ML20154M816
| ML20154M816 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 05/26/1988 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#288-6471 ASLBP, OL, NUDOCS 8806020087 | |
| Download: ML20154M816 (290) | |
Text
ORIGINAL i UNITED STATES l O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
..........................................................e
)
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD l
In the Matter of: )
)
EVIDENTIARY HEARING )
) DOCKET 50-443-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-444-OL
) OFFSITE EMERGENCY NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al ) PLANNING
)
(SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) )
O l Pages: 12783 through 13054 Place: Concord, New Harr.pshi re Date: May 26, 1988 l
l ==...---.....-------....-======--------======.===.======.c l T8.d /
I
- HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION
) OpkielReporters Q ,
1220 L Street, N.W., Suke 644 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 628-4888 88060D0037 000b26 PDR ADOCK 00000443 T PDit
12783 1 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 2
-Tcx50Ttl 3
In the Matter of: )
4 )
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos.
5 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.. ) 50-443-OL
) 50-444-OL 6 ) OFF-SITE EMERGENCY (SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) ) PLANNIi1G 7 )
EVIDENTIARY HEARING 8
9 Thursday, 10 May 26, 1988 11 Room 302 Legislative Office Building 12 Concord, New Hampshire
() 13 The above-entitled matter came on for hearing.
14 pursuant to notice, at 10:35 a.m.
15 BEFORE: JUDGE IVAN W. SMITH, CHAIRMAN Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 16 U. S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 17 JUDGE GUSTAVE A. LINENBERGER, JR., MEMBER 18 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 19 Washington, D.C. 20555 20 JUDGE JERRY HARBOUR, MEMBER Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 21 U. S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ,
22 23 24 (2)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- - i
,q 12784
(_/
1 APPEARANCES:
2 For the Aeolicant:
3 THOMAS G. DIGNAN. JR. ESQ.
KATHRYN A. SELLECK, ESQ.
4 GEORGE LEWALD, ESQ.
Ropes & Gray 5 225 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 6
For the NRC Staff:
7 SHERWIN E. TURK. ESQ.
8 Office of General Counsel U. S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9 Washington, D.C. 20555 10 For the Federal Emersency Manasement Aeencv:
11 H. JOSEPH FLYNN, ESQ.
GEORGE WATSON. ESQ.
12 Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street. S . W.
() 13 Washington, D.C. 20472 14 For the State of New Hampshire:
15 GEOFFREY M. HUNTINGTON, ESQ.
State of New Hampshire 16 25 Capitol Street Concord. New Hampshire 03301 17 For the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
18 CAROL SNEIDER, ASST. ATTY. GEN.
19 STEPHEN OLESKEY, ESQ.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts 20 One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108 21 For the New Eneland Coalition aeainst Nuclear 22 Pollution:
23 ELLYN R. WEISS. ESQ.
Harmon & Weiss 24 2001 S Street. N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20009 f~ 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
12783 1 APPEARANCES: CContinued) 2 For the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League:
3 ROBERT BACKUS, ESQ.
Backus, Meyer & Solomon 4 116 Lowell Street Manchester, New Harpshire 03105 5
JANE DOUGHTY, DIRECTOR 6 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League 5 Market Street 7 Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801 8 For the Town of Hamnton:
9 MATTHEW T. BROCK, ESQ.
Shaines & McEachern 10 25 Maplewood Avenue P. O. Box 360 11 Po rt smouth, New Hampshire 03801 12 For the Town of Kensineton:
() 13 SANDRA FOWLEF. MITCHELL, EMERGENCY PLANNING DIR.
Town Hall 14 Kensington, New Hampshire 15 Eor the Towns of Hamnton Fallr and North Hamoton and South Hamoton:
16 ROBERT A. BACKUS. ESQ.
17 Backus, Meyer & Solomon 116 Lowell Street 18 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 19 For the Town of Amesburv:
20 (No Appearances) 21 22 23 24 25 O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ..-
e
1278%
INDEX 2 WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS EXAM 3 Panel:
4 DAVID MCLOUGHLIN GRANT PEDERSON 5 RICHARD KRIMM by Mr. Mr. Dignan 12788 6 by Mr. Backus 12800 7
8 EXHIBITS: IDENI REC 'D EEd DESCRIPTION 9
Annlicants' 10 No. 38 12790 12796 4 pages. letter, 11 13 May '88, Becton to Glenn 12 Massachusetts Attorney General 's :
No. 33 12807 12815 5 pages, FEMA 14 internal newsletter. HQ, 15 Jan-Feb 1988 16 No. 34 18813 12815 1 page, personnel chart, FEMA state 17 and local programs and support 18 directorate 19 No. 35 12859 12862 3 pages. letter from Thomas to i 20 Strome, with 2-page attachment 21 No. 36 12884 12891 2 pages, memo, 22 2 Sept. '87 Krimm to Congel 23 No. 37 12906 12933 1 page, letter.
24 5 Oct. '87. Turk to Board, with 2-25 page attachment 0
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
12785 1 No. 38 12927 12933 5 pages. FEMA 's Response to Motion 2 in Limine.
30 Oct. '87 3
No. 39 13006 13021 4 2 pages, letter, 18 Feb. '88, 5 ' Turk to Flynn 6 No. 40 13017 13020 3 pages, letter, 12 May '88.
7 Flynn to Smith, Harbour.
8 Linenberger 9
10 INSERTS: PAGE 11 Mass. AG 's Exhibit No. 34 12815 12 Applicants ' Exhibit No. 38 13054
)
Mass. AG's Exhibit No. 35 13054 14 Mass. AG 's Exhibit No. 37 13054 15 Mass. AG's Exhibit No. 39 13054 16 Mass. AG 's Exhibit No. 40 13054 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
(:)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
L KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12788 G(~%
T/122 1 PROCFEDINGS 2 (10:33 a.m.)
3 JUDGE SMITH: Good morning 4 Ready to proceed.
5 MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, at the end of the day I 6 indicated that I might have some additional direct examination.
I 7 At this time I do not have any further direct examination, so 8 the witnesses are available for cross-examination.
9 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, I have one or two items 10 which shouldn 't take more than five minutes. And I talked with 11 my brothers representing the Intervenors and I told them I'd go 12 ahead of them, if that 's agreeable to the Board.
} 13 JUDGE SMITH: Go ahead.
14 MR. DIGNAN: Thank you.
15 The record will show I'm placing before Dr.
16 McLoughlin a copy of yesterday 's transcript.
17 Whereupon, 18 RICHARD KRIMM 19 GRANT PETERSON 20 DAVID MCLOUGHLIN 21 having been previously duly sworn, resumed the witness stand 22 here, and was examined and testified further as follows:
23 CROSS-EXAMINATION 24 BY MR. DIGNAN:
25 Q Doctor, would you be kind enough to turn to page
[}
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
/~N KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12789 V
i 12688 and 12689 in that transcript, if you would, please?
2 A (McLoughlin) 12688?
3 Q Yes.
4 A (McLoughlin) Yes.
5 Q I'd like to direct your attention to line 22 on 6 12688, if you will read along with me. You stcted there:
7 "Now, I'm well aware of the RAC meeting that occurred on 7/30, 8 July 30th of 1987. I 'm also well aware of the f act, and was 9 well aware of the fact before the September, the September 11 10 filing that the majority of the RAC was in opposition to FEMA 's 11 position " unquote.
12 Who advised you, prior to the September 11 filing,
() 13 that the majority of the RAC was in opposition to the FEMA 14 position?
15 A (McLoughlin) Well, the best I can recall, and the 16 thing that I normally would have expected is that the -- Dick 17 Krimm and his staff people would have advised me. And my -- as 18 far as I can recollect that 's what happened.
19 Q Okay.
20 Mr. Krimm, who advised you of the fact that the 21 maj ority of the RAC was in opposition to FEMA 's position prior 22 to September lith?
23 A CKrimm) Craig Wingo of my staff.
24 Q And did Craig Wingo indicate how he had learned that?
25 A CKrimm) I believe that he heard it either from Ed Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
fx KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12790 0 Thomas or from Jack Dolan, I 'm not sure which.
1 2 Q And just for identification purposes, Mr. Dolan is 3 Mr. Thomas 's assistant in Region 1?
4 A CKrimm) Yes, that 's correct. Right.
5 Q Thank you.
6 JUDGE SMITH: Off the record.
7 CDiscussion off the record.)
8 JUDGE SMITH: On the record.
9 MR. DIGNAN: The record will show I'm handing the 10 reporter a document that I'll ask him to mark Applicants 's 11 Exhibit 38 for identification.
12 (The document referred to was
() 13 marked for identification as 14 Applicants 's Exhibit 38. )
15 BY MR. DIGNAN:
16 Q Mr. Peterson. I have placed before you and the other 17 members of the panel, but primarily before you, a document 1
18 which has been marked Applicants 's Exhibit 38 for 19 identificetion, can you identify that document, sir?
20 A CPeterson) This is a letter to The Honorable John 21 Glenn, Chairman of the Committee of Governmental Affairs, 22 United States Senate, and it is signed by The Honorable Julius 23 W. Becton, Jr., Director of the Federal Emergency Management 24 Agency.
26 Q Did you have any input into that letter. Mr.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12791 1 Peterson?
2 A (Peterson) I concurred in this letter, as I believe 3 everyone sitting at this dais has, sir.
4 Q And can I take it then, as f ar as you 're concerned, 5 the contents of that letter are true and correct to the best of 6 your knowledge?
7 A (Peterson) To the best of my knowledge they are; 8 yes, sir.
9 Q And is that true for you, also, Dr. McLoughlin?
10 A (McLoughlin) Yes, it is.
11 Q And for you. Mr. Krimm?
12 A (Krimm) Yes.
() 13 MR. DIGNAN: I would of fer the Applicants 's Exhibit l 14 38 for identification into evidence. Your Honor.
15 JUDGE SMITH: Are there obj ections?
16 MR. BACKUS: I 'd like to know for what purpose this i
17 could be --
18 MR. DIGNAN: Truth of the matters contained. The 19 witnesses have adopted it as true.
20 El MR. DIGNAN:
21 Q It 's a statement by the Chairman as I -- excuse me, 22 the Director, as I understand it, of your agency who is the 23 superior of you, Mr. Peterson, is that correct?
24 A (Peterson) That is correct.
25 Q Concurred then by the three of you?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12792
({}
1 A CPeterson) That is correct.
2 MR. DIGNAN: For the truth of the matters contained.
3 Mr. Backus, that 's what it 's of fered for.
4 MR. BACKUS: I think it rather goes to the merits,
-5 but we 'll not obj ect ; I think it opens up some merits issues.
6 MR. DIGNAN: Well, take your best shot.
7 MR. OLESKEY: Okay. No, there 's no obj ection.
8 JUDGE SMITH: Well, we haven 't read the letter. I 've 9 read only the portion about how it came to pass that Mr. Thomas 10 was unable to support without reservations, some of the 11 testimony and how general counsel recommended that some other 12 witness appear. And the rest of it I haven 't read.
() 13 The part that I have read is cumulative to this 14 testimony. I have a concern that isn 't well formulated in my 15 mind yet in terms of the Rules of Evidence. But I have an 16 almost intuitive reluctance to have information provided to a 17 Congressional Committee and created for that purpose, to be 18 produced into our hearings.
19 MR. DIGNAN: Well, Your Honor, I would point out --
20 JUDGE SMITH: It creates potentially a great deal of 21 difficulty and possible conflict as the legislative needs 22 differ from the administrative hearing needs. I j ust haven 't 23 thought about it -- I just -- there 's a warning signal in my 24 mind here that I have to think about a little bit.
MR. DIGNAN: All right. Your Honor, the only thing I
{) 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
12793
(} 1 KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS would point out to you is, that is why I deliberately, before I 2 did anything with it, obtained that the three gentlenen had 3 concurred in it, and as f ar as they 're concerned it 's true and 4 correct to the best of belief.
5 In terms of relevancy. I'm sure if Your Honor reviews 6 the document you will find it relevant.
7 JUDGE SMITH: I 'm not certain~ about that.
8 MR. DIGNAN: And as I understand their testimony 9 having concurred in it, they 're subj ect to cross-examination.
10 I really don't see that the f act that it 's a letter to -- I 11 of f er -- to me there 's no significance that it 's written to 12 John Glenn. What is significant is what starts out. "The Dear
/~N >
(_/ 13 Senator Glenn." and finishes prior to "Sincerely."
14 The fact that it went to Senator Glenn. to me, is 15 irrelevant, but this is the vehicle that the testimony is in.
16 JUDGE SMITH: It 's not the fact that it went to 17 Senator Glenn; it 's the f act that it was prepared in obedience ,
18 to a Congressional request.
19 As I say. I haven 't thought it out. I think we want 20 to think about it a little bit. And if nothing else, read the 21 letter. }
22 MR. DIGNAN: Well, it 's of f ered, and as I understand 23 your ruling is --
24 JUDGE SMITH: So f ar it 's -- we 're taking it under 25 advisement. '
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12794 b'~3 1 MR. DIGNAN: Thank you.
2 JUDGE SMITH: It will, however, be your 3~ responsibility to make sure that it isn 't dropped.
4 MR. DIGNAN: See you after the break.
5 With that my examination is concluded. Your Honor.
6 Well, I guess, Your Honor, having said.that --
7 JUDGE SMITH: Well, you 're entitled to a ruling 8 before you quit; right?
9 MR. DIGNAN: Well, no, it 's not that. I 'm not 10 concerned about quitting before the ruling, what I am concerned 11 about is, other people are going to go forward and I suppose 12 they 're entitled to know whether this is in or not.
() 13 JUDGE SMITH: Well, there 's no obj ections. It 's 14 clearly relevant. The witnesses have adopted it.
15 MR. DIGNAN: May I respectfully suggest the Board 16 admit it, because it is always subj ect to reconsideration by 17 the Board upon further reflection, and that way we have a clean 18 record that it 's in; if people want to cross it, they can.
19 JUDGE SMITH: I am concerned about the commingling of 20 legislative inquiries with Administrative Procedure Act 21 inquires, the potential for confusion.
22 Give us just a few minutes. We will remain in place.
23 but give us j ust a f ew minutes.
24 (Board conferring) 25 JUDGE SMITH: There at e no obj ections to this letter.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12795
[}
i right. So then, it is relevant. It has been adopted by these 2 people on the witness stand. And it is reliable and it meets 3 every single test competence that I can imagine. We, I think.
4 are obliged to receive it into evidence, which we do.
5 But the reluctance that we 've had is that, this 6 letter demonstrates what we simply know, simply by unavoidable 7 reading in the newspaper, and that this proceeding has gathered 8 the attention of very powerful people in the country. And we 9 try to operate in an environment in which that is irrelevant 10 and immaterial; and it is.
11 We know that. We know that this hearing in the j 12 Seabrook proceeding has gathered a lot of attention. But let
() 13 me assure that anybody who 's interested in our viewpoints that 14 not only does it not influence us or mean anything to us, but 15 it 's , in time, just downright boring. I mean, we 're accustomed l
16 to it and it just is meaningless. It is one of the least 17 important aspects of our judicial life.
18 The fact is, we don 't even bother f requently even 19 reading news accounts of these events. We -- it just isn 't 20 interesting to us, let alone does it have any bearing upon our 21 deliberations, adj udicat ions.
22 We do try to avoid and successfully ex parte 23 information, whether it 's brought to us by a party or not.
24 With that the letter is received.
25 What is your exhibit number?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4868
KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12796
\
O' 1 MR. DIGNAN: 38.
2 (The document referred to was 3 marked for identification as 4 Applicants Exhibit 38.)
5 MR. DIGNAN: Well. Your Honor, if Your Honor has a 6 personal question about such a document coming in. I 'm prepared 7 to withdraw the exhibit.
8 JUDGE SMITH: I don't think we have any choice. Mr.
9 Dignan.
10 MR. DIGNAN: I heard Your Honor 's comments, and if I 11 may respectfully address them. There certainly was no desire 12 on my part to mention powerful people --
() 13 JUDGE SMITH: I know that.
14 MR. DIGNAN: -- what this document does --
15 JUDGE SMITH: I 'm no t --
16 MR. DIGNAN: -- in my judgment is, these witnesses 17 have been here and are going to be cross-examined on their
- 18 testimony. This demonstrates, in my humble judgment and will 19 be argued to you, is a thoroughly consistent story with the 20 story that these three gentlemen told us yesterday.
21 I think it is of evidentiary significance that the 22 story they told is precisely in line with the story that i
23 they --
24 JUDGE SMITH: You don 't have to argue that. l 25 MR. DIGNAN: -- their director gave the Oversight 1 ,
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 623-4888 l
l \
P 1
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12797
[}
1 Committee of Congress. I think that lends credibility to what 2 they have said. And I don 't understand the Chair 's reluctance 3 to accept it, they having adopted it.
l 4 JUDGE SMITH: I don 't --
l 5 MR. DIGNAN: I'm not trying to slide it through a 6 back door by the witnesses --
7 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Dignan, you 're arguing a straw man.
8 MR. DIGNAN: Okay.
9 JUDGE SMITH: I mean, you 're doing it very well, but !
- 10 it 's a pointless argument. We don 't, and for one minute, fail 11 to acknowledge the evidentiary value of the letter and its 12 relevance.
() 13 I 'm j ust telling you that we, professionally, do not 14 like or would prefer to insulate ourselves as much as possible 15 from external concerns about the merits of this proceeding.
16 That is -- and I might say it 's almost intuitive feeling rather ,
17 than a rational feeling. This letter has been accepted into 18 evidence and --
19 MR. DIGNAN: But. Your Honor. I want to be sure on ;
j 20 one thing, because if the Board feels that by this offer I have
- 21 somehow broken that insulation. I will withdraw the document.
22 JUDGE SMITH: Now -- r 23 MR. DIGNAN: It is not my intention.
24 JUDGE SMITH: It is just a step in that direction.
25 MR. DIGNAN: Well, I take that as a personal 4
Heritage Reporting Corporation ;
(202) 628-4888
.<v -._. - - -., = - - - - . , . , - - - , _ , - , - . . _ - - - ., __,,,-,_-.p,_,,,_,-_,y- -.n ---,,,,r.,y. , , - , - , , , - v
KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12798
(]
1 remonstrance with me. Your Honor.
I
! 2 JUDGE SMITH: No, I don 't --
3 MR. DIGNAN: I told you that was not its intent.
4 JUDGE SMITH: No, I don 't. I don 't. This is a sua 5 sponte concern of our own that I'sne felt, the Board members ,
6 f eel that we have a job to do and we want to keep it as clean 7 and as simple as possible. The f act that there 's a lot of 8 attention in it, in the political arena. It has come to our 9 attention -- as a matter of f act, we have even acknowledged the 10 fact that the presidential candidates have made an issue in 11 their campaign when we talked about -- well, we know all of 12 this. It 's j ust to the extent that we can possibly keep it
() 13 away from this hearing room. I think it should be kept away.
14 MR. DIGNAN: Well. Your Honor --
15 JUDGE SMITH: We 're big boys. We are perfectly 16 capable of conducting a proceeding totally immune from any 17 pressure. I mean, there is no pressure that anybody can bring 18 up on us. No conceivable pressure, because of our status in 19 government and our role, that could effect our decisions.
20 It 's just that we have a feeling that we would like 21 to keep this hearing room separate from anything except the 22 Administrative Procedure Act, and the Atomic Energy Act.
23 MR. DIGNAN: Well, Your Honor, your remarks indicate 24 that you feel I've been trying to put pressure on you; and I 'm
[} 25 sorry, I am not.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12799 1 JUDGE SMITH: I understand, Mr. Dignan. You don 't 2 have to say that. I'm just telling you, this is a concern that 3 I'm bringing up on my own. With that, the letter is received 4 and we 'll move on.
5 MR. DIGWAN: .I have nothing further, Your Honor.
6 MR. BACKUS: Your Honor, I'm going to be the lead 7 examiner this morning, in terms of going first, and I have 8 prepared a very sketchy cross-examination plan I'll make 9 available to the Board at this time.
et/122 10 (Continued on next page.)
11 12 0 13 14 15 16 17 i
i 18
! 19 20 21
) 22 23 l
24 25 l O l
i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12800
[];)
T123 1 CROSS EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. BACKUS:
3 Q Good morning, gentlemen.
4 A CPeterson) Good morning.
5 Q I think we 've met, but my name is Robert Backus. I 6 represent the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League in this 7 proceeding.
8 Gentlemen, yesterday when you were testifying. I 9 noticed that at least Mr. McLoughlin and Mr. Peterson appeared 10 to be testifying on the basis of notes that you had before you; 11 is that correct, Mr. McLoughlin?
12 A (McLoughlin) I was using a set of notes that I had
) 13 prepared for my own purposes; that 's correct.
14 Q And.you, Mr. Peterson?
15 A CPeterson) I also have a set of notes that I 16 prepared independently for my own personal use.
17 Q And when did you prepare those notes?
18 A (McLoughlin) I prepared them on the plane on the way 19 here.
20 Q Mr. Peterson?
l 21 A CPeterson) I wrote these up last night; the night l
l 22 before I came in here yesterday.
23 Q Okay. And, Mr. Krimm, did you also prepare notes?
24 A CKrimm) I do have some notes, and I prepared them i
25 on -- I 'm trying to think of the time f rame -- Tuesday night.
{])
Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888
(~) KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12801 V
1 Q All right. Would you gentlemen have any problem if 2 we requested an opportunity to review those notes during a 3 break here?
4 A (Peterson) I 'd like to -- no.
5 MR. FLYNN: I have a problem. I want to obj ect, and 6 I want to find out the -- I want to make sure a predicate is laid for the production of those documents, and I don 't see 7
8 that it has been done at this point.
9 MR. BACKUS: Well, pretty traditional, I think, that 10 when a witness takes the stand with notes that the examining 11 attorney is entitled to look at them -- and testifies from them 12 as these gentlemen say they have done.
() 13 JUDGE SMITH: I guess it 's traditional. You 're more 14 likely to find it in a dog bite case, or a contested divorce.
15 You 're not as likely to find it in this type of proceedings, 16 but they don 't obj ect. I mean -- they testified from the 17 notes. The notes are relevant to their testimony. They may 18 have overlooked something. They may have -- whatever.
19 MR. BACKUS: Okay.
20 BY MR. BACKUS:
21 Q All right, now, Mr. Peterson, I have a few questions 22 on your background testimony that you delivered yesterday.
23 You say you came to Washington in January of 1987 for 24 the purpose of looking for a federal job; is that correct?
C) 25
\J Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
12802
() KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 1 A (Peterson) That 's correct.
2 Q And I think you said that you were interested in 3 doing that as part of supporting the administration; is that 4 correct?
5 A (Peterson) I had -- that was one of the reasons that 6 I came here was to be a part of this administration.
7 Q And I think you said you went to the White House.
8 A (Peterson) That's correct.
9 Q And who did you see at the White House?
10 A (Peterson) I saw Sue Phillips at the White House. I 11 saw Bob Tuttle at the White House, and personally interviewed 12 with both of them. And I interviewed very casually with
,~
(>
13 another individual and, I 'm sorry, I can 't pull his name 7 14 right now.
15 Q And did you have that access to the White House in 16 part because of activities you 'd engaged in in the State of 17 Washington?
18 A (Peterson) I would assume that 's correct, yes.
19 Q And had you been involved in the presidential 20 campaign at all before coming to Washington?
21 A (Peterson) I was.
22 Q And what was your role?
23 A (Peterson) In 1984 -- are you asking specifically --
24 1984 was the presidential election, and I was the state 25 chairman for the State of Washington for the reelection of
[}
Heritage Reporting Corporatie, (202) 628-4888
12803
(} ,
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS President Reagan and Vice President Bush.
1 2 Q Okay. You also mentioned that you had held an 3 elected position in the State of Washington as a Spokane County 4 Commissioner?
5 A CPeterson) That 's correct. ,
6 Q And when were you elected to that position?
7 A CPeterson) I first filled the vacancy in '81. And 8 as you know or may not know, the law requires that then you 9 stand for election at the next regular election cycle. And I 10 stood for election and was elected to a four-year term in 1982.
11 Q So you stood for election in 1982 for a term that 12 expired in 1986; is that correct?
( 13 A (Peterson) It expired on the evening of December 31, 14 1986.
15 Q Did you run for reelection to a county comr issioner 16 position?
17 A CPeterson) Yes, I did.
18 Q And did you win that election?
19 A (Peterson) No, I lost by one and a half percent.
20 Q Okay. So it was the month af ter you lost that l
21 election in January of '87, or I 'm sorry, the month af ter your 22 term expired and you had not been reelected that you went to
! 23 Washington to the White House; is that correct?
1 l 24 A CPeterson) No, I think I went to the White House in 25 the month of February.
[}
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L
() KRIMM, PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12804 1 Q All right. Now, when you got to the White House you 2 said that you had some interest, and I think you said some six 3 or seven jobs in the federal government.
4 A (Peterson) Um-hmm 5 Q What other jobs were you interested in other than the 6 one that you ended up with?
7 A (Peterson) There was a position in Indian Affairs.
8 Q I 'm sorry?
9 A CPeterson) Indian Affairs. There was a couple of 10 positions in GSA.
11 MR. FLYNN: Excuse me. Can you explain the reference 12 to GSA? Tell us what that means.
13 THE WITNESS: CPeterson) General Services 14 Administration.
15 I had looked at potential positions in the Department 16 of Interior, and I believe that was, to the best of my 17 recollection at that time.
18 BY MR. BACKUS:
19 Q And, of course, the job with FEMA which you presently 20 hold; is that right?
21 A CPeterson) No, that was not in issue until after I 22 had talked to the White House.
23 Q Okay. So did you come to the White House with a 24 request to be considered for these specific agencies you 've
! 25 mentioned: GSA. Indian Affairs and Interior?
(])
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
k
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS I' believe that a person has an 12805 1 A (Peterson) 2 obligation to do his homework, and so when I went to the White 3 House I told them that I had -- oh, excuse me, there was one 4 more potential. That was in EPA, Environmental Protection 5 Agency, in the office in Denver, Colorado.
6 And so I told them I was aware of that these 7 positions were upcoming, and that I would like to be 8 considered. have those positions considered. However, I wanted 9 them to review my background and see if they had any positions 10 that they felt my background more appropriately fit, because I 11 wanted to be sure that I had credible background and abilities 12 in whatever position might be available at that time.
L
(^>T
\- 13 Q So is it correct that somebody then at the White 14 Rccae suggested to you consideration of a FEMA position?
15 A (Peterson) This was after I returned home. I 16 received a phone call from the White House saying they had 17 reviewed my background, and because of my experience at the 18 local level, that they would like for me to consider a position 19 that interacted very heavily with state and local governments, t 20 and they felt that my five years as an elected official at 21 state and local governments made a lot of sense.
22 Also, the position was very heavily involved in civil 23 defense and national security, and my nuclear weapons 24 background, they felt, would enhance my ability to perform in l
25 that area, and would I be interested in looking at a job in
[}
i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12806 1 FEMA.
2 Q Am I correct that your confirmation to.your present 3 position resulted in an article in an internal FEMA newsletter l 4 that was published in January-February 1988?
5 A CPeterson) I didn 't have a hand in that. There was 6 some internal articles written. I believe, and I 'm certainly --
7 you know, if they 're there, they 're there.
8 MR. BACKUS: Your Honor, I have handed to the 9 witness, the Board and the parties a document entitled FEMA 10 Newsletter, January-February 1988, which was marked as Exhibit il 3 in the deposition of Dr. Joan Hock. And I 'd like to have 12 that marked for identification at this time.
O k) 13 JUDGE SMITH: Whose exhibit?
14 MR. BACKUS: As a SAPL Exhibit, and I 'm not sure --
15 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I don 't know either.
16 MR. BACKUS: -- of the number we 're up to.
17 THE REPORTER: You 're up to 6. The next exhibit is 18 7.
19 JUDGE SMITH: I wonder if Intervenors might agree to 20 continue the Massachusetts Attorney General series of exhibits.
21 MR. BACKUS: Oh, that would be fine. Sure. It 's 22 easier.
23 JUDGE SMITH: I think it sort of fits even though 24 you 're of f ering it.
25 Is that all right?
(])
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12807 (D
m) 1 MR. OLESKEY: Sure.
2 MR. BACKUS: No pride of title. Mass. 33.
3 JUDGE SMITH: No -- yes, that 's right.
4 (The document referred to was 5 marked for identification as 6 Massachusetts Atto,rney General 's 7 Exhibit No. 33.)
8 BY MR. BACKUS:
9 Q Now am I correct, Mr. Peterson, that he description 10 of your background is at Page 6?
11 A (Peterson) That 's where the article appears.
12 Q Okay. Is everything that 's stated in that article
(~~
\
13 about your background, and I understand it 's not complete, but 14 is what 's stated there accurate and true?
15 A (Peterson) I would say it 's generally correct.
16 Q Okay.
, 17 A CPeterson) I would -- if you want me to go word by 18 word, I'd want a little more time, but I would say it appears 19 to be generally correct.
20 Q It says on the next to the last paragraph in the l
21 middle column, "Peterson has held executive positions in the 22 electronics industry."
23 What positions have you held in the electronics i
24 industry, sir?
25 A (Peterson) You know, I think that really has to deal
(])
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I',) KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12808 s.
1 with the fact that I was a vice president in a business in 2 Spokane, and then I owned my own business in electronics, 3 primarily that dealt in electronics, in Cheney, Washington, and 4 had a business in Airway Heights at the same time for a period, S which is another small city.
6 Q Okay, you said you were a vice president in the 7 company in Spokane?
8 A (Peterson) Yes.
9 Q What company was that?
10 A (Peterson) That was G&G Electronics, Incorporated.
11 Q What was its business?
12 A (Peterson) It was electronics retail primarily.
13 Q What sort of products were sold?
14 A CPeterson) In the first -- in the first one, 15 primarily products that would be of interest to the homeowner 16 in the electronics arena with electronics repair facilities.
17 Q Would this be things like stereos and TVs and things 18 like that?
19 A (Peterson) Yes, that 's correct.
20 Q Okay. Then you say, "And from 1971 to 1983, was 21 president of the Town & Country Television, Inc."
22 A (Peterson) Right.
23 Q That was the business that you owned?
24 A (Peterson) Yes.
25 Q And what was the business of Town & Country
(])
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12809
(}[
i Television, Inc.?
2 A (Peterson) It started out in the electronics field, 3 primarily in repair and retail sales. Expanded into computer 4 sales. Expanded there into electronic surveillance systems,
,5 security systems. Expanded into two-way radio communications 6 business, sales with microwave transmission capabilities.
7 Expanded from there into a full repair facility for electronics 8 items such as business band radios and home equipment.
9 Expanded into a rental business. Expanded to computer sales.
10 Expanded from there into items that were utilized in homes, 11 because we began then to get into commercial sales where we 12 would do the carpeting, tile, appliances, intercom systems, 13 television cabling systems within homes and businesses.
14 So we ended up going from primarily electronics 15 servicing to retail and wholesale and commercial sales.
16 Q Okay. So was the -- fair to describe that the maj or 17 business here was sales to homeowners and commercial users of i
18 this type of equipment?
19 A (Peterson) I think that would be appropriate.
20 Commercial sales as well to other businesses and providing 21 services to other businesses, and we got into some federal l
! 22 contracting.
23 Q Is the Town & Country Television. Inc. still in I
! 24 business?
'l 25 A (Peterson) No, it 's not in business as of 1983.
./
I '
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 .
l
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12810 1 Q Okay. So when you became a county commissioner, you 2 got out of this line of work?
3 A (Peterson) I began to. I had been in that l is a ;
4 work for almost 14 years, and it served me well in getting me 5 through college and raising my family. And when I was elected.
6 I found out that being a county commissioner was not an eight-7 hour-a-day job, but a 14-hour-a-day job, and I made a 8 commitment to the public and was elected as such, and sold out 9 portions of the business, and devoted myself full time to 10 serving the public.
11 Q Now let me furnish you a chart for -- an organization 12 chart, Mr. Mc'.ough
. l i n, for the state and local program 13
\/ 13 directorate.
14 Mr. Peterson or Mr. McLoughlin, I have showed you a 15 diagram chart entitled State and Local Programs and Support 16 Directorate which was marked as Exhibit 2 in the deposition of 17 Mr. Thomas, and ask you if that 's a reasonably accurate diagram 18 of the chain of command for your directorate, the state and 19 local program and support directorate?
20 A (McLoughlin) Yes, it is.
l 21 Q And is it current insofar as the names that are 22 associated with these offices are concerned?
l 23 A (McLoughlin) Let me just check a minute.
i 24 No, there are some corrections to be made on there, l
25 In the second row, in the far right under disaster assistance (v~T l
I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12811 1 office, it shows Joe Winkle. Joe just left us and went to be 2 the EPA deputy administrator in Region 6, and we have an acting 3 in there, Dennis Kwiatkowski.
4 Q Okay.
5 A (McLoughlin) In the next row, Joan Hock is no longer 6 in the Technological Hazards Program Division. She has moved 7 tu a similar position in the civil defense office.
8 If you continue on down that row, you will come to 9 Frances Dias. Frances Dias retired and Joan Hock was asked to 10 accept that position because of our need to deal with the 11 national security decision director that the President assigned 12 last year, f
k 13 As you move on down the line here. Dennis 14 Kwiatkowski, who is shown in the Individual Assistance 15 Division, is now is the acting where Joe Winkle was. And 16 Dennis Kwiatkowski has been replaced by Glenn Garcelon as the 17 acting in that position.
18 Q All right.
19 A (McLoughlin) On the next line down --
20 Q Well, before you go on, Mr. McLoughlin --
l l
21 A (McLoughlin) Sure.
22 Q -- just maybe to shorten this up, am I correct that l
23 the REP, or Radiological --
24 A (McLoughlin) Emergency Preparedness.
l 25 Q -- Emergency Preparedness -- thank you -- Program is i
(])
Heritage Reporting Corporation l . (202) 628-4888 1
l
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12812
(])
1 administered through the Office of Natural and Technological 2 Hazards Programs of which Mr. Krimm is the assistant associate 3 director?
4 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
5 Q So with regard to those boxes that report up.to that 6 office, which are on the left-hand side of this column, other 7 than Dr. Hock, are there any other changes?
8 A (McLoughlin) Fred Sharrocks, in the field operations 9 branch in the lower left-hand corner, is on detail to the REP 10 program right now because of the extensive needs that we have 11 to deal with many situations in that area, including this 12 hearing, but he will ultimately return to that after his detail Q
\' 13 is concluded.
14 Q Okay.
15 A (McLoughlin) Other than that, the answer is yes.
16 MR. BACKUS: I 'd like to have this marked at this 17 time, if I could.
( 18 JUDGE SMITH: Mass. :G 34.
Excuse me.
19 MR. FLYNN: Is this going to be bound 20 into the record at this point? If it isn 't, it 's going to be l 21 misleading.
22 MR. BACKUS: Well, I think that 's a good idea. I 23 would like to ask to have this bound into the record and --
l l 24 JUDGE SMITH: Massachusetts Attorney General 34?
25 MR. BACKUS: Right.
(])
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
i.
____m
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12813
(()
1 (The document referred to was 2 marked for identification as 3 Massachusetts Attorney General 's 4 Exhibit No. 34.)
5 JUDGE SMITH: Have you decided not to offer 33?
6 MR. BACKUS: I 'd like to of fer that, too, include 7 that in the record.
8 JUDGE SMITH: All right, going back to 33.
9 Are there any obj ections?
10 (No response.)
11 JUDGE SMITH: All right, 34, are there any 12 obj ections ?
13 (No response.)
14 JUDGE SMITH: Do you want to conform the copy that is 15 bound into the record to Mr. McLoughlin 's testimony?
16 MR. BACKUS: I don 't --
17 JUDGE SMITH: Well, you would obj ect to doing it.
18 MR. BACKUS: Well, I don 't know quite how we 'd do 19 that.
20 JUDGE SMITH: Well, do it, do it.
21 MR. BACKUS: All right. If somebody wants to provide 22 a copy with these name changes on it, that 's fine. I think the 23 testimony has explained them.
! 24 JUDGE SMITH: It doesn 't matter.
25 THE WITNESS: (Mr. McLoughlin) The only point, I did
(])
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
i- -
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12814
(])
1 not complete it. That 's the only point, it seems to me, that 's 2 important for us to make clear.
3 BY MR. BACKUS:
4 Q You did not complete you description of --
5 A (McLoughlin) I did not complete the corrections you 6 were asking me for. You asked me to shorten it up, which I 7 did.
8 Q All right.
9 A (McLoughlin) And only responded to the specific 10 portions that you asked me.
11 Q So you would like to make it clear, Dr. McLoughlin, 12 that there are some other changes in the divisions that are not O associated with the REP program; is that right?
k/ 13 14 A (McLoughlin) There -- yes, there are a couple of 15 additional changes that are in that that would need to be made 16 if you wanted that an accurate record.
17 But if you only want to reflect the left-hand portion 18 of that in Natural Technological Hazards, that portion is 19 correct.
20 Q Okay, that 's suf ficient.
21 22 23 24
() 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- . - . _. . .. - = .. .. .. .- - -
1
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12815 1 CThe documents referred to, 2 having been previously marked 3 for identification as 4 Massc7husetts General Counsel 's 5 Exhibit Nos. 33 and 34 were 6 received in evidence.)
7 8 (Massachusetts Attorney General 's 9 Exhibit No. 34 follows.)
10 11 12 13 14 15 l.
16 l 17 18 19 20 21 22 I 23 24 25
(:)
Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l
v-STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS AND SUPPORT DIRECTORATE a
%,c. &
A558clate Oltsct8r W1 SeeClal A551stang N3El E MSfSSE IIsangessent Emppert 3NJ pip i
lloward SClunidt Deputy Associale Stalt 848-3492 Birector Ashort F. Shea. Chief Base mariam ,mne 844-3419 848-3892 l
l l l
ONice of aleseral A Ischedlegical Malasts SNice of Ch8 Selease GIEco of 31sessor Programs apa n.=" Programs Asst. A&sec. Stresser Asst. A&sec.Berecser Joseph L Moseleng Asst. assar agosser alchard W. Eresus 8 4 3433 Joe B. Winkle ,
8 4 2871 5 4 3813 I I I I I I Earthquakes & Ischeelegscal leazads E"8'e'*8I 888**e'8888 I"*'e'*87 " ;
Ilateral Mazards Syssems h&W ledended Assastance Petisc Assahe Progrants Divessoa 3rshes Sepert Owessen Psograms Demsaes Demaaea Owssaes Dwisaea Clues Chsef Cheel Cheel Jean Hotg Chael Cheel Gary Jebesse (Acts ) 646 206e Jehe RecEay frances Dias Desses it Kesha Gem WM 646 279, 646 4252 646 3642 646 424s 646 34e7 Pro am me e e. .e .g.am oe.e., men. a -
withme 86mes.Eh _. Atmskan Sanders. Ch P- oes NacaeQ - -
C:::,,rr, ven** ,,~, y'
.'ss,0l%
m 2si, - -
m e 3, s.6 nes Jehe m 3eLynch,.,Ch w Jeha Leadbug. Ch
= >see insed Operahees 3r field Opesahees er bege Development Se 8 Eeyeeersag & Serveyg, liarard assagehen Sr f and Shaerecks. Ch ._ _ Csag Waage. Ch. Itseld Gael. Ch - - Lida Whalaher, Ch. _ L. less Ch.
646 2796 646 Je26 646 J50s RachMd lletesch, Ch-646 3005 646 3601 646 M Sids & Assessment er 8t*8'essencal Seporteed and Jehe Sehet. Ch -
lesk_-- -- Sr. Rebecahes Assastance Er 646 3ggg Cal Saetestrat Ch. Charles Reksesse. Ch.
646 Jorg 646 30eb Emer atoms r,egrass Plasang Dwassee Caerdseabee Dwes6es Cheet Cheer Waltame Chapseas Deborah leert 646 3512 646 3612
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12816 1 BY MR. BACKUS:
2 Q Now, Mr.- Peterson, you said yesterday that you knew 3 at least as early as I believe March of 1987 that the White 4 House was prepared to nominate you for this position at FEMA; 5 is that correct?
6 A CPeterson) That is not correct.
7 The White House was willing as early as March to 8 consider me for a nomination.
9 Q All right.
10 A (Peterson) They were not willing to nominate until 11 September the 17th.
12 Q And at some point during this period between their O 13 willingness to nominate you and the time when your nomination 14 formally went to the Senate, you were acting in some consulting 15 capacity to FEMA?
16 A (Peterson) That 's what the personnel action will 17 show that the director assi~g ned -- the agency assigned me to, 18 yes.
19 Q And at what time did you start acting in this 20 consulting role?
21 A CPeterson) Late May. Or late March, excuse me.
22 Q Okay. And one of the things I believe you said you 23 were doing during the time you were in this consulting role was 24 attending conferences; is that right?
25 (Peterson) We attended some conferences, yes.
(]) A Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
t 12817
(} KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 1 Q And I think you said yesterday that one of those 2 conferences was a conference in Boulder, Colorado, in the 3 summer of 1987.
4 A CPeterson) That is correct; yes, sir.
5 Q And what was that conference?
6 A (Peterson) That was Natural Technological Hazards.
7 Q And at that confer 3nce did you have occasion to meet 8 Mr. Edward Thomas?
9 A CPeterson) For the first time, yes.
10 Q You had not met him before then, I take it.
11 A (Peterson) I had not met him nor had I spoken to 12 him.
()Ts 13 Q Okay. Did you have a conversation with Mr. Thomas at 14 that time?
15 A (Peterson) I had an introduction to Mr. Thomas at 16 that time.
17 Q Did you say to Mr. Thomas anything about your feeling 18 that it was unfortunate that a nuclear plant here in New 19 Hampshire costing several billion dollars was idle because of 20 emergency planning consideration?
21 A CPeterson) May I put that in a little context?
22 Q Well, what I'd prefer is if you can say if you told 23 him that in substance, and then explain your answer.
24 A (Peterson) No, I did not tell him that in substance.
, (~T 25 I did not recom -- I do not remember anything in our discussion
\J l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
12818 Q KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 1 along those lines.
2 Q Okay.
3 A (Peterson) And I 'd like to put it in context.
4 Q Please do.
.E123 5 (Continued on next page.)
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13
( 14 1
15 16 17 18 _ . .
19 20 l 21 i 22 23' 24 i 25 O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
/
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12819 V;
T/124 1 A Thank you.
2 The conference was over, I had not been introduced 3 nor identified Mr. -Thomas at any time during that convention or 4 that conference. There was a closing picnic, as I understand 5 it, where most of the attendees went up to a person's private 6 ranch at about the 8,000-foot level on the mountains of 7 Boulder, Colorado.
8 I came to that picnic with Mr. Krimm, because Mr.
9 Krimm was very familiar with nest of the people there, and I 10 was interested in trying to put -- to meet some people.
