.9 en page 64 E i

d 13. () TOR 4 OF HAMPTON REVISED COtTTENTION IV TO REVISION 2 (Cont.) of State plan review, Section I; and page 17 of local plan review, Section II). (E) Under the Compensatory Plan, the Timberlane Bus Company of ' Salem, New Hampshire shall-provide the Town of Hampton with 35 - buses in the event of emergency. Salem is located approximately. 40 miles from .the Town of Hampton. Since under the Revised Hampton RERP, individuals evacuated from Hampton wi?1 be-taken to Nashua, immediately adjacent to S alem, Revised-RERP, page !!-17, the Timberlane buses attempting to reach Hampton for evacuation purposes will be required to maneuver through evacuation traffic leaving Hampton. The likelihood of , substantial delay, if not impos sibility, of cvacuation vehicles reaching Hampton therefore raises significant questions on the feasibility of the evacuation transportation provided to the Town under its Revised RERP. l The Revised Hampton RERP therefore falls to provide reasonable assurance of prompt access for emergen:y vehicles to the EPZ and fails to consider the potential impediments of evacuation traffic in promptly providing evacuation vehicles to the Town. NUREG-0654, page 63. FEMA RESPONSE (E) ne August 1986 Imtter of Agreement between the State and the Timberlane Transportation Ccrnpany of Salem, which is located O in vblume 5 of the State Plan, indicates that approximately 40 h buses and 40 drivers will be available during an emergency. There buses are not specifically assigned to provide transpae tation for the Ibwn of Hampton. As noted in the RAC Peview l (page 1 of Letters of Agreement subsection of Section IV), the State appears to have eliminated the prior allotment of buses to comunities in the Compensatory Plan and in letterc of agreement. The RAC has concluded that, overall, the numbers of buses and drivers available according to the letters of agreement are sufficient for the needs of Hampton and other communities (see RAC Review pages 74, 74-a, 74-b, 74-c of Section I, and page 1 of Letters of Agreement subsect' n of Section IV). However, further clarification is still needed regarding the availability of teamsters frcn their employers during work h%rs. It should also be noted that Nashua is no longer a host xrrunity for Hampton, as referenced in the con-tention. Ind_viduals evacuated frcn Hampton will be taken to the Reception Center in Ibver. By way of further basist (A) Dnergency Besources and Equignent. O m>

W. [ 14. a 'IDW4 OF HAWION REVISED CCNI'ENTION IV TO REVISION 2 (Cont. ) ' V~ )

Revision 2 fails to allocate adequate - buses or EMS vehicles to the -

l Town. of Hampton-to reasonably support an evacuation on grounds - ] including: j

1..

The State indicates that the' bus companies under Letter Agreement will provide 553 buses and 496 drives to support an evacuation in.the event.of radiological'~ emergency. Vol. 4. A pp. I-3. an d ' 2.. These j figures arc inaccurate and misleading., Many of the buses to be provided - j by a particular bus company lack sufficient ' drives and, conversely, other

j bus companies are prepared to provide drivers, but have no buses. for j

them to drive. Id. FEMA correctly notes that only " bus-and-driver. pairs" under agreement. should be counted. to determine the maximum number of emergency vehicles available to support an evacuation. FEMA-Final Exercise Assessment, 6/2/66, at 'p. 39. The state, however, can f only demonstrate 541 bus-and-driver pairs. Vol. 4. App.1-1 and 2. or 13 bus Idriver pairr less than tht 444 necesscry minimum required to carry .out 'an t vacu ation, Vol. 4, App. 1-5, even using the Stcte's own unreasonably low EP2 population figures. FEMA PISPONSE: - r 1. 'Ihe RAC has concluded that, althmgh there. are ntanerous inconsis-tencies in bus needs estimates, overall the ntsnbers of buses and ' drivers available according to the Iatters of Agreement in Voltrne 5 of the' State Plan are sufficient (see pages 74, 74-a, 74-b, 74-c of' RAC Review of State Plan Section I, and page 1 of Iatters of Agreement subsection of Section IV). As indicated on page 74 of the RAC Review (Section 1), the Air l National Guard, National Chard and DOT vehicles are listed in i vbitane 2, App. C. School buses are listed in Vblume 2, App.# T. l which lists capability of 574 buses but only 446 bus and driver pairs available at bus campanies to effect avacuation. The 574 g buses listed plus the private vehicles of the persons in the EPZ i plus the reserve resources of the Air National Guard, Army, and Highway Department totalling 851 vehicles offer a large r&crey M, of resources. t As further described on page 74-b of the RAC Review (Section I), the " Transportation Resources Requirements" totals from Nbl. 2, Rev. 2 - 8/86, pace R indicate that the bus requirements are I-3 well in excess of the number of bus ccznpany drivers that have agreed to drive, but scrnewhat less than the number of buses avail-1 able according'to the Istters of Agreement. The Plan properly allows for the fact that not all bus campanies h. have as many drivers willing to serve as they have buses that would be made available. A Iatter of Agreement with Teamsters MY)

M 4 - 15. 'ITM OF HAWION REVISED CONTENTION IV 'IO R' EVISIdd 2 (Cont. ) 4 Incal No. 633 of New Hampshire provides for the tocal to provide ' as many 'as 1,500 personnel, a value well in excess of any foresee-L 'able needs. $56 $ 6 bi ) S b P e R. dL An.ws e AD oa bf ]hSicCG- ~* 2. The bus-and-driver pairs.under Letter Agreement with the State represent an." absolute maximum," FEMA, Final Exercise Assessment, 6/2/86. at p. ' 39, 'and.do not provide reliable ~ figures to measure available j

. evacuation buses or personnel.

FEMA, Final Exercise Assessment,

6/2/86,. App. I at p. 233, 3oth common sense. and conversations between FEMA and the-bus companies indicate that in fact the actual bus-and-driver availability would be substantially. less' than as specified in the Letter Agreements, id. which could. reasonably be expected to be reduced by reason of bus breakdown, driver unavailability. drivers who may. get lost enroute to the EPZ, or who may become imbedded ' in outgoing evacuation traffic thereby substantially delaying or prohibiting a driver from timely' reaching the EPZ. RAC Review. August, 1986, Section' VI, p.12. 1~0.. FD4A RESPONSE '2. See response to Item #1 above. See r>ciae i s A. Fon. d LA Rt f: t c A Ts ot3 of '@GEf o us '. 3. In an apparent effort to address FEMA's concerns on the inadequacy of available personnel and transportation resources. the State has entered into an agreement with' the Teamsters Union, apparently for the purpose of providing additional bus drivers for evacuation. .Vol., 4 App. 1-11. - Revision 2, however, fails to demonstrate that the Teamsters under agreement are in fact adequately trained to drive the school buses and emergency vehicles for the mobility impaired to properly effectuate an evacuation, fails to specify how - these backup drivers promptly will be notified and coordinated with available buses. and fails to support the purported agreement with the Teamsters with Letter Agreecients executed by the individual members of this union. FEMA RESPONSE: 3. 'Ihe Iatter of Agreement with Teamsters Iocal No. 633 is present in W1ume 5 of the State Plan and doctanents the Union's agreement to provide approximately 1,500 personnel to drive transportation vehicles as needed during emergencies. In regard to training, the 6/2/86 agreement between the State and the Teamsters indicates that the New fO Hampshire Civil Defense Agency will provide training to the Local 633 D5)

a. E 15A i

1. On page 15,'at the end.of the first para' graph,. the -following' is added:

'l "However, in FEMA's April 15, 1987 Affidavit in Opposition to Summary i P Disposition of Certain Contentions, item 31 of that document, FEMA. noted that there were not any assurances that the employers of the

Teamsters drivers made available by that 1.etter of Agreement will be.

willing to allow them to leave their jobs to respond to an emergency. Furthermore, see the FEMA response.to item,3, below."

2. On page 15, under " FEMA Response to Further Basis (A)2:", the following is changed: (a) replace the period after the word "above" with a comma; and (b) insert "for general discussion of bus-and-driver availability and redundancy of resources. With respect to the possibility of drivers getting lost enroute to the EPZ, improved bus route maps' are now available.

The RAC found these maps to be generally adequate (NUREG elements J.10.a and J.10.g, RAC review Section IV, State Compensatory Plan subsection, pages 9 and 11. The use of these maps will be tested during the next exercise. The possibility of incoming buses becoming ' imbedded' in outgoing evacuation traffic will be reviewed as part of the Evacuation Time Estimate Testimony of Dr. Thomas Urbanik, an NRC. Staff witness. -(0 i I .(('O / l (%)

l 16. 1 ~ 'IOW OF HAMPION REVISED CORTENTION IV 'IO REVISION 2 (Conti) i e membership regarding potential emergencies in New Hampshire." The . State training program is described in Section 3.2 of the State Plan. - As ' indicated on page 3.2-6 of the State Plan,' NHCDA will provide j ei annual instruction.to the drivers of bus and ambulance transportation-resources. - The training will consist of "an overview of the RERP and g amergency. response organization, notification,: emergency classification l levels, protective actions, location of staging areas, basic radiation concepts, and radiological exposure control, including the use of dosimeters"f (pages 3.2-7 and 3.2-9 of State Plan). Although the RAC { i had no specific cements'on the training program for bus' drivers, Planning Standaro O (Radiological Dnergency Response Training) was ~ rated as adequate by the RAC (pages 127,128, and 129 of Section 1 of ' State Plan review). 1 No details were found in the plan as to how Teamsters' bus drivers ) will be notified and coordinated with available buses. However,- l there is a contact person for Teamsters Local tb.633 and telephone ntenber listed on paaeletf Appendix $of NHCDA Procedures in 7 I., y voltane 4 of the State Plan..Although the procedure for the EOC Resources Coordinator (Witane 4-State' Plan) and the Director of Pupil {pd ' Transportation Safety (Voltsne 4B State Plan) intlicate.that they will request bus empanies to conduct a fleet inventory and driver avail-ability poll, no other procedures could be found which describe how i individual Teamsters drivers are contacted and matched with available buses which require drivers. Although the RAC did not' ccurment on this in its review, this information should be provided in the plan to ensure that Teamsters' drivers can be contacted, mobilized and matched with available buses in a timely manner. $&% w, M N o If'di q' /t4a=wef.6w chti+4/ a el % !!f L v Mf % &S%LM d %..w/t s e.za. v (B) Emergency Exercise. The February 26 exercise only confirmed the consistent position of the Town of Hampton and other interveners that ' evacuation of the EPZ around Seabrook Station is not feasible and that the personnel and equipment allocated to support,an emergency. response are inadequate. For example, the State could riot satisfy ev'en the limited demand for buses of comen:nities participating in the exercise, FEMA, Final Exercise Assessment 'p.' 40, could not provide adequate EMS or ambulance service, FEMA, Final Exercise Assessment, pp. 4?, 44, no buses were allocated for summertime employees, RAC Review, August 1985, Section VI.at p. 9, the State failed to demonstrate that adequate backup buses were available to support an evacuation, FEMA, Firls1 Exercise Assessment, 6/2/86, p. 42, and the Blate did not allocate transportation for those individuals who h may have a vehicle in the household, yet the vehicle may be unavailable 07) a

1 l 1 17. 'ItM 'OF HAMPTON P1 VISED COtEDCION IV TO REVISION 2 (Cont.) j i at the time - of an. emergency. RAC Review. August 1986 Section I,

p. 71.

Revision 2 fails to correct these anc related deficiencies. i Additionally, if the State _ was unable to reasonably carry out a limited and I L preplanned evacuation exercise, with no requiremerit for coordination with Massachusetts. 'and _in the dead of winter, an ' actual evacuation of the summertime beach population is wholly unrealistic and unworkable. 1 FD4A RESPONSE: '(B) The Final Exercise Assessment of the February 26, 1986 Exercise doctrnented many deficiencies in the State's ability to provide evacuation transportation' resources in a prompt and coordinated Remedial actions to correct these deficiencies will manner. have to be successfully demonstrated in a future exercise. (C) Special Needs Population. Revision 2 calculates the special needs population for the Town of ((3 Hampton based upon an " annual-survey.' Vol. 18,

p. 11-30.

This Nd " annual survey" is in fact a mere " postage paid mail back card" sent out by the State purportedly to all persons residing within Hampton. Id. Less than. 2 percent of the Town responded. Vol. 18, p. IV-34. The-survey is.a grossly inadecuate vehicle to compute the special needs and transit ' dependent populations of the' Town of Hampton and unreasonably places the, burden upon handicapped, mobility-impaired, and other transit dependent.- or special needs individuals to affirmatively request transportation or be ignored under the State's emergency plan. The State itself recognized the inadequacy of its own survey since it increased by - 50 percent the transportation allocation for the special needs populations for all towns, in view of the "small sample sizes" received from each community.. R AC Review. Aurust,1986, Section VI, p. 6. As the RAC pointed out, however, no statistical justification has been provided by the State for this 50 percent increase. Id at p. 5. The special needs _ populations for the Town of Hampton, and for other EPZ towns, therefore represent an unknown quantity for evacuation planning. P 2 /M A R G.CP c W S G : (C) The PAC Paview indicates that there needs to be clarification in the Plan on the basis for determining the number of people in the EPZ = ccumunities requiring transportation during an evacuation. The RAC Review also indicates that numerous inconsistencies need to be resolved. The PAC Review (page 74-e of Section I) noted that the special needs survey of transit dependent residents is different from the telephone survey which was used for ccanputation in the (w)

4 18. N OF HAMPION REVISED CONTDirION IV TO REVISION 2 (Cont.) Evacuation Time Estimates (ETE) Study. The special needs survey gives the lowest number of residents requiring ' transportation. There are scme very. large differences in special needs survey estimates of requirements by ccmnunity (see W1. 4, Rev. 2 - 8/86, pages 18B-2 through 18B-27) and the ETE telephone survey estimates j (see Table 11-7, W1. 2). De Plan ~ should state the basis of its l use of a particular set of numbers, give date when the estimates were developed, and explain whether and why those numbers take precedence over any other set of numbers which were, constructed for-essentially the same purpose. De plan reviewers do not now have enough information to judge the accuracy or priority of a given set of nunbers. Specific ccmnents on Voltrne 6 (ETE Study) will be provided by an expert witness to be sponsored by the NRC. J (D) Compensatory Plan. j FEMA has recommended that the State Compensatory Plan be revised "to anticipate the non-participation of any of the local jurisdictions in the Seabrook plume EPZ." FEMA, Final Exercise Assessment, 6/2/86, p. 44. Based upon the FEMA recommendation, and from the avowed s - non-participation of the Town of Hampton and numerous other towns within the EPZ. to implement the NHEERP, the State-has promulgated a compensatory plan consistingr of only five pages. Vol. 2, App. G. As presently drafted. the Compensatory Plan wholly falls to allocate adequate personnel, equipment, or resources to implement an evacuation on grounds including: 1. The plan erroneously assumes the cooperation and j participation of Hampton school officials, although no letter agreements { confirming this participation have been obtained. Vol. 2 App. G-2. l { FEMA RESPONSE: l (D) Appendix G of Wlume 2 of the State Plan does not re esent the l total State Ccxnpensatory Plan, but only represents a outline i of the concept of operations. n e details of how th Ccznpensatory l Plan operates have been incorporated into the plan procedures (Volunes 4, 4A, and 4B). -o, av

19. 7t2 OF HAMPION REVISED COmETION IV TO REVISION 2 (Cont. )

1. It is correct that the Compensatory Plan assumes the cooperation l

of Hampton School officials in implementing their response' plans and in providing information on school attendance (page G-2 of l Appendix G to Wltane 2 of State Plan).._It is also correct that the plan contains no letters of agreement with Harnpton School-1 officials confirming this cooperation. However, TEMA REP-1 does du, not p letters of agreement with school officials since schools are considered public agencies. j 2. Aside from vague reference to the coordination of ' law enforcercent 6ctivities - and traffic control, Vol. 2. App, G-3, the cortpensatory plan.. wholly fails to specify where this additional law enforcement personnel will be obtained to make up for those local police. l I who ~ will not participate in the implementation - of the NHRERP, including-the Hampton Police. Department. Either the plan erroneously assur:es local j participation in the face of the express vote of the Town of Hampton not to so participate, or the plan relies upon the inadequate number of personnel in State Police' Troop A to carry out local law ' enforcement duties.. With its 35. troopers, however. Troop A does not even have suffleient personnel to staff access control points for the EPZ, as required under Revision 2, let klone take over the traffic mtnagement cnd . (f} security duties presently assigned to Hampton and other local police ) departcient s. TEMA, Final Exercice Assessment, 6/2/86 at p. 4f. 1 FEMA RESPONSE:

2. The New Hampshire State Police Troop A procedures include prcr visions to rnobilize additional personnel to compensate for municipalities that may be unable to respond to the emergency.

