ML20212D075
| ML20212D075 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/16/1987 |
| From: | Loftus E WASHINGTON, UNIV. OF, SEATTLE, WA |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#187-2623 86-533-01-OL, 86-533-1-OL, OL-5, NUDOCS 8703040058 | |
| Download: ML20212D075 (135) | |
Text
A23 ORIGINAL TIMN'SCRil'1 -
0 OF PRCCHEDIN'GS" '87 FE8 27 P4 :09 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ,
00CrUm ? ' N. f.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION EMhv BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x In the Matter of: :
- Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY : (EP Exercise)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, : (ASLBP No. 86-533-01-OL)
Unit 1) :
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 4
DEPOSITION OF ELIZABETH F. LOFTUS Washington, D. C.
Friday, January 16, 1987 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
StenotpY Rqvrters 444 North Capitol Street
! p V
Washington, D.C. 20001 l (202) 347-3700 i
Nationwide Coverage l 800-336-6646 l
l 8703040058 870116 2
- PDR ADOCK 0500 0
-- ._ - -, . . _ _ - - - = _ _ _ _ . - . _ .
CR29488.0 .
KSW/sjg 2 gl(,____ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION .
BEFORE THE-ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 4 :
In the Matter of: :
- Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 5
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY : (EP Exercise)
- 6. (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, : (ASLBP No. 86-533-01-OL)
Unit 1) :
7
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 8
DEPOSITION OF ELIZABETH F. LOFTUS
- 9 4
Washington, D. C.
0 Friday, Janaury 16, 1987 11
~
(_) 12 Deposition of ELIZABETH F. LOFTUS, called for examination pursuant to notice of deposition, at the law offices of Hunton 13 and Williams, 2000 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 9000, at 14 9:10 a.m. before KATHIE S. WELLER, a Notary Public within and 15 for the District of Columbia, when were present on behalf of
, 16 the respective parties:
l 17 KATHY E. B. McCLESKEY, ESQ.
STEPHEN W. MILLER, ESQ.
I 18 j Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street 19 P. O. Box 1535 f Richmond, Virginia 33212 On behalf of Long Island 20 Lighting Company.
21
() 22
-- continued --
l l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
r 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
2 -
APPEARANCES (Continued):
2 KARLA J. LETSCHE, ESQ.
SUSAN M. CASEY, ESQ.
3 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart South Lobby, Ninth Floor 4
1800 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20036-5891 On behalf of Suffolk County.
6 RICHARD J. ZAHNLEUTER, ESQ.
Deputy Special Counsel to the Governor
'7 Executive ChamPar
. Capitol, Room 229 8 Albany, New York 12224 On behalf of the State of 9 . New York.
10' 11 g\ 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 C)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336 6646
3 <
h _, _, CONTENTS 2 WITNESS EXAMINATION 3 Elizabeth F.-Loftus-
, by Ms. McCloskey 4 4
5 6.
.7 8
9 -
10 11 O 12 13 14 15
[ 16 l
17 18 19 20 21 0 22 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Naionwide Coverage 800 316
.__,___.........._,_._..__._______,_.._....___.___-.._._______.__,____...__-6646_ _____.
Y 29488.0
. KSW 4
. ,y .
V
- 1. PROCEEDINGS 2 Whereupon, 3 ELIZABETH F. LOFTUS 4 was called as a witness and, having first been duly sworn, 5 was examined and testified as follows:
6 EXAMINATION 7 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
8' Q Professor Loftus, I'm Kathy McCleskey. I will be 9 speaking with you today about the exercise of the Shoreham 10 LILCO plan and the litigation that has arisen out of that.
11 exercise.
12 Will you state your name and current address?
13 A Elizabeth Loftus. My business address is the
- 14 Department of Psychology at the University of Washington in 15 Seattle.
16 Q Were you at the February 13 exercise?
17 A No.
18 Q Have you reviewed anything about the exercise to 19 find out what happened at the exercise?
20 A Yes.
l 21 Q What have you reviewed?
22 A I reviewed EBS messages and press releases and
, C) l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
'- 202 347-3AX) Nationwide Coverage 80tk336-6M6
,. . .- - . . .. . , . . = . ~ . . - - -~ -. . . . . . . . .
i
~ 29488. 0
.KSW 5
. ( [
. : %. ) -
c- R . -1 . contentions pertaining to the exercise, and'any information 2 that was: supplied to ne'by Ms. Letsche.
l 4 3 Q Have you reviewed any logs of players?
I
'4 ' A' Pardon?
5 Q Players' logs?
6 A- I'm not sure.
+' 7' Q Let-me. describe what it might look like and see if i
i- 8- it sounds familiar. It would be Xerox pages handwritten'with-
.9 times, entries of activities that players might have done at 10 the exercise.
11 JA: I just don't recall.
1 -
12: ~Q Have you reviewed any player messages that would i
- . 13 have either been typed up or handwritten on a form?.
~
i 14 A I don't recall.that.
l 15 Q Have you reviewed the FEMA report?
l- 16 A Well, I just can't recall right now. Most of'this
- 17 was done in December,uso --
[s
- j. 18 Q Ilave you reviewed any parts of any emergency i
! 19 plans?
I can't recall what I reviewed regarding that.
~
20 A
- " 21 .Q Okay. Have you seen any individual tapes of press I
- i. 22 conferences?
e O l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage IK433M646 i
/
29488.0 KSW 6 v'
1 A No.
2' Q Have you read any transcripts of press 3 conferences?
4 MS. LETSCHE: You mean from the exercise?
5 MS. MC CLESKEY: Yes.
6 THE WITNESS: I don't recall. I concentrated my 7 attention on the EBS messages.
8 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
9 Q Have you read any prior testimony in this case?
10 A Well, what do you mean, from the prior litigation?
11 -Q Yes.
p.
12 A No.
13 Q Is there anything else that you remember seeing or 14 having read in December when you were looking things over?
15 A I had a big packet of material that I read, and I 16 just can't remember everything that was in that packet.
17 Q About how long did you spend reviewing these 18 materials? How long have you spent on this case to date?
19 A Well, I spent no more than half a day or so 20 . reviewing materials. Then there was a day spent traveling to 21 New York for a meeting. Then there was approximately a half 22 day spent in another meeting in Washington, D.C., and then I i
ss U
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Nationwide Coverage 800-336-fM6
. -_ _ . ,._ _ . ._ _ _ _ _202
_ _,-347-3700- _ _ -
1
-1 29488.0 KSW 7
[ )-
v 1 have spent some time in telephone consultation with Dr. Cole.
2 Q And'as to the New York meeting, when did that take 3- place?
4 A That was in early December,-approximately.
5 Q And where did that meeting take place?
6 A 'It was in a hotel conference-room near La Guardia 7 Airport.
8 Q Who was at that meeting?
9 A Dr. Cole, Dr. Saegert, Chris McMurray and Karla 10 Letsche, and I was there too.
11 Q Yes. And what generally did you discuss at the
['T
~
12 meeting?
, 13 MS. LETSCHE: Let me interrupt. I'm going to 14 instruct the witness not to answer that question in that the 15 discussions were with counsel, and are attorney work 16 product. I can say what was discussed in general was the 17 general ideas concerning preparation of testimony concerning 18 this case, and there were also discussions concerning the 19 questionnaire for the survey conducted by Dr. Cole, a copy of 20 which has been provided to you, and I believe Dr. Cole 21 indicated in his deposition to you what transpired at that 22 meeting concerning that questionnaire.
)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3?00 Nationwide Cos erage 800-33MM6
29488.0 LKSW 8
,~
Q 1- MS. MC CLESKEY: Thank you very much.
<- .2 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
3 Q When was the half day meeting in D.C.?-
4 'A That was approximately -- well, mid-December, 5 prior to my leaving Washington, D.C..
6 Q And who was present at that meeting?
7 A Dr. Cole was there, Chris McMurray was there. And 8 Karla Letsche was there for parts of it,.and other lawyers 9 periodically.
10 Q -And generally what was the subject of that 11 meeting?
Well, primarily we talked about the data or the-12 A.
13 study that or survey that would provide information on 14 voluntary evacuation.
- 15. Q The survey that you talked about, is that the one 16 that was the subject of the New York meeting, or is it a y 17 separate survey?
I l 18 A Well, we were talking primarily about the subject t
19 of the New York meeting and then some discussions about other 20 work that we might do.
i
, 21 Q And were any decisions made about doing additional
?
! 22 surveys?
lO '
l
. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202 Nationwide Coverage 804 336-6646
_ _ _-347-3700.
V -
. A^ l 1
y b. ,. .
- .w[
~: . t -
L29488.0- ,
KSW ,9
,- ,/ ' g MS. LETSCHE:
1 Let me interrupt'here and instruct -
2 the witness not to answer that question in that it would get.
3 into attorney work product. I can state for ydu, 4 Ms. McCleskey, that J'dae discussion wa3s as described by 5 Ms. LoStus, and there were discussions concerning additional ,
... y , . . . .
6 research, possibility'of additionaT'research, and-beyond 7- that, the remainder of the' discussions or any adA).tional ,
L 8 -information about that would reveal attorney work', product ,
9 material. .,
- s. , ,
10 BY M'S."MC CLESKEY:
x .
11 Q Are you working on any surve9s right now?
p' . .
y -
12 .A I'm not, no, ,
, %y' 13 Q Is.Dr.' Cole? I 4 14 A We]1, I den't know if he is or not. There was --
15 is far as I know, it has not yet been approved. There's no
.16 decision by the people 'who would fund the study to approve 17 any further work.
. . _ i ). '
18 Q Okay, and in addition'to your day meeting in New ,
19 York and hy,1f a day in D.C., there were phone calls with 20 Dr. Cole. Who else was n those phone calls?
21 s A Just he and Ig ,
s ..
22 Q Ahd what was the subject of those phone calds?. >
O s
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORT.ERS, INC.
2112 347-37(X) Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6646 -
% , , . , , ,,, , . , , . . . . - . . , - - - , , . . . . . . - - - . ~ . , - - . , - , , , , . . - -
._ ~ . .
29488~0 KSW 10 7_ .
N ,) .
1 A Again, the survey that would provide information 2 about voluntary evacuation.
3 Q The same survey that you discussed at the 4' i beginning of December?
5 A Yes. That's my recollection.
6 Q Now, what was your role in the development of that
.s' '
j ,., ,
7 survey?
A 8 A I would say I played a very minor role in the 9 development of the survey. It was already pretty well 10 -designed and completed. I participated in reviewing that i 11 material and critiquing it.
4 12 Q In your work as a psychologist,odo you usually use
- 13. those sorts of surveys?
14 A Not usually, no.
~#
15 Q From your perspective, what did you bring to bear 16 in terms of your expertise to critiquing the survey? From 17 what perspective were you looking at the survey?
18 A I'm sorry, I just don't know how to answer that 19 question. I'm a cognitive psychologist. To see whether the 20 questions were clear and intelligible, those kinds of issues.
21 Q Okay, and what were your remarks, suggestions for 22 change on the survey?
O
. ~
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationside Coverage 800-334 6646
I
.k
]i 29488.0
- t'
- KSW # ,
11 D [i *
?
%i . 1 j>- 1 A I do pt-remember. I mean.maybe if I had a copy of 3
', 2 the survey, it would. refresh my memory,.but as I sit ~here, I
.]1
'i 3 just don't recall exactly what I said versus what somebody H 4 else said.. q ~
5 Q Would you characterize your changes as a word here 6 .and there'or did you add' questions or sugge$t substantive 7 changes in the information that was-being given? Ilow would 8 you characterize your changes generally?
9 A Again, I would need to take a look at the survey' 10 .in order to remember exactly what my suggestions were.
. 11 Q Were they extensive?
12 A No.
l 13 Q Generally, what was your impression of'the survey?
14 A Well, I thought this was a survey that would g
15 provide some very useful information about the intentions of s /
/ ,
16 people, the behavioral intentions of people in response to, ,
3
!. 17 the information that they would have received.
j.
18 Q llave you had any other meetings or discussions 19 with anyone about work that you are doing on this litigation?
20 A Well, I did arrive in Washington, D.C. early 21 evening yesterday, and then1 I met with these two attorneys 22 -luring the evening, and we had further discussions, yes..
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I s _ m_,. __
mm.7
c
]
i t29488.0-
'KSW- 12'
- g.
ity:
-1 Q That was to prepare for this deposition?
2' 'A Yes. l 3 Q You said that you have reviewed, at least, the EBS 4 messages,.the press releases and the contentions.
5 A- -Yes..
6- Q Do you-agree-with the contentions?
- 7. A Yes. ,
8 Q Did you --
9 MS. LETSCHE: Excuse me. I don't know if 10 Dr. Loftus said or ner., but I don' t believe she has reviewed
. 'll all of the contentions.
12 .BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
1 13 Q Have you read the entire set of contentions or 14~ selected contentions provided to you?
15 A I don't think I have seen the entire set, but only 16- portions of it.
p 17 Q You would probably remember if you had read the 4 18 entire set. They are long.
7'
~ 19 MS. LETSCHE: I can say she has not seen the 20 entire set other than maybe having seen it.
i 21 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
, 22 Q So you read certain contentions that were given O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 3 Nanonwide Coverage 8011336 # 46
, . . . ~ . _ . . - _ _ _ .. _ ,
. .,_ _17-3 700. , , , _ _ . . _ . . _ . . . . _ _ _ , . . , - - . . _ . ~ . . . - , . _ . . _ . - - _ . . - . . . . .
29488.0' KSW 13 h:.
6 w?
1 you by counsel?
2 A Yes.
3 Q .And do you agree with the contentions?
4 A I agree with the subset, yes.
5 Q What about the EBS messages? What was your 6 impression of those when you read those?
7 MS. LETSCHE: That's an awful broad, vague 8 question, Kathy. I don't know how anyone can answer it. If 9 you want to be a little more specific about what kind of 10 impressions you are talking about, I think it would be easier 11 to get a helpful answer.
O 12 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
i 13 Q Do you understand what I'm asking you when I ask 14 you what your impression of the EBS messages was?
i 15 A Well, it is quite broad.
16- Q I will narrow it. Do you think the EBS messages 17 that you read were effective in communicating emergency 18 information?
19 A In my opinion, there were some serious problems 20 with the EBS messages as they were used during that exercise.
21 Q And what were those serious problems?
4 22 A They violated numerous principles of good
'f%
\.)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80tM36-6646
29488.0 KSW 14 1 emergency communication. They used words.that were what we 2 call low frequency, not understandable by large numbers.of 3 people. They presented conflicting information. .They 4- presented incomprehensible concepts without explaining them.
5 This is -- I'm just now enumerating some of the problems 6 inherent in the messages themselves. There's another set of 7 problems with the fact that these messages conflict with 8 other information being provided.
9 I must have said something important.
10 Q We're just trained to scribble things down.
11 (Discussion off the record.)
/
I
~'
12 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
13 Q Had I asked you about the EBS messages, one of the 14 first things that you said was that they violated most of the 15 principals of good emergency communication. Would you 16 characterize emergency communication as part of your field of 17 j expertise?
18 A My field is human information processing, and so I 19 am interested in studying the flow of information into the 20 fhumanmindandthestorageandretrievalofthatinformation For memory, for 21 l by people for a variety of purposes.
22 judgment, decision-making, thinking, understanding. So
(~~>)
~-
I
)
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37m Nationwide Coserage 8m-336446
- 3
- 29488.0
- KsW' :15 g-V ^
11 . emergency communicati , falls within thatLlarger' umbrella ~of 2 .research, and as,far as whether it is my field offexpertise,-
3 I have _ had a fair amount- of experience in the subject of -
i emergency communication.
14 5 Q Okay, would you list, based on your= study and your 6 work, what-you see as the good, the' principles of_ good 7 emergency communication? Just generally?
- 8. A Well, I can't list all of them without reviewing 9 some of-my prior writings, but I can tell you some' examples.
10 Q Sure.
11 A It is important to, in the selection of words, for
~
12 example, to use words that are high frequency in 'the English 13 language wherever possible, because high frequency words are 14 easier for people to comprehend ar.d make a message more 15 comprehensible.
16 Q Could you define "high frequency" for me?
t i 17 A Yes. High frequency word is a word that -- is a
!~
18 word commonly used in the English language, and there are i 19 books that exist that have tabulated the frequency of words
$ 20 as they are usea in the English language, so if you were to 21 look into one of these books, one of them published in 1944 ;
L i 22 and another in 1967, you would be able to identify the
- (1)-
c ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-M7-3?(o Nationwide Coserage sn33MM6
- 29488.0
- KSW-.
.16 1 frequency of.most words in-the English language. Number of 2 times.it is used per million,'for example. You would find 3- that'words like chair.and apple are fairly common and words 4 like imminent:and other examples are not' common.
5 That's one principle. ' Shall I go on?
6 Q ..Certainly.
.7 A -Another principle.is to wherever possible use verb 8 forms in favor of nominalizations. A nominalization would be-9- something like "The-smoking of cigars is forbidden." A verb 10 form conveying that same information is "You are not
. 11 permitted to smoke cigars" or something like that. Verb
[ ' 12 forms are-easier for people to understand.
13 Those are some examples of principles that I have 14 followed not only in my book on emergency communications, but 4
15 in the rewriting of jury instructions and other plain English 1
16 work.
17 Q So you have listed the concept of high frequency
! 18 words and the concept of verb forms in favor of L
- . 19 nominalizations. Are there any other major principles that
! 20 you would include in your list of principles for good j 21 emergency communication?
22 A Well, you want to avoid long and complex sentences t
1 O
!~
L ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-370t) Nationwide Coverage RXL334M6
, - . , - , , - - -,.--.--,,,.--,-,,--,,--,,--,.~.,n-.. -,,,,-.---,,.---.,_.n.- , . - - - . , . , , - - , - -
29488.0 KSW 17
,, ~ ,
' (~. ,! -
1 that have a lot of imbedded clauses. You would like to 2 wherever possible put the.information in the active tense 3 rather than in the passive tense.