11 We saw -- this is a barbecue, we saw Mr. Thomas. Mr.
12 Krimm identified that Mr. Thomas was standing over there; he 13 was f rom Region 1 Mr. Krimm took me over there, introduced me 14 to Mr. Thomas and said, this is Mr. Thomas. I said. I 'm 15 pleased to meet you, Mr. Thomas. The conversation lasted 16 probably no more than 30 seconds at which time I walked off 17 with another person from one of the other regions that I had 18 seen earlier; and Mr. Krimm talked to Mr. Thomas for 19 approximately, I don 't know, I noticed for a long period of 20 time. But my conversation was very short. It was not much 21 more than an introduction. I do not remember anything along 22 the lines that you have spoken to.
23 Q Well, do you have a memory that you did not make any 24 statements along those lines, are you saying you don 't remember
{} 25 either way?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12820 1 A (Peterson) I do not remember, if you 're saying was 2 the word "Seabrook" or any of the plants mentioned. I do not 3 recollect any discussion of any of the plants. And quite 4 frankly, sir, I probably didn 't even know exact ly where -- what 5 plants were at that point in time.
6 Q Is it your testimony you 'd never heard of Seabrook by 7 that time?
8 A CPeterson) I had heard of Seabrook, but I was 9 working very hard to try to identify where the 10 regions were 10 and who was associated with the regions. And, you know, what 11 was in those regions. I had heard the word "Seabrook" before, 12 you bet; that 's true.
13 Q So, I just want to make sure that I 'm clear on what 14 you 're saying here. You 're saying that to the best -- you 15 don 't recall exactly what you said to Mr. Thomas on that 16 occasion?
17 A CPeterson) I don't recall exactly what I said to Mr.
18 Thomas other'than the introduction, but I do not remember 19 talking about or alluding to any nuclear powerplant facilities 20 in that discussion; and Mr. Krimm was there during that 21 discussion.
22 Q So, does that leave open the possibility in your mind 23 that you may have said something like that and you don't 24 remember it or are you foreclosing that possibility?
() 25 A CPeterson) I do not remember any discussion along Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12821
(])
1 that line that you have alluded to, sir.
2 Q W411, Mr. Krimm, Mr. Peterson says you were there; do 3 you remember that conversation?
4 A (Krimm) I remember introducing Ed Thomas to Mr.
5 Peterson. I do not remember Mr. Peterson say anything more, 6 probably, it 's nice to meet you, some such thing like that, 7 because basically, Ed wanted to have a conversation with me.
8 and I do not recall or remember there was Seabrook -- the name 9 Seabrook even came up in that very brief meeting with Mr.
10 Peterson. ,
11 Q So it 's your testimony that you don 't remember?
12 A CKrimm) I don't remember and I don 't think anything-() 13 was said; that 's the best I can tell you.
14 Q But you 're not sure?
15 A CKrimm) I 'm not sure, no.
16 Q All right. Were you there for the entire 17 conversation?
18 A (Krimm) Yes.
19 Q You say that you went on there afterwards --
20 MR. FLYNN: Excuse me, I think you interrupted Mr.
l 21 Krimm --
22 MR. BACKUS: Oh, I 'm sorry.
23 MR. FLYNN: -- I think he had something more to add.
24 THE WITNESS: (Krimm) No, that 's all right.
25
(])
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12822 1 BY MR. BACKUS:
2 Q You say you then went on te have a conversation with 3 Mr. Thomas yourself?
4 A (Krimm) Yes.
5 Q What was that about?
6 A (Krimm) It was about our working relationship.
7 Q Well, did it involve anything about the FEMA role in 8 reviewing the Seabrook emergency plans, either the New 9 Hampshire or the ones you might be getting from Massachusetts?
10 A CKrimm) I don 't recall that that subj ect came up.
11 We talked for about an hour and a half, and I will have to give 12 you a little history. I hired Ed Thomas in 1974 when we were 13 setting up our -- I was responsible for setting regional 14 offices for the National Flood Insurance Program in the Federal 15 Insurance Administration.
16 Q I 'm sorry, I missed that?
17 A CKrimm) I 'm going to have to give you a whole 18 history in order to answer your question.
19 MR. FLYNN: Excuse me. Your Honor, I 'd like to 20 suggest that this answer is not responsive to the question.
21 The question was, whether the subj ect of Seabrook or the 22 adequacy of the New Hampshire plan came up, and obviously, the 23 answer relates to the discussion about the working relationship 24 to Mr. Thomas. I submit not only is it not responsive to the 25 question, but it 's irrelevant.
(])
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
k r~ 12823 s )
! KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 1 JUDGE SMITH: Do you want to --
~
2 MR. BACKUS: I j ust didn 't hear what the witness 3 said. - There wasn 't a question pending.
4 JUDGE SMITH: Well, he began to talk about his 5 working relationship with Mr. Thomas, and how he hired him 6 under the Flood Insurance Program in the Federal Insurance 7 Agency.
8 MR. BACKUS: Okay.
9 BY MR. BACKUS:
10 Q Is that correct?
11 JUDGE SMITH: And that 's when Mr. Flynn has obj ected 12 now to this being nonresponsive.
O 13 MR. BACKUS: All right. I 'm j ust trying to put it in 14 context. And I. wanted to make sure I -- I thought I heard what 15 you j ust said, i 16 BY MR. BACKUS:
I 17 Q You said, you hired Mr. Thomas in 1974; is that 18 right, Mr. Krimm?
19 MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, if we 're about to get into 20 the history of the relationship between Mr. Krimm and Mr.
j 21 Thomas I suggest that it 's irrelevant and I obj ect.
22 MR. BACKUS: Well, I would respectfully differ, Your 1
23 Honor. We 've had a great deal of testimony yesterday from this 24 panel on the relationship between people here and people in l () 25 Region 1, particularly Mr. Thomas, so I think it 's certainly I Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 l
i.
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12824 ,
1 part of the testimony that has been presented.
2 JUDGE SMITH: The testimony, as I recall, concerning 3 Mr. Thomas was simply his attendance at meetings, and it had 4 nothing to do with his institutional relationship with S headquarters. I don 't know if you 've covered any direct 6 examination, that I recall.
7 MR. BACKUS: Well, I think I am; there was a great 8 deal of testimony, admittedly most of it came from Mr.
9 .McLoughlin that we have a chain of command here about when and 10 under what circumstances Washington, and I guess that primarily 11 Dr. McLoughlin would overrule the Regional RAC Chairman.
12 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. Well, that has little to do with k, -) Unless you believe that that 13 1974 and flood insurance.
14 relationship is relevant to the decision to -- which was 15 testified to yesterday -- to modify FEMA 's position and to have 16 another of ficial present FEMA 's position.
17 MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, may I, your comment is 18 entirely appropriate, but relevant is the term of art. And to l 19 put it in layman 's terms. I think what you 're suggesting is, i 20 the question to be answered is whether that relationship 21 influenced the decision.
22 JUDGE SMITH: That 's right. If it --
23 MR. FLYNN: Well, I want the witness to understand l 24 that.
25 MR. BACKUS: Now --
(])
l l Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12825 1 JUDGE SMITH: I don 't sey influence. I mean, let 2 relevant be there. That 's a term that I 'm sure that Mr. Krimm 3 understands.
4 MR. BACKUS: Your Honor, this all came up because Mr.
5 Krimm says he was there at the time of this conference in 6 Colorado, he spoke, and he himself wanted to explain something 7 about going back to 1974 and hiring Mr. Thomas. I 'm j ust 8 trying to give him an opportunity to explain that.
9 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor --
10 JUDGE SMITH: We also want Mr. Krimm to understand, 11 and the panel to understand that we are interested in only 12 matters relevant to the issues before us; und i f i t 's no t ,
13 well, he knows whether it 's relevant or not and I think he has 14 all the instructions he needs.
15 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, could I point out, unless I 16 missed something, the witness testified in response to the 17 question before the one that 's befcre him now, that the i
i 18 conversation he had with Mr. Thomas did not mention Seabrook or l 19 anything, but dealt with his business relationship, as I l
20 understood it, with Mr. Thomas.
l
- 21 Now, right there I think even asking him, well, what l 22 was said, is no good without a further foundation as to how l
l 23 that relationship has something to do with Seabrook.
l 24 JUDGE SMITH: Or Mr. Thomas.
25 MR. DIGNAN: Or Mr. Thomas. And I don 't see why tne
({}
Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 I
i .
l KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12826
({) .
1 relationships between government officials, unless they 're i 2 demonstrated to be with preliminary questions to be totally 3 relevant to the subj ect at hand, has any place in this 4 courtroom.
l 5 JUDGE SMITH: I might also point out that there .is a 6 Privacy Act privilege to federal employees concerning their 7 personnel records which is for the benefit of the employee and
{ 8 not for the government, that privilege like any privilege can i 9 be set aside when it is necessary to a decision. So we just i
10 don 't go lightly into Mr. Thomas 's personnel background unless, 11 and I 'm sure Mr. Krimm understands now and the panel 12 understands, unless it is relevant to Mr. Thomas 's role and the 13 issues about which you are testifying. I think that 's enough 14 guidance for them.
15 MR. FLYNN: Perhaps you could answer that particular 16 question before you go on.
17 MR. BACKUS: Oh, for heavens sake, can 't I ask my own 18 questions?
19 JUDGE SMITH: Well, it --
20 MR. FLYNN: What 's the pending question?
21 MR. BACKUS: The pending question is a very simple 22 one and it came up on testimony that 's already been delivered.
23 I was j ust asking Mr. Krimm if in fact he was testifying that 24 it was through him that Mr. Thomas was hired. I gather in 1974.
25 (2)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
6
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12827 1 BY MR. BACKUS:
2 Q Is that correct?
3 A CKrimm) That 's correct.
4 Q Okay. Now, we have here as Mass. AG 3d this flow 5 chart for the state and local programs and support directorate.
6 And you, Mr. Krimm are on here as the Assistant Associate 7 Director of the Office of Natural ar.d Technological Hazards 8 Programs; is that correct?
9 A (Krimm) That 's correct. Yes, sir.
10 Q How long have you held that position?
11 A CKrimm) Since September 1981.
12 Q Okay. Now, what is your role in relating to the O' 13 regions?
14 A CKrimm) In each regional office there is a Natural 15 and Technological Hazards Division. The head of that division 16 would be equivalent to my counterpart in the region.
17 Q Okay.
18 A CKrimm) And we deal with them on all of the 19 programs. In most cases, if I would deal with the chief of 20 that division, when I would call.
21 Q And in the case of --
22 A CKrimm) And also members of my staff who deal with 23 the division chief or staf f members, depending on the 24 situation.
() 25 Q So -- and in Region 1 that person who is the chief of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
() KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12828 1 that division for Region 1 is Mr. Edward A. Thomas; is that 2 correct?
3 A CKrimm) That 's correct, yes.
4 Q And how long has he had that position?
6 A (Krimm) I believe also since September 1981. I 6 think that -- and I 'd ask Mr. McLoughlin -- Dr. McLoughlin to 7 correct it, but I think the region -- regional offices were set 8 up in that same format about that time.
9 Q Okay.
10 A CPeterson) Would it be appropriate if I could have a 11 moment to confer with Mr. Krimm?
12 JUDGE SMITH: Do you obj ect?
13 MR. BACKUS: No.
14 THE WITNESS: (Peterson) Thank you very much.
15 (Witnesses conferring) 16 BY MR. BACKUS:
17 Q Is there something you want to add as a result of 18 your conference with Mr. Peterson?
19 A CKrimm) Yes, perhaps j ust to clear up. I said that 20 Mr. Thomas or any of the NTH chiefs in the region are my 21 counterpart; they 're not equal in position and grade, just to 22 make that very clear.
23 Q Okay. So the position in Washington outranks, in 24 civil service parlance the regional positions?
() 25 A CKrimm) Yes, that 's correct. And also, in my Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l 1
12829
(') KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 1 position I.do recommend policy.
- 2. Q Okay. Now, the Radiological Emergency Preparedness 3 Program or REP program comes within your office; is that'right?
(Krimm) 4 A That 's correct.
5 Q And insofar as the regions, Technological and Hazards 6 Divisions are dealing 1ith that program, the reporting is to 7 you; is that right?
8 A (Krimm) No. The regions report to the regional 9 director.
10 Q All right.
11 A CKrimm) The regional director in turn reports to the 12 director of the agency.
O
\- Okay. What then is the reporting relationship 13 Q 14 between Mr. Thomas, as head of that division in the region, and 15 you, as head of that office in Washington?
16 A CKrimm) There is no reporting authority.
17 Q Was there frequent discussions between you and Mr.
18 Thomas concerning radiological emergency planning for Seabrook 19 starting in 1981 or 1982?
20 A CKrimm) There were periodic discussions. He also 21 talked to members of my staff. And basically, there is a l
l 22 division chief, and he would have talked to the division chief 1
23 more frequently than he talked to me in that regard.
24 Q And that would be?
25 CKrimm) Okay. From -- in 1981 the division chief
(]) A Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
a KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12830 1 was Vernon Adler, and I believe he was division chief to some 2 time in 1982. After that Gary Johnson served in an acting 3 capacity. And in late 1983 or early -- I 'm sorry, it was early 4_ 1984, approximately March of 1984 Robert Wilkerson was 5 appointed to that position. He was the division, chief until 6 June 30th of 1987. From July of 1987 until December 21st, 1987 7 I was acting division chief. From Decamber 21st, 1987 until 8 some time in April of 1988 Dr. Joan Hock was the division 9 chief. At the current time I am acting division chief as well 10 as the associate director for the office.
11 Q So from July 1 of '87 you were the acting division 12 chief?
13 A (Krimm) Until December 21st, 1987.
14 Q And during that period would you be the person that 15 Mr. Thomas would primarily report to about REP matters 16 concerning Region 1?
17 A CKrimm) Not necessarily. He would talk to me about; 18 it if I was unavailable he would sometimes talk to members of 19 my staff.
20 Q Okay. Now, in turn, when you need to report on 21 what 's going on at the Office of Natural and Technological 22 Hazards programs, who do you report to?
23 A (Krimm) I report to Mr. Peterson directly. At times l
24 I will inform Mr. McLoughlin if Mr. Peterson is not available.
() 25 Q And I assume that during the time, before Mr.
l l
! Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 l
() l'.R I MM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12831 1 Peterson was confirmed and sworn in, and Mr. McLoughlin was the 2 acting --
3 A (Krimm) I reported to --
4 Q -- director, you reported to him?
5 A CKrimm) That 's correct.
6 Q All right.
7 Now, Mr. McLoughlin, let me turn to you and your 8 testimony concerning the meeting on June 2 of 1987. Do you 9- recall describing a meeting at FEMA on that date?
10 A (McLoughlin) I do.
11 Q And thet was in Washington FEMA headquarters? ,
12 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
() 13 Q And who was prens.it at that meeting?
14 A (McLoughlin) Let me see if I can tell you exactly ;
15 what I said yesterday. Bo'o Wilkerson, Craig Wingo, Dick Krimm, 16 Ed Thomas, myself, and I indicated yesterday I was not certain 17 whether or not Bill Cumming was at that meeting of our legal 18 staff. I simply failed to check-that with him; didn 't have an 19 opportunity when it occurred to me.
20 Q All right. Now, you said yesterday at the transcript 21 page 12673: "That at that meeting there was some discussion of 22 alternatives to resolve the beach issue at Seabrook;" is that 23 right?
24 A (McLoughlin) There -- I think I testified, I 'd have
() 25 to check the record, that I was aware of those, and that they Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4868
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12832 i) 1 also, as far as I can recall, were discussed at that meeting; 2 yes.
3 Q You mentioned on that page of the transcript 4 something about additional shelters being built, and you even
,5 mentioned skating rin<s?
6 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
7 MR. FLYNN: Excuse me, what line are we on?
8 MR. BACKUS: That 's nine.
9 MR. FLYNN: Thank you.
10 MR. TURK: May I ask for one clarification. This is 11 the internal FEMA meeting on June 2?
12 MR. BACKUS: That's right.
l 13 BY MR. BACKUS:
14 Q Who, I take it these were to be enclosed skating 15 rinks ?
16 A (McLoughlin) Mr. Backus. I'm not sure, to be honest 17 about it. And certainly the option of shelter, additional 18 shelter was discussed at that meeting. The question -- the 19 only question I had in my mind is whether or not in that l 20 meeting we talked about them as potentially ice skating rinks.
l 21 But I certainly had heard, and was aware of that being an issue 22 that was discussed.
l l
- 23 Q In other words --
i l 24 A (McLou?,hl in) I don't know whether it was seriously
() 25 considered or not.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4688 ..
~
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12833 1 Q In other words, somebody brought up the issue of 2 constructing additional facilities of some kind to provide 3 shelter?
4 A (McLoughlin) We discussed a series of options, and 5 as far as I can recall the sheltering -- additional sheltering 6 was considered to be an option; yes.
7 Q And who brought that up?
8 A (McLoughlin) I don 't know. I simply don 't know.
9 Q Do you have any recollection of whether anybody said, 10 this has been discussed by the Applicant or was this just 11 something that came up out of FEMA 's head or somebody at FEMA 's 12 head?
13 A (McLoughlin) Mr. Backus. I'd tell you if I 14 remembered it, but I don 't.
15 Q You also mentioned at that same page, you said:
1G "There were issues of alternate evacuation routes that were 17 considered."
18 A (McLoughlin) Yes.
19 Q Now, what 's that mean, building new roads?
20 A (McLoughlin) The -- boy, stretch a long ways back, l
21 where a year ago, certainly no notes -- I made no notes in that 22 meeting. To the best of my recollection we talked about those
(
1 23 as options. I don't recall any in-depth exploration of 24 alternative evacuation routes. I clearly said that yesterday
() 25 and I acknowledge that. And it was -- and I do remember it as l
Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888
? - . -- - ., ,. _ _ . .
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12834 1 part of that meeting. But if you mean by that, did we consider 2 Route A versus Route B. I don 't recall any discussions of that 3 kind.
4 Q Well, do you recall any discussions about whether 5 this meant additional routes rather than merely preferring 6 Route A or Route B?
7 A (McLoughlin) No, I don 't.
8 Q Okay. You went on to say: "And I may be in error on 9 this, I may, and I acknowledge that up front, but my celief is 10 that I also had heard that the state might litigate the special 11 containment features at Seabrook even if the NRC decided not to 12 do that."
O 13 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
14 Q Do you recall making that statement yesterday?
15 A (McLoughlin) Yes, I said that.
16 Q Now --
17 A (McLoughlin) Its --
18 Q --
back there on June 2 you had said that you were 19 aware by that time that the Bores 1 memorandum that we 've all 20 come to know and love, was going to be revised to remove 21 references of the containment features at Seabrook; is that 22 right?
23 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
24 MR. FLYNN: Let the record reflect that Mr. Backus
() 25 does not speak for everyone in saying that we love Bores 1.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
. (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12835 1 that 's an editorial comment.
2 MR. BACKUS: Well, let the record show I was smiling 3 when I said that.
4 MR. FLYNN: Thank you.
5 MR. BACKUS: It was a jest.
6 MR. DIGNAN: I liked it.
7 (Laughter) 8 BY MR. BACKUS:
9 Q So, everybody at the meeting ur.-Jerstood that the 10 containment references in Dr. Bores 's memo that had gone to the 11 RAC earlier that year was going to be revised and containment t
12 features were going to be eliminated; is that right?
O 13 A (McLoughlin) That the containment features were 14 eliminated from the memo, yes, i
l 15 Q Right?
16 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
17 Q Okay. And you think you heard that somebody at the 18 state might litigate the special containment features at 19 Seabrook even if NRC decided not to do that?
20 A (McLoughlin) I said that, and I stand by that. I l
21 clearly acknowledged yesterday that I don 't recall exactly how 22 I knew that, but if I'm going to tell you what I knew, that 's 23 exactly right.
24 Q Well, do you recall who said anything about the state
() 25 maybe litigating that issue?
l l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628'-4888
f, 12836 O- KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS l' A (McLoughlin) No, I do not. .
et/124 2 (Continued on next page,)
3 4
A 5
6 7
8 9
10 i
11 12 0 13 14 I
l 15 16 i
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 O 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12837
([)
T125 1 And in f act, to be honest about it, if I 'm going to 2 be candid with you, I don 't know for sure if I got it in that 3 meeting or whether or not I got it from other discussions that 4 were prior to that meeting. It 's not as if, you know, you come 5 by information and recall it specifically in that meeting.
6 I come by a lot of information in the course of ,
7 discussions with a lot of people. And I suspect -- I wish I 8 knew because I'd like to give you a direct answer, but I simply 9 don 't.
10 Q Well, were you aware by that time of the fact that 11 there had been a petition filed by the Seabrook Applicants to 12 reduce the emergency planning zone at Seabrook from 10 miles to 13 one mile?
14 A (McLoughlin) When you -- what I don 't want to do is 15 get caught up in the fact of precisely what I knew whether or 16 not it was an Applicants 's -- you know, the Applicant had made.
17 Q Right.
1P A (McLoughlin) But I was aware of an issue that dealt 19 with the reduction of the emergency planning zone from 10 20 miles. I thought it was down to two miles, but it may have been 21 one mile.
22 Q All right. Were you aware that by April, the end of 23 April, this Board had issued a decision which, in substance, 24 denied the request? Were you aware of that?
() 25 MR. FLYNN: In June?
Heritage Reporting Corporation 1 (202) 628-4888
') '
i) KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12838 1 MR. BACKUS: In June, 2 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) In June. I j ust don 't 3 know.
4 BY MR. BACKUS:
5 Q Okay. And tnen can you relate in any way this memory 6 you have about the state litigating containment to that issue 7 of the shrinking of the emergency zone and the decision of this 8 Board on that?
9 A (McLoughlin) Well, no. You know, the only thing I 10 could do is to begin to speculate. Your question goes to what 11 consciously I remember right now about that issue. I simply 12 have to tell you directly that I don't recall that much about O 13 it.
14 But I certainly indicated yesterday that I was not 15 unaware of that, and I 've got a couple of things in my mind 16 right now, but if I say them, my guess is they are speculation, 17 and I want to clearly label them if you ask me to do it.
18 because I -- I have a sensing of why that would have happened, 19 and I think that is part of the specula -- how I deal with it 20 from a speculation standpoint.
21 But in specific terms, the answer to that is, no, I i
22 don 't know.
23 Q Okay. Well, if you was to have a sense of why that 24 would have happened, understanding that this is a long time ago
() 25 and memories are less than perfect with the passage of time.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
+
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12839 1 would you give us that?
2 MR. DIGNAN: I obj ect. The witness has already 3 labeled that what he 's about to give us is pure speculation.
4 And at that point, I obj ect.
5 JUDGE SMITH: We --
6 MR. BACKUS: I think --
7 JUDGE SMITH: -- have to accept only reliable, 8 probative, and substantial evidence. And the obj ection is 9 sustained.
10 MR. BACKUS: All right.
11 BY MR. BACKUS:
i - 12 Q Mr. Krimm, I understand that you were at this meeting 9 13 on June 2nd.
14 A CKrimm) Yes, sir.
15 Q Do you have any recollection of anybody at this 16 meeting making any mentioned about the state litigating L 17 Seabrook containment features?
18 A CKrimm) I 'm sorry, I don 't.
19 Q Do you have any notes of that meeting?
i l 20 A (Krimm) Regretfully I don 't.
21 Q Okay. Do you know of anybody who does have notes of 22 that meeting?
i 23 A CKrimm) I don 't, no.
24 MR. BACKUS: All right. Just a second.
- () 25 THE WITNESS
- (Krimm) Your Honor, excuse me, would 1
Heritage Reporting Corporation
- (202) 628-4888 l
l
n 12840 KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS
()
1 it be --
2 JUDGE SMITH: Wait until they get done.
3 (Counsel confer.)
4 JUDGE SMITH: All right, wait a minute.
5 Mr. Krimm.
6 THE WITNESS: CKrimm) Would it be possible to take a 7 short break?
8 JUDGE SMITH: Certainly. Let 's take a -- well, would 9 this be a good time to break for luncri or not?
10 MR. BACKUS: Sure.
11 JUDGE SMITH: Well, let 's take a short break and --
12 well, since we 're broke we might as well break for lunch and 13 come back -- return at 12:30.
14 MR. BACKUS: Twelve-thirty?
15 JUDGE SMITH: Is that satisfactory? That 's short, 16 but is that satisfactory?
17 MR. BACKUS: Yes, 's u r e , fine.
18 CWhereupon, at 11: 44 o ' clock a. m. , the hearing was 19 recessed, to resume at 12:30 p.m., this same day. Thursday, May 20 26, 1988.)
21 22 23 24
() 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
(') KRIMM. PETERSON,. MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12841 T126 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 (12:32 p.m.)
3 JUDGE SMITH: Before we begin, there is two items 4 that should be stated on the record.
5 One is, we had forgotten to mention that on Monday 6 afternoon we drove over to the beach area, and drove around in 7 a very unstructured, wandering way j ust simply looking, mindful 8 of Mr. Backus 's request that we do that. The fact that it was 9 a beautiful upring day had absolutely nothing to do with it.
10 Claughter.)
11 JUDGE SMITH: But it took away some of the burden of 12 the duty, however, and that we report.
O 13 We also have not put on the record that we started 14 late this morning, at 10:30, to provide additional time for 15 preparation of the cross-examination. And the Board has 16 instructed the parties that his phase of the hearing must be 17 concluded by 3:30 Friday afternoon, tomorrow afternoon, May 18 27th.
19 MR. TURK: Your Honor, in that regard. I 'd j ust like 20 to note that I probably will have a few questions totalling --
21 JUDGE SMITH: That 's correct, and we have to provide 22 for some additional questioning, and possible redirect. So the 23 allocation of time will have to be taken into account and we 'll 24 remain until we see what the needs are.
() 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
/^)N
(_ KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12842 1 Whereupon, a
2 RICHARD KRIMM 3 GRANT PETERSON 4 DAVID MCLOUGHLIN 5 having been previously duly sworn, were recalled as witnesses 6 herein, and were examined and testified further as follows:
7 CROSS-EXAMINATION CContinued) 8 BY MR. BACKUS:
9 Q All right, Mr. Peterson. I have one further question 10 that came up on the resume of your background that is in the 11 FEMA Newsletter which was marked as a Mass. Exhibit 33 12 It states there that you had served in the Air Force O 13 from 1961 to 1966. And what was your rank, sir?
14 A CPeterson) I was an enlisted man, and I came out a 15 top sergeant.
16 Q All right. And it says your duties were special 17 weapon system monitor. What did that entail?
18 A (Peterson) I will tell you as much as I think I can 19 tell you without getting into classified arenas. I worked on 20 and with nuclear weapons. It was part of the NATO response 21 where the United States was providing weapons systems to NATO 22 military aircraft.
23 The duties entailed maintenance of the weapon 24 systems, maintenance of what are called fire control systems,
() 25 which are the aircraft electronics for weapon-associated Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12843 1 equipment. It included -- these were fusion type of weapons.
2 It included the handling of radioactive materials associated 3 with the weapon, including capsule insertions, which I did, and 4 included training the British, or the NATO personnel in proper 5 handling techniques for mating to aircraft.
6 Q Okay. So it had something to do with the assembly 7 and preparation of weapons, including nuclear weapons, for 8 association with delivery systems?
9 A CPeterson) Strictly nuclear weapons.
10 Q All right.
11 A (Krimm) And the fusing of those.
l l 12 Q All right. Now, Mr. McLoughlin, you 've been O 13 testifying about the meeting of June 2nd that you discussed 14 yesterday. And at that meeting was Mr. Thomas present?
15 A (McLoughlin) Yes, he was.
16 Q All right. Was there another meeting on June 2nd, 17 Mr. McLoughlin, that you 're aware of involving personnel from 18 NRC?
19 A (McLoughlin) Not that I was in. Dick Krimm may be 20 able to answer that question if there was another meeting. But 21 I was not in, as I recall, another meeting on June 2nd with any l
l 22 NRC people.
23 Q Mr. Krimm, was there a meeting on June 2nd involving 24 personnel from NRC?
() 25 A (Krimm) Yes, there was.
Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 l
t
() KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12844 1 Q And was Mr. Thomas also at that meeting?
2 A f.K r imm) I believe he was.
3 Q And were you at that meeting? {
4 A CKrimm) Yes.
0 Q And at that meeting did you discuss the fact that 6 FEMA 's position as it was intended to be filed to meet the 7 deadline on June 4th was going to be affected by the 8 anticipated change in the Bores memorandum?
9 A (Krimm) I believe that was discussed at that 10 meeting.
11 Q And was the NRC people that were in attendance at 12 that meeting advised of what the FEMA position was going to be 13 or probably going to be when'it was filed on June 4th?
14 A (Krimm) Yes, to the best of my recollection.
15 Q All right. Now, Mr. McLoughlin, at the meeting on 16 June 2nd. I think you said you were uncertain whether Mr.
l 17 William Cumming, one of your attorneys, was there or not; is 18 that right?
19 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
20 Q Okay. In any event, you apparently had some 21 understanding that he had some legal opinions about the FEMA l
22 position that you were anticipating taking on June 4th; is that I
23 right?
l 24 A (McLoughlin) Yes, the.t 's correct.
() 25 Q And you said yer.erday that you thought the l
Heritage Reportir.g Corporation l (202) 628-4888
n 12845 KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS
(_f 1 programmatic thrust was the proper way to go in regard to your 2 position.
3 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
4 Q The FEMA position.
5 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
6 Q Okay. And by that do you mean to indicate, sir, that 7 as far as you were concerned that beyond the legal issues that 8 Mr. Cumming was presenting to you, you felt that you had a 9 program responsibility associated with the protection of the 10 citizens in the Seabrook area, particularly on the beaches?
l l
11 A (McLoughlin) Yes.
12 Q All right. So you had a concern about taking an O 13 appropriate position that went beyond the legal concerns that 14 Mr. Cumming was discussing?
15 MR. FLYNN: Excuse me. I 'm not sure I heard the 16 question correct. You said it went beyond legal concerns?
17 MR. BACKUS: Right, right.
18 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) I don 't want to give the 19 impression that the legal issues were not consistently in my 20 mind and being sure that whatever we did was legally 21 defendable, supportable.
22 But it is also true, as you 're implying, that my 23 belief was and still is, for that matter, that if we can deal 24 with the substantive issues that are involved with it, that we
() 25 ought to try to do that. After all, we are in the business of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i)
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12846 i trying to provide advisory, consultive role to the NRC on the 2 adequacy of offsite preparedness, and that 's what was -- that 's 3 our mission and that 's what I was trying to accomplish.
4 BY MR. BACKUS:
5 Q All right. Now you 've made it very clear that in 6 regard to the filing of the FEMA response to contentions and 7 statement of positions on June 4th, that was done with your 8 concurrence; is that right?
9 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
10 Q And at that time you were the acting directot of the 11 state and local program and support directorate.
12 -A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
O 13 Q Okay. And you had the authority at that time to 14 finally sign off, if you will, on what the FEMA position would 15 be; is that correct?
16 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
17 Q Now, you testified that the next day, June 5th, you 18 got a call f rom Governor Sununu.
19 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
20 Q Was this the first time Governor Sununu had called 21 you in connection with FEMA 's activities in regard to Seabrook?
22 A (McLoughlin) It 's the first time that I can recall l
23 that he called me in the capacity. It is not the first time 24 that I talked to him on the phone. He had called earlier, i
() 25 several months earlier to talk to Sam Speck, who was -- who was Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12847 1 the associate director at that time. And since Mr. Speck was 2 not in, I did take the call in that case.
3 Q Okay. And was that generally in regard to the issue.
4 of when the exercise that was eventually held in February of 5 '86 would be held, or was that in regard to something else?
6 A (McLoughlin) Boy, that 's a couple of years ago. It 7 certainly was about Seabrook; that I know and that I would 8 acknowledge.
9 The specifica of whether or not it was about the 10 exercise per se, I j ust don 't know.
11 Q Okay.
12 A CMcLoughlin) I j ust don 't know.
O 13 Q Do you remember on -- so you 've talked to him twice, 14 up at least to June 5th.
15 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
16 Q Do you remember anything about what he said on the 17 first occasion he called?
18 A (McLoughlin) Well, he was -- the Governor was 19 concerned about the fact that -- that we keep him -- that he 20 wanted to be sure that he was aware of where we stood at any 21 point in time with respect to the actions we were taking and 22 the comments that we were making on the plans that he 23 submitted.
24 And he did indeed have some concerns. I think, about
() 25 the way in which our processes were operating. And we talked Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12848 1 about those. From my perspective, they were entirely 2 appropriate questions that he was asking. That 's about -- Mr.
3 Backus, that 's about all I can remember of it.
4 Q Okay. Now, under your regulations as I understand 5 it, Mr. McLoughlin, when a state submits a radiological 6 emergency plan to FEMA for review, it is required to have a 7 certification from the governor or his representative that 8 those plans in the state 's opinion provide reasonable assurance 9 of adequate protection; is that right?
10 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
11 Q And, of course, Governor Sununu or his designee had 12 done that in regard to the plans that were the subj ect of the l
O 13 exercise, and the plan:s that have become known here as Revision 14 2 correct?
15 A (McLoughlin) Well, I tell you, I can 't -- I don 't j
16 know that I have ever specifically asked that question. That 's l
17 a question that is generally handled in our regional office.
18 If you 're asking me do I have specific knowledge of 19 the Governor having signed off on a set of plans, Mr. Backus. I 20 do not have.
21 My belief is that if there was anything improper with 22 respect to what we were doing at that point, that that would 23 have been called to my attention, and it 's j ust not something I 24 would normally have checked on, because it 's a procedural
() 25 matter and --
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12849 1 Q All right.
2 A (McLoughlin) Yes.
3 Q So, although you have no personal knowledge of this.
4 in compliance with the regulations you would expect that that 5 would have been done in regard to the submission of the New 6 Hampshire plans?
7 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
8 Q All right. Now on the June 5th occasion the call 9 came to you?
10 A (McLoughlin) Yes, the call was to me.
11 Q And --
12 A (McLoughlin) The call, I don 't think, came O 13 personally to me. The call was to essentially the associate 14 director of state and local program support office, and I was 15 the acting one. The secretary referred it to me.
16 Q And what did the Governor say to you?
17 A (Mc!.oughlin) He was -- he had just found out about 18 our filing on June 4th, and he was upset that -- concerned --
19 upset 's probably -- let me just use the word "concerned" if I 20 can. He was concerned that the -- that he had found out about 21 it through the press, and he felt that that was inconsistent 22 with his request to us to know kind of where we stand relative 23 to the New Hampshire pian.
24 Q Did he say anything about these are very good plans.
() 25 or these plans have been worked on a long time, or anything Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4808
fs '
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12850
(_)
i like that?
2 A (McLoughlin) I simply don 't remember.
3 Q All right. In any event, I take it that as a result 4 of his call on June 5th, you felt it was appropriate to have a 5 letter written responding to -- as a response to that call.
6 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
7 Q And am I correct that that letter, as it eventually 8 went out, was this letter of June 11th, signed by Mr. Thomas, 9 to Mr. Richard Strome, Director of New Hampshire Civil Defense 10 Agency?
11 A (McLoughlin) That is correct.
12 MR. BACKUS: Okay, I 'd like to have that made 13 available and marked.
14 Just for the record, this is already a part of Staff 15 Exhibits 2 and 2-A as one of the attachments to that material 16 that was furnished by the NRC Staff.
17 At this time I would like to have it separately 18 marked?
19 JUDGE SMITH: Why? I mean, can 't you use it the way 20 it is?
21 MR. BACKUS: Well, all right. I guess I can.
22 JUDGE SMITH: I think that would be better.
23 JUDGE HARBOUR: Is that global Page 70?
24 MR. BACKUS: I don 't have that pagination in f ront of
() 25 me.
Heritage Reporting Corporation C202) 628-4888
KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12851
({)
1 MR. HUNTINGTON: Yes, it is. .
2 MR. BACKUS: All right, thank you.
3 BY MR. BACKUS:
4 Q Now, Mr. McLoughlin, did you participate in the 5 drafting of this letter?
6 A (McLoughlin) No, I did not. I was -- as I recall, I 7 was about ready to leave for, it was either travel or a 8 classified assignment that I have. I 'm not sure exactly what, 9 but I was leaving the office, and I asked Mr. Wilkerson, in 10 particular, who was -- who works for Mr. Krimm, to be sure --
11 to begin the development of that letter, which did indeed l 12 happen.
13 Q So this letter had its genesis in Washington, in the 14 Washington headquarters?
15 A (McLoughlin) The -- we generally, as I recall, 16 drafted the letter, and Ed Thomas, who ultimately signed it, Ed 17 was out at a conference on the West Coast, and we -- or else 18 was on annual leave maybe on the West Coast -- and we tracked 19 Ed down, to be honest about it, got in touch with him, and I 20 believe sent the letter to him, or had it datafaxed to our f
l 21 regional office, I'm not exactly sure how we got it to him, so 22 that he would have an opportunity to review it as it was 23 prepared.
24 My view is it 's entirely appropriate. I was the one
() 25 who committed to the Governor to respond to this, and we would Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l _.
I) KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12852 v
1 have normally asked Ed Thomas to send this, or Henry Vickers.
2 I would not have cared who signed that. Normally it should 3 have gone, though, from our regional of fice to the state.
4 Q And so even though it started in Washington, that 's 5 the reason it was sent out over Mr. Thomas 's signature?
6 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
7 Q Okay. Did this letter as it went out --
8 A (McLoughlin) Excuse me, Mr. Backus.
9 I j ust -- I had asked Mr. Krimm that if anything I 10 have said is different from his recollection, to correct me on 11 that.
12 Is our recollection same as mine?
O 13 Q Well, I 'm gong to come back to --
14 A (McLoughlin) All right, very good.
15 Q -- Mr. Krimm on this anyhow.
16 A (McLoughlin) Very good. Okay.
17 Q Did this letter, as it went out over Mr. Thomas 's 18 signature, have your approval?
19 A (McLoughlin) No. I did not -- as I recall. I did 20 not see that letter before it went out. And the reason is I '
21 knew I wasn't going to be able to see it when I left. That is 22 why I set in process a -- set in motion a process that was 23 going to assure that the letter did get to the Governor. I did 24 not consider this letter, you know, a terribly sensitive
() 25 letter. What I committed to the Governor was that we would Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ;
() KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12853 1 send to him our position at the time, and that 's what I think 2 we accomplished.
3 Q Okay. You have since seen this letter, I take it.
4 A (McLoughlin) Yes, I have.
5 Q And is there anything about this letter that would 6 have prevented you f rom approving it since you 've seen it?
7 WR. FLYNN: I would ask that the witness read the 8 letter, and take as much time as necessary to satisfy himself 9 of the correctness of his answer.
10 (Pause.)
11 MR. BACKUS: While Mr. McLoughlin is reading this, I 12 could go on with some questions about this to Mr. Krimm if O 13 nobody obj ects just to perhaps save a little time.
14 MR. FLYNN: I would not --
15 JUDGE SMITH: Unless Mr. McLoughlin is already quite I 16 familiar with this letter, there are a lot of things in it that 17 I wonder if it 's f air to ask him to see if he agrees with all 18 aspects of it with j ust a brief reading. I t 's --
19 MR. BACKUS: Well, all right. Let me go on to Mr.
20 Krimm then.
21 MR. TURK: Well, could I suggest, since Dr.
- 22 McLoughlin tssy want to listen to Mr. Krimm's answers as well, 23 you simply lay this aside until tomorrow morning, let him 24 review it overnight. It is a four-page letter. It is single-i
() 25 spaced and has been the subj ect of extensive hearings already.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i:
t KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12854
( Ji
-1 JUl?GE SMITH: It 's a thought-intensive letter.
2 There 's a lot of ideas in it, and they are not simple ideas.
3 And I don 't think it 's f air to ask him --
4 MR. BACKUS: Well, I think it is fair to ask him.
5 Your Honor. ,
6 JUDGE SMITH: Well, okay, i t 's -- -
7 MR. BACKUS: He 's testified that this was generated 8 in Washington.
9 JUDGE SMITH: There 's a tie on it.
10 MR. BACKUS: I think he 's indicated he has a pretty i
11 good f amiliarity with the subj ect of it.
12 JUDGE SMITH: Let 's put it te him. i
() 13 Do you feel comfortable in answering that question?
i 14 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) Your Honor, I do not. I -
15 have some concerns and would want to think a minute about an 16 issue on the bottom of the first page where we talk about being 17 unique to Seabrook. I need to think about that for a minute :
18 because of some testimony I have made.
19 There is an area on the top of the second page that I 20 want to relook at once again, and an area in the second page i
21 that I have marked, and that 's as f ar as I hud gotten at the 22 moment before I -- and I haven 't read beyond that.
23 JUDGE SMITH: All right. ;
24 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) I 'm prepared to ao it at
() 2S your -- l I
i
[
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
__ __ - - . _ _ _ __- -..d
l l
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12855
({)
1 JUDGE SMITH: All ci t t. I think the suggestion that 2 we come back to it tomorrow is ar 7riate.
3 MR. BACKUS: Well, of -
se, I can 't come back 4 tomorrow morning, but perhaps somebody else can pick it up.
5 All right, let me go on to Mr. Krimm then.
6 BY MR. BACKUS:
7 Q Mr. Krimm, this letter of June lith, were you 8 involved in the preparation of this letter or any drafts that 9 preceded it?
10 A CKrimm) Yes.
11 Q Who else in Washington was invo.ved in the 12 preparation of this letter?
~
13 A (Krimm) Robert Wilkerson.
14 Q Okay. Were there drafts of this letter that preceded 15 the final product as sent out by Mr. Thomas on June lith? {
16 A CKrimm) To the best of my knowledge, there were 17 because I worked very closely with Ed Thomas on the letter, and 18 we faxed copies back and forth. He was in Seattle, Washington 19 at the time attending a flood plain managers conference.
20 Q And as this letter went out, having in mind that you, 21 as you said, had faxed copies back and forth, did this letter 22 go out with your approval?
23 A (Krimm) The final draft?
24 Q Yes. f
() 25 A CKrimm) I mean the final copy?
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- . ~ ~ _ -.. .. . . _ _ _
1
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12856 1 Q Yes, the one we've got.
2 A CKrimm) Yes.
3 Q Okay.
4 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Backus, I 'm sorry. I was thinking 5 about your problem.
6- .You "e asked him to express an opinion about an 7 entire large document. You have an alternative. If you have 8 something in mind, you can direct his attention to particular 9 parts of it, and then take care of it while you 're still here 10 if you have something in mind.
11 MR. BACKUS: Well, we may come back and --
f, 12 JUDGE SMITH: It 's your choice. But just '.] ask him
(/
13 to agree or disagree with an entire large document, or 14 unattested document like that is not right. But I just want-to 15 point out to you that you can come back to it.
16 BY MR. BACKUS:
17 Q And was this letter --
18 A (McLoughlin) What is the direction to me? Am I to 19 read this tonight and to --
! 20 JUDGE SMITH: The way it stands now, unless Mr.
