ML20206R600
| ML20206R600 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/20/1987 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3233 OL-5, NUDOCS 8704220193 | |
| Download: ML20206R600 (162) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:' 1 ORIGINA_ D UN11ED STATES INUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN TI{E MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-322-OL-5 (EP Exercise) LONG ISLAND LIGIITING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
)
sj . LOCATION: !!AUPPAUGE, NEW YORK PAGES: 3139 - 3298 DATE: MONDAY, APRIL 20, 1987 r 7"Rl'O/
,ff p y,y h }),c ke~b /?f Y ') M ' '"
// 9/- // 0Y, ,
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
' Official Reporters
- ' 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700 NAT10NWIDE COVERACE
CR30614.0 3139 KSW/Ojg 7-1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA C/ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2 FORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 4 :
In the Matter of: : 5 : Docket Number LONG ISLAND LIGl! TING COMPANY : 6 : 50-322-OL-5 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, : (EP Exercise) Unit No. 1) 7
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 8
9 Court of Claims State of New York 10 State Office Building Third Floor Courtroom yy Veterans Memorial Highway liauppauge, New York 12 (~} x_e 13 Monday, April 20, 1987 14 The hearing in the above-entitled matter reconvened at 18 P.m. 15 16 BEFORE: 17 JOliN II. FRYE, III, Chairman 18 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 19 Washington, D. C. 20555 OSCAR II. PARIS, Member 20 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 21 Washington, D. C. 20555 22 FREDERICK J. silon , Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 23 Washington, D. C. 20555 ( )) 24 25 -- continued -- ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 1700 Nationwide Coserage Muk) M 6646
3140 _. 1 APPEARANCES: [v\ 2 On behalf of Long Island Lighting Company: 3 KATHY E. B. McCLESKEY, ESQ. DONALD P. IRWIN, ESQ. 4 SCOTT D. MATCHETT, ESQ. Hunton & Williams 5 707 East Main Street P. O. Box 1535 6 Richmond, Virginia 23212 On behalf of Suffolk County: KARLA J. LETSCHE, ESQ. 8 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart South Lobby, Ninth Floor 9 1800 M Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20036-5891 10 on beahlf of the State of New York: 11 RICHARD J. ZAHNLEUTER, ESQ. Special Counsel to the Governor 12 Executive Chamber, Room 229 State Capitol (~}
\/ 13 Albany, New York 12224 On behalf of FEMA:
4 WILLIAM R. CUMMING, ESQ. 15 Federal Emergency Management Agency 16 500 C Street, S.W. Washington, D. C. 20472 17 On behalf of the NRC: ORESTE PIRF0, ESQ. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 19 Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 20 21 22 23 , () 24 25 l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. l 202447d7(r) Nationwide Coserage 800-346M6 l
3141 ,,_ 1 CONTENTS Q 2 WITNESS DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT voI:1 RECROSS DIR3 3 Dr. Mileti(Resumed) by Ms. Letsche 319 1 4 by Ms. Letsche 3207 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 147 .17(x) Nationwide Coserage mMM-(M6
. . . _ _ , . _ _ _ _ , _ _ , , . _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ ~
- _ _ _ . . . _ . . _ ._ - _ ._ .. _ _ ._.~ _ _ _ .~ _.. _ _ _ _ _.
l i
+
30614.0 , 0KSW. 3142 ! i L EROCEERIMGE l 2 JUDGE FRYE Good afternoon. Are we ready to i 3 begin LILCO's panel this morning? f 4 MS. MC CLESKRY: Yes, sir. I have two matters i 5 related to the April 17 order. One is a withdrawal of ) certain' portions of LILCO's testimony on the ENC materials 6 ; j- 7 that I would like to read out as a result of the board's ;
~
8 order that we review our testimony in light of your striking
, 9 certain portions of Suffolk County's testimony; the second is ,
1 I 10 a motion for reconsideration of one sentence in the order, , r 11 which I will be glad to talk about now or at. the end of the i 12 day if you prefer. 13 MS. LETSCHE: Your Honor, I have several matters I t 14 relating to your April 17 order which not only involve 1 15 whatever Ms. McCleskey is going to announce that she intend t 16 to withdraw, but also that request some clarification of a i ) 17 couple of points in the order; and I have a motion for i 18 reconsideration on some of the specifics that we did not i i 19 argue, and in addition on your sua sponte rulings, and I q i - 20 think that these things should be taken up before we begin. 21 I think it will have an impact on my cross-examination. 22 MR. ZAUNLEUTER: Defore we get too involved in i i 23 that. order, would you happen to have a copy of that? I l . 24 didn't roccive one in Albany. 2S MR. PIHFO: Do you happen to have two copics l ! Act FEDERAL, REponTEns, INC. ; 20L347 37(0 Nationwide roverage Mn))MM4 j
I 30614.0 ( KSW 3143 1 1 there? 2 JUDGE FHYE: Where shall we begin? 3 MS. LETSCIIH: I will be glad to begin, Judge Frye. 4 1,et me just say that the order didn't come in 5 until late in the day on Friday, so I did not have a chance 6 to review it frankly until this morning, but as I mentioned, 7 there are a couple of points of clarification which I would H request from the board, and neveral mattern which I would 9 roquest that you reconuidor. I,ot me just begin with the 10 preexisting 1. car rulings. You note in a footnote in your 11 order,. footnote 12 on pago 6, that the board accepted in the 12 PID Suffolk County's position that preexisting tear will 13 motivat.o people to evacuato. 14 I annume, however, that the board is not now IS construing its PID as including a ruling that pronxisting 16 fear would motivate people to evacuate in renponse to the 17 typon of information and mosaagos that woro demonstrated by 10 1,II,CO during the exercise, it would uno during an emergency. 19 I meal), the basitt of this litigation was t.hu atenumption that 20 the board'n ruling did not 40 thot iar, that you acknowledge 21 that poopic would ovacuato in light. of prouxist.ing fear, but 22 that you were not willing to go no far au to pay t. hey would 23 ovacuate whether told to or not in ronponne to the 24 information 1,11,C0 paid it. would dinneminato. 25 JUDOR PHYH I think what we woro roterring to (H Aci: Fl!Dl!RAl. Ill! PORI'l!RS INC,
- em.nm Nanon.Me rmeruc un j a <Mr.
30614.0 KSW 3144 1 the acknowledgment to the offect that fear is what motivatos 2 people to evacuate in general terms. 3 MS. LETSCllH And the PID did not make the finding 4 that preux1 sting fear would renuit in voluntary evacuation or S ovacuation without an advisory to do no. I assumo. Is that 6 right? 7 JilDGH Sil0N: An I recall the P3D, jt giald thoro O might be a very considorable shadow ovacuation if tho 9 information were not cicar and consistent, and that.'a 10 onsont.ially what, la repeated in the footnoto. It in not 11 siccennary to prove again that. nomething like that might 12 happen, but only to prove that the proposed Enn monnagou and 13 other communicationn to the pubile wore uncicar or 14 inconuistent. 15 MS. I.HTscilHe Okay, I guonn the rennon that thin 16 clarit teation la important for ma in that in ordor to be ablo 17 to roupond to your order, the pc. int of thosie contentionn and 10 the ret:orence in Contention 22-P, which was subnumod in 30 19 and T) in our order to the fact that an you acirnowledoc, 20 prnexinting Lear in one reason an ovacuation uhailow would 21 occur in a real emotoency, in that in t hin lit.lgation we're 22 explaining to you, wo are, our tuntimony oxplainn to you why A
'l u t vun t h i n u pee l f t e i nf or ma t i on tha t 1,11,00 d i si n em i na t ed 24 during the exuretuo, which wo hollevo wo domonntrato to you O 2s was incennint "i ena enc > oar, and incuin0 in ceri in Acit.Fiti)ititai. Ritponitins, INC.
- 02 imino moonwide emerm m o i ti, ua,,
30614.0 q KSW 3145 O 1 information, and the other things that wo set Corth in our 2 testimony -- I am not going to detail them again -- that as a 3 result of that, the preexisting fear would shapo how peoplo 4 would uno that inf.ormation and perceive the threat during an 5 omergency, and respond to those perceptions and their shaping 6 of the icar. 7 That wart stated in the PID, and you quoto that on H page S or your ordor, that the prooxi.rting Cuar helped shapo 9 how peoplo une information and une it during an accident. In to the ton timony that we have submitted, como of which your 11 order han determined we should atrike, I believo what the 12 witneunes do is fully consistent with and follows through on 13 the analyulo in your prior decision concerning the f.act that 14 the fear in out there. We're not trying to rootstablish that IS it la out there. What the witnesuco explain to you, though, 16 in why that tear would shapo people's perceptions at the timo 17 of an accident in light of the information 1.1LCO used during til the exerciuo and would result in voluntary evacuation. 19 it tu not the generalized diucusulon of whether or 20 not thoro in fear or whether or not Coar tai the ultimate 21 motivator of an evacuation whether you are told to do it or 22 not, but it in procinoly related to thu exorcino in t:o rma t ion, i 23 the exercino publicly dluneminated information, and why an a 24 renult of: that the pronxinting Coar would interact, 10 you 25 will, wi t h t he liif or mation and r enut t in a voluntary Acti 1;iiiiiiltAi. Iliti>oitTitits, INC.
- s w nm N.snonste cma.ne nonvar,
g 30614.0 y> KiiW 3146 1 evacuation. 2 JUDGE PARIS: Do you have specific parts of the 3 testimony in mind? 4 MS. LETSCHE: Yes, I think it is important to go S through the particular sections that LILCO sought to strike, 6 which in what your order essentially granted here. 7 I have the list l' rom LILCO's motion and I could go O through them. 9 The firs t one was -- 10 , MS. MC CLESKEY: Page 37, first full paragraph. 11 MS. LETiicilH: That's right. And frankly, this is 12 not. a particularly good example of anything. This is purely 13 a background sort of introductory paragraph, which the 14 witnoppen basically identify as such, and I think needs to be - 15 taken as introductory remarks and clearly background 16 information. If I can direct your attention, I don't think 17 it should be stricken for that reason, but. If I can direct 10 your attention to the next occtions, pages 130 to 131 of our 19 testimony ~~ 20 JtIDGH PARIli s Excuse me? 21 M!i . LRT!icitH: 130 to 131. The section on page 37 22 in banically just. a background discunnion, and I don't think 23 there'n any reason to strike it one way or the other. It 24 doenn' t really talk about preexis ting f ears. The section on 25 page 130 and 131, the two paragraphs which LILCO sought to Acti Fimt!RAl. RiiponTiins. INC. 202447.Um Nationwide Cmuage 8mHMM4
m IJ 30614.0 KSW 3147 1 strike, if you read those two paragraphs, it is clear that it 2 is a direct discussion of what is brought up in Contention 39 3 about rumor control and about how there were delays in the 4 dissemination of. information, in response to public 5 inquiries. 6 This references particular ones that involve 7 radiation, information about ra.diation exposure or potential 8 exposure, and the conclusion here that the witnesses draw, 9 based expressly on the information disseminated during the 10 exercise, and expressly discussed in Content. ion 39, that 11 people would turn to other sources of information and that O G 12 based on their preexisting fears, interacting with the 13 specific exercise response that LILCO came up with, that they 14 would refuse to follow LILCO's instructions. 15 Now I submit to you that that is precisely what 16 this litigation, even as modified by your April 17 order, was 17 socking to determine. The relationship between the specific 18 information LILCO disseminated during the exercise, and the 19 people out there on Long Island and the likelihood of them 20 deciding to evacuate rather than fo))ow LILCO's instructions, 21 which very early on involved no evacuation. 22 That's an exampic of a portion of the testimony 23 which I think iu directly relevant in this litigation, and 24 despite the fact t. hat the words " preexisting fears" are in, l those two paragraphs should not be stricken. ; ( 25 1 ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l l l 202-347 37m Nationwide cmerage sm-336*46
9
~
{
,30614.0 t I m,'KSW 3140 s
1 The next item --
. l I MS. MC CLESKEY: Excuse me, if we're going to go i 1 3 through the list item by item, it might be more efficient for 4 me to respond as we focus on it and not have to start at the S beginning again.
6 MS. LETSCHE: There are a couple that I would like 7 to go through specifically, yes. It is your preference.
' 8 They are different because they are different pieces of 9 testimony.
1(1 JUDGE FRYE: Let's get Ms. McCleukey's response. 11' MS. MC CLESKEY: As to the first two examples that l) %j 12 are listed that have been discussed so far, I think words 13 have meaning, and if you read these words on page 37 and
.14: pages 130 through 131, it is clear that the gist of this 15 testimony is that there are preexisting fears and that that's 16 going to be a problem in response. That was previously 3
17 litigated, andbEpage37 tl.o whole paragraph talks about the c 19 response at TMI, not anything happening during the exercise, n 19 and itlaysouttbetheorythatsomehaveargued, that 20 confusing and inconsistent information was the prime cause of 21 the evacuation at TNI. 22 Others ha.ve argued that preexisting fear of 23 radiationcoupled-witi[theinformationwastheprimecause.
. ' d.
24 We went through thir\ when we argued the motion to strike. /^% 2S The board has already ruled on that sort of testimony. It (_) ACE FEDERAL RhPORTERS, INC.
. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4 646
7 s30614.0 3149 (_)KSW 1 was properly struck from this testimony. 2 As to the testimony on pages 130 and 131, the gist 3 of these two paragraphs is that during an emergency, people's 4 preexisting fears are going to guide what they do, and that S is not appropriate testimony for this proceeding. 6 I guess reading these words, and we could go 7 through the list and all read them together again, but so far 8 I have not heard anything that distinguishes these and ties 9 them in any way to the exercise and what happened at the 10 exercise, so that we would not have a res judicata problem.
; 11 JUDGE FRYE: Next item?'
12 JUDGE PARIS: How'do you respond to the last
}
13 sentence on the first paragraph on page 130, the paragraph l 14 beginning and ending on page 130, which talks about LILCO's 15 inability to provide information in a timely manner? 16 MS. MC CLESKEY: It is true that there's a phrase 17 in that sentence that says LILCO was not able to provide 18 information in a timely manner. I think that that idea is 19 properly litigable in this proceeding, and I think that 20 there's probably about 80 or 90 pages of testimony here that 21 covers it, so I don't think that the county has been 22 prejudiced in any way by striking that phrase out of this 23 sentence, but I don't think that's the gist of the 24 paragraph. ( ). 25 JUDGE SHON: Is that also your view as regards the ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
30 31so
.Oxs=614.0 1 first portion of that paragraph, in which is set forth the 2 delays that occurred and the numbers of them and the amounts l-3 of minutes and the questions that were at issue in 30-minute 4 delay in answering a question about whether to eat food and 5 that sort of thing? It seems as if these are simple factual 6 things that go to LILCO's ability to provide immediate and i.
7 pertinent information. 8 MS. MC CLESKEY: Yes, sir. I would -- in terms of 9 leaving the first three sentences, or is it three, the first 10 long sentence in up to the parenthetical "LILCO admission 11 number 112," I don't think there's any harm in putting that 12 sentence.back in, and I would be glad to accede to that. The 13 problem is that "the conclusion is being drawn" is the next
'14 sentence, and it is about preexisting fear. You are 15 absolutely right. These factual statements have nothing to 16 do taken out of the paragraph with preexisting fear, but they 17 are being tied to the preexisting fear, and I think the whole 18 paragraph was properly struck.
19 JUDGE PARIS: As I read that paragraph, there are 20 two sentences that mention preexisting fear, the two that 21 follow the parenthetical "LILCO admission 112." Would you be 22 satisfied if those two sentences were struck? 23 MS. MC CLESKEY: If you will give me a moment to 24 glance over it.
~
25 I think you have to include the last sentence in ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
7s 30614.0 3151 (v)KSW 1 that paragraph as well, but I would be happy to accede to 2 1 caving the rest of it in if the last three sentences were 3 struck. I guess this is going to be a timely -- a 4 time-taking exercise to go through the entire list and do 5 this with everything to leave innocuous phrases or portions 6 of sentences, but I don't have a problem with it if that 7 would suit Ms. Letsche. My unders tanding is that she wants 8 the whole paragraph back in. And unless you are going to 9 keep the entire paragraph in, I'm not sure what the point is 10 in leaving the first sentence in. It is just a statement of 11 fact that appears elsewhere in her testimony and mine and the (~- 12 contentions.
\.
13 JUDGE SHON: I suppose one could slice this 14 particular hair even thinner and look at the last sentence in 15 that paragraph and strike the words "seem to calm those 16 fears." You then have a list of alleged inadequacies in 17 LILCO's responses, and it then says "LILCO's demonstrated 18 inability to provide information much less to do so in a 19 timely manner, would again decrease LILCO's credibility and 20 result in people refusing to tollow LILCO's instructions." 21 JUDGE PARIS: Are we deleting both commas? 22 JUDGE SHON: It is practically entirely sanitized 23 by then. It is a complicated matter. 24 JUDGE FRYE: This is something which I have been i () 25 very much adverse to doing. I don't want to edit parts of ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
cs 30614.0 I )KSW 3152 v 1 sentences and so forth. 2 MS. LETSCHE: I think this discussion brings out 3 the absurdity of what we're doing. The fact of the matter is 4 everyone in the room, the board and LILCO and everyone, 5 acknowledges that the preexisting fear is there and that it 6 will influence people. The question is whether or not given 7 the response to those LILCO messages, people are going to 8 voluntarily evacuate. That's really one of the big issues 9 here, and whether or not those messages disseminated during 10 the exercise are going to lead people to follow LILCO's 11 instructions or not. 12 I think the idea of the board sitting here trying {v~} 13 to go through the testimony and statements and opinions of 14 expert witnesses, who have lots of reasons that they can 15 explain to you given their behavioral expertisc -- and this 16 is as true of LILCO's witnesses as ours -- as to why the 17 response to those particular messages would be a refusal to 18 obey them rather than a decision to obey them. For you to 19 just excise particular words from them is going to be 20 time-consuming, and I think it just doesn't make sense. 21 I do believe, however, that we are entitled, the 22 county is entitled and its witnesses are entitled to explain 23 why in their opinion the messages disseminated during the 24 exercise would result in involuntary evacuation and would, as () 25 you all say in your PID, why the preexisting fear would help ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
, -, . . ~ --- . . , . . . - . .
30614.0 KSW 3153 i. I to shape how people use this information, and specifically '- '2 the information disseminated during the exercise, and 3 perceive the threat during the accidents. You have read f 4 LILCO's testimony and ours, and you know that the gist of all I 5 that testimony is what the people are going to perceive. 6 .LILCO talks about how they think during an accident-the 7 situational perceptions will lead people to believe those 8 emergency messages and do exactly as they-are told. 9 It is the position of the government that given j 10 those messages, the situational perception will'not result in
- 11 them following those messages. That's-where you have the
, 12 conflict in the witnesses here. To start going through and 13 excising words here or phrases there or sentences there 14 heause they talk about preexisting fear, which everyone , 15 acknowledges is there, I think is an exercise in absurdity, f 16 and given the fact that Contention 22-P was subsumed into 38 17 and 39, and the fact that the preexisting-fear was listed in 18 there as one of several reasons, along with others, for why l 19 voluntary evacuation would occur in response to the messages , 20 that -- the government and LILCO are entitled to express in 21 their testimony why they believe that is or is not true. I 22 JUDGE FRYE: "The messages would exacerbate or not 23 exacerbate the problem? 24 MS. LETSCHE: The fear is there. The question is i O 25 whether er eet L LCO can centret thet fear, easica11v -- te ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
l 1
-i l
l 1 _ 30614.0
)KSW 3154 ,
i 1 be blunt about it -- by its messages, and make people not 2 evacuate even though that fear is out there. The county and 3 the state say you can't with these messages, the fear is 4 going to make them evacuate, and LILCO says, yes, we can. 5 JUDGE FRYE: Do you have a more egregious 6 example? 7 MS. LETSCHE: I thinkLthis is pretty egregious. 8 If you turn to the section 168 to 172, which is the next J 9 chunk that LILCO sought to strike, this is a section which is 10 discussing why it is that people would evacuate in very large 11 numbers in response to the very first EBS message, which (} 12 13 contained no evacuation recommendation at all. results which you all have admitted bear that out. The survey This 14 testimony is the witnesses' explanation of why there is that k-15 result. Why so many people -- you see the second question on i 16 that page -- why would so many people attempt to leave ! 17 immediately in response to LILCO's EBS number 1,.rather than 18 waiting to see how the accident developed or waiting for 19 instruction to evacuate. They are explaining to you why that 20 survey result in their opinion happened. Why people would 1 21 react that way. They give all their reasons and talk about- , 22 the survey reasons and talk about why people's perceptions 23 comoined with that EBS message would lead them to decide to 'i 24 evacuate so early. I i () 25 I think this is another example of basically i i l
/\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
30614.0 ( KSW -3155-1 attempting to go through and edit these expert's' testimony 2 when you have in fact admitted part'of what they are 3 testifying. If you admit the survey results uas being 4 pertinent information.
.5 JUDGE FRYE: . Insofar as they bear on t'he question 6 of whether the public regards the messages as being 7 confusing. If you skim through this particular answer, this 0 ' particular testimony, it seems to be not depen' dent upon the 9 exercise messages at all, but simply saying, peop]e are 10 afraid and that's why they would not wait to be told to 11 leave, and that's already a given.
12 MS. LETSCHE: Rut if you are telling me that you ( 13 will rule here and now or that you have ruled in the past' 14 that in response to messages, any kind of a message,_ people 15 wi]1 evacuate whether the message tells them to or not, I 16 will be very happy, and there will not be a lot to litigate 17 here. The point is that this message didn't tell-anybody to 18 leave at all. 19 In fact, nobody was told to leave for 2-1/2 hours ! 20 during that exercise, and yet the survey indicated that in 21 response to that message, which didn't tell anybody to leave, 22 you will have a huge number of people trying to leave. This 23 explains why it is. It is because of the situational l 24 perceptions that the people on Long Island have, and how they I () 25 interact wi th that message which says don't worry, you don't i ! /\CE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6 't v-- y v- wi aww-me-------,--ewp-- *.i---w-----, ---~y-ee,me w - +.e--emmy-ev -< +e- w~wrya ,
v 3 1
- 30614.0
(_,)KSW 3156 1 have.to do anything, and they say, we're going to be trapped 2 or whatever it is in the testimony, you all can read it, but 3 that's the problem with having stricken two paragraphs here 4 and another paragraph there of this testimony. You-basically 5 are chopping up these experts' opinions which go.to overall 6 the people's responses to those messages. 7 MS. MC CLESKEY: I would like to take this 8 opportunity to respond to this particular example. The first 9 two sentences of the answer say we discussed several. reasons 10 related to the specific tone and content of EBS number l' 11 section 4 below, so that's a separate item, we're going to-(~ 12 talk about what the EBS messages do, but the most basic V)=' 13 reason the testimony goes on as stated in.subpart F of 22 is 14 the preexisting fears and perceptions of Long Island 15 residents, and the remainder of the testimony struck tdlks 16 about that. As I said before, words have meaning. I don't 17 see how this is tied to the exercise' in any way. Two other 18 points that Ms. Letsche raises bear mentioning at this 19 point. 20 The first is that Contention 22-F was not subsumed 21 in another contention. It was not separately admitted, but 22 the substance of the basis of F, it was to be dealt with 23 under 38 or 39, and under the board's order ruling on all of 24 the contentions, these words have become terms of art, and
) 25 some of the contentions were subsumed, some were denied, some ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80 4 336-6646
. ~. . ... .. - _ .. . . -
s 30614.0 jKSW 3157 1 were combined and some were not separately admitted; but the 2 basis of the contentions were to .be dealt with under other 3 sections, and Ms. Letsche's reliance on the words-Chernobyl, t 4 credibility, survey and preexisting fear in 22-F, which those: 5 words do not appear on any of the other public information-6 contentions, is not well placed. 7 The final point I would like to make is that the 8 board, as she points out,. clearly set up what kind of 9 preexisting fear conclusions that the board drew from the 10 prior litigation, and what the board said in the PID was that-11 fear shapes how people respond, and what we're going to look (} 12 at is the messages and whether they were consistent or I think that's perfectly appropriate testimony 13 inconsistent. 14 here. The testimony that was struck does not go to that. We-15 could have gone through this exercise point by point when we 16 had our oral argument a week ago Thursday and we did not. 17 Ms. Letsche chose not to, and I think we're wasting time. l 18 MS. LETSCHE: If I could respond to the points 19 about the order I have in front of me, your order ruling on-20 FEMA's motion for reconsideration, where you were trying:to c 21 deal with stated confusion on the part of several parties 22 about the status of the different contentions. In that 23 order, and I'm sorry I don't have the date, it was sometime 24 in December, you had a list of all of the contentions and you ( 25 set out.how each party described them as being subsumed or ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
,s 30614.0 ! )KSW 3150 wJ 1 admitted or whatever. In that order you found that 22-F was 2 subsumed within another contention, and you defined that on 3 page 7 of that order as being completed within that other 4 contention. That's not a major point, but you did say that 5 22-F was subsumed into that contention, and you appear to 6 acknowledge in your April 17 order that what 22-F contains is 7 a list of several reasons why voluntary evacuation would 8 occur in response to the exercise messages.
