ML20206U317
| ML20206U317 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/21/1987 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3265 OL-5, NUDOCS 8704230401 | |
| Download: ML20206U317 (185) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:ORG M O UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-322-oL-5 (EP Exercise) LONG ISLAND LIGIITING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) O' LOCATION: IIAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK PAGES: 3301 - 3484 DATE: TUESDAY, APRIL 21, 1987 Il l I 11 I I I I TR 0/ f gfy yy, 'b Doc}e h r>7 + S e < '<c e // e4 / - // b'. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Official Reporters 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 347 3700 I NATIONWIDE COVERAGE
I i l CR30615.0 KSW/sjg 3301 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION' ORE THE ATOMIC SAFEM AND MCENSING BOARD 3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x l 4 In the Matter of: 5 Docket Number LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY 6 50-322-OL-5 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, (EP Exercise) Unit No. 1) 7 1 L _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 9 Court of Claims State of New York 10 State Office Building Third Floor Courtroom Veterans Memorial Highway 11 Hauppauge, New York 12 Tuesday, April 21, 1987 14 The hearing in the above-entitled matter reconvened at 15 16 BEFORE: 17 JOHN H. FRYE, III, Chairman 18 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 19 OSCAR H. PARIS, Member 20 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 21 Washington, D. C. 20555 22 FREDERICK J. SHON, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 23 Washington, D. C. 20555 24 25 -- continued -- ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 341 3700 Nationwide Cmcrage 80lb33MM6 i
F 3302 1 APPEARANCES: N.J 2 On behalf of Long Island Lighting Company: 3 KATHY E. B. McCLESKEY, ESQ. SCOTT D. MATCHETT, ESQ. 4 Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street 5 P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 6 On behalf of Suffolk County: KARLA J. LETSCHE, ESQ. SUSAN M. CASEY, ESQ. 8 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart South Lobby, Ninth Floor 9 1800 M Street, N.W. Washington, D. C. 20036-5891 10 r. On behalf of the State of New York: 11 RICHARD J. ZAHNLEUTER, ESQ. Special Counsel to the Governor 12 Executive Chamber, Room 229 (~ N, State Capitol (-) 13 Albany, New York 12224 On behalf of the NRC: 14 ORESTE PIRFO, ESQ. 15 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 16 Washington, D. C. 20555 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 I 24 0 25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-37(X) Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6 l
3303 1 CONTENTS h VOIR d WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS DIRE 2 DENNIS MILETI, 3 MICHAEL PATTERSON, ELAINE ROBINSON, 4 BRIAN McCAFFREY, and CHARLES DAVERIO 5 by Ms. Letsche 3326 RECESSES: 7 3363 A.M. NOON - 3424 8 P.M. - 3461 9 i EXHI BITS NUMBER IDENTIFIED RECEIVED 11 Suffolk County Exercise Exhibit 44 3349 12 Suffolk County Exercise Exhibit 45 3363 (Number 44 Remarked) Suffolk County Exercise Exhibit 46 3403 14 Suffolk county Exercise Exhibit 47 3436 15 16 l l 17 1 18 19 20 i 21 22 23 24 25 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationside Coverage 800-336-6M6
l 30615.0 ()KSW V 3304 1 PROCE R D J,N_ G S 2 JUDGE FRYE: Good morning. I understand since 3 we're on the record, that you wanted to strike some 4 additional material from the LILCO testimony, so we should 5 take that up ini tially. 6 MS. LETSCHE: Okay. These are a couple of brief 7 segments, but in light of the board's decision to strike 8 portions of the government's testimony, I think that fairness 1 9 requires that the following portions of LILCO's testimony be z 10 stricken as well. There are four pieces. First, on page 10, 11 in answer 8, on the fourth line on page 10, the s tatement ) 12 which says "are largely formed dur3ng, not before, the 13 emergency," which refers to the public's perceptions of risk. 14 It seems to me that that is directly the all 15 preexisting fear issue which was s tricken from our tes timony 16 so I would like Qat clause stricken. Do you want me to list 17 all four of them? 18 JUDGE FRYE: Might as well. ( 19 MS. LETSCHE: Next, also on page 10, the entire i 20 answer 9, and I guess question 9 to make it make sense. I 21 spent time going through it to see if there could be anything 22 Jeft in and I decided there was not. The entire discussion 23 has to do with the research characteris tics which inc1 de 9 24 preemergency fear -- they also include other things -- but 25 the point is that the LILCO witnesses make is that what they ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
i 30615.0 p/ V,SW - (- 3305 1 consider good emergency information can overcome those 2 things. The point wnich the government's witnesses tried to 3 make was that with respect to preexisting fear, by and large, 4 those things cannot be overcome, and I think that fairness S requires that this entire answer be stricken. 6 Next is on page 14, in answer 15, the third line 7 of that answer, the reference to source attributes, and 8 there's a similar reference to source attributes on the next 9 page, page 15, in the next to last line of answer 19. The 10 reason I want this reference to source attributes stricken is 11 that the source attributes as defined by Dr. Mileti on page (mj 12 11 of his test.imony are basically credibilit.y. I don't seek 13 to strike his listing of the or his identification of source 14 attributes, attributes as a quality of emergency information; 15 I only seek to strike the two times where he asserts that ERS 16 messages, that the EBS messages used during the exercise have 17 good or meet the requirements of having good source 18 a ttri bu tes. 19 The reason I seek to strike that is because that 20 goes directly to the credibility with which LILCO's EBS 21 messages will be received, and that is what the board struck 22 from the county's testimony, the discussion of particular EBS 23 messages and data which demonstrated that they would or would 24 not be received or perceived as credible by the public. (O.) 25 Those are my four pieces, and then in addition, as ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 100-336-6646
r^s30615.O U KSW 3306 1 I mentioned yesterday, the section containing LILCO's .2 testimony on Contention 49-C in the back of the testimony. 3 JUDGE FRYE: I missed the last reference. 4 MS. LETSCHE: On page 14 and then on page 15, S source attributes, in the next to last line of answer 18, 6 JUDGE PARIS: Where is the one on page 14? 7 MS. LETSCHE: It is hard to find it. It is only 8 three words. In the third line of answer 15. 9 JUDGE PARIS: What are the three words? 10 MS. LETSCHE: "And source attributes." As I said, 11 it is because this is a discussion of EBS messages i 12 themselves, a1.d it was that portion of our testimony that the 13 - as to credibility that are to be stricken. 14 JUDGE FRYE: Okay, Ms. McCleskey? 15 MS. MC CLESKEY: As to the two portions on page 16 10, questions 8 and 9 are theoretical background that 17 Dr. Mileti as a sociologis t applies to the EBS messages to 18 determine whether or not they are effective, and I think that 19 both questions and answers 8 and 9 are clearly admissible in 20 this testimony. 21 They are in fact summaries of the theory that he 22 discussed at length in previous litigation, and they are both 23 just a paragraph Jong, and in that context they are just 24 background. b' / 25 This little piece in the answer to question 8, ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage MX) 336-6M6
,q 30615.0 V KSW 3307 1 "which are largely formed during, not before the emergency," 2 defines the term " situational perceptions of risk," and 3 that's what Dr. Mileti as a sociologist focuses on when he 4 looks at emergency warning systems, and I think that taking S those words out because the preexisting fear testimony was 6 struck f. rom Suffolk County has no correlation, but that's all 7 I will say about that. 8 The question and answer 8 and 9, as I said, is the 9 theoretical construct that Dr. Mileti uses as the answer to 10 question 8 is, in looking at emergency warning systems, and I 11 think it is appropriate background material here. r 12 As to pages 14 and 15, about source attributes, 13 the definition of " source attributes" does appear on page 11 14 as Ms. i.etsche sa.tu. It.is defined by Dr. Mileti in his 15 testimony as familiarity, not credibility. 16 MS. LETSCIIR : Look at the prior line. Read the 17 whole sentence. 18 MS. MC CLESKEY: Which part are you referring to? 19 MS. LETSCHE: Referring to the parenthetical 20 number 4, which in all his other parentheticals his 21 definition is at the end of the statement. All of the other 22 numbered statements. " Source attributes" there follows an 23 entire long clause which includes credibility. 24 MS. MC Cl,ESKEY: Well, in addition, there is a O V 25 difference between individuals' credibility and credibility ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
7 3061S.0 (V KSW 3308 1 of emergency information that is given out during an 2 emergency. This testimony goes to the credibility of the 3 information, not of LILCo. The testimony that you struck 4 from Suffolk County's testimony goes to LILCO's credibility. S They ask people, do you think LILCO is credible, and they 6 answered on the survey right now whether you thought LILCO 7 was credible or not. It is not talking about LILCO as being 8 credible or not credible or if people do or don't like them. 9 It is talking about information given during an emergency and 10 how you create information during an emergency that people 11 will believe and listen to and take the best action in OQ 12 response to. 13 When we-litigated credibility previously, and we 14 talked about this yesterday,.Tudge Frye, you made some 15 statements about what the testimony was and what the PID 16 Cound. The contention before the board in the previous 17 litigation said that LILCO as an organization had such low 18 credibility that it would not be believed in an emergency, 19 and it is true that the board found that LILCO has low 20 credibility during an emergency, but LILCO won that 21 contention. 22 The reason we won it was that the board also found 23 that information du,i.ng an emergency would not be credible or 24 not credible based on LILCO's credibility as an organization b) s 25 before the emergency. What we argued was it doesn't -- yes, l l l ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3XX) Nationwide Coserage 804336-6M6
i (~3 30615.0 V KSW 3309 1 maybe it is true nobody believes LILCO on Long Island right 2 now, but during an emergency, if you create a good emergency 3 system, people will do what's best to protect them, whether 4 or not they like LILCO right now, and we won that contention, S and that's the part that we are litigating now. Did we give 6 out good emergency information? Was it credible? So the 7 concept of credibility means different things depending on 8 who you are applying it to. In our testimony we're talking 9 about the information. In their testimony they are talking 10 about LILCO as an organization, and I think their testimony 11 was properly struck and ours should stay in. i 12 I can also respond to 49-C. I never did, I don't 13 believe Ms. Letsche articulated the bases of her motion, 14 but - 15 JUDGE FRYE: We reviewed that particular portion 16 of the testimony last night, and with the exception of 17 questions and answers 170 and 173, which specifically talk 18 about the nature of the information that was made available 19 to the public, the rest ot it seems to us to be more at home 20 in an OL-3, so you might want to address that. 21 MS. MC CLESKEY: Do you want me to do that now or 22 do you want Ms. Letsche to respond to the previous argument? 23 JUDGE FRYE: Let's get the response. 24 MS. LETSCHE: I will take up the credibility issue nb 25 first because that was the last one Ms. McCleskey talked ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
n 30615.O U KSW 3310 1 about. 2 The reason that I moved to strike these particular 3 items in LILCO's testimony is because what you all struck 4 yesterday, while it did include some theoretical background S concerning LILCO's overall credibility, it also included 6 particular information about the credibi]ity of the 7 particular EBS messages LILCO used during the exercise. I 8 remember pointing that out to you when I was doing my 9 argument, giving you specific page numbers which I don't have 10 in front of me again, but it inciuded that focus group data 11 and the survey data which directly related to particular EBS ( 12 messages used during the exercise. My point here is'if you 13 are going to strike testimony from one side here that 14 addresses a point, and here the point is is that information 15 credible, you got to do it for everyone. You can't let one 16 side's evidence in and not the other. 17 JUDGE FRYE: Surely. 18 MS. LETSCHE: My point is if you allow Dr. Milet.i 19 to say that in his opinion the EBS messages came from a 20 source, and this is his definition, a source that includes 21 people with organizational affiliations that enhance 22 officialness, credibility, scientists and engineers usually 23 have the most, and familiarity, then our witnesses should be 24 permitted to give you the data which directly in their 4 25 opinion contradicts that. It is just what'c sauce for the ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
~.. ?- M(~g30615.0 KSW 3311 1 goose is sauce for the gander argument here. I don't think 2 you were right to strike our testimony, but I. lost that one. 3 'Once you made that decision I think you need to treat LILCO 3 .4 similarly. 5 My response in addition to the argument concerning 6 the answers 8 and'9 is it sounds very similar to what I said 7 yesterday. This may be Dr. Mileti's theoretical-background. 4 8 The stuff you struck from our testimony was our witnesses' 9 theoretical background. It is the way they analyze 10 messages. They'are sociologists and they have a theoretical 11 instruct that they use as well. You struck all of that. 12 I think that in fairness,-you have got to strike 13 the similar analysis and theoretical background, whether you 14 call i t that or you call it theoretical constructs or it is 15 is what Dr. Mileti focuses on. His can't be in there it my 16 witnesses are not allowed to respond, and-basically that's my-l 17 response. e 18 ' l'3. MC CLESKEY:. I have to say in response to that d 19 argument that the theoretical background of preexisting fear 20 has been rejected by the board, in the way that the' counties' 21 witnesses now want to use it as the basis of this further 22 testimony. The theoretical background in questions 8 and 9 23 were specifically adopted by the board in the PID, as I think 24 the PID said something to the effect of the anost complete 4 2S articulation of how to look at emergency information that had ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6 +me-rwte we--= w g- .,v, ,-eyew= -.y,,,.-._,.._.-,9.,,,,,,,,__m_, _y
p 30615.0 V KSW 3312 1 been presented to the board, and there's a large difference 2 between excluding testimony that's contradictory to prior 3 rulings and including two paragraphs -- 62 pages of it, I 4 might add -- and including two paragrephs of background 5 material that has already been adopted by the board. 6 I wil) just say further on page 11, the term 7 " source attributes" goes not jus t to credibility, but 8 officialness and familiarity, which are specific terms of art 9 for Dr. Mileti as a sociologist. I'm frankly not sure 10 Ms. Letsche's problem is going to be solved if we take the 11 word " source" out of pages 14 and 15. ,,,) 12 JUDGE FRYE: What about 49-C? 5v 13 MS. MC CLESKEY: All right, do I understand you to 14 say that beginning on page 85, you would strike all of the 15 testimony except questions 170 and 173? 16 JUDGE FHYE: That was in our review of it, it 17 looked to us as though the rest of that material is probably 18 more at home in the OL-3 proceeding, where I understand the 19 issue of the adequacy of the monitoring capability is 20 vented. 21 MS. MC CLESKEY: Beginning at page 163 at the 22 bottom of page 8S, I guess I just quickly skimmed again the 23 ques tions and answers, and many of them go as far as I can j 24 tell directly to contention 49-C, which says that there's no O V 25 basis to assume that on]y the people advised by LERO to go to ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-66 M
a 30615.0 V KSW 3313 1 the Coliseum would go. 2 The question 163 says what does the contention 3 mean, what are you answering, Dr. Mileti, and he talks about 4 that. 5 The second question, 164, on page 86, ta3ks about 6 the definition of shadow evacuation and monitoring shadow, 7 which directly relates to 49-C, which says that there's going 8 to be a monitoring shadow that more people than you tell to 9 come are going to come. 10 The question 165 analyzes the contentions' link of 11 monitoring had do to evacuation shadow, and quoting directly g(j 12 from the contention, and distinguishes for Dr. Mileti what he 13 believes the connection is as compared to what the contention 14 says the connection is. 15 Question 166 quotes from the contention and gives 16 his opinion in response to it. Question 167 asks whether the 17 contention's premise, which is that there would be a 18 substantial number of people who would go who were not 19 advised to go, is right, and he says no and tells why. 20 Question 160, he elaborates on that. 21 Question 169 provides TMI information that 22 supports his elaboration of why he thinks Contention 49-C is 23 wrong. 2 24 Question 170 provides other literature AU 25 ela bo ra ti on. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6 4 6
~ r^s30615.0 U KSW 3314 1 Question 171 discusses public health care 2 services, which he says in his testimony is not exactly 3 analogous, but he believes as a sociologist is the best we 4 have in terms of figuring out whether people after they are S exposed to a risk will acknowledge that there has been a risk 6 exposure and go seek in effect medical treatment, monitoring 7 and decontamination. 8 Question 172 talks about based on this background, 9 what he thinks the likely shadow, which is the issue raised 10 in 49-C, would be. 11 I think that the adequacy of the monitoring that 12 is before the 0-3 board is the actual physical monitoring 13 scheme that they are going to be using at the new facilities, 14 and what they are litigating ~ in 0-3 is where they are going 15 to do it, what equipment they will use to monitor people, how 16 they will monitor people, in part how long it might take to 17 monitor people. Whether they have provided the proper basis 18 in their facilities for the number of people that they have 19 to plan for, what number is that. 20 I don't see this testimony going to any of those 21 issues, and I didn't read 49-C as a contention going to those 22 issues. I think 49-C challenges the concept that is as a 23 response to the emergency information given during the 24 exercise. People would have responded to the monitoring (UD 25 information by seeking monitoring where they perhaps were not ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3AX) Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
r"5 30615.0 (,/KSW 3315 1 told to do so, and that might create a problem for LILCO. 2 Now, we didn't put in our testimony what kind of 3 physical problems that would cause. For example, if the 4 facilities could handle whatever additional people came up or S not, I think that's properly before the 0-3 board, and 6 presumably in the 0-3 proceeding they will establish what the 7 outer limits of numbers are for the facilities that they are 8 going to be using, and that sort of thing. Here what we're 9 talking about is how many people in addition to those who 10 would have been told might have coire as a result of the 11 emergency information. O 22 aunca ravs-si e tea te de dre ac t? 13 MS. MC CLESKEY: Yes, and I think our testimony 14 goes directly to that. 15 Now I looked again at the monitoring testimony 16 that was struck, and I will say again as I said yesterday 17 that much of it is preexisting fear testimony in the Suffolk 18 County. 19 MS. LETSCHE: Judge Frye, if I could respond, 20 question and answer 170 that you are proposing to leave in, I 21 take i t, is directly cha))enged by major portions of the 22 testimony of the government that you struck. For instance, 23 where Dr. Mileti purports to -- says he doesn't believe there 24 would be a major monitoring shadow, on page 276 of the 25 government's testimony, you have Dr. Cole talking, it is true ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage MX)-336-6M6
fx30615.0 d KSW 3316 1 that the first sentence of the testimony, which you may want 2 to strike, says that he believes part of his opinion is based 3 upon his knowledge of preexisting fear, but he then goes on 4 to talk about the fact that his opinion is also based on his S survey, and he references a survey question which goes 6 directly to LILCO's EBS message and the data which showed how 7 many people would say they would go to be monitored. 8 Then Dr. Mileti's discussion about EBS messages 9 number 8 and 9 and 9.1 being clear and consistent, and how 10 they would be followed and all of that, which he discusses on 11 page 90 and 91 are directly challenged on pages 278, 279 and O 12 280 and 281 of the governments' testimony, where Drs. Saegert Q 13 and Loftus analyze the messages and talk about how they would 14 not be perceived as being clear or be correctly understood 15 and how they would be LILCO's information about the zones and 16 which zones would be effected would not be followed, and 17 includes in addition focus group data which tells you it is 18 the only empirical data you have here how real-live people 19 heard those messages and understood them. 20 That's on pages 280 and 281. You struck that. I 21 think it was absolutely improper for you to strike that, 22 having admitted Contention 49-C, which directly raises the 23 issue of whether or not people are going to follow LILCO's 24 instructions about monitoring and decontamination, so I think 25 you were wrong to strike it, but if you are going to strike ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8tXb336-%46
30615.0 ( KSW 3317 1 our testimony you must strike the testimony of LILCO which 2 purports to challenge that. It would be clear error for you 3 to do otherwise. 4 The question and answer 173 of LILCO on page 95.is 5 a summary statement which directly relates to Dr. Mileti's 6 theory on why there would not be a large number of people 7 reporting to be monitored in response to these messages, and 8 he talks about the reason for that is because how they are 9 going to form their perceptions of the risk. That is 10 directly cha))enged in the testimony by the government that 11 you struck. I think that in this case, if you are going to ( 12 strike anybody's testimony on an admitted contention, you 13 have to strike everyone's, or else you let it all in and get 14 all of the facts and evidence before you and not try to make 15 a decision without any evidence or with only half of it. 16 MR. ZAHNLEUPER: Judge Frye, I reca)) when the 17 Staff moved to strika the county's testimony on contention 18 49-C that I pointed out questions and answers in LILCO's 19 testimony on Contention 49-C which went to the same topic. 20 Now we have a situation where t.he county 's tes ti mony on 49-C 2L is stricken in large part, and I think tha t my belief is 22 still the same, that LILCO's testimony on 49-C addresses the 23 same thing, and either all of it, both the county's and 24 LILCO's testimony, should be stricken or none of it should be 25 stricken. I look at one addition Dr. Mileti made yesterday ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6M6 j
-.= 1 (m 30615.0 d KSW 3318 1 about 700 to 1000 or so people who reported to a conitoring 2 center in Middletown. I don't see how that is very much 3 different than what people had to say about the EBS messages 4 that LILCO used. It seems that either all of it relates to 5 49-C or none of it relates to 49-C. 6 I would join with Ms. Letsche in also seeking to 7 have this testimony on 49-C stricken. 8 I want to address one point that LILCO's counsel 9 made about the credibility portion of LILCO's testimony on 10 page 10 that dealt with questions 8 and 9. Counsel justified 11 the inclusion of that testimony because it was background l 12 material already adopted by the board. I thought I heard 13 that same argument yesterday used against the county and the 14 state, because testimony dealt with issues tha t had already 15 been resolved by the PID. 16 Again, my principle is the same. Either all of it 17 should be stricken or all of it should be included, and so I 18 would also support the county's position with respect to the 19 striking of the credibility passages and the questions, the 20 portion of question 8 and the answer to question 9. 21 MR. FIRFO: Your lionor, I have nothing of 22 consequence. Of course we filed our motion to strike on 49-C 23 and the other contentions. I think to the extent I'm hearing 24 LILCO saying they are offering it as background, I think they 25 sort of backed off from any sense of relevance on it. The ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage N)0-336-6M6
O 30615.0 d KSW 3319 2 1 problem I have is that I think the board having stricken the 2 Suffolk County testimony on it, what Ms. Letsche says is 3 true, if it is good for the goose it is good for the gander. 4 I'm not sure that's the situation that obtains here, but I'm 5 trying to split the baby here and am having great difficulty 6 doing it. Let me just say to the extent LILCO is offering it 7 for background I don't see any problem with it. I think the 8 board is fully capabic of distinguishing background from the 9 merits on determining the particular contentions. 10 Let me leave it at that. I guess. 11 MS. MC CLESKEY: I would like to say one more hi 12 thing aboyt the background, not to beat a dead horse, but my ~J 13 main reason for believing that the answer to question 9 14 should remain in this testimony is that it defines in the 15 paragraph part of the theoretical construct that Dr. Mileti 16 uses in applying his knowledge to emergency information and 17 deciding whether it is good or not, it is background in the 18 sense tha t people who are familiar with the other proceeding 19 .i n d the PID know it, but that's not why I think it should 20 remain in. 21 We have left a lot of background testimony in on 22 the other issues in Suffolk County's testimony, so I don't 23 t.hi nk that it being background dooms it to striking. 24 JUDGE FHYE: On this issue of 49-C, let me see 25 what sort of response 3 get to the proposition of striking ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage MX)-336-6646
(_330615.0 ( ) KSW 3320 1 all testimony of everyone on 49-C and letting you submit 2 findings on that particular contention based on the testimony 3 that's adduced on the clarity of the messages and the 4 release. That probably affects Suffolk more than anyone S else. 6 MS. MC CLESKEY: Are you striking the contention? 7 JUDGE FRYE: No. 8 MS. LETSCHE: The reason that I believe it was 9 error for you to have stricken our testimony is that you 10 admi tted a contention and the contention is there to be 11 supported or not supported by evidence. Both parties 12 submitted evidence that address that testimony, which is why 13 neither one of us, except for a couple of little bits that 14 had the " preexisting fear" words in it, sought to strike each 15 others', because I think legitimately we both believed we 16 were addressing what was in the contention and I think wo 17 were. Having admitted the contention, I think you have an 18 obligation to hear the parties' evidence on it. Telling us 19 to submit findings without the opportunity to submit evidence 20 would not be correct. 21 JUDGE FRYE: I don't think that's fair. You have 22 all or a great amount of material lefL here seems to go to 23
- t. hat issue.
24 MS. LETSCHE: Both sides believe, Judge Frye, that 25 we have additional different evidence. We have survey ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-3366M6
=. " 30615.0 KSW 3321 1 evidence that goes directly to the monitoring issue, which is 2 different from the survey evidence that we talked about in 3 the earlier part of the testimony, which is how you would 4 respond to those other particular messages that tel] you to S leave or not to leave. We have separate evidence on that. 6 We have separate evidence from the focus groups which 7 indicate how those particular messages, the main reason for 8 which is to tell people to get monitoring which explain how 9 the public reacted to those particular messages. 10 That's not set forth in the earlier part of the 11 Lestimony, and we also have other opinions in our experts' s 12 testimony here which set out their theoretical constructs as 13 to why they agree with the specific contention in 49-C, which 14 has to do with whether or not people will report for 15 monitoring or decontamination. LILCO has a different theory, 16 which we disagree with, but they believe it is a completely 17 different phenomenon that's going on when you talk about 10 reporting for monitoring as opposed to evacuating. 19 Dr. 14ile ti lays that out. They have a different theory, but 20 that's their reason why they believe that Contention 49-C 21 should be decided in their favor. 22 Hight or wrong, we both believe we have evidence 1 23 to present to you. I think having admitted the contention, 24 you all have an obligation to hear the evidence which the ] 25 parties seek to present, because I don't think any of that ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nat;onwide Cmerage 800-336-6M6
(~330615.0 V KSW 3322 1 evidence does not address the issues raised by Contention 2 49-C which you admitted. 3 My initial response to your question is I don't 4 think that would be the appropriate way to go, to not permit 5 any parties to submit evidence, evidence which they believe 6 directly addresses that admitted contention. If, however, 7 you decide to strike any portions of the county's testimony 8 which you indicated yesterday you intended to strike, I 9 believe that you must strike the portions of LILCO's 10 testimony which I have identified, which address exactly the 11 same points. You cannot permit one party to submit evidence 12 to you on an admitted contention and prohibit the other party 13 from challenging it. 14 JUDGE FRYE: I agree with that proposition. 15 MS. MC CLESKEY: I disagree strongly with it. We 16 have in the past had signit.icant portions of Suffolk County's 17 testimony struck on the same issue that LILCO has had 18 testimony put in. The question is not - 19 JUDGE FRYE: If you are talking about a procedural 20 question, that can happen, but here we're talking about 21 whether or not something is within the scope of the 22 proceeding, of this proceeding, and if it is in, it is in. 23 If it is not, it is not. That would apply equally to LILCO 24 and the county. 25 MS. MC CLESKEY: If neither of un have submitted ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646 . -,.~.
73 30615.0 C/ KSW 3323 1 any testimony that's within the scope of this proceeding, 2 then I submit that the Contention 49-C is not in the scope 3 either. I know that we objected to its submission to begin 4 with, and if the board strikes all of the testimony submitted 5 by the parties on it, perhaps I would Itko to request that 6 the board reconsider admission of the contention itself. 7 Second, shadow phenomenon and monitoring shadow b are two different concepts. Now Suffolk County's witnesses 9 say they are different concepts, and my witness says they are 10 different concepts. We have different theories about why 11 they are different, and we explain them differentiy in our 12 testimony,- but I know for my part, LILCO's testimony on 13 shadow phenomenon in the first part of their submission wili 14 not do to respond to 49-C monitoring shadow. 15 We responded to it separately, and it is a 16 different, as I said yesterday, it is the first is fleeing a 17 risk and how are people going to behave and how do you get 18 them to get out of danger, and the second is going back after 19 the fact and recognizing that they need help, treatment, 20 monitoring and decontamination. Very different behaviors, 21 and our testimony going to 49-C addresses very different 22 things, so in answer to your question about striking that 23 testimony and relying on the rest, LILCO cannot do that 24 because it is different. 25 I also think, and this is the third point, that ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage R&336-6M6
ll I: i + - s3'A15.0 KSk 3324 L dif th'e 49-C testimony that you struck trom Suffolk County is il 2! very different from the 49-C testimony we submitted, and I'm 3
- coking back at what you struck.