4 Q I'm trying to feel out where your, expertise fits 5 in in looking at things like EBS messages. .I'm just trying 6' to get that straight in my mind because I'm not a 7 psychologist. I don't know very much about it. Would it be 8 correct to say that you focus more on the words and'what 9 impact the words might have on the listener because of the 10 way the listener processes information rather than how the .
11 information is given to the listener?
O 12 A Not necessarily, no. The words and'the sentences 13 and the paragraphs and the structure of the information is 14 important, but I think other ingredients are also important.
15 Q What would those be? What are the other 16 ingredients that are important?
17 A Well, the whole information environment, the 18 environment in which the information is received and --
19 Q What makes up the information environment?
20 A Well, it might be different for different 21 settings, but in the current setting, one can analyze the 22 problems with the EBS messages as they stand by themselves (1) i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-17w Nationwide Cos erage MO 3bf646
29488.0 KSW 18
,,rK L)'
-1 and how an ordinary human listener would receive those 2 messages, but you also can look at other information sources 3 and how they will interact with the EBS messages and how they 4 will tend to enhance that reception or cause further 5 confusion or whatever else might take place.
6 Q For the exercise, what are those other information 7 sources as far as you understand?
8 A Well, first of all, they are press releases that l
9 will go to the press and be used in creating media 10 information. Next there is media information that is 11 acquired by the media, not necessarily from the press 12 releases but from other media investigation; and finally, 13 there is personal contact that individuals will have with 14 other people.
15 Q You mean talking to each other in the population 16 talking to each other?
17 A Yes.
18 Q I take it from what we have talked about that you 19 found that the EBS messages violated a good many of your 20 principles.
21 A Yes, they did. Yes.
22 Q Have you looked at any other emergency information O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nanonwide Coverage 8M336-u4
29488.0
- KSW -19
- k) 1 messages for other kinds of emergencies?
2 A- I have written such messages.
3 Q Great. When? For what?
I have written messages for the U.S. Government
~
4 A 5 -for communicating with people in case of a fire or other 6 emergency in a government high-rise building.
7 Q Is fires the main kind of emergency that you have 8 worked with? Have you done any hurricane, natural disaster 9 sort of work?
10 A No, I have donc primarily fires.
11 Q .Have you done any other nuclear work?.
.f~')-
12 MS. LETSCHE: Are you talking about in preparation 13 of. emergency messages for nuclear emergencies? Was that your 14 question?
15 MS. MC CLESKEY: Right.
16 THE WITNESS: No.
17 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
10 Q So the emergency messages that you have written 19 are fire messages?
20 ,
A Well, I'm trying to recall. I think I did some l
21 consulting. I can't remember if we actually wrote these 22 messages, on bomb threats and other kinds of emergencies, but O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I x.m.m, s.e_m <m, ,. -
3 29488.0 KSW 20
- 77 V
1 primarily fires.
2 Q And were the fire messages written, posted 3 information, or written for being read to people, or what 4 form did they take?
5 A These were written to_be delivered via a computer 6 over a loudspeaker, prerecorded tapes.
7 Q Arul they were to be used if there was a fire, to 8 inform people.that there was a fire and they should leave the 9 building, basically?
10 A Well, or what they should do.
11 Q You said that you had also read the press 12 releases.
13 A Yes.
14 Q Do you think that the press releases communicated 15 well the information that LERO and LILCO were attempting to 16 disseminate during the emergency?
- 17 A I don't recall the press releases quite as well as
'18 I do the EBS messages. It is my recollection that there were 19 problems with it when viewed with respect to the EBS messages 20 because in part because of delays, and so an EBS message 21 would be giving one piece of information, and a press release 22 in effect at that same time was giving different ill ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coverage M43346M6
29488.0 KSW 21 N..l 1 information. That was a problem with those press releases.
2 As for other problems, I would have to rereview them. I 3 haven't actually looked at them since early December.
4 Q When we started off talking about the difficulties 5 with EBS messages, you listed using low frequency words, and 6 we have discussed what that means. You also said there was 7 conflicting information, and I take it that you mean within 8 the EBS messages there was conflicting information.
9 A Yes.
10 Q Do you recall any examples of conflicting 11 information?
m
(' )
12 A Well, again, I would be able to give a somewhat 13 more complete answer if I had the messages in front of me,
, 14 but just on the basis of recall as I sit here, one example 15 occurs in one of the messages where different kinds of things 16 are being said about the release of radiation, so in one part 17 of the message it sounds as if there has been sono release of 18 radiation, and in another part, the message seems to be 19 trying to communicate that release of radiation is not 20 ;
imminent, and I think that was terribly confusing, especially 21 occurring within the same message.
1 I
22 ! O You also said that there were some l l
(n> i l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mmm., ~.m _ . < - _ .
29488.0 KSW 22 N/-
1 " incomprehensible concepts," and those are my notes. They 2 are probably not your words. Could you give me an example of 3 that problem that you saw in the EBS messages?
4 A Yes. One of the most serious examples of that is 5 when the messages start to announce the dose of radiation, 6 and I doubt that very many people would be able to understand 7 what's being communicated.
8 Q If someone called you and asked you to rewrite 9 those messages to make them understandable, do you think that 10 you could accomplish that?
11 A Well, I could certainly, by using some of the
(' )
12 principles that I have identified, make tremendous 13 improvements in those messages, as could other people who 14 have experience in rewriting incomprehensible material for a 15 lay audience, so I would say there could be some 16 improvement. I don't know that it would solve all of the 17 problems that exist, but we could certainly improve those 18 specific messages.
I 19 l 0 As far as you are concerned, improvement wouldn't 0
20 be an insurmountable task on the messages?
[
21 l A No, I think improvement is a real possibility.
l 22 l Q The fourth item that you listed when we were i
f')
\_/ !
1 L
I
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I mm m., m_ m- e..om
l 29488.0 KSW 23 h
Li 1 talking about the EBS message was that there was a problem 2 with conflicting information among the types of information 3 being provided, and you have given one example of that, of 4 the press releases giving out perhaps a bit different 5 information than the EBS messages. Are there any other 6 examples that come to mind, having reviewed the materials 7 that you have about the exercise?
8 A Well, one other example that comes to mind has to 9 do with whether or not the messages are communicating the 10 idea that people are safe where they are. That is, not to 11 evacuate. When you tell people that they are safe where they 12 are, but you also tell them that schools are_being closed or 13 that animals are being put on stored feed, I think 14 conflicting messages are going to be rect.ived by people.
15 There's a, what we would call a pragmatic implication that 16 maybe things are not safe.
17 j Q Okay, are you familiar with the NRC's regulations 18 regarding what has to be in an emergency plan for a nuclear 19 power plant?
20 A No.
bet's assume for a moment that animals have to be 21 Q 22 placed on stored feed at a lower level of emergency than i
(1) !
I 3
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-147-3700 Nationwide Coserage 9 0-14f446
l I
l 29488.0 l KSW 24
,_s n.,/
1 people having to be moved, so assume for our discussion that 2 there's always going to be a ruint in an emergency at which 3 animals are supposed to be placed on stored feed according to 4 NRC regulations, but people will not be evacuated. They will 5 be being told, you are safe, stay home, stay inside. From 6 your perspective, looking at that message, do you think that 7 there's any way to communicate the two pieces of information, 8 put your animals on stored feed, but you stay home and stay 9 inside and you are safe, in a way that will be believabic to 10 the people who are supposed to just stay?
11 MS. LETSCHE: Let me just object to the form of
('- ')
12 the question.
13 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
14 Q Do you understand what I'm asking?
15 A Well, I think I understand what you are asking.
16 Q What is your answer?
17 A I think there's a serious problem here, because I 18 .
think if you are going to communicate those two pieces of 19 information to peopic, then there will still be many people l
i 20 who will not feel safe. I don't know what kind of massive 21 j
educational campaign would be necessary to overcome that 22 ! proble , but I see that as a problem.
o :
U ACE-FEDERAL REPORFERS, INC.
ocx.m 8,,.-ac c-~n von
29488.0 KSW 25 m
/
1 Q And is it fair to say that you see that as a 2 problem that's inherent in those two messagen going out?
3 A Yes --
4 MS. LETSCHE: Let me just interrupt here. This is 5 all premised on what you have told the witness to assume is 6 in the NRC regulations, so she is to assume that it is in 7 fact appropriate, proper and I believe you said required that 8 those two messages be communicated at the same time and in 9 the same form, so your answer can be premised on those 10 assumptions which Ms. McCleskey told you to have.
11 MS. MC CLESKEY: I'm not sure you accurately I' ~') 12 characterized the assumptions that I asked you to make.
13 Perhaps I ought to ask the question again, although I 14 understood your answer was yes.
15 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
16 0 If you have a population that may be at risk and 17 you are trying to give them some information about emergency 18 ,
response,, and one of the pieces of information you are going i
19 to be giving them is put your animals on stored feed, and 20 another piece of information that you are going to be giving 21 them is, you are safe, stay where you are, you do not need to 22 l 1 eave the area, are those two pieces of information
/~T L) ,
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2,c m n,,, s ,aam,ye mn-
29488.0 KSW 26 I's
.V 1 inherently contradictory from your perspective, fron'your 2 field of expertise, so that the result _in your view will be 3 people not feeling safe because of the other piece of 4 information, the animals on stored' feed piece of information, S- being given to them?
6 A I'm not sure that I would use your expression, 7 " inherently contradictory." My opinion is that some 8 proportion of people, and without a study to indicate what 9 that proportion is I can't say how high it is, but that some 10 proportion of people would receive those two pieces of 11 information and infer that they were not safe, that they
# 12 themselves were not safe where they were.
13 Q .What would you do if you were writing a message to 14 minimize the impact of that inference?
15 MS. LETSCHS: Before you answer, Dr. Loftus, let 16 me object to that question in that I think it is vague. I 17 don't know what inference it is that you are talking about.
18 I assume you are referring back to your prior question. Your 19 prior question referenced this one piece of information about 20 animals and then several other pieces of information have 21 l been communicated to the public that they are safe, they 22 don't need to evacuate, they should stay inside their houses, O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tS347 3?m Natninwide rmerage *xk334m
e 29488.0 4
j KSW 27
, 7, f )
'j j
1 and do you now want Dr. Loftus to include all those pieces of 2 information in some message that you want her to write 3 sitting here off the top of her head?
4 MS. MC CLESKEY: Well, Ms. Letsche, the inference S I was referring to is the one Professor Loftus brought up, 6 which is what the people will infer from the animal message.
7 MS. LETSCHE: I believe the answer was that what 8 people would infer, given all those bits of information that 9 you had put in your prior question, which was about the 10 animals, and then three or four different messages to bc 11 given to the public. I just want to note my objection to
()
12 that question. I think it is very vague and I think to 13 expect Dr. Loftus to remember back four and five questions to 14 all these premises and assumptions which you were telling her 15 and pieces of messages which you want her to write sitting 16 here is not an appropriate question.
17 MS. MC CLESKEY: Well, I didn't ask her to write 18 any messages, and I think she was prepared to answer the 19 question before you started your remarks, and I will ask her i
20 now to answer it.
21 THE WITNESS: Well, about what I was going to say 22 was that I can't -- I would need to study the situation o
L> ,
a l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2c 347-3h u t Nanonude Cmerage mL34M4
29488.0 KSW 28 1 before I could sit down and try to write either a portion of 2 a message or a complete message, and so I would not want to 3 begin now, without giving it a lot of thought, to try to 4 write a message that would solve this serious problem.
5 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
6 Q What would you study?
7 A Well, I would review the entire context of what 8 information had to be communicated and the whole information 9 environment.
10 Q So you would make a list of the information that 11 needed to be communicated to the public?
12 A Yes, what information needed to be communicated.
13 Q And then what would you do with that?
14 A Well, I might try to write some messages and test 15 them to see how they were being received by peopic.
16 Q How would you test them?
17 A Well, I'm not sure I can answer that. There are 18 so many dif f erent ways to do a study that I don't know yet the best way. I could come up with one idea 19 fwhichwillbe 20 l here, but giving it the kind of thought that it would 21 discern, I might decide that that was not the best way.
Could you describe the options of testing that 22 Q I
rN L> l l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, _
INC.
. m., ,_.gy
29488.0 KSW 29 (N.
V 1 sort of message?
2 A Well, one is to present the message and ask people 3 what they would remember -- what they remember'about it, 4 either ask them to remember freely or ask them specific 5 questions about it to see how accurate their memory is and 6 how much they are comprehending. There might be other people 7 who would be asked what would y :o if you heard this 8 message.
9 Q So you would get a group of people together and 10 set up a study where you read the message to them or they 11 read the message and then you would test either by written O. 12 question and answer or orally what they remember of what they 13 heard and how they might react to it?
14 A Yes, I think that would be some preliminary 15 testing that you might want to do.
16 Q Could you describe briefly from your review thus 17 far of the information that you have about the exercise what 18 you think the different sources of information to the public 19 are during an exercise?
20 MS. LETSCHE: I think that was already asked and i
21 ; answered, but you can answer it again if you want to.
22 THE WITNESS: I thought I answered that already.
(2) .
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Cmcrage R46336 6M6
29488.0 KSW 30
'g_ys 1 There's the information that people receive from media 2 sources, from their radio and television and newspaper, and 3 information that they receive from other people.
4 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
5 Q You are right. I did ask you that. I'm sorry.
6 The third thing, you said you reviewed the EBS 7 messages which we talked about, and the press releases, which 8 we've talked about, and you have also reviewed certain 9 selected contentions. Do you intend to do any further work 10 to look behind the facts represented in the contentions to 11 see if those facts are true, or do you take the contentions
/~T 12 as they come as true?
13 A Well, I'm not sure what you mean by further work.
14 I have not even begun to prepare my testimony or write the 15 testimony. I know that there will be further data coming 16 from Dr. Cole's survey that will bear on the shadow 17 evacuation, and so I think there is going to be some further 18 l Information.
i 19 ! Q I'm just trying to get an idea of what the scope i
20 i of the rest of your work might be. For example, in the 21 contentions there are a lot of facts listed about the times 22 that certain things happen. Do you intend to do any further (3
~> j s
i k
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37m Nanonaide Coserag $n3 %6M6
29488.0 KSW 31 Q,m. ,
1 work to find out whether those things actually happened'at 2 -those times, or are you taking that as a given and working 3 :with that information in the contentions?
4 A Well,_ inLthat example,;I would say I would take 5 that as a given.
6 Q Other-than the meetings that we have discussed so 7 far, and the discussions you had with Dr.' Cole and with 8 l counsel last night in preparation for the deposition, have' 9 you discussed the exercise and the subsequent' litigation with 10 anyone else?
11 A Well, I'm sure I told my husband about the 12 litigation.
13 Q Right. Have you discussed it with anyone else in 14 the context of working on your response, your testimony, your 15 role in the litigation?
16 A No, not in any working sense.
17 Q Okay. Have you written anything about the 18 February 13 exercise?
19 A No.
20 Q Have you written any letters, memos, notes, 21 outlines, surveys, done any research?
22 A No. Well, I'm not sure what you mean by research.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8 @ 336-6646
29488.0 KSW 32 V
1 Q Well, an example of research might be beginning a 2 literature research and taking notes in preparation for_your
-3 testimony.
4 A No.
5 Q Do you intend to do any of those things?
6 I. Well, I don't know whether that will become 7 necessary in the preparation of my testimony or not. If I 8 can prepare the testimony without doing that, I will do it 9 without doing that.
10 Q When do you intend to start preparing your 11 testimony? Do you know?
12 A Whenever the attorneys ask me to.
13 Q And they have not yet asked?
14 A No.
15 Q Did you bring any documents with you today?
16 A No. I had no understanding that I was supposed 17 to.
l 18 Q Have you developed -- ever been involved in 19 developing any scenarios for a nuclear power plant, emergency l
l 20 drills or exercises?
21 A No.
22 Q Have you ever been an evaluator at a nuclear O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202.147-3700 Nationwide Coverage Wh 3.1MM6
[
29488.O KSW 33 A
%f 1 emergency. drill or exercise? ,
2 A An evaluator in a' nuclear drill? No.
3 _ Q. Have you participated as a player in any' nuclear-4 drills?
- 5. A No.
~
6 Q Have you-ever been to a nuclear drill or 7- exercise?
8 'MS. LETSCHE: A nuclear power plant-drill?
9 Nuclear drill sounds too bizarre to me. Sorry.
10 THE WITNESS: No.
11 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
O 12 Q Have you been to exercises of other kinds of 13 emergency plans for other emergencies?
14 A Yes.
15 Q And what were those?
16 A Well, I participated in a drill designed to test 17 the emergency system and the messages within that system for 18 the federal high-rise building work that I mentioned earlier.
19 Q Was that -- did they have a written emergency plan 20 in connection with this fire drill system?
21 A I don't recall.
22 Q What was your involvement in the drill?
O i I
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- 202 347-3700 Nationule Coserage NA34fM6
_ - _ - . , _ , . . . . . . . . _ _ - . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . - . . _ . _ _ . _ . _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ . , . _ . . , _ _ , _ . .__,m_ . . , , . _ _ _
-29488.0 KSW .34 A.
.V 1 A I prepared, along with'my colleague and 2 . collaborator, Dr. Keating, a questionnaire to be. distributed 3 to participants who were in the drill. -I was present at the 4 drill observing behavior.
5 Q What did they do, read the messages out?
6 A They were prerecording messages that were 7 automatically triggered' as part of an emergency evacuation.
8 Q Did the people in the building know that this test 9 was going-to take place?
I' 10 A In terms of this drill, half of them knew and half e
11 of them didn't.
12 Q And then did you have a staff of people observing 13 or was it just you?
. 14 A No, it was my collaborator, me, various other
! 15 people, officials that we had stationed in various locations.
16 Q And what did you observe?
j 17 A I observed the responses of people to the messages l 18 that were broadcast over the loudspeakers, and how long it i 19 took people to move through the building and away from the l 20 areas that they were to be moving away from.
I i
- 21 ; Q What was the result? How did people respond?
