Text

Transcript of 871120 Evidentiary Hearing in Concord,Nh.Pp 6,390-6,530
	ML20236S423
Person / Time
Site:	Seabrook
Issue date:	11/20/1987
From:	; Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	;
References
	CON-#487-4970 OL, NUDOCS 8711250154
	Download: ML20236S423 (143)
	v • d • e

{{#Wiki_filter:. iN Q q C R 3 \\!A LO USntD STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .================================================================================= IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-443-OL 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF OFF-SITE NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. EMERGENCY PLANNING (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) EVIDENTIARY HEARING O LOCATION: CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE pac 33 6390 - 6530 DATE: NOVEMBER 20, 1987

===============================================

l / Heritage Reporting Corporation Official Reporters 1220 L 5treet, N.W. Washin8 ton. D.C. 20005 (202) 628-4888 8711250154 871120 PDR ADOCK 05000443 T PDR t_____.__________

g fMb X y, 6390 _s 47 ~ UNITED STATESLNUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ^ 1 2: ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD-p 3 1 '4-In the Matter of: ) ) Docket Nos. ^- 5 .PUBLIC: SERVICE COMPANY OF' ) 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE,- et al., ) 50-444-OL

6-

) OFF-SITE EMERGENCY ji '(SEABROOK STATION, UNITS l'AND 2) ) PLANNING 7' o 8. EVIDENTIARY HEARING p 9. L

Friday, U

'10 November 20, 1987 ~ Hall of Representatives 11 New Hampshire Statehouse 12, Concord, NH m', E d'"/: Y 13 \\- .The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, 14-b pursuant to notice, at 9:02 a.m. p, '15-E BEFORE: JUDGE IVAN W. SMITH, CHAIRMAN l i, '16 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board y U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission '17 Washington, D.C. 20555 N~ 18 JUDGE JERRY HARBOUR, MEMBER Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 19 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 -20 JUDGE GUSTAVE A. LINENBERGER, JR., MEMBER 21 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 22 Washington, D.C. 20555 23' a. 24 25 ./ -.V).' s., P Heritage Reporting Corporation

o (202) 628-4888 L

+ liL_ _..

I: 1 APPEARANCES: 2 For the Applicant: 3 THOMAS G.

DIGNAN, JR.,

ESO. GEORGE H. LEWALD, ESQ. 4 KATHRYN A. SELLECK, ESQ. Ropes &' Gray 5 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02110 6 For the NRC Staff: L 7 l SHERWIN E. TURK, ESQ. 8 RICHARD G. BACHMANN, ESQ. Office of General Counsel 9 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 10 For the Federal Emergency Management Agency: 11 H. JOSEPH FLYNN, ESQ. 12 GEORGE WATSON, ESQ. Federal Emergency Management Agency O 13 500 C Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20472 14

For the State of New Hampshire:

15 GEORGE DANA BISBEE, ASST. ATTY. GEN. 16 GEOFFREY M. HUNTINGTON, ESQ. State of New Hampshire 17 25 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301 18 For the Commonwealth of Massachusetts: 19 JOHN TRAFICONTE, ASST. ATTY. GEN. 20 CAROL SNEIDER, ASST. ATTY. GEN. STEPHEN H. OLESKEY, ESQ. 21 ALAN FIERCE, ESO. Commonwealth of Massachusetts 22 One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, MA 02108 s 23 For the New England Coalition Against Nuclear 24 Pollution: 25 (No appearance) O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

L-g L l 3 6392 -%Y 1 APPEARANCES: (Continued) 2 For the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League: 3 ROBERT A. BACKUS, ESQ. Backus, Meyer, & Solomon J 4 116 Lowell Street Manchester, NH 03105 5 JANE DOUGHTY 6 Director Seacoast Anti-Pollution League 7 5 Market Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 8 ,For the Town of Hampton i 9 PAUL McEACHERN, ESQ. 10 MATTHEW T. BROCK, ESQ. Shaines & McEachern 11 25 Maplewood Avenue P.O.. Box 360 12 Portsmouth, NH 03801 (~') 13 For the Towns of Hampton Falls and North f k/ Hampton and South Hampton: 14 ROBERT A. BACKUS, ESQ. 15 Backus, Meyer & Solomon 116 Lowell Street 16 Manchester, NH 03105 17 For the Town of Amesbury: 18 WILLIAM S.

LORD, Selectman 19 Town Hall Amesbury, MA 01913 20 For the Town of Kensington:

21 SANDRA F. MITCHELL 22 Civil Defense Director Kensington, NH 03827 23 24 25 (3 LJ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

I 6393 l 1 I NDEX 2 WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS EXAM 3 Panel: DENNIS MILETI 4 ANTHONY CALLENDRELLO PAUL FRECHETTE { 5 EDWARD LIEBERMAN by Mr. Traficonte (resumed) 6402 6 7 8 EXHIBITS: IDEN: RECD: REJD: DESCRIPTION: 9 Massachusetts Attornay General: 10 No. 7 6404 Article entitled 11 Technological Disaster in the Non-Therapuetic 12 Community by Joan Nigg from Environment and 13 Behavior, Vol. 19, O No. 4, July 1987 14 15 16 l 17 18 19 20 '21 22 23 24 25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

y Q5.7 c ?? g' '- 6394. x L1' P.R10~C E E D:I N G S- ' T1W + b L2-JUDGE SMITH. Good morning. 3; The first order of business, if there is no other 4

preliminary, business, will'be to rule on Mr. Fierce's' motion 5'

for 60-day extension.to keep the evidentiary record open. '6 -We also wish to announce that before the day is over.we'd like 7 to have another discussion of timing and the witness sequence 8 bearing in~ mind'that the next hearing presents some problems. y 9 We'll takeLthat.up as close to the end of the' day as we can. 10-Is there'any other preliminary business? 1 11 'Okay, then we.will rule on-the-motion. In essence, 12-Mr. Fiercefreguested that 60 more days be extended to the end d('i . 13' of'the scheduled time for the evidentiary hearing which would 14 bring it:to some time in February, so that he may have an

15 opportunity'to work with his traffic expert and computer 16 modeler on matters that he states were surprising to him in the 17' cross-examination of this panel.

118' This' motion followed a discussion of the changes in 19 thel traffic control point diagrams, but they centered on the 20' ' document that has been discussed quite a bit, the manning 21 . sequence document. 22 Has that been given an exhibit number? 23 Yes, sure, it's Massachusetts Attorney General's '24' ' Exhibit 3. That document, which has been represented as one 25 that developed after the discovery period closed, and not for Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

6395 O> 1-the purpose of the hearing, but developed in the due course of 2 working with Manchester State Police and other police agencies. 3 One of the reasons ascribed for the need is that the 4 management -- the traffic expert, or the computer modeler, 5 would not be available to work on this problem in December, 6 because of his wife is expecting a baby. We'll talk about that 7 just for a moment. 8 It's not that we would be insensitive to that type of 9 problem, but the Appeal Board has made it very, very c] ear in 10 several cases that the scheduling of a licensing hearing cannot 11 center around the individual personal problems of parties or 12 witnesses of that nature. Mr. Fierce states that the manning 13 sequence is important, however, because he wants to plug it -(]) 14 into the computer run. 15 We are very much persuaded by Mr. Dignan's arguments 16 in addition to some of our own observations. One is that this 17 really should not be a matter of surprise to Mr. Fierce. The 18 subject matter of the exhibit should not be a surprise, because 19 beginning on Page 44 of the direct testimony, there is a 20 discussion of sensitivity runs on the manning of control 21 points. "Certain of the runs were," and I'm quoting from that, 22 "Certain of the runs were conoucted to quantify the results of 23 different arrival times of personnel at control points." And 24 then the various sensitivity runs are characterized and 25 reported on. Generally the conclusion in some of them -- I O. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l L

6396 1 haven't read them all for this purpose -- is that different 2 arrival times -- that the runs were relatively insensitive to 3 different arrival times. 4 That testimony is taken up again on Page -- that idea 5 is taken up again on Page 67 of the direct testimony where it 6 was stated there, "The sensitivity runs were performed to 7 quantify the affects on the ETE of most traffic control l 8 measures now being in effect." 9 So we don't believe that Mr. Fierce can fairly claim 10 surprise on the issue of the late arrival of sequential manning 11 of traffic control points in view of the testimony'ahich was 12 provided. The date is September 10th. I think probably it 13 wasn't provided actually until a few days later. At least we [} 14 didn't receive it until the 14th. So that has been over two 15 months. 16 At the very beginning of this proceeding we, in view 17 of the motions to not start the proceeding, we made it clear 18 that we would expect the parties to cooperate on off weeks and 19 during the week for discovery -- in discovery as it was needed. 20 We believe that if Mr. Fierce was concerned about that 21 testimony, that he should have demanded the basis for it much 22 earlier. 23 In fact, there's another aspect to the hearing, too, 24 that we thought about, and that is very early on the first 25 issue, the adequacy of the personnel reporting to the traffic O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

6397 1 control points was. litigated, or it seemed to me just by 2 memory, over several days, and that is one of the things that 3 Mr. Fierce states is of concern to him; that the accuracy of, 4 the total accuracy of personnel managing traffic control points 5 and access control points needs further work on by his expert. 6 But there, again, that was the first issue that came up. 7 Now, looking at the Federal Rules of Evidence with 8 respect to this matter, I'm reminded that under the Federal 9 Rules as they exist now, and somewhat of a departure from more 10 historic versions of it is that experts need not identify in 11 their expert testimony the bases of their opinions. That is '12 supposed to be taken care of by an adequate discovery program (} 13 before the trial. 14 There would have been no' obligation, it may have been 15 a good idea, but there would have been no obligation for the 16 experts on this panel to identify the basis for the -- the 17 factual basis for their sensitivity runs. But even going a 18 step farther, a representation, which we accepted, is that the 19 manning sequence document we're talking about, Massachusetts 20 Attorney General's Exhibit 3, wasn't even a basis for that 21 testimony. It was just a document that happened to be 22 developed in the regular course of business. 23 So there is a dual reason why they were not obliged 24 to identify it at the time of their testimony, even if it 25 existed at that time. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

6398 G 1 Then, finally, one of.the reasons for not allowing 2 the extension of time is that the manning sequence issue is, as 3 Judge Linenberger called it, at a level of noise, or it is at a 4 level of detail of implementation which we believe falls below 5 that which we would see as requiring any additional time 6 whatever, let alone two months, 60 days. And as we have 7 discussed several times during the cross-examination, we just 8 wonder how much time should even have been devoted to cross-9 . examination on this subject. 10 And then, finally, we observe that we are not 11 foreclosing rebuttal. There is almost a month remaining. 12 There are two hearing weeks and two off weeks remaining before 13 the scheduled close of the evidentiary record, and we believe ggg 14 that'given the importance of the matter and all the 15 considerations that I have just alluded to, that no additional 16 time should at this time be granted. -17 Now, if you want to proceed, Mr. Traficonte. 18 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, Alan Fierce for the Attorney 19 General's office. 20 I'm not sure I understand your ruling, and I ask for 21 some clarification. You said you are not ruling out rebuttal 22 testimony, but it would be due by the end of the close of the 23 currently scheduled weeke? 24 JUDGE SMITH: No, we're not ruling on that. All we 25 are ruling is on your request for right now, today, an Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

a 6399 L I automatic 60-day extension to close the record to February. If m 2 within-the normal course of events you wish to bring rebuttal 3 testimony, we haven't foreclosed that. i 1 I 4 MR. FIERCE: Well, that's the -- 5 JUDGE SMITH: As such, categorically; we have not 6 categorically ruled out you bringing rebuttal testimany into I 7 this hearing on anything that meets the requirements for 1 8 rebuttal testimony. I 9 MR. FIERCE: So at most -- 10 JUDGE SMITH: It's the 60-day extension that we are 11 ruling on. l '12 MR. FIERCE: That's the confusion I had, because I l 13 .think a number of the parties were under the impression, at g 14 least from events that occurred perhaps prior to your joining a 15 the Board, Judge Smith, that one needed to file a motion for 16 leave -- 17 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, no, no. 18 MR. FIERCE: - to file rebuttal testimony. 19 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Fierce, perhaps you were not a part 20 of the telephone -- oh, you were, I recall, you were part of 21 the telephone conference call when I explained what I thought 22 the intent of the Board was by that order. And then later on 23 we reconfirmed it right here in the hearing, and you may not 24 have been here then. But the intent of that order, chat order 25 was with respect to filing rebuttal plans was vacated, and it O Heritaga Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

a: [.' s b '. 6400 ' Q S-N l' was explained in that-order never intended to restrict the 2 rights : that ' a: party would - otherwise ' have for rebuttal. It was u -3< intended..to be an additional opportunity, not really an 4f additional requirement. So that order would not way restrict. 5 ~ your opportunity for. rebuttal. We'll look at rebuttal 6 . test'imony;as is traditionally looked at. i 7. MR. FIERCE: And just to finally clarify then, the 8 date by;which that rebuttal testimony would need to be filed, ~ 9: 'in the Board's view,ois the last scheduled day for hearings 10 that we have in December? ~7} 11: JUDGE. SMITH - Well, that's right. We're going to j I o '12 discuss -- we're going to discuss the remainder, the schedule ] 13 for.the remainder.of the hearing later this morning. And we 14; don't. totally and. categorically rule out either that the i 1 15. l hearing 1 session after the scheduled session may be necessary. 16 We're'just saying as we sit here now we think that the hearing 17 .should be concluded by that time. 18 MR. FIERCE: 'My question is -- 1 119 JUDGE SMITH: 'But that's going to be -- we're going ] 20 to look at it and see what we're going to do about it. 21 MR. FIERCE: Yeah, you may be right, and I think 22 perhaps I did overstate it yesterday when I said I was certain l 23-it would extend, and it may not go beyond the end of the l 24 scheduled period. But my question now-is, if it does, does the 25 extended date then become the final drop-dead date for the O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

6401 .c \\ ' /- .1 filing of rebuttal testimony. j i 2 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Fierce, we don't'want to rule on l l 3 specifics.like that. Let's wait until we have our discussion 4 of what is going to happen for the rest of the hearing, and see 5-what rebuttal you want to bring in, or whatever the situation 6 is. But you're asking right now for a automatic kick-in of 7 opportunity for rebuttal, and we're not prepared to give that 8 to you. ) 9 The rules for submitting rebuttal testimony in NRC j 10 hearings are vague at best. And we take it on an ad hoc basis 11 to see what the parties' needs are, what the opportunity is. 12 We are not going to not hear an important piece of evidence in 13 this proceeding because we ran out of hearing time in the . /")'- ( 14 scheduled time. 15 On the other hand, we're not going to sit here today 16 to tell you that you have more time than that is scheduled. .17 Prudently, you should plan, I would say, to present rebuttal 18 testimony within the time scheduled. 19 MR. FIERCE: Thank you, Your Honor. 20 JUDGE SMITH: Sure. 21 MR. TRAFICONTE: Good morning, Your Honors. 22 Good morning, panel. 23 -24 25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6402 1 Whereupon, 2 ANTHONY CALLENDRELLO 3 EDWARD LIEBERMAN 4 DENNIS MILETI 5 PAUL FRECHETTE 6 having been previously duly sworn, were recalled as witnesses 7 herein and were examined and testified further as follows: 8 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resumed) 9 BY MR. TRAFICONTE: 10 Q Good morning, Dr. Mileti. 11 A (Mileti) Good morning. 12 Q I would like to pick up the general line, further {) questions on the general character of community response in 13 14' emergencies, Dr. Mileti. 15 Yesterday, I gtve you a copy of an article that's 16 entitled Technological Disaster in the Non-Therapeutic 17 Community. Do you recall that? 18 A (Mileti) Yes, I do recall it. 19 Q Now, its authors include a Joanne Nigg, and I believe 1 L 20 you testified that you do know her; isn't that correct? 21 A (Mileti) Yes, I know her well. 22 Q Is she a recognized authority in the disaster 23 response area? 24 A (Mileti) Everyone in the area knows her, or of her 25 work. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

I PANEL NO. 7 - CitOSS 6403 1 Q Is she a-recognized authority in that area? 2 A (Mileti) I think well of her, yes. 3 Q Is she a recognized authority in that area? 4 A (Mileti) I think most people think well of her, yes. 5 JUDGE SMITH: I think you have your enswer. 6 MR. TRAFICONTE: Okay. 7 JUDGE SMITH: He sc.id everyone knows her, and if 8 that's not recognized, I don't know. 9 MR. TRAFICONTE: All right. 10 BY MR. TRAFICONTE: 11 Q You've had an opportunity to read this article now, 12 haven't you? 13 A (Mileti) .Yes, I've read it. 14 Q I would like to just for the record read the abstract 15 that appears on the first page, front page of this document. 16 Again, for the record, this article is from Environment and 17 Behavior, Volume 19, No. 4, July 1987. 18 MR. DIGNAN: I object. We've got an article written 19 by somebody who is not going to appear here. And I understand 20 hearsay's all right., but either we put the article in and ask 21 the witness if he agrees with it, and let him talk about it, 22 but this selective reading the abstract into the record and 23 this sort of thing which then becomes evidence, I object to. I 24 have no problem if you want to mark the article, ask Dr. Mileti 25 whether he agrees with it or doesn't agree with it, and go from O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 7

PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6404 o. 1 there. But selective reading of a witness whose -- of what 2 amounts to are'the words of a witness who is never going to 3 appear here, I object to. 4 MR. TRAFICONTE: I think that's a good suggestion. 5 Let's -- I'd ask that we have this marked as the next exhibit 6 right now for identification on behalf of the Commonwealth. 7 JUDGE SMITH: That seems to be -- do you object to 8 that? 9 MR. DIGNAN: No, Your Honor, not for identification. 10 (The document referred to was 11 marked for identification as 12 Massachusetts Attorney General 13 Exhibit No. 7.) [ 14 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, in the spirit of expediency, I 15 won't read the -- pardon? 16 JUDGE SMITH: I don't -- your objection was mooted by 17 the accommodation, but I see nothing wrong, and I think it's 18 rather a classical approach to cross-examination for him to 19 read a relevant portion of it that he thinks is relevant, and 20 ask the witness if he agrees with it or not as compared to the 21 whole article. Fortunately, she didn't write a book. 22 (Laugher.) 23 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, it's classic cross-24 examination to read the witness something he's written, and ask 25 him if he still agrees with it, for impeachment or other O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-48G8

.c r PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6405

)

A/ 1 ' things. It's also classic to hand a witness an article, 2 perhaps NRC practice, and say, are you familiar with the 3 article, and.have him say, yes, I am, which has been ~4 established here. And then at that point ask him, do you agree 5 with it, because if lu) agrees with it, then you can ask him 6 questions. 7 If he says, I disagree with it, then you have got a "8 different route'you've got to follow, because I'm not going to 9 get to cross-examine the author of the article. 10' JUDGE SMITH: Right. 11 MR. TRAFICONTE: Can I respond to that, because I 12. think perhaps we have unclarity on what the point of this (~} 13' article is? l v 14 This article came up in the context of questions d 15 el.iciting a response or an opinion as to whether a dispute j i i 16 exists in the literature on the applicability of the model of 17 the therapeutic community to a technological disaster. Is 18 there a' dispute, I think was my precise question, in the 19 literature. 20 This is, obviously, in the -- this is a piece of that 21 literature. Dr. Mileti was unaware of it. It's now marked, 22 it's before him, he's read it and I would like to pursue a line 23 .of questioning concerning it. 24 JUDGE SMITH: So you would hope to establish by his 25 testimony after reading the abstract not necessarily that he .O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

18 PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6406 <1 1 NJ 1 agrees or disagrees with the abstract, but that he agrees that j.t 2 a dispute exists. 3 MR. TRAFICONTE: Precisely. 4 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I -- 5 MR. DIGNAN: If it's being used for that limited 6 purpose, I haven't got a problem. 7 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. 8 JUDGE LINENBERGER: A point of clarification here, 9 Mr. Traficonte. Do you make a distinction between dispute and 10 disagreement? i t 11 MR. TRAFICONTE: If I do, when prassed it would be 12 that a dispute is a -- it would be a more significant event in (~} 13 an intellectual community than a disagreement. If the words 14 have-any distinction, a dispute is a slightly more significant 15 event. 16 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Well, which do you consider that 17 you have heard from the witness to be the situation here, 18 dispute or disagreement? ) End146 19 MR. TRAFICONTE: Let's use another word, debate, 1 T147 20 which is clearly stronger than dispute and disagreement. j 21 JUDGE LINENBERGER: Thank you. j 22 MR. TRAFICONTE: I think that may be closer to my 23 point. 24 BY MR. TRAFICONTE: 25 Q Dr. Mileti, I do want to read the abstract that [l v Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

i i i PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6407 i ? s-) 1 appears.on the front page of this document, Exhibit 7, 2 Commonwealth Exhibit 7. 3 "The importance of a therapeutic community has been 4 proposed as a useful mechanism for overcoming the trauma and 5 stress experienced by disaster victims. This article reviews 6 the origin, components and applications of the therapeutic 7 community concept for natural disaster situations. The 8 ' question is raised whether such a mechanism emerges in response 9 to' environmental hazards other than rapid onset, natural 10 disaster agents. Using case study data from two technological 11-events, one involving the aerial application of pesticides, and 12 the other disposal of asbestos tailings, it is concluded that /^; 13 under certain circumstances the classic therapeutic community x) 14 is unlikely to develop in technological disasters. 15 "The factors mitigating against its development are 16 examined with a primary focus on the question of 'true 17 victimization', the formation of victim clusters, and the 18 emergence of community conflict." 19 Now I want to pose the question to you again. Do you 20 recognize a debate in your field of expertise on the 21 applicability of your model, or the model of a therapeutic 22 community for technological disasters, including radiological 23 disasters? -24 A (Mileti) I'm confident that some difference of 25 opinion would exist just knowing the points of view of, for l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

+$ to r ,y PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6408 , y yv ELM l'- t example,;your.; experts,-and,~however, I' don't think:that this c ~ a ~ .y , 2.'-

particular.~ article speaks to that-. debate, y',;.:

3

-Q LArelyou. familiar with'a' scholar in your field named: 4 ' Ronald Perry? 5 A1,: 1(Miloti)' Yes, I know Ronald Perry well. ~ 6' O

And he is in the same field of expertise as yourself ?

7_: A-(Mileti)l Ron is formerly trained as a sociologist,

8:.and he researchee emergencies.

9-Q: He has a.similar field then as yourself. l 10! 'AE (Mileti) In general, yes. .1 ll: Q .Is'he a recognized authority in that area? 12 A' (Mileti) Everyone'in the field would recognize him,

13 yes..