As noted in the procedures for the Troop A IEC Representative (page 6, step #6, Troop A Procedures in Witane 4B of State Plan), i "If additional personnel and equipment are required, contact the State Police EOC I.iaison to initiate state police alerting procedures to call in troopers frczn other parts of the State." The procedures also indicate that if still further assistance is required, the State EOC representative is to be contacted to request support frczn other State resources. The RAC Review I indicated that this revised procedure was adequate (see page 49 of Compensatory Plan subsection of Section IV). The procedure for mobilizing additional support, therefore, appears to be adequate, although the adequacy of overall resources still l requires resolution. For exanple, the State indcated (page 3 of Ccanpensatory Plan subsection of Section IV of RAC Review) { that "A resource allocation study is currently being conducted. A This study will (1) identify the personnel and equipment M required to implement the local and State plans and procedures 2 l 1 WC) ) 1 s

I 1 20. 'It2 OF HAMPTON REVISED CCNTENTION IV TO REVISION 2 (Cont.) and (2) assure that adequate resources are available to cover all emergency functions. Once this study is ccrnpleted, rosters 1 and equipment lists in the plans and procedures will be reviewed and updated according to the results of this analysis." ? The RAC concluded that the adequacy of resources depends on the outcome of the cited study. l (E) Transit Dependent Individuals. i I Revision 2 adopts a " concept of pre-designated bus routes" to evacuate transit dependent residents and transients without private R AC Review. August,1986_, Section I,

p. 73.

transportation. Apparently this procedure has been adopted to purportedly increase the speed of evacuation, by eliminating the need for door to door pick ups of These j transit dependent individuals as provide din the prior NHRERP. pre-designated bus routes, however, will require individuals, including the " mobility-imp aired," to leave their homes during a radiological emergency, to locate the pre-designated bus routes, and to remain outdoors subject to increased radiological exposure, awaiting evacuation { bur.es which FEMA has already indicated may reasonably be expected not to arrive. FEMA, Pinal Exercise Assessment, 6/2/36, at p. 40. ThTs-procedure unreasonably comproc'ises the public health and will not adequately protect the Hampton population from radiation injury. Additionally, the transportation allocated for the Town of Hampton under Revision 2 Vol. 18, p. 34, does not include buses for the substantial number of transients, including the beach population. Vol. 4. App. I-8. J l FEMA RESPONSE (E) The concept of pre-designated bus routes for the evacuation of residents and transients without transportation does not eliminate the need for door-tcxicor pickups for " mobility-impaired" indi-viduals with special needs. As indicated on page II-31 of the Hampton Plan, the Public Works Director is responsible for main-taining a current listing of the residents that require evacuation by special vehicle or that require physical help to evacuate. 'Ihe Public Works Director is responsible for ensuring transpor-tation is provided for these people. As indicated in the Hampton Plan (page II-31), the transportation requirements are transmitted I to the town IFO local liaison for assignment and dispatch of the appropriate transportation resources. As noted in the Public Works Directors' procedures (page IV-32 Hampton Plan), town emergency workers will be assigned to report to the hcmes or other locations of people with special needs to assist them in (' N/)

21, 'ItM1 OF HAWION REVISED CONTENTION IV TO REVISION 2 (Cont. ) J boarding vehicles. Directions will also be provided for EMS ,l l., vehicles reporting to homes of people requiring ambulance l transport. Should town officials not participate,these activities would be

performed by. the State under the Ccarpensatory Plan.

In regard to the adequacy of transportation for transients in Hampton, see the previous FEMA response to Item "(D)" of the original. basis of Hampton Contention #4. i . O, y l ( C42.)

s 34. j e REVISED KENSINGTON CONTENTION 6 1 The. NHRERP, Revision 2. for "TOK" does not provide. adequate arrangements for effectively using assistance. and resources as required by.10 C.F.R.c I 50.47(b)(3) because there are not appropriate letters of agreement to identify support organizations and other facilities which are to provide assistance. BASIS: NUREG-0654 ' II - C.4. requires that ' each organization shall identify nuclear and other facilities, organizations or individuals which ~ can be 1 relied on 'in an emergency to provide assistance. Such assistance shall be - 1 identified 'and supported by appropriate letters of. agreement. "TOK" is not awsre of a letter of agreement with Midway Excavators. "TOK" has 1 been. informed by Midway Excavators (not by NH State Civil Defense) that' J as 'of; November 21! 196G it will not be servicing. any towns. Midway. ] Excavators left "TOK" unplowed during, the snow storm of November 19, - 1986 and, in fact "neve: showed up" ' or called "TOK" to inform "TOK" l that it would not be coming. Midway Excavators is servicing only State roads as of November 21, 1986. In AFFIDAVIT OF RICHARD H. STROME .j (CONTENTION KENST*1GTON -6 AND CONTENTIONS SOUTH HAMPTON-1 AND 3) MAY 19.198d in support of APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR

SUMMARY

DISPOSITION OF KENSINGTON CONTENTIOF NO. 6 AND SOUTH. HAMPTON. CONTENTIONS NOS.1 AND 3 MAY 20.1986, Richard H. ~ Strome states: at 3. "As to local tow or snow removal companies such as Midway Excavators, the state has adequate back-up resources should local contractors be unavailable to two or to plow the snow in the Town of South Hampton." In light of Midway Excavators action of November 21, 1986 ' in-which it effectively transferred the resources of "TOK" to the State. "TOK" has serious questions as to the existence of the State's back-up resources and the adequacy of any resources the State purports to have. "TOK" no longer has a Snow Removal Agreement with Midway Excavators. "TOK" does not accept as appropriate letters of agreement the letters of agreement with transportation companies. Many of these letters list more buses and other vehicles than there are drivers. There are no letters of agreement for the already inadequate number of drivers. FEMA RESPONSE: FEMA has addressed Town of Kensington Rev.ised Contention 6 and its basis thit there are not appropriate letters of agreement with tiidway Excavators or with transportation companies by applying Planning Standards A, C, and J. (Evaluation Criteria A 3, C.4 J.10.g and J.10.k) in FEMA-F:EP **. + The December 15, 1986 RAC Review of the State and municipal plans reflect FE'tA's views on this issue. Specifically, FEMA's review comments (ff)

\\ s { l'. 35. f f ( REVISED KENSINGTON CONTENTION _6 (Cont. ) 1 on the New Hampshire State P1an on this issue are provided on pages 74, 74-b, and 85 of Section.1, on page 1 of the Letters of Agreement subsection of.Section IV, and on page 50 of the Compensatory Plan subsection of Section i IV. FEMA's review comments on the municipal plans on this issue are pro-

l vided on.pages 5 and 6 of Section II.

FEMA relied upon the following documents in forming its conclusions on this issuei Revision 2 of the New Hampshire State Plan; Revision 2 to the municipal plans. For a response to this' issue, see the FEMA response to South Hampton Contention 3. As noted in the response, there is no Letter of Agreement with flidway' Excavating Company..However, it appears that there would be sufficient.other resources available from the State to remove. impediments to evacuation. It is noted, however, that Midway Excavating Company was-i not identified in the Kensington Plan as a provider of contracted services (see page C-3 of Appendix C of Kensington Plan). As also noted in the FEMA response to South Hampton Contention' 3, which is applicable to the response to Kensington Revised Contention 6, the letters of agreement with transportation companies are considered by the RAC to be adequate. (O-i i 1 n J

~ l 72. j 1 ~' AMENDED SAPL CONTENTICH No. 25 l The New Hampshire State and local radiological-emergency response plans ~do not reasonably - assure. that the public health and - safety.. will ) adequately -be protected because the ~ provisions for : protecting those persons ;whose mobility may-be impaired due to such factorr as institu-tional or other confinement are patently lackinF. Therefore, the plans do .not meet the requiremer.ts of 10 CFR 550.47(a)(1). 650.47(b)(8). and l NUREG-0654 II.J.10.d. - i ~ By way of amenom 'nt and additional basis, SAPL states as follows: l l The Exeter Hospital Radiological Emergency Response Plan contained < i .in Volume 26A of the NHRERP Rev. 2 does not support a finding that there will be adequate-care provided for those patients classified as Cate-gory I (Advanced Care Required) or Category IV; (School Bus) because 'l the letters of agreement with the host hospitals for Exeter Hospital do not . indicate that any of these facilities have the willingness or. facilities to take these patients. Catholic Medical Center - and Concord ~ Hospital only l assert a willingness to accept Class II unc Class III patients. Ilampstead - 1 Hospital's letter is non-specific in regard to how many or what category. of patients it will accept and does not ' support a finding that these patients will be ~ cared for. There is, therefore, no reasonable assurance that these individuals will be adequately provided for., (o. Further.: at page 15 of the-Exeter Hospital Ra'diological Emergency Response Plan, it states: Patients aged 55 years old or considered too 4 critical for transport should-be considered candidates. for sheltering rather than evacuation. Coordinate with DPHS. FEMA RESPONSE: FEMA has addressed the amended Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL) Contention tb. 25'and its basis of inadequate provisions for protecting institutionalized nobility-impaired persons by applying Planning Standards A, C, and J (Evaluation Criteria A.3, C.4, J.10.d and J.10m) in FEMA REP-1. The December 15, 1986 RAC Review of the State and municipal plans reflect FEMA's views on this issue. Specifically, FEMA's review ccaments on the New Hangshire State Plan on this issue are provided on pages 10, 12, JWand 88 of Section I. FEMA's review ccmnents on the municipal N plans on this issue are provided on page 19 of Section II. 4 10 I (D)

s 2

.?

9 j

m a RESPONSE

~73.. / AMENDED SAPL CCNTENTION NO.~ 25 ' (Cont.) 9 l 1 FEMA relied upon the following documents in forming its conclusions lon this: issues Revision 2 to the New Hampshire State Plant. Revision 2 to the municipal plans. FEMA does not yet have assurance, based on the available letters ofagreement,thatthereareadequateprovisionsforprotectinginstit$on-n alized persons. - The December 15,.1986 RAC Review of the Stats and local plans for evaluation criteria element J.10.d indicated that plan revisions adequately. treated protection of the mobility impaired (see page 67 of Section I,1 State Plan review; and page 19 of Section II,. local plan review). However, the RAC Review did not cmment on. the fact that letters of agreement: with the host hospitals for evacuated patients.from Exeter Hospital do not include provisions for acceptance and care of Category I'and Category IV patients.. The letters fran Concord Hospital and Catholic Medical Center only indicate their agreement to accept Class II and Class III patients (see Attachment A to Exeter Ibspital Radiological energency Response Plan in Nblume.26A of' plans). The letter from Hampstead Hospital is non specific. Additional information needs to be provided in the agreements and plans to clarify how Category I and Category IV patients from Exeter Ibspital will be protected in the event of a radiological emergency. In regard to the sheltering of Exeter Hospital patients " aged 55

(W.'./A.

years old or considered too critical for transport,".rather than evacuate them, State Plan Section 2.6.5 indicates that New Hampshire relies on two protective actions for limiting the direct exposure of the general publaic within the Plume Exposure EP2. These two protective actions are sheltering and evacuation' (State Plan, page 2.6-4). The decision whether to shelter or evacuate is based on several variables, including dose reduction factors due to sheltering (State Plan, page 2.6-29). State Plan Section 2.6.5 (page 2.6-6) indicates that New Hampshire employs the " Shelter-in-Place" concept if sheltering is the chosen protective action. In regard to sheltering residents of special facilities such as Exeter Hospital the State indicates that sheltering is the preferred protective action (State Plan, page 2.6-7). FEMA concludes that the plans have been adequately revised to take into account the sheltering protec-tion factors for special facilities (RAC Review, Section I, page 67). A special tabulation of specific protection factors for each of the facilities (including Exeter Hospital) is present in Table 2.6-3 of the State Plan (RAC Review, Section I, page 67). ' The RAC Review (Section I, page 88) I indicates that the flow diagram in the State Plan (Fig. 2.6-7) now properly reflects the decision-making process for the election between sheltering and evacuation, and that the treatment of institutionalized is now adequately detailed. Relative to the lack of written agreements with the host facilities for residents of certain special facilities (Seacoast Health Center in O (9d I I

74. FDR RESPOt!SES - y AMENDED SAPL CotmNTION NO. 25 (Cont.) '(/~~J A Hampton, Coodwin's of heter, and Eventide Mme of Exeter), and the. lack of written agreements for reception and mass' care facilities, see the FEMA response to Item #2 in the amended and redraf ted SAPL Contention No.15. The basis for the contention statement that "O'Brien Ambulance of' Beverly,. Massachusetts, has stated that/ the ccenpany'will-not be able to participate in any. type of response in the Seabrook area" is unknown. The . Latter of Agreement with O' Brig hnbulance, Inc. '(January 1986) provided in Witzne 5 of the State Plan makes no such statement. i (O (95)

PANEL - CROSS 4584 () 1 1 2 MR. FLYNN: At this time, I offer the panel for 3 cross-examination. 4 MS. CURRAN: Okay, I will begin. 5 CROSS-EXAMINATION 6 BY MS. CURRAN: 7 Q Good morning, gentlemen. 8 I would like to start b'y asking you a few questions 9 regarding your testimony on the availability of bus drivers 10 during an emergency. 11 I believe your testimony expresses concern about the 12 coordination of bus drivers, and whether bus drivers may be 13 released by their employers. 14 This was based on the plan that the Teamsters would 15 be relied on for bus transportation, is that right? 16 A (Thomas) Yes, it is, that is correct. 17 Q And as we now, the number of Teamsters being relied 18 upon has been significantly reduced, and the State has listed 19 some other sources of bus drivers, that they will now be 20 relying on, is that right? 21 A (Thomas) Yes, those changes have been made in the 22 plan, as I understand it. 23 Q And have you read or heard anything during these 24 proceedings that would lead you to change your testimony, as to 25 whether the number of bus drivers available during a seabrook O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

H; o PANELL-CROSS: 4585 I) emergency wou'ld be adequate-at this point? l 1 1 ~ 2.- JL ~(Thomas) We.would like to consult on that, for just j i 3 .a second,'please?; 4 Q Certainly. i ..i. 15 -(Witnesses confer.) 6 THE' WITNESS-(Thomas). We have not heard anything. 7 that would1 change our position that there'is some question as! u '8 to'the number of drivers that would be available. 9 There is a fairly significant change in the plans, in' 10. that when the RAC made its review, we had: understood that.there. i ' 11' would be a-pool of approximately.1,500 Teamsters drivers who 12 would be available. j 13 And we later came to understand that that may not be-kJ 14 the case, and, in fact, we are evaluating' letters of agreement. i 15 at this time. J k l 16 That material will be evaluated by the Regional 1 17 Assistance Committee, and FEMA will make changes in the RAC j 1 18 review, and FEMA's analysis, as'necessary. 19 DY MS. CURRAN: 20 Q And you are talking about the letters of agreement 21 here, in terms of the Department of Transportation and the 22 National Guard, would you also require additional information 1 23 before you could fully evaluate the adequacy of those drivers? 24 A (Thomas) We would have to fully understand that the 25 drivers had been trained and were available. I am not sure ( s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

1 ^ PANEL' ' CROSS. .4586-G -1(J : 1 . hether we have; sufficient information', at this time,-to reach w 2" -a~. conclusion onthe matter. But we have-not really begun;our- ~31. review on that, because we'are at this hearing. 4 "Q. Okay, thank-you. 5 I wouldllike'to ask a few questions regarding the 6-adequacy of transportation of. transients'in the'EPZ. 7L With respect'to the adequacy,of-the transportation-of~ ~8: transients who do-not have their own means of transportation, 9 your_. testimony-is that this issue will remain open pending 10 information:to be supplied by the' State on the number.of 11 transients-needing transportation,'is that right? 12 -A (Thomas) That is corr'ect.- 13 -0 Are you satisfled based'on any' testimony'that you- /^\\ U 14 have read or heard _here, that the 100 buses provided by the-15 State for transportation of EPZ residents is als'o adequate to 'I 16-provide' fcc. transportation of transients in the EPZ, Twho may J 17 require transportation assistance, in the event of an l 1 18' evacuation? ] -] 19 A (Thomas) I don't recall the testimony about 100 20-buses. Secondly, I don't recall any testimony that provided a

21 number of potential transients without transportation.