22 A I would say it is my recollection that people did O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- m ,4,m ~. m _ m _ ,. --
29488.0 KSW 35 in .
+ L) -
1 move away from where they were supposed to be moving away 2 from, and they did so in a reasonably efficient way.
3 Q In terms of the results of the drill, were you 4 pleased with-the effect of the communication that you had 5 drafted on the fire emergency?
6 A I would say based on that drill, yes.
7 Q Did you make any changes to the communication as a 8 result of your observations during the drill?
9 A No.
10 Q Have you designed any other sorts of emergency 11 communications like that?
12 A Yes.
13 Q And what are those?
14 A In 1979, I did -- approximately 1979, I did some 15 work for the Bay Area Rapid Transit system to communicate 16 with people in case of a fire in the San Francisco subway.
17 Q Was that a loudspeaker sort of thing too? Could 18 you describe it for me?
19 A Well, after a fire had occurred in the tube that 20 connects, basically connects Oakland to San Francisco, an 21 emergency plan had to be developed, and I wrote some messages 22 .
for use by the driver of the train to read in case of a fire I
[~D i
(_) i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i m mm., __ m-- -
.29488.0 KSW 36
.b .
U 1 in the tunnel 11n the future.
2 Q I take it there had been a' bad fire and people had 3 been hurt because there was no emergency plan to copy with 4 it? Is that what happened?
5 A Yes,-there was a fire,~and someone was killed, and 6 as a result of that, a plan became necessary.
7 Q So you drafted the messages that the conductor 8 would read to tell people how to go to safety?
9 A Yes. Now there was no capability for prerecording 10 messages in that system, which would have been a tremendous 11 improvement over having a train driver read the message and O 12 all the human fallibility that goes with that, but.I worked 13 'within the limits of that system and drafted a mecsage.
14 Q Did you test those?
15 A No, they didn't say have a test after that.
16 Q Do you know if they have ever used them?
17 A I don't know. I moved away from San Francisco.
1 18 MS. MC CLESKEY: Let's take a five-minute break.
19 (Recess.)
20- BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
21 Q Other than the emergency system for the high-rise 22 building and the Bay Area Rapid Transit system messages, have l (1) !
?
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
)O2-347-3 NX) Nationwide Coserage *1k33(> fM6
29488.0 KSW ,
i 37 y .
- i 1 you draftni any other emergency messages?
s 2 A i Well, the high-rise situat; ion is not one mc5 age l
3 but several messages in different buildings throughout the 4 country, so you understand that.
5 Q It was a system that they used then in a lot of 6 different places?
7 A Yes.
8 Q Did you tailor the messages to each building or ---
9 A Yes. 'They had to be wr;:.tten individtitlly 10 depending on the environment in which they were to be used.
11 Q Are they still using these?
q/
12 A I would think so, yes. >
13 Q Other than that system and the, Bay Arv.a sys tem, 14 have you done any other messages?
15 A Not that I recall right now. -
l 16 Q Have you worked with anyone developing an i
17 emergency plan for reuponse to any kind of emergency?
18 A Not that I recall. I have worked on other I
19 ! environments but --
l 20 Q I don't know what that means. What do you mebn by 21 ; that?
22 7 A Well, hospitals, . for example, i"'. \
U, l l
i l
l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS,.INC.
I :eume s_ m m. ~ mm j
29488.0 KSW 38 N
1 Q What have you done for hospitals?
I ,
2 A Basically examined the feasibility of implementing 3 tiie system in the high-rises in the hospital.
4 Q You mean taking the computer message idea and 5 putting it in a hospital?
6 A Yes.
t 7 Q For the same purpose, fire and response?
8 A For fires and other emergencies, but it was not 9s feasible.
10 Q Why not?
11 A Well, because you do not want to have people in
- '~~'< ,
12 ' your psychiatric ward hearing over loudspeakers that there's 13 a fire, or in your burn ward or in other certain places in 14 the hospital. That's why it was necessary to have a 15 different kind of system in the hospital setting, where the 16 messages are disguised so that only certain people understand 17 what they mean.
18 Q You had fire warning messages that only certain 19 ,
people would understand what they mean?
l 20 l A Basically, yes.
, 21 ; Q Who understood them?
[
} 22 I A. The doctors and nurses but not the patients.
/%
j
}
f ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
w c.~ - u-
. ~ _ _ - - _ _.
4 a Y
'l I 29488.0 -/' 7 i KSW #
39 l
-s ..
s ,
t t
4 7 ,, .
1, ,
Q Okay, then-it was their job to. implement.some' sort I
2 of emergency response to get the patients out?
3 A Yes.
4- Q That's really interesting. So the sensitivity of 4- 5 the population you were dealing with altered the I
6 communicat. ion?
t 5%
7 A Yes. ~l 8 Q Can you think of any other emergency planning that 4
9 you have worked on?-
r tc t i 10 A I think that's all I recall.
I' 11 '
Q Have you reviewed any exercise reports or papers-t >
12 from.other nuclear power plant exercises in your preparat5cn 13 on this' litigation?
i I 14 A No.
^
15 . Q Have you reviewed them in your work generally? ;
I
- 16 A I'm -- reviewed what exactly? i 17 Q Exercise reports from other nuclear power plants i
[' 18 in your work generally?
19 A No.
- 20 Q Have you ever testified before?
- 21 A Yes.
3 22 Q When and where?
i-O s.
c I
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, 202 Nadonwide Coserage 8t43346646
.--,...-,.-_...._...._.,..._+...__...___-347-3700._ _ .. ._,,_,;.___....._,__ . . , . . . , _ _ _ _ - . . . - _ . .
_.w 29488.0 KSW- 40 p
Y 1 A Many different places.
2 Q Okay, let's start with what kinds of proceedings 3 have you testified in?
4 .A A variety of different proceedings.
5 Q In courts?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Before administrative bodies? ,
8 A Yes.
9 Q Before legislative bodies?
10 A' Yes, I think so.
- l .
11 Q Was any of this testimony related to emergency 12 communications?
13 A Well, I can't think of a specific example where, 14 you know -- it is possible that one of the many cases in 15 d which I have testified did touch on the problem of emergency 16 communications. I just can't remember.
-- 17 Q Have you ever testified in a nuclear power plant L
18 licensing case?
19 A A licensing case? No.
20 Q Do you know what that means?
21 A I think it means when a plant -- the issue about 22 licensing a plant. No, I don't think so.
!O ACE-FEDEPAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-33MM6
- , , . - _ . ~ . , , - , , . -- . . . . . . . . . . . _ , - - - . - ~ - - , - - - - . . - - - - - - -, .--,,,.,;
~29488.0 KSW- 41 1 Q Can you generally describe the subject matter of 2 the testimony that you have given?
3 ,
A Yes. Primarily I testify on the recollection of 4 witnesses. In criminal cases, the accuracy of eyewitness 5 testimony, and in many civil cases, the accuracy of 6 eyewitness testimony would be the subject of my expert 7 testimony. I have also testified in product liability cases, 8 on the adequacy of warnings and other communication that is 9 presented on the product or in the manual associated with the 10 product, and I have testified in trademark infringement 11 cases, on the confuseability of symbols or names. That's the 12 major kind of testimony that I have given.
13 Q When were you first approached about being'a 14 witness in this case?
15 A I would say it was probably about November or so 16 of 1986.
t
!. 17 Q And who approached you?
l 18 A Ms. Letsche.
l 19 Q Had you talked with anyone about the Shoreham case 20 before then?
21 A Not that I recall, no.
22 Q And when did you agree to testify?
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37(X) Nationwide Cmerage 8(6336-N46
.~ _
29488.0 KSW 42
/~Y t,) '
1 A Well, we had a first a preliminary phone 2 conversation, and then a meeting to discuss the issues in 3 this case, and whether or not I had any expertise that would 4 bear on the case. I don't know whether it would be at the 5 end of that meeting or --
6 Q Was that the meeting where you met Dr. Cole and 7 Dr. Saegert and Chris McMurray at the La Guardia Hotel?
8 A -No. I'm sorry if I omitted some meeting, but my 9 initial meeting was with Ms. Letsche alone, but that was 10 before I was actually retained.
11 Q And that was what, in November?
12 A Approximately November.
13 Q Did you read anything before you agreed to become 14 a witness?
15 A I don't recall what, exactly when I received what 16 materials or whether she had materials with her that she 17 showed me or not, but we certainly discussed what was in 18 them, if I didn't see them.
19 Q I have read your lengthy resume, and I have some 20 questions about it, and you will just have to bear with me 21 because I'm approaching it with no psychology background 22 whatsoever and am just trying to sort out what you do for, O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3X10 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-fM6
1
~
2?488.0 KSW 43-1- you know, in your day-to-day work. I see that you teach at 2 the University of Washington. Generally'what courses do you 3 -teach? '
J 4 A Primarily I teach cognitive psychology.
5 Q Are those large lecture classes Lhat you do every 6 semester or --
7 A Cognitive psychology is a large lecture class. I 8 teach seminars in addition to that on more specialized 9 topics.
10 Q What are the specialized topics that you teach?
11 A Well, I teach a course on eyewitness testimony. I O 12 sometimes teach a course on law and psychology. I organize a 13 graduate seminar on -- just on cognition in general for the 14 cognitive faculty and graduate students.
15 Q Do you teach any --
16 MS. LETSCHE: I'm not sure she was finished with 17 her answer.
18 THE WITNESS: Occasionally I have taught in the 19 past statistics and data analysis.
20 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
l 21 Q Have you taught any emergency-related seminar
- 22 courses, either communication during an emergency or human
- C)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-f686
,, , . . . . ...-.4_--m , - - - - . , - - . _ . ~ , - - - - _ . - - . - , .. .- , _ . - - . . - - . . . . - - . , . _ . . . . , . . - , . - - _ - - . - - -, --
29488.0 KSW 44 O(~h .-
1 response in emergency sorts of courses?
2 A Well, I have lectured a number of times on my work 3 in that area, but I have not taught a course in that area.
4 Q When you say lecture, do you mean visiting, 5 requested to give talks on that subject?
6 A Yes.
7 Q Could you just describe from your perspective what 8 .is your specialty within psychology?
9 A Human perception and memory.
7 10 Q .And could you summarize briefly, I know that you
- 11. have done a lot of work, but could you-summarize briefly what O-
"# 12 the thrust of your work in that area has been?
13 A Well, a great deal of the experiments and the 14 research I have done is-on the problem of how people receive 15~ information about some event that they have experienced and 16 then retrieve that information later or recall the l ', information later, and one major interest of mine has been 18 the extent to which information that is acquired becomes 19 modified or contaminated or distorted through subsequent i
20 inputs, so I have done extensive work on that problem.
21 Q And it would be that subject that you would be 22 tes tifying in court about in analyzing an eyewitness '
.Cl)
ACE-FEDEPAL REPORTERS, INC.
Nationwide Coverage MG336-M46
- -,202
-347-3700 , , - , , - - , - - . . , - - - - - , , - - - - - --, . -
1 1
'29488.0 KSW 45 i rx l N.) l 1 testimony? l l
-2 A Well, that's one aspect of the problem. I have l 3 written a number of books on eyewitness testimony and 4 articles, and those books and articles do occasionally 5 describe the work of our researchers in my field, who study 6 slightly different factors that influence eyewitness 7 reliability, and I might also be testifying about their work.
8 Q Do you intend to apply that theory to any of the 9 actors or potential actors in the exercise scenario?
10 MS. LETSCHE: Could you clarify what you mean by 11 actors in the exercise scenario?
rT
~ t] 12 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
13 Q What I mean is do you intend to apply your theory 14 to either people who were taking part in the exercise or 15 people who potentially would have received the information 16 had there been a real emergency?
17 A Well, it is certainly possible that some of to 18 those theoretical ideas are relevant. If an individual 19 receives a message and later on receives conflicting 20 information from some other source, one of the things that 21 can happen is a misremembering or distortion in memory of the 1
22 original message.
O l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- . 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
_ ,_ _ __ . _ _ . . . _ ~ .
.29488.0 KSW- 46 A_)
1 Q I take it you have not really gone forward yet 2 with your analysis in terms of preparing testimony for who 3 you might apply your theories to; is that correct?
4 A That's correct.
5 Q Right now, do you know if you intend to analyze 6 how reporters at the ENC would have been receiving messages 7 and giving out information?
8 A Well, that might become part of the analysis, 9 although I would think the major thrust of my work would be 10 on the individual ordinary person who is receiving this 11 barrage of information from various sources.
12 Q So as far as you know right now, the gist of your 13 testimony will be aimed at what the public would have heard 14 during the exercise and how it would have affected them?
15 A I would say the bulk of it, yes.
16 Q Do you tend to, after you describe tiiat based on 17 your expertise, do you intend to also testify about what the 18 result of that communication might be in terms of behavior 19 response by the public? -
20 A I would consider that within the realm of my l
l 21 testimony, yes.
22 Q Do you have any preliminary conclusions that you (o _/
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3'00 %tionwide Coserage MXK33MM6
29488.0 KSW 47
\_
1 have drawn based on what you have looked at so far about what 2 the likely response of the public would have been to the 3 information given in the exercise?
4 A Well, I have not formulated the final answers 5 because all of the information is not in, but it is my 6 opinion based on what I know so far that a substantial 7 percentage of people who are not supposed to be evacuating 8 would have an intention to evacuate.
9 Q What do you base that opinion on?
10 A I base it on the work of Dr. Cole.
11 Q What further information would you like to have
('# 3 12 before you finalize that opinion?
13 A The final results of the Cole survey.
14 Q Do you intend to rely on anything other than the 15 Cole survey as the base of that opinion?
16 A I don't know what other surveys -- I know there 17 are many surveys that have been done of a variety of kinds, 18 so if the results of those surveys were made available to me, 19 they might form part of my opinion.
20 Q Do you intend to rely on information other than 21 j surveys?
22 A Well, there's a whole body of knowledge in l
(~~\ l
%) {
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347- 3?CO Nation *ide Coverage Wak336-6M6
'29488.0 KSW- 48
,fq .
V 1 cognitive psychology, and closely related fields, that I 2 might rely on depending on the specific issues that I focus 3 my testimony on.
4 Q When I read your resume, particularly your 5 publications -- and I confess I have skimmed the text of some 6 of them, but I have actually read all of the titles -- for 7 me, they fall into four major categories. One is eyewitness 8 testimony, and that whole' field. Another is a more general 9 memory and learning and cognition sort of area. Another is 10 courtroom and juries and legal matters. The fourth would be 11 the fire emergencies.
U 12 For purposes of our discussion, is that a pretty 13 fair breaking down of the areas that you generally work in 14 day-to-day?-
15 A Yes. That was excellent.
j 16 Q Thanks.
17 Can you discuss for me -- you have done this a 18 little bit with the eyewitness area. For each of those four 19 areas, can you describe for me how, if they do, they would 20 relate to the work that you would be doing on the exercise
.l 21 litigation in this case?
22 A Okay, yes. Well, let's take the law-related (s,
t I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3701 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-(M6
, , . - - --, , - . - , ~ _ , , - __
t 2948820
- KSW: 49 73_
- V ~
1 articles. The most' relevant work in that area'is the work 2 that I have done with my. collaborators on jury instructions,
~
3 because jury instructions, as you know, are information to be 4 communicated to ordinary people who serve on juries, and what 1
5 we have done is analyze some of the pattern. instructions that 6 are currently in use and found ways in which they were +
7 incomprehensible or presented difficulties for ordinary 8 people. We revised those instruction to try-to improve the' '
9 comprehension and intelligibility of them using certain
^
10 .psychologistic principles and other principles of 11 comprehension, so I do see a connection between that work and.
- 12 the comprehension of the EBS messages and the other
,c 13 information presented in.the nuclear power situation.
- 14. Q Let me just interrupt you and ask you a question 15 about that. When you are looking at all of the information 16 that goes out and analyzing the words and that sort of thing 17 for the high frequency and the understandability of the f i
l 18 ~ words, would you be looking also for the purposes of your 19 testimony at what the press produced, or do you think that's 20 not particularly relevant to your testimony?
l 21 j A No, I think what the press actually communicates 22 to people and what the press is doing is quite relevant,
- CE) i i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-147-3700 Natsonwide Coverage 800-336-6646
4 L29488.0 ~
KSW' 50 j.
G 1 1because this is a potential source of conflicting information-
~
~-2. which has_the possible impact of not only distorting 3 recollection of what the EBS messages.said in the same.way i . . .
4 that eyewitness testimony can become distorted:through 1 -5 post-event sugges tion and misleading information, but also'in 6 terms of producing anxiety.and confusion and other sorts of 7 negative reactions on the part of people.
8 Q Okay, so is it fair to say you are likely to 9 analyze-the. relationship between what the press heard and 10 what they reported, the relationship.between what the public 11 .w ould have heard and what they would have responded, from 12 both the'LERO organization and from the press, and from other t
- 13- sources?
, 14 A I-would say yes.
[ 15 Q All of that would come into play in your i
16' testimony?
17 A Yes.
18 Q What about the -- we talked'about the courtroom f
19 and jury and we talked about the eyewitness testimony, two of 20 the four categories I divided your resume into. What about i 21 the memory, learning, cognition area? Is that mostly a more l 22 general subject that the eyewitness and the juror information
[ (El ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M 347 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-33MM6 l - . _ . ,. _ . . , , . . - , _, - . _ . . . _ _ _ . _ , _ . . , _ . _ . . . ,....., , _ - . _ . , . _ . . , _ , _ , _ , , . _ , , , _ ._ . _ , _ , -
'29488.0 K3W~ 51 p
1 flows from?
2 A Well,.those are kind of umbrella categories, and 3 most of' my work in that area has been in the writing of 4 textbooks, and I have authored or co-authored a number of 5 textbooks in those general areas, and there are topics in 6 those general areas that are relevant to this kind of 7 situation, so for example, the general problem of what-8 happens'to human. cognitive functioning under stressful 9 circumstances is a relevant topic, and the impairments:that 10 are associated with human cognitive functioning under high 11 level stress might be quite relevant to this topic.