'14; Q' I would like to show you another article.

)

1 .1'5 A (Mileti) Thank you. 16. MR. TRhFICONTE: I'd like to have this article that l 17. is in German, unfortunately --- 10; JUDGE SMITH: .I suppose you sense that we have 19 problems with-it. 20 (Laughter.) 21 MR. TRAFICONTE: If I can just -- 22 JUDGE SMITH: Fortunately, Judge Linenberger handles 23' German, and this, I suppose, you want as Exhibit acht. 3 24-(Laughter.) L. 25 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yeah, wold. A/ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 p l

PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6409 1 (Laughter.) 2 MR. TRAFICONTE: I'have to apologize. Ronald Perry ~3 is, as I understand it, an American scholar, and his research 4 and writing is primarily in English. This piece, however, is 5 not, nor have I been able to locate any English version of it. 6-And.I have only recently found it, and I have read it, and I am l _: 7 prepared to translate portions of it today. I realize that 8 perhaps could represents some disadvantage. 9 BY MR. TRAFICONTE: 10 0 Dr. Mileti, do you reed German? 11 A (Mileti) No, I do not. 12 MR. TRAFICONTE: What I propose doing is this. I'm 13 going to offer a translation of a couple of lines subject to 14 check, which I believe is Mr. Dignan's phrase. And then I 15 would like to heve this admitted for impeachment purposes only. 16 And I would make available a full translation subject to check. 17 MR. DIGNAN: I'm going to go on this one early, Your 18 Honor. 19 First of all, what just happened, and I think if 20 anybody explored.Dr. Mileti, he has a very satisfactory 21 explanation of saying that the first article doesn't even speak 22 to the debate. Now we're going to throw something in for 23 impeachment purpose which the witness can't ready, and cross-24 examine apparently on that basis. 25 I think until the translation is produced, this O l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

V%. m gm PANEL'NO. 7 - CROSS 6410 UV}f -doesn'tigo any'further. e -1 ? t2 , JUDGE. SMITH: Well -- -3 MR. DIGNAN: 'l'm not - 'want to mislead the Board. I 14,<had;high school. German. I do recognize the words "in den", and-e5 'about there it. stops.- I have no ability to protect the' Y '6-witness. I have no ability to understand -- I don't understand 7 ~right_now.. I do not think Mr.-Traficonte would ever 8 mistranslate. That I'm not concerned with. What I'm concerned' 9; "with~1s'I'm not a-good enough German scholar to go through the 10' ' rent of the article at the same time, and see whether I've got y; 11' an objection that what's being said is taken out of context. 12-I don't think this should be allowed to even be 4 r {(~'i 13 ' started until'we've got an English translation.that we can all Al 14 . agree on. 15' JUDGE SMITH: I think that Mr. Traficonte must have 16 known that if you made a formal' objection, that he would be 17. defeated.on it. I took it as a practical suggestion on how we '_18 could proceed today,.but in view of his objection, which is, 19 you know, an appropriate objection, I don't think you can do ~ ' l< 20 it. 21-Maybe something can happen. There may be a -- well, 22 I doubt if we can round up a translator this morning any more. h '23' MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, it's really -- .24 - ' JUDGE SMITH: Are you familiar with this article in L 25 .its English version? fd)m Heritage Reporting Corporation L (202) 628-4888 l

o q n;. PANEL NO. : 7 - CROSS 6411' M. J1' MR.'TRAFICONTE: He's'not going to be able to answer

m '

l2L that.~if he'doesn't ---I mean, he doesn't know what the article-1 ,x 3. cis, j 4 a 4 THE WITNESS: (Mileti) The answer is no, and I agres e 5 .with the lawyer. I don't even~.Pnow what the title is. 6 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, Your Honors, I really -- this l 7 'is'animportant point, and I hasitated to use-this, and I did 8 'only because'it runs directly to this, issue of there being a ,. debate.in the-literature iteof:g established recognized scholars. 10 And if I could read one line of this subject.-- - 1 12 JUDGE SMITH: Well,-how about this. What if you were 12! toLexamine'him under the' hypothesis that there is an article. l'3 MR. TRAFICONTE:

Fine,

' !A i): 14 JUDGE-SMITH: Would you object to that? I mean, then 15 he can eithe'r' prove it or not prove it. Then his cross-16 examination'is of no value. What we're just trying to do is 17- ' move along with -- 18: MR. DIGNAN: I know what you are trying to do, Your 19 Honor. I 20 JUDGE SMITH: -- and protect what he's interested in. 21 ~ MR. DIGNAN: And I'm trying to protect a record, and 22 a witness, and a client. Here is my problem. 23 The first article was offered up. If we can debate 24 this freely with nobody taking umbrage at arguments. The first 25L article'was offered up. I read last night when I was with Dr. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i

v

I' PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6412 7~ L 3-? 1 Mileti. And Dr. Mileti, as you have heard, has already stated l 2 under oath this does not speak.to the debate we're talking 3 about..And I'm sure if anybody wished to explore it with him, 4 because he's explained it to me, he will make it crystal clear 5 why that article doesn't even speak to this debate. C Now, I don't know whether the new one does or not. 7 And the problem is I can't find out by reading it, Dr. Mileti .8 can't find out by reading it, and the only purpose of the 9 examination is to create evidence -- excuse me -- to put in ) 10 evidence the fact that the debate exists. And if that's the 11 narrow' focus of the document, to allow a piece to be taken out 12 or a hypothesis to go and cross on it, I just think is unfair. rN-13 If they've got some English articles that we can deal \\) ~ 14. with, we'.11 have him read it here, and see what they can do 15 with it. I know they are not going to get a case of debate out 16 of that first one. That one I'm clear on. But I just don't 17 know what's here. I'm not denying Mr. Traficonte's assertions 18 at all. I just can't verify it, deal with it, redirect on it, 19 or do anything with it. 20 JUDGE SMITH: What is the purpose of it? To 21 establish that there is a debate and that there -- 22 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes, among scholars that Dr. Mileti 23 would' recognize. 24 JUDGE SMITH: Haven't you already established 25 independent of the Nigg article, and the Perry article, of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I

PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6413 ds-1 course, that Dr. Mileti reccgnizes from his own expertise, 2. experience and communication in the area that there is a 3 debate? 4 MR.'TRAFICONTE: If I have established that, we may 5 not need to -- '6 JUDGE SMITH: I thought that he did say that. 7 Wasn't that your testimony, that you recognize there 8 is a debate on your -- in the social sciences community on the 9 issue of technological disasters, and therapeutic connunity? 10 THE WITNESS: (Mileti) Yes, I thought I said that, 11 as there is a debate on just about everything in the social 12 sciences. 13 JUDGE SMITH: And you say that -- you say that (~} v 14 independently of the article by Cuthbertson and Nigg? 15 THE WITNESS: (Mileti) I beg your pardon, sir? I 16-couldn't hear. 17 JUDGE SMITH: I mean, it wasn't necessarily the 18 article by, or even the article by Cuthbertson and Nigg upon 19 which you base that opinion. It's based on your own 20 recognition of debate in the field. i 21 THE WITNESS: (Mileti) Yes, sir, that's correct. 22 BY MR. TRAFICONTE: l 23 0 Well, I'd like the witness to turn to Page 138 in the 24 testimony. And Dr. Mileti, if I might read this to you at the 25 top of the page before the beginning of the paragraph that O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

L PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6414- , n,. J%) - 1 begins there, there is the sentence, "The position that 2 radiological events are unique argues against the basic premise 3 on which the social sciences rests that there are notable 4 reasons and patterns in human behavior that are discoverable 5 through systematic scientific inquiry.' The position is also 6 contradicted by empirical evidence." 7 Did I read that correctly? 8 A (Mileti) Yes, I believe so. 9 0 would you like to attempt to harmonize your view that 10 there is a debate in the literature on the difference between 11 radiological emergencies and natural emergencies, and this 12 testimony? ('s 13 A (Mileti) I don't think there is a debate in the V 14 literature that radiological emergencies are different from 15 natural emergencies. 16 MR. TRAFICONTE: At that point I think I am going to 17 have to make reference, even in the hypothetical way, to the 18 piece of Ron Perry if I may. I'll do it -- 19 JUDGE SMITH: Wait. 20 MR. TRAFICONTE: I'll do it in this -- 21 JUDGE SMITH: Now, didn't he just give you the answer 22 that you would really like to have here? I mean is there 23 still a dispute between you and the witness? 24 He says there is -- he does not think there is a 25 debate that there is a difference between a natural disaster r~T l u Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 j

PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6415 k_) ' 1 and.a technological disaster. Aren't you trying to establish 2 by your cross-examination that there is indeed a difference? 3 MR. TRAFICONTE: Your Honor, it isn't -- this j 4 testimony doesn't run to the fact that there is a difference. 5 Of course, there is a difference between natural and 6 radiological. The point is the difference in the character of 7 the human response to each of those types of disasters. 8 In the context in which this testimony is set, the 9 section is headed on the preceding page, the uniqueness of 10 ' radiation. And if I can supply the context -- Dr. Mileti, why 11 don't we turn back one page. The first sentence of that '12 section reads, "The ability to transfer the principles of human r~% - 13 behavior in emergencies is questioned by some as not being b 14 applicable in emergencies that involve nuclear power plants." 15 So, Your Honor, the context of his point is that -- 16 on the following page -- to believe that radiological events 17 are unique in regard to the way they affect response 18 contradicts the premise on which the social sciences rest is 19 Dr. Mileti's view essentially that there is no debate; that 20 anybody in the social sciences would not believe that the 21 character of human response to radiological emergency is going 22 to be fundamentally different than it is to a natural 23 emergency. 24 JUDGE SMITH: I 25 MR. DIGNAN: May I respectfully point out that the O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 0416 1 witness' testimony doesn't say contradicts. The words are 2 carefully chosen. He says the position that radiological 3 events are unique argues against the basic premise on which 4 social sciences rest, and he goes on from there. It is clearly 5 an expert witness giving his view, and saying that the other 6 view argues against certain principles. He didn't say 7 contradicts; he says argues against. And I think the words 8 " argue against" saying, as opposed to a flat assertion of 9 contradiction, is a much different thing, and this is the 10 problem. 31 The testimony, if you start on Page 137, is clearly 12 Dr. Mileti saying, you know, there are two points of view here, 13 and then going on to say this is my view and I think I'm right. ) 14 JUDGE SMITH: It does seem to me that his direct 15 testimony establishes exactly what you are trying to establish, 16 the best you hope to establish by your line of cross-17 examination. He acknowledges at the outset that there are 18 others in the field who, in his view, take a position which is 19 contrary to the basic premise upon which the social science 20 rests. But it's only his view, but he acknowledges at the 21 outset that others disagree, and that's what you are trying to 22 do. 23 I guess I am missing your point. 24 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, I don't understand a debate 25 within a field of expertise to involve one side characterizing O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

I PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6417 o. %/ 1 the other as contradicting the basic premise of the social 2 sciences. That is not -- 3-JUDGE SMITH - That would be the essence of a strong 4 debate. I don't know. I think that -- I don't know'how you 5 could establish your point any better than his own direct l 6 testimony. Why don't you, if you are unhappy with what he l 7 means by that, why don't you inquire as what he does mean by l-8 it. t 9 BY MR. TRAFICONTE: ) 10 Q Dr. Mileti, what do you mean by the sentence that '11 appears on 138? 12 A' (Mileti) Was that the sentence that begins "The p -13 ' position", et cetera? v 14 Q Yes. '15 A' (Mileti) I think your prior characterization of my 16 meaning behind that sentence was misplaced. All I mean to say .17 here was that I recognize that there are some people in the 18 social sciences who believe that the factors that shape human 19-behavior in response to emergencies are categorically different 20 in radiological emergencies, and that the principles betaeen 21 that and the propositions that we have established over the 22 years hold to determine public response in responses don't 23 apply by virtue of the character of radiation. 24 And I disagree with that. I think those same 25 propositions hold. We need to look at the same variables, but /^S i O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

i PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6418 c. i.) 1 as'I say.later on in my testimony, I might as well just state ~

2 it again.

I can't find it right now. The quantities of those -3 variables certainly could, would and have varied dramatically 1 '4 across different emergency events within one class of 5 emergencies, as well as across classes of emergencies. 6 Q People who take the other view from your own are I 7 respected sch'olars in the field, are they not? 8 A (Mileti) I think that's a matter of debate. The 9 place where this came out was in the views of James Johnson, 10 HJr..and Stephen Cole in the Shoreham litigation where they 11 reached conclusions, for example, that the strong relationship 12 we know exists between the kind of emergency information people rg 13 get in an emergency, and what people do in response to that Gi 14 . emergency would not hold in a radiological accident. And I 15' grossly disagree with that. They disagree with that statement 16 themselves in some of their publications as I've cited in my 17 testimony. .18 Q Well, does Ron Perry disagree with you? 19 A (Mileti) I don't believe that I have ever talked to 20 Ron about this. 21' Q If Ron Perry disagreed with you that radiological 22 emergencies can -- strike that. 23 If Ron Perry disagreed with you that the knowledge we 24 have arising out of natural disasters is transferrable on to i 25 radiological disasters, would you acknowledge serious dispute l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 T

PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6419 1 on-that point in the literature? 2 A (Mileti) I would have to say that what the debate is 3 focused on, if there is one, is whether or not the general 4 principles hold in all kinds of emergencies rather than just 5 comparing natural to technological. 6 Q No, but the precise question was, if Ron Perry -- 7 you've mentioned Zeigler and Johnson, and you are clearly aware 8 that they.are our experts in this proceeding. I'm asking you 9 about Ron Perry. 10 If Ron Perry believes that radiological -- that you 11 cannot extrapolate from natural disasters, or natural 12 emergencies on to radiological emergencies, would you then 13 recognize a serious debate on that issue in the literature? ) 14 A (Mileti) I wouldn't call it serious, although there EndT147 15 would be cause for Ron and I to have a debate. T148 16 Q It is a fact isn't it, Dr. Mileti, that human 17 communities have a pre-emergency fear of radiation tl.at's been 18 empirically validated to be much greater than fear of any 19 natural disaster? That's.ccurate, isn't it? 20 A (Mileti) In general, yes. However, a good portion 21 of the research that's been done to compare differences between 22 people's perceptions of risk across different hazard types has 23 been focused on the perceptions of risk held by undergraduate 24 students at the University of Oregon, which is most of the 25 research was done by some social psychologist up there. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4808

PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6420 1 I don't quarrel with the fact that people in general, 2 in terms of the average level of risk perception, perceive the 3 risk of radiological accidents higher than the risk of some 4 natural hazards. However, in the diversity amongst human 5 beings, there are some people who perceive the risk of natural 6 hazards higher than they do the risk of technological ones. 7 And recent research being done at Oak Ridge National 8 Laboratories on a more comprehensive set of investigations than 9 the Slovik type of work is compiling evidence that might lead 10 us to change our point of view on that. That in fact some 11 chemical hazards are perceived with higher risk than the risk 12 of radiological hazards. 13 0 If that research does come out though, it would 14 involve changing our point of view, as you say. Right now our 15 point of vie.' is that the public fears radiation more than any 16 other natural hazard; isn't that correct? 17 A (Mileti) Yes, and I'm willing to admit that the 18 public perceives the risk of radiological hazards in an average 19 sense, if we were talking about the mean of human perception of 20 risk, higher than it does natural hazards. l l 21 Q In fact, the literature makes it clear, doesn't it, l l 22 that the public generally considers the radiation to be as 23 fearful as terrorism and war; isn't that correct, at that level 24 of threat? 25 A (Mileti) I can't recollect today what data base O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6421 1 would lead me to conclude that. But as I said, I'm willing to 2 admit that in reference to natural hazards the data that exists i. 3 so for would lead one to conclude that in general the mean of 4 hazard risk perception is higher for radiological hazards than 5 for natural hazards. 6 Q And I think yesterday we understood from your 7 testimony that fear, or as it was described, pre-emergency i 8 fear, is a factor in human response to an emergency, isn't it? 1 9 A (Mileti) I believe what I said yesterday, which is 10 what I said in my testimony at Shoreham and what I'll say today 11 is that the record that exists suggests that pre-emergency fear 12 is a factor that influences situational risk perception /~T 13 formation, and that, in turn, has an effect on response. L.] 14 Q Okay. So as long as the record is clear, you are 15 really saying it's a cause of a cause, aren't you? 16 A (Mileti) It's very difficult for social scientists 17 to talk about cause and effect. 18 Q You had no difficulty in your testimony. 19 A (Mileti) The key determinant or determinants is a 20 word that we often use in the place of cause. However, the 21 record -- ghe data suggests that pre-emergency fear has no 22 direct effect on what people do in response to emergencies, but 23 has an indirect effect through their situational perceptions of 24 risk. 25 Q All right. Not to belabor the point, but you I'T U Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l

PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6422 / 1 acknowledge that fear is a determinant of a determinant, don't 2 you? 3 .A (Mileti) Yes, I think we even read that out of my 4 testimony yesterday. 5 Q Okay. And you will also acknowledge, won't you, 6 there are other scholars in the field who believe that fear is 7 a direct determinant of response, aren't there? 8 A (Mileti) Yes, I believe that was the basic 9 proposition in some of the testimony provided by Interveners' 10 experts at the Shoreham litigation. 11 Q Well, it's also, isn't it, the view of Ronald Perry 12 that fear, and particularly fear of radiation at TMI was a 13 determinant of the human response at TMI? That's his position, 14 isn't it? 15 A (Mileti) That may be his position, but the data from '16 TMI do not confirm that point of view. 17 Q Well, there is a disputo on that then between you and 1 18 Ron Perry. 1 19 A (Mileti) There can't be a dispute with the data. 20 The data are what the data are. And the -- 21 Q That's clear, there's no dispute on the data. There 22 is a dispute on what the data means, isn't there? 23 A (Mileti) There can't be a dispute about how Ron and 24 I might interpret the data if we were looking at the same. data. 25 The most comprehensive data set I know of from Three Mile 4 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

a i L PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6423 ^'T x_/ 1 Island was analyzed, and it leads to the conclusion that during 2 the Three Mile Island event people's pre-emergency fear of 3 radiation did not have a direct effect on what the public did, 4 but rather, had its effect through only -- its only effect 5 through people's situational perceptions of risk. 6 0 Did I understand your testimony to be that there 7 cannot be a dispute over the proper interpretation of the data 8 from TMI? 9' A (Mileti) Not if we're looking at the same data. 10 Q Okay. Are you aware of an article that Ronald Perry 11 has written that proposes, or theorizes that pre-emergency fear 12 at TMI was one of the determinants of human response to that ] 13 emergency? Are you aware of an article by Mr. Perry that says c/ 14 that? 15 A (Mileti) I have a vague recollection of reading 16 several articles by Ron Perry and perhaps co-authored by Mike 17 Lindell that talked about something related to this several 18 years ago. I haven't seen it recently. 19_ Q Well, then there can be a dispute, can't there, on 20 the proper interpretation of the TMI data base? 21 A (Mileti) Not if we're looking at the same data. And 22 the best data available was the -- well, you don't want to know 23 that. 24 0 Well, is the best data available the data gathered, 25 or some of the best data gathered by Cynthia Flynn for the NRC? Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

,r ,v m. PANEL NO. 7'- CROSS 6424-lkL >A '(M11eti) In general, I would say that's some'of the L2 ,best data available of all the investigations that were

w

.: 3 - . performed. L W 4. Q- .Ifdon't have the NUREG number, but the Flynn material

5f Lwas' commissioner'd by the NRC.

.- 6 Now,'if Ron Perry wrote.an art'icle claiming that pre-i. 175 emergency fear was a direct' determinant of human response at l8f TMI' based on~the Flynn data, would you say that there could be' ~ 9 a debate on the proper interpretation of the data base at TMI? 210; A (Mileti) -It would depend on whether he looked at all j' .lli the:Flynn data, or'whether he did another analysis of it. 112-There have been several different analyses of that data. L '13 1Q You have written an article with Mr. Perry, haven't 141 -you? 15 A '(Mileti) I.have written more than an article with E 16L Mr.. Perry..We know each other since graduate school, and have Ll7 - written a. book together and several articles. .18 Q 'It's the case, isn't it, that the literature L 19-indicates.that part of the fear, perception of fear that the h 20' population has with regard to radiological emergencies concerns f' (21 the perceived level of threat that they represent to the 22 community; isn't-that correct? 23 'A (Mileti) It's hard for me to distinguish between the 24-two.: I think perceived risk and perceived threat are close 12 5 enough that they might be the same concept. In some context, Ak) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 - w

PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6425 1 'they could be defined different, and in others, they could be 2 defined the same. 3 Q Well, maybe my question wasn't clear. 4 In the literature it's clear, isn't it, that the 5 level of. fear among the population of a radiological emergency 6 is connected to the perceived level of threat of a radiological 7 emergency? There is a connection between the fear and the 8 perceived threat that a radiological emergency represents. 9 A (Mileti) If what you are asking me if people who are 10 fearful have some -- do they perceive that they have something 11 to fear, I think the answer is yes. 12 Q Yes, but I'm asking you a more precise, I'm trying to 13 ask a more precise question, which is you would acknowledge 14 that the literature indicates a high level of fear of 15 radiation, that's correct in the United States, that's correct, 16 isn't it, Dr. Mileti? l 17 A (Mileti) I believe what we were talking about was 18 that perceived fear of a radiological emergency, or that hazard 19 was higher than other hazards. I don't recollect where on a 20 scale that might fall. l 21 Q Well, then let's go back and revisit that. l 22 I thought it was your testimony that it was higher 23 than any fear of a natural disaster in the United States. 24 A (Mileti) Given the published literature to date, 25 yes. I've already said that. O Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888

7' t er nh h.

T y-; an):y. ) Q) 4 Cif 7 PANEL NOi.7 - CROSS 6426 ,, 6f

'i

[f 1 [Q .A'n'd'isn't it.the highest because of the perceived e, '~ I2D :levelfoffthreat,for the;public's perception of the level of L31 lthreatLto a. community represented by.a. radiological' emergency? u.', j45 ~A. (Mileti) I'm.sorry, I don't; recognize the precision

5'

. in that Lguestion;. :It _seems like a -tautology. Yes. ~ Q

Now your review of the literature and'your own

~6. 17I -research on social response to emergencies, and the development 8; of aitherapeutic' community, in any;of that work are you aware SF of'any. cases where the social. group involved included a'large 1 .10; number of transients?- .11 And byflarge,.let's be precise. I want to limit it, 12~

More-transients'than non-transients.