9 The preexisting fear is one of them and the other 10 matters of Chernobyl and credibility, which are invo]ved in 11 your sua sponte ruling, will address that separately. (' 12 JUDGE FRYE: Did you have any other specific (_-) 13 examples on this preexisting fear thing? 14 MS. LETSCHE: Yes. First with regard to this 15 section we're talking about, 168 to 172, within that chunk is 16 Dr. Cole's statements concerning his focus group data which 17 you cite in your order. I assume you did not mean to strike 18 that, but it is on page 171 and carries over to 172. That's 19 within the chunk that LILCO is seeking to strike separate and 20 apart from the preexisting fear part, which is in the earlier 21 part of the chunk of 168 to 172. 22 MS. MC CLESKEY: Well, again, Judge Frye, the 23 paragraph on page 171 and carrying over to 172 establishes 24 the focus groups as preexisting fear, and the board had (~% (_) 25 specifically excluded the focus group testimony to the extent l
/\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6 4 6
30614.0 } ()KSW 3159 1. I that it talked about preexisting fear,.and I think this was 2 properly struck. 3 MS. LETSCHE: What.this does is just say that 4 Dr.-Cole decided to do some focus group interviews and-5 explains what they are and what one can get from them. 6 That's my only point.
~
7 JUDGE FRYE: I think we got the point. 8 MS. LETSCHR: The next chunk of testimony is 178 9 to'188. I would like to focus your attention on pages 181 to i 10 183 of our testimony. 11 Now, again, the words " fear" are in this section {} 12 13 of the testimony, and I won't deny'that, but what this section of the testimony discusses ~1s the individuals in here 14 that is the focus group discussion, responds to the 15 particular EBS messages used during the exercise, and they 16 certainly include statements that people are going to be 17 afraid. That was the individuals' responses to these 18 messages, but they are directly related to those messages and 19 include what they would do in response to them. 20 And they are talking about how they would -- I 21 won't read them because you can read them, but how they would j 22 do various and sundry things in response to those messages.
- 23 I think that this section is also directly supportive of the 24 survey results, although the word " fear" is in there, that
() 25 they also directly address the likely response to the ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, lNC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6646
, . _ . . . - . _ - _ . . _ , _ . . _ _ - . . ~ - - - _ . _ . . . , _ _ _ . , . . _ _ _ -,, _ .. .,._--- - ..-
o 30614.O 3160 Q KSW 1 messages used during the exercise, and therefore are relevant 2 and should be admitted. 3 Again, by excising this particular chunk stuck in 4 the middle of these witnesses' testimony, you are getting 5 into the process of editing stuff here which I don't think 6 makes sense. 7 On page 206, in some respects I feel silly arguing 8 to you about a sentence. On the other hand, LILCO is here 9 arguing to take a sentence out, and I think in deference to l 10 my witnesses, who have reasons for saying what they say, and 11 in light of what it is that they were told to address, I have , 12 an obligation to do this. The last sentence 'in the paragraph 13 which begins " Ens number 2" is something which LILCO sought 14 to strike. 15 Now, it is true that that sentence says, In 16 response to the confusion that a message such as LILCO's 17 exercise EDS number 2 would create, people would draw upon 18 their preexisting perceptions and fears and take 19 self-protective actions in response to the fear-inducing 20 portions of the message, rather than acting upon the 21 conflicting port. ion within the attempt at reassurance. The 22 message being talked about here and that has been discussed 23 on a lot of previous pages involves some nexus within the 24 message itself. The witnesses discuss that. This is a t 25 concluding sentence which says although part of it says don't ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage MX)-336-6646
l l es 30614.0 3161 {}KSW 1 worry and part of it says something else which is 2 fear-inducing, their response is going to be to the part that 3 engenders the fear. This is a perfect example of why going 4 through and cutting out a sentence here and there doesn't 5 make any sense. I think although the word " preexisting 6 perception and fear" is in the sentence, however, the overall 7 context of the discussion that it is in is directly relevant 8 and should not be stricken. 9 There are two sentences on page 223 which LILCO 10 seeks to strike. Those are basica.lly concluding, summarizing 11 sentences, statements of the witnesses' conclusions. It is p) w/ 12 in the section headed " summary of conclusions." They are 13 fairly generalized statements. I don't think anyone would 14 even dispute them, given the board's finding about 15 preexisting fears. I don't think there's any reason to 16 strike them. 17 The last section that LILCO sought to strike was la on page 270, and that discusses Chernobyl, which I will 19 discuss, and it is part of what the board sua sponte decided 20 to strike, so I will address it in that context. 21 JUDGE FRYE: Do you have any response at this 22 point? 23 MS. MC CLE9 KEY: No, sir. I think I have said all 24 that I care to. 25 MS. LETSCHR: The next matter is again a request ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmcrape Mn336446
-(v)KSW s 30614.0 3162 1 for clarification in light of your ruling with respect to the 2 focus group testimony. Since you don't give a list of what 3 it is you ir: tended to strike, or a reference to any other 4 pages, I assume from reading the order that what you are 5 intending is -- assuming you don't reconsider your 6 preexisting fear ruling, which I hope that in response to 7 this motion you will -- that you would just not consider the O focus group information on that point in your deliberations, 9 but that you are not striking physically -- 10 JUDGE FRYE: Your point is it would be too 11 difficult to excise that? Yes, I think you are probably 12 correct on that. I don't think there's a disagreement. f~J') 13 MS. MC CLESKEY: We have no objection to 14 proceeding that way. 15 MS. LETSCHE: So that's how you are going to 16 consider it. 17 JUDGE FHYE: I think that should also guide in 18 cross-examination, too, from either side on the focusing of 19 issues. 20 MS. LETSCHE: LILCO didn't submit testimony, they 21 didn't have focus group stuff, so any of my cross-examination 22 would be on their generalized discussion of that. I don't 23 think that's a problem, although I will have to think about 24 that. 25 Okay, the portions that you decided t.o strike sua ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage mk33M/46
s 30614.0 (,)KSW 3163 1 sponte, the first section -- let me just say that in general, 2 I think that several of these matters that you chose to 3 strike, no party had even moved to strike. 4 JUDGE FHYE: I think that's correct. S MS. hETSCHE: Which I think is indicative of the 6 fact that all parties understood given your prior rulings and 7 rulings on contentions, that in fact these topics were fully 8 appropriate and relevant, and which I think is correct. All 9 parties were correct in that view. 10 I do think that you need to reconsider these 11 rulings in light of the arguments I'm about to make to you, 12 because I think when you go through and you review these [] v 13 particular portions of the testimony and the particular 14 contentions which they address, that you will find that the 15 parties were all right in assuming they should not be 16 stricken. 17 The first is from page 223 to 241. This is a big 18 chunk of testimony which covers several areas, but let me 19 direct your attention first to the beginning of this 20 testimony. This is where you are talking about LILCO's lack 21 of credibility, and you have a statement in your order that 22 you are striking this sua sponte because credibility had 23 already been litigated. 24 Well, the response to that is that what was () 25 iitigated before with respect to credibility was the abstract Ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
, ,30614.0
)KSW 3164 1 concept, does LILCO have credibility or doesn't it. And I 2 will acknowledge to you that there's a few paragraphs in this 3 chunk of testimony which you struck which is general 4 background-type stuff: "Is there credibility in the big 5 world?"
6 A lot of this testimony, though, in this chunk you 7 have stricken is very specific and goes to whether or not the 8 particular messages used during that exercise, parti cularly 9 when combined with the other emergency information 10 disseminated, what was happening or not happening at the news 11 center, what was happening in the telephone calls to the ( 12 inquiring public or not happening. Whether that overall 13 would result in LILCO's messages, that is do evacuate or 14 don't evacuate, being believed. 15 JUDGE FRYE: That seems to me that that's the 16 bottom line of this whole segment of this proceeding, is 17 whether the messages that are generated by LILCO, broadcast, 18 and whether the information that's made available to the 19 press and whether the rumor control activities and all of 20 that are furnishing information that is clear and 21 nonconflicting, not confusing, which would tend to make the 22 public - "make them," I suppose, is not the right word, but 23 would reassure the public that they can put trust in this 24 information they are receiving from LILCO; and as I look at () 25 it, it seems to me that the credibility has already been ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6 4 6
(m ss
')30614.
KSW 0 3165 1 determined against LILCO, that it was determined that LILCO 2 doesn't have a great deal of credibility within the 3 community, that there would be a large excess evacuation if 4 the information were not clear and nonconflicting, 5 nonconfusing. All of that sort of thing. As I read your 6 testimony, all of the meat of it goes to the nature of the 7 information made available to the press that was made 8 available on the EBS, rumor control activities, and that 9 that's the meat of this whole thing. 10 If it turns out that you prevail and that that 11 inf ormation is not what it should be, then you probably have
~T 12 a very strong case to say, people are not going to believe (J
13 LILCO, they didn't believe them before, they won't believe 14 them now. Where does this get you? 15 MS. LETSCHE: What you are saying is that we're 16 not allowed to say, the last point you just made, because 17 what this testimony talks about is why it is that LILCO's 18 lack of credibility, which you found, whatever it was you 19 found about it in the PID, why the result of that interacting 20 with this exercise information, in the whole, the entirety, 21 would result in voluntary evacuation. Your finding about 22 credibility was again an abstract one. It wasn't whether or 23 not people would as a result follow or not follow LILCO's 24 i ns truc ti ons . It was LILCO gets low marks on credibility. () 25 The point of this is whether or not the public will obey ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage MO-336-6646
v30614.0 (v I KSW 3166 i LILCO's recommendations, and what we are -- 2 JUDGE FRYE: Will follow? 3 MS. LETSCHE: Follow the recommendations. What 4 this testimony does, and some of it is more general than 5 otherc, admittedly, but a lot of it is out of the focus 6 groups or the survey and is related to the EBS messages, and 7 it says people are not going to believe the messages. They 8 are not going to trust the contents of these specific 9 messages. They won't believe it if you say if you are 10 outside 10 miles, you are perfectly safe. That's what the 11 evidence says, and I think we're entitled to put in that 12 evidence given the contentions that are out there, and the (')) 13 fact that you have acknowledged we're allowed to demonstrate 14 to you whether LILCO's dissemination of information would be 15 adequate enough to support their assumption that there would 16 not be voluntary evacuation, which was the assumption on 17 which that exercise was based. 18 JUDGE FRYE: That's legitimate. I agree with you 19 to the extent that you demonstrate that the information is 20 conflicting, is confusing, then you have demonstrated that 21 there's no reason why the public should not continue to 22 distrust LILCO. You have already found that they distrust 23 LILCO. You put them in LILCO is now in a position where they 24 have to overcome this. They have to say, okay, we can O overcome it by furnishing clear and nonconflicting V 25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3346M6
30614.0 hKSW 3167 1 information to the public. 2 MS. LETSCHE: It is not just clear and 1 3 nonconflicting. It is whether the result of that would in ' 4 addition be a decision not to believe some of the contents of 5 those messages. 6 What -- 7 JUDGE FRYE: But you have your survey too, and 8 your focus groups, to the extent they go to the fact the 9 public would regard the information as clear and 10 conflicting. If they regard it as confusing or conflicting, 11 that they probably are not going to follow it. It ocems to g 12 me that's what it says. 13 MS. LETSCHE: If you are telling me that that in 14 fact is the finding you have made already, and that that kind 15 of finding is sufficient and that you don't need any 16 additional information on the lack of believability of these 17 individual messages, then you can tell me that and we can 18 agree that that portion of contention 22-F has been decided 19 in our favor. 20 I didn't understand that that kind of a ruling, 21 that if the messages are inconsistent and conflicting, that 22 therefore, the preexisting mistrust of LILCO will result in a 23 refusal to obey them, that that ruling had already been 24 made. 25 JUDGE FRYE: I'm not giving you something from the ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage Sak336-6M6
30614.0 (,)KSW 3168 1 board,.but putting this out for-the sake of argument, to put 2 it the other way, if I can -- well, perhaps I can't. Let me
'3 go to Ms.'McCleskey and say do'you quarrel with my 4 characterization of this?
5 MS. MC CLESKEY: No, sir, I don' t, tmt I do 6 quarrel-with the concept that the 224 and beyond were not 7 properly. struck, and I will say that Ms. Letsche has 8 -represented that'all the parties agreed that this was proper 9 testimony. I have a copy of the Suffolk County testimony 10 marked up with the NRC's motion, my motion and what the board 11 struck;.and with the exception of a.very few pages, you all-t (} . 12 13 struck'in your sua sponte portion of your' order testimony that was moved to be stricken by the parties. You used 14 different reasons. 15 JUDGE FRYE: I think we'll want to confer about 16 this at the break. 17 MS. LETSCHE: I will give you some page numbers 18 and not argue it at that point. With respect to that chunk, 19 223 to 241, pages 225 and 226 directly relate to the survey 20 and the ERS responses to the EBS messages that came out of 21 that survey. 231 and 232 directly discuss the response to 22 EBS messages 1 and 2. 232 to 233 discuss the inclusion in 23 LILCO's messages of a reference to scientists, which is one 24 of LILCO's arguments in terms of why its low credibility 25 would be overcome in a real emergency, because it is not ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
30614.0 3169 l )KSW' 1 going to be just LILCO saying this stuff. It is going to.be. 2 scientists referenced in these messages. That testimony 3 directly refutes that point based upon the survey results, 4 and for that reason, in addition to-the.others, I think it 5 should be admitted. 6 238 to 241 directly relates to the issues raised 7 in Contention 30,~which is the tone of the information and 8 the tone of the media reporting which would likely result 9 given the response LILCO demonstrated during the exercise. 10 JUDGE FRYE: I haven't looked at that, but it 11 seems to me in looking at your testimony that there's an {} 12 13 awful. lot of testimony that has not been stricken. to the type of reporting one would expect to occur in light It goes 14 of the information being given through the EBS. In a sense 15 it seems to me it is overkill. 16 MS. LETSCHE: Well, I would like to think it is 17 overkill. Our witnesses address the testimony and put in all-18 of the reasons that they have for why they believe those 19 contentions are accurate, and this one of them. 20 It is incumbent upon me to defend those decisions
- 21 given the fact that they are directly raised in these 22 contentions.
23 Let me move on to the next -- let me finally say 24 that in terms of this, again you are in the process of sort 25 of se.lectively editing the witnesses' statements, ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33&6M6 I
- 30614.0 3170 (s_-)KSW 1 particularly, as you said, since it is a unified whole. It 2 might be a long whole, but they had a reason for putting it 3 together this way.
4 JUDGE FRYE: I would grant you tais has been 5 clearly a mixed bag. Some of it talks at aut specific 6 responses to the messages that were given or simulated to be 7 given during the exercise, and some of it doesn't, and I 8 don't think there was, to my mind anyway, any way you could 9 really separate it out. The overall tone of it I frankly 10 felt was overkill. 11 MS. LETSCHE: If that's the basis for your 12 striking it, that's real different. (')) 13 JUDGE FRYE: That's my view. I will have to talk 14 to my colleagues. - 15 MS. LETSCHE: That's different from saying it is 16 impermissible testimony. 17 JUDGE FRYE: I think to the extent you are getting 18 into preexisting fear, credibility and so on, you are 19 relitigating things it seems to me that you have already 20 won. 21 MS. LETSCHE: Like I said, if the ruling is that 22 in light of these messages, that the LILCO will have no 23 credibility and people won't follow the instructions -- 24 JUDGE FRYE: You have to find that they don't have () 25 credibility. I don't recall specifically, there was ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coscrage 800-336-6M6
~ 30614.0 KSW , 3171 1 certainly a finding of as to excess evacuation. That's in 2 the PID. I think it is fair to say that the tone of the PID 3 is exactly the same as to credibility, if you don't have 4 clear and nonconflicting information, it is unlikely that the 5 public is going to listen to it.
6 MS. MC CLESKEY: The telling point is on page 224, 7 which begins the section that you struck. The Witness Cole 8 says we had these surveys before. This is what they showed. 9 Nothing has changed between 1982 and 1986. These are the 10 same surveys that they did before. It is repetitive, 11 previously litigated and should not be allowed in this O V 12 li ti gation. It was properly struck. 13 MS. LETSCHE: Let me move on. The second batch of 14 testimony that you struck is pages 248 to 254. Let me just 15 get to that here. 16 I guess particularly when you look at the question 17 that all of this testimony is responsive to, which is on page 18 248, I don't understand how there could be a ruling that this 19 testimony is outside of the scope of this proceeding, because 20 what this section discusses is in light of the contents and 21 timings of LILCO's press advisory and its rumor control 22 activities, which are in fact subjects of contention 38 and 23 Contention 39, why do you agree that the result of that would 24 be voluntary evacuation? I can't think of anything that 25 would more directly address admitted contentions and the Ace FEDERAL REvonTnns, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmcrage Hoo-336-t M 6
l 3061(.0 KSW 3172 1 -subsumed one of 22-P and 44 than this section. t 2 In light of that, I think you should reconsider 3 your decision to strike it. 4 MS. MC CLESKEY: Your lionor -- S MS. LETSCHS: In particular, for example, on page 6 252 of that chunk of testimony, there's a specific example 7 about a news release given out, and ERS messages were given 8 out during the exercise, and how they were inconsistent or 9 inaccurate or both, and I won't repeat the testimony, it is 10 there for you to read. But it gives specific examples and 11 discusses precisely the issues raised in these contentions 12 and why it is that the result of that information would be a 13 decision by the public not to follow LILCO's recommendations. 14 The next chunk was pages 262 through 670, which is 15 Chernobyl, so I have gotten there. 16 I guess I have several responses to your decision 17 to strike this testimony. Number one, you base your ruling, 10 I believe, on your conclusion that it doesn't have -- 19 Chernobyi doesn't -- is unrelated to the exercise, and 20 therefore this testimony injected a new element. into the 21 testimony. 22 JUDGE FRYE: It is also tied into the theory of 23 preexisting fear. 24 MS. LETSCHE: That'r certainly true, but number 25 one, I don't think that this discussion is in this tes timony, ace FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. 202 347 37(o Nationwide Cowrage MO-346M6
. _ . - . ~ . _ _ . = _ _ _ .
p 30614.0 3173 Q KSW 1 is at all not related or unrelated to the exercise, because 2 the testimony here talks about the survey results -- well, 3 the survey results are separate. It talks about the people's 4 likely responses to these particular messages and information , 5 in light of their knowledge and understanding about 6 Chernoby]. You are absolutely right it contributes to their 7 fear. This was certainly not anything that was litigated 8 before, because Chernobyl had not happened. Whatever was 9 discussed before with respect to preexisting fear was very 10 different, or my witnesses will say they were very different 11 or people's state of fear was different, as Dr. Cole's 12 surveys reveal, before and after Chernobyl. 13 I can tie it to the exercise because the data he 14 relics upon, which is his survey and his focus group data all 15 indicate to you, show people's responses to the particular 16 information I,II,CO gave out during the exercise, and what they 17 show is that in response to a statement, for instance, that 18 -- and I don't purport to be precise here, I'm just giving 19 examples -- in a response to a statement there's no need for 20 people more than 10 miles away to take action, people will 21 recall their knowledge, understanding, beliefs, whatever, 22 about the Chernobyl accident, and decide that they don't 23 believe that statement that if you live outside 10 miles you 24 don't need to do anything because of what happened at i 25 Chernobyl, and therefore they will take action themselves ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- o: 347 37tv) Nationwide cmerage sm 3wtM4
. . . - .- . . .---= __
30614.0 ()KSW 3174 i , I contrary to LILCO's recommendation. That's how you tie it i 2 in. 3 In fact, that data, the survey data are directly 4 related to that exercise information. In addition, the 5 preexisting fear which you acknowledge.is out there in the 6 last PID has changed, at least according to the data that our I 7 witnesses have, and I believe it is even Dr. Milletti 8 acknowledges to some extent, although he has other reasons' 9 why he doesn't believe it will have a big influence on 10 response. In light of the fact it is listed in 22-F why f 11 people are going to voluntarily evacuate, that our witnesses (} 12 13 are entitled to discuss that in this testimony, and therefore-you should reconsider your decision to strike. i l l 14 The last two chunks that you sua sponte decided to i 15 strike, page 276 through page 278, and then page 280 through.
- 16 page 286, I am frankly a little -- I was very confused about
{ 17 this, because I believe that those are sections,-although I j- 18 want to double check, that we -- no, there were some pieces i 19 of it that Staff and LILCO chose to strike because they had 20 some focus group citations in them, but there was not a i I 21 motion to strike a lot of those chunks. The reason is that ! 22 testimony goes to a completely different contention. It goes
- 23 to contention 49-C, and I believe, I don't know if your l 24 feeling on this one, Judge Frye, was also that it was
() 25 overkill, but what is being addressed here is real
/\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
es30614.0 ( q ,7IKSW 3175 1 different. It is talking about how many people would decide 2 to seek monitoring rather than the general question of people 3 voluntarily evacuate. 4 This testimony deals directly with the EBS S messages talking about going to the Coliseum, and the 6 public's reaction to those precise messages, and deals with 7 some of the survey data on that precise issue and cites some 8 focus group data on that precise information. Concerning 9 information on why people would seek monitoring even when 10 told-they should not. I believe it directly addresses that 11 contention. (^) \ / 12 Given what you have struck, we only have one page 13 of our testimony on Contention 49-C left, and, which is page 14 279, and it strikes me as second and third and fourth, and 15 then everything that follows it and everything that came 16 before was stricken. I think in light of what's in 17 Contention 49-C, what is in this testimony and the way 18 everyone apparently interpreted the contention and the 19 testimony, since the only little pieces sought to be struck 20 here were those focus group quotes, that you should 21 reconsider this ruling and -- 22 JUDGE FRYE: The gist of what we struck had to do 23 with fear motivating people to get monitored, as I recall. 24 MS. LETSCHE: But I can tell you if your basis is 0) (_ 25 that fear was litigated before, and you refer to that PID ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
~
r 1 T* ~
- 4
^-
)_ q. 30614.0
- fV 3176 (JKSW J i
Nw 1 cite, the queWion of whether more people than are told to 2 :would go to seek monitoring and. decontamination was not
,c M .
(3 litigated before, and what this contention, 49-C, addresses 7, j4 is the underlying assumption of',the s jexercise, and the
,{ underlying assumption of the FEMA t finding cbucerning the 5
6 adequacy of the relocation center, wh2ch'was based'on that 7 assumption that only the people told to\ go'. there would go : I / . 18 there. If you are going to conclude inat that facility can
] 3 l l
( 9 handle it and that LILCO's personnelfcan handle people they 1 10 need to handle, you have to know how many will go there. The 11 point is the assumption is that only the people who are told 12 to go there would go there is wrong. 13 'l JUDGE FRYE: How does the exercise demonstrate 14 that it is wrong?- 15 MS. LETSCHE: The exercise demonstrated that 16 LILCO's attempts to get certain people to go to,the Coliseum 17 and to get only certain people to go to the Coliseum to get 18 lDe' monitored and decontaminated would not work because in fact,
') i 19ih ) inuch,medh larger number would'go.
* \
20 JUDGE FRYE: Why?
'/ N 21 , MS. LETSCHE: Becacce of the way people would 22 react and respond to the information LILCO disseminated.
~
23 JUDGE FRYE: Which would be, as you maintain, 24 confusing a'nd conflicting, and therefore they would bc$d for ,
~ -
25 the Coliseum because they were afraid.
+
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
-s 30614.0 3177 l k_-)KUW 1 MS. LETSCHE: Yes, and there are other reasons set 2 forth. Chernobyl is one. People will be concerned about 3 being exposed given what they read about and heard about 4 happened at Chernobyl. There's no doubt, Judge Frye, that 5 these issues are related to each other. I can't tell you 6 that they are not, but to say that we are not permitted to 7 address the point of Contention 49-C because one of the 8 reasons or even two of the reasons that we maintain that 9 LILCO's assumption that only a hundred thousand people would 10 go to the Coliseum is wrong, because some of those reasons 11 are the same as the reasons we said about another contention,
['j l 12 would not be a correct ruling, I don't believe. L. J 13 JUDGE SHON: It seems to me that the number of 14 people who are going to seek monitoring and decontamination 15 is the subject of another proceeding, not this proceeding. 16 This proceeding is rather narrow and is directed to whether 17 or not something that happened the day of the exercise 18 demonstrated a fundamental flaw in the plan. Now we all 19 agree, or I imagine we do, I'm the only member of the board 20 that signed both the PID and this order, that if one found 21 that the messages were given out at the time went either 22 through the ENC or through the EBS messages, were conflicting 23 and unclear and improper in that fashion, that would lead one 24 toward the belief that there was a multiple flaw in the plan, r^T (,) 25 regardless of how many people went to the Coliseum. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
30614.0
;4JKSW 3178 s_-
1 That's the subject of another hearing entirely, is 2 it not? 3 MS. LETSCHE: Except the question of whether or 4 not LILCO's demonstration during the exercise was adequate to 5 allow you to conclude that they can meet the requirements of 6 monitoring and decontamination in NUREG-0654. You are to 7 look to the underlying assumption of those conclusions, of 8 the FEMA conclusions on that, and LILCO will argue to you 9 that you should find the plan adequate based on the 10 demonstration. We discussed all the other points in 49-C, in 11 Contention 49 with the other panels of witnesses we had up Q v 12 here a week so ago. This is a related point to those 13 contentions. Whether or not the numbers of people who would I ! 14 have to be dealt with are what PEMA and LILCO assumed they l j 15 would have to deal with on the day of the exercise. 16 Now that assumption was that people were told to 17 go there, and if we can prove to you that that assumption in 18 wrong, and that in fact that exercise had been real they 19 would have had to deal with some much larger number or - a / 20 much larger number then we can establish that the 21 conclusions, that they have demonstrated an ability to meet 22 that requirement, being able to monitor and decontaminate 23 everyone they need to, are wrong; and that's what we are 24 entitled to do in this proceeding.