You have left in the first 4 tbrec. pages, which goes to their definition of the issue, and 5 starting on page 276, Witness Cole's basis, my opinion is 6 based on the knowledge of great fear that Long Island i 7 residents have of being exposed. 8 The next page that you struck, 277, Saegert and 9 Loftus. People have tremendous '.' ear of radiation, and that's 10 what they talk about in this testimony for those three 11 pages. 12 You.left in page 279. 13 You struck page 280, which has the focus group 14 talking about the danger, and you struck page 281, which 15 basically has Harris and Mayer talking about people's fear of 16 radiation. I think that was appropriate. There's nothing 17 about fear ot radiation in our 49-C monitoring testimony, and 18 it may be that you come to the same conclusion for different 19 reasons, that both pieces are irrelevant or not admissible, 20 but they are not the same, and the argument that simply by 21 striking theirs you have to strike ours doesn't hold water. 22 JUDGE FHYE: When does this come up in your 23 overali cross-examination? 24 MS. LETSCHE: It can wait. It is not going to 25 come up today or tomorrow. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage M)o-336-6M6 ..._.._,....,__._m .,_y_. m y .mv ...___.,,,..,_..,-_v... .m ,.-_c
30615.0 (]KSW V 3325 1 I'm not going to respond, basically, because I 2 assume that you all will read this, and the way Ms. McCleskey 3 just characterized our testimony is just not right. You need 4 to read it. S JUDGE FRYE Mr. Zahnleuter, did you have anything 6 to add? 7 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: No, I don't. 8 JUDGE FRYE: Mr. Pirfo? 9 MR. PIRFO: No, your Hono't. 10 JUDGE FRYE: I take it that this testimony you 11 move to strike today, Mu. Letsche, would be coming up now? 12 MS. LETSCHS: Yes. 13 (Discussion off the record.) 14 JUDGE FRYE: Back on the record, please. As to 15 the matters which you moved to strike this morning, 16 Ms. Letsche, we have reviewed it and think frankly that it is 17 background. We don't think it is anything more than that. 18 We don't. see any point in striking these few matters that you 19 raise, so we'll deny that motion. 20 As to the question of the monitoring shadow, we 21 will hold back that issue and rule on it later. That strikes 22 us as somewhat of a knottier problem. Can we get the 23 witnesses? 24 JUDGE FRYE: Good morning. 25 THE WITNESSES: Good morning. f ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6 I
q 30615.O V KSW .3326 2 1 MS. LETSCHE: Dr. M11eti, will you turn to page 10 2 of your testimony, please? 3 WITNESS MILETI: I'm there. 4 MS. LETSCHE: I'm going to focus for a few minutes 5 on the answer to number 9 on that page. In the paragraph 6 after the two numbered itemu here, you say that 7 well-constructed emergency information and warnings can 8 overcome many of the constrainto imposed by research 9 characteristics which might prevent people from forming sound 10 si tua ti onal risk perceptions. Am I correct that in the 11 context of this testimony involving the LILCO exercise, that 12 by sound situational risk perceptions, you mean perceptions 13 that are content with the protective action recommendations 14 disseminated by LILCO? l 15 WITNESS MILETI: Hy and large, and additionally 16 that people would come to perceive they are at risk if they 17 are and not at risk if they are not. 10 MS. LETSCHE: Hut whether they are in this context 19 would be defined by the protective action recommendations 20 made by LILCO; is that right? 21 WITNESS MILETI: Defined by the emergency 22 information that was part of the EHS system. 23 MS. LETSCHE: Which would be the protective action 24 recommendations contained in those EBS messages from LILCO; O V 25 right? 4 ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage MX)-336-6646
O 30615.0 b KSW 3327 1 WITNESS MILETI: I believe they came f rom LEft0. 2 MS. LETScilE: Now, your reference to 3 well-constructed emergency information and warnings, am I 4 correct about that by well-constructed you are referring to 5 containing the attributes you describe on page 11 of your 6 testimony? 7 WITNESS MILETI: In my answer to question 10 8 that's the ideal type for emergency information and 9 warnings. 10 MS. LETSC}lE: And that's what you mean by 11 well-constructed on pago LO; is that right? 12 WITNESS MILETI: Yes, that is. 1 13 MS. LETSCHR: Now, I know that as a sociologist, 14 your opinion here -- and I'm talking about the first sentence IS -- that well-constructed emergency information warnings can 16 overcome many of these constraints imposed by research 17 characteristics, that your opinion is based upon theory and 18 your own opinions and experiences and lots of empirica] 19 studies, and I'm sure all those things influenced this 20 statement you made, but I'm interested in only one type of 21 basis for this statement of yours. I'm particularly 22 interested in empirical studies based specifically on 23 reactions or potential reactions to radiological 24 emergencies. Are there any empirical studies based upon 25; reactions or potential reactions to radiological emergencies ACE FEDERAI. REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
p 30615.0 b KSW 3328 1 upon which you base your opinions stated in answer 9? 2 WITNESS MILETI: First let me say that I don't 3 base my opinion regarding my answer to question 9 on the 4 basis of studies about how people think they might behave in 5 emergencies, but rather on the basis of how people actitally 6 behave in emergencies. The data that's available regarding 7 radiological emergencies, thank goodness, is not elaborate. 8 Therefore, if there is not a data base, one can't invent 9 one. However, my opinion is based on the generic principles 10 that I think hold in all kinds of emergencies. 11 MS. LETSCHE: Does that mean you do not base your 12 opinion on any empirical studies baeed upon reactions or i 13 potential reactions to radiological emergencies? 14 WITNESS MILETI: I do to the extent that they 15 exist. For example, and it is largely anecdotal rather than 16 scientific collect. ion of facts, about how people behave in 17 radiological emergencies that have occurred. For example, 18 Wind Scale incident, the bombing of Hiroshima and the few I 19 other cases of involving radiological emergencie::, My bas u 20 is actually on how people respond to warnings of radiological 21 information. 22 MS. LETSCHE: I want to make sure I have an answer 23 to my question. I was asking if there were any empirical 24 otudies based upon reactions or potential reactions to 25 radiological emergencies. You mention largely anecdotal ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336 6646
A i (~330615.O C)KSW 3329 1 information concerning the Wind Scale incident. I take i t 2 that would not qualify in your view as an empirical study; is 3 that right? 4 WITNESS MILETI: I wouldn't classify it as a 5 scientific study. There were a lot of studies done at TMI, 6 of course, that's one of the most advanced that's ever come 7 down the pike. 8 MS. LETSCHE: On the Wind Scale one, you would 9 agree there's not a scientific study that you would base your 10 conclusions on here rcJated to the Wind Scale incident? 11 WITNESS MILETI: The only thing is accounts of ( 12 people on what happened. To the extent that they shed light 13 on the principles that affect how people come to behavior in 14 emergencies, but they were not gathered in a scientific way. 15 JUDGE FRYE: They were not empirical? 16 WITNESS MILETI: Data was not gathered. It was 17 just qualitative accounts, which is basically the same type 18 of existing evidence for what happened in Japan and the same 19 type of existing evidence that -- there isn't much, but the 20 only empirical scientific record that's elaborate regarding 21 radiological emergencies is the TMI incident. 22 JUDGE SHON: There were a couple of others that 23 spring to my mind, the SL-1 incident at the Idaho test 24 station and the Chalk River incident come years ago, before 25 Wind Scale even. Do you have data from either of those? ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
N 4 (~330615.0 V KSW 3330 1 WITNESS MILETI: I have to say I don't know about 2 those. 3 MS. LETSCHE: In terms of the studies relati.ng to 4 TMI, can you' identify for me which, if any, empirical studies l 5 of TMI you rely upon for your opinion that well-constructed 6 emergency information and warnings can overcome many of the 7 constraints imposed by research characteristics which might 8 prevent people from forming sound -- 9 WITNESS MILETI: 1.have to say two things in 10 answering that question. First, all studies that. do exist 11 regarding how people behaved at TMI -- for example, the study b) 12 by Flynn tor the NRC, the publication by Flynn and Chalmers, I v 13 I believe, the report.done by Brunn and et al. and the whole 14 host of others that existed -- but additionally I have to add 15 that that incident is only one data point. When one makes 16 judgments about how people come to behave in emergencies, you 17 need to look at more than one data point. One needs to look. 18 across emergencies to see what patterns seem to hold. J9 MS. LETSCHE: With respect to the three matters l 20 you identified to me in response to my question relating to 21 TMI, you ment.ioned a study by Cynthia Flynn. Is that an 22 empirical s tudy which you believe supports your opinion 23 stated on page 10? 24 WITNESS MILETI: Absolutely. One thing found in -q) 25 that study was that I believe for, and I'm sure this ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage MXh336 6646
(m 30615.0 ()KSW 3331 l 1 percentage is wrong, but about 75 percent of the people who 2 responded during Three Mile Island, one of the main reasons 3 they attributed to their responding the way they did was the 4 inconsistent and conflicting or confusing -- I have forgotten 5 the words they used -- information, and one of the 6 unfortunate things is that none of the studies that I know of 7 that examined what happened at TMI sought to measure in the 8 way I would -- why would they, they were not me -- emergency 9 information and how it related to the response. 10 MS. LETSCHE: Ms. F]ynn's study did not provide 11 data one way or the other, did it, about how the people would b 12 have reacted had the information been different? G 13 WITNESS MILETI: I think one could conclude from 14 what she was able to compile, given the data she did collect, 15 that people would have felt more comfortabic had the 16 information not been so botched up. 17 MS. LETSCHE: My question, Dr. Mileti, was 18 Ms. F3ynn's survey did not provide data, did it, to 19 demonstrate how the people would have reacted had the 20 information at TMI been different? 21 WITNESS MILETI: It would have been impossible to 22 do because the TMI -- the information at Three Mile Island 23 was not different. It was the way it was. 24 MS. LETSCHE: You also mentioned an artic.le by l O V 25 Flynn and Chalmers. I take it that article discusses the ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage m)-336-6M6
30615.0 / KSW 3332-1 Flynn study we have been discussing; is that correct? 2 WITNESS MILETI: It is one of several publications 3 all resulting from the same piece of research. 4 MS. LETSCHE: You also mentioned a report by Brunn. 5 et al. Does that also discuss the Flynn. study? 6 WITNESS MILETI: I don't recollect if that early 7 report'out of Michigan cites the Flynn study or not. I would I 8 he. surprised if those authors overlooked it because it was a 9 -significant piece of research, but it'may not have been;out 10 by the time they put out that initial report. 11 MS. LETSCHE: .In terms of empirical studie:: based 12 upon reactions to the TMI radiological emergency, I take it i 13 that the Flynn study that we have discussed is the only one 14 .upon which you base your opinion; is that correct? 15 WITNESS MILETI: Absolutely not. As I said j' 16 earlier, I have looked at all of the studies that have come I l' 17 out regarding Three Mile Island. Another one is a very 18 recent publication by John Sorensen and a few others 19 regarding how things went the way they did at Three Mile 20 Island, and in it I think is a significant empirical 21 statement. 22 It is a path model showing how and what factors 23 affected how people responded the way they did, and one of 24 the -- several of the conclusions that one could reach from 25 that assessment, which was reanalyzing Flynn's data, was ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
o 30615.0 U KSW 3333 1 that, for example, preemergency fears only had thei.r effect 2 on behavior as operating through situational risk 3 perceptions, and initially, that given that data, and other 4 people's for that matter, that a very low percentage of the S explained variance in human response'to the emergency at TMI 6 was able to be explained by looking at factors such as age, 7 sex and that sort of thing; and that would lead me to O conclude, putting those studies in context, that some of the 9 most significant factors that we needed to take into account 10 to explain human response, other precise estimates of the 11 kinds of information that people were getting, but no one (O ' 4 12 measured that, so it was not in the mold, but the lack of 13 explained variance makes sense when used in the context of 14 the theory that we know helps explain human responses. 15 MS. LETSCHR: Dr. Sorensen's article concluded, 16 did it not, that both preemergency fears and emergency 17 information influenced the reaction of people to the TMI 18 event? 19 WITNESS MILETI: That fear, along with a variety 20 of other preemergency factors such as sex, age, socioeconomic 21 income and those sorts of things sociologists tend to 22 measure, had an effect on people's situational perceptions of 23 risk, which then in turn had an effect on people's response, 24 but that it was situational perceptions that af fected O) (_ 25 people's behavior. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage SMF336-6M6 _, ~ _
I (p 30615.0 /KSW' 3334 l 1 MS. LETSCHE: Dr. Sorensen's study did not 2 'specifically analyze the impact of emergency.information on 3 --- immediate emergency information during an emergency on - e 4 those perceptions; is that right? i-S WITNESS MILETI: It couldn't, because that data 6 didn't exist. However, the explained variance, the degree to 7 which preexisting fear ~could affect that variance in' human 8 response had a very small effect. The best anyone has been 4 I don't remember the percentage, but a 9 able to do is explain, 1 10 '3ow percentage of the variance and how people responded. The 11 only logical conclusion that sociologists could reach is that O 12 because the re evant factors were not included in the data i 13 collection, which was emergency information. It really is 14 . unfortunate that that study was never donc, that. is that we - 15 never collected that data. "We" meaning the people who i 16 studied Three Mile Island as a group. 17 MS. LETSCHE: On page 11 of your tes'timony, you i 10 list these or provide your checklist of emergency public 1 19 information characteristics. I take it from your testimony + . 20 later on that it is your opinion that LILCO's EDS messages t i 21 reflected these four characteristics; is that correct? 22 WITNESS MILETI: Yes, in several ways, but one 23 needs to remember that the way to appraise this is that this 24 is an ideal type and nothing in t.he real world is perfect, 25 and these are the things that one should keep in mind when i i ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 .g -v,, e e - --, - -. v,-,,.,,--,-m,,--~,--w .ne-, ~,,, - -, - v --~.,m-e n,4 -v-- -m-- --=-- -=, w -we -wv
,,-,n,me,---s-e---+--,er,
... ~. ~.. h 30615.0 1/ KSW. 3335 .1 one is constructing and thinking about emergency information, 2 -and that all these things were taken into account when the 3 emergency warning system was designed for the Shoreham 4 nuc] ear power station. To the best of my knowledge, they are 5 taken into account more for Shoreham than any other emergency 6 plan in the nation for any other hazard that I know. 7 MS. LETSCHE: And I take it that's because you are 8 the one that wrote the messages; is that right? 9 WITNESS MILETI: I along with others wrote the 10 - messages. 11 MS. LETSCHE: You would agree with me, wouldn't 12 you, Dr. Mileti, that it is possible for two people to hear 13 the same message and one to find'it clear and another to find ~ 14 it unclear? 15 WITNESS'MILETI: Absolutely. 16 MS. LETSCHH: You would also agree that it would 17 be possible for a message to be clear to one group of people [ l 18 and unclear to another group of people? 8 l 19 WITNESS MILETI: That's true as well. l 20 MS. LETSCHR: And that a particular message might 21 be clear under some circumstances and unclear under others? 22 WITNESS MILETI: That's a possible as well. If 23 you can think of a variation in regard to human beings, that ( l 24 variation will be found in the real world. The issue is how 25 often it occurs and is it likely versus a possibility. ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 . _. - _.., _. _ - _ _ _.. _ _.. _,... _ _ _ _.. - ~, __
{30615.0 -{) KSW 3336 1 MS. LETSCHE: I assume.you would also agree that '2 there's.no way to determine whether a particular message O 3 would'be-clear t'o a particular intended audience under a 4 particular circumstance simply by-looking at that message. 5 WITNESS MILETI: It is impossibility-for. the 4-6 discipline of sociology and me as a sociologist.to make 7 predictions about specific individuals. We can only talk 8 about. populations with confidence,~and therefore we could 9 look at a message and make a judgment based upon the existing 10 empirical record about whether that would maximize factors 11 that would include things like clarity and understandi13g and 12 what.have you for a population as a whole, which is the 13 relevant thing to do in emergency planning, since we're 14 addressing the safety of populations. 15 MS. LETSCHE: And that would be your personal 16 prediction in light of your knowledge as to how that ,t 17 particular message would be perceived by a particular 18 audience under whatever particular circumstances you posit; i 19 is that right? i 20 WITNESS MILETI: It would be my judgment looking 21 at what I think are the analytical criteria to distinguish 22 between a good message versus a bad message, based on the 23 studies that have been performed about how people respond to 24 emergency warningu, but it is definitely my judgment that's 25 the only thing there is to go on. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646 ~ _ _.
d 1 30615.0 KSW 3337 1 MS. LETSCHE: But your judgment would also be + 2 based, would it not, upon whatever hypothesis you had 3 postulated in terms of the characteristics of the audience t-4 and the circumstances under which that message would=be S received by them; is that right? O-6 WITNESS MILETI: Yes and no, because in looking,at-7 the ideal type of emergency information, the underlying 4 i 8 hypothesis is that there would be as much' variation on any 9 one of the situational: factors or on any one of the human 1 10 specific factors, for example, age,-sex, education or level-11 of fear or what have you, in the population for which it was i 12 designed, so that I would be presuming.there would be 13 fearless people in a population and fearfui people in a i 14 population, that there would be old-people and young people l 15 in a population, and that those research characteristics 16 would vary the full range of variation that they vary in i 17 life. 18 MS. LETSCHE: So you would be making presumptions I 19 or assumptions about the characteristics of your audience? 20 WITNESS MILETI: There would be people in the l-21 audience across the full continuum of variation. That's 22 presuming that the factors that could affect how emergency i 23 information is received, understood, processed, et cetera, i 24 could exist in the population. 25 MS. LETSCHE: You would be also making i i 4 i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
30615.0 p/KSW (, 3338 1 presumptions, would you not, concerning the circumstances or 2 situation in which that audience would be hearing or 3 receiving the message; is that right? 4 WITNESS MILETI: One would have to. For 5 example - 6 MS. LETSCHE: That's enough. You really don't 7 need to give me an example. You answered the question. 8 Thank you. 9 Now, it is true, is it not, Dr. Mileti, that you 10 have no empirical data concerning how the public on Long 11 Island would perceive the exercise messages disseminated by r {) 12 LILCO? 13 WITNESS MILETI: No, I do not, but I wouldn't need 14 it. 15 MS. LETSCHE: Now, you in the answer to question 16 11 on page 11 of your testimony talk about what information 17 sources would be available or would be there for the public 18 during an emergency. I gather from this that you draw a 19 distinction between what you refer to as the official warning 20 system and nonofficial sources; is that correct? 21 WITNESS MILETI: Yes, I certainly do. That's why 22 I used the words " official warning system" in the testimony. 23 MS. LETSCHE: And in the context of this testimony 24 and this proceeding, what you refer to as the official O'd 25 warning system are the messages and information disseminated ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 4 46
c n 30615.0 C,/KSW 3339 1 by LERO; is that correct? 2 WITNESS MILETI: I would focus my attention on the 3 EBS messages as the official warning system. 4 MS. LETScilE : I see. So you would not consider 5 other LERO generated information through the other media we 6 discussed yesterday, the news conferences and rumor control 7 system and the informal press contacts, you would not 8 consider that part of the official warning system; is that 9 right? 10 WITNESS MILETI: When I wrote these words 11 " official warning system," I had the EBS system in mind. r) 12 However, I wouldn't exclude from consideration any of the (u) 13 emergency information stemming from any entity or group 14 including informal sources, not as part of the official 15 warning system. 16 MS. LETSCilE The official warning system you have 17 in mind is just the EHS messages; is that right? 18 WITNESS MILETI: It is the EBS system and the EHS 19 messages, since they are the most important and the most 20 direct iine to the public. 21 MS. LETSCHE: What is there, other than talking 22 about the exercise now, the EDS messages that. fit into your 23 -- in this answer, your concept of the official warning 24 system? 25 WITNESS MILETI: It is as the official warning ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6M6
(q 30615.0 r ,1KSW 3340 1 system, it is of prime importance to the public. 2 MS. LETSCHE: Do you have an understanding that 3 the EBS system as demonstrated during the exercise consisted 4 of anything other than the dissemination of the EBS messages 5 that are in attachment to your testimony? 6 WITNESS MILETI: No. 7 MS. LETSCHE: Answer was yes, then, to the 8 question that you had in mind the EDS messages when you said 9 official warning system? 10 JUDGE FRYE: I think I see the difficulty here, 11 Ms. Letsche. You regard the system as including the / s (j 12 information and the means of transmitting it; is that 13 correct? 14 WITNESS MILETI: Absolutely, yes. 15 JUDGE FRYE: The information would be limited to 16 the EDS messages; is that correct? 17 WITNESS MILETI: When I was writing the words 18 " official warning system" I had in mind the EBS messages. 19 JUDGE FRYE Okay. 20 MS. LETSCHE: Now, when you say in your testimony 21 that it is almost inevitable that the public will be exposed 22 to inconsistent emergency information and interpretations, 23 because public information flows from more than the official 24 warning system, I take it that you are acknowledging that O(/ 25 there could be inconsistent information and interpretations ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
n 30615.0 (,,)KSW 3341 1 from the official warning system as compared with whatever 2 unofficial sources there are; is that right? 3 WITNESS MILETI: Acknowledging it, yes, I was 4 talking about that back in 1983. That's one of the reasons S we need a sys tem that helps people focus on a subset of 6 information to make it stand out. The EBS system is one of 7 the ways to solve that problem or help solve that problem. 8 MS. LETSCHE: If there were inconsistencies within 9 the official warning system, that is there were 10 inconsistencies within EDS messages disseminated by the 11 official system, that would run contrary to your principle 12 number 1, would it not? 13 WITNESS MILETI: In theory it certainly would. In 14 practice, one would need to look at the intensity of the 15 inconsistencies and the extent to which they would detract 16 from helping the public form accurate perceptions. 17 MS. I,ETSCHE : And I take it that inconsistencies 18 between the official warning system and other sources would 19 also violate principle number 1; is that right? 20 WITNESS MILETI: In theory it would, but one of 21 the things one needs to presume when one is designing an 22 emergency public warning system is that there will be 23 informal nono f_ f i c ial sources saying all kinds of inconsistent 24 things, things inconsistent with the official warning U 25 system. That happens in all emergencies. ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33MM6
(3 30615.0 (._,l KSW 3342 1 MS. LETSCHS: Would you turn to page 12, please? 2 In the answer to question 12, you say what you just told us, .3 that you need to presume there would be conflicting 4 information, and you say there that emergency planners should S take steps to assure that official warnings stand out so that 6 the public focuses on them. I take it it is your opinion 7 that during the exercise LILCO successfully achieved that; is 8 that correct? 9 WITNESS MILETI: Yes, it is. Large part of the 10 reason is because of the information that went out, but a 11 major additional reason is that they have an EBS system. I h.J 12 know that they have that because of regulations, but there's ~ 13 a basis for that regulation. 14 MS. LETSCHE: Is it your opinion, Dr. Mileti, that 15 the mere existence of an EBS system by definition means that 16 of ficial warnings will stand out so that the public focuses 17 on them? 18 WITNESS MILETI: It is a huge, giant step in that 19 direction, yes. 20 MS. LETSCHR: Does the existence of an EBS system 21 by definition mean that otticial warnings stand out so that 22 the public focuses on them? 23 WITNESS MILETI: Not if the ERS system is botched 24 up, no. 25 MS. LETSCHE: Now, if the public does not focus on ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8(0 336-6M6
30615.0 KSW 3343 1 the official warnings, I take it from the remainder of your 2 answer here in answer 12 that the other public information 3 sources.would become more important; is that correct? 4 WITNESS MILETI: The probability of that occurring-5 would increase, yes, which is why it is important to have a 6 system like an EHS system and have it perform well in an 7 emergency, to maximize the odds _that people end up. forming fl accurate perceptions. 9 MS. LETScilE Now, your discussion in the second 10 paragraph of answer 12 about what you refer to as secondary 11 and tertiary public inf ormation sources, I take.it you-12 include in those secondary and tertiary sources media 13 information in addition to that directly generated by the 14 LERO people; is that right? 15 WITNESS MILETI: I would include all other forms 16 of information as secondary to the EBS system when an ERS 17 system exists as it did during the exercise. 18 MS. LETSCilE Rut your conclusion here that 19 secondary and tert.lary public inf ormation sources are simply 20 less important, I take it that that conclusion would apply to 21 whatever media coverage there may be of an event; is that 22 right? 23 WITNESS MILETI: Yes. 24 MS. LETSCHE: And I take it from your conclusion 25 here that if the EHS system or the official warnings do not Ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
q 30615.0 C/KSW 3344 1 stand out so that the public focuses on them, then the 2 secondarf and tertiary public information sources would 3 become more important; is that right? 4 WITNESS MII.ETI: The probability of them having an 5 effect on people's perceptions would increase. We have for 6 example Three Mile Island, we didn't have the eruption at 7 Nevado del Ruiz in Columbia, we didn't have a system there, 8 so 3t is pousible, yes. The probability of those other 9 sources having a larger effect on affecting people's 10 perceptions would increase. 11 MS. I.ETSCIIR : You wouldn't disagree that even if [l 12 you have a good EBS system, that those other sources wil] wJ 13 have some effect? 14 WITNESS MII,ETI: Those other sources are not IS useless or unimportant, as I have said in my testimony, but 16 the EHS system could override nome of the impact that it 1 17 could have, for example down in Columbia, the official system 18 to the extent that it existed told people that a volcano was 19 about to erupt. An informal source was the local Catholic 20 priest, who said for the peopt-to go back to their homes, 21 and that's why so many people died, because they were in 22 their homes. If they had a good EDS system that probably 23 could have considered that elfect. 24 MS. 1,ETSCHE: It it. your opinion that the EHS 25 sys tem as demons trated by I.IINO during the exercise would ace FEDERAL REvonTEns, INC. 202-347-3AO Nationwide Cow age MA33MM6
,q 30615.0 Q KSW 3345 1 have resulted in secondary and tertiary public information 2 sources being of little importance? 3 WITNESS MILETI: Depends wha t you mean by "little 4 importance." They certainly would have had some effect. A S minor effect. The ERS system and the messages that went out 6 during the exercise, I think, are an outstanding example of 7 how things should go in an emergency. 8 MS. LETSCHR: Let me rephrase the question. Is it 9 your opinion that given the ERS messages that were 10 disseminated during the exercise, that information from the 11 secondary and tertiary public information sources would have 12 had a low probabili ty of af fecting the public's perception of 13 the emergency? 14 WITNESS MILETI: They would have had a lower 15 probability than the ERS systems would have had. People's 16 attention would have been focused on the EDS messages. 17 MS. I,HTSCHE: I take it that the conclusion you 10 just stated, that people would have focused on the exercise 19 ERS messages, is the basis for your conclusion in the first 20 sentence of the last paragraph on page 12 that " response to 21 che emergency simulated in the exercise, had it been a real d ?: emergency, would largely have been a function of the .1 information characteristics of I.ERO's ERS messages"; is that 24 right? 25 WITNESS MILETI: Yes, you are right. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage MU-33MM6
(3 30615.0 ()KSW 3346 1 MS. I,ETSCIIE: Would you tiern to page 13 of your 2 testimony, please? 3 WITNESS MII.ETI: I'm there. 4 MS. LETSCHE: Mr. Daverio, I'm going to ask a few 5 questions about the answer to question 13 on page 13 of your 6 testimony. 7 You state there that the ENC is set up primarily 0 for the media's benefit. You would agree with me, would you 9 not, that the news conferences held at the ENC are intended 10 to be a source of accura te information to the public; is that Il right? 12 WITNESS DAVERIO: Yes, with the media being a 13 vehicle to get it to the pubile. That's correct. 14 MS. I,ETSCHE : And you would also agree with me, 15 would you not, that the news conferences are designed to 16 insure both public and media confidence in the information 17 givers, in this case LERO and I,ILC0; is that right? 18 WITNESS DAVERIO: The news conferences are to 19 allow the media to ask specific questions that may have come 20 up in their own minds to write a better story and to provide 21 them the latest information at the instant it comes out to 22 give that press conference; lu that correct? 23 MS. LETScilH: You would agree with me, would you 24 not, that the news conf erences are designed to inuur e public 25 and media confidence in LERO and LII.CO? ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmcrage 8 tub 336-(M6
30615.0 k KSW 3347 1 WITNESS DAVERIO: I think as I just stated, it is 2 to give the information to the media in the best fashion we 3 can as to what's happening at the time and to answer any 4 questions that they might have on that information. 5 MS. LETSCHE: Are you saying you do not agree that r 6 one of the purposes is to insure public and media confidence 7 in LERO and LILCo? 8 WITNESS DAVERIO: It is not just to provide 9 confidence, it is to provide information that the media uses 10 as a media uses information. I can't tell them how to use 11 the information. We can provide t.hi b he best information ~ >Aj 12 available at the time and address any question they have for 13 us. 14 WITNESS MC CAFPREY: With regard to the 15 confidence, the intention is to provide the latest 16 information. That's where we get into the second level of 17 the hierarchy, EBS being first, and then the press 18 conferences second, that we establish the hierarchy by virtue 19 of the instant before we do a pre.ss conference to check with 20 the response manager in charge of the emergency and get the 21 latest information so it is consistent. By going into a 22 press conference and providing consistent information that 23 has been well discussed with the LERO counterpart, in this 24 case Ms. Robinson, what we're hoping to achieve is providing (O) 25 the information we believe the press is seeking, and thereby ACE FEDER u REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 's aonwide CoseraFe M)0-336-6646
p 30615.0 V KSW 3348 1 developing credibility and having consistent and timely 2 information coming to the public. 3 WITNESS MILETI: I would like to add one thing 4 from a public response point of view. The issue regarding S credibility of information is what's important, not the 6 credibility of a ut.ility in an emergency, and I think an 7 emergency plan should presume that the utility would not have 8 credibility were an emergency to happen, because of the fact 9 that they just messed up their nuclear power plant, and that { 10 a lack of credibility might also exist for whatever 11 spokespersons might step forward, be they representatives of 12 government, of whatever legal. What's important is that 13 people end up perceiving public emergency information as 14 credible, and that comes from the EBS system. 15 WITNESS PATTERSON: I would say also that one of 16 the primary f unctions of the ENC is to provide a specific 17 place where an informat. ion process, an exchange between 18 reporters and the various ut.ilities, players, et cetera, can 19 take place. That is, I think, a lesson learned from TMI, 20 that you can have even disagreement between variouu people, 21 but what's key is that it is happening under one roof, and 22 t hat a process and a place where that proccus can be carried 23 out. 24 MS. 1 HTScilE : I would like 1.o have maried as 25 Suf folk County Exercise Exhibit. Number 44 f:or idontifica tion ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-37(X) Nationwide Coserage Mx)-33MM6
y 30615.0 i KSW 3349 1 a document of three pages which are experts from the LILCO 2 plan. 3 (Suffolk County Exhibit 44 identified.) 4 MS. LETSCHR: What's been marked as Suffolk County 5 Exhibit 44 for identification is a portion of revision 6 of 6 the LILCO plan, is it not? 7 WITNESS DAVERIO: I think it is revision 5, but it H was the pages in effect on the day of the exercise. 9 MS. LETSCHE: It has revision 5 on a couple of 10 pages and 3 on others, this is part of revision 6, right? 11 WITNESS DAVERIO: We only changed a page if we O 12 changed that revision. U 13 MS. LETSCHE: It is true that this is the ucction 14 of the plan which describes the public information process 15 during an emergency, is it not, or at least portions of that 16 section? 17 WITNESS DAVERIO: These appear to be the pages 18 from the plan and they do discuss those. I'm just trying to 19 think if there's anything e]ce in the plan also, but I think 20 you have the right section. 21 MS. LETSCHE: Right. Now, beginning on the second 22 page of this exhibit, which is page 3.0-4 A, there is a 23 discussion of the purpose and intent of. the ENC, is there 24 not, under the heading " coordination"? 25 WITNESS DAVERIO: Es s en ti a l c]earinghouse? That's ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-M46