21 Backus revisits it, you should be prepared tomorrow morning
! 22 when you return to indicate whether you agree or disagree with 23 the letter, and why.
24 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) Very good.
() 25 l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
/'^\
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12857
(_)
1 BY MR. BACKUS:
2 Q Mr. Krimm, at the time you approved this letter in 3 its final draft, you were holding the same position you do now, 4 I take it; is that correct?
5 A (Krimm) Yes.
6 Q And so was there any higher level approvals of this 7 letter than your own?
8 A (Krimm) No.
9 Q And did you feel then and now that you were 10 authorized to approve this letter in the form in which it went
( 11 out under Mr. Thomas 's signature?
12 A CKrimm) Yes.
O 13 Q Okay. Now, the version that you have in front of l 14 you --
15 A CKrimm) I don 't have a copy. I 'm sorry.
! 16 Q Okay, I?t 's get you one.
17 If I 'm correct, that is a clean copy; is that so, Mr.
18 Krimm? There 's no marginal notations or anything?
19 A CKrimm) The letter is dated June lith. From what I 20 see, it 's a clean copy, yes.
21 Q All right.
22 A CKrimm) Except for a little note at the top that 23 says Thomas Exhibit B, 3/24/88.
24 Q Okay. All right, now, I 'm going to show you
() 25 another copy of that letter which is a part of NRC Staff Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
c
((,3) KRIMM, PETERSON, MCl.OUGHLIN - CROSC 12858 1 Exhibit 2 and 2-A, and in 2-A it's at global Pages 70 and 71.
2 Page global 71 or page 2 of the letter, there is a 3 sentence about midway down in the paragraph --
4 A CKrimm) I 'm sorry. What page. Mr. Backus?
5 Q Page 2 of the letter. The sentence about midway down 6 in the first paragraph which says, "The availability of shelter 7 as an option in the more fast-areaking scenarios is considered 8 to mitigate the need for some hard time objective for 9 evacuation."
10 And then off to the margin on the right-hand side is 11 written the word "no" with two explanation points. Do you see 7~ 12 that?
t, ')
13 A (Krimm) Yes.
14 Q Do you have any idea who wrote that?
15 A CKrimm) No.
16 Q Do you have any reason to believe it was anybody at 17 FEMA that would have written that marginal notation?
18 MR. 1dRK: Your Honor. Dr. Bores has already l 19 indicated --
20 JUDGE PMITH: I don 't know why he 's asking it, but l
( 21 don 't -- if he has a cross-examination purpose, let him do it.
22 I am noting it, however, as an unproductive use of time on my l
23 notes here.
24 THE WITNESS: (Krimm) Mr. Backus. I do n 't ret . ember l -
l ( 25 this at all, i
Heritage Reporting Corporation
(
- (202) 628-4888 l
) KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12859 i BY MR. BACKUS:
2 Q Okay. Did anybody from NRC ever indicate to you a 3 disagreement with the sentence in that letter, so far as you 4 know?
5 MR. FLYNN: What period of time are you talking 6 about?
7 MR. BACKUS: Anytime.
8 THE WITNESS: CKrimm) I don't recall discussing this 9 letter with anyone et the NRC.
10 MR. BACKUS: All right.
11 JUDGE SMITH: Now, Mr. Backus, I wasn 't aware when 12 you asked to have the clean version of Rila letter marked that v
-)
13 there were differences in it. I just thought if that met your 14 purposes, use the one that 's already in evidence for 15 simplicity. But I see this one has a date and it is a clean 16 version. If that is material to your case, you are certainly 17 free to --
18 MR. BACKUS: I think it would be appropriate to mark 19 the clean copies because there are some differences.
20 JUDGE SMITH: That 's Massachusetts Attorney General 21 Exhibit for identification 35.
22 (The document referred to was
' 23 marked for identification as 24 Massachusetts Attorney General 's
( 25 Exhibit No. 35.)
I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
[.
() KRIMM, PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12860 1 MR. BACKUS: And I'd like to of fer it .as an exhibit.
2 JUDGE SMITH: Are there any obj ection?
3 It 's received.
4 MR. . DIGh'AN : Yes.
5 JUDGE SMITH: What --
6 MR. DIGNAN: Yes, there are.
7 Is it offered for all purposes, or what?
8 The 2-A, you will recall, Your Honor, that portion of 9 it, I believe, has a restriction on it as being limited to 10 historical purposes. Now what is the purpose of this offer?
11 MR. BACKUS: It is offered generally, yes.
, 12 MR. DIGNAN: It 's of f ered generally?
13 MR. BACKUS: Yes.
14 MR. DIGNAN: I obj ect.
15 JUDGE SMITH: Who elicited the information from Dr.
16 Bores that he disagreed with the stat ? ment on Page 2?
17 MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I know that I went into that 18 on cross-examination of Dr. Bores. I don 't recall if anyone 19 else did.
20 MR. TURK: I believe I did some of that on direct as 21 well, Your Honor.
22 And as I recall, he indicated that that "no" was 23 addressing the entire paragraph, not j ust --
24 JUDGE SMITH: Our ruling will remain the same.
() 25 Well, what particular purpose do you have to offer Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
't
,) KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12861 1 this in that we already have it? I mean what --
2 MR. BACKUS: We are here to determine the evolution f 3 FEMA 's position, and I suggest to what bases that position has.
4 I think this letter is relevant to that issue --
5 MR. DIGNAN: I have no problem --'
1 6 MR. BACKUS: -- and should be admitted on those 7 issues.
- 8 MR. DIGNAN
- I have no problem for the offer, as I
^
9 said, for historical purposes like the other one was; to show a 10 FEMA position. But Mr. Backus said he wanted a general offer
]
11 which means for the truth of the matters contained.
gm 12 Among other things, unless the version I was given is
(
13 different, we have as an attachment the old FEMA position. I'm 14 not going to go along with that going in for the truth of the 15 matters contained?
16 JUDGE SMITH: This is for the reasons that FEMA has 17 offered for their change in their position.
E126 18 (Continued on next page.)
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 l
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12862 l
t/127 1 Not for the established truth and merits of those 2 reasons, but for the reasons that they have used to change.
3 MR. BACKUS: I don 't see how -- I have the same 4 problem Attorney Oleskey addressed a couple of days ago, I just 5 don 't think it 's possible to separate those two things out.
6 JUDGE SMITH: Take your choice.
7 MR. BACKUS: Well, if it 's only going to be admitted 8 for a limited purpose, that 's what we 'll do. My offer is for 9 it to be admitted generally; if that 's denied I'll of fer it for 10 the limited purpose.
11 JUDGE SMITH: All right. It 's of f ered for the 12 limited purpose of demonstrating the basis or the reasons for 13 FEMA 's evolution of its position.
14 (The document referred to was 15 received in evidence as 16 Mass. AG Exhibit 35.)
17 BY MR. BACKUS:
18 Q Now, Mr. Krimm, you say that involved in the 19 preparation of this letter f in addition to you is Mr.
20 Wilkerson?
21 A (Krimm) Yes.
22 Q Anybody else in Washington work on the preparation of 23 this letter?
24 A (Krimm) I do not recall specifically if anyone else O)
(. 25 or who may have done it at this point.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
()
,/ ,
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12863 1 Q How many versions went back and forth between 2 Washington and Seattle by FAX, if you know?
3 A (Krimm) It 's dif ficult for me to remember precisely; 4 two, maybe three.
5 Q Okay.
6 A CKrimm) I 'm no t sure.
7 Q So, would it be fair to say that the language used in 8 this letter was carefully considered by you and Mr. Wilkerson 9 and Mr. Thomas?
10 A (Krimm) Yes.
11 Q All right. Now, on page three of the letter -- I 'm s 12 sorry, page two of the letter, second paragraph, the final s
13 sentence is and I quote: "Although sheltering is an 14 alternative, we doubt if the use of existing public or private 15 facilities would be acceptable." Is that correct?
16 A (Krimm) That 's what the letter says; yes.
17 Q And in that case. I would take it from your 18 testimony, that the "we" was intended to, ir general, to refer 19 to FEMA?
l l
20 A (Krimm) It would read that way; yes.
21 Q And insof ar as the individual 's concerned that make 22 up FEMA in this instance, it would be you, Mr. Wilkerson, and 23 Mr. Thomas; is that right?
. 24 A (Krimm) The final letter was really worked out l
() 25 between Mr, Thomas an me.
l Heritage Reporting Corporation I
(202) 628-4888 l
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12864 1 Q And you?
2 A (Krimm) Yes.
3 Q All right.
4 Mr. McLoughlin, with regard to that particular 5 sentence, would you approve or would you have approved the 6 inclusion of that sentence as part of this letter?
7 A CMcLoughlin) I had marked that as a specific one 8 in -- as I had -- was originally reading it. You know, you 're 9 asking me to make a judgment a year later on whether or not 10 that I would have done this at that time, given the fact that 11 there are a whole intervening set of information that I now 12 have available to me.
U-s To be honest about it. I don 't know how to give you 13 14 an answer to that.
15 Q All right.
16 A (McLoughlin) I think that 's honest.
17 Q All right. If you don 't know, that 's fine.
18 MR. TURK: For clarification, Your Honor, if Mr.
19 Backus doesn 't mind. .When Dr. McLoughlin said, specific one. I 20 take it he 's ref erring to a specific concern. Do you mind if l
21 we ask?
22 MR. BACKUS: I 'd rather you wait.
23 BY MR. BACKUS:
24 Q Now, would it be reasonably accurate to say -- now,
) 25 Mr. Krimm, would it be fair to characterize this letter, as in Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) S28-4888
('T s ,/ KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12865 '
1 generally, restating the position that FEMA had filed on June 2 4th regarding the beach population?
3 A CKrimm) Mr. Backus, I haven 't looked at this letter 4 in a long time, and I would really need to read it before I 5 answer that question.
6 Q All right. Well, in order to move along then, let me 7 Just go right to the final paragraph on page two of the letter 8 which goes over to page three. In there you and Mr. Thomas 9 basically ask the state three questions that could affect 30 what 's going to happen to the FEMA position that had been taken 11 on June 4th; is that right?
f~. 12 A CKri mm) May I read the letter?
U, 13 MR. BACKUS: Sure.
14 CPause) 15 THE WITNESS: CKrimm) I 'm sorry, would you mind 16 repeating your question.
17 BY MR. BACKUS:
18 Q I was just characterizing the final paragraph, there 19 Gre three questions that are presented that the state could 20 answer that might have an af f ect on FEMA 's position that had l
21 been filed --
L l 22 A CKrimm) Yes.
L
- 23 Q -- as it was filed on June 4th; is that right?
l l 24 A CKrimm) Yes.
() 25 Q And the first one was, "If you could tell us, prior <
l l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRI.74, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12866 1 to our filing testimony: (a) if the facts we have discussed 2 and set forth in the current FEMA position are incorrect?"
3 Right?
4 A CKrimm) That 's -- yes.
5 Q Are you aware of what the facts that were set forth 6 in the FEMA position filed on June 4th were in regard to the 7 beach population?
8 A (Krimm) Yes, I remember the filing and what led up 9 to the filing.
10 Q Okay. And that was a fairly extensive document, and 11 there was a page 39 on which there were three numbered 12 paragraphs that-set forth certain matters; you 're aware of 13 that?
14 A (Krimm) I would really have to go back and check 15 documents.
16 MR. FLYNN: Mr. Backus --
17 MR. BACKUS: Can we furnish him with that?
! 13 MR. FLYNN: It 's - attached.
19 MR. DIGNAN: It 's attached to your exhibit.
I
! 20 MR. BACKUS: Is it? Okay.
I 21 THE WITNESS: (Krimm) Oh, I 'm sorry.
22 MR. BACKUS: Thank you.
L 23 THE WITNESS: (Krimm) Thank you.
24 This page --
() 25 MR. BACKUS: Okay, l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ,
l'r 12867
(_/ KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 1 THE WITNESS: CKrimm) -- it looks like it 's 3- --
2 page 38 or --
3 MR. BACKUS: 38 and 39.
4 THE WITNESS: CKrimm) Okay.
5 BY MR. BACKUS: .
6 Q And I was going to refer you to page 39, and this 7 isn 't the first time you 've seen this, is this?
8 A CKrimm) No.
9 Q Okay. You were a part of the team that prepared this 10 position, were you not?
11 A (Krimm) Yes.
12 Q And on page 39 there were three numbered paragraphs 13 and then a paragraph which follows that starts, "Therefore,"
14 and goes on; correct?
15 A CKrimm) Yes.
16 Q Okay. Am I correct that in this letter of June 17th, 17 the part I just read to you, would refer to those facts up in 18 paragraphs one through three on page 39?
19 MR. FLYNN: I 'd like to get a clarification here.
20 The f acts I believe you 're ref erring to are those set forth in 21 the numbered paragraphs on page 39 The concluding paragraph 22 on that page is clearly conclusory, you 're not including that 23 in the facts, are you?
24 MR. BACKUS: Not -- no, I 'm not.
() 25 MR. FLYNN: Thank you.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
(_) KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12868 1 THE WITNESS: (Krimm) I really would like to study 2 this a little bit before I answer your question.
l 3 MR. BACKUS: Okay.
4 (Pause) 5 MR. TURK: Could I hear the pending question over, 6 please?
7 JUDGE SMITH: All right. If he hadn 't asked for it, 8 I think I would have to.
9 MR. BACKUS: All right.
10 JUDGE SMITH: Just tell us quickly. Just remind us, l 11 don 't go and read it back.
l f- 12 MR. BACKUS: All right.
(>S 13 BY MR. BACKUS:
14 Q I 'm asking the witness, if it isn 't in fact true, 15 that the question to the state about, "Fhether the facts we 16 have discussed and set forth in our FEMA position are l 17 incorrect " are not those facts set forth in numbered 18 paragraphs one through three on page 39 of the attached FEMA 19 position?
20 A CKrimm) I believe those are some of the facts; yes.
21 Q All right. Indeed, if you go up to the next to the 22 last paragraph on this letter, page two, the second sentence l'
23 says, does it not: "However, if the facts set forth in the l
24 paragraphs numbered one through three of page 39 of the current
) 25 FEMA position are shown to be incorrect or are modified, then Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
- n. . - _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12869 1 our position will be subj ect to review and modification as 2 necessary;" correct?
3 A (Krimm) That language is there; yes.
4 Q All right. Now, with regard to the facts set forth 5 on page -- paragraphs one through three on page 39, did the 6 state ever advise you that any of the facts stated in those 7 paragraphs were indeed incorrect?
8 A CKrimm) I did not personally receive anything f rom 9 the state.
10 Q Okay. Do you know if anybody in FEMA received 11 anything from the state to indicate that the facts in those 12 paragraphs, one through three of 39, were incorrect?
13 A CKrimm) I don 't know. I j ust don 't know. I can 't 14 answer the question.
15 Q Okay. Have you made any inquiry to see if there was 16 ever any response from the state to that question, about 17 whether the facts were incorrect?
18 A (Krimm) I don 't recall making an inquiry.
19 Q Do you have any reason to believe, as of this date,
(
20 that any of the facts stated on pages 39, paragraphs one 21 through three, are incorrect?
22 MR. FLYN' Your Honor. I think we 've j ust noved into 23 another subj ect area, and I raise a question about relevance.
24 The last two or three questions had to do with, had there been
() 25 a response from the state, to the best of Mr. K r imm 's l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
t( ') KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12870 1- knowledge.
2 The pending question is, does he believe that these 3 facts are correct, and now we 're getting into the merits.
4 JUDGE SMITH: Well, as Mr. Backus has argued all 5 along that there has to be'a certain amount of overlap in 6 merits. I take his word for it that he 's complying with the 7 Board 's guidance that this is for the purpose of testing the 8 evolution of the change.
9 MR. BACKUS: Right.
10 MR. FLYNN: Very well, I'll withdraw the obj ection.
11 MR. TURK: Well, it might be appropriate to lay a
,g 12 foundation first, and determine if these witnesses are familiar V 13 with the current status of the plans, so they can make a 14 judgment.
15 JUDGE SMITH: Well, that 's something that you might 16 well have done when you were examining, but Mr. Backus is doing 17 it now.
18 THE WITNESS: CKrimm) I really apologize, I have to 19 keep coming back and asking you to repeat the questions.
20 BY MR. BACKUS:
21 Q Have you become aware of any information coming to 22 ;au or to your knowledge, other persons at FEMA headquarters l 23 that would indicate that the facts stated on paragraphs one 24 through three of page 39 are incorrect?
() 25 A CKrimm) From other sources?
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
,m 12871
(-) KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 1 Q From any source?
2 A CKrimm) Yes.
3 Q You are aware of things that would indicate some of 4 those facts are incorrect today?
5 A (Krimm) Yes.
6 Q Okay. .Which facts stated in any of these paragraphs 7 do you believe is no longer a correct statement?
8 A CKrimm) Well, in just looking, and I think it 's in 9 paragraph two, and I maybe should spend more time reading it, 10 but on the question -- okay. I may have misspoken, Mr. Backus.
11 What I 'm trying to drive at is that in paragraph two we talk l
12 about the fact that the shelters are not adequate.
13 Information that I 've received since this date would 14 indicate that sheltering is not the best protective action.
15 Q Does that --
16 A CKrimm) And that -- I 'm not sure if I 'm going too 17 far in saying that. You know, I 've had no' indication of a 18 change in the shelters per se, but I 've received information 19 that sheltering is not the best protective action.
20 Q And isn't it in f act true that that is entirely l l 21 consistent with what went out in the letter of June lith as set 22 forth in the last sentence on paragraph two which states:
l 23 "Although sheltering is an alternative, we doubt if the use of l
24 existing public or private facilities would be acceptable?"
() 25 JUDGE SMITH: The antecedent to that is in doubt. He l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
(
(,)/ KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12872 1 just stated he had received information that the sheltering 2 would not be preferred. And you said, well, isn 't that. And 3 are you referring to "that" on paragraph two or the "that" that 4 sheltering is -- would not be preferred?
5 MR. BACKUS: Gentlemen. I would just as soon you not 6 confer at this particular point.
7 THE WITNESS: (Peterson) Sure. Sorry.
8 MR. BACKUS: And I withdraw the question, and let me 9 ask this one.
10 BY MR. BACKUS:
11 Q I asked you, sir, if there were any facts stated here
, 12 that you now have reason to believe were incorrect. And, Mr.
V, g 13 Krimm, you referred me to page two and statements about --
14 well, what statement were you referring to that you might now 15 take issue with, statement of fact?
16 A CKrimm) I 'm sorry, it was on page two of the 17 attachment.
18 Q Right.
19 A CKrimm) And basically, what I was saying is that.
20 this talks abo,ut sheltering, and since the time or this date of 21 this letter facts had been brought to my attention which 22 indicate that sheltering is not the best alternative.
23 Q Is there a fact stated here that suggests sheltering 24 is the best alternative?
() 25 A (Krimm) No, it just really discusses the shelters Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12873 1 that -- the protection afforded by sheltering in these 2 structures will definitely be less than that afforded by a 3 normal wood frame house is kind of the conclusion.
4 Q Do you agree that 's a correct statement of f act, that 5 if there are unwinterized cottages and motels, quote: "The 6 protection afforded by sheltering in these structures will 7 definitely be less than that would be afforded by a normal wood 8 frame house;" is that correct?
9 A (Krimm) I 'm not a cheltering expert, and I don 't 10 think that -- I mean, I would really want to refer that to a 11 member of my technical staff that might be more familiar with 12 sheltering.
(,-)
13 Q Do you have any reason to believe that 's -- I 14 understand you 're not claiming to be an expert, and I 'm not 15 asking now to verify the statement, but do you, of your own 16 knowledge, have any reason to doubt that that is a correct 17 statement of fact?
18 A (Krimm) At the time this was written and based on 19 the best knowledge available, the statement was correct in June l 20 of 1987.
1 21 Q Thank you.
22 And is there anything that you now know, from your 23 staff or anywhere else, that suggests that that is still not a i
i 24 correct statement as of May 1988?
() 25 A (Krimm) We 're talking j ust about the shelters l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
() KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12874 1 themselves; is that correct?
2 Q I 'm talking about this statement that ~ you ref erred us 3 to,1 protection afforded by sheltering in these structures, 4 which is the antecedent for that is, unwinterized cottages and 5 motel rooms will definitely be less than that afforded by a ,
6 normal wood frame house?
et/127 7 (Continued on next page.)
8 9
10 11 1
12 0 13 14 15 I
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 l
() 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
rm
' (,) KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12875 T128 1 A CKrinnU As of this date I do not recall receiving 2 any additional information, or I have not personally read any 3 additional information that would prove that to be incorrect.
4 Q Okay. Mr. McLoughlin, that was a correct statement 5 when made; it 's a correct statement today, isn 't it?
6 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
7 Q Okay. Do you, Mr. McLoughlin, know of any statements 8 of fact in these three paragraphs, numbered paragraphs on Page 9 39 of the FEMA position filed on June 4th, that you know today 10 to be incorrect?
11 A (McLoughlin) Mr. Backus, you know that New Hampshire 12 submitted on February lith and 19th of this year a rationale 13 for the sheltering option in response to our supplemental 14 testimony of January 25th.
15 Q Yes, I do.
16 A (McLoughlin) My believe is that when you say, we 17 understand that plans contain no sheltering, of sheltering the 18 day trippers because on summer day and so forth, clearly those 19 new plans talk about a 2 percent sheltering of the transit-20 dependent transients. That 's a mouthf ul . I know. But the 2 21 percent population as typically been called.
22 And it seems to me that that does modify that fact.
23 We understand the plans contain no consideration of 24 sheltering the day trippers because on summer days it 's not
() 25 possible, et cetera. So does that modify it, in my judgment.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
(h KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12876
(_)
. 1 Q All right. So would it be correct to summarize your 2 answer as saying that for the 98 percent, these statements of 3 fact are still correct?
4 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
5 Q All right.
6 A (McLoughlin) There is no sheltering for them.
7 Q All right. And we 'll come back to the sheltering for 8 the --
9 A (McLoughlin) Other than the shelters that are 10 defined in the Stone & Webster study which generally talk about 11 having a -- you know, a 10 Tercent reduction only in the 12 inhalation dose.
O 13 Q All right. And you understand that the Stone &
14 Webster study has not resulted in sheltering being incorporated 15 in the plan as a protective action for those on the beach that 16 are not transit-dependent, cort ect?
17 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
18 Q Okay. Now, to go back, Mr. Krimm, to these other 19 questions that were asked of the state in this letter of June 20 lith.
21 The second one was, if the State of New Hampshire is 22 considering steps which might change these facts.
23 Sir, would that mean to include such things as the 24 construction of shelters? Would that be one example of a thing
() 25 that would change these facts?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12877 1 A CKrimm) Yes.
2 Q All right. Are there others that you can think of?
3 A CKrimm) Well, I -- there are many alternatives; many 4 things that could be done. And I would have to say that I know 5 the State of New Hampshire has submitted a new -- some updates 6 of the -- the annual update of Revision 2.
7 I have not been briefed on that nor have I read it.
8 I don 't know what, you know, what is in that particular update.
9 Q To your knowledge, has the State of New Hampshire to 10 this time responded in a way which would indicate it is j 11 considering steps which might change these facts which I think 12 we now have established are the f acts set forth in Paragraphs 1 0 13 through 3 of Page 39?
14 A CKrimm) I have not seen anything at this point.
l 15 Q Have you, Mr. McLoughlin?
16 A (McLoughlin) Please restate the question, Mr.
l 17 Backus.
18 Q Okay, and maybe I ought to put aside the issue of 19 whether the 2 percent --
l 20 A (McLoughlin) Okay, very good.
21 Q -- are going to be sheltered as part of the plan.
22 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
l 23 Q Apart from that, are you aware of anything that the 1
l 24 State of New Hampshire has done since June 11th which would
() 25 constitute the taking of steps which might change the facts Heritage Reporting Corporation i
(202) 628-4888 l
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12878 1 stated in the FEMA position on June 4th?
2 A (McLoughlin) Well, only what I referenced a minute 3 ago; their contributions on February 11th and 19th of this 4 year. Those are the only things that I am aware of.
5 Q All right. And the last one, just to wrap this up, 6 is if you are aware of intentions of anyone else to exercise 7 options to change the fact, has the State of New Hampshire ever 8 gotten back to either of you, or anybody else, to your
-9 knowledge, in FEMA, with a response to that?
10 A (McLoughlin) Is that a question to me?
11 Q Sure.
t 12 A (McLoughlin) The answer is, no, I 'm not aware of it.
)
13 Q Are you aware of any such thing, Mr. Peterson? I 14 mean, Mr. Krimm. Sorry.
15 A (Krimm) No.
16 Q Not to leave you out, I assume you 're not either, 17 right, Mr. Peterson?
18 A (Peterson) That 's a good assumption, sir.
19 Q Thank you.
20 Now, Mr. Krimm, it 's clear that as of June 4th, FEMA l 21 had a position and it included recognition that existing 22 shelter was not likely to make the plans acceptable, right?
23 A (Krimm) Yes.
24 Q Okay. Mr. McLoughlin, you 've said this position, as
() 25 taken by your RAC chairman, Region 1 Mr. Thomas, and approved Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4898
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12879 1 by you would not be changed without, and I think your words 2 were "reason or cause"; is that correct?
3 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct. I would not override 4 it without having been able to state a reason for overriding 5 it.
6 Q Okay. And you 've made it very clear in your 7 testimony yesterday that as of June 4th, when the position was 8 filed, you had no such reason.
9 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
10 Q Now as of that time you knew, or at least FEMA 11 already knew about the Shoreham decision that you 've 12 referenced. CLI-86-13, which had come down --
b'J 13 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
14 Q --
beforehand, right?
15 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
16 Q That was a decision that had been made in July 1986?
17 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
18 Q Okay. You already had the Christenbury memo to your 19 former general counsel, Mr. Spence. That had been out in June 20 of '86, right?
21 A (McLoughlin) It 's Mr. Perry, Spence Perry.
22 Q Spence Perry, thank you.
23 You already had knowledge that the regional 24 assistance committee -- I noticed you 're ref erring to Mr.
() 25 Peterson 's briefing book.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12880 1 'Is there something you wanted to add?
2 A (McLoughlin) I was just checking the date, whether 3 or not I wanted to agree with the date. He was showing me the 4 date on the CLI-86-13, 5- And did you reference that in July of '86?
6 -
Q July 24. 1986; is that correct?
7 A CMcLoughlin) Yes, yes, that 's correct.
8 Q All right. And the Spence Perry memo is June 18, 9 1986. correct?
10 A CMcLoughlin) That 's correct.
- 1. Q Or Christenbury to --
12 A CMcLoughlin) Christenbury to Spence Perry.
13 Q --
Spence Perry.
14 A CMcLoughlin) Yes.
15 Q Okay. You already knew that the, or you had reports 16 that the regional assistance committee position was not the 17 same as FEMA 's position.
18 A (McLoughlin) I had reports that the April 15th 19 meeting it was consistent with FEMA 's position. I mean, that 20 FEMA 's position and the RAC position were one and the same; 21 that the RAC supported FEMA 's position as of the April 15th 22 meeting.
23 Now, and I think the answer to you question is, I 'm 24 not going to agree with it because on the May 19th meeting of 25 our staff with the NRC is when we knew that they were going to (G_)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l (m
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12881
- 1 withdraw the Bores 1 memo.
2 Now, there was no, to my recollection, between May 3 19th and June 2, there was no intervening RAC meeting at that 4 point.
5 Q All right. So a more accurate statement would be 6 that you really didn't know what the RAC position would be 7 because there had been information before the RAC of April 15th 8 that had been withdrawn, and you couldn 't know what impact that 9 would have on the opinions of the RAC members; is that a fair 10 statement.
11 A (McLoughlin) I -- yes, that seems to me to be a fair 12 conclusion, yes.
h 13 Q And you certainly knew at that point that the NRC was l
l 14 revising the Bores 1 memo to delete reference to containment 15 features and risk.
16 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
Now you mentioned. Mr. Krimm, that I believe
~
17 Q Okay.
18 on -- if I can read my notes correctly -- on September 2, you 19 sent a memo to the NRC on containment issues and seasonal 20 closing of Seabrook?
21 Did you say that yesterday?
22 A CKrimm) No, I did not. That was in Mr. McLoughl in 's 23 testimony.
24 Q Okay.
A 25 A (McLoughlin) Yes.
(,)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
q() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12882 1 Q I 'm sorry. We had to work with a transcript for Just 2 a very brief time this morning.
3 Was it you that sent that memo then?
4 A (McLoughlin) No, no, it was a memo. I was the one 5 who referenced that memo yesterday in my testimony as an 6 element that came out of our September ist meeting in which we 7 finalized a memo to the NRC that included in it, among other 8 things, it included in it a request for any information that 9 the NRC had relative to two issues, as I recall.
10 One was the seasonal closing, and the other had to do 11 with the containment, and if they had any information that 12 would cause us to -- that would mitigate the shelter beach
() 13 issue at the Seabrook facility.
14 Q All right.
15 A (McLoughlin) You know, we can -- if you don 't have a 16 copy of that -- well.
17 Q Yes, we do..
l 18 And that is a memo of September 2 from Mr. Krimm for 19 Mr. Congel --
20 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
- 21 Q -- of the NRC; is that correct?
l 22 A CKrimm) Yes.
23 JUDGE HARBOUR: May I have a year, please, Mr.
24 Backus?
() 25 MR. BACKUS: 1987. Thank you. September 2, 1987. -
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
()' KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12683 i BY MR. BACKUS:
2 Q Now, in this memo, Mr. Krimm. you requested a meeting 3 to discuss the concerns addressed in that memo, correct?
4 This is on Page 2, the last -- next to the last 5 paragraph.
6 MR. TURK: Do you have a copy of that?
7 MR. DIGNAN: Is this -- is this in evidence?
-8 MR. BACKUS: No. I 'd be glad to have it marked.
9 MR. DIGNAN: Fine. Could I have a copy so I can, you 10 r.no w, be abreast of what 's going on?
11 MR. BACKUS: Sure.
12 MR. DIGNAN: Fine.
('#
\-
i 13 THE WITNESS: (Krimm) That 's right.
14 BY MR. BACKUS:
16 Q Okay. Indeed, you requested that that meeting --
16 MR. DIGNAN: Mr. Backus --
17 JUDGE SMITH: Wait a minute.
~ 18 MR. DIGNAN: --
if you are going to examine on the 19 memo, would you let me get a copy of it in front of me? Thank 2a you.
21 MR. BACKUS: I 'm j ust real concerned that tne clock 22 is ticking, but I apologize.
P 23 MR. DIGNAN: Apology is noted and accepted.
24 THE WITNESS: (Peterson) Your Honor. I 've had to
() 25 much coffee. Would anybody mind if I slipped out for 30 Heritage Reportirg Corporation (202) 60')-4888
~ _ _
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12884 i seconds? .
2 MR. BACKUS: No. Can I continue this --
3 THE WITNESS: (Peterson) Yes.
4 MR. BACKUS: Because this part does not involve you?
5 JUDGE SMITH: Go ahead.
6 MR. BACKUS: Is that all right if I continue --
7 JUDGE SMITH: Just go ahead.
8 THE WITNESS: (Peterson) Thank you.
9 (Witness Peterson temporarily leaves room.)
10 MR. BACKUS: Okay, does everybody have the memo?
11 Can I have that marked for identification? Mass. 35?
12 JUDGE SMITH: Thirt'.r-six.
13 MR. BACKUS: Thirty-six, thank'ycu.
14 (The document referred to was 15 marked for identification as 16 Massachusetts Attorney General 's 17 Exhibit No. 36.)
l l 18 BY MR. BACKUS:
19 Q Okay, Mr. Krimm, this memorandum went to Mr. Congel, i 20 And as it says on Page 2, you requested a meeting with you, l
21 which I presume is Mr. Congel, on September 10th, to discuss l the items mentioned above as well as any issues you may want to i 22 23 add to the agenda.
l l
2d Was o meeting held on September 10th?
( )1 25 A (Krimm) Unfortunately I don 't have my calendar, and l
l l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
. . .a. N
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12886
(_
/~)N -
1 I don 't recall.
i 2 Q Well, was a meeting held as a rerponse to this 3 request for a meeting?
4 A (Krimm) As I recall, there was a meeting in October, 5 and that meeting dealt with the utility plan criteria. It did 6 not answers the questions -- did not answer the questions 7 relating to Seabrook.
8 Q All right. Two of the questions that you raised in 9 this memo, and this is the last paragraph on the first page, 10 were: Special design features at the Seabrook plant such as
, 11 double containment; and, two, reduction of plant operations
- 12 durine the summer months.
13 A (Krimm) That 's correct.
14 Q Right?
15 A CKrimm) Yes.
16 Q And reduction of plant operations, that 's what you 17 mean by seasonal closing, or what Mr. McLoughlin referred to by 18 seasonal closing; is that right?
19 A CKrimm) Yes.
20 Q You don 't operate it f rora Memorial Day to Labor Day 21 or something like t wt.
22 A (Krimm) Right.
23 Q Okay. When you had this meeting, whenever it was, in 24 October, did NRC provide any answers to those questions?
() 25 A CKrimm) To the best of my knowledge, they did not.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
m t
KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12.886
(_)
-1 Q All right. I notice you also requested that -- as ,
2 this is stated in the next to the last paragraph or Page 2 --
3 "To accomplish our goals as efficiently as possible. I suggest 4 the meeting also include Victor Stello and other staff as S uppropriate."
6 Did Victor Stello attend the meeting in October?
7 A (Krimm) The October meeting that I have reference to 8 regarding the development of the utility plan evaluation 9 criteria, Mr. Stello did attend.
10 Q Okay. Was there ever a meeting with NRC --
11 MR. TURK: I 'm sorry, I didn 't hear the answer.
12 Did?
O 13 THE WITNESS: (Krimm) He did attend, yes.
14 BY MR. BACKUS:
iS Q Was there ever a meeting at which the issue of 16 seasonal closing and special containment features was the 17 subj ect that was held with NRC staf f subsequent to this memo?
! 18 A CKrimm) No, to the best of my knowledge, it was 19 never discuased.
20 Q Okay. So, so far as you know these two concerns that l 21 were raised, consideration given to special or several risk 22 mitigation features, there was never a response f rom NRC to l 23 those; is that correct ?
l 24 A CKrimm) That 's correct to the best of my knowledge.
() 25 k7 BACKUS: Okay, I 'd like to mark this I guess l
heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4808
' (m O) KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12887 1 presumably we 're going on the same basis of completing a 2 historical record. I 'd like to mark that for tl-J '. purpose.
3 MR. DIGNAN: I obj ect even for that purpose. I 'd 4- direct the Board 's attention to the subj ect of the memorandum.
5 Supposedly we 're here to talk about the evolution of the 6 agency 's position' on the New Hampshire plan. - This memorandum l
7 is entitled as Participation at Meetings Regarding Proposed 8 Seabrook Utility Plan for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
9 MR. BACKUS: Well, I understand that, but the parts 10 I m dealing with certainly would be a part of the 11 considerations that might be involved in the FEMA decision on 12 the New Hampshire plans as well.
O 13 MR. DIGNAN: Well, had you gotten any answers to that 14 effect, I might go along, Mr. Backus. But as I heard the l
15 testimony that he gave you, he said they didn 't discuss those 16 matters after all. '
l 17 MR. BACKUS: The point is that the memo requests them 18 to discuss this matter and they did not get that discussion.
19 That 's precisely the point.
20 JUDGE SMITH: It does prove that.
21 MR. DIGNAN: Well, it proves that, but what 's that 22 got to do with the evolution of the FEMA position on the New 23 Hampshire plan that they didn 't discuss something that somebody 24 wanted to discuss at a meeting on Massachusetts?
() 25 JUDGE SMITH: That they thought it was appropriate to Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
( KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12888 1 discuss I guess is the point. I don 't know.
2 MR. DIGNAN: It was in connection with the 3 Massachusetts plan. What 's that got --
4 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, no.
5 MR. DIGNAN: Yes. Your Honor. That s all this deals 6 with.
7 MR. BACKUS: No. Your Honor. Right on the bottom it 8 says after the part I 've been quoting, "Addressing these issues 9 may assist in the resolution of the so-called beach population 10 issue."
l 11 MR. DIGNAN: Under the Massachusetts plan.
l 12 JUDGE SMITH: Well, let 's read it.
l
() 13 (Pause.)
E128 14 (Continued on next page.)
l 15 16 17 l
18 l
l 19 20 21 22 23 24
() 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.(% KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12889
(_)
t/129 1 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Backus, on rereading it, it does 2 seem like, although my first reading was, that was in addition 3 to the Massachusetts plan; when I read it more carefully, the 4 last paragraph, premises the discussion in that paragraph --
5 the last paragraph on page one, as something desirable before G initiating a review of a utility-based plan. It does seem to 7 relate to it. Certainly, also functional. I mean, the ideas
-8 could relate to any beach.
9 But -- well, you better clarify it.
10 MR. BACKUS: Let me ask --
11 JUDGE SMITH: I don't know. I mean, this is 12 nothing --
0 13 MR. BACKUS: -- a few more questions to Mr. Krimm, 14 then.
15 BY MR. BACKUS:
16 Q Mr. Krimm. on this paragraph, the last paragraph on 17 the first page --
18 A CKrimm) Yes.
19 Q -- the memo that you sent says, "Before initiating 20 any utility-based plan review, we would like NRC to advise us 21 of any consideration being given to several other risk 22 mitigation features discussed in the past including," and then 23 the two questions that we 've been discussing; is that correct?
24 A CKrimm) (No verbal response)
O)
(_ 25 Q Now, those things that were discussed in the past Heritage Reporting Corporation (202.T 628-4888 9
) KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12890 1 about special containment and reduction of plant operations 2 were related to the things you were doing in reviewing the 3 adequacy of the New Hampshire emergency response plans; were 4 they not?
5 A CKrimm) Mr. Backus, this -- to set the time frame 6 and so forth for this memorandum and to help you as well as the 7 Judge and so forth, as I recall at the time we had heard that 8 the Seabrook Utility -- I 'm sorry, the Public Service. New 9 Hampshire at Seabrook Utility was going to send us a plan for 10 communities in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
11 Our concern was, because of our limited resources, we l 12 wanted to know all the facts as they related to Massachusetts.
O 13 And these refer to things that had been discussed in the past 14 that would relate to both New Hampshire and to Massachusetts.
15 MR. BACKUS: CRay. I 'll renew the of fer.
- 16 JUDGE SMITH
- Well, I don 't know what it does for I
17 you, Mr. Backus.
18 MR. DIGNAN: I 'm going to renew the obj ection. You 19 know, on that theory we could drop a newspaper article in front l
20 of a witness and say, I see the word special design features, 21 didn't you talk about those in New Hampshire? Yes, I did.
22 Offer it. This has nothing to do with the development of the l
l 23 agency position on the New Hampshire plan.
i l 24 (Board conferring)
() 25 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Backus, you lose on this one. It l
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628 s888
Q(/ KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12891 1 doesn 't --
2 MR. BACKUS: Now, I -- I don 't think I should lose on 3 this one, Your Honor.
4 JUDGE SMITH: Well. --
5 MR. BACKUS: This -- the only time that they 've 6 talked about special containment in the past was at the April 7 RAC meeting and the withdrawal of Bores 1 memo and the Bores 2; 8 all that had to do with their evaluation of the New Hampshire 9 plans, and they 're raising them again. ,
10 Now, I understand it also pertains to their need to 11 get on with figuring how to review a utility plan; that was r~g 12 part of it. But it 's not unrelated to what they had been doing L/
13 about assessing the New Hampshire plans.
14 And when we 're putting in materials to show the iS evolution of a position, I don't understand why this should be 16 left out as part of the historical record.
17 JUDGE SMITH: I understand your frustration which is 18 evidenced both by your articulate argument and your tenor.
l 19 Nevertheless, it is of slim probative value and the obj ection 20 is sustained.
21 MR. OLESKEY: Let me just make a few points. Your 22 Honor. I haven 't had a chance to be heard.
l 23 First of all, this comes right after the July 30 RAC 24 meeting, and it 's clear that the issue of the containment is n/s. 25 very much before the two agencies as it bears on the beach i
1
! Heritage Reporting Corporation
- (202) 628-4888 l
e
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12892 1 plan.
2 Secondly. I think Mr., McLoughlin will confirm, as he 3 testified yesterday in his own summary of what was important, 4 that this memo had gone out in early September and there had 5 never been an answer.
6 JUDGE SMITH: See, tnere 's another --
7 MR. OLESKEY: It had nothing to do with the beach --
8 nothing to do with the Massachusetts plan which is part of what 9 he said when he was explaining the evolution of their position 10 on the New Hampshire plan, 11 JUDGE SMITH: He is here.
12 MR. BACKUS: That 's the point, we 're j ust following O 13 the testimcny where it led. He referenced this in his 14 testimony yesterday.
15 JUDGE SMITH: He is here. Ask him about it.
16 MR. BACKUS: Okay.
17 BY MR. BACKUS:
18 Q Mr. McL'oughlin --
19 JUDGE SMITH: If this memorandum were essential to 20 your case, maybe some of tha infirmities of it could be 21 overlocked, but the man is right here. And there 's other i
22 problems with it, and so wa 're not going to accept it. It is 23 an exhibit that is capable of being abused. We don 't have to 24 do that, You can establich your case with the man who wrote it <
() 25 right here. So you 're not being prej udiced by having this Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 9
("% 12893
\_) KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 1 by having this exhibit rej ected.
2 BY MR. BACKUS: !
3 Q Mr. McLoughlin, just so the record will be perfectly 4 clear, you did reference this memo in your direct testimony 5 yesterday, did you not?
6 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
7 Q Okay. To your knowledge, sir, was the concern about 8 special design features and reduction of plant operations 9 during the summer something that could bear on the agency 's 10 assessment of the adequacy of the New Hampshire' plans?
11 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
i 12 Q And to your knowledge, did NRC ever respond to your 13 asking us to advise -- asking NRC to advise you whether any 14 consideration had been given to those two items?
l i 15 A (McLoughlin) Not directly. Only, I would say, 16 indirectly in the sense that we did get a copy of the, that I l 17 referenced yesterday, of the October 15th memo that Dr. Bores 18 wrote. I believe, to Mr. Turk. And I 'oelieve you 'll find 19 reference in that mema, which we did not get until December, so L
l 20 I -- and I clearly acknowledged that yesterday.
21 But I do believe that they make a case in that memo, 22 I 'd have to check this, that there are reasons for the NRC not l
23 doing this. I think there was some reference to it not doing l
24 it.
i
() 25 So in the sense that they decided that they were not Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
,J rm KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12894 1
s_)
1 going to, in that sense, they gave us an answer, but it wasn't 2 a direct answer other than by a copy of that memo.