'y) 25 JUDGE FRYE: Again it comes back to the same ACE-FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
es 30614.0 3179-(v)KSW 1 thing. Ms. McCleskey tell me whether you disagree, if you 2 'show that the information that was made available on the EBS, 3 to the media and rumor control activities resulted in giving 4 confusing and conflicting information to the public, then you 5 have a large argument in your favor to say you are going to 6 have more people show up at the Coliseum or wherever for 7 monitoring than could be accommodated. 8 MS. MC CLESKEY: I will agree with that, yes, 9 sir. 10 MS. LETSCHE: That's an argument. I don't have 11 anything to base that on. 12 JUDGE FRYE: Why, you have the preexisting fear. 13 You have the assumptions or the conclusions in the PID that 14 unless there's clear unconfusing, nonconflicting information 15 made available to the public, there will be a large excess 16 evacuation. You are going to have a large excess evacuation 17 and you might have a large excess of people reporting for 18 moni toring. It comes back to that key issue. That's the 19 thing that has to be demonstrated. 20 MS. LETSCHR: What I'm hearing you say is that you 21 don't believe there's a dis tinction between the decision to 22 evacuate whether told to or not and the decision to seek 23 monitoring whether told to or not, because those are the two 24 issues presented by the voluntary evacuation contentions, and 25 the separate contentions in 49-C talks about people seeking ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage MX)-336-6M6
, ,30614.0 3180 ()KSW 1 monitoring. I think that in light of your admission of 49-C 2 and the fact that 49 does deal with a separate issue, that we 3 are entitled to put in evidence and not just argue to you 4 from other findings, put in direct evidence if we have not, 5 that the result of those EDS messages would be a decision to 6 seek monitoring even if told not to, because at least in our 7 opinion, arguably, arguably, that's a separate issue, and so 8 we are entitled to put in evidence on it given the admission 9 of that contention 49. 10 JUDGE FRYE: Ms. McCleskey? 11 MS. MC CLESKEY: I will just note on the three p 12 pages we're talking about now, 276 through 278, which the NJ 13 board struck, that the predicate is laid out on page 275 and 14 talks about what the possible problem for a monitoring shadow 15 might be, and then the question on page 276 says, what's the 16 basis for your believing that LILCO's assumption was wrong, 17 and the answer is fear, and then it goes on for three pages 18 about fear. That in very different from taking the EHS 19 messages and saying, I have analyzed them, here is where they 20 are inconsistent and that's why the public might react a 21 certain way. 22 JUDGE FRYE: What's L]LCO's position with regard 23 to the proposition that if the messages are not unclear and 24 unconfusing, you would have more people than anticipated 25 reporting for monitoring? ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Cmcrage 80lb33M446
~
7 73 30614.0
! JKSW 3181 v
1 MS. MC CLESKEY: What is our response to that? 2 JUDGE FRYE: What's your position? 3 -MS. MC CLESKEY: Our position is that the messages 4 were adequate. 5 JUDGE FRYE I'm asking you to assume that it is 6 der. ions t ra ted the messages were not adequate. There's no 7 reason to believe you would have large numbers of people 8 reporting for monitoring. 9 MS. MC CLESKEY: In terms of the monitoring shadow 10 issue, it is different from evacuation shadow in that 11 evacuation shadow involves getting people to flee a risk, and 12 monitoring shadow involves getting them to come after an 13 accident to take protective action for themselves, and 14 there's a difference, and our witnesses are happy to talk 15 about that at length. 16 JUDGE FRYE: Is that in your testimony? 17 MS. MC CLESKEY: Yes, sir I think the basis for it 18 is in our testimony. Also, one has to consider that simply 19 if you establish that you are monitoring EDS messages were 20 inconsistent in some way or unclear in some way doesn't 21 necessarily conclude that the shadow would be larger. It 22 might be smaller. 23 MS. LETSCHE: Dased on that, I think my argument 24 is even stronger.
/ 25 MS. MC CLESKEY: 1 think the three pages are ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-37(N) Nationwide Coverage MX) 33MM6
30614.0 ' (pJKSW 3182 1 clearly strikable. They don't have anything to do with what 2 we have been talking about. 3 MS. LETSCHE: They also struck the following, 280 4 to 286, which is basically our witnesses' entire discussion, 5 other than factual predicate which is laid out in the 6 contention of 49-C. And LILCO has several pages of testimony 7 on 49-C. 8 JUDGE SHON: I would like to hear you address the 9 question of if indeed the messages were confusing and 10 inconsistent, whether that would constitute a fundamental 11 flaw in the plan, Ms. McCloskey. 12 MS. MC CLESKEY: Actually I believe that we 13 objected to the contentions generally, and if-we didn't, I do 14 now on the grounds that it depends on what you are talking 15 about when you talk about a fundamental flaw. Do you mean 16 not fixab]c? No. The messages can be fixed, and I think it 17 is telling that TMI, which started all of this, had 18 rehearings, they redid their emergency plan, and even their 19 plan has been approved, and the fact of the matter is that we 20 can argue until the cows come home about what the EDS 21 messages said, whether certain portions of the population 22 would understand them or not, whether they are clear and 23 consistent or not, but you can always amend them. You can 24 also nitpick them to death, e l 25 JU0GB FHYE: I don't know that we necessarily -- ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6 4 6
30614.0 3183 .( KSW
~
L it is not clear in my own mind that fundamental flaw has'bcen 2 equated with an uncorrectable flaw. I don't know whether-3 that's so or not. It is not clear to me. It may.be that 4 there's a fundamental flaw in the messages or elsewhere that 5 is correctable. 6 MS. MC CLESKEY: Let me just add that I think that 7 our bottom line is that.we don't accept the premise that 8 there were inconsistent and unclear messages being given out, 9 so I don't need to reach the second question. 10 JUDGE FRYE: Okay. 11 MS. MC CLESKEY: I do have my own, I'm sorry to It will be very brief if (}. 12 say, motion for reconsideration. 13 you want to hear it now. 14 JUDGE FRYE: Are we finished with yours, 15 Ms. Letsche? 16 MS. LETSCHE: Yes. 17 MS. MC CLESKEY: My motion is very narrow. 'I do 18 this reluctantly; I have never filed a motion for 19 reconsideration before, but this is very important. On page 20 4 of your April 17 order, the second sentence of the first 21 full paragraph reads, "To the extent that exercise simulated 22 reality, the policy, if properly conducted and analyzed, 23 should tell us how the public would have responded to LERO's 24 EBS messages." () 25 I submit that this proposition is directly ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmcrage 800-336-6M6
1
'30614.0 KSW 3184 1 contrary.to your findings in the PID, and to other-boards' 2 findings who have looked at policies; this sentence as I read 3 it says, if the exercise simulated reality and if the policy 4 was properly conducted and analyzed, then you can extrapolate 5 from the response to the-policy what people would do in a 6 real emergency, and I think this' board found clearly in the 7 PID at the pages that I cited in my motion to strike the 8 testimony, 664 through 665 and 666 through 667,.that the 9 urgent tone and situation-specific information that you get 10 in an emergency-cannot be duplicated in a policy, and I asked 11 as my remedy not that the policy be struck, because I 12 understand the board's order says that one might be able to
(} 13 look at the policy and use it as_ quantitative evidence of 14 confusing or conflicting information, but I ask that the 15 board clarify this. sentence to rule that parties are not.to 16 rely upon the survey as a predictive indicator of what might 17 happen in a real emergency, because we have litigated that 18 issue at length, and it is res judicata that you cannot take 19 a poll today and ask people what they will do in a real 20 emergency and use the answers that they get to find that they 21 will do that in a real emergency. 22 We litigated it extensively. You summarized all 23 that testimony in the PID. I am not asking that the survey 24 be struck. I disagree that there's anything in it t. hat shows 25 confusing or conflicting information, but I will address that ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 m
30614.0 3185
.( KSW-
,1 on cross-examination. 'I do ask that the board reconcile-this 2 sentence with its previous' ruling.
3 JUDGE SHON: It seems to me that the word 1 4 " responded to the messages" is not responding by flying off 5 the handle and doing something peculiar, but responding in 6 the sense of belief or disbelief, be confused or not be 7 confuaed. I see no conflict between that.and the notion that 8 asking a person what he would do if doesn't really well 9 predict what he will do if it really happens. That's quite a 10 different thing. Tell him something and say, how do you feel 11 about this, and he says-I'm confused, I don't.know what it'is' ; 12 all about, there he is making a real reaction. j} 13 MS. MC CLESKEY . As you just articulated what.the
,14 last part of the centence meant, I have no problem with it-15 and I agree there's no conflict. My concern is the first 16 portion of the sentence, which is to the extent the exercise 17 simulated reality, and I simply want a ruling from the board 18 if it is true that the survey cannot be used to extrapolate 19 future behavior predictions in a real emergency of Long 20 Islanders. That's what I'm asking, and I'm concerned that
- - 21 that sentence is leaving the door open for findings on that, 22 on predictive behavior.
i 23 JUDGE FRYE: I would have thought Judge Shon's 24 statement would have cleared it up. To the extent that it l i () 25 simulated reality and to the extent it was properly ! /\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 l
~
j 30614.O l n)KSW s 3186 1 conducted, you may be able to draw some conclusions as to how 2 the public would respond, i.e. would they have been confused 3 by the messages or not. Am I correct? 4 JUDGE SHON: That's what I mean. Do they find S this material confusing? Do they find it something that they 6 would rely on or not rely on? 7 JUDGE PARIS: The conclusion of the PID with 8 respect to policies was based on primarily the fact that the 9 policies that had been taken had no situational-specific 10 information, and that without - they said that none of the 11 policies measured likely public response on the literal O C/ 12 information at the time of an emergency. Without the 13 inclusion of the information in t.he questions, the board did 14 not attribute literal predictive value to the results. It 15 went on to conclude the policies also have no literal 16 predictive validity because the residents of Suffolk and 17 Nassau County do not now have the information they would need 18 to determine their actions in an emergency. Didn't LILCO try
- 19 to provide that sort of information in the exercise?
20 MS. MC CLESKEY: Yes, sir. The EHS messages in 21 the exercise were designed to simulate what might go out in a 22 real emergency, and the part that you are focusing on in the 23 PID is the informational part of it. The part I think we 24 cannot forget in the urgent tone and information-specific 25 part of it. We had exteiisive toutimony on the question of Acti-Friotinat IllironTitas, INC. 202 347 37(x) Nationwide emerage an)-31rerM6 m___._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
f3 30614.0 3187 (a/KSW I whether no matter what you ask somebody or the way you put 2 the question in a policy, whether you can then take the 3 answer and extrapolate to future behavior. We had extensive 4 testimony on that. 5 My understanding of the board's ruling was the 6 answer is no, you cannot predict future behavior from 7 policies, and I'm concerned about this sentence because it 0 seems to say that if you accept the premise that those 9 simulated EBS messages might be the sort of information that 10 people would be getting in an emergency, and if they were 11 properly extrapolated and conducted in the poll, you can take < 12 the response to those simulated messages and predict how I 13 people might respond in a real emergency. 14 That issue has been laid to res t, as far as I was 15 understanding previously, and the answer in no, you cannot, 16 because of the urgent tone and situation-specific activities 17 during an emergency, and because people change their mindn la between the time you take a poll and the time that you have i l 19 to act on it, and we established this in extensive 20 litigation, and I'm concerned that we're going to have to do 21 it all over agaln if the nentonce is not clarifled. l 22 JUDGE PARIS: I didn't understand the relevance of l l 23 your statement. Perhaps I didn't underutand the ntatement 24 itself, that people react dif tforently between the time a 2S policy in taken and what did you say? l l Act.Fnonnai. Rnvoninns, INC. 202 147 3700 Nationwide Coserage 8m3M(M6
1 l l l 1
. l 30614.0 KSW 3188 1 MS. MC CLESKEY: What I said was -- and I may have 2 been inarticulate about it, unfortunately I'm not a 3 sociologist -- but what I said was that people change their 4 minds between the time you ask them what they are going to do S in the future and the time they are called upon to do it.
6 JUDGE FRYE: What you are saying is simply if you 7 asc somebody as happened in this poll, what would you do 8 given this situation and so on, if you got this message what 9 would you do is quite different than that same individual 10 being actually exposed to a real emergency and getting this 11 message? ( 12 MS. MC CLESKEY: That's right. You cannot take 13 the answer today of what he will do and predict what he is 14 going to do in a real emergency. My concern about the 1S sentence la that the board has left, the door open to do that 16 with this particular survey, because the information part of 17 it is, Guffolk County argues, we will dispute on 10 cross-examination, closer to what might be likely in a real 19 emergency, but that's irrelevant. They could have put 20 whatever iniormation they wanted to. What we litigated 21 previously is that you can ask anybody what they are going to 22 do today and it changes, and we li tiga ted that at length, and 23 I'm concerned about having to go over that ground again. 1 24 MS. LETSCllE If I can junt respond, I think that 25 your comment, Judge Paris, was exactly the appropriate one to Acu.Fuounat. RueonTuns. INC. 202 347 3701) Nationwide Cmcrage m)-34(M6
m 30614.0 3189 ()KSW 1 this argument. The ruling that you all made before 2 concerning predictive value of surveys is out there and is 3 clear for everyone to read, and it was directly based upon 4 the fact that the surveys you were talking about then did not 5 have a situational-specific information. If Ms. McCleskey , 6 wants to argue in cross-examination or in her findings that 7 this survey la also lacking that information, she is free to 8 do that, and I assume she will, and try to persuade you that 9 your other finding is equally applicable to the survey, but 10 that other finding was dealing with different kinds of 11 surveys, as you have acknowledged. p v 12 I think that your explanation was useful as to 13 what you all intended by this, but the fact of the matter is 14 that you are going -- you will make a decision af ter you have 15 heard all of the-evidence and heard the cross-examination and 16 decide what weight to accord to all of the evidence that you 17 hear, whether it. is survey evidence or evidence that other 10 witnesses would present about research literature or 19 whatever. That's what. this process is all about. I don't 20 see any need for any additional clarification to your order. . 21 Just to clarity for the record, I believe there
- 22 has never been any dispute in this proceeding, the prior one 23 or now, and it. is aLated clearly in our witnesses' testimony, 24 no one suggests that these surveys are one for one predictive O 2s at 411. e eee v t84' dec eee ver e# ^ v te re ve" e ace-FEDERAt. REPORTERS, INC.
. J2-347 3700 Nationwide roserage 800-336-(M6
f 3190 (m30614.0
)KSW L to a survey I would evacuate, that in an emergency person A 2 would evacuate. You are talking about gross indications here 3 of general response, and all of the witnesses, and I believe 4 even in the -- I shouldn't say this because I have not S reviewed it, but quickly, but even in the PID you acknowledge 6 that the Suffolk County witnesses as well as the LILCO 7 witnesses acknowledge that the surveys do not have a real a predictive value.
9 JUDGE FRYE: That is in the PID. 10 MS. LETScilE: Yes. I think that your ruling on 11 this motion is exactly right. It is fully consistent with Q C 12 your prior rulings, and there's no need to change it, and 13 maybe you now know how it feels to have one sentence picked 14 out and having somebody analyze the words to death when it is 15 in the context of two or three pages of your discussion. 16 JUDGE silon: I would like to point out the 17 sentence close to the bottom of the page starting the 18 carryover that says, "The post-exercise policy now offered as 19 evidence may provide quantitative evaluation of the extent to 20 which the ERS messages broadcast during the exercise provided 21 information which the public regarded as confusing or 22 conflicting." That's the point of the whole thing, and the 23 public's response is not that of the evacuation standing on 24 their heads or anything else, it is do you find the material O y/ 25 conflicting or unclear. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 80)-336-6646
es30614.0 (jKSW 3191 1 MS. MC CLESKEY: I understand that portion of the 2 board's order, and it is for that reason that I am not asking 3 you to go ahead and strike the survey in toto as I had the 4 first time around as my remedy, but I was concerned about the 5 other sentence, and perhaps I'm reading it differently than 6 the rest of the room, and if so, I'm very happy to hear 7 that. 8 JUDGE FRYE Now, you were going to tell us, 9 Ms. McCleskey, wha t portions of LILCO testimony you plan to 10 withdraw. 11 MS. MC CLESKEY: Yes, sir, but I would very much f] 12 like to hear your reconsideration motion response before I v 13 withdraw any testimony, if you don't mind. 14 JUDGE FRYE: I'm not going to hold you to this, 15 okay, but I would like to in light of what we do on 16 reconsideration, we want to confer first, as I said. I think 17 before we confer we would like to know what you plan to 18 withdraw. 19 MS. MC CLESKEY: As long as I'm not he3d to i t. 20 As to credibility on pages 46 through 47, LILCO would 21 withdraw question and answer 89. On pages 82 through 85, 22 LILCO would withdraw question and answers 157 through 162, so 23 that for credibility, we would withdraw our testimony up to 24 the section on monitoring shadow on page 85. 25 JUDGE PARIS: What were the first two questions? ACE-FEDERAI, REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 37(X) Nationwide Cmerage 8(X)-336-6M6
, , , . - . . --- .-- . - - - - ~ . - _-
, ,30614.0
)KSH 3192 1 MS. MC CLESKEY: The first was on pages 46 through 2 47, question and answer 49 -- 89. I beg your pardon.
3 JUDGE PARIS: Thank you. 4 MS. MC CLESKEY: On preexisting fear, LILCO wou3d S withdraw pages 81 through 82, question and answers 153 6 through 156. On Chernobyl, LILCO would withdraw pages 77 7 through 81, question and answers 147 through 152. 8 J11DGE FRYE: Why don't we take about a 20-minute 9 break and give us an opportunity to confer. 10 (Discussion off the record.) 11 JUDGE FRYE: Back on the record. Mr. Shon, did p v 12 you have anything you wanted to put on the record? 13 JUDGE SIION: I think that what's been said by the 14 county has been correct, and I would support the county's 15 position on both motions for reconsideration. 16 JUDGE FRYE: Mr. Firfo? 17 MR. PIRFO: Staff supports LILCO, but I don't 18 think we have anything much significance to add. 19 JUDGE FRYE: Let's take a 20-minute break. 20 (Hecess . ) 21 JilDGE FRYE Back on the record, please. 22 We conferred at the break and we have decided to 23 deny all of the motions for reconsideration for Jargely the 24 reasons that were enumerated in the course of the discussion r"R td 25 of them. As I underst and i t, we're going to begin with. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage m)-336-6M6
,S 30614.0 JKSW 3193 v
1 Dr. Mileti; is that correct? 2 MS. LETSCHE: Yes. I guess we need terms of 3 LILCO's testimony. Are we -just going to have stricken the 4 portions that Ms. McCleskey suggested? 5 JUDGE FRYE: Unless you can identify other areas. 6 MS. LETSCHE: I would like all-their testimony on 7 Contention 49-C stricken. 8 JUDGE FRYE: What pages are those? 9 MS. LETSCHE: Wait a minute. I can tell you 10 that. It is 85 to 95. I don't. have the question numbers. 11 JUDGE FRYE: I think we can get it.
/7 12 MS. MC CLESKEY: I would like to hear the basis V
13 for the motion so I can respond to it. 14 MS. LETSCHE: The basis is what I said before 15 which was for moving reconsideration for having stricken our 16 testimony on that, which is that the contention is there. It 17 at least arguably raises a different issue. LILCO has said 18 in its testimony that,it believes it is a dif ferent issue. 19 Whether it is or unt I will leave for the board to 20 determine. 21 In any event., it is a separate issue and in light 22 of the fact that it is in Contention 49-C it is something 23 that the governments are entitled to put in evidence on. I 24 believe that LILCO is also because it is in that contention m
) 2S but at t.he very Jeast, if one of us can't put it in, the ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
NM47 3700 Nationwide Coserage m)-336 6M6
J 30614.0
)KSW 3194 1 other one can't put it in either, and so I would again move 2 you to. reconsider and let the governments' evidence on that 3 contention stay in. If you don'.t do that, though, I think 4 that due process absolutely requires that you: strike LILCO's S testimony on the same subject.
6 JUDGE FRYE: We'll look at that this evening and 7 hear trom you tomorrow as needed. 8 MS. MC CLESKEY: Fine. 9 JUDGE FRYE: Have your witnesses been previously. 10 sworn? 11 MS. MC CLESKEY: Yes, sir, they have. If it is 12 all right at this time can we move the testimony into 13 evidence now? j 14 JUDGE FRYE Why don't we finish with voir dire 15 and move the testimony at that time. l 16 MS. MC CLESKEY: Fine. 17 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 18 HY MS. LETSCHE: 19 Q Dr. Mileti, I only have a few questions. Would 20 you turn to page 3 of your testimony? 21 A I'm there. 22 0 In the second sentence, I'm sorry, you mention 23 recent studies of emergency warning systems around nuclear 24 power stations. Am I correct that that's the work you did 2S for the utilities that we discussed that were listed on your ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-3364M6
em 30614.0 3195 ()KSW 1 resume when we were doing voir dire on your other testimony? 2 A I don't recall what we discussed in detail the 3 last time. This would refer to my familiarity with warning 4 systems around other nuclear power stations that would S include other work related to testimony but would not be 6 limited to it. 7 Q Now, you -- in discussing this project you are 8 working on with FEMA that I believe that you mention here 1 9 through Oak Ridge, I believe we talked about that before, and , l 10 that's still in process; is that right, it is ongoing? 11 A Right now, the pre-draft report is under review by 12 Oak Ridge as well as FEMA, as well as other agencies, but the (Q> 13 pre-draft report is finished. 14 Q Now, you described that work as a comprehensive 15 review of actual human behavior in different kinds of 16 emergencies. I assume that would, that the review would i 17 include human behavior during TMI; is that correct.? 18 A That's one of many emergencies that we got data 19 on, yes. 20 0 Were there any other nuclear emergencies on which 21 you had data in your comprehensive review here? 22 A It is possible, yes. Nuclear in the sense that, 23 and I can't recollect for sure, but we may have included the 24 cmergency in England back in the 'S0s, I believe. G (j 25 Q The Wind Scale accident? ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 37(O Nationwide Coserage 8(n346n46
-s 30614.0 3196 (v)KSW 1 A Thank you. I was going to say Flicksboro, I read 2 the reports the same day and I confuse them for some reason.
3 As well as research that's been done on emergency planning 4 for low level and high level radioactive waste. 5 Q Let me make sure I understand. I thought this was 6 a review of actual human behavior in actual emergencies, so 7 low level waste emergency planning would not be included in 8 that, would it? 9 A It was inclusive to the best that we were able to 10 assemble it, of all empirical work that's ever been done on 11 how people as individuals and small groups, for example tT 12 families, behave or perceive risk or respond in actual O 13 cmergencies or what have you. 14 Q W e l'1, let me try to ask my question again. I take 15 it -- did your review include a review of actual human 16 behavior in actual nuclear emergencies other than TMI and 17 possibly Wind Scale? 18 A Yes, it did. For example, the data that was 19 assembled out of the studies associated with response to the 20 bombing of Iliroshima and Nagasaki. 21 Q I take it there were no other nuclear power plant 22 cmergencies included in your review other than TMI and 23 possibly Wind Scale; is that correct? 24 A I can't say that for sure. It is possible that we hm) 25 may have included some anecdotal evidence rather than ACE 8EDERAL RueonTnns, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 14W)-33MM6
-- . . . .- . ~ . - - - - .
4 p 30614.0 Q KSW 3197< j' I systematic empirical evidence associated with the Ginna l 2 accident or incident. 3 0 Didn't include anything about Chernoby1? I , 4 A No, it did not. 5 Q Now you say further down that page that you work J 6 with LILCO in developing the LILCO plan and procedures and j 7 have made your responsibility for authoring the EBS messages O in the plant. I think we established before that the EBS 9 messages that you had major responsibility for authoring were 10 the ones used in the response; is that correct? j 11 A No, my work on the EBS messages was in concert i 12 with other people and it occurred back in '83 and '84, and so 13 it was focused on the prototypical or example EDS messages ' that were part of whatever rev of the plan was in place at 14 15 the time. i 16 0 Have you reviewed revision 6 of the plan?
-, 17 A I have not seen more current versions of the plan I 18 than the one I had back in June of '84, and I don't remember 19 what rev of the plan that was.