q 30615.0 V KSW 3350 i 1 consistent with what we were just talking about. 2 MS. LETSCHE: And it also discusses on.that page 3 continuing over to the next news briefings that would be 4 g3ven by LILCO and LERO officials; correct? 5 WITNESS DAVERIO: Could you repeat the question, 6 Ms. Letsche? On top of the page, it says that the briefing 7 shall serving three purposes and list three purposes. O MS. LETSCHE: I was referring to that, and to the 9 sentence before tha t on page 3.0-4 A, which is the initial 10 description of news briefings to be given by LILCO and LERO 11 officials. 12 WITNESS DAVERIO: That's correct. That's what it 13 discusses. 14 MS. LETSCHE: The plan specifically states, doeu 15 it not, ti it those briefings shall serve as one purpose to 16 insure public and media confidence; correct? 17 WITNESS DAVEH10: That's one of the purposes, 18 tha t 's correct. 19 MS. LETSCHE: And it also says that those 20 briefings shall serve the purpose of preventing 21 misinformation and rumors; correct? 22 WITNESS DAVERIO: It says that also. 23 MS. LETSCHE: Now, Mr. Patterson, in response to 24 something you said a few minutes ago, that in your opinion, 25 the one of the main purposes of emergency news center is to ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-3364M6
30615.0 v KSW 3351 1 have it serve as a single place, I think you said a single 2 place for the information process to take place. 3 WITNESS PATTERSON: That's correct. Not the only 4 reason, but it certainly is a key reason. 5 MS. LETScilEr It is your opinion, isn' t it, 6 Mr. Patterson, that one should activate a news center when an 7 event reaches a level at which it becomes more than just of 8 passing interest to the press; is that right? 9 WITNESS PATTERSON: No. 10 MS. LETSCilE That's not your opinion? 11 WITNESS PATTERSON: You define " passing 12 intereut." That'u a very amorphous term. v 13 MS. LETSCilS : You are saying you don't agree with 14 that statement; is that correct? 15 WITNESS PATTERSON: As you state it, no, but 16 perhaps if you retrame it - you say it becomes of more than 17 passing interest? 18 MS. LETSCHE: Yes. 19 WITNESS PATTERSON: I don't know what that means. 20 It could become - 21 MS. LETScilE Excuse me. When in your opinion 22 does there begin to be a need for a singic place for an 23 informat. ion process to take place during an emergency? 24 WITNESS PATTERSON: During a nuclear emergency? I eV 25 assume you are talk 3ng about? Acn FeneRAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 80)-336-6646
Q 30615.0 V KSW 3352 1 MS. LETSCHE: Yes. 2 WITNESS PATTERSON: I would say when the 3 conditions at the plant have reached a state where the -- and 4 following the procedures that are la3d down to determine 5 these kinds of things, that there is a possibility ot 6 af.fect.ing health and safet.y of those population who live 7 within the 10-mile EPZ. 8 MS. LETSCHE: When there arises a possibility that 9 health and safety should be affected, one should have in 10 place a central clearinghouse or ENC; is that correct.? 11 WITNESS PATTERSON: That's correct. Additionally, 12 I would say when there is n Jevel of interest on the part of 13 the press because they have been listening to the EHS 14 messages, there's a logistical need for it, but. I would say 15 if you are looking for what level, I would say probably site 16 area emergency level would be one where you would 17 consistently want to activate your ENC. Another would be the 18 market you are operating in as a utility. By that a media 19 market. and I mean the amount of press that you would likely 20 at. tract to the incident. 21 MS. LETSCllE You stated that it in your opinion 22 that a site area emergency would be any time at which one 23 would want. to activat.c an ENC; ja that. correct? 24 WITNESS PATTERSON: That's an example. 25 MS. 1.ETScilE Is it your understanding that. the NCE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 8(U-33M M6
- O 30615.0 C/KSW 3353 1 1 site area emergency is the level of nuclear plant emergency 2 at which there is a possibility of affecting health and 3 sdfety? 4 WITNESS PATTERSON: It is certainly higher than S the usual state, for example. There were 209 unusual events 6 Jast year. There were comething like 10 alerts in the 7 country. There were no site area emergencies I think last 8 year, so the fact that you the press is used to a large 9 number of unusual events, I think they understand that, the 10 wire services understand that that's a common thing. They 11 don't expect an emergency news center to be set up. You O() 12 might or might not set it up in an alert. There would be a 13 lot of variables and factors which would lead to that 14 decision. 15 MS. LETSCHE: Let me ask the question again. Is 16 it your unders tanding that the site area emergency is the 17 first level of nuclear plant emergency at which there exists 18 the possibility of affecting health and safety? 19 WITNESS PATTERSON: I was trying to help you in 20 terms of answering your question, but I was making an 21 engineering or scientific determination there. I'm not a 22 scientist nor an engineer. 23 MS. LETSci1E So your standard remains when 24 there's a possibility of af fecting health and safety - 25 WITNESS PATTERSON: Mr. Daverio hau much more ACE FEoERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 37(o Nationwide Cmcrage 8(ub33M4M
("N30615.0 (_,) KS W 3354 1 training in the area -- 2 MS. LETSCilEt I would like to probe your response 3 on when we should activate the ENC. I take it in light of 4 your lack of technical and scientific training, your opinion 5 is when there's a possibility of affecting health and safety; 6 is that right? 7 WITNESS PATTERSON: Yes. 8 MS. LETSCilE I guess in addition to that, it 9 would be when the event has reached a level of interest for 10 the press; is that right? 11 WITNESS PATTERSON: That's one factor, the [ 12 Jogistical factor is always going to be there. 13 WITNESS DAVERIO: I would like to add, if you look 14 at NilREG-0654 from a technica] point of view, I believe that 15 document supports Mr. Patterson's opinion. If you look at 16 the same table we were talking about yesterday under alert 17 classifications, they do not even talk about giving press 18 briefings to the state and local authorities, but if you look 19 at a site area and you look at. Item 10, they specifically 20 talk about providing press briefings. I f. you compare 1-8 to 21 1-12 you wlL1 see that there's a specific guidance given in I 22 06S4 to provide press briefings, perhaps the licensee of 23 off-site authorities at the site area where there is no such 24 guidance given at the alert leve), I would agree that at an 25 alert level you would not expect it to affect the health and l Ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-tM6 L
^ 30615.0 ,h KSW q 3355 1 .tafety of public at an alert under 0654. 2 MS. LETSCHR: On page 13, Mr. Daverio, of your 3 testimony, after you discuss the news conferences, you go on 4 to talk about news releases which you say contain the same S informatioa released previously in the form of EHS messages 6 or Jive press briefings. I'm correct, aren't I, that it is a 7 provision of the LILCO plan as exercised, and even as changed 8 after the exercise, that the news releases basically repeat 9 the EBS messagN: is that correct? 10 WITNEHS DAVERIO: They are virtually identical to 11 the ERS messages, yo t, are correct. For LERO. Not. the 12 on-site. The LILCO press releases are a separate entity. It 13 is the LERO press releases I thought you meant when you asked 14 that quest. ion. 15 MS. LETSCHE: That's what I meant. 16 Now, in further discussing the press releases and 17 the inf.ormation to the public ultimat.cly during an emergency, 10 you all state that although it is true that. t.he public 19 ultimately receiveu the information gleaned by reporters from 20 news conferences and releases, in most instances that occurs 21 much later. You wouldn't. agree with that, would you, 22 Mr. Patterson? 23 WITNESS PATTERSON: I agree in mout instances. 24 Well, tha t's a general term. It is not certainly every 25 instance. Ace FenunA1. REPonTens INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage mn-336-u46
D 30615.0 KSW 3356 1 MS. LETSCHE: It is true, is it not, that 2 reporters, especially among the electronic media, are likely 3 to cover press briefings during a nuclear accident live? 4 WITNESS PATTERSON: That would depend on what 5 level. They certainly have that capability, yes. 6 MS. LETSCHE: Wouldn't you agree that once an ENC 7 was set up during a nuclear emergency, that it is very very 8 likely that the electronic media would cover such briefings 9 1ive? You wouLdn't disagree with that, would you? 10 WITNESS PATTERSON: It is not that I have a hard 11 disagreement with it. If you mean going back and forth, / 12 covering it live in its entirety, that's much less likely. 13 If that's what you mean -- if you are asking would they have 14 the capability of covering events live, would they do it in 15 some instances, the answer would be yes. Ells messages are 16 also of course live or at 1 cast are out there uninterrupted 17 on the radio. 18 MS. LETSCHE: It is not your testimony, is it, 19 Mr. Pa t te rs on, that reporters and other members of the media 20 would report during a nuclear accident only what is contained 21 in EHS messages? 22 WITNESS PATTERSON: Absolutely not. 23 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: It is important to add on the 24 day of the exercise I was observing most of the media 25 playbacks, and I don't recall any that were done real time. Acn Fnonnat RnponTuns, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage No-33MM6
(3 30615.0 U KSW 3357 1 They were all delayed broadcasts, whether 15 minutes or two 2 hours later. 3 MS. LETSCHE: That was at the exercise, right, 4 Mr. McCaffrey? 5 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: That's correct. 6 WITNESS MILETI: I would like to add that a good 7 emerger.cy plan should presume that the media will present 8 conflicting information with EBS messages, for example. It 9 is a presumption. It happens in every emergency, which is 10 why the EBS system is so important for a public response 11 point of view. O 32 MS. LETSCllE: Mr. Patterson, you would also agree tV 13 with me that the knowledge by the press of the EDS messages 14 would prompt members of the media to seek additional 15 information beyond the contents of those messages; is that 16 correct? 17 WITNESS PATTERSON: Of course. That's their job. 10 They are not -- in other words, the function of a reporter in 19 a situation like this is not to be responsible for the health 20 and safety of the public. Their job is to cover the event, 21 to cover thouc who are responsible. That's not to say they 22 are irresponsible or don't have a sense of responsibility but 23 there's a difterence between being responsible and acting 24 responsible. Itaving a responsibility and acting in a O V 25 reu pons i bl e way. Their job is certainly not to parrot the J ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cover 4y 80L33MM6
rm 30615.0 h KSW 3358 1 EBS messages. The EBS messages are out there and part of the 2 official system and are happening ongoing, so there's a 3 different function I think that reporters will have. 4 MS. I ETScilE : And by not parroting the messages, I 5 assume you mean they would comment on them and editorialize 6 about them and find other information to elaborate on them; 7 is that right? J 1 8 WITNESS PATTERSON: Essentially. I don't know l I 1 \\ 9 what you mean by editorializing on them, but I don't think it l 10 matters. They are out there. The official notification ] l l 11 system is ongoing and happening, and reporters have a l 12 dif ferent function. 13 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: If I could add to that, that 14 is as Mr. Patterson said, they are looking for a full story, 15 and one of the things that takes us a considerable amount of 16 time in preparing to do a press conference is when we put 17 facts together about what may be developing at the plant is 18 will what we say generate questions from the press. You want i 19 to think of that ahead of time and develop a presentation 20 that tries to answer as much of the obvious questions as 21 possible, so that they don't then generate their own 22 conclusions. 23 MS. IETSCHE: Mr. Daverio, you reference in this 24 answer a statement made by Mr. Evans, one of the Suffolk Od 25 County witnesses, at his deposition concerning the -- talking ace FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
/ ^30615.0 b KSW 3359 1 about near the bottom of the page, where you say that the 2 media at the ENC will hear the EBS broadcasts and will know 3 the contents ins tan taneous ly. Mr. Evans did not say, did he, 4 that the contents of the EBS messages were being sufficient 5 information for the media? 6 WITNESS DAVERIO: I don't think he said that. lie 7 just said that they would hear it. I think that's all we 8 caid he said. 9 WITNESS ROBINSON: I think the evidence of the 10 f act that we do not think that would be sufficient 11 information for the media is the fact that the ENC was set up /m f] 12 with technical spokespersons there, representatives of LERO 13 there, and other enti ties wished to participate, they could 14 be there as well. Had we believed it was sufficient, we 15 would have set up a bank of copying machines. I think 16 everybody started from the premise that reporters would want 17 additional i nf ormati on, and that just is the basis of 18 starting with the news center, in addition to the fact that 19 it is regulation. 20 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: It is on page 45 of the 21 transcript, and what he means by the words "real emergency." 22 The news center has television sets, has radios, indicates 23 that the press is plugged into an information communication 24 link, and they would be appraised of what's going on over (_) 25 EBS. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
,30615.0 d KSW 336G 1 MS. LETSCHE: That also means that the information 2 gleaned by the press would not necessarily get to the public 3 much later than the press receives it, right, Mr. McCaffrey? 4 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: I don't know what he meant by 5 " timing" in there. 6 MS. LETSCHE: Mr. McCaffrey, you would agree that 7 in dealing with the press during an emergency, credibility is 8 probably the most important element? 9 WITNESS PATTERSON: I think anyone who is going to 10 deal with the press, I don't know what you mean by deal with 11 them, but I think I understand what you mean, is going to be O) 12 a spokesperson, clearly has to dea) in a credible manner. tN.s 13 MS. LETSCilE: You would also agree that that 14 credibility has to be established at the outset of the 15 emergency, very quickly? 16 WITNESS PATTERSON: Yes. 17 MS. LETSCHE: You would also agree that if 18 credibility has not been established, even it the information 19 being disseminated is accurate, it becomes irrelevant? 20 WITNESS PATTERSON: No, I wouldn ' t - 21 MS. LETScilE: That's not your opinion? 22 WITNESS PATTERSON: If you are saying to a 23 situation where some entity or person had lost - it is a 24 hypothetical question. The answer would be yes if someone On V 25 was totally incredible in the eyes of the listeners, but I ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage M4336-6646 i
(N30615.0 ( ) KSW 3361-1 think there's -- weil, I will let it sit there. 2 MS. LETSCHE: You stated during your deposition, 3 at pages 80 and 81, that the key in any communications 4 efforts.is establishing credibility. If that credibility is 5 not there, even if the information you are imparting is 6 ac cura te, it becomes like the tree falling in a forest. It 7 becomes an irrelevant situation? 8 WITNESS PATTERSON: Those are my words. 9 MS. LETSCHE: You would also agree that if a 10' spokesperson at a news center is not credible to the media, 11 that that is communicated by the media to the public? 12 WITNESS PATTERSON: To a degree. 13 MS. LETSCHE: You would also agree, would you not, 14 that the media would become cynical of the spokespersons if 15 they were not capable of giving them the information or if 16 they were not capable of demonstrating that they were able to 17 obtain information that they needed? 18 WITNESS PATTERSON: Again that's speculative and 19 hypothetical. I think reporters, anyway, are and are 20 supposed to be skeptical. They come into the situation in an 21 adversarial - playing an adversarial role with any entity 22 they cover, government, uti]ity, whatever. I think the fact 23 that they are skeptical from a journalistic point of view is 24 healthy. I think there's a very distinct difference between 25 being skeptical and cynicai. Most reporters that I run into ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
p 30615.0 V KSW 3362 1 in various situations have not demons trated a cynicism, so I 2 .have no problem with skeptica] -- I think it is a given. I 3 think that's expected. 4 JUDGE FRYE: Are you at a breaking point? 5 MS. LETSCHE: If you give me five minutes. 6 You make a distinction between being skeptical is 7 what you say you expect of the press -- 8 WITNESS PATTERSON: Healthy. 9 MS. LETSCHE: And becoming cynical; is that 10 right? 11 WITNESS PATTERSON: There's a difference between Q(~% 12 the two, yes. 13 MS. LETSCHE: Being cynical, I take it, is a much 14 stronger reaction than being skeptical; is that right? 15 WITNESS PATTERSON: Yes. 16 MS. LETSCHE: You would agree with me that the 17 cynicism would arise if a spokesperson were perceived by the 18 press as not being capable of giving them the truth or having 19 the information they needed? 20 WITNESS PATTERSON: Cynicism would arise if the 21 spokesperson lied. I think the fastest way you can turn a 22 healthy skeptical press corps into a cynical group of people 23 is to lie to them. 24 MS. LETSCHE: Is that the only way? O'd 25 WITNESS PATTERSON: Directly is to lie to them or ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
(x30615.0 e )KSW 3363 1 to willfully, willfully omit information. But in my 2 experience, the press generally in a situation covers the 3 event at the time. As long as those things don't occur, as 4 Jong as they feel that the reporter -- that the spokesperson 5 doesn' t have every piece of information a t his or her 6 f ingerti ps, but is capable of getting that information. 7 MS. L E T S Cil E : You stated during your deposition, 8 did you not, on page 84, Mr. Patterson, that "the press will 9 become very cynical if your credibility, if you as a 10 spokesman, are f ound to be not capable of giving them the 11 truth or having the information. You don't have to have it pQ 12 instantaneously but they have to understand that the process 13 involved can produce and meet their needs. They will stay in 14 that skeptical mode rather than cynical. If they become 15 cynical, cynicism will be transmitted I think to the public, 16 or at least the information that the public is getting will 17 he colored with that cynicism." 18 You stated that, didn't you? 19 WITNESS PATTERSON: Yes. 20 JUDGE FRYE: Let's take a 15-minute break. 21 (Recess.) 22 JUDGE FRYE: Back on the record, please. 23 MS. LETSCllE : As a housekeeping matter, I 24 discovered we already had an Exhibit 44. The one I just bd 25 marked should be Suffolk County Exercise Exhibit 45. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6446
~ d i fh30615.0 3.J KSW 3364 1 (Suffolk County Exhibit 44 remarked as 2 Suffolk County Exhibit.45.)' 3 MS. LETSCHE: Would you turn to page 14 of your 4 testimony,.please. 5 WITNESS MILETI: Yes, I'm there. 6 MS. LETSCilE: In the answer to question 15, you 7 give your opinion about the exercise EBS messages that you + T 8 have given to us a couple of times already in this 9 cross-examination. Of all these other nuclear plant messages 10 that you know, how many of them, if any, are part of a plan I 11 in which the utility is in charge of the dissemination of all 12 emergency information? -13 WITNESS MILETI: I'm not sure. I think it is 14 possible that that might be'something that's happening at 15 Seabrook, but I don't know that for sure. That is, if you 16 are asking me in what other part of the country are local 17 governments not-' participating in emergency planning, that's 18 the only place I recollect, although I hear it was under 19 consideration at one point in time for the, I believe Perry 1 20 plant in Ohio. 21 MS. LETSCllE : That was not the question. The 22 question, Dr. Mileti, are there any nuclear plant messages 23 that you are referring to in the answer here which you say 24 you know about that are part of a plan in which only the 25 utility is in charge of disseminating all emergency ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 _.., ~ _
,o 30615.0 CI KSW 3365 1 information? 2 WITNESS MILETI: I think that Shoreham is the only 3 place where the local government is not participating in 4 emergency planning. That is, not in exercises claiming to be 5 part of the emergency information messages. 6 MS. LETSCHE: In fact, the LILCO plan for Shoreham 7 is the only plan at which EBS messages are proposed to be 8 disseminated by just the utility; correc t.? 9 WITNESS MILETI: To the best of my knowledge, in 10 other places, the counties get involved in that. 11 MS. LETSCHE: The answer to my question is yes, j 12 right? 13 WITNESS MILETI: To the best of my knowledge. 14 MS. LETSCHE: Now, in the answer to question 16, 15 you begin to discuss the two problems with the EHS messages 16 that we mentioned briefly yesterday, and I would like to 17 discuss those wi th you. The first one you referred to is in 18 EBS message number 2, and we should probably turn to that in 19 attachment B to your testimony. 20 WITNESS MILETI: I have that EBS message now. 21 MS. LETSCHE: Now, what you say is that at the 22 bottom of page 14 and carrying over to 15, EBS message number 23 2 stated that "a very minor release has occurred." I take it 24 you are referring to the statement to that effect on the w \\/ 25 first page of that message; is that right? ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
(n 30615.0 )KSW 3366 1 WITNESS MILETI: It it: on the first page of that 2 message as well as on the last page of that message. 3 MS. L E T S C il E : Right. Then you go on to say that 4 this could have been confusing because nothing more was said 5 about the release. For example, where it was and how it 6 related to the subsequent region. It does not mean a release 7 of radiation is imminent. The phrase to which you are 8 referring is on page 2 to this attachment; that's correct? 9 WITNESS MILETI: At the end of the first paragraph 10 on page 2 of message 2. 11 MS. LETSCliE : About schools continuing to ) 12 implement their early dismissal plans; is that correct? 13 WITNESS MILETI: Yes. 14 MS. LETSCHE: Is it your testimony that the 15 inclusion in one message of a statement that a very minor 16 release has occurred and a statement, that something does not 17 mean that a release of radiation is imminent is confusing? 18 WITNESS MILETI: I think that holds the potential 19 to be confusing for some people, yes. 20 MS. LETSCHR: And I take it you are saying that in 21 addition, the inclusion of the information, "a very minor 22 release has occurred," with no other information about the 23 release could also have been confusing; correct? 24 WITNESS MILETI: Yes, that's why I have it in my pd 25 testimony. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-?700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
o f-'3 30615.0 (,,/ KSW 3367 1 MS. LETSCHR: It is true, is it not, Dr. Mileti, 2 that nothing further is said about the release in any 3 subsequent ERS messages until we get to number S? - 4 WITNESS MILETI: About that release? Or other. S releases? 6 MS. LETSCHE: About any release. 7 WITNESS MILETI: I will have to check. 8 MS. LETSCHE: In terms of providing additional 9 information other than a statement concerning the release 10 having occurred. 11 WITNESS MILETI: Well, in EBS message number 2, it p) 12 again states that a minor release of radiation into the area q 13 occurred. 14 MS. LETSCHE: Did you mean to say number 3? 15 WITNESS MILETI: Yes. 16 MS. LETSCHE: And number 3 says that on page 1, is 17 that right? Minor release? Is that what you were referring 18 to? 19 WITNESS MILETI: On the first page of EBS message 20 number 3. 21 MS. LETSCHE: And on the third page it says 22 "there's been a small release of radiation into the air"; 23 correct? 24 WITNESS MILETI: Yes, it does. s' % U 25 JUDGE SHON: Dr. Mileti, I notice that page 2 of ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
p 30615.0 V KSW 3368 1 that same message says " field monitoring teams have been 2 organized and dispatched to collect data on the amount of the 3 release." That suggests that although it has been 4 characterized as minor, its amount is unknown. S. WITNESS MILETI: That's true. It does. And then 6 again there's a statement in EBS message number 5 about the 7 release of radiation into the area occurred at 9:39. 8 MS. LETSCHE: Could you find no reference to the 9 release in EBS message number 4? 10 WITNESS MILETI: No, I didn't. 11 WITNESS DAVERIO: Number 4 was a message to tell y 12 to stay tuned. 13 MS. LETSCHE: Would you turn to EDS message number 14 4, page number 4? 15 WITNESS MILETI: I'm there. 16 MS. LETSCHR: Is there any statement on that page 17 which anybody believes that was read that talks about a 18 release of radiation? 19 WITNESS MILETI: Yes. Once again, the Shoreham 20 nuclear power station is in a general emergency, there has 21 been a release of radiation into the air. 22 MS. LETSCHE: It is correct with the exception of 23 Dr. Shon's addition about the field monitoring teams that -- 24 EBS message number S says, as you pointed out on the first (3 V 25 page, that a release of radiation into the area occurred. Is ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
- = =__ Er% h 30615.0 KSW 3369 there any additional information'about the releas'e in ERS I 2 number 5? 3 WITNESS MILETI: Let me look at it again. I don't 4 want to overlook something. Maybe I should start at.the. 5 beginning of EBS 5 and say the first mention is on page 1, 6 where it says release of radiation occurred at 9:39. 7 JUDGE PARIS: I would like to ask a question, but t 8 answer this and we'll go back to it. 9 WITNESS MILETI: Second, on page 38 of 47 of EBS 10 message 5, where references in paragraph 3 is made.to 11 evacuation is recommended, would have lead people to conclude ~ ~ 12 that's where the radiation was. Or about to be. It says on ~ 13 page 41 of 47 there has been a release of radiat. ion into the 14 air. It is advised that people in planning zones A.through 15 M, Q and R evacuate as soon as possible away from Shoreham. 16 And then it is also possible, on page 38 of 47,. I 17 that the reference to the cows, actually. milk-producing 18 animals, could have led some people to conclude that i [ 19 radiation possibly eventually could have existed in'the 20 entire 10-mile EPZ. + 21 MS. LETSCHE: Did you mention, Dr. Mileti, on the ~' 22 last page of EBS 5, which is page 41 of 47, that it again 23 says there's been a release of radiation into the air? 24 WITNESS MILETI: I don't know if I did. I meant 25 to. "There has been a release of radiation into the air; it Ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33 & 6646 ... - ~
a _jm,30615.0 ()KSW 3370 I 1 is advised" -- 2 MS. LETSCHE: You would agree with me that in 3 terms of providing additional information about the release, 4 that it is not until we get to EBS number S where the 5 evacuation recommendation first appears that we have anything 6 in addition to what's in EBS number 2; correct? 7 WITNESS MILETI: Except that we say there was a 8 minor release of radiation into the air in EBS number 3 on 9 the first page, but in addition to that restatement, one 10 could also make the conclusion about it, from looking at the 11 statement for example on page number 2 of EBS number 3, "the-(m)- 12 public need not take any protective actions beyond the v 13 following at this time," and that would affect people's 14 perceptions of the risk. 15 MS. LETSCHE: Are you saying that the fact that it 16 says "the public need not take any protective actions beyond 17 the following at. this time" constitutes information about the 18 release? 19 WITNESS MILETI: It certainly doesn't talk about 20 the release, but constitutes information about risk 21 perception from the point of view of the people's hearing 22 that information. 23 JUDGE PARIS: I don't know whether you are the one 24 to answer this, Dr. Mileti, but on page 1 of EBS sample (nj 25 message number 5, page 35 of 47, the bottom paragraph, the ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
Y f <KSW 30615.0 3371 4 4 1 only thing broadcas t was that a release of radiation into-the 2 area occurred at_0939, and then the rest of that which goes 3 to doses is marked out. Why was that information not 4 4 broadcast? 5 WITNESS DAVERIO: Given the times of these j .6 toessages, they probably did not have release data yet as to 7 what was being released, and had not performed the' 8 calculations to-be able to put this in. If they had the data 9 they do do it, and I think in EDS message 7, I believe, is 10 the first place where.it appears where they put it in. That 11 just meant that they have completed measurements of-the 12 radiation, got some field data back in. Probably because -13 .they didn't have field teams back in. You wouldn ' t-at this 14 time for sure have field data, you just had the release, you 15 probably wouldn't have any field data back in to be able to 16 fill this out. 17 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: If I could respond to that, 18 we had field monitoring teams out as we announced at 9:39. 19 At that point it is my recollection that we had no off-site 20 measurements of radiation downstream from the plant. 21 MS. LETSCHE: When was EBS message 5 broadcast? 22 WITNESS DAVERIO: At around 10:24. 23 WITNESS MILETI: To the best. of my knowledge, I a 24 don't know of any other utility in the nation that puts dose i 25 amounts in EBS messages. I don't want. to say this is icing J ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646 ---,. - - -... - ~.....,. -. - -.,,.,. - - - ~ -. -
30615.0 (3 Q KSW 3372 1 on the cake. I think it is not significant that it wasn't 2 included in this particular message. Our attempt in putting 3 this kind of information in was to help at this nuclear power 4 plant give the public at risk and not at risk the clearest S information we could about radia tion, and it goes beyond what 6 anybody else is doing and certainly is not necessary. 7 JUDGE PARIS: I thought you testified earlier that 8 the fact that the amount of radiation released and where it 9 was was not included in one of the earlier messages could 10 probably lead to confusion or something like that. 11 WITNESS MILETI: That's because we said radiation ,a 12 had gotten out and we didn't say to what location. It could (G 13 have been possible in that particular message to say that it 14 was not in a particular emergency planning zone, specifying 15 where that radiation was not. Where that line of release was 16 not. As I recollect, there were not significant amounts that 17 eventually came out, but there was no specification regarding 18 that, and that I think was an oversight; but regarding 19 putting the percentages out in concentric rings for the 20 public, that goes well beyond what anybody has in mind, and 21 although I don't think that it is a mistake to include it, I 22 think it pot.entially could to include i t. It is to give 23 people an idea, when radiation is out there, where it is. 24 JUDGE PARIS: The fact that the zones are given in bd 25 this and are not given in the others is a significant ACE FEDERAL REroRTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
- 30615.0 KSW 3373 1 difference? 2 WITNESS MILETI: Particularly in EBS message 3 number 2;-as I recollect the scenario, there was not any 4 radiation in any of the zones. That could have been stated. S JUDGE PARIS: Thank you. 6 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: As this was unfolding, and 7 these messages were coming out, there was a steam leak from 8 the high pressure cooling injection system into the secondary '9 containment building, but the reactor building's standby. 10 ventilation system was filtering most of that. That's why we 11 discussed the fact that most of what came ' out was 'e::pected to '( ) 12 be very low. It wasn't until later on when all emergency 13 core cooling was lost.and subsequently the slow boil of the 14 water in the reactor you then sustained fuel damage. Early 15 -on what was coming out of the plant was indeed very smail, 16 and therefore your ability to measure it was impractical 17 downstream until you had fuel recovery. 18 MS. LETSCHR: It is true, isn't it, Mr. Daverio, 19 that EBS message number 7, which is the first one that has 20 the dose information in it, was the first message that had 21 that information; right? It is not contained in EBS number 6 22 either. 23 WITNESS DAVERIO: I think that I just said that. i 24 You are correct. () 25 MS. LETSCHR: When was EDS message number 7 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 l
p 30615.0 () MSW 3374 1 broadcast? 2 WITNESS DAVERIO: 12:50. 3 MS. LETSCHE: 12:50? Now the dose information 4 that is contained in EDS number 7 is projected doses; 5 correct? 6 WITNESS DAVERIO: My problem with that is it says 7 " based on measurements of radiation" in the message. With 8 that language, I would have thought it was from field 9 monitoring data, but that's only going by the language. I 10 don't recall at this point. 11 MS. LETSCHE: Mr. McCaffrey, do you know whether q 12 these doses that are stated as being expected to be at (V 13 various percentages are projected or actual measured doses? 14 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: Offhand I couldn't say. If I 15 could have some time to look at the LILCO press releases, 16 since they are intended to be more technical in nature to 17 describe it, maybe that would help fill that in. I don't 18 know offhand. 19 MS. LETSCHE: Can you look at ERS message number 7 20 for me? The one we're talking about here? What it says is, 21 " Based on measurements of radiation, the thyroid dose is 22 expected to be 400 percent," et cetera, et cetera. Now as i 23 you read that, Mr. McCaffrey, doesn't that state dose ) 24 projections? (O) 25 WITNESS DAVERIO: I think it states both, Ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
r-c30615.0 h KSW 3375 1 Ms. Letsche. They-may have had to make it at the 2, 5 and 2 10, have to do some interpolation off a point where they had 3 .a measurement, but I think it was based on measurement. They 4 had a measurement, they had to take it maybe to the 2 mile. 5 They had a 1.5 mile measurement. They interpolated that data 6 but it is based on a measurement per how I read that 1 '7 language. 8 MS. LETSCHE: The measured release in the loss of. 9 all cooling which you referred to, Mr. McCaffrey, occurred at 10 roughly 11:30 or so; is that right? 11 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: I don ' t know at what time -- 12' at the time we lost all cooling was at 9:29. That was based 13 upon a loss of all AC power to drive the emergency core 14 cooling pumps. What then went on was a slow boil off the 15 core. The engineers at that time were doing core boil oft d - 16 calculations projecting at what point we would get to fuel 17 damage. 18 MS. LETSCHE: My question was not very precise. 19 You had the fuel damage and the major release associated with 1 20 that at roughly 11:30; correct? 21 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: I don't recall at the time. 22 MS. LETSCHE: The record will reflect that. 23 It is true, is it not, that prior to noon, that 24 the accident assessment personnel at the EOC had field data 25 and dose projection data available to them? ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 .. ~ _. ~....... _. _.. _,.. - _ _.,,... _. -.