Are there any cases where L.a' community that was hit'by a disaster had in it more non-f A L13 M: 1 41 . communal members than community members? 15 -A' (Mileti) I'm sorry, I can't answer that question. I 16 simply. don't have a recollection of the proportion of evacuees, 17/ for example,--in the catalogue of emergencies that'have been 18 ^done:that were permanent residents versus visitors to a 19 community. There certainly have been studies of emergencies 20: where today I would conclude would have had to have involved 221 visitors in the' community. For example, evacuations of coastal 22 . communities during hurricane season or what have you in P 23~ Florida. But it's my hunch that there would have been 2 41 ' visitors to the beaches there. I just simply don't have that 25 precise recollection.

O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 s

L

u r I I PANEL NO. 7 -' CROSS 6427 TI'\\ b + -Q .1-LQ Thel question.wasn't whether there were transients. 1 {2.

It would be hard to imagine a circumstance where there wouldn't 3

lbe a-transient.in a community whenfit was hit with an-4- Lemergency. The. question was, is there anything in the 5-literature a situation where a~ group is hit with a -- strike >6 that. A community is hit by.a disaster, or an emergency 7' arises, and the population is.made up more of transientsuthan 1 8- -.it is people who reside in the community. 9 A. (M11eti) 'There'could be, but I don't have a ~ 10 recollection today. 11' Q You are not aware now as you sit'there that there is 12 any literature:like that. r' 113 A (Mileti) No, I think I already said that. .()y 14 Q Are you aware of any' study of that precise issue? 15 A-(Mileti)- There have been studies of special '16 populations, some of which may have involved transients as 17 defined as a special population, but I sure don't recollect any 18 today. 19; Q Now it's your testimony, isn't it, that we can be -- 20 we can assume and comfortably predict that a therapeutic .21 community will emerge in the Seabrook EPZ in the event of a 22 radiological emergency; that part of your testimony, isn't it? 23 A (Mileti) I do belicie that, yes. 24 Q And that you are aware that at least in the beach 1 25 areas and in the beach towns in the summer months there are Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 b:L=-_

PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6428 ( more transients, or if you don't know this, you can take it 1 2 from me, there are more transients in those areas than there 3. are residents. 4 Are you also prepared to make the claim now that that 5 will not have any impact on the emergence of a therapeutic 6 community, the fact there being more transients than residents? 7 A (Mileti) On the presumption that the transients are 8 people. 9 Q Yes, they're people. 1 40 A (Mileti) Yes. Then I think the therapeutic communal 11 response would emerge. 12 Q And again to ask the question, do you have any 13 evidence, or is there any evidence in the literature that has 14 addressed that question of communal response to an emergency 15 when that community was made up of more than half transients? 16 A (Mileti) I've already said I can't answer that 17 question, but there certainly have been transients in 18 evacuations before, and I don't know of any evidence to suggest 19 that certain categories of human beings were excluded from that 20 typical human response. 21 Q Well, if I understand the emergence of a therapeutic 22 community as a concept, it does involve the community 23 protecting itself, does it not? I believe those are almost 24 verbatim from your -- those words are from your testimony. 25 A (Mileti) Sure, but, you know, you could -- people O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

r '.y; - I

=.

f PANEL NO. CROSS' 6429 Ci{i% M 1 'are' people, and these other words that'we invent are actual iF 12; deifications,'if youtwill.- I'mljust talking;about human f 3 beings,Jand-we can call-them communities, we can call.them _ l. e .4 families,;we can: call them small groups, we can call them '5 : visitors,-but:they.are' basically people. 6~ -Q. .Oh,,. I : see. 'So the' word " community" is not a term of ~7 art,in' sociology?- G 8 .A' (Mileti) Yes,zit is a term'of art, and it has l 9 , specific meanings. 'But in reference to the adjective 10. " therapeutic community", it deals with the people being on .11 'which'the threat is-imposed. '12 Q .I'see. So that it's your understanding then, and '13 .it's your: position that. therapeutic. communities emerge among L 14 .any assemblage of people t. hen an emergency-strikes. 15 A: (Mileti) Experiencing a common threat imposed.by 16 .some externality with a rapid onset, and.I could describe the 17- , parameters of that further. 18 Q I,see. ~So that the word " community" might be -- 19' strike that. l" '20 So that there is no necessity, in your view, that the 21. people know each other. They could be a collection of 22 strangers, and an emergency can arise, and the therapeutic 23 community would ensue. That's your position, isn't it? 24 A (Mileti) In fact, there is -- yes. In fact, there c .25 is evidence to suggest that strangers come together and form, O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4808

= 'M 1.. u w .i.. i s ik'? a. PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6430 . fy y Js_/ 1'. .in'some studies into work groups'and work at length, et cetera. 2 0-Yes,.but Inthought,it was your' testimony that there i-is.no evidence that you are aware'of of communities in which 1, ~4 more than' half of the population of the. community was S- 'transi'ent,' and a therapeutic community arose. You are aware of no evidence'of that.

7 A

.(Mileti) 'I already answered that question. I don't 8 'see what it.had to do with the question you just asked me. i 9 JUDGE SMITH: Listen to this. I think it could have 10 been shortened'somewhat if.there had been-more careful '^ 11 attention _to the question and answer. You asked him at the 12' beginning of this as to whether the fact that there would be a 13l large-number of transients, that more than half the population L V. 14 would be transients, would it have any effect upon the 15 therapeutic community. And he's answered all along on r 16 either/or, either a therapeutic community emerges or it doesn't 17 emerge,.and you never did get your answer to what influence 18 upon a therapeutic community would the number of. transients 19 have, if there is any. 20 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, let me answer that question 21 directly.then. 22' BY MR. TRAFICONTE: 23 Q. What impact, if any, on the emergence of a 24 therapeutic community will the large number of transients in 25 the Seabrook -- in the beach areas of the Seabrook EPZ have, in 't Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6431 Af 1 your view? 2 A (Mileti) I could hypothesize half a dozen things. I 3 think, for example, transients would be, if advised to l 4' evacuate, for example, evacuate and not return to the community '5 af ter the esaergency was over, and that would account for a '6 variation in-their response to the emergency from people who 7 live'there. 8 In reference to evacuation behavior or sheltering L .9 behavior, I don't believe that it would account for variation 10 in their willingness to help one another engage in protective 11. actions. 12 Q Dr. Mileti, one further, or last question along this .r^s 13 line. At TMI, is it your view that a therapeutic community, as 'L) 14 you understand that term, emerged in 1978? 15 A '(Mileti) It depends on what time period in reference 16 to the TMI accident, or event, or incident, whatever you want 17 to call it we're talking about, I think there are indications 18 to suggest that were a study done of people helping one 19 another, that we would find that that did characterize the i 20 warning response period. However, that after the event, it was i ) 21 very clear that a dramatic amount of conflict arose in the ] 1 22 local ccamunity. There have been several studies done on l 23 that, and that's quite predictable. That kind of conflict even 24 emerges after natural disasters after the emergency period is 25 over. j k Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l

PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6432 1 Q Well, let me rephrase my question. 2 Does the human response to TMI as a radiological 3 emergency confirm or disconfirm your view that the therapeutic .4 community will emerge in response to a radiological emergency? 5 A (Mileti) If what you mean by response to a 6 radiological emergency is engaging in protective actions during 7 the threat period, the existing evidence that is available 8 leads me to conclude that it would. 9 0 Well, let me put it this way. If this was 1978, and 10 you were testifying on the TMI emergency plan for an operating 11 license, and you had made the same predictions as to what will 12 happen in the event of an emergency at TMI should it occur, 13 same predictions that you make in your testimony here, would } 14 what happened confirm or disconfirm that testimony? 15 A (Mileti) Well, there is a lot of suppositions in 16 your question. If I were testifying about the emergency plan 17 in 1978 for Three Mile Island, I'd probably be there with 18 interveners rather than the other side, becauce it was a lousy 19 plan. 20 I believe that in response to emergencies of the kind 21 we're tal, king about here in a rapid onset event where a human 22 collective is at risk, that the record is so clear that I feel 23 I can speak with confidence, and that TMI does not provide 24 evidence to discount that confidence that people help one 25 another. O lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6433 1 Q So it does not disconfirm, what happened at TMI does 2 not disconfirm your view generally of human response to 3 radiological emergency. 4 A (Mileti) It does not disconfirm my view about people 5 . coming together and helping one another in any kind of .E148 6 emergency, including radiological emergencies. T149 7 It also, I might add, doesn't disconfirm my 8 conclusion that there'd be significant conflict after the 9 emergency is over in emergencies that have both natural l 10 character as well as technological. But there is typically L 11 more after technological. l 12 O Your testimony here has nothing to do, does it, with 13 what happens after the emergency. Your testimony is focused on 14 human response to the emergency as it affects the emergency 15 planning process. 16 A (Mileti) It's focused on, yeah, human response to 17 warnings of an emergency. 18 Q Well, and also human response to the emergency. 19 A (Mileti) Well, one -- 20 Q You tell us, for example, that people are going to 21 ride-share, that there is going to be spontaneous sheltering. 22 You tell us that there is not going to be role abandonment, and 23 that emergency workers are going to respond and do their -- 24 perform their roles. That's all part of ycur testimony here, 25 isn't it? O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

l i b PANEL NO. 7 -' CROSS 6434 1: \\_/ l' A (Mileti) .Yes, it is. m 2 Q So.you are telling us about -- you are predicting 3 human response during an emergency, aren't you? 4 A (Mileti) I'm predicting -- of course, warnings are -5 part of the emergency. 6 Q But more than warnings. Your testimony doesn't 7 concern itself just with warnings. You're making statements 8 about what human beings are going to do during the emergency. l 9' A (Mileti) Yes, sir, but warnings are part of the L -10 emergency. 11 Q Now, I'd.like to push on, take up another line, and 12 very briefly discuss, Dr. Mileti, factors that you acknowledge ('N 13 cause emergency response. \\-). 14 You acknowledge, don't you, I believe you did 15' yesterday that there are a series of variables -- I think you 16 said almost an unlimited number -- that determina human 17-response in an emergency. That's correct, isn't it? 18 A (Mileti) There's a long list of factors that social 19 and behavioral scientists have found that covary or have 20 statistically covaried with response to emergencies, yes. 21 Q Just for the record, would you define covary? 22 A (Mileti) It's a statistical relationship between an 23 independent and dependent variable. For example, it's found 1 24 statistically that as one factor increases, another factor 25 statistically increases or decreases in a statistically O- \\/ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

' ',a. PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6435 5 li .significant" relationship.,And the literature is riddled with y '2' ' statistical; relationships betwee'n what we were calling 3; . yesterday sender and receiver determinants and dependent 4 variables'like what people did in. response ~to emergency 1 5 . warnings,.for example. 'J Q Now, just so my language is clear and the record's 'G. 7 clear, if two phenomena do covary in that sense, one could be 8 'said to be-the determinant of another; that's correct, isn't 9 it? 10 -A- .(Mileti) Not necessarily, no. It could -- there 'll .could -- and people have illustrated, for example, statistical 12 relationships between the number of storks flying over a town Q'< 13 and how many babies are born. It just establishes that they , \\._l 14 ' correlate. One may not be determining the other. It could be E149 15 a spurious relationship, or et cetera. lT150 16. Q-All right, so that your view that information, the 17 available information to an individual, is it a determinant of .18 'that individual's response to an emergency? =19 A' (Mileti) I believe it's a key determinant. 20 Q All right. Is that based on some notion that it 21 covaries statistically? 22 A (Mileti) One would presume unless oppressor 23 variables were operating in a particular data set that you 24 would observe a statistical relationship, yes. 25 Q No, but is your view that it is.a key determinant O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 y 5 L

s.;.y -.1 ..,[

b o ym

-1 J s (.. '

g ;, g..

. PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS-6436 .; kI 1' based on the fact-that the're has been some statistical research j L2 and it 'covaries? 3 3 'A. (Mileti) There has'been~a-lot of different "M 4' statistical research in a lot of different emergencies, and .5 'that have illustrated.that there is covariation between one or 6-some or a'large' set of the'information variables one would look h 7 at, Land in response to emergencies. 8-Q, .I'm; going to'put the question again. 'I think you 9' have answered 11t, at least in part. +- .10 .Then your view that,information is the key

n 11 determinant 'is based on the f act that inforn.ation covaries with 12 response, yes or no.

13' A (Mileti):.Yes, it would include that. 14 Q Right. So another scholar who determines that other-15 ' factors covary with response would be entitled to call those 16 .other factors determinants, wouldn't ne or she? 17 A' (Mileti) I think any prudent; social scientist would ~18 make the conclusion about what's a' determinant and whet isn't a 19 determinant on the basis of'looking at the entire empirical 20-record which would include, of course, statistical 21- ' relationships, but shouldn't.be limited to it. 22 MR. TRAFICONTE: I'm going to ask to strike that 23 answer and just put it again. I don't think I got an answer to r 24 that question which was pretty precise. 25-JUDGE SMITH: Well, let's read it back, please, both Ot Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6437 w/ 1 the question and the' answer. 2 (Accordingly, the record was read back by the End150 3 court reporter.) 1T151-4 JUDGE SMITH: No, I think that was -- the motion 5 is -- well, what do you say, Mr. Dignan, but we believe 6 the -- the Board believes that the. answer was responsive. You 7 might want to -- you might want to clarify what he meant. He 8 didn't actually use the word "covary", but you might inquire, 9 but we concur that it's responsive. 10 MR. TRAFICONTE: Fine. Let me just follow up then. 11 BY MR. TRAFICONTE: 12 Q To summarize, you believe that you are right that r' 13. information.is the main, or key determinant of a response based (_;/ 14 on the fact that it could covaries with response, and you 15 acknowledge that other researchers who do discover other 16 factors that covary with response would be entitled to consioer 17 those determinants of response; is that accurate? 18 A (Mileti) Yes and no. It depends on the context in 19 which the researcher is using it, and can I explain? 20 Q I'm sorry, did you ask me can you explain? 21 Yes, please. 22 A (Mileti) We have a whole raft filled with factors 23 that have shown to statistically covary with human response to 1 24 emergency warnings. To make a good judgment about which are 25 the most important factors versus which are not so important, o N. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l N l l {

PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6438 1 and to make a good judgment about which relationships are real 2 versus which relationships are spurious, one would need to not 3 simply take a simple bivariant correlation in a particular 4 study and reach a conclusion that that relationship holds all 5 the time, and outside of the context of a broader model or 6 theory that would include looking at the effect of a particular 7 factor while holding the effect of other factors constant, for 8 example. 9 Another way of dealing with that is looking at how 10 conclusions based on empirical evidence might vary either 11 quantitatively or qualitatively across a range of emergency 12 events rather than simply looking at one particular emergency 13 event. 14 Q Is your view that, and your belief that information 15 is the key determinant, is that an assumption, a theoretical 16 assumption that you make? 17 A (Mileti) It would depend on the context in which I 18 was using it. It could be seen as a statistical conclusion. 19 It could be seen at the outset of a study as a hypothesis. It 20 could be seen as a recommendation for policy. It would depend 1 21 on how I was using it. 22 Q Well, let's take up that third. My question is, is 23 your view that information is the key determinant of response a 24 theoretical assumption or it based on some empirical evidence, 25 and your response was it could be a function of whether you're O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6439 .g i/ 1 recommending it for policy purposes? 2 A (Mileti) What I said was I could use that in any 3 number of ways, depending on the context. 4 Q No, I'm not asking how you use it. Maybe there was a 5 miscommunication. I'm not asking how you use the assumption 6 that it's the key determinant. I'm asking what the basis of 7 your assumption is. Is it' simply a theoretical assumption that 8 you make that information is the key determinant, or is that 9 .something that's empirically validated? 10 A (Mileti) It's the conclusion I reach on the basis of 11 reviewing all the work I've done on how people response to 12 emergency warnings, as well as the work of others, both (~N 13 qualitative and quantitative work, and looking at what the data 'v' 14 base suggests in the social sciences about how it is that 15 people come to form situational perceptions of risk in 16 emergencies and then respond. 17 Q And then there are others, aren't there, in your 18 field who looking at that same data base have reached the 19 conclusion that there are, at least in the case of radiological 20 emergencies, other key determinants of response; isn't that 21 correct? 22 A (Mileti) I know that as a fact, and you hired them 23 all. 24 0 I'm sorry, I missed that answer. 25 You know that as a fact simply because? d,~ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

k PANEL NO. CROSS 6440 Jw > 1 A (Mileti) And I think you hired them all. l 2 Q. Have we hired Ron Perry? 3. A (Mileti)~ I think you hired James Johnson and Stephen 4 Cole. 5 Q Have we hired Ron Perry, to your knowledge? 6 A (Mileti) Not that I know of. 7 Q Right. And is Ron Perry.among those scholars who 8 believes that there are other key determinants of human 9 response to-a radiological emergency? -10 A (Mileti).If you're asking me is that in his article 11 that's.in German, it's possible. I know Ron well enough that 12 he could say anything. (~T 13 Q You know him well enough that he could say anything? N/ l 14 A (Mileti) I think so. 15 Q Is he an established expert in the field? 16 A (M11eti) Oh, yes. 17 Q And if he says something as an expert in that field, 18 it has some merit,-doesn't it? .19 Strike that, I withdraw it. 20 Now, it is the case, isn't it, Dr. Mileti, all the 21 various determinants that -- well, strike that. 22 Of all the various factors -- 23 JUDGE. SMITH: Did he answer your question? 24 MR. TRAFICONTE: I withdrew it. 25 MR. DIGNAN: He withdrew it. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

l PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6441 g [ 1._) 1 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, you withdrew it. 2 BY MR. TRAFICONTE: 3 Q Now, it's a fact, isn't it, Dr. Mileti, that of all 4 the factors that have been identified in the literature and by 5 yourself in the testimony here in the stand that can be seen to 6 influence human response, the one factor that the Applicant can 7 at least attempt to affect in the planning process is the 8 information available; isn't that correct? L j 9 A. (Mileti) It's certainly one factor. 10 0 Can you think of any other factor? 11 A (Mileti) I'm sure attempts could be made to address 12 all sorts of other factors. For example, any factor that's 13 subject to change that doesn't have to be accepted as a fact. (~)T \\ 14 For example, one could not change the sex of people, and we i 15 know that that's correlated with how people respond to warnings 16 when we look at simple bivariant relationships. And one could, 17 I' imagine, change the education level of people. 18 But, yes, I agree that is indeed a factor that can be 19 addressed through emergency planning more readily than other 20 factors, but there are other factors that could be changed. 21 Q Well, let's look at some of them. f 22 The utility can't do anything about the age of the j 23 population in the Seabrook EPZ can it? ] 24 A (Mileti) Nothing but wait. 2$ Q Well, we don't disagree with that. But it can't do /^ \\. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ._ ____.__ _____________ w

PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6442 /n. 1 ( /l 1 anything about the location of residents in the EPZ relative to 2 the plant, can it? 3 A (Mileti) No, I presume not but -- l 4 Q And it can't do anything about the educational level 5 of the people in the EPZ, can it, in terms of achievement of l [ 6 degrees, et cetera? 7 A (Mileti) I presume if the utility wanted to, they 8 could send people to school. I can't say categorically they 9 can't. I think it's unlikely that they would. 10 Q And it can't do anything about the socioeconomic i 11 class of the people in the EPZ; at least not in general? 12-A (M11eti) I'would presume that, yes. j 13 Q And these have all been recognized in the literature f';) L 14 as factors leading to human response, isn't that correct? 15 A (Mileti) The ones we have talked about have-been 16 illustrated in how people respond to emergency warnings in 17 simple b1 variant correlations to statistically vary with 18-response to emergency warnings, yes. 19 Q And most importantly, the utility can't do anything 20 about the pre-emergency fear of a radiological emergency in the 21 population of the EPZ, can it? 22 A (Mileti) In general, I would assume not. In 23 particular, I'm sure someone might think of a way that they I 24 could address that. But I am willing to say that that's 25 probably the case. l O,s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

f I PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6443 l i ^

)\\

1 Q-And that you would make no recommendation, would you, 2 to the utility to attempt to mitigate the pre-emergency fear of 3 "a radiological emergency among the people in the EPZ? 4 .A (Mileti) Not if what -- 5 Q As a planning recommendation. 6 A (Mileti) Not if what I was being asked to do was 7 make recommendations about putting together an adequate warning 8' system. 9 Q Ah-ha.

10 A

(Mileti) If I were asked about what a utility might 11 want to' consider in the entire universe of possibilities about 12 things.that a utility could do, I might consider making such a I C 13 recommendation'. 14 Q Well, if you were asked to make recommendations as an 15 expert in human response to emergencies, would you make a 16 recommendation concerning attempting to mitigate the fear, pre-17 emergency fear of a radiological emergency? 18 A (Mileti) My recommendation would not go along those 19 lines. My recommendation would be to presume that the 20 population who needed to engage in protective action 21 recommendations was as fearful as one could imagine it could be 22 as well as fearless as one could imagine it could be, and 23 that's just talking about one aspect or variable, but rather, 24 to maximize the constraints to adequate -- the presumed 25 constraints to adequate public response in an emergency and try r~s ( /- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 - )

l (- l PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6444 .q ( /~ 1 to develop a warning system that would be able to address 2 whatever character they were when an emergency occurred. 3 0 Your field of expertise, however, and your testimony 4 deals not only with the warning system that's being proposed in l 5 the plan, but it concerns general human response to a 6 radiological emergency, doesn't it? 7 A (Mileti)_ Parts of my testimony might be 8 characterized as general, yes. 9 Q And if I could just ask, because I'm unclear on that 11 0 response, you say that you would assume that the population 11 would.have -- strike that. 12' What level of fear do you assume the population has 13-of a radiological emergency? i 14 A (Mileti) I would make the presumption that whatever 15 variable we wanted to talk about, for example, fear, but it 16 could also be age, and it can also be any of the other factors 17 that have statistically been shown to correlate in bivariant 18 relationships with response, could occupy any particular 19 configuration in the future, and then seek to design an 20, emergency warning system such that if the day an actual j 21 emergency occurs, should one occur, and if the population l 22 that's there that day that needs to engage in protective j 23 actions was particularly low on fear, that the information 24 system would work, as well as if they were particularly high on 25 fear, that information system would work, because we -- O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1

r l PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6445 rN k_/ ' 1l 10 But we agree -- I'm sorry. Are you finished? 2-A (Mileti) I_just think that's the mast prudent 13 course. We have no way of prophesizing what these different l I 4' characteristics would be when an emergency actually occurs 5 since they are subject to change and could change by events 1 6 that are beyond people's control or knowledge about. 1 7 Q But we've agreed, haven't we, that fear of a 8 . radiological emergency is extremely high in the United States, j 1 9 higher than the fear of any natural disaster as far as you 10 know? 11 A (Mileti) I believe what I said is I know that there '12 is data and research that ranks people's perceived risk of (~3 13 different hazards one to another. That most of the existing j L) 14 publications would conclude, and therefore I conclude that 15 people's perceived risk of radiological accidents are higher 16 than those of other accidents, but I don't remember the i 17 particular. quantity that that level of risk perception would 18 take. I'm willing to presu'me that it's high. I know that it's 19 high. 20-Q And it's not necessary, is it, in your view, that any 91 empirical research be done on the level of pre-emergency fear 22 that exists in the Seabrook EPZ for proper planning? That's 23 not a necessary -- that's not a necessary task. 24' A (M11eti) I think what's neces -- no, I don't think I 25 so. I think what's necessary is that the planning presumed O i V Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l [ L, u__ _-

l PANEL NO. 7.- CROSS 6446 K._/ 1-that it'could be high in an actual future emergency, as well as 2 that it could be low and recognize that it could change, and i 3 design an emergency warning system that maximizes the i 1 4 probability of being effective regardless of what configuration l l 5 that might have in the future. j I 6 Q Well, if you assume -- I'm a little puzzled by your ~ 7 assumption.that it's high and low. If you mean we'll assume an 8 average level of fear, aren't you going to be underestimating 9 the level of fear if the fear of a radiological emergency is f .10 empirically demonstrated to be very high in the United States? 11 A (Mileti) I'm sorry, could yor repeat that question? 12 I think f's 13 Q Well, maybe you just explained how it is that you are

Q 14 going to assume it's high and assume it's low in the design of 15 your emergency system.