3 Q Well, what they said essentially in the Bores memo of ,
4 October 15th was, no, they were not going to give any l r
5 consideration --
6 A (McLoughlin) That 's right.
7 Q -- to containment as bearing on assessing the 8 adequacy of the hew Hampshire plans; right?
9 A (McLoughlin) Mr. Backus, that 's right. And I 10 interpret that to be en answer, you know, to your question.
11 Q All right.
12 Now, as of September 11, 1987, Mr. McLoughlin, you O 13 filed the FEMA testimony in identical form as the position had 14 been filed on June 4th in regard to the beach population; 15 correct?
16 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
17 MR. FLYNN: Excuse me. I need to clarify a little 18 here. I don 't accept that the entire 60 pages or so of 19 testimony were identical.
20 MR. BACKUS: I 'm ref erring to pages 38 and 39, 21 Md. FLYNN: Yes, I will accept that those were 22 identical.
23 MR. BACKUS: Okay. Thank you.
24 BY MR. BACKUS:
() 25 Q So that necessarily means that as of that date.
Heritage Reportird Corporation (202) 628-4888
()- KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12895 i September 11th you had no reason or cause to reverse the 2 position of your FEMA-1 RAC chairman on this issue?
3 A (McLoughlin) I did not have a sufficiently 4 substantive reason, in my mind, at that time to overrule it; 5 .tha2 is correct. But you will also, if you read my testimony 6 yesterday, I did -- do believe that I referenced the fact that 7 both before and particularly right afterwards that there began 8 to be some troubling issues with this. But I did not believe, 9 in my mind, that I had a substantive reason to overrule him.
10 And you recall I also testified that we had asked our 11 general counsel for a delay, so that we could consider that; ,
12 and they feit that they did -- well, let me not go on because 13 the record is clear from yesterday.
14 Q All right. As of that September 11th date, as you 15 testified yesterday, there had been another RAC meeting chaired 16 by Mr. Thomas, and you knew basically what the results of that
. 17 RAC meeting were; is that correct?
18 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
19 Q And you knew that there was a maj ority opinion that 20 the plans were adequate,'without regard to the containment 21 features that had been previously dealt with in the RAC?
22 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
23 Q Okay. Did you know at that time, according to Dr.
24 Bores, did you know at that time that according to him at least
() 25 one of those RAC members was still relying on the containment Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12896
( )- .
1 at part to justify his feeling that the plans were adequate?
2 MR. TURK : Obj ect ion, that 's not the testimony of Dr.
3 Bores.
4 MR. BACKUS: I think you can recharacterize it when 5 it 's your turn, if you don't think it is.
6 JUDGE SMITH: W'31 1. no, no; that 's not the standard.
7 Would you read it back, please.
8 (Whereupon. Mr. Backus, with the permission of the 9 Chairnan, elected to ask the following question instead.)
et/129 10 (Continued on next page.)
11 12 13 14 15
- 16 i
j 17 l 18 19 20 l 21 22 23 24
() 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12897 f) t/130 1 BY MR. BACKUS:
2 Q Dr.McLoughlin, you have said that in December some 3 time you got the memos to Sherwin Turk from Dr. Bores, da*ed 4 October 15th; is that correct?
5 A (McLoughlin) The agency got them. I don 't know, 6 I -- to be honest about it, I don 't remember for sure when I 7 first read it, but certainly -- certainly, after we got it my 8 expectation was, because this is 'an important issue, that the 9 staff did inform me of the general contents of that; yes.
10 Q As a result of reading that memorandum, did you have 11 any knowledge that the DOT, Department of Transportation 12 representative, had stated to Mr. Tr.vmas , quote: "You have a 13 problem!" Unquote. Then, quote: "We have a problem we need 14 to come together on," unquote. He said, "That whether or not 15 the paper discussed the specific plant features did not change
! 16 the facts of the construction."
l
- 17 Were you aware that one of the RAC members said that l 18 the f acts of the construction hadn't changed regardless of the 19 change of the Bores memorandum?
20 A (McLoughlin) Mr. Backus, clarify for me what time 21 f rame you 're asking me that question? Prior to November 11th
! 22 or after November 11th?
\
l 23 MR. FLYNN: Do you mean September?
24 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) Well. I 'm sorry. Excuse
() 25 me. September lith, you 're right. Clearly, you can 't be asking Heritage Reporting Corporati n
- (202) 628-4888
f
() - KRIMM, PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12898 1 me about it before September 11th because the memo wasn't 2 written until October 15th.
3 BY MR. BACKUS:
4 Q Right.
5 A (McLoughlin) So you must be asking.me, at the time 6 that I was made aware of this, was I also made aware of the 7 fact that DOT still was using containment as a -- as part of 8 their basis for their position.
9 Q Right. When did you become aware of that or did you 10 ever become aware of that?
11 A (McLoughlin) To be honest about it --
12 MR. TURK: Well, wait a minute, Mr. Backus. Your O 13 Honor, for context let 's read the next sentence of that same 14 quote that Mr. Backus read which is as follows: "He," meaning 15 Mr. Lutz, "felt that the plans were adequate and the best he 16 had reviewed," close quote.
17 JUDGE SMITH: That wasn 't the point. I -- part of 18 the confusion is, I do think you misspoke, I think you said 19 September when you meant to say December.
20 MR. BACKUS: Right. I did, thank you.
21 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) I apologize, Mr. Backus, 22 but I don 't know for sure what -- I mean, you were asking me to 23 respond to right this moment.
24 BY MR. BACKUS:
() 25 Q Have you become aware, as a result of it, at some Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12899 1 point receiving the Bores 3 memorandum which is Staff Exhibit 2 2 and 2-A, that at least one member of the RAC in July was still 3 relying on containment as part of his opinion on plant 4 adequacy?
5 MR. TURK: Obj ect ion.
6 JUDGE SMITH: Well, wait a minute, that 's right. He 7 has a right to obj ect to your characterization of what --
8 MR. BACKUS: All right, we 'll do it dif ferently. '
9 It 's going to take longer because I got to read the whole thing 10 to satisfy NRC counsel here.
11 MR. TURK: Thad< you.
12 BY MR. BACKUS:
13 Q Were you -- did you become aware some time after 14 receiving the Bores 3 memorandum, whenever that was in 15 December, that one RAC member, the DOT member, had said:
16 "Whether or not the paper discussed the specific plant features 17 did not change the facts of construction?"
18 A (McLoughlin) Well. I 'm still not sure I know how to 19 answer this question, but let me give you a cut and you reask a 20 question.
I 21 I have read the October 15th memorandum from -- of 22 Mr. Bores. I have therefore read that statement. Now, are you 23 asking me the question, did it register somehow?
24 Q Yes?
() 25 A (McLoughlin) Well, I think the answer to that is, i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
fs KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12900
(_)
1 yes. I read the memo. I clearly -- I have acknowledged to you 2 that I have not -- that I do not recall when I first read that 3 memo. I know we didn't get it until December. I testified a 4 couple of minutes ago that my belief is that the staff advised
. 5 me kind of what was in that memo before I read it. And I 6 cannot recall specifica1'ly when I first read that October 15th 7 memo.
8 Q But at some point you read it and it did register?
9 A (McLoughlin) Yes.
10 Q And when it registered you understood that at least 11 one RAC member still had containment considerations in his 12 mind?
O 13 A (McLoughlin) I would have to say, yes, to that.
14 Q Okay. Now, let me go generally to the RAC. You 've 15 testified. Mr. McLoughlin, very clearly that FEMA considers the 16 RAC to be advisory to it; is that correct?
l l 17 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
18 Q And it 's advice that you then used to assist FEMA in i
19 arriving at a position?
20 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
j 21 Q But you were certainly clear that FEMA is not bound 22 by the RAC and has its own responsibility to arrive at its 23 professional judgment on emergency planning matters; correct?
24 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
() 25 Q Okay. Is it fair to say that in utilizing the RAC in l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12901
(])
1 its advisory capacity you tend to defer to agencies within 2 their own fields of expertise?
3 A (McLoughlin) I believe that 's a f air 4 characterization in alllof our regional offices; yes.
-5 Q So, for example, the Department of Agriculture has 6 got somebody there and you tend to listen particularly 7 carefully to what they might say about radioactive 8 contamination of food, for example; correct?
9 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
10 Q And transportation, you might pay particular 11 attention to what they have to say about Coast Guard 12 involvement?
13 A (McLoughlin) We certainly would want to consider 14 that very seriously. The answer is, yes.
15 Q And it is FEMA, is it not, Mr. McLoughlin, and I 16 think you used this in commenting to the NRC 's rule change to 17 Congress, that has the expertise in assessing state and local l
18 response plans; is that correct?
19 A (McLoughlin) In their totality, that 's correct.
20 But, Mr. Backus, I would also say in giving a response to the 21 testimony that you just -- the question you j ust asked me, 2.2 clearly, we want to take aboard, it 's our responsibility to l
23 deal with the whole thing.
l l
24 It is our, also, responsibility to listen to EPA and
() 25 DOT and others in the advice that they give us. I would not i Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888 l
l
() XRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12902 1 want to say, we are the only ones that know anything about 2 state and local emergency plans.
3 Q All right. Now, at the time you filed the September 4 11th position or testimony, I 'm sorry, you were aware of the 5 RAC meeting and the general results, as you 've previously said; 6 is that correct? .
7 -A (McLoughlin) Of the July 30th RAC meeting?
8 Q That 's right?
9 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
10 Q Okay. And at the time that you filed the interim 11 testimony of January 25th on which you were listed a witness, 12 you knew about the January 7th and 8th RAC meeting?
13 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
14 Q Of 1988?
15 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
16 Q And it 's f air to say that your understanding is that 17 the positions of the agencies represented at these two meetings 18 were basically the same on January 30th as they were on July 19 30th and January 7th and 8th; isn 't that correct?
20 A CMcLoughlin) That 's correct.
21 Q Okay. Another thing that you mentioned yesterday, as 22 you say your mind was beginning to be concerned about the 23 position was that, on September 9th, I think you said, you got 24 the Stone & Webster sheltering survey; is that correct?
25 (McLoughlin) That 's correct. We knew that it was in
(]) A Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12903 1 preparation, but I also acknowledged yesterday that that was 2 not a maj or f actor at that point, the receipt of that at least, 3 in our November or September lith filing.
4 Q Did the Stone & Webster survey, at any point, become 5 an important determinant to your assessment of the FEMA 6 position?
7 A (McLoughlin) Well, in -- in the information that 8 they submitted on February 11th and 19th, it 's my understanding 9 that, in essence, the -- Mr. Backus, I think I 'd have to read 10 that once again, but my belief is that the intent of the State 11 of New Hampshire was to use the results of the Stone & Webster 12 survey as shelter for the, quote, "two percent" population.
13 And, you know, I -- that 's my recollection right 14 here.
15 Q Now, you 're aware, aren 't you, Mr. McLoughlin, that 16 on October 5th of 1987 these hearings with this Board began?
17 A (McLoughlin) Yes, I did not -- I knew they began i
18 early October.
19 Q Did you have set up for yourself and Mr. Peterson 20 -- well, let me just ask you first. Did you have set up for 21 yourself a reporting system by which you would be kept informed 22 of what was happening at these hearings?
23 A (McLoughlin) Well, if you mean a structured system 24 by which I had, you know, asked somebody to report to me every,
() 25 you know, weekly or so, the direct answer to that question is.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12904
({}
i . no . On the other hand, there is an expectation that I -- my 2 belief is, that will be confirmed by others, that knowing that' 3 they 're going on, that both our General Counsel 's Of fice and 4 Mr. Krimm's shop who are the people who would most likely keep 5 up with this, would indeed certainly keep me informed of
. 6 significant events that are happening.
7 Now, that does not meen, and I want to be clear about 8 this, I would not expect them to keep me informed on, you know, 9 every daily happening here. But things that would come up like 10 a requirement for us to make a filing; a significant event; or 11 ruling that this Board made, the direct answer to that question 12 is, I would have expected them, and I think they did, generally D
d 13 speaking.
14 Q Okay. So either the attorneys. Mr. Cumming or 15 Mr. Flynn --
16 A (McLoughlin) Right.
17 Q -- or Mr. Krimm, you think understood that they 18 should and did keep you up to date on significant filings --
19 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
20 Q -- developments that wculd af fect the FEMA testimony?
21 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
22 Q Okay. Was the daily transcript of this proceeding l
23 available to FEMA in Washington?
l 24 A (McLoughlin) I believe the answer to that is, yes.
25 The -- I 'm looking at the attorney to see if he can give me any
(])
(
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 -
'() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12905 1 help on that. My general belief is that the answer to that is.
2 yes. And the reason I say that is that, I was given 3 periodically things to read that the attorneys in particular 4 felt it was important that it be called to our attention. This 5 was true both on Shoreham, and I believe on anything on 6 Seabrook.
7 Mr. Cumming, in particular, was -- tried to be very 8 alert, I believe, to letting us know these significant events 9 that were happening.
10 Q Now, one of the events that 's happened, and I believe 11 you referenced it in your testimony yesterday, was that on or i
1 12 about October 5th, which I 'll represent were the day these 13 hearings or at least opening statements got started, NRC filed 14 or made available to the parties a proposed rebuttal testimony 15 outline?
16 A (McLoughlin> That 's correct.
l 17 Q Are you aware of that?
18 A (McLoughlin) I referenced that yesterday.
19 MR. BACKUS: Okay. I 'd like to make copies of that 20 available.
21 Your Honor --
22 MR. DIGNAN: If this is going to be offered for the 23 truth of the matter as contained, the Applicant has no 24 obj ec t ion.
O 25 (Laughter)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l
<m 12906 i) KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 1 MR. BACKUS: It 's very helpful.
2 E 'd like to have this marked for identification at 3 this point. And for the record it is an October 5 letter from 4 Sherwin Turk to the Judges on this panel, and attached a two-5 page proposed rebuttal testimony of NRC staff concerning NH 6 RERP protective actions for Seabrook area, seasonal beach 7 populations.
8 JUDGE HARBOUR: Mass. 37.
9 MR. BACKUS: Thank you.
10 MR. TURK: That 's identification at this point.
11 right?
12 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. It hasn 't been of f ered.
13 MR. BACKUS: All right.
14 (The document referred to was 15 marked for identification
! 16 as Mass. AG Exhibit 37.)
17 BY MR. BACKUS:
18 Q Well, when was this proposal to file this rebuttal by 19 NRC staff brought to your attention. Mr. McLoughlin, 20 approximately?
21 A (McLoughlin) My belief is. Mr. Backus, that Mr.
22 Cumming -- I think it was Mr. Cumming, told me of the NRC 's 23 intent to do this, since the hearings had not started I assumed 24 what that meant was that they couldn 't do it until the hearings
() 25 started, in September some time.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
4 , .-
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12907 1 I was aware of the fact that the NRC was considering 2 rebutting our testimony. Well, I answered the best I can, some 3 time in September.
4 Q Okay. So even oefore this letter was distributed to 5- the Judges and the parties on the date indicated, you were 6 aware of the possibility that NRC would file testimony that was 7 not in conformity with the testimony FEMA was supporting; is 8 that correct?
9 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
10 Q How did you learn that?
11 A (McLoughlin) Well, I just told you, I believe. I 12 think my answer to that was --
13 Q Mr. Cumming?
14 A (McLoughlin) -- Mr. Cumming.
15 Q All right.
16 A (McLoughlin) I don 't want to think -- say I think my 17 answer to that is, I think it was Mr. Cumming.
18 Q Okay.
19 JUDGE SMITH: Incidentally, just so Mr. Cumming does 20 not despair, at least some of us know that his name is --
21 doesn 't have a terminal "S" in it. I 'm sure he 'll be reading 22 this transcript.
23 MR. BACKUS: All right.
4 24 BY MR. BACKUS:
l () 25 Q When you were told about the possibility of NRC Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
12908
(} KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 1 filing rebuttal testimony, was it told to you that in substance 2 it would say, "The absence of sheltering as an alternative 3 protective response for Seabrook area, seasonal beach 4 . populations does not contravene NRC regulations and guidance 5 and is consistent with the level of planning in place at other 6 nuclear plant sites?"
7 A (McLoughlin) No. Mr. Backus, the -- I do not recall 8 anyone, including Mr. Cumming, saying to me that --
9 specifically kind of what the outline would be included.
10 Because I don 't believe, at the moment, that he knew what he 11 was reporting to me was what I think -- my recollection is, is t
12 that from his discussions with NRC attorneys that t;- potential l
13 for doing this was there. I don 't believe that -- 1 don 't 14 believe at that time that he told me specifically any of the 15 contents of how the argument would go.
16 Q Okay. Mr. Krimm, let me just turn to you. Were you l 17 aware prior to October 5th that NRC might be taking an 18 evidentiary position opposed to FEMA 's in the hearings?
19 A (Krimm) I would say that somebody told me at the l 20 time. Mr. Backus, whether it would have been Bill Cumming or a l
l 21 member of my staff who had talked to Mr. Cumming; I vaguely I
22 recall somebody mentior ing it to me.
l 23 Q Did anyboo, tell your witness about this, Mr. Thomas, l 24 before October 5th?
I would assume, again -
(} 25 A CKrimm) That I don 't know.
l Heritage Reporting Corporation I
(202) 628-4888
KRIMM. PET ERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12909
(])
1 Q Well, don 't assume, please.
2 A (Krimm) Okay.
3 Q Please, please.
4 A CKrimm) Then I don 't know.
5 Q Do you know if anybody told your witness about this?
6 A (McLoughlin) I absolutely do not know.
7 Q- All right. Mr. Krimm, did you on or about October 8 5th or shortly thereaf ter have this rebuttal outline that 's 9 been marked here available to you?
10 A CKrimm) I don 't have a copy in f ront of me.
11 but --
12 Q One 's coming.
( 13 A (Krimm) Okay, thank you very much.
14 Mr. Backus, I don 't know the exact date I received 15 it, but I know that at some point in time I did receive a copy 16 of it.
17 Q Would it have been some time, do you think, in 18 October?
19 A CKrimm) I 'm sorry I can 't tell you exactly.
20 Q Do you know if you would have received this some time i
21 in October, Mr. McLoughlin?
22 A (McLoughlin) Mr. Backus, it 's my belief -- I made 23 reference yestercr a to the fact that this did influence my 24 continuing concerns about the position that we had taken; and I
(} 25 used this as a specific example.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12910 1 What I can 't answer specifically is, when precisely I 2 read this for the first time. I simply do not remember that.
3 But it certainly was in the window between our two filings.
4 Q You mean, between the filing of September 11th and 5 January 25th?
6 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
7 Q All right.
8 Can you parse it down any finer than that, what was 9 the latest you reasonably t'hink you might have seen this 10 document dated October 5th?
11 A (McLoughlin) Well, Mr. Cumming, and I think I had 12 been guilty of using the "S" on it, too, Mr. Cumming -- he is O 13 very conscientious about trying to be sure that we get 14 information that is -- that he believes is important to us at 15 the earliest possible time.
16 My belief is that shortly after Mr. Cumming would 17 have gotten this or someone on our general counsel staff, that 18 they would have given us a copy of it.
19 So what I 'm hinging it on is when they got a copy of 20 it, and I don 't know that. But my guess is that I would have 21 received it within a couple, three days after they got copies 22 of it.
23 Q All right, that 's fine.
24 And when you got it, did you note the statement on
() 25 page two of the plan as "F" about the absence of sheltering Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
\
l
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12911
(])
1 does not contravene NRC regulations and guidance, did you note 2 that?
3 A CMcLoughlin) Yes. I made specific reference to that 4 yesterday, because that was one of the -- you know, that was 5 one of the things that was beginning to be troubling to us in 6 which I had referenced to yesterday.
7 Q Okay. Had you some belief prior to seeing this that 8 NRC regulations -- NRC regulations did require sheltering; had 9 somebody told you that?
10 A (McLoughlin) I don 't believe so.
11 Q All right.
12 MR. FLYNN: Mr. Backus, may I suggest you 're 13 overlooking the entire discussion of the January RAC meeting 14 where the meeting of range of protective actions was discussed 15 for a day and a half.
16 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Flynn. I don 't know if Mr. Backus 17 appreciated your advice, but I think he might prefer, if you 18 want to give him advice like that, slip him a note or something 19 because it would also, at the same time, refresh your 20 witnesses ' memories.
21 MR. FLYNN: I will accept that correction, Your 22 Honor.
23 MR. BACKUS: Okay. I wonder if I might ask for maybe 24 five minutes. I don 't want a long break, because I know time 25 is short, but I am in need for a little relief.
(])
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12912-1 JUDGE SMITH: A11'right.
2 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
- et/130 3 (Continued on next page.)
4
.5
-6 7
8
! 9 10 i
11 l
12 0 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 I 24 0 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
(~T KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12913
. %)
T131~ 1 JUDGE SMITH: Judge Harbour likes to stretch a 2 little, but he can hear the testimony quite well.
3 MR. BACKUS: So we should resume.
4 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, right.
5 MR. BACKUS: Here comes Judge Harbour.
6 BY MR. BACKUS:
7 Q So, Mr. McLoughlin, as of early in October, 1987, in 8 all probability you had two things that had come up since the 9 September 11th filing, or had been assessed since the September 10 11th filing. One was the Stone & Webster survey. The other 11 was the NRC 's rebuttal outline.
12 Now, did those two things give you cause or reason at 13 that time to overrule your RAC chairman and your witness?
14 MR. FLYNN: Excuse me. At which time?
15 MR. BACKUS: In mid-October.
16 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) No, they did not.
17 MR. BACKUS: Okay.
18 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) I -- well.
19 BY MR. BACKUS:
20 Q Now, were you made aware. Mr. McLoughlin, that there 21 was a motion to strike the FEMA testimony, and the FEMA 22 testimon, I 'm talking about is the testimony on Pages 39 and 39 '
23 about the beach population that had been made during the course 24 of the hearing?
25 A (McLoughlin) Is -- Is that your term -- does the
(])
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
, .._ --- ,. ,---,,..-- , ,- . - , , .,._ ,,.,,,,,, ,.,,-,=.
- , ,--- _ -,-. , ,,.,._ , n,, - , . .r-- - ---
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12914 1 term "in limine", is that the term that is used?
2 The answer to that then is, yes. I 'm not familiar 3 with the legal terms and I don't want to misstate, but I am 4 familiar, if that what that term means that there was a 5 particular motion to strike our testimony, if all that, yes, 6 yes.
7 Q All right. And you are in fact more accurate than I 8 was. It was styled a motion in limine.
9 And you did become aware of that?
10 A (McLoughlin) Yes. I don 't know exactly when, but I 11 became aware of that, yes.
12 Q Okay.
\" 13 A (McLoughlin) It would have been in the window.
14 Q Okay. Was there discussion at FEMA in Washington, of 15 which ycu were aware, about how FEMA should respond to that?
16 A CMcLoughlin) Well, the direct answer to that 17 question. I believe, is yes.
18 Q All right.
19 A (McLoughlin) Because -- well, yes. I 'll leave it at 20 that.
l 21 Q Were you aware or party to those discussions about 22 how FEMA should respond to the Applicants ' motion to strike er l 23 in limine with regard to the FEMA testimony, Mr. Krimm?
i 24 MR. FLYNN: Was that Mr. Krimm or Mr. McLoughlin?
() 25 MR. BACKUS: Mr. Krimm.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHl.IN - CROSS 12915
(')
1- THE WITNESS: CKrimm) Mr. Backus, I don 't remember 2 the discussion.
3 BY MR. BACKUS:
4 Q You don't remember any discussions about that?
5 A CKrimm) I don 't remember the discussions. I 'm not 6 sure I sat in them or not. I think it may -- I was aware of 7 what was happening, but I believe that members of my staff may 8 have discussed it with the Office of General Counsel.
9 MR. BACKUS: I wanted to get a filing here and my 10 girl Friday isn 't here.
11 (Pause.)
12 BY MR. BACKUS:
() 13 Q Mr. McLoughlin, I 'm going to have to wait for a 14 document here, but let me j ust ask you, did you participate in 15 discussions leading to a decision to instruct FEMA counsel to 16 obj ect to that motion to strike the FEMA testimony?
17 A CMcLoughlin) I don 't recall that, Mr. Backus, not 18 participating in a discussion in terms of directing that our 19 legal counsel to do that, no.
20 Q Okay. Did you, Mr. Krimm?
21 A CKrimm) I j ust don 't recall them right offhand. I 'm i
22 sorry, I j ust don 't remember.
23 Q Well, Mr. McLoughlin, in fact as of some time in 24 October the issue had been joined about whether that testimony
() 25 should go forward; isn 't that true, and you were aware of that?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
() KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12916 What does the word -- you mean -- I 'm 1 A (McLoughlin) 2 only asking you to clarify for me if you will what the word 3 "j oined" means or "enj oined". I 'm not sure what you meant.
i All right, let me withdraw that.
4 Q 5 You had become aware that an issue had been raised 6 about whether the FEMA testimony should actually go forward or 7 be presented through this motion in limine, right?
8 A (McLoughlin) In a general way, yes.
9 MR. FLYNN: Excuse me, before you answer. Let me 10 suggest that the question is ambiguous. It can be interpreted 11 to mean that the position was wrong. It could be interpreted 12 to mean that we agreed or did not agree with the assertion that O 13 it was simply a matter of law. And I want to make sure the 14 witness understand which of those two possible interpretations 15 you 're proposing.
16 JUDGE SMITH: Well, the issue was before the Board.
17 Ic that what you --
18 MR. BACKUS: Right.
19 BY MR. BACKUS:
20 Q You were aware that the issue was before the Board.
21 A (McLoughlin) I was aware that the -- yes, yes.
22 Q And you had some discussions with your counsel about 23 filing an obj ection to that motion in a timely manner; is that 24 right?
() 25 A (McLoughlin) I do not recall -- that 's what I want Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- _____ _ __ _ . _ _ .)
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12917 1 to be clear about. Mr. Backus. I do not recall ever 2 participating, and I may have, but I don 't recall participating 3 with our general counsel in a meeting dealing specifically with 4 the issue of whether or not we were or were not going to 5 disagree with the NRC position --' rebuttal outline. I do not 6 recall ever being in that kind of a -- .
7 Q Well, the question was a little different than that.
8 Mr. McLoughlin.
9 Did you ever discuss the issue of whether or not to 10 oppose the Applicants ' motion in limine, or to strike the FEMA 11 testimony?
12 A CMcLoughlin) What I need to tell -- I don 't want to 13 be evasive, but I also don 't want to give you a wrong answer.
14 What was -- what my concern is, and was about.this 15 issue was the fact that here we are a consultant to the NRC f
16 doing what we can do to give our best response to the whole 17 issue of offsite shelter.
18 MR. FLYNN: I 'd like to suggest that the witness 19 doesn ' t understand the question. The witness seems to be 20 talking about the rebuttal outline, and the question talks f
21 about the Applicants ' motion to strike the testimony.
22 THE WITNESS: CMcLoughlin) I 'm sorry, you 're right.
23 MR. FLYNN: And they're not the same.
24 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) You 're exact ly right.
() 25 You 're exact ly right.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
}
(') KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12918 1 MR. BACKUS: Thank you.
2 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) And I was the one who 3 misspoke at that point.
4 But, Mr. Backus. I don't know how to respond at the 5 moment and get us back on track, because that was my error 6 doing that because I should have made reference --
7 JUDGE SMITH: Start with a fresh question.
8 MR. BACKUS: Let me just start over again.
9 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) Okay.
10 BY MR. BACKUS:
11 Q Was there discussion in which you either participated 12 or was aware about what position FEMA should take in regard to O 13 the Applicants ' motion in limine, or to strike the FEMA 14 testimony on the beach population?
15 MR. DIGNAN: Mr. Backus, I 've got a form 16 obj ect ion.
17 It 's conceivable I made the title that bad, but I 18 don 't think I did.
19 JUDGE SMITH: Well --
20 MR. DIGNAN: It was a motion in limine in the nature 21 of an obj ection to the receipt.
22 MR. BACKUS: Okay.
23 MR. DIGNAN: Okay?
24 MR. BACKUS: I 'm j ust trying to not -- he obviously
() 25 knows what the word means, so was there -- let me adopt it that Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
()
t XRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12919 1 way.
2 BY MR. BACKUS:
3 Q Was there a discussion in Washington in either which 4 'you participated or became aware about what response the FEMA 5 1awyers should make to the Applicants ' motion in the nature of 6 a notion in limine to the admission into evidence of a certain 7 portion of FEMA 's prefiled testimony?
8 MR. DIGNAN: You 're learning.
9 Claughter.)
10 THE WITNESS: -:McLoughlin) I think I --
11 MR. DIGNAN: It 's the first time Michigan Law School 12 ever taught Havard Law School anything.
13 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) I do not specifically 14 recall -- I recall the issue, that 's what I recall. the fact 15 that there was the potential for that happening, but I do not 16 recall participating specifically in discussions on the 17 decision relative to what FEMA was going to do about it.
18 BY MR. BACKUS:
19 Q Okay, who did?
20 A (McLoughlin) Who did what?
21 Q Participate in the decision as --
22 A (McLoughlin) I don 't know.
23 Q -- to what FEMA was going to do about it?
24 A (McLoughlin) I don 't know.
() 25 Q Do you know, Mr. Krimm?
\
Heritage Reporting Corporation
. (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12920 1 1 A (Krimm) I wish my memory is better. I vaguely 2 remember some of my staff discussing this with me, and I 3 believe I told them to work directly with Office of General 4 Counsel on it. That 's my recollection. I 'm sorry, I don 't 5 remember details and so forth.
6 Q Well, I 'm going to ask this to the panel.
7 Is it the testimony of this entire panel that none of 8 you can recall discussing the position FEMA was going to take 9 in regard to the motion in limine to the admission of yaur 10 evidence?
11 A (McLoughlin) The direct answer to that question in 12 my case i.' yes. I do not recall that.
13 Q Do you, Mr. Peterson?
14 A (Peterson) I don 't recall that discussion; no, sir.
15 Q You do not, Mr. Krimm?
16 A (Krimm) Other than what I stated previously, I do 17 not recall the details. I 'm sorry.
18 Q Are you aware, Mr. McLoughlin, that on or about 19 October 30th. FEMA counsel did file an obj ection to the 1
20 Applicants ' motion in limine?
21 A (McLoughlin) If I answer yes to all of that, on
, 22 October 30th, I am not specifically aware of dates, et cetera, 23 on that issue, no.
24 MR. FLYNN: Mr. Backus, do you have the document?
l
() 25 MR. BACKUS: I do. I thought I had multiple copies l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12921 1 of it, but I don 't know where Ms. Keough is but --
2 JUDGE SMITH: Well, we don't need a lot of copies of 3 it. I don't know if we really nee'd any.
4 MR. TURK: What 's the date, 10/30?
5 JUDGE SMITH: October 30.
6 BY MR. BACKUS:
7 Q Mr. McLoughlin, I'm not asking you to verify a 8 particular date, although the document I 'm showing you is dated 9 October 30th. I 'm j ust asking you, were you aware that, as of 10 about that date. FEMA was obj ecting to the motion to have the 11 beach testimony not admitted as a result of this motion in 12 limine?
13 A (McLoughlin) Well, I have already testified that I 14 do not recall participating in discussions on this decision, 15 and I don 't. But I am -- but I would indicate that I 16 ultimately became aware at some point in time that the agency
- 17 would have taken that position. They -- we would have gotten a i
18 copy of that, and I would have, my guess is read it. But if 19 you 're asking me to put that in a time frame, Mr. Backus. I 20 simply cannot do that.
21 Q Well, can we agree that, as of approximately this 22 date, the agency was still prepared to defend the prefiled 23 testimony as of September 7th and believe it should go forward 24 in the hearing?
i i
() 25 A (McLoughlin) September lith, l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() -
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12922 1 MR. FLYNN: Obj ection, that calls --
2 MR. BACKUS: September lith.
3 MR. FLYNN: I obj ect. That calls for a legal 4 conclusions. The issues are subtle, and the fact that that 5 document was filed may or may not be read to support the 6 proposition that Mr. Backus has put forward.
7 MR. BACKUS: It seems to me it 's not at all subtle.
8 If they thought the testimony was not supportable as of the 9 date, I don't suppose they would have filed an obj ection to the 10 motion in limine.
11 MR. FLYNN: That 's a dif ferent issue.
12 We have testified -- these witnesses have testified O'
\' 13 about looking for legal support, technical support, policy 14 support for the position, and this goes only to whether it was 15 legally -- whether the testimony was a question of law or not, 16 and that doesn't cover the entire spectrum.
17 MR. BACKUS: Well, I suppose this is all a matter for 18 argument. I think all I 'm trying to do is make a point, which 19 I guess is not disputed on the record, that as of that date --
20 Mr. Flynn, maybe you can stipulate the agency was obj ecting to 21 the striking of the Thomas testimony.
22 MR. TUR1: As any --
23 MR. DIGNAN: No, no.
24 MR. TURK: As any organization would do in a hearing.
() 25 MR. DIGNAN: This is why -- I know that he jumped me.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12923
(])
1 but I wanted to get on the record what the motion really was.
2 A motion in limine has a very special purpose. It 3 brings to the Court 's or the Board 's attention in advance an 4 obj ection that is going to be made, and allows a ruling to be 5 made in the future. And, indeed, in this particular 6 proceeding, Your Honor, if Your Honor might recall, the Board 7 made a point of hoping people would go that route so that we 8 could all know before we actually sat down in the hearing room 9 what was in and out and the Board 's views on this.
10 Now you can't take the position an attorney takes on 11 a motion in limine, and then translate that into saying that 12 the client he represents was sitting there with a conscious 13 decision that at a future date, come hell or high water, they 14 were going to defend that testimony. They hadn 't of f ered the 15 testimony as such yet. And that 's the problem.
16 JUDGE SMITH: Can, can, depends on what the position 17 was.
18 MR. DIGNAN: That 's true. But the problem is we 're 19 not making any progress here.
20 If one of these witnesses had said, yeah, they 21 brought into me. I went over it, and I said you make that 22 obj ect ion, Joe, because, by God, we 're going to def end it.
23 that 's one thing.
24 He hasn 't got that kind of a f rame work here and he 's
() 25 trying to take --
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l
() KRIMM, PETERSON, NCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12924 1 JUDGE SMITH: Well, how do you know? He hasn 't --
2 MR. DIGNAN: He hasn 't put the --
3 JUDGE SMITH: Nobody 's let him answer the question 4 yet .
. 5 MR. DIGNAN: Well, then, what 's he of fering that kind 6 of a stipulation for.
7 JUDGE SMITH: See, there was part of the debate back 8 and forth between counsel, it was not addressed to the Board, 9 that we missed because we 're disciplined not to listen to your 10 arguments back and forth. So we don 't know.
11 The only thing I know is that the question that he 12 put to that witness could perhaps elicit an answer that, well, 13 that 's a legal matter; I don 't know. Or, yes, sir, we 14 decided -- we decided. We made a study decision to st'ck to 15 the merits of our prefiled testimony. I don 't know what his 16 answer is.
17 As a matter of fact. I don 't remember FEMA 's 18 obj ect ions.
19 MR. FLYNN: The argument that I offered. Your 20 Honor --
21 MR. DIGNAN: There 's no question pending.
l 22 MR. FLYNN: -- was very, very brief. I said Mr.
23 Dignan 's arguments have merit, and the argument he made was 24 that this is simply a question of law. But I said, Your Honor.
i
() 25 I don't know how you can go forward without hearing from FEMA.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12925-1 End of argument.
2 MR. TURK: That was the intention of your paper.
3 MR. FLYNN: Yes.
4 JUDGE SMITH: That was -- see. I don 't actually 5 recall, but these witnesses are fully capable of understanding 6 what the position was and also understanding whether they 7 participated in it or not, or endorsed it, or whatever.
8 I mean if in fact it is so purely legal that they 9 can 't, well, then we 'll learn that, too.
10 MR. DIGNAN: Well. I think what Mr. Flynn 's point is.
11 Your Honor, and if I could prevail on -- tread on the 12 sensibilities of the Board, is the Board might want to review O 13 what FEMA said. It 's being -- the witnesses are being 14 questioned as though the FEMA response contains statements it 15 doesn 't contain.
16 I"m going to ask the Board to -- and I 've got a copy 17 here -- to review the FEMA response. And I think that 's what 's 18 setting up the problem.
19 JUDGE SMITH: What 's the pending question.
20 MR. BACKUS: I don't think there war one.
21 MR. FLYNN: No, there was.
22 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, there was a pending question. It 23 was --
24 MR. BACKUS: There was a pending question. Mr.
() 25 Oleskey reminds me.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12926 1 BY MR. BACKUS:
2 Q As of about October 30th, is it not correct that FEMA 3 was still prepared to support the prefiled testimony of 4 September 7th?
5 A (McLoughlin) That FEMA was still prepared to stmport 6 the testimony of September 11th? .
7 Q Yes.
8 A (McLoughlin) Correct. I know of no reason why we 9 weren't willing to support that testimony.
10 MR. BACKUS: Okay, I'd like to just mark this for 11 identification.
12 JUDGE SMITH: Was that the motion or just --
13 MR. BACKUS: The response. I know it 's in the 14 record, but for continuity of this particular transcript --
15 JUDGE SMITH: Well, we 're getting a lot of paper 16 here, and what is the probative value of Mr. Flynn 's pleading 17 with respect to the testimony of this panel?
18 MR. BACKUS: Well. I think it may have some -- I 'm 19 just going to mark it for identification because we 've been 20 talking about it.
21 MR. TURK: Well, if you 're going to do that. I nope 22 you will bear in mind Mr. Flynn's clarification which he 23 mentioned right here today a few minutes ago. And that was the 24 intention of his paper was simply to say, Your Honor, whatever 25 may be the law. I don't think you can go ahead without a
(])
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12927 1 position from FEMA, and here is our position.
2 MR. BACKUS: Good argument, good argument. I wish we 3 could swear Mr. Flynn in and I would ask him, but I understand 4 that --
5 MR. TURK: Well, he stated that.
6 MR. BACKUS: He 's making argument of counsel and so 7 are you.
8 I 'm going to mark the --
9 MR. TURK: Isn 't that what all legal pleadings are, 10 Mr. Backus?
11 MR. BACKUS: I 'm going to ask the reporter to mark 12 the October 30th FEMA response as an exhibit for O 13 identification.
14 JUDGE SMITH: Massachusetts Attorney General Exhibit.
15 for identification, 38.
16 (The document referred to was
- 17 marked for identification as i
19 Massachusetts Attorney Genet al 's 19 Exhibit No. 38.)
20 THE WITNESS: CPeterson) Your Honor. I need a point 21 of clarification.
22 I was asked relevant to this.
23 MR. BACKUS: Yes.
24 THE WITNESS: (Peterson) And my response to you was
() 25 I never viewed this or was involved in any discussions. It was I
Heritage Reporting Corporation
' (202) 628-4888 i
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12928
(])
1 not meant to be that I supported the FEMA position at that 2 time.
3 MR. BACKUS: All right.
4 BY MR. BACKUS:
5 Q But you were not playing e decisional role in this at
. 6 that time, is that --
7 A (Peterson) That 's right. Thtat 's my point and I 8 don 't want it to be misinterpreted.
9 Q Indeed, at that time you, as I understand it, had 10 been nominated but had no votes on your confirmation had been 11 held; is that right?
12 A CPeterson) A long ways off from its finality, yes.
13 Q Are you suggesting, Mr. Peterson, that, by speaking
. 14 up as you just did, that by that time, on or about the end of 15 October, you had formed a position about -- a personal position 16 about FEMA 's position?
17 A (Peterson) I think my response is quite clearly the 18 contrary.
19 I wanted to clarify in my mind and in your mind that 20 I had not endorsed any position at that time, nor was I even 21 aware of this document at that time, or any discussions related 22 thereto.
23 Q All right.
24 MR. DIGNAN: Do I understand that his has been marked 25 as an exhibit? And if so, can I have a copy of it? Marked for
(])
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 .
KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12929 '
(])
1 identification.
2 MR. BACKUS: I thought everybody said they didn 't !
3 want more paper, but we 've got it now.
4 MR. DIGNAN: I love paper.
5 MR. TURK: Have erother one?
6 JUDGE SMITH: If you 're going to of f er it, you 'd 7 better give the Board one, too.
8 MR. BACKUS: Yes, coming right up.
9 Okay, and I will offer that for the limited purpose 10 of following a historic record even though it 's a part of the 1 il proceedings as a pleading.
12 That 's Massachusetts Exhibit 37.
13 MS. KEOUGH : Thirty-eight.
14 MR. TURK: I obj ect to that, Your Honor.
15 JUDGE SMITH: Well, this is simply a convenience 16 when he wishes to make it. It 's already a matter of record.
17 It was brcught to the Board, the parties addressed it. He 18 could cite it by name, or he could cite it conveniently by 19 Exhibit number. But that 's the only value it has. I think he 20 can offer it. Simply we have an exhibit which is a shorthand ,
21 term, and it 's there for everybody to read.
22 MR. DIGNAN: What 's the purpose of the of fer?
23 MR. BACKUS: It 's of f ered as a document that bears in 24 the historical evolution of the FEMA position.
25 MR. DIGNAN: Intending to prove what?
(])
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12930
(])
1 MR. BACKUS: That 's going to be lef t to the argument.
2 MR. DIGNAN: Then I obj ect. The only offer is that 3 it 's a document that "bears" on an evolutionary position.
4 ' That 's not good enough. I can't go along with it for that 5 purpose.
6 MR. BACKUS: Not every document has to be dispositive 7 of the ultimate issue. It 's relevant to the issue.
8 MR. TURK: It 's a legal pleading.
9 MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, it 's not necessary to admit 10 it.
11 JUDGE SMITH: Well, this is -- I don 't knov; if 12 anybody 's characterized this the way that I would characterize
() 13 it. I think that FEMA is making two points here. The first 14 point is a self-destruct by saying that that 's immaterial . But 15 they do say that FEMA stands by its original position.
16 Substance of the Applicants' argument against the introduction 17 of FEMA 's testimony is that FEMA 's position asserts nothing 18 more than legal argumentation and its conclusions are legally 19 incorrect. FEMA. of course, asserts its conclusions are 20 legally correct.
E131 21 (Continued on next page.)
22 23 24 25
(:)
Heritage Reporting Corporation
. (202) 628-4988
12931
(} XRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS t/132 1 But then it goes on to say, correct or incorrect, 2 their position has to be known. However, let me say, no matter 3 what it says, I mean, characterize it my way or your way or 4 anybody else 's way, it does nothing to augment or help or 5 anything or anything about this witness 's testimony that I 6 could see, and I don't know what probative value it has. The 7 only thing, it seems to me, is that we look at as a shorthand 8 way to refer to it, and it is a milestone, but it hes no value 9 that I can see with these witnesses.
10 MR. BACKUS: I guess I also didn 't of f er it, and I 'd 11 like to offer on the same basis, Exhibit 37, which was the 12 October 5th letter from Mr. Turk and the attached proposed j () 13 rebuttal testimony of NRC staff.