(,)30615.0 ,n KSW 3376 1 WITNESS ROBINSON: The radiation health I 2 coordinator in the EOC is in contact with the LILCO people 3 and gets the forms that have the data on projections being i 1 4 made by the plant in terms of re3 eases. In addition to the 1 5 resource of having the field teams from Brookhaven National 6 Laboratories, the RAPP teams out in the field. There are 7 several components into the calculations and not based on a 8 single data point. That is done in the EOC by the radiation 9 health coordinator. 10 MS. LETSCHE: The question is isn't it true by 11 12:00 the accident assessment personnel at the EOC had field ( 12 data and dose projection information available to them? 13 WITNESS ROBINSON: That's true. They had several 14 measurements by that point although some of them were there 15 Was no measurement above eight ambient levels. 16 MS. LETSCHE: Dr. Mileti, in discussing the l 17 problems with EBS number 2 in your testimony on page 15, you l 18 state that in your opi nion, the problem is not major and l 19 would not detract from public health and safety in any way 20 you can imagine. That's the answer to number 17. Am I 21 correct that it is your opinion that confusion which could 22 arise among the listening public would not detract from their 23 health and safety during a nuclear emergency? 24 WITNESS MILETI: It depends on what context the (A,) 25 confusion is in. And what period in the emergency, and in ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6 4 6
n-(q 30615.0 jKSW 3377 i 1 reference to the confusion that potentially could have arisen 2 from this, thinking of this from the point of view of the 3 public as they might hear this. They would hear an EBS i 4 message that said a very minor release has occurred, then 5 hear again in the same message that no release of radiation 6 is imminent, then hear in the same message that a very minor 7 release of radiation has occurred. That might create some 8 confusion. 9 Knowing that early on in an emergency like this, 10 people initially when they get emergency information try to 11 seek out more emergency information, that at this point in (GO 12 time, I think it would have made them more, as I say in my 13 testimony, vigilant, and kept tuned to the EDS system. That 14 EDS message was followed by others, and it is also possible 15 that hearing this could have created some confusion, but I 16 think it wouldn't have detracted from what people would have-17 been doing anyway, and that is zeroing in on the emergency 18 information system. 19 MS. LETSCHE: EDS number 2 was broadcast at 6:52; 20 is that right? 21 WITNESS MILETI: I don't have that time on this 22 one. 23 MS. LETSCHE: Can you confirm that that is true, 24 Mr. Daverio? 25 WITNESS DAVERIO: EBS message number 2? ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
. _ =. d 7 ] 30615.0 V KSW 3378 1 MS. LETSCHE: EBS number 2 was broadcast at 2 'approximately 8:40; is that right? ' 3' WITNESS DAVERIO: I have 8:38. 4 MS. LETSCHE: In that time frame. S WITNESS MC CAFFREY: In LILCO news release' number 6 11, it gives the timing on when the core is expected to be-7 uncovered and when fuel damage will be expected to begin, and 8 it talks about fuel damage beginning to occur between 12:15 9 and 12:30 based on the boildown rate, so prior.to that time a 10 Jarge release would not have been occurring. j. 11 MS. LETSCHE: Is release number-11 talking about 12 what was being projected or is that when it actually 13 happened?- It happened earlier than that, didn't it? a 14 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: It is talking about when it 15 is expected to occur, and later on there's a comment about 16 when it did. Press release number 12 follows local f 17 officials' report that the top of the reactor fuel has been 18 uncovered as anticipated. 19 MS. LETSCHE: Is there a time on that? 20 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: That's all it says. 21 MS. LETSCHE: Getting back to my question, 22 Dr. Mileti, I take it that it is your testimony that the 4 23 confusion which you have identified as existing in ERS 24 message number 2 broadcast, at roughly 8:40, would not 25 detract from the public health and safety in any way; is that ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
.- 30615.0 !,)3 KSW 3379 s 1 righ t? 2 WITNESS MILETI: I think i t is stated in my 1 3 testimony that, and I don't recommend this as a strategy, j 4 that what it would have done was even more focused people's 5 attention on the official emergency system. 6 MS. LETSCHE: I take it in your opinion it would 7 not detract from public health and safety that information or 8 additional information about the release did not turn up in 9 an EBS message until number S; correct? 10 WITNESS MILETI: I don't think it is my position 11 that additional information about risk, which is what is [v] 12 important f rom the public's poi nt of view, was postponed l 13 until EBS message number S. There was additional information 14 in the other EHS messages, and I think we went through that l 15 in detail. 16 MS. LETSCHE: I think we agreed before, did we 17 not, that ERS number S was the first time there was 18 information about where the release was; correct? 19 WITNESS MILETI: Absolutely, but that's not the 20 same as information about risk which what's important - 21 MS. LETSCHE: I'm looking at your testimony, which 22 says there was confusion because nothing more was said about 23 the release. Now I thought we had established that nothing 24 more was said about the release in terms of where it was, (vD 25 except for Judge Shon's comment about the field monitoring ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
b s30615.0 l%)KSW 3380 1 teams, between EBS number 2 and EBS number 5. We discussed 2 that, right? 3 WITNESS MILETI: We did in rereterence to the 4 particular information about the radiation, but from a public 5 response point of view, what's relevant is translating that 6 into risk information. 7 MS. LETSCHE: You have identified in your 8 testimony, however, confusion existing because nothing more 9 was said about the release, and then you say you don't 10 consider that to be a problem because the confusion would not 11 detract from public health and safety; correct? ( 12 WITNESS MILETI: That's my testimony, yes. 13 MS. LETSCHE: The question is I assume from your 14 testimony that it also in your opinion would not detract from 15 public heaith and safety that between 8:40, when EBS number 2 16 was broadcast, and about 10:25, when EBS number S was 17 broadcast, there was no additional information about the 18 release to change the confusion in EBS number 2. 19 WITNESS MILETI: There was additional information 20 to address people's perception of risk, and that's what's 21 important. 22 MS. LETSCHE: But there was no additional 23 information concerning the release; correct? 24 WITNESS MILETI: Concerning the percentages of the 25 release and how much radiation was where, but there was other ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
, m 30615.0 V KSW 3381 1 information that would affect what people perceived about the 2 risk. 3 MS. LETSCHE: You are referring to other things 4 you identified for us when we went through the EBS messages; 5 is that correct? 6 WITNESS MILETI: All of them, yes. 7 MS. LETSCHE: I take it that it is your opinion 8 that it would not detract from public health and safety if 9 members of the public began to evacuate before any LILCO 10 recommendation to do so; correct? 11 WITNESS MILETI: In general, that's correct. ,O 12 However, I think that there would have been a few people who a 13 would have started evacuating af ter hearing that radiation 14 was released. However, I don't think it would have been a 15 very large number of people at all. 16 MS. LETSCHE: And the fact of their evacuating 17 would not detract from public health and safety; right? 18 WITNESS MILETI: That's correct. 19 MS. LETSCHE: Now, you go on in your testimony to 20 ta.lk about the other area of improvement, the second area of 21 improvement, you identified among the ERS messages, and this 22 refers to message number 7 that we've discussed a li ttle 23 bit. Would you turn to that, please? 24 WITNESS MILETI: I'm there. 25 MS. LETSCHR: Now, the inadequacy that you ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
n 30615.0 V KSW 3382 1 identify in this message has to do with the dose information, 2 which is at the bottom of the first page of the EBS number 7 3 and carries over to the top of the next page; is that right? 4 WITNESS MILETI: Yes, that's right. 5 MS. LETSCHE: And you say that in particular, the 6 fact that that information includes a projected dose of 40 7 percent at 10 miles downwind could be confusing in connection 8 with the other statement in this message, that if you are 9 outside the 10-mile zone there is no reason to take any 10 action; correct? 11 WITNESS MILETI: Yes, I said that. 12 MS. LETSCHR: And the reason for that, I take it, 13 is that the people who are on the border of the EPZ, and I 14 assume beyond the border of the EPZ, would not understand 15 from this message why a 40 percent risk required evacuation 16 and there was a recommendation of no action for them if they 17 were over that imaginary line; correct? 18 WITNESS MILETI: It could have been a bit 19 confusing for both people close to the border that were 20 outside it as well as potentially people who were close to 7' the border i nside. 22 MS. LETSCHE: But you believe that the only people 23 who would have been potentially impacted by this confluence 24 of information in this message would be people on either side b sj 25 but in near proximity to the 10-mile border? i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
1 g3 30615.0 ()KSW 3383 1 WITNESS MILETI: People close to the border, yes. 2 MS. LETSCHE: Now, it is true, is it not, 3 Dr. Mileti, that this statemen; that you have identified in 4 EBS number 7 was in fact carried through all the subsequent S EBS messages; right? 6 WITNESG MILETI: That's correct to the best of. my 7 recollection. I better check. No, it is not in ERS message 8 number 8. 9 MS. LETSCHE: That's the one that was broadcast 10 once and replaced by 8.1; is that right? 11 WITNESS MILETI: That's correct. It is also not [) 12 in EBS 8.1. It is in EBS number'9 and 9.1, which was the v 13 last one simulated as being broadcast. 14 MS. LETSCHE: You conclude that this inadequacy 15 that you have identified is not major, and I take it it is 16 your opinion that it is not a major problem for the people on 17 either side of the border of the 10-mile zone not to 18 understand the risk therein; is that correct? 19 WITNESS MILETI: It is not in an ideal sense good 20 to give people information about risk without trying to help 21 them understand what it means. In reference to this 22 particular piece of information, saying 40 percent of 23 something at the 10-mile border could have confused some 24 people. However, that information was also supplemented with 25 the rajor way that inf orma tion about risk is communicated to ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-1700 Nationwide Coverage MX)-33&6M6 ~.__
i p 30615.0 t ( KSW. 3384
- i 1
people in emergencies at nuclear power plants, and that's in ~ 2 reference to recommended protective action, so it didn't t 3 stand alone. 4 MS. LETSCHE: But in fact the confluence with the f 5 recommended protective action is what according to your 6 testimony gave rise to the problem; right?. 7 WITNESS MILETI: That's why I pointed it out in my 8 testimony. A better job could have been done. 9 MS. LETSCHR: Well, my question was, is it your 10 . testimony that it is not a major problem for the people on' j 11 either side of the 10-mile border not to understand the risk 12 they are in? That's your testimony, right? 13 WITNESS MILETI: It is better if people understand l 14 the risk as best we can communicate it to them, and one way 15 to help them understand the risk the best is to,=for example, 16 when something like this should occur, as I state in my 4 17 testimony, 40 percent at the 10 miles downwind of Shoreham, 18 to additionally explain what that means. 19 MS. LETSCHE: Your testimony, though, is that it I 20 is not a major problem for the people on either side of the 21 10-mile border not to understand the risk they are in; i 22 right? 23 WITNESS MILETI: They would have also been a f 24 provided a simulated this and subsequent EBS messages with 25 risk information in recommended protective action [ ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
~ k '30615.0 KSW 3385 s k 1 guidelines. 2 MS. LETSCHE: Did the recommended protective 1. J 3 actions for people on either side.of the 10-mile zone ever e i 4 change subsequent to EBS message number ~7? l 5 WITNESS MILETI: I will have to look. 6' WITNESS PATTERSON: I would point out that this 7 would probably in a real. situation be an example where the 8 ENC and reporters there and the various utility people would
- -~
9 come into play, because I'think this would be an example 3.. I 10 where in a real situation where reporters actually listen to 11 the-EBS messages,. you quickly get a focus in on the } 12 discrepancy, hey, what gives, release, no release, minor 13 release. That goes to my earlier point about the function of 1 i 14 an ENC and how it can operate in a positive way. It is 15 clearly a secondary / tertiary mode of communication in terms f 16 of the protecting the public, but it is there. It is 17 important that it is there. i 18 MS. LETSCHE: We will discuss the media in a i 19 little while, Mr. Patterson. I would like to finish up with f 20 Dr. Mileti and his messages first. 5 21 WITNESS MILETI: In this brief time I have had a i 22 look. I hope I have found all the potential changas. 23 MS. LETSCHE: Let me ask a question, Dr. Mileti, 24 just to focus ourselves here. It is true, is it not, that 25 from EBS message number 7 on, a recommendation was made that i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6M6 i ,.-_,m...,,,, --_,,_..,.,,,_,...___r.~,.,. ,.,.. -..-,. _ ~
-(7 30615.0 7 ) KSW 3386 1 everyone inside the 10-mile zone evacuate? Is that correct? 2 WITNESS MILETI: No, EHS messages 8 and 8.1, 3 there's.no reference to everyone in the 10-mile EPZ 4 evacuating, j I I 5 MS. LETSCHE: Doesn't it say in message number 8, l 6 " earlier today residents of all zones were recommended to E l 7 evacuate"? 8 WI'INESS MILETI: You are right. 9 MS. LETSCHE: Doesn't it say the same in message 10 8.1? 11 WITNESS MILETI: Yes. b.il 12 MS. LETSCHE: So from EBS message number 7 on, u 13 there's a reference to members of every zone in the EPZ to 14 evacuate? 15 WITNESS MILETI: That's correct. 16 MS. I.ETSCHE: And from EBS message number 7 to the 17 end, individuals outside the 10-mile zone were told that 18 there was no need for them to take any action; correct? 19 WITNESS MILETI: I would be surprised if that were 20 not the case. Without looking at them, I -A willing to say 3 21 that's probably true. But shall I antw t' question you 22 asked me before? 23 MS. LETSCHE: No, I think these questions were 24 better than that one and they are exactly what I was trying O) ( 25 to get. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
3 p 30615.01 sy KSW, 3387 1 Is.it your testimony that the problem you have-2 identified in message number 7 that we have been discussing -3 is also-one which would not detract from public health and 4 safety? .S WITNESS MILETI: I think I have this identi fled in 6 my testimony,.because I went through these EBS messages, and. 7 as is-true when.I go through anything, I critique them, and I. 8 could and did nitpick them up one side and down the other, 9 from lef t to r right and right to lef t, and then tried to have 10 a hard look at what I considered to be the two major things 11 that I wanted to recommend-to LILCO, that they try not to do 12 again.in the future. These are the two things that loomed (] 13 forth to~me au things I would like to not see them do again 14 -in'the future. It is my judgment, as I said in my testimony, J15 that I didn' t. think this would be that much of a problem in ~ 16 the emergency. That is, every 15 minutes, and frequency is 17 perhaps_one of the most important concepts to address in 18 giving emergency information. 19 We say in the messages that the risk is what is 20 said the risk is, and that that information is repeated overy '21 15 minute.s. People are focused on the messages as being 22 confirmed for them. We have known since the '50s that 23 confirmation of emergency information is as important as it 24 is. That's why we have EBS systems, and we have them in A -() 25 light of the fact that there would be conflicting ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
n 30615.0 y'KSW 3388 1 information. The 40 percent here could have created 2 confusion for people who lived on the border. We repeated 3 these things every 15 minutes, and so the good things about 4 them and the bad things about them were going out every 15 5 minutes, being confirmed for people because it was focused on 6 them. 7 What effect would it have had? It also says in 8 the EBS message what people should do. That's information, 9 profound information about risk, and that would have likely 10 not had that much of a negative effect in this emergency if 11 it were a real one. However, in the future we need not leave (]m 12 a 40 percent /10 miles dangling out in the wind without trying 13 to explain to people what that means. 14 MS. LETSCHE: My question was, Dr. Mileti, is it 15 your opinion that having this problem in EBS number 7 and 16 subsequent messages that we have been discussing would not 17 detract f. rom public health and safety? 18 WITNESS MILETI: That's my opinion and my 19 judgment. I don't think that would have, for example, 20 enhanced beyond what the plan is able to absorb in terms of 21 shadow phenomenon. 22 MS. LETSCHE: Is it your testimony that it would 23 not have detracted from public health and safety? 24 WITNESS MILETI: I don't think it would have kept OV 25 people from evacuating in terms of the people who needed to. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6M6
(o 30615.0 ,)KSW 3389 1 MS. LETSCHE: In your opinion, would it have 2 detracted from public health and safety? 3 WITNESS MILETI: I don't think it would have, no. 4 But you wouldn't recommend they do it in the future, either. 5 MS. LETSCHE: Would you turn for me to LERO news 6 release number 7, in attachment D to your testimony, and 7 about 2/3 of the way through that attachment. I can't figure 8 out another way to identify it. I am correct, aren't I, 9 Mr. Daverio, that this LERO news release number 7 is intended 10 or was intended to correspond to EBS message number 7; 11 correct? (O) 12 WITNESS DAVERIO: Yes, they are virtually u 13 identical. 14 MS. LETSCHE: Right. I notice that on page 1 15 there is this information about the thyroid doses, which is 16 basically the same as what we talked about in EBS number 7. 17 Would you turn for me, please, to page 4 of LERO press 18 release number 7? In particular, the third paragraph on that 19 page. AfLer describing the rough boundaries of the 10-mile 20 zone, this news reJeane says, " People who are not within 21 these boundaries need not take any action. Based on present 22 plant and weather conditions, the released radiation is not 23 expected to reach beyond," and I assume it it is supposed to 24 say "that zone or zones"; correct? I 25 WITNESS MILETI: That's what it says, yes. ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3346M6
9 A 30615.O 4 V KSW 3390-1 MS. LETSCHE: In your opinion, Dr. Mileti, would 2 this provide some additional information for the people on 3 either side of the 10-mile zone concerning the amount of risk 4 that they are in?. 5 WITNESS MILETI: It would give them information if 6 ~ they heard it. One should also presume in an emergency, 7 however, as was simulated here that there would be a whole 8 lot more and worst conflicting information than this. For 9 example, one should presume that the media will cover both 4 10 sides of the story. 11 MS. LETSCHE: Excuse me. I would like to focus on ( 12 what we're talking about here, Dr. Mileti. In your opinion, 13 -would this information contained in this press release, 14 assuming people learn of its existence, provide them with any-15 more useful information concerning the risk that they were 16 in? 17 WITNESS MILETI: Depends what you mean by the word .18 "useful." This information is inconsistent with the 4 19 information in the EBS message. 20 MS. LETSCHE: That's right. Do you think it would 21 provide a better understanding for the people on either side 22 of the border of the EPZ concerning the risk they were in? s. 23 WITNESS MILETI: I think they would focus on the 24 EBS message rather than on this information, and on the basis 25 of my presumption, if it were a real news release, the only ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 .... _, -.. _, -. _,,. = _.. _ _ _. _ _
p 30615.0 Q KSW 3391 1 way it would get to them is through the media, and that the 2 media would also be presenting a whole Jot more conflicting 3 risk information than this. 4 MS. I,ETSCHE : It is true, is it not, that this 5 statement in this press release would likely increase 6 whatever confusion may have been caused by the EBS message? 7 WITNESS MII,ETI: If people were not focused on the G EDS system, this would increase confusion because it would g 9 increase conflicting information; however -- 10 MS. IETSCHR: If they were not focused on the EDS 11 system, would this result in confusion? - C) 12 WITNESS MII ETI: It would be more than this to s.y 13 result in confusion. It would be a lot worse than what wo 14 suggest here. 15 MS. I.E T S C H R : But you have also said, have you 16 not, that if they were focused on the EBS system, message 17 number 7, they would be confused; correct? 18 WITNESS MII,ETI: No, I didn't say they would be. 19 I would say there was conflicting information that could lead 20 some people to be confused, but confusion is a relative term, 21 and you need to address this in terms of how it is 22 perceived. 23 MS. 1.ETSCH E : Confusion goes to how people 24 perceive things; right? OQ 25 WITNESS MILETI: It is one of the factors with ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
E - % 30615.0 KSW 3392 I relative effec t to be taken into account. 2 MS. LETSCHE: It is correct that there's 3 conflict'ing information lii EBS message number 7; is that 4 '4 correct? 5 WITNESS MILETI: There's conflicting information 1 6 in most emergency warning information. 7 MS. LETSCHE: The question is, it is true, is it 8 not, that there's conflicting information in EBS message 9 number 7? 10 WITNESS MILETI: There's information~could have 11 led some people to not understand what 40 - percent meant, 12 because i t didn't explain it. 13 MS. LETSCHE: You are saying there is not 14 conflicting information in EBS message number 7? 15 WITNESS MILETI: Conflicting with itself- '16 internally? 17 MS. LETSCHE: Yes. 18 WITNESS MILETI: EBS message number 7 is a pretty 19 ' good one. It is possible that - 'and we were talking about l 20 it not being clear or being confusing or people not i 21 .potentially some close to the border, not understanding what I 22 the 40 percent means. That potentially could be also 23 conceptualized as being a bit in conflict with the 24 recommended protective guidance about not needing to 25 evacuate. i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Co erage 800-33MM6
(m30615.0 e ),KSW 3393 1 MS. LETSCHE: So there's conflicting information 2 contained in EHS message number 7; correct? 3 WITNESS MILETI: A tiny bit, yes. 4 MS. LETSCHE: There's conf 3icting information 5 contained in LERO press release number 7, is there not, which 6 tracks EBS message number 7 and has the additional statement 7 we've pointed out on page 4. Conflicting internally with 8 itself. 9 WITNESS MILETI: I wiJl have to look at'it.