16 A (Mileti) Well, I think we should presume that there 17 will be, because average -- the mean person doesn't respond to 18 disaster warnings; individuals do. And if we designed a 19 warning system on the presumption that fear was at a mean 20 level, either the national level or a local populations' mean i 21 level of perceived fear, there is variation in how people 22 perceive risk, for example. And that variation not only would 23 exist across a range today if we measured it today, it would 24 exist across a range in the future. And that our warning 25 system, or any warning system should presume that it can be, or /~T V. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 ._-________D

PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6447 .g W l try to address being effective for both people who have low 1 2 prior emergency risk perceptions as well as high prior, or pre-l 3 emergency risk perceptions. 4 So that regardless of what kind of human being is in 5 the EPZ, the emergency warning system can be, or maximize the h 6 probability of being effective for all of them. 7 JUDGE SMITH: Would this be a good time for a morning 8 break. 9 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes, we can take a break, sure. 10 JUDGE SMITH: Fifteen minutes, please. E151 11 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.) T152 12 JUDGE SMITH: You may proceed when you're ready. 13 MR. TRAFICONTE: Thank you, Your Honor. 14-BY MR. TRAFICONTE: 15 Q I'd like to push ahead and take up another line of 16 questioning concerning, Dr. Mileti, your view and discussion of 17 the TMI incident. Let's step back first. Let me ask you this. 18 TMI was a radiological emergency, wasn't it? 19 A (Mileti) Yes, I think it was. 20 Q You among others in your field have studied the human 21 response to TMI, haven't you -- haven't they, you and they? 22 A (Mileti) Different aspects of human response, yes. 23 Q In general, would you say that the human response to 24 the TMI emergency confirmed human response to other types of 25 emergencies, or was it in accordance with human response to O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6448 1 other types of emergency? 2 A (Mileti) I don't believe that anything that occurred 3 at.Three Mile Island would disvalidate the general principles 4 about what are the relationships between determinants of human 5 response and. actual response. The particular configuration, in l l 6 terms of what people did, may have been similar to or i 7 dissimilar to what people did in response to other emergencies. 8 Q Well, if I could just plug it into the testimony 9 earlier, the debate as to whether or not you can take the 10 principles we've learned from studying natural disasters and 11 use those principles in forming an adequate emergency plan for 12 a radiological emergency, that debate has one empirical example 13 in the United States to consider, doesn't it? 14. That's to say there has been an example of a 15 radiological emergency in the United States for the'-- in which 16 that debate, or with which that debate must be concerned. 17 A (Mileti) Let me just preface my response by saying 18 that I think one would take into account not just what's been 19 learned from human response to warnings of natural emergencies 20 and translate that to emergency preparedness for a nuclear 21 power plant, but rather, one would consider the entire data 22 base which would include some technological emergencies as 23 well, and one of those was Three Mile Island. 24 I think if we had a more elaborate data base 25 regarding emergencies at nuclear power plants, we wouldn't be O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

i u l PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6449 ) ry l x/ 1 ' discussing emergency planning for nuclear power plants. We 2 probably wouldn't have. nuclear power plants. j l 3 Q My point is that there is a set of one empirical 4 cases of radiological, significant radiological emergencies in 5 the United States. That's correct, isn't it? 6 A (Mileti) I think there may be a few -- a handful of 7 other emergencies one would want to consider. Certainly Three 8 Mile Island is the largest emergency that I know of that stands 9 out. 10 Q So it is significant, isn't it, in terms of the 11 . debate as to whether the principles of human response to 12 emergencies derived from the study of natural disasters can be r~; 13 carried'over into radiological emergencies? It is significant L) 14 for that debate what happened at TMI, isn't it? i 15. A (Mileti) I think that what happened at TMI is a 16 significant data point. I disagree with the premise that we're 17 just transposing knowledge from just looking at a subset of the 18 existing data base and limiting it to natural emergencies. We 19 have also studied other technological emergencies. 20 0 Well, let me put it this way then. The use of 21 information and knowledge we gain from nonradiological 22 emergencies being applied to radiological emergencies, you 23. don't have any problem vith that distinction? 24 A (Mileti) I like that better, thank you. 25 Q Fine. TMI would be a test case, wouldn't it, to see m Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

i PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6450 1. whether it is sound to use the principles we've learned, or the 2 knowledge we've learned from nonradiological emergencies and 3 ' apply that knowledge in planning for radiological emergencies? 4 A (Mileti) I can only answer that by saying that I 5 think TMI is an important data point that one would want to 6 consider. It's the antithesis of a test case in that nothing 7 was done right at TMI in reference to how one would go about 8 helping the public respond. 9 Q That isn't the thrust of my question, Dr. Mileti. 10 I'm not'asking you whether they did it right, or whether the 11 plans were adequate. I'm asking whether or not what happened, l'2 the human response to the TMI incident would be a test case for 13 those trying to study the applicability, or trying to determine '14 the applicability of the principles learned from the 15 nonradiological emergency field on to the emergency 16 radiological field. 17 A (Mileti) I thought I said that it was an important 18 data point one would have to consider. I don't know what you 19 mean by test case. I don't think it's a typical case. 20 Q As I said, it's the single empirical example we have 21 of significant human response in the United States to a 22 radiological emergency, isn't it? 23 A (Mileti) I agree it only happened once, yes, and 24 that there are no other events that I know of that approximate 25 it. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

vw + M 1 4 l if-W~ PANEL.NO. 7 - CROSS 6451 f q. 1, ! Q-' So',2for example, your view that bad ~1nformation -- 2- .strikeLthat. 3' zYour view that information is the key determinant of i

4

. human response to radiological' emergencies could be tested by 5 looking at~the human response to the TMI emergency. 6~ A (Mileti) I.believe it would be grossly inappropriate 7: 'not to include looking at what occurred at Three Mile Island in 8 making an assessment. I also concur that had I done a piece.of 9' 'research at Three Mile Island on public warning response, I j '10 would have looked at a raft of information variables to see how 11 lthey,would have related to measure them as a social scientist ~12 would. I think TMI is a very significant case. I don't think 13 it's'the only case that should be looked at. I think it's en 14; important case'that should be looked at. 15; Q Well, you discuss it at length in your testimony, e 16 . don't you? 17 A (Mileti) I discuss parts of what happened at Three 18 'M11e' Island in my testimony, yes, 19' Q Now, so the discussion is clear, can you give us a 20 definition of overresponse? 21 A (Mileti) In general, overresponse has -- is used as 22 a value judgment by those who would come in and judge the 23 behavior of.the public as responding in ways that are 24-disproportionate to what the person making the judgment would 25-have' considered in hindsight as a reasoned response in an Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4868 i ___-_-________a

l PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6452 l s l V l' 1~ emergency, and the converse is true for underresponse. ) 2' O All right, I understand-that's your definition. Then 4 3 I'm' going to provide another definition with which we can use 4 that term for the purposes of this testimony'if you will permit 1 5 me. 6 I'd like to define overresponse not in a pejorative i 7 sense, or in a valite sense, Dr. Mileti. I would like to define i 8 overresponse as human response that exceeds what the objective 9 situational'-- strike that -- the objective situation would 10 call for in an emergency. 11 So, for example, and I believe the literature uses 12 the term'in this way, if a certain portion of a population is (3 13 directed to' evacuate, and a different portion or a larger x) 14' portion evacuates, that would be overresponse by those not ' 1'S instructed to evacuate. I want to define the term that way, 16 and I am not making or attempting to make any value judgment 17 the way I would say that my children overrespond. I'm not 18 'trying to make any value judgment about that response. It's 19 just a -- I'm attempting to use it in descriptive fashion. 20 Can we agree that we'll be using that term that way? 21 A (Mileti) I'm happy to. I think that's -- 22 Q Fine. 23 A (Mileti) -- James Johnson, Jr.'s definition, and if 24 you want to use that one, I'm happy to. 25 Q Now it's the case, isn't it, that in natural A LJ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6453 disasters the literature makes quite clear that underresponse, 1 2 strike -- let me withdraw that question and do the same thing l 3 for underresponse although it's probably pretty obvious how we 4 were going to be using that term. 5 And likewise, underresponse would be a failure on the l 6 part of a relevant population to. respond in accordance with the 7 objective level of risk in its situation, and in accordance 8 with directions. 9 So, for example, if a portion of the population is 10 directed to evacuate because there is a real objective risk 11 present, and it does not, or a portion of that population does 12 not evacuate, that portion is underresponding. And again, no 13 pejorative sense of that term is intended. 14 We can use that term, can't ue, Dr. Mileti, with that 15 meaning? You've used in that meaning, haven't you? 16 A (Mileti) It's just that that was a very long 17 question, and I'm not sure what parts of it were included in 18 the question and excluded. 19 If what you mean by underresponse is people who were 20 advised to engage in a protective action and then don't engage 21 in it in time, yes, I'm willing to call that underresponse for 22 the purposes of our conversation this morning. 23 Q Well, that's certainly what I was trying to say. 24 Now it's a fact, isn't it, that the literature on 25 natural disasters -- strike that. k Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

Re "~ p N PANEL'NO. 7: CROSS 6454' N _., . LI ' " l1J The-literature on nonradiological disasters makes 21. clear that underresponse is essentially the problem for 13 ! - emergency planners; isn't th'at correct? D L 4 LA (Mileti) Some of the literature does, yes. L 5-Underresponse occurs sometimes, and sometimes it doesn't. And 6e overresponse' occurs sometimes'and sometimes it doesn't in 7' .nonradiological emergencies. .8 Q No,:I understand there may be-variation, but ~ 9 generally do you believe that underresponse.is.the predominant-10 ' problem'in regard to response to natural disasters? 11 A-(Mileti) .In general, thinking about the universe of ~ -12 all conceivable natural disasters,.I would say, yes, p l f")- 13 underresponse is a bigger problem than overresponse. v _ 14 'O Now was there underresponse or overresponse to the 15 radiological emergency at TMI? 16: A-(Mileti) To my way of thinking, there was both. 17 Q. . Well, in general, when you sum up all the parts of 18 the response, can you make a. general -- do you have a general 19 view as to whether there was over or underresponse? 20 A (Mileti) In using the terms as we have agreed to 21 define them today. 22 O Yes, yes. 23 -A (Mileti) In my view, I would say there was both, 24 0 Okay. Well, let's take the protective measure of 125 evacuation. It's a fact, isn't it, that at some point during Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 t

vnn-

; l '.

l AN'" us ? / J iPANEL'NO._7:- CROSS 6455' ? ?~ : 4 'N ~1; the-TMI incident children under five and' pregnant women within D 12 a,certain'distanceLfrom'the'TMI plant were_ instructed to 1 y c3 evacuate;Lisn't that' correct? 4 A' (Mileti)' That's one offthe protective action .5-recommendations that was made to the_public, but not the only 6' 'one, yes. i 17 >

Q-Well, it was.the only official recommendation made to

,8' .the' public, isn't that correct? L9 'A (Mileti) ENo, that's not correct. "10_ -Q What other-official instructions-to evacuate.were .11 + made'tolthe. point'in TMI? I' 112' A _ ( Mileti)' That's -- / 413L Q' By official,LI mean made by officials stated by 14 officials'of the' State of Pennsylvania _ Civil Defense, or the s, V i '15 : state 1 office generally,Latate offices. generally. 16 JA -(Mileti)' That's a different question than the last 17 'one that you asked. 11 8. -Q ~ Well,.then, let me limit it by that limiting 19 language. 120 A (Mileti) That was the Governor's advisory for -21 preschool-age children and pregnant women to evacuate. 22 Q Yes. '23; A Was the only official evacuation advisement issued. 12 4 ~ Q Now, as I understand the literature, that would have d 25-instructed 10,000 people to leave the area, approximately; Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I e x__ -_ _= _

PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6456 1 isn't that correct? 2 A (Mileti) Gosh, to the best of my recollection, I 3 think it was more like 2500 rather than 10,000, but I could be 4 wrong. n 5 Q I stand corrected. 6 And, in fact, upwards of 139,000 people evacuated, 7 didn't they? 8 A (Mileti) As I recollect it, it was a little bit 9 higher than that; closer to perhaps 144,000. 10 0 144,000. So we had an official recommendation to a 11 portion of the population that would total 2500, but we had an 12 actual evacuation totaling upwards of 144,000 people; is that 13 correct? ggg 14 A (Mileti) Yes. 15 Q Now, would you che.racterize that as overresponse? 16 A (Mileti) No, not given what I know. I have always 17 said and as I've said in my testimony I'm amazed that more 18 people didn't evacuate given the kind of risk information that 19 was going to the public during that emergency. 20 0 Well, let's talk about the information available to 21 the public during that emergency. I take it it's your view 22 from your testimony that it -- I think you called it the worst 23 information disaster in history. Is that a fair statement? 24 A (Mileti) Absolutely. I think that it was an 25 incredibly -- they made every mistake you could possibly make O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

wy.,. g p 1 .,M y j 4 N,_.,..

s. PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6457 v 4,y Md

< 1:- 11niterms'of public emergency information during Three Mile y j4

2 '-

LIsland. [ (3- + .- QL fAnd/who's the they? j 24? A-l(Mileti)'.Everybody.that was:giving_information to ~ Ihg ' 51 1the'public. 5 ,.6 .0' IWell,.who~is they? 4 7. A" '(Mileti) That emergency information came from a .8; ! variety ofLsources,7and.as I, and I've'tried'to outline in my 'u;s '9-testimony withia little more precision than-I'm -- maybe I -10 'should'just refer you to my testimony I'provided.on Pages, f 111 approximate 1'y'from 170 through 179, and then in the appendix an 12 . attempt to outline:the kind of emergency information that'was. s 1 1/"Y 13' going:out,;and emergency information went to the public from, A> 14. of course, the Governor's, office, but also civil Defense and ~ 1152 the national media:and a' variety of other sources. '16 .Q.- So we have, in fact,: the NRC was one of the -- 17; A' -(Mileti). Oh, absolutely, yes. 18 Q. -So!we have information made available to the public 19. 'from the NRC, from the news media, from the Governor's office, 20 from Civil Defense, perhaps even other sources. -21 A '(Mileti) I'm sure a raft of other sources, yes. '2 2 - Q And I take your testimony to be that the net result 23 of this was a confusing, conflicting set of information 124 provided to the public; is that a fair statement? 25) A (Mileti)' Yes, I agree with that. 0; Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 h;

L [ l s n b PANEL NO 7 ' CROSS 6458 -(~9 4\\, if 41

Q

-And in response'to the confusing, conflicting set of F b s1 2 ~ information, although only 2500 people were instructed to e 3; revacuta#, 144,000 people did evacuate. 4: Ai (M11eti) Yes. i 5 'Q2 In response to the conflicting information, is b 6- .that -- '7 A (Mileti) In response to the information that was 8 .available, yes. T + 39 Q And it's-your view that that conflicting information

10. -caused <all of the other people who were not instructed to E

11' : evacuate to evacuate.

12 A

(Mileti). Not just that it.was conflicting, but the LP-113. character of'the information that was available to the public -Q 14 about-what was.; going on, or not going on. 15 Q And it is your view that the pre-emergency fear of n jl6~ radiation.that you have acknowledged is high in the United 17 States is not the cause, or the determinant of why 144,000 18 people. evacuated instead of 2500? '19 A (Mileti) It certainly would have had a role, and ~ 20 it's'been empirically demonstrated that it had a role in 21 influencing people's situational perception of risk. And I l 22 might add that I would presume that whatever factors that might [ 23 influence how people form a situational perception of risk that 24 they bring into an emergency, as yesterday we defined as 25 receiver determinants, play a more outstanding role in forming ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ' / k

l l 1 PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6459 ) (' (-)4, l~ those situational perceptions when the character of public L 2 emergency information is poor as it was at Three Mile Island. l f l L 3 Q So I take that point to be that if information is j 4 poor, then pre-emergency fears can become more significant as a ) 5 determinant of~ response. 6 A. (Mileti)_ Absolutely yes. l 7 Q And the better the information the less a factor pre-8 emergency fear will be. j i 9 A (M11eti) I do believe that. I think -- I believe 10 I've stated it in my te'stimony. 11 Q Andrif the information is good enough, I take your 12 point to be that the pre-emergency fear will essentially play r~T 13 little to no role in the. response. ~.) 14 A (Mileti) Pre-emergency fear does not have a direct i 15 relationship to response. It would have its effect through 16 situational perceptions of risk. 17 O But it's something that planners can control by 18 designing an adequate information system. 19 A (Mileti) Well, you could call it control if you 20 want. I call it help. But I think that one can address the l 21 fact that in any population for any kind of hazard, be it 22 natural or otherwise, including technological, including 23 radiological, one must recognize beforehand in emergency plans 24 tnat there will be members of the population, or could be, who 25 are extremely fearful of a particuler hazard agent, and that p) i-s_ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6460 1 there could be people who have less fear than that. And that 3-the emergency warning system should be designed to help all 3 those people come to form the most accurate perceptions of risk 4 during the emergency as possible. I 5 0 If I can just press you for a yes or no, I'm going to 6 ask that question again. It's your view, isn't it, that good 7 information in an emergency information system can essentially 8 control for pre-emergency fear? 9 A (Mileti) Good information would reduce the effect of 10 pre-emergency fear in terms of impacting people's situational 11 perception of risk. That is, their situational perceptions 12 would be more the result of the information than the fear. 13 0 I'll take that as a yes answer from you. .O 14 A (Mileti) I'm happy to add a yes. E152 15 0 Okay. Then I can assume that your view of the T153 16 pattern of evacuation at TMI is essentially that pre-emergency 17 fear did play a role at TMI, and there wasn't a good 18 information to countervail against it. 19 A (Mileti) It's been statistically demonstrated that 20 pre-emergency fear did impact situational risk perception at 21 Three Mile Island. 22 Q And that there was no good emergency system to 23 countervail it. That's your view, isn't it? 24 A (Mileti) I've gone to great length to describe what 25 a horrible public emergency information system -- O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

l lh 1 O Right, so -- ~2 A (M11eti) -- public emergency existed at Three Mile 3 Island. 4 Q So it's your view then that in this instance because 5 the Seabrook plant has adopted an adequate emergency 6 information system in your view, the kind of response that 7 occurred at TMI will not happen again. It will not happen in 8 the event of an emergency at Seabrook. 9 A (Mileti) I think the probability, because of 10 emergency planning, of botching up public emergency information 11 in a future emergency at Seabrook is much lower, and therefore 12 as a consequence, public response would not take on the same 13 descriptive character as what was observed at Three Mile 14 Island'. 15 Q So what's called in the literature as spontaneous 16 evacuation, or evacuation of groups who were not ordered to j 17 evacuate or directed to evacuate would not occur in a Seabrook 18 emergency the way it occurred at TMI. 15 A (Mileti) Yes, and I think my testimony speaks to 20 that. 21 0 So I'm clear and the Board is clear, the sole 22 difference, in your view, or the key difference, in your view, 23 in what happened at TMI and what would happen at Seabrook if it 24 were licensed under the existing proposed plan is the quality 25 of the public information system; that's correct, isn't it? O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

i PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6462 { t 'O E x-[ 1 A (Mileti) Could you repeat that question? 2 Q Sure, sure. It's your view that the key difference c

1 3

between the human response at TMI and a human response to a 4 Seabrook emergency is based on the adequate information system l 5 chat you believe the.Seabrook' plan has in it? l 6 A (Mileti) If we're talking about the general public i i 1 7 response to warnings, then in general I agree, yes. i 8 Q All right, now, you're not aware that the utility has 9 proposed any controls of any kind over the news media in the 10 event of a radiological emergency, are you? 11 A (Mileti) No, and I'd be real surprised if they were 12 able to pull that off. .,~g 13 Q. Haven't you at some time proposed that a 40-mile band \\_/ 14 around -- in.the event of an emergency, there.should be a 40- '15 mile blackout area for news? Haven't you made that proposal at t 16 some point? 17 A' (Mileti) I don't ever remember in my career using 18 .the word " blackout". I would recommend, in general, that 19 emergency information be disseminated to as many people as 20 possible. 21 Q No, I'm not talking about dissemination. I'm talking 22 about cont'rol over nonofficial sources of information in the 23 event of an emergency. 24 You have recommended that there be a, which is my 25 term for a blackout, but you have recommended that there be an im'.,) Heritage F.eporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i i i

i i PANEL'NO. 7'- CROSS 6463 l q. kf 1 area where there.is control taken of local media, haven't you? 2 A (Mileti) I have to say honestly I don't recollect r 3 'that. What are you referring to? 4 0 .Well, as a matter of fact there will not be any l 5 control over the local media in the event of a Seabrook. 6' emergency, that's correct, isn't it? 7 A (Mileti) Again, I don't know. I'd be real surprised b 8' if there were such control. I don't think it would be possible 9 to pull off, and the emergency plan should presume that there 10 isn't such control. 11 Q Now, it's your view that at some point during the TMI 12 incident an NRC official, or perhaps more than one NRC 13 official, made public statements that had bad -- that included 7-} v l 14 some wrong information, and is part of the conflicting 15 information package that was presented to the public; isn't 16 that correct? 17 A (Mileti) Yes, as I recollect my testimony, it says 18 that the NRC said there was a hydrogen bubble that could 19 explode without explaining what explosion meant. 20 Q And I also believe it's your view that such a NRC 21-statement could happen again in the event of a Seabrook 22 emergency. 23 A (M11eti) I believe the public emergency information 24 system at any nuclear power plant, including Seabrook, should 25 presume that that kind of statement could in fact occur again. '(). Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l i 4