12 Q So another area that you might be discussing, and 13 I know Professor Saegert also specializes in this, is 14 behavior in stressful situations.
15 A Well, yes, but my focus would probably be more on 16 the information processing aspects of reaction to a stressful 17 circumstance.
]
18 Q Okay, and here, what would you define as the l
19 stressful circumstance? l 20 A Well, in a real nuclear power accident situation, 21 I think it would be extremely stressful for people.
22 Q Will you be focusing on the population who is
.O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3C-347-370) Nationwide Coserage 8aF3.W
V' l
29488.0 KSW 52 t J v
i supposed to be responding or the workers, emergency workers 2 and their response? l 3 A I think the bulk of my focus would be on the 4 public.
5 0 As part of that work, in your opinion, is a 6 nuclear accident more stressful, less stressful, as stressful 7 as any other kind of emergency? Do you see nuclear having 8 peculiarities?
9 A Well, I don't think you can lump all of the 10 possible emergencies together and treat them in the same way, 11 but as for classifying a nuclear accident versus a fire or
( )
~# 12 earthquake or bomb threat or other kinds of emergency 13 situations, I'm not prepared to build a hierarchy. I think 14 nuclear power accident is potentially extremely stressful, 15 especially in the minds of people right now while the subject 16 of Chernobyl is so fresh.
17 Q Have you done any work or research or reading on 18 i Chernobyl?
19 l A Nothing specifically. Nothing above and beyond i
20 what a somewhat educated citizen might encounter about that.
c 21 0 Do you intend to discuss Chernobyl in your l 22 testimony?
n
<-)
i I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i .m., m, m- ~~
29488.0 KSW 53 1 A It might become relevant because it is knowledge 2 that people have that can affect what they say they will do 3 in this kind of emergency.
4 Q Could you describe for me how -- right now what-5 your opinion is about how the Chernobyl information that 6 people have might affect their response in an emergency?
7 A I think the fact of Chernobyl, the knowledge, the 8 widespread knowledge that people have here about the serious 9 injuries and dangers is very likely to have-increased the 10 sense of fear and uneasiness that people feel about the 11 potential for nuclear accident here.
O 12 Q Despite that heightened sense of fear, do you 13 think it is possible to devise an emergency communication 14 system that would result in people responding in a safe way 15 to a nuclear emergency in this country?
16 MS. LETSCHE: Let me object to that question as 17 broad and vague. Are you talking about devising an emergency 18 communications system with respect to the Shoreham plant for 19 f the people in Long Island, or are you just asking the general 20 } question whether or not you could do it for the entire world 21 l or what?
22 MS. MC CLESKEY: I think my question was for O
i.
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2C2-347-3M) Nationwide Coverage 8 @ 334 6646
29488.0 KSW 54
%.J 1 response to a nuclear power plant emergency in America, so it 2 would be at any plant. I'm not differentiating the cites.
3 MS. LETSCHE: If you are able to answer that kind 4 of question, go ahead.
5 THE WITNESS: Well, I don't know. If you had a 6 plant in a location where people were not trapped the way 7 they are on Long Island, maybe it might be somewhat easier to 8 come up with a plan that would be more efficient or orderly.
9 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
10 Q So you would differentiate Shoreham from other 11 sites?
p V 12 A I would, yes.
13 Q And you mentioned " trapped." Could you list -- I 14 take it that the island nature of the site is important from 15 your perspective in studying what people might respond in an 16 emergency. Could you list any other factors that you think 37 are different?
l 18 A I'm not sufficiently familiar with the differences I
, I 19 ! in the various plants to be able to list any others right l
20 l now.
i l 21 Q Do you intend to study the differences before you t
f 22 file your testimony?
l o
l
\_J l !
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Natioitwide Coserage Mn3W6M6
L E 29488.0
-KSW' 55' 1 A Well, I-wasn't planning to, but'if I were asked to 2 look into that andLit.became relevant to some point I was 3- . making'~
, I might ask for information about other plants.
4 Q Then we have the fire emergency _ category from the
- 5. documents listed in your resume, and we have already talked a 6 bit, in fact you have talked in some detail about drafting 7 messages that people can understand, and I think I understand 8 how that information would apply in this litigation. Do you 9 see any differences between the fire emergency work that you 10 have done and the sort of emergency response work that's 11 required for a nuclear plant?
' Oh, yes, there-are many differences.
12 A 13 Q What are those?
14 A Well, for example, in the high-rise building, 15 people are in a very different situation, and what you want 16 people to do is quite different than what you want them to do 17_ or want them not to do in the nuclear power situation, so in 18 the high-rise building, for example, people are going to be 19 asked to leave the fire floor and the adjacent floors and go 20 to various safe areas of the building, but in the nuclear 21 situation, you have people presumably in their homes and 22 their cars and a variety of other places that you either want O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
r - m_ m _ _
. ._ m . . __ . -- . __ . _ . _ . . . _ .
d
^
"29488.0-
- KSW 56 1 to do some things and others you want not to do some things, 2 so it is a much more complicated situation.
~
3 'Q Do you think.this approach'of defining a
{- 4 geographic area for the nuclear plant, safety zone,;and then I asking people in.some areas to do one thing, say leave, and 5_ j 6 another set of people to stay, is a viable approach to an 7 emergency response?
4 8 MS. LETSCHE: I would just request a. clarifications s
9' iof what you mean by a:" viable approach."
10 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
1..
4 11 Q Do-you think it is: feasible?
LO 12- MS. LETSCHE: Feasible to request some people to 13 do-one thing and other people to do something else?- Whether e
14 it is feasible to do something else?
15 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
! 16 Q Do you understand my question?
i 17 A I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not sure what ,
l 18 kind of answer you want. Should we ever do that any kind of
[ 19 emergency or --
20 Q Do you think that it is a workable program to 21 conceptualize a geographic area where some people are asked 22 to stay and others are asked to leave? Do you think it is O
5
. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tc-347-37(U Nationwide Coserage WXh336-6M6
, - _ - . _ ~ - - _ . - . ~ _ _ _ _ ,
A 29488.0..
-KSW 57
/ ~'
, V) -
~1 from your work', from bringing your expertise to bear on the
~2 problem, do you think it is feasible'to expect that when you
'3 ask some people to stay and some people to leave that people 4 will generally do what you are asking them to do?
5 MS. LETSCHE: You are talking about with respect 6 to the Shoreham situation?
, 7 MS. MC CLESKEY: Yes.
8 THE WITNESS: Well, you-know, again, I think the 9 problem with the Shoreham situation is-that it is the 10 problem, the geographical problem, that peo'ple are, even if 11 they are asked to stay, and if they know the-information O -12 might change in the future, and later they might be asked to j
13 leave, that it is going to be hard for them to leave, and 14 that might cause them to behave differently than people 15 located at a different geographical site. !
16 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
17 Q You see -- we didn't get into the details, but you 18 see a lot of differences between the fire emergency work that 19 you did and this situation. In a global sense I see them as 20 the same. You have people in an area that's unsafe and you 21 are trying to get them to take action to protect themselves.
22 In the fire situation, to move to a place that is safe, in
()
L ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3A0 Nationwi& Covcrage 800 336-6M6
, . _ , _ . . _ , , . , . _ , _ _ . _ . , . ~ _ . . _ _ . , - , , _ , . . . .. - . _ . _ _ . . _ _ . . . , , . _ , _ , ,
1 ?
4 29488.0;
- KSW 58 q.-
1 the nuclear situation, to move to:a p' lace that is: safe,
~
2 'either in'their homes or out of-the area. Do you agree with 3 'that analysis of the sameness, or do you disagree with it?
i 4 A I think that it probably would be possible to find 5 some threads of similarity between the two situations, and 6 then also to concentrate on the dissimilarities, depending 7 on, you know, what your purpose was, so you are right. In l-8 one sense, the words you just said would apply. or could be 9 made to apply to both situations.
[ 10 Q Is it possible that people in'the high ri c would i
11 feel trapped by a fire?
12 A It is possible, yes.
4 13 Q Did you take that trapped feeling into account in 14 your messages that you drafted?
E 15 A Well, I was worried about one group of- people wlu) 16 might be the most likely to feel trapped.
. 17 Q I don't want you to divulge other client 18 confidentiality matters, but without doing that, can you i
19 explain a little bit about who you were worried about and.why i
20 i you thought they might feel trapped? ,
f 21 A Yes, I was worried about the people who were 22 occupying the floor above the fire floor in the Seattle
! C:1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j 202-347-3700 tionwide Coverage 800-33M646
29488.0 KSW 59
~
1 Federal Building who would be asked to move up, to go up, and 2 wait on the floor above the floor that they were on..
3 Q So the fire plan in this building called for some 4 people who are above the fire to move up rather than to get 5 out of the building?
6 A Yes, it called for people to move up rather than 7 to go down and out because of a design in the stairways. The 8 stairways were too narrow to accommodate everybody going 9 down.
10 Q And who was going to come and get the people who 11 went up? How were they going to get out?
' '#[')
12 A Well, presumably the fire was going to be put out.
13_ Q I see --
14 A While they were waiting up there.
15 Q And you drafted -- I would have a lot easier time 4
16 leaving Long Island than going up in a burning building.
17 You drafted communication that included messages 18 to those people that they should go up?
19 A Yes.
- 20 Q And did you test that communication?
21 A The only tes t was the drill that I described 22 before.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80lL33HM6
29488.0-KSW 60
! t L/.
1 Q How did those people fare in their response in the 2 drill?
3 A The people who were told to go up during the fire 4 drill for the most part did go up.
5 Q Did you talk to any of them after the drill about 6 how they felt about going up?
t 7 A Well, they were handed out the same questionnaires 8 that everyone else received to,give their reactions and 9 responses to the drill.
10 Q What did'you find?
11 A This was done back in approximately 1976 or so. I Q 12 don't really remember how, in what ways they might have been 13 different from the people who were below the fire floor and 14 were asked to go down.
i- 15 Q So just in your memory today, nothing jumps out as 16 to a major difference in response to your questions after the 17 drill between the people who were asked to go up and the 18 people who were asked to go down?
19 A That's correct.
20 Q Do you have the texts of these communications that i
21 you drafted in your filing at the office or whatever?
l 22 A The texts of those messages could probably most (2) l ACE-FEDER AL REPORTERS, INC.
a, >m, m _ . c- mm-L , - - . . - - . - _ _ - - . - . ___. _,_ - .- - . -. __.
29488.0 KSW 61
-\_).
1 -easily be found in the articles that were written about the 2 work.
3 Q And did you keep the questionnaires? Did you keep 4 all of the' data.that you collected on the drill?
5 A I didn't, no. It is.possible Dr. Keating has'it, 6 but I'm'not sure he retained those after this long.
7 Q Okay. Is it fair to say that in your professional 8 life, you have not spent a lot of time studying 9- organizational behavior but rather have concentrated on 10 individuals?
11 A Yes, 12 Q Do you know-Professor Perrow?~ Have you met 13 Professor Perrow in this case, another witness for Suffolk 14 County?
15 A I don't think so.
16 Q You have spoken many places and been a visiting 17 lecturer in many areas. Has the bulk of your discussion been 18 in the areas of the publications that you have listed in your 19 resume?
20 A Yes.
21
~
Q Have I missed any other areas of expertise that 22 you have dabbled in in your professional career?
u<1 ,
i l
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cos erage F6336-6M6
29488.0
^
KSW 62 jm.
-Q 1 A Well, I don't know where you would put jury 2 selection. I have done some work in that area and lectured 3 on that subject, but --
4 Q Do you see any relevance to that particular work 5 to this situation?
6 A Not really, no.
7 Q. I know you have done extensive consulting work.
8 Have you done any consulting work for any other nuclear power 9 plants'in any capacity?
10 A Yes.
. 11 Q And what was that?
G 12 A I did some work after an accident at the Ginna-13 plant.
14 Q What kind of work?
15 A I'm not sure how to characterize it. Analyzing 16 the decision-making and judgment that went on by people at 17 the plant.
18- Q Could you describe the process that you went i 19 through to do that study?
20 A I don't remember the exact details, but there was 21 an accident, and the question is who was responsible for the 22 accident and whether the accident should have been foreseen
! (1)
~
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I mm. s. . cm,,, ->-
.29488.'0-KSW 63
_ (-
N.) I 1 aor.not; was.it truly an accident? I was provided with a 2 .information about the symptoms that were available to people 3 at the plant prior to the accident, and I provided testimony 4 about decision-making and judgment in a hearing.
5 Q Who was your client?
6 A' The utility.
7 (Discussion off the record.)
8 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
9 Q _Before the break we were talking about the work 10 you did at Ginna. The utility, you said, asked you to 11 analyze information available before the accident to 12 determine whether people could have or I guess should have 13 predicted that something would happen. Could you tell me how 14- you did that?
15 A Well, again it was several years ago, but to the 16 best of my reco.11ection, the gist of my opinion in that case J
17 is that the people who were analyzing this accident on behalf 18 of the -- I guess it was on behalf of the ratepayers, were 19 using a hindsighting ana1Ysis, 'nd were committing the 20 hindsighting bias, and that if one analyzed things without 21 this hindsighting bias, it was reasonable to assume that this 22 was not foreseeable, something along that line. I don't n
v t
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
.'.02-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80133MM6
3 "29488.0 ,
.KSW' 64 T's .
Q:
-1 remember exactly the opinion, but the gist of,it was about 2 the hindsighting bias and hindsighting analysis and~what the 3 hindsighting bias is and why it was a. problem to be analyzing-4 things in that way.
5 Q So.just so I understand what you did, you got a 6 list of all the information that was available to the people-7 operating the plant just before the accident.
I 8 Q Not just before the accident. 'In the years before.
9 the accident.
10 Q Okay, and so it was quite a bit of information?
11 A- Well, no. I don't recall exactly how I was 12 provided the information about what information was available 13 -to people who were trying to-decide the meaning of certain 14 symptoms, but --
15 Q Okay, when you are asked to perform an analysis 16 like that, and when you were asked to do this for Ginna, what
-17 was the information that you needed from them to determine l 18 whether they could have predicted that this was going to L19 happen? Did you get a list of the frequency of the other 20 times that this-had happened? Did you get a list of symptoms.
21 and how often they had occurred? What did you ask for to 22 analyze?
O t
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nathmside Coserage 8043M4646
_. .~ _., __.. . . - - . . . . _ . - - , . - _ . . - - . . . - .
__ _ _ . . _ -. . .c
- p
,fn .3=
p:
I;
- 29488.0-J ,
\"
~
-KSW 65 ~
l.
- . , ./ I 1 A I don't remember exactly what'.I asked'for, but If '
1 .
did receive information abo,gtt the r,ymptoms that were 2 g 3 available to workers at the Ginna plani.,gend what the usual,
, e, ; .
4 -interpretation and' meaning of thoso sybptoms is,: so if k
3 5' there's an ID indication of what caused.it,'if there's an OD r n <
6 indication; is it due to corrosi,.on? ' Is u t caused >:hy fore (i,gp ,, >
r
,1 ..) ( , "J / u.
- 7 objects in the steam generator?
- q got tha't kind of. 'R
- r. ,1 8 information,. ;g.' l W.
,t , m
, c 9 .Q And then youriconclusic n was - .was your y . . ,
4 10 conclusion that.it was reasonable for them.to have responded-11 in the way they did to the accident events? k i .
y \
! 12- A I'm not sure if I used the word it'was y 4 13 " reasonable," but I did talk 4about the flaws in the analysis 14 being done by the plaintiffs, I guess it -would be in that 15 case. ,
W t .. 1 16 Q Did you file written testimony in this case? ,
.[
~
.-C~ y ,
t 4
17 A Yes.
1
'[}
18 Q And do you recall who it was before? Was iE he $
19- PSC or a nuclear regulatory body or --
t 1
-20 'A I believe it was in Albany, if that helps.
21 Q That helps a lot. Did you retain any papers in 22 your files as a result of this work.that you did?
- O 4
AGE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. -
202-3C -378X) Nationwide Coserage 8(11-336-6646
m- -
q- .?
%c i :p
}w;W 29488.0; -
- KSW .- 66
- 6W
, ;e t -
[H - 1 1A It is possible that I have my testimony somewhere,
-2 the written testimony.
[ 3 Q Could you-briefly describe for me how what you did
, 4 .at Ginna fits into the theoretical construct we were talking C 5 :abobt of.the work that you do' day-to-day with eyewitness >
\ .
6 testimony, cogn'ition, emergency response? I'm having a hard
. i 7 time seeing it.
p%r "* _8 N A The hindsighting bias, which is once an event
- & ( '.
-4 9 occurs or you know the outcome of a particular event, you 4
10 tend to think you could have predicted it before it happened,
_[ 11 is a bias'that is studied by-. cognitive psychologists an'd one-
- 12 ?tAat I'have written about in several of my writings.and h-4 13 books. So it was that-piece that ties to the general area of
- - %. y 4 '
I 14- cognition and tied to that specific case.
- m. ,c . ,
15 'h e Q Do.you see any application of the hindsighting
\~
[; , 16 bias. concept to this litigation?
( '
j 1*/ A It-might be relevant. I-haven't made any attempt
~
. 18 to try to apply it, though.
i
'49 kT . Q Other than the reading and the meetings that we o t >
(
\.
20 have already discussed this reorning, have you done any work 21 expressly related to the contentions that;you were asked to l 22 look over?
!O 3
T ACE-FEDERAL. REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 F aonwiac Overage 2336-6M6
i s
.29488.0 KSW 67
, s,
( ) s
.k J 1 A- No, I have not done any additional work.
2 Q Could you tell me -- I know ihe numbers are hard 3 to. remember, but could you tell me generally what subject 4 areas in the contentions that it is your understanding you 5 are going to be testifying on?
6 A Well, any of.the contentions that have to do with 7 the information that is presented to people and how people f
8 are likely to comprehend that information; what confusions, !
- 9. if any, are likely to occur as people receive information and 10 then have to respond to that information.