- Yes, 10 in terms of the first page of news release number 7, where it 11 talks about 40 percent at 10 miles, and then on page 4 of 5, O
12 " based on present plant and weather conditions the released O 13 radiation is not expected to reach beyond," and then it is 14 blanked out on the photocopy, but to the end of the 15 centence. 16 MS. LETSCHE: You also stated before, did you not, 17 that ERS message number 7 itself conflicts with LERO press 18 release number 7? 19 WITNESS MILETI: That's right, and also would 20 conlitict with most of the other information the public would 21 be getting if it were real. Jane Fonda would be there 22 wearing the same dress she wore in China Syndrome and would 23 be in all the news. 24 MS. LETSCHE: "In general, the exercise messages 25 were outs tanding," it says here. You talk about, there you ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
(m 30615.0 jKSW 3394 1 lis t a whole bunch of things, and I want to focus on your 2 last sentence, which is referring to your channel frequency 3 and source attributes. You define those on page 11 of your 4 testimony, correct, in the answer to question number 10? S WITNESS MILETI: The list I have in the answer to 6 question number 10 is the checklist of ideal type 7 characteristics, that I think rest on the empirical studies 8 that exist regarding how the public processes risk 9 information, yes. ) 10 MS. LETSCHE: Hight. Now on page 11 where you 11 discuss the channel attributes, which is number 2 there, you O 12 talk about you refer to them as in terms of being distributed v 13 over diverse channels. What were the diverse channels over 14 which information was distributed during the LILCO e,xercise? 15 WITNESS MILETI: To the best of my recollection, 16 the EBS messages were read and then taped and disseminated 17 over multiple radio stations. 10 MS. LETSCHE: So by diverse channels, you mean 19 more than one radio char.nel? 20 WITNESS MILFTI: 1 wouJd conceptualize it 21 differently. For example, different people are plugged into 22 dif ferent information networks in communities in dif ferent 23 ways. DiCCerent people of diffferent ethnic backgrounds or 24 socioeconomic statea listen to different radio stations. To 25 get them out over 15 or so maximizes the odds that you could ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 1 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6616 i _1
~. f' ~ O'.30615.0-KSW. 3395 1 meet most people. 2 Additionally, channel multiplicity can grow as 3 information-is disseminated in that kind of multipronged 4 approach, such that more.and more people hear it and then as 5 .they encounter each other and chat about it, they begin A 6 talking about'what all of them have. heard. 7 MS. LETSCHE: In terms of your statement'that 8 their channel. attributes were excellent, I take it the 9 diverse channels over which the messages were distributed i 10 during the LILCO exercise were -- the fact that they were 11 simulated to have been sent out over more than one radio 12 channel; correct? 13 WITNESS MILETI: That's correct. That's what 14 would have happened. ? 15 MS. LETSCHE: You also ta3k here about'the source 16 attributes as being excellent. On page 11 of your testimony, 17 you discuss source attributes and say, this is in number 4 in 18 your answer 10, means " disseminated from a source that 19 includes people with organizational af filiations that enhance 20 officialness, credibility and familiarity"; right? 21 WITNESS MILETI: That's correct. 22 MS. LETSCHE: It is your opinion, I take it, that 23 the -- let me start again. The EDS messages disseminated 1 24 during the exercise were disseminated from LER0; correct? j 25 WITNESS MILETI: No, I was referring to, for ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 8m-336-6M6
G 30615.0 t)KSW 3396 1 example, page number 2 of ERS message number 7, where it 2 talks about the f ollowi ng people, the director of LILCO, 3 respondents with the Shoreham nuclear power station, 4 scientists, LILCO officials, nuclear engineers, Jim Thomas of 5 the Suffolk County executives office, Vern Wright, the 6 Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health. It 7 is that collective that I was referring to when I was talking 8 about source attributes. 9 MS, LETSCHE: It is true, is it not, that che EBS 10 messages disseminated during the exercise were disseminated 11 by LERO; correct? /~ 12 WITNESS MILETI: I think they originated from (v) 13 LRRO. They are LERO ERS messages, but we're talking about 14 the source attributes in terms of the paragraph I just 15 referenced from a perception point of view, that is the 16 people who would be hearing it. Where the original documents 17 stem from is not that relevant. 18 MS. LETSCilE : It is true that the EDS messages 19 were distributed by I.ERO, is it not? 20 WITNESS MILETI: I think I said yes to that. 21 MS. 1.ETSCIIE : You may have and it probably got 22 lost. 23 It is true, I take i t, from your statement, that 24 you believe that the director of LILCO response, Jay Kessler, 25 would be considered by the public on Long Island as a source Ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 L
q 30615.O b KSW 3397-I with officialness, credibility and familiarity; correc t? 2 WITNESS MILETI: Not at all. I think -- 3 MS. LETSCHR: That's fine. That's an~ answer to my 4 question. Thank you. Are you' suggesting that.the public on S .Long Island would consider LILCO officials as a source with 6 officiaJness, credibility and familiarity? 7 WITNESS MILETI: Certainly some would. Some 8 .wouldn't. 9 MS. LETSCHE: How about, are you suggesting that 10 the public on Long Island would consider the fact that 11 Mr. Kessler had consulted with unnamed scientists turned 12 Mr. Kessler into a source with officialness, credibility and. 13 familiarity? 14 WITNESS MILETI: It would for some and not-for-15 o the rs. The notion that the scientist was there is a key 16 help. Even if Suffolk County were participating, the county 17 executive would not be credible for all of the people in 18 Suffolk County. The notion is that one needs to maximize the 19 odds that the things that we know in terms of the source of a 20 warning can be covered in an Emergency Broadcast System 21 message. There simply is not any bureaucrat or any utility 22 or any member of the private sector or public sector who in 23 credible for all people in a particular community, and who is 24 credible changes over time, and therefore, since credibility 25 in terms of information source varies so much, of all of ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-3364M6
1 ~ A 30615.0 (/ KSW 3398 ~1 them, scientists and engineers for some reason the public 2 perceives t.o be the most credible. 'We need a mixed bag.for a I 3 source for emergency warning. This is as true for a nuclear 4 power plant as it is for anything else. l 5 MS. LRTSCHE: So your testimony is by-. including in 6 this EDS message a statement that the. director of LILCO 7 response Jay Kessler had consulted with scientists, LILCO 8 officials, nuclear engineers, by having that statement.in the 9 message, the public would conclude that that message-had been i- '10 disseminated from a source with officialnesn, credibility and ? f 11 familiarity; is that right? 12 WITNESS MILETI: We would maximize the probability { 13 of having source attributes managed and pushed of f the scale 14 as far as we could, and would increase the probability that i i 15 the public would have a better chance of becoming focused on 16 the EDS system. 7 17 MS. LETSCHE: I take it that if the public did not 18 go along with this probability that you have posited, that j 19 these statements meant that the source of the recommendation i 20 was official, credible and familiar, that the ofCectiveness i 21 of these messages would correspondingly decline; correct? 22 WITNESS MILETI: Not at all. The reason is that 23 the reason the source attribut.es is important in emergency 24 warnings is that it is one among a raft of factors that could j 25 affect belief of the emergency information. There are other i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage Mo.33MM6 (
l .l 4 ? 30615.0 KSW' 3399 l' factors that can affect belief of emergency information. -2 Source attributes are just one in looking at an ideal catalog 3 of ideal types to be considered; when one constructs.such-4 things, of course source attributes are there, but other 5 factors affect belief, and if one is considering'whether or 6 -not the public would believe the EDS messages or if they 7 would become highlighted for the public, one would also need 8 to look at the other-factors that effect belief, for 9 example. Frequency with which the information is repeated. 10 MS. LETSCHE: And all of the factors are included 11 in your checklist, things like consistency:and accuracy and 12 certainty and clarity and all of the things you list on page 13 11? 14 WITNESS MILETI: Not all of them affect belief, 15 no. As I recollect, the factors that affect belief is what 16 were struck from the testimony. 17 MS. LETSCHE: Would you agree with me that the 18 consistency of messages will affect whether or not people 19 will believe them? 20 WITNESS MILETI: I'm willing to say in general 21 yes, but I need to look to see if there's empirical evidence 22 that will show that relationship. 23 MS. LETSCEIE: It is not in your testimony. I can 24
- t. ell you that.
25 WITNESS MILETI: It was in the testimony t. hat was ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8043E6646
_~- =E v. i c ~ r]KSW 30615.0 3400 v 1 -struck. 2 MS. LETSCHE: Would you agree with me that 3 ' inconsistent information can decrease the amount of belief 4 that the message would generate? S WITNESS MILETI: Consistency in an emergency 6 information has an effect, empirically demonstrated effect'on 7 ' warning belief, which is one -- 8 MS. LETSCHE: That's also true, is it not, for i 9 accuracy of emergency information. 10 WITNESS MILETI: That's correct. 11 MS. LETSCHR: It is also true of certainty. O 12 288ss a '8r - ^=a e1eritv eea 1x et reer1e eee 4 13 multiplicity of channels. 14 MS. LETSCHE: A13 of the things you list on page 15 -11. i ' 16 WITNESS MILETI: Except I had them singled out in i 17 terms of the empirical record on part of the testimony that j 18 was struck. 19 MS. LETSCHE: Hight. Now it is true, is it not, 20 Dr. Mileti, that in EBS messages 1, 2 and 3, the only people l 21 whom Mr. Kessler is described as having consulted with are i 22 LILCO officials and nuclear engineers?
- l 23 WITNESS MILETI:
No, I don't believe that's true. 24 I have only looked so far as ERS message number 1. It says 25 Jay Kessler has consulted wi th LILCO of ficials, nuclear ACE FEDER.AL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800 336-6646
o 30615.0 C KSW 3401 1 engineers and Mr. John Susich, Suffolk. county executive, and 2 Vern Wright of the Department of, I believe it is IIealth. 3 MS. LETSCHR: But you know, don't you, that those 4 were just simulators during the exercise, those were not real 5 people? 6 WITNESS MILETI: The whole exercise was a 7 simulation. El MS. LETSCHE: You know those were not real 9 government officials, they were simulators? 10 WITNESS MILETI: That's because I know John 11 Susich. 12 MS. LETSCHE: We set those aside, and in fact 13 Mr. Kessler is identified, is he not, as having consulted 14 wi th LILCO of ficials and nuclear engineers? 15 WITNESS MILETI: If you leave out the other 16 sources, those are the only ones left. 17 MS. LETScilE : Ile is not shown as having consulted Ifl with any scientists in those messages, is he? 19 WITNESS MILETI: Message number 2 does say 20 " nuclear engineers." 21 MS. LETSCllE: Says it in 1 and 3, but none of them 22 say scientists, do they? 23 WITNESS MILETI: Engineers are not scientists 24 according to classification, according to some university 25 somewhere that st.arted it. ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(X)-33MM6
'./, Y 30615.0 KSW 3402 1 MS. LETSCHB: Judge Frye, I'm getting ready to 2 ' start the next.section, which talks about the ENC contentions 3 specifically. This would be a good time for me to take a 4 break rather than starting a.whole new topic. 5 JUDGE FRYE:- Is it going to be a long topic? My 6 concern is that we're up against.this 2:00 conference call. 7 MS. LF.TSCHB: Well, I think it would be better to 8 be able to start when we had some time to_go through 5t, 9 rather than sort of getting 10 or 15 minutes into it.and' 10 stopping. I don't know when you intended to stop. 11 JUDGE FRYE: Ilow about 45 minutes? 12 MS. LETSCHR: That would cut into everyone's lunch 13 if you have the call at 2:00. I will go if you want. 14 JUDGE FRYE: I think it would be better. I'm 4 15 trying to accommodate the 2:00 conference call. 16 MS. LETSCHE: I know. I have to be on it. 17 JIIDGE silon: I have to be on it also. 18 JUDGE FRYE: Let's go until 1:00. 19 MS. LETSCHB: Dr. Mileti, you have written, have 20 you not, on the subject of the influence of media on 21 emergency information conveyed to the public during an 22 emergency? 23 WITNESS MILETI: Most of the things I have written 24 deal with the topic of emergency information to the public 25 emergencieu, yes. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage MK) 3346M6
(_,330615.0 f^ )KSW 3403 1 MS. LETSCHE: You have written in particular a 2 chapter on a book concerning a media in disaster. 3 WITNESS MILETI: Right, in a book on Three Mile 4 Island. 5 MS. LETSCHE: I would like to have this marked as 6 Exhibit Suffolk 46 for identification. 7 (Suf folk County Exhibit 46 identified. ) 8 MS. LETSCHR: This is an article entitied "The 9 Media in Disaster." This 3s by done M. Hartsough and Dennis 10 S. Mileti. 11 MS. LETSCHE: Let me preface this discussion with O 12 a request, Dr. Mileti. We can get through this expeditiously w/ 13 if you focus on my questions and answer them and try not to 14 give speeches and educate the board on ali your background, 15 which is very large, on other things that are not pertinent. 16 My questions will all be able to be answered very shortly and 17 quick]y, and I would appreciate your trying to do that. 10 MS. MC CLESKEY: Judge, I find Ms. Letsche's 19 remarks uncalled for. 20 JUDGE FRYE: I have been having exactly the same 21 problem Ms. Letsche has been having. The answers don't focus 22 on the question. I think i t is
- f. i n e if the witness wants to 23 give an explanation, but I think the Lirst thing the witness 24 has to do is to answer t.he ques ti on.
(D
- /
2S MS. LETScilE: This is a chapter in a book; right? t ACE FEDERAL IlEPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Cmcrage m)-336-tM6
-. c 30615.0 KSW 3404 i 'l WITNESS MILETI: Yes, it is. 2 MS. LETSCHE: When was it written? -3 WITNESS MILETI: When was it published? 4 M S '. LETSCHE: That might be easier. 5 -WITNESS MILETI: I don't remember that. It 6 certainly was published after the TMI work came out. l 7 MS. LETSCHE:. Does 1985 sound about right? l 8 WITNESS MILETI: About right, yes. 9 MS. LETSCHE: You would agree with me that this-10 work includes a discussion of the effects of the media on 11 information conveyed to the public during an emergency; 12 right? 13 WITNESS MILETI: Yes, I think that's the topic of 14 it. 15 MS. LETSCHE: You commented in this article 16 specifically, did you not, on TMI and how the media conveyed 17 information to the public during that emergency. 18 WITNESS MILETI: I'm sure of it, yes. 19 MS. LETSCHE: Now you discuss in this article 20 beginning on page 283 what you refer to as the conventional 21 wisdom regarding the mass media or the effect of mass media 22 on disasters; right? 23 WITNESS MILETI: I use the words " conventional 24 wisdom." I see them, you. 25 MS. LETSCHR: And you also discuss in the next ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 804336-6M6
^ - j t'N 30615.0 ()KSW 3405 1 section of this article beginning on page 284 different 2 hypotheses about why events such as TMI become newsworthy or 3 nationally reported incidents; right? 4 WITNESS MILETI: Well, to be honest with you, I 5 don't remember, because it has been a while since I have seen 6 this. That's probably right. l 7 JUDGE FRYE: We seem to be missing page 283. 8 MR. PIRFO: I am as well. 9 WITNESS MILETI: So am I. 10 MS. LETSCHE: I apologize. I will get copies 11 made. I'm not going to ask any particular questions on page O 12 2H3. v 13 JUDGE FRYE: I have it, but Judge Paris doesn't 14 have it. Are you going to ask questions on it? 15 MS. LETSCHR: No. 16 JUDGE FRYE: Let's move on and you can give it to 17 us later. 18 MS. LETSCHE: We might borrow your copy, Judge 19 Frye. Not now. When we have to copy it. Mine has scribbles 20 on it. I assume you would agree, Dr. Mi] e ti, that an 21 accident at the Shoreham plant such as that simulated during 22 the February 13 exercise would be newsworthy and a national 3y 23 reported event? 24 WITNESS MILETI: Yes, it probably would be 25 reported internationally. ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80f k336 6646
(n 30615.0 )KSW 3406 1 MS. LETSCHS: Beginning on page 286, you have a 2 Jist of questions that you identify to help in assessing what 3 the media does during an accident, and one of the things in 4 particular that you discuss is the accuracy of the mass media S reporting. On page 287, where you refer in particular to 6 TMI, you state, do you not, at the bottom of the first 7 paragraph there that, "at TMI accurate reporting was 8 particularly difficult because at the complex technology 9 involved in the accident." 10 WITNESS MILETI: That is stated there, that's 11 correct. 12 MS. LETSC11E: And I assume that that would be the V) / 13 case as well with respect to an accident at Shoreham, since 14 the same complex technology would be involved; right? IS WITNESS MILETI: It need not be, no. 16 MS. LETSCHE: Is the technology that would be 17 involved in a Shoreham accident any different from the 18 technology involved in the TMI accident? 19 WITNESS MILETI: I know at a general level they 20 are both nuclear power plants. 21 MS. LETSCHE: Okay, now, in discussing this 22 accuracy point, you mention, you describe as a fault of media 23 reporters the fact that they demand precise and certain 24 informat. ion even where none exists; right? O' V 25 WITNESS MILETI: That's a problem in all ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80n.33M686
30615.0 - A) KSW ( 3407 1 emergencies, yes. 2 MS. LETSCHE: And in discussing that, you go on to i 3 talk about the results of that demanding nature of reporters, 4 and I'm referring in particular to this same paragraph on 5 page 287, in which you say, for instance, that '_' reporters can 6 pressure interviewees until they get information that is 7 unreliable, but which is recorded as reliable information"; 8 right? 9 WITNESS MILETI: Yes, I have seen 3t happen. 10 MS. LETSCHE: You say reporters may get a "no 11 comment." from a legitimate news source, but then seek out 12 someone else who you is not legitimate but who is willing to 13 give a news story; right? 14 WITNESS MILETI: Absolutely. 15 MS. LETSCHE: And the result of that is that those 16 reporters can report that information even though it is not 17 from a legitimate source; right? 18 WITNESS MILETI: It is the character of how the 19 media behaves in the United States, yes. 20 MS. LETSCHR: You also say that the media also 21 seeks to present both sides of an issue, which can create 22
- confusion on the part of the public that receives that.
23 i n i'orma ti on, citing yourself; correct? 24 WITNESS MILETI: It is the character of a media in O (,/ 25 a free society like this, yes. ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage Nxh336-(M6
o 30615.0 ()KSW 3408 1 MS. LETScilE : In fact, that character of the media 2 and the resulting actions that it takes can create confusion 3 on the part of the public that receives the information, 4 right? S WITNESS MILETI: Absolutely, yes, and emergency 6 planning should presume all this goes on. 7 MS. LETSCHE: Right. Now I take it that you would 8 agree that all three of these potential actions of media 9 members would be likely to happen if there were an accident 10 at the Shoreham plant; right? 11 WITNESS MILETI: I think it should be counted on
- O 12 and assumed that it would happen, yes.
V 13 MS. LETSCllE Now you go on in your article to 14 discuss a few more matters involving how the media contribute 15 to perceptions about emergencies. When you get over to page 16 289, you cite Dupont. Now I'm correct, aren't I, that this 17 quotation you have at. the bottom of page 289 and going over 18 to 290 from the Dupont article of 1980 is based upon the 19 review of evening news programs over a fairly long period 20 concerning nuclear energy broadcasts and the TMI accident; 21 right? 22 WITNESS MILETI: I don't really remember. I'm 23 willing to say that 10 it is in here, I at one time would ] 24 have done it, so you are pr obably right. 25 MS. 1.ETSCllE And Mr. Dupont concluded based upon Act.FEDERAI. REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage MX)-33MM6
- O 30615.0 V KSW 3409 1 his review that you cite that as you describe it that fear 2 was the motive of the entire series at nuclear stories; 3 correct? 4 WITNESS MII,ETI: Yes. 5 MS. I,ETSCH E : And you also cite Mr. Dupont at the 6 top of page 20 to say that the bottom line of the public's 7 awareness is that "the Three Mile Island experience is going 8 to be a dominant image probably for the next decade, because 9 it has been burned into the collective consciousness largely 10 through the television news"; is that right? 11 WITNESS MII,ETI: That's what he said according to 12 this quote. 13 MS. I,ETSCHE : You would agree, would you not, that. 14 the Chernobyl experience would have the same impact; right? 15 WITNESS MII,ETI: Not. necessarily, no. In fact, no 16 specifically, because that happened in another nation. 17 MS. I.ETSCH E : The fact that it happened in another 18 nation would change the impact it would have from the 19 television upon the public of the United States; right? 20 MS. MC CI,ESKEY: Objection. I thought we had 21 struck and withdrawn Chernobyl. 22 JUDGE FRYE Sustained. 23 MS. I,ETSCilE Judge Frye, the reason I'm going 24 into this is because of the testimony 1: rom Dr. Milett Od 25 concerning the research characteristics, uome of which can Ace FEDERAL RnronTnns, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336 (M6
i 30615.0 i KSW 3410 1 change and some of which cannot change, as a result of 2 emergency information. 3 JUDGE FHYE: Where is that testimony? 4 MS. LETSCHE: It is in his testimony back on pages 5 10 and 11, and in that whole area which we discussed at 6 length this morning. I think I'm entitled to get into the 7 record in addition to the fact that the Three Mile Island 8 experience according to Dr. Mileti is going to be a dominant 9 image in the minds of the public because of its press 10 coverage, that the same would be true with respect to another 11 large nuclear accident. ( 12 JUDGE FRYE: Is that in his testimony, the Three 13 Mile Island? 14 MS. LETSCllE: It is in this article that he 15 wrote. 16 JUDGE FRYE: That's not in the testimony, 17 however. 18 MS. LETSCHE: lie said it, though. Are yoit saying 19 I can't follow up on it? 20 JUDGE FRYE: There wat rio objection when you asked 21 him about TMI. I might have sustained that too. I'm going 22 to sustain the objection. 23 MS. LETSCIIR : You conclude after citing 24 Mr. Dupont, do you not, Dr. Milets, that the media along with 25 other sources of i nforma tion are the key factor that ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 37(W) Nationwide Cmerage 8(N)-336.(M6
es30615.0 IKSW 3411 1 determines public response? 2 WITNESS MILETI: A bs ol u t.c.l y, but which included in 3 that is the EBS systems when they exist. 4 MS. LETSCHE: Going further in the article, in the 5 next section how the mass media actually affect the behavior 6 of individuals in disas ter si tuations, you state in the 7 second paragraph an overall conciusion, which is that the 1 8 media, which are the major givers of information to the 9 public in emergencies, have a profound effect on the 10 predicaster behavior of individuais. Do you utill agree with 11 that s tatement? f/ 12 WITNESS MILETI: Yes. 13 MS. LETSCHE: Now you go on to say, and you 14 discuan at the bottom of page 290 and carrying over to 291, 15 you describe a process about. how people come to respond to l l l 16 disaster warning information, and I believe I'm correct that 17 this is basically the same type of process which you have l 18 described in the tentJmony that you filed here; right? 19 WITNESS MILETI: I would say so, but I bet my job 20 that the Leutimony in better, because this is an earlier l 21 document. 22 MS. LETSCHE: In the first item of the proccus 23 that you describe here in your 1985 article is that people l 24 receive risk i nf orma t.i on, that it comes from a variety of. 25 sources including of fficial warnings, neighbors and friends l ACE FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Caserare 8m336-6M6
n 30615.0_ \\ ()KSW 3412 1 and the like, howevm most comes from the media; right? 2 WITNESS MILETI: Absolutely, yes. 3 MS. LETSCHR: You still agree with that? 4 WITNESS MILETI: In general for most emergencies, 5 yes. 6 MS. LETScllE : Right. And in discussing the second 7 item of this process, which is people evaluate the 8 information that's available to them, you conclude that if 9 information is inconsistent or confused, it is less likely to 10 be believed and people may become confused or anxious; 11 correct? 12 WITNESS MILETI: Yes, which I have always said 13 that. 14 MS. LETSCHE: You are still saying that, right.? 15 WITNESS MILETI: I will be saying it in a year, 16 too. I bet here. 17 MS. LETSCllE: Now you go on to discuss point 3 and 10 point 4, which we have discussed before. Then you say on 19 page 291 that this general process rarely operates in a 20 straightforwaril fashion in the real world, because the 21 proceau in t.ypically altered by a number of real world 22 factors that reshape the general model. I take it that part 23 of the real world factors that. reshape the general model are 24 the research characteris tles that you have identified; is 25 t.ha t. correc t.? ace FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 37m Nanonwide Cmnage m 3M-M>46
A 30615.0 U KSW 3413 1 WITNESS MILETI: Yes, that certainly would include 2 that, yes. 3 MS. LETSCHE: Now, you go on in this paragraph on 4 page 291, the first full paragraph, to describe how 5 information differs in ways that affect the human response. 6 It looks like generally these correspond to the checklist 7 i tems that are on your page 11 of your testimony, right, in 8 general? 9 WITNESS MILETI: I think I have said it better 10 now, but in general I would agree with you, yes. 11 MS. LETSCHE: In this discussion in your article, ) 12 you make it clear that these ways in which information 13 differs are -- that these diff'erences arise from the 14 perception of the research of information. Is that right? 15 WITNESS MILETI: Differences in the way people 16 come to respond in disaster situations to warnings come from 17 their situational perceptions. 18 MS. LETSCIIR : But specificalLy, the certainty in f 19 the message is the perceived certainty by the research of the 20 message, not a determined certainty just from reading the 21 message; correct? 22 WITNESS MILETI: Objective facts can help people, 23 and how people perceive them are two different things. From 24 a person's point of view the only thing they have, rea.Ily for n 25 them, are their perceptions, and that can overlap or not v Ace FEDERAI. REPORTERS, INC. 202447-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8(0-33MM6
30615.0 )KSW 3414 1 overlap with objective facts, depending upon the 2 circumstances, w 3 MS. LETSCHE: But in terms of. how they would 4 respond to the information, it is their perceptions that 5 d e t.ermi ne that rather than the objective reality; correct? \\ 6 WITNESS MILETI: The perceptions of the direct 7 antecedent to the behavior, yes. l 8 MS. LETSCHE: Now, you go on in the next paragraph 9 to talk about how more people would respond more [ \\ l l 10 appropriately, again providing some more information that l 11 should be in warnings or not in warnings to get that 12 response, atui you say people will respond more appropriately l 13 it the warnings of risk information come from people they l l 14 trust, respect or define as authority Cigures. I take it l l 15 t ha t. 's something which you still believe in giving your l 16 ' source attribute discussion in your testimony; right? 17 WITNESS MILETI: The whole paragraph can be 1 l 18 defined as an early budding of my checklist in my testimony. l l 19 MS. LETSCHE: You have a fx.w additional things in l 20 here, item number 2, which is people will respond more l 21 appropriately i f. the warnings are delivered by the media with 22 a good deal ot certainty in reference to what information is 23 still being communicated. Do you sti1) agree with that? 24 WITNESS MILETI: Yes. (, 25 MS. LETSCHE: And you have as item number 5 i n ace FEDERAL REPORTERS. INC. il 202-347-3700 NationwiJe Coserage No.33MM6
q
- {'j30615.0 ss/KSW 3415 I
this list that more people-would respond more appropriately - 2 if the warnings are consistent in content.and clearly stated 3 and contain specific information rather than general 4 information. Do you still agree with that? 5 WITNESS MILETI: Ab'solutely. 6 MS. LETSCHE: You conclude in-the 1385 article 7 that these factors are largely under the cor, trol of the 8 media; right? 9 WITNESS MILETI: Absolutely, yes. That's the 10 information, the main way people get information during 11 emergencies. () 12 MS. LETSCHE: Near the end of;the article, you 13 talk about models of mass media disaster relationships on 14 page 292, and you identify two models, one is ca31ed a Jinear 15 .model and one that you refer to~as a flow model or cybernetic 16 model. 17 WITNESS MILETI: I don't remember that, but I'm 18 -sure it'is there if.you say so. 19 MS. LETSCHE: You can certainly look at it to make 20 sure that it is there. 21 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: While Dr. Mileti is taking a -22 look at that document, it is important to underscore the 23 importance of the media moni toring function. It is part of 24 the emergency plan. That is to watch how the press is 25 dealing with the situation and pick up inconsistencies to ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
em 30615.0 ()KSW 3416 1 correct that, and get it out to the public, so that feedback 2 is a very important part. 3 MS. LETSCHS: We'll get to that, Mr. McCa f f re.'. 4 As I read this, Dr. Mileti, it looks like the 5 cybernetic or flow model was the more recent one, and I 6 gather is the one more general]y accepted; is that right? .7 WITNESS MILETI: I say it is hypothesized to be 8 more accepted. It is under testing now on a project on mass 9 media in disasters. 10 MS. LETSCHE: This is a model that considers the 11 interplay of forces on each other as a total system of f) 12 interdependent influences; is that right? V 13 WITNESS MILETI: You need to take into account the 14 total band of information available to the public, yes. ~15 MS. LETSCHR: And in describing how one should 16 analyze influence of the media, beginning at the bottom of 17 page 292 and carrying over to the next page of your article, 18 you give an example which you say it seems reasonable to 19 believe that the reporting of TMI as an isolated incident 20 could not be separated from the context of nuclear power as a 21 controversial and generally emotional issue 1.or members of 22 the general public. I assume that would also be the case for 23 the Shoreham accident; correct? 24 WITNESS MILETI: That's one of the research ). 25 factors among many, yes. If you want me to say I think the ACE.FeoERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
r~3 30615.0 (.) KSW 3417 1 media are boobs in a disaster, I'm willing to say that, but 2 I'm sitting next to a media fellow. Maybe not at J unch, 3 but -- 4 MS. LETSCHE: I just want you to answer the S questions and you did that. Thank you. 6 WITNESS MILETI: It was hard with just a few 7 words. 8 MS. LETSCllE: Would you turn please to page 16 of 9 your testimony? 10 I would like to direct these questions to 11 Ms. Robinson. In answer to question 21, Ms. Robinson, you es (j 12 state your opinion that during the exercise the ENC was 13 activated in a timely manner. In fact, during the exercise, 14 the ENC was activated or declared operational at 0:25; right? 15 WITNESS ROBINSON: That's correct. 16 MS. LETSCHE: I take it from your testimony that 17 -- strike that. 18 The first EBS message went out during the exercise 19 at 6:52 a.m.; correct? 20 WITNESS ROBINSON: Yes. 21 MS. LETSCHE: That was EBS number I? 22 WITNESS ROBINSON: That's right. 23 MS. I.ETSCHE: And EBS message number 2 also went 24 out before the ENC was activated; correct? s,s! 25 WITNESS ROBINSON: I will have to check. I don't ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
m.30615.0 e C)KSW 3418 1 remember the time of that one. No, that's not correct. 2 MS. LETSCHR: When did EDS message number 2 go 3 out? 4 WITNESS ROBINSON: 8:38. 5 MS. LETSCHE: I take it that it is your position 6 that i t is okay, there's no problem, in having a two-hour 7 time span between an alert declaration at a nuclear plant and 8 the avai]abiJity of the ENC for the press; right? 9 WITNESS ROBINSON: I wouldn't set any specific 10 time because there are so many other sources of information 11 available in the intervening period. ) 12 MS. LETSCHE: Listen to the question, 13 Ms. Robinson. The alert was declared during the exercise at 14 6:17. I take it from your testimony that it is your position 15 that there's no problem in having a more than two-hour delay 16 between the declaration of an alert during a nuclear power 17 plant accident and the availability of an ENC for the press; 18 right? 19 WITNESS ROBINSON: No, FEMA said it was a timely 20 establishing of the ENC and I certainly agree with it. 21 MS. LETSCHE: It is also your position that it is 22 okay to have a greater than two-hour time span before an ENC 23 is available even if in connection with an alert declaration, 24 there are off-site protective action recommendations; O) ( 25 correct? ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
i N 30615.0 c KSW 3419 1 WITNESS ROBINSON: There is no direct tie between 2 the two factors. 3 MS. LETSCHE: The question is, is it.your position e 4 that it is okay to have a-two-hour time span between'the 5 declaration of an. alert and the availability of an ENC even 6 if in connection with that alert declaration,-there are _7 of f-site protective' action recommendations? 8 WITNESS ROBINSON: Based on other factors, yes. 9 MS. LETSCHE: I take it it is also your position 10 it is okay to have a site area emergency' declared during a 11 nuclear power plant accident before an ENC' becomes available 12 for the press; right? 13 WITNESS ROBINSON: I'm confused by the timing that 14 you are -- the accident levels are in no way dependent on the 15 activation of specific facilities. [ 16 MS. LETSCHE: In-your opinion, you could have a 17 general emergency and still not need an ENC; right? 18 WITNESS ROBINSON: It is not a question of need, 19 it is a question of that it is a -possibility and that's why 20 you make provisions, interim provisions for providing 21 information through the media and especially to the public, 22 without the formal activation of a specific facility, because i 23 none of those are inconceivable and there are things that 24 have to be planned for. 25 MS. LETSCHS: What is not inconceivabic? i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. J 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