/1! L [: #$', 1 PANEL;NO. 7 - CROSS-6464 1 .p.fj% ("jd 41' "I donft know whether it.would be by.the NRC or not, but the 2i oddsiare pretty highJthat.somebody.else would make it. ?, 1 B3 ' ' Q Well~, but;the NRC is regarde'd'as a'very credible -e source,7 s it not, for.information concerning radiological 1 4 p i: JE emergencies? 4. 6 A (Mileti) -People's perception -- K' l T, 7 0 .That's;what I'm talking about-. F L 8 A. (Mileti). -- of the NRC varies. There are'some 9 people who1would regard it as highly credible. -In general, I 10 would say that information coming from the NRC in the future 11' would be interpreted as coming from an agency who certainly v 1:2 should know about nuclear' power plants, p n- .13 .Q. So the'public at risk that heard information from an u LL 14. NRC-official in the Seabrook -- strike that. .15 . People in the Seabrook EPZ who received information ' 16 ' from an.NRC official would find that information credible, 17 .wouldn't they?- 18' A (Mileti)' Some of'them would and some of them 19 'wouldn't. ~ People who heard it would certainly hear it. 20 ~ Q Now in the event of a Seabrook radiological ~21 emergency, wouldn't there be the same amount of conflicting and 22 _ contradictory information provided to the public in the EPZ as I' '23 had occurred at TMI? 24 A .(Mileti) I would be astounded that there would ever '25 - be an emergency at a nuclear power plant in this nation where Heritage Reporting Corporation { (202) 628-4886 l 1 f ) = -- \\

t' p R PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6465 _) 1. information was botched up ac bad as it was at Three Mile 2 Island. 3 However, to err on the side of caution, I believe L 4 that a public emergency information system as part of emergency 5 planning at nuclear power plants should presume that there will 6 be a. lot of conflicting emergency information in the public 7 domain. l [.. 8 Q If I can try to clarify this, your view essentially 9 is that if we can make the distinction between official and i 10 private confusion., at TMI there was official confusion and 11 private confesion in terms of sources of information. And you 12 would predict that in the event of an accident at Seabrook 13 there would again be private confusion in terms of information 0r-' 14 provided. Is the question clear? '15 A (Mileti) Let me see if it is, and I'll just explain 16 what I belleee it is, and I think I may have it. I 17 It would be my point of view that the public 18 emergency information system at Seabrook or any other nuclear 19 power plant presume that there will be conflicting and 20 potentially confusing public information available to the 21 public, and that some of that will come from neighbors and 22 friends and relatives. I presume that's what you mean by 23 private. And -- 24. Q Well, I meant the news media, too. Private in the 25 sense of anything other than official.. ('J T R m Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I

PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6466 1 A (Mileti) And I also would recommend that it be 2 ' presumed that information that's conflicting come from official 3 sources if by official you mean people who work in different 4 government agencies at different levels of government, or work 5 for different credible public institutions of other sorts. 6 0 And it's your view, in fact, it's your prediction 7 that all of those sources of information available to the 8 public would have -- would provide conflicting information 9 about what wculd be happening at the Seabrook plant in the s10 event of an emergency. 11 A (Mileti) I would have to hypothesize into the future 12 and into this imagined emergency that some of them would 13 confirm each other, and some of them would conflict with each 14 other, and who knows what the proportion might be. 15 0 And your testimony that the plan and the warning 16 system that exists then as being proposed '.s adequate, and your 17 testimony that predicts that human response will not be similar 18 to what happened at TMI is based on some notion that the public 19 -- strike that -- that the warning system, the emergency 20 warning system provided by the plan would control for all of 21 this other conflicting information which you believe will 22 exist; isn't that accurate? 23 A (Mileti) No, I wouldn't use the word " control for". 24 Q What's a better word other than control for? 25 A (Mileti) Take into account and recognize that it's O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

L PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6467 l ( 1 possible that it could occur. L ) [ 2 Q Well, but it's got to be a little bit stronger than 3 that, doesn't it, Dr. Mileti, because you believe the emergency l l 4 warning system is essentially going to unplug the effect of the l l 5 conflicting information that you acknowledged played a role in 6 response to TMI? l 7 A (Mileti) I don't know what you mean by the word 8 " unplug". My point of view as is stated in -- 9 Q It's not a technical term. 10' A (Mileti) Perhaps it is for an electrician. ) 11 My point of view is that, as stated in my testimony, 12 having an EBS system, and having the EBS messages repeated as ( S. 13 often as they would be, would focus most members of the U 14 public's uttention on that source of information. 15 Q No, I-understand that, but this is an important point i 16 so let me belabor it a little bit. 17 It's your view, and your testimony in your 18 predictions about how human beings are going to respond to a l 19 Seabrook emergency is based on this view, that an adequate ) l 20 emergency' warning system will -- I'm searching for a word other 21 than control -- counterbalance other conflicting information 22-made available to the public in the event of an accident at 23 Seabrook. That's your view, isn't it? 24 A (Mileti) I just can't agree with your 25 characterization of my view. My view is that an adequate ("T l \\-) l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

y s PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6468 J~~ IT / 1 public emergency warning system would do much to help people m 2 form perceptions of risk consistent with the best available 3' information presuming that that's the information going out 1 4 through that official warning system. 5 Q But your presumption here is that there is going to ) 6 be an official information system.that you have reviewed and 7 you find is adequate, and you have said here on the stand that 8 there is going to be conflicting information provided by a 9 whole host of other sources you have assumed that's going to be 10 going out to the public at Seabrook; that's correct, isn't it? 11. A (Mileti) ' Absolutely, and it's occurred in every 12 emergency.information system I've ever seen in an actual 13 emergency. 14 Q And that same mix of public and private information 15 .was made available to the population at TMI, wasn't it? i 16 A (Mileti) There wasn't an emergency public 1 17 information system at TMI. That was largely the problem. 18 Q And that's the point. That's the difference. That's 19 why you can predict, and you have predicted that if the 20 emergency warning eystem that you have reviewed is in place, 21 the response to the information mix will be different by the 22 population in the Seabrook EPZ; isn't that correct? 23 A (Mileti) In general, yes. However, let me correct 24 your presumption. 25 I have indeed reviewed the emergency public m.b-Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i 1 I . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ ~

m i u; PANEL NO. 7 --CROSS 6469 . l~\\ A/ 1 information system at Seabrook, and I made comments about how J 2 it'should be improved, and we went over some of those during my I 3 deposition. I mean, so your supposition that I accepted it as 4 it was presented to me was incorrect. j 5 Q Well, but your testimony says that essentially the i 6 emergency warning system that's in this plan is adequate, '7 doesn't it? 8 A (Mileti) The public emergency warning system in this 9-plan goes leagues beyond most public emergency warning systems, 10 and.that's because the regulations for emergency planning for 11: nuclear power plants took most of the sociological principlee 12 that I would. talk about into account in drafting those ~(') 13 regulations, but I've made recommendations that I think could %) '14 improve that information. 15 Q Well, let me follow that up then. I'll ask you two ] 16 questions. 17 Is the emergency warning system that's in the 18 Seabrook emergency plan adequate? 19 MR. DIGNAN: Objection. Now this is what I got to 20 yesterday. The adequacy or inadequacy of the public i 21 information program and warning system is not in this case. I i 22 It's not a contention that's live in this case. It was settled ] 23 by summary disposition. 24 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, if I could respond, and it .25 will be brief. (- \\._) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 a

PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6470 i,1 1 We're not contesting as a contention or independently 2 that it is or is not adequate in accordance with regulations. -3 We're trying to test the credibility of this witness' 4 prediction about human response to an emergency at Seabrook. 5 It's quite clear from his testimony that he is of the school of 6 sociologists who believes that the key determinant of response 7 to emergencies is information. That has now been made clear 8 many times, I think. 9 And if that's the key determinant, I think I'm 10 entitled to inquire on his view of the quality of that 11 information that's going to be provided under this plan. 12 JUDGE SMITH: Well, where -- is there anyplace in his () .13 direct testimony where he addresses the quality of -- U 14 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes, there is, Your Honor. If you 15 give me a minute, I'll find the reference. 16-Page 156 and following. Section C is entitled 17. Evaluation of Seabrook EBS Messager' in which he proceeds to 18 set forth the evaluation criteria r.e applies to the reading of 19 emergency messages. And on Page 157, there is a section 20 entitled Evaluation Results, and it follows for a few pages 21 where he presents his views on the quality of the emergency 22 messages, and I would just comment that I believe he provides 23 .those views because he believes it's important -- 24 MR. DIGNAN: I have no problem with examination on 25 this testimony about EBS, because among other things, as the t. / Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

-e ': i e > PANEL'NO. 7 - CROSS 6471 c7-5_/" 1 . Board is: aware;although it.will be handled in a separate panel,. '2 ' an'open contention in this case is notification and 3 communications, and.EBS:is part of that. If he wants to ex 4: restrict it to.the EBS,.that's fine. But that last question . as a blanket' question'of whether the overall system was 5. w

6-

. adequate, and that issue is not open. The EBS messages are' 7 .open because there is a-narrower issue still in the case of l .EF notification and communication. 5F MR..TRAFIC03TE: I was asking the' question not in the 10 legal sense, if I could refine it, and maybe that's our 4 p -11 . dispute.,'I'm not asking him whether he views the emergency 12 . warning system as adequate'under the NRC regulations. I'm D[r^N 13 'asking him as an; expert in information systems whether it's his 14 view that the information system proposed in the plan is 15 adequate 1and will therefore have the.effect on human response 16 'that he. believes information systems must have in order to 17 predict the kind of. response he's predicted. 18. MR._DIGNAN: Then-can the question be phrased without '19 the word " adequate", and.just.ask the direct question does he 20 believe'that it will be effective in dealing with this human 21 . response problem? He keeps throwing the word " adequate" -- l 4 22 MR. TRAFICONTE: That's fine. 23 MR. DIGNAN: -- in and out of the question. 24 MR.-TRAFICONTE: That's fine. It was a good - 25 suggestion. It was in fact the second question I was going to f-j I . U.: Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

j PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6472 't 1. ask. I withdraw the question about adequacy, and I'll put the 2 question this way, Dr. M11eti. 3 JUDGE SMITH: It just shows the value of I 4 procrastination in ruling. l i 5 (Laughter.) 6 JUDGE SMITH: It seems to work out. I 7 BY MR. TRAFICONTE: 8 Q Do you believe that the emergency warning system as 9 it exists now in the Seabrook plan will have the effects on 10 human response to a radiological emergency at Seabrook that you 11 have described in your testimony? 12 A (Mileti) I can only answer that question in this 13 way. I only looked at those portions of the emergency public r3 (J 14 information system that I could comment on from my area of l 15 expertise. And I'm not sure that what I saw was in fact what's 16 in the plan. I've never seen the plan. I've seen paper, and 17 I've had discussions with people. I presume what they told me, 18 and the paper that I saw came from the plan, and I can't split 19 hairs and say if I saw an area where something in my opinion 20 could be improved, that would -- is absoltdely necessary. 1 21 What I can say is I reviewed different parts of the j 22 public emergency information system. I saw arenas in which I l 23 thought improvement could go on, and I let people at the 24 utility know about that. 25 0 Well, let me just push on that a little bit, Dr. tN I C/ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

3 1 PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6473 - - r3 Cf 1 Mileti. 2 I understand the basis of your testimony, and correct 3-me if I'm wrong, to be that in light of the emergency warning I' 4 sydtem'in the Seabrook emergency plan, in light of that 57 emergency warning system, and in light of your knowledge and 6 views concerning the impact of information on human response to e -7 a radiological' emergency, or to emergencies in general, you are G predicting and you're testifying here as to how the population 9 'in the Seabrook EPZ is. going to respond to a radiological .10. emergency at Seabrook. Now that's correct, isn't it? Y 11 Jr (Mileti) Yes. 12 Q And is it your testimony that you have not reviewed 13-in detail nor.were you asked to review in detail what that (~)j 14 emergency warning system, and what the information provided to 15i. the public in the emergency plan is? I l 16 A (Mileti) I thought I just said that I reviewed 17-information. I just can't say that I know for sure that it's 18' in the plan. I can't believe that they, for example, would 19 have provided me with EBS messages to review that they had no 20 intention'of using. But I have to presume that they were in 21 the plan. I never physically had something that said "the 22 plan"., and then turned to the portion that said,

example, EBS

] l 23 messages". l 24 0 Well, in your own mind have you put your arms around 25 all of the informational components of this plan? Can you say j { (\\ \\_/ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l I

j? I j PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6474 i 1 j ) 1 'you'have reviewed all the parts of this plan that involve the p 2 information being made available to the public? n 3 A (Mileti) I certainly haven't reviewed decibel levels 4, on-sirens, and that's emergency information, but I have no l 5 expertise. I have to presume that people would be able to hear 6 the sirens, because l'mean I -- in order to get NRC license, I l 7 thought they had certain regulations about that, but I'm not an-8 expert on some aspects. ) 9 Q Let me put it this way. It's a fact, isn't it, that 10 what you are really testifying to is that your understanding of 11 the NRC regulations and the requirements for an adequate -12 emergency plan, your understanding of those regulations is such t. r3 13 that if a plant is licensed in accordance with those Qf 14-regulations, and I'm speaking generically, if a plant is 15 licensed in accordance with those regulations, it's your view, 16 isn't it, that the information provided to the public in those '17 circumstances is going to be an adequate emergency information 18 system and will override, as we've discussed -- I've just come 19 up with another verb -- will override the effects of the other 20 determinants of response? That's the character of your 21 . testimony then, isn't it? 22 A (Mileti) No, I don't agree with that. I was -- l 23 0 So it is not a general -- it is not a generic point 24 you are making. You are saying that this particular emergency I 25 evacuation system -- strike that -- emergency information / l~ Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l l-

p ([ J PANEL,NO. 7 - CROSS 6475 (,) 1 system is going tolhave-the effect that you predict.

2 A

-(Mileti) I believe that the regulations that are 3 . generic to all nuclear plants take a huge, giant step toward 4 installing things that are important; for example, the 5 existence of an EBS system. '6-My judgment, in reference to this testimony, is based 7 on the supposition that the emergency information presented y r 8 through the EBS system to the public is as good as I could 9 imagine it, because I think I have an expertise that's useful 10 and has an impact, and it presumes that my comments are in fact

ET153 11 taken into account.

iT154 12 'O It's a fact, isn't it, that the only components of r3 13' the plan that we're litigating here that you have reviewed are () 14 the EBS messages; that's a fact, isn't it? 15 A (Mileti) No, I don't believe that. There were pre-16 recorded messages that aren't EBS messages. 17 Q I'm sorry, I didn't hear that answer. 18 A (Mileti) There are pre-recorded messages that are 19 not EBS messages per se. There are the actual EBS messages. 20 There are other aspects of the public warning system as well. 21 Q Well, I'm not asking what other aspects there are. p .22 I'm asking what you have reviewed. I'm asking you what have 23 you reviewed that forms the basis of your testimony that human 24 response at Seabrook will be as you described. 25 A (Mileti) The character and form of public 13 t i v Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l

J p PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6476 ). ws 1 information as it will be disseminated to the public through 2 the EBS' system. 3 Q No, I'm asking a more specific question. 4 What documents, what information packets, if you 5 will, what kinds of things have you reviewed that form the 6 basis-for your judgment the human response at Seabrook will be '7 as you described? i 8 A (Mileti) I reviewed all the EBS messages I was 9 given. I presume they were part of Rev. 2 of the plan. 10 Q Okay. You don't know that they were, or you don't j_ 11 know one way or the other? 12 A (Mileti) I believe that they were. I can't say I /w 13 know that for a fact. U 14 Q Now, you reviewed these. Now, when did you conduct 15 this review? 16 A (Mileti) I conducted more than one review of the EBS 17 messages. 18 Q When did you conduct those reviews? 19 A (Mileti) I did my first review prior to my 20 deposition. I did other reviews after a visit to the planning 21 headquarters. I don't remember when it was except that I was 22 there the week the stock market hit its height. And I -- maybe 23 that was August. And then I suspect in between then and now, I 24 may have offered some more comments, but the bulk of my 25 comments came after my review after the stock market peaked. } Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 a

PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6477 1 Q And that was after your deposition? 2 A (Mileti) Yes, as I recollect. 3 Q As far as you know have the EDS messages that are in 4 the plan been changed to reflect your review? 5 A (Mileti) I have no idea. I presented my -- as I say 6 in my testimony -- the current EBS messages are currently 7 undergoing review in light of what I think constitute the ideal 8 type for warnings for the public of this sort, and I presume 9 that someone.is considering my recommendations.. 10 Q All right, let me get at this this way. 11 When you reviewed them at the different times that 12 you did, did you form the judgment that as presented to you '13 they were going to be -- they were of a certain quality that 14 they would cause the kind of human response that you predicted 15 in your testimony? 16 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, could I object in terms of 17 repetition? I call the Board's attention to 157 to 159 of the 18 direct. If it isn't asked and answered, it's awfully close to 19 asked and answered in there. 20 MR. TRAFICONTE: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the rest of 21 Mr. Dignan's comment. I missed it. Would you say what you 22 said again? 23 MR. DIGNAN: Asked and answered in the direct. The 24 witness spells _out what his views of the messages were, and the 25 fact that he did recommendations, and the fact that they are O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

,r PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6478 1 "Y I v./ 'l 'being reviewed. i 4 2 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, that wasn't my question. I'm 3 not asking him what his views of those messages were. 4 MR. DIGNAN: Then I misheard your question, Mr. 5 Traficonte, and I apologize. 6-MR. TRAFICONTE: My question is more precise than 7 that. 8 BY MR. TRAFICONTE: 9 Q I'm not asking you for what your reviews were. I'm 30 asking you'whether you formed the judgment at the time you read 11 these messages that they were good enough to have the impact on 12 human response that you have predicted in your testimony, 13 A (Mileti) Well, I've written my testimony after all 14 my' reviews of the EBS -- well, in the process of doing it. The 15 first time I read the EBS messages I was astoundingly pleased 16 with how precise the messages were able to address one of the 17-major problems in getting emergency information to the public, 18 and that is what areas need to engage in protective actions and 19 which areas don't, and I thought that was a very good 1 20 accomplishment that not many other utilities are able to do 21-that easily. And I thought the messages were good. 22 I reviewed them subsequent to that, and had other L 23 opinions about how they could even be improved better. And in 24 my testimony say that once honed to more closely follow what I 25 consider to be the ideal types of emergency information, these [ h Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i L

_-_o

D..

4l PANEL' NO. 7 -- CROSS. -6479 . ().1_ - 1-prototypical attributes, I think the EBS messages for the-2 LSeabrook; station'will provide the listening public a most solid t 3-; footing from which to base. sound decisionmaking. 4-Q What page were you reading from? I'm sorry. 5 A (Mileti). I'm looking at Page 159. 6. And so if you think my judgments about emergency 7 public information are-important, the answer is yes, I 8' wouldn't have made them.if I didn't think they were important. I 9 Q No,-it's even more global than that, isn't it, Dr. 10- ;Mileti? -It's.your. view that information provided to the public '~ 11 in the form of an emergency warning. system is, in the~first 12 instance, the key' determinant:of human response? 13 'A ((Mileti) Yes, I believe that. 14 Q: And in the second instance, going to countervail or 15 countermand or counterbalance all of the other conflicting 16'

information in-the'information soup, as you call it, that's out 17

'there in the Seabrook EPZ. J EU A (Mileti) I would say help overcome. . ell", but overcome, not just help overcome; it's ,19 Q W 20 going to overcome the ot her conflicting information. 21 A. -(Mileti) I can't say that it's going to overcome all 22 of.it. It would certainly help overcome it for most people. 23 Q Okay. 'Well, it will overcome the other conflicting 24-information to.an extent sufficient to ensure that your 25-predictions about human response to a Seabrook emergency are ti ( (_/L t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

Wi; I PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6480 gg - p (-? 1 going ~to be' accurate. That is to say, it will not look like 0 2 another TMI. 3) A (Mileti) I do believe that, yes. 4 Q~ So it's not just help overcome. These emergency -- 5- .the emergency warning system is going to overcome both all the 6' other' determinants'of human response, and the fact that there. p. 71 :is going to be other conflicting information provided to the 81 public. c 9. MR.,BACHMANN: Objection.. That question has been-10- ' asked and answered a' number of times. We are just going.over 11 the same ground over'and over again, 112 JUDGE SMITH: What do you think? p js 13 MR..TRAFICONTE: I don't think it's the same ground. 14 I'm trying to make this very clear, because I think this runs '15 directly.to the issue of the strength of this witness' 116 Generalizations and predictions about human response. I think this is a very important point.about the strength of what he 17 t =18 .said about-how people are going to respond in-this EPZ. 19 MR. DIGNAN: I want to join the objection, and say 20 that if anybody has any doubt as to Dr. Mileti's views as to 21 the cffect of-his views as to what good emergency information 22 can do in his judgmente they just haven't been here for the 23-last two days. He's arewered this question not just a couple 24 of-times this morning, he answered it yesterday, and it's about 25 the fourth time this morning. I join the objection. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

p ([l

I

[ ,M4 f e r PANEL'NO. 7 - CROSS 6481 75 [ls)l ~ 1 ' JUDGE SMITH:' How does -- as we understand the -2 ' distinction that you are making now is what is the 3-proportionate role of'the EBS information or the emergency 4 information in overcoming the effects.of other sources of .5-. Information, what is the proportion. .} -6 And:I don't know, it just'seems:like there still is a '7 disjoinder between your question and the answers that he is 8 trying to makeLit clear that for most people there will be an 9 effective remedy against misinformation and now you are = 10 ' exploring that degree, is that it? Or I don't know,.I've lost 1 El l ' it, frankly.; ~12 2 MR.,TRAFICONTE: I think it's the position of this 9/ y . 13, expert that the publ-ic information provided by the emergency . q). 9 14 . warning system will sufficiently overcome the other conflicting 15~ information in-the soup that's provided to the public as well p' 16-as-overcome the other determinants that he acknowledges that 17-can.cause response to emergency so that, as he's testified, 18 Lwhat happens in a Seabrook emergency will not look like what t .19 happened in a TMI emergency. I think that's -- 20 JUDGE SMITH: And he's testified, it seems to us that l 21' he's testified'several times that that alone will not 22 accomplish that purpose. 23 MR. TRAFICONTE: Will not accomplish that purpose. 24 JUDGE SMITH: That standing alone. It will help. It 25. will be a factor, but standing alone it will not. l0 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I