14 MR. DIGNAN: Now, what 's that of fered for?
15 MR. BACKUS: The same basis.
16 JUDGE SMITH: Well, this wasn 't --
17 MR. DIGNAN: This isn 't FEMA 's position; it 's the NRC i 18 staf f 's position.
19 JUDGE SMITH: This is the NRC staff position as to 20 which FEMA looked in one of the milestones of this evolution.
3 i 21 But we do not have the same for the 38, that 's why I don 't 22 understand what we 're going to do with it; the thing is going
! 23 to be a free-floating piece of information that will prove 24 nothing.
25 MR. BACKUS: Well, I think it bears on the i
[}
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12932
(])
1 credibility of the position these witnesses are taking about 2 their -- the evolution of their position. I 'm not going to try 3 and lay that all out, but I think it does bear on that.
4 MR. TURK : Your Honor, if you 're going to rule on 37 5 I want to obj ect as well.
6 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, I 'm going to rule on 37. I 'm 7 going to rule unless --
8 MR. TURK: Well, I have an obj ection to be noted.
9 JUDGE SMITH: -- unless you 're mighty persuasive in 10 the next few minutes.
11 MR. TURK: I would simply call your attention and the 12 attention of the parties in the room to the cover letter which
( 13 accompanied that transmittal. It 's a rathcr long sentence, but 14 let me emphasize as follows, it states that on September 4th 15 the Board had advised the Board and parties, quote: "That it 16 may wish to submit rebuttal testimony with respect to the beach 17 shelter issue. " close quote.
. 18 It goes on to say, in accordance with that 19 commitment, quote: "The staff hereby submits a draft outline of I
20 the areas it may wish to address in its rebuttal testimony in 21 the event the staff determines following cross-examination that 22 such rebuttal testimony is appropriate," close quote.
23 My point is simply that this paper was a draft. It 24 constituted the state of certain thinking at that time and it f (} 25 should not be interpreted any different way.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
l 12933
(} KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 1 JUDGE SMITH: It is not being offered in the 2 slightest to represent anything that the NRC staf f thought or 3 is thinking; it 's only what Mr. McLoughlin thought the NRC 4 staff was thinking. And it 's perf ect ly appropriate.
5 Overruled.
6 (The document referred to having 7 been previously marked for 8 identification as Mass. AG 9 Exhibit 37, was received in 10 evidence.)
11 MR. BACKUS: So, 37 is in. Have you made a ruling en 12 38 which is the --
() 13 JUDGE SMITH: 38 is out; there 's no probative value 14 to it. Nevertheless, it is one of the ecst insignificant 15 rulings that we have made in the history of this proceeding, 16 because it is in the record. I don 't think that you even got 17 anybody to acknowledge that they even was aware of this paper.
18 I don 't know. Did anybody ever say that they were 19 even aware of this response to the motior, in limine?
20 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) I became ultimately aware 21 of the fact that FEMA was going to support. Certainly, my 22 expectation was to support it.
23 JUDGE SMITH: The subj ect matter, but not the paper 24 itself?
(McLoughlin) No.
{} 25 THE WITNESS:
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() 1 KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS JUDGE SMITH: Not the pleading itself.
12934 2 MR. BACKUS: Okay.
3 BY MR. BACKUS:
4 Q But you did know at some time around the time when 5 this response was due that you were going to support the FEMA 6 testimony as filed on September 11th against a challenge to 7
- wt estimony going into the record, you knew that?
8 A (McLoughlin.1 Mr. Backus, obviously, this is very 9 important to you and I don't want to do anything but give you 10 an honest answer to it 11 Q Well, that 's I want. Mr. McLoughlin.
12 A CMcLoughlin) But for the life of me, you have come
( 13 back at me about a half a dozen times on this issue. I have 14 given you as accurately as I can what I understand to be the 15 case.
16 Q Well --
17 A (McLoughlin) Now. I don 't know how many times --
18 what I 'm af raid of will happen here, to be honest about it, is 19 that somehow there will be a change in your question that I am 20 not able to pick up, and somehow I will give you two different 21 answers when I didn 't intend '.o do that; and that 's what my 22 concern is. And if you will please ask me the question once 23 again. I will do my best to give you your answer.
24 Q I 'm not trying to ask you any trick questions. If you made an inadvertent error in response to a question, you
/} 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12935
{} 1 will have an opportunity to make a correction. And I 'm sure 2 counsel will see to that on redirect. So try not to worry 3 about that and j ust answer the question.
4 JUDGE SMITH: Now, wait a minute. There is a problem 5 that the Board and witnesses and everybody has and that is, 6 when you perceive that a question has been asked before, and it
? has in fact been asked before, well, you try to impute a e
8 dif f erent meaning to the question because you think that you 've 9 answered it and you try to impute some rationale in asking a 10 similar question. So, it does play mind tricks with people.
11 MR. BACKUS: I 'm not doing that.
12 JUDGE SMITH: I know you 're not trying to, but this
() 13 is the witness 's concern.
14 MR. BACKUS: All right.
15 JUDGE SMITH: Now, what is the --
16 MR. BACKUS: Let me alleviate his concern and just 17 see if ? can ask the question and -- because I don 't think it 's 18 been answered.
19 BY MR. BACKUS:
20 Q The question is, as you 've testified, you had some 21 awarenese that your FEMA testimony was under challenge by means 22 of a motion that had been filed?
23 A (McLoughlin) Yes.
24 Q And you were aware that FEMA counsel was going to 25 oppose that challenge on or about October 30th or that time
[}
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12936
(')
\_/
1 range, and you approved that?
2 A (McLoughlin) That 's not --
I 'm sorry, and I approved 3 of that?
4 Q Well, strike that. Were you aware that FEMA counsel 5 was going to resist the challenge to the FEMA testimony?
6 A (McLoughlin) I did not -- I have stated I have -- I 7 did not participate in discussions that led to that decision, 8 that 's one.
9 Two, I don 't -- my belief is that our general counsel 10 would have given me a copy of that. There 's no reason in the 11 world that they would not have. But I do not specifically 12 recall dealing with that as an issue.
() 13 I certainly am aware of the fact that we were wanting 14 to support our testimony. But, Mr. Backus, I view this as an 15 entirely, a legal matter. You know, I didn 't even know what 16 the term in limine meant until I had to ask questions about it.
17 And when I did, it obviously sticks with me because it 's an 18 unusual term that I had -- was not familiar with.
19 Q Well. --
I 'm sorry.
20 A (McLoughlin) And so I am aware of the fact that 21 FEMA 's position is to do what it has to do to support our 22 position. And if there 's a challenge to that, I would expect 23 our lawyers, when its appropriate, to take the appropriate 24 steps so that legally to deal with that.
25 Now, those are not programmatic issues from my d(^s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12937 g -)
\_/
1 perception; and that 's what I 'm concerned about.
2 Q All right.
3 Now, in your testimony yesterday, Mr. McLoughlin, you 4 mentioned a couple of other milestones that came up thereafter?
5 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
6 Q One, and I want you to tell me if I'm omitting 7 anything here, was this Board 's ruling, you said it was 8 November 6th, I believe the record will show it was November 9 16th, excluding some dose testimony offered by the Attorney 10 General of Massachusetts, Sholly-Beyea; and the other was the 11 NRC 's new rule on utility plans which was adopted at the end of 12 the month?
() 13 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
14 Q Did these two events provide cause or reason to 15 reverse your RAC chairman and your FEMA witnesses?
16 JUDGE SMITH: Do you -- I don 't fully understand the 17 reach of the question, and I wonder if he does. Are you 18 saying, standing alone do they or --
19 MR. BACKUS: Good point. Let 's take them up l 20 separately, i
21 BY MR. BACKUS:
l 22 Q Did this Board 's ruling of November 16th excluding 23 the Sholly-Beyea testinony, in your mind, constitute cause or 24 reason to reverse Mr. Thomas 's position?
I 25 JUDGE SMITH: That doesn 't satisfy -- see, I 'll have f
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12938 1 this discussion with you in the absence of witnesses, if you 2 wish, but I don 't think it 's necessary. But there 's two 3 approaches that they could have to it, and that is -- you got 4 it.
5 MR. BACKUS: All right. All right. I 'm not -- wel l .
6 JUDGE SMITH: And I don 't want to interf ere. I just 7 want him to understand.
8 MR. BACKUS: All right.
9 JUDGE SMITH: I just want you to understand your 10 question, too.
11 MR. BACKUS: All right. I think --
12 BY MR. BACKUS:
() 13 Q -- well, Mr. McLoughlin, let me go back again. As we 14 get up to the end of October it 's my understanding that FEMA 15 was still supporting the September lith testimony as filed; is 16 that true?
17 A (McLoughlin) Mr. Backus, I testified yesterday that 18 even as late as January 12th that my counsel to Mr. Flynn, in 19 answer to a question from this Board, was we hold that position 20 until we have a new one.
21 JUDGE SMITH: I 'm sorry, you 're -- see, he asked you 22 that question which is the question you think has been asked to 23 you many times. Now, and indeed it has been. He aeked it to 24 you to place in context the next series of questions. So it 25 really is not -- it 's only a contextual question.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12939
,fq
\J Okay.
1 THE WITNESS: CMcLoughlin) What I --
2 JUDGE SMITH: See, he 's getting ready for his next 3 question. Just say, yes, yes, and then he 'll go on.
4 Claughter) 5 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) Your Honor, what I want 6 to be clear about, because it is -- the sequence of the events 7 and the totality of the events in culmination are what caused 8 us to deal with the issue. I am not prepared to give Mr.
9 Backus an answer that would say, as of October 30th or 3 or 11 10 and so forth, that any one of those single events --
11 JUDGE SMITH: He 's coming to that. Now, just --
12 THE WITNESS: CMcLoughlin) Okay.
() 13 JUDGE SMITH: But that 's good help, I 'm sure he 14 appreciates that.
15 BY MR. BACKUS:
16 Q Do you want the question?
l 17 A (McLoughlin) Please.
18 Q My understanding is that, up through the end of 19 October basically FEMA was still prepared to defend the 20 testimony that had been filed on September 11th; is that 21 correct?
22 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct. I would say that we l 23 were not prepared to change it.
l
! 24 Q Okay. And have we discussed all the factors that l
25 might affect a decision to change it up to that time?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12940 1 A CMcLoughlin) No.
2 Q Okay. What else is there?
3 A CMcLoughlin) Well, as I testified yesterday.
4 there --
5 JUDGE SMITH: No, what was the factors that came to 6 your attention up until approximately the end of October, not 7 subsequent factors, but the factors that came to your 8 attention --
9 THE WITNESS: CMcLoughlin) Yes.
10 JUDGE SMITH: -- up to that time?
11 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) He has not dealt with all 12 of them, Your Honor.
() 13 JUDGE SMITH: All right.
14 MR. BACKUS: All right, that 's what I want to know.
15 THE WITNESS: (McLougnlin) That 's what I understood 16 his question to be. And what I testified to yesterday was 17 that -- what you have done is, so far is to go through a legal
- 18 track, and those were indeed the things that were beginning to 19 build and beginning to cause me some concern about the legal 20 supportability of our position.
21 But there were other things that I testified to 22 yesterday. Clearly, the technical issues. I had testified --
l 23 MR. BACKUS: Okay.
24 BY MR. BACKUS:
25 Q This is the Keller business?
Heritage Reporting Corporation l
C202) 628-4888 l
l l
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12941 g-3 v This is the Keller business, 1 A (McLoughlin) 2 certainly. And I testified yesterday that the Keller 3 discussions with our staff as they were reported to me did 4 occur in, the best I can recall, in the October, late October 5 sequence, some place around that time; maybe the 1st of, 6 November, but essentially, the tail end of October. And.those 7 were --
8 Q Now, Mr. -- I 'm sorry.
9 A (McLoughlin) Excuse me.
10 Q Finish up. Anything more?
11 A (McLoughlin) No.
12 Q Okay. Now, Mr. Keller is the individual from the
'( ) 13 Idaho Engineering Laboratory?
14 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
15 Q Who you called in for technical assistance on the 16 sheltering issue?
17 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
18 Q Okay. And, of course, he is a witness on the March 19 14th testimony that we 've had filed in this proceeding, is he 20 not?
a 21' A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
22 Q And isn't the gist of his testimony that indeed 23 sheltering is not likely to be a preferred option for the 24 close-in population around nuclear plants in the event of a 25 f ast breaking accident?
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12942 f3
.V 1 MR. TURK: Obj ect ion.
2 MR. FLYNN: Excuse me, are we shifting time frames 3 here that the -- the testimony is different in content from the 4 discussion in October; and I think that was clear from the 5 direct testimony yesterday. So if you 're asking about the 6 influence of the information in the testimony you 're talking 7 about a different period of time.
8 MR. BACKUS: I didn 't understand it.
9 JUDGE SMITH: I think you missed the purpose. What 10 happened is, in the progression of events that have entered 11 into the evolution, would come to Mr. Keller. And now he is 12 stopping and examining on that basis.
() 13 MR. FLYNN: But that 's --
14 JUDGE SMITH: And one of the ways he 's doing it is 15 identif ying that 's the very same Mr. Keller who has testified 16 or will be testifying on the March 14th prefiled testimony to 17 certain things; that 's where we are.
18 MR. TURK: I hear Mr. Flynn's obj ection to be that, 19 what may have been discussed in October is not necessarily the 20 same thing as what appears in the January testimony.
21 JUDGE SMITH: It may very well be. It may very well 22 be. But it is indeed the one in the same Keller who did -- who 23 has been offered as a witness as to things in the March 14th 24 testimony.
25 MR. FLYNN: Well, I certainly don 't dispute that.
/
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12943
.g3 V BY MR. BACKUS:
1 2 Q Do you have the question?
3 A (McLoughlin) I must have it, Mr. Backus, yes.
Okay. You 'd like me to phrase -- reput the question? '
4 Q S ,
A (McLoughlin) Well, the last question I recall, the 6 answer is, yes.
7 Q All right. You said that the other factor that I 8 left out in my progression to the point of October or the end 9 of the October --
10 A (McLoughlin) Yes.
11 Q --
was the fact that you had decided or somebody 12 decided to contact Mr. Keller for some technical assistance on
() 13 the efficacy of sheltering as a protective action for the 14 close-in population?
15 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
16 Q Okay. And we have Mr. Keller 's testimony as filed on 17 March 14th; is that correct?
18 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
19 Q And do I correctly characterize that testimony as 20 saying, that based on the things he discusses, he concludes 21 that generally speaking sheltering is not a good protective 22 action or as good as evacuation for the populations within two 23 miles of a nuclear facility?
24 A (McLoughlin) That is one of the conclusions, yes.
25 That is not the only conclusion. I would say.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12944 l 1 Q Is there other conclusions of his testimony or work 2 that you would cite as important to the decision?
3 A (McLoughlin) Surely. !
4 MR. FLYNN: And for what period of time?
5 JUDGE SMITH: Well, see I think --
6 MR. BACKUS: Today.
7 JUDGE SMITH: Well, yes, let 's make it clear, because 8 within the context of the way you asked the question it could 9 be that you have equated it as one in the same, the March 14th 10 testimony of Mr. Keller and the report Mr. Keller gave in 11 October. And that is what concerns Mr. Flynn and Mr. Turk. If 12 that 's what your intention is, well, let's make clear that
() 13 that 's what it is.
14 MR. BACKUS: All right.
15 BY MR. BACKUS:
16 Q Hasn 't it been Mr. Keller 's position consistently, 17 since you 've been dealing with him on this, that sheltering is 18 not a good protective response for the populations within two 19 miles of the Seabrook reactor?
20 A (McLoughlin) My knowledge is that subsequent to the 21 meetings in which I was informed of in October, the answer is 22 that that is one of the conclusions that Joe Keller has been 23 specifically supported, yes.
24 Q Okay. And what are the other conclusions that you 25 believe are important that he supports?
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12945 1 A (McLoughlin) That evacuation, number one.
2 evacuation does indeed provide significant dose savings.
3 And two, that evacuation is indeed undoubtedly a -- I 4 want to withdraw the word "undoubtedly," that evacuation is, in 5 most instances, the preferred protective measure.
6 And one of the additional conclusions that is 7 important to me is the fact that the uncertainties that are 8 associated with dose proj ections, because of the uncertainties 9 related to the releases in the reactor, that is an additional 10 support, in my mind, why evacuation is the probable preferred 11 protective action.
12 Now, when I say that I don 't want to in any way, fm d 13 shape, or form leave out other protective actions such as: ,
14 access control; monitoring; those issues as well.
15 JUDGE SMITH: Well, wait a minute now. Just keep 16 your answer limited to what you gained from Mr. Keller 's input 17 in October as leading to the evolution of your position.
(
18 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) Yes, will do.
19 JUDGE SMITH: And if that was what you were going to 20 do -- I mean, if that was elaboration on that, if it was in l
21 addition to it. I prefer you wouldn 't do that.
l 22 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) Your Honor --
23 MR. FLYNN: Excuse me, Your Honor, I --
l 24 JUDGE SMITH: What?
25 MR. FLYNN: -- I don 't want to belabor this point.
(])
l l Heritage Reporting Corporation
.. (202) 628-4888
I
() . KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12946 1 but I did not understand the question to be asking about Mr.
2 Keller 's conclusions in the October time f rame.
3 JUDGE SMITH: This has been Mr. Keller 's -- what he 4 learned from -- what he learned, as a consequence of Mr.
5 Keller 's work in October as well as other times because the 6 question to him was, has it not been consistently Mr. Keller 's 7 position.
8 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) Yes, then I was in error 9 in adding the other ones. I was only -- I was in error in 10 adding the rest of it, yes.
11 BY MR. BACKUS:
12 Q And I wanted to restrict to Mr. Keller 's conclusions
/O
\~ 13 about sheltering as a protective action.
14 A (McLoughlin) All right.
15 Q Now, having in mind that I want to restrict you to
< 16 his conclusions about sheltering for protective action, would 17 you agree that f rom the time he 's been working on this, up to 18 the time he filed the testimony, his conclusion about 19 sheltering is that it 's not a good protective action for the 20 close-in two-mile ring around a nuclear plant including 21 Seabrook?
22 A (McLoughlin) Mr. Backus, his -- my belief of what he 23 has consistently said is to be very careful about sheltering.
24 He has been -- he has been -- my belief is, he supports the two
() 25 percent, the sheltering for the two percent. And therefore, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12947 1 I 'm reluctant to agree to something that doesn't suggest that 2 Mr. Keller would support that, because I believe he does.
3 That 's my --
4 Q Okay. Granted.
5 For the 98 percent, am I correct. that his conclusion 6 as expressed to you in October and up to the time of the filing 7 of the testimony was that sheltering is not a good protective 8 action for the 98 percent in the close-in area?
9 A (McLoughlin) No, that is not accurate; cnd it is not 10 the way in which I have characterized it con;2stently.
11 JUDGE SMITH: All right, let me interrupt here. Are 12 you -- is it the purpose of your question to capture all of the m/ 13 nuances of Mr. Keller 's viewpoint on it, which may not be 14 evident in the question or is it simply to identify, generally 15 speaking, the gist of Mr. Keller 's position.
16 MR. BACKUS: It 's the latter, Your Honor.
17 JUDGE SMITH: It 's the latter.
18 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) Then I 'm -- the uoncern 19 that I have, Your Honor, is the fact that Mr. Keller has been, 20 because I had asked him specifically these questions. He has 21 never said, and it 's my understanding, is that he does not take 22 the position that shelter is always the best option.
23 His position has been, rather, that in most instances 24 shelter is not the preferred countermeasure, but he has clearly I
() 25 said to me that there may be instances in which shelter could Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12948 1 conceivably be, under some sets of circumstances, a reasonable 2 protective action to take.
3 And so what I don 't want to do is to agree to 4 anything that excludes shelter -- the opportunity to use
.5 shelter as a protective measure; that 's my only concern.
6 JUDGE SMITH: This series of questions, I think, 7 would be unfair to Mr. McLoughlin if we didn 't understand that 8 there are shades of -- there are nuances to many of these 9 answers and since you 're j ust trying to establish milestones 10 now, that -- well, he 's prudent in making sure that his 11 statement is accurate. But we do have a problem here.
12 MR. BACKUS: Well --
() 13 MR. TURK: Your Honor, for clarification, I believe 14 the witness may have misspoken. I believe he said that Keller
! 15 has never said that shelter is always the preferred option, or 16 something along that line. I think he meant to say evacuation.
17 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) I 'm norry. Can I restate 18 it, so that I 'm clear? What I should have said, if I did not, 19 is that Mr. Keller has never said to me or taken a position, as I
20 I understand it, that shelter is not an option in some sets of 21 circumstances.
22 That generally speaking, shelter is not the preferred 23 option in most fast breaking events.
i 1
et/132 24 (Continued on next page.)
() 25 l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12949 T133 i BY MR. BACKUS:
2 Q I'd like to relate that back to the statement made in i
3 the letter of June 11th that we previously discussed, the last 4 sentence on Page 2.
5 JUDGE SMITH: What exhibit number is that?
6 MR. BACKUS: It 's 35.
7 BY MR. BACKUS:
8 Q Which states, "Although sheltering is an alternative.
9 we doubt-if the --
10 JUDGE SMITH: Excuse me, Mr. Backus. Where are you?
11 MR. BACKUS: Page 2 --
12 (Interruption from audience.)
O 13 JUDGE SMITH: Go ahead, Mr. Backus.
14 BY MR. BACKUS:
15 Q The statement we previously discussed is, "Although
';6 sheltering is an alternative --
17 THE WITNESS: CMcLoughlin) Please --
18 JUDGE HARBOUR: Page number.
19 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) Could I get where you 20 are?
21 MR. BACKUS: Page 2 of the June 11th letter which was 22 marked as Exhibit 35; also appears as Page 71 of Staff Exhibit 23 2-A.
- 24 THE WITNESS
- (McLoughlin) I 'm on Page 2. If you 're l
() 25 going to read something, just help me get to it.
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12950
{)
1 MR. BACKUS: Okay, it 's the last sentence on the 2 second paragraph.
3 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) Okay.
4 MR. BACKUS: "Although sheltering is an alternative, 5 we doubt if the use of existing public,or private facilities 6 would be acceptable." .
7 BY MR. BACKUS:
8 Q Correct?
9 A (McLoughlin) That 's what it says, yes.
10 Q Now, doesn 't the Keller hypothesis that in most 11 accidents sheltering is not going to be the protective action 12 of response of choice for the close-in --
O 13 A (McLoughlin) Right.
14 Q -- population reinforce that, for the 98 percent.
15 A (McLoughli'O Yes, I would say it does.
16 Q Okay. Now, we 've discussed the f actors --
17 MR. TURK: Your Honor, could we have just two minutes 18 to regroup after that interruption?
19 MR. BACKUS: Well, I 'm fully grouped.
20 MR. TURK: I 'm not . Just a stand in place for a few 21 minutes.
22 JUDGE SMITH: All right, that 's a good idea.
23 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
24 BY MR. BACKUS:
() 25 Q Now, Mr. McLoughlin, we had gotten up to roughly the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12951 1 end of October, and I had asked you if I had captures the 2 factors that were significant that might bear on altering the 3 FEMA position of September lith. And you said, no.
4 We then got to discussing Mr. Keller and his work.
5 A (McLoughlin) Correct.
6 Q With that inclusion, have I now omitted anything that 7 was significant in terms of reassessing the FEMA position 8 between September lith and the end of October?
9 A (McLoughlin) No, I don 't believe so.
10 Q All right. Would I then be correct that the next 11 event that you adverted to in your direct testimony would be 12 the Board 's ruling of November 16th, on the Sholly-Beyes 13 testimony?
14 A (McLoughlin) Did we talk about the November 3rd 15 filing, or rule? Have you -- we did not talk about that, did 16 we?
17 Q Okay.
18 A (McLoughlin) And that --
19 Q I was going to treat that as being a late November, 20 because I think it was finally adopted in late November, but I 21 may be wrong.
22 But you mean the rule change?
23 A (McLoughlin) Yeah. As long as we 're -- put that in 24 the November time frame. I'll wait until your question comes 25
(]) then.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12952 ,
1 Q Okay. You agree we captured everything that you feel.
2 is significant up to November then.
3 A (McLoughlin) Yes.
4 Q And in November, there were the two events that you 5 just adverted to: The Board 's ruling on November 16th on
. 6 Sholly-Beyea, and the NRC Commission adoption of the rule 7 change on utility plans.
8 A (McLoughlin) Thac 's correct.
9 Q Okay. Of course, both of these are legal 10 developments; is that correct?
11 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct. I think I labeled 12 those as such yesterday.
O 13 Q Okay. Now, did -- you chronologically, I think, put 14 the rule change as the first of those, so let me --
15 A (McLoughlin) Yes.
16 Q -- just deal with it in that light.
17 Did the rule change then constitute cause or reason 18 to override our Region 1 RAC chairman and witness on the FEMA 19 position?
20 A (McLoughlc 1 You mean in and of itself?
21 Q Yes.
t
- 22 A (McLoughlin) No.
23 Q Okay. Did the November 16th ruling of this Board on l 24 the Sholly-Beyea testimony give you cause or reason to override
() 25 your RAC chairman in Region 1 and witness, in and of itself?
Heritage Reporting Corporation I
(202) 628-4888 .
l l
l 1
I l
1 1
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12953 1 A (McLoughlin) The answer to that is, no, but it --
2 but I want you to understand that there is a growing concern 3 on my part at that point as we get additional elements of 4 information that at some point, you know, it 's got to tip the 5 balance, and it is not -- we are not there in November, but we 6 certainly are, as I said at the end of September, right after 7 the September filing and right before that, we were concerned.
8 These are issues that are clearly causing concern on our part, 9 but as of the end of November had not reached a final 10 conclusion that we ought to change.
11 Q All right. And, accordingly, I take it, Mr.
12 McLoughlin, you had not at this point in any way indicated to O 13 Mr. Thomas that he should not be anticipating to go forward to 14 defend the September lith testimony.
15 A (McLoughlin) The September 11th?
16 Q September 11th filing.
17 A (McLoughlin) Now, wait a minute. I 'm in November 18 now and you are --
19 Q No, let me ask it again.
20 A (McLoughlin) All right.
21 Q Up to the end of November --
22 A (McLoughlin) Yes.
23 Q -- had you in any way indicated to Mr. Thomas, who 24 was the sole FEMA witness on the issue of the beach population
() 25 in the testimony filed on September 11th --
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l l
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12954 1 A (McLoughlin) Oh, 2 Q -- that you were no longer -- that you were thinking 3 of no longer supporting his position?
4 A (McLoughlin) No, I don 't -- wait a minute. . I 'm not 5 sure -- you 're asking -- the question is -- let me give you the 6 question so I think I understand it.
7 You 're asking me whether or not at that point in time 8 I had said anything to Mr. Thomas to suggest that our position 9 is changing.
10 Q Right.
11 A (McLoughlin) Mr. Backus. I don 't -- boy, you know, 12 the answer for me personally is, no.
O 13 Q All right, let me ask Mr. Krimm.
14 Had you?
15 A CKrimm) Yes.
16 Q You have?
17 A CKrimm) Yes.
18 Q When did you so indicate it to him?
19 A (Krimm) I 'm not sure exactly the time f rame, Mr.
20 Backus. As data, as technical data was becoming available that 21 would tend to make FEMA change its position. I had told my l2 staff that I wanted to continue support Ed Thomas.
23 And my staff would come in and tell me certain things 24 which certainly -- which gave me concern, and also the things
() 25 that were happening with the Board rulings, et cetera.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
- (202) 628-4888 1
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12955 1 And from time to time I talked to Ed about the 2 technical data, the Keller data, and other things that were 3 happening.
4 I was trying very hard to continue to support Ed 5 Thomas because he is our Region 1 RAC chairman. And when our 6 conversations took place. I 'm sorry, I cannot give you the 7 exact dates and so forth. But based on my recollection, these 8 would have been late November, early December, some time like 9 that.
10 We were niso involved at that time with the Pilgrim 11 self -- well, the negative finding and so forth at Pilgrim.
12 And so I was talking to Ed quite frequently about the Pilgrim O 13 situation along with the Seabrook situation.
14 Q Okay. You understood I am only interested in 15 Seabrook, right?
16 A (Krimm) Yes, I 'm sorry. I 'm j ust saying that there 17 were a lot of things going on at that time, and I really 18 regret -- if I had ever known I was going to be in this 19 position -- that I didn 't take meeting notes, and didn 't keep 20 telephone logs and things like that, because everyone runs 21 together for me. But I do recall talking to him as members of 22 my staff would come in and tell me things.
23 Q And I 'm not interested in particular dates.
24 When you were talking to him, you say in late
() 25 November, early December, you referenced technical data. Is l
l Heritage Reporting Corporation
- (202) 628-4888 l
L
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12956 1 that again Mr. Keller?
2 A CKrimm) That was Mr. Keller 's data and some other 3 things that were happening. Probably the Board ruling on 4 Sholly and things like that.
5 Q I 've bcan through this --
6 A CKrimm) I didn 't remember specifically. I remember 7 more specifically the Board, 8 Q Okay. I've tried to go through this in some deteil 9 with Mr. McLoughlin, and you 've been here listening.
10 A CKrimm) Yes.
11 Q Are there any things other than what I 've discussed 12 with Mr. McLoughlin, which certainly includes the Board ruling, 13 the NRC rule change and the Keller business, that led you to 14 suggest to Ed Thomas that his position as the FEMA witness 15 supporting a certain position was in doubt?
16 A CKrimm) I j ust don 't -- I j ust don 't recall if there 17 were other issues or not. I think many of the things you 18 discussed with Mr. McLoughlin were pretty much what I had 19 probably talked to Ed Thomas about.
20 Q Okay.
21 A (Krimm) I do think you should know, Mr. Backus, that 22 my staff did want me to change the position, or recommend to 23 Mr. McLoughlin that the position be changed.
I 24 Q Who 's that?
25 A CKrimm) Craig Wingo and Margaret Lawless.
(])
Heritage Reporting Corporation j
(202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12957
(~)T 1 Q And on what basis?
2 A (Krimm) On the basis of the Keller data primarily.
3 Q All right. Of course. I 'm not going to get into the 4 merits of Mr. Keller 's position because he 's going to be 5 offered as a witness here.
6 A CKrimm) Certainly.
7 Q You made a reference yesterday, and I 'm sorry I O didn 't note which witness it was -- it was certainly either Mr.
9 Krimm or Mr. McLoughlin -- that by December you had known that 10 the NRC staf f disagreed with FEMA 's position on sheltering. I 11 take it this refers to the Septembar 11th testimony. And you 12 had acknowledgement from NRC's perspective that we were not O 13 understanding the technical issues of shelter.
14 A (McLoughlin) I testified to that yesterday.
15 Q Okay. I have a note it 's at 12711 of the transcript 16 if you need to refer to what -- and I guess I do.
17 A (Peterson) We no longer have a copy. sir.
18 Q I have one here I can give you.
l 19 Okay. I gather that 's you, Mr. McLoughlin; is that 20 correct?
21 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
22 Q And I was referring to the --
23 A (McLoughlin) Yes.
24 Q -- third paragraph, Line 12. "We were having
() 25 discussions from the NRC staf f to Dick Krimm's staf f at the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12958 1 technical level. There were those discussions that were 2 occurring in September that we 're acknowledging f rom the NRC 's 3 perspective, that we were not understanding the technical 4 issues of shelter, as it related to this, properly."
5 Correct?
6 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
7 Q All right, let me turn to Mr. Krimm then.
8 You heard Mr. McLoughlin say that yesterday --
9 A CKrimm) Yes.
10 Q -- and repeat it today.
11 Who were you discussing your position on sheltering 12 with at NRC?
13 A CKrimm) It was probably Frank Congel and Dave 14 Matthews. There may have been others, Mr. Backus, but those 15 two names would be the most likely.
16 Q And when was this discussion, appro: 1mately?
17 MR. TURK: May we ask if this is a guess or if this 18 is recall?
19 MR. BACKUS: I 'm sorry?
20 MR. TURK: I heard the witness say it probably would 21 have been those individuals. I don 't know if that 's his 22 speculation or if this is something he recalls.
23 BY MR. BACKUS:
24 Q Do you recall discussing this with Mr. Congel and Mr.
() 25 Matthews?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12959
(
1 A (Krimm) I don 't recall specifically, Mr. Backus.
2 But in all likelihood, it probably would have been discussed in 3 connection with the FEMA-NRC steering committee meetings. And 4 Mr. Congel is the co-chair, and Mr. Matthews always attended 5 those meetings.
6 Q Okay. The NRC-FEMA steering committee meetings.
7 A CKrimm) Yes.
8 Q How often do they occur?
9 A (Krimm) They vary in -- it 's irregular. But when 10 there are issues that we feel need to be discussed, we call the li meetings.
12 Q All right. And are you the senior FEMA person that 13 ordinarily attends such a meeting?
14 A CKrimm) Yes, that 's correct.
15 Q And who would be the senior NRC person that would 16 ordinarily attend such a meeting?
17 A CKrimm) Okay. At this time and since. I believe, 18 early fall, it has been Frank Congel.
19 Q And would you make a report of these meetings to Mr.
20 McLoughlin?
21 A CKrimm) If I thought it was appropriate to bring 22 certain issues to his attention.
23 Q And is it through a report that you made to him that 24 he would have known about this -- well, I should ask this to l
25 Mr. McLoughlin.
({}
Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12960 1 Was it through reports from Mr. Krimm that you knew 2 about this discussions with Dr. Krimm's staf f at the technical t'
3 level that you --
4 A (McLoughlin) I 'm sure that it must have been, 5 because that 's the normal route that I would have become aware 6, of this, yes.
7 Q Okay. And what did th'ese NRC people tell you you had 8 wrong about the sheltering issue? FEMA had wrong.
9 A (Krimm) Okay. To the best of my recollection, their 10 argument was that we were contravening the NR'O regulations; 11 that the NRC regulations did not require sheltering as a 12 protective action. It was not mandatory.
O 13 Q Okay. Nobody ever suggested it was precluded, I take 14 it.
15 A (Krimm) No, no, I don 't recall thet. I 'm .i us t --
16 but this is the basis of my discussion. Again, I 'm sorry I 17 didn 't keep notes.
18 ?; And what response did you make to this suggestion 19 that you were misinterpreting NRC 's regulations?
E133 20 (Continued on next page.)
21 22 23 24
() 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMMr PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12961
'({)
T134 1 A CKrimm) The reason I 'm smiling is that at sometimes 4 2 these meetings get very stormy. And --
3 Q Not only when Mr. Stello is there; otherwise too.
4 A CKrimm) I think our meetings sometimes are a lot 5 more stormy than when Mr. Stello is there.
6 I think at the time we felt -- we probably said, 7 well, let us go back and discuss this with legal counsel.
8 That 's somewhat my recollection, Mr. Backus.
9 Q You didn 't have any lawyers representing FEMA in 10 these meetings?
11 A CKrimm) Not always. Only wher. we asked, and usually 12 the way that works is we tell NRC we 're going to bring a 13 lawyer, and NRC then brings a lawyer to'the meeting also.
14 Q Well, if you were in substance getting from the NRC 15 representatives that you were misinterpreting regulations, 16 would you then bring a lawyer to deal with that issue to the 17 next meeting?
18 A CKrimm) Yes, and I've forgotten exactly what 19 transpired in between there but I think, you know, this was 20 again something we were talking about, talking with the general 21 counsel 's of fice about and so forth.
22 Q Did you get some advice from general counsel 's of fice 23 about -- did you feel a need to consult with general counsel 24 about how to respond to a suggestion that you were somehow 25 misapplying or misinterpreting NRC regulations?
(])
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
r KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12962
(])
1 A (Krimm) I believe that my staff may have talked to 2 them. I don 't know. We did not -- I think we were debating it 3 back and forth, and we were -- as I recall, Mr. Backus, we 4 discussed this along with the Keller data and so forth as 5 concerns that our position as we were now taking, or had taken 6 on September lith was probably wrong.
7 Q Did NRC 's people suggest to you anything else was 8 wrong with your sheltering position other than if you thought 9 their regulations required sheltering, you were wrong? Is 10 there anything else?
11 A (Krimm) I don't recall.
12 Q Did anybody from the FEMA attendees at these meetings
\# 13 say, in substance, hey, we got our own regulations?
14 A CKrimm) Not that I recall.
15 Q Do you have your own regulations?
16 A (Krimm) We do have our own regulations, that 's 17 correct.
18 Q Do they require a finding of reasonable assurance of 19 adequate protection for offsite populations?
20 MR. TURK: Obj ec t ion. This is legal argumentation.
21 MR. BACKUS: I 'll withdraw it.
22 BY MR. BACKUS:
23 Q Okay, was there more than one NRC-FEMA steering 24 committee meeting where this was discussed?
() 25 A CKrimm) I 'm sorry, I really can 't tell you, Mr.
i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
\
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12963 1 Backus. There were several meetings going on at that time and 2 a number of issues. There were some meetings which were 3 PEMA-NRC steering committee meetings. There were other 4 meetings where just some of the staff met. There were other 5 times we talked on the telephone and so forth.
6 And there were really just a lot of issues, you know, 7 being discussed, a variety of things at that time. I mean, you 8 have to understand, and I know Seabrook~is really important to 9 you, but we --
10 0 Important to a lot of people, 11 A (Krimm) I realize that, and I 'm going to apologize 12 to you that we also have to look at 75 other plants or sites in 13 the country, and I apologize that in not being able to answer 14 your questions better.
15 Q So the short answer to the question is you don't 16 know.
17 A CKrimm) I don 't know. That 's right.
18 Q Okay. Anybody keep notes of NRC-FEMA steering 19 committee meetings?
20 A CKrimm) There are some -- there are some notes taken l 21 at those meetings, not at all of them.
l l 22 Q Would there be notes that you know of to the meeting 23 where NRC discussed your not treating the sheltering issue 24 properly?
25 A (Krimm) I don 't know, but I will be glad --
(])
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ - . _ _ _ .
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12964 1 MR. TURK: I 'm going to obj ect to that 2 characterization.
3 MR. BACKUS: All right. I'll use the exact language.
4 Isn 't it perfectly clear what we 're talking about?
5 MR. TURK: No.
6 BY MR. BACKUS:
7 Q Do you understand what I 'm talking about. Mr. Krimm?
8 A CKrimm) Yes.
9 Q Okay. Would you then look to see if you have notes 10 of the NRC-FEMA steering committee meetings where was 11 discussion of whether or not FEMA was incorrectly applying, or 12 attempting to apply NRC regulations?
13 A CKrimm) Yes. I shall do that, but it will have to 14 be next week.
15 Q All right.
16 Were you aware of the exhibit that was marked by the 17 Applicant here at the beginningt the letter to Senator Glenn of 18 May 13, 1988, Mr. Krimm?
19 A CKrimm) Yes, yes.
20 Q Did you have any part in reviewing that letter before 21 it was sent to the Senator?
22 A CKrimm) Mr. Backus, I drafted the letter.
23 Q Okay. And the last --
24 A CKrimm) Within -- excuse me, may I say I drafted the 25 letter and I did --
(])
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12965
(])-
1 JUDGE SMITH: Off the record.
2 (Discussion off the record.)
3 BY MR. BACKUS:
4 Q Okay, Mr. Krimm, you say you drafted the May 13th 5 letter to Senator Glenn? ,
6 A CKrimm) Yes. I do want to make a very strong point, 7 though, that various people did give me their input which I, 8 you know, put into the letter.
9 Q Okay. The last sentence on the first page says, 10 "Likewise, it was discussed by the FEMA-NRC steering committee 11 at its regular meetings over a period of a year or more."
12 Correct?
13 A (Krimm) Yes.
14 Q And that 's the beach sheltering issue; is that 15 correct?
16 A CKrimm) Right.
17 Q And I understand that you will make a search and see l
18 if you have any notes pertaining to this subj ect that we 're 19 discussing where NRC expressed a concern about the FEMA 20 position on sheltering?
21 A (Krimm) Yes, I will when I return next week.
I 22 JUDGE SMITH: You 're not going to return here next 23 week.
24 THE WITNESS: (Krimm.) No, no.
() 25 JUDGE SMITH: I mean it 's up to you; you can return Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12966
(])
1 next week.
2 THE WITNESS: CKrimm) No, thank you. I want to 3 return to my -- when I return to my office. I 'm sorry, sir.
4 Thank you.
, 5 MR. BACKUS: Okay.
6 BY MR. BACKUS:
7 Q Mr. Peterson, you told us yesterday that it was on 8 December 17th that there was a subcommittee vote on your 9 nomination?
10 A CPeterson) I believe that 's correct, sir. I believe 11 it was December 17th where the subcommittee voted; yes, sir.
12 Q Mr. McLoughlin, was Mr. Vickers Mr. Thomas 's superior 13 on the Region i director in Washington on or about December 14 18th?
15 A (McLoughlin) I believe he -- it was -- it certainly 16 was mid-December he was in there, into the headquarters, yes.
4 17 And whether or not it was specifically December 18th. I 'd have 18 to do some checking, but I think -- I don 't dispute tnat date, 19 and it was close to when he was there.
20 Q Mr. Peterson, on or about that time did you tell Mr.
21 Vickers to sign a request for assistance on the Seabrook case?
22 A (Peterson) No, I did not direct him to sign it.
23 Q Did you request him to sign such a letter?
24 A CPeterson) No. I did not request him to sign such a 25 letter.
(])
I l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12967 1 Q Okay. Did you, Mr. McLoughlin?
2 A (McLoughlin) Please restate what it is I 'm asking --
3 I 'm responding to.
4 Q Was there a request by headquarters that Mr. Vickers 5 sign a letter requesting assistance on the Seabrook case in 6 addition to Mr. Thomas 's participation?
7 A (McLoughlin) There is an issue there that I will 8 acknowledge and -- but I 'm not prepared to give you a yes or no 9 answer to that issue.
10 If we 're going to do it. I need to give you a little 11 bit more of the context within which that occurred.
12 Q Well, what is the issue. Mr. McLoughlin?
13 A (McLoughlin) The issue that you 've j ust asked is 14 whether or not we asked Mr. Vickers to sign a memo -- let 's 15 see -- whether or not we asked Mr. Vickers to sign a memo to do 16 something, and I forget exactly what your words were.
17 Q To direct -- request the assistance on evaluating 18 plans for Seabrook for Region 17 19 A (McLoughlin) The implication of your question is 20 what 's troubling me.
21 A CPeterson) Yes, me, too.
22 A (McLoughlin) The implication is that we told him to 23 sign it, and that 's -- what I don 't want to deny is that we had 24 discussions about a letter, that kind of a letter, because
() 25 clearly we did. But what I don 't want to do is to imply in any Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN .- CROSS .
12968 1 way, shape or form that Mr. Vickers was directed to sign that 2 letter.