So I am 1 22 not -- I have heard nothing, or I remember nothing that would '. 2 3 enable FEMA to reach a change on that testimony. 24 MR. TURK: Your Honor, I am not raising ~an objection, 25 but a comment, it seems a little unfair to expect Mr. Thomas to O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

-r- .. ya q i -PANEL - CROSS

4587, o

1 --()' 1 .be able to recall all of the testimony that we have heard in 2 the last. week andia-half. And reach a conclusion, without even 3 having the record, to open in front'of him. l i 4 JUDGE SMITH. Well, I don't think that it is unfair 5 because his answer could simply be, no, he does not, just as he 6

answered, i

'7 MR.. TURK: Yes,.I -- 8 JUDGE SMITH: Perhaps something did' stick out in his 9. mind, that would have changed it,'end in either event, I don't- ~ ' 110 think that'it is unfair. l 11 BY MS. CURRAN: l 12 0 .I believe that the Applicants testified that they had 13 consulted the evacuation time estimates, for'information on the pNf 14 number of transients in the EPZ. ) 15 Would that refresh your recollection enough to affect-16 your opinion? 17 A (Thomas) Our understanding of the material that we 18 had in front of us, when we reached the conclusions that we 19 did, which was essentially REV.2, including the evacuation time 20 esti' mate, were that we did have numbers of transients but we 21 did not have an understanding of how many of those people might 22 be transients without transportation. 23 And that was what was requested in the RAC review, i 24 and to the best of my recollection and knowledge, we have not 25 yet received that. 1 ) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 Q 1 Y__ ____

g --.. m I 3 c PANEL - CROSS 4588 h ' 15 .Q-

Okay.

3 y 2 And now, I think'that you have.seen'the calendar,- 3 thatiis to beLprovided to.-EPZ-residents, regarding:the 4. availabilitysto them of bus pickup along pre-designated routes, ) '51 or at' bus' stops, is that.right? l .6. A: (Thomas)...Yes.. - Q -- And has the State provided to you, any materials that-8 would demonstrate how'the State plans to notify. transients in. 1 -) 9 the.EPZ, who are without transportation, of the existence.or 10 location of'such' bus routes,;or pickups? j a 11 A- '(Thomas) -Can we have just'a' moment to consult' on' l J 12 that? - 13 Q Sure. i O.- J 'V. -14 (Witnesses confer.) I ' 15 ~ THE WITNESS (Thomas): There are a number of possible 16 ways that that could be done.- And there are means provided in .i 17 the plan for effectuating such announcements. j 18-But there are no provisions, of which I-am aware in-l 19 the plan, that would actually lay-out bus routes, for 20 transients without transportation. 21' Nor, from my examination of the plans, is that -22 clearly contemplated, as I understand it. 23 Rather, I understand that it is contemplated that i 24' transients without transportation will be requested to report 25 to one central location. But it is an area, that is, at least i O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l 4 l

s PANEL - CROSS 4589 L l1L - notEclear,'from'my analysis.of the plans. 2. I did indicate'that there,would.be some' ways'that - ~3 this could befdone, conceivably messages could be broadcast' 4 over'the public-address-announcement 1 capability of the sirens 5 Lthat exist along;the beaches. b !6 But the public address announcements that I have. 7: seen, thus.far, and the EBS.messagesLthat I have_seen thus far, 8 .to_the best of my recollection, do not1 reflect specific l 9 announcements:for transients-without. transportation. -' ~

10 Q-Let me_just see if I can get a clarification,-is-it 11.

your' understanding of the' plan, right now,'that' transients a 12 without transportation in the EPZ, will be: directed to a 13 central locatien, in the EPZ, is that:right?' . r"x q 14 .A-(Thomas)- That is one reading of some lines in the. 15 local plans, which indicate that the local officials in the 16 beach communities might have transients without transportation, 17 reporting to the local EOC for sheltering and transportation. 18 And.that they are to be taken care.of. It is not an 11 ;' area that is clear to FEMA and RAC in the plans. ~ 20 Q And it is not clear, to you, that transients in the 21 EPZ are to be picked up along pre-designated bus routes then? i 22 A (Thomas) Again, I would have to get, or I would have 23 to look at the plans again, and I would like to consult on 24 that. i 25 But my best recollection is that that is certainly - ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l 1 l

j PANEL - CROSS 4590 r~(_j l' not immediately clear to me from my recollection of reading'the j l 2' plans. ] 3 May I have.just a minute to consult? 4 Q Sure. 1 5 (Witnesses confer.) ) 'I 6 MR. TURK: I have the same problem with this line of 4 7 questioning. The plans, as you know, are voluminous, and as I 8 understand what Ms. Curran is asking, she is asking for a l l 9 recall from Mr. Thomas, as_to what.the plans have provided. j 10 If the proposed finding that she-is going to submit, i l 11 is that the plans don't provide something, I say that is i 12 improper. We are testing recall'of an individual to what the i 13 plans may contain, or what materials may have been submitted. ,P'J J 14 JUDGE SMITH: I don't see her testing recall, but I 15 don't know what her substitute or alternate purpor9 is, but i 16 apparently to lay a foundation to get a conclusion. I i 17 Ms. Curran, what is your objective? j l 18 MS. CURRAN: My concern here, is that the plan, for j 19 evacuating transients in the EPZ is somewhat of an ad hoc ] 20 response. 21 And that the State has not actually developed a 22 coordinated plan for alerting people as to -- if they are to go 23 to these bus routes -- as to how they are going to get there 24 and where these things are. 25 And I am trying to find out if that was considered in (O J Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

j l. h '} PANEL - CROSS 4591 V,m 1 your testimony on the. transportation of transients appears on l l 2 global page 32. 3 And it really is not' clear from your testimony, 4 -whether it is also your understanding that these pre-designated 1 l L 5 bus routes are to be used for transients. j 1 6 And I wanted to clarify whether FEMA understood that- ,j - 7 and would approve the use of that system as it has been ~ 8 described here? l 9 MR. FLYNN: Excuse me, Your Honor, I am confused. 10 Was that a comment addressed to the Board, or was-11 that a question of the panel? . ell, yes it was. I was trying to 12 MS. CURRAN: W 13 explain myself to the Board, yes. l 14 BY MS. CURRAN: i-15 0 So maybe what I should rephrase;the question to be, l I 16 in your review of this plan, did you consider that transients 17 without transportation, in the EPZ were to be evacuated via the 1 18 use of pre-designated bus routes? 19 A (Thomas) Ms. Curran, it is difficult for me to 20 respond to your question, because we aro lacking a fundamental 21 piece of data. And that is, how many transients are expected 22 to be without transportation? 23 When that is provided, we will be in a position to 24 evaluate how well the plans address dealing with those people. 25 We have not gone further to take a look at whether or O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

J + l PANEL - CROSS 4592 ). 1 -not, pre-designated' bus routes and EBS messages are the. 2 appropriate waytof' dealing with those. folks, because we are not 3 sure ' how manyl of them there: are or are likely to be. l 4 So.we have not gone as far, in our' review, as I think .5 that you would'11ke to take.me right now.- I 6-Q 4IJsee.- -7 So, in other'words, your evaluation of any plan,'for-8 transporting these people would depend, to a great extent,7on l 9 the. size of the problem -.in'other words -- the number of j 10 people who had to be removed from the EPZ?. i 11* A .(Thomas) Thank you. 12 I wish that I'had said it that. clearly. 13. Q All right. - ()- 14 I would like to turn to your testimony on the 1 15 provisions for busing school children. 16 A (Thomas) Could you help us by referring us to a page 17 number? 18 Q Sure. 19 I am looking at global page 68. 20 A (Thomas) Thank you. 21 (Witnesses examine document.) 22 THE WITNESS (Thomas): Thank you, I am finished. -23 BY MS, CURRAN: l i 24 0 Okay, I believe that you testified there, that l 25 procedures in the State and local plans need to be clarified to O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

PANEI. - CROSS 4593 mj ) 1 be sure that the State can efficiently coordinate the dispatch-1 2 'of buses to the schools for evacuation. ] 3 And I would just like to ask you a couple of 4 . questions about the criterion of efficiency. 5 Can you_just tell me briefly what are the elements of. r 6 your evaluation of efficiency? 7 A (Thomas) Primarily by' efficiency, we are talking 8 about that the plans provide for a smooth flow of information 9 between the-various people who will be reaching decisions and 10 who will be providing information to the decision-makers who I 4 11 will be dealing with the dispatcher-buses. 12 That it is coherent and that-it hangs together and 4 13 that it appears as though it can work during an~ emergency. i )

14 Q

Is timing important? I .15 A (Thomas) Time is important and certainly we would 16 attempt to work with the State to develop the procedures that j 17 would most likely result in the quickest dispatch of buses to 18 their intended location. i l 19 However, let me point out that the time for the 20 arrival of buses, and the time for departure of loaded buses j 21 from the EPZ, is really an issue for the, I believe, for the 22 discussion under the' heading of evacuation time estimate. 23 Q I believe that there is some testimony here, that 24 with regard to the communication sy cem that has been I 25 established, for the mobilization of school buses, that certain Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

q i i> PANEL - CROSS 4594- )b l' . steps.could be short-circuited, if an alert situation 2 ' accelerating to a site-area emergency. Is that your j -1 3 understanding of the plan? j I 4. A (Thomas) I -- o 5 0 Would you like me to be more' specific? 6-A (Thomas) Yes, could you be more specific?- l 7 I don't remember that being a'particular~ problem. 3 i 8-Q In other words, the need to thoroughly assess, the j 9 need for school buses at particular schools, that that step j 1 10 might be by-passed in a, say, if a situation escalated to a 11 site-area emergency and the response had to be made more' l 12-quickly? 1 13 MR. FLYNN: Excuse me, Ms. Curran,.were you referring

f. _.

14 perhaps to the default values that Mr. Sinclair referred to, 15 the other day? [ 16 MS. CURRAN: I think so, yes. ] 1 < il 17/ THE WITNESS-(Thomas): Could we just consult for a i 18 moment? I am a little lost and maybe Mr. Tanzman can help me? t 19 MS. CURRAN: Okay. 20 (Witnesses confer.) 21 THE WITNESS (Thomas): Ms. Curran, I am lost. 22 And I wonder if you could refer us to a particular '23 page of the testimony? 24 MS. CURRAN: I am sure that I cannot do that at this 25 exact moment. D Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i 1

'l PANEL - CROSS 4595 h -1 BY MS. CURRAN: 2 Q But maybe I should put it into hypothetical terms, 3 that given.the assumption that if an accident were to 4 accelerate,~certain steps that are required at the alert level 5 might not need to be carried out at a site-area emergency. 6 Would that cause you to discount, in any way, the-7 need'for efficiency of those alert level steps? 8 MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, this isLnot by way of' 9 ' objection,-but perhaps to clarify the question. ewe are 10 attempting to summarize testimony that we don't have before us. 11 But in response to my suggestion, a moment ago, to 12 Ms. Curran, she agreed tha". we were talking about tho default 13 values that Mr. Sinclair tentified about the other day. 14 And I would suggest that the questions would-be 15 clearer to the witnesses if it were expressed in those terms. 16 MS. CURRAN: All right.- 17 BY MS. CURRAN: 18 Q Let me just tell.you what I am driving at, okay? 19 Which is that I believe that there has been an 20 implication made in the record here, that the efficiency of the 21 steps that are spelled out in the procedures for an alert 22 level, is not necessarily that important, because some of those 23 steps can be by-passed, if necessary, to speed the process up. 24 And I am just trying to establish the importance that 25 if you were going to rely on a set of procedures, at any stage, () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4 J

i e O CROSS: 4596 ~ PANEL 1-y -(). i 1-in an accident, that' efficiency is'importantiat all.of'-those ~2 stages. That is my purpose'here. 3 .And let.me try,asking it again.. 4 Does the existence-of a provision for utilizing the-5 default. values, make it any less important that the procedures ~ 6-in the plans,-that would be undertaken at'the alert level, 7-under ordinary circumstances,-be efficiently carried out? 8 Is that any clearer? 9; A (Thomas). Let me do my best with'this. I am not-10 totally. familiar with.the concept of default values and I am 11-

not really sure, from.the testimony, exactly what is meant by:

12c default value. 13 But if your question is, is-it important that a set .O-14 'of procedures,-during emergencies, be' designed in such a way,_ ,l d 15 that they can be relied apon by the person who'is tasked with-1 16 carrying out those procedures, and that~the person should not 17 'have'to guess or jump around and wonder if he should not follow 18 a particular step at a stage of the emergency, yes, it is very 19 important that the procedures be designed in such a way, that 20 they can be. relied upon by the person that is carrying out'the 21 task. 22 Is that your question? If it is not your question, 23 then I am lost. l -24 0 ~ That is helpful, thank you. - 25 JUDGE SMITH: I thought that I understood what j ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i

i 1 ,.y PANEL ' CROSS 4597 Ej+i): I (, 1 default values were, but now I am concerned that I don't, -2 .because if-you don't understand them, we may have some. trouble-3' .here. i 4 I understood a default.value-to be that the plan 5 would be fo!1 owed unless it is modified because of ad' hoc j 6 circumstances.- 7 MR.LFLYhPe Your Honor,,I don't want to be in the ] 8' position of testifying but I would like to offer my '9 understanding of what. default values are.- What I thought that-10 .Mr. Sinclair.was saying is, that part'of the' plan is to. 11-determine the number of buses that are needed in.a given 12 situation. -j (-- 13 If, for some reason, it is not possible.to develop 14 'that information, then you revert to the default values, that y 15 is, the plan makes'certain assumptions about how many are 16 likely to be needed, and then you use that figure, rather than - 17 the actual figure for that occasion. 18 I will invite other counsel to correct me. 19 MS. CURRAN: That was my understanding. 20-JUDGE SMITH: Okay. 21 MS. CURRAN: Okay. 22 THE WITNESS (Thomas): Your Honor, would you like me 23 to respond to what may have been a question from you? 24 JUDGE SMITH: No, I -- yes. 25 THE WITNESS (Thomas): I may be just slow this ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

.,b' PANEL -' CROSS-4598 ly morning.- Yes, that-is my -- before Ms. Curran started asking (_jc 1 2 'the questions, that was.my understanding of a default value.- .I -3 . thought that she was using a default value in the sense of a ~ hange in procedures, because something was not' working during y 4-c 5 the' course. of cui emergency. And I found.that confusing'and I -- i -6 thought perhaps, I.had misunderstood the testimony and that'I, 1 7 perhaps, did not understand what a. default value was. i 8 What Mr. Flynn articulated,.is exactly what my-9' understanding of what a default value is, and it.has a very-i 10 important role in a plan. 11 But a default value is just simply that if you cannot 12 get hold of actual numbers, during the course of an emergency,. 13 for how many buses might be needed at a particular school, you ( 14 would then go to the plan, and use what will, in all i 15 -probability, be a larger number, and supply them. 16 But it does not, I think, apply in any way, l ' 17 particularly to short-circuiting procedures, or short-cutting 18 . procedures. 19 BY MS. CURRAN: 20 0 Let me explain to you that it is my understanding j 21 that if you. rely on the default values, for each school, then 22 there is no longer any need to telephone each school and find out how many buses they need and then to go through the chain 23 of communication that would convey that information to the 24 1 25 . person who was making the decisions. l L l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L L

o y, PANEL'- CROSS 4599~ it cf j; 1: And that is to what I'was referring. If you use the i b 2 default'value, you'no longerLhave to.make those' telephone calls 3-

to. find out the'true number of buses that are needed at the

.4 school. 5 MR. TURK: If that l's a question, Il object, Your ') 6'

Honor, l

7 As;I recall the witness stated that he is not 8 familiarfwith'the term, default. values. And I think that the ) 1 9 question is argumentative and there ist no predicate that he can j

10' testify to.'

i ll: 2 JE SMITH ' Well, he is familiar with'the defaultL

12 value. term, and I think that'the question makes sense in'his

'13 understanding of the term.. .m 14 Overruled. ~ l 15 Well, it was a question was it not? I mean is it 16: going to be a question? l 17 MS. CURRAN: All right,.let me -- 18 JUDGE SMITH: Is it not true -- 19 BY MS. CURRAN: l l 20 Q Is it not true that the use of the default values,. 21 eliminates the need to make telephone calls to determine the 22 extent of the actual need, and that it also eliminates the need 23 'to make telephone calls to communicate the extent of.the actual. 24' need? 25 A' (Thomas). It does not eliminate the need -- it -- a mV Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

m; PANEL - CROSS 4600-1 default:value is used if you cannot do a particular step. iIf. 2 'it is'not capable of being carried out, because.something has: 3 gone awry. And-it'is the second-best effort. 4 It would not eliminate the need. In the course of an-5 emergency,.you would continue to try and make those phone 6 calls, because, right up until the point where the buses 7 actually arrived at the schools, because even though you may 8 call a number of bus companies, to. start buses in, because you .9 are using your default values, you would continue to try, 10 during the course of an emergency, to refine that, so that you -11 would get the buses to the optimum possible location. 12 And if I could clarify, just to make sure that-13 everyone does understand -- my testimony is that I do r 1 '-s 14 understand what a default value is. I thought that the way 15 that Ms. Curran.was using the term,.that I, at least, did not 16 understand what she was talking about. 17 But I do know what a default value is and I know how 18 to use it, and it is something that is normally done during the '19 course of an emergency operations. 20 Q And am I correct that what you just said, leads me to j 1 21 believe that under those circumstances, the procedures that are 22 in the plan, are very -- the efficiency of those procedures 23 remains very important? .] 24 A (Thomas) Yes, it does. 25 Q Okay. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

P..- T: s4-s ~ -] y e. 4 'i y. C p. l i + ~ PANEL -- CROSS 14601 e

• ()

1-And let'sLgo'onito;something else. j 2: , You have testified, I think it is at' global pages 67 land?68;"a'sito the ne'd to clarify.theLplans an'd procedures 3l e .::u

4-regarding the11ogistics for transporting school children-during 7

5f JaLradiologicar emergency, is that right?