~ 5 PANEL'NO. 7 - CROSS 6482 7,\\_)! -1 MR. TRAFICONTE: Let me ask him that. 2 DY MR. TRAFICONTE: 3 Q. Will that alone accomplish that purpose, if you 4 followed our colloquy? 5 A (Mileti) I'd like my question to define what that 6 is, please. 7. Q 'Will the emergency warning information sufficiently 8 control for these other factors, including conflicting 9 information that you have acknowledged will exist, and the 10 other determinants that we have been discussing? ~ 11 A (Mileti) In my belief, and I honestly do believe th's, that good emergency public information will be the major i 12 (m., 13 factor that determines what the public does in an emergency, LJ 14 and'that it can help remove the constraints of other factors 15 including fear, but also factors like sex. We can help both 16 men and women who need to, for example, form certain 17 -perceptions of risk, form them independent of their sex, if we 18 devote attention to honing public emergency information. i 19 If we ignore the important role of information, those 20 other factors will play a larger role. 21 Q I understanding, Mr. Mileti, but we're really talking 22 about degree here. I don't think anybody quarrels with help. 23 The verb to help the response, or to help mitigate is not the i-24 point. It's your testimony that the information provided is 25 going to control, sufficiently control the other determinants. 4 \\ >T I /~ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

~v y u m n PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6483 .ff a. G- - 1. - It's'.'not a matter of helping; it's a matter of actually 2- .sufficiently controlling for the other determinants. '3 MR.;DIGNAN: I object. The witness specifically (' 4 rejected that word " control" when it was put to him the first 57 time, and now we're examining on the assumption that not only rc 6 has he accepted it, but he's used.it. I haven't heard him say 7 it yet. l 8 JUDGE SMITHi .No. 9 'MR. TRAFICONTE: I don't think that's an important 10~ dispute, Mr. Dignan, is the control, or countervail, or 11: counterbalance. I don't think we are having a serious dispute l 12 on that point. t '/5 13 JUDGE SMITH: This time, this' time his answer also -U 14 indicated that it was, as he used.the word " major", which 15 implies.not in itself total, and.what you mean by control, I 16 don't know. We'd better ask him. To me, control means 17 - standing alone, it.would accomplish the effect. 18 MR. TRAFICONTE: Let me'put the question this way. 19 JUDGE SMITH: He's rejected that at least twice now. 20 MR. TRAFICONTE: Let me put the question this. way. 21 BY MR. TRAFICONTE: 22 Q Let's imagine this plant gets licensed with the plan rT 23 as proposed, and there is a radiological emergency that occurs. 24 Will human response in the EPZ resemble what happened 25' at TMI? h Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 \\ -_ _ __ ___ __D

i PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6484 l 1 A (Mileti) I can't imagine that it would. 2 Q And is the reason why it will not because of the l 3 nature'of the information system that's in this plan? l 4 A (Mileti) A large part of it would be. I would also 5 want to include the recommendations I made regarding the words 6 that are spoken to the public through the EBS system be taken 7-to heart. 8 Q Well, that's what I mean by the emergency warning 9 system. 10 Are you distinguishing between the emergency 11 -information system and the EBS messages? 12 A (Mileti) The EBS messages are part of the emergency 13 information system, but not all of it. 14 Q Have you reviewed any other parts of the emergency 15 information system other than the EBS messages? 16 A (Mileti) Yes, how many -- yes, I have. 17 Q Those are the recorded messages you mentioned? 18 A (Mileti) The number of radio stations that it would 19 go out over, and some of them would be recorded. 20 0 When you reviewed these ELD messages, Dr. Mileti, you 21 had some reservations, did you not, about what you call the 22 dimension of credibility of the sender? That's right, isn't 23 it? 24 A (Mileti) I think I called it naming who the EBS 25 message was from in the message. () Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

t 1 Li PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6485 l f^ i. 1 E/ 1 Q Well, the source, in other words. l 2 A (Mileti) The source, yes. l l 3 Q. The source of the'information. Source is one of the 1 4 sender determinants, in your view, isn't it? l 5 A (Mileti) Yes. ) l 6 O And it's'an important component of how information is l l 7 Lreceived by the public, isn't it? I 8-A (Mileti) It's one of the factors that affects the 9. believability of emergency warnings as well as response to 10 ' emergency warnings. 11-Q So that in terms of the content of a message, we 12 could sit here and read the words of the EBS message, and you rN 13 could sit there_and say, this is an excellent, ideal-type () 14' message, but another component of how that public will receive 15 those_words is the ascribed source of that message. That's the 16 thrust of your testimony, isn't it? 17~ A (Mileti) In general, yes. 18 Q And one of the elements as to how it receives that j 19 information is the credibility of the source. 20 A (Mileti) What's important is credibility of the 21 emergency information, and one of the factors that affects that 22 is the credibility of the source. 23 Q So the answer is yes, it's the credibility of the 24 source that plays a role in how the information that you have 25 reviewed is going to be received by the population in the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ) l l

PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6486 7, C/- 1 Seabrook EPZ? 2 A (Mileti) Credibility of the source is one of the '3 factors'that affects credibility of the information, and that's 4 one of the factors that affects believability of the 5 'information. 6 O So'the answer is yes? 7 A (Mileti) Through the sequence I have just traced 8 out. 9 Q Which I think is exactly the sequence that I said. 10 A (Mileti) If it is, I'm happy to agree to it. 11 Q Okay. Now you had some concerns, did you not, when 12 you reviewed the EBS messages as to the credibility.of the (~3 13 source for those messages? %) 14 A (Mileti) No, I had a concern that it didn't name a ~ 15 source. 16 0 Well, wouldn't that impact on the credibility then? 17 A (Mileti) It could have an impact on the credibility 18 of the emergency information. 19 Q Well, that's what I said. It would impact on the 20 credibility by not -- by the failure to name a source. 21 A (Mileti) But I've distinguished between the 22 credibility of one source and the credibility of the 23 information, and that's an important technical distinction. 24 Q Well, it might be to you, but the point here is that 25 there is the credibility as an important component on how the n(-) Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 l a-=____

gn-------- u a PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6487 Kg/ 1 public receives this information. That we've agreed on. 2 -A (Mileti) Credibility of the emergency information, 3 yes. 4 'Q. As a function of the credibility of'the source of 5 that information. 6-A '(Mileti) That's'not the only factor that affects the 7 credibility. 8 Q -It is a factor. I think we are hairsplitting, and 9 I'm not trying to do it. 10 JUDGE SMITH: I think you're being just a little bit ~11 too wary here, although I don't advise you to drop all 12 wariness. But I really think that the question is simple. You -<3 .13 acknowledge that the source is a factor in assessing the .N) -14 credibility of the information. '15 Now the question, as I understand it, is quite -16 simple. If you have no source, does not the absence of the 17 . source also influence the credibility of the information? 18 THE WITNESS: (Mileti) Oh, yes. I would totally 19 agree with that statement. 20 MR. TRAFICONTE: Why don't you agree when I say. 21 MR. DIGNAN: Could I point out something, Your Honor? 22 The witness is acting wary, and I don't blame him. 23 I'll tell you why. The series started this way: Dr. Mileti, 24 you h'ad some concern about the credibility of the source of the 25 EBS messages. The answer was, my concern was there was no f") j \\~) l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 s s

PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6488 ' (m. s/ 1 source. And then bang, off we went. In other words, the thing 2 wholly flipped. 3 Now, he may be wary, but I hope he is. 4' MR. TRAFICONTE: He's certainly been instructed to 5 be. 6 JUDGE. SMITH: We want him to be careful. L '7 MR.'TRAFICONTE: As I -- 8 JUDGE SMITH: But he does seem to have a tendency not 9 to want'to accept the language of the question and his answer. 10 You know, he is very, very wary and he wants the answer back in 11 his words, and it makes the cross-examination more pro]onged. 12 It makes.it more difficult for Mr. Traficonte, but he's being 13 careful and we're not faulting him for it. ^. ()3 x. 14 BY MR. TRAFICONTE: 15 Q Now, it was your opinion when you reviewed these EBS 16 messages, because of the fallure to assign any source to the 17 . message, that that was a problem in terms of their impact on 18 the population that would receive them; that's correct, isn't 19 it? 20 A (Mileti) It would have an effect on how the 21 population received it, yes. 22 Q Well, it would make it less effective. 23 A (Mileti) Yes, I would have to, in general, agree 24 with that. 25 Q And it would make it so much less effective that you AV l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

[.d s OU 2 i h 0 p bi PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6489 ,,nc. (-) 1.

wouldn't be'able to predict that this information would have

{ f

2 the magical effect that you have described in your testimony 3

and countervail the'other-influences; isn't that correct? H 4 A- '(Mileti) No, I can't'say that, and I can't be that. 5: precise.about taking.one little bit of emergency information 6L and' changing it and making a projection about.how that would 7 affectshuman response. I -- o s D '8 -Q But believability-is -- I'm sorry. 9: .A =(Mileti)- I only feel comfortable saying given 10 everything'that's known about how best to put public emergency w 11' information out, taking advantage of everything that's'known, -12 that'the kind ofiestimates I would make about emergency 2 j"S" 13

response by.the:public in an emergency at Seabrook would hold.

f ' ~ 14 Q-Well, let me put it.this way. When you reviewed.the i 15 EBS messages and you realized there was no ascription of 16 ' source, did you say to the client, or-to the utility, well, you 17 have not ascribed any. source for this information, but that 18 doesn't matter? 'You can go ahead and use them as they are, and 19 'I'll still testify that the effect will be sufficient to cause 20- 'the Seabrook response to be different from the TMI response. 21 A (Mileti) No, sir, I did not say that. 22 Q. You did not. You in fact said, did you not, that l ' 23 they should change the way they are proposing to disseminate 24 the EBS message, and ascribe a source? 25_ A (Mileti)- I told them they need to put source in, l ( 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation 1 (202) 628-4888 i I

i+ V ? PANEL NO. 7'- CROSS 6490- ^^i l I (,) 1 .yes. 2L Q' Yes,'and did they~do that? P-3: A (Mileti) -It's my sense that they're-taking that p 4 recommendation to heart right now, and' addressing it. I don't .5 know -- I 4 'Q. No, I didn't ask.you whether they're going to address E 6 I 7 it. I. asked you did they do it. Is'the EBS message that we're 1 8' litigating as part of the plan here, does it ascribe -- those 1 4 l '9 EBS messages, do they ascribe -- do they ascribe the y F 10 information to a source? 11 A' (Mileti) If you're going to ask.me.about a 12 particular EBS message, I'd kind of'like to see it, but the f- ' 13 ' sense is -- .\\ p 14' Q I'd like to ask you about all of them together, any 15 one of them. 16 A (Mileti) If.we're going to talk about particular 17 sets of EBS messages, I'd like to see them. It's my sense that 18 the versions of the EBS messages that I saw did not have source ~19 ' attributed to'them. 20 Q I understand that, and my question was you then I 21 recommended that a source be ascribed in order for the 22; information system to be made better. And-now I'm asking, was 23 that done, and I'm asking you that question. 24 A (Mileti) I.think it was. You probably would be '25 better off asking -- h Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i a=

t r, V PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6491 /- \\ (_)- 1 Q Well,'I understand that, and I'm going to ask Mr. 2' Callendrello that question in.a minute, but I'm asking you do 3 you know whether or not that was done? 4 A-(Mileti) I've been working with people at the J 5 utility on EBS messages, and I have the sense that it is being 6 done. 7' Q You had the sense. Do you know whether it has been 8 done? 9 MR. BACHMANN: Objection. This question has been 10 asked and answered so many times. 11 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I think -- all right, I think 12 that that's the best answer he can give. I mean, he cannot 13 state with the level of certainty that you would extract from - (') 'J 14 him that it has been done, and yet he's selected a word which I 15 think is responsive. 16 MR. TRAFICONTE: Fine. 17 MR. DIGNAN: And could I remind the Board of 18 something else? 19 It's the age-old problem. To the extent that these 20 messages are part of the plan, there are only certain people i 21 who can answer definitively that it is going to be done, it's 22 not going to be done or not, and it's not my people. I have 23 instructed them, incidently, Your Honors, as long as they 24 preface it with "My opinion is it should be," it's okay, but 25 we're chasing this guy who is sitting over there as r's U Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6492 q. Elt / 1 Callendrello. I don't know. Supposedly we want to move 2-along. T155 3 MR..TRAFICONTE: I'm going to proceed. I believe 4 this is important, and I'm not' going to reargue the point that i 5 we're not chasing the adequacy of the messages here, but we're 6 attempting to go to the _ source of this expert's judgment that 7. this plan is adequate, and that the human response is going to 8 be as he described in his testimony. 9 BY MR. TRAFICONTE: 10 Q liow, if they have not taken your advice and ascribed 11 a source to the messages you reviewed, are you still prepared 12 to sit here and say that the emergency plan will have the /j 13 impact, the emergency information provided will have the impact U-14 on the Seabrook population that you describe in your testimony? 15 A (Mileti) As I -- in essence, in my testimony it says 16 once honed to more closely follow the ideal sorts of message 17 attributes that I made recommendations on. My testimony is 18 based on the fact that those revisions are made. And, yes, it 19 would include identifying source as I recommended. 20 Q Okay. So it has to ascribe the source to be adequate 21 from your expert view, in your expert view. 22 A (Mileti) There is just too much empirical evidence 23 suggesting that that's important to overlook it. 24 Q So the fact is whatever the circumstances are if the 25 messages ascribe a source, your view is they could be adequate. (sb u \\ Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 i I ..w

p PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6493 o + - -sj

1 If they don't, they can't be adequate.

2 A' (Mileti) No, I wouldn't agree with that, because I 1:3 didn't recommend a source. I recommended multiple sources. 4 Q Okay. Now, Mr. Callendrello, do the messages as they l '5 are now proposed in the plan ascribe a source, or a series of 6 ' sources? l 7 (Pause.) l 8' A (Callendrello) In the sense that I believe Dr. L 9 Mileti means a source, which is this message is coming from 10, whatever, the governor, New Hampshire Emergency Management, 11 that statement is not contained in the messages as they exist 12 in Revision 2 of the plans. x 13 However, there is mentioned in there of the fact that i ) w/ 14-State of New Hampshire Civil Defense and public health 15-officials are responding. There is no indication that that is 16 the source of the information, however. '17 Q So you essentially did not, or the utility did not 18 take up Dr. Mileti's suggestion; is that a fair comment? 19 A (Callendrello) I -- 20 MR. DIGNAN: Excuse me, excuse me. Could I have that l 21 question again? L 22 MR. TRAFICONTE: I can restate it if you want me to 23 restate it. 24 MR. DIGNAN: Thank you. 25 BY MR. TRAFICONTE: 7"% 1 i) l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L - --------- _i

PANEL'NO. 7 - CROSS 6494 s. / 1 Q You have not then, the utility has not taken up Dr. 2 Mileti's recommendation then, has it? 3 MR. DIGNAN: I object. Rev. 2 is Rev. 2 is Rev. 2. 4 He was asked about the plan, Rev. 2 and read out of it. What 5 has that got to do with whether or not the utility has taken 6-the recommendation? 7 JUDGE SMITH: Is that a separate question? 8 MR. TRAFICONTE: Pardon me? 9 JUDGE SMITH: Is it a separate question? 1 10 MR. DIGNAN: If it is, it shouldn't have the "then" 11 in it. 12 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, let me go back. Im 13 BY MR. TRAFICONTE: () 14 Q Dr. Mileti, you made a recommendation, did you not, 15 after review of the EBS messages and Rev. 2, that they be 16 ascribed to a source? 17 A (Mileti) I made the recommendation that sources be 18 identified in the EBS messages, and I presume those were the 19 Rev. 2 EBS messages. 20-Q Well, you're not even sure that -- strike that. 21 A (Mileti) I've already said I don't -- l 22 Q-Yes, strike that. I withdraw that gratuitous 1, 23 comment. 24 You made that recommendation to the utility, did you 25 not? q %l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 =_

PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6495 1 A (Mileti) Yes. 2 Q Now,'Mr. Callendrello, are you aware of that 3 recommendation? 4 A (Callendrello) Yes, I am. 5 Q And did the utility act on that recommendation and 6 -ascribe sources to the EBS messages? 7 A (Callendrello) Yes, now with the qualifier that 8 the -- all of the suggestions, all of the ideas that Dr. Mileti 9 had for improving the messages were incorporated into a draft 10 message. As I've stated previously, the utility does not 11 control the plan. That is the' State of New Hampshire's plan. 12 The suggestions from Dr. Mileti, the improvements are in a 13 draft form. They have not yet been reviewed by the State of 14 New Hampshire, nor have they been made any formal amendment to 15 the. plan. 16 MR. TRAFICONTE: I would like to make a request of 17 counsel that we be provided the most recent versions of the 18 draft EBS messages, if we might have those. 19 Not now, necessarily, but -- unless you have them 20 now. 21 BY MR. TRAFICONTE: .22 Q Mr. Callendrello, you answered my question yes, that 23 you did act on the recommendation and you ascribed the EBS, and 24 the messages as now drafted ascribe the information to, I 25 believe the answer is a source, or sources? Can you clarify O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

1 crz:~ s e i ~' PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6496 j . bp-{k. ~1- 'that?- g s ~. !2 A' (Callendrello) No, I don't have the messages in H- -3 = front of'me. p. [ 4 Q' Is it also a fact that you don't -- also don't know . hich it is? .5 w I 16 A (Callendrello) I.would.know if'I could sit down -- ff 7; Q No, as I would if I could read them. But I'm saying. 8 .you don't happen to know as.part.of your planning j SF ' responsibilities how they are presently worded. ~10 A. -(Callendrello) No, I don't recall that. V .Q- -Who would know that? Ils \\ 12' A' (Callendrello) I believe Dr. Mileti has stated he's ) . /~5 ' 13 ; reviewed the messages. Ju) and he said when he reviewed'them, they were not 1 14: Q

Yes,

'15 ascribed.tosa source, and he recommended that they be ascribed 16-to a~ source, because it impacts on the credibility. 17 A' (Callendrello) I believe what he stated was-that the 18~ Revision 2 messages he reviewed were not ascribed to a source, c 19. but he made that suggestion and then, in turn, has reviewed 20' . subsequent. drafts of EBS messages. 21 Q Oh, okay, Maybe I misunderstood, i 22 Dr. Mileti, in the redrafts that you, or the further L23 drafts that you reviewed of these messages, were there then

24 ascriptions of the messages to a source, or sources?

'25 A (Mileti) Yes. j L Heritage Reporting Corporation { (202) 628-4888 j 3

t-i l PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS-6497 1 Q-And what was that source or sources? ^ 2 A' (Mileti) I'm sorry, I don't remember today. 3 Q Well, what did you recommend? What had you 4 recommended? 5 'A (Mileti) When I reviewed -- l l ~6 Q Yes, initially. 7 A (Mileti) The. initial drafts. I recommended that the 8 EBS messages make reference to multiple sources; that those 9 -multiple sources, there is not a protypical list of multiple 10 sources that have to.be there, but that it would be nice if 11 there could be as identified as a source of the EBS messages a 12 group of people which would include those who would know in gey 13 logical sense about the risk. That is, someone from the \\) ~ 14 utility, well recognizing that utilities would have low 15-credibility if they broke their nuclear power plant. 16 0 I want to develop that point in a few minutes, yeah. 17 .A (Mileti) And an official of some sort, and someone 18 who might know about health of some sort, as best I recollect J 19 it. That may not be the actual list that I provided them. i 20. Q But you provided -- that's what I understood. You 21 provided this as a recommendation, and then you got something 22. back, didn't you, that evidenced some change? .2 3 - Now was the revised draft, did it do what you 24 suggested it should do? 25 A (Mileti) In general, yes. I had a few more V. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

{i F: 1 kp n ' PANEL NO. 7 CROSS 6498 7$,3 >Q _1l questions,.and.1 talked to people at the. utility, and then more f 2 . revisions' were made,. and it happaned three or four -times. .3-0 Have you seen the final version of it, or the most ~ -4 .- recent ' version? - 5 A. (Mileti) To the best of -- as it'now stands, there 1 6 11s'a new version:I have yet to see. I l 7' MR..TRAFICONTE: Well, we do make a request, counsel, 8: for.that1 version that the expert witness was speaking on this 9' -point;hasn't seen yet, that we be :provided a copy of that as 11 0 well. [ [ 11 BY MR. TRAFICONTE: .Now,.r. Mileti, can -- D l 12 9 13 MR.-DIGNAN: What's the purpose of that? Did you j . r-i{ (r 14' , cross-examine him on the one he hasn't seen? l m 15 MR. TRAFICONTE: So that we could ask him to review 16 the one that is going to be used in fact so that he can make a 17 statement ~as to whether it's going to be effective or not. 1 18 MR. DIGNAN: Counsel, I see very little use in using l'9 up hearing time handing this witness a message, and having him j i 20 examine it and' decide whether or not it's good. 21-MR. TRAFICONTE: You don't see any point in that, Mr. 12 2 Dignan? That's the basis of his expertise. 23 MR. DIGNAN: Not in the hearing room, I don't, Mr. l 24 Traficonte. So unless directed by the Board if that's the 25 purpose of this, I'm not going to agree to produce the version R ' \\.J u Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ) 1 i--.-__ __.a

{," W e '4 ~ '- ~ v -?, 4 A@ g,'y i PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6409- ,;ps ' yd; [1'- the:witnessLhasn't.seen. l 2 MR. TRAFICONTE: Okay. I may be missing'something. .l 31 Lhere.t11 understand this witnessLto be testifying on -- he's 4? making;a. prediction.on-human response in the event of a 151 :Seabrook;' emergency. And:it's been quite clear,. painfully clear R tthat the: basis of that expertise.is, or:the basis of that 3 6t 7: ' prediction-is his conception'of how people respond to. i 8B,information. 9 LThen=we explore the fact that he is.not making a x generic > point about' human response, but he's predicting how the l 10.-

/

l11j .Seabrook population;is:goingLto respond. 12-lNow;we're' exploring, well, what.information will the c' ' 1'3) Seabrook population'get. And.it turns out-he doesn't know,,or 7 l

14L he'sinot sure, or he hasn't seen thenfinal draft yet.