30615.0 KSW 3420 1 WITNESS _ ROBINSON: You could have a general 2 emergency.before you had an opportunity to activate any-of 3 your facilities formally, and that's why there are procedures: 4 for public notification outside of those facilities. 5 MS. LETSCHE: Is it your' tes timony that' a' decision J 6 upon about whether or not an ENC has been timely activated is 7 a function of when you become able to activate it? 8 WITNESS ROBINSON: I would say it is not a 9 function of any single factor. 10 MS.-LETSCHE: But it is not at all related to the 11 levei of emergency at the plant, right? a 12 WITNESS ROBINSON: It certainly is related to it, b 13 but it is not solely dependent on that. 14 MS. LETSCHE: We've established that you don't t 15 have a problem with the two-hour delay.between an alert. 16 declaration and the' availability of an ENC, even if you have l' 17 protective action recommendations for the off-site public. 18 Is it okay to have a site area emergency > declared without 19 having an ENC available? In terms of an ENC being available 20 on a timely basis? i 21 WITNESS ROBINSON: My answer is that the site area 1 22 emergency is declared based on plant conditions and is not 1 23 ENC-dependent. 24 MS. LETSCHE: I understand that. The question, 25 Ms. Robinson, goes to what you consider to be timely ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 .---....-,--,---,c-
30615.0 KSW 3421 v 1 activation of an ENC. Is it your opinion that an ENC can 2 still be timely activated if at the time there is a site area 3 emergency declared, the ENC is not activated. 4 WITNESS ROBINSON: Yes, especially when it is 5 activated a few minutes afterwards. 6 MS. LETSCHE: Is it also your testimony that an 7 ENC could be timely activated if it were not activated until 8 after there had been a general emergency declaration? 9 WITNESS ROBINSON: In certain occasions where you 10 went immediately to a general. 11 WITNCSS MC CAFFREY: It is important to recognize 12 the procedures call for activation of the ENC at alert or 13 higher, and there's nothing that can enable you physically to s-14 do something faster, whether an alert or site emergency or 15 general emergency. The point is you activate the system ASAP 16 and begin on the notice of the alert. It takes time to 17 notify people, to have people at the facility, to get the 10 facility into condition for use to receive the press, to 19 check out communication systems, make sure the phones are 20 working, and obtain the information you then need to deal 21 with the press. All that takes a finite amount of time, so 22 therefore, the some two hour period it took is timely and is 23 the limit of practica Lity for this plant or any other plant. 24 MS. LETSCHR: Mr. McCaffrey, during the exercise 25 the alert was declared at 6:17; right? s ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
I 30615.0 fm KSW 3422 e 3 V 1 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: That's correct, in the 2 control room, that.'s correct. 3 MS. LETSCHE: And the procedures you just 4 mentioned in your statement which call for the activation of S the ENC at the alert stage are the LILCO plan procedures; 6 correct? 7 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: The LILCO plan and procedures 8 calls for that activation, yes, the beginning of that 9 activation, yes. 10 MS. LETSCHE: During the exercise it was those 11 LILCO procedures and plans which were demonstrated; right? 12 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: I think both the LERO plan n 13 and the LILCO on-site plan were activated. The on-site plan 14 called for the personnel for the on-site program to report to 15 the ENC and establish the media monitoring functions, roll 16 out the TV cabinets, get the radios plugged in, get the rumor 17 control personnel in, establish contacts with the customer 18 control boards and contact systems, the emergency on-site 19 operations facilities which is coming up in parallel. All 20 those things need to be done. 21 MS. LETSCHR: During the exercise in demonstrating 22 the implementation of the LILCO and LERO p]an and procedures, 23 it took from 6:17 until 8:40 for the ENC to be activated; 24 correct? fm 25 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: Not correct. ( ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
30615.0 KSW 3423 mV 1 MS. LRTSCHE: I'm sorry, it was 8:25 for the ENC, 2 right? 3 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: That's correct. 4 MS. LRTSCHE: And it is your position, like 5 Ms. Robinson's, that in terms of what constitutes timely 6 activation, the determining factor is how long it takes to 7 get it activated rather than the level of the emergency, 8 correct? 9 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: Not entirely, you need to 10 look at the time line of what was happening at that point in 11 time. When we arrived at the news center I got there at 12 7:06. We were still in the alert. The site alert didn't qO 13 happen until later. We were not in a particularly serious 14 condition with the plant. The emergency news manager 15 exercised his prerogative and awaited the arrival of certain 16 people he wanted before he declared himself operational. 17 That's his prerogative. 18 Had the situation been moving faster, he would 19 have undoubtedly and I would have participated in the 20 decision to declare ourselves operational even though missing 21 people if we thought we would deal with the press. 22 MS. LRTSCHE: You made a determination given 23 everything happening during the exercise there was no need to 24 activate ENC after 8:25 until you had gotten your people 25 there; right? nU ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6 4 6
~ -30'615.0 p-g KSW 3424 g I WITNESS MC CAFFREY: I considered that appropriate 2 for'the conditions.present at that time. 3 JUDGE PARIS: What time was the ENC activated? 4 WITNESS _ MC CAI'FREY : -At approximately 8:25. It 5 was 8:25 exactly. 6 MS. LETSCHE: Judge Frye,.I'm at the end of.this v 7 answer that I was probing here. I think-this would b'e a good + 8 time to stop. ~ 9 JUDGE FRYE: All right. We'll take a lunch break 10 until 2:30. 11 (Whereupon, at 1:00 p.m., the-hearing was 12 recessed, to be reconvened at 2:30 p.m. this same day.) 13 4 14 i 15 4 ^ 16 r 17 18 1 19 20 e 21 22 23 '24 25 i i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. b 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 i ' _... -.,..,... ~. _ _ _ _ _. _ _.. _ _, _, _ _. _. -.... -. _.. ,__--.-,,-.m.,.,.,
/ 30615.0 --sKSW 3425 f s 1 AFTERNOON SESSION (2:50 p.m.) 2 JUDGE FRYE: Back on the record. 3 MS. LETSCHE: I have here the missing pages from 4 the last exhibit, which was Exhibit Number -- Suffolk County S Exercise Exhibit 46 or maybe they have been handed out, 6 missing pages 283. 7 JUDGE FRYE: I have tha t. 8 MS. LETSCHE: I'm going to be using this afternoon 9 as a -- just for everyone's ease of reference -- a blowup of 10 attachment 10 to the government's testimony on Contentions 39 11 and 38, et al. During the break I informed counsel that we 12 would do this. t \\ U 13 I assume that -- in general, that the LILCO panel 14 has no difficulty with -- these are approximate times. 15 Obviously, they are not by the minute because the chart does 16 not permit it, but with the approximate times indicated for 17 each of the identified items of emergency informa tion. I do 18 understand because you talk about it in your testimony that 19 you have a problem with LERO news release number 1 and we 20 will discuss that, but other than that, I will assume that 21 you don't have a problem with those approximate times and 1 22 will state for the record they are taken either from LILCO 23 admissions or FEMA report times or the times of your 24 testimony or other such sources. Would you all turn to page p 25 16 of your testimony, please? I'm sorry, strike that. Page b l i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-66*6
30615.0 ,c3 KSW 3426 (.j 1 17. Now, in the answer to question 22 and following that, 2 you all are continuing to discuss your opinions about the 3 timeliness of the activation of the ENC and when the first 4 press conference was held. You all don't dispute the fact 5 that the first press conference was not held until 8:40 a.m., 6 right? 7 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: That's correct. 8 MS. LETSCHE: In the answer to question 22, you 9 state that, this is Dr. Mileti, Mr. McCaffrey and 10 Ms. Robinson, that it doesn't concern you that the first 11 press briefing was not he.1d until 8:40 because the media were 12 kept informed of the emergency events by both LERO and LILCO (V) 13 prior to the first news conference, and you then reference 14 LILCO's first two press releases. Those releases are 15 attachment J to your testimony. Can we turn back to that, 16 please? 17 You say in your testimony that those two releases 18 were issued at 6:2S and 6:39. I assume one was at 6:25 and 19 one was at 6:39; is that correct? 20 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: That's correct. 21 MS. LETSCHE: During the exercise, how were they 22 issued? To whom were they issued might be a more accurate 23 way of stating it. 24 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: During the exercise, it would 25 have been a simulation of the process whereby the news Os ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
l ) 30615.O q KSW 3427 O 1 releases would have been issued to AP and UPI wire services. 2 MS. LETSCHE: Now I notice at the top of.each one 3 of these press releases LILCO releases in attachment J it 4 says te]ecopy ENC and EOF. Am I correct that these were not 5 telecopied to the ENC until after the ENC had been activated 6 at 8:25? 7 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: I don't. recall whether the 8 machine was already plugged in, but certainly there wouldn't 9 have been anybody there prior to the staff arriving to-look 10 at it even if it had arrived. In other words, the purpose 11 was that when we arrived there, as part of catching up to the 12 pace of the scenario that we know what information that has V 13 been released already. 14 MS. LETSCHE: We can assume for our purposes here 15 that those LILCO press releases were not received by the ENC 16 until after it had been activated; right? 17 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: That's not correct. 18 MS. LETSCHR: Don't you say in your testimony, 19 Mr. McCaffrey, when you are talking about a LERO press 20 release that it couldn't have arrived prior to the activation 21 of the ENC? Let me direct your attention on that to -- let's 22 find the page. Page 19 of your testimony, where it discusses 23 LERO press release number 1. 24 WITNESS ROBINSON: The procedures for the LERO p 25 press releases are different than for LILCO. Understand, we O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
30615.0 esKSW 3428 1 were using, on the day of the exercise, LERO information. 2 Staff went first to the EOC, reported to the EOC and then 3 were dispatched to the ENC with hard copy so there would not 4 have been LERO people there at the time. Since it is a LILCO S facility, they were the first responders. Under the new 6 revision under rev 7, the 1,EHO spokesperson goes right to the 7 ENC, but it is two dif f erent procedtires. O MS. LETSCHE: The question was -- let me just 9 clarify, Mr. McCaffrey. It is your testimony that these 10 LILCO press releases that are in attachment J were telecopied 11 to the ENC prior to 8:25 but sitting here today you can't say 12 when it was? 13 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: I'm looking at the ENC log 14 from that date and there's an indication in the log that says 15 it is entered at 7:40 and the statement says press release 16 number 1 received at 6:25, press release number 2 received at 17 6:39. 18 MS. LETSCHE: Those are received at the ENC 19 notations? 20 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: That's what it indicates. 21 But in any event we had the information far before the 22 activation time. 23 MS. LETSCHE: Okay, in these LEHO press releases 24 or LILCO press releases, excuse me, there is no mention in 25 either one of them of any off-site response information, is iO ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
<30615.0 3429 = p'KSW 'l there? 2 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: Would you just give me a 3 moment? 4 MS. LETSCHE: There's no information in either ~S release, is there, concerning any off-site response? 6 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: These press releases are the l 7 on-site programs press releaser and they are not intended to 8 provide information for off-site actions of the public. j l 9 JUDGE FRYE: But is there any information on it? i-10 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: It provides only information l 11 on plant conditions and a statement that there has not been a I 12 release of radiation. \\.. l. ~ 13 MS. LETSCHE: They don't provide any information l 14 about off-site response, do they? r 15 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: No. 16 MS. LETSCHE: And they don't provide any l 17 information about any' impact of the accident off site, do 18 they? 19 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: Yes, they do. 20 MS. LETSCHR: What is that? 21 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: They provide information that 22 there's no off-site release of radiation. 23 MS. LETSCHE: Can you tell me where it says that? 24 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: Pa ragraph 3, there's a 25 cross-out where it says there has not been a release of O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
30615.0 3430 q KSW c Q' I radioactivity, and the same is for press release number 2. 2 MS. LETSCHE: Yes, now press release number 2 also 3 says, does it not, that high radiation levels were detected 4 in the reactor building inside the secondary containment; 5 right? 6 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: Yes. 7 MS. LETSCliE : Then it also says in the following a sentence that there have been no releases of radioactivity, 9 righ t? 10 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: Yes. 11 MS. LETSCliE : You interpret release number 2 as 12 well as release number 1 as giving information about the 13 off-site impact of this accident? 14 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: Partially. 15 MS. LETSCilE: Partially? And what is that? 16 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: It certainly does not provide 17 a full description of the off-site consequences, where it 18 might go, but it does provide the information at that instant 19 that there's no release. 20 MS. LETSCHE: That there has been no off-site 21 release? That's what those messages say to you? 22 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: The messages say what they 23 say. There's no off-site release and it provides information 24 as what's been happening at the plant. 25 MS. LETSCliE : Is it the purpose of these LILCO O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
30615.0 f w KSW 3431 t t %._/ 1 press releases issued from the on-site organization to 2 provide information about the off-site impact of an accident 3 at the plant? 4 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: No. The major thrust would 5 be for the EBS messages to do that. 6 MS. LETSCHE: You mentioned that the two press 7 releases were simulated to have been put on the UPI and AP 8 wires. I take it it is your opinion that having gotten these 9 two press releases on to those wires would have improved the 10 situation in-terms of providing information to the media over 11 what the situation would have been if they had not been sent 12 out over the wires; is that right? 13 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: Well, yes. 14 MS. LETSCHE: Now, would you look for me, 15 Dr. Mileti, at press release number 2, this LILCO press 16 release number 2? 17 WITNESS MILETI: I have it. 18 MS. LETSCHE: These two or this press release 19 issued by LILCO does not meet your standard for these 20 multiple source attributes, does it? 21 WITNESS MILETI: No, it doesn't but it is not any 22 message. 23 MS. LETSCHE: You would agree with me, wouldn't 24 you, that ERS message number 2 -- excuse me, LILCO press m 25 release number 2 suffers from a problem similar to the one i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 147 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
d 30615.0 - KSW 3432 l [U \\ 1 you discovered in ERS message number 2, in that it talks 2 about high radiation levels being detected and in the next 3 sentence says there has been no release of radioactivity. 4 Wouldn't you agree that that's confusing? 5 WITNESS MILETI: No, I wouldn't. 6 MS. LETSCHE: You don't believe this message would 7 be perceived as confusing by members of the public who heard 8 them; is that right? 9 WITNESS MILETI: I don't believe that those two 10 things you reference are inconsistent. 11 MS. LETSCHE: 1,et, me ask the question again. Do 12 you believe that the contents of LILCO press release number 2 13 would be confusing to persons who heard it? 14 WITNESS MILETI: I will have to read it. 15 No. 16 MS. LETSCHE: I believe you stated that you also 17 do not believe that the statement in this press release would 18 be perceived as containing contradictions by someone who 19 heard it; is that right? 20 WITNESS MILETI: No. 21 MS. LETSCHE: No, it is not right? 22 WITNESS MILETI: No, I don't think that people 23 would perceive it that way. 24 MS, LETSCHE: Do you think that 1,ILCO press n 25 release number 2, the text of which we all have before us, O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverare 800-336-6646
30615.0 KSW 3433 g3 \\ ) I would inspire, in the public who heard it, a feeling of 2 confidence concerning the handling of this accident by 3 LILCO? 4 WITNESS MILETI: I don't think the public would 5 form a judgment on the basis of one scrap ot in f orma tion, but 6 it would be something that would be a process, and this would 7 certainly be a part of it. 8 MS. LETSCHE: Do you think ar part of the process 9 this would have a positive or negative impact on the amount 10 of confidence the public would have in LILCO's handling of 11 this accident? 12 WITNESS MILETI: If the public heard this message -O V 13 I think the effect in terms of confidence would be neutral, 14 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: I would add to that, I think 15 it would be unusual to expect the press to release this 16 statement, such a short statement to the public directly. 17 They would probably call back and get more information. 18 TUDGE FRYE: Let's just confine ourselves to the 19 ques tions. 20 MS. LETSCHE: Now, your testimony says that press 21 release number 2 was issued at 6:39 over the AP, UPI wires or 22 simulated to that. Am I correct that until roughly 6:52 when 23 EBS message number 1 went out, that these two press releases 24 would be the on.ly two items of information re] eased by LILCO 25 or LERO to the media? O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
30615.0 fm KSW 3434 k._) 1 WITNESS ROBINSON: If these two items had been 2 released to the AP and UPI wires, there, in all likelihood, 3 would have been press calls coming into the communications 4 department but just these two press releases and the other S LERO message. The others would have been responses, not 6 releases. 7 MS. LETSCHE: After the release of EHS message 8 number 1 simulated to go out over the radio, the next release 9 of information would have been LERO news release number 1; is 10 that right? 11 -WITNESS ROBINSON: Well, if you discount the fact 12 that EBS message number 1 would have been on the air being 13 repeated every 15 minutes, then yes, that would have been the-14 next release. 15 MS. LETSCHE: You have said that after the two 16 LILCO press releases that are in attachment J had been 17 released over the UPI and AP wires, and you talk about this 18 on page 18 of your testimony, that the media would have 19 called LILCO's corporate communica tions department and you 20 say they would have done that af ter the firs t EHS message as 21 well. On the day of the exercise, did the LILCO corporate 22 communications department take any action? Mr. McCaffrey? 23 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: No. 24 MS. LETSCHE: Now this corporate communications p 25 department is part of the regular LILCO corporate structure, O ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
30615.0 - KSW 3435 1 1 . righ t? 2 WITNESS ~MC CAFFREY: The corporate communication 3 ' department is a s tandard structure that deals with the press 4 every day. 'S MS. LETSCHE: It is not part of the on-site 6 emergency plan, is it? 7 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: Yes,--it is. 8 MS. LETSCHE: I take it that its functions 9 therefore are governed by procedures from the on-site plan'; 10 is that right? 11 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: That's correct. 12 MS. LETSCHE: You say-in your testimony that that -13 department maintains a telephone line I take it that's 14 regularly covered 24 hours a day, seven days a week by'one 15 person; is that right? 16 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: It is covered by one person 17 on a rotation. That is t;here's a person who is on call all .18 the time. 19 MS. LETSCHE: I didn't mean one person was on call 20 seven days a week, 24 hours a day, but thank you for that 21 clarification. I take it. that one person does not regularly 22 have -- strike that. 23 Am I correct that the operation of the corporation 24 communications department is governed by EPIP 4-3 in the 25 on-site plan? Actually I will make it easier. I'm going to O-ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
30615.0 3436 r] KSW V 1 mark this as an exhibit. This will be Suffolk County 2 Exercise Exhibit Number 47. 3 (Suf fc,1k County Exhibit 47 identified. ) 4 MS. LETSCHE:.You would agree with me that EPIP 5 4-3 does include actions to be taken by the corporate 6 communications department during an accident; right? 7 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: Yes, among other EPIPs. 8 MS. LETSCHE: Right. Can you tell me, 9 Mr. McCaffrey, what, under these procedures, information 10 would be available to the person manning the corporate 11 communications telephone line to tell the press during an 12 accident? . /~3 13 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: In 4-3 since 4-3 -- 4-3 14 addresses the certain general on-site area, it is responding 15 to activate the emergency news center while the emergency 16 communications liaison goes to the control room and discusses 17 developments with the emergency communications director. 18 That's what's happening with this procedure. 19 MS. LETSCHE: According to procedures what 20 information is available to the person manning the corporate 21 communications department telephone line about an accident at 22 the plant? What formation do they have? 23 WITNESS HOBINSON: Having been in that position 24 during an unusual event, what happens is the person who is on 25 duty as ECL ca))s that number and reads you what. he has put p V ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6M6
30615.0 3437 p KSW V 1 out. 2 MS. LETSCHE: That would be the press releases? 3 WITNESS ROBINSON: That's correct. In addition, 4 they are also -- part of their procedure is, even in a S nonnuclear event -- is to call that media information number 6 and give you whatever inf ormation you have. You wouldn't 7 have hard copy but you would have gotten telephone calls 8 telling you what's going on. 9 JUDGE PARIS: What's an SS0? 10 WITNESS ROBINSON: Supervising service operator. 11 MS. LETSCHE: The corporate communications 12 department, which is who you reference on page'18 of your ') 13 testimony, would have heard over the telephone. the contents 14 of LILCO press releases and that would be the only 15 information that would be available to them to respond to 16 questions from the media; is that right? 17 WITNESS ROBINSON: And the LERO information as 10 well. 19 MS. LETSCHE: Wait a second. Before we get into 20 that, you just told me that the corporate communications 21 department would receive a cal] from the ECL who would read 22 the press releases; righ t? 23 WITNESS HORINSON: And would be called by the SSO 24 because that's part of their procedures, p 25 MS. LETSCHE: Of whose procedures? ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8(0 336-6646
30615.0 3438 )KSW ,es (v 1 WITNESS ROBINSON: The SSO. 2 MS. LETSCHE: The SSO gets the initial call from 3 the plant; is that correct? 4 WITNESS ROBINSON: On the LERO side, yes. 5 MS. LETSCHE: What information does the SSO have 6 that he or she telephones to the corporate communications 7 department? 8 WITNESS ROBINSON: That they have been put on 9 alert. 10 MS. LETSCHE: The two pieces of information that 11 the corporate communications operator would have would be 12 LILCO press releases read over the telephone and a statement 13 of what emergency level or what event had happened at the 14 plant from the SSO; is that right? i 15 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: Not correct. I didn't get to 16 finish. The emergency communication liaison stays in the 17 control room. That person at corporate information now has 18 ready access direct to the control room as to what's 19 developing. You don't take the operators away from dealing 20 with the emergency, so they are tied in real time. 21 MS. LETSCHE: Hold on. My question was what 22 information does the corporate communications department 23 person who is manning the teiephone line have? Now that is 24 not what you were just talking about, is it? 25 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: Yes, it is. q ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-6646
30615.0 m KSW 3439 U 1 MS. LETSCHR: I thought you were talking about the 2 emergency communications liaison. 3 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: That person is in the control 4 room. His job is to talk to the people in the corporate S information department so the person on call would be talking 6 to the ECL. 4 7 MS. LETSCHE: In which procedure is that fact laid 8 out? 9 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: Give me a moment. I would 10 like to refer to EPIP 4-1 because that addresses the unusual 11 event. On the other events you will implement the ENC. On 12 S.1.10, it talks about the role of the emergency b 13 communication liaison and one of his jobs is to maintain 14 emergency communications liaison role of information 15 coordination. 16 MS. LETSCHE: We're talking here at this exercise 17 and in your testimony you talk about what would have happened 18 after the 6:52 EBS message, ] orig af ter an alert has been 19 declared, correct, during the exercise? The alert was 20 declared at 6:17; right? 21 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: The ECL would have been 22 ca))ed in to his position at the unusual event level and 23 therefore would have been in that position. 24 MS. LETSCHE: Hy the time we get to 6:52 which is 25 what you talked about in your testimony procedure EPIP 4-3 O ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
30615.0 KSW 3440
- l which governs alert site' area and general emergency would 2
have controlled the actions of the people in the on-site 3 organization; correct? 4 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: Yes. 1 S MS. LETSCHE: In that procedure it states, does it 6 not, that the information to be transmitted should be, and ) 7 I'm paraphrasing, but basically should be the approved press 8 releases, correct? 9 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: I,f I can pull out 4-3 for.a L 10 minute. 11 I would like to talk about an item listed in 12 here -- 13 MS. LETSCHE: Please answer my question. l I 14 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: It does answer the question. 15 In section 2.2 on page 1, it says the emergency communication 16 liaison, and this again is for the Icvol where you are at.the 17 alert or higher, is responsible for obtaining news release 10 data until the EOF is in ccmmand. It says he stays plugged i 19 into the process until the EOF takes command of the 20 emergency, that is when they have activated. 21 MS. LETSCllE: Getting back to my question, which 22 is what information would have been available to LILCO's 23 corporate communication department telephone operator, is it 24 not right, Mr. McCaffrey, that under the action portions of 25 this procedure, that basically, it says that what should be O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage MX)-336-6646
-30615.0 ( KSW 3441 i \\._) I transmitted to the corporate communications department are 2 approved press releases? 3 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: Yes, it says that. 4 MS. LETSCHE: There is no mechanism, is there, in 5 either the LERO plan or in the LILCO on-site plan for 6 communication of LERO-generated information to the LILCO 7 corporate communications department telephone number other 8 than the SSO provision you mentioned a minute ago, 9 Ms. Robinson? 10 WITNESS ROBINSON: No, it is not in the plan 11 because it is part of the operations of the corporation 12 communication department that when they get inquiries they (m \\] 13 call whoever they need to to get that information, so the 14 procedure, it is something that's being done by the other 15 side in effect. They, by their training and by their 16 operation, would be calling and looking for information 17 following on an inquiry. It is not the LERO procedure. 18 MS. LETSCHE: Let's talk about the corporate 19 communications department. In your testimony you talk about 20 the time period 6:52 in the morning. Are you telling us that 21 this telephone operator at the LILCO corporation 22 communicaLions department would have called somebody at LERO 23 to get information? 24 WITNESS ROBINSON: I think there's a basic p 25 misunderstanding here. This is not a telephone operator. O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage MO 336-6M6
30615.0 m KSW 3442 U 1 This is a public affairs person who deals with information in 2 their daily job and is a trained professional, and the answer 3 is yes. 4 MS. LETSCHR: Now who or the ENC has not been 1 5 activated yet at 6:52. Is it your -- who is it that you I i 6 believe this public affairs person manning a telephone line j l 7 would have called at 6:52 a.m.? l l 8 WITNESS ROBINSON: Since they are familiar with l 1 l 9 the LERO operation and the personnel involved, their general 1 10 procedure would be to try to reach somebody at home who is 11 involved in LERO who has just issued the ERS message or to 12 make direct contact to the EOC to try to get information and (') 13 there would be people there prior to the formal activation so 14 they do have coveral lines to take and they are used to 15 scrounging up information. 16 MS. LETSCHE: There's nothing in the on-site 17 procedures that lays out these things that you are 18 projecting, is there? l 19 WITNEGS ROBINSON: That's the normal method of l 20 operation. l 21 MS. LETSCHE: There's nothing in the on-site I 22 procedures which lays out the stream of events which you are j 23 talking about, is there? 24 WITNESS ROBINSON: I'm not familiar with the 25 current revision of the on-site procedures. pL.) ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33Mi>46
.y_ - 30615.0 3443 e KSW
- s. s
(
- t 1
MS. LETSCHE: In-the next paragraph of your 3 tv 2 testimony, page 18, you conclude after your discussion about 3 the corporate communications department that therefore there l[. g 4 would.have been other official-information sources availabic. , - v; y 't? 5 to the media before the ENC was declared operational in the 3,. first press briefing held. I'm correct, aren't I, '4 6 ~7 Ms. Robinson', that prior to the activation of the ENC at-8 - 8:25, you as the official LERO spokesperson did not have any s!! i t 9 contacts with or provide any information to members of the i 10 media? 11 WITNESS ROBINSON: There was no demand for it so-12 the answer is no. b b 13 MS. LETSCHE: That's true for you also, 14 Mr. McCaffrey, is.it not? 15 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: Yes. 16 MS. LETSCHE: Am I correct, therefore, that the-i 17 other. official.information sources which you state on page 18 - 18 were available to the media before the ENC was declared 19 operational and the first press briefing held would be the 20 two LILCO press releases that are in attachment J and ERS. 21 message number 1? i 22 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: Yes. 23 MS. LETSCHE: Now, Dr. Mileti, in the answer to 24 question 23, you address this issue as well. You say that 25 there were, the third sentence, that there were other ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-6M6 l w g---p r s m ms-m- ,,-,s-, -w,, +, e-sv,r,--w---,,,,--+---,,--wy v,,e-, ,,-g--- -m e w, y w---ep ,w-g ,----o-g-e,--w,wmw s ~ p
30615.0 H.KSW 3444 I \\ 1,.) 1 official sources of information available to the media and 2 the public including an EBS message. Now, as I recall, when 3 we were discussing your testimony earlier, you defined 4 " official information sources" as being EBS messages; is that S right? 6 WITNESS MILETI: Yes. 7 MS. LETSCHE: In this case are you referring to 8 some other official information source other than the EHS 9 message number 1? 10 WITNESS MILETI: In the former case I was talking 11 about of the official warning system. Here I was referring 12 to LILCO press releases, the first two, and the EDS message 13 number 1, and only those. 14 JUDGE PARIS: Could I ask a quick question? On 15 page 18, in the first sentence of the second paragraph 16 beginning on that page you say that not only would the sirens 17 have been sounded and the first EBS message aired at 6:52 and 18 so on, would you - is that correct on EBS number 3, i note 19 there is a notation of sirens at 9:34. So when were the 20 sirens sounded? 9:34, 6:52, both times or not at all? 21 WITNESS DAVERIO: Multiple. Sirens sounded 22 whenever a protective recommendation action is being made to 23 notity the public to turn on their radio to that channel. 24 The only time it is optional is at the alert J evel at the 25 discretion of the director but in general every time you have pO ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
30615.0 f m VsSW 3445 N._A 1 an RBS message you will have a siren sounding. 2 JUDGE PARIS: Thank you. 3 MS. LETSCHE: In the exercise the sirens were not 4 sounded, right? 5 WITNESS DAVERIO: They were simulated to be 6 sounded. 7 MS. LETSCHE: Turning to page 19 of your 8 testimony, you take issue with some of the factual assertions 9 set forth in subpart B of Contention 38, and basically the 10 first thing you say is that the LERO news release number 1 11 was not provided to the media at 8:21. When was it provided 12 to the media? p e i G' 13 WITNESS ROBINSON: Since there is no 14 acknowledgment time on this one, I would say sometime after 15 8:25 in the morning. 16 MS. LETSCHE: Okay, now that news release number 1 17 is the first part of your attachment D to your testimony, 18 correct? 19 WITNESS ROHINSON: Yes. 20 MS. LETSCHH: And the other matter that you take 21 issue with in the contention is with FEMA's statement in its 22 report that the ENC learn about the site area emergency 23 declaration a t 8 :19. You say that's actually between 8:21 24 and 8:25, right? 25 WITNESS ROHINSON: That's correct. If that was \\.s ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
1 s -30615.0 4 KSW 3446 1 1 I the time'of declaration it couldn't possibly.have been known 2 at the ENC at that point. 3 MS. LETSCHE: Now you say on page 20 of your 4 testimony that in the last sentence of the first f.ull' i 5 paragraph that begins with "obviously," you say that. news 6 release number 1 would have been accurate and consistent with 7 the information in the ENC's possession at the time of 8 issuance, and that's because you are assuming that I take it 9 news release number 1 was issued'before the ENC' learned 10 between 8:21 and 8:25 of the existence of a site area f 11 emergency; is that right? 12 WITNESS HOBINSON: Only in part.