3 ki 6 A (Thomas) Yes, it is. q 7 -Q And now, obvicusly, paper changes to the plan'and the ] r ) 1 8, procedures would be nec6esary to effect such.. clarification,. 9 wouldn't they? 10 A (Thomas) Yes, we believe.that they-would. ] l 11 Again, as I think that we have talked about '12 throughout.the hearing, this is what FEMA and the RAC thinks 1 13 .about'the procedures. If there is some dispute or' doubt about D ^~d 14 that, the:way that-that is tested, is during the course of a o 15 drill or.an exercise, and we will see how well the procedures 16 hang together.as they are carried out. I 17 But there does appear to us to be a need for 18 clarification to make sure that the, you maximize the i 19 possibility of a successful carrying out-of an exercise, or 20 carrying"out the procedures during an emergency. 21 Q And isn't it true that even if the clarifications in 22 the paper plara appear to you to address the problems and 23 resolve them, that an exercise would nevertheless be necessary ~ 24 in order to fully evaluate whether that had been accomplished? 25 A (Thomas) I think that is very nicely put, in order O ~~ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

70 j q. h, .] n

PANELo-CROSS' L4602-jQ}

1~. forius to; fully; evaluate whether or not the' procedures.can 2; Twork,'youLneed.an exercise,can11ntegrated' exercise,7of'the .j (37 particular sub-components of(that"--lthat;are-involved in that f4' (---Jn1the particularLissue.' '5' You can.certainly evaluate the. merits"of the 6-

procaduressin a series of graduated and' increasingly accurate 1

H I 7 test and thexfirst, ofJcourse, is -.the sort of paper.: review, we i ~ 8" do during the; course of a RAC review. The second would be a. -9l walk-through and then-you~would train. people.on,'it, and do 7 10 table-top; exercises. And:then you would drill the-one or two- ,y L '11-of the particular.sub-component' parts of the plan and then 12. = finally you would do.an' integrated drill.of the major 13 components of the plan. l t, 14 And Mr. Tanzman-would like'to add to that. ( ~W 15 THE WITNESS (Tanzman): I would also like to add 16 . simply that I think in the last coupleLof days, we have heard 17-several witnesses -- at least I have,:while I have been in the 11 8 hearings.-- try, not'try, but go through various of the 1 19 procedures and explain how various of the emergency responders 20 at the difterent levels would, in fact, act during an emergency 21 with respect to the dispatching of transportation resources. 22 And I think that FEMA's testimony and the concerns-23-that are expressed there about things not being altogether

24 clear, or things appearing to be slightly inconsistent, or 25 maybe not:slightly inconsistent -- I think that some of the

) i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

^ a ' ' 3 i a. PANEL - CROSS 4603 l pe-1 di ~ 2 1-responsestin that testimony were, to the effect,.that. people' 1 .2- . understand this --.because:they have been trained. Peopleithat ) 3 carry =it out, understand it:because they have been trained ~and 4' they know really what to do. 5-And I:think that the' exercise is the~best1 test of- '6-that. 7 MS. CURRAN: Okay.- 8 JUDGE SMITH: You want to take a mid-morning break, 9 9 is'this a-good timeEfor you? l ) 10 MS. CURRAN: Sure. j 11 JUDGE SMITH: We will'~take a 15-minute recess. j - 12 ' (A'brief: recess was taken.) ~. 13. JUDGE-SMITH: On the record, at111:00 a.m. ? 14 . Gentlemen, are you ready to resume? 15 BY MS.' CURRAN: l .16. O I just wonder if we might-return, for a brief moment 17 to the question of efficiency. 10 Do you consider the employment of the default value 19. system, in other words, the direct deployment of buses to the-20 schools, without ascertaining the exact need for buses, to be 21 any more efficient than the procedures for actually i 22 ascertaining the need fo'r the schools and sending the exact 23 number needed to the schools? 24-A (Thomas) It is certainly more efficient to use the 1 L - 25 default values, rather than simply delaying interminably, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 1 1____'

~t PANEL'- CROSS ~4604-1 trying.to make phone calls or make contact, that. simply'cannot 2 'be made. 3- -A prudent use of.a default.value is'defin'itely more ~~ ~ 4 ef ficient than riot' using them and just trying to endlessly.'come - 5

to an exact number. And Mr. Tanzman would like to add to that, 6

if he may?

7 A (Tanzman) Presumably the reason why the plan has 8 procedures for specifically ascertaining the needs.for buses, 9 by'actually making telephone calls and determining on a 10 facility-by-facility, location-by-location basis, la that that 11~ is considered to be the optimum way to deploy those resources. 12- 'I think the purpose of the default values is that if, -13 for some reason, time does not permit that process to'take- 'tN 14 place,.the next best thing is for the default values to be 15 selected, because.that is preferable than trying to go through L 16' the process of ascertaining on a location-by-location basis, 17 when you don't have the time to do.that. l 18 I want to put in the prospective that the intent of l 19-the plan, if possibIe, as I understand it, is for the 20 determination to be made in accordance with the procedures that -21 I think are in most of the plans -- listed at the alert stage 22 where the phone calls are made'-- to determine the needs a 1 li 23 specifically. L l 24 The default values, as I think that Mr. Thomas 25 correctly stated before the break, are the uecond choice. D Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

- ~ ~ -,,, -,, (o PANEL - CROSS 4605 -A() 1 , 0: Okay, thanks. 2 ~ Now,.I believe that we.were talking about problems in-l 3 the plans, that might not be. apparent from a paper review of l 4-the plan, but might, nevertheless, show up on an exercise. j 5-And I just wondered if we could go through a couple- { 6 of examples from the exerciselof REV. 0., and discuss whether 7' those were.the kinds of things that would have shown up in a 8 paper review of the plan? 9 On page 20, of the final exercise assessment, dated I I 10 June 2nd, 1986, FEMA states that serious questions. arose at the 11 exercise about the ability of the state to provide for 12 transportation of special populations, including school 13 children,' mobility-impaired and otherwise transit-dependent. A \\ l' 14 Driver resources are not sufficient-to meet the transportation '15 requirements. 16 Is that correct? l 17 A (Thomas) Yes, that appears to be an accurate quote. 18 Q Okay, and I would just like to go through a couple, 19 just three examples of some of those problems. 20 For instance, at page 40, of the exercise assessment, 21 I believe that you state that eight of the 10 communities that 22 participated in the 1986 exercise, were unable to obtain a 23 single pre-arranged bus, by directly contacting a bus company 24 as provided in their local plans. 25 Is that correct? Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l L____=--------

u: i j PANEL - CROSS' '4606 ,h/'\\ l' A (Thomas)

• I_am sorry, we'are having trouble finding-2

the' quote.

'3 Q' Okay,clet'me see, actually the discussion goes from-4 page.39 to page 40.- .S' And~let me see if it is -- q [ 6 MR. TURK: It is in the first full paragraph on page l 7 40. 8 MS. CURRAN: Okay. 9 THE WITNESS (Thomas): Again, since we.were not 10 following along, I am not sure that the quote you read was 11 exact, but it certainly was the sense of what is written here. 12 MS. CURRAN: I will just road the sentence.. 13 BY MS. CURRAN: 14 Q The need for participating local communities to 15 request through the IFO, state' assistance with transportation 16 resources, arose when eight of the 10-participating 17 communities, were unable to obtain a pre-arranged bus by 18 directly contacting a bus company, following the procedures in 19 their local plans. 1 20 And that was the only goal in that particular task, 21 was to obtain one bus, isn't that right, for each community? 22 A (Thomas) I honestly don't recall off-hand. 23 Q Okay. 24 A (Thomas) We could perhaps find that in the exercise i 25 report, if you wanted us to do that? Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

} PANEL - CROSS ~4607 j ). 1 Q Why don't you take a moment? j 2 (Witnesses examine document.) i -3 THE WITNESS (Thomas): It would help, if you know 4 where it is, if you could direct us to it, otherwise -- l f 5 MS. CURRAN: Yes, I am looking for it, too, i 6 THE WITNESS (Thomas): Okay. l 7 (Pause.) 8 MS. CURRAN: Oh, here we go, it is on page 39. 9 BY MS. CURRAN: 10 Q Right at.the bottom, the last sentence, and it says, j 11 during the exercise several of the participating local ] 12 communities were unable to obtain, through procedures specified 13 in their local plan, the single, pre-arranged bus called for to 14- . satisfy the exercise objectives. I i 15 A' (Thomas) Yes, that is correct, j i 16 Q And now, is that problem something that, you would 17 necessarily have picked up from reviewing the paper plan? 18 A (Thomas) From reviewing the procedures on paper, you I 19 could not pick that up, no. 20 0 Okay. 1 21 And now in addition, in that same discussion, I 22 believe that you state that the supply of buses that was to be l-23 automatically pre-staged at the Rockingham County Staging Area, l 24 during a site-area emergency classification level, didn't l 25 arrive there, until the general emergency, emergency (D \\~J Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i

n1 y ' PANEL - CROSS .4608 n.(). 1 classification-level. 12 -Did they? i 3 And I will try to find the exact place that I am' l l 4 referring to. 5 A (Thomas)' Is that perhaps in the first paragraph that 6 starts right at.the top of page 40? 7 0 That is right. 8 A '(Thomas) Yes, that appears to be an accurate. quote. l I 9 Q And would that problem been something that you would~ i 10 -have necessarily discovered in your review of the paper plan? ' 11 A (Thomas) Well, we certainly did not discover it'in I . 12 our review of the paper plan, nor do I'think that we really j 13 .could have discovered it'in our review of the paper plan. ( )' I 14 0 Okay. 15 A (Thomas) We are calling it a paper plan, I mean they. 16 all are, after all, paper plans. l -l 17 Q Yes, but I am trying to distinguish.between actually j i 18 trying to carry it out and reading through it to see if it i 19 makes sense on a read-through. 20 A (Thomas) Yes, I am trying to make sure that this 21 makes sense on the read-through of the transcript. l 22 Q Okay. l l 23 A (Thomas) We will distinguish as to what we are i l 24 talking about when we talk about a paper plan review. 25 Q Okay. G V L Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

p p h6 PANEL - CROSS _4609-I. >~x J(_)z 1-And finally,zisn'tLit true that it addition,'during ] 2- - the exercise, the State, with one exception, was' unable to '3 l satisfy the needs of the local: governments 4ho requested buses. 4 from'the State? 5l I think that is also on page-40. -i 6-A '(Thomas). Yes, that is-correct,.that is on page 40, 7 and that is what it says. 8 Q .And again, did you or could you possibly,_have 9 discovered that sort of problem from a review of the plan. '10 without exercising ~it? .11 A (Thomas). We did not and I dan't'believe that we 12 could'have. 13 .0 Okay. k-) - .14 Under NRC. regulations, at 10 CFR 50.47(a)(2), FEMA is j l i .15 asked to make findings'and determinations as to whether State 16 and local emergency plans are. adequate and whether there is i 17' reasonable assurance that they can be implemented. 18 Do you consider, in the. absence.of a full-scale l 19 exercise of the New Hampshire RERP Rev. 2., that you would be 20 capable of conducting a full and adequate review of any of the 21-State of New Hampshire Plan's for protecting the transit-22 dependent population, in *:he EPZ? 23 A (Thomas) I am ertremely reluctant to attempt to

24 interpret NRC regulations, counselor.

I have heard what you 25 have said the regulations say. and I am assuming that your Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

~ x. 1 . PANEL'- CROSS 4610 ? n .i b (,3 4 / l' l question does not' call for me to comment'onithem. ~

I.believe : your -'questionT io, c\\ 'an we reach.a1ful1~, --

q 1 -2' 3 perhaps if you couldjrepeat-the exact 1 question ~that'you have to -4 me, it would be helpful? -5 Q. !Perhaps I can do-it without requesting you.to- .s 6 interpret the-NRC standard. A 7 Let'me.ask, do you consider that in the absence of a 8 Ifull-scale exercise of the New Hampshire RERP Rev. 2., that you-9 are capable ^of-conducting a full and. adequate review, under 10 FEMA's standards of any of the St'te of New Hampshire plans..for a 11 protecting the transit-dependent population in the EPZ? ,1 12~ A. (Thomas) We.are.not. capable of conducing.a 13 sufficiently complete and full review of'those plans, without 1 (])' 14 an. exercise. 15' Now, I say that, keeping.inLmind, that we' technically 16 Jand usually make the distinction tetween'a review of plans, and 1 17 a review of preparedness, during1the. course of an exercise. i l 10 However, throughout the hearing, I think that people 19 have talked about the adequacy of the plans, were talking about j 20 their full adequacy in terms of preparedness, as well. i 21 Q And that is what I am referring to, also. l 22 A (Thomas) No, we would not be able to reach a full -- 23 we would not be able to conduct a full review, or have 24 confidence in our review, without an exercise. 25 MS. CURRAN: Okay, thank you, that is all of my Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

7,. 's i u. PANEL - CROSS 4611' (( 11

quest'1ons.