20 Q You don't know whether the messages used on the 21 date of the exercise were the same ones you had major l i 22 responsibl3ity for; is that correct? . i 23 A That's not correct. I have looked at the 24 i prototypical EDS messages that were in place, and I have i 25 reviewed the EDS messages that were actually issued the date ACE FEDERAL REvonTuns INC. j 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33MM6
30614.0 KSW 3198 1 of the exercise. 2 Q -Let me restate my question or start again to try 3 to get an answer here. Do you know that revision 6 of the 4 LILCO plan was used during the exercise?' S A No, I can't say that I know that. 6 0 Well, will you take my word for it that revision 6 7 of the plan was used during the exercise? 8 A I'm happy to, yes. 9 Q' Given that assumption, am I correct that you 10 reviewed the prototypical or sample messages that were in 11 revision 6 of the LILCO plan? 12 .A I have seen them, yes. 13 Q And you have also reviewed the actual marked up 14 EHS messages issued during t.he exercise; is that right? 15 A I have reviewed the messages that were simulated 16 during the exercise, yes. 17 Q And am I correct that the sample or prototypical la messages that you reviewed were basically the same as the 19 ones you worked on and had. major responsibility as beforu for 20 authoring? 21 A Some appeared to be those and they were changed to 22 cit the situation that was exercised. 23 0 The changen you are talking about are the 11ttic 24 editing and handwritten notes and things put into the sample 25 messagen that were in the plant during the exercine; lu that Acn FuonnAl. RevonTuns, INC. 202-34747(X) Nationwide Cmcrage mnJM(M6
L 3 30614.0
!KSW 3199 1 right?
2 A I believe the changco would include thone you 3 reference, but other changes were typed and inserted during 4 the exercise. S Q Hut by "changen" you mean thoac that were made 6 during the exercise? 7 A That's correct. O Q Now, going back to the work you have done with 9 LILCO in developing LILCO plan and proceduren, did you have 10 any involvement in developing the LILCO procedurco for rumor 11 control? 12 A Well, it in hard for me to really underntand what 13 you mean by "proceduro." I think that has a formal meaning. 14 I actually wau involved in addrenn1ng rumor control in the 15 sonne that I recollect conversations with people talking 16 about the need to splice in an aggrensive component to rumor 17 control in which, when and if a rumor were detected, that 10 t. hat iniormation would be chared with the media no that the 19 wholn population could know about it, and I recollect talking 20 about how I thought that was the bent way that a rumor 21 control system could be put together. 22 0 in it your underntandlny -- ntrike that. 23 Dr. Milott, in working with Lt!.C0 to develop the 24 1.10C0 plan and proceduren, do you believe that you had input 25 into what ultimately turned out to ho LII,CO'u proceduron for Actt.Fiiniinai. Ritrontiins, INC. ' 202annm Nanon.uc nneran moww6
30614.0 KSW 3200 1 rumor control? 2 A Yes, I do. I think I just explained how and why. 3 Q And is the same true with respect to the press 4 releases and sample prean releanes that are described in the 5 LILCO plan? 6 A You, abuolutely because we originally intended 7 that the press reinason would bu nomnwhat identical to the O EDS mensagen. 9 Q All right, did you also havn input or did you work 10 ylth LILCO in developing changen to the LII.C0 plan in 11 responne to what happened during the exercino or FEMA's 12 comments? 13 A I don't think I understand your question. I was 14 not involved in the oxerclue, but I enrtainly have anon 15 FEMA'n commenta. 16 0 You know becauno your tontimony discuspen it, 17 Dr. Mlinti, that thoro woro changes mado in revision 7 or in 10 a subacquent revinion of_ 1,ILCO'n plan to respond to 19 crit.Letuma l' rom PEMA during the oxorcino; right? 20 A An I recollect, there were como ANCAs and nomo 21 duticiencion catalogued in the FEMA apansament, and that 22 lit,CO renponded to them in the form of lettern and what have 23 you and that nome ol= t.houn thinga may result in changos in 24 the plan, but I'm not pure how. That in, I have not noen rov 2S 7 or -- Acti Fl!!)I! Ital. IlliPolt11!RS, INC. 202. m n o Nanonwide rmerage muuam,
30614.0 tO 3201 v KSW i Q You have not reviewed any changes mado in LILCO's 2 plan in response to FEMA's criticism as a result, of the 3 exercises? 4 A I don't recall being given a copy of the new plan 5 to review. I certainly have little bits and pieces of 6 things. 7 0 The question was were you involved in working with H LILCO to develop any changes in LILCO's plan to respond to 9 FEMA criticisma arining from the exercise? 10 A I have talked with people at LILCO about what 11 might be Icarned from the exercise for the future. I am not O V 12 uure whether or not those were focused on PEMA's comments or 13 whether or not it. will end up in revision of the plan or what 14 happened. 15 Q To your knowledge, Dr. Mileti, have you had any 16 input to LILCO concerning changos or modit'ications in its 17 public information proposals following the February 13, 1986 10 exercine? 19 A I have certainly had conversations with people who 20 work at I,ILCO about what we might consider in terms at 21 alternativen for RIMi mensagen, and that would also include 22 preus releases. i 23 Q Among your work i o r 1,11,0 0 in developing the 1,II.C0 1 24 plan and procedurou, did you provide any input concerning 2ti traininy of peopie who would be involved in the pub)Ic ! Acit Friniinal. RitronTitas, INC.
- o:-m.37m Neionwide Omnage m M M ua6
30614.0
- KSW 3202
! 1 information functions?
2 A Yes, I sure did. In fact, I think I worked 3 firsthand with many of the people who 'at that time were i 4 slated to play roles in 1,ERO. I don't reco]1ect the precise a 5 roles but, for example, Elaine Robinson and a fellow named i
; 6 Daverio and Carol Clawson and a variety of people who were in ;
! 7 one way or another involved with it, I'm not sure what roles j i 8 they had at the time. I know some of.them have gotten 9 promoted or changed jobs since then. 10 0 Did your role in the training include such things 11 as advising as to how to respond to press releases and things 12 like that? l 13 A We talked generically about public information in 14 emergencies, and I don't recollect at this time labeling 1S things in categories. I'm sure it would have included that i 16 sort of assessment but most of it was focused on EBS 17 messages. 18 Q Do you recall havinq that kind of training sort of f
; 19 interaction with Mr. McCatfref?
20 A No, I do not. ) 21 MS. hETSCHE: I don't have anything else on voir ! 22 dire. '
)
) 23 JUDGE SHON: No quest 3ons. 24 MR. PIRFO: No questions. I. 25 JUDGH PHYH 1 take it you accept the testimony? e l Ace FEDERAL REl'ORTERS. INC. l 202 347 37tU Nationwide Coserage MD-336-(M6
L _f 30614.0 3 3203 ( jKSW 1 '. MS. LETSCHE: Well, .I: do with the exception of
+
i 2 .the -- 1 3 JUDGE FRYE: The point you.have already made? I
'4 MS. LETSCHE: Yes, on Contention 49.
5 MS. MC CLESKEY: Would you'like to go ahead then 6 and swear in the testimony? 7 Witnesses, will you first identify yourselves for 8 the record in the order you are seated at the table. 9 WITNESS MILETI: Dennis Mileti, professor of 10 sociology at Colorado State. University. l 11 WITNESS PATTERSON: Michael Patterson. (} 12 13 WITNESS ROBINSON: WITNESS MC CAFFREY: Elai.ne Robinson. Brian McCaffrey.
'14 WITNESS DAVERIO: Charles Daverlo.
15 MS. MC CLESKEY: Do you have before you a-bound 16 document consisting of 95 pages entitled "LILCO's Testimony 17 on Contentions EX-38 (ENC Operations) and EX-39 (Rumor l 18 Control)" and a bound document containing 19 attachments'to I 19 that testimony, both dated March 13, 1987? 20 WITNESS ROBINSON: Yes. 21 MS. MC CLESKEY: And is the volume of LILCO's 22 testimony which you have before you marked as to portions 23 which have been withdrawn which I read previously into the 24 record? () 25 Tile WITNESSES: Yes. ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
*n L
g 30614.0 3204 Q KSW 1 MS. MC CLESKEY: Is this .y'our t.es timony?
$ q 1
2 THE WITNESSES: Yes. e 3 MS. MC CLESKEY: Was this prepared by you or under 4 Your supervision? g 5 THE WITNESSES: Yes. , 6 MS. MC CLESKEY: Dr. Mileti, do you have any 7 corieptions or changes to your testimony? 1 8 1* WITNESS MILETI: Yes, three. The first is on page 9 9 and carries over to page 10 and begins with the last 10 sentence that begins with the word " suffice." I would like 11 to insert the wordi" examination of" between the words "that" 12 and~~"over" Inuch thAt'that sentence reads " suffice it to say 13 here that examination of over 100 empirical studies," et 4 14 /getera. 15 3 .And then on page'10, line 2, after the 16 parenthetical, I would like to drop the words "have. 17 concluded,." and replace them with the following words: 18 "would lead one to conclude." 19 , My second change is on page 15, and it is in the 20 last sentence of the last full, paragraph. That paragraph 21 begins with the' words "in genera)," and the sentence in which 22 I would like to make a change is the last one that begins 23 with the word " additionally." I would like to insert a comma 24 after the word " channel" and a comma after the word 25 " frequency." c ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
g s30614.0 (,)KSW 3205~ 1 My third and last change is on page 90. That-2 change'is at the end of the last paragraph, just prior to 3 question 170. I would like to insert the following new-4 sentence: "However, 700 to 1000 or so people (a small 5 fraction of the estimated 144,000 evacuees) did report for 6 monitoring to a center in Middletown starting about two weeks 7 after the accident." 8 Those complete my changes and additions.
'9 JUDGE FRYE: Could you read the last one again?.
s 10 WITNESS MILETI: Certainly. "However, 700 to 1000 11 or so people (a small fraction of the estimated 144,000
/') 12 evacuees) did report for monitoring to a center in Middletown U
13 starting-about two weeks after the accident." 14 MS. MC CLESKEY: Mr. McCaffrey, do you have any 15 changes, additions or corrections -- 16 JUDGE FRYE: Could you hold on one moment? 17 MS. MC CLESKEY: Yes. 18 Do you have any additions or corrections to the 19 testimony, Mr. McCaffrey? 20 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: Yes, I do. The first change 21 is on page 2. In the middle of the page where it says 22 " manager" I need to insert a sentence before that that says, 23 "Since April 1, 1987, I am vice president of administration 24 for Long Island Lighting Company." I would then cross out () 25 the word "I am" and insert "previously I was" and then picks ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
-gq30614.0-(,)KSW 3206 1 up " manager of NOSD." 2 My second change is on page 24. In the answer.to 3 question 3'8, the second line, the sentence begins " existing- ' 4 -Savin copiers"'I would want to put a bracket with an insert 5 reading "[with 50 copies per. machine capacity]".
~
6 Continuing with that sentence, two lines later at 7 .the end of the sentence it says "will be UPS. circuit." I 8 would like to cross out the following: "With a UPS circuit," 9 and then the entire bracket ending up "with. backup power." 10 -It now reads, "one of which-can be backup generator 11 supplied." {} 12 13 My next-change is on page 25, third line, where the number 35 is, I would like.to change that to 25230, so 14 25-30. 15 The last change is on page 45, the last line to 16 the answer to question 86 says, "then,"'t-h-e-n, should read 17 "t-h-a-n." That completes the corrections.
-18 MS. MC CLESKEY: With these changes, including the 19 withdrawn material marked, is this testimony true and correct 20 to the best of your knowledge and belief?
21 THE WITNESSES: It is. 22 MS. MC CLESKEY: Judge Frye, all of the changes 23 announced by the witnesses and the withdrawals I previously 24 announced have been marked in the copies given to the court 1 ) 25 reporter. I move this testimony into evidence and ask that ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
~ l
-1 i
l
, x30614.0
( ,KSW
) 3207 L it be bound into the record as if read.
2 JUDGE FRYE: Without objection so ordered. 3 MS. LETSCHE: I know I said a minute ago I didn't 4 have any objections. On further reflection, I would like the 5 opportunity to review this evening LILCO's testimony a little 6 more carefully just to see if there's anything else that, in 7 light of your rulings, I believe needs to be stricken. I did 8 not have time to go through that this morning just having 9 received your order this morning. If I do have anything else 10 I will report it tomorrow morning. 11 MS. MC CLESKEY: I object to that request. We 12 received the order on Friday. We went through the testimony 13 and identified what we wanted to withdraw and if any other 14 party wanted to move to strike they should have done that 15 today. 16 JUDGE FRYE: We'll give her an opportunity to look 17 at it this evening. 18 JUDGE SHON: I would appreciate that opportunity 19 also. 20 JUDGE FRYE: Sure. 21 MS. MC CLESKEY: The witnesses are ready for 22 cross-examination, Judge Frye. 23 CROSS-EXAMINATION 24 MS. LETSCHE: I would like you all to turn first G
! ) 25 to page 6 of your testimony, and I have some general ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6M6
,- 30614.0
.()KSW 3208 1 questions on your overall summary of your testimony before we 2 get into the specifics. Let me direct these to you, 3 Mr. Daverio. You reference on pa'ge 6 a FEMA deficiency 4 identified in the FEMA report. Is it your testimony that the 5 insufficient copying capability at the ENC was the only. flaw 6 in ENC operations that was demonstrated during the exercise? 7 WITNESS DAVERIO: I'm not sure I understand what 8 you mean by " flaw." Under FEMA's definitions it was the only 9 deficiency. There were ARCAs'that were also identified. 10 MS. LETSCHE: Is it your testimony that the only 11 flaws demonstrated during the exercise in ENC operations _were 12 the deficiencies and ARCAs identified by FEMA in their [} 13 report? 14 WITNESS DAVERIO: I think in our testimony we also 15 talk about some other things that we have corrected to 16 improve.the process and to streamline information. One 17 . reference that comes to mind is 381, the new attachment that 18 gives summary information, so there were changes we have made 19 based on our review of FEMA's report that I don't know are 20 specifically addressed in those three but I think it is in 21 our testimony. 22 MS. LETSCHE: My question was not with respect to 23 the changes you have made in response to FEMA's ARCAs and 24 deficiencies but whether it is your testimony that the only ( 25 flaws in ENC operations that were demonstrated during the ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-(M6
.fm- 30614.0-3209
-(_)KSW 1 exercise were the ones identified by' FEMA in its report as 2 deficiencies or ARCAs.
3 WITNESS DAVERIO: I'm struggling with what you' 4 mean by the word " flaw." If you could define what you are 5 looking for maybe I could answer. I have defined what I 6 think we have done. We had some deficiencies, some ARCAs. 7 Our review of that led us to make other changes to streamline 8 the process. I don't know if you consider that a flaw or 9 not, but that's -- 10 JUDGE FRYE: Do you consider that a flaw? You 11 made some changes to streamline the process. Were they made 12 in response to what you consider flaws? (}1 13 WITNESS DAVERIO: It was made in response to what
'14 we thought would make our plan better based on experiences 15 during the exercise. I'wouldn't use the word " flaw." I'have 16 trouble with the word " flaw." That's why I'm asking for,a 17 definition.
18 JUDGE FRYE: We're asking you what you regard as a O < 19 flaw. 20 WITNESS DAVERIO: If you take the word " flaw" as I 21 defined it as a deficiency or an area requiring additional 22 action, yes, I would consider it flaws, but that's not to say 23 I consider them a significant deficiency in the plan. I just ' 1 24 felt there were things we could improve, we were making () 25 revisions to that procedure at the time and we continued to ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
~
l i 7 .-30614.0' ttv IKSW 3210 1 make that revision so I consider it a flaw in.the broader
~
2 sense and that's why I looked for guidance in definition. 3 MS. LETSCHE: If you have_ trouble with the word 4 " flaw" let me substitute the word " problem's." In terms of 5 problems demonstrated in ENC operations, am I correct that 6 'the matters identified as deficiencies and ARCAs-by FEMA are 7 the only problems which you believe were demonstrated in the 8 ENC operations during the exercise? 9 WITNESS DAVERIO: I think I have answered that 10 question. 'I have-defined those two and we have made some 11 changes that I don't know someone else would define
/'T 12 specifically in response to those ARCAs or deficiencies. We O
13 have made some changes to streamline the process because we 14 thought we could make the process.more efficient. 15 MS. LETSCHE: Other than correcting the copier 16 problems and doing things which you believe would streamline 17 the process, or -- let me start again. 18 Other than copier problems and a need to 19 streamline the process, is it your testimony that there were 20 any other problems in ENC operations demonstrated during the 21 exercise? 22 WITNESS DAVERIO: In general I think those are the 23 significant problems. There may have been other little 24 problems here and there that I can't recal) at this present () 25 time, though. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
r 3211 ( )K W
~1 MS. LETSCHE: Now later on in that paragraph you 2 say you believe many of the problems alleged in-Contention 3 X-38 are trivial. In fact, you believe, don't you, as a 4 panel, that there are not any alleged in Contention 38 that 5 are_not' trivial; right?
6 WITNESS DAVERIO: Could.you point me to that 7 sentence? Oh, the last sentence? 8 MS. LETSCHE: Yes, the last sentence in that 9 paragraph. 10 WITNESS DAVERIO: No, I wouldn't agree with that. 11 I think if we did not do something with the copying problem
;f")
V 12 that would not be a trivia] problem. I think we have 13 . corrected that. I don't see that as a problem. I think as 14 our sentence says, we believe many of them are trivial but
.15 I'm not saying all of them are.
16 MS. LETSCHE: Other than the copier problem can 17 you identify for me any others in Contention X-38 that you 18 believe are not trivial? 19 WITNESS DAVERIO: I think we all bring a different 20 perspective to this example. My problem as a planner is my 21 concerns with producers and how we do things, so I would 22 think that the one I considered not trivial was the copying 23 one because it led to a deficiency in not being able to get 24 hard copies out. Other panel members may have other things () 25 that they think more significant, but as a planner I worry
/\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 l
30614.'0' KSW 3212-h-s..
~1 abou't those problems.
2 MS. LETSCHE: If anyone else on the. panel has in 3 mind a problem alleged in Contention X-38 other than the
-4 copier problem as something which is not trivial, I would 5 like'to hear it.
6 . WITNESS MILETI: Let me say that I don't think 7 that whatever you mean'by the word " trivial," I pointed out 8 two things I identified as problems related to the EBS 9 messages. I know that's.not related to the ENC operations, 10 but there is some overlap, and that EBS messages and news 11 releases are basically the same thing. ('. 12 13
.MS. LETSCHE: But you conclude with respect to those two problems that neither one of them are serious is 14 that right?
15 WITNESS MILETI: And -- 16 MS. LETSCHE: Is that right, Dr. Mileti? 17 WITNESS MILETI: Shall I finish that question t 18 before or after I answer the last one? 19 JUDGE FRYE: Just answer her question. 20 MS. LETSCHE: You consider those two EBS problems 21 as not significant; is that right? 22 WITNESS MILETI: It depends on what you mean in 23 significant reference to. 24 MS. LETSCHE: I'm referring to your testimony when O 25 vee te 1
- a b e e t t h e s e tw e i:e S gred1e vee ceec1eee 1 veer ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6 4 6
l 30614.0
);KSW 3213 J
1 testimony that they are not significant problems, don't you? 2 WITNESS MILETI: Where in my testimony are you 3 referring? 4 MS. LETSCHE: I believe it is on page 14 and page 5 15; and in particular, the answer to question 17, "do you 6 consider this a serious problem," answer, "no," and in the 7 answer to question 18, at the end of the first paragraph, 8 this inadequacy is not a major deal. 9 WITNESS MILETI: That's correct but I still 10 wouldn't classify those as trivial. That's why I pointed 11 them out in my testimony.
~
12 MS. LETSCHE: All right, any others that you don't U; 13 consider trivial in terms of problems alleged in Contention 14 X-38? 15 WITNESS MILETI: I don't think I would use the 16 word " trivial" in relation to any of them. Any of the 17 problems or lessons learned in the exercise. 18 MS. LETSCHE: You sponsored this answer in the 19 testimony, didn't say you, on page 6 that we are discussing 2D here? The answer begins on page 5 and says "all witnesses." 21 WITNESS MILETI: That's correct. I am at a loss 22 to find the word " trivial" in that answer. 23 MS. LETSCHE: In the last sentence in the first 24 paragraph. ( I 25 WITNESS MILETI: That sentence says that many of ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage MX)-336-6646
,- 30614.d 3214-()'KSW 1 the problems alleged in Contention 38 are trivial, and when 2 one looks at some of the particular issues that are 3 addressed, some of them are more important than.others. 4 MS. LETSCHE: Other than-the two EBS messages that 5 you discussed, you pointed out to us later in this testimony, 6 are there any problems alleged in Contention X-38 which you 7 believe are not trivial? 8 WITNESS MILETI: I think all of the lessons that
- 9 were learned during the exercise are important lessons.
10 MS. LETSCHE: ,Does that mean you believe all of 11 the problems or none of the problems alleged in Contention {} 12 13 X-38 are trivial? WITNESS MILETI: In the sense that they would 14 affect the public health and safety, when put in context and 15 looked at overall affairs of the exercise that day, one can. 16 make a judgment that things went fairly well. 17 MS. LETSCHE: That wasn't my question. The 18 question is, are you now saying that you believe that all of 19 the problems alleged in Contention X-38 are or -- I'm sorry, 20 that none of the problems alleged in Contention X-38 are 21 trivial? 22 WITNESS MILETI: I don't think that a lesson 23 Learned from something as elaborate as an exercise could and 24 should be cast as trivial. I think they are all important () 25 lessons, but this sentence is not referring to the lessons ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646 I
f-(30614.0 jKSW 3215 1 learned in the exercise. It is referring to the catalog of 2 problems that were presented in the contention, many of which 3 are nits. 4 MS. LETSCHE: That's what my question was l 5 referring to, in fact all my questions have been with respect l 6 to the problems alleged in Contention X-38, so if you would 7 focus on that for a minute instead of the lessons learned 8 this is my question: Is your testimony that any of the 9 problems alleged in Contention X-38 are not trivial, and.I 10 will set aside the copier problems because Mr. Daverio said 11 he thinks those were not trivial. 12 WITNESS MILETI: If you are asking me could I have f~}s-13 written a better contention, I would have written the 14 contention differently. I think many of the things listed in 15 the contention address nits and don't look at the overall 16 picture which is the point at hand. 17 JUDGE FRYE: Were all of the matters addressed 18 nits in your opinion? 19 WITNESS MILETI: As I recollect one of the many l 20 contentions or istues presented regarding the EBS message l 21 address a thing that I don't consider a nit, and that is as 22 explained in my testimony, I believe, on whatever page it was t 23 that that I present my point of view with the problems with l I 24 the ERS messages. I point out two things there. One, that () 25 the message that 40 percent of EPA evacuation guidelines, l \ i l /\CE-FEDERAL REPORTERS. lNC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
(-c30614.0
)KSW' 3216 1 radiation amounts were at the 10-mile boundary-was not 2 explained. I think I agree with.the county that that's 3 something I would not call a' nit.
4 JUDGE FRYE: Other than that were'there any 5 matters.that you would not call a nit? 6 WITNESS MILETIt- A-second'one, the statement that 7 a very, minor release of-radiation'has' occurred and nobody in 8 that EBS message said what very minor was.or where it was, 9 and I don't consider'that a nit but those things need:to be-10 put in context in terms of the overall --- 11 JUDGE FRYE: Those are the matters that'you 3 12 considered not to be nits. 13 . WITNESS MILETI: Is.that correct. That's why I-14 singled them out. 15 MS. LETSCHE: Am I correct that-everyone'else onL 4 16 the panel agrees that with the exception of the copier f' 17 problem identified by Mr.'Daverio and the two'EBS comments 10 Dr. Mileti has made, that all the other problems alleged in 19 Contention X-38 are trivial? 20 WITNESS ROBINSON: I think-that looking at it 21 again in a global or overall sense, there are problems that 22 -are generic to exercises as a whole because of the way you v 23 are operating from a scenario rather than in a real world i: i 24 situation with its many sources of feedback and information l .( ) 25 and also because of the collapsed time situation but I don't i l i ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
s 30614.0
)KSW - 3217 1 think that was in any way peculiar to this exercise; it is 2 simply-generic to exercises as a whole.
-3 JUDGE FRYE: But'are any of the. matters that are 4 brought up in the contention now other than the ones that 5 have been identified by Dr. Mileti and Mr. Daverio, in your 6 opinion, not nits,'are not trivial?
7 WITNESS ROBINSON: No, because I think the copying 8 problem -- the copiers breaking down caused problems for the 9 overall smoothness of operation, and for the perception of 10 'its operation, and that made it very serious even'though you 11 could buy new copiers and better copiers. Other than that I 1 1 12 found the examples were, for the most part, picked out'of 13 context and in terms of the volume of communication that day, 14 I might not use the word " nits" but I think I would use 15 " trivial." 16 WITNESS DAVERIO: I,et me say one thing. I quickly 17 scanned through the contention while everyone else was 18 speaking. You also have to take into at: count some of the 19 issues subject of a contention themselves and if the ENC f 20 didn't have information because let's say the road' impediment 21 so the ENC didn't function the way it was supposed to, I 22 don't see that as an ENC problem per se. It may have been a 23 problem with how they handled the impediment but you can't 24 say it was an ENC problem that they might not have known the 4 O 2s answer to the question at 12:00 when they didn't have the
?
- ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
.-- _ . _ _ . . _ ~ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ - - . . . _
, s30614.0
- xl'KSW 3218 1 information. That, I would think, is an ENC trivial 2 problem. You have_to look at the overall contentions in the 3 long run to see whether you rule on impediments, but I think 4 our testimony speaks to those issues.
5 WITNESS PATTERSON: I would add without using 6 either word " nits" or " trivial" that much of the concerns 7 raised in the contention I would characterize as being 8 highly, highly subjective, specifically by that I mean that 9 where the contention attempts to state how a member of the 10 press or the media would react to something or not react to 11 something.
'h 12 JUDGE FRYE: I gather from that when you say you
(^/ (. 13 would regard them as being subjective, you are saying it is 14 very speculative? 15 WITNESS PATTERSON: Yes, sir. 16 JUDGE FRYE: Thank you. 17 MS. LETSCHE: Mr. Daverio, at the very beginning 18 of this answer, at the bottom of page 5, you all state that 19 none of the subparts allege a serious problem, and we're 20 talking about Contention 38, because they concern the 21 dissemination of information to the press and not to the 22 public. I take it that that is an opinion which the entire 23 panel shares; is that right? 24 WITNESS DAVERIO: I don't speak for all the panel, f ( ,1 25 but I assume they do. ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmcrage 80tk336-u>46
.,-q30614.0 /q )KSWl 3219 2
1 WITNESS MILETI: I certainly do, yes. 2 WITNESS ROBINSON: Yes. 3 WITNESS PATTERSON: -Yes'. 4 WITNESS M,C CAFFREY: Yes. 5 MS. LETSCHE: Now, in the first full paragraph.on 6 page 6, you give a little summary about Contention X-39, 7 Now, am I correct that the bottom line opinion of the panel 8 with respect to the time lags alleged this Contention X-39 is 9 that.those also are trivial or insignificant problems; is 10 that right? 11 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: That's correct. 12 MS. LETSCHE: And I take it that in addition, all
) - 13 the problems identified in Contention X-39 are in your view 14 addressed by the dealing with the broken copier problem that 15 you discuss in your testimony. And the distribution.
16 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: On X-39 there's a number of 17 ways in which the process of providing rumor contro] 18 responses even though they were hardly rumors during the 19 exercise, the summary sheet that is now going.to be provided 20 to the call boards and district offices will approve it. 21 That's a major change in the OPIPs, to get that information 22 out to the front. That will be an example of the 23 improvements we have implemented for that. I would Jike in l 24 addition to comment that our general view is that the time i l ( 25 lines for obtaining the response and the process that we i
/\CE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6 !
. _ , , _ . . _ _ , _ . _ _ . . , . . . , . . . _ - - . _ - . . _ . _ _ . . . . , . _ _ _ _ _ . __,._____ _ _ __ ._, ,_ ,__ l
m 30614.0 3220 v)KSW 1 would go through to make sure the response is accurate is by 2 itself time-consuming and therefore the response times 3 themselves are appropriate. 4 MS. LETSCHE: Turning turn to page 7, please. I 5 would like to focus on the next to last sentence in this 6 paragraph, which begins, "There was inconsistency and 7 accuracy." You state in that sentence that -- that sentence 8 has a lot in it. Let me see if I can define some terms up 9 front so we know what we're talking about throughout the 10 cross-examination. You talk here about the consistency and 11 accuracy in public information. Am I correct that what you (~'i 12 are referring to in that sentence for your conclusion is the \s' 13 EBS messages that were generated during the exercise? 14 WITNESS MILETI: I believe what we were referring 15 to in that sentence was a judgment based on looking at all of 16 the information that was available to the public as simulated 17 that day, which certainly would have included the EBS 18 messages as they were simulated, but not excluded to. 19 MS. LETSCHE: It would include whatever press 20 releases were simulated that day; is that right? 21 WITNESS MILETI: It would include all information 22 as simulated that would have been in the public domain that 23 day, yes. 24 MS. LETSCHE: I want to get that defined. We have i 25 the EBS messages, and am I correct that we have the press ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
e
'30614.0 3221
.(a)KSW 1 ' releases that were simulated during'that day; is that right? 2 WITNESS MILETI: Those two, yes. 3 MS. LETSCHE: The press releases would include 4 both.LILCO andLLERO press releases or did you have in mind 5 only the LERO press release in this sense? 6 WITNESS MILETI: No, I had in mind LERO, LILCO arid ' 7 any other scrap of information that would have been available 8 to the public that day. 9 MS. LETSCHE: Other than the LERO and LILCO press 10 releases and EBS messages, what other scraps of information 11 were available to the public during the exercise that you had 12 in mind here? 13 WITNESS MILETI: As simulated, there wasn't much 14 other information that would have been available, but had 15 that exercise been a real emergency, there certainly would 16 'have been other information available. 17 MS. LETSCHE: Am I correct then that your 18 statement in the summary portion of your testimony is based. 19 upon the EBS messages, the LILCO and lex 0 press releases that 20 were disseminated during the exercise? 21 WITNESS MILETI: And also the other sources of 22 information. 23 MS. LETSCHE: What are the other sources of 24 information that you refer to? () 25 WITNESS MILETI: The interviews at ENC that would ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-33M646
f: 30614.0 3222 (3fKSW 1 have occurred and did occur between reporters and the 2 spokespersons there, as well as the press conferences that 3 were held there. 4 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: I would just add to what 5 Dr. Mildti just said. The press conference we regard as a 6 very important part of the process, because while the EHS
'7 messages are the front line for getting current information 8 to the people the press conferences are a very important 9 forum for the media to come to get consistent information 10 because LERO and LILCO spokespersons deal directly so you get 11 the information coordinated so it is consistent and correct, 12 so those press conferences would be added to Dr. Mileti's
(')) . 13 responses as an important part of that conclusion that's 14 referenced here. 15 WITNESS ROBINSON: In addition, there-were also 16 less formal contacts with reporters that day following the -- 17 directly following the press briefings and in the intervals 18 between them where specific information was asked for and 19 provided. 20 MS. LETSCHE: Ms. Robinson, did you have any such 21 less-formal contacts with reporters other than those that 22 appeared at the individual tapes of the news conferences? 23 WITNESS ROBINSON: Yes, I did. 24 MS. LETSCHE: Were those less formal contacts O 2s recerded er reverted a#vwhere te veer weewtedue? ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33M686
,- 30614.0 3223
-()KSW 1 WITNESS ROBINSON: Several are recorded in the 2 logs that were kept. They were not on tape because most of 3 them took place out of the formal setting of the plant where 4 the press conferences were held. 5 MS, LETSCHE: But they were reficcted what, in the 6 player logs? 7 WITNESS ROBINSON: Yes, and in one particular case 8 in one of the stories that was produced. 9 MS. LETSCHE: Would they also have been reflected 10 in observer logs to your knowledge? 11 WITNESS ROBINSON: Offhand, I am not certain that (~') 12 they were in the observer logs but they certainly are in the v 13 ENC player log. 14 MS. LETSCHE: Mr. McCaffrey, did you also have any 15 contacts with reporters other than those which appear in the 16 press conference individual tapes? 17 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: Yes, I did. In addition to 18 that, and I will elaborate on that further if I might, but 19 when we would end press conferences one of the things we 20 would specifically point out to the media assembled, both 21 written press as well as radio and TV, is that technical 22 people, engineers, would be left in the room to provide 23 supplemental information on any information we had provided. 24 So while we were going back in to get updated information (~'h 25 because theoretically we had been out of touch for 30 (_) ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Natioitwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
30614.0 (-s)KSW 3224 1 minutes, let's say, an engineer would be left there to 2 provide clarification to the press that were there, and they 3 would come back into the room, so they were never left 4 without access to people to provide information on the events 5 taking place. 6 MS. LETSCHE: To your knowledge, Mr. McCaffrey, 7 were any of those contacts recorded in any way other than in 8 the logs referenced by Ms. Robinson? 9 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: I don't know if they were 10 recorded. I personally observed them. In addition, there 11 were two occasions where press would arrive late, had missed (~'j 12 the first one or two press conferences, and I was asked to do V 13 a separate standup following a regular press conference so 14 they could then play the information to their viewing 15 audience. 16 MS. LETSCHE: Am I correct that the public 17 information which is referenced in this sentence of your 18 summary that we're discussing here refers to the EBS 19 messages, the LILCO and LERO press releases, the ENC press 20 conferences that were conducted or disseminated during the 21 exercise? 22 WITNESS ROBINSON: And the less formal contacts as 23 well. 24 WITNESS MILETI: It would also include all other ( 25 forms of emergency information that would occur had the ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
,h .o A 30614.0 KSW 3225 I exercise been real as well as other forms simulated that.
2 day.
.3 MS. LETSCHE: Walt a second. The way I read the 4 sentence it is attempting to talk about'what happened during 5 the exercise. Are you now saying that you were including in 6 this sentence things other than what happened during the 7 exercise in this conclusion?
8 WITNESS MILETI: One would also include, yes, 9 other things that one would expect in an emergency. But 10 other things.were simulated; for example, rumor control. 11 MS, LETSCHE: Let's go back to my question before 12 we-get off on a tangent. The question focused on the 13 sentence where it says there was enough consistency and 14 accuracy in the public information so that the public- would 15 focus on EBS messages and would have responded in ways that 16 would not detract from the public health and safety. We do 17 not believe a substantial shadow evacuation would occur. Am 18 I correct that this conclusion is intended to discuss what 19 public information was disseminated or simulated during the 20 exercise? 21 WITNESS MILETI: Yes, it would be applicable to 22 that. It would also be applicable if one imagined, as I 23 imagine is the point of an exercise, that it were a real 24 emergency _and tried to estimate what real behavior would be 25 like. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
i 1 I , 30614.0 ( ,J< KSW
! 3226 1 MS. LETSCHE: Let's talk about that separately 2 when we get to that issue. Focusing on this sentence, am I 3 correct that the public information referred to here includes 4 the EBS messages, LILCO and LERO press releases, the ENS S press conferences and the informal press conferences 6 mentioned.
7 WITNESS MILETI: It certainly would include that 8 but not limited to it. It would include the other forms of 9 information simulated that day dur5ng the exercise. 10 MS. LETSCHE: Can you tell me what else you 11 intended with reference to public information in this (N 12 intent? ,g 13 WITNESS MILETI: I was doing that before you 14 interrupted. I said, for example, rumor control. 15 MS. LETSCHE: By that do you mean the responses to 16 the simulated public inquiries that were made by the district 17 offices and personnel? 18 WITNESS MILETI: It would include that but not be 19 limited to that. It would also include the aggressive 20 character of rumor control function that occurred that day. 21 MS. LETSCHR: That aggressive character took place 22 at. ENC press conferences and during the informal contacts, 23 didn't it? 24 WITNESS MILETI: As I recollect, the example I'm O familiar with is when Darryl -- I forget his last name - Q 25 ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-33MM6
- fm 30614.0 3227
()KSW 1 stepped forward and said on the basis of hearing that some 2 people believe that the nuclear plant could blow up, he 3 recommended to the media that they get out word to the public 4 that that was an a physical impossibility. 5 MS. LETSCHE: That was during the press 6 conference, wasn't it, Dr. Mileti? 7 WITNESS MILETI: It was certainly on the press 8 conference tape and it certainly was filmed at the ENC. 9 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: It was at a press conference 10 and it was the direct result of media monitoring and rumor 11 control function where I, for instance, would go down 12 routinely after a press conference to observe what was going 13 on over the media and inquire from the media monitoring 14 people what they were seeing, whether anything was 15 inconsistent, whether they were seeing anything that we would 16 consider a rumor. In addition I would go survey the rumor 17 control room, talk to the people there, and on that basis, we 18 determined whether we had to go out to correct an item that 19 could be construed as a rumor. The only one that came up 20 that day was the one on whether a nuclear plant can blow up 21 like a bomb. We chose to fix that with the maximum media 22 coverage we could get, which was during a press conference. 23 MS. LETSCHR: In terms of public information 24 through the rumor control mechanism, did that dissemination 25 or simulated dissemination of public information take place ACE-FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Cmcrage f443364M6 L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ -
i 7 30614.0 3228 ?vlKSW 1 through any means other than during ENC press conferences, 2 during ENC informal contacts with reporters or through the 3 simulated contacts with the district office call boards and 4 customer service call boards on the day of the exercise? 5 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: As soon as I don't consider 6 anything that occurred truly a rumor, nevertheless the 7 process was to provide the answer to the question and provide 8 it back to the call l e,t t.cr , and I don't believe any of it 9 really could be construed as a rumor that would have mass 10 effect. 11 MS. LETSCHE: Do you disagree wi th Dr. Mileti's 12 testimony that the conclusion we have been discussing here 13 about there being enough consistency and accuracy in public 14 information that the rumor control activities are not 15 included in the public information referred to in that 16 sentence? 17 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: They are included, they are 10 just of lesser importance. 19 MS. LETSCHE: Now, Dr. Mileti, are there any other 20 -- is there any other public information that was 21 disseminated on the day of the exercise to which you had 22 reference in this conclusion that we're discussing? 23 WITNESS MILETI: I think we have a pretty good 24 list of the major ways that information to the public was 25 simulated that day. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-37(O Nationwide Coverage 8(0-336 4 646
7, 30614.0 3229 Ic)KSW 1 MS. LETSCHE: Did you have anything else in mind 2 when you wrote this testimony other than the ones we have 3 Listed? 4 WITNESS MILETI: I was focusing mainly on the EBS S messages and talking about the things we are talking about 6 now, but I would not exclude other things. I don't recollect 7 any other at this time. 8 MS. LETSCHE: The conclusion of this sentence is 9 that in light of the public information disseminated during 10 the exercise, that the public's response would have been such 11 that that response would not have detracted from public ( 12 health and safety, do you generally mean by that that the 13 LILCO recommendations would be followed by the public? 14 WITNESS MILETI: I would like to speak to that 15 because you have said that any number of times today and as I 16 have been listening -- 17 MS. LETSCl]E Wait a second. Let me ask my la question, Dr. Mileti, and see if you can answer my question 19 instead of responding to what I may have said in argument to 20 the board. Let me restate the question so you understand it. 21 In this sentence of your testimony, where you say 22 there was enough consistency and accuracy in public 23 information so the public would have focused on the EBS 24 messages and would have responded in ways that would not have 25 detracted from public health and safety, do you mean as you ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
73 30614.0 (._.) K S W 3230 1 discuss later in your testimony, for instance on the top of 2 page 16, that LILCO's protective action recommendations would 3 have been followed? 4 WITNESS MILETI: It has never been the point of 5 view of me or anybody I know that people would obey LILCO's 6 recommendations, and I don't believe those words. 7 MS. LETSCHE: Followed. 8 WITNESS MILETI: The point is whether the public 9 can be provided with the information to lead them to form 10 ideas of what they need to do or not do and then be able to 11 make the decision on their own. You can call that following (~'3 12 LILCO's recommendations, but that smacks of the public as N_/ 13 little tin soldiers and no one has ever perceived them in 14 that way. 15 MS. LETSCHE: Let me just focus for you my 16 question. I'm focusing on your testimony where you talk 17 about your opinion that given the public information 18 disseminated during the exercise the response would not have 19 detracted from public health and safety. My question to you, 20 sir, is do you mean by that, by not detracting from public 21 health and safety, that the public would follow LILCO's 22 protective action recommendations as you discuss on page 16 23 of your testimony? 24 WITNESS MILETI: I mean by that that the public /% i
) 25 who needed to evacuate would have done so. Most of the ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-(646
v
~ .
)
j-J3 0614 . 0 '
-l 3231 JKSW 1 people:who need not evacuate likely would not have done so.. ~
2 MS. LETSCHE: I- assume!that you mean that the 3 definition of who needed~to and,who did not need to evacuate 4 would be the definition-provided by LILCO in its protective 5 action rt :ommendations; is-that right?' 6 . WITNESS MILETI: As was disseminated to the public , 7 via the' official warning system, yes. 8 MS.'LETSCHE: Now, am I correct'that the' 9 conclusion in this sentence, which is that there was-enough 10 consistency and accuracy in the public information 11 -disseminated so that the conclusion we have discussed would ("\- V 12 be arrived at, that that is:the panel's collective opinion on
'13 that; is that right?
14 WITNESS MTLETI: I don't know about th'e rest of 15 the panel,-but it is certainly:my opinion. However.I would-
~
16 also include other relevant emergency factors that I know are 17 important that extend beyond the important ones of 18 consistency and accuracy.
' 19 MS. LETSCHE: Am I correct, and I will address 20 this to the panel, that this standard of there being enough
-21 consistency and accuracy to public information, or in public 22 information, I'm sorry, is a standard or conclusion that this 23 panel has arrived at; is that right?
24 WITNESS ROBINSON: I would say that collectively ( )_ 25 based on the different perspectives we bring to it, yes. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage &c.336-6M6
m n 30614.0
-( )KSW 3232 1 MS. LETSCHE: This is not a standard.which is set 2 forth in any rules or regulations or documents.of which.you 3 'are aware; is that right?
4 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: As Ms. Robinson said, it is 5 based upon your different roles and participatings on the day 6 of the exercise and the pains we went through to make sure_we-7 traded information and were consistent. 8 MS. LETSCHE: Okay. Also in this sentence, you 9 conclude that because of the consistency and accuracy.which 10 you believe is enough, in the public information disseminated 11 during the exercise, that the public would have focused on
-D 12 the EBS messages. Am I correct that your reference there to 13 the public focusing on the EBS message means that the'public
_14 would listen to those to the exclusion of other_ sources of 15 information? s 16 WITNESS ROBINSON: Absolutely not. 17 MS. LETSCHE: You all in answer to question 5 l18 refer to and quote a few regulatory provisions. I take it 19 that it is your position that during the exercise, LILCO 20 demonstrated compliancL w th each one of these; is that 21 correct? 22 WITNESS ROBINSON: Yes, that both LILCO and LERO 23, did so. 24 MS. LETSCHE: Okay, now focusing for a minute on 25 the NUREG-0654 sections that you quote, at the bottom of that f5). -(' ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6616
5
<-J30614.0 3233
()KSW 1 page,-subpart A of Section G-4 refers to a spokesperson who 2 should have access to all necessary information. I'm 3 correct, aren't I, that the LERO spokesperson referred to 4 -there would'be_you, Ms.~ Robinson? 5 WITNESS ROBINSON: That's correct, or an alternate 6 if I was not available to participate. 7 MS. LETSCHE: During the exercise did anyone other 8 'than you function in that position? 9 WITNESS ROBINSON: No. 10 MS. LETSCHE: Mr. McCaffrey, the spokesperson for 11 LILCO was you; is that correct? 12 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: That's correct. ( 13 MS. LETSCHE: Am I correct that with respect to' 14 subpart B that you quote from Section G-4, that the exchange 15 of information among designated spokespersons which was 16 demonstrated during the exercise was that between 17 Mr. McCaffrey and Ms. Robinson; is that right? 18 WITNESS ROBINSON: That's correct.
~ 19 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: That's correct. I would like 20 to add something on item A, if I might, which we just 21 passed. The people specifically selected to be the technical 22 spokespersons are people who have had years of familiarity 23 with designing and constructing a plant.
24 MS. LETSCHE: Would you turn to page 8 of your () 25 testimony, please? Now, in the answer to question 7, you
,a-~__
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
,_x 30614.0
( I 3234 v'KSW I discuss something I believe you mentioned earlier in your 2 testimony, which is a hierarchy of various public information 3 activities. Now, I take it that this hierarchy that you 4 discuss is again one that the panel has collectively arrived 5 at after having looked at the different public information 6 functions that are out there; is that right? 7 WITNESS DAVERIO: I think, as our testimony says, 8 that if you look at the regulations and the guidance given by 9 the NRC and look at 10 CFC Section 5047 or in appendix E it 10 is clear that the 15-minute EBS requirement has to be, in the 11 federal regulations, a priority given to how you communicate (^} 12 with the public. I think that's not only our collective (./ 13 opinion but it is very easily supported by the regulation, 14 and then I think the others flow out of our collective 15 discussions. 16 WITNESS MILETI: I would add one thing to that 17 answer. The thing I would add is simply that it is clear 18 from an examination of how people receive and process risk 19 information during emergencies that the functional equivalent 20 of EBS system -- in this case it is an EBS system -- would 21 play a major role in shaping what the public does, and I 22 think that's a major factor in emergency planning and 23 response. 24 MS. LETSCHE: Mr. Daverio, the 15-minute 25 requirement that you referred to, that in the regulations ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
. _ _ ~ . . -.-
p 30614.'0 3235
- ~ U KSW 1 relates to the time in which an initial. notification was to 2 be made to the-public; is that right?'
, .3 WITNESS DAVERIO: But.the only way to make an
,4 initial notification to the public.within a 15-minute. time 5 -frame is develop a prompt notification system made up of your 6 sirens, an EBS radio system, so you can get quick, clear, 7 accurate, concise information'to the public. I-think if you 1
8 look at any site in this country, to my knowledge, they are 9 all geared around a siren system and'some kind of radio EBS. . 10 system,-whether the NOAA radio system, whether it be.some 11 other frequencies or private frequencies through-the EBS 12 network that is set up. I think it is clear that that's the O)' 13 way that regulation has been interpreted and everyone has 14 implemented'it. 15 MS. LETSCHE: At-the bottom of page 8, where you 16 are discussing the EBS messages,- and I'm talking about the 17 sentence which begins, "The messages contain the information 18 that is essential to the public." Do you see that carries 19 over to the next page? I assume that that conclusion stated 20 in that sentence is applicable to the messages used during 21 the exercise; is that right? 22 WITNESS DAVERIO: Yes. 23 MS. LETSCHE: Am I correct that when you say the 24 messages contain the information that is essential to the 25 public, that you mean that they contain all the information j ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
- _ - _ , . - - - . . - - - , , _ __.- .- - , - - - - , - . - , _ ~ - _ _ _ , , , - - - . ,
s 30614.0 3236
.)KSW 1 that is essential to the public?
2 WITNESS MILETI: I would say that that suggests 3 that the messages contained the sort of information that the 4 public needs in order to make.a good decision and then follow 5 through in terms of response; for example, information about 6 the risk, information about what they should do or not do, 7 how much time they have to do it in, and so forth, as I have 8 elaborated on in other parts of my testimony. 9 MS. LETSCHE: Am I correct in your opinion the 10 exercise messages, and we'll set aside the two comments you 11 made in your testimony, setting aside those two comments,
/'"T 12 that the exercise messages contain all of the information L.)
13 that the public needs to know to make their decision? 14 WITNESS MILETI: If by what you mean in terms of 15 setting aside in my testimony is the notion about a little 16 bit of radiation got out and 40 percent of EPA evacuation 17 guidelines, we need to set it aside, we included it and we 18 can include the whole ball of wax, but in any emergency 19 there's confusing information afoot and that even in looking. 20 at the EBS messages would not do, and I would be happy to if 21 you want me to pick them to death. I can pick anything to 22 death that I can pay for it through the university. 23 MS. LETSCHE: In your opinion did the messages 24 disseminated during the exercise contain all of the o 25 information that the public needs to know to make its t ) ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
., ,30614.0
)KSW 3237 1 decision on what to do?
2 WITNESS MILETI: It contained enough information 3 so that the public would come to behave well. 4 MS. LETSCHE: In your opinion did it contain all 5 of the information that is essential to the public, as you 6 state in your testimony on page 8? 7 WITNESS MILETI: Yes, when one looks at all of the 8 EDS messages as a whole. That's why I said it in my 9 testimony. 10 MS. LETSCHE: Now in this sentence you go on to 11 describe following the i.e. in the sentence certain matters (3 12 which I gather you believe were contained in those EDS
'R.)
13 messages, such as how the emergency events may affect public 14 health and safety and recommendations as to the protective 15 action that should be taken. Now, do you have the 16 attachments to your testimony? 17 WITNESS MILETI: Yes, I do. 10 MS. LETSCHE: And EBS messages are attachment B; i 19 is that right? 20 WITNESS MILETI: Yes, they are. 21 MS. LETSCHR: Would you go for me, Dr. Mileti, to 22 ERS message number 1? That is the very first one in 23 attachment B to your testimony. 24 WITNESS MILETI: I have it. 25 MS. LETSCHR: Now, would you point out for me ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-3364 646
~
s30614.0 ( )KSW 3238 v 1 where in that message the public is told how the emergency 2 events may affect their health and safety?