9 N' 11 Q Can you summarize for me your understanding o'f the jm
(' ') 12
+
gist of the contentions that have been filed on those areas 13 by Suffolk County and New York State and the town of )
14 Southampton in this proceeding? j 15 MS. LETSCHE: Would you like to show the' witness 16 the contentions?
17 MS. MC CLESKEY: We will in a bit.
18 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
i I'm interested in knowing, having read them, what 19 Q 20 you think the thrust of the litigation is on the issues that 21 you will be testifying about.
22 A Well, it would help me if I could have the fs U
1 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
"~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " ~ " ~
e . - .
29488.0 KSW 68 v
- 1. contentions that are relevant to my testimony in front of me 2 rather than to try to freely recall.
3 MS. LETSCHE: I didn't mean to be suggesting my 4 instruction that you not answer it. If you are abic to 5 somehow summarize what you understand the gist to be, you may.
6 do that. I was just suggesting that perhaps it would shorten 7 things if you didn't say have to go through that~ exercise.
8 If you are able to do so, go ahead.
9 THE WITNESS: I thought I had done the gist 4
10 already when I said that the contentions that relate to the 11 information in the EBS messages and press releases and other O 12 sources of information that people are likely to receive, how 13 presentable is that information, and what are people likely 14 to do as a result of that information. That of course 15 includes the likelihood that people will evacuate when they 16 are told not to or the likelihood that people will be 17 satisfied with information that they receive if they make 18 telephone calls to LILCO, and anything relating to 19 information that people will receive and their digesting and 20 comprehension and reaction to that information.
21 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
22 Q Have you looked at any -- you just mentioned that f)\
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202447-37(X) Nationwide Coverage Muk336-6M6
L 29488.0' KSW 69
/3 Q-1 the phone calls that would.come into LILCO from people with 2 questions. Have you looked at any rumor control information 3 at all? Do you remember, in the package of information that 4 you have' looked at?
5 A I do remember having some material about the 6 attempts to control rumors.
7 Q Okay, can you remember anything about what that 8 was?
9 A Well, people were invited to make telephone calls 10 to certain~ places and asked their questions, but those 11 questions were not always answered in a very satisfactory
\_/
12 way.
13 (Discussion off the record.)
14 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
15 Q Other than the fire emergency work and the Ginna 16 work, have you done any work for anybody that related to a i 17 nuclear power plant emergency or emergencies generally? And
! 18 the Bay Area Transit? We have the Bay Area Transit, the fire 19 work and the Ginna work. Are there any other emergency works 20 out there that you have done?
! Well, there's no other nuclear power work, but --
21 A r
22 and I can't recall any other emergency work.
. (2)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tc.347 37m Nationwide Coverage fk&33M646
- . , _ . . _ _ . _ _ , _ . , - . _ . . ~ _ _ _ _ _ . _ , _
2
+
s 2 488.'0.
~
KSW :- 70
). n.
y.
- . L1 Q Have you done any hurricane, tornado warning L .
2 systems, any other natural disaster, earthquakes?
3 A Well, I remember we did discuss and consult-on the 4 subject of.what other messages would be needed for the 5 high-rise buildings. For example, in'the case of a. bomb 6 threat or something, but I can't remember what actually 7 happened to those discussions and that consultation.
8 Q Have you ever been in an emergency?
- _ 9 MS. LETSCHE
- I will object to that one. That's.a 10 little vague and broad.
^
11 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
- - 12 Q Have you ever been in an emergency where you.were 13 threatened by fire, hurricane, tornado, earthquake and were 14 given instruction of how to make yourself safe?
. . 15 A I don't recall being in one where I was given t
16 instruction, no.
i 17 Q Were you in one where there was no instruction and l
10 you just made your own way?
19 A I have been in a fire, yes.
1
- i. 20 Q Was this when you were small or as an adult?
21 A Well, I was in high school, and there was a fire.
i l 22 Q In a public building?
r.
L (2) !
I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
[ 202-347 37:0 Nationside Coverage *M 3%6646
E 29488.0 KSW 71 N_]\ .
'l A No, in a large part of West Los Angeles, including 2 my house.
3 Q So a neighborhood was on fire?
4 A Yes.
5 Q But you were in high school, so you weren't 6 bringing to bear your psychology background at the time and 7 studying the response of the people; is that right?
8 A No. I ran into a burning building.
9 Q You ran into a burning building?
10 A The house, yes, to get the' encyclopedias so I 11 could do my homework.
k) 12 Q Have you done any literature searches or extensive 13 reading on the body of literature that is involved with 14 emergency response?
15 A Well, yes. At the time during the '70s when I was 16 more actively involved in this work, I read some of the work 17 of others.
18 Q I know that was a while ago. Could you give me 19 just a summary of what you recall the basic literature in the 20 area was or if you remember what you read or -- no?
21 A I don't remember.
22 Q Was this reading that you did in connection with O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-3%6M6
29488.0 KSW 72
,m
( )
/
1 work - that you were doing for . clients or in connection with 2~ your academic pursuits or --
3 A Well, in connection with the work that I was doing 4 on emergency communication -- 1 don't know if you call it for 5 clients, but for example in the high-rise building work.
6 Q Was that when you really first focused on the 7 emergency communication area?
8 A Yes.
9 .Q As between the eyewitness testimony area, the 10 cognition and learning area, the emergency area and the law g 11 and psychology area, could you tell me about how much time _in v 12 your work you spent on each of those?
13 A I would say my major interest is in eyewitness 14 testimony, and the psychology-law area now, and at the 15 current time, I generally am not doing much work or writing 16 in the area of emergency communications. I do work on cases 17 involving product liability and that involves messages and 18 safety information. That is somewhat extensive, but even l
l 19 still not as extensive as my writing in eyewitness testimony i
t 20 and psychology and law.
l 21 Q At some point I take it you will sit down and 1
22 start the work to draft the testimony that you will be filing
- (2) l I
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2ic-347-3700 Nationaide Coserage Ak33MM6
, , , , ,. ~. . - . . . , . _, . . _ _ , . . ,_ -- - . _ , - - - - _ . - . _ . . _ . .
29488.0 KSW 73 1 in this case. ,
2 A Yes.
3 Q What do you expect to do to prepare that 4 testimony?
5 A Well, I'm sure that it won't start before the 6 final results of the Cole survey are available, so that we f
7 know exactly how people responded on that survey and what 8 proportions of people did what, gave what answers, and then 9 I'm not quite sure of the process of doing this. I have only 10 had one other experience in drafting a written testimony in 11 advance, so -
i) 12 Q When do you expect to get Dr. Cole's information?
13 A I don't know when he will have it available. I'm 14 not sure.
15 Q You have not spoken with him about that?
16 l A No, not since early January when we had our 17 discussions, our last discussions.
I 18 l Q Are you aware of any scheduling of filing
! 1 19 testimony in this case? Do you know what the time for filing I 20 testimony is?
21 A No. It is possible I have been told, but I don't 22 recall it if I was told.
o V l
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I xm >- x_ o_, __
29488.0 1KSW 74
- ,. m Q) 1 Q Once you get Dr. Cole's information, what are you 2 going to do with it?
3 A Well, again, I don't know what the process is that 4 will be used in this case, whether I would come to 5 Washington, D.C. or lawyers would come to Seattle or how 6 exactly I will create this testimony. I need some guidance.
7 Q Okay. I'm sure you will get it.
8 My question, which I see from your answer was 9 unclear, was what analysis will you perform on the data that 10 Dr. Cole gives you? What will you do with it?
~11 A I expect that his data will bear on, particularly i
i 12 on the issue of what people are likely to do, would be likely 13 to do given the kind of information they were given during 14 the exercise.
15 Q That will be the results of'his survey and he will i
l 16 have tabulated responses, and he will give you -- what do you l 17 expect to get from Dr. Cole in the way of data?
18 A Statis tics regarding responses to that survey.
19 Q And then you will take those statistics and you 20 will read them?
l 21 A Yes.
22 Q And what will you do with them?
o o
1, ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M147-3XO Nationw kle roserage MXF3364646
1 1
29488.0 KSW 75 m
- )
x ./
1 A Well, again, I'm not sure of the process of 2 drafting. It depends on what question I'm asked. If I'm 3 asked whether it is my opinion that a substantial percentage 4 of people are likely to respond in a particular way and I see 5 support for that opinion in the Cole survey, then I would use 6 those survey data to support that opinion.
7 Q So in your view, one can take intended responses 8 on a survey and make valid predictions about actual responses 9 in an emergency from the answers from the survey?
10 A Well, there may not be a perfect relationship 11 between what people say they will do and what they actually
( ')
' ~ '
12 would do, but given the absence of other information, it is a 13 strong indication of what people are likely to do, and then, 14 you know, one can look at other similar emergencies such as 15 TMI and find out, what did people exactly do in that 16 situation? If there were people who were told not to 17 evacuate, did they evacuate, and what percentage of the 18 people in some nearby area were shadow evacuators. That 19 ! would be additional information that might support a 20 particular contention about what people would be likely to do 1
21 l at Shoreham.
i 22 l Q Do you think that you could look at response to o
L f i
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm ., ~ _ . ~ , . m us- ,
k 29488.0
'KSW- 76 5 )
I non-nuclear. emergencies, natural. disasters, and compare that 2 as a'likely responder indicator?
=3 A Well, I'm not.sure. I-would have to think about 4 that.further. I.see some special things about'a. nuclear 5 . situation that are special- , and therefore, I would need to-6 analyze things further to make a decision about whether other 7 disasters are applicable.
8 Q What is special about a nuclear '---
9 A One special thing is if there's a nuclear 10 disaster, there's something called radiation which people 11 can't really see or touch. It is quite frightening to
(.
12 people.
13 Q So the fear factor is higher in your view in
. 14. nuclear emergencies than non-nuclear?
15- A Well, there's a different fear in that situation.
16 It may in fact be higher. I have not done the study that
{
r 17 would enable me to say that precisely, but there would be a 18 different kind of fear; at least in a fire you can see the 19 fire.
p 20 Q Can the people above the fire in your build'.ng see 21 the fire?
22 A Well, it depends on how small a fire it was. A l.
1 (1
l i
l L ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3%X) Nationside Cmcrage 80k33MM6
, -.- . , - . . . . - . . - , . . - . . . . , - . , . , , . . . ~ . , _ , . ~ . . . . - . . . _ - , _ , . _ , . - . - - - , . - , - . - . - - . - . - - - - , . - - - - . , - .
'29488.0 KSW 77 ,
8 N(J 1 small fire on the 19th floor would probably not be visible to 2 people who were on the 20th or'21st-floors.
3' Q What is your basis for viewing as valid prediction 4 of actual emergency behavior on the basis of responses to 5 surveys?
i 6 A It is one piece of information-that one could 7 bring to bear, that is people's behavioral intentions, what 8 they intend to do, on the problem of what they will do-when 1 .
9 you obviously have not had the situation that you are trying f
?
l 10 to predict. j 11 Q Have you done any studies correlating actual l 12 behavior with predicted behavior?
13 A No.
14 Q I may have already asked you that, but bear with 15 me. In your day-to-day work, do you use surveys to predict 16 response of people?
17 A I don't know what you mean by day-to-day work, but 18 I do some survey work in connection with jury selection, so 19 its purpose is to identify what people are likely to do if 20 they were to serve as jurors in actual cases.
21 Q Could you describe that survey work a bit for me?
22 A From time to time, I design survey instruments for O ,
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2LC-347-3700 Nation aide Coserage MXk336-6M6
i--
2 29488;0 4
'KSW 78
..LO 1 .the purpose of identifying a profile of individuals-who are 2 likely to not be prejudiced towards a'particular: party in 3 litigation, and that work involves, forfexample, surveying' 4 -some sample of' people in a particular location.
5^ 'A recent one I did was in Little Rock, Arkansas,
- 6- and interviewing those people by telephone, presenting them 7 with a hypothetical case, asking them how they would vote on 8 that case, and then with additional demographic and other i 9 . kinds of information about the individuals, devising a f
10 profile of the prejudiced juror..
J
! 11 Q So when you give-them a hypothetical case, could
(
() 12 you give me an example of what you might ask them to 4
13 determine how they would react in a real case?
4 14 A Well, it might be a couple paragraph description-i 15 of a case, presenting what the plaintiff's contentions and 16 what the defense contentions are, and based on what you have 17 heard, would you say you strongly favor the plaintiff or *
}
i 18 mildly favor the plaintiff or mildly favor the defendant and l
l 19 sooon.
F 20 Q Do you see any difference between -- do you see 21 any difference between predicting the response in an actual i
l 22 trial based on hypotheticals about what might happen at a
(_
!O l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347 1700 Nationwide Coserage NXK336-6M6
.29488.0 KSW 79
.,N.
V 1 trial and predicting response in an actual emergency based on 2 'hypotheticals about what might happen in an emergency?
. 3 A Well, one difference in those two situations is 3
4 that probably people who are getting the hypothetical
- 5. emergency scenarios are not in a frightened, stressed, 6 : panicked or otherwise strongly negative state as they might 7 actually be in a real emergency.
8 Q And --
9 A That difference is not as obvious or present in 10 the jury selection situation.
11 Q And how do you think that difference would affect 12 response in an emergency?
13 A Well, in an emergency situation, I would suggest
, 14 that what that particular factor would mean is that the level i
! 15 of comprehension would be even lower in an actual emergency I
l 16 than it might be in a more non-emergency test of the l
i l 17 situation, l
t l 18 Q And that's because of the raised level of stressi i
l 19 A Yes.
l 20 Q Have you done experimental work in -- I guess what i
21 I would describe it as is s tress as it correlates with l
( 22 ! response or stress as it correlates with ability to take in
!O l
l l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37ft) Nanonwide Cos erage
- Rk 34%56 l
3 29488.0 KSW= 80 O)
-\
~
l' information?
2 A Yes.
3 Q Could you describe some of that work for T.e?
+
4 A Well, first of all, when you say " work," 1.take 5 that to be broadly speaking.- I have written on the subject 6 and written about the work of others using a variety of 7 others who have used a variety of techniques to stress 8 people. Some of those techniques would not be particularly 9 ethical today with current standards of human subject review, 10 but within the current standards of ethics, I in my i
11 laboratory have created a stress and arousal in human O
\_/
12 subjects by exposing them to very violent films, and I then
. 13 study the ability to store and retrieve information in those 14 individuals compared to people who see less violent or 15 non-violent versions of the same event.
16 Q So in this -- is it called an experiment?
17 A Yes.
18 Q In this experiment, your subjects are viewing a --
19 some subjects are viewing a very violent film, and then you 20 ask them questions unrelated to the film about things that 21 j they remember?
22 l A No, it would be questions about parts of the flim o/
\.
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
21C 347-330 Nationwide Cmerage *Xb3.tMM6
29488.0 KSW 81 c'
1 to see whether the memory that they formed in association 2 with this violent event was different or the same as the 3 memory of people who had not seen the violence and had to 4 answer the same sorts of questions.
5 Q So the two groups see basically the same film but 6 one group has violent pieces stuck in it and the other 7 doesn't?
8 A Yes.
9 Q And then you ask them what they remember about the 10 story line or the color of what someone was wearing or 11 something?
~
12 A Well, about the common portions, about the portion l
13 that were the same for both. It might be questions about 14 what people said or what things looked like, yes.
15 Q And what has been the result? What have you 16 found?
17 A I find that people who have been exposed to a I
18 violent version of an event are significantly less able to l
l 19 retrieve information about details of the event when compared l
20 l to people who see non-violent versions of the same event.
k 21 Q And could you just do the last step for me and f
b 22 i explain how that applies in the emergency context?
(~1 s_-
i 1
i I
[ ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
l
- -, ~ _ m e- s . u-3
29488.0 KSW '82
-U:^
1- A Well, what this means is that if people a're I
2 particularly stressed and aroused, you can expect many-of i
3 them~to have impairments in their cognitive functioning, that
. 4 is to be less able to comprehend, to understand, to use their 5 mental functions.
6 Q And from your perspective as a psychologist, it 7 wouldn't really matter if the stressing event'is the violent 8 film or the anxiety produced from being told there's a
- 9 nuclear power plant accident?
10 A Well, yes, because what I'm saying about the 11 effects of stress on cognitive functioning really apply to I
12 stress and arousal generally, not some particular type.of
, 13 stressor.
14 Q You said that this experiment you just described l' 15 would meet your current standards. I think you used the word 16 " ethical standards."
(
i
?
17 A 'le s .
1 18 Q And you consider the results valid and
- 19 supportable, the methods supportable; is that right?
l
- 20 A Supportable of certain conclusions, yes.
21 Q What were the sorts of things you were thinking 22 about that you would no longer consider supportable or valid O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
1 .- s.e _ m. o ,. ... - ,
l l
29488.0 KSW 83 yy
'd 1 because of ethical concerns?
2 A Well, in one of my books, I write about some of 3 the other work that's been done on the effects of stress and 4 arousal and fear. To the best of my recollection on this 5 work, when some individuals were in an airplane and told the 6 airplane was going to crash, and they were then asked to 7 remember some things and they couldn't remember them as well 8 as people who had to remember them without the stress and 9 fear of thinking this they were about to crash.
10 Q That work was done in the '70s or --
11 A No, my book in which I described some of'it was
\ >
12 written in the '70s, but the work was done much before.
13 Q The difficulty you have is with taking people and 14 lying to them about their being in an emergency situation?
15 A I think if I were to try to approach my human 16 subjects review committee with the idea of doing a study in 17 which I was going to tell people in an airplane that their i
18 plane was going to crash, that I would not be permitted to do 19 that work.
a 20 Q I'm glad to hear that.
- 21 In the book that you wrote about those l
l l
22 experiments, did you discredit those experiments or did you lO i
1, l
1 1 I l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
L I m m. , ~ _ < _ . , . . su-
29488.0
-KSW 84 i )
w/
1 use them to support theses that you were advocating in the 2 book?