- O' 13 MS. LETSCHE:
Well, you said that the ENC didn't 14 learn of the SAE declaration until between 8:21 and 8:25 and 15 that press release number 1 was released after 8:25. It is i 16 true, is it not, that LEHO news release number 1 makes-no 17 mention-of any site area emergency, right? i 18 WITNESS HOBINSON: Since written press releases 19 are historical events that happened that doesn't make it i 20 inaccurate or inconsistent. 4 21 MS. LETSCHE: Let me see if you can answer my-22 questions and then you will have a chance to talk about those 23 other things later I'm sure. It is true that news release 24 number 1 makes no mention of a site area emergency? 25 WITNESS ROBINSON: No, it is about the alert. t 5 s ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6 4 6
30615.0 3447 ,q KSW (/ 1 MS. LETSCHE: And it also says a few times that 2 there's been no release of radiation, correct? 3 WITNESS ROBINSON: That's the information at the 4 time of its writing, yes. 5 MS. LETSCHE: That's what LERO news release says, 6 correct? 7 WITNESS ROBINSON: That's correct. O MS. LETSCHE: And as of sometime between 0:21 and 9 8:25, ENC personnel learned that a site area emergency had 10 been declared and that there had been a release of radiation; 11 correct? 12 WITNESS ROBINSON: Approximately in those few (~~, \\ 13 minutes, yes. 14 MS. LETSCHE: Now, when was LERO press release 15 number 2 released? 16 WITNESS ROBINSON: I don't have the time of the 17 release of the ENC. 18 MS, I.ETSCHE : Sometime after 9:00; is that 19 correct? 20 WITNESS ROBINSON: That's correct. 21 MS. LETSCHE: So there was a period of time 22 between roughly 8:25 a.m. and sometime after 9:00 a.m. in 23 which the only hard copy press release issued by LERO said 24 there had been an alert and no release of radiation when the 25 ENC knew that there was a site area emergency and that there s ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3XX) Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
30615.0 p KSW 3448 tv) 1 'had been a release of radiation, correct? 2 WITNESS ROBINSON: That information was released 3 in a briefing. 4 MS. LETSCHE: I'm not talking about the briefings S now. There was a period of time between 8:25 and roughly 6 9:00 when the only hard copy press release released by LERO 7 stated there was an alert condition and no release of 8 radiation when in fact the ENC personnel knew that there had 9 been a site area emergency and that a release had occurred, 10 correct? 11 WITNESS ROBINSON: I think that's true but 12 unimportant. (O kl 13 MS. LETSCHE: I take it from your testimony on 14 page 20 that it is your opinion that the standard of adequate 15 performance in disseminating information to the press by the 16 ENC is what the ENC personnel know as opposed to what the 17 facts may be, correct? 18 WITNESS HOBINSON: No. 19 MS. LETSCHE: Don't you say, Ms. Robinson,, on page 20 20 that the news release would have been accurate and 21 consistent with the information in the ENC's possession at 22 the time of issuance, referring to news release number I? 23 WITNESS ROBINSON: That does not in my mind imply 24 no matter what the tacts may be. p 25 MS. LETSCHE: It is true at. the time that news '%) ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 83)-336 4 46
~30615.0 3449 q KSW y 1 release was released, the facts were not as stated in that 2 release, is it not? 3 WITNESS ROHINSON: No, I don't agree. 4 MS. LETSCHR: You don't? 5 WITNESS ROBINSON: No. 6 MS. LETSCHE: I take it it also is of no concern 7 to you that information released in hard copy press releases 8 at the ENC may be inconsistent with other information 9 released by other LERO sources; correct? 10 WITNESS ROBINSON: I'm not sure I understand that 11 question. 12 MS. LETSCHE: All right, at the time that LERO V 13 news release number 1 was out there and available for the 14 press after 8:25 at the ENC, EHS message number 2 was 15 broadcast; correct? 16 WITNESS ROBINSON: That's correct. 17 MS. LETSCHE: EDS message number 2 announced a 18 site area emergency and a release of radiation; correct? 19 WITNESS ROBINSON: That's correct. 20 MS. LETSCHE: While that was being read every 15 21 minutes over the radio, the only LERO hard copy press release 22 availabic for the press said that there had been an alert and 23 no release of radiation; correct? 24 WITNESS HOBINSON: That's correct. 25 MS. LETSCHE: Would you turn to page 21 of your G ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-(M6
30615.0 3450 (m KSW ) v 1 testimony, please? In the answer to question 28, you give 2 some more reasons why the facts stated in contention 38, 3 subpart B don't concern you. You refer to certain new 4 procedures in your revision 7 of the plan. I would like to 5 discuss those with you for a few minutes. 6 The revisions that you discuss basically here are 7 set forth in OPIP 381, which is attachment C to your 8 testimony; right? 9 WITNESS ROBINSON: That's correct. 10 MS. LETSCilE : Would you turn to that for me, 11 please? 12 WITNESS ROBINSON: Yes. 0 'd 13 MS. LETSCHE: I'm correct, aren't I, that the 14 areas with the littJe bars over the right-hand side of the 15 page indicate the changes in the procedure from revision 6 to 16 what is shown in revision 7; right? 17 WITNESS ROBINSON: In this case it is from - the la previous revision on these pages was S but yes, the baru 19 signify the changed sections. 20 MS. LETSCHE: You say in your testimony that let's 21 talk for a minute just about the new procedures. That it 22 will reduce the delays in distribution of information and 1 23 take it you are referring to distribution of LERO press 24 releases; right? 25 WITNESS ROBINSON: Of hard copy. O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 336-(M6 i
'30615.0 O KSW 3451 N J' 1 MS. LETSCHE: Press releases? 2 WITNESS ROBINSON: No, the press releases will 3 still be released in full. You are going to get much more 4 quickly a summary sheet immediately after broadcast of the 5 EDS message, and then the full text will come through as a 6 LERO press release. 7 MS. LETSCHE: But you are talking, aren't you, 8 about getting hard copy information distributed to the 9 press? That's the purpose of this answer, isn't it? 10 WITNESS ROBINSON: That's correct. 11 MS. LETSCHR: What you now int.end to distribute 12. under tne new procedure is a summary sheet in hard copy and b 13 press releases in hard copy, correct? 14 WITNESS ROBINSON: That's correct. 15 MS. LETScilE: Now, let's talk for a few minutes 16 about this new summary sheet. According to your testimony 17 let's see if I can get straight the process under this new 18 procedure for creating the summary sheets. Is that attached 19 to your testimony? Is this attachment 1 to OPIP 381 which is 20 attachment C is the summary sheet, righ t? 21 WITNESS ROBINSON: Right. 22 MS. LETSCllE: The one entitled " Sample Press 23 r< e.l ea s e, " the last page of a t.tachment C to this testimony? 24 WITNESS RollINSON : Right. 2S MS. LETSCilE You say in the testimony that as (q ../ ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-336-t446
30615.O 3452 y KSW V 1 soon as it changes, that's a trigger for doing the summary 2 sheet. I take it the information that would have to change 3 to trigger the creation of a summary sheet would be to fill 4 in one of the five blanks on the sample form; is that right? 5 WITNESG ROBINSON: Yes. 6 MS. LETSCHE: And according to the procedure, who 7 is it who decides that some information has changed that's 8 important enough to require the issuance of a new summary 9 sheet? 10 WITNESS ROBINSON: It i 11 fi1)ed out under the 11 supervision of the coordinator of public information, the 12 CPI, but i t is based on the decision by the director of G 13 LERO. 14 MS. LETSCHE: The director of' LERO and the CPI are 15 over at the ROC; is that correct? 16 WITNESS ROBINSON: That's correct. 17 MS. LETSCHE: At some point they will say, we have 10 now come upon a change in important information and theref ore 19 we should do a new summary sheet; right? 20 WITNESS ROBINSON: More likely they will say it is 21 time to put out a new EBS message and a summary sheet will be 22 prepared as part of that process. 23 MS. LETSCHE: Are there times that summary sheets 24 would be prepared in the absence of a new EHS message? 25 WITNESS ROBINSON: 11, is conceivabic that under ACE-FEDERAL REronTens. INC. 202 347 37J) Nationwide Coserage MX)-336-6646
3061S.0 KSW 3453 G 1 the section of additional information at the director's 2 request, or perhaps at the initiation of the CPI, it could 3 happen but it certainly would be done every time there was a 4 new EBS message. It could be done at another time. 5 MS. LETSCHE: So let's talk for now just to make 6 it easier about a decision to put out a new EBS message which 7 would be the trigger for creating the summary sheet. After 8 the decision is made there will be a new summary sheet, you 9 then also have as a prerequisite for the summary sheet the 10 drafting of an EDS message; right? 11 WITNESS ROBINSON: Again, I don't think that's 12 always a prerequisite. What I'm saying is that if you did an n 13 EDS message, you would do a summary sheet. I think it is 14 conceivable, and I can see instances in which you could do a 15 summary sheet without there being an EBS message but once the 16 director made a decision on a protective action 17 recommendation, as part of the process of preparing and t 18 broadcasting the EBS message, this summary sheet would also 19 be C111ed out. 20 MS. LETSCHE: I'm looking at. your testimony on 21 page 21 and we're focusing on it and I'm talking about the 22 third sentence in the paragraph that is answer 28. We just i 23 had a little bit of a discussion about what the trigger would 24 be f or creating a new summary sheet. You say as soon art the 25 emergency classification or other important information p U ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-37(X) Nationwide Coserage 800-3364M6
30615.0 3454 A)KSW (%.J 1 changes and then you describe what happens. We're assuming 2 for purposes of this line of questioning that there has been 3 a decision to issue a new EBS message because something has 4 happened to cause that, okay? 5 WITNESS ROBINSON: Right. 6 MS. LETSCHE: Then you say an EDS message is 7 drafted. That is done also at the EOC. 8 WITNESS ROBINSON: That's correct. 9 MS. LETSCIIE: That's done by a public information 10 staff person? 11 WITNESS ROBINSON: Hy the coordinator of public 12 information or a staff member, O t 't 13 MS. LETSCHE: It needs to be approved by the 14 coordinator? 15 WITNESS HOBINSON: It is approved by the director 16 of LERO. 17 MS. LETSCHE: After being submitted by the 18 coordinator of LERO? 19 WITNESS ROBINSON: Hight. 20 MS. LETSCilE : And then after it is approved the 21 public information support stafL would complete the summary 22 sheet, correct? 23 WITNESS ROHINSON: Hight. 24 MS. LETSCllE: And then after that is completed, 25 and I take it that's done on some kind of a computer, O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-3364M6
30615.0 3455. p)KSW (- I correct? 2 WITNESS ROBINSON: On a terminal, yes. 3 MS. LETSCHE: Then that summary sheet gets 4 transmitted by that computer to the ENC, correct? 5 WITNESS ROBINSON: As soon as that is completed it 6 is sent by the computer system, not only to the ENC but also 7 to the district offices and the call boards. The rumor 8 control operat. ion. Virtual]y simultaneously. I don't know 9 how the computer works whether there's a lag or r:ot. 10 MS. LETSCHE: Focusing on the ENC which is what 11 we're talking about, it gets transmitted by the computer to 12 the ENC and then the ENC somebody there receives it and gets ( ) V 13 it copied, correct? 14 WITNESS ROBINSON: That's correct. 15 MS. LETSCHE: And then I take it that before 16 anything 30 distributed to the media, whatever has been 17 transmitted by computer, the summary sheet, is given to 10 LILCO, the LILCO representative to review; is that correct? 19 WITNESS ROBINSON: No. 20 MS. LETSCHE: Let me direct your attention to 21 attachment C of your testimony, Ms. Robinson, OPIP 381, 22 revision 7, section 5.4-3. 5.4-3 discusses when LERO press 23 releases arrive from the ROC. This summary sheet is the 24 intended, at Jeant, initial quick subst.itute f or a press 25 release, correct? q 't) ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8(Xb336-6646
30615.0 f sKSW 3456 (j 1 WITNESS ROHINSON: That's correct. 2 MS. LETSCHE: This section 5.4-3 says when LERO 3 press releases arrive from the EOC, direct a staff member to 4 distribute copies to utility, rumor control and government 5 public information offices. Record time of distribution in 6 log book. And it is only after that, after reviewing that, 7 that a staf f member would then be directed to distribute 8 copies to the media representatives; right? 9 WITNESS ROBINSON: It says "diatribute," not 10 " review." There's a difference. 11 ,MS. LETSCitE: I beg your pardon? 12 WITNESS ROHINSON: Says the procedure is k' 13 distribution and you record the log time. There's nothing 14 about review by LILCO. 15 MS. LETSCllE : I see, Just give it to them. They 16 don't comment or do anything with it? 17 WITNESS HORINSON: That's correct. 18 MS. LETSCllE: Okay, so after you have this press 19 releaue or summary copied you then distribute it to the 20 media; is that right? 21 WITNESS ROBINSON: It would be posted on bulletin 22 boards, a supply would be available in the work space. 23 MS. LETScilE And you go on to say in your 24 testimony that delays in copying would be kept to a minimum 25 due to the shortened lengt h of: the documents to be copied and O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-3364M6
30615.O 34S7 (n KSW ) 1 there you are talking about the one-page summary sheets, 2 right? l 1 3 WITNESS ROBINSON: Correct. 1 4 MS. LETSCHE: There are still, it is still l l 5 intended, is it not, to have in addition to the one-pagers, 1 l 6 regular LERO press releases that basically repeat the ERS 7 messages; right? O WITNESS ROBINSON: Right. l l 9 MS. LETSCHE: Those will be basically the same 1 l 10 size as the press releases that were used during the 11 exercise; right? 12 WITNESS ROBINSON: Right. 10 13 MS. LETSCHE: I t.ake it that the process of: 14 preparing and approving press releases at the EOC has not 15 changed subsequent to the exercise; correct? 16 WITNESS ROBINSON: Correct. 17 MS. LETSCHR: And the method of transmitting those 18 press releases to the ENC where they would be copied and 19 distributed also has not changed; correct? 20 WITNESS HOBINSON: That's right. 21 MU. LETSCHE: I'm about. to move on t.o discussion 22 of the next topic. This would be a good time for a break. 23 The next. session is a discussion of preau release number 2. 24 JHDGE FRYE: Let's take a 15-minute break. fm. 25 MS. L E T S Cll E I really object to a uuygestion that i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage &x).336-6M6
30615.0 n KSW 3458 b 1 we need to continue to 6:00. There's only one person around 2 here working, and that's me, and this is hard work. Doing 3 this from 9:00 to 5:00 is hard. Part of lunch hour was taken 4 up on a different matter that required extensive discussions S by me and my associates. Suggesting lengthening this day 6 further is difficult. 7 J11DGE FRYE: How do you view where you are now in 8 terms of how much longer it will take to finish? 9 MS, LETSCllE: I'm very much on target with my 10 estimate from what I can tell. I will continue to review it 11 and actually that's what you do in the evenings which is 12 another reason why going to 6:00 is a problem. Every evening ID U 13 I go home and see where I am and how much longer I have. 14 From what I can see now, I am progressing -- roughly, I think 15 my es timat e is utill a good one. There have been some 16 difficulties and some Lhings have taken considerably longer. 17 There may be other things that take shorter. Now I would say 18 the estimate is still right. 19 JUDGE FRYE: My concern is the availability of the 20 witnesses, as you know. From the way the thing looked based 21 on what you had originaliy estimated, it seemed there was a 22 very good possibility that you could finish this week. 23 MS. LETSCHE: I never said that. 24 JUDGE FRYE: You said four days. 25 MS, LETSCHE: Hut. sir, I didn't start until 3:00 O ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 N,itionwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
30615.0 m KSW 3459 b 1 on Monday. We spent a lot of time -- 2 JUDGE FRYE: Just hear this out for a moment. You 3 said four days. That's 24 hours. That's six hours a day. 4 That works out pretty much on target with the guideline of S tour pages per hour. Now about eight pages or nine have been 6 withdrawn by LILCo. We have under advisement the question of 7 whether others should be stricken, and you had 2-1/2 hours on 8 yesterday, so it looks like it is right on target. My only 9 concern at this point is that I give Mr. Zahnleuter a chance 10 to ask questions before these people get away. I don't know 11 whether you have very many questions or not. 12 MR. 7.AHNLEUTER: That will depend to a great 13 extent on how much the county covers before it is my turn to 14 cross-examine. It may be that the matter is thoroughly 15 cross-examined and there's no need for me to be repetitive. 16 JUDGE FRYE: Based upon what you have heard and 17 what's been covered so far, do you see gaps? 18 MR. ZAHNLEllTER: No. 19 JUDGE FRYE: Is Staff going to have questions? 20 MR. PIRFO: Are we going to have any questions? 21 JUDGE FRYE: Do you anticipate any questions? 22 MR. PIRFO: At this point I don't see any gaps 23 either. Let me leave it a t tha t. 24 MS. MC CLESKEY: Not much, if any. 25 JUDGE FRYE: That's my concern at this point. o ACE. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(0-33MM6
30615.0 f-KSW 3460 ( 1 Looks like you are right on target getting through this week 2 based on your own estimate, not mine. I want to see that it 3 gets through with a little time to spare. 4 MS. LETSCHH: I literally cannot deal with hours, 5 /.4 hours and things. I don't make an est.imate based on page 6 numbers or numbers of minutes per page or any of that. You 7 can see that. some things take a very long time even though it 8 might be two paragraphs and there might be cases where I'm 9 flipping through three pages, so I can't relate to what you 10 are talking about. 11 JUDGR FHYH: It is your estimate, not mine. 12 MS. LETSCHH: My estimate was that it would take 13 me tour days of what I consider a day and what I have in my 14 head of a day of cross-examination, to get through this panel 15 and to get through this testimony. It is true some things 16 have been withdrawn. It is also true that there have been a 17 large number OL nonresponsive answers that have taken 10 inordinate amounts of time. I have no control over that. In 19 3 ight at the fact that stulf has been withdrawn and the 20 length of time cert.ain things have taken my estimate stili 21 holds. 22 Given the f act that I start.ed at 3:00 on Monday 23 ins tead of at 9:00 on Monday, according 1.o my estimate, I 24 don' t see how tha t means I cou]d get f. i ni n h ed t.his week, and n 25 that is since t.here are only f:our days this week and f.he Ace. FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage Nxt3W6M6
30615.0 r3 KSW 3461 N] 1 first one was largely gone. I will review my notes this 2 evening and tell you tomorrow morning whet.her I think I am 3 going to be able to finish this week. 4 Frankly, even with all this stuff stricken, 5 there's still a lot here. What that does in terms of 6 witnesses, I don't know. A bunch of the stuff stricken at 7 the end was Dr. Mileti. But sitting here today I don't know 0 how much he is on some of the other stuf f at the end. I 9 don't know what to tell you on that. I can tell you that 10 continuing to go until 6:00 is very difficult for me and cuts 11 into my preparation time then, and makes for a very long and 12 arduous day. I don't think it is necessary. \\ 13 JUDGE FRYE: Witnesses are not going to be 14 availabic next week. Am I correct? 15 MS. MC CI.ESKEY: That's correct, and Dr. Mileti is 16 not the only one with a problem next week. 17 JUDGE FRYE: I understand. Let's take a 10-minute 10 break. 19 (Recess.) 20 JllDGE FRYE: All right, we have conferred over the 21 break with regard to future scheduling, in view of the fact 22 that the witnesses are not going to be availabic after this 23 week, we think that we have to finish with them this week. 24 When we break and how we spend that time we will leave up to 25 you. We'll sit as long as you want to question him, but we O ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(X)-336-(M6
30615.0 KSW 3462 s.> 1 want you to be through by about midday on Thursday, because 2 they are not going to be available after that. 3 Now as to the motions or the motion, rather, on 4 the monitoring shadow, essentially, we're adhering to our S ruling on the Sitf folk County testimony with one modification 6 and that modification would be on item S in the attachment to 7 the April 17 order. That now reads -- this identifies 8 ma t erial that we struck. We would modify item number S to y 9 read beginning at line 7, page 281, through the second 10 paragraph on page 286. That includes about a page and a 11 third in your testimony that we had previously struck. As to 12 the LILCO testimony, we would strike that portions which we U 13 identified this morning. Strike all of pages 85 to 95 with 14 the exception of question 170. It would also include 173 as 15 an item we would leave in this morning but that's really only 16 retain question and answer 170. I would make that ruling now 17 so you wottid have some gt:idance as to where that stands.. 18 MS. MC CLESKEY: Are you all going to issue a 19 board order explaining the rationale aboint that monitoring? 20 The reason I ask is that my understanding is that identical ~ 21 testimony fr'om Suf f:olk Count.y has been filed in the 0-3 22 proceeding, and part of. LILCO's basis for the motion to 23 strike in the 0-3 proceeding was that. It was in the 0-S 24 proceeding and that the iusues were being litigated in the 2S 0-5 proceeding and if you have narrowed or del'ined 49-C in O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 147-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
F= 30615.0 KSW 3463 s \\ 1 such a way that things are different now I think that the 2 people in the O-3 proceeding may have to modify the motions. 3 JUDGE FRYE: In light of that we'll have to. 4 MS. LETSCHE: I have a clarification. In ruling S on the county's testimony on 49-C, am I correct that you are 6 continuing to strike the -- I guess it is the paragraph on 7 page 276 which sets Corth the survey results concerning the 8 response to the EHS message? 9 JUDGE FRYS Yes. I 10 MS. LETSCHE: Hefore I go back to my 11 cross-examination, it I could just respond to your order t. hat 12 I complete my cross-examination by midday on Thursday, I 13 intend to conduct the cross-examination that I need to 14 conduct, and it could well be that given the testimony that 15 has been withdrawn, and assuming I am able to get answers to 16 my questions and not. speeches, I may be abic to finish within 17 that time trame, but I may not, and if I don't and you 18 nonetheless order me to stop this cross-examination, I will 19 make whatever ofCeru of proof I need to make, and I think 20 that would be clear error for you to do that. 21 I also want to say for the record that 10 we're 22 s tar ti ng to talk about witness availability, which we all 23 have spoken treely about in the past, and have tried to deal 24 with on a realistic baulu, it is one thing to do that. When 2S we're all ta lking on the same wavelength. It is another to 4 ace FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC. I 202 347-37m Nationwide cowrage me.316.tu6
l 30615.0 KSW 3464 7 t i do it based upon assumptions that have no basis in fact. It 2 is my understanding that certain witness schedules on this 3 panel were made based upon assumptions which were absolutely 4 cont.rary to representations that. I made on this record last S week. 6 If witnesses are being made unavailable in order 7 to cut back on cross-examination time in this hearing, that 8 would be absolutely improper. I don't know that. that's been 9 done and I assume that it has not, but I think it is very 10 important. that t. hat be monitored. 11 JUDGH FHYB That would be improper, and I would 12 also encourage you to make whatever proffer you wish to make 13 and to take an appeal. We may well have made a mistake. You 14 should appeal if you think we have. 1S MS. LRTSCHH: I f I ' m c u t o t: f, I will. 16 Would you please turn to page 22 of your 17 t e s t. imony? This is where you are beginning to discuss 18 subpart C of -- 19 JUDCM FHYK: 1,et me interrupt you a second, 20 Ms. Letsche. You raise another point that has bothered me, 21
- f. rankly, and I think we have gott en away f rom the problem to 22 a large extent this aftornoon but. it is extremely important 23 for this w.itnean panel to answer the question and not. try to 24 make speeches or not try to answer a different question.