3 So I will leave it at that until you follow up with 4 some additional questions.
5 JUDGE SMITH: No Flash; available light only.
6 THE PHOTOGRAPHER: No one told me that.
7 JUDGE SMITH: Well. I 'm telling you now.
8 BY MR. BACKUS:
9 Q Mr. McLoughlin.
10 A (McLoughlin) Yes.
11 Q I'm trying to ask the questions as best I can, and I 12 understand you may have a concern about where the questions 13 lead. If the question needs explanation. I 'm going to and I 14 think I have given you full opportunity to explain. But I 'd 15 just like you to try and concentrate on the questions without 16 worrying about the motivation for them, okay?
17 A (McLoughlin) Well, but I cannot -- yes.
t 18 Q Okay. Did Mr. Vickers, as a result of being in 19 Washington, come back and sign a letter requesting assistance 20 on reviewing the Seabrook plans? <
21 MR. FLYNN: Obj ect ion. I have two bases for the 22 obj ec t ion.
23 One has to do with relevancy of the whole line. What l
24 the question is asking about is discussions and a memorandum
() 25 having to do with assignment of personnel to review the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
i KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12969
(])
1 Massachusetts plan, and I submit that that has no bearing on !
2 the subj ect matter before this board.
3 The other goes to the chara'cterization in the 4 question about as a result of being in Washington, which is 5 designed to elicit from the witnesses that they made Mr.
6 Vickers sign the letter when indeed the testimony is that 7 that 's not the case.
8 JUDGE SMITH: I don't understand the last one, but I 9 do understand the first one.
10 MR. TURK: I think it 's an inference of cause and 11 effect, Your Honor.
12 MR. BACKUS: Is there an obj ection?
13 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, there is an obj ection.
14 MR. FLYNN: I said that at the beginning.
15 MR. BACKUS: Okay. I don 't know quite how to deal 16 with that obj ection. Merely because this may involve in some 17 way the review of the utility plan for Massachusetts doesn 't 18 mean it 's unrelated to the change in what FEMA was doing in 19 regard to the New Hampshire plans, and I believe there is a 20 connection, and I certainly think we 're entitled to explore it.
21 JUDGE SMITH: hell, what 's the connection though?
22 See, I have not understood your obj ective in this 23 line of questions to begin with, so I can 't be helpful.
24 MR. BACKUS: Well, you may not be aware of the
(} 25 information we have f rom our depositions about this matter, but Heritage Reporting Corporation
. (202) 628-4888
() - KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12970 1 I 'm sure these witnesses are, and I can -- well, let me ask --
2 JUDGE SMITH: Is that on your cross-examination -- I 3 don 't know. I mean, we 've got to know something about what 4 you 're doing before we can rule.
5 MR. BACKUS: Let me ask another question. Let me 6 withdraw the question.
7 BY MR. BACKUS:
8 Q Was Mr. Vickers summoned to Washington in order to 9 direct him to ask for assistance in reviewing the Seabrook 10 emergency plans?
11 A (McLoughlin) Direct answer to that question is, no.
12 Mr. Vickers was asked, not summoned, asked to come to 13 Washington to review with us the work load in the region.
14 Q Was there some statements made that Mr. Thomas is 15 stubborn and we need to get somebody else working on this?
16 MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, let me note a continuing
! 17 obj ection to this entire line of questioning on relevancy l
18 grounds.
19 JUDGE SMITH: Well, is it related to solely the l
20 future of the Massachusetts plan, or is it related to work 21 right now on the New Hampshire plan? I didn 't understand any 22 limitation in your question.
23 MR. BACKUS: I don 't know.
24 JUDGE SMITH: All right. Overruled.
25 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) Are you waiting for me to
(])
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12971
'( )-
1 answer a question?
2 MR. BACKUS: Yes.
3 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) Please restate it then.
4 MR. BACKUS: Can I have it back?
5 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) I had answered your 6 question. If your question was did we summon Mr. Vickers to 7 the headquarters, I--
8 JUDGE SMITH: No, this was about Thomas being 9 stubborn and --
10 THE WITNESS: CMcLoughlin) Oh, I 'm sorry, excuse me.
11 Yes.
12 JUDGE SMITH: That 's a paraphrase, right.
. 13 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) Please repeat the 14 question then so I'm sure what I 'm answering.
15 BY MR. BACKUS:
16 Q Was comment made about Mr. Thomas being stubborn and 17 that was part of the reason why Mr. Vickers was going to be 18 requesting assistance in reviewing the Seabrook plans?
19 A (McLoughlin) I don't recall that specific statement 20 being made by anybody, Mr. Backus. I don 't. The troubling 21 aspect of this is that it is clear continually that Mr. Thomas 22 was -- held a strong view in this area, and that he was central 23 to the work that we had to accomplish in the region.
24 And whether or not he was stubborn or not stubborn, 25 in my mind, would have -- I don 't know what relevance that
(])
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12972 1 would have to anything that we were doing at that point. We 2 were concerned with Mr. Vickers about the work load in the 3 region. We have both the New Hampshire and the Massachusetts 4 side. We had had, I believe, in December I believe we were 5 expecting a request, if we hadn 't had it already -- certainly 6 we talked about this in the January meeting -- of exercises 7 that were going to occur in -- well, you know at Seabrook for 8 both sides, and we were concerned about whether or not we had 9 the resources both in the headquarters and in the region to 10 perform those missions. That 's what I recall of the reason we 11 were asking Mr. Vickers to come in and discussion this with us.
12 Q So you want to leave it that it was solely a concern 13 about the work load at Region 1?
14 A (McLoughlin) I surely do.
15 Q Okay.
16 A (McLoughlin) Yes, that 's --
17 Q Mr. Krimm, have you said at any time to Mr. Thomas 18 that he was a red flag to the NRC?
19 A CKrimm) No.
20 Q You had never made such a statement?
21 A (Krimm) no.
22 Q Okay. Now let me move into January of this year.
l i 23 I take it that the first event that happened in l
24 January that 'E- of significance here probably was. Mr. Peterson, 25 you were of ficially sworn in on the job as of January 5th; is
(])
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS. 12973 I) 1 that right?
2 A (Peterson) That 's correct, sir.
~
3- Q And then as we all know, there was a meeting of the 4 Region 1 RAC on January 7th and 8th; is that correct?
5 A CPeterson) That 's correct, sir.
6 Q Okay. Now within the first two weeks in January, Mr.
7 Peterson, had you made any decisions about what the FEMA 8 position in regard to the beach population at Seabrook should 9 be?
10 A (Peterson) Absolutely not.
11 Q Had you, Mr. McLoughlin?
12 A CMcLoughlin) You mean a final decision?
O 13 I said yesterday that one of the ways that my mind 14 works is to make tentative decisions so that I 've got something 15 to work against. A tentative decision, in my mind, is clearly 16 different than a final decision, 17 So if your questions deals with had I made a final 18 decision at that point, the answer is, no.
19 Q Okay. Were you aware that on January 11th before 20 this Board that the FEMA counsel, Mr. Flynn, announced that as 21 a result of the RAC meeting recently held, FEMA intends to 22 prepare supplemental testimony?
23 MR. FLYNN: May we have a reference to the 24 transcript, please?
() 25 MR. BACKUS: Yes, the 11th. It 's Page 8390, at the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12974 1 very beginning.
2 BY MR. BACKUS:
3 Q And was that done at your direction?
4 A (McLoughlin) Well, I was not -- it would not have 5 been done specifically at my direction because Mr. Peterson was 6 there at the moment, and I certainly would not have done that 7 without having discussed that.
8 We knew that we were going to be preparing new 9 testimony probably --
10 Q So was the answer, yes, this statement by Mr. Flynn 11 was done at your direction?
12 A CMcLoughlin) Well, no, it would not have been done O 13 at my direction. That is not what I would have done, because I 14 was certainly conscious at that point that Mr. Peterson was on 15 board, and that I would not have unilaterally have done 16 something of that nature without having consulted with him 17 or -- in fact, to be honest about it. I don 't recall 18 discussions surrounding that at the moment, but I was certainly 19 well aware in that time frame of the fact that we were going to 20 be doing this.
21 Q Okay. When had you decided to do this?
22 A (McLoughlin) I don 't recall. That 's kind of what I 23 just said. I don 't specifically -- if you 're looking for, you 24 know, a specific date in which that happened, I don 't recall
() 25 when that was. It may very well have been on the 11th of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12975 1 January.
2 Q Okay. have I captured everything that went-into the 3 decision to discussion with FEMA counsel the filing of 4 additional testimony up through that time?
5 A (McLoughlin) Well, I would make one comment. You 6 asked me to look at a piece of testimony from yesterday in 7 which I made reference to the fact that we were beginning to 8 get information from the NRC in September that our analysis --
9 that our technical analysis of the shelter was in error.
10 You then followed up with a series of -- well, let me 11 read to you what you specifically asked to me and what I said.
12 That we were not understanding the technical issues of shelter.
O.
' 13 The only thing I want to correct is the fact that we 14 never did explore that. Mr. T.rimm began to talk to you about
. 15 the NRC regulations not -- the lack of shelter not contravening 16 them. That is not what I had specific reference to when I made 17 that statement which isn't -- because those are two different 18 things in my mind.
19 Q Yes. Okay, let me just go back to that. You were 20 referring to Page 12711. that you had said that you, meaning 21 FEMA. were not understanding the technical issues of shelter, 22 right?
23 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct. That 's correct.
24 Q Who at NRC told you you were not understanding the 25 technical issues of shelter?
(])
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12976 1 A (McLoughlin) Nobody told me.
2 Q Mr. Krimm, who told you that FEMA was not 3 understanding the technical issues of shelter as opposed to 4 this legal issue of the NRC regulations?
, 5 A (Krimm) I cannot answer it specifically. I can only
. 6 tell you who may have.
7 MR. TURK: Your Honor, if it 's speculation. I 'd 8 rather j ust keep the record clear and not go into it.
9 BY MR. BACKUS:
10 Q Did somebody from NRC tell you FEMA did not 11 understand the technical issues of shelter?
12 A (Krimm) I seem to recall at some point in time that O 13 that may have been brought up. I don 't know.
14 Q And you can't tell us who.
15 A (Krimm) I 'm really sorry. I j ust don 't remember.
16 Q And you can 't tell us when, even approximately.
17 A (Krimm) Maybe some time during the fall.
18 Q And you can 't tell us what was said, or can you?
19 A (Krimm) I don 't remember the -- you know, it 's very i
20 vague in my mind. I 'm sorry. I just, you know, kind of 21 remember it being discussed, but I don 't remerber the details.
22 Q Do you have any recollection at all of where you 23 people had it wrong on the technical issues of sheltering?
24 A (Krimm) I 'm sorry, I just can 't remember at this O 25 point.
i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ..
(~) XRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12977 v
1 Q Do you, Mr. McLoughlin?
2 A (McLoughlin) Yes. I --
3 Q From NRC?
4 A (McLoughlin) I have already testified that I have 5 not had specific discussions with the NRC on this issue of that 6 fact, but I am not -- I in no way back off the statement I made 7 yesterday.
8 If it was -- you asked me the question early which 9 caused you to change your focus of your discussion to Mr.
10 Krimm, and you asked the question whether or not I -- how I 11 would have learned of that. Mr. Krimm made reference to the 12 fact'that it was discussed in -- probably in the steering 13 committee meeting.
14 You asked me whether or not I would then be --
15 normally have gotten that from Mr. Krimm. The answer I gave 16 you to that was, yes, and that 's what I would have expected.
17 It 's entirely possible I did not get it from Mr. Krimm.
18 If I did not. I know that I would have gotten it from 19 Mr. Wingo. I know in subsequent meetings that Mr. Wingo was the 20 one who indeed went into some more detail. I thought your 21 question related specifically to the first time I learned about 22 that. It may or may not have been with Mr. Krimm. But I want 23 to be clear that Mr. Wingo was indeed and did subsequent, in 24 the September - October time frame, clearly point out to me 25 that the NRC was concerned about our understanding of the
(])
Heritage Report,.-; Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN CROSS 12978 1 technical aspects of the use of shelter in this case.
2 My belief is that that is one of the reasons why Mr.
3 Wingo asked Mr. Kell'er to begin to do some additional 4 analytical-work for us that I testified to yesterday.
5 So the point that I want to make is that from my 6 perspective what was influencing me at that time was that Mr. '
7 Wingo had been influenced, who I have a great deal of respect 8 for, based on his technical discussions with the NRC that we 9 may be misunderstanding how the application of shelter in this 10 case is appropriate.
11 And my belief is that 's one of the things, and I 12 don 't know that I ever explored with him all of the things that O 13 may have caused him to ask Mr. Keller to start this analytical 14 work.
E134 15 (Continued on next page.)
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
() 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation
- (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12979 T/135 1 Q We don 't have Mr. Wingo here, but I 'm going to have 2 to-ask you about this even thought it 's going to involve a 3 level of hearsay, as we say.
4 You think it was Mr. Wingo who told you that the NRC 5 people thought you had the technical issues of sheltering 6 wrong; is that right?
7 A (McLoughlin) It would have been someone on Dick 8 Krimm's staf f, Mr. Backus. That, you know, I can attest to.
9 It would have either been Dick Krimm; it would have been Craig 10 Wingo; it would have been possibly Margaret Lawless, but 11 because of the technical aspects of this my belief is that it 12 was undoubtedly Mr. Wingo.
O 13 Q All right. Did he identify the NRC people who 14 thought you had the technical issues of sheltering 15 misunderstood?
16 A (McLoughlin) No.
17 Q Did he tell you why NRC thought you had the technical 18 issues of sheltering misunderstood?
19 A (McLoughlin) No. I would -- as I recall the 20 discussions, my concern was, Craig, are you convinced that 21 there is an issue here that we need to explore. Without 22 getting into the nitty-gritty of what the issue is, what I
- 23 would have done is to say, Craig, is this -- is this issue of 24 -- serious enough that we ought to deal with it.
() 25 Q I would rather you not tell us what you would hase Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
c KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12980
(])
i .done.
2 A (McLoughlin) Well. I --
3 Q I want to know what happened and what you were 4 informed about where NRC people thought you had it wrong on a 5 technical basis, if you can tell me?
6 A (McLoughlin) I can't tell you the date of the 7 conversation. I can only tell you a general time frame. I 've 8 done the best I can with telling who I 'm -- I think the 9 conversation came f rom.
10 Q All right. ~Let me ask some specific things.
11 Did anybody convey to you that NRC thought that the 12 protection factor for the shelters should be other than .9 or 13 10 percent dose reduction; did anybody say that?
14 A (McLoughlin) No. From the NRC?
15 Q Yes?
16 A (McLoughlin) No.
17 Q Did anybody say that the, as referred to on page 39 18 of the prefiled testimony, that the motel rooms and 19 unwinterized cottages would have less dose protective 20 capability than yearround houses, did anybody challenge that?
21 A (McLoughlin) From the NRC?
22 Q Right.
23 A (McLoughlin) To me? No.
24 Q Or through Mr. Wingo to you?
{} 25 A (McLoughlin) No.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l
() KRIMM, PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12981
-1 Q Oksy.
2 A (McLoughlin) Not specifically, no.
3 Q So you have no idea, at this point, from Mr. Wingo, 4 if he was the one. -as to why somebody et NRC thought you were 5 misunderstanding the technical issues of shelter; is that true?
6 MR. FLYNN: I obj ect, that 's a mischaracterization of 7 what the witness has said. He has tried to be very careful 8 about what he remembers and what he doesn't remember, and what 9 he remembers less than perfectly. And you 've said, if you 10 don 't remember perf ectly, don 't speculate. And now because 11 he 's being candid with you, you 're saying, well, you have no 12 idea; and that 's unf air.
O 13 MR. BACKUS: I 've never asked for a perfect memory.
14 None of my questions.
15 JUDGE SMITH: Well, to character is -- to 16 characterize his testimony is he has no idea as -- that 's a 17 fair complaint, I think.
18 BY MR. BACKUS:
19 Q Do you have any idea as to what was the basis on 20 which some people at NRC thought you had the technical issues 21 of shelter misunderstood?
22 A (McLoughlin) The general response that I have to 23 that is, it does indeed deal with the, essentially, the four 24 maj or conclusions that came out of the Keller work. That 's
() 25 what I think they had referenced to.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l
() KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12982
, , 1 Q This NUREG-1210 business about --
2 A (McLoughlin) Yes.
3 Q Okay.
4 A (McLoughlin) - Yes.
S Q All right. In any event, Mr. Krimm had it from the 6 NRC that the regulations of the NRC were being misapplied by 7 FEMA; is that correct, Mr. Krimm?
8 A CKrimm) Yes.
9 Q And you had it from your -- from Mr. Krimm 's staf f, 10 probably Mr. Wingo that NRC was saying, even on a technical 11 basis you've misunderstood the sheltering issue; correct?
12 A (McLoughlin) That we 've misunderstood the sheltering 13 issue? What I testified to was that, we -- that we were not 14 understanding properly that -- the technical analysis in 15 sheltering, yes, the use of sheltering.
16 Q Now, on June 12th Mr. Flynn appeared before this 17 Hearing Board -- I 'm sorry, thank you, January 12th before this 18 Hearing Board at page 8511 of the transcript, and referred to 19 his statements of the prior day. I believe, about the new FEMA 20 testimony, about the RAC meeting, said, quote: "We heard the 21 views of the RAC members on the issue." And then said: "Now, 22 getting FEMA to incorporate those views into its testimony is 23 something like turning an ocean liner around, it doesn 't happen 24 in an instant."
() 25 MR. FLYNN: May we have a reference to the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12983 1 transcript?
2 MR. BACKUS: 8511.
3 And then he asked for some time to file some 4 additional FEMA testimony.
5 BY MR. BACKUS:
6 Q Were you aware that that was being stated to this 7 Board?
8 A (McLoughlin) That we were.about ready to file some 9 new testimony?
10 Q Right.
11 A (McLoughlin) I don 't know that I was aware of 12 specifically the day on which it was going to occur, but I O 13 certainly knew at that time that we were going to be filing new 14 testimony.
i 15 Q Okay. Did you believe at that time, that that 16 testimony would be of such a major change f rom the prior 17 testimony that it could be characterized as an ocean liner 18 turning around?
- 19 A (McLoughlin) That 's Mr. Flynn 's characterization.
l 20 My belief is --
21 MR. FLYNN: Yes, that 's right. I 'd like to point out
! 22 for context that the sentence was, quote: "Now, getting FEMA 23 to incorporate those views." referring to the RAC views. "into q
24 its testinony is something like turning an ocean liner around.
() 25 it won 't happen in an instant. " end of quote.
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
L
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12984 1 MR. TURK: Which is quite different from saying that 2 there 's going to be 180 degree turn in the testimony.
3 BY MR. BACKUS:
4 Q Did you anticipate, Mr. McLoughlin, that this Board 5 was going to be informed by Mr. Flynn at the start of this 6 hearing week on January 11th that FEMA was going to file new 7 testimony and it was going to involve a major change in 8 position; did you understand that he was going to say something 9 to that effect?
10 A (McLoughlin) Well, I testified yesterday to what I 11 understood about that, and I will repeat as best I can what 12 that is. Mr. Flynn, to the best of my knowledge, my counsel to 13 him when I believe he was asked by the Board -- I believe 14 that 's what happened. My counsel to Mr. Flynn was, don 't say 15 anything about a change in FEMA 's position until we get a 16 change in that position. Because what I was concerned about 17 was getting, clearly in the early January, late December time 18 frame, I was having -- was drawing tentative conclusions in my 19 mind that I wanted to lay out on the table and get people to 20 challenge where they differed with those views.
21 So my counsel to Mr. Flynn, at the time, was in 22 effect to say, don't put anything before this Board that would 23 suggest that we 're going to be making a move until we get ready 24 to make that move, otherwise we 've got two or three positions
() 25 to defend.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12985 i Now, with respect to the ocean liner issue. I have --
2 I understand. I believe that characterization quite -- I 3 understand that characterization. It had taken us f rom j 4 September until January, which -- and use Mr. Flynn 's words.
5 that is like turning an ocean liner around. I wish we could 6 operate more rapidly than that on a responsible way.
7 But my belief is that we deliberately -- we made 8 deliberate progress on the change in our position during that 9 period of time, and it did take us a long time. I -- God.
l 10 there 's no way I 'm not going to acknowledge that.
11 I wish it could have happened more rapidly than that.
12 But it does take us a long time to try to assure that in a O 13 litigatory process like this, a litigation process, that we 14 have a solid defendable position from a legal, technical, and 15 programmatic standpoint.
16 And since this was going to be a change, all the t
17 things that I was involved et the head of making these 18 decisions. I wanted to be sure that it was a deliberate ,
i 19 process. That we had looked at every element that was going to 20 weaken our argument, and to assure that we had a solid case for 21 the change. So I can understand both the ocean liner comment; t
22 and I can -- I told -- yesterday I acknowledged any f ault that i
23 I might have had in the garble. in that message in terms of 24 getting to the Board. Because I understood yesterday that the
() 25 question that Mr. Flynn asked me was, his statement to the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_ _-~ _ _ _ . , _ - _ . - - - - -
12986
(). KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 1 Board that said we were not going to change our position.
2 And that was essentially what I was responding to 3 yesterday when I said that I accepted some of the 4 responsibility for that garble.
5 Q As of June lith --
6 MR. FLYNN: January.
7 MR. BACKUS: I 'm wishing it was June.
8 BY MR. BACKUS:
9 Q As of January 11th, did FEMA, in your person, support 10 the September 11th testimony?
11 A (McLoughlin) Support the September lith testimony?
12 Q Yes.
O 13 A (McLoughlin) Well, I have acknowledged that I had 14 backed off -- began to back off of that on a gradual basis as 15 more information became available to me. And I had, I think I 16 said yesterday that I took a tentative position into the 17 Janua y 22nd meeting, which undoubtedly in this time frame that 18 you 're talking about. I would have been making tentative 19 conclusions in my mind that I wanted to argue for a change in 20 the FEMA position.
21 Because the overwhelming preponderance of information 22 that I was getting suggested that that ought to be the case.
23 So whether or not in my mind I had made a final decision. I 24 just said a while ago that I would not make a final decision on
() 25 that kind of an issue until I was forced to make a final heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l.
I
() KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12987 I
1 decision.
2 And on January 11th I was not forced to do that, so I ,
3 would always; keep that open until I had to come down on it in a 4 final way.
5 Q Did you direct Mr. Flynn or. request him in any way to 6 advise this Board on January lith or 12th that FEMA wished to 7 file new testimony?
8 A (McLoughlin) I had discussions with him on filing 9 new testimony. Are you saying, did I direct him to do that?
10 Q Or request?
11 A CMcLoughlin) What I think happened out of that --
12 out of the discussions. I don 't think I either a.ted him or I 13 don 't think I directed him. I think what happened was that.
l 14 out of the discussions that we were having on, to do this, 15 there was a consensus that emerged that that was what we should 16 do.
17 Now, we agreed that that ought to happen. You 're 18 asking me whether or not somehow I directed Mr. Flynn to do 19 that, and I can 't specifically recall saying. Mr. Flynn, will 20 you go to the Board and do that.
21 But I can recall that, certainly, a consensus emerged 22 out of all the discussions we had to do that.
23 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Backus. I don 't know, you 're 24 running out of tirne. I think you 're giving too much emphasis.
() 25 I recall it, and I took from there, not from Mr. Flynn that Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12988 1 FEMA had arrived at a different position, but that FEMA needed 2 some time. And I don't know how precise he was in expressing 3 it, but that 's what I came away f rom on it.
4 And I don 't know what you 're going to do. I mean, 5 you know, this -- I think you 're overanalyzing a comment made 6 by counsel here.
7 MR. BACKUS: All right, let me just ask this.
8 BY MR. BACKUS:
9 Q Were the statements that Mr. Flynn made on the 11th 10 and 12th about filing new testimony and needing time, were taey 11 pursuant to conversations with you?
12 A (McLoughlin) Yes.
13 Q Thank you.
14 Now, on January 13th Mr. Flynn advised this Board 15 that in substance the new testimony was not going to be a new 16 position on the part of FEMA; are you aware of that?
17 A (McLoughlin) Yes. In fact, that 's what I thought I 18 was talking about that, was that issue.
19 Q Okay. He said at page 8960, quote: "I 've talked 20 with the people in Washington since then," and I think the 21 reference is since the prior statements that week. "and I mean, 22 again, I 'm not prepared to say what the details will be, but 23 I've gotten a very clear indication that the position we 'll be 24 taking is that which we had already stated."
() 25 Are you aware that Mr. Flynn made that statement?
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12989
(])
1 A (McLoughlin) Yes, that 's -- he asked me that 2 specifically yesterday. Yes.
3 3 Q And the reference to. "I 've talked with people in 4 Washington," that person would be you?
5 A (McLoughlin) Well, it would have been several o,f us.
6 My guess is, it was all three of us here at the table plus.,
7 probably additional attorneys. I don 't know specifically, but 8 typically we don't do this sort of thing without having 9 considerable input from people who have any contribution to 10 make to that decisior.
11 Q Okay. Mr. Flynn did talk with you as one of the i 12 people in Washington?
13 A (McLoughlin) Yes. r 14 Q Did he talk with you as one of the people in 15 Washington prior to making this statement on January 13th. Mr.
16 Peterson? j I
17 A (Peterson) And what is the January 13th statement l
18 again; you've got two statements here and I want to make sure 19 I'm getting to the right one.
20 Q The statement is f rom page 8960 of the transcript.
21 Mr. Flynn speaking: "l 've talked with the people in Washington 22 since then and I mean again. I 'm not prepared to say what the t 23 details will be, bu . I m gotten a very clear indication that ,
24 the position we will be taking is that which we have already l
25 stated."
({}
Heritage Reporting Corporation
' (202) 628-4888 i
,-,7- - . . _ . .
. -._ ,__,._-m_ _ _ . . _ - -
KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12990
(})
1 A (Peterson) That was a conference call the night 2 before the 13th. I believe it was the night of the 12th.
3 Q That would follows. ,
4 A- (Peterson) I was there, Mr. McLoughlin was there, 5 and I believe Mr. Krimm was there. And it was, as my memory 6 serves me, Mr. McLoughlin's concern that a statement should not 7 be made premature to the agency taking a firm position.
8 Q Mr. Krimm, were you on the conference call?
9 A CKrimm) Yes.
10 Q Okay. Mr. Peterson, on that conference call, did you 11 direct or authorize Mr. Flynn to say, he had a clear indication 12 that the position we will be taking is that which we have 13 already stated?
14 A (Peterson) I don't believe it was in that context.
15 I believe it was in the context, and I certainly would not be 16 the one to say that I directed, it was a discussion, and I 17 believe the discussion was, because of the concerns, as I 18 remember it, that Mr. McLoughlin articulated, that we have not 19 come to e different conclusion at this point in time, and that 20 it would be improper to relay that there was a different 21 position until there had been a consensus and further 22 discussions on the issue.
23 Q Okay.
24 A (Peterson) That 's how I understand that discussion.
25 sir.
(])
i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
12991
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 1 Q And the way you communicated that, was that 2 sufficient in you mind to support Mr. Flynn's statement that he 3 had a clear indication that the position we will be taking is 4 that which we have already stated?
5 ,A CPeterson) I don 't think that I would buy into that. !
6 I think what our concern was that, we should not, through again 7 Mr. McLoughlin 's concerns, be telling this body that we were 8 going to make a change when we had in fact not come to a 9 conclusion on that.
10 Q Okay. Now, Mr. Peterson, as I understand your 11 testimony from yesterday it was exactly two days after this on 12 the 15th, which was a Friday I believe, that you got a call 13 from Mr. Stello when you were at a meeting on Seabrook in Mr.
14 McLoughlin 's of fice, is that right?
15 MR. TURK: I 'm sorry, two days prior?
16 MR. BACKUS: Two days subsequent.
17 THE WITNESS: CPeterson) On the 15th in the 18 afternoon I had set up a meeting to be briefed, and I was 19 getting a lot of briefings on a lot of things there, but that 20 was to be briefed on the Seabrook issue. And I received -- a 21 call came in, we were having the meeting in my office, and the 22 call came in and I took it in Mr. McLoughlin 's of fice.
23 MR. BACKUS: Okay. Thank you. You did say that and 24 I reversed it. Thank you.
25 (1)
I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12992
((])
1 BY MR. BACKUS:
2 Q Was this the first time you 'd ever had a call from 3 Mr. Stello?
4 A (Peterson) I believe it was.
5 Q Okay. And you said yesterday that he was surprised 6 and concerned about reports about the FEMA position; is that 7 right?
8 A (Peterson) I don 't know if that 's exactly the way I 9 said it, but I think in context it 's generally -- it certainly 10 is correct, Mr. Backus, that he showed concern relative to some 11 briefing or information he had received about the hearings that 12 were going on here.
Ot- 13 Q Did you take it from that, Mr. Peterson, that his 14 call might have been related to the statements we 've been 15 discussing that FEMA counsel had made on the record on the 16 13th?
17 MR. TURK: Is this speculation that you 're asking 18 for. Mr. Backus?
19 MR. BACKUS: We 'll ask him if he knows.
20 THE WITNESS: (Peterson) Restate your question. I 'm
- 21 sorry.
22 BY MR. BACKUS:
23 Q Did anything Mr. Stello said to you indicate that his i
l 24 call was prompted by the statements that FEMA counsel had mede 25 at these hearings in the prior few days?
(e ])
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12993 1 A (Peterson) I have clear recollection that it was 2 relevant to issues being discussed in this hearing. And he had
~3 received a briefing or, you know, or information. I 'm assuming 4 from his people.
5 Q Maybe his lawyer?
6 A (Peterson) I don 't believe -- I 'm quite sure there 7 was no names mentioned.
8 Q Okay.
9 A (Peterson) And he voiced concern that he was not 10 aware that FEMA had such -- had problems with the New Hampshire 11 plan or the Seabrook planning process, and I think -- well, I 12 don 't want to go farther than that. But he showed concern that 13 he did not know that we had serious concerns with the Seabrook 14 plan.
et/135 15 (Continued on next page.)
16 17 18 19 20
, 21 l
22 23 24 25 l C) l Heritage Reporting Corporation
- (202) 628-4888
- y -- m
T KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12994
('J L
t/136 1 And he also said, why don 't I know this. Why 2 haven 't ' I been told this.
3 Q Did he express concerns -- well, you said he was 4 concerned. Did that concern encompass the FEMA prior position, 5 in the validity of the FEMA prior position, was there concern 6 expressed about that?
7 A CPeterson) I don 't -- I don't believe that we got 8 into any discussion on previous decision, what are you going to 9 do, or any of that -- that was not part of the discussion, as I 10 remember it.
11 Q In any event, you felt -- you recognized Mr. Stello 12 was a very high official at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, r3 V 13 I take it?
14 A CPeterson) Well. I recognized that he had a high 15 position at NRC; yes, sir.
16 Q And you figured that you better get a call back to 17 him real quick on why he hadn't known about this; is that 18 right?
19 A CPeterson) I said, "Mr. Stello, I don 't know why you 20 aren 't informed about these things. But I will go in and talk 21 to my people and call you back."
22 Q Did it come as a surprise to you, Mr. Peterson, that 23 he didn 't know -- he said he didn 't know about the status of 24 FEMA 's position?
(} 25 A CPeterson) I don 't know if he was talking about the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12995
(])
1 status of our position. I think it was in more general. terms 2 that I spoke, and I 'd like to go back, I believe, to what I 3 previously said, that he did not understand that we had such 4 problems with the Seabrook plans. I think that was the 5 context.
6 I was surprised that he asked me why he didn't know 7 about those things.
8 Q That 's what I was wondering; weren 't you surprised?
9 A CPeterson) But I was new to the process, and that's 10 why I came in, and quite frankly, was a little more abrupt than 11 I probably should have in asking Mr. McLoughlin why we hadn 't 12 informed NRC properly, because from Mr. Stello 's conversation I
} 13 kind of took it that we had an obligation to be doing something 14 that we weren 't doing.
15 Q Okay.
16 A CPeterson) And so, you know, after -- I had a 17 little bit of ignorance on the process at that time.
18 Q Now, this meeting that occurred on January 19th --
19 A CPeterson) Yes, sir.
20 Q -- at FEMA headquarters, did that arise out of this 21 call that Mr. Stello made to you on the 15th in some way?
22 A CPeterson) Yes, it did, i 23 Q So it was something to the effect, look. I 've got a 24 concern here, I 've been surprised by the f act that things are
()
t 25 happening in the hearing that I 'm not aware of, and we 've got Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12996
(]}
1 to have a meeting; is that sort of what happened?
2 A (Peterson) That and I believe that the context was 3 broader than that. We have some things -- other things we 4 should be talking about, and we would like to have a meeting, 5 type of thing.
6 Q All right.
7 A (Peterson) And I concurred.
8 Excuse me.
9 MR. TURK: I 'm sorry. Mr. Stello was saying that?
10 THE WITNESS: (Peterson) Yes. I believe my 11 recollection is that Mr. Stello initiated the request for the ,
12 meeting.
13 BY MR. BACKUS:
14 Q Okay. And you agreed to have this meeting, I take it 15 was at the FEMA headquarters on the 19th; is that right?
16 A (Peterson) No, I agreed to have the meeting, and I 17 said, but I, you know, I 'm j7st on board, I 've got a lot of 18 things coming down and I 'd like for you -- would you mind 19 coming over here. And he said, no, I don't have a problem with 20 that.
21 And then I talked with him about, well, who would, 22 you know, who should we have in this meeting? I would like to 23 have my headquarters people at a fairly high level, and I 'm 24 assuming that 's what you will do. So we set some parameters on 1
l 25 it from that standpoint. And he -- there was that concurrence,
(])
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12997
(])
1 and.I expected three or four people from his side and three or 2 four people from my side.
3 Q Vas there any discussion about whether or who would 4 take notes?
5 A (Peterson) In the meeting?
6 Q Either in the meeting or in this phone call where you 7 set up the meeting?
8 A CPeterson) I don 't remember discussions about -- do 9 you mean was there discussions we were going to have a recorder 10 or something?
11 Q Yes, or not have one?
l 12 A CPeterson) No.
13 Q Okay. Now, this week of the -- I think it was the 14 18th, as I look at my calendar the 18tr was a federal holiday, 15 I think it was Martin Luther King Day?
16 A (Peterson) That 's correct.
17 Q So the work week started on Tuesday which was the 18 19th, which was the day of this meeting; is that right?
19 A CPeterson) Actually, you 're ref reshing my memory. I 20 am assuming that 's correct.
21 Q Okay. Subj ect to your checking with your calendar. I 22 think that's correct.
l 23 And am I correct that Mr. Thomas was in Washington 24 that week to consult with people at the FEMA headquarters in 25 matters that included Seabrook?
(])
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i i
)
l KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12998 (a')
1 A CPeterson) I believe that 's incorrectly stated.
2 Q I thought I saw Mr. McLoughlin nodding, is that 3 incorrectly stated?
4 A (Peterson) I think it should be more specific than 5 that. ,
6 Q Was Mr. -- okay, go ahead. .
7 A (Peterson) I believe Mr. Thomas was in Washington, 8 D. C. at that time, and that he was there working with general 9 counsel, specifically Mr. Cumming in testimony preparation.
10 Q Okay. Now, let 's go to this meeting of the 19th.
11 You both said, I think, that there was no agenda for this 12 meeting?
13 A CPeterson) Are you -- I'll wait until you direct it 14 to someone.
15 Q Mr. McLoughlin, did you say that yesterday that there
~
16 was no agenda at this meeting?
17 A (McLoughlin) Yes. I said that that was my 18 recollection, there was no agenda. In fact, I 'm confident 19 there was no agenda that we agreed to.
20 Q And is that your recollection, also, Mr. Peterson?
21 A (Peterson) I told you yesterday that I had a 22 personal agenda; that agenda was not written down, but I had a 23 couple of points that I wanted to try to get resolved in that 24 meeting.
() 25 Q Okay.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 12999
(])
1 A CPeterson) And I believe that Mr. Krimm had a number 2 of things he wanted to get resolved in that meeting. But if 3 you 're asking me was there a written formal agenda, I have no 4 written formal agenda.
5 Q We 've been furnished by your counsel, gentlemen, with 6 a document that came with a transmittal letter of May 12th 7 entitled "FEMA-NRC Agenda, January 19th, 1988," are'you aware 8 of that?
9 A (Peterson) I 'm aware of that, if you 're directing it 10 to me. The first time I became aware of that was during 11 discovery. It was showed to me by general counsel. I did not 12 see that nor use it in the January 19th meeting.
( 13 Q Okay. Who did prepare this agenda for the January 14 19th meeting?
15 A (Peterson) I believe that that 's Mr. Krimm 's agenda, 16 and he 's probably much, I 'm not trying to tell you what, but I 17 think it 's appropriate he would address that because I believe 18 it 's his agenda.
19 Q Is that your agenda, Mr. Krimm?
20 A CKrimm) May I look at the document, because there is 21 a problem. Okay. This is not my agenda for the meeting, Mr.
22 Backus. I don't recall ever seeing this paper until last week.
23 And I don 't know where it came f rom.
24 Q Okay.
25 A (Krimm) And I want you to know that I asked a lot of
(])
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1
()
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13000
. 1 people in my office and nobody recalls seeing it.
2 Q Nobody recal ? s preparing this agenda for the meeting?
3 A (Krimm) No.
4 Q Okay. So it 's your recollection this agenda was not 5 used at the meeting by anybody or --
. 6 A CKrimm) It was not used at the meeting, and the 7 reason I 'm somewhat dumfounded by it is that there are just 8 some errors.
9 Q We were also furnished in that same transmittal 10 letter of May 12th after claim of executive privilege was ruled 11 on with something entitled "Talking points for Stello meeting "
12 do you --
13 A CKrimm) That 's mine.
14 Q That is yours?
15 A CKrimm) Yes.
16 A (Peterson) That 's what I was in reference to 17 specifically, sir, as I believe to being Mr. K r i mm 's .
18 Q There is on one copy we got of this, the one we 19 originally were furnished, some handwritten notes around the 20 margins and interlinear; are those your notes, Mr. Krimm?
21 A (Krimm) Yes, they are.
22 Q Okay. Did anybody else from FEMA that attended this 23 meeting take any notes?
24 A CPeterson) Not to my knowledge.
() 25 Q Was that by any agreement or decision?
Heritage Reporting. Corporation (202) 628-4888 .
l i
l 1
l (s^_jT KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13001 l l
1 A (Peterson) Not to my knowledge. I 2 Q When did you prepare these "talking points for Stello 3 meeting," Mr. Krimm?
4 A (Krimm) They were prepared on the 19th by my -- at 5 my request they were prepared by my staff. And then 6 subsequently we had a meeting on them and I made these notes.
7 MR. TURK: May we go off the record for a moment?
8 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
9 (Discussion off the record.)
10 MR. HUNTINGTON: Edward Thomas faxed a motion to 11 modify his subpoena, up to our office, and asked us to 12 distribute it to the parties today, and so I wanted to do that 13 for everyone now.
14 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. Thanks.
15 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
16 MR. BACKUS: Mr. Krimm --
17 JUDGE SMITH: Just a moment. Mr. Backus. Mr. Thomas 18 filed a motion to modify the subpoena, and in one respect to 19 change the requirement that he appear tomorrow morning to a l 20 date to be determined by the Board.
21 I requested Mr. Watson to try to reach Mr. Thomas to 22 tell him that we granted that request, and I understand that 23 he 's trying to do that right now.
l 24 So, go ahead.
l
() 25 MR. BACKUS: Okay.
i Heritege Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l
(_,) KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13002 1 BY MR. BACKUS:
2 Q Mr. Krimm, I think when we broke you had just 3 identified yourself as the author of the "talking points for 4 Stello meeting," and said that these were prepared on the 5 morning of the .19th of January 1988; is that right?
6 A CKrimm) Yes.
7 Q And then the handwritten notes that are in there, are 8 those notes that you took during the course of the meeting?
9 A (Krimm) No. These were taken prior to the meeting 10 when I discussed these items with my staff.
11 Q Okay. Did you share these talking points with Mr.
7_
12 Peterson?
U 13 A (Krimm) No.
14 Q Mr. Peterson, you said that you had a personal agenda 15 when you went in the meeting as opposed to a written agenda, 16 what was your agenda?
17 A (Peterson) I testified to that yesterday. I felt 18 that we needed to get as clear a definitive statement of the 19 NRC position relative to the sheltering issue or the lack of 20 sheltering contravened their regs; that was one thing I believe 21 I mentioned yesterday.
22 The second thing I believe I mentioned yesterday that 23 if Mr. Stello had some degree of surprise, that perhaps, we 24 should make sure that he 's informed at that time, in history,
(') 25 January 19th, that my understanding was we still had 30 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
,~x KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13003 i) s 1 planning inadequacies and over -- I think I should say over 30 2 planning inadequacies, and over 50 exercise deficiencies.
3 And I did cover those two items with him. And I 4 remember that I did ask Mr. -- you know, I said to Mr. Krimm.
5 there 's probably going to be other things that are going to 6 come up and I 'm going to expect you to carry, you know, you 7 should carry the ball on some of those.
8 Q Okay. Now, with regard to the number one item, did 9 the sheltering contravene the regs, did you have some 10 understanding from anybody at FEMA that the FEMA position on 11 sheltering -- let me strike that. Did you have any 12 understanding f rom anybody at FEMA that the NRC regs might 13 require sheltering?
14 A (Peterson) There 's no question in my mind that this 15 issue, rather lack of sheltering contravened their regulations 16 or not, was an issue in-house.
17 Q Whose house?
18 A CPeterson) In the FEMA house.
19 Q Okay.
20 A (Peterson) I can tell you that because it came out 21 of the briefings.
22 Q All right. And I would like to know who at FEMA had 23 the idea that the NRC regulations would require sheltering in 24 order to determine plan adequacy; who held that opinion?
() 25 A (Peterson) Say your question again, sir?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l l
1
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13004 1 Q Who at FEMA held the opinion that the NRC regulations 2 might require sheltering as a condition of determining plan 3 adequacy?
4 A CPeterson) I believe it was couched to me in the 5 briefings. And I 'l l try to relay this to the best of my 6 memory. That NRC had raised the issue to the surface in the 7 proposed rebuttal that they drafted that said, a lack of 8 sheltering does not contravene their regulations.
9 And that -- and I may be getting in deep water here, 10 but from my recollection, they said that that had never been 11 filed. And we did not have FEMA, Mr. Backus, a clear l 12 definitive statement on that issue; and that we needed one.
O 13 Q Okay.
14 A (Peterson) Now, I 'm not quite sure why that was in 15 that much of a context, but it was certainly an issue.
16 Q Okay.
17 A CPeterson) And I wanted to get it resolved.
18 Q All right. And the resolution you got of that turned i
l 19 out to be Mr. Turk 's letter of February 18th, 1988; is that l
20 right?
21 A (Peterson) I think I got two things. One was a fairly 22 definitive statement from Mr. Stello, in that meeting, saying, 23 no, lack of shelter, y,u know, lack of sheltering does not 24 contravene our regs. We asked him to put something in writing.
() 25 And then we did get a response from Mr. Turk to FEMA 's counsel, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202)-628-4888
4
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13005 1 Mr. Flynn, somewhere around February 18th that spoke to the 2 issue of sheltering.
3 Q Okay. And made it clear that only the Commission or 4 its general counsel could interpret NRC regulations 5 authoritatively; correct? -
6 A (Peterson) I think I have to speak to what I 7 understood was content, not a who had the authority to say it, 8 but, you know, this came as I understood it f rom NRC 's counsel, 9 I would have taken, personally, I would have taken that as an 10 authoritative position.
11 Q Okay.
. 12 A (Peterson) And the statement that I thought was G 13 pertinent was that they not requi re -- they 're not requiring 14 that there be a range of protective actions that included both 15 sheltering and evacuation options.
16 Q Okay. Have you --
17 A CPeterson) For all accidents at all times in the 18 EPZ, spoke to that sheltering issue.
19 Q Okay. Have you got Mr. Turk 's letter of February 20 18th in front of you?
21 A CPeterson) No, I don 't, sir.
22 MR. BACKUS: Let 's furnish that and I want to mark a 23 copy for identification.
24 MR. TURK: I 'm going to obj ect to its offer, Mr.
() 25 Backus, that 's the intention. I certainly don 't have any Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13006 i problem with the letter itself.
2 MR. BACKUS: What a surprise.
3- MR. TURK: I like my name --
4 MR..BACKUS: This would be 38, thank you.
5 JUDGE HARBOUR: 39.
6 MR. BACKUS: 39, thank you very much, Judge Harbour.
7 (The document referred to was 8 marked for identification as 9 Mass. AG Exhibit 39.)
10 BY MR. BACKUS:
11 Q Can we agree, Mr. Peterson, that Mass. 39 for 12 identification, the letter of February 18th is the letter we 've 13 been discussing from Mr. Turk that you got as a result of the 14 discussions on this January 19th meeting?
15 A (Peterson) I believe this is the letter that spoke 16 to the issue, but I 'm having a little trouble getting the 17 terminology I j ust quoted to you eat of here, I thought it was 18 on the second page, but I can 't find it right offhand.
19 Q All right. Well, I 'm not going to hold you to 20 whether you correctly quoted Mr. Turk 's letter. But it does 21 say here on page two, first full paragraph: "That authoritative 22 interpretations of NRC regulations may be rendered only by the 23 Commission or its general counsel;" correct?
24 A (Peterson) Okay.
() 25 Q Is that right?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
(,) KR IMV., PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13007 1 A (Peterson) That 's what it says.
2 Q Did you understand Mr. Turk to be the general counsel 3 to the NRC?
4 A (Peterson) That 's what I understood NRC general 5 counsel.Mr. Turk.
6 Q Okay. He signs it, "Senior supervisory trial 7 atterney;" is that correct?
8 A (Peterson) That 's what it says on the letter; yes, 9 sir.
10 Q Were you aware that he was the attorney representing 11 the NRC staff as a party in these proceedings?
12 /. (Peterson) I was not at that time.
O 13 Q Okay. Were you aware that he was the one that had 14 submitted to the Board and the parties the proposed rebuttal 15 plan of October 5th dealing with the requirement or not for 16 sheltering?
17 A (Peterson) I had not put that connection together, 18 sir.
19 Q Does it bother you that as a result of this meeting 20 of January 19th, what you've gotten is another piece of paper 21 from Mr. Turk saying the same thing that you got on October 5th 22 or thereabouts?
23 A (Peterson) No, it didn 't. Maybe it should have 24 raised a flag to me but it did not. I assumed that this was a
() 25 response in good f aith from NRC 's counsel supporting Mr.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 t
e
(_qj KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13008 1 Stello 's statement in the January 19th meeting.
2 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Backus, let 's save time on this, 3 there 's no way that you can possibly convince the Board that if 4 Mr. Stello, the Executive Director of Operations, tells Mt.~
5 Peterson that he will have someone present the NRC position, 6 that he has to question the qualifications of an attorney f rom 7 NRC to do that. I mean, i t 's --
8 MR. BACKUS: That wasn 't the purpose of the 9 questioning.
10 MR. TURK: Alsc --
11 MR. BACKUS: That wasn 't the purpose of the 12 questioning.
) 13 JUDGE SMITH: Well, sure, that 's what it seemed to 14 me , the only possible --
15 MR. BACKUS: No, no, that wasn 't the purpose of the 16 questioning.
17 MR. TURK: Mr. Backus, I also refer you to NRC 18 regulations which contain the same type of a statement.
19 JUDGE SMITH: Do what?
20 MR. TURK: Contain the same type of statement as to 21 who may give an authoritative interpretation of NRC 22 regulations.
23 MR. BACKUS: Well, I j ust pointed -- well, let me 24 ask.
l () 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation
[ (202) 628-4888
/~N KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13009
()
1 BY MR. BACKUS:
2 Q. Mr. McLoughlin, you said yesterday in your direct 3 testimony that you did have some concern about this in view of 4 the fact that as the letter states, either from that or other 5 knowledge, you knew that NRC regulations could only be 6 interpreted authoritatively by the Commission or its general 7 counsel; right?
8 A (McLoughlin) Yes. But I think I was making a 9 different point than you are making. If you 'll check the 10 record I believe the point that I was making out of it was 11 that, even with as much effort as we had gone to, to get an 12 authoritative response from the NRC on this issue because it O 13 was important_to us to have that, so that we were on firm legal 14 grounds that I used it to make the point that it takes a long 15 time to get interpretations, to get that information back and 16 forth between agencies, and to be sure that you 're getting the 17 right information. And that that was one of the elements that 18 was taking -- that took us a long time to make our decision.
19 I was not using it as a means of questioning whether 20 or not I thought that was the intent of the NRC to interpret it 21 that way.
22 Q Okay. All right, Mr. Peterson, let me go back to the 23 other question. Who at FEMA had ever suggested to you that NRC 24 regulations might require sheltering as a condition to plan
() 25 approval?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i l
l l
13o10
.LO ra1==. eereason. =ctouca'rs - caoss et/136 1 (Continued on next page.-)
2 ;
3 4
5-6 7-8 :
9 10 i i
11 12 Q-13 l
14 15 16 17 18 '
i 19 ;
i j 20
! 21 i
22 23
, 24 s 3
.O 25 f
t l :
Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 l
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13011 T137 1 A CPeterson) I believe that I spoke to this before, 2 and I believe it was in the context that FEMA does not have a 3 definitive written position on this f rom NRC. And I believe 4 that it was Mr. Cumming who said, you know, this is something 5, you need to get locked down as an agency.
6 -
Q Okay. So you believe it was Mr. Cumming that 7 suggested it might be a requirement of NRC regulations that 8 sheltering be a part of the plan; is that your testimony?
9 A (Peterson) No, I think you 're putting things into my 10 mouth again.
11 Q All right. Say it again.
12 A (Peterson) I don't mean to say it that way, sir.
13 Q I just want to make sure I get it.
14 A CPeterson) I just wan'. to be -- you know --
15 JUDGE SMITH: Thai was pretty accurate.
16 (Laughter.)
17 JUDGE SMITH: That 's not what he said at all.
18 MR. BACKUS: Thank you. I thought it was, but I want 19 to give the witness every opportunity.
20 MR. TURK: I think it was accurate that he put things l
21 in his mouth.
22 JUDGE SMITH: Go ahead. In any event, let's get his l
23 answer, 24 THE WITNESS: (Peterson) There was a concern within (3 25 the agency as I had viewed it in the briefings that we did not l (_/
l l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13012 1 have a definitive statement relative to NRC 's rules in the 2 sheltering issue, and that we should get that pinned down.
3 MR. BACKUS: Okay.
4 THE WITNESS: (Peterson) And I tried to do that in 5 the January 19th meeting.
6 MR. FLYNN: Mr. Backus, may I make a suggestion. I 7 think this will save a little time.
8 I'm not sure the witness understand the point of your 9 question. I think what you 're asking is what was the position 10 that was advocated within FEMA and who was the advocate that 11 gave rise to the issue in the first place.
12 MR. BACKUS: Well, no. No, I 'm no t , Mr. Flynn.
O 13 BY MR. BACKUS:
14 Q The witness has said that there was a large concern 15 on his part, and maybe others, that NRC regulations might 16 require sheltering as a necessary element to approving an 17 emergency plan; is that right?
18 A (Peterson) There was a concern that this agency did 19 not have a definitive position on NRC 's regulations on that 20 issue, and I wanted to get it resolved, and I wanted to see 21 what they had to say in writing about it so that I could get 22 that issue put to bed.
23 (Continued on next page.)
24
() 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13013 1 Q Okay.
2 A CPeterson) Because, you know, we were going to have 3 to make some calls down the roa'd here.
4 Q And I was inquiring as to where within the agency did 5 that concern come from. And you 've give me the name of Mr.
6 Cumming.
7 A CPeterson) And I said I believe it was Mr. Cumming 8 in some of the briefings who raised up the fact that this 9 agency doesn 't have that locked down, and that we probably 10 should get a definitive statement.
11 Now I think that came out of geneial counsel, and I 12 think it was Mr. Cumming that was concerned about us just get O 13 this things resolved.
14 Q Okay, if you have any additional memory later on.
15 you 'll --
16 A CPeterson) I 'm sure if there 's any, you 'll get it.
17 Q Mr. Krimm, you told us that back in the October time 18 frame you had NRC-FEMA steering committee meetings at which NRC 19 people had told you that any indication that FEMA -- that the 20 NRC regulations requiring sheltering was wrong; is that right?
21 A CKrimm) That 's correct.
22 Q And you had had that conveyed to you, Mr. McLoughlin; 23 is that right?
24 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct. Mr. Backus, but I 'll
() 25 tell you before you get too far. I need -- you have asked the Heritage Reporting Corporation
- (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13014 1 question about whether or not -- who said to me, as heing part 2 of this, who said to me e'rer that the NRC regulations did 3 require it. That 's not the way in which that was ever an issue 4 from my perspective.
5 Q All right.
6 A (McLoughlin) There 's another way but I 'l l leave 7 that.
8 Q So it 's your testimony, Mr. Peterson, that you had 9 some concern that if FEMA went ahead and changed its testimony 10 to indicate that the plans were adequate even though there was 11 no sheltering plan for the 98 percent, the NRC would think that 12 would violate its regulations; is that your testimony?
13 MR. TURK: Could I hear that again?
14 THE WITNESS: CPeterson) I don 't think that 's what 15 I 've said.
16 MR. TURK: Never mind.
17 MR. BACKUS: I'll just ask, I'll just ask.
18 JUDGE SMITH: He said -- well, and you have a 19 negative answer to your last question if you didn't hear it.
20 MR. BACKUS: Oh , I did? Okay.
21 THE WITNESS: CPeterson) I said I don 't believe 22 that 's what I said.
23 BY MR. BACKUS:
24 Q What was the concern about NRC regulations?
() 25 A (Peterson) That we did not have a definitive Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I
() KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13015 1 1 statement from NRC ralating to the shelter issues period. And 2 if I am to be in a policy and decisionmaking role, Mr. Backus, 3 I would like to see something in writing if it has been raised 4 as a concern at all within my agency. I think that 's a 5 responsible act.
6 Q Okay. Mr. Krimm, your talking points for the Stello 7 meeting, Paragraph 1 --
8 JUDGE SMITH: Are these going to be offered?
9 MR. BACKUS: Yes, why don 't we mark them. Let me 10 offer the whole package. There 's three document s. One is the 11 agenda, one is the talking points with notations, and one is 12 the talking points on the second page with no notations.
O 13 MR. DIGNAN: I obj ect.
14 MR. FLYNN: I obj ect certainly to the agenda. That 15 has not been identified.
16 MR. TURK: Why don 't we j ust tear off the last page, 17 Bob?
18 JUDGE SMITH: You 're not going to get the agenda.
19 Why don 't you j ust simplify it now.
20 MR. BACKUS: All right, if you don 't want the agenda, 21 forget the agenda.
22 I thought Mr. Krimm said he prepared it, and he 's a 23 witness.
24 JUDGE SMITH: No, no, he didn 't.
() 25 MR. DIGNAN: No.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i I
I
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13016 1 JUDGE SMITH: Talking points.
2 THE WITNESS: (Krimm) These are different.
3 BY MR. BACKUS:
4 Q All_right, you said you didn 't know who. It 's a 5 mystery agenda.
6 A (Krimm) That I don 't know anything about.
7 Q FEMA can 't explain it.
8 A CKrimm) The talking point for the Stello meeting is 9 what I 'm talking about.
10 MR. BACKUS: Why the hell did you claim executive 11 privilege for it if you can 't even identify who prepared it?
12 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, could I find out exactly O 13 what is now being offered, because I obj ect to the cover 14 letter.
15 JUDGE SMITH: He agreed he --
16 MR. BACKUS: I 'm not of fering the cover letter.
17 JUCGE SMITH: All right, so --
18 MR. DIGNAN: All right. So all we 're of fering is the 19 last page, this thing called talking points?
20 MR. BACKUS: Right.
21 MR. DIGNAN: One page.
22 MR. BACKUS: There 's another one, a clean one with 23 two pages.
24 MR. DIGNAN: Well, which one are we offering? The
() 25 one that 's been shown to the witness, as I understand it, is Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
m-() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGilLIN - CROSS 13017 1 Page 1 which he 's identified as having his handwriting on it.
2 Now what 's being of fered?
3 MR. BACKUS: Okay, let me offer the talking points 4 for Stello meeting prepared by Mr. Krimm with handwritten notes 5 as the next exhibit.
6 MR. DIGNAN: One-page document.
7 MR. BACKUS: One-page document.
8 MR. DIGNAN: Thank you. You 've got a number?
9 JUDGE SMITH: Forty.
10 (The document referred to was 11 marked for identification as 12 Massachusetts Attorney General 's O 13 Exhibit No. 40.
14 MR. DIGNAN: And that 's being of f ered into evidence?
15 MR. BACKUS: Yes.
16 MR. DIGNAN: With any limitations or generally or 17 what?
18 MR. BACKUS: Any way you want it. I don 't care.
19 MR. TURK: Historical.
20 MR. DIGNAN: For the purpose --
21 MR. BACKUS: Historical.
22 MR. DIGNAN: Well, Mr. Backus -- Your Honor, could we 23 have a definitive decision here on what it 's being of f ered for 24 and admitted for?
() 25 I hate to keep banging away at the record, but my Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13018 1 problem is my experience is two Court of Appeals later nobody 2 knows what happened if.. it 's not clear in the record. Now, I 3 think I'm entitled to be told the purpose of the of fer so I can 4 decide whether I want to obj ect or not.
5 MR. BACKUS: All right. The purposes of the offer is l
l 6 that his reflects Mr. Krimm's understanding of his position on 7 certain issues as of the time this was prepared. It 's for that 8 purpose. And of his agency. I gather.
9 MR. DIGNAN: This reflects the position of Mr. Krimm 10 on the issues discussed in this document and that of FEMA?
11 I obj ect. You haven 't established that.
12 JUDGE SMITH: I don 't see what the quarrel is. It is O 13 what it says it is; that it 's a paper that Mr. Krimm prepared 14 to take to the meeting, and it establishes that. It 's no more, 15 no less.
16 MR. DIGNAN: If it 's of fered to show thet this is a 17 paper that Mr. Krimm took to the meeting, fine, but that's not 18 the purpose of the offer as I heard it articulated by counsel.
19 JUDGE SMITH: I didn 't hear him say that it 20 represented an official FEMA position.
21 MR. DIGNAN: He just said it. Your Honor. I 'm sorry.
22 I noticed you were reading when he said it, but that 's what he ,
23 just said.
24 MR. BACKUS: Well, okay, I did say that, and I 'll say
() 25 it represents Mr. Krimm's position on the issues that he took Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
() KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13019 1 to the meeting with him.
2 JUDGE SMITH: All right, then there 's no obj ection.
3 right?
4 MR. DIGNAN: No, I haven 't heard Mr. Krimm say that.
5 yet, that this --
6 JUDGE SMITH: He prepared it to take to a --
7 MR. DIGNAN: He prepared it, but it doesn 't say it 8 represents his position. It starts out talking points. Among I 9 other things, he 's talking about what he understands to be a 10 RAC maj ority view. That doesn 't mean everything on here is his 11 position.
12 JUDGE SMITH: I said position. I should have said O 13 issues.
14 MR. DIGNAN: No problem, Your Honor. The issues that 15 Mr. Krimm wanted to talk about. I 've got no problem with that.
16 JUDGE SMITH: That 's what it is, isn 't it. Mr. Krimm?
17 THE WITNESS: CKrimm) Yes.
18 JUDGE SMITH: All right. Is that all right with you.
19 Mr. Backus?
20 MR. BACKUS: Sure.
21 JUDGE SMITH: All right, received. Massachusetts 22 Attorney General 's Exhibit 40.
23 24
() 25 (The document referred to, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
a
(~s- ~ KRINM, PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13020
(_)
1 having been previously mar:;ed 2 for identification as 3 Massachusetts Attorney General 's 4 Exhibit No. 40 was received in 5 evidence.)
6 MR. BACKUS: I guess I 'd also like to -- while we are 7 talking about exhibit I'd like to mark in Exhibit 39, which is 8 the letter from Mr. Turk to Mr. Flynn of February 18th, as a 9 historical document.
10 MR. TURK: In what sense? Same as prior documents?
11 That this was a document received by the witnesses and 12 considered by them -
13 MR. BACKUS: And it was --
14 MR. TURK: -- in formulating their position?
15 MR. BACKUS: Yes, and it evolved as the witnesses 16 have describeo.
17 JUDGE SMITH: Okay?
18 MR. TURK: No obj ection.
19 JUDGE SMITH: It 's received.
20 21 22 23 24
() 25 (The document referred to, Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888
l ) KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13021 1 having been previously marked 2 for identification as 3 Massachusetts Attorney General 's 4 Exhibit No. 39 was received in 5 evidence.)
6 BY MR. BACKUS:
7 Q Mr. Krimm, on Page -- Exhibit 4 Item 1, beach 8 population issues, it says at the beginning, "FEMA 's view",
9 okay?
10 A CKrimm) I 'm sorry, where are you talking from?
11 Q I'm talking about your talking points for Stello 12 meeting which we 've marked Mass. AG 40.
13 A CKrimm) Oh, okay.
14 Q Paragraph 1. It says, beach population issues. And I
15 then set of f by a dash "FEMA 's views", correct?
16 A (Krimm) Yes.
171 Q Okay, does what follow represent FEMA 's views?
- 18 A CKrimm) It represents the -- I can 't say it was 19 really FEMA 's view, and that 's probably a misnomer. It 20 represents my view at that time which was somewhat consistent 21 with the January 2bth filing that came later.
~22 Q Okay. If it 's consistent with the January 25th 23 filing, does it represent FEMA 's views as of that time?
24 A CKrimm) On this date. I 'm sorry I put FEMA 's view
() 25 in. This was really kind of where my staff and I were coming Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
r-() KRIMM, PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13022 1 from. In other words, what we were, you know, basically saying-2 that the New Hampshire plan should consider the sheltering 3 option.
4 Q Mr. Krimm, the question was you wrote down there 5 "FEMA 's views" and some text follows.
6 A CKrimm) Mm-hmm.
7 Q Is it accurate what you said what follows is FEMA 's 8 view?
9 Can that be answered yes or no?
10 A CKrimm) No. It 's my view and I 'm sorry it says 11 FEMA 's view.
12 Q All right. Now it says, you know, that sheltering O 13 issues options must be fully considered in the plans.
14 Currently they are not.
15 And then the last sentence of that paragraph says, 16 "As we currently see thirs. today, the sheltering survey is not 17 sufficient to fulfill this requirement because it is not a 18 shelter plan."
19 Correct?
20 A CKrimm) That 's correct.
21 Q Was that your view?
22 A CKrimm) Yes 23 Q Is it still your view?
24 A (Krimm) Well, the shelter plan was strictly an
() 25 inventory. And at that point New Hampshire had not --
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13023 1 MR. FLYNN: Correction. The witness said shelter 2 plan. He meant shelter survey.
3 THE WITNESS: (Krimm) Excuse me. Thanks, Joe.
4 The shelter survey was an inventory, and at that time 5 New Hampshire had not told us how that was going to be 6 incorporated, or how they were going to use that. So it did 7 not. Today they have submitted a plan for using shelter for 2 8 percent of the population.
9 BY MR. BACKUS:
10 Q So is it correct today as it was on January 19th that 11 the sheltering survey is not sufficient to fill this 12 requirement because it is not a shelter plan for the 98 percent O 13 of the beach population?
14 A CKrimm) For 98 percent of the beach population.
15 Q Okay. Now you started out there --
16 JUDGE SMITH: Well, there 's a f ailure of logic there.
17 I think.
18 The second sentence -- the third sentence refers back 19 to the first sentence. And it says that the shelter survey 20 does not fill the requirement that sheltering issues must be 21 fully considered in the plan.
22 You asked if that is still true today, but if his n
23 view as to the first requirement, the first sentence has 24 changed, then the sentence is a non sequitur. I don 't think O 25 I ve heived.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() ,
KRIMM, PETERSCN, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13024 1 As I understand FEMA 's position now that they believe 2 that New Hampshire has considered the plans.
3 THE WITNESS: (Krimm) That 's right, yes.
4 JUDGE SMITH: Therefore, the third sentence which 5 alludes to that requirement is -- it 's a non sequitur to attach 6 the third sentence to the first sentence.
7 MR. BACKUS: All right. I see.
8 BY MR. BACKUS:
9 Q In any event, whatever the status of the New 10 Hampshire plans as to the utilization of sheltering, it remains 11 true that the survey in and of itself is not sufficient to meet 12 the requirements for a plan because it is inJeed not a plan; it O
O 13 is an inventory.
14 Is that a fair statement, Mr. Krimm?
15 A CKrimm) Yes, it 's an inventory is correct.
16 Q Okay. Mr. Peterson, you have said, and Mr.
17 McLoughlin has said, but I 'll direct this to you first.
18 A (Peterson) Yes, sir.
19 Q That when Mr. Stello in this meeting talked about in 20 some way war between your agencies, it was over the possibility
' 21 that FEMA might attempt to interpret or utilize the NRC 's 22 regulations; is that right?
23 MR. TURK: No. I obj ect to the characterization.
24 MR. BACKUS: For heaven sakes. Are you the witness?
() 20 JUDGE SMITH: You don 't have -- do you have an l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L.
() KRIMM, PETERSCN, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13025 1 obj ection?
2 MR. TURK: If that 's a char acterization. I obj ect, 3 Your Honor. It 's not a correct ane.
4 JUDGE SMITH: I don 't understand that it was a 5 characterization. It wac a' flat-out question as I thought.
6 MR. TURK: We 've heard the testimony already and it 's 7 not correct -- that does not correctly represent the testimony.
8 JUDGE SMITH: I don't guess I have to have a -- I did 9 not hear the question as a characterization. I heard the 10 question as a question, and maybe the exact question was asked 11 yesterday, or dif ferent question on the same subj ect matter, 12 but I didn 't hear it as a characterization.
O 13 Let me hear it back.
14 (Accordingly, the pending question was read back 15 by the court reporter.)
E137 16 (Continued on next page.)
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
() 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13026 t/138 1 MR. DIGNAN: It 'o a good answeri it 's a better 2 obj ect ion. My problem is to throw out "interpret or utilize."
3 To interpret a regulation is one thing; to utilize is quite 4 another. So I obj ect to it' as being a compound question.
5 JUDGE SMITH: Start again.
6 MR. BACKUS: Let me withdraw it.
7 BY MR. BACKUS:
8 Q When did Mr. Stello threaten there could be war 9 between your agencies?
10 A (Peterson) It had to do with the shelter question, 11 and if we interpreted his regulations to mean that we, FEMA, 12 had to require sheltering, then how would he respond to that.
O 13 And that 's, you know, we 're paraphrasing here. But it had to 14 do with the fact that if we required sheltering and interpreted 15 his regulations to say that, then how would NRC respond.
16 Q Okay.
17 A (Peterson) And I believe I had commented a little 18 differently first and did not get the definitive answer I 19 wanted out of the meeting.
20 Q Now, was the predicate to that, Mr. Peterson, 21 something you might have said along the lines, we may conclude 22 that you -- your regulations, NRC, require sheltering; did you 23 say something like that?
24 A (Peterson) I think I kept it in the interpret mode.
() 25 Q In other words, you said, we might interpret your Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1
(') KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13027 i
1 requirements to require sheltering?
2 A (Peterson) We were -- I believe that 's where I was.
3 That if we were to interpret your regulations or say that your 4 regulations required sheltering, and stood on that, then how 5 would you respond. Paraphrased.
6 Q And what did he say?
7 A (Peterson) He said basically that if we interpreted l 8 his regulations to require sheltering and utilized that l
9 premise, that then we would go to war over that issue.
l 10 Q Okay. And I take it, that immediately disabused you 11 of any notion that NRC might have any doubt that their 12 regulations required sheltering?
i O 13 A CPeterson) Well, I think we were getting a pretty 14 strong signal that they didn 't think we should be interpreting 15 their regulations in that way. First, probably we shouldn 't be <
16 interpreting their regulations.
17 And secondly, that if you used mine -- if we used my 18 analysis that we would be on a conf rontation course between the 19 two agencies.
20 Q Okay. And so there was also a concern about you 21 interpreting their regulations?
22 A (Peterson) Well, I think I threw that in there.
23 Q And that didn 't sit very well with Mr. Stello either; 24 correct?
() 25 A CPeterson) I think his response was pointed.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 13028
. ( )- KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 1 Q Now, isn 't it in fact true. Mr. McLoughlin, that the 2 Keller testimony _ that 's been filed on March 14th cites as a 3 basis an NRC guidance document, NUREG-1210?
4 A (McLoughlin) Yes, I believe that 's correct. If you 5 want to check it for sure, but I think that 's correct.
6 Q To your knowledge, Mr. Peterson, has anybody at NRC 7 suggested any problem for FEMA in Mr. Keller 's testimony, 8 insofar as it relies on NRC guidance documents?
9 A CPeterson) Would you restate the question.
10 Q Has anybody from NRC indicated that they have a 11 problem with your witness, Mr. Keller, utilizing an NRC 12 guidance document as a basis for his testimony?
O 13 A (Peterson) It has never been brought up to me as an 14 issue.
15 Q Now, you said yesterday, Mr. Peterson, that when he 16 said this you said something to the effect, you can bluff and 17 huff or something, but it 's not going to get us anywhere; is 18 that right?
19 A (Peterson) That 's not exactly what I said, but it 's 20 -- I said in so many words, you can assume this rough, tough, 21 and hard to bluff attitude, if you wish, but it isn 't going to 22 you or us anywhere. And I want to emphasice, at that point 23 that I smiled at him and he smiled back, there was some 24 giggling in the rooc, and I think that it 's not appropriate to
() 25 put too much emphasis on that.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
( )- KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13029 1 Q Okay. Was the giggling of a nervous character?
2 A (Peterson) I don 't think it was nervous. I think 3 there was an exchange and after that, I think the comment was 4 made, okay, where do we go from here.
5 Q And where you went from there, as we 've been over .
6 before, was a commitment that you would get something in 7 writing that NRC's regulations indeed did not require 8 sheltering?
9 A (Peterson) We caucused and we asked that they put 10 their views on this issue in writing.
11 Q Okay. And your understanding is that writing is the 12 letter of February 18th that we previously discussed?
O 13 A CPeterson) I certainly took it as, you know, as the 14 response from Mr. Stello.
15 Q Now you said, Mr. Peterson, at that time you felt no 16 pressure in regard to what the FEMA position should be; is that 17 right?
18 A (Peterson) Are you --
19 Q I 'm sorry, FEMA position should be?
20 A (Peterson) I don 't feel that I had felt any 21 pressure, no. Are you speaking specifically to the NRC 22 meeting?
23 Q Yes.
24 A (Peterson) No.
() 25 Q Okay. You already knew, did you not, Mr. Peterson, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13030 1 that people below Mr. Stello 's level in the NRC thought you 2 were off base if you thought the regulations required 3 sheltering; did you know that?
4 A (Peterson) Did I know specifically that NRC staff 5 was telling our staff?
6 Q Yes.
7 A (Peterson) I can 't speak specifically to tracing 8 that back at all. I don 't have that. The issue came up in 9 briefing from my people relative to the concern of the 10 definitive statements.
11 Q So you don 't know whether you had been informed by 12 Mr. Krimm that in his NRC-FEMA Steering Committee meetings, NRC O,s 13 staff had expressed that opinion?
14 A (Peterson) Relative to the guidance or the --
> 15 Q Relative to the fact that NRC regulations don 't 16 require sheltering to have plan adequacy?
17 MR. TURK: I may have missed something. I thought 18 that the meeting with Mr. Krimm were on a different subj ect ,
19 and that was the technical.
20 MR. BACKUS: You did miss something.
21 THE WITNESS: (Peterson) I guess I did, too.
22 BY MR. BACKUS:
23 Q Okay. Let me j ust confirm that with Mr. Krimm. You 24 have testified here earlier today, have you not, Mr. Krimm.
() 25 that at NRC-FEMA Steering Committee meetings NRC staf fers had Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13031 1 indicated generally that any interpretation of their 2 regulations, NRC. required sheltering was not . correct?
3 A (Krimm). That sheltering was not a requirement of 4 their regulations.
5 Q That had been conveyed to you?
6 A (Krimm) At some point.
7 Q And had you conveyed that information to Mr.
8 McLoughlin?
9 A CKrimm) At some point, yes.
10 Q Prior to January 19th?
11 A CKrimm) Yes.
12 Q And, Mr. McLoughlin, had you conveyed that to Mr.
13 Peterson?
14 A (McLoughlin) The fact that the NRC had told us that?
15 Q That staffers at the NRC had told you that?
16 A (McLoughlin) Mr. Backus, I -- you know, if -- I 17 don 't -- there 's no doubt in my mind that Mr. Peterson knew 18 that. That we had discussed it and discussed it openly. If 19 you ask me the specific question of whether or not I told him 20 that. I don 't know. I j ust don 't know.
21 Q Well, let me ask Mr. Peterson. Did you know that 22 prior to January 19th that NRC staffers had expressed to your 23 staff the opinion that sheltering was not a NRC regulatory 24 requirement?
() 25 A CPeterson) If my memory serves me, Mr. Backus, that Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13032 1 the issue focused around the proposed rebuttal filing that NRC 2 was dealing with, that flipped f.t up more -- and I only want to 3 say more so, because I cannot specifically remember anyone 4 saying, NRC staff somebody, Mr. Somebody said, that this 5 guidance, that it 's not required.
6 I remember it being flipped up. There was not a 7 definitive position. We should have a definitive position.
8 And there was a proposed rebuttal finding from NRC that had 9 some language in it, and we needed to get it resolved.
10 Q So -- all right. I've got a few questions on the 11 exhibit that Mr. Dignan marked this morning, the letter of May 12 13th to Senator Glenn.
13 Mr. Krimm. you said you wrote this letter; is that 14 right?
15 A CKrimm) I drafted the letter and I received input 16 from others in the agency, and then I went back and put in a 17 final.
18 Q Did you have participation in the review or drafting 19 of this letter in any way, Mr. Peterson?
20 A (Peterson) The letter came up through the channels, 21 and the way I normally get something is, it would come up and 22 it would have a sign off sheet on it, Mr. Krimm had signed off 23 on it, and Mr. McLoughlin had signed off on it by that time. I 24 read it and felt that I was comfortable with the letter.
() 25 because I had to sign off on it to send it to the director.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13033 1 Q Okay. So all of you on the panel signed off on this 2 letter; is that right?
3 A (Krimm) That 's correct, sir.
4 Q Okay. Now, this letter describes and I was going S back again to the bottom of page one, the FEMA-NRC S,teering 6 Committee, and that 's the committee on which you 're the ranking 7 person for FEMA, as I understand it. Mr. Krimm, is that right? ,
8 A (Krimm) That 's correct.
9 Q And it says, "Likewise it was discussed by FEMA-NRC 10 Steering Committee at its regular meetings over a period of a 11 year or more, the NRC-FEMA." going to page two. "the NRC-FEMA 12 Steering Committee is established by an addendum to the O 13 memorandum of understanding, MOU, a copy of which is enclosed.
14 between FEMA and the NRC to discuss and resolve matters on 15 offsite preparedness.
16 At the meeting on January 19th, 1988 there were 17 several topics discussed."
18 Were you indicating there. Mr. Krimm, that the 19 January 19th meeting was a FEMA-NRC Steering Committee meeting?
20 A (Krimm) No.
21 Q It certainly was not, was it?
22 A (Krimm) No.
23 Q It was a meeting at much higher levels for both 24 agencies that ordinarily occurs?
l () 25 A (Krimm) Yes.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
1
,a 13034
(_) KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 1 Q So anybody that read this to interpret this to mean 2 that you were describing the January 19th, 1988 meeting as a 3 FEMA-NRC Steering Committee meeting would be making an 4 erroneous interpretation; is that right?
5 A CKrimm) Yes. I -- if it 's interpreted that way. I 6 miswrote it or maybe being too f amiliar with the subj ect I 7 didn 't think that you -- are you interpreting it that way, as a 8 Steering Committee meeting?
9 Q I 'm j ust asking questions about it?
10 A (Krimm) Oh, okay, I 'm sorry. It was not a Steering 11 Committte meeting.
12 Q Okay. And that 's certainly your understanding, too.
O 13 isn 't it. Mr. Peterson?
14 A (Peterson) In my-opinion, Mr. Backus, that was a 15 high level headquarters meeting, and was not a Steering 16 Committee meeting.
17 Q Okay. Now, there was an issue raised also in that 18 paragraph on this exhibit about why Mr. Thomas was not at this l 19 January 19th meeting?
20 A CPeterson) Yes, sir.
21 Q And the statement is, "The topic dealt with a variety 22 of issues unrelated to Seabrook. Therefore we did not consider 23 it necessary or the best use of this t',me to include Mr. Thomas 24 in the meeting, although he was in Washington at that time
() 25 working with the FEMA Office of General Counsel." Correct?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON. . MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13035 1 MR. DIGNAN: Wait a minute. Mr. Backus, that was 2 read out of context. The whole sentence is, "This was a 3 meeting of headquarters representatives from two agencies,"
4 preceded the words, "topics also dealt with Seabrook."
5 , MR. BACKUS: Okay.
6 . MR. DIGNAN: And I obj ect to that question, that 's 7 out of context.
8 MR. BACKUS: All right. Let 's read some more of it.
9 MR. DIGNAN: Are you withdrawing it?
10 MR. BACKUS: Yes, I 'm withdrawing it.
11 JUDGE SMITH: Restate it.
12 BY MR. BACKUS:
O 13 Q Okay, "It was at that meeting, " I 'm reading now 14 starting with the third sentence here --
15 A (Peterson) I 'm sorry, sir, are we on the front page? I 16 Q No, we 're on page two the first paragraph.
17 A CPeterson) Page two, okay. And you 're starting with 18 what?
19 Q Well. I 'm -- we l l, let 's start with the second 20 sentence: "At the meeting on January 19th, 1988 there were 21 several topics discussed including the question of the 22 sheltering of the beach population. It was at that meeting 23 that the NRC reiterated its position that sheltering is not a 24 requirement under the NRC regulations. This was a meeting of
() 25 headquarters representatives from two agencies and the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13036 1 discussion topics also dealt with a variety of issues unrelated 2 to Seabrook.
3 Therefore, we did not consider it necessary or the 4 best use of this time to include Mr. Thomas in the meeting, 5 although he was in Washington at that time working with the 6 FEMA Office of General Counsel." Correct?
7 A (Peterson) That 's what it says.
8 Q Okay. "And he was working with the Office of General 9 Counsel in regard to testimony that might be developed 10 concerning Seabrook." Is that right?
11 A (Peterson) I believe I said that earlier.
12 Q Okay. Was he in f act excluded f rom this meeting?
O 13 A (Peterson) He was never invited.
14 Q Okay.
15 A CPeterson) This was a high level meeting of 16 headquarters people, initially the parameters were established, 17 not below Mr. Krimm, as I understood it, you know, plus 18 attorneys. But, and I think this is pertinent, when Mr. Stello 19 arrived he had a larger entourage than we anticipated. And I 20 understood there were some technical people there from his 21 headquarters.
22 And so, I asked a couple -- I don 't know how that
- 23 happened, but I asked at least that we have a technical person i
24 there from headquarters, l
() 25 Q So as you said, Mr. Stello arrived with more people Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13037 1 than you thought he would and lower level people than you 2 thought he would?
3 A (Peterson) Well, theyre all headquarters people.
4 Q All headquarters people?
5 A CPeterson) Yes, sir.
6 Q But it was not --
it was somewhat different than.what 7 you anticipated?
8 A (Peterson) Well, it was still a headquarters 9 personnel meeting, there 's no question about that, but he 10 brought more people than I anticipated.
11 Q And as a result you asked some more FEMA people to 12 come in than you 'd originally anticipated; is'that right?
O 13 MR. FLYNN: Your Honor, I obj ect to this entire line 14 of questioning. I really don 't see the relevance of why Mr.
15 Thomas was or was not at that meeting.
16 MR. BACKUS: I 'm not asking about that now; I moved 17 on.
13 JUDGE SMITH: That 's what I thought was irrelevant.
19 Okay. So you don 't obj ect?
20 BY MR. BACKUS:
21 Q And as a result of Mr. Stello --
22 MR. BACKUS: I 'm sorry, go ahead.
23 MR. FLYNN: I 'm sorry. Then I 've lost the pending 24 question.
() 25 MR. BACKUS: All right, I 'll ask it again.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
- (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13038 1 BY MR. BACKUS:
2 Q As a result of Mr. Stello arriving with more 3 individuals'from NRC than you anticipated. I thought you said 4 you at that point requested some additional people from FEMA to 5 come in, that you had not originally intended to be there?
6 MR. FLYNN: Well, that sounds to me like the same 7 line of questioning?
8 MR. BACKUS: No, it isn 't.
9 MR. FLYNN: Well --
10 MR. BACKUS: I didn't say a thing about Mr. Thomas.
11 MR. TURK: Asked and answered.
12 THE WITNESS: CPeterson) I beg your pardon?
O 13 MR. TURK: The question has been asked and answered 14 already.
15 MR. BACKUS: No, it hasn 't.
16 JUDGE SMITH: When?
17 MR. TURK: Mr. Peterson has already given his
~ 18 . statement.
19 THE WITNESS: CPeterson) I thought my answer 20 addressed the issue, but --
21 JUDGE SMITH: Well, it is a fact that we 're all 22 familiar with, you know, that that 's what happened. I don 't 23 know.
24 MR. TURK: It just gets into the harassing aspect of
() 25 it.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13039 1 JUDGE SMITH: No it 's not. It 's not -- nobody has 2 been harassed.
3 THE WITNESS: (Peterson) What we did is balance the 4 odds, sir.
5 BY MR. BACKUS:
6 Q Okay.
7 A (Peterson) They had seven and we had seven.
8 (Laughter) 9 THE WITNESS: (Peterson) They were all high level 10 headquarters people, 11 BY MR. BACKUS:
12 Q Okay. You wanted the teams to be of equal number of O 13 players; right?
14 A (Peterson) That 's it.
15 Q Okay.
16 JUDGE SMITH: So you saio, go out in the hall and get 17 some nore.
18 (Laughter) 19 BY MR. BACKUS:
20 Q And just so I want to hear another obj ection I 'll ask 21 you, and Mr. Thomas was not one of the additional ones you 22 decided to bring in when you decided to even up the teams; 23 right?
24 A (Peterson) No.
() 25 MR. FLYNN: Sure. I 'll obj ect to that.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
13040
(') KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 1 MR. BACKUS: And he answered it.
2 BY MR. BACKUS:
3 Q Now, back to your statements that you 've made and Mr.
4 McLoughlin has made that you felt no pressure to change FEMA 's 5 position. And I think I 'd already explored ---
6 A (Peterson) This NRC meeting, str?
7 Q January 19th?
8 A (Peterson) Right.
9 Q We already explored that, at least. Mr. Krimm and Mr.
10 McLoughlin were both there on the January 19th, already knew 11 the NRC staff position about what the regulations didn 't 12 require?
O 13 A (Peterson) I did not say that.
14 Q No, but Mr. McLoughlin and Mr. Krimm have alreaoy 15 acknowledged that they had indications from NRC staff prior to 16 this meeting that those people, whoever they were on NRC staff, 17 didn't think NRC regulations required sheltering; correct? You 18 can say, yes, just so we can get it on the record.
19 A (McLoughlin) Yes.
20 Q Mr. Krimm?
21 A CKrimm) Yes.
22 Q Okay. And, Mr. Peterson, you, of course, and you 've 23 referred to what you already had before you or some time you 24 had before you the rebuttal plan filed by Mr. Turk on the date
() 25 of October 5th; is that right?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13041 1
- 1. A (Peterson) I was aware of the basic statement in 2 Mr. Turk 's letter that I put on the record, sir.
3 Q Did you know, Mr. Peterson, that Mr. Stello was the 4 head of a staff which was a party in this proceeding advocating 5 the issuance of a license for Seabrook when you went to the 6 meeting?
7 MR. TURK: I obj ect to that characterization.
8 MR. BACKUS: Oh, you do.
9 MR. TURK: No one sitting where I am here is 10 advocating a license. We 're advocating compliance with 11 regulations. Mr. Backus.
12 MR. BACKUS: Well, then I guess --
0 13 MR. TURK: When the regulations are complied with, the 14 license can issue.
15 MR. BACKUS: I see. Well, then maybe that 's -- go 16 ahead and answer. ,
17 THE WITNESS: (Peterson) Would you state --
18 JUDGE SMITH: No, there 's an obj ection --
19 MR. 9ACKUS: I 'm sorry, that was an obj ection.
20 MR. DIGNAN: Before he does could I have the 21 relevance of the question as to whether or not he knew that Mr.
22 Stello was head of a staff that was engaged in --
23 JUDGE SMITH: What 's the relevance of a question that 24 is -- as to which the obj ection has been sustained.
() 25 MR. DIGNAN: Oh, I 'm sorry. Was it sustained? I i
Heritage Reporting Corporation ,
(202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13042 1 apologize, Your Honor, things are flying around too fast.
2 (Leughter) 3 BY MR. BACKUS:
4 Q Did you have any indication of what Mr. Stello 's 5 position was on the issuance of whether there should be an 6 operating license issued for Seabrook on the basis of the 7 current emergency plans?
8 A (Peterson) Mr. Stello never indicated to me in any 9 way a position of that nature. And I took it that, in 10 relationship to our MOU, that 's what NRC does.
11 MR. FLYNN: Excuse me, what is what NRC does?
12 THE WITNESS: (Peterson) You read the MOU and O 13 specifically the first page in the first column. about two-14 thirds of the way down it defines NRC 's role. And I assume 15 that 's where NRC is. I -- you 're saying, did they auvocate a 1 16 position to me? Absolutely not.
17 BY MR. BACKUS:
18 Q Okay. And you had no idea what their position was at 19 the time of the January 19th meeting; is that the case?
20 A (Peterson) On what?
21 Q On ti issue of whether the emergency planning 22 problems at Seabrook would prevent the issuance of a license?
23 You didn't know what tneir position was on that?
24 A (Peterson) I think you got to rephrase the question.
() 25 Q Okay. I 'm j ust asking, from anything that was said Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13043 ,
I 1 by the NRC people at that meeting or prior thereto, did you 2 have any indication of what the NRC staff position was on the ,
3 adequacy of the New Hampshire plans to support licensing of ;
Seabrook?
4 5 A CPeterson) I don 't think there was a position that t
6 NRC took in that meeting along those lines. We talked about 7 the sheltering issue, and scheduling, and things like that.
8 And there was never, in my recollection, Mr. Backus, any kind 9 of a definitive statement about huw NRC feels one way or the 10 other about the licensing of that facility.
11 Q Okay.
12 A (Peterson) It would have been inappropriate. I O 13 Q And you didn't get any sense of a position on that 14 question from the January 15th phone call you had with Mr. .
15 Stello?
16 A CPeterson) No. His concern was, he didn 't feel he 17 was properly aware of FEMA 's concern.
18 Q Okay. Now, moving ahead from the meeting of January 19 19th.
20 A (Peterson) Yes, sir.
21 Q The next thing that I understand happened is what 22 you, Mr. McLoughlin, has described as the "could-would meeting" t 23 of January 22?
24 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
() 25 Q Now, that 's j ust --
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() ,
KRIMM. PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13044 1 A (Peterson) I think that we left something important 2 out of the January 19th meeting.
3 Q All right. Well, I'm sure your counsel will bring it 4 up on redirect.
5 A CPeterson) Okay. I 'm sure he will, too.
6 Q Okay.
7 The next thing that happened, Mr. McLoughlin, as I 8 understand the chronology here was the January 12 "would-could 9 meeting?"
10 A (McLoughlin) That 's correct.
11 Q And that was, if the January 19th meeting was on 12 Tuesday, this would be on the Friday of that week; is that O 13 right?
14 A CMcLoughlin) My recollection is, that 's correct.
15 Q Okay. Did the "would-could meeting" arise out of the 16 January 19th meeting?
17 A (McLoughlin) No, no. No, it -- it was not a logical 18 conclusion in any way. We were already moving towards the 19 preparation of drafting a testimony that was on a schedule that 20 would have driven us to approximately a January 22 date. In 21 fact. it was independent of the 19th meeting in terms of its 22 actual scheduling.
23 Q Had the drafting of that testimony begun before 24 January 13th?
() 25 A (McLoughlin) Before January 13th? I can 't tell Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l
() KRIMM. PETERSON. MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13045 1 you --
2 JUDGE SMITH: January 13th?
3 MR. BACKUS: Yes.
4 MR. FLYNN: Or 19th?
5 WR. BACKUS: 13th.
6 MR. FLYNN: The witness clearly doesn 't understand 7 the reference.
8 BY MR. BACKUS: -
9 Q Had the draf ting of the testimony you 've j ust ;
10 reference commenced before January 13th?
11 A (McLoughlin) Commenced before January 13th? Mr. -
12 Backus. I can't give you a direct answer to that. I do not !
13 know. I know that we -- that there were discussions that we L
14 had that we need to prepare the testimony. And our technical ;
15 staf f in Dick Krimm's shop and our legal staff in our general 16 counsel shop would have done that. That 's what their ,
17 assignment is. Therefore, that preparation would have started 18 there.
19 I did -- and Ed Thomas was there to help with that.
20 What I don't know is precisely when that started.
et/138 21 (Continued on next page.)
22 23 i 24
( 25 l
Heritage Reporting Corporation ;
(202) 628-4888 I
KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13046
(])
T139 1 Q If Mr. Thomas was in Washington on the week of the 2 18th for that purpose, would that have been when the drafting 3 of the testimony was started?
4 A (McLoughlin) Well, that 's the whole point of it.
5 You're asking me for my recollection of when it started. I was ,
6 not a member of the original drafting team. Therefore, I don 't '
7 know when the drafting actually started.
8 Q Okay. .
9 A (McLoughlin) I have acknowledged the fact that it 10 would start in that period.
11 Q Okay. If you don 't know, that 's fine. Let me turn He was on the team that was working on this, i 12 to Mr. Krimm.
13 Do you have a recollection of whether the drafting of 14 new FEMA testimony began before the week of January 18th?
15 MR. DIGNAN: Mr. Backus, is that the reference to the 16 January 25th testimony?
17 MR. BACKUS: It 's a reference to the testimony that 18 Mr. McLoughlin is turning out. I don 't know whether it turned 19 out to be the Jenuary 25th testimony or not. There is -
20 testimony --
21 MR. DIGNAN: Well, wait, wait, wait.
22 If you don 't -- I obj ect, okay? l 23 JUDGE SMITH: Somebody -- F 24 MR. DIGNAN: Somebody ought to tell me whether we 're 25 talking about the January 25th testimony or the March 14th
(])
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13047 1 testimony, Your Honor, in this context. They are two different 2 pieces of testimony, and this record right now is running 3 around, and two years from now nobody is going to know what 4 testimony you were talking about.
5 MR. BACKUS: Your Honor, Mr. McLoughlin has 6 referenced that there was drafting of testimony going on.
7 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
8 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) If it helps any --
9 JUDGE SMITH: That 's why Mr. Thomas was down there.
10 MR. BACKUS: That 's why Mr. Thomas was down there.
11 And that --
12 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) To help it.
13 MR. BACKUS: To help it.
14 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) That 's right.
15 MR. BACKUS: And that --
16 JUDGE SMITH: Is it the testimony that was eventually 17 submitted dated January 25th that you were alluding to?
1 l
18 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) That I am alluding to, 19 yes. The drafting of the testimony which ultimstely we 20 submitted on January 25th, which went through a series of 21 drafts, that the drafting of that occurred -- Ed Thomas was 22 down there to do it. Mr. Krimm's staf f participated in that, 1
l 23 general counsel 's staf f participated in that.
24 The only thing I don 't know. Your Honor, is precisely 25 when that started because I was not a member of that drafting
(])
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
I 13048
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 1 team.
2 MR. BACKUS: All right.
3 THE WITNESS: (McLoughlin) I know in that time frame l 4 the drafting did start.
5 JUDGE SMITH: Okay, he 's accepted your answer on 6 that.
7 Now he wants to --
8 MR. BACKUS: Now I want to go to Mr. Krimm, because 9 you say he was involved in it.
10 BY MR. BACKUS:
11 Q Mr. Krimm, I believe the testimony we 've had f rom Mr.
12 Thomas is that he was in Washington the week of the 18th for
\' 13 the purpose of working on the testimony.
14 Is that consistent with your recollection?
15 A (Krimm) Yes.
16 Q Does that fix for us that the work of drafting on 17 this testimony commenced on or about that time?
18 A (Krimm) I 've got to believe it did. I don 't know 19 the exact date it actually began. What I mean by that I don 't 20 know the exact date pen was taken to hand, or the start, but it 21 was during that time frame, yes.
22 Q During that week?
23 A CKrimm) I believe it was, yes.
24 MR. BACKUS: Okay. Your Honor, I 've reached a point
() 25 where the next thing that 's up for me, I believe, is going into Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13049
{) 1 March. And I would j ust as soon break it here, and let other i-2 counsel take that up with this panel tomorrow.
3 As you know because of the way this evolved, we 4 didn't have time to coordinate as fully as we would normally 5 like to do, and we asked, as.you know, to be relieved of the 6 lead Intervenor concept to some degree.
7 And if I could just have a moment to check with 8 Attorney Oleskey and maybe Attorney Weiss to make sure that 's 9 all right with them --
10 JUDGE SMITH: Okay, take --
11 MR. BACKUS: -- it would be probably very nice for 12 everybody to break.
13 JUDGE SMITH: Take a few minutes.
14 MR. TURK: Your Honor, before we break I 'd like to 15 point something out.
16 I am going to have some questioning, and I don 't know 17 about Mr. Flynn, but I imagine he ':5 going to have some 18 redirect.
19 The Intervenors have known since at least April that 20 they wanted these witnesses to appear. They subpoenaed them a 21 long time ago. They had Mr. Thomas 'a deposition. They knew 22 what they wanted to go after. And I want them on notice that 23 tomorrow, roughly lunchtime, I want the rest of the time of 24 tomorrow left for other persons ' questioning.
25 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, no. Well, we 'll have to
{])
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
?
13050
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS accommodate it, but I aon 't know about those exact numbers.
1 2 MR. TURK : If Mr. Backus wants to break now, it 's hat 3 is peril, I suggest. And I want you to know I 'm not urging 4 that the witnesses be kept here. It 's been a long day and they 5 must be tired and,the Board and parties are.
6 MR. BACKU,S : Let me just confer with my colleagues 7 here for just a minute.
8 (Counsel confer.)
9 MR. BACKUS: I guess we 'll break it here.
10 JUDGE SMITH: Okay, there will have to be some time 11 provided for redirect of this panel. I don 't want to say how 12 much, but having listened to them yesterday afternoon and all
( 13 day today, we still believe that all of the substantive 14 requirements could be met by the schedule we set, by 3:30. And 15 it may be that people have to pick some priorities as to the 16 level of importance, but we expect you to meet it.
17 All right, we 'll adj ourn now until --
18 MR. WATSON: Your Honor.
19 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Watson.
20 MR. WATSON: Just a point of information. Pursuant 21 to your request, my office did get a hold of Mr. Thomas, and 22 advised him that he did not have to appear tomorrow.
23 JUDGE SMITH: Thank you.
24 MR. BACKUS: I did have one other thing on the 25 meeting of January 19th I wanted to deal with if I could have
(])
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13051
/^)
V 1 another five minutes or so. And that is since I 'm giving up my 2 time according to Mr. Turk at my peril here.
3 JUDGE SMITH: Well, Mr. Turk is not the presiding 4 officer.
5 MR. BACKUS: I 'm aware of that.
6 MR. TURK: Nor did I ever intend to supplant the 7 Board, Your Honte.
8 JUDGE SMITH: Go ahead.
9 MR. BACKUS: All right.
10 BY MR. BACKUS:
11 Q Gentlemen, we were furnished some few days ago by Mr..
12 Turk with a document dated 1-19-88, which was represented to be 13 notes of the meeting we 've been discussing, taken by a Mr.
14 Thomas Murley.
15 Mr. Peterson, do you recall if Mr. Murley was present 16 at the meeting on January 19th?
17 A (Peterson) I had a considerable lack of familiarity T
18 with the people who walked in that door for obvious reasons.
19 hadn 't been in meeting.
20 Q Okay.
21 A (Peterson) And so I asked who was in that meeting.
22 You know, I thought that was clear. I knew Mr. Stello and the 23 attorney, and hold on just a minute. And I understand that Mr.
24 Murley was there, and I 'm j ust not sure if all these people 25 walked in outside of Mr. Stello and Mr. Olmstead and a few
(]}
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
13052
() KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS i others that I 'd be able to point them all out, because I 2 haven 't met with them very much.
3 Q Mr. McLoughlin, can you confirm that Mr. Nurley was 4 an attendee?
5 A (McLoughlin) Yes, I can.
6 Q All right. Now, there is a note in a -- on the note, 7 Page 3 of the notes from Mr. Murley is the-following, and I 'm 8 going to share it with you --
9 A CPeterson) Thank you.
10 Q -- because we haven't got copies.
11 A (Peterson) Sure.
12 Q Resolution, and then there is a bullet down at the O>
% 13 bottom which I read as follows: "Stello satisfied if FEMA says 14 the sheltering issue is not the sole reason for lack of finding 15 of reasonable assurance."
16 Do you see that?
17 A (Peterson) It says the sheltering issues is not the 18 sole reason for not -- lack of finding, is the finding, 19 finding? Okay, that 's finding probably.
20 Q That 's the way I read it.
21 A CPeterson) Yes.
22 Q Okay. My question to you, Mr. Peterson, is do you 23 recall Mr. Stello making any statements to that effect?
24 A CPeterson) I don 't remember Mr. Stello making a 25 specific statement like that. He may have made it to this
(])
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
e
l l
f
/T KRIMM, PETERSON, MCLOUGHLIN - CROSS 13053 l (-)
I 1 gentleman directly. I don 't remember hearing Stello satisfied 2 if FEMA says the sheltering issue is not the sole reason for 3 lack of finding of reasonable assurance.
4 Q Okay. Is that consistent with what Mr. Stello was 5 telling you that you recall from the meeting; that he would be ,
6 satisfied if the sheltering was not the only problem?
7 A (Peterson) No, I don 't remember him saying that. He 8 knew by the time I got through that sheltering sure wasn 't the 9 only issue. There was 30 planning problems and 50 exercise 10 problems.
11 Q Do you remember Mr. Stello saying that?
12 A (McLoughlin) No, I do not, and I would have no 13 problem with that statement. You know, that 's an entirely 14 appropriate statement, it seems to me, given whet happened at 15 the meeting.
16 Q Well, that wasn 't the question.
17 You don 't remember whether that was said, right?
18 A (McLoughlin) No, I do not recall that having been 19 said specifically as it 's stated there.
20 MR. BACKUS: Okay, that 's all.
21 JUDGE SMITH: We 're adj ourned until 9: 00 a. m.
22 (Whereupon, at 5: 30 o ' clock p. m. , the hearing was 23 recessed, to reconvene at 9:00 o ' clock a. m. , Friday, May 27, 24 1988.)
25 C)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
13054 1 ( Applicant 's Exhibit 38 and -
2 Massachusett 's Attorney.
3' General 's Exhibits 35, 37, 39 4 and,40 fo1 low:)
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
'24 O 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
, APPLt CMJt s' bAnie nT JT sg y Yr f%
Federal Emergency Management Agency L,; %~s4 .
Washington, D.C. 20472 W e Honorable John Glenn, Chairman Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate Washington, D. C. 20510-6250
Dear Senator Glenn:
This is in response to your letter of May 2, concerning the role of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the offsite emergency planning for the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant in New Hampshire. You were concerned specifically with our recent decision on the sheltering of the beach population.
In your letter, you request the answers to several questions and copies of a number of documents. We shall try to respond to sme of your questions in this letter and will indicate when we can respond to your other questions and send you the documents that you requested.
Specifically, you inquired about the role of Mr. Edward h omas, Chief of the Natural and Technological Hazards Division (NIH), FEMA Region I, as a witness before the Atmic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) Hearing on the beach population issue. Mr. R omas, who has been intimately involved in the numerous and extensive deliberations related to the Seabrook beach population issue, is
,q also Chairman of the FEFA Region 1 Regional Assistance Comittee (RAC) . He V PAC is composed of specialists frm eight other Federal Agencies who provide technical advice to FEMA on State and local radiological emergency planning and preparedness activities. As to the beach population issue, the majority of the RAC consistently disagreed with Mr. R omas' position as filed in the June and September 1987 FEt% statements. After much deliberation and extensive discussion by technical, policy and legal experts in a meeting which Mr. Romas attended and participated in, a final decision was made concerning the position that FEMA would take in the March 14 testimony. All of the participants in that meeting were asked if they would support it as an Agency position and if they could support it from a personal and professional viewpoint. Mr. R omas said that he could support it as an Agency position, but that he differed with it from a personal and professional viewpoint. In view of those reservations, the FEFA Office of General Counsel then recomended that it would not be appropriate for Mr. %cmas to be a witness for the Agency on that issue and that it would be unfair to ask him to shoulder this burden. W e decision was made March 4, 1988,to use Headquarters witnesses and a technical expert from Idaho National Engineering laboratory which is under contract to FFA.
You mentioned that the decision me to present Mr. Romas as a FE2% witness followed a series of contacts between the Nuclear Regulatory Comission and FEl% concerning the sheltering of the beach population, including a high-level meeting on January 19, 1988, from which Mr. R omas stated that he was excluded. Actually, the beach sheltering issue had been discussed extensively at meetings of the FEMA-chaired Region I PAC, of which the NRC is a member, over a long period of time. Likeaise, it was discussed by the FEFA/tEC p)
( Steering Committee at its regular meetings over a period of a year or more.
l l
he FPAA/NRC Steering Comittee is established by an addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), a copy of which is enclosed, between FEFA and the NRC &
to discuss and resolve matters on offsite preparedness. At the meeting on January 19, 1988, there were several topics discussed, including the question of the sheltering of the beach population. It was at that meeting that the NRC reiterated its position that sheltering is not a requirement under the NRC regulations. This was a meeting of Headquarters representatives from two-agencies, and the discussion topics also dealt with a variety of issues unrelated to Seabrook. herefore, we did not consider it necessat/ or the best use of his time to include Mr. Acmas in the meeting, although he was in Washingten at that time working with the E% Office of General Counsel.
On the issue of pressure from the hhite House on offsite emergency' planning, there has been no pressure from the White House in this area, to the best of our knowledge. You mention that Mr. R omas stated that when he urged E u to assert its lead.in emergency planning, that he was warned by Eu Headquarters staff that "every time we take that kind of a stand there were calls from the hhite House." We are not aware of anyone in the Headquarters staff making such a statement. Bere has been no causal relationship between FEFA's position and any hhite House cormunication.
Indeed we know of only two contacts with the hhite House on Seabrook. We first occurred in 1986, when the exercise for the State of New Hampshire was planned. We Assistant Associate Director for the Office of Natural and Technological Hazards Programs did mention to Mr. Romas that Dr. Speck, the O then Associate Director for State and local Programs and Support, who is no longer a su employee, had received an inquiry from the bhite House on E%'s willingness to evaluate the exercise. A copy of Dr. Speck's affidavit is enclosed. We second instance is incorporated into our response to the second question in your letter.
You also state that FEFA reversed its position on the sheltering of the beach population after the February 16th New Hampshire Presidential Primary. We change in our position on the beach sheltering issue actually evolved from September 1987, and was so reflected in our testimony filed on January 25, 1988, a copy of which is enclosed. His was prior to the Nea Hampshire l Presidential Primary.
1 In your letter, you have requested copies of several documents. We shall search our files for these documents and send you what is available. In the interim, I am sending you a copy of the deposition of William R. Cuming before the Nuclear Regulatory Comission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Hearings on the matter of the Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al, Seabrook Station Units 1 and 2. In Mr. Cumming's deposition, there is a description of the process that FE2% used in arriving at our decision on the beach population issue.
l In your letter you have listed five questions which I wish to address, where l possible, or indicate to you when you will receive an answer.
O
4 9
- O Your first questicn relates to documents and information about communications ,
between FDR and the bhite House on the subject of emergency response planning for the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant from 1981 through the present. Other than the instances mentioned above, there have been no communications or written exchanges of informaticn on guidance between FD% and the khite House specifically regarding the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant. Thus, there are no documents relevant to your request. -
Your second question requests information on the mechanism and process for conmunications between FD% and the bhite House cn matters relating to emergency planning offsite for commercial nuclear pcwer plants. There are no established contact mechanisms or process for this purpose. FDR does not consult with the bhite House cn offsite emergency planning for nuclear power plants. However, the khite House has on occasion c.antacted FEFA to inquire for general infornation ourposes about nuclear power pla.it matters. An example of this was when eb9 ~ dfolk County Legislature ran a full-page advertisement in him opposing the Shoreham Nuclear Pcuer Plant exercise. The of Intergovernmental Affairs and Press Office called FEFA
.. .tco and clarification about the issue. In addition, the
. 2 ration has, on occasion, sought information from FEM relative to nu . ear pcuer energy issues. In 1987, the Office of Manageme:7. and Budget s A) held a meeting with representatives both from Department af Energy (DOE) and FEFA to discuss Agency comments on a proposed rule change by -he NRC.
Furthermore, in Januat,f 1988, DOE expressed an interest for another meeting O
d with OMB and FD% about streamlining nuclear pcuer licensina procedures. No such meeting materialized; however, a copy of FD%'s 1988 testimony fce the Seabrook ASLB Hearing was sent to OldB and the bhite House Intergovemmertal Affairs Office for the purpose of explaining FD%'s role in offsite mergency planning. The testimony provided to the discussed FEMA's process for reaching conclusions on reasonable assurance. This delivery was done af ter the document became available to the public. No other contact or communicaticn has taken place since that time. I w uld add that it is not unusual for FEFA to receive information phone calls from the hhite House in connection with its programs, for example, our Federal Disaster Assistance Programs. As a result, we do not view such a contact as pressure. Again, we have not received any pressure from the bhite House relative to cur decision-making process on Seabrook.
1 l The available information requested in your third, fourth and fifth questions, l will be forwarded to you at a later date. We shall try to respcod fully to all l your questions and to send you all available documents requested by June 2nd.
l In conclusion, I do want to assure you that the position taken in the March 14 testimony resulted from a very thorouah review of the technical and regulatory bases for evacuating and sheltering the beach population in the vicinity of the Seabrook Nuclear Pcuer Plant. 'Ihis position also relies heavily on the advice of the RFA-chaired Regional Assistance Ccmittee. They devoted considerable .
time to the problems related to the evacuation and sheltering of the beach l population at Seabrook. Our position is consistent with the majority view of the PAC.
O
L .-
4 h#
Grant Peterson, the Associate Director for State and Local Programs and 4 Support, dere the Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program is ad:sinistered, and members of his staff are looking forward to a meeting with your committee staff in order to explain the FWA process as advisors to the NRC in the evaluation of offsite emergency planning and exercises around nuclear power plants. Please let me knw if you have any coments or questions. 1 can be reached at 646-3923 and Mr. Peterson can be reached at 646-3692. In addition, my Office of Congressional Affairs at 646-4500 is available to assist you.
Sincerely, Julius W. Becton* J#'
Director Enclosure O
9 U
k ff Federal Emergency Management Agency N(('i l Region 1 J.W. McCorrntck Post Omce and Coun House
. . Boston, Massachusetts 02109
({') JUN I i 1987 Mr. Richard H. Strome -
g Director, New Hampshire Civil a
- S\ 'Eb
"" (w}s Defense Agency '
State Office Park South 7 .-
Concord, New Hampshire 03301 3 \1* t}g
[h ~
Dear Mr. Strome:
This is written as a follow-up to our conversation on June 5, 1987, concerning the document "CURRENT FEMA POSITION ON ADMITTED CONTENTIONS ON NEW HAMPSHIRE PLANS FOR SEABROOK." (Hereinafter called Current FEMA Position.) This document was developed as a ;
part of FEMA's responses to interrogatories in the Seabrook Atomic '
Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) proceedings. Our discussion primarily related to that portion of the Current FEMA Position dealing with the beach population which is found at pp. 38-39 and enclosed with this letter.
Before further discussing that particular section, it might be worthwhile to quickly review the history of this filing. The Current FEMA Position was developed as the result of several actions including the decision of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (ASLB) made May 1, 1987, and the subsequent Memorandum and Order issued by the ASLB on May 4, 1987. These actions included a specific request that FEMA develop and file a
() position on the contentions admitted for litigation in the Seabrook proceedings by June 5, 1987. The Current FEMA position is, therefore, provided pursuant to the FEMA / Nuclear Regulatory Commission Memorandum of Understanding cited in 44 CFR 350, i
I Section 350.3(e). However, the Current FEMA Position should not be viewed as a formal "finding" by FEMA under 44 CPR 350.
The Current FEMA Position is largely based upon the FEMA and l Regional Assistance Committee (RAC) reviews which were previously l provided to you. The portion of the Current FEMA Position dealing l
with the beach population is based on a thorough analysis by FEMA i
and the RAC. The issue of protecting the beach population has been an item of discussion between FEMA, the State of New Hampshire, and the applicant for several years. Our position is based on the guidance provided by NUREG-0654, FEMA-REP-1 applied l to the Seabrook site.
i We believe that our concern about the protection of the beach l
population revolves around some rather unusual circumstances which may be unique to Seabrook. Demographically, a substantial portion of the peak summer population in the area travel to the beach each l day. Unlike other sites we have reviewed, these daily visitors l are not identified with a temporary residence or public facility.
l ('
l L t
t
.~~s
/
In addition, many of the summer residences in the area are l unwinterized and therefore afford less shelter in the event of an I accident than that found in insulated buildings. These bl circumstances dramatically impact the acceptability of the two l primary protective measures, evacuation and shelter. More j specifically, the information provided to FEMA indicates tha evacuation from the beaches would require approximately 3.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />. i Evacuation time estimates are not required to meet some specific l standard. The availability of shelter as an option in the more fast-breaking scenarios is considered to mitigate the need for I some hard time objective for evacuation. However, in this case the sheltering option is also clouded by the absence of sheltering for what is even in the more favorable estimates amounts to several thousand individuals and the absence of apparently effective shelter for many others. Thus, the information provided on evacuation and sheltering compounded one another in a manne: of individuals that might be involved. I might add that these numbers apparently hold not simply for the worst-case accident, but for a number of lesser scenarios.
A number of options have been mentioned over the past years which may alter the case as we understand it. In addition to our own discussions on the subject, a wide variety of sources have proposed alternatives which include sheltering, seasonal operation of the plant, and alternative evacuation routes. Although g~s sheltering is an alternative, we doubt if the use of existing
() public or private facilities would be acceptable.
The solution to the problem may be a variety of alternatives due to the complexity of the issue. However, if the facts set forth in the paragraphs numbered 1-3 of page 39 of the current PEMA position are shown to be incorrect or are modified. then our position will be subject to review and modification as necessary.
FEMA will, therefore, be willing to arrange for the review of any modifications to the New Hampshire emergency plans for Seabrook which might impact evacuation time estimates or the sheltering of the beach population. Any modifications of the standard assumptions made about accident release times, duration and probability, as well as the impact due to any altered operational schedule for the plant come under the purview of the NRC.
FEMA will soon be developing its testimony for the September ASLB hearing for Seabrook. Given the expected sequence of events, it is this hearing board that will make the first licensing related evaluation of the New Hampshire plan. It would be very useful to all parties to the Seabrook proceeding if you could tell us prior to our filing testimony: (a) if the facts we have discussed and set forth in the Current FEMA position are incorrect; (b) if the State of New Hampshire is considering steps which might change these facts, and (c) if you are aware of intentions of anyone else
,w to exercise options that would change the facts.
U
(~') We would, of course, be happy to meet with you as New Hampshire
'- ' continues to explore its options. I hope that all of us can continue work together to resolve this issue and achieve our 1 mutual commitment to public safety.
l Sincerely, 1 Afeede Edward A. Thomas Chief Natural and Technological Hazards Division l
~
NECNP CONTENTION RERP-6 The New Hampshire RERP does not provide a "reasonable assurance g) g that adequate protective measures can and will be taken in the event 50.47(a)(1), in of a that radiological emergency," as required by 10 C.F.R.
the plan doe s not provide reasonable assurance that sheltering Nor does is an the plan provide $l "adequate protective measure" for Seabrook.
adequate criteria for the choice between protective measures, as required by I 50.47(b)(10) and NUREG-0654. I II.J.10.m. ,
1 FD% RESFONSE to Revised Town of Hanraton Contention VIII to Revision 2 (of the New Hamoshire REPP for Seabrook) , SAPL Contention 16, and ND24P Contention RERP-8 These three contentions all deal with what is fundamentally the sane issue: protection fran a radiolcgical release for beach-going population at Seabrook who do not have ready access to any ef fective form of sheltering.
His group includes both "day-trippers to the beach and those persons who only have access to unwinterized or other types of construction which will of fer a lesser degree of prot?ction than that offered by standard residential or ccanercial buildings.
Backcround - This issue has been of great concern to FD% f rcrn our earliest detailed involvement with the preparation of plans and the achieve-p ment of a level of emergency preparedness which would achieve our regulatory :
l
() standard set for that 44 CFR 350.5 of adequately protectirg the public '
health and safety by providing reasonable assurance that appropriate protective measures can be taken offsite in the event of a radiological J emergency at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant.
l In December 1985 the State of New Hampshire sutraitted plans for protecting the public in the event of an accident at Seabrook to FD% for review pur-suant to 44 CFR 350. Bose plans were forwarded for review by the Ibgional :
Assistance Ccmnittee (RAC), an interagency group established pursuant to 44 '
CFR 350 to toth assist state and local goverrvnent in the develognent of .
radiological emergency response plans and to evaluate the adequacy of such plans. On December 31, 1985, FD%, as chair of the RAC, requested that l
l the rembers of the PAC (as well as the other FD% staf f who were reviewing the New Hampshire Plans) imediately focus on the issue of the protectico f i
of beach population and the occupants of unwinterized accarmodations. His !
l mmorandan is attached as Appendix C to this response to interrogatories.
l FD% Position - Since the time of our December 31, 1985, cercrandum on the subject of the protection of the public on ard near the beaches around Seabrook, the State of New Hampshire has refined and improved its emergency plans and sutrnitted a detailed Evacuation Time Estimate which sheds a considerable arount of light on this issue. ne facts relevant l to understanding this issue are that:
(
. !riCP COTOTTICU '::._'l)-6 (Cont. )
(1) ne primag guidance doctanent used by FEMA and the PAC in reviewing of f-s ite emergency plans is NURfX;-0654, FEMA REP-1, Pev.1, a p
V doctrnent jointly developed by FCKA and the NRC. That guidance document indicates on p.13 that "(t)he range of times between the onset of accident conditions and the start of a major release i
is of the order of one-half hour to several hours". n is statement is further clarified on p.17, Table 2 to indicate that (a) the major portion of a release may occur in a time period ranging from as little as one-half hour to one day af ter the release begins and (b) that the travel time of the release to exposure point can range frm one-half hour to two hours at five miles, and one hour to four hours at ten miles.
(2) On peak stmner days there are thousands of beachgoers in the Seabrook EPZ in areas beginning approximately 1.7 miles f rcrn the plant. De current New Hampshire plans contemplate evacuating the rasny thousands of beachgoers who have access to no adequate shelter as a protective action in the event of an accident at Seabrook.
We understand that the plans contain no consideration of sheltering the "day trippers" because on sumer days when there are a large nur ser of these people, it is not possible to find reasonably accessible shelter for them. Dere are an additional ntsnber of percens who would be in or have access only to shelter in unwinter-ized cottages and rrotel rocrns. %e protection afforded by sheltering in these stnJctures will definitely be less than that af forded by a normal wood f rame house. .-
(3) ne Evacuation Time Estimate for the Seabrook EP2 subnitted by the O State of New Hemashire indicates et 99 10-1 et. sea. that in 9 ace weather when the beaches are at 60 to 100 percent of capacity it will take three and one-half hours to clear the beaches, and a ,
total of frcrn four hours and fif ty minutes to five hours and -
l fifty m Mutes to evacuate all the population on the beaches from l the EPZ. In same situations such as sudden bad weather follcuing l
a peak stmner day, the total evacuation time for portions of the EP2 ,
j range up to seven hours and fifty minutes.
Werefore, using the standard guidance for the initiation and duration of radiological releases, and the current New Hampshire RERP including ETE, it appears that thousands of people could be unable to leave during an accident at Seabrook involving a major release of radioactivity without i adequate shelter for as much as the entire duration of that release. >
harefore, until these issues are resolved even if all the other inadequacies and deficiencies cited in the RAC kviews of the New Hanpshire Plans, and the Review of the Exercise of these plans were to be corrected, FEMA would not be able to conclude that the New Hanpshire State and local plans to , ,
protect the public in the event of an accident at the Seabrook Nuclear !
Power Plant are adequate to meet our regulaton standard that such plans f "adequately protect the public health and safety by providing reasonable l rassurance that appropriate protective measures can be taken offsite in the g cvent of a radiological emergency." (See, 44 CFR 350.5(b)).
6 O ?
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J
MbSS h (W
, l o
'g UNITED STATES k 0 ,gj) 5..
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g,
\wMj/
<'g, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 l
14 October 5,1987 Ivan Smith, Esq. , Cha'rman Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Jerry Harbour Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 in the Matter of PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-443, 50-444 Off-Site Emergency Planning
Dear Administrative Judges:
O in a filing dated September 4, 1987, the NRC Staff advised the Board and parties tt.at it may wish to submit rebuttal testimony with respect to the beach shelter issue. In accordance with the Licensing Board's "Memor.andum and Order (Clarifying Presentation of Rebuttal Testimony)", dated September 9, 1987, the Staff hereby submits a draft outline of the areas it may wish to address in its rebuttal testimony, in the event the Staff determines following cross-examination that such rebuttal testimony is appropriate.
Sincerely, khtaiu 0 Sherwin E. Turk Counsel for NRC Staff cc: Service List i
k
Proposed Rebuttal Testimony of NRC Staff r~s Concerning NHRERP Protective Actions For V Seabrook Area Seasonal Beach Populations n
I.
Introduction:
The Function and Objectives of Emergency Planning.
A. The Coal of Emergency Planning is To Mitigate the Radiological Impacts of An Accident if A Release of Radiation Should Occur.
B. The Overall Objective of Emergency Planning is To Provide Dose Savings (and in Some Cases, immediate Life Saving) for A Spectrum of Accidents That Could Produce Doses in Excess of the Protective Action Guides.
C. The Planning Basis Requires Applicants and Covernmental Organizations to Demonstrate A Capability for Prompt Notification of the Public.
- b. Planning is Not Pequired for Any Particular Accident, Nor is Planning Required to Assure the Avoidance of Any Particular Dose Or to Demonstrate That Any or All of the EPZ Can Be Evacuated Within Any Particular Time Frame.
E. The Provision of 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(b)(10) That There Be "A Range of Protective Actions" Does Not Require That There Be A Range of Protective Actions For All Accidents at All Times and h] at All Locations Within the EPZ.
fl. The Provisions Contained in NHRERP Revision 2 for Protection of Seabrook Area Seasonal Beach Populations Comply With the Guidance Contained in NURtG-0654, Except to the Extent that Deficiencies Otherwise Exist in the NHRERP.
A. The NHRERP Provides A Range of Protective Actions for Beach Areas During Most of the Year.
B. During the Beach Season, the NHRERP Provides for Early Consideration, At the "Alert" Level, As to Whether to Restrict Public Access to the Beaches or Close the Beaches and Commence Early Evacuation of Beach Areas Before a General Evacuation Would Commence.
C. The Beach Areas Are Equipped With Sirens Capable of Providing Both Tone Alerts and Public Address (Voice)
Messages, in Order to Afford Seasonal Beach Populations With Prompt Notification and Instructions to Follow in An Emergency.
f3 V
_.2-
, D. The NHRERP Provides for Traffic Control and Other Emergency Response Personnel to Assist the Public in Evacuating Beach (d')
Areas.
n E. Evacuation is the Preferred Protective Response for Seabrook Area Seasonal Beach Populations.
F. T_h e Absence of Shelterino As An Alternative Protective Response for Seabrook Area Seasonal Beach Populations Does Not Cor2travene FTR C Regulations and Guidance, and is Consistent With the Level of Planning in Place at Other Nuclear Plant Sites.
Ill.
Conclusion:
The NHRERP Provides Dose Savings for A Spectrum of Accidents That Could Produce Doses in Excess of the PACS.
Consistent With 10 C.F.R. 6 50.47(a), the NHRERP Provides Reasonable Assurance That Adequate Protective Measures Can and Will, Be Taken, With Respect to Seabrook Area Seasonal Beach Populations, in the Event of A Radiological Emergency.
~
/N O
[. /1 ass //b 7
4
'4 [.-,%o, UNITED STATES fd39
-[" , *j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g
l WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
{v) %,,,,,/
13 FEB 18 B88 H. Joserh Flynn, Esquire .
fho I Assistant General Counsel M YY Federal Eriergency Management Agency [0 NM 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20472 In the Matter of Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-443, 50-444 (Offsite Emergency Planning)
Dear Vr. Flynn:
This is to confirm the NRC Staff's understanding of the "Supplernental Testimcny of Dave McLoughlin, Edward A. Thomas, and V'illiam R. Currming on Behalf of the Federal Emerger.cy Management Agency on Sheltering / Reach Population issues," filed on January 25, 1988. As I indicated in the Licensing Board's telephone conference call
/] held on January 27, 1988, the Staff views the testimony as indicating, in '
U essence, that FEMA takes the following position:
- EMA cannot conclude that the NHRERP is adequate with respect to [the] beach population until it is clear that the State of New Hampshire has considered the use i of sheltering for the transient beach population and l explains what use, if any, it intends to make of sheltering. This latter point should not be interpreted to mean that FEMA has imposed a requirement that sheltering be available. If the State of New Hampshire intends not to employ sheltering for the transient beach population (which is not presently clear from the NHPERP), then FEMA expects the State to develop the rationale for such a choice and provide it to FEMA for review.
(Tr. 9054-55, quoting from page 2 of the Supplemental Testimony). As I further stated, "In essence, the Staff reads FEMA's testimony as being an interim position in which they are anticipating that further work could be done by the State along the lines suggested in this testimony, and after that work is done, that it would be submitted to FEMA for review and a determination" (Tr. 9055). I note that you have agreed with my characterization of FEMA's testimony (Tr. 9057).
As you know, the NRC Staff has not yet taken a formal position in
) the hearings with respect to the adequacy of measures in the NHRERP for protection of the seasonal heach populations. The Staff is in the process
i 6
. h,, of determining whether to take a position on this matter independent of FEVA. Any decision made by the Staff in this regard will be based upon g nur reading of FEMA's position, as set forth above, which we understand coverns any other statements in the Supplemental Testimony (such as in Sections til and IV t he reof) , which may be susceptible to a different interpretation.
I wish to note certain adoltional matters in connection with the Supplerrental Testimony. First, the testimony, at page 4, states that FEPA is persuaded "that the NPC interprets its own regulations not to require sheltering for all segments of the E PZ . " As ycu know, authoritative interpretations o' NRC regulations may be rendered only by the Commission or its General Counsel. However, I wish to confirm that the NPC Staff interprets the regulaticns in the manner you have stated i.e., that the NRC's emergency planning regulations do not reautre that sheltering be provided for all accidents, at all times anc at all locations within the plume exposure pathway emergency plannino rene (EPZ). Stated dif ferently , the Staff views the regulations as not requiring that there be a range of protective actions that includes both sheltering and evacuation options, for all accidents at all times and at all locatior s within the EPZ. This interpretation is censistent with established Federal practice in approving emergency plans for other commercial nuclear power plants, and may be relled upon by FEMA in its evaluation of the NHRERP.
Second, the Supplemental Testimeny appears to describe sorrewhat C] inaccurately the position expressed by Dr. Bores at the January 19f;8 RAC meeting. The testimory, at page 5, indicates that Dr. Bores expressed the view that the guidance of N U R E G-0654 "applies to the entire spectrum of accidents, to the entire population of the EPZ, all of the time ," and that the NRC believed "FEMA's posliion on the summer beach population was too narrowly foc u se d . " I have been informed by Dr. Bores that he expressed his position somewhat differently, as follows:
that tne guidance of NUREG-0654 applies generally to the entire spectrum of accidents and the entire population all of the time, but that emergency plans need not include a range of protective measures that includes both sheltering and evacuation for every postulated accident scenario and every segment of the population, all of the time.
Very truly yours, l b Sherwin E. Turk Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney cc: Service List O 1 l
l 1
N Y.13 'ES 15:*0 ~E N M ir' TED CTR 1 :. C.:
.- kbf ls.. j y.
- .. h1 kO O ,
Talking Points for Stello Meeting I. Seabrook - New Hampshire he A. Currently many reasons for the overall negative bottoa line on the New Hampshire preparedness for the Seabrook site. [h
- 1. Beach Populatioe. Issues. Y QN )
FEMA's view- In order to reach a positive evaluation of the d beach population aspects of the New Hampshire plan, FEMA believe @pg that the shelt<aring issues / options must be fully considered in th plat.:4. (Turrently , 'th'e~yE( bot'.- A4 W currently sFe chliig's' ~
q todt the sheltering survey is not suf ficient to fulfill this esquirement )cs Vgt g because it is not a shelter plan. Dp d);
-RAC majority view. We understand that the majority of the RAC acabers (,
believe that the beach aspects of the plan are adequate without any sheltering information. We consider the RAC advisory to us; pg we do not consider ourselves bound to adopt a majority view. qfg
- 2. Issues other than Beach. t o.w '
- 55 deficiencies in the February 1986 exercise.
aust be redemonstrated.
Nareas 3N.[.
'g i ma C O
a '~A
- 0tw+, tin"issue.'aust be resolved . ... . trans,o rt tion .
number if IJ wee .
1 M#
'resourcesiss[ps'gdal,ofbusdrivers,etc.-
M b e. g ti S e6m. t. u u 9. d u , b d ; g [g#g
- 3. Shelter survey - See chronology of evenha to date. -
- On.',y 2 RAC agencies have responded in writing. e- hose comments b
g/ -
have been received (and FEMA & contace d es we will expedite the .irsonne analysis & consolidation of consent 19, 4*d 5 y and issue a technical assistance report. , d g u,' ' N ,
- f/ @d. c ew.w%4 - =. I. '. /. ' 4 7F [^A i D0 g i bOM M II. Seabrook - Massachusetts (Utility Plan) +I'* " 1- ' ucc ,
(eg
'hb'w w 't i A. Redacted Material -
A. g 7,, L. nem%e y a e.ss, ofD4M,w.]
OEPTni eyt c . vwlc I
I
,T yt -FEMA needs materia 11ts:-y6ubd a positive finding on a plan review h qIgg The absence of the sacerial would also affect the conduct of I
' #ae an exercise. We are willing to abide by any protective order ,
Scw i' issued by the Board. J
[h co&)
-We' understand that NRC has received the asterial disposition? y sq What g u_.
Wk Oaf is its g
fW(&
l{ (#g
.u n,',g. A m.u %q .
O Nt.o g g -
iO y&s
'p + .
- . , - . . - , - ,- -- .---,----,,,,,n ,,.,.---,,.nn._-
-,.--,na nm n,,n---m- n - w e, m,--y,,-,-,w---,_w,, - --
r - - -,
. 1 CERTIFICATE
/ '1 2
l 3 This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the 1 4 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of: )
5 Name: PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 6 NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. 1 7 Docket Number: 50-443-OL, 50-444-OL 8 Place: CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE 9 Date: May 26, 1988 10 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 11 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 12 Regulatory Commission taken electronically by me and.
13 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction 14 of the court reporting company, and that the recording is a 15 true and accurate re o of the f egoing roceedings.
16 /S/
17 (Signature typed): KENT ANDREWS 18 Official Reporter 19 Heritage Reporting Corporation 20 21 22 23 l
24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
. . - - - - . . . - - _ -.- --_ . _ _ _ . ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ~ . .