3 A I definitely used them to support the notion that 4 stress can affect cognitive functioning in a negative way. I 5 think I did make a parenthetical remark that along the lines 6 -- I think I did this in one of my two books that might have 7 talked about this work -- that it might not be ethical work 8 or at least within the bounds of most human subjects ethics 9 committees.
10 Q And I would take it if you rely on any studies in 11 testimony it would be the violent film sort of studies, not
\~~ "] the crashing airplane sort of studies?
12 13 A No, I think those data are relevant for 14 understanding what people would do in an emergency situation.
15 Q As to the Chernobyl piece of this, we talked a 16 little bit before about the heightened awareness resulting 17 from Chernobyl and how that might affect behavior. Have you 18 i done any experimental or literature search sort of work that 19 would bear on what you might have to say about the effect of I
20 j Chernobyl on response on Long Island?
21 : A No.
22 I Q What would you in a perfect world, what work would
($) !
I i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37(El Nattenwide Coserage b'liL346446
29488.0
'KSW ~ EMi
.,-Q
-lns L 1 .you like to do before testifying on Chernobyl and.its effect 2 in this proceeding?
3 A Well, it is my recollection that we will have some 4 . specific data from Dr. Cole that.might-tell us something 5 about what people remember about Chernobyl or.how:they feel 6 about it',-but as far as designing some new study without 7 thinking about it more extensively, I wouldn't want to do it 8 as I sit'here without having time to do it properly.
9 Q Have you done, just thinking generally about your 10 work, have you done any work that~would apply the concept of 11 -- for lack of a better way to put it -- people, for example,
'12 in a fire situation having heard about a bad fire previously 13 and.how that might affect what you need to do with-the 14 emergency communication system, or anything of that nature 15 that would apply the Chernobyl situation to Long Island?
. 16 A Well, there is work that exists that shows that 17 people exposed to news events can be affected by those news
, 18 events in terms of the judgments and decisions that they 19 make.
20 Q Are you familiar with that work?
! 21 A I have written one paper on that subject.
l 22 Q Could you describe that a little bit for me?
i O f
s
! ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
.v. ~ - - + c - ,. -,- .
' .- . . - . , ~ . . _ , _ . _ . . . - . _
29488.0 KSW 86 X
N, 1 A The gist of the work that I have-done is on 2 exposure to cases of mistaken identification in the news and 3 how people then sitting as mock jurors judge a new case 4 involving eyewitness testimony or eyewitness identification, 5 and what we showed in this work is that exposure to news 6 events, a news story about a case of mistaken identification 7 did lower the probability that a mock juror would reach a 8 guilty verdict in a trial simulation involving cases of 9 identification.
10 Q Using that theoretical construct,-what would you 11 conclude about how people might respond as a result of having 12 heard about Chernobyl?
13 A Well, I don't know all of the ways in which 14 knowledge of Chernobyl is likely to affect people in this 15 case. I would have to analyze that further.
16 Q How would you go about analyzing it further?
17 A I don't know whether I will do this or not, but I 18 might analyze what recent news reports still exist. I might i 19 do a survey of people to find out what their recollections 20 are and their underlying common knowledge as a result of 21 ,
chernobyl. How it has affected their level of fear about 22 ! nuclear power accidents and so on.
O l L
l i
j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Nationw xle Cos erage IKn336M&6
-.- - _ , , _ ,m_,_ . , _
, __, ., __ ._ _202
- 347- 3 70 i .
29488.0 KSW 87
~
k_x) -
1 Q. What time period would you focus on for your-2 review of the news articles?
3 A' .f I news articles appear and completely stop, the 4 effects of that.information and knowledge would.be expected 5 to dissipate. One would want to know what kinds of news was 6 persisting about some particular topic.
7 Q Are there studies about the dissipation level?
8 A Well, we discussed that previously in the article 9 that I mentioned before involving the news about the case of 10 mistaken identification.
11 Q If you are asked to draw conclusions about the
.O 12 effect of Chernobyl on the response that might have been 13 likely given the information that was given in the exercise 14 on February 13, and you draw those conclusions, in your 15 opinion, for what period would those conclusions be valid?
16 A I don't know. That's too abstract for me to 17 answer that question.
18 Q But would that be something you would need to 19 think about in giving the opinion of the conclusions? Is i
20 that something you would focus on?
21 A I'm not sure. It really depended on where the
- 22 analysis went.
lO l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2ic-347-37W Nationaide Cmerage NRL}W6M6
,.e-- n ,- e...,,,,.., . . - . , . , , . , - - . , , . , , -
r 29488.0 KSW 88
,m.
(._)
1 Q Assume that what you were concluding in your 2 testimony was that the information that people on Long Island 3 had during the February 13 time about Chernobyl would have 4 heightened their anxiety and fear about the postulated power 5 plant accident on February 13. Are you with me on that?
6 A I think so, yes.
7 Q And then assume that you concluded in your _
. 8 testimony that had the information been given as it was given 9 during the exercise to the public at that time, that there 10 might have been more people responding in a way other than 11 they were. asked to respond during the emergency. Is that 12 fair?
13 A I have lost the question now. I'm sorry.
14 Q We haven't gotten to the question yet.
15 Unfortunately I'm still setting up the hypothetical.
16 Let's go at it from another perspective. My 17 conceptual difficulty with what you are saying is that I e 18 don't understand for how long you can tell me that chernobyl 19 would affect response because at some point, you have to 20 freeze the effect of the Chernobyl information in time, and I 21 I'm talking about a power plant that might operate for 40
{ 22 years, so I'm having a difficult time understanding what (2) l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3RA) N.umnwide Cos erage k 3336 4 m
29488.0 KSW 89 e 't v
1 valid conclusions you could draw that would apply over the 2 life of the operation of the plant, which is when the 3 accident might happen that would shed some light on the 4 response of people. Do you see what my difficulty ic?
5 MS. LETSCHE: Let me note for the record that I 6 understand what you just said, but I don't think in any of 7 your prior questions you have indicated to Dr. Loftus that 8 you are asking her to predict what people will do over a 9 40-year period, and so I'm not sure that your difficulty is 10 necessarily related to her testimony. I understood your 11 questions to be related to what happened on February 13, and
\ )
12 Dr. Loftus' analysis of those messages, and what people would 13 likely do in response to those messages given whatever data 14 she is able to obtain concerning people's information or 15 attitudes or fears as a result of the Chernobyl accident, so 16 if you want to ask a whole new line of questions about trying 17 to predict for 40 years, you might want to do that and see if 18 she is able to answer any questions, but I don't think that 19 was your prior line.
l 20 , MS. MC CLESKEY: You have just answered my
?
- 21 j question and now I will ask Dr. Loftus if she agrees with 1
22 l your answer. You would freeze the answer to the day of the r~1, u- ! ,
i l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, >-m., ~ _ . < - s<._
29488.0-KSW- 90 i
7'N V
1 exercise and your opinion about the heightened anxiety and 2 fear would be for the day-of.the exercise?
3 MS. LETSCHE: You can go ahead and ask whatever 4~ - questions you want. . I had understood all your prior 5 questions were trying to ask-the witness what her testimony 6 in this proceeding was likely to 1x or what conclusions or-7 opinions she might bring to bear upon that testimony. The 8 contentions at issue here all relate to what happened on j 9 February 13 and those exercise messages. That was my 10 understanding of all the questions. I have assumed that's 11 been the witness' understanding too. I don't mean to 12 characterize and didn't in my prior comment intend to i
13 characterize what the witness' opinions or testimony is 14 likely to be because she is obviously more than capable of
, 15 telling you that herself, so with that, if you want to ask a
- 16 question, go ahead.
17 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
18 Q I think a lot of what we talked about is l
- 19 predicting future behavior based on surveys and based on past 20 information, and in the context of all of that, what I was
! l 21 trying to explore with you, Professor, is what you see as the f 22 time period that your opinion on what's happening and what (E) l
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
{ . _ - . . . - _ - -
) 202 M7 3700 Nanonude Cmcrage mit34M46
L 29488;0 KSWT 91 wl 1 might happen'would be valid for. Maybe.that's something.you
'2- can't answer.
3 A I don't think I can really answer that because it 4 would depend completely on, or at least in large part on, 5 say, in five years what the state of the world.is, so if 6 there are new nuclear power accidents, it will revive the 7 memory of Chernobyl and the discussion of Chernobyl and add-8 .to it. If there is some other thing that happens in the 9 world that continues to keep that alive, it could. affect how 10 many people are affected by it.
11 Q You mentioned TMI as one source that one could
-Q 12 look to to see h'ow people behaved and plug into an analysis 13 of how they might behave in response to another nuclear 14 plant, llave you read about or studied TMI?
l 15 A No. No more than, again, as reading the newspaper 16 and other news sources.
17 0 So you have not read any articles written 18 particularly about the response at TMI in either sociology or 19 psychology journals or anything like that?
20 A No.
i 21 I Q Do you intend to look at that before you prepare 22 your testimony?
l l
(2) ,
1 I
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
3C-347 3h4) Nationwide Coverage 8(AK336-6M6
29488.0 KSW. -92 q.
Q:
1 A Well, if it is provided to me,.I think it would be 2' a useful piece of information for trying to understand what 3 people'might be likely to do if there'were an accident at 4 Shoreham.
'S' Q And so what you would do is basically compare TMI 6 to the Shoreham situation and try to predict from that likely 7 response at.Shoreham; is that what you would try to do?
8 A That would be a piece of what you would use 9 combined with the other information such as behavioral 10' intentions from the shoreham citizens or nearby citizens.
11 Q The behavioral intentions as indicated on O) m 12 Dr. Cole's survey?
4 13 A Yes.
14 Q What information and factors would you compare TMI 15 to Shoreham? What would you look at?
16 A Well, one thing you would want to look at is what 17 people were told to do in association with that incident and i
', 18 what they actually did, i
l 19 Q So you would look at the emergency communication 20 at TMI versus the emergency communication at the exercise?
l l 21 Is that one thing you would compare, EBS messages?
i 22 A Emergency communications and then what people --
lC i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-147-3700 Nationw kle Cmerage *XL 3 M-6646
, _ . . _ . ~ . . . _ . , _ _ . , _ _ . . _ - . - _ , _ _ . . _ _ _ - , , _ . . . . - . _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ . --
9 -w
- Wi .g.
H e ,'
,1
--29488.0' .' j j -'
O KSW ,
j 93 g ot
): .. f[ .,
I how people responded. .h j' 2 Q At TMI? ,
p 3 A Yes.
, . ' O ,. '
4 ~Q And then based on -- [we.V, you would,elook at the - ,
5 emergency communications at TMI and the response, and then i -
1 /
6 you would know how, people responded at TMI and why and what 7 was good or bad.'about the emergency communications there;'but
+,
i 8 would you .take the eme\rgency com1unications there, compare it 7
9 to the emergency communications at Shoreham the day of the ,
, 10 ' exercise?
11 A It is possible that that would provide additional b '
- 12 information that might be relevant to this analysis.
< 13 Q And then the piece that's missing, of course, that"y .
14 we don't have an actual response to the Shoreham information, i
l 15 so you would have to extrapolate or predict that somehow?
16 A Yes.
.i
, 17 Q Okay, and would that require you to rate the 18 emergency communication at Shoreham agains t the emergency .
i
)
a 19 communication at TMI? ;
20 A I don't know whether I would do that or not. I" t
., cA i 21 j need to look at what this information is because it is too 1
22 hard for me to answer this in the abstract, knowing as little
- O .
I
'f i o ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202-347-3 hu Nmionw kle Cmcrage an336 6M6
,,n.,-.-,,..,n, ._,-...,.,,n,,,.n.--, , - , - - , - . . _ , . . -, , -.---.,..,.. ~ ,--.--- ... , ., ,--, ,--r, ,,-- - ,
i-
{.
b L .
t;e + r{ V e a.
- r. a -
t i is u 7 29488.0 KdW, Nb4 iE ,
94
- p. I.
p, y ,, 1% as I know now about!TMI.
' ( ' ve - ,
~
26 Q When you looked'at the Ginna accident, did you 3 focus at all on emergency communications there to the public?
\g),
N
(.lv' 4 A .No, I don't recall that that was a part of that h
j$ 5 work at all.
_ \. y q ' '
1 6 Q So the, really the only focus you had was the 7;, hindsighting piece of it in determining how people responded 8 to the accident, utility workers responded to the accidents?
1 L
. 9 A Yes.- As far as I recall there was nothing -- I 10 did not concern myself with any other people other than those 11 who were connected to the plant or those experts who were 12 trying to judge the behavior of the plant employees.
13.. Q In looking at Chernobyl, would you find any 3
,3 14 usefulness in doing4the same sort of analysis that you might 415 'do for TMI, that is to exanine the information that went out 16 there and the response there? We have talked about Chernobyl 17 in terms of using that as an affecting item on people on Long 18 Island, but would you also look at it in isolation as its own d <
19 event and compare it the way we were talking about comparing w 20 TMI?
21 A Well, it might be interesting and informative to 22 do that. I just don't know about the Soviet methods of n
U ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Natenmide Coserage *43M-N46
..= . .- ._- .. _. ._ .
. tl 29488.0 KSW .. 95 A
U 1 communication and the reactions to those methods. I would j
- 2 think they would be somewhat less relevant than some American 1
~
3 examples.
4 Q No one has asked you to do that, I take it?
5- A No.
6 MS. MC CLESKEY: Let's go off the record.
7 (Discussion off the record.)
8 MS. MC CLESKEY: Let's break for lunch then.
9 (Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the deposition was 10 recessed, to be reconvened at 1:15 p.m. this same day.)
11 .
12 !
13 14 15 F 16 l 17 l 18 I
l l
19 20
- . 21 l
22 O
1 1
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 37(0 Narionuide Coverage M G 336 4 46
29488.0 KSW 96
~.
)
1 AFTERNOON SESSION (1:15 p.m.)
2 Whereupon, 3 ELIZABETH F. LOFTUS 4 resumed the stand and, having been previously duly sworn, was 5 examined and testified further as follows:
6 EXAMINATION (Continued) 7 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
8 Q Professor Loftus, would you turn to Contention 38, 9 please, and just take a look at that for a minute.
10 A Should I be reading the whole thing?
11 Q Have you seen this contention before?
/ T 12 A Yes.
13 Q Why don't you just run your eyes over it to 14 refresh yourself about what it says, and then I will ask you 15 specific questions and you can focus on specific sections.
16 A I have reread the first part and 1 might want to 17 read the others.
18 Q Do you intend to file testimony on this 19 contention?
20 A Yes.
I 21 0 Could you focus on 38-A, then? This deals with l
E j 22 l the time that the RNC was declared operational. Do you l !
l U,n j l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I ,m.m x._ m ~., s<m ,_
29488.0 KSW 97 .
N- l 1 expect to be filing testimony about this particular portion )
2 of 38?
3 A Well, the gist of my testimony, as I understand 4 it, will be about information that people received and the 5 ways in which it tended to be confusing, inconsistent or not 6 presentable. A through all the subparts of this contention 7 are some ways in which those problems are contributed to, so 8 in A, we have one of the problems. It is just a small piece 9 of the main point.
10 Q So you intend to file testimony on all these 11 portions of 38.
( )
~
12 A Well, I intend to file the opinion that I just
{
13 stated, and to identify some of the subpieces that are 14 responsible for causing those problems.
15 Q Okay, and other than the problems listed in the 16 contention, are you aware of any other problems that you will 17 be citing to support your opinion?
18 MS. LETSCHE: Are you referring to other events 19 that happened during the exercise?
20 MS. MC CLESKEY: Yes.
21 i THE WITNESS: I think I would have to reread all i
22 ) these and see what was missing, if anything.
U<s i
j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
, - ~._ m- ~~
i
I.
29488.0 KSW 98
,u
\
1 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
2 Q Then let's go through them section by section and 3 I will ask specific questions about them.
4 MS. LETSCHE: I'm not sure she understood your 5 prior questicn. I think she was asking you whether or not 6 you.believe prior to your filing your testimony you will go 7 out and determine more facts about what happened during the 8 exercise in addition to those set out in the subparts in 9 order to support your testimony. Is that the question?
10 MS. MC'CLESKEY: Yes.
11 THE WITNESS: No, I won't be doing that.
O 12 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
13 Q On 38-A, the contention, if I can briefly 14 summarize it, says the ENC not having been declared until 15 8:25 operational is a difficulty that would have'resulted in 16 substantial confusion, speculation, rumor generation and 17 general disorder. On whose part would that effect have been?
}
18 A Well, this refers to the public.
19 Q The public?
20 A That receives an emergency broadcast messagc.
21 Q Okay, is your understanding of this Contention 22 38-A that an EBS message was not sent out until 8:25?
(2)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3NO Nanonwide Coserage 800-336M46
,, . .- -, - .. . .- ....-. .- ~- -- .-
29488.0 KSW 99
(~) '
%)
1 A No, .it was sent out at 6:52, 2 Q Okay, then what is your understanding of what 3 happens at the ENC?
4 A Information, press information is obtained.
5 Q How is having declared the ENC operational at 6 8:25 going to result in. confusion on the part of the public?
7 A Well, it is my understanding that if this had 8 happened for real, there would be EBS messages broadcast but 9 no clear media information to help clarify the meaning of 10 those messages, so that leaves people wide open to look for 11 other sources of information.
12 Q So if I can just restate what you just told me, 13 the EBS message you assume will go out at -- went out at 14 6:52. The ENC was not open until 8:25. Between 6:52 and 15 8:25 the public would have been getting EBS messages, and 16 then the press, not having the ENC to go to, would be giving 17 out information on its own. Is that your concern?
. 18 ;
A I believe that would be happening, yes.
19 Q And where in your opinion would the press be 20 looking for their information?
21 A I'm not sure because where the press looks is 22 beyond my expertise.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC i 202-347-37tU Nationwide Coserage MG3%6M6
- - - - . . , ~ . - , - . - , ,_ -. .- . . - . . , . ..
29488.0
-KSW 100
~L) 1 Q So you won't be testifying about what the press 3
2' might or might not have been doing during those two hours or 3 hour and a half, whatever it was?