-3 WITNESS MILETI: We have to read the message 4 but --
5 MS. L E T S c il E : That's fine. Go ahead. 6 WITNESS MILETI: This doesn't say how people would 7 be affected by exposure to potential radiation, nor need 8 it -- 9 MS. LETSCHE: That was an answer to my question. 10 That's fine. 11 WITNESS MILETI: It was an incomplete one, f'N 12 WITNESS DAVERIO: You have to read what we said. O 13 It said events might affect public health and safety, telling 14 them that you should stay home. That's something that you 15 want people to take action. We talk about the no release of 16 radiation. We didn't say specifically what the radiation was 17 but that's because that message had no release of radiation 18 in it. 19 MS. LETSCHE: Was it your testimony that the 20 reference to the schools which is on, I guess, the second 21 page of that message, is all the information essential to the 22 public on how the emergency events may affect their health 23 and safety? 24 WITNESS DAVERIO: No you are taking one sentence O t ; 25 out of a four- or maybe more, five-page document saying tha t ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
-s 30614.0 f I KSW- 3239 wJ 1 one. sentence is the only thing. I think the way this is 2 structured, working with Dr. Mileti, is that at this level of 3 the emergency it gives the proper emergency message as to --
4 it is an alert, no release of radiation, no impact on you. 5 Precautionary, the schools should dismiss early or not start 6 their session, so you have to look at the event and then 7 weighing those criteria. You just don't randomly throw 8 different things into the message. 9 MS. LETSCHE: My question was -- 10 WITNESS ROBINSON: Excuse me -- 11 MS. LETSCHE: So we know what question we're (~} %.J 12 answering, my question was, where in EBS number 1 is the 13 following: How the emergency events may affect public health 14 and safety set forth. Dr. Mileti told me it wasn't in here, 15 although he told me it didn't need to be. You have now say, 16 Mr. Daverio, that in your opinion the information concerning 17 the schools does fill this function of how the emergency 18 events may affect public health and safety. 19 WITNESS DAVERIO: I think we didn't disagree. I'm 20 caying it has the right tone. You can interpret different 21 meanings in that event to mean different things. It talks to 22 there's no radiation and gives some guidelines or 23 recommendations as to what LERO thought protective action or 24 what action schools should take the day of the event. I'm O) ( 25 not saying il meets the definition; specifically I'm saying ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
30614.0. (' t KSW 3240 1 that type of information for this level of emergency is 2 appropriate and I think Dr.-Mileti and I agree on that. - 3 - WITNESS ROBINSON: -- Wait. There was one additional 4 factor and that is that'the'public, while it is not in here 5 for instance the health effects of a specific amount of 6 radiation, it does direct the public as to where that 7 .information can be found, which is in the other emergency 8 education materials that would be distributed. 9 MS. LETSCHE: My question, I understand everyone' 10 in the room understands that you all think these messages are 11 adequate. You have said that and we have gone over it in . 12 your conclusions so you don't need to keep'.saying that. My 13 question is focusing on your statement in your testimony 14 which is the messages contained certain information essential
- 15 to the public. One of the specifics that you all define i
16 within-that category is how the emergency events may affect 17 public health and safety. My question is trying to get an . 18 answer from the panel and maybe there is no answer, maybe 19 there are more than one and you don't agree, I'm trying to 20 find out what in EBS number 1 tells the public how the . 21 emergency events may affect their health and safety. 22 WITNESS MILETI: I would just repeat that to my 23 way of thinking it is not explicit nor should it be that the 24 minor list that we provide in the section of the testimony 25 that you are reading from just attempts to point a few things t ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80lb336-6M6
--g- %-y- --p,, , . - , , . _ . _ _ .% g..,.m.y_.-,_-.,mwp-- g_p..ge,3,-y-g.m.y y-e .-.-,.,-w y-,.,,.4,.yv.,,,y -r-&--,%,
-+g -- .--w , --
n 30614.0 3241 ( fKSW 1 out. We have a complete list later on in the tes timony, but 2 the criteria I wou]d use to evaluate emergency information, 3 including EBS messages, that doesn't suggest that every
.4 single one of the factors should exist in every one of the 5 EBS messages, and it would also be grossly inappropriate even 6 in a general emergency where massive amounts of radiation 7 .were escaping in one direction or another to talk to the 8 public about health effects of radiation and show them 9 pictures of people that have been exposed and what have you.
~
10 MS. LETSCHE: Do you mean by the statement how'the 11 emergency events may affect the public health and safety, do 12 you have in mind just this kind of health effect and dose? (Q> 13 WITNESS MILETI: If you are asking what kind of 14 information should be -- 15 MS. LETSCHE: I'm asking what you mean boy this 16 statement, Dr. Mileti, how the emergency events may affect 17 public health and safety. Did you have in mind in that 18 statement dose information and health effects? 19 WITNESS MILETI: I would say that people are going 20 to potentially, eventually and at the right point in time in + 21 the acquence of public information risk being exposed to i 22 radiation that -- particularly radiation is airborne and that 23 there are several alternative protective actions to protect , 24 oneself which I think is appropriate. i O 2s s. '81sc"8. r"is se"te ce >" veer testi e v sevs ! ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 4 202 347 3700 Natsonwide Cmerage 8(0-336 6646
f 30614.0 ( KSW > 3242 1 the messages'contain the information essential to the public, 2 1.e.,.the status of the emergency, how the emergency events 3 may affect the public health and safety, and recommendations 4 as to protective actions that must be taken. Did jou mean by. 5 how the emergency events may affect the public health and 6 safety just information about projected doses and health 7 effects? 8 WITNESS MILETI: I meant how people would be 9 exposed to radiation eventually and would need to do 10 something about it and how that exposure could occur. A lot 11 of people at TMI didn't know radiation was in the air. They 12 didn't go home because they thought it was heavier than air 13 and feared their basements, not in terms of giving them a
.14 lesson on biology.
15 MS. LETSCHE: Am I correct your reference to the 16 testimony how the emergency events may affect the public 17 health and safety was intended to refer only to projected 18 doses and health ef fects? 19 MS. MC CLESKEY: I object to the repetition of in 20 question which I think has been asked and answered. 21 JUDGE FRYE Overruled. 22 WITNESS MILETI: What I meant by that is that at 23 the appropriate time people should be informed that they 24 could be exposed to radiation, if that's the risk, that if 25 that radiation is airborne that that's where the radiation ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6646
n 30614.0 3243 fv)KSW 1 could be, and how to protect themselves from it. 2 WITNESS PATTERSON: I would point out early on in 1 3 the EBS message, it defines what an alert is. It says an l l 4 alert is one of four emergency classifications and involves j 5 conditions which could jeopardize the nuclear plant safety 6 system. 7 MS. LETSCHE: Dr. Mileti, going back to you, is it 8 your testimony that the only thing that the public needs to 9 know concerning how emergency events may affect their health 10 and safety is whether they have been exposed, where radiation 11 could be and the potential health effects? P 12 WITNESG MILETI: No, it certainly is not my 13 testimony. My testimony is that they could be exposed. I 14 would hope that the warnings came out prior to exposure, but 1 ! 15 I imagine there are scenarios in which that may not. be the 16 case and that the risk is in the air and what to do to l 17 protect themse]ves from the risk. 10 MS. LETSCllE: The what to do to protect
, 19 themselves, I assume you meant on page 9 by recommendations 20 for protective action that could be taken; is that correct?
21 WITNESS MILETI: That could also be considered 22 guidance. 23 MS. LETScilE : Going back to what you think the 24 public needs to know concerning how emergency events may 25 af fect public heal th and saf ety, am I correct that what you ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80tb336-6M6
30614.0 KSW 3244
.1 think.that should include is whether they could be' exposed, 2 where the radiation could be, those two things; is that -
3 right? 4 WITNESS MILETI - To inform them'that the risk-is S radiation, that the radiation could be in the air or wherever 6 else it could be. I'm not sure that it could be somewhere
- 7. else. I can't say that. And what to do about it.
8 MS. LETSCHE: Now, the EBS message number 1 9 doesn't have that information in it, does it? 10 WITNESS MILETI: It shouldn't have information,3f i 11 there isn't risk that people are being exposed. That should 12 be determined on the basis of what's going on in the 13 emergency. One wouldn't-say you are going to be~ exposed to T 14 radiation if you don't know yet that the public will be 2
-15 exposed to radiation, 16 MS. LETSCHE: EBS message number 2 doesn't have i
17 any of that information in it either, does it? 18 WITNESS MILETI: That's a point of debate. One 19 could look at EBS message number 2 where the phrase was i 20 crossed out "no release of radiation is imminent" and says "a 5 21 very minor release has occurred," and that's repeated on the 22
. last page of that message where it says "a very minor release
- 23 has occurred," and nothing else is said about that very minor l 24 release, and it is possible that some people could take that 25 to mean that a very minor release has occurred and that they i
5' i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
, . - .,. _ ,. _ . . . . . . . _ . . , , _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ , _ _ . _ . . , _ . . . , _ . , . , , _ . _ . _ - - . ~ . _ . . _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ , _ . _ - - - -
<m 30614.0
( )KSW 3245 v 1 could potentially be exposed because nothing was said about 2 where that radiation was. That's why I talked about that as 3 one of my -- I forget if I called it a problem or what have 4 you, but one of the things I was concerned about when I 5 looked at the EBS messages. 6 MS. LETSCHE: I take it that other than the two 7 references to a minor or very minor release of radiation 8 contained in EBS message number 2, that there isn't any other 9 of the information you have defined as how the events may 10 affect public health and safety in that message; is that 11 right? 12 WITNESS MILETI: No, and I'm happy to get real (')) R. 13 picky with you. There's another one. Look on page 3, it 14 says move all m31k-producing animals in zones A, H, C, D and 15 E, should be moved into shelters and placed on stored feed. 16 That would potentially lead some people to believe that they 17 should move their milk-producing animals into shelters and 18 placed on stored feed and could lead some people to believe 19 that that radiation is there. 20 MS. LETSCHR: The message doesn't say anything 21 that people could conclude from this, though, does it; that's 22 not in the message, is it? 23 WITNESS MILETI: It says a very minor release has 24 occurred. (n) 2S MS. LETSCHE: Doesn't say any of the other things ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33M646
, 30614.0 (v JKSW 3246 i you just said the public could conclude, does it?
2 WITNESS MILETI: They could conclude that they 3 could be exposed. 4 MS. LETSCilE Just focus on this: Does the 5 message say anywhere that the public could be exposed to 6 radiation? 7 WITNESS MILETI: No, and as it. turned out it 8 shouldn't because they couldn't be exposed to radiation at 9 this point in the scenario. 10 MS. LETSCilE: Now would you look for me at EBS 11 message number 3? Would you identify for me where in this (^} v 12 message, EBS 3, any of these things you have defined as 13 explaining how the emergency events may affect public health 14 and safety, and your definition was whether people could be 15 expoued and where the radiation was. 16 WITNESS MILETI: liero again it has the same 17 problem the last EDS message b.d. It says a minor release of 18 radiation occurred at 8:19. 19 MS. LETSCHE: And has the same milk-producing 20 animal recommendation in it also. I assume your comments 21 would be the same as the ones you made before about those. 22 In there anything else in this message which fits your 23 definition of how the emergency events may affect public 24 health and satety? 25 WITNESS DAVERIO: 1 think there are two others Acn FEDERAL. RneonTuns, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage milk 316-M46
,30614.0
- )KSW 3247 v
1 that I can spot that fit Dr. Mileti's definition. 2 MS. LETSCHE: Let me get Dr. Mileti's answer 3 first, Mr. Daverio. 4 WITNESS MILETI: It says that field monitoring 5 teams have been organized and dispatched to collect data on 6 the amount of the release. That would Icad people t.o 7 conclude that an effort was under way to determine how much 8 radiation had been released and where it was. 9 MS. LETSCIIR : But that conclusion is not stated in 10 the message, is it? 11 WITNESS MILETI: No, but I think people would have 12 concluded that if they said field monitoring teams have been N]J 13 dispatched, et cetera, that field monitoring teams had been 14 dispatched to collect the data that the message said they 15 were col.lecting data about, which was the radiat. ion. 16 MS. LETSCllEt That fits into your definition of 17 how the emergency events may affect public health and safety; 10 is that correct? 19 WITNESS MILETI: That tells about how they were 20 trying to assess how much radiation had gotten out. 21 MS. LETScilE: The question is, does that statement 22 tall into the category you have identified as information 23 that the pubile needs to know; that is, how the emergency 24 events may affect pubile health and safety? 25 WITNESS MILETI: It sure does. It in trying to ace FEnERAt. REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage s n 336-u>86
7 s30614.0 ( )KSW 3248 1 find out the basis for that. You don't know what it is you 2 have to find it out. There's a great deal of uncertainty in 3 most emergencies. 4 WITNESS R0HINSON: There's another statement on 5 page 2 of that messa'e, g it is written in, it may be faint in 6 some copies, about the public need not take any protective 7 actions beyond the following at this time, and then it goes 0 on to list them. 9 MS. LETSCHE: The things listed are look at the 10 brochure, put your animals inside and, by the way, where the 11 monitoring teams are; is that correct? {} 12 13 WITNESS ROBINSON: That's correct. have the LERO organization had been activated. As well you That's at the 14 bottom of page 1. 15 MS. LETSCHE: Is it your opinion that the fact 16 that the LERO organization had been activated explains how 17 the emergency events may affect public health and safety? 18 WITNESS ROBINSON: I don't think it explains how I 19 think it is a signal to the public that there is something 20 going on that could possibly affect their health and safety, 21 yes. I think it is a significant fact. 22 MS. LETSCHB: Dr. M11eti, will you turn to EBS 23 message number 4? 24 WITNESS MILETI: Yes, I'm there. () 25 MS. LETSCHE: Now, will you tell me what in this ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 4 47 3700 Nationwide Coserage Mn 33MM6
- ,30614.0 (v )KSW 3249 1 message gives the public the information that it needs to 2 know concerning whether or not it could be exposed and where 3 the radiation is?
4 WITNESS MILETI: There isn't much to this 5 message. It is more or less just a sentence or two. It says 6 a general emergency condition was declared. 7 MS. LETSCHE: Right. So it doesn't have any of 8 that inf ormation in it, does it? 9 WITNESS MILETI: It certainty doesn't. Except to 10 the extent t. hat a general emergency condition was declared. 11 MS. LETSCHE: In your opinion, does the (] 12 communication to the public that a general emergency V 13 condition is declared tell them what they need to know about ! 14 how the emergency events may affect their health and safety? 15 WITNESS MILETI: No, it certainty doesn' t alt hough l 16 it does for some it probably wouldn't for most, but it was 17 followed a few minutes later by another Ens message. You la need to look at all of the messages together, not just one. l 19 MS. LETSCHE: Turn to number 5. That's the next 20 one, lun'L lt? 21 WITNESS MILETI: Yes, it is. l 22 JUDGE PARIS: The portions marked out in the 23 messages, I take it, are portions that were not read? 24 WITNESS MILETI: That's correct. They were 2S deleted. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-37(X) Nationwide Coserage 800 336W46
30614.0 3250 , 0.XSW 1 MS. LETSCHR: Dr. Mileti, can you identify for me 2 what in ERS message number 5 provides the public with the 3 information it needs to know about whether they could be 4 exposed and where the radiation is? 4 5 WITNESS MILETI: There's pretty explicit 6 information when it says evacuation is recommended for people ' 7 in a certain subset of the EPZ as specified by the zones that 8 those people live in. l- 9 MS. LETSCHE: Is it your testimony that informing 10 the public that they should evacuate constitutes information . 11 about how the emergency may affect their health and safety? 12 WITNESS MILETI: You better believe it. It tella f 13 them they are at risk. i
- 14 MS. LETSCHR
- Right. It doesn't tell them
) 15 anything else, though, does it? 16 WITNESS MILETI: It tells them a substantial 17 amount. , 18 MS. LETSCHE: Is there anything else in EHS 2 19 message number S which in your opinion teils the public how 20 the emergency may af fect their health and safety? 21 WITNESS MILETI: Just a moment. I will have to , 22 look at i t. 23 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: It tells us about the peop]e l > 24 it does not affect. That's important information provided to r 25 the public. Page 30 of 47, item 4 it states if you are not I ) ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202 347-3700 Nationwide coserage an336a46
30614.0 ( KSW 3251 1 within the zones there is no reason for you to evacuate. 2 That's important information. 3 MS. LETSCHE: It is your opinion that that 4 Information tells the public how the emergency may affect 5 their health and safety? 6 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: Yes. 7 WITNESS ROBINSON: Would not affect it. 8 MS. LETSCHE: I'm sorry? 9 WITNESS ROBINSON: Or not affect it. 10 WITNESS DAVERIO: You can take item 5, which is an 11 increase on the placing animals on sheltered feed, I believe, 12 which is important to know. 13 MS. LETSCIIE : Well, I take it, Mr. Daverio, that 14 you are saying that item number 5, all milk-producing animals ; 15 in a 10-mile zone should be moved into shelters and placed on 16 stored feed tells the public how the emergency may affect 17 their health and safety; is that right? 18 WITNESS DAVERIO: Yes, I believe so. i 19 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: If you go to page 4 of the , 20 ERS message it gives information about closing their houses, + 21 windows and doors. That's important information. 22 MS. LETSCHE: I assume everything is important or 1 23 you wouldn't have put it in. My question is, was that i j 24 information which in your opinion tells the public how the () 25 emergency events may affect their health and safety? Is it i
/\CE.FEnnRAL REPORTERS, INC. i 202 347-37(X) Nationwide Cmcrage 8(Xk33MM6
. _ , , m . _ _ _ . . _ . . - .
30614.0 KSW 3252 1 your testimony that the advice about closing windows and 2 locking doors and taking blankets and pillows.with you tells , 3 the'public how the emergency may affect their health and
.4 safety?
5 WITNESS ROBINSON: Yes, and it states they may be 6 away for several days. 7 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: That's true, but I didn't 8 include bringing blankets and pillows as part of what I 9 said. 10 MS. bETSCHE: Ms. Robinson, I'm sorry, I missed 11 what you interjected there. 12 WITNESS ROBINSON: It also states that the last 13 sentence of the paragraph is "you could be away for several 14 days." Again, this la a signal to the public of 15 seriousness. , 16 MS. bETSCllEs Ms. Robinson, it is your testimony 17 that the statement that you could be away for several days j- 18 tella the public how the emergency may affect their health 19 and safety; is that what yots are saying? l ! 20 WITNESS ROBINSON: Yes, this signals to the i 21 ptib lic . Not all information is explicit. Some of it is I 22 signals in terms of what you are conveying. i !- 23 MS. bETSCHR: What do you think this information l 24 about being away for several days signals? O 25 WITNESS RollINSON: It signals the seriousness of ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmcrate 800-3h6646 l- .,-_-,__.-,_.,,.-,,,_,,,,_.,,,_,.-_-_m._.,... _ - - , - , , _ - , , , - , , - . , . . __,---m-, . , - . - . .
., ,30614.0 ( )KSW 3253 1 the situation, that people are being called upon to take a 2 very serious step to evacuate. 3 WITNESS DAVERIO: I think the important thing also 4 that points out what we think is important is if you look at 5 the last page, the next to last paragraph, once again you 6 reinforce t.he concept of who is at risk and what they should 7 be doing, which is the central theme of the ERS message. 8 MS. LETSCilH You are referring to the restatement 9 of the advice that people in Zones A through M and Q and R 10 should be evacuated? 11 WITNESS DAVERIO: Thal's correct. O 12 WITNESS PATTERSON: It says people in these zones C' 13 will be safer if they evacuate as soon as possible away from 14 Shoreham. I think that.'s pretty explicit. 15 MS. LETScilE Explicitly what? 16 WITNESS PATTERSON: We're talking about the health 17 and safety. It says they will be safer if they evacuate. 18 MS. LETScilE It is your belief, Mr. Patterson, 19 that that statement tells the public how the emergency may 20 af fect their health and saf ety; 3a that right? 21 WITNESS PATTERSON: Yes. 22 MS. LETscilE I notice you are not on the annwer. 23 Is there some reason why you didn't sponsor this answer? 24 WITNESS PATTERSON: I think a lot of this is 25 rooted in sociology, and I think that'u one of the reasons. Ace FnonRAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 .4 7 1700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-3 h(M6
(n )KSW 30614. 0 3254 1 I'm not a sociologist. Dr. Mileti is. 2 WITNESS MILETI: I might. add, a bit too slow, the 3 panel took away all the things I would say. . 4 MS. I,ETSCHE: Do you agree with all ot the 5 statements of the other panel membora; do all of them tell 6 the public how the emergency may affect their health and 7 safety? 8 WITNESS MII,ETI: I believe it te]In the public 9 appropriately about the rink, and that's what they need to 10 know, so they can form perceptions or have the highcot 11 probability of forming such perceptions and make good 12 deciolonn about what to do that's consistent with the j (] ./ 13 responso -- 14 JUDGE PARIS: Could I ask a question to follow up 15 on nomething Ms. Robinson mentioned? 16 Ma. Robinson, you said that the monnagea contained 17 signals about hazarda rather than speelfic information; la la that correct? 19 WITNESS ROHINSON: What I was trying to say, and I 20 may not havo been clear, in tha t while the statements are 21 cxplicJt, such as you may be away for several dayn, such 22 statomonts also convey signals to peopin, and one of the 23 things that you are concerned about with public information 24 at. a general emergency whern you are asking people to take a 25 very serioun step, to leave their homen, which in something ACII.FliDiiRAI. Riivointins, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmcrage km3m(Mi
,S 30614.0 (g KSW 3255 , 1 they may have great resistance to doing, is you want to 2 convey this is a serious situation. You are not just taking 3 Lt lightly, so I think that when we put these Has messages 4 together, yes, we tried to convey a tone. Maybe signal isn't 5 the right way. We tried to make it serious and inclusive.
6 That's one of the things I was looking at is the overall tone 7 of the message. Did it atL add up to what Dr. Mileti, I H think, described an having a person make the right 9 concluslon? 10 JUDGE PARIS: In giving these signals, were you 11 avoiding being explicit? 12 WITNESS H0HINSON: Oh, no. This is exp]Icit 13 information but I think it has a second level. In other 14 words, you have to -- 15 JUDGM PAHIS: What do you mean by a "second 16 level"? 17 WITNESS H0HINSON: You have to give people thin 10 kind of intormation. If they are going to be away from home 19 for several days they munt take their prescription medication 4 20 with them, they have to take certain -- it is a good idea to ! 21 take clothing for children or formula, the thinga linted, 22 blankets and pillows, but beyond that, when you tell people 23 tha t kind -- give people that kind of infor mation which in 24 very explicit and practical, on a second level you are 2S conveying a monnage of periouunenn, and a perception of risk f Act Ft:onnu RnvonTuns, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmcrage R(0 3%M46
30614.0 KSW 3256 1 that this is something you really should do. 2 JUDGE SHON: Ms. Hobinson, however, I note that in 3 the earlist messages, people were told romething that might 4 give them a secondary mensage about seriousness. You didn't 5 really want them to follow. You told them for exampic to 6 shelter their cowa, and a lot of peop.le might react to 7 sheltering cows by saying, gee, maybe I ought to get out of O here or shelter or do something myself. That might have a 9 secondary message, so to speak, of greater seriousness than 10 you want to convey. 11 WITNESS HOBINSON: That particular statement or 12 recommendation is one that is a requirement at a certain l 13 1cvel that you make that recommendation for milk-producing 14 animals up to two miles and then in a general emergency up to 15 10 miles. There are bancs for that I think rising out of EPA } 16 regulation and I think Chuck Daverio could give you a more 17 specific answer but that in under the guidance you are 10 required to put in your messages at that point. l l 19 WITNESS DAVERIO: If you look at NUREG-0654 l 20 Appendix 1, they have the definition of what you uhould do 21 under diCferent ]cvela of emergency and they recommend 22 placing milk animalu on stored f:eed and I think this comes 23 out of some of the restrictive FDA requirements an to uptake 24 on todine through grano. 25 JUDGE Sil0N: llu t doenn't that also mention the Act .Fl!DlinAt. RitronTiins, INC. 202 347 37m Nationwide Cmcrare muk))6 M 6
,,30614.0 (jKSW 3257 L business of closing the schoois or keeping the children 2 home? 3 WITNESS DAVERIO: No, I don't believe -- I would 4 have to scan it quickly. I don't ramember that being in 5 there. 6 WITNESS MII,ETI: Judge Shon, if I could add 7 aomething, pleano, when we first considered the notion of fl giving information about either keeping the schools closed or 9 closing the schools, we put in a few words to the effect that 10 it didn't mean that a releane of radiation was going to 11 occur. It was part of standard emergency if there is such a 12 thing an standard emergency planning procedures to try to 13 remove that element but you are correct when people hear that 14 cowu are sheltered they may think there's something they 15 should shelter from, and in the context of the simulated 16 exercise, that could have led some people to shelter at that 17 time. la JtIDGH fill 0N : Thank you. 19 JUDGE PHYE: You referred to NUREG-0654 for the 20 propoaltion an I heard you that cown should be placed on 21 stored feed. Doon it also say they should be sheltered? 22 JUDGH PAH111: Where are you in appendix 17 23 WITNESS DAVEHIO: Page I-12. No, i t doesn' t say 24 "cheiter," it only anyo "atored fced." 25 JUDGH FHYH: Wan there a particular reason why the Acti Fitniinal. Ritecnitins, INC. 202 4 47 3700 Nationwide Cmcrape Nn31MM6
(j o 30614.0 KSW 3250 1 EBS message refers to sheltering in addition to stored feed? 2 WITNESS DAVERIO: I'm stretching my memory but 3 usually stored feed is in shelter, but I can't recall why we 4 put that in there at this time. If they are outside it is 5 tough to stop a cow from eating grass so you take him 6 inside. 7 JUDGE FRYE I'm sure that's true the cow might 8 prefer the grass but the thing that's been brought up here is 9 if you broadcast a message generally that cows should be 10 sheltered, one might well wonder what about humans? And the 11 import could be taken to mean that humans should also be O 12 sheltered. That's why I wondered whether there was a G 13 specific -reason for the term "shel ters" as opposed to 14 broadcasting a message that cows be placed on stored feed 15 which would be required, I wou.ld think, automatically. 16 WITNESS DAVERIO: I think that's the only way to 17 really do it. l 18 WITNESS R0HINSON: The actual words are "into l l 19 shelters" and probably would could have said " indoors" would 20 have been as accurate. l 21 JUDGE FRYE: If you just said "placed them on 22 s tored feed," wouldn' t that have done it as well? l [ 23 WITNESS H0HINSON: In retrospect i t. sounds to me l 24 as thotigh Lt wot:Id have. l 25 JUDGE PARIS: They have open feed lots in this l l Actt FlintinAL RiiPonTiins, INC. 202147 37(x) Nationwide Cmcrage MX) 33MM6
30614.0
)KSW 3259 1 c'ountry like.they do out west?