"15 .Now how that'can't be' relevant for purposes of c'

16L

.. investigating and testing his testimony is beyond me. 17 MR. DIGNAN: Mr. Traficonte, your problem is you keep i 18'

ascribing to him as having said something.in his direct-that he.

.19 did not say. I suggest respectfully, sir, that you read l 20' carefully the: concluding paragraph, which the witness has twice 21 read to.you, that appears at the middle of Page 159 in that 22 -section.

23 MR. TRAFICONTE

Well, I just -- 24 MR. DIGNAN: And I do not find in there the direct 25' testimony.you ascribe to the witness. ? ) i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ~, I ^ <E"

,.sn U)' PANEL NO. CROSS 6500- ,. 73 >if il MR. TRAFICONTE: Fine. I move to strike Dr. Mileti's 2 testimony'to the extent that he is here testifying as a lt behavioral: expert, makes predictions in his testimony as to how l4 the population of the:Seabrook EPZ will respond. I move to '5: . strike any testimony that concerns predictions of actual '6 kresponse of actual: people on the basis of the fact that he has 7. -not -- -8' JUDGE SMITH: It's a shortcutting -- '9 ,MR. TRAFICONTE: -- by his own' testimony read the '10 necessary l'nformation. Lil JUDGE. SMITH: Produce the draft. I think that -- v 12. MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, having ordered it, it will' <-s 113' -be produced..There is no question about it, k) 14-I.do not have it presently in the hearing room. I 15 swill' send'itLtolthe Commonwealth during the coming week. 16 MR. TRAFICONTE: Your Honor, my motion is serious. 1 i 17 JUDGE SMITH: Well, you won. 31 8-MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, then I -- 19J JUDGE' SMITH: Keep on arguing with it; see what 20 happens. 21 MR. TRAFICONTE: It's going to be one of those. '22 MR. DIGNAN: Another motion. He wants to strike a 23-bunch of Dr. Mileti's testimony. 24' JUDGE SMITH: Well, that was based upon -- that was 12 5 - 'an~ alternative motion. L COL Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

j i I 1 PANEL.NO. 7 - CROSS 6501 l y I ?'Y T _f 1 MR. TRAFICONTE: The basis of that motion is j 2 ac'tually, and I'think'that motion has some-foundation in light .3 Of -- i N JUDGE SMITH: I guess I had better review the motion. 4 '5 I understood it to be an either/or motion. Either you get the 6. draft -- 7 MR. TRAFICONTE: No. 8 JUDGE SMITH: Well, then.I misunderstood entire]y, q._ 9 MR. TRAFICONTE: My motion is this. As I now 10 understand the testimony as it's emerged, what we have here is .11 speculation.- We have an expert who has made it quite clear ' 12 what the basis of his theories of human response is -- l 5 g-(/. 13 information. 1 14 We then have the same expert making claims about how 15 a specific group of people, not a generic -- not generic 16 statements about human response, but the specific people in the j st. 17 Seabrook EPZ are going to' respond in the event of an emergency 18 at Seabrook. That's been quite clear. 19 We now discover that although he believes the key 20 determinant is the information made available to the public, he 21 .has not reviewed what the most recent versions of that 22-information are. 23 My motion to strike is simply any testimony that he l 24 is providing in support of a contention that the plan is .25 adequate, this existing plan and the information provided Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6502 y (_) 1 therein is adequate is pure speculation. 2 MR..DIGNAN: Mr. Traficonte, you have described a 3 . type of testimony you want stricken. I will confess I'm having 4 difficulty responding to your motion because the kind of motion l 5 I'm used to dealing with is a motion that comes in and says .6 strike paragraph three, strike -- 7 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, if you give me the time, I'll 8 come up with a specific -- 9 MR. DIGNAN: Excuse me, Mr. Traficonte. I know you 10 are always very courteous, and I'm sure you will give me the 11 courtesy of finishing my remarks. 12 It seems to me, so that the motion in this form y 13 really can't be acted on. I mean, the Board is being asked to G 14 search the testimony and figure out what was in. But I do 15 suggest.that if the motion is seriously made, and I'm sure it 16 is_if Mr. Traficonte made it, that the more appropriate thing 17 would be to send me something in writing during this week. 10 I'll try to reply, and the Board can rule on it because -- 19 JUDGE SMITH: Well, maybe we can -- that takes a lot 20 of time. You are all very busy. It seems to me that it can 21 be, he can make -- he can try it out generically and see what a 22 generic ruling is. I don't believe you are going to prevail, 23 because I think it's clear from his testimony that this is a 24 predictive statement, and once it is predicted and then he 25 assumes it, and the rest of his testimony is based upon it. N (3 l (_) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

..,w k'yy t' iric: $i[ . PANEL NO. 7'- CROSS 6503 Q;.o7 c f h /: 1L .That:is~why we're going to produce the draft:for you.

., s -

^ 2-101. TRAFICONTE: That's fine, Your Honor. Can you l3 ..just make a reference in the. transcript to what is the 4 predictive statement? 5 JUDGE. SMITH: The ones just cited. !r[, L6' MR.E TRAFICONTEs. At what page? p. W 7. JUDGE SMITH: Cited by Mr. Dignan, middle of Page 8 159. "Once honed and more closely follow these ideal 9' prototypic attributes, the EBS messages for Seabrook will 1 .10 Lprovide the-listing to the'public a most solid footing from W '11 ' :which to base sound decisionmaking." 12 And that, to me, is a predictive statement. d 13

MR. TRAFICONTE:

I agree, I agree with that. V. Q) 14 JUDGE SMITH: And then that is -- based upon that if 15 you're going.to be allowed to pick up the draft he hasn't seen U an':see if it meets his test of " honed to more closely follow 16' d ~171 ideal prototypic attributes". That is the basis of it. 18-MR. TRAFICONTE: So the Board is -- 19-JUDGE SMITH: Everybody is happy with that? 20 MR. TRAFICONTE: I'm happy with that. I want an L 21 opportunity to -- 22' JUDGE SMITH: Are you happy with that? Well, you 23 don't have to be happy. 24 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, he's not happy with that. -25 MR. DIGNAN: I take it the motion is denied. I'm 0. L Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i

m,.. gu 4 L i 7 PANEL NO. 71-CROSS 6604 d:L 1

-Q 11

. delighted.-. L <2 l JUDGE-SMITH: All right. I guess happiness is too 3- .much to extract - n: '40 .MR. TRAFICONTE: Easy. man to make happy perhaps. V W 5' -JUDGE SMITH: All right,:have we come -- we have to 6 ? allow l time to' discuss the scheduling for the two weeks [ 17. .available. Is this a -- would this be a convenient. place to \\; 8 interrupt you? F 9L MR.-TRAFICONTE ' Well -- ~10 . JUDGE SMITH: 'Or can we do this?' There is one thing 11 that we can't -- we can't' extend the time. It is essential 12! that we get to the scheduling matter. j 1 13' 'MR. TRAFICONTE' Yes, sir. 14: JUDGE SMITH: LCan we interrupt you now, take that up, L 15 and-then-if we have time left, then resume your cross-16 examination? 17 ' 'MR. TRAFICONTE: ' Of course. -18 JUDGE SMITH: All right, that way we'll be sure to 11 9 get'that essential point in, and then make -- l '20-MR. TRAFICONTE: I may be at a stopping point in any 21 event that we could resume on Monday, so I -- JUDGE SMITH: Well, fine. If you just have a few ) 23 ~ minutes to at this stopping point, go ahead and conclude, but 24' we have to get to the scheduling. 25. MR. TRAFICONTE: Why don't we go to the schedule, and ..O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i w-__:_-_-_-____

) PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6505 1 develop that, and if we have some time, I could probably finish 2 a section and have oitly one remaining section. 3-JUDGE SMITH: Well, we would like to make full use of 4 the time that is available today, and use it to the -- you 5 know, fill it. But we must get to the schedules. 6 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, then let's do it. 7 JUDGE SMITH: Let's get to the scheduling then. 8 Now, would somebody -- would you start out by giving 9 us some ostimate of -- let's see, the next week we come back is 10 the week in which the FEMA people may have a problem, that's 11 correct. And I'm wondering -- there goes the man that has the 12 answer to our question out the door. l l ~ 13' How nuch time do you think you will need next week to 14 complete your cross-examination? l 15 MR. TRAFICONTE: I apologize, Your Honor. 16 If the Board would just look at my outline. 17 JUDGE SMITH: Yeah, I can't find it at the moment. 18 MR. TRAFICONTE: I believe that if I have just five 19 or 10 minutes more today, I will have finished the fifth 20 section on the second page which will -- 21 JUDGE SMITH: So you should be easily done with your 22 cross-examination by the end of the day Monday. 23 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, it's going to be even easier 24 than that, I believe, for the following reason. The next 25 section, as you will note -- let me put it this way. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

-a p 6506 l-a_j - -1. Mr. Dignan and I have discussed the possibility of b 2 taking up the section that's numbered 7 on this outline at a i E 3L point _at which Dr. Mileti would come back and be a member of a 4 sheltering -- of the sheltering panel. And I don't believe we 5 have any problem at this point. 6 JUDGE SMITH: It is not going to -- it is not going 7 to destroy your cross-examination if -- 8 MR. TRAFICONTE: Don't mention the details. 9 (Laughter.) 10 MR. DIGNAN: Mr. Traficonte and I have agreed, Your 11 Honor, Mr. Traficonte and I have agreed, assuming it's 1 12 acceptable to the Board, he had some questions of Dr. Mileti on es -13 the spontaneous sheltering portion of this ETE testimony that L..] 14 he would like to address to him in the context of the whole 15 sheltering issue, and that's fine with me. -16 I want it fully understood that Mr. Traficonte 17 . understand between us that but for that one section ETE will be 18 wrapped up and gotten rid of. In other words, I don't want to 19 leave this open so that everybody gets another round of ETE 20 testimony cross after the shelter testimony is offered. It's 21 confined to this one thing. But assuming that's agreeable to 22-the Board, I think Mr. Traficonte is quite correct that for his .23 purposes it makes a lot more sense, and probably will make a 24 better record if he crosses that in the context of the shelter 25 testimony as opposed to in the context of the ETE testimony .O V Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

6507 ,f 1 where we put it. o L 2 So -- well, I guess I'll stop because -- n 3 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yeah, that's -- 4 -JUDGE SMITH: -- John is now going to tell you that 5 affects how much time he needs left with this panel. 6 MR. TRAFICONTE: Right, and that I can be very brief 7 with'. 8 In that event, that we can agree to delay that I 9 portion of the cros.s of Dr. Mileti, I would be able to finish 10 what's' set forth on the outline as roman numeral VI and VIII in 11 no more than two hours. 12 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. 13 MR. TRAFICONTE: I mean, we're talking clearly before ,r g (_) 14 the.end of the day on Monday. 15' JUDGE' SMITH: Okay. 16 MR. TRAFICONTE: But, of course, there would be at 17 that point, as I understand it, then we would have the 18 opportunity for any other cross, and then redirect. 19 JUDGE SMITH: Well, that's what I wanted to ask. We 20 had in the submittal, I understood that Amesbury had a special 21 cross-examination. Is that still going to be the situation? 22 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, A ttorney Lord is not here 23 today, is he? 24 MR. BROCK: Your Honor, I'm not sure when you say a 25 special cross-examination. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

i 6508 1 JUDGE SMITH: Well, what do we have here? Evacuation 2 time estimates, the Intervenor, Massachusetts, Amesbury -- 3 MR. BROCK: Mr. Lord -- excuse me, Your Honor. I 4 understand your' point. 5 Mr. Lord, as I understand it, will have a few 6 questions for the panel regarding ETE. I understand it would 7 be very brief, though. 8 JUDGE SMITH: Okay, then, how about you, Mr. Flynn? 9 MR. FLYNN: I have planned some cross-examination, 10 but I anticipate it would take no more than 20 minutes. 11 JUDGE SMITH: Okay, and then Mr. Bisbee. 12 MR. BISBEE: I don't anticipate any. 13 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I don't think any other 14 Intervenor has plans. 15 MR. BROCK: Your Honor, based on the questions, I 16 would have a few questions, perhaps 15 or 20 minutes worth of 17 questions. 18 JUDGE SMITH: All right. Then Mr. Bachmann. 19 MR. BACHMANN: It appears at this point that the 20 Staff might have somewhere 15 minutes to 30 minutes of cross-21 examination for clarification of Mr. Lieberman, but that's 22 about it. 23 JUDGE SMITH: Okay, so we will -- 24 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor. 25 JUDGE SMITH: -- have as a goal, and cren if we have e Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

25B" 1.., 1 I ,= L w s Of-0 6509 i cGe :, j i + jli.;toLgo somewhat' late)!to' finish this panel Monday afternoon -- = 1 'IGNAN: Yes, and -- 17, 2-MR. D g j Wq [3 ' JUDGE SMITH:' -- which we shoald be able to do. 'k I4-MR.DIGNANs. Could I ask another favor of everybody? v-We'll be starting'at-5- Dr.sMileti will be here Monday. 6 1: 00.. Dr. Mileti.is. feeling some pressure.from his institution 1 J71 that-he works for, University of Colorado,.re'garding the number- ') l 84 of' classes he.has had to miss to testify. I would therefore- ] 9 ' greatly appreciate.it if people - ~I know Mr. Traficonte has a. j l i 1' ~ 10

couple hours -- if.directly thereafter, we could take any n,

Llli 1guestions' directed to Dr.<Mileti. i <12' Unlike the other panels, this one isn't as-integrated as : the"others I n my mind,. so: that we can be sure he can make a ( 1. /13: i (, 114' -plane that night to get back to the University of Colorado. .,nj y L 15-JUDGE SMITH:

Well, I' anticipate that the panel will 116

'beLconcluded.- 117 MR..DIGNAN: Yeah, but the point being -- 18 JUDGE SMITH:

He, in particular.

19' MR. DIGNAN: I'm thinking that if we start -- I guess 20 we start Monday at 1:00, wouldn't th'at be correct, Your Honor? 21 JUDGE SMITH:' Yes.- i 22 MR. DIGNAN: And if Mr. Traficonte goes for three s 2 23-hours with a break, he'll probably be through -- I mean, two 24 hours with a break, he'll be through around 3:30. What I would 25' like to at that point have happen, if at all possible, is 4 l; :;, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

-,n- ~ 6510 ,r~f < (,/ ! 1 ~immediately examine Dr. Mileti, because he's got to get to 2. ' Boston,'get a plane and get back. 3-JUDGE SMITH: I see. 4 MR. DIGNAN: And he can't -- he can't go over and l l ~5' take a' morning plane and -- 6- -JUDGE SMITH: Right. n 7: MR. DIGNAN: -- make his class as I understand it. 8 Is that right, Dr. Mileti? 9 THE WITNESS: (Mileti) That's correct. 10 JUDGE SMITH: I don't see anybody would be objecting 11' to that. We have accommodated -- 12 MR. DIGNAN: Thank you, Your Honor. I appreciate it. - (._) . 13 JUDGE SMITH: -- witnesses regularly on that. fs 14 MR..TRAFICONTE: Just on'that point, and completing 15 Dr. Mileti. With regard to this draft, the new draft EBS 16' message -- 17 MR. DIGNAN: You're going to have that no later, I 18 would think, than Monday of next week, and you may -- - 19 MR. TRAFICONTE: Oh, fine, fine. 20 MR. DIGNAN: Yeah. 1 21 JUDGE SMITH: All right, then we would -- in the \\ 22- ' normal course of events, we would have gone to Mr. Urbanik, but ) ' 23 he won't be there, as I understand it, at the beginning of the 24 week? 25 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, Alan Fierce from the fy] + \\- L Heritage Reporting Corporation L (202) 628-4888 _m_________

35 L

6511 ) 1 Attorney General's office. 2 ter understanding would be that the rema.ining 3 Intervenor panels, ETE panels, would come before 'dr. Urbanik in 4 v 4" the normal course of events; isn't that correct? / L 5 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. Nell, that's true. I don't j l' 1 02 6 know, we have it down here in a different order, but I don't D l r 7 recall why, but you are right. That would be thia normal 8 sequence.. 9 MR, FIERCE: And our understanding wot.ld be that our 10 first panel would be that which is comprised of Dr. Colin High, 11 Dr. Befort, Dr. Tom Adler, would be the first panel we would 12 very much'like to get on, because it is Dr. Hich who is taking v 13 the group of students in the environmental studies at Dartmouth (.) 14 to Kenya, Africa, leaving on a plane Thursday evening of that '15 week. 16 JUDGE SMITH: And he may even be available Monday 17 afternoon if we have -- will he be here? -18 MR. FIERCE: He will be here Monday in case there is 19 time. 20 JUDGE SMITH: Well, what do you think about your 11 cross-examination of the High panel? 22 MR. DIGNAN: I wouldn't think mora than half a day, 23 if that. e-24 JUDGE SMITH: Then Adler is separate. I don't have 25 these actually before me, I just have -- and Adler would be I t~ (_ f Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888

) 6512 1 next. 2 MR. FIERCE: Tom Adler, Dr. Tom Adler would be the 3 following witness that we would present. 4 JUDGE SMITH: Assume some slippage there, so let's 5 assume he begins at mid-day, mid-afternoon on Tuesday. 6 And what do you think your estimate would be? I'm 7 incorporating extra cross-examination to secure the -- 8 MR. DIGNAN: I'll be awhile with Dr. Adler. I would 9 allow a full day. 10 JUDGE SMITH: Full day. So we will -- 11 MR. DIGNAN: I will try to do it less than that, but 12 I'll be awhile with him. 13 JUDGE SMITH: So for conservative planning, we should O' E155 14 plan on him being on the stand through Wednesday. T146 15 Then Luloff, is there a -- 16 MR. FIERCE: Then we have -- there are two additional 17-ETE panels that we would have left. One of them is a single 18 individual, Dr. Elbert Luloff. And the other is a panel with 19 Drs. Zeigler, Johnson and Cole. 20 I understand that there is a scheduling problem that 21 they have that -- was it Dr. Cole may have at the end of that 22 week. So our intention would be to bring on first Dr. Luloff, 23 and you may ask Mr. Dignan how long he intends to spend with 24 Dr. Luloff. 25 MR. DIGNAN: Well, my partner, Mr. Lewald, is going O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

n

+j i., e 6 ~ 4 i a [ 6513' w ,1 y,.w, I' ' El ~ Lto be handlingjthe great.-balance of-Dr. Luloff. i j V2 .it 1What.iI wanted to,know iscthesLuloffLtestimony as it-L3 now remains, there's one piece:thatLis clearly ETE-related, and o ' L4? that's the bed and. breakfast and motel section of the d g 5.' ) testimony,fwhichiI would'at leastihave responsibility over-assessing,.and I;think;that it would be brief,nif any, cross-

6-w: -

1 .7~ examinationion that... Frankly, my' instincts right now are none. =8-1Mr. Lewald will address the other, but I' wanted to-i o ) l f.9 point:out,fwe view.the'. rest of the Luloff testimony as really 10 -being partTof~a shelter case more than the ETE case, just as ~ w 11. -theyfviewJ-- l -12 MR.. FIERCE:.And I don't disagree with that. [" 13 MR. DIGNAN: Land he doesn't disagree with that. And ~ '14: -I guess'I'd like to inquire of Mr. Fierce.as to whether the s x r0 15) preferable thing;wouldn't be to take Luloff -- assuming I ^ ,16 ' commit'to 'no cross of that one section'of ETE, would a better 17' . thing to.'do is to put Dr. Luloff off until the sheltering ) l I JI lf section. 19 MR.. FIERCE:.Well, I think that's entirely possible. b

2 0.:

I would'-- I'm just pointing out to you that I do have a 21' zscheduling problem with.the Zeigler,' Johnson, Cole panel at the 22 end of that week.

L23 JUDGE SMITH: Well, that would be better -- 4 '24. MR. FIERCE: And I'm wondering who we can stick in 1 L25 there then if it's not Dr. Luloff. Perhaps we could bring in Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 { I a ?_?

pi:%. 8 t ., gy; a;b .a,. 1 s t .j. Q4 6514'- 7 fw ,Q 1 :. Dr.iUrbanik'aslthe'next witness. .n e '2' iJUDGE" SMITH: - You mean'Zeigler won't-be available ~ i

i3 - ' until, Lor.:he.must be done by:the endiof the week?:

a

4 -

i 41 eMR. FIERCE: He'will not be -- _.3 5:. LJUDGE-SMITH : We're already talking-about Thursday y.. m, r 1 L 6, morning;now. .Y M d . MR. PIERCE: Right. As-I' understand it, it's Dr. '8. Coleithat,is the'. issue, and he'will not be available at the end j. L 9, of;th'at week.- [ [,.. j - 1~0 i / JUDGE SMITH: 'At -- until.the end, or? ,?

.11 MR.LFIERCE:- He will not be available.

a':

'During the week at all?. 12: JUDGE SMITH: w c f~ '13 7 MR'" FIERCE:- That's right. > s,' s LV ' 14 ;-

MR. TRAFICONTE:

He will not be available at-the.end . t :15 6fJthat week at all. E

16; LJUDGE SMITH '.But-.he will be available before the end 17; of the week?