2 JUDGE'SMITHt-Mr. Backus?.

3- - MR. BACKUS -:Thank you, Your' Honor. 4 I am going to hand up a very brief cross-examination ~ 5. fplan,.butLChairman Smith the first thing that.I?am going toLask 6' about is not related to that, but the thing that cameLup'at the. 7-end of the day,; yesterday' l ~ 8 (TheLSAPL Cross-examination-k i 9 Plan for FEMA: Panel followse) f J 10' 11-12 1 .5 16 17- .18 l 1 i 19 j l 20 ) 21 22 3 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 --__----_-__u

.g t . t,f {'. i .rAe

aoc, rc<

Man U'

p. q& 11 W/fNfst999f)dA/f px wasr

\\ ro xe a n eier .e n pyue: f(f4fW fD t/t/) W C d / t 's M rN/9 &M& q/Mi$U

• ?ts

/p/A//Fy tfyvf' fD 4 7Pfked h re Npw sr. [ { / eu pne 14 ir n , ivc trio n-twr r+s< < <r ar yor 4+stwme 'rvs, rime me

1. f

,nr,pA ///f$&fe ,fFfDVrffD so y ct;,e%<W) fritf/ ys/V7dd N/ 2N ffMreAlf f* ff~ra M AJ Me pr e g oc^Y / frei f lWA/

1. !fows

Jit t*TW ,/s*t?t* % r T s f / hh fMf>Mo$4'A ff foo'fkr#WCl owper Atre : 2,--ev pne 6G 1 w 27, w rn w se.cmcer o<r cia - ,/ ~r 'suc,r,n N* $#cVmo". tomt ~ ger W /WMf/T! /A' N/<4 SVr;v2 p

d 5-

j

.x y, s l-l 'y l l {: .) l \\ f l(C/ff$t, ' /W /hNWfY I f4 90 77tir ? l l. J sw. . w fl r=t m, hh:W W/4 PSTP C W PM Air MMyoea sm 0df WMsyth C*fM - '9" / 7 gay *N#7 tr N csexeef.e AveW W MM AA/ A/ rec +tcf MfA4*df?W W rift r ? s ) u i l l 1 L I l

l g n= ~ ( ,t 4 i g.-- j:i. j) -n' \\ LPANEL 2 CROSS 4612-9s.,f, y /j i CROSS-EXAMINATION-2 BY MR. BACKUS: '3-Q 3 Gentlemen, at.the end of,the day, yesterday, you.may-4 recall'- :I guess-Mr. Thomas, you,;were :here -- that I had a

• question with'Mr.~Strome about whether-the're had ever'been a 5

16' ' dispute between FEMA 1and~New Hampshire Emergency Management, 7, then1 Civil Defense,'about the exercise that was conducted in 18 February of 1986, do.you recall that? 9 A (Thomas) 'Yes,.I do. - 10 0 .And I think.that.you have.previously testified that: a 11 exercisefwas in regard to the first,/well,.at least what we- - 12 have now referred to'as/Rev. 0., a plan that was submitted to 13. FEMA, : Region I,. for. evaluation in' December' of 1985, is that - 1 14 . correct? q 1.5 A' (Thomas) That is correct. 16 Q Sir, are you. familiar with what has now been marked a - 17. as New Hampshire Exhibit Number 5, a letter from Mr.'Strome to l l 18 Mr. Vickers, Regional Director, Region I, Federal Emergency' l 19 Management Agency, dated December 9, 1985? 20 A (Thomas) I would like to see the letter, please? 21 Q Okay. 22 -(Witnesses are proffered document and examine them.) i 23 (Pause.) t. 24 BY MR. BACKUS: 25 Q Are you familiar with that letter? g ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

p. 39 r e J 4613 PANEL - CROSS p (4 -<, ); 1 A -(Thomas). Yes, I am.- 2. Q _Andithis.was the letter that I take it, transmitted. ) I what'we have-now been referring to as Rev. O. that-was l 4

exercised in February of 1986, is that correct?

5 _A' (Thomas) That'is correct. l 6 Q: And this letter states, does it not, and I will. bring i 7 it back so that you can verify _this, that the_ State of New> ~ 8 Hampshire believes that these plans are adequate for review, 9' and_ analysis by the Atomic Safety and Licensing. Board, the I 10-Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Regional Assistance 11. Committee, in that, with reasonable assurance, they provide for-12 the safety of the citizens of New Hampshire, living within'the 13. Emergency Planning Zones, for Seabrook Station, as well as for 14 the transient population, which might be found within a 15 planning area. 1 16 They indicate, also, that State and local governments 17 can, intend to effect a'ppropriate protective measures.off-site, 18 in the event of a radiological emergency at Seabrook Station. f 19; A (Thomas) I am,sure that that is an accurate quote, 20 if you represent it as being accurate. I 21 Q Okay. 22 In other words, the State was representing to FEMA, l \\ 23 that that plan, which was subsequently exercised, provided i l 24 reasonable assurance of adequate protection, in the event of a 25 radiological emergency, at Seabrook Station? l l t i N'~_'/ Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l 2 l

PANEL - CROSS 4614

es

'l ,9,). 1 MR. BISBEE: Objection, Your Honor, I object to the 2 scope'of.this examination'. I don't see where it fits at all in 1 3-the' context of the direct testimony of this panel. l 1 4 MR. BACKUS: Well, as I said, I am following the l l 5' ' evidence, that came up.yesterd'ay, about this. And this is a 6J preliminary _to some questions, which I think follow, 7 particularly upon Board questioning about the State's l A 8 cooperation with the communities. 9 JUDGE SMITH: Overruled. 10 THE WITNESS (Thomas): Mr. Backus, could you please 11 repeat-the question? I am sorry. I 12 BY MR..BACKUS: 13 Q In other.words, would it be fair to characterize what

O.

\\~' 14 Mr..Strome, on behalf of the State of New Hampshire, was' 15 saying, was that these plans'are adequate to meet the h 16 regulatory criteria, that they do provide reasonable assurance? 17 A (Thomas) That was our understanding of the 18 statement, yes. 19 Q And in fact, these plans, as submitted, with this 20 letter, included plans for each of the local New Hampshire 21 communities, within the EPZ, did it not? l l 22 A (Thomas) Yes, such plans were submitted. l 23 0 Okay. 24 Now, sir, I am going to give this letter back to you i 25 and ack you if it is indicated that any copies of this letter l V(~\\ Heritage Reporting Corporation ) (202) 628-4888 1

M 4 PANEL - CROSS. 4615. l' 'were,sent'to anybody?- j y 2 -(Witnesses.were proffered document and examines Lit.) 4 '3-MR. BISBEE: Objection. 4' JUDGE ~ SMITH: What is your' objection? 5-MR. BISBEE: It is not the witness' letter ~aad I 6 . don't think'that'he is' competent to testify to this. ] 7 I.would be happy to stipulate that there is no-cc 8 line on the letter. 9 lHR.' BACKUS: Would you care to stipulate, Attorney. 10 .Disbee',-that this-letter was sent out by the State of New 1 1 11-Hampshire, transmitting State' Plans, and plans for-the'localL j .12 communities,-asking that they.be found approval, subject to-

13 approval and~approvable under Federal criteria, without ever o

=/ f i k 14 copying any' local'genernmental unit, wculd you care to l 15 stipulate to ', hat? l 16 MR. BISBEE: I don't know who it was ser.t to, Mr. } i 17 Backus.- 18 So, all I am saying is that the lettor has no .19 indication of a cc line-on it. 20 MR. BACKUS: Okay. ] 21 BY MR. BACKUS: .1 22 Q And that is, in fact, correct, Mr. Thomas, the letter ) 23 does not indicate any copies? 24 A (Thomas) There is no cc line on it; there is no 25 indication of any copies, that is correct. LCE) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 \\

u I 'I PANEL - CROSS: 4616 i il

Q.

.Were you aware at the time,lor have yout since become. X '2 aware, that in fact,onone of the local governmental communities 3 within the1EPZ.were advised.ofLthis transmission.by the State t 4 of plans 1for those communities, requesting approval of those l 15 .p ans?- 6' MR. BISBEE: Objection, Your Honor, it assumes facte: I 7; nor in evidence. There has been tentimony from representatives-EF of some'of the communities, that they did not receive copies of f u 9 the plan, but the. testimony is not exhaustive, in the sense, i 10: that every-community that might have received a copy of the i l 11 plan has been heard from.- i I 12 I:think that the more appropriate question is, what {>r . 13 does Mr. Thomas-know about who may or.may not have received -- j 1 14-MR. BACXUS: I will withdraw the question,.Mr. Flynn, - 15 and ree if I can ask it in a way that meets your point. 16 BY MR. BACKUS: 17 Q Do you know if any of the' local ~ communities,.that is, 18 the governments in the local' communities, were advised that 19 there plans were being submitted with a request for approval'by 20 the State, at the time, when that submission was made? 21 A (Thomas) I don't remember. I don't believe that I 22 .was aware of it, one way or another at the time, but I I 23 certainly don't remember now. j i 24 Q Okay. l 25 And now, going back to your testimony on page 94, on i Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l l 3 a

i t (. h " PANEL':- CROSS- '4617 i -1).' , ;yx 1 the; global numbering, on page 94~,-excuse me, for.the. .{ -l ~

2

~ interruption, theEfirst~ sentence in the.second; paragraph,.1s, l !3' . FEMA does not'yet have assurance, based on available letters of .i 4 -agreement,'that there are adequate provisions for. protecting 5. institutionalized. persons. 6L -And is'there anything.that would change that 7. statement based'upon information that the Agency has received' j m 8 ,since this testimony was filed? I 9 A' (Thomas). We have received-let-ters of agreement from 10' the State of.New Hampshire that we are in the process of l ~11 evaluating, but we are not prepared to change the statement -i l'2 ' now, because we have not concluded that review. i 13 Q -One'of the things that is mentioned there, as'being a l p M5 14 matter of concern,-.has to do with the-sheltering of patients'at { 15 the Exeter Hospital, is..that correct? 16 A (Thomas) Yes. .j

l 17-Q And my. understanding from the testimony that we have i

.18 had from the Applicant's Panel, is that pacients from the 19 Exeter Hospital are to go to one of three facilities; the CMC, 20 Concord Ifospital and the llampstead llospital, is that correct? j 21 A (Thomas) Mr. Backus, I would have to look at the f 22 . plans, I don't roca11 that detail. If you make that l 23 representation to me, I would be happy to accept it l 24 Q Okay. l l 25 A (Thomas) -- for purposes of answering the question. .V lieritagE. Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ) 1 l

g q;U ' 4, PANEL -' CROSS 4618 l 'Q-' All right, why don.'t we do it that way? 2 Do you recall a provision in the testimony, the 3: Applicants submitted,.that a' portion of the patients would, l 4 .indeed, go toLa' facility, known as the Hampstead Hospital? 5 - A '- (Thomas)~ I don't recall it off-hand, I would like to 6 look at the testimony.- i 7-Q Okay. 8 A. (Thomas) Do you.know the reference in-the testimony? 9 Q-I can get it for you in just a second. 10 Okay, Mr. Thomas, I am referring to Applicant's 11 Direct Testimony, Number 2, at page.S. 12 And it is the very first sentence on the page. 13 A. (Thomas) Yes, I see that sentence. A 14 Q Do you know, whether or not, the Hampstead Hospital, 15 is,'in fact, a medical facility? 16 A (Thomas) I do not know. 17 Q And in reviewing the issue of whether or not the-18 extra hospital patients -- strike that. 19 In reviewing whether or not there has been adequate 20. provision for the alternate care for the Exeter Hospital 21 patients, is it important to FEMA to know whether or not they 22 are being sent to a medical treatment facility, as opposed to a 23 psychiatric or drug and alcohol facility? ] 24 A (Thomas) I think that the labeling of the facility 25-would not be as much concern to FEMA, as whether or not, the i rT i V i Heritage Reporting Corporation ] (202) 628-4888

d i PANEL - CROSSJ 4619 l ([ 1- -health;and safety of1the individuals involved can'be adequately' 2 protected at:the facility that they are being sent to. 3L And, certainly,-during the course of FEMA's review, '4 when we refer this to the Regional. Assistance.rommittee, we l 5 will certainly ask the-representatives, who are from the j 6' Department of Health.and Human Services, and the Staff person,- 7 'who serves with FEMA, from the American Red Cross, to give 8. special attention to this area. 9 Q I had a-little uncertainty about exactly what you l 10 were saying here, in regard.to the sheltering'of the extra 11 hospital patients, or I am sorry, the potential ~ alternate care 12-facility for the extra patients. .13 Can you explain to me what the concern is, you are l 14 . stating here, on page 947 { 15 4-(Thomas) It would assist me, in answering your 16 question, if you told me what particular part of these two l 17 paragraphs is unclear to you? 18 Q Well, I am actually looking at the first paragraph 19 about the acceptance and care of category 1, and category 4, l 20 patients. I did not see any point, where else a reference to 21 category 4 patients. 22 A (Thomas) Okay, well, you are in the second paragraph 23 on that page 9, I take it, sir? 24 Q Yes, I am, I am sorry. 25 A (Thomas) The concern in the last sentence of the .V Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

..L u: -, r A PANEL - CROSS 4620' _s 7^s... 3 )/ 1. second? paragraph,.was simp 1v'that the material'whichtwe had 2 reviewed, needed'to clarify how category 1, and: category:4 3; patients would.be protected in the event of an emergency, wherei 4

they would go and how they would be protected.

5 0 . Well, is category 1, correctly described as a'dvance-6- . care required patients? 7 As_you are.using in this testimony? 8 A (Thomas) Again, to be absolutely. correct, I really 9 'should look at.the plan. But category 1, did1you say, advanced 10 . care required? .11' Q Yes.- 12 A (Thomas) That is a' correct description of category 13 1. 14 Q All right. 15 A (Thomas) Or reasonably correct. If you want thes 16 exact _words, we would have to.go to the plan. i 17 0 Okay. i 18 .How about category 4, what is category 4, as you are j 19 using it here? 20 A (Thomas) My recollection is that it is a continuum 21 at the other end, and that they are ambulatory patients. 22 But again, if you want -- as has been pointed out, 23 the plans do speak for themselves. There are definitions of 24 category 1, and category 4, in the plans, and if you want me to D 25 show that -- I don't know off-hand those exact definitions, . e] Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l t

1-i

PANEL - CROSS 4621 fs l(,)

1

.I.-J thatJis so.; 'I would have to go to the plan to give you: 2 that' exact definition, j '3J Do you wish me to do that, sir? 4 Q: .IfJyou would feel ~more comfortable that your answer l .5 would be. accurate,'why don't you goiahead, sure. I 6 iA (Thomas) Okay, dokey, j .7 JUDGE SMITH: We.had scheduled' Representative Parr 8 for 11:25 and she is here and apparently ready', and let's hear

9 from her,.while they are'looking for this-information.

_j 10 MS. PARR .Mr. Chairman, I am,-and members of this -j 11' Committee, I am Representative Ednapearl Parr, State 12 Representative from Rockingham County, District 17. 13 I have lived at 10 Emerald Avsnue, in.Hampton,'New 'i '14 Hampshire, and represent.Hampton Beach,_Hampton, and Hampton '15 Falls. 16 To identify myself,.I have'been a legislator-for 15-17 ^ years and am in my eighth _ term. I have lived at the above 'I 18 address for 33 years. In the House of Representatives, I am j 19 the Chairman of the State and Federal Relations Committee, and 20 have been for three terms. I am currently serving as Chairman 21 of Maine, New Hampshire, and Vermont, Low-level Radioactive 1 22 Waste Commission, and am in my fourth term of that position. j i 23 I have served as chairman of the Legislative l L 24L Administration Committee; as Chairman for six terms, for the 25 Senate / House Committee on the Elderly. i 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 t l

l v l i 4622.. ] . r.c lyf 1 And have served on many other' committees as vice-2 chairman and member. . Soli have been in a leadership position 3 of this' House for a long time.. 4 I would like it to be noted for the record,.that'I am i 5 strongly opposed to'the evacuation plan, as presented-for-the 6 .Seabrook Nuclear Plant. 7 Seventeen.or eighteen years ago,.when the Seabrook 8 Nuclear. Plant Site Evaluation first started, I was opposed. I-l 9 testified several times against-the hearing. At that time, i 10 that particular hearing, was a tie vote. The Chairman broke 11 the vote. Today, when he. sees me, he says, I won't turn'around 12: Ednapearl Parr, I don't want to get stabbed in tne back, -I 13 because he knows how many times _I have testified against the ) 14 plant. 15-I also was the third intervenor, at the very 16 beginning of this plan, so that I have kept up with it, from j 17 the beginning, and I am sure that I am the.only person here, 18 and the only person who will testify, from the very beginning. 19 I am the last Charter Member of the Sea Coast Anti-pollution i l 20 League. I have outlived all of them. 21 I have gone through two presidents, Mr. Tallman and 22 Mr. Priest and now, I am working on Mr. Harrison. I hope that 23 he lives through all of this. 24 I am still here, and I am still trying to convince 25 you people, that this is not the place to put a nuclear plant. h Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

7, 7--- I l 1 4623 i - r-( i (_f l' There is.no way that this_particular area can be 2 . evacuated. I have lived there'through summers and through' 3 winters. And this summer we had the largest crowd onLthe beach. 4 ~that we have ever had.- Two or.300,000 people -- that.s on the i i 5' beach. That does~not count the peopleEwho'are in their homes. 6 That does,not count the people over in'Seabrook;~i.t does not-1 ? 7 count the people that are in Salisbury. That is just.the -l 8 people there. i 9 In all, at that'particular time,.10 to 12 weeks a' -j

10 year, we would have to evacuate, at least 500,000 people.

11: When I first came to Hampton Beach, I worked with the q i 12 Civil Defense in Hampton and we had several large storms there. .13 But you must remember that most of-our storms are not in the 14. summer time, the storms are in the winter time. l 15 So that particular area does not bother me so much,. 16 but at that time, when I was working with the Civil Defense in 17 Hampton, there was only one bus that came off of Hampton Beach. 18 Today, we have five buses of children that come off of Hampton 19 Beach that would have to be evacuated and their families. 20 Gentlemen, it is beyond my wildest imagination how 21 anybody can compare a hurricane or an earthquake to a nuclear 22 holocaust. It just doesn't make sense. Whenever you get 23 radiation, it is sure death. Your comparison for this, would 24 be more like AIDS, when you get AIDS, yvu die; when you get 25 radiation, you die. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

m .n 'l 4 ] so

\\

bA l s 4624. i

1 dAnd)I.cannoteunderstand when'our civil defense people.

. 'll / .) 12' compare itfto a' hurricane. -I lived through the-storm of 1978L .] 1

3. Land we had~eight. feet of water at-Plaice Cove,..and we did'not 4.

11os'e person andino-one~was injured.. 5-From' radiation, peopleLdie. And sometimes it takes: 6<,?2'0l years.. WeLknow that the people'that worked in different- -71 places,.it.has taken themL20 years'for. cancer.to-kill them, but .l 8 .it did. l 9: LI-do not want to live there,.if this goes on line. I l 10- "am sure that I willisell my property and-I will move,1because IL 5 i 1 11 feel that it:isLdangerous. I have' lived:there, and.I have 12?. heard'the. people. talk. -I.have been down a'nd listened to the i 13 men who work over there, what'they say.- And when,I haveLwomen, i

(

~ !i who work with.me in= garden clubs,-and womens' clubs,.say to me, 1

15 -

that their_ husbands are working over there,)say,.oh, Ednapearl, I '16 I am sure_ glad to_get out.of here, before.that1 thing goes on' l '17-line. 18 You know, for the resident,'that does not say much. 19-It'really does not. In all of the storms that we have had, the 20 danger of our beach, has not been eroded except in the 1978 21 storm, that is the only one that we have. 22 When Mr. Nawoj, was questioned, in one of our 23 hearings, Mr. Nawoj, was questioned about this same evacuation 24 plan and we' asked him, is this a safe plan? 25 And he said, I did not say that it was a safe plan, O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

4 o d- -j ( 4625 1 vy it'is.a1 paper plan.- 'l -Q -1. . Now,. that did not give us much confidence 1

' i; ;Y 1

2

.to go onlthere.- You must remember that..the people at Hampton, j ~ V Beach cannot get nuclear.--- in our entire area, cannot get any 3 4'- 'iluclear' insurance.. Our businessmen cannot be protected in any- .( j 5 way. If.any little thing were to happen out there, Hampton j i 6 . Beach would be. wiped out and our area would be wiped out. 7 I know $5'billi'on.has been spent, and I know our X8 business people cannot get nuclear insurance, and I understand l a ^ ;9 the nuclear. issue, its. production and-it is dangerous. 10 You are the'ones to make this great decision. Is 11 human life more important than the almighty dollar? 12 Please'do not.do to my area, what Judas did to Christ 13 and sell us out'for $5 billion to help out a company that j O-1 14 should not have gone ahead when they had their first $1 billion 15 overrun. And at that'particular time, I had legislation for x16 this legislature to give them guidance at that time. '17 But I am sure that they thought that oh, that is'just 18 a dumb' broad, she does not know what she is talking about. 19 But gentlemen, every time, I have testified in this Hall, every 20 time I have testified before Public Service Company, before the 21 Public Utility Commissioner, telling them that this will be the 22 most expensive electricity, known to man, it has come to pass. l 23 I am not psychic, I am not an efficiency expert, but anybody, 24 anybody'that knows anything about figures, would certainly know 25 and understand what is going on. h Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l i 3. f' L

L 4626-fN A,,) Ll~ I1 plead with you, human life is really more important .t an t e a m g ty dollar. h h lih 2 3 JUDGE SMITH: Thank youtfor. coming.over. 4 MR. BACKUS: Shall we resume? 5- . JUDGE SMITHt. We had scheduled two representatives, 6 and if the other is here -- _- 7. ~ MR. MERCHANT: Yes, my name:is Dean Merchant and I am 8 .a State Representative for the Towns of Stratham and Greenland, 9- -New Hampshire. And I would;like to make just a few brief 10 points and submit three different petitions from citizens in my. i L 11 district. 12-First, there is a petition of over 100 individuals 13 from Stratham, whoLhave personally expressed their concerns to l 14 me, and their contention that a safe, workable evacuation from 15 a radiological. disaster, here on the seacoast, is impossible. 16' In conjunction with this petition, I would like to 17 submit a map that shows the locations of the Towns of Stratham 18 and Greenland in reference to Great Bay. 19 Should there be a nuclear accident, the Bay cuts off a 20 any direct route of escape other than a narrow, unsafe swing l 21 bridge, on Route 108, in Stratham. The difference between this j 1 l' -22 bridge and the next egress point, which is Dover, is 20 miles. 23 Second, I have got petitions signed by the majority l, l 24 of the Stratham and Greenland teachers, who do not accept the l 25 conflicting duties, which the emergency response plan requires

l. I

\\ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l

w l _.. jm{l'_ +, ', ~ k. s w., .,3. 2 m tr ' M'0 A l ,z j .%; d.. p WB$kh W h ' ~ ~ W/t. ? i

e g

y, Q: y ' <g v6 a 7 ,go o ::. Y . ci ~ ^ w pg ' 3 .c t R.pe . y*

• 1;, @

. j't-Qi ' p,, ') .g '; ' g.a

• yy.

'T s? .46271 -1 L

7. -

-} g. v. es.,

y 4

1; nof4them-}; y Q4.,.

4, c ,1 2' T agree Nhat our. teachers $hould, n'ot be. placed [in: R .- y,,- m w. 1. 3 suchyd. position,:to chose 1between. family and' students. <x ,; m ;~ . 4 L.a third petition concerns the siEhn' notification- ) j s cs -5 system: for which the poles were' placed under' theiguise. of 1 e 3 1 '6T Lutility'or telephbneipolps. Those:personsillving;very near to: j 7: these1 sirens are' distressed by their locationsJandihave already 8 . experienced greatifear"when.the air.: horns!.are.accidentallyJset. p n. 9; pg g,( 'c, t. 101 Onitrils petitilon,; are the names of L residents' living' 11 near..t'o the siren poles, and who.are most at risk.to.the, j l 12 'l dangers ~ created by them.. They:want the poles 1 removed ~ ' ramediately.

13 i

.PV.

14 Stratham is a rural town with tremendous; growth,nwith 15' a volunteer fire department and a constart turnover of.the 16 personnel of key positions incorporated into the emergency 17:

response plan. 18- -In.1987, alone, the. Chairman ofTthe Board of-19 Selectmen was replaced, the Assistant Town Clerk relocated and 20 .the'new Civil Defense Director was named. ' 21. It is inconceivable that these part-time employees 22-- and volunteers, could ever safely evacuate the towns in'which 23 we live. And New Hampshire citizens, are not naive country 24 bumpkins on the issue of nuclear power, we are real, 25 frightened, and informed families who oppose any further steps Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 ._i_. J t

i; p

-1 1 .a 9 I o ,t' i '4628 I k yl:C I %j l' 'to'the. license for the'seabrook Nuclear Plant. j r. 2' We pray that you will weigh everything that you hear-3 .and see carefully,:since our: lives and futures are_ interwoven '4 ewith your; decisions. l J 5' Thank:you. ~6 JUDGE SMITH. Thank_you, sir,.we will;take your' l 7 petitions. i 8 -Have we lost'our panel? i 9-(Pause.) -) ) 10 MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I am sure that they=are l -) .11-immediately available,-if you will just give us a second? 12' JUDGE SMITH: Surely. 13 (Pause.) j . _ f..g 14 MR..-BACKUS: Are we back on the record. 15 BY MR. BACKUS: '1 p 10 Q Gentlemen, I think that.when we suspended'you were j 17 confirming the definition of category 1, and categorv 4, 18 medical patients as used on page 94, of your testimony, 19 Have you been able to do that? I 20 A (Thomas) We have not been able to find the 21 definition in the plan, as yet. 22 Q Okay. l: !~ .23 A (Thomas) And I think this may point to a certain 24 difficulty. I have little -- first of all, the terms for the 25 patients, categories, 1 through 4, I think is a common s L O-l? Heritage Reporting Corporation I h 1 (202) 628-4888

n 1 i f,- PANEL - CROSS 4629 /~% (,j ' 1 terminology that is used in the hospital profession. 2 And the RAC member, from the Department of Health and 3 Ilumen Services, and the FEMA staff member from the American Red 4' Cross arel thoroughly familiar with those terms. I am not sure ~5-thatLthey are necessarily contained in the plan. My assumption 6 was that they were. l 7 They, to some extent, they are defined in terms of 8 practical use. In the Exeter Special Facilities Plan, under 9-the extra hospital, at-page 17, where it talks to the number of i 10 the' staff who should accompany the patients as they evacuate, I I 11 believe that we would find that the specifics of the definition 12 are well known to people in the hospital trade. 13 I know, for example, that they are known to my wife, i k-14- -Q Okay. 15 I just want to make sure that you are comfortable 16 with what you said, Mr. Thomas, that we are correct in assuming 17 that the category one is the one requiring the most intensive 18 care. And that is a descending down to category 4, which I l l 19 think you said, would be people that would be ambulatory, is 20 that right? t 21 A (Thomas) That is my understanding. 1 22 Q Okay. 23 And it is my understanding from the Applicant's 24 Direct Testimony Number 2, that all of the category 1 patients, ] 25 that is the patient requiring the most intense level of care, l'~)h lieritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888

g_

a, s i PANEL - CROSS '4630 llL -ought.to;be sent to the-Hampstead Hospital. 2 Is that correct? H p '3' MR. TURK: [Olsjection, that is not a characterization: 4 of the-testimony, as I' read it. Mr'. Backus.and'I may bei 0 5: lookingLat different places,,but on page 7Lof the Applicant'sL 6' ? testimony, I see the reference to,-medical levels of care, 7 classes 1 through 3, and then evacuation-transportation 8 categories,-.in. descending order, categories 4 down to 1. 9 And maybe -- 10 MR. BACKUS:- I am sorry, I thank you, Mr. Turk, you 11 are quite right. .l - 12 BY MR. BACKUS: 13 Q. Page 7, of the-Applicant's Direct Testimony says, O... _ b' 14 that there may be 40 to 50 class 1 patients at Exeter Hospital 15 .and 25 will be sent to'Hampstead Hospital only, is..that-16 correct? 17. A' (Thomas) I think.that there may be,some confusion. 18 We have a medical level of care, and then we have a 19 transportation category. 20 Now, what we are talking about, what we have been i 21 talking about are categories, and these are transportation 22 categories for the patients. 23 The medical level of care, in essence, is the inverse 24 of that, patients medical class 1, are ambulatory patients. 25 And the transportation category, category 1, are O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i

~ j, 3f 1.e Sf.;' n:p y PANELL-CROSS-24631 (

"- ( 11 folks thatthave' advanced. care required,,andLare normally-

$] L2-considered to'be ambulance, transport patients' K, '-3: 'Q-That.is my, understanding-and it does.make it aLlittle '4 difficult'.to.' keep,,these categories-in mind,.'butLI was' referring 1 3 15 to medical class 1. '6 And" inn't it correct, that under-the plans, at;1 east 7J as described in thel Applicant's-Direct, that of-the 40 to 50. ~ l L J8 medical class-1 patients, 25 will'be provided.forlthe Hampstead 9 Hospital?f ~10' And that.is, I am reading from page 7,'of Applicant's'.' [ ~ i ~11 Direct Number;2, the second sentence of the'first paragraph. 12 A (Thomas) That-is correct. s I 13 Now, again, to-make'sure that we are'-- that everyone .14 is clear,.those are class 1, ambulatory patients, 15 - transportation category 4, patients. '16 0 Okay. 17 A (Thomas). That is what the-testimony says, yes. 18 O And again, the concern that you had, or the RAC had, 19 with this was, that the letter of agreement with the Hampstead 20. Hospital was very vague, they were vague about exac'tly what 21 category of patients they were prepared to handle, is that 22 'right? .] 23 A (Thomas) We have got a lot of stuff, here in front 24 of us, can we just take a moment and go back and let's get the 25 testimony, please? O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 )

a (- i y PANEL - CROSS 4632 X- - Q, 1 Q Okay.

g'

'3 4 5 6 8 9 10-11' 12 4. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

1 ~ . PANEL - CROSS 4633 p Df7 1 THE WITNESS:' -(Thomas)_ Okay,lwe're. talking.about;the [

2) testimony, 'and I'in sorryi _can

you please repeat the.' question?.

?,

3'

'BY:MR. BACKUS:- .4 ~ LQ' Yes, the question.was to' refer you to the next to the' 5 -. last sentence'_of'the second paragraph"on-page'94. - You_say, L 6. - The11etter from Hampstead Hospital.is nonspecific." 7-Is that correct?: e8-A. (Th0 mas)' -Yes. 9: O' And was.thatimeaning nonspecific in. regard'to that -10: hospitals ability to handle the medical Class 1 patients, 11 transportation Category 4 of the'25 that'are Itanned to go.- 12 there? 13 A (Thomas)- Okay, I would like to look again at the ' 14-letter to refresh my recollection, please. 15- ~Q The letter, of-course,_is in-the'Exeter special 16 facilities plans. It's at.Page A-4. 17 A (Thomas ). Oh, thanks. j l = 18 (Witness reviews. document.) 1 - 19 We're again in Rev. 2 of the plan. 20 Q Right. 21 A (Thomas) In the'Exeter special facilities which is 22 ~ Volume _26-A in'the Appendix F, page A-4 for the Exeter Hospital i 23 special facility plan. ] 24-The concern that we had was that we just weren't sure 25 what category, what class of patient or what transportation O u Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ___m______.___

d ] PANEL - CROSS ~4634 .j imj - 1 category patient the Hampstead Hospital was agreeing to take. 2 We didn't have anything'in the plan that.is as clear as what is 3-on pages 6 and 7.of the Applicant's testimony. 4 -Q Okay. And>do you have that at this time? Has~there 5 been any further letter of-agreement from Hampstead produced' 6 that you are aware of? 7' A (Thomas) I honestly don't remember if we have a.more 8-specific letter among the letters of agreement that were-9 submitted by the state that Sna're in the process of reviewing. 10 I don't recall. 11 Q There has been testimony by the~ Applicant panel here '12 on the number of ambulances assigned that we discussed with the 13 Exeter Hospital which ended up looking'like there was going to .i 4 be a need to possibly use two patients per ambulance. 15 Does FEMA have any position on the number of patients 16 that can be reasonably accommodated per ambulance? 17 A (Thomas) Certainly that's going to depend upon the 18 type of ambulance, the patient, how many attendants the patient 19 may need, and again is something that I think is most 20 appropriately evaluated in the collegial process of the 21 regional assistance committee. 22 I would be very much interested in what our 23 representative from the Department of Health and Human 24 Services, and our representatives from the American Red Cross 25 had to say about that. Heritage Reporting Corporation { (202) 628-4888 J

u, j 1 PANEL - CROSS 24635 (Ce ' 1 Q Okay. 2-A. (Thomas) We_ don't have.any hard and fast rule that i 3 one patient or two patients belongs in any ambulances. There 4 are-noLregulations that describe the size and the number of-5 patients-It's a matter of judgment and experience. 6 Q So you would want to have the input'from the members l 7 of your RAC that have particular expertise in that area. .8 A (Thomas) Yes, we would. 9 -Q Okay, now turning to page 27 of the prefiled 10 testimony, there is a statement there on the first paragraph, 11 second sentence that, "The total number of buses'providable 12 under the letters of. agreement are slightly in excess of the 13-number required for full evacuation." I 14 Do you see that? 15 A (Thomas) Yes, I-do. 16 Q Now was that assessment written-before the Applicants 17 had changed the numbers in their prefiled testimony so that the 18 number of buses available has been reduced by 105? 19 A (Thomas) The statement was written based upon an 20 analysis of Rev. 2 of the plan, and does not include the -- any l 21 statements in the Applicant's testimony on reduction of buses. 22 Q Okay. Well, when you made the statement that the 23 number was slightly in excess of the number required, how many 24-were you assuming to be available when you wrote that 25 statement, if you can tell us? O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

gg PANEL --CROSS-4636' k,y) 1' A. '(Thomas)' Just one second?and we'11'have'that for 2) you.:

3 '

.Your question was the number of buses.that.we '4 ' understood wereJindicated in the plan? 5!

Q-R1,ght.