2 WITNESS DAVERIO: I'm stretching my memory. We're 3 not a large cow area. You wouldn't see --.we don't have 4 large cow farms. It is a large agricultural area but -- 5 JUDGE PARIS . They don't have big feed lots, f 6 WITNESS ROBINSON: No. 7 JUDGE FRYE: Are there any dairies? 8 WITNESS DAVERIO: Yes, I would have-to get you the 9 information. It is on ingestion pathway. 10 MS. LETSCHE: The NUREG-0654 citations that we 11 have been discussing go to what protective action {} 12 13 recommendations could be given as examples; is that right? They don't go to EBS messages, do they? 14 WITNESS DAVERIO: It is my understanding and 15 belief that if you are going to make a protective action 16 recommendation you do it in the EDS message. 17 MS. LETSCHE: But it doesn't say what else you may 18 or may not or should or should not put in a message that has 19 one or more of these protective action recommendations, does 20 it? 21 WITNESS DAVERIO: I have problems with the 22 question. I don't understand it. 23 MS. LETSCIIE : It might have been a bad question. 24 The portion of 0654 that you refer to and have been 25 discussing with the board goes to what kinds of ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-3364M6
z, 30614.0 ( )KSW 3260 L recommendations -- what kinds of protective ac on 2 recommendations should be made, right? 3 WITNESS DAVERIO: No. 4 MS. LETSCHE: Okay, what does it go to? 5 WITNESS DAVERIO: It goes to activities that a 6 local off-site authority should be taking if you read the i 7 headings that's what it says. It is on top of that same 8 page. It says " state, local off-site actions." 9 MS. LETSCHE: Right. And the item number 9, which 10 says " recommend placing milk animals within two miles on 11 stored feed and assess need to extend distance" does not 12 discuss what state or local off-site authority actions should (~J') x 13 he taken in that regard with respect to EBS messages, does 14 it? 15 WITNESS DAVERIO: I don ' t see the word "EBS" i n 16 there at all. As I just said, it is my understanding and 17 belief the way EDS messages should be used is if you want the 18 public to take a protective action, whether it be sheltering 19 or putting their animals on stored feed or evacuate or the 20 general public shelter, the proper vehicle for dissemination 21 of that information is the Emergency Broadcast System as part 22 of the prompt notification system required under r ,23 regula ti ons .
~"
24 MS. LETSCHE: But this section you are discussing r"% t ,) 25 does not go into detail as to what should be in particular ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
f~3 30614.0 l
- y KSW 3261 1 EBS messages'or not, does it?
2 WITNESS DAVERIO: I just said that. It doesn't. 3 MS. LETSCHE: Getting back to you, Dr. Mileti, in 4 answer to my question before Judge Paris had.a-follow-up 5 question, I was asking whether-you agreed with the examples 6 that other members of the panel had identified of items in-7 EBS message number 5 that in their opinion, told the-public 8 how the emergency may affect their health'and safety. Your 9 response to me talked about whether or not the message -- I 10 think what you said was that the message tells the public 11 appropriately about the risk. Are you now saying that what-12 you think needs to be told to the public is what is
-{ )
13 appropriate information about the risk rather than how the l 14 emergency'may affect their health and safety? j a 15 WITNESS MILETI: I believe what I said was the
- e 16 required element, to my standards, for emergency information l
'; 17 is that people understand what the risk is, what they should
! - 18 do about it and, by and large, how much time they have to do 19 it-in. One of the clearest ways to do that is to tell people i (
- 20 who needs to evacuate and who doesn't.
p l 21 MS. LETSCHE: Let me go back to my question. l ( 22 Let's try the first one I asked. Do you agree with all the i 23 items identified by the other members of the panel in message 24 number 5 do explain to or do inform the public how the l () 25 emergency may affect their public health and safety, do you L ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 b__ __ ____ t
cs 30614.0 (x_ )l KSW 3262 1 agree with those other items? 2 WITNESS MILETI: I don't remember the whole list 3 but everybody was talking about give information to the 4 public about risk. 5 MS. LETSCHE: That's not the question. The 6 question is do all those items you heard all the people up 7 there say tell the public how the emergency may affect their 0 health and safety? 9 WITNESS MILETI: It tells it in an appropriate 10 fashion, yes. 11 MS. LETSCHE: So it does tell them how it would
~'
12 affect their health and safety; is that right? (V 13 WITNESS MILETI: In the sense that people would 14 have a clear idea from this information where the radiation 15 is going to be and not going to be. It doesn't go into 16 health effects, nor should it. 17 MS. LETSCHE: It is your testimony then that all 18 these items identified by the other members of the panel tell 19 the public where the radiation is going to be; is that 20 right? That's what you just said, isn't it? 21 WITNESS MILETI: I think so, yes. It is a 22 conclusion that would be reached by the notion about what 23 zones need to evacuatc and what zones don't need to 24 evacuate,
^
e ( ,;; 25 MS. LETSCHE: In fact what you were saying is not ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
30614.0 3263 ()KSW 1 that the messages told to the public where the radiation is 2 going to be but in fact it just told them what zones were at 3 risk; is that right? 4 WITNESS MILETI: Well that's the same thing. The 5 zones that are at risk are presumably in a radiological 6 emergency at risk from radiation. 7 MS. LETSCHE: But the messages don't say that, do 8 they? 9 WITNESS MILETI: Don't explicitly say that those 10 zones will get risk but that's the perception the public 11 would form on the basis of the evacuation advisement which is (~} 12 the issue one is trying to address. %/ 13 MS. LETSCHE: Those messages don't say where the 14 radiation is going to be, do they? 15 WITNESS MILETI: I said yes, that's true. They 16 don't. 17 MS. LETSCHE: Going back to my second question, 18 now that I have an answer to the first one, is it your 19 testimony that in order to contain all of the information 20 that the public needs to know, that all the message needs to 21 contain is appropriate information about the risk? 22 WITNESS MILETI: Absolutely not. If one were 23 Jooking at emergency information across messages as a package 24 which is the only way it can be assessed in the emergency 25 because the public gets more than one message by and large ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
, ~3 30614.0 ( ,KSW
) 3264 1 one would certainly want to include in an ideal type of 2 emergency information more than information about risk.
3 MS. LETSCHE: Is it your testimony that in order 4 to satisfy the standard set forth in your testimony, w'lich is 5 telling the public how the emergency events may affect their 6 health and safety, that all that is necessary is to include 7 appropriate information about the risk? 8 WITNESS MILETI: People would need -- if what you 9 mean by " appropriate information about the risk" is giving 10 people a good clear sense of about where the risk agent is 11 going to be and not be the answer is yes as well as 12 protective action in response to it. (~} x.- 13 MS. LETSCHE: You also stated a few minutes ago 14 that in addition to telling the people where the radiation is 15 going to be, and I understand your testimony to be that you 16 believe EDS number 5 does that because it identifies the 17 zones that are told to evacuate, that a message should also 18 tell the public how much time they have to do whatever is 19 recommended to be done; is that right? 20 WITNESS MILETI: Absolutely and I discussed this 21 with John Wiseman when we put these EBS messages together and 22 we concluded that they did, c1carly. 23 MS. LETSCHE: You are saying to me that you 24 believe the EDS messages used during the exercise tell the in ( ,) 25 public how much time they have to take whatever action is ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
]
L
- 30614.0 KSW 3265 ,
1~ recommended in'those messages;.is that right? ,
'2 WITNESS MILETI: Absolutely and:-it gives the
- 3 people no leeway in. terms.of time. Evacuation was 4 recommended then.
5 MS. LETSCHE: Now, before we go and talk about [ 6 that, let me just do one more EBS message, and that is EBS 7 number'6. EBS message number 6 is-the one that' tells the
~
8 entire EPZ to evacuate rather than just the 3/4 of the zones
-9 that were told to evacuate in-EB'S number 5. Other than that 10 change, Dr. Mileti, and what I understand;would be your 11 testimony.concerning the information about the risk which-
~
12 that' advisory would include,'is therc any other information 13 in this EBS message number 6 which tells the.public.where the' 14 radiation is going to be or how to protect themselves from. 15 it?' That's-different from what we have already discussed in 16 EBS number 5. 17 WITNESS MILETI: In EBS 6, that tells-the people
'18 about the risk is that the entire 10-mile EPZ is at risk, 19 which is the standard way of giving risk information at 20 nuclear power plants. I don't know of another utility in the
-21 nation that has stepped forward and would be willing to talk 22 about how much radiation is where. LILCO is doing that 23 because I had originally suggested it to you, and that's a 24 . good way of getting information out.
25 JUDGE PARIS: Is EBS number 6 the one given at ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
i 1 l l ( )KSW 3266 1 11:59? 2 WITNESS MILETI: It was broadcast at 12:06. 3 ' WITNESS ROBINSON: .It was approved at 11:59. 4 JUDGE PARIS: Go ahead. 5 WITNESS MILETI: Evacuation advisement for the 6 whole 10-mile EP7. would have been risk information about 7 where the risk was thought'to be. 8 .S, M LETSCHE: Other than that statement telling 9 the entire CPZ to evacuate, is there any other information in 10 EBS number 6 which in your opinion falls into this category 11 of telling the public where the-radiation is going to be? (} 12 13 WITNESS MILETI: Yes. would-affect the public's perception of that. At Jeast.information that On the first 14 page it says " release of radiation occurred at 9:39." It 15 says "significant releases of radiation are expected 16 shortly." 17 MS. LETSCHE: That does not say where the-release 18 of radiation into the area occurred, does it? 19 WITNESS MILETI: No, it doesn't, but -- 20 MS. LETSCHR: It doesn't say where the significant 21 releases are expected shortly, does it? 22 WITNESS MILETI: Yes, it would be a fair 23 presumption that a person would presume it is in the area 24 recommended for evacuation, which would be the reason the O 25 evacuation was recommended. v ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
,.s 30614.0 3267 ()KSW 1 MS. LETSCHR: But the message does not say that, 2 does it? 3 WITNESS MILETI: It doesn't say it explicitly, but 4 people would end up perceiving that, which is why we have EBS 5 messages to address people's perceptions. 6 MS. LETSCHE: Is there anything else which in your 7 opinion tells the public where radiation is going to be in 8 EDS 6? 9 WITNESS MILETI: Doesn't need to be much more. 10 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: If you look at items 2 and 3 11 it provides information for those it does affect and clearly 12 provides information for those people it does not affect. (v') 13 MS. LETSCHR: That's identical to the information 14 in the others other than the 10-mile rather than -- I had 15 intended to exclude, and I think I did in my first question, 16 the things that are repeated from the earlier messages to try 17 to shortcut this process a little bit. 18 WITNESS MILETI: I'm sorry it is not shortcutted; 19 I don't have it memorized and I want to give you the best 20 answer I can. Having looked at the message I would agree 21 that's probab]y about it. 22 MS. LETSCHE: Now, in turning to EBS message 23 number 7 -- 24 JUDGE PARIS: Was this broadcast at 12:50? () fs 25 WITNESS MILETI: Yes. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6M6
~ --J30614.0 l lggw 3268
\m/ 1 MS. LETSCHE: Now, I assume, Dr. Mileti, that the 2 statement at the bottom of the first page of EBS 7 and 3 carrying over to page 2, about thyroid dose, would fall into
'd the category we have~been discussing, which-is how the
-5 emergency may affect public health and safety; is that 6 ri ght?
7 WITNESS MILETI: Yes. 8 MS. LETSCHR: And setting that aside and the other 9 information which is repeated from the earlier messages, is 10 there anything else in this message which tells the public 11 where the radiation is going to be? 12 WITNESS MILETI: Yes, on page 2, entry number'2, (a') ~ 13 where evacuation is recommended for, that's one of the 14 clearest assessments or ways of conveying where the risk is 15 thought to be and not be. 16 MS. LETSCHE: That'si the same as in the earlier 17 messages, right? 18 WITNESS MILETI: But it is a profound thing. It 19 is hard to overlook, I'm sorry. 20 MS. LETSCHE: I understand. Is there anything 21 else? 22 WITNESS MILETI: The notion about milk-producing 23 animals in the 10-mile EBZ. That's again a repeat. That 24 they should leave their home and business, but that's again a () 25 repeat. That they could be away for several days, but most ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
l s
,m 30614.0 -( ,)KSW~ _3269 1 importantly where :the risk is and where it is not.
2 MS. LETSCHE: That'would be just the 10-mile 3 ~ evacuation, right? 4 WITNESS MILETI: Yes. 5 MS. LETSCHE: You consider that more important 6 than the projected dose information; is that right? 7 WITNESS MILETI: I wouldn't see more important. 8 One needs to look at it all together, 9 MS. LETSCHE: Let's turn to ERS number 8. That's 10 the one that was I believe approved at 13:45; is that correct ~ 11 'Ms. Robinson? (} 12 13
. WITNESS ROBINSON: Pardon me?
WITNESS-DAVERIO: :That's correct.
- 14 WITNESS ROBINSON
- That's right.
15 MS. LETSCHE: Now, Dr. Mileti, can you identify _ 16 for me what in this message tells the public where the
- 17 radiation is going to be?
18 WITNESS MILETI: I think in reading it so far, I 19 haven't finished reading it but I encountered a place on the 20 first page which basically says people in certain zones
-21 should go get monitored. I think that may lead people to 22 conclude not where the radiation is going to be but where the 23 radiation may'be or may have been.
24 I will have to look at the rest. () 25 That's all I have to say about that. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
em 30614.0
' jjKSW 3270 1 MS. LETSCHE: That information is different from
~
2 'the other~ risk information which said that everyone in all 3 the zones in the EPZ should evacuate, right, the risk
-4 .information? .
5 WITNESS MILETI: That's correct. This is not 6 addressed.to the effectuating evacuation but rather addressed 7 toward beginning the arduous chore of getting people who need
- 8 to be monitored in to be monitored.
9 MS. LETSCHE: You would classify both those. 10 information items, who should evacuate and who should be 4 11 monitored as information concerning the hea'lth and safety, 12 wouldn't you? , 13 WITNESS MILETI: Yes, however this information is 4 14 suggesting in fact where the radiation may have been or.gone 15 as opposed to the others where it didn't. 16 MS. LETSCHS: You draw a distinction between-the 17 carlier messages which said where in the future the radiation 18 would be and this one says where the radiation has been in 19 the past? 20 WITNESS MILETI: This suggests that the people who 21 had come from here needed to be monitored for possible 22 contamination. 23 MS. LETSCHE: This also repeats, does it not, the i 24 recommendation that the entire residents of all zones should 25 evacuate; is that right? ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 804336 6M6
m
,-g30614.0 3271 1 )KSW
'l WITNESS MILETI: That's correct.
.2 MS. LETSCHE: So am I correct that you are drawing 3 'a di' s tinction in terms of what,would be communicated to' the 4 public between where the radiation is going to be and where 5 the~ radiation has been; is that right?
~
6 WITNESS MILETI: Where the risk is,-where there' 7 could be radiation, and where the radiation has been 8 discovered to be, I. presume on the basis of'the monitoring 9 teams that were talked about in the earlier EBS messages. 10 MS. LETSCHE: Is it your testimony then that the 11 advice in EBS number 8 informs the public as to where (^'
\
12 radiation has been found; is that your testimony? 13 WITNESS MILETI: I believe.that it would do that; 14 however, it would begin that process. It would need to be 15 repeated. 16 MS. LETSCHE: That doesn't explici lyssay that, 17 does it?
~
18 WITNESS MILETI: What it says is what it says.- It 19 doesn't explicitly say that. It says if you are a resident 20 of A, B, F, G, K and Q you should go to the Coliseum and be 21 monitored for possible radiation, that would lead to the 22 conclusion that those zones possibly had radioactive elements 23 in them. 24 WITNESS DAVERIO: I think the next EBS clarified f it which was approved at the same time or a minute or so
- ( 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
7- 30614.0 ' !. ,) KSW 3272 1 afterwards did explain that since they may have been exposed 2 to radiation on their trip out of the EPZ. 3 JUDGE PARIS: Was 8.1 read? 4 WITNESS DAVERIO: Yes, it was. 5 MS. LETSCHE: Was message 8 read? 6 WITNESS DAVERIO: My information is it was read 7 three minutes after. 8 MS. LETSCHE: They were both broadcast? 9 WITNESS DAVERIO: That's my understanding. 10 MS. LETSCHE: Let's talk about 8.1, then. We've 11 already talked about 8. Going back to this distinction about
'; 12 telling the public where the radiation has been and where it
(/ 13 is going to be, I take it that it is your testimony that the 14 portion of EBS message 8.1 which tella people in zones A, B, 15 F, G, K and Q to go to the Coliseum with the addition Mr. 16 Daverio read would tell the people that those zones or that 17 radiation has been in those zones; is that right? 18 WITNESS MILETI: I think it would give people that 19 clear impression, yes. 20 MS. LETSCHE: Your testimony also is that a 21 recommendation that all zones should evacuate teils the 22 public that radiation is going to be in all zones; is that 23 right. 24 WITNESS MILETI: I think it tells them there's a () ,o 25 risk and that protective action recommendation is to ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-(656
y j 30614.0 ()KSW 3273 1 evacuate. It-doesn't necessarily imply particularly on the 2 heels of this that radiation is going to be there but could. 3 That's the obvious conclusion one would reach by hearing they 4 should' evacuate. 5 MS. LETSCllE: Now, in the BBS messages 8 and 8.1, 6 other than the reference to all zones evacuate and the 7 reference we have been discussing about going to the Coliseum 8 to be monitored for contamination, is there any other 9 information in these messages which would tell the public how 10 the emergency may affect their health and safety? 11 WITNESS MILETI: On the phrase you didn't 12 reference since they may have been exposed to the radiation
}
13 during the trip out of the EP7.. 14 MS. LETSCHE: Judge, this is a logical place for 15 me to break. It is 10 after 5:00. 16 JUDGE FRYE: Dr. Mileti has a time problem as I 17 recall. 18 MS. MC CLESKEY: Yes, sir; I sure would like to go 19 to 6:00 today or start early in the morning or something. 20 JUDGE FRYE: When do you have to leave? 21 MS. MC CLESKEY: lie can be here through Thursday 22 but can't come back next week. Ms. Robinson has to be 23 testifying in Massachusetts in state court next Monday for 24 her new employer, so we have difficulties aside from the fact () 25 that the other three gentlemen have real jobs. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage MXL3364646
es 30614.0 3274 (]KSW 1 JUDGE FRYE: Ms. Letsche,-I will leave it at your 2 judgment but.with the understanding that this panel will no 3 longer be available -at Thursday. 4 MS. LETSCHE: My estimate was a real one. It.was. 5 four days. I have had for my cross-examination and I have 6 had a little over two hours today. I-will add a hour of voir 7 dire. I'm not. going to finish this week, and if arrangements-8 were made subsequent to my giving that estimate and with all 9 of the discussions we had on the record two weeks ago about 10 how this panel was going to go and when the government's 11 witnesses would be up, if they had any meaning, everyone-has j ) 12 been on notice of that. 13 JUDGE FRYH: I thought we were ' on notice at that 14 time also of Dr. Mileti's problem.- 15 MS. LETSCHE: Ms. McCleskey referenced that fact 16 and was saying she was hopeful it could be completed but I
- 17 have not changed any estima te.
18 JUDGE FRYE: We better continue. 19 MS. LETSCHE: I will continue but I have to say 20 that, and we started late today, so I don't have a problem 21 going a little longer but I do have a problem going 22 substantially longer just because of -- , 23 JUDGE FRYE: You do reach a point of diminishing 24 returns. 6:00 would be the outside then. () 25 MS. LETSCHE: I want to make it clear so we don't i /\CE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
! 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
-s 30614.0 (v. )KSW 3275 I hear in two days something about representations that I made 2 that my going for another 45 minutes which I'm happy to do is 3 not going to mean that I finish this panel by Thursday.
I 4 will continue. 5 Dr. Mileti, you mentioned before and I promised I 6 would get back to this, that one of the other important 7 elements to tell the public about how the emergency may 8 affect their health and safety is how much time they have to 9 do whatever action it is that's recommended for their 10 protection. Do you recall that statement? 11 WITNESS MILETI: Something to that effect, yes.
^
(T 12 The element of time. V 13 MS. LETSCHE: Can you tell me where in -- let's 14 establish firs t in terms of the public being given 15 recommendations as to what they should do to protect 16 themselves, you would agree with me, wouldn't you, that the 17 first such recommendation was contained in EBS message number 10 5? 19 WITNESS MILETI: It appears that that's the first 20 EBS message in which evacuation was recommended, yes. 21 MS. LETSCHE: Are there any other recommendations 22 as to what the public needs to do to protect itself in any 23 messages prior to EBS number 5? 24 WITNESS MILETI: There's a great deal about what () 25 the public should do. For example, stay tuned to the EBS ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
w 30614.0 (, ,, )K S W 3276 I system.which is probably the most important thing the public 2 could do. Second, get their brochure. Or I believe those 3 two but I would have to look to see if there were others. I 4 think those are the two main things plus other ones. 5 MS. LETSCHE: Now, would you turning to EBS -- the-6 instructions to stay tuned to their EBS station is not really 7 of the sort that has a time limit of how soon they need to do 8 -it, does it? 9 WITNESS MILETI: Yes, because it is telling them 10 don't turn it off, keep it on. That's how our element of 11 time is contained in all of the messages, it is not saying 12 begin evacuating and begin evacuating within five hours. It (~)) 13 says evacuate now. Keep the radio tuned on. Get the 14 brochure now so that element of time is there it is just not 15 bracketed by an interval. It says don't put it off. Do it 16 now. 17 MS. LETSCHE: Turn to EBS number 5 and focus on 18 the evacuation recommendation that's in there. That is on 19 item 3 on what is referred to as page 38 of 47 in the 20 message. 21 WITNESS MILETI: Yes. 22 MS. LETSCHE: Now, would you tell me what in that 23 message tells the public how much time they have in which to 24 evacuate? p) ( 25 WITNESS MILETI: It tells them people in the zones ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6M6
30614.0 I 3277 v)KSW 1 will be safer if they evacuate as soon as possible, and 2 evacuation is recommended, and I don't remember my English 3 grammar well but in an active sense. It is suggesting that 4 it should be begun now. 5 MS. LETSCHE: And it is your testimony that 6 telling people they should begin it now informs them how much 7 time they have in which to evacuate; is that correct? 8 WITNESS MILETI: No, it is not telling them how 9 much time the process will take. What's relevant to people 10 is how much time they have before_they can begin engaging in 11 the act of evacuation and that they shouldn't lollygag /~') 12 around. x' 13 MS. LETSCHE: I understand that. Is it your 14 testimony that that statement that they will be safer if they 15 evacuate as soon as possible, tells the public how much time 16 they have to evacuate? 17 WITNESS MILETI: I think I already said no to 18 that. It tells them what's relevant and that is how much 19 time they should not delay with in terms of beginning 20 evacuation. 21 MS. LETSCHE: It is your testimony that the only 22 information that is relevant and that therefore the public 23 needs to know concerning protective action recommendation is 24 when they should start to do them not when they should be g able to implement them; is that right? ( ,j 25 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
y c30614.0 g 3278 s-)KSW 1 WITNESS MILETI: I don't understand the difference 2 between when they should start doing them and when they 3 .should implement them. I think those might be the same if 4 you think about implementing evacuate by beginning to engage S in evacuation, but this is what the public needs to know not-6 in a philosophical sense but in terms of what you need to do 7 to get' people who should evacuate to evacuate and also the 8 kind of-information to help people who need not evacuate 9 arrive at that conclusion as well. 10 JUDGE FRYE: I think the request is the time 11 element'here indicates to the public when they need to
/~T ~ 12 implement a certain protective action, correct? .U 13 WITNESS MILETI: Yes, that they should begin 14 immediately.