4 A The only knowledge I would have about the press S would be a press person would be a human information 6 processor and subject to the same fallibilities as an 7 ordinary non-press person, but as to what they do in terms of 8 doing their job, that's beyond my area of expertise.
9 Q Okay, and why would the public be confused as a 10 result of the ENC not being open?
11 A I think there would be a lot of speculation about O 12 what that initial message meant and what people ought to be 4
13 doing as a result of it.
14 Q I'm sorry --
15 A Speculation.
16 Q Speculation by who?
17 A People, the citizens.
18 Q And they would be speculating more because they 19 were not getting news broadcasts? Is that your thesis?
20 A Yes. Accurate news information could clear up 21 things in the minds of some people, assuming it weren't ;
22 conflicting or contradictory with what was being presented.
1 o)
\-
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
2tc-347-3700 Nationwide Coscrage RG3.16-6M6
29488.0 KSW 101
-s V
1 If what was being presented was also clear.
2 Q And we've already established that.you have a 3 difficulty with the EBS me'ssages, so you don't see that as a 4 clear source of information during this period?
5 A Yes. I don't have the one in front of me that was -
6 broadcast at 6:52, so I don't remember whichoof my specific 7 complaints apply to which message, but --
8 Q But it is fair to say overall the general 9 complaints we discussed this morning apply to all of the 10 messages that you read?
11 A I will say many of them.
12 Q Okay. In responding to 38-A, do you assume that 13 the press received no information from LILCO or LERO during 14 that hour and a half, two hour period had the ENC was being 15 activated?
16 A I don't know.
17 Q You don't know?
18 A Right.
19 Q Would it change your opinion about whether there 20 would have been confusion being generated in the public mind, 21 public's mind, if you knew that there was official 22 information being provided to the press from LILCO and LERO o
V ACE-FEDERAL PGPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8M 336-6646
V 29488.0 KSW 102 g-1 'during that time, even though the ANC was not open yet?
2 MS. LETSCHE: What do you mean by official 3 information was being provided?
4 MS. MC CLESKEY: Additional information of the 5 sort that is provided at the ENC once the ENC opens.
6 THE WITNESS: I would have to see what that was 7 before I could offer an opinion about it.
8 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
9 Q The last sentence in 38-A jumps from a creation of 10 substantial confusion to a conclusion that the public would 11 not believe information, advice or instructions disseminated D 12 by LILCO. Could you explain to me how we get from
! 13 substantial confusion to a refusal to believe information?
14 A Well, I have not analyzed specifically that tiny 15 piece of A to be able to explain it to you.
16 Q Okay, 38-B, the complaint in 38-B basically is 17 that the press was not provided a news release announcing the 18' fact that there had been no release of radiation until 8:21.
19 I take it that you find that to be a problem.
20 A Well, it is a problem if the press releases don't 21 i contain up-to-date, accurate information, yes.
. l 2:2 Q When you are considering the information that the O
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
-- m _m mo. mu-
29488.n KSW 103
(
~a 1 press is getting, is part of what you are thinking about that 2 they are also getting EBS messages? Do you assume that the 3 presa is hearing or reading the EBS messages that were being 4 sent out?
5 A Well, it would certainly be possible for them to 6 hear those messages, and I would imagine some of them would, 7 but I don't know that for a fact.
8 Q Will you be testifying about the effect of the 9 information that was going out to the press on how the press-10 would report information?
11 A No, I think that is not specifically -- how the
/ i
~
12 press handles information and what the press does with it and 13 how it gathers information, I think is a subject of somebody 14 else's expertise.
15 Q Okay, so you won't be focusing on possible 16 confusion and conflict within the press. You will be 17 focusing on confusion and conflict with the public?
18 A It is my understanding that I'm to focus my 19 attention on the ordinary individual who would be receiving 20 j this information and not specifically press people and what 21 they would do with what they are getting, except as they are l
22 ordinary people, o
t_s .
I k
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I , c --, ~~ c- _
I 29488.0 KSW 104
( )
~_-
1 Q Why would the facts in 38-B concern you then 2 regarding the public response?
3 A Well, because if the press responds to the 4 information that it receives in one way and some other source 5 of information is saying something else, this could cause 6 confusion for people.
7 Q When you are thinking in terms of the information 8 climate that would be created in any emergency response, do 9 you think that it is possible to create emergency 10 communications that would eliminate all conflicting p_
11 information?
12 MS. LETSCHE: Note my objection to that question.
13 I think it is vague and ambiguous if you are talking about 14 any kind of emergency. If you are talking about a Shoreham 15 emergency and the facts that were involved in the exercise, 16 that's specific and is answerable. I don't know if it is 17 possible to answer the kind of generalized ques tion you have 18 without any fact information necessary to evaluate it.
19 MS. MC CLESKEY: Let me rephrase the question.
20 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
f 21 i Q Do you think it is possible to construct an l
22 emergency communication system that when implemented in a r~s '
(
s/
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage NYk336-6646
29488.0 KSW 105 p
- NY .
1 real emergency would eliminate any source of conflicting 2 information?
3 A Well, I think it is possible to strive for that 4 goal. Whether you could achieve perfection, probably not,-
5 but you might be able to approach it.
6 Q So in an emergency, do you think -- approaching 7 the problem of emergency communication, do you think it is-8 fair to assume that there will always be conflicting 9' information going out to the public because of the many 10 sources of information that the public has?
11 A Not necessarily.
12 Q Why not?
, 13 A I just don't like the word "always."
14 Q You don't like the word "always" in my question?
15 A Yes.
16 Q If one were to ask you to create an emergency 17 communications system, the best one you could, for the best 18 -- a good response, that is for people to behave in a way i
19 that will make themselves safe, would you assume in 20 constructing your communication system that this would be i
21 conflicting information being given to the public?
l 22 MS. LETSCHE: I object to that question. It is
/"N
\_)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347 3XO Nationuide Coserage 800-33M646
l 29488.0 f KSW 106 (1L-)
i 1 much too broad and calls for the witness to speculate and try 2 to answer some kind of hypothetical question without any of 3 the necessary factual premises. You are talking about some 4 kind of emergency communication system without identifying 5 what the' emergency would be. You are talking about some kind 6 of good response without identifying what a good response 7 would be. No information about what kind of environment you 8 are talking about. I just think it is an unanswerable 9 question and I object.
10 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
11 Q Do you think it is unanswerable, Professor Loftus?
/ i 12 A 1 really don't know how to answer it. I just 13 don't think that you necessarily have to assume that there 14 will always be conflicting information.
15 Q On 38-C, the complaint here is that information
(
16 that was sent out in an EBS message at 8:37 had not been l l
l 17 distributed to the press at 9:15. In your opinion, why is l 1
I 18 that significant in terms of the public response?
19 A Well, one reason it might be significant is if the l
i 20 I press is still thinking that the previous press release that 21 was previously issued before, say, 9:15 was still operative, 22 l and so the press has one type of belief and the EBS
("% l
\_;
c t
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mm.m x _ <- m_
29488.0
-KSW -107 m.
1 information is communicating something else during this 2 period of delay. That could be a problem.
3 Q Okay, what is your understanding of who EBS is?
4 Where is EBS being broadcast?
5 A on the Emergency Broadcast System.
6 0 over the radio?
, 7 A Yes, and television.
l 8 Q So who are these people, who are the press in 38-C i
9 that you are concerned doesn't have that information?
l
( 10 A I suppose they are the people hanging around the l
( 11 press centers waiting for information and trying to seek out l O 12 information in other ways that they do that.
13 Q And wouldn't they be representatives of the 14 television, radio media that have those EBS messages?
[-
15 A Yes, but if they don't know exactly what 16 information they have; is that the last press release that 17 they got -- doesn't seem to correspond to the current EBS 18 message, and that state of affairs can be true for quite an 19 extended period of time.
20 Q What is it that you postulate the press people 21 would do faced with that situation?
22 A Well, I'm not sure what exactly they would do l
O l 1
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80lk336-6646
x
~
29488.0 i ~KSW 108 i.v t
_O 1 because I don't know how press handles conflicting
[ 2 information, but if they report it as it is that one is 3 saying this and the other is saying this, that could 4 certainly contradict to a confusing informational environment 5 for the ordinary person.
6 Q So your concern in 30-C is that an EBS message 7 saying fact X would go out at a quarter to 9:00, and at 9:00 8 someone at the ENC who had not received the quarter to 9:00 9 EBS message would say the information that was in the 10 previous EBS message and that those two, the two messages, 11 the current EBS message and the press report, would confuse 12 the public?
13 A Yes.
14 Q As a result?
15 A Yes.
16 Q On 38-D, do you intend to testify about the 17 copying difficulties at the ENC?
18 A Well, I don't know. I would only assume that this 19 is a fact and therefore it contributed to information 20 dissemination. I am not going to do any further 21 investigation about copying facilities, however.
22 Q Is it fair to say that the extent of your
.n v
1 i,
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202447-37(U Nathmwide Coserage Mk33M616
1
'29488.0-KSW- 109 l c s-<
. testimony.on"38-D would be to discuss the effect of the
~
1-2- ' delays.as:a result of the copying problem?
.1 A Yes, or the relationship between copying:and 4' delays.
5 Q Well,.if you are going'to talk about the
- 6. relationship between the copying problems and the delays, do 7 'you intend.to look into what copying difficulties ~there were.
8 and that sort of thing?
9 A No, I would'just. intend to take'as a given that 10 there were insufficient ~ copying capabilities and that that Il contributed or deterred information communication.- 'That.was:
'g ~
-- 12 only one piece of the problem, however.
1.
13 Q- On 38-E, do you intend to file testimony on the q
14 maps and displays in the media _ briefing room?
l- 15 A I would only take as a given if I were asked if E 16 that they were insufficient and inadequate.
l 17 Q Would you want to look at them before you filed i 18 testimony on this section?-
19 A If someone asked me to do something other than '
I I
20 simply assume they were-insufficient and inadequate, then I
! 21 would have to look at them, but I have not been asked to do 22 that.
10 i
1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
I 202-347-3700 - &tionwide Coserage Ro 33MM6
E .
~..
'29488.0 KSW 110 1 Q Okay, and if someone asks you to assume.that the.
2 maps and displays were insufficient and inadequate and asks
~3 you to file testimony on the basis of that assumption on 4 38-E, what conclusion would you draw?
5 A .I'm sorry, could you state that again.or --
6 Q Sure. .What would your testimony say on 38-E if
~
E 7 you were asked to assume that the maps and displays were 8 inadequate?
9 A Well, that this was a small piece contributing to 10 the confusion in the information being-disseminated or as a 11 result of the information being disseminated.
O 12 Q. .And you could say that without looking-at the maps 13 and displays?
14 A No, only if I were asked to assume that they were 15 insufficient and inadequate. If you have some insufficient 16 inadequate stimulus providing information, then it is going 17 to contribute to confusion.
18 Q Okay, so unless someone asks you, you are not 19 going to look at the maps and displays?
20 A No.
21 Q But you would use the fact of inadequate maps and 22 displays which you assume someone else will establish as O
1 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I 202-347-37(X) Nationwide Coverage 80fk33MM6
29488.0 KSW 111 t
t
.)
}
1 inadequate as part of your list of things that contributed to 2 confusion on the part of the problem?
3 A I might, yes.
4 Q On 38-F, you have discussed in some detail your 5 difficulties with the EBS messages, and I take it that the 6 gist of your contention -- your testimony on this part of the 7 contention would be what we previously discussed?
8 A Yes.
I 9 Q 38-G discusses the times when press releases were j 1
10 posted at the ENC for the press. I take it you agree with I 11 38-G.
\')
12 A Yes.
13 Q okay, why are you concerned that press releases 14 were posted on the average of 45 minutes after they were l
15 received at the ENC?
I
- 16 A Well, the answer is the same as the one I gave I
f 17 before. If there's a delay, it means that somebody may be I 18 operating under information from a prior source, which is not l
19 updated by the new information, and therefore, it might 20 i conflict with other sources of information.
21 Q Would your concern about that be alleviated if you 22 I knew that during this whole time when these press releases
(~h t> !
) '
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-1700 Naiionwide Coserage 8(0-33M,646
l l 29488.0 KSW 112 I
O 1 were.being posted that there were live press conferences 2 continuously at the ENC giving out the latest information 7 3 verbally?
4 A Well, I would have to learn more about the details 5 of how the press were mingling in this environment, because 6 if some of them were not listening to the live report but 7 d were looking at the report that was posted -- I don't know, I 8 would have to have more information.
9 Q Right now you don't know how important a source of 10 information that board with the posted messages was?
11 A That's correct.
O 12 Q Do you intend to find that out before you file 13 your testimony?
14 A Only if asked to do that.
15 '
Q On 38-H, I take it that your difficulty with the il 16 fevacuationrecommendationnotbeingannouncedtotheENC 17 media assembled until 12:47 would be the same as she 18 previously discussed, that concern that the press was being il 19 given outdated information at the same time the ERS was 20 saying evacuate?
21 A Yes.
22 ! a Q On 38-H, assume for a minute -- as you are, I O
6 p
1 l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
i m- ~_ ~. _
29488.0 KSW 113 _!
. jq j LJ 1 .guese, with all.of the contentions -- that'the facts within .
l 2 38-I are accurate and that LERO told-the media at 1:05 that.
3 the workers-had been told to ingest KI tablets that morning.
4- What impact would that have on the public?
S' A 'Well, I think this information sort of has a
. 6 frightening tone.to it. Something had to be ingested,
- 7 presumably for the safety of these people.
8 Q Do you think it would have been a better course-e 9 not to tell the public that KI had been ingested by emergency-10 workers?
11 A I would have to think about the implications of
- 12 telling versus not telling, a n'd if you do not tell, the 13 likelihood that the information seeps out erratically and has 14 a devastating effect on people. I need to analyze that a
. 15 little further.
- 16 Q Are you going to file testimony on 38-I?
! .17 A I might, yes.
i 18 Q You might in -- when you read the contentions, did 19~ you think about the impact of telling versus not telling 20 ,
about KI ingestion?
21 A No, I had not thoroughly thought about that.
22 Q 38-J alleges that press conferences were
()
i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
j m. _ x _m c_. -
M
.29488.0
. KSW 114 JO
- .1 inadequate in
- the information that was given in them,>and-I 2 take it you said you had not reviewed the. press conference
- 3- tapes, the' press conference individua1' tapes, so you don't 4 know what went'on.at the press conferences?
5 A No, but if asked to review them.and to explore
-6 that further, I will be willing to.
7 Q 'But- right now you are not in any position on 38-J
,- 8- to give any opinion about whether they were adequate or not?
9 A Right. .
10 -Q 'Do you intend to file any testimony onE38-L about
- 11. the gravel truck impediment?
o 12 A Well, only if given further information about it 13 that might be' relevant, but not at the present moment.
14 Q And on.38-M, I take it your answer is the same as*
f 15 previously, that since you have not seen the press conference 16 tapes, you can't really respond any further about'what was
] -17 inadequate about the fuel truck impediment information that i
18 was given?
- 19 A I don't know that at the present time.
20 Q Okay. Is your answer the same for 38-N?
i 21 A- Well, I need to review the press conferences to be 22- able to determine whether I have an opinion about N.
- ( )-
. ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 Nationwide Coverage 800-3364M6
. ,_ _.. _-347-3RD.-, . . _ . - _ . _ , _ . _ , . . , . . . _ _ . - - _ . - . , . . - . _ , - _ - . _ . - - - _ . . . _
29488.0 KSW. 115 x
1 Q On 38-0, the time lapse between the releases beir.J 2 received and being given to media monitoring personnel at the 3 ENC is about 45 minutes, and then 25 minutes. Do you see 4 that as a significant difficulty?
5 A Well, the same problems I discussed earlier, what 6 happens during those delays, and the~ increased likelihood of 7 conflicting ~information because some people are using 8 outdated information.
9 Q What is your understanding of what the media 10 monitoring people do?
11 A I'm not fully sure of all their activities.
12 Q 38-P simply refers to the rumor control problems 13 described in 39, and why don't we just talk about those when 14 we get to 39.
15 38-Q discusses-some of the changes that LILCO has 16 made to its plan to respond to the things that were learned 17 from the exercise. Have you reviewed any revisions to the 18 plan or letters describing revisions to the plan?
19 A Not that I recall.
20 Q Right now, do you have any opinion about why these 21 ( changes that are listed in 38-Q would not fix the problems 22 that are identified in the contentions?
C) i ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Cmcrage 8633MM6
29488.0 KSW-- 116 r~
(_%)
1 A I'would'have to do further analysis before I could 2 answer that question.
3 Q Are you teaching your usual courses this spring?-
4 A Yes.
5 Q Could you turn to contention 39? It should be the 6 next one.
I 7 A Yes.
8 Q Contention -- just take a minute to look over this 9 contention.
10 A I have read the initial introduction.
11 Q Does this look familiar to you?
t'%
12 A Yes.
13 ' Q Is this a contending you think you will be filing 14 testimony on?
15 A It is quite possible, yes.
16 Q Why don't you turn to 39-A. 39-A has several 17 uubparts of examples of alleged incorrect or superseded 18 information given to call board operators. If you want to 19 take a minute to read all of the little subparts for the 20 examples, let me know. Do you want to do that?
21 A I will just -- should I read the whole thing?
l' 22 Q Why don't you just skim part A so you can refresh (1) .
l 1
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3hX) Nationwide Cos erage 800-33M646 r . , - - . - - . - , , . . . - . - . . - . , _ _ - - . . . . , - - . . . - - . - -
N 29488.0 KSW 117 N
1~, your memory about the subject.
'2~ A Okay, I have skimmed these examples.
3 -Q What would be the gist of your testimony in 4 response to 39-A?
5 A That the people who were answering the phone calls 6 in order to, quote, " correct misinformation," did not
~
7 themselves-always have up-to-date information, and therefore
~
- 8. the information they would be likely to give out,'if things
'9 were as they were during the exercise, would be inaccurate or 10 inconsi: tent with other information sources.