6 A' (Thomas).- We understood ~that the; plan' indicated there'. 7' would be 574 buses 1that would be available. 8 Q And what did you understand that the requirement .9 -would be?- 10 A' (Thomas) One second. o l 11-Our understanding,was that it'was 444, 12 Q And just for-the record, where are you getting'these: 13 numbers from? I know you have got al lot of. materials there. . h- -- 14- .I wonder just one.you are referring to confirm =to these numbers 15' right now, Mr. Thomas. 16-A (Thomas) The first number that I gave you was based [ 17 upon a staff analysis of the bus providers, and the raw numbers d o 18 are generally in Volume 2 of the state plan at'page I-1. 19 .The second number I gave you which I gave you was the 20 number from Volume 2 of the plan at page I-3. 21 Q Okay, thank you. 22 Now can I take it from that statement there that the 1: 23 numbers are slightly in excess of the number required for full l 1' 24' evacuation, that FEMA would have a concern about having some 1 25 number in excess of the amount needed to make up for some LO lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L i

v - y 7l 'I'

PANEL '-: CROSS 14637-

., ~ . n A(_), 11 v. unavailability that might occurfat the time of ancemergency for f ~ -2 fwhateverJreason, mechanical,1 unavailability of drivers, that L3, isort of thing?;

4 LA

,(Thomas) ;In' emergency planning you always look for .5- _ redundancy ~of resources, both: personnel.and' equipment. 'And..you 6' 'would11ook to;the-pool of redundancy that the state nas,to;back. 7- 'up the~ letters of agreement. :Iflnecessary,-you would'look to 8 the NationallGuard which is: listed as one possible-provider, '9 and you'd;take a very close look~at the other providers as 1 ~10 'well. 11 'Q Is there FEMA guidance or any kind of standard that '12 FEMA uses/to determine what is an adequate reserve or surplus j 13; over the indicated need for emergency vehicles? ..'O 14 A (Thomas) No, there is no particular' guidance..-It's ~ 15 a matter of using the judgment of the personnel 1nvolved in 16 emergency preparedness planning as applied lto the particular .i 17 situation. You would Jook at.where the -- who.the providers 18 .were, what their normal circumstance was. ~You may interview ] i .19 them and get a feel for how many -- how much redundancy you u 20 .neeaed. 21 It is very, very much a matter of experience and 22 judgment. l 23 And Mr. Tanzman, do you have something to add? -l 24 A (Tanzman) Yes, I do. l L, 25 I simply want to point out that by way of l- .O Heritage Report.ing Corporation (202) 628-4888 i

h '\\ PANEL - CROSS '4638 H h 1 . illustration of some'of the differences one can encounter. If r 1 2 you take, for example, the evacuation of schools, there are-E .F 3~ some communities where the school buses are privately owned and' 4 have to bb. brought to the schools from bus garages..- And during I 5 the course.of'a day those buses might be out on other charters.. 6 In other communities, the schools own the buses themselves, and 'l 7 they are actually.kept at the schools during~the. day. l 8 And so the redundancy of the equipment'would be 9 different in those two situations. I mean the redundancy that. j 10 .one.might want to see'would~be different in those two j 11 situations. 12 Q Okay. Has FEMA in its RAC review, or for purposes of. 13 .this testimony made any assessment of the amount of redundancy 14. that's needed for the emergency vehicles, the. school buses'for' i 15 the Seabrook evacuation? 16 -A (Thomas) We'made'the assessment that based on our 17 ~ analysis of.Rev. 2, that there was a sufficient redundance; 18 that there was an adequate number of buses shown on the plans, 19' and that we would check the availability of that, of course, in i 20 an exercise as we did at the time of the exercise of Rev. O. l i 21 So the short answer to your question is yes. 22' O Okay. And that was based on the numbers you just { 23 previously identified for us. l 24 A (Thomas) It was based on the numbers in Rev. 2. l i 25 Q Now on the issue of notification of drivers, how will j i I O l Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 i

t 1 { y..; l 1 ' PANEL - CROSS 4639 1 FEMA test the present: plan which I. understand involves use of. 2-the National Guard, the New Hampshire Department of 3 Transportation, and some 48 Teamster. personnel; how will that' 4 be' verified that-those drivers can appropriately be made: 5 available and matched up with' vehicles? 6 .A- .(Thomas)- First'of all, let me point'out_that the 7 plan changes involving what you just articulated, that we're no 8 longer relying'on the pool of 1500 drivers, we're relying on a 9 different pool, have not.been reviewed by.the regional' '10-assistance committee that gives advice on 'these matters. i I 11 ' Secondly, we have not even begun to think about how { 12-we would best test the availability.and.the ability to mobilize 13 those personnel.. I'm not really prepared to give you anLanswer () l '14 on that at this time. I think it's quite premature, d 15 Q Indeed, as I understand testimony you have previously 16 given, Mr. Thomas, in accordance with FEMA's' procedures you 17 have not even been actually. formally asked.to do that at this 18 point; is that right? 19 A (Thomas) Formally asked to do what, sir? 20 Q To assess the actual availability of the emergency 21 . drivers from these new pools that are being suggested. 22 A (Thomas) Well, we have been asked to review revised 23 . letters of agreement by the state. There is that what is in 24 essence a planned change or supplement to Rev. 2 that is in I-25 front of us for formal review. So to that extent we've been 1' t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L__

{[' l~ .g PANEL.- CROSS: 4640 .y3 f '11 asked!to assess the change. <2_

We certainly have not been asked. to' fully assess that -

3 .. change inLthe' form.of an exercise at this-time. 4 .Q .And I guess'the last thing I'll ask on.this is, would 'S- -it be correct tofsay-that it will be through an exercise, 6 through;an actual. exercise of.the plan-that the ultimate 7 determination on the availability of-theEresources'from the 8 National Guard, the department of transportation and the 19; Teamster call-up would be. verified? 10' A (Thomas) I'm troubled ~by the use:of the term 11 " ultimate determination". l 12 -In emergency planning.there is no ultimate or final 13 determination. .There is.always a point at which-you reach what i ()' l 14 you feel is a full and valid, conclusion. And to' reach a full 15 and valid conclusion, we would need a exercise; that's correct. 16. But exercises take place every twofyears. Following .) 17. the exercise, there is another cycle of improving-the plans'and 18 training people and to continually go forward. It's-not -- 19 it's essentially a-never-ending process as long as the 20 particular emergency that you are planning for has the 21 potential to exist. So there is no ultimate or final 22 determination that ever really can be reached. 23 O In regard to the February '86 exercise, Mr. Thomas, 24' were emergency drivers used other than from the bus companies 25 that themselves were providing the buses? O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

H q s j g PANEL - CROSS 4641 1 Ai (Thomas) 'Again, I would have to refresh my-j 2 recollection from the exercise: report. If_.you would like me to 3 take a'few minutes to dotthat, I.will. That-report, of course, 4 .also speaks forUitself. 5 I have no recollection of _ substitute : drivers being. 6_ used beyond those that were' employed by the bus-company, but-if-7- Lyou wanted to take a'few minutes to'go through that,.we could. l q 8 MR. BACKUS: No, I' don't think we need to do that. l 9 We will just check it, and there will be a chance to correct it - 10 if that turns'out not to be the-case. 1 . 11 I have nothing further. 12 JUDGE SMITH: Any -- there'is no other Intervenor? g-L f3.MR. BROCK: Your Honor, I have a couple questions for- 'l k~) ~ 14 Hampton. I 15 JUDGE SMITH: Okay, let's get an estimate of what i 16 needs to be done yet on this panel. 17 MR. BROCK: It's just a very few questions, Your 1 18 Honor. 19 JUDGE SMITH: All right, then, you are the only other . 20 Intervenor that's going to be examining. 21 Will you be examining, Ms. Mitchell? e 22 MS. MITCHELL: No, Your Honor. .23 JUDGE SMITH: All right. How about -- 24 MR. TURK: Just one or two questions. 25 JUDGE SMITH: All right, and how about you, Mr. Turk? Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

i i: PANEL - CROSS 4642 <x ( )= li MR. TURK That.was me. I'll'have one or two j 1 2 questions. 3 JUDGE SMITH: .Oh,I thought that was -- okay. 4 Then how about -- you have just'your' original' plan, 5 .just a few questions?' l u 6 I-understand you just probably have aLfew questions-7' of'this panel?- ] 8' MR. BROCK: Yes, Your Honor, to follow up on a point j 9 that Mr. Backus was~ making. 1 10 JUDGE SMITH: I was looking at Mr. Dignan. I 11. MR. BROCK: I'm sorry, Your Honor. .12 MR. DIGNAN: We have no questions. 13 JUDGE SMITH: No questions. So I think there's a 'A Y\\ l 14 good chance that we can finish this say in 15 - 20 minutes. 15 CROSS-EXAMINATION 16 BY MR. BROCK: ] 1 17 Q-Did I understand the panel's testimony that one way 18 to determine'the adequacy of bus driver resources is to 19. interview-the providers of transportation? 20 A (Thomas) Excuse me, just one second. Let me consult q J 21 and try and recall exactly what we said. 22 (Witnesses confer.) .23 A (Thomas) I don't recall stating that. So perhaps 24 you could refresh my recollection, or perhaps -- j 25 0 Well, let me ask you, is that one way that FEMA uses Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l

PANEL - CROSS 4643 8 - /m ' (_) l' to determine whether or not there are adequate buses and l 2 drivers available to carry out the plan? 3 A1 (Thomas) That canLbe done. We can go out during the 4 course of an exercise an interview drivers. We can interview. l 5 the bus company dispatcher or president of the bus company, and 6 we have done that in the past. i 7 Q Would-you do that in advance'of an exercise? 8 A (Thomas) We rarely do that in advance of an exercise l 9 just because an exercise is the time when we have the maximum i 10 number of personnel available to go out and conduct 1that type. 11 of survey. 7 12 Mr..Tanzman has something to add. .I 13 A (Tanzman) I think it's also true that the ability to l (~~) I .14 elicit accurate information is greater during an exercise 15 because the questions by the exercise evaluators can be asked 16 in the context of a scenario that would be tested during that i 17 exercise. i 18 Q Do I understand then that FEMA will assume the 19 accuracy of the numbers specified in letters of agreement until 20 -tested in an exercise? 21 A (Thomas) Again, that would be our normal practice, t 22 and I don't believe that we will deviate from it. I don't want 23 to foreclose our further examining those numbers, because it 24 hasn't gone to the regional assistance committee, and I'm 25 reluctant to speak without the advice of the committee but it r Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

PANEL - CROSS = 4644J 6"s _ [(_)[. z1-certainly would be our normal practice to rely.on those 2 numbers, and I believe we probably will. ~3 Q Has there been any testimony that you have heard in. 4 'this proceeding that might in your own mind raise a question'as-1 5 'to the accuracy of'the numbers specified in at least certain 6, letters of agreement that FEMA might wish-to confirm'those 7 numbers through interviews? 1 i 8 A '(Thomas) ' FEMA has already determined,'using our l t 9 standard procedures, that we will want to make a.special effort g e -10 during~the course of an exercise to confirm the numbers,- 11 because the availability.of drivers was'a problem in the 12 previous exercise.' And it's our normal practice to close out 13 deficiencies in the following exercise to make sure that the 0 14 problemu~that we observed in the previous exercise are no 15 longer problems. i 16 I have heard no testimony that would indicate the 17-need to do any type of survey prior to an exercise, however.- q 18 'MR. BROCK: Thank you. Nothing further. l 19 MR. FLYNN: I have a brief redirect. 20 JUDGE SMITH: That's right. We overlooked Mr. Turk. I 21 MR. FLYNN: I'm sorry. 22 MR. TURK: Thank you, Your Honor. 23 CROSS-EXAMINATION ] 24 BY MR. TURK: 25 Q This is a follow up to a question which was raised in O. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l J

t 'i ' i PANEL - CROSS 4645 i ); 1 Mr. Backus' cross-examination. 2 Gentlemen,fif you_ recall, there were some questioning 3' as to the number'of buses which have been represented to be 4 available, and'the number of buses.which have been determined 5 to be needed for use in our emergency. 'And there was reference' i i 6 to some numbers which came from-Volume 2 of the NHRERP. In 7 particular,.as I recall, the number'444 buses were-identified 8 as being~ required, and the number of 507 buses were identified 9 as being available. '10 And my question really goes to what is at least as of - 11' now a hypothetical. Wr.at if the number of buses identified as j 12 being available had been somewhat less than the number of buses j i 13 identified as being required? Would that necessarily mean j /'sg-14 that there were insufficient number of buses identified for use 15 in an emergency? q 16 A (Thomas) If there were fewer buJes identified 17 available than the number required, yes, that would be a i 18 deficiency. 19 Q Is there a reason why a bus could not make more than 20 one trip for use in an evacuation? 21 A (Thomas) If it was contemplated that a bus was going 22 to make more than one trip, there would be a fewer number of 23 buses required, sir. 24 Q So your answer goes to -- 25 MR. BACKUS: Well, I'd like to object. My nb Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

'\\ 5 )', PANEL - CROSS-- 4646 . ?~ c .. g L 1'. understanding of the plan, and somebody correct me :if I'm -- 2. : wrong, is~it'is not in the plan to' require more.than one. trip.

3 I think.that this question'is directly contradictory to the

'4 plan we're here to litigate. 'If I'm in-error about that, I-5 hope somebody,will correct me,'.but that's my' recollection.

6

>THE WITNESS: (Thomas) 'Mr. Backus, you are -- 7 JUDGE SMITH:' Go~ ahead,. respond,.yes. 8 .THE WITNESS: (Thomas). Excuse me. He asked if 9 someone could correct him if he was in error, and I believe he 10 is. partially in error. ~11 It.is contemplated that with respect to the local bus l 12 routes,.that,some of the drivers might be doing multiple runs, 13 dropping people off-at ihe local staging area,.or the local- .14. EOC, and then going on to other runs. And.that is significant -15 as to the number of buses that are required. 16 MR. BACKUS: Well, my understanding, and I am pleased 17 to be corrected if I'm wrong, that there was going to be only 18 one use of a bus within the EPZ, and any bus that-then departed ) I 19 the EPZ was not going to be coming back inside the EPZ. 20 MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I want to interrupt at this 21 point. The procedure is becoming very confused. What is I 22 pending is that Mr. Turk is doing cross-examination, and Mr. '23 Backus interrupted with an objection. It is not Mr. Backus' 24 turn to be asking questions of the panel. 25 MR. BACKUS: I agree. I apologize. I withdraw. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L l

o l y j - i .1 h PANEL - CROSS. 4647 ' l ^ </'f AQ 'l - JUDGE SMITH: Yes', sometimes -.there is no' question j 1 p 2. LaboutLit that:was.not' tradition, but'sometimes when there'is.a. '3 perceived assumption lof' incorrect fact, it's efficient.to 4 correct'it at;the time rather<than-to let the process go on. L 'S' under mistakes. So'it was harmless. It was: intended to be 6 helpful. .7. MR.' TURK: Your Honor. [ o 8 JUDGL IITH: I think it's clarified now,.isn't it? d L /~ 9 I mean it is clear, there is no confusion.: One bus might -- l 1 . 10 . will not go-back'into the EPZ, but it may perform multiple

)

L -11 g ' roles in the process of leaving the EPZ. 11 2 THELWITNESS: (Thomas) Multiple loads prior to 13. leaving'the EPZ; 'yes, Your Honor. 14 BY MR. TURK: l 15 Q Do you -- following up on that thought. Do you know 16. whether the identification of this particular number of 17 required buses, the.444, does that assume one trip within the j i 18 EPZ per bus? l 19 In other words, does that assume that a bus will make 20. only one trip while it's still inside the EPZ, or do you know? 21 A (Thomas) I'm trying to remember, Mr. Turk. We did a 22 very, very detailed analysis of this, and my best recollection 23 is.that our analysis was that the number required appeared to 24-be congruent with the plans as they have been submitted, which 25 includes making multiple runs to gather people up and then O-Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

g, PANEL.- CROSS 4648; j n--() 1: bringing them.ou't. 2-I. apologize if,.there is some confusion. You are-l 3-still' going to have a constant ~need for a number of buses to 1 '4 actua11y' transport people out of the EPZ. The multip_le' runs { 5'- .along the' local bus routes would result in a more efficient 6 loading of the buses.- And I believe that the number 444 does. (EndT72 7. reflect that more efficient loading of the buses. T73-8 0-In other'words, it reflects that some buses will be 1 9 making multiple trips within the.EPZ prior to leaving the 10 perimeter of the EPZ? 11 A (Thomas) Yes,.that is my understanding. '12 MR.-TRUCK: Thank you. I have,nothing further. 13: MS. CURRAN: I wonder if I might ask -- Oh, sorry. ] O' JUDGE SMITH: Who is speaking? i .14 15 MS. CURRAN: This is Ms. Curran. I wondered -- I had-l'6 one follow-up question on Mr. Turk's questions. '17- ~ JUDGE SMITH: Okay. 18 FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION 19' BY MS. CURRAN: 20 0 I just wanted to ask-Mr. Thomas just to clarify your 21 understanding of the concept of'the multiple trips within the 22 EPZ. 23 Am I correct that that applies to the buses that will 24 be going along the predesignated bus routes, and does not apply 25 to buses that would be evacuating schools, nursing homes, or a Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i

PANEL - REDIRECT. 4649 ij - l' other institutions?? 2-A '(Thomas) .Yes, that is my understanding.. It applies 3. only to:the buses that will--be running?along the. predesignated: f 4' routes. It may also apply to buses.that would be picking up' ] 1 5' individual. mobility-impaj. red' people who might phone in. I' 6 don't think.that that's: precluded by.the plans. It's certainly. I 7-not precluded.by the plan, and it's not clear to me which way 8~ that'that would occur. 9 -I suspect the local transportation coordinator would-j 1 10 make a judgment'at the. time, and-that would be quite 1

11 appropriate.

l j 12 Q But insofar as the evacuation:of institutions goes,. .q ' /: ~T-13 that would be a one-trir >er-bus concept, right? H 'k/ 14' A (Thomas) That is absolutely.what I understand.the 15 plans to say, yes. 16 MS. CURRAN - Okay,-thanks. 17 i l 18 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 19 BY MR. FLYNN: 20 0 Mr. Thomas, in cross-examination this morning there 21 was some discussion of the deficiencies identified in the ] 22 exercise of Rev. O, the 1986 exercise. And that brings to mind j .23 the discussion at the end of the day yesterday about who won 24 the argument about whether there should be an exercise at all. 25 My question is, did you take any precautions to make h fleritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

} . PANEL ' REDIRECT 4650~ ,Q 1 ,sure'that'you did not punish the State of New Hampshire'for ~2-l forcing that issue? + '3' A. '(Thomas)

Yes, we did.

4 Q. What were they?. '5 -A =(Thomas) We always have a concern about the.use of 6 bureaucratic' power. ..And we had been involved.in a' dispute with i 7- -the. state, and we took special measures to make sure that there' 8. was no possibility of a self-fulfilling prophecy or punishment-. i 9 of th's state by FEMA for disagreement with the FEMA and the RAC l 10 analysis about'the nature of'the plans. 11 And.the particular measures.taken were I-specifica11y. 12 asked-all the observers, especially those who had been involved 13 in the RAC review, to put that completely out of their mind. ( k 14 In addition, we had the vast majority of the j 1 15 ' observes, of the 48 observers on the day of that exercise, were { 16 totally uninvolved in the dispute,-and were really. unaware of 17 it. l 18 Ana I myself made the best effort that I could make 19 to give -- to have the most open mind possible, and to hope l 20 that the-state would do very, very well during the course of 21 the exercise. So we were very, very anxious to make sure that j l 22 the test, the exercise test that we observed was very, very 1 . 2 3_ fair and equitable and open, and I believe that we did achieve 24 that. L. 1 25 MR. FLYNN: I have no other questions. LO Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l f-

r 4651 f3- "(_/. 1 JUDGE SMITH:.Any.further questions? 2 .Okay, you make step down. j 3 .THE WITNESS: (Thomas) Thank-you.' 4 '(TheLwitnesses were thereupon excused.)- 1 -5 JUDGE SMITH: The State of Massachusetts"have-1 6 .provided us a schedule of availability _regarding an auditorium i 7 .during days of November and December and January'through March. i 8 I had' indicated we would get back'to that before we recessed, p 9 It would seem that some of the days in December might be 10 useful, but we also want to see if we can get' fill-in dates for 11 the voids. l 12 If you don't mind, maybe we might be. contacting you i 13 during the week off to check on the availability,.plus we just 14 can't do'it right now. 15 MR. OLESKEY: Certainly, Judge, 16 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. Is there any further business 1'7 before we ad4 Jurn? 18 MR. OLESKEY: One other point, Judge. 19 Mr. Turk had said in the colloquy that a number of us 1 20 had with you at the time of the break that there were a couple 21 of motions pending on the ETE matters. And no one followed up 22' cn1 that, but I wanted you to be aware that we have the pendency 23 of those motions in mind. They do affect the testimony which 24 the Commonwealth has prefiled, and we would be ready to file 1 25 them either -- to argue them either after lunch today if that's (} Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 l i

7 I , 1 s j p+ l b 4652-M.t )] _1 still feasiblo, or whatever date you might' determine on the 3_ k 2. week when we-resume,7 bearing in mind that we would probably be l.., L .3L ' planning to bring on some of.those' people,l depending on how:the N \\ 4 cross-examination goes on the decontamination panel, and then-5' the beginning.of Applicant's testimony as late as the end of i 6-the week when we resume -- as early as the.beginning of'the -- l 7' end of the week when we resume.. b 8 JUDGE SMITH. Are you talking about/the panel.of. l-9 Sholley, and Beyea and that panel? H l 10 MR. OLESKEY: Yes,;Luloff. 11 JUDGE-SMITH: And you don't think it's ripe for 1 o 9 ~12 ruling on the papers that we'have? 13 MR. OLESKEY: Well, it could be, yes. We tried to-14 .put a lot of time into our memo. l 15 JUDGE SMITH: And you.would have them'here at the end 16-of the' week depending upon what? 17-MR.'OLESKEY:. Depending on how the balance of the 18 testimony that comes.befoie that goes. But we'do have to make 19 travel arrangements in some cases. 20 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. Well, you are going to bring them 21 no matter how that examination goes if you have your way, 22

though, aren't you?

23 MR. OLESKEY: Yes. 24 JUDGE SMITH: So that's just a question of time, h 25 timing is what you're referring to. If it goes fast enough, i l \\ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

o ! ' f g :n. 4653L

(N_ji 1

.you.would bringLthem at the end of;the week.- j 2' - MR. OLESKEY: 'Well, that's~true. But in terms of a

3 ' ruling on the motion, obviously if the' Applicants prevail,: they n

'4 wouldn't be' coming at all except;possibly to sit-inL with1us. 5. JUDGE SMITH: Well, I might'say that the. Board has

6

. spent some-time ~ talking'about that motion and1their testimony.. 7: And I hesitate to make a final ruling'if.you still;have? 8 additional. arguments to make. But I don't want to telegraph 9

it, but I wouldn't' pay cash'for their plane tickets.

I don't =10' think we;are going to allow their testimony. 11 MR.-TURK:.Your Honor,-I would-indicate--- Sherwin 12 Turk. 13 JUDGE SMITH: 'Yes. i -(f 1 14' MR. TURK: I had mentioned over the break that there j 15 is a motion pending on some ETE testimony. As'I recall it, i 16 that's-different form the sheltering testimony. 17 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, yes.. i 18 MR. OLESKEY:. I wasnt' addressing the sheltering 1 19. testimony. 20 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, I'm sorry. I thought you were 21-talking about the panel of Sholly, Beyea -- .22 MR. - OLESKEY: Yes. 23 JUDGE SMITH: -- and the physician, and their 24 testimony on - ' 25 MR. OLESKEY: Well, some of it's behavioral, so l())- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 '/

L 4654 ,,() 1 . called. 2 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, we hadn't focused on that. It was 3 the -- it was the testimony on the basis for the NUREG and the 4 emergency planning rule, the health effect of BA, and the -- it 5 was that testimony that we were inclined not to accept. 6 The behavioral testimony, we haven't discussed that. 7 MR. OLESKEY: Assuming that this is an indication, as 8 you say it is, of the way the Board views it now, I think we-9 corttinly want argument whenever you might schedule it. 10 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, that's certain. That's why I say 11 I was very reluctant to -- 12 MR. OLESKEY: Yes. 13 JUDGE SMITH: But if we were ruling on the papers as in t i '/ 14 normally we would be, you would not prevail. But as you say, 15 you want to be heard, and we will hear you. 16 MR. TURK: Your Honor, I would note in that regard 17 that the Staff has not yet filed a written response to the 18 utility's motion. I think we are out of time to do that. But 19 I am considering filing a motion of our own. 20 In that regard, I would note that the Sholley - Beyea 21 panel is probably not going to be heard for another month. If i 22 my forecast is right, the next week we reconvene we will i 23 address reception centers and evacuation time estimate 24 testimony. I would be very doubtful that we will get to beach 25 shelter issues next time. l l l ? Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 i-

s i I 4655 j .w 1 h. 1: . JUDGE SMITH - Well, okay. -1.seem to'be correct, ') s ,1 ' 2: ; don't I,-according to,the schedule that was provided.

3 MS. CURRAN:

Judge Smith? 4. MR 'OLESKEY: :If that's.an accurate forecast.of the 1 's '5-timing, and it may well be, then -- j l 6 . JUDGE SMITH: But even so,.I think_your people would j 7' like to have timely -- I mean for their own planning .- 8 purposes -- 9 MR. OLESKEY:.Sure. 10 ' JUDGE SMITH: -- they'd like to have a ruling.as soon 'll as possible. So,let's schedule it for your arguments early 12 when we-resume'again. 13 MR. OLESKEY: Fine. ^O 14 MS. CURRAN: Judge Smith?- 15 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 16 MS. CURRAN: This is Diane Curran. 1 17 I am probably not going to be here for the next 18 session, and I wanted.to ask an opportunity to file a response 19 in writing also. It's one of NECNP's issues, and in lieu of an '20 oral argument, I wondered if I might be able to file something 21 in writing. 22 JUDGE SMITH: I see nothing wrong with that. I i 23 wanted to comment, I understand that you won't be here for the 24 near future, nor will Ms. Chan, and I understand that you have 1 25 other commitments, and the parties involved will not grant you Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l

m 6 4656 .,N .t f 'I a continuance'. F 1 2~ '(Laughter.) ~3~ . JUDGE SMITH: So we: will-miss you and we wish you 4~ both very well, andIweLare. eagerly awaiting the news when it 5 happens. i .S. CURRAN: We'll let youLknow. 6: M 7 MS. CHAN: Thank you,- Your Honor. 8 JUDGE SMITH: Anything further? 9 MR. LEWALD ' Yes, Your Honor. -10 MR..BACKUS: I'm just going to let the Board know .11 that we will be~ preparing some rebuttal testimony over the 12 intervening week and I hope ~to have it for you when we resume. 13 MR. LEWALD: Yes, Your Honor,fwe're about to do that' r:) 14 with your permission. ) i 15 The corrected-testimony;that we had filed on - j 16 Wednesday'with respect to the reception center panel has in j l 17 turn necessitated a correction to Exhibit 1 to the personnel l 18 resource panel. The Table 3.1-1 now needs a line correction in 19 regard to the Department of Health and Human Services, ~20 Emergency Service Unit, and we would like to serve that on the j 21 Board and parties today, and then we will formally introduce I 22 that with the convening of the panel when hearings resume. 23 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Backus indicated that he would have 24 objected to going forward with that testimony today because of 25 the change. And Mr. Dignan indicated that although they are i i I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l i l-l !w-__ _ _ _ _ _

vm m: s e f '(l l',,;Q 4657? , u-V T ~ 3.Q If not ent1relycinj. agreement with'Mr.LBackus on that point,:that? .;y (2 he'does: recognize.that there were, changes,'.andthe'didn't: 'N 3 (oppose,CheEwould'not have. opposed Mr. B'ackus' opportunity'to ~ ,4'-

consider.'it.

i '5-So for'that: reason the' Board decided we would not 6J require anybody to go forward because:the.two principals seemed 7 to.be.in agreement.that 1t's not necessary. Therefore, we are ~ 8, taking an:early adjournment today.. There were'nolsubstantive 'l

9' witnesses.

10 -If there is nothing further, we're -- 11 -- MR. FIERCE: Your Honor,' Alan Fierce from the h 11 Attorney General's' Office. t

13 :

- I just want to make it known to-the Board and to the-

• (]

'14-other' parties that because it appears we.will be launching'into-il 15' 'the ETE issues'next week, I do have one of.my witnesses who.is. J 'l 16. -out of the country, and he-is planning to be flying in from j l 17 Israel that week, Avi ceder, and I would hope that the parties' 18 would be able to accommodate him at that point next -- the next j j .19 time we convene during the week of November 2nd. 20 And if that isn't looking like that can be done, I 21. would appreciate it if the parties would let me know I ( 22 immediately today. 23 MR. DIGNAN: Do I understand that's a request for an 24 agreement that if he shows up that week, he'd go on whenever l '25 he's availablo? In other words, if we have to interrupt our O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

/- / } b ~ 4658 L. it y$

/

~ l' ' panel,: we'd put. him on right ' then and there? y 2" .MR. FIERCE: .I'm asking thel parties whether they 3- . anticipate,!without interruptingLthe flow of.Mr. Dignan's l '4' panel,;that -- L p 5 MR. DIGNAN: I.was' going to give you okay. I mean .6 I'm not' arguing with you. I -just want to know what you want. .7 MR. FIERCE: 'Well,.Iiwould, as the last resort, make ~8' that request that if that. pane 1Lis.still on and it is.the end 9 .of that week and Mr.. Ceder has been here all1 week long with a 10. plane ticket back to Israel the following weekend -- ~ . 11 MR. DIGNAl?: I have no. problem accommodating that. 12' -JUDGE SMITH: Let's say we will always'try to offer Ee s.. 13 ~the traditional courtesy to.a witness that has this. problem, as 1 14 we have'already even with smaller. problems than.that. I: don' t 15. 'think you are going to have any problem with him. 16 MR. TURK: Your Honor, before -- Sherwin Turk from-17. the Staff. 18. Before concluding, I would like to clarify one thing 19 as to testimony for evacuation time estimates. 20 JUDGE SMITH: Okay, but because of time, minutes'are 21 'important here. 22 MR. TURK: This will take 10 seconds, I hope. j - 23 on my list of panels that's to be heard on evacuation 24 time estimates which I had submitted to the Board and which the l l 25' Board adopted, the Town of Hampton has an panel for DeMarco and ~GU Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l 8

wv m gg L. t 4659 E o n gx p J 1J- :Pennington; listed..And I'just want;to clarify, it's.my 2.- -understan. ding,that thatJpanel,will not be re-presented.' That!s L3 --already been~ heard. 4' MR. BISBEE:- It has. occurred,:Yourl Honor,falthough'wel '5 will-be prepari'ngisome rebuttal and'it's:possible'that one or '6 more of'those' witnesses will be back before the Board.- 7: MR.. TURK - And one final matter. The Staff witness, .8 Thomas Urbanik, has another commitment for certain days.iri the ? -9 -week.of November'16th,.and I'm going to have to, check with.him i '10-to make~sure he will be available..to.' testify whenever-we get--to. 11 him. 'I just want.to note'that I do have a potential witness 12 . problem which1I.will try.to' resolve.before we reconvene. '13 JUDGE [ SMITH: ' Okay. T'i M- '14 Okay, if.there is nothing further, we will. adjourn. L 15; (Whereupon, at 12:26'p.m., the hearing was recessed, .16 -to resume at11:00 p.m., Monday, November 2, 1987.). 17 1 -18 j -- 19 20 21 ~22' 23- ] 24 25 q J ) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1

.i p,

l'

REPORTER'S-CERTIFICATE P -.

-2' 3 DOCKET NUMBER: 50-443-OL; 50444-OL 6 4 CASE TITLE: . PUBLIC SERVICE. COMPANY OF NEW IIAMPSIIIRE, et al. l: -(SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) 5- ' HEARING DATE: October '23,J1987 ] 6' LOCATION: ~ - Concord, New Ilampsh' ire I .3 1 7 .l .I hereby certify that the proceedings and' evidence 8 re contained fully'and accurately on the tapes and notes j a reported by me at the hearing in the above case before the [ 10 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Atomic Safety j 1 i '11 and Licensing Board. '12 13 Date: October 23, 1987

n 14 15 l-t 6

f(p, i Official Rep 6rter l 1,4 s HERITAGE REPORTING CORPO W ION 18 1220 L Street, N.W. .) Washington, D.C. 20005 l g l 20 1 21 j.,j .l - 22 l 23 3 4 i j 25 HERITAGE REPORTIiG CORPORATION (202)623-4888 i - _ - - - - _ _. - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _. _ -}}