15 JUDGE FRYE: Not how long they should take to 16 actually carry it out. 17 WITNESS MILETI: That's correct. 18 MS. LETSCHE: And.I take it, Dr. Mileti, that in 19 terms of tel]ing the public how much time they have to 20 evacuate, that this as soon as possible instruction about 21 beginning the evacuation is the only timing information 22 that's in any of these messages; is that right? 23 WITNESS MILETI: I would have to look. I'm sure t 24 there's timing information in some of the other messages. l () 25 MS. LETSCHE: We're talking about EBS number 5 and I /\CE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
sc30614.0 3279
)KSW 1 following I assume; is that right?
2 JUDGE SHON: You asked this same question a couple 3 of times and I must admit it confuses me almost a:s much as it - 4 seems to confuse Dr. Mileti. I don't know what you mean by S telling ~the public how much time they have to evacuate. The 6 concepts that we have heard have never suggested that at any-7 given instant you have two hours to get out or back or you 8 have three hours to get out or back. Nothing.like that has 9 been suggested. Is there anything like that really 10 contemplated that you would ever tell people you have only 45 11 minutes.to get out of here or anything like that? Can any of 12 the witnesses enlighten me? 13 WITNESS DAVERIO: I think I can and I think it was 14 in the wind shift testimony. That type of information is 15 -taken into account when you make the decision. In our 16 computer models we take evacuation time as versus~ dose, 17 calculate an evacuation dose, make the comparison and then 18 decide the protective action. Once you have decided the 19 protective action, the proper approach for the EBS messages 20 as Dr. Mileti said is we would like you to do this protective 21 action immediately or as soon as possible. I think that's 22 completely consistent. That's why sometimes when you look at 23 EBS messages as the whole, you forget all of planning process 24 that went into making that recommendation which factored into () 25 all the types of time estimates we have discussed here. ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
l 3280
} ).-30614.0 KSW -
1 JUDGE SHON: You would not ever contemplate then 2 saying.you must'get out within such and such a time? 3 WITNESS DAVERIO: No, because at all times you are 4 looking to minimize the risk to.the public and that would be 5 dose savings or dose minimization, so you never tell them you 6 have 45 minutes to get out. You make a decision which is the 7 best protective action for them to take then write the EDS
; , 8 message to take that action immediately.
9 WITNESS MILETI: There are other hazards for which 10 you would want to tell the public how much time they have in 11 which to accomplish a protective action. For example if a < 12 flash flood hits in which case you want people to move two {' ~ 13 blocks within the'next four hours, you have that much time, 14 an earthquake prediction -- 15 JUDGE SHON: I tnought the question was more or 16 less designed for.that kind of a flash flood kind of 17 emergency, and it doesn't really apply here, and it might 18 have been confusing. 19 Thank you. 1 20 MS. LETSCHE: Just to clear up the record, my 21 ques tion was based on Dr. Mileti's testimony which was that 22 messages should tell people how much time they have to do it,
.23 and the "it" he referred to was the protective action that 24 was being recommended. I now understand him to be saying 1 ) 25 that what he intended by that statement was the public should ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
-s 30614.0
( )KSW 3281 v 1 be told when it is they have to start, and I think that he 2 has clarified what he meant by that and in fact, and is it 3 true that you don't believe the public needs to know how much 4 time they have to do whatever the protective action S recommendation is, to complete it; is that right? 6 WITNESS MILETI: As I just said, it is more 7 applicable for some hazards than others. 8 MS. LETSCHE: Let's talk about this one. 9 JUDGE PARIS: Let me ask a question. You said in 10 the case of a flash flood you might want to say you have four 11 hours to get out of the river valley. Looking at EBS message (~} 12 6 where the message said significant releases of radiation w.- 13 are expected shortly, would that have been an appropriate 14 place to say, in 45 minutes or something? 15 WITNESS MILETI: You certainly could have done 16 that. I don't think it would have hurt. I don't know that 17 it would have helped much. The point is to get people who 18 have not evacuated in the act of evacuate and it may take a 19 traffic model to estimate how long it would take for someone 20 to get out. 21 WITNESS DAVERIO: I think it is also important to 22 understand that the basic concept of nuclear emergency 23 planning changed significantly after TMI. 24 If you look back in the history of emergency () 25 planning prior to TMI they looked at things like let's wait ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
30614.0 s lKSW 3282 v 1 until we measure it in the ficid, let's wait until the 2 release happens. 3 One of the things 0654 did and the change of 4 regulations that came about was to try to anticipate those 5 problems based on machine status and try to evacuate if 6 that's going to be the action earlier rather than later, and 7 I think I agree with Dr. Mileti, I think the message we 8 wanted to get across is we think the machine status at this 9 present time requires you to evacuate. There may not be a 10 release of radiation at that time and we still may recommend 11 evacuation because that's what we think is the best (~'s 12 protective action for the public to take taking into account O 13 all of the factors we would be weighing on citing. The basic 14 thread of emergency planning for plants today is to get them 15 out before a release occurs if you expect a release to 16 occur. 17 JUDGE PARIS: Thank you. 18 MS. LETSCHE: I guess I am not sure or I can't 19 recall if I got an answer to me question, and if I did I 20 apologize for asking it again. Is it your testimony, 21 Dr. Mileti, that in terms of providing the information that 22 the public needs to know about how the emergency may affect 23 its health and safety, that it does not need to know how much 24 time it has to accomplish a protective action d(~ 25 recommendation? ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33 4 6646
F' 30614.0 I )KSW 3283 v 1 WITNESS MILETI: In some circumstances for example 2 flash floods -- 3 MS. LETSCHE: Just talk about nuclear power plant 4 accidents. 5 WITNESS MILETI: I was going to say or sheltering, 6 there may be an appropriate need to tell people how long they 7 have to get into shelter, for example. What's important in 8 reference to evacuating is that you get people going. I know 9 your theory has always been that the public will flee in 10 panic and I have provided elaborate evidence that the real 11 problem is getting people who need protective actions to (~') 12 engage in them. It is motivating them. I know i t doesn't
\/
13 sit well wi th your experts or you or your theory but.' that's 14 the way people react in emergencies including at nuclear 15 power plants, and therefore what's important is to get t. hem 16 in the car and on their way. Now if what you are suggesting 17 in we need to put in an EBS message had they will be exposed 18 in the act of evacuation that's not necessary to get the 19 people to evacuate and it is my job to inform people like 20 these people how you get people who need to evacuate in their 21 cars and going and people who don't need to to not engage in 22 that kind of activity. 23 MS. LETSCHE: I move to strike the statements of 24 Dr. Mileti concerning my personal theory I suppose and what
/-
(m) 25 does and does not sit we)) with me. I think he answered my l 1 /\CEJFEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage MO.336-6M6
30614.0 3284 {)KSW 1 question in the first one or two sentences and the rest of 2 the answer is inappropriate and should be stricken from this 3 record. 4 JUDGE FRYE: Granted. 5 MS. LETSCHE: Would you turn, please, to page 9 of
'6 your testimony? Now you discuss on that page when you are 7 talking about the news conferences which begins the second 8 full sentence on that page, during the exercise. Do you see 9 that, Mr. Daverio?
10 WITNESS DAVERIO: Yes, I do. 11 MS. LETSCHE: And you talk about FEMA found that 12 those briefs provided requested information and answered (~~) v 13 questions presented by media representatives. You cite the 14 FEMA report at page 33. 53. I'm sorry. Now in fact, FEMA 15 found with respect to objective ENC-3 which had to do with 16 briefings that that objective was only partly demonstrated 17 during the exercise; is that right? 18 WITNESS DAVERIO: If I recall correctly, FEMA 19 required and we have addressed it in this testimony that we 20 provide additional visual aids for press briefing area. If I 21 recall correctly. 22 MS. LETSCHE: It is correct, is it not, that the 23 FEMA finding on the objective which dealt with briefing the 24 media was that that objective had only been partly f 25 demonstrated? ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
<s 30614.0 3285 lv)KSW 1 WITNESS DAVERIO: Without reading the report, my 2 best recollection is the only thing I thought they wanted 3 corrected at the briefing was that they wanted were visual 4 aids.
5 MS. LETSCHE: It is on page 52 of the report. 6 WITNESS DAVERIO: We don't have a copy of the 7 report up here. 8 JUDGE FRYE: Could someone furnish them a copy of 9 99 of the report? Page S2? 10 MS. LETSCHE: Yes. 11 Fourth paragraph under the heading " Emergency News
~T 12 Center," the first sentence in that paragraph says, "Hriefing (O
13 of the media in a clear accurate and timely manner was partly 14 demonstrated in ENC-3"; in that right? 15 WITNESS DAVERIO: Yes, I think if you keep reading 16 they talk about two issues that I think caused one -- 17 additional maps and displays I have previously mentioned were 18 required and I believe if you keep going it also talks about 19 hard copy transmission and Xerox capabilities. 20 MS. LETSCHE: And the EBS messages and time lags 21 and -- 22 WITNESS DAVERIO: Hard copies, not the issuance of 23 EBS messages over the system. That's a different thing. 24 MS. LETSCHE: But it talks about several things 25 other than maps and displays, doesn't it? ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80(F336-6M6
ms30614.0 JKSW 3286 1 WITNESS DAVERIO: But we've all talked about the 2 copying problem before. 3 MS. LETSCHE: Right. Now you mentioned -- this 4 whole answer we have been discussing here of your testimony 5 is discussing this hierarchy of various public information 6 activities. The FEMA report doesn't anywhere reflect an 7 adoption of this hierarchy that you set out in your 8 testimony, does it? 9 WITNESS DAVERIO: Well, I personally have not read 10 Marion Jackson's deposition. 11 MS. LETSCHE: I'm talking about the FEMA report. T'S 12 WITNESS DAVERIO: I believe the report doesn't but V 13 the testimony talks about the concept of EBS being one of the 14 most important linkages in the system. 15 MS. LETSCHE: Going to the hierarchy which you 16 have set up, I know EBS messages are number 1 but you rank 17 all the other items of public information, don't you, in 18 addition to the ERS messages? 19 WITNESS ROBINSON: That's true. I think as I 20' stated before, collectively and with our different 21 perspectives we arrived at the same conclusion. 22 MS. LETSCHR: And it is correct, is it not, that 23 the FEMA report does not reflect any adoption of the 24 hierarchy which you set forth in your testimony? O) (_ 25 WITNESS ROHINSON: I would say that the hierarchy ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
,,~s30614.0 l ,) KSW 3287 1
~
as we call it is'a planning basis. It would not certainly be 2 reflected in the assessment. 3 MS. LETSCHE: In fact, you in your hierarchy, the 4 dissemination of-hard copy news releases is ranked third; is 5 that right, behind the EBS messages and press conferences; is 6 that right? 7 WITNESS ROBINSON: yes. 8 MS. LETSCHE: In fact, FEMA identified _the dela'yed 9 dissemination of hard copy messages as part of the 10 deficiency, did it not? 11 WITNESS ROBINSON: Well, the inadequate -- (~'\ 12 MS. LETSCHE: Did it no t?- V 13 WITNESS ROBINSON: They defined it more accurately 14 as inadequate copying equipment. 15 MS. LETSCHE: It'is your testimony that FEMA did 16 not identify the delayed dissemination of hard copy EDS 17 messages to the press as part of the ENC related deficiency? 18 WITNESS ROBINSON: I would say it is a symptom of 19 it, yes, they certainly did identify it but the basic 20 deficiency was an equipment failure or capacity as they 21 identified it. 22 MS. LETSCHE: Is it your testimony, Ms. Robinson, 23 that in its report, FEMA adopts your opinion that the , 24 dissemination of hard copy confirmation of EBS messages is C 25 third in importance behind EBS messages and ENC news
-(_)
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80433MM6
J
.g ,- 30614.0
(. j KSW 3288 1 briefings? 2 WITNESS ROBINSON: No, I think I said the report 3 did not set up a hierarchy. 4 MS. LETSCHE: Dr. Mileti, at the bottom of page 9, 5 you have an answer which sets forth what you believe 6 determines how the public responds in an emergency and you 7 refer to an examination of over 100 empirical studies of 8 human behavior during actual emergencies. I take it the f 9 examination is one conducted by you; is that correct? 10 WITNESS MILETI: Not by me alone. It also 11 included our project manager, I guess, at FEMA, Ralph
/'] 12 Swisher, and in terms of policy setting, and John Sorenson at s.j 13 Oak Ridge National Labs, who is now in charge of their new 14 division, technological hazards and several graduate 15 students.
16 MS. LETSCHE: What you are referring to here by 17 your examination is this ongoing Oak Ridge FEMA study that i 18 we've already discussed; is that right? 19 WITNESS MILETI: That's the most current piece of 20 work, but I began reviewing all that work and collecting i t 21 back in graduate school, and I have never stopped, actually. 22 MS. LETSCHE: What I'm trying to get from you is 23 what it is you are referring to in your testimony when you 24 say an examination of over 100 empirical studies would lead
,\
25 one to conclude that during an emergency people behave in () ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
\
i-cs 30614.0 3289 ( )KSW 1 ways, et cetera. Am I correct that the examination of over 2 100 empirical studies that you referred to in your testimony 3 is the Oak Ridge FEMA review that you and I discussed earlier 4 during voir dire? 5 WITNESS MILETI: It would include that. 6 MS. LETSCHE: What does it include other than 7 that? 8 WITNESS MILETI: All my work reviewing that same 9 body of evidence as it has grown over the past 15 years. Now 10 accumulating or culminating in that particular project, but 11 what it is referring to is the entire, to the best of my
/~} 12 ability to collect it, body of empirical published data on v
13 how publics have responded in emergencies. 14 MS. LETSCHE: Am I correct that among all these 15 studies of human behavior during actual emergencies, the only it 3 16 ones involving nuclear power plant emergencies that you can 17 now recall are TMI, possibly Wind Scale and possibly, again, 18 TMI? 19 WITNESS MILETI: To the best of my knowledge those 20 are the only emergencies that have occurred at nuclear power 21 plants --
; 22 MS. LETSCHE: Right.
23 WITNESS MILETI: -- of sorts. 24 MS. LETSCHE: When you say in this testimony that
/^ an examination of the over 100 empirical studies would lead
( )\ 25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8 % 336-6646
,s 30614.0 I IKSW 3290 v
1 one to conclude, and then you state your conclusion, am 1 2 correct that this in fact states your conclusion based on an 3 examination of those studies? 4 WITNESS MILETI: It states my conclusion of 5 course. I mean I wrote the report. 6 MS. LETSCHE: That's good. Now -- 7 WITNESS MILETI: I think it would lead any prudent 8 scholar to conclude the same thing if they took the trouble 9 to look at the published literature. i 10 MS. LETSCHE: Now, you go on in this answer to say 11 when people first hear that an emergency is-under way, they ('S 12 rarely respond immediately by taking protective action. N/ l 13 Instead they get into this sequential process which you l 14 des cri be . Now, am I correct that when you say immediately l l 15 taking protective action, that what you are referring to, and l l 16 Ict's talk about evacuation because that's an easy one to l l l l 17 do. Am I correct that what you refer to is actually leaving I ! 4 I 18 and beginning your evacuation? l 19 WITNESS MILETI: Actually doing something. They l 20 need to engage in a monumental thinking through of what's 1 21 going on. Sometimes it happens quickly and for some people 22 it takes longer. 23 MS. LETSCHE: You say here people rarely respond 24 immediately by taking protective action. Am I correct that () 25 what you mean by taking protective action means talking about ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
s 30614.0 (j -)KSW 3291 1 evacuation, actually leaving to evacuate? 2 WITNESS MILETI: Yes, in this case evacuation but
'3 that's referring to a " respond" and I'm suggesting 4 understanding, believing, personalizing and decidingfare 5 factors that ' people go. through mos t of the time. Sometimes 6 people skip.one or two.
7 MS. LETSCHE: When we go.through this process that-8 you describe, when we get to the decido, that would be the 9 ' decision I'm going to evacuate; is that right?- 10 WITNESS MILETI: Some people never make that 11 decision. They evacuate for other reasons. 12 MS. LETSCHE: They do it without making a ("N) 13 decision? 14 WITNESS MILETI: That's right. It can happen. 15 MS. LETSCHE: Is the " respond" that comes after 16 the decide in your -list the actual beginning the trip? 4 17 WITNESS MILETI: That's behavior, yes. 18 MS. LETSCHR: That's what you mean by the 19 " respond"? 20 WITNESS MILETI: If the behavior is evacuation, 21 the " respond" would be evacuation. 22 MS. LETSCHE: Again referring to your sequential 23 process here, the first item you list is hearing. I assume 24 that that refers to hearing a message of some sort? l () 25 WITNESS MILETI: Hearing that there's an emergency i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
. . _ . . . . _ _ __ .m 4
306'14.0 KSW 3292 1 going on or hearing an EBS. message or being informed that-!an - t
-2 emergency is beginning.
3 MS. LETSCHE: I take it then.in the context of any 4 -given emergency that this hearing would refer to'the first-
.5 thing that the individual we're talking about here-hears.
6 WITNESS MILETI:- 'Not necessarily. It could also 7 refer _to subsequent'ones, but most of the studies that have 8 examined it have. looked at hearing that an emergency was- - 9 going on. 10 MS. LETSCHE: It-is just hearing'that an emergency 11 is going on, not necessarily hearing that there is an 12 advisory about protective actions?- 13 WITNESS MILETI: I~wouldn't limit it that way. It. 14 is hearing what there is to be heard. 15 MS. LETSCHE: Hearing whatever it is that's out. 16 there in-the early part of the emergency; right? j 17 WITNESS MILETI: First learning that something is-l 18 happening and -then hearing different kinds of information. 19 One could look at a particular piece of information and study 20 how the public came 'to hear it initially, or one could ask 21 how did each individual member of the public first become 22 informed or hear that an emergency was going on. It can be 23 looked at in several ways. 24 MS. LETSCHR: If we're talking about an individual
! 25 person, for ease of reference, rather than trying to talk l
ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6646
. ,q 30614.0' 3293 D KSW
.1 about the public at large, and we're applying your sequential .
.2 process to the individual person, the hearing part of your 3 process would refer to whatever they heard, first thing they-
_ '4 heard having to do with an emergency; right?' 5 WITNESS MILETI:- It could, but not limited to 6 that. It could also be applicable to hearing other things. 7 -MS. LETSCHE: So in theory I take it they would 8 have this-kind of sequential process could go on with respect' 9 to everything they hear; is that right?
-10 WITNESS MILETI: That multiple hours of 11 information around emergencies is a given. That's always the 12 case, that some of'that information for example in the 13 exercise was the'EBS system. Other bits of information.
14 Yes, one could look at the whole ball of wax, if you wi11, 15 and look at it in this way. 16 MS. LETSCHE: I take it they would or could go 17 .through this sequential process or portions of it with 18 respect to even sequential information from the same source, 19 for instance each of the EBS messages that they heard 20 sequentially; is that right? 21 WITNESS MILETI: One could think of it in that 22 way. Once one begins an act like evacuating sometimes they 23 exit from that process, they would exit from the study of 24 t h a t. . 25 MS. LETSCHE: The exiting would happen, I take it, ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6646
~
cf A 3'O614~.0 3294 ()KSW 1 -the further into the process they got. If they got down to 2 the personalized decide and certainly the respond end of your 3 process they would be less likely to start all over again. 4 when they got a new piece of information; is.that right? 5 WITNESS MILETI: I really have no basis for 6 answering that question. I don't know. Some people go 7 through all these steps once. Some go through some.of them 8 once and some'of them it happens~a multitude ~of times 9 depending on the information. If you. hear an EBS message and 10 then your mother calls you up you will sift through and make 11 a-decision or form a perception on the basis of both those 12 things. 13 MS. LETSCHE: And in your opinion, once you 14 reached the deciding stage of your process, is it any more or
-15 less likely that you would continue to respond rather than 16 starting all over again with the process in light of the new 17 information?
18 WITNESS MILETI: If you ate asking me are people 19 likely to follow through on their act of evacuating after 20 they have begun evacuating -- 21 MS. LETSCHE: No, deciding was the question. , 22 WITNESS MILETI: The only reason we have " decide" 23 in the process is because we need to be able to explain why 24 it is that some people can make decisions and then there are 25 constraints that keep them from following through on them. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
,-. - - - _ _ , , . . , _ - . - , , . . . - , - . - . . _ _ - . . ~ , , _ . - _ . . _ _ _ _ . . . - - . _ - .
, ,30614.0
-(wj 1KSW 3295 1 For example, deciding to evacuate but not having the
-2 transportation available to oneself to follow through, on 3 occasion that can happen in emergencies.
4 MS. LETSCHE: Let me go back one step to the 5 personalized. If one gets to the point of hearing, 6 understanding, believing and personalizing a bit of 7 information, am I correct that the personalizing is actually 8 deciding what it is that one personally should do in this 9 process of yours? 10 WITNESS MILETI: No, it is the personalization of 11 risk as opposed to the nonpersonalization of risk. ('] v 12 MS. LETSCHE: Saying I believe X, Y or Z about the 13 risk I'm in? 14 WITNESS MILETI: Actually in this case being 15 information that you are in a given zone at risk versus one 16 that is not at risk. That helps you personalize the 17 information. 18 MS. LETSCHE: Once one gets through that process 19 and gets to the decision after personalizing it and 20 understanding and believing and hearing it, that he or she in 21 going to evacuate, hasn't actually left but have decided they 22 will, is it more likely or less likely that that decision 23 would change based upon other information that that person 24 would hear subsequent? 25 WITNESS MILETI: I don't think I'm able to answer ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 4 36-6646
+. ,-
, ~y 30614.0 t /KSW 3296 v
1 that question. It seems to be splitting -- addressing 2 something I may not know about. If what you are asking is 3 can people change their minds, yes, they can. 4 MS. LETSCHE: I think I knew that part. My 5 question is, given your process, you have described here what 6 the process is that determines how the public responds to an 7 emergency, and my question is, does there come a point in 8 that process where it is more likely that the process is 9 carried through to the end rather than it being stopped and 10 started all over again? 11 WITNESS MILETI: Again, I think you are asking me 12 a question on which there is no information. I think what (~) RJ 13 exists is that if one is going to understand how members of 14 the public come to behave the way they do in emergencies all 15 this process is mer.ning to suggest is that one needs to look 16 beyond letting the public hear that something is going on. 17 And beyond thinking that there's, as I have said here, a 18 knee-jerk response, a behavior that follows from that. There 19 are some other kinds of factors that emergency information 20 needs to attempt to address, like helping some people 21 personalize risk who need to personalize it and others not to 22 personalize it who need not to. 23 MS. LETSCHE: Hy the knee-jerk response which you 24 mention on page 10 and which you just mentioned in your prior (qj 25 answer, do you mean to refer to certain not going through ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
l 1
~ ,
i i
.q 30614.0 3297 i Q KSW i this process but just immediately doing a respond part?' Is
.2 that what you refer to by a knee-jerk response?
3 WITNESS MILETI: At the risk that this might be 4 struck, upon hearing that an emergency is going on because of 5 preemergency fears, people would then automatically evacuate 6 without considering interacting with their emergency 7 environment information, which affects things like the 8 perceptions they form about the situation, which is how we 9 define " understand." What they end up believing in the 10 information suit because in any emergency there's a great 11 deal of conflicting information, and whether or not they 12 personalize risk or not. Those social /psychologica] factors 13 are the key to understanding human behavior in emergencies. 14 MS. LETSCHE:- The answer to the question is that 15 by knee-jerk response you did mean not going through the 16 entire-sequential process and instead going directly to a 17 response rather than all the other stages; is that right? 18 WITNESS MILETI: I suppose you are right. I'm 19 wordy. I'm a professor. Sorry. 20 MS. LETSCHE: Now, on -- Judge Frye, I have 21 another line of questions that goes to the next section of 22 Dr. Milet3's testimony. It begins on page 10. It is a chunk 23 of testimony. It is one of the sections which I want to 24 doctor in light of the board's ruling on the motion to 25 strike. And frankly I would prefer to do that before I get ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-37(X) Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
. ,3 30614.0
)KSW- 3298 a
1 into cross-examination on this issue. I might potentially 2 prejudice myself on that. 3 JUDGE FRYE: We'll adjourn for the evening, then. 4 Begin again at 9:00 tomorrow morning. 5 (Whereupon, at 6:00 p.m., the hearing was 6 adjourned, to reconvene at 9:00 a.m., Tuesday, April 21, 7 1987.) 8 9 10 11 F 12
-Q,N) 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 f
24 V 25 ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80)-336-6M6 _ - - - - _ -. ~,- - - - .,. .. - -- - .
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER ,~ This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of: NAME OF PROCEEDING: LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) DOCKET NO.: 50-322-OL-5 (EP Exercise) PLACE: HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK
) DATE: MONDAY, APRIL 20, 1987 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
~
(sigt) (TYPED) KATHIE S. WELLER Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Reporter's Affiliation O}}