2S Answer the question t. hat's put t o you and if you feel you O ace FEDERAt. REPORTERS, INC. 202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmcrage 8uuw(M6
l 30615.0 rmKSW 3465 N] 1 have to add an explanation, fine, but let's get the answer 2 out there first, yes, no, I don't know, I can't answer it, 3 whatever, and then give your explanation. Let's move along 4 as quickly as we can. I think that has bogged it down 5 considerably. This morning, in particular, a number of l 6 questions were put over and over again because you didn't 7 come out and say yes or no initially and then give your U explana ti on, no let's keep that in mind. 9 JUDGE PARIS: If you don't want to come back. 10 JUDGE FRYE Otherwise, I think there's a real l 11 possibility that it it gets bogged down we will have to l 12 consider bringing you back. O 13 MS. LETSCllE t I take it from your testimony that 14 you do not diupute any of the factual allegat. ions contained 15 in subpart C of Contention 38 that's sol forth at the top of 16 page 22 of your testimony? l 17 WITNESS ROBINSON: That's right. 18 MS. LETSCllE And the approval procons f.or LERO l l l 19 news releases which is diucussed in that subpart remains the 20 same.in revision 7 of the plan; is that correct? 21 WITNESS ROBINSON: That's right. 22 MS, LETSCilE And the transmission and 23 distribution process of press releases that reflect EHS 24 messages remains the name in reviulon 7; is that right? l l 25 WITNESS R0HINSON: Yeu. t l l l l ACE. FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC, 202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmerage 800-33MM6
,= 1 -30615.0 g sKSW 3466 1 MS. LETSC11E: Wotild you turn to page 23, please? 2 You discuss at the top of that page that the media were 3 informed of the site area emergency and related developments 4 in the first ENC news conference which began at 8:40. Now, I 5 gather from your prior answer that we're all agreeing that 6 LERO news release number 2 was distributed sometime after 7 9:15, right? 8 WITNESS ROHINSON: That's right. 9 MS. LETSCI{E Hut you had a press conference at 10 roughly 8:40, which in what you are discussing here at the 11 top of page 23? 12 WITNESS ROBINSON: Right. 13 MS. LETSCliE : At the time of yotar press 14 conference, had ERS message number 2 been broadcast? 15 WITNESS R0HINSON: Yes. 16 M f'. LETSCHE: That preus conference was held 17 during approx lmately what times? 0:40 to what, a little 18 after 9:00? 19 WITNESS RO!!INSON: One note was Heb9. There were 20 problems with unaynchronized watches. I would say 21 approximately 9:00, 22 MS. LETSCHE: And Ells message 2 was broadcast at 23 roughly 8:40, right? 24 WITNESS ROHINSON: My time line says 8:39. 25 MS. LETSCHE: You say in your tentimony that the ,O ace FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage R m-336 M 16
30615.0 3467 p KSW O l 1 site area emergency was cogently described in the current 2 protective action recommendations except for the dairy animal 3 recommendation were fully explained. I take -it that the site 4 area emergency description was done by you, Mr. McCaffrey; is I 5 that right? 6 WITNESS MC CAFFHEY: Yes, it is. 7 MS. I,ETSCHE : And the protect.ive action a recommendation discussion was done by you, Ms. Robinson; is l 9 that right? 10 WITNESS HOHINSON: Hight. l 11 MS. LCTGcitC: And you go on to say in your 12 testimony that. the media were informed, therefore, of the ,O 13 site area emergency in an EHS message and in the live i 14 briefing and you refer to EDS message number 2 in this press 15 conference in advance of! the time they received news release f l 16 number 2; in that right? 17 WITNESS ROBINSON: Hight. 18 MS. 1.ETSCHE: Now it is true, isn't it, that. j 19 during that ent. ire press briefing, you never did describe or l 20 discuss the dairy animal recommendation that was issued in 21 EHS message number 2, right? i 22 WITNESS H0HINSON: H i g h t.. 23 MS. I.HTScilE In fact you stated during that ( l 24 conference, did you not, that the only protect.ive action 25 recommendation that had been made was for schools to diumiss l Acn FEDERAL Revourens. INC. l 202 347 37(x) Nationwide Cmcrage Nxt-3 %u46
30615.0 m KSW 3468 U 1 their children, right? 2 WITNESS HOBINSON: I would have to check the 3 transcript if you will UTit just a moment. 4 MS. 1,ETSCHE: You can look at page 10 01 the S transcript, if you would. The transcript is attachment P to 6 your testimony, I believe. k 7 WITNESS ROBINSON: What I said in the transcript 8 is that the protective action recommendations made by the 9 director 01 LERO, the EOC, that the only one he had made was 10 protective action f or the schools. My own mind, the putting 11 of the dairy animals on stored feed is a regulatory 12 requirement, not a decision made by the director. I 13 MS. LETSCIIH : That's why you didn't announce it? 14 WITNESS HORINSON: No, I'm explaining why my 15 statement of the protective action recoinmendat lons, r i 16 MS. I,ETScilH e So because you view the dairy animal l 17 recommendation as a regulatory requirement --- f 18 WITNESS HOBINSON: As a requirement, not a 19 recommendation. 20 MS. I.ETSCilH : You don't consider that a 21 recommendation? 22 WITNESS HOHINSON: IL in a requirement. l 23 MS. 1.ETSCIIH : IL is not a protective action 24 recommendation? 2S W[TNH!iS HOHINiiON : What I'm trying to do iu te)) O l l Acn FEDERAL REPonTuns, INC, l 202 347 370() Nationwide Coserage M O-3 M 4 M 6
m 3 -30615.0 p KSW 3469 \\.j 1 you what I said, and that's on page 10, and no, I did not 2 describe that in the press conference. 3 MS. LETSCliE : I understand that. I'm trying to 4 find out the reason. You didn't describe it because you 5 don't consider it to be a protective action recommendation; 6 is that. right? 7 WITNESS ROBINSON: As I say, I see that as a 8 requiatory requirement. 9 JUDGE FRYE If I underst.and you correctly, you 10 are saying you consider it t.c be a requirement that's set 11 forth by NIINEG-0654 and not somet.hing that LERO would 12 recommend? (VD 13 WITNESS ROBINSON: That's correct. 14 MS. I,BTSCllE Now, is it your testimony that 15 during that press conference, the situation concerning the 16 status of the release of radiation which was announced in BBS 17 message number 2, was cogently described? I guess this is 10 for you, Mr. McCaffrey. 19 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: Your questions seem to drive 20 at the ERS message. Are you asking what I said at the press 21 conterence? 22 MS. LETscilE: Your testimony here on page 23, and 23 you were one ot the responders of this answer to question 24 number 32, uays t.he media were informed of the SAE and 2S related developments in the first ENC news conference. I C Ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347 3700 Nationwide Coserage MC-33MM6
i 30615.0 l n KSW 3470 I' V l 1 assume part of what was discussed was the status of the 2 release that went with the site area emergency declarat. ion; 3 is that right? ] 4 WITNESS MC CAFFHEY: Could you give me a moment? l 5 Yes. 1 6 MS. LETSCHE: I take it that. that discussion was 7 handled'by you; is that right? l 0 WITNESS MC CAFFHEY:
- Yes, i
9 MS. LETSCHE: Let me direct your attention to page 10 7 of the transcript of the press conferences which is 1 11 attachment P to your testimony. Now on that page and the l i 12 page or so which follows it, you respond, do you not, to a l 13 question is that release oC radioactivity in this drill l l 14 wi thin the containment bui3 ding or is i t a release into the 1 15 atmosphere; is that right? 16 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: Yes. 17 MS. LETSCHE: Is it your testimony that your 10 answer to that question which is contained on pages 7 and up 19 to the top of page 9 a cogent and responsive description of 20 the release in response to that question? 21 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: I will need a minute. 22 The answer is yes. 23 MS. LETSCHE: L take it trom your answers to the 24 first couple of questions about broken copiers on page 23 and 25 24 that you do not take issue with the allegations that are pd ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
30615.0 g-KSW 3471 j \\) I contained in subpart D of Contention 38; is that right? 2 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: That's correct. 3 WITNESS ROBINSON: Right. 4 MS. LETSCHE: Now, you ta.lk about on page 24 in 5 the answer to question 36 what the functions that the copier 6 breakdown affected were and you list a few things there. I'm 7 correct, aren't I, that during the exercise, no alternative 8 means of obtaining copies or distributing these items that 9 you mention in the answer to question 36 were found or used 10 by LERO; is that rignt? 11 WITNESS ROBINSON: No. 12 MS. LETSCilE: No, that's not right? V 13 WITNESS ROBINSON: No, it is not right. 14 MS. LETSCHE: What else did you do other than try 15 to use your broken copier? 16 WITNESS HOBINSON: We borrowed the limited copying 17 capability tha t the hotel had, and it was very limited 18 because it was based on their normal needs, not a new center, 19 and at one point in fact one of the LERO statt people 20 actually was reading the press release or EBS message, I 21 don't remember now which one it was, to the rumor control .,. O 22 people to expedite the process when both copiers had been out 23 for an extended period of time. 24 MS. LETSCHE: I take i t that borrowing the 25 hotels's copier didn't help much, did i t? J ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
30615.0 3472 o)KSW (J l WITNESS ROBINSON: It was sufficient for their 2 needs but not ours, as I said. 3 MS. LETSCHE: You mention in your listing of 4 functions that the copier breakdown affected the posting and 5 distribution of LERO news releases to media representatives. 6 I assume that would also include the posting and distribution 7 of LILCO news releases to media representatives; is that 8 right? 9 WITNESS MC CAFFREY: Yes. 10 MS. LETSCHE: And the news releases distributed to 11 rumor control personnel would include both LERO'and LILCO 12 news releases; is that correct? ) V 13 WITNESS RODINSON: Yes. 14 MS. LETSCHE: Now, you discuss further on in this 15 page what caused t.he copier failure and what you have done to 16 remedy the problem. You mention in the answer to question 37 17 that you have used the same copiers used in the exercise in 18 severai drills but on different circuits. I'm correct, 19 aren't I, that in your June 6, 1986 drill, you experienced 20 severe or copier problems similar to those you experienced 21 during the February 13 exercise? 22 WITNESS DAVERIO: Yes. That was the only one that 23 it occurred at. 24 MS. LETSCHE: You reference on page -- we're still 25 on page 24, in the answer to question 38, that the ENC is ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6 l
30615.O 3473 q KSW-V 1 going to be moved at some point in May of 1987. Is that 2 still the right date? 3 WITNESS DAVERIO: It is actually moved now. We 4 are in the new building. 5 MS. LETSCHE: It is true, is it not, that FEMA has 6 stated that a new exercise would be necessary to evaluate the 7 adequacy of such a new facility? H WITNESS DAVERIO: It would not surprise me that 9 FEMA would make that statement. Any time you move to a new 10 facility they will want to evaluate it in an exercise. 11 MS. LETSCHE: There has not to date been any 12 demonstration or drill or test of that new ENC facility, has O kl 13 there? 14 WITNESS DAVERIO: No. 15 MS. LETSCHB: And that the proposed ENC or this 16 new one that you mention in your testimony has not yet been 17 reviewed or approved by the ENC with respect to -- by the NRC 18 with respect to the on-site plan, has it? 19 WITNESS DAVERIO: The NRC does not in its routine, 20 to my understanding, review those kinds of things as a 21 problem. We have supplied
- t. hem with our new procedures 22 showing the new ENC and I assume the next time there's an 23 exercice on site they will evaluate the use of that ENC.
24 MS. LETSCHE: NHC's I&E does review your on-site 2S plan and provisions related to that plan; is that right? ( ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
30615.0 KSW 3474 O 1 MR. PIRFO: I would interpose an objection at this 2 point -- 3 MS. 1,ETSCH E : Could you wait until the finish the 4 question? S MH. PIHFO: Sure. 6 MS. LETSCHE: It is true, isn't it, Mr. Daverio, 4 7 that the I&E division of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8 reviews and approves the on-site plan and matters related to 9 it? _d 10 MR. PIHFO: Objection. Helevance. 11 JUDGE FHYE: Where are we going? 12 MS. LETSCHE: I just want an answer to my question 'W O 13 that ENS which is a joint facility for both the on-site and 14 off-site organizations here -- 15 JUDCE FHYE: Let's get an answer to that and move 16 on. Do you know the answer, Mr. Daverio? 17 WITNESS DAVERIO: As a normal course of business, 18 I said the next exercise they would come in and evalua te the 19 new ENC. We have not had another exercise. They have seen 1 20 it in its formative stages, but. they have not wri tten a l 21 report on it that I know of. 22 MS. LETSCHE: On page 25 of your testimony, again 23 talking about the copying issue, you say in the first full 24 paragraph on that page that the new procedures contemplate 25 less need for copying. And you have a few reasons for why ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80(h336-6M6
30615.0 3475 0mKSW 1 that's true. I assume you are comparing-the. copying need to 2 that that was demonstrated during the exercise; is that 3 right? 4 WITNESS ROBINSON: Yes. 5 MS. LETSCHH: How many press people were present 6 at the ENC during the exercise roughly? 7 WITNESS ROBINSON: The only measure I have is that 8 we gave out a couple hundred of the press kits. Some people 9 may have taken more than one. Some obvio'usly were cameramen 10 or assistants who picked them up. That's the only real 11 measure I have. There was no sign-in log. 12 JUDGE FRYE: 200? 13 WITNESS ROBINSON: We had made up 150, and then I ~ 14 had 50 more de]ivered becaure we had run out, and then some 15 more after that, so I know 200 were gone. 16 fiS. LETSCHE: There weren't 200 reporters present 4 17 'at the press conferences, though, were there?- 18 WITNESS ROBINSON: No. 19 MS. LETSCHE: But that number was roughly what? 20 WITNESS ROBINSON: That varied depending on the j-21 time of day. 22 MS. LETSCHE: Can you give me a range? 23 WITNESS ROBINSON: I would say the maximum number 24 of people in the audience was close to 100 at any one time. 25 I don't think all of them were reporters. J l ace FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646 ~,,. -. -,...
~30615.0 3476 0-KSW -1 MS. LETSCHE: You mentioned that the summary 2 sheets that you are talking about here on page 25 will be 3 sent to the district offices and call boards by computer 4 directly from the EOC instead of having.to go-first to the -5 ENC and on to rumor control by telecopy. When they are sent 4 6 by computer, I take it that means they are then printed out 7 on printers at the district office and call board locations; 8 is that right? I 9 WITNESS ROBINSON: Yes. 10 MS. LETSCHE: During your September 10, 1986 11 drill, you experienced problems.with your computer, problems 12 .with the transmittal of. messages like this; is that right? IJ WITNESS DAVERIO: Yes, we'had a problem with the 14 terminal at the EOC. 15 MS. LETSCHE: Would you go to page 26 of your 16 testimony, please? Now I take it that.you don't disagree 17 with the allegation in subpart F of Contention 38 that 18 certain of the EDS messages provided to the press contained 19 extraneous information? 20 WITNESS ROBINSON: I disagree. 21 MS. LETSCHE: You disagree with that? 22 WITNESS ROBINSON: Yes. 23 MS. LETSCHE: They did contain information which 24 was not simulated to have been read over the radio; correct? j 25 WITNESS HOBINSON: No. Y 4 ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
30615.0 ,o KSW 3477 N,) 1 MS. LETSCHE: No? 2 WITNESS ROBINSON: No, it was crossed out. 3 MS. LETSCHR: All right, you say on page 26, 4 Ms. Hobinson, in the answer to question 42, that the EBS 5 messages were edited or filled in during an exercise or real 6 emergency to fit actual information needs. That is still 7 true despite whatever revisions you have made in your 8 procedurtci; correct? 9 WITNESS ROBINSON: No. No. 10 MS. LETSCHE: No? You no longer have prescripted 11 EBS messages that actual information is filled into during 12 the time of an emergency? 'v' 13 WITNESS ROBINSON: Not as it was at this time, 14 no. 15 MS. LETSCHE: That wasn't the question. I know 16 you are doing it by computer now instead of by hand. My 17 question is, though, isn't it true that you still have 18 prescripted EBS forms that are edited or filled in during an 19 exercise or real emergency to fit actual information needs? 20 WITNESS ROBINSON: Yes. 21 MS. LETSCHE: And this editing or filling in 22 during an exercise or real emergency is done by whom? 23 WITNESS ROBINSON: It is done at the instruction 24 of the coordinator of public information, by a member of the 25 public information staff trained to use that equipment. ve i ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6 l
30615.0 3 KSW 3478 i \\ V 1 MS. LETSCHE: That equipment being some kind of 2 word processing equipment? 3 WITNESS ROBINSON: It is the TSO system. The 4 company's TSO system. 5 JUDGE FRYE: What is that? 6 WITNESS ROBINSON: Time share option. It is a 7 system involving a mainframe and a number of terminals 8 throughout the company. 9 JUDGE FRYE: I see. 10 MS. LETSCHE: Now, you take issue with some of 11 the wording in the contention at the bottom of page 26 and 12 going over to page 27. You conc]ude after that little 13 discussion that there is no evidence that the few EBS 14 messages that did contain extraneous information were 15 actually unclear or confusing to anyone. I take it you are 16 now saying, Ms. Robinson, that in your opinion none of them 17 contained any extraneous information; right? 18 WITNESS ROBINSON: I guess it is a judgment call, 19 but what could be called " extraneous" was crossed out. 20 MS. LETSCHE: Well, let's talk about some 21 specifics here. Would you turn to EBS message number 4 for a 22 minute? That's in attachment B to your testimony. 23 I take it from your testimony that it is your 24 opinion that this message is not uncJear, would not be 25 unclear or confusing to anyone; is that right? ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
'30615'.0-KSW 3479 1 WITNESS ROBINSON: 'I wouldn't say to anyone. 2 'MS. LETSCHE:.That's what you say in your 3 testimony, isn't it? Page 27 in the last sentence? 4 WITNESS ROBINSON: There was no evidence that it 1 5 was unclear to anyone, but I think it is possible that it 6 could be. 7 MS. LETSCHE: Well, are you ante of evidence that 8 these were clear and nonconfusing to anyone other than 9 yourself? 10 WITNESS ROBINSON: Since there were questions 11 about other things at the ENC, had there been a reporter 1 12 there who had a question about what had been included or 13 excluded, I can only assume they would have asked it, since .14 - they asked other questions. 4 15 MS. LETSCHE: That assumes they had it,-right? .16 WITNESS ROBINSON: They did at-some point., didn't 17 they? 18 MS. LETSCHE: At some point, yes. Now,.you go'on 19 to say if reporters reviewed the messages carefully, they 20 would understand what information had been read over the air 21 to the public and what material had been edited out. 22 Would you go to the second page of this message? s 23 It is page 36 of 47. There's a note on that page, in that 24 little square block. Do you see that? s 2S WITNESS ROBINSON: Yes. fq NJ ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6 --- -,..,.. ~.. -..., - - -,,
30615.0 .H.KSW 3480 ? ) v 1 MS. LETSCHE: It says " protective action 2 recommendations are made with no release of radiation," omit 3 the previous two paragraphs and use the following and then 4 there's a line through that and through the following 5 paragraph. Is it your testimony, Ms. - one of the prior 6 paragraphs, it has been deleted. Is it your testimony that a 7 reporter reading through this would understand what 8 information had been read over the air and what material had 9 been edited out? 10 WITNESS ROBINSON: Yes. 11 MS. LETSCHE: Now, would you turn to the next 12 page, p.l e a s e, the one headed page 37 of 47? I notice that V 13 reading the message there at the top, which is the string 14 of people that Mr. Kessler consulted with, it says that 15 Mr. Kessler will recommend public actions to follow. That's 16 what it says, right? 17 WITNESS ROBINSON: That's right. 18 MS. LETSCHE: I guess reporters were to assume 19 that that was read over the radio, right? 20 WITNESS ROBINSON: Thal's right. 21 MS. LETSCHR: Now, is it your testimony that given 22 the next few pages of this message, that it is also perfectly 23 clear what in the way of public actions to follow would have 24 been broadcast and what would not? 25 WITNESS ROBINSON: Yes. p '%.) ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
30615.0 ,m KSW 3481 h 1 MS. LETSCHS: What is it that would be broadcast 2 in this message? 3 WITNESS ROBINSON: Those portions which had not 4 been crossed out? l 5 MS. LETSCHE: What are they? 6 WITNESS ROBINSON: You want me to start from the 7 beginning? l 8 MS. LETSCHE: Start from the beginning of where we 9 are, the public actions to follow. 10 WITNESS ROBINSON: Well, the remainder of page 37 11 of 47 that has been deleted. 12 JUDGE FRYE: Tell us what would be read on the 13 air. 14 WITNESS ROBINSON: Then we would have to move all 15 the way through to page 41 of 47, "Once again the Shoreham 16 nuclear power station is.in a general emergency condition. 17 There has been a release of radiation into the air. This 18 message wi)) be repeated every 15 minutes over this station h f 19 unless new information is availabic sooner. Keep tuned to i l 20 this emergency broadcast station for the latest official 21 information." 22 MS. LETSCHE: And it is your testimony that this 23 is not unclear or confusing to anyone; right? 24 WITNESS ROBINSON: Yes. p 25 MS. LETSCHE: Would you turn to EBS message number \\ ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Co erage 800-336-6646
30615.0 .3< KSW 3482 b 1 5, please? Just looking at the first page of that message, 2 is it in your opinion perfectly clear what has and has not 3 been deleted? ) 4 WITNESS ROBINSON: Yes. 1 5 MS. LETSCHE: What has been deleted on that page? l l 6 WITNESS ROBINSON: On the third paragraph, the 1 7 word "not." In the last paragraph, following the first 8 sentence. 9 MS. LETSCHE: And it is your testimony that there 10 would be no question or confusion in anyone's mind looking at l' l 11 this as to what had been broadcast over the air and what had i 12 not, correct? "T (V l l 13 WITNESS ROBINSON: Right. l 14 MS. LETSCHE: You say in your testimony, l 15 Ms. Robinson, that reporters know generally not to expect l l 16 polished or perfectly orchestrated information during an 17 emergency situation. Do you also believe that reporters - 18 strike that. 19 Would you agree with me that reporters do expect 20 to receive clear and consistent information during an 21 emergency? 22 WITNESS ROBINSON: No. 23 MS. LETSCHE: You don't think that that's what 24 reporters expect? 25 WITNESS ROBINSON: No. O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6M6
r_ _ _ 30615.0 p.KSW 3483 i%) 1 MS. LETSCHE: Now I am correct, aren't I, 2 Ms. Robinson, that on the day of the exercise, LERO personnel l 3 at the ENC did not make an effort to retype or clean up these 4 EBS messages bef. ore they were distributed? l 5 WITNESS ROBINSON: That's right. 6 MS. LETSCHE: And I take it from the last sentence 7 in this answer 43 that it is your opinion that during the l l l 8 exercise, with respect to the EBS messages, copics of which 9 were distributed to the press, that LERO did provide accurate l 10 and consistent information to the public promptly; in that 11 right? 12 WITNESS ROBINSON: Yes. / 13 MS. LETSCHR: And tha t goes, that opinion of yours 14 covers the distribution of EDS messages to members of the IS media at the ENC; right? ~ 16 WITNESS ROBINSON: No. 17 MS. LETSCHE: This statement that you have in the 18 last sentence of answer 43 on page 27, which says what is 19 most important from LERO's perspective is that accura te and 20 consistent information get out to the public promptly. Arc 21 you saying that it is not your opinion that with respect to 22 EBS messages provided to the media on the day of the 23 exercise, LERO did not provide accurate and consistent 24 information promptly? ,r 25 WITNESS ROHINSON: I'm. lout in the double ACE FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 804336-6M6
530615.0-XSW 3484 3 J 1 _ negatives. There was'a delay in giving them hard copies of 2 the EBS messages. -3 MS. I ETSCHE : Other than the delay, is it your t 4 opinion that in providing the ERS messages which you provided S .to the press at the ENC, you provided accurate and consistent 6 information? 7 ' WITNESS ROBINSON: Yes. O JUDGE PARIS: Even though some of them said there 9 has been a release of radiation, and in other places in the 10 same message there has been no release? 11 WITNESS ROBINSON: Having heard Dr. Mileti's 12 testimony, I concede that-there were'some internal problems, 13 but I think that looking at the context of that day, and the 14 amount of information that was provided, that the information 15 was accurate and consistent. L6 JUDGE PARIS: Okay. 17 MS. I,ETSCHE : Judge Frye, I have just finished a 18 major section here, and the next chunk of~my 19 cross-examination will be lengthy. I propose that we break. 20 It is now S:00, that we break for the day and begin tomorrow 21 morning at 9:00. 22 JUDGE FRYE: Okay. We'll adjourn until 9:00. 23 (Whereupon, a t S:00 p.m., the hearing was 24 adjourned, to reconvene at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, April 21, 25 1987.) ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER (O)- 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 No. 1) DOCKET NO.: 50-322-OL-5 (EP Exercise) PLACE: HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK /%U DATE: TUESDAY,-APRIL 21, 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 -}}