.L18. LMR.'TRAFICONTE: Yes, yes, but as we have indicated, .l '.:we:wouldn't be:at that panel before the end'of the week. o. - -JUDGE SMITH: Well,.willihe be available on Thursday? 21 MR. FIERCE: I.believe not. 22, MR '. TRAFICONTE: We would propose that Urbanik, Dr. j 23) .Urbanik go immediately after Luloff. a. 3 4 x 124'

JUDGE SMITH:

What was the problem with Urbanik? I i. o li 25L -had him sort of scratched for this week. sp/ : > WA . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 + - -_- L --___--._.._- _-___

L-i 6515 .g g_ 1,) 1 MR. BACHMANN: From what I recollect, he had some f 2 meetings or conferences to go to this week. l 3 MR. BROCK: Your Honor, if I could be helpful, 4. Hampton still has Mr. Trahan from the Seacoast Health Center, 5 and Mr. Guadagna. Both of them if -- you know, as far as I 6 know, they would be available. I would have to speak to them, J I' 7 but if either of those witnesses -- frankly, I'd like to get 8 them on if we could at the end of the week. 9 JUDGE SMITH: Trahan and? 10 MR. BROCK: Mr. Guadagna from the bus company. .11 JUDGE SMITH: And then there is the -- l 12 MR. BROCK: SAPL has one witness, fS' 13 MS. DOUGHTY: Yes,.this is Jane Doughty for the l i x,,i 14 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League. We still have a rebuttal b 15 witness, Joan Pilot, to go on. 16 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, yeah. And then DeMarco is coming 17 back? 18 MR. DIGNAN: No, Your Honor. 19 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, we have him down here. J 20 Pennington? 21 MR. DIGNAN: A number of those got listed twice in 22 that original run, because it wasn't clear whether they were 23 going to come on in the personnel adequacy section of the case, i 24 or the ETE section. They all have testified. My understanding ) 25 is -- we have certainly no desire to further cross-examine 1 (~') %,J ( Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 _________________a

q (Ug-3<> 7 y; o 1 6516 + ;h,;% i y; - -sr 4 jlt ithem,ywhich-.is the only. reason:they'd come back for. Their m w / c-y. direct is in'.- y T~ T. >3=. . And,xso, therefore, Pennington, DeMarco an'd whoever l ' [4 - elseLis.on;that' list is not. coming back~for ETE. 1

5'-

. JUDGE' SMITH: It looks like we-may not be filling the j '7 6: tweek;unless:we switch around somewhat.. Can Adler come later, 17L 'and begin with the ZeiglerLpanel? We've allowed somewhat'more 9m E8 lthan'aHwhole day for;the examination of.Adler going -- j 7 m 9. ' occupying all of Wednesday. Can we just switch that around? 10~ Bacause.ifLwe.-don't fill.the week -- i l11 MR. TRAFICANTI: No, we won't -- ~- 12 ' MR.:DIGNAN:- Your Honor, we've got another thing you l13-may wantito plugLinto the equation. Sitting out there, because 'i l14~ it was' putioff on.the theory of witness availability for NECNP, 1 q P !15: was the1 notification and communication section of the case. { c l ' '16 " AndUlf youfwill recall that the NECNP witness problem went away ~. 0 17: :because we stipulated'that-that testimony could come in without i 4 b 4, ' 18. - being cross-examined.. d l 7 t19' So'our panel is all that's left in that,.and we could ) 201 Lput that. panel on that week. 21' MR. BROCK: Your Honor, I understand NECNP may be 221 -sending somebody up to cross, but as I understand it, they are m '1 ' 2 3' not intending.to do that until the end as scheduled after I G 24 shelter. l '/ 125 JUDGE SMITH: All right. Isn't it very likely that l} ' l Heritage Reporting Corporation o : n (202) 628-4888 I T

o w 1: y 6517 ).. lk_, "1 if'wenhaveito-take;some testimony in the Washington area, and 2, -iffit's; going =to be.all Washington -- well, that would-be the ~ L3 1 lNECNP) examiner, it'would be' convenient for Ms. Weiss, if that's-E [4 __ whofit's go'ing'to be, certainly'for the' Board, and others could 5= come downtor.not come.down as they see fit. But I mean if we k 6' have"to.rlsk a~section of.the proceeding not being completed p the'last week', that is the one that is the least damaging. 7- ~ 8-MR. BROCK:.Yes, Your Honor. If we have to take that

9 r'isk, I: would agree with.that.

I mean if it works out that way, that;would be my preference. L10 J 11- -JUDGE' SMITH: So I.think really the sheltering --

12 well, I gue'ss we will just have to see as it comes.

But then ~ J-e -13 thatLreserves a major part of the second week for sheltering. 'N.]' ? MR. BROCK:: -Your Honor. 14 t h 215 JUDGE? SMITH: That puts us fairly well on track, the t, Sholly. panel being out. 16-17 MR. BROCK: Could we get some estimate from E18 Applicants as to their length of cross on Trahan and Guadagna? 19 MR.-DIGNAN: On Trahan, an hour. On Guadagna, I 20 don't know what he's going to say. I haven't seen any draft. 21 MR. BROCK: Well, Your Honor, the direct is going to ? .22 be the deposition which he gave in this case at which all I 23 parties were present and asked questions. And rather than put 24 him on and have him go through and take the Board's time having 25 him repeat testimony that he made only a few weeks ago, it h )i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

'\\' ,.k,[ ,( f i 6518 j-4 %_)a(or. 1-l wod1dLbe our intent to' offer his complete deposition as his. q [ L2L ftestimony in the case, and if any party here has additional cg L- '3 questionsito ask him, they.could ask at.that time. But I 4 think,fespecially since time is a. factor and as I understand i 5 it, all parties who have an interest in questioning'Mr. 6; Guadagna have very recently.done that. If it's acceptable to u '7 'the Board, that'would be'the way we would proceed. V \\ Ii,,, 8-JUDGE SMITH: Well,.how much time is that going to j b L 9! 'take?- 4 P 10 MR. BROCK: We-would just offer the deposition, Your .114 Honor, and have -- ya 12 MR. DIGNAN: Well, I -- that deposition is full of a l m-J;-4Q .13 ; . lot of stuff, Your Honor. You know, if they're telling me they 4 ' 1,J. i .14

are' going to make a blanket offer of the deposition, I guess J

15 -I'd go:back and write.the motions, you know. 5 16 ' JUDGE SMITH: Well --

17..

LMR.--DIGNAN:. If they really mean~that, that they are ^ 18 not going to prepare a set of direct for the guy, and put that 19 deposition.in -- E., '20 JUDGE SMITH: Can't you highlight the deposition as l-21 .to the part that you wish to serve as direct, and communicate o L 2:2 - with Mr. Dignan?- 4 ( '23 MR. BROCK: Your Honor, I will do that if asked to. 24 As I say, the proposal was made in the interest of saving time, 25 and also because I did not want to be attempting to l ) Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 . 2 2 _ i m_____ ______ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

? w s 6519 pq g (/) 'lli characterize or;. summarize testimony when Mr. Guadagna was e ~ And to be accurate and to {$ ' ' 2' questioned byfa; number of: counsel. [3 save'. time, we. hoped'to just offer:theideposition.. And,. 1 [,' 'i4 . frankly, I' haven't heard.anything'from Mr. Dignan as to why j ' ~ i 5 that.would not1be. appropriate under the circumstances. ? ~He said that the deposition contains j i 6 JUDGE SMITH: B Sa y 7 .many things. Is thefdefinition pure cn1 the issue that you wish-8~ to"offerLit, or-does it'have other things in it that 91 depccition? so =10 MR.^ BROCK:.Your Honor, in our opinion, the 11) deposition supports what we stated it -- Mr. Guadagna said what t F jl2; we' claimed he would say. [ f% 13 JUDGE SMITH:.. Well, no, I don't think you understand F 14 ! l, ' 'i 14 _the point..Does some of it or all of it? ~15 f MR. DIGNAN: I want him a live with separate direct V '16 if that's.the purpose of the offer. 17 ' -

JUDGE SMITH:

S e e,: the Board is playing without a +

18. ~

score card here, because we' don't even know what you're talking l 191 about. L2 0. MR. BROCK: I'll tell Mr. Guada.gna -- q ] '21 - MR. DIGNAN: -If you will recall, the Guadagna -- 22 JUDGE SMITH: -Just address this -- i 'E 23! MR. DIGNAN: The Guadagna story is this, Your Honor. 24 ~ Do you recall there were three exhibits admitted at the very 125 first round? They were admitted de bene. They were admitted Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i ____-______D

i ). 1 i 6520 J l /g,) 1-on the basis of, among other things, a representation made to 1 2' the' Board and a cross-examination plan. And now we're being 3 told, well, I'm going to. throw in the deposition because the 4 Guadagna'is saying what I said he's going to say, okay? 5 I don't think he said what they said he's going to 6 say, and I'm going to test that one out pretty good. ) 7 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 1 3. 8 MR. DIGNAN: And what I suggest, to make things move I 9 with much more efficiency than they might otherwise, is that a 10 piece of direct be prepared for Mr. Guadagna and put on, or put 11 him on orally in direct, I don't care, and we'll cross-examine l'2 it and go from there. 1 fs 13 JUDGE SMITH: Well, if they want to put on the ~) 4s 14 ' deposition as a direct, if they -- there's no use in making j i 15 them rewrite the deposition in the form of direct. 16-MR. DIGNAN: My only point there is if that's the 17' intent, that's fine with me. I'm just saying I'm going to be 18 in with an objection on parts of it, that's all. 19 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 20 MR. DIGNAN: And then the Board can rule. I just ] 21 think the more efficient thing would be to pull out the parts 22 they want, and then let's go from there. 23 JUDGE SMITH: Right, the answer that we still don't 24 have is, is all of that deposition, is all of it or just a part 25 of it which you wish to offer as his direct testimony? Are ) %.) l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

f 6521 g,) - 1 there extraneous parts in there? p .2 MR. BROCK: Well -- 3 JUDGE SMITH: If there are, throw them out, and we'll 4 ' offer the balance. 5 .MR. BROCK: Again, Your Honor, the offer was made in 6 the interest of conserving time. We understood that at least '7 some of the parties were amenable, that they had asked their 8 questions and they could simply -- those questions and answers 9 could go in to the Board as is. 10 Apparently Mr. Dignan has a problem with that, and 11 therefore we will eliminate those portions of the deposition in 12 which Mr. Dignan asked. questions. 13 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. So is your answer to my question ex k} 14 that all of the deposition is relevant to the testimony you i 15 wish to adduce through him? 16 MR. DIGNAN: No, all except where I asked questions 17 is relevant is what I just heard, and that will give you an 18 idea of what this offer is going to be like, Your Honor. I 19 suggest that you direct that direct be prepared. -20 JUDGE SMITH: All right, I don't understand why -- 21 MR. BROCK: We'll do that. 22 JUDGE SMITH: All right. ) 23 MR. BROCK: Your Honor, we will prepare a direct, and 24 provide it, and when Mr. Dignan starts claiming it's 25 . misleading, then -- I withdraw that coinment, Your Honor. l f") (_/ i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 j i f

i L. 3: 1 6522 i ,) 1-JUDGE SMITH: You know, this is simply a syllogism, 2 you know, without even knowing what he's going to say. Is 3

the're any portion of his testimony which is not relevant for

.4 the purpose to which you offer it? 5 MR. BROCK: Your Honor, I believe that we will offer j i 6 the portion of the testimony in which we questioned the 7 witness._ There may be other portions, now that Mr. Dignan does '8 not want a complete offer, that I will go through and cut and i 9-paste, and may offer portions, and I can't say at this point 10 exactly what those may be. 11' JUDGE SMITH: All right. What we need for next week 12 is an expander, because it looks like we're not -- we don't ry 13 have the week filled up, and the missing information seemed to t ~ 14-be'Urbanik. I forget what the situation on that was, i 15-MR. DIGNAN: There's also, you should put on your 1 i 16 list, I'm not sure how long it will be, but Mr. Lord has a l '17 piece of testimony in the ETE piece, Your Honor. I don't think l 18 we have got him on the list yet. 19 JUDGE SMITH: Yeah, I see that. 20 MR. DIGNAN: It's the Town of Amesbury's testimony, 21 Your Honor. 22 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. '23 MR. DIGNAN: Ms. Selleck tells me that their cross is 24 short. 25 JUDGE SMITH: Yeah, have you ever represented the ,m, V Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 u=_

6523 k 1 Town of Amesbury, Mr. Brock? 2 MR. BROCK: Your Honor, we were recently retained to 1 3 do that basically for_ litigation of the Massachusetts plans. 4 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, I see. All right. I 5 MR. BROCK: So it's my understanding Mr. Lord will be 6 asking a few questions. He also submitted some direct 7 testimony, and I think just for form I may be the one who puts 8 him on and makes him available for cross-examination on that 9 testimony. ) 10 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. 11 MR. BROCK: And we could offer him at the end of the 12 week if that would fit in with the scheduling. 13 JUDGE SMITH: All right. You can't be any more 14 helpful about Mr. Urbanik, huh? 15 MR. BACHMANN: I believe that it was the intention of 16 the staff to bring him in after the other parties had put their 17 panels up, and I'm not quite certain now when that's going to 18 be. 19 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I think that the normal 20 scheduling is that -- perhaps my memory is that perhaps it was 21 this week that he would not be available, and it was the 22 following week. So we will count on him being there, too. 23 MR. BACHMANN: I believe he can be available the next 24 week, Your Honor. 25 JUDGE SMITH: Yeah, I think that that's the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

m_y,. _,'l b ] 1 6524 R j ( p) ;, -So it looks'like we'll at least be able to fill'up- [ 'l isituation'. F - 2' thatLweek-13' .MR.. BROCK: Your Honor, so should I advise Mr. Lord i C+' (4. Ethatilt is likely'that he would be testifying at the end-of'the l 5 inext week, Mr. Lord would be. testifying? 6

JUDGE SMITH:

I would think so, yes. [ ' 7. LMR. BROCK: Okay. Could we get an estimate from 8' Applicants asto the length of their cross with respect to Mr. j 19 ; Lord on his testimony?- .10' JUDGE SMITH: Now, from here is when the parties 11' should.beigetting'together, and then coming.back to the Board ' 1 12 with'what you have worked out. All we wanted to do is set the j

/w) 13-priority, which we have done, and know what we have to prepare-Ms

~ ' ~, 14 Lfor. The actual sequence, you can work out among yourselves. i 4 l '151 'MR..TRAFICONTE: Your Honor, if we can just take --- g b 16 1 JUDGE SMITH: With~what we have already approved. 17 'MR. TRAFICONTEs We have'one week after that, I l .18l un'derstand, scheduled. 19-JUDGE SMITH: Yes. H2O MR. TRAFICONTE: Mightn't we just review very quickly 21- 'what we're intending to do in that week, or would you rather 22 take'that up at the end of -- l 23-JUDGE SMITH: Well, we'll have the whole sheltering 1 E 1ssue remaining,-and ideally we'd like to get the notification 24: J25 and communication. But we're saving notification and Heritage Reporting Corporation b (202) 628-4888 __-______-________-_0

~. ,?f !.' + p:f 6525 j < (y) J. communication as.one -- 1 / p 22; MR. TRAFICONTE: _ Which:you might take up - - l '3c ' JUDGE SMITH: -- that's least burdensome if it ?4 'doesn't1get done_here. SL MR.1TRAFICONTE: Can-we,have an agreement then that 6 the first thing on'the. agenda for_that second week will be the f 7. -Johnson-Zeigler-Cole' panel, which as it now seems will then 8 ' clear everything except the sheltering and the notification 1 9: panels?f'Is that -- -10 MR..DIGNAN: YOu mean go before us? l 1 11 MR.'TRAFICONTE: Yes,'because it really is a hang -12 over..from the ETE portion. 13 1MR. DIGNAN: Yes. f/qf', i ^x,i. ..14: .MR. TRAFICONTE: Okay, so that Monday, I believe is 15".the 14th'of December, we'll start with the Johnson-Zeigler-Cole 16- . panel, and then go to sheltering? I '17: ~ JUDGE SMITH:- All right, does that leave a hole? It 1 18 doesn't seem now'that we have identified that Urbanik will be lhere, it doesn't seem to leave a hole in the next week. 19 l 20 MR. TRAFICONTE: No, it doesn't, right. I - 21 ' JUDGE SMITH: Well, all right, within those 22-guidelines, I would urge the parties to be in communication 23 next week and work out something to give to the Board when we 24 arrive so we know what the precise schedule is. 25 You might tell Mr. Lord -- are you in touch with Mr. . 7, x) Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 e

TTV!=d;' 0 -t -l ali" +; j N9 ) I5 l ni; i F 6526 I E /4Q f A,jf 11 -Lord? I'm'a little bit concerned.about Mr. Lord missing the

2'

. testimony lon.ETE, not being.here, and coming in and -- oh, he

M 13!

was' here? I haven't -- j 1 4 MR.. BROCK ' Your' Honor, he's not been here, and.I 5' 'will review the: questions with Mr. Lord, and try to -- I don't b.f' f6. .believe the questions.will be lengthy. u

7; JUDGE. SMITH

Well, that'would be a big service if 'p, 18 you'could,do that'. Tb' 'l 9 JUDGE HARBOUR: Is Mr. Lord's testimony that which we l ' {. 10 received, which was rather' informal, but which I think he j Lll indicated;that he,.or he was designating that as his testimony? l t '12 MR; BROCK: That is my -- I understand there are two. elesy. 13i parts. One'is Mr. Lord is-going to be asking this panel a few As, questionsLconcerning ETE. 'And the.other is the testimony ] x -15 .you've' referred to in which he will be available', Mr. Lord will l 16 'be;available,for cross-examination.

17' JUDGE HARBOUR:

That's just two or three pages, I 18' believe. Y .19 MR. BROCK: That's my understanding, yes. 20 . JUDGE HARBOUR: All right, thank you. i n 21 JUDGE. SMITH: Now, as I stated during the break, I l g. 12 2 will be going'over the testimony of Mr. Thomas, and you 23 alluded -- there was an allusion to three items of testimony, U 24: and could you give me a better identification where those are? 25' I.know the days are -- m }" s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

i s e 6527 _.)L 1 MR. DIGNAN: I differ with Joe in that. My 2 recollection, as I.said, two, and -- ) a 3 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I'll tell you what I would like { 4' to.do. l p-5 MR. DIGNAN: There were two areas of concern. I 6 don't have.the-pages with me. I can describe them I think, E 7 Your. Honor,lif you would like. 1 8 JUDGE SMITH: We're going to have -- 9 MR. DIGNAN: I would rather not. J 10-JUDGE SMITH: -- a very busy week next week. I would ' ll: like for both of you to agree upon the pages that should be 12 ' reviewed, and one of you, if you will, call up and -- ) i ,e'3 13-MR. DIGNAN: Do any have to be reviewed, Your Honor? '14-JUDGE SMITH: Yes. .15 MR. DIGNAN: Okay. You do understand -- 16 JUDGE SMITH: I understand. 17 MR. DIGNAN: -- that I am not pressing for any '18 inquiry. 19 -JUDGE

SMITH:

I understand that this is a sua sponte 20 effort by the Board -- i 21 MR.'DIGNAN: Okay. 22. JUDGE SMITH: -- not in relation to the issues in the 23 case,. for two purposes. One purpose is to assure the integrity 24 of the NRC hearing process which is one of our 25 responsibilities. LJ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

~' 7pg ~ ' ~ [Ny g$ 3, F oZ?" 6528 y )%, kh\\,ja 1-The second purpose is, if possible, baced upon the I2 .c'oncern that I expressed, to the extent possible, cleanse the m 3' trecord_of'any, implication about Mr. Thomas rather thap.. just- .n .g

4.
walking away from it.

. v.- 5f 'MR. FLYNN:' You asked a question a moment ago about 4, T

6' where: the. testimony is that you should look at.

(7) I did represent'to you earlier that I had understood 4 8H Mrh Dignan<to'say that'there were three separate versions of Iq. 9 the sa'me facts. But.it.would appear in two places,:the v .r 10: ' examination:of. October.4th and the examination of November 7th, i:, p 11 JUDGE l SMITH: Yeah, right. '12. .MR. FLYNN: The original voir dire. e v h .. j,r' 13 JUDGE SMITH ' And the subject matter was the M > N,c . sequencing -- .14-i @l <15) MR.LDIGNAN: There were two items.- What I had v L16~ allusion to:was.the testimony on the first day, which is N L17 October"-- [b l18 JUDGE SMITH: October 7th. 191 MR. DIGNAN: -- 7th, comparing L (

20 MR. FLYNN

Oh, I got it backwards. It's October .21 7th and November 4th, tc '22 MR. DIGNAN ' -- testimony as to what the RAC, what he P, knew the RAC thought with the testimony as to what he knew the 23 n ) 24 .RAC thought the second time. 25 The other piece I had reference to was internally in JO: Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 o s > _______.J

7, 7-ge rg 6529

g: ff

(/ - 1. the second day only, it was a series of questions two pages ~2l apart,.concerning efforts to reconvene the RAC. 3-

JUDGE SMITH ' All,right.

Now, ofLcourse,~everyone ~'4 . understands iOat taking this'up does in no way imply that we 5L perceived any~ candor problems with Mr. Thomas. It is simply 6-that when.a' suggestion;as strong'as'this is raised we have a ~ y 7J responsibility ^1n the protection of.the' integrity of the hearing process.to.look at it.' That'is nothing we would have 8 ' 9 '- 'done based.upon our own observation. 10' Is.there'anything-further? If you don't object, p., 011. we'll-.just adjourn and -- -12' MR. OLESKEY:.I.have one point on scheduling, Judge. ,M 13' Mr... Fierce had raised, I think this morning, and also ,4 yesterday, a question that you dealt with on the ETE rebuttal. 14- + 15-I want to make the Board and the parties aware that we're also l'6 working'on'several rebuttal pieces for r,heltering. They are q '17 'not. ready for filing now,.and'I can't honestly tell you. Ms. '18 Sneider, who is principally responsible, and I have discussed 19 it extensively the.last couple of days. 20 I don't know whether they will be ready to be filed 21' by the.18th of December, because of the other work we're doing ~ 22 in this case between now and then. But there are those pieces, 23. and consistent with the obligation that you have indicated we

. 2 4 shoulki have to tell you what's happening, there is that 125 activity going forward on that front.
&}

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 A .s w -.--_-..E. .a-

m,...,... s.. ub- - 17 7 !; j t./ ;[N.I ' _g ,k ,.h ' q', s i i -n. p1 ~; 6530 ie,%) , wg.. ,l

< if JUDGE SMITH:' Okay.

l (2 .Anything'further? c' T3 All right,;we'll adjourn then until November'30, at i E E4: L1:00 p.m.; f./ Ai; 5 L(Whereupon,'at 12:38 p.m.,.the hearing was recessed, r a i 6 Lto reconvene'-at.1:00 p.m.,1 Monday, November.30, 1987.) 76 -l n' 8 -] F p ..y. m 9' i s y,'4.g:4 ' ~, -- 10 : ( h a. f f(Q I'll y12 -f s. '.. -:13. .c- , V)< \\ j 'i .14 ; !15 '

:i:

-16 17-

"~J 18 i I,v,

19 s

l 20 '21. p 22. 4

23 24 I25-Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 o

.n lu-

1 CERTIFICATE t ~ r'3 ~ v/ 3 This is to'certi.fy that the attached. proceedings before the 4 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of: 5 Name s Public Se.tvice Company of New Hampshire, et al., (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) . 6' 7-Docket Number: 50-443-OL and 40-444-OL 8 Place: Concord, New Hampshire '9 Date: November 20, 1987 10 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 11 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear o 12 Regulatory Commission taken stenographically by me and, 13 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction 14 of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a (~'! 15 true.and accurate re d of t fo;e oing roceedings. \\- l is /S/ / ~ (2_-) 17 (Signature typed): Kent Andrews 18 Official Reporter 19 ' Heritage Reporting Corporation 20 21 l .22 i 23 24 l 25 D) 1,/. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 .________}}

ML20236S423

Text

===============================================

Navigation menu

Search