11 Q And I take it that you think that that would have o 12 an impact on the public response?
l 13 A Yes.
14 Q Can you quantify that impact?
15 A No, because at this point, I don't know exactly
$ 16 how many people would be calling the rumor centers-to have 17 their questions answered and how many other people those i 18 people would be talking to.
19 Q Do you expect to get that kind of information in 20 order to be able to quantify your response?
l
- 21 A It is possible that through Cole's survey there 22 might be some information on how many people would call for C ')
l l
l L ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 80(1336 6646 l . _ . _ . - . . . . . . . .- _ _ _ . . . _ . .~ _ . _ . , _ _ . _ , , . - _ - . _ _ . , . . - , _ , _ , _ _ _ , , _ _ _ _ _ . _ , _ . . , _ _ . .
- 29488~.0 KSW 118
. '~!
1 information.
9 2- Q So you would use that. predictively to estimate [the 3 number of people who might respond by calling-in an 4 emergency?
5 A It would be one piece of evidence that would bear 6 on that, yes.
7 Q Do you have any information based on prior 8 emergencies or any prior work that you have done to quantify 9 .that kind of-response?
10 A No.
11 Q Assuming you are unable to put a real precise t -
12 number on it -- let me ask you this: In analyzing the 13 problem, does it matter to you how many people are calling 14 in?
15 MS. LETSCHE: What problem is it you are referring
- i. 16 to-in your question?
17 MS. MC CLESKEY: The problem identified in 39-A.
- l. 18 THE WITNESS: Well, it would matter in the sense l, 19 that in the extreme, if only one person were to call, or no 20 people were to call, then the fact that the people receiving 21 those phone calls have non-updated, out-of-date information, 22 might not affect very many people, but it is my belief that L(1).
l l
I
)
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. .
mmmm x.- m_... 7- _ . _ . _ - _ .
29488.0
-KSW -119
- ,g.
I I u.
1 many people would be calling for information and therefore 2~ many people would be affected by the information obtained in 3 this way.
4 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
5 Q On what do you base that belief?
6 A I have this vague recollection of a part of one of 7 my several discussions with Dr. Cole that he had some 8 preliminary data on people in which people indicated-that 9 they would call for more information, and that the numbers 10 were significant.
11 Q Okay, is your belief based on any kind of more 12 general-view that you hold that lots of people in an 13 emergency would be calling for more information because of 1
! 14 the way people behave?
15 A I can't point to a piece of evidence that would 16 support that.
17 Q So the basis is or will be Dr. Cole's study?
18 A In my own work with victims of residential fires, l
19 it is the case that while people that try to, when they are 20 in an ambiguous situation, to search out information to l
21 l resolve what's happening, that's one of the early stages of 22 behavior in a fire.
I
() !
1 l
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. .
202-347-3NO Nanonwide Coserage MG33MM6 f J
l 29488.0 KSW 120 j
1 Q All right, why don't you turn to 39-B and take a 2 quick look at those subparts.
3 A I have read this before, and I have a sense of 4 what's here, so I will see if I need to read them more 5 carefully based on your questions.
6 Q Okay, could you tell me what the gist of your 7 testimony will be in response to 39-B?
8 A The gist of the testimony in response to 39-B is 9 that again, this is a -- the fact that the requests for 10 information are being made but not responded to until a 11 sizable delay has occurred is going to leave people with
/,]s 12 their qitestions unanswered and in a situation where they are 13 going to look for other sources of information to find the 14 answer. Also, especially in some of these, for some of these 15 examples, I would think that the fact of the delay when 16 someone has called with an important question, such as what 17 to do about a caughter who has not come home from school, 18 would cause people to distrust LILCO and reject the 19 information from that source.
20 .
Q What would be the result of their distrust and 21 l rejection of the information?
22 A Searching for information from other sources, and n>
u-l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
mmm, x - c- -
i'
(.
[ I29488.0 KSW .121 L.. p 1 .-m
[ 1 . relying more. heavily on that other information,'whether it:is l
2- other official sources or friends or wherever.
I' 3 Q Do you have any mechanism.for quantifying the 4 number of people that might be affected by one person's 5 getting no information or misinformation during an emergency?
6 A No, not right now.
7 Q Would it be possible to quantify that?
- 8. -A Well, I suppose if you did some sort of a 9 ' simulation and it were a good simulation, you might be able 10 to get some information on that point, but I don't know of 11 any such work.
O 12 Q And it would require an experiment?
13 A Yes, or some sort of field study of some sort.
14 Q And you have not been asked to do that?
15 'A No.
16 Q On 39-C, could you take a minute to glance at 17- that?
18 A I have read a couple of the examples, so I will 19 see what your question is.
20 Q What would be the gist of your testimony in 21 response to 39-C?
22 A Well, basically some of the examples here provide O I ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
M-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
29488.0-KSW 122 t'N
-!.J 1 the evidence that incorrect advice was being given.
2 Q And what's the significance of.that?
3 A Well, if incorrect advice is being given from this 4 source and people find from some other source that they are 5 getting different, correct advice, you further have the 6 problem of conflicting information, and further eroding the 7 trust that people have in LILCO or would have in the 8 information provided by LILCO.
9 Q If the public is listening to EBS messages and you 10 assume that the EBS messages are giving the correct advice, 11 what to do, and a single person calls and gets advice that is p,
(
12- conflicting, do you think that that would have a significant 13 impact on the emergency response?
14 A Well, I think that, yes, if people are getting 15 conflicting information or are confused, they are more likely 16 to be upset and respond on the basis of their own instincts.
17 Q But again you are unable to quantify the number of 18 .
people who might be confused based on the one phone caller?
19 A I can't.
20 0 Could you turn to contention 44, the first 21 sentence? Does that look familiar to you?
22 A Yes.
O I
- ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 8 @ 334 6646
29488.0
. KSW' 123
-v 1 Q Do you intend to file testimony on that?
2 A Yes.
3 Q What is the gist of the testimony you will file on 4 the first sentence of Contention 44?
5 A Basically, my opinion is that, as this phrase 6 suggests,.that there would be a substantial evacuation 7 shadow, voluntary evacuation of people who were advised not 8 to evacuate, and the basis for that would be as I have W already indicated earlier, Cole's survey, the behavioral 10 intentions, and any other information that might be useful
~
11 from related incidents such as the TMI incident.
O '12 Q Have you studied shadow phenomenon independently 13 in your work?
14 A No.
15 Q And have you read any of the literature in the 16 area of emergency response on shadow phenomenon?
17 A Well, maybe I should ask what you mean by shadow 18 phenomenon.
19 Q Why don't you define what you mean?
20 A I was assuming as its meaning is here, that people 21 doing something when they are being -- such as evacuating 22 when they are being asked not to.
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. .
202-347-37(0 Nationwide Coverage 800-3%fM6 I
-29488.0 KSW 124
.,~.
t *
%.)
1 Q Do you include in your definition of shadou 2 phenomenon people who may be outside the emergency planning 3 zone who might be responding even though they are.not being 4 given any instructions to'do anything because they are-5 outside the emergency planning zone?
6 A Well, yes, I think those are the kind of people 7 who would be --
8 Q Oh, is that who you were referring to?
9 A Well, there may be some groups inside who are not 10 supposed to evacuate yet but they may go ahead and evacuate, 11 ar.d those outside the zone, especially those near the zone O 12 but outside who would evacuate even though they are advised 13 not to.
14 Q And is it your opinion, based on what you know of 15 the communications that went out during the exercise, that
-16 there would be a substantial shadow phenomenon?
17 A I have not done all of the work that needs to be 18 done here and I certainly have not seen the results of the 19 Cole survey, but it is my opinion that what those final 20 results will show is a substantial percentage of people 21 claiming that they will leave in response to the very early l
22 EBS messages.
, n\ j ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 447-3700 Nationwide Coverage 8(4336-6M5
- . . . -.. - . , . . . . - - - ~ , _ . ~ . .,.-, . . - - . , , - . - - -
29488.0 KSW 125 1 Q. -So the basis of your opinion about shadow 2 phenomenon in your testimony will be Dr. Cole's survey?.
3 A Yes, that will be a major part of it.
4 Q Are you going to bring anything else to bear-on 5 the question of shadow phenomenon other than Dr. Cole's j 6 survey and the Texas of the EBS messages?
7 A Well, I think it would be relevant to know, and I l 8 don't have this information new, what happened at TMI and 9 whether there were people, and if so how many, who evacuated fl 10 when they were told or advised not to.
L J '
11 Q And how does that relate to what might be the t-f 12 response in a Shoreham emergency?
13 A Well,.it shows that in a nuclear emergency, people 14 leave when they are advised not to.
15 Q As a general proposition in the nuclear emergency, 16 people leave when they are advised not to?
17 A Yes.
18 Q And why -- is that because of the nature of a
-19 nuclear emergency, in your opinion?
20 A This kind of thing could happen in other 21 emergencies too where people might leave when they are 22 advised not to but -- it is certainly possible.
O ,
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage tuO-336 6M6 z
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ )
L.
29488.0 KSW: 126
. [~)
v 1 Q What factors would you look at'to determine i
t 2 whether people would be more or less likely to leave?
3 A I don't'know, I-would have to begin to look at 4 that situation.
5 Q And you have not done that yet?
6 A No.
i 7 Q All right, could you turn to contention 22-F?
8 Please take a look at that and tell me if that looks familiar
~9 to you.
10 (Discussion off the record.)
11 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
0 12 Q Do you recall having seen 22-F before?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Do you intend to file testimony on 22-F?
15 A Yes.
16 Q What would the gist of that testimony be?
17 A That some of the-assumptions that LILCO is making 18 about what would be likely to happen in an exercise of this 19 sort that was attempted last year would in fact happen, that 20 there would be people would evacuate when they are supposed
-21 to and that everything would work out very smoothly and as 22 planned.
O
\_J l
l ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. l 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 804 336-6646
29488.0'
>KSW 127 X
'h l' Q. Other than the assumptions that are challenged in 2 the. contention, do you intend to' discuss any assumptions?-
3 A- Not-that I recall other than these.
4 -Q Okay,'and the first paragraphEto 22-F.is quite 5 'l'ong, and then it goes into a second paragraph which'is.also i 16 quite long, which has an A, B, C, and then about.three-7 sentences beyond that there's a reference to Chernobyl, t
8 Contention 44, and evacuation shadow. Do.you see that 9 sentence?
10 A Yes.
11 Q We have talked before about your opinions O 12 .regarding Chernobyl and the possible effect. Would:your 13 testimony on this contention include a discussion of' 14 Chernoby1?
15 A Well, it certainly would, especially if Cole does 16 collect some useful data.
17 Q Okay, so you would again rely on Dr. Cole'c survey
- 18. results as part of your testimony in response to this?
.19 A or if there existed -- and I don't have it, and 20 don't even know if it exists -- other survey data which 21 measures the Long Island residents' feelings or attitudes 22 about Chernobyl.
O a
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347 3700 Nationwide Coserage 800-336-6M6
~
29488.0' ,
KSW 128 1 Q Would you expect Long Island residents' feelings l
2' and attitudes about'Chernobyl to be different than other; 3 Americans' feelings and responses to Chernoby1?
4 A Well, those who are involved in the discussions.
S~ and controversy over the Shoreham plant and who live nearby
~
6 might well have somewhat different-feelings'than-other 7~ Americans-who don't live anywhere near a nuclear powerfplant, 8 but I don't-know. .That's an empirical question. -
9 Q And I take it that your discussion about shadow 10 would'1xe what we already discussed in response to 44?
11- A- Yes.
~
12 Q Okay, then the third paragraph in that 22-F refers ~
13 to the substantial impact on the ability of LILCO players to 14' respond to the emergency because of the additional 15_ evacuation. Do you intend to file any testimony about that?
16 A Well, I'm not sure yet.
- 17 Q Okay, could you turn to Contention 42?
18 A 42?
19 Q Right.
20 MS. MC CLESKEY: Now, Ms. Letsche, when Chris 21 McMurray and I were talking with Professor Saegert in 22 deposition yesterday, Mr. McMurray indicated that as far as (2)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202-347-3700 - Nationwide Coverage 800-346M6
l 29488.0
'KSW 129
' .m
?
)
~%J 1 you all are' concerned, you are dealing with Contention 42 2 notwithstanding that it has been subsumed in 38 and 39, as 3 basically a training contention part'of 50. Is that your p 4 understanding?-
5 MS. LETSCHE: Do I have to answer that right this 6 minute?
7 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
8 Q Let me ask you this: Professor Loftus, have you 9 ever seen Contention 42 before?
10 A I don't remember.
'11 MS. PH: CLESKEY: Ms. Letsche, would you just take r
^( y.'/ .'
12_ aElook at it, and perhaps you all can confer and decide 13 whether she is going to be filing testimony on that or not.
14 MS. LETSCHE: I don't believe Professor Loftus has 15 been asked to consider filing testimony on this contention.
16; It is my recollection on that.
17 BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
18- Q Do you recall even having seen it before?
19 A I don't recall if it was sent te me in the 20 previous pack or not.
21 Q Well, let's skip it.
4 22 Would you turn to Contention 40?
O 4
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
+
l 202 347-3700 Nationwide Coserage R(n 33 M M 6
. , , _ _ - , , ._--,,-_.__,,,-r.-._.,- , --,-.,-, , _
1 l
-l I
29488.0-KSW 130 1 A Yes.
2 Q You have seen Contention 40 before?
3 A Yes.
4 Q You intend to file testimony on Contention 40?
5 A Yes.
6 Q Are there specific parts of Contention 40 that you-
- 7. . will be testifying on?
8 A The basic idea is that if the EBS messages are 9 promising traffic guides and there are none in certain places' 10 where they are expected to be, this is further an example of
, 11 inconsistent and confiicting information that one, increases
-t
'-') 12 anxiety, and two, reduces any trust people might place in 13 LILCO and causes them to reject that as a source of 14 information and causing them to rely on other sources of 15 information, including their own intuitions.
16 Q Having read the EBS messages, is it your 17 understanding that they promised traffic guides?
18 A Yes.
19 Q And is it, based on what you have reviewed about 20 the LILCO plan and how things work in the plan and how things 21 went at the exercise, is it your understanding that people 22 would have reached traffic posts before traffic guides were t l
(1)
(
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
20 % 347-1700 Nationwide Coserage 800-316-f644
i,
'~ f29488.0 JKSW~ 131 JA
, b f ,
.1- out?
- 2. A _It was-my understanding, yes. ;
3 Q 'And-that's what you assume in responding to 4: Contention 40?
5 A Yes.
lf 6- Q Would you turn to Contention 49?
7 A' I have. read the gist of'it. Do you want.me tofgo 8 to-C?-
9: MS. LETSCHE: That's what I told you to go-to.
10- She hasn't told you anything'yet.
11- BY MS. MC CLESKEY:
h 12 Q I think you ought to listen to your counsel. Have 13 you seen Contention 49 before? .
14- A Yes.
15 Q Do you intend to file testimony on it?
16 A Yes.
17 Q Do you intend to file testimony on this on 49-C?
18 A If asked to do it only on 49-C, that's what I will 19 do, yes.
20 Q Is it your understanding that that's what you have 21 been asked to do or do you not know yet?
22 A It is beginning to be my understanding, g
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 347-3700' Nationwide Coverage an336-6646
'29488.0
..KSW 132 (p
1\_) -
1 MS. DK: CLESKEY: Is:she going to testify on 49-C?
2 MS. LETSCHE: I believe she will probably be' asked 3 to do.that, yes.
4 BY MS.-MC CLESKEY:
5 Q Let's go to 49-C. Are you at 49-C?
r-
! 6 A Yes.
7 Q What will the gist of your testimony in response 8 -to 49-C be?
9 A The gist of the testimony is that one cannot 10 assume that the people, only the people who are advised to 11 show up for monitoring will show up for monitoring, and that
( ' 12 there may be substantial. numbers of other people who will 13 also show up, thereby contributing to inefficiency or a 14 breakdown of the system. It might not be able to handle all 15 those extra people.
16 Q What's the basis of your opinion about that?
17 A Well, data of the sort that might come from the 18 Cole survey would either support or refute that contention.
19 Q Is that the only basis?
20 A Unless -- well, if there are other survey data
- 21 that you or others do that bear on this issue, they might be 22 relevant to this contention.
f~
- i. V) 1 ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
- 202-347-3700 Nationwide Coserage 800 33MM6
29488.0 KSW 133 O'
V 1 Q Do you intend to discuss at all, other than the 2 number of people who might or might not come, do you intend 3 to discuss any monitoring or decontamination issues in your 4 testimony?
5 A No.
I 6 h Q Are there any other contentions that you recall 7 having been asked to testify on that we have not discussed?
8 A I believe that's it.
9 MS. MC CLESKEY: I have no further questions.
0 10 MS. LETSCHE: I don't have any questions.
11 (Whereupon, at 2:20 p.m., the deposition was O
/
12 concluded.)
4 E, Y _____ _ ___ h 15 E Z ETil F. LOFTUS 16 l 17 '
I Subscribcd and sworn gg .
to betore 18 ! tNS Cl OI i:
19 f
20 My CommissiO" N 21 1
22 [
O l i
l i
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
202 N a: ion wide Cos erage 80ik33MM6
_. ._ _ _ _ -347-1700
, = = - .
........-__..-..w 1
l CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC & REPORTER 134 i t- !
i
. i O
l I, KATHIE S. WELLER , the officer before whom the foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby certify that, the witness whose testimony appears in the foregoing deposition was duly sworn by me; that the testimony of said witness was taken in shorthand
[
and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under j my direction; that said deposition is a true record of the testimony given by said witness; that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the action in which this ,
deposition was taken; and, further, that I am not j a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel-
'O employed by the parties hereto, nor financially ))l or otherwise interested in the outcome of this action. -
l 7 i Notary Pdblic in and for the 2 - Y J' 3
District of Columbia My Commission Expires 11/14/89 l l
i O .
4
- . . . . - . . . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _