ML20149E721
| ML20149E721 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 02/08/1988 |
| From: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#188-5628 ASLBP, OL, NUDOCS 8802110251 | |
| Download: ML20149E721 (195) | |
Text
m l
O UNTrED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO:
PUBLIC GERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-443-OL
)
50-444-OL NE'J HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
OFFSITE
)
EMERGENCY (SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2)
)
PLANNING EVIDENTIARY HEARING LOCATION:
BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS F* AGE?.:
9130 through 9270 DATE:
FEGRUARY G, 1980 L'o\\
\\
\\
\\
o Heritage Reporting Corporation Q({Icial Repolitti O
i:= 's s.*.
wumasion. D.C. 20005 l
( 3 21 628-4 44 I
6
,5/
4 PD6 AI)DC K 0500041:1 T
P I)i<
t
e'.
9138 NJ 1
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 2
Tcx50Ttl 3
In the Matter of:
)
4
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos.
S NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.,
)
50-443-OL
)
50-444-OL 6
)
OFF-SITE EMERGENCY (SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2
)
FLANNING 7
)
EVIDENTIARY HEARING 8
9 Monday 10 February 0, 1988 11 Dankruptcy Courtroom 2 Thomas P. O'Neill Federal Bldg.
12 2 Causeway Street Boston, Massachusetts 7,N)
I The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, 14 pursuant to notice, at 1:04 p.m.
15 DEFORE:
JUDGE IVAN W. SMITH, CHAIRMAN 16 JUDGE JERRY HARBOUR, MEMBER JUDGE GUSTAVE A. LINENBERGER, JR., MEMDER l
17 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1
18 Washington, D.C.
20555 l
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Acme Reporting Company (202) 628-4888 c-
(~~T 9139 V
1 APPEARANCES:
2 For the Acolicant:
3 THOMAS G. DIGNAN, JR., ESO.
GEORGE H. LEWALD, ESO.
4 KATHRYN A. SELLECK, ESO.
Ropes & Gray 5
225 Franklin Street Doston, Massachusetts 02110 6
For the NRC Staff :
7 SHERWIN E. TURK, ESO.
8 Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 9
Washington, D.C. 20555 10 For the Federal Emerzency Management Arency:
11 H. JOSEPH FLYNN, ESO.
Federal Emergency Management Agency 12 500 C Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C.
20472 For the State of New Hampshire:
14 GEOFFREY M. HUNTINGTON, ESQ.
15 State of New Hampshire 25 Capitol Street 16 Concord, New Hampshire 03301 17 For the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
18 JOHN TRAFICONTE, ASST. ATTY. GEN.
CAROL SNEIDER, ASST ATTY. GEN.
19 STEPHEN OLESKEY, ESO.
ALLAN FIERLE, ESO.
20 Commonwealth of Massachusetts One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor 21 Boston, Massachusetts 02109 22 For the New England Coalition anainst Nuclear Pollution:
23 ELLYN R. UEISS, ESG.
24 Harmon & Weiss 2001 S Street, N.W.
25 Washingtmi, D.C.
20009 O
Acme Reporting Company (202) 628-A888 i
9140
-r]
v 1
APPEARANCES:
(Continued) 2 For the Sencoast Anti-Pollution League _:
3 ROBERT BACKUS, ESO.
Backus, Meyer & solomon 4
116 Lowell Street Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 5
JANE DOUGHTY, DIRECTOR 6
Seacoast Anti-Pollution League 5 Market Street 7
Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03801 8
For the Town of Hampton:
9 MATTHEW T. BROCK, ESO.
Shaines & McEachern 10 25 Maplewood Avenue P.O. Box 360 11 Portsmouth, New Hampshire 03G01 12 For the Town of Kensineton:
()
13 SANDRA FOWLER MITCHELL, EMERGENCY PLANNING DIR.
Town Hall 14 Kensington, New Ham,nshire 15 For the Towns of Hamoton Falls and North Hampton and South Hampton:
16 ROBERT A. BACKUS, ESQ.
17 Backus, Meyer & Solomon 116 Lowell Street 18 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 19 For the Town of Amesbury:
20 (No Appearance) l 21 22 23 I
24 25
(
Acme Reporting Company (202) 628-4888
p-<
r~x 9141
%-)
1 INDEX 2
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS EXAM 3
Panel:
DENNIS MILETI(prefiled) 9152 9172 4
BRUCE SPENCER by Mr. Lewald 9151 5
by Mr. Fierce 9172 6
EXHIDITS:
7 None O
INSERTS:
PAGE 9
Applicants' Rebuttal 9154 10 Testimony No. 3 i
11 Curriculum Vitae 9154 of Druce Spencer 12 Applicants' Rebuttal 9155
( ')
13 Testimony No. 4 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O
Arme Reporting Company (202) 628-4088 A
I
(~')
'd 9142 1
PROCEEDINGS 2
JUDGE SMITH:
Good afternoon.
3 I'm aware that some of the parties had not yet 4
received a copy of the Board's Memorandum and Order of February 5
- 3rd,
'88, setting and proposing the schedule milestones.
I've 6
passed some out.
We'll schedule a session for later on this 7
week to discuss it.
8 Is there any preliminary business?
Have you worked 9
out an order of presentation?
10 MR. LEWALD:
Yes, we have, Your Honor.
We were going 11 to commence.with the Applicant's panel, with Dr. Milett and Dr.
rm 12 Spencer which would take up the rebuttal testimony of the
(
)
us 13 Applicant which is entitled "App 1tcants Rebuttal Testimony No.
14 3 and No.4."
15 And then we go next to -- then M11eti 2 and 5 and 16 then to the --
17 -
MR. DIGNAN:
Then we would move presumably to the 18 presentation of the rebuttal witnesses of the Mass. AG.
19 JUDGE SMITH:
Okay.
You're going to present 20 Testimony 3 and 4 together at the same time?
21 MR. DIGNAN:
If that's agreeable to the Doard, it's 22 the same witness.
23 MR. LEWALD:
It's the same panel, so we will -- we 24 can do it interchangeably or sertatim, it doesn't, it depends
[")
25 on the interrogator.
%/
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
L
~
b 9143 1
JUDGE SMITH:
So, we're going to have a panel of two 2
immediately, and we just gave away one of the seats.'
1 NR. LEWALD:
We need a chair and to remo/o a coat._
4 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Who did you give.the seat to, Your l
l 5
. Honor?
6 (Laughter) 7 JUDGE 3MITH:
I'n sorry, I'm going to ask Mass. AG to t
l' 8
give-up one of your seats, if you will.
9 In the meantime would you call your witnesses and 10 we'll be ready.
11 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Well, Your Honor, before we advance 12 to that point, the Mass. AG's office and the other Intervenors 13 collectively, we do have some preliminary business, which may l
14 be better deferred to a discussion, as you've indicated, you 15 prepared a schedule on your order setting the three-track l
16 schedule.
But we would like to just raise it now as an initial
[
i 17 matte.
t I
18 Your Honor, this is our first opportunity to raise 19 before the Board, we believe, issues of first importance that i
1 20 are presented as a result of the bankruptcy filing by the lead i
21 Applicant here, Public Service of New Hampshire.
And I'm sure i
22 the Board will recall at the last conference call at which we j
i 23 had lengthy discussions about scheduling, it was soon after 24 that conference call that the lead Applicant actually filed
()
25 four protection under Chapter 11.
i' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
9144
\\-
.1 The Intervenors collectively have given mome thought i
2 to the impact of that filing on these proceedings, and in l
l 3
particular, the impact of that filing on a schedule for 4
' litigation of the Mass. plans as.well as the continuation of 5
the litigation of the sheltering portions of the New Hampshire 6
plan.
'7 And althoGgh not yet clearly -- we have not.yet l
8 clearly-arrived at a complete understanding of the impact of 9
bankruptcy, we think it's important that this Board address 10 potential impacts.
l 11 And at. the outset, and I could appreciate if the f
12 Board would want to defer actually a formal motion and. ruling.
l 13 on a motion till later this week, perhaps, when we address head i
14 on the scheduling order that you've issued.
s 15 We think at the outset certain questions should be 16 addressed, perhaps in the first instance to counsel for the 17 Applicants here.
1 10 It is our understanding of the Bankruptcy Code thtt a i
19 debtor in possession, which is now the situation for the lead j
20 Applicant, may not be able to continue to spend on a regular 21 basis the necessary funds to continue to pursue a licensing j
i i
22 before this Board.
I' 23 In the first instance it's clear to me that creditors i
24 of the debtor in possession might move the Bankruptcy Court to 25 halt any expenditures in advance of or in support of an NRC
(}
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4
[-
(D 9145 1
license.
We're clearly not representing that that's occurred.
2 In fact, my information is that some days ago the most current 3
payment has been made.
4 Dut the fact of the matter is that the Dankruptcy 5
Court has jurisdiction over the debtor in possession at this 6
juncture; and that creditors of that debtor could move the 7
Court to stop the flow of any funds by that debtor in support 8
of its licensing activities.
That could occur.
It could 9
occur, obviously, af ter a motion to the Bankruptcy Court to 10 stop the expenditures and argument, and the Bankruptcy Court 11 has the power and the authority to do that.
12 We believe it is likely that a creditor group or a 13 creditor of PSNH will move the Bankruptcy Court to do that.
14 And in that posture we would have, I think, issues of the very 15 first impression here we would have a lead owner -- strike 16 that -- a lead Applicant in bankruptcy unable to fund the 17 continued pursuit of a license.
18 Secondly, and as a corollary to the first point, it l
19 is also clear to us that it is a likely outcome of, or at least 20 a possible outcome of, the bankruptcy of PSNH that the asset, 21 the Seabrook Nuclear Plant may no longer be owned by or its --
22 strike that -- the percentage ownership may change.
And Public i
23 Service of New Hampshire's ownership of that plant may pass l
l 24 into other hands.
()
25 Again, that's a distribution or a corollary of the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 f
].
^
- (m\\
x).
9146-1
. filing of-bankrupt'cy, and the decision on-that rests ultimately
<2 with the Bankruptcy' Court.
3'
.So we might be presente'd.with a situation where the 4
actual Applicant f or a license changes, and changes in ' a 5
' fundamental way.
6 Thirdly, and again, we're' raising these at a 7-preliminary stage, under.the Bankruptcy Code the debtor is now 8
a debtor'in possession.
PSNH is the debtor in possession, it 9
controls and decides right now the f ate of its assets.
And 10 quite clearly, by the fact that we're here today, it has 11 indicated its intent, at least, to pursue the license, to 12 continue forward as if it were business as usual.
13-But as a matter of bankruptcy law, any--creditor group 1A or creditor can move the Dankruptcy Court f or the appointmen t 15 of a trustee; and there are various grounds provided in the 16 Code including mismanagement for the appointment of a trustee i-17 and' the displacement of this debtor in possesrion.
L 18 If and wnen that occurred, the trustee would have 19 complete control over the distributio of the assets of PSNH, l
20 and the trustee could make the decision that PSNH is no longer l
l 21 prudently pursuing as an entity, PSNH, at least, is no longer 22 prudently pursuing licensing of the plant.
I 23 And again, this is an issue that no doubt is going to l
24 be addressed fairly early on in the bankruptcy, whether the 1,.f')
25 debtor in possession will be replaced by a trustee who would
(
s-l i
l Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 i
L
(
g g
s
< i K,
)
7'N
\\ /i
'9347, 1-
.then:be-control 1ing'that corporation.
1
<2 Finally, this financial background,'.I believe, is-3 impor. tant in considering the reasorab1'eness of the advancing, 4
as-Your Honor has in_the Scheduling Order, in advancing-5 immedia't'ely into the litig'ation on'the Massachusetts plan.
6 Because, and not to repeat myself, there are a lot of issues.
~7 here of first impression, but it is also a matter of first 8
impression to have a utility-generated plan that's going to.
9
-ult'imately have to be funded by that utility when the-lead 10' owner and the lead Applicant is in bankruptcy, and the question
-11 of whether the funds are going to be:made available to~that 7g 12 utility to continue the licensing efforts and to continue the (d'
13 funding necessary to generate its own plan for Massachusetts, 14 it's clearly up in the air whether those f unds are going to be 15 available.
16 So we believe that the situation has changed since 17 wo've last met and certainly since our conference call on 18 scheduling._ We're-not trying to lay down an arbitrary position 19 as to how it's changed, but we think it's changed in 20 significant ways.
J 21 And the Bankruptcy Court -- and many of these issues 22 have now been moved or as effect of the filing have been moved 23 into the Bankruptcy Court's jurisdiction.
And until the 24 Bankruptcy Court speaks on these matters, which it no doubt
(])
25 will in fairly short order, we think the NRC and this Board Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
r:
9148 1
should certainly just wait and see what that Court's intention 2
is. -
3 JUDGE SMITH:
Mr. Dignan.
4 MR. DIGNAN:
This is just for the record, is it all 5
right here?
6 THE REPORTER:
Yes.
7 MR. DIGNAN:
I guess I'm mystified; the uoard, with l
8 all due deference, has absolutely no jurisdiction over any of 9
the matters that Mr. Traficonte brought up, other than its 10 scheduling.
With respect to scheduling, if there's going to be 11 an inquiry into the financial qualifications of one or any of
(
12 the Applicants here, that will -- first of all, it's in the
\\-)J 13 hands of the Appeal Board now, but more importantly it will go 14 to the onsite and emergency -- excuse me, and safety issues 15 Board.
I mean, this Board's jurisdiction is confined to the 16 offsite emergency planning.
17 So I don't know really what I'm asked to be
.I 18 addressed.
If it's a scheduling question, I uuggest we put it 19 off until the Board, is going to discuss the schedu).e anyway, 20 and if the pendency of the bankruptcy is, in Mr. Traficonte's 21 view, grounds to argue to you that you should change the 22 rulings in your scheduling motion, we can take it up at that 23 time.
24 But at least until the Commission or the Chief (T
25 Administrative Judge, through one of those notices, confers m.)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
~
)
j^5:
1 M'
9149 p
1-
- upon this Board some sort-of' plenary jurisdiction to-look'into 2
- this-matter, the-matter lis just-beyond your jurisdiction,'I.
,3 respectf ully suggest, -in any event.
F 4
HMR. TRAFICONTE:
Just. to respond.to that narrow point 5
and not'to delay' unnecessarily.
Clearly,.it is scheduling that 6
we're talking'about, and we're certainly not indicating:that we 7
' view this Board as superseding the authority of the Bankruptcy 8
Court; quite the contrary.
9 We are really focused on scheduling and the 10 appropriateness.of scheduling in light of our situation as we 11
- see it here and see it now.
And we think the filing by PSNH 12 has affected the context in which we're all attempting to act
~
13 reasonably in a fundamental way.
14 And until the Bankruptcy Court, in the first 15 instance, has fundamental issues addressed to it, like will 16 there be a trustee appointed atd the debtor in possession 17 displaced?
Will the-Seabrook Nuclear Plant be sold?
And will i
18 it pass from the ownership of PSNH in fairly short order?
Will 19 the funds that are monthly incurred by PSNH and the activities 20 included here -- including the activity here, but also with 21 regard to Mass. planning, in paying the yearly contract f ees 22 for hiring and lining up emergency workers, a fundamental point 23 like that, will those funds be available and be made available?
24 Until those issues are addressed by the Bankruptcy
()
25 Court, f rankly, we think we're in somewhat of a legal vacuum.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
7_
W;
.915 '
1 And certainly I agree with Mr. Dignan'that we're not trying to GL argue that you have jurisdiction over'those matters.
What you 3'
have jurisdiction over is the present posture of this
~
4 proceeding and the appropriateness of advancing immediately
~
5 into further litigation on the-Mass. plan before the Bankruptcy 6
Court --
7-MR. TURK:
Your Honor, I'd like to be heard on that.
8 What I hear is an oral motion.
9 JUDGE SMITH:
Well, you have to understand, he's 10 warning everybody.- He intends to raise his point when we come 11 up to scheduling so that you can be prepared for it.
- However, i
12 we seem to be well into it.
13 MR. TURK:
In the first instance I would note that 14 most of the concerns raised by.Mr. Traficonte.at this point are 15 entirely speculative.
For instance, he argues that PSNH may-16 transfer its ownership to someone else; that some unnamed 17
-creditor may move to appoint a trustee; and that it's possible 18
'for one or another reason that PSNH will not have the funds
-19 available to pursue its application.
All that is speculative.
l 20 There's nothing that the Board could look at now and say it 21 establishes a basis upon which to say the application will not 22
.txt pursued.
23 The fact that Mr. Dignan and his colleagues are here
.24 today indicates that someone is continuing to pay the bills for
}~
25 the prosecution of the application.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
-r--
r l
1/
9151 V
'l But in any event, evenLif any of_these events would 2
<take-place, there's a long line of cases within.the. Commission 3
which-holds that a Licensing Board or oth'er adjudicatory body.
4 within the Commission should not wait to see the outcome of 5
proceedings in state or 'f ederal. cour ts, but should continue -to
-G.
pursue its own statutory responsibility of reaching a 7
determination on a license application; and that's what~this 8
Board should continue to do.
9 JUDGE SMITH:
Thank you.
10 Do you have any other preliminary matters?
11 (No response.)
fS-12 JUDGE SMITH:
If not, will you call your witnesses,
%)
13
-please.
-14 MR. LEWALD:
Dr. Spencer and Dr. Mileti come forward.
.15 I would ask if you could go up and take some seats up front.
16 Dr. Mileti has been sworn and given prior testimony; 17 Dr. Spencer has not.
I would ask you to stand first, if you 18 would,'to be sworn.
19 Whereupon, 20 BRUCE SPENCER 21 having been first duly sworn, was called as a witness herein,
- 22 and was examined and testified as follows:
23 24
(
I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
A i en)':
^ ~ ' '
.9152
<1
-Whereupon,
~
- 2 ?
DENNIS MILETI 3
having been:previously duly sworn,'was recalled as a. witness 4
herein, and was examined and further testified;as follows:-
5 DIRECT EXAMINATION 6
BY MR. LEWALD:
~
7' Q
Dr. Spencer, I have put before you a document.of-8 three pages entitled, "Curriculum Vitae, Bruce David Spencer,"
.9 and Ijask if-you recognize it?
10 A
(Spencer)
'Yes, I do.
11 Q
And can you.tell us what it is?
12 A
(Spencer)- It's my Curriculum Vitae..
It's a list of gs O
13-when I got'my education, what degrees I have, some professional 14 experience, articles that I've written in' journals.
15 Q
Thank-you.
16 Now, I show-each of you a 28-page document entitled, 2'
17 "Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 3" under the date'of 18 February 8th, 1988, and I ask you if you recognize it?
19 A
(Spencer)
Yes, I do.
20 0
Dr. Mileti?
. l21 A
(Mileti)
I do recognize it, yes.
22 Q
Can you tell us what it is?
23 A
(Mileti)
It is our rebuttal testimony.
24 O
Is the information true and correct to the best of
)
25 your knowledge and belief, Dr. Spencer?
i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- 7
~
MILETI, SPENCER - DIRECT-9153 k
.A (Spencer)
.Yes, it is.-
2 Q
Dr. Mileti?
3 A
(Mileti)
.Yes, it is.
~
4-O And secondly, I show you a document entitled, 5'
"Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 4," and in some 21;pages, 6
and I ask you,if you can recognize this.as your written 7
testimony-filed with rwspect to rebuttal of the corrected 8
. testimony of Dr. Albert Luloff regarding beach blanket. survey 9
conducted form the Commonwealth cf Massachusetts?-
101 A
(Spencer)
Yes, I recognize it.
1.1 A
(Mileti)
I do as'well.
12 JUDGE-SMITH:
This testimony also bears the date of
.O
.13 February 8th.
14 MR. LEWALD:
Yes, Your Honor.
15 BY MR. LEWALD:
16-Q And can I ask you whether or not the testimony 17 contained therein is true to the best of your knowledge and 18 belief, Dr. Mileti?
19 A
(Mileti)
Yes, it is.
20 0
Dr. Spencer?
21 A
(Spencer)
Yes, it is.
22 MR. LEWALD:
I would like to at this point offer
'23 Applicants' testimony entitled, "Rebuttal Testimony No. 3 and
-24 No.
4," along with Dr. Spencer's qualifications and ask that
()
25 they be incorporated in the record as if read.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
MILETI, SPENCER - DIRECT 9154 1
JUDGE SMITH:
All right.
2 MR. FIERCE:
Your Honor, at this time I would have an 3
opportunity normally to raise an objection, and I'm going to 4
raise an objection of sorts.
I'm not going to object to the 5
admission of the testimony at this point in time, but I want to 6
be heard on a concern that I have; and I also want to make a 7
motion separately in conjunction with that concern, and it 8
arises out of the --
9 JUDGE SMITH:
You're not going to object at the 10 threshold to the admission of the testimony?
11 MR. FIERCE:
I am not.
rm 12 JUDGE SMITH:
Well, let's take care of that and then L ),
13 come to your objection.
14 I want the transcript pages to be placed between the 15 two items of testimony.
So we will admit and direct bound into 16 the record Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 3 and the 17 Curriculun Vitae of Dr. Spencer at this point.
18 (Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony 19 No. 3 and Curriculum Vitae 20 of Dr. Spencer follow:)
21 22 23 24 I"'t 25 (J
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.,1 is k 1 * -
'Y o
(N)
Dated:
February 8, 1988 r
4 -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444-OL
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1
)
(Offsite Emergency and 2)
)
Planning Issues)
)
APPLICANTS' REBUTTAL TESTIMONY NO. 3 (REBUTTAL TO THE TESTIMONY OF ZEIGLER, JOHNSON AND COLE REGARDING THE SDA TELEPHONE SURVEY CONDUCTED FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS)
Witnesses:
Bruce D.
Spencer Dennis S. Mileti Applicants' rebuttal testimony regarding the Telephone Survey conducted by Social Data Analysts, Inc., ("SDA") at the request of the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was developed from two viewpoints.
First, a study was done with regard to external validity, or the ability of the Survey findings to be generalized to the general population which did not participate in the Survey.
The second area of review looked at internal validity or the
()
examination of the questions within the questionnaire with
.~
6
- 1. -
e..
regard to the ability of those questions and answers, actually to measure what they purport to m'easure with associated freedom from systematic error or bias.
These two viewpoints are presented below.
However, first, and perhaps of foremost importance, is the fact that the SDA Telephone Survey is a study of behavioral intentions.
Pre-emergency intentions have little if anything to do with actual behavior.
The lack of relationship between behavioral intentions and actual future behavior in a real emergency is as true for the public as for special sub-groups such as emergency workers.
This basic and profoundly important point must not be lost in the context of the critique of the technical aspects of SDA's poll which follows.
Even a behavioral intentions poll that was not troubled by factors which would detract from its external and internal validity would not produce data indicative of actual public response to an actual future emergency which has not been experienced.
Human response in an actual emergency is largely directed by factors which prevail during the emergency as it is being experienced.
These factors, for example, would include the frequency with which emergency l
warnings are heard and confirmed, interaction with other persons as people engage in response decision-making, and other such factors which cannot be taken into account by a f
pre-emergency poll.
Behavioral intentions regarding future emergency response by a segment of the public would not be 2
- ,i.-
1. -.
roughly representative of what the EPZ population
(]
would do in an' accident at the Seabrook Station" (Testimony of Zeigler,' Johnson and Cole, p.
18)_again, even if the SDA poll were free of external and internal validity problems.
Such intentions, in other words, can be nothing more than what interviewees thought on the day that they were interviewed taking into account only what they may or may not have had in mind when they answered the survey questions.
In contrast, actual public behavior in an actual future emergency is the consequence of factors and relationships which cannot be simulated in pre-emergency polls or surveys.
These factors and how they affect behavior are well known from actual studies of actual behavior in actual energencies.
These, not behavioral intention polls, should guide and
. ()
determine emergency planning for actual emergencies at Seabrook.
I.
Analysis of External Validity The sampling methodology employed in the Telephone Survey conducted by SDA described in Attachment 5 to the Testimony of Donald J. Zeigler, James H. Johnson, Jr., and Stephen Cole on behalf of the Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, "Behavior During a Radiological Incident:
Reactions of EPZ Residents to a Possible Accident at the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station",
cannot, in our opinion, ensure accurate descriptions and O
3 r
(*
predictions for the population that the Survey purports to
()
describe.
Claims that:
The results of the survey were generalizable to all households with telephones within the EPZ (Attachment 5, p.
3),
With the exception of the few households who do not have residential telephones, the sample is an accurate way to generalize to all households living in the EPZ" (Testimony of Zeigler, Johnson and Cole, p.
16), and we can be confident that the results we obtained are roughly representative of what the EPZ population would do in an accident at the Seabrook Station (Testimony of Zeigler, Johnson and Cole, p.
18) are unfounded.
The problems with the design and execution of the sampling procedures are so serious that the Survey data and interpretations of that data should not be trusted.
The Survey is described as a random sample of households with residential telephones, not a random sample of individuals (Attachment 5,
- p. 43).
The sample was drawn with a "complex procedure" (Attachment 5, pp. 40ff).
A summary of the design of the sampling procedure is provided below.
Although the details of the design are technical, examination of those details will show four things.
First, the sample design systematically excluded some unknown proportion of EPZ households.
Not only were households without a residential telephone excluded (Attachnent 5,
- p. 40), but an unknown proportion of households with residential telephones who lived near the
(~
4
s'.
boundary of the EPZ were systematically excluded from the f)
Survey.
Second, the Survey did not seek a random sample of heads of households.
The Survey is not representative even of the households that participated in the Survey because the responding heads of the participating households may differ from the other heads of those households.
Third, many households -- perhaps more than half of the households in the EPZ -- had no chance of participating in the Survey.
It is inappropriate to claim that the Survey represents households that had no chance of participating in the Survey.
Fourth, the sampling errors appear to have been calculated as if the sampling design were a far less s
complicated one.
The consequence of ignoring the complexity of the design is to understate the sampling errors, i.e.,
the sampling errors described in Attachment 5, pp. 52-53 and the Testimony of Zeigler, Johnson and Cole, pp. 16-17 are too small numerically and give a misleading impression of more reliability than was actually attained.
(Sampling errors do not reflect validity.)
The first step in drawing the sample was an effort to list all telephone exchanges containing telephone numbers of residents of the EPZ.
However, exchanges for which less than 15% of the numbers were determined to be within the EPZ were excluded from the list.
Since those excluded exchanges were 5
e "areas which straddle the boundaries of the EPZ" (Attachment p
(">
5,
- p. 41), the sampling proceaure systematically excluded some proportion of the EPZ residents who lived near the boundary of the EPZ.
The magnitude of the exclusion is not discussed in Attachment 5 or in the Testimony but simply opined on cross-examination to be a very small number.
(December 16, 1987, Tr. 7954)
Telephone numbers were selected from the listed exchanges "in such a way so that the proportion of numbers in the sample in a particular exchange would be the same as the proportion of numbers in the population in that excbinge.
The sample utilized is a random digit dial sample in which the last two digits in the telephone number are selected at random by a computer from among all those working blocks in a particular exchange" (Attachment 5, p. 42).
once a telephone number was selected and a "contact" was made, the interviewers were instructed to ask to speak to the male or female head of household (Attachment 5, p. 43).
Since sex quotas were employed (Attachment 5,
- o. 43), it is presumed that the interviewers were not seeking household heads of one sex or the othet, but rather they would speak to a head of either sex up until that point in the Survey when they had met their quota of males (or females), after which point they would only speak to females (or males).
Table A3, "Failure to Complete", Attachment 5, page 57, identifies 170 New Hampshire and 79 Massachusetts calls which were not O
e
I completed because callers "could not obtain correct sex".
No p
random sampling was performed within the households-(December
~
16, 1987, Ir. 7960), therefore the sample is not a random sample of heads of households.
The non-random selection of the respondent within the selected households is critical and extremely unfortunate because it means that of those households containing more than one head, the sample over-represents those heads who were home and willing to answer the phone.
- Beliefs, knowledge, and attitudes can vary markedly between different heads of the same household, and thus the typical attitudes of the responding heads would not be the same as typical attitudes within their households.
Indeed, recognition of this variation between two heads of the same household appears to have led SDA to use sex quotas:
A sex quota was used to insure that the final sample would represent the population in terms of sex.
It was important to make sure that women were not over represented as it is well-known from prior surveys that the attitudes of men and women toward issues like nuclear power generally differ.
(Attachment 5,
- p. 43)
If the sample were truly a random sample of households and of their heads then no quota sampling would have been necessary.
Not only do men and women have different attitudes, but so may heads of households who are home and willing to be interviewed and heads of households who are not home or not willing to be interviewed.
The use of quotas by O
sex certainly does not avoid this problem.
Doctor Cole has remarked about quota samples:
In my opinion it is dangerous to generalize from this type of sample [a quota sample) to a population.
Another flaw which might have created bias is the failure to use a systematic procedure for selecting the member of the household to be interviewed.
(Testimony of Zeigler, Johnson and Cole, pp. 30-31).
Thus, the Survey is not representative even of the households that participated in the Survey because the responding heads of the participating hcuseholds may differ from the other, non-responding heads of those same households.
A further problem with the use of quotas is that the quotas used by SDA were set according to estimates of the proportions of men and women in the population, and not according to the proportions of male or femalo heads of
()
households in the various towns.
To the extent that those proportions differ from each other, the use of quotas ensures a maldistribution of respondents by sex.
It is obvious that the sample could not represent those households in the EPZ lacking residential telephones.
It is claimed that "data indicate that more than 95% of the residents of the EPZ have telephones in their homes" (Testimony of Zeigler, Johnson and Cole, p. 14).
However, no estimate of the proportion of households (as contrasted with persons) with telephones is offered in the Testimony, although Doctor Cole interpreted the "data" in cross-examination to the effect that "Somewhat less than 5 percent 8
of households do not have_ telephones."
(December 16, 1987, II. 7948)
In addition to the problems of exclusion of households in the EPZ and non-random sampling previously noted, the Survey suffered yet another major problem -- nonresponse.
As Doctor Cole has correctly pointed out:
"There is no way to be certain that the people who refused to participate in the Survey would have answered the questions in the same way as those who did participate", and later, "The lower the response rate the less confidence we could have in the survey results."
(Testimony of Zeigler, Johnson and Cole, p. 18)
In addition to people who directly refuse to participate in the Survey, we must also consider those who were denied the
({}
chance to participa6 Secause they were not at home, their line was busy, the interviewers had difficulty communicating with them (for example, persons who did not speak English well), or their telephone was out of order.
Therefore, the Survey could only represent those households that had a chance of participation in an interview.
Further, it is likely that less than half of the households in the EPZ had a chance of participating in the Telephone Survey.
A total of 6,611 telephone numbers were l
selected for the Survey.
These numbers are classified by SDA as follows (Attachment 5, pp. 47 f f) :
1 1,055 =
no answers after 3 callbacks i
457 =
continuously busy or head of household unreachable 9
2,270 =
not working residential numbers (and some
("T businesses) s/
i 93 =
communication too difficult ("language or psychological problem")
249 =
interviews were not conducted because could not obtain correct sex (quota filled for available sex) 793 =
refusals 100 =
households outside EPZ 190 =
interviews were not conducted because quota for town was filled 1,404 =
interviews were conducted.
In order to calculate precisely the fraction of the households in the EPZ that had a chance of participating in the Telephone Survey, we need more information.
How many of the 1,055 "no answers" were residential telephones?
(some F
()
undoubtedly were business phones.)
How many of the "continuously busy" numbers were residential?
How many of the 2,270 "not working" numbers were residential numbers?
j Since this information was not available, we will consider a range of alternative assumptions.
In the extrema case that all of these numbers were residential as the cross-examination testimony'seems to imply (December 11, 1988, II.
7954-56), the fraction of households with telephones covered by the Survey would be less than 30%.
Even if none of the 2,270 "not working" numbers were residential, the fraction of households with telephones covered by the Survey would be less than 40%.
Those assumptions are extreme, but they yield lower bounds on the coverage of the EPZ households with O
10 I
- - - ~.....,
+
r residential telephones.
If we assumed that half of the 1,055 fgV "no answers" were really residential numbers, 75% of the 457 "continuously busy or head of household unreachable" were residential, and as stated by Doctor Cole in cross-examination (December 16, 1987, II. 7954-56) none of the 2,270 "not working" numbers were residential, the fraction of households with residential telephones covered by the Survey would still be less than 50%.
In the Testimony of Zeigler, Johnson and Cole (p. 18),
a "completion rate" of 64% is calculated as the ratio of the number of completed interviews to the sum of the completed interviews and the refusals.
That rate ignores the 93 interviews that could not be completed because the respondent
{])
did not speak English or for some other communication or "psychological" problem.
The rate also ignores residential phones that were not working or not answered or busy during the initial call and the three call-backs.
Considering such cases suggests that the proportion of the households with residential telephones covered by tLa Survey is surely less than 60% and could well be less than 50%.
Consideration of the additional households with no possibility of selection into the sample further diminishes the chances that as many as half of the households in the EPZ are represented by the Survey.
Statistical theory provides no basis for generalizing results from the Survey to persens or households with no O
11
\\
j chance of participation into the Telephone Survey.
One can try to make assumptions that those who were excluded from or refused to participate in the Survey are similar to those who did participate, but those assumptions cannot be trusted unless they can be tested empirically.
It is claimed by Doctor Cole that despite massive amounts of nonresponse,
. given past surveys we have conducted utilizing the same methods, we can be confident that the results we obtained are roughly representative of what the EPZ population would do in an accident at the Seabrook Station" (Testimony of Zeigler, Johnson and Cole, p. 18) but no empirical evidence is provided to support that claim.
l l
Indeed, Doctor Cole has admitted that ".
important in assessing the adequacy of the survey results are the number
<~
i of no answers, busy signals, or no eligible respondent at l
l home.
There can be no way of knowing whether these people would have answered differently than those interviewed."
(Teatimony of Zeigler, Johnson and Cole, pp. 18-19).
One l
possible way of trying to see whether those eligible to be t
interviewed would have answered in the same ways as those who actually were interviewed is to compare the Survey results with known statistics, such as census statistics.
Not all of l
i the Survey statistics can be compared because not all of the questions on the Survey are asked in the census or in another high-quality data source.
However, a demonstrated agreement between some proportion of the questions on the Survey and O
n
r census (or other external criteria) would certainly lend more okJ credibility to the Survey's results, even if it would not be proof that the Survey was representative with respect to the questions that could not be matched against census (or other) benchmarks.
1 i
The low coverage of the households (less than 60% or maybe less than 50% of those with phones and even less than that of all households) in the EPZ is so inadequate that the Survey cannot support statistical generalizations to all the households in the EPZ.
The quality of the Survey is too low for the results to be trusted for use in important decision-making.
The accuracy of the statistics based on the Survey is simply too suspect.
Sampling theory provides a means of estimating the 7-G variability in statistics that would occur frcm one sample to another as a result of the randomization that was used in the i
l
(
sampling.
The term a sampling error" is used in Atte.chment 5, I
pp. 52-53, e.nd the Testinony of Zeigler, Johnson and Cole, pp. 16-17, to describe the typical size of the variability.
Sampling error does not reflect the magnitude of other sources of error in the Survey, such as nenresponse, lack of I
[
randomized selection of head of household, response biases I
due to question wording and ordering, and so forth.
The interpretation of sampling error in Attachment 5
, p. 53, suggests that it is computed as approximately twice the standard error.
(The square of the standard error of a O
u
e statistic equals the average squared difference between a statistic and its average value, where the average refers to the average over hypothetical independent repetitions of the sampling procedure under identical conditions.
The standard error may also be interpreted as the typical size of the difference between a statistic and its average value.)
To calculate standard errors applicable to complex sampling procedures is rather complicated.
For certain kinds of simple sampling procedures, however, the standard error of a percentage, say P, may be easily computed as the square root of the ratio of P times 100%-P to the number of interviews.
The standard error is largest when the percentage P is equal to 50%, in which case the standard error is equal to 50%
divided by the square root of the number of interviews.
With g
J 915 interviews (the number of completed New Hampshire interviews) the standard error would then be 1.65% and the sampling error would be 3.3C%; with 489 interviews (the number of Massachusetts completed interviews) the sampling error vould be 4.45%.
In essence, this simple formula was used to calculate the sampling errors used in the Zeigler, Johnson and Cole Testimony.
(December 16, 1987, Tr. 7990-92, 8021)
In order to estimate sampling errors correctly (i.e.,
accurately), one must take into consideration the exact manner in which the sample was selected.
The sample is described as "a stratified random sample of households with Ov 14
4
'e residential telephones" (Attachment 5, p. 40).
Doctor Cole
,m (December 16, 1987 II. 7949) agreed that the sample was stratified in essence into 23 strata.
In addition, the description of the sampling procedure suggests that multistage sampling was used.
It is important to know that multistage sampling was used because, other things being equal, sampling errors for multistage samples tend to be larger than sampling errors for one stage samples.
Lacking a more detailed account of how the sample was selected, we cannot say for certain that the sample was indeed a multistage sample, but we believe that it was.
However, the Zeigler, Johnson and Cole Testimony does not address these matters and the sampling errors reported in the Zeigler, Johnson and Cole Testimony were calculated as if no O
multistage or stratified sampling were used.
Thus, the simplo formula for calculating standard errors appears to be inappropriate for the Telephone Survey.
The actual sampling errors quite possibly are considerably larger.
Furthermore, certain statistics are calculated on small subgroups of the interviews, and the standard errors for those statistics are enormously larger.
In particular, the sampling errors for the statistics on emergency workers in the New Hampshire EPZ are often far greater than 3%, even with the simplified formula described earlier in this rebuttal.
For example Table 2 in the Zeigler, Johnson and Cole Testimony, p. 51, estimates that 15
.=,
'e i
19.4% of the emergency work roles are assigned to police, but Ns/
the sampling error under the simplified formula is 14%, so the sampling variability is almost as large as the calculated statistic!
If the complexity of the design were taken into account, the sampling error would probably be largor than 14%.
For the same reason, the statistics on the behavioral intentions of emergency workers are also extremely unreliable.
Table 1 of the Zeigler, Johnson and Cole Testimony, p. 49, presents statistics for emergency personnel showing that 52% would perform emergency work, 39%
would check on their families, 3% would leave the area, 3%
would do something else, and 3% did not know what they would do in an evacuation advisory.
However, those statistics are based on a sample of only 31 emergency workers and the l
sampling errors are large.
Evon using the simplified formula (which underestimates the sampling errors), the sampling error for the percentago saying they would check on their families is more than 17% and the sampling error for the percentage who would perform emergency work is more than 17%.
II.
Analysis of Internal Validity A large amount of systematic error or bias exists in the l
questionnaire used in this Telephone Survey.
In other words, the answers which Survey respondents gave to the questions they were asked without doubt have been systematically colored or influenced by factors (for example, the wording
('\\
16 g
i l
.=,
and ordering of questions) beyond their actual judgments.
7-)
t Sufficient sources of systematic measurement error (bias) exist to such a degree that we must conclude that the results of this Survey lack a basis for internal validity; we do not trust, therefore, that Survey findings represent a reasonably accurate representation of the actual views, judgments or 4
opinions of persons interviewed.
The many reasons why we have reached this conclusion follow.
Most of the bias (or sources of systematic measurement error) in the questionnaire are located in the first parts of the instrument.
This is unforttinate because bias early in an instrument not only affects answers to the biased questions but can carry forward to subsequent questions which, taken alone, may not themselves be biasing.
-)
The first topical question in the present survey is numbered question 14.
This question was worded as follows.
In general, hov dangerous do you think it would be to live near a nuclear power plant?
The structured response categories read to the respondent were limited to the three which follow.
1 = very dangerous 2 = dangerous 3 = not dangerous at all The question, "In general, how dangerous do you think.
i implies an answer to the respondent before the question is even finished being read by use of the word "dangerous".
It therefore leads the respondent to an opinion of "dangerous".
O 17
.r s
In addition, the range of possible answers for this question b-also contains a source of bias particularly when one considers how the range of answers read to the respondent would interact with the biasing question wording.
This entire question and its answers take only a few seconds to read to the respondent, yet before the respondent has a chance to offer his/her opinion they have heard the word "dangerous" four times.
This is a source of systematic measurement error or bias since it would lead respondents to an opinion of "dangerous".
This question and the answers read to respondents at the conclusion of the reading of the question more resemblo a lecture on how dangerous nuclear power plants are than social science measurement relatively free of systematic error, or at least social science O
measurement which has made a reasonable attempt to minimize systematic error or bias.
The second question on the questionnaire and its answers as read to respondents forces the respor. dent to select a general value position on nuclear power:
15.
Would you describe yourself as
- 1. = a supporter of nuclear power plants as a means of providing
-electricity.
- 2. = an opponent of nuclear power plants, or
- 3. = you haven't made up your mind yet on this itisue?
i 18
c.
The answers given to this question would contain bias since b) respondents heretofore have been instructed that nuclear s-power plants are dangerous due to bias introduced in the first (number 14) question.
Respondents are here forced to become a "supporter" of nuclear power, an "opponent," or else claim that their minds are not yet made up.
This dichotomization of opinion on an issue on which opinions range along a continuum is biasing, because whichever position is chosen, respondents will remember their selection and labor to be as consistent as possible with their choice in answering all subsequent questions.
The next question (number 16) was "Do you think that the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant should be allowed to operate to
. generate electricity?"
This question shows no major internal s
sources of systematic error.
However, its position in the questionnaire is after questions 14 and 15 which do bias results.
Interactive bias would operate from questions 14 and 15 on answers to question 16.
For example, question 14 "teaches" people that nuclear power is dangerous and would serve to bias answers to question 16 toward "no" (the answer consistent with the bias introduced in question 14).
A similar interactive bias on answers to question 16 would have been operating from question 15.
Question 17 was "Given where you live, do you think you would be affected by a release of radiation if a serious problem developed at the Seabrook nuclear power station after 19
s s O
e it started operating?".
This question likely elicited measurement influenced by systematic error because of its position in the questionnaire.
For example, question 14 biased persons to say nuclear power was "dangerous"; once that position was adopted, it would bias persons away from the answer "no" to question 17 (an admiss';n that nuclear power is not dangerous, for all practical purposes).
However, the mere important concern to be had with the first four questions (numbers 14, 15, 16 and 17) in the questionnaire is not that the answers given by respondents to these questions were themselves subject to systematic error; the prime problem th&t questions 14, 15, 16 and 17 present to the internal validity of this questionnaire is the effect they have by introducing systematic error or bias into O'
subsequent question answers in the remainder of the questionnaire.
Taken together, the first four questions in the questionnaire serve to create unique subsets of study respondents, for example, respondents wb-voiced the following perceptions to their interviewe nuclear power is dangerous (question 14); I am an opponent of nuclear power because it is dangerous (question 15); I am an opponent of nuclear power because it is dangerous and, therefore I do not think Seabrook should be allowed to operate (question 16);
and finally, I am an opponent of nuclear power because it is dangerous, and therefore I do not think Seabrook should be allowed to operate, therefore, of course I think I would be 20
0 affected if Seabrook had a serious problem after it began O,
operating (question 17).
After just four questions, this questionnaire has created study respondents so boxed into a corner as to significantly guarantee that answers to subsequent questions would be influenced (colored, biased, and so on) by the box in which respondents must have found themselves.
Interviewees desperately try to be consistent during interviews.
How now, for example, can a person already committed to the above illustrative position select "go about your normal business" as an answer to a question about emergency response after reading a scenario.in which a release of radiation were asked to be assumed (see, for example, question and answers number 274)?
The answer is obviously that the respondent would have been biased toward
{)
another answer more consistent with the above illustrative position, for example, "leave your home and go somewhere else".
Conversely, how could a respondent in the opposite polar box (nuclear power is not dangerous at all, I am a supporter of nuclear power, I think Seabrook should be allowed to operate, and given where I live I do not think I would be affected by a release of radiation if Seabrook had a l
serious problem) select "leave your home and go somewhere else" as an answer to, for example, question 274?
Questions 14, 15, 16 and 17, however, would have biased the sample of respondents in the direction of being in the former "box" and away from the latter; among other reasons
()
21 l
l
o i
I because of the directional bias contained in the first
/~T
/
question.
Once respondents ~had completed hearing and providing answers to the first four questions, enough systematic error would have been introduced into this study to lead to the clear conclusion that subsequent question answers (particularly those on behavioral intentions) would lack internal validity and inflate intended evacuation estimates.
This would be the case because of interactive bias introduced by the first four questions and answers, and the "box" into which they would have placed respondents.
Answers by respondents to protective action behavioral intention questions (numbers 20, 31, 274 and 312, for example) would have been subject to this interactive bias.
The answers read to respondents to these same protective action behavioral intention questions (numbers 20, 31, 274 and 312, for example) were as follows.
- 1. = go about your normal business, or
- 2. = stay inside your home (or where you are) or
- 3. = leave your home (the place where you are) and go somewhere else These response categories are neither mutually exclusive nor exhaustive -- it is possible to go about normal business by staying home or by leaving and going somewhere else.
A final problem exists in the questionnaire regarding internal validity in reference to protective action behavioral intentions questions numbered 20, 31, 274 and 312.
People were asked to speculato about their intended behavior 22
e.s e
e in response to simulated emergency information.
The
( \\
information simulated for study respondents, however, does not mirror the emergency information which the public would actually encounter in the event of an emergency at Seabrook.
As a consequence, therefore, as noted earlier, answers about behavioral intentions to the emergency information presented to study respondents in this Survey can shed D2 light on how people might behave in response to the actual form and type of emergency information that would characterize an actual emergency at Seabrook.
Other sources of systematic error or bias exist in the qusetionnaire.
Question 42, for example, reads as follows.
When you heard this message on the radio how likely do you think it would be that you and your family would be exposed to a
~
(_)
dangerous level of radiation?
The answers read to the respondents were:
(1) very likely, (2) somewhat likely, and (3) very unlikely.
Interactive bias from questions 14, 15, 16 and 17 would also direct answers to this perceived risk question.
Interactive bias from the first four questions would also direct answers to question 311 which follows:
Suppose there was an accident at the Seabrook Station and the State Civil Defense officials said that everybody living within ten miles of the plant should evacuate but that everybody who lived more than 10 miles away from the plant was safe.
Would you believe the State Civil Defense officials that people living more than 10 miles away were safe?
O 23 i
- =A O
t Answers to this question would be colored by stated O
perceptions given as answers to questions 14 and 17, for example.
Questions 344, 345 and 346 in the questionnaire were directed only to respondents who admitted in the interview (see question 342) to having an assigned role in the Seabrook evacuation plan; and these questions were only asked on the New Hampshire portion of the sample.
Question 344 reads as follows:
Suppose that the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station is licensed and begins to operate.
If there were a problem at the plant and you heard that a ten-mile zone had to evacuate, what would you do first?
The answers read to the respondents for this question follow:
1=
report to my assigned place to help the evacuation 2=
make sure my family was safely out of the evacuation zone 3=
leave the evacuation zone to make sure I was in a safe place 4=
something else Question 345 is the next question asked of emergency workers and it reads as follows:
i
(
How would you make sure that your family was safely out of the evacuation zone?
I The answers read to the respondents so they could select one follows:
l l0 34
- 3 6,
,'t i
1=
go home and drive your family
()
to a safe place out of the
/
evacuation zone 2=
call home and tell your family to leave without you 3=
some other way Question 346 is the next question asked of emergency workers and it reads as follows.
If there was a nuclear accident at Seabrook Station requiring the evacuation of people within a ten mile zone, how dangerous do you think it would be for you to spend several hours in your emergency assignment?
The answers read to the respondents follow.
1=
so dangerous that it would be life threatening 2=
very dangerous
()
3=
somewhat dangerous 4=
not dangerous The answers obtained to these questions would have been subject to bias for several reasons.
In reference to question 344, for example, no choice is provided the respondent regarding what extensive emergency behavioral research illustrates as what most trained emergency workers actually do,in the emergency mobilization period (for example, answers 1 and 2 are typically done at the same time).
The do "something else" option in the answers to questions 344 and 345 does not correct for this deficiency as interviewees typically select answers from the list they are provided.
Answer to question 344 would be systematically 25
- s
'o I
directed toward unrealistic choices about behavioral O
intentions; answers to questions 344, 345 and 346 would also have been biased interactively because of the "dangerous" bias in question 14, for example.
Additionally, questions 344 and 345 and their answers are constructed in such a way that respondents are forced to choose between work, family and personal safety.
It overlooks that each can and typically is served at the same time in actual emergencies.
Questions 344 and 345 and their answers are more generic value measures of which object (job versus family) is, in general, of higher priority to the respondent.
These answers lack internal validity as accurate behavioral intentions which, even if accurately measured, have little if anything to do with actual behavior in an actual emergency.
\\q!
Question 348 reads as follows:
Currently plans are to have Civil Defense officials supervise an evacuation if this should become necessary.
If as a result of an accident at Seabrook, you decide to leave the area and a Traffic Control official who was assigned to prevent traffic congestion told you not to drive on a road that you wanted to use, do you think you would:
1 = go where you wanted to go, or 2 = go where you were told to go This question is a text book example of how not to ask questions in questionnaires.
It illustrates measurement without reliability (different answers would be obtained if measurement were reattempted).
Answers would depend on what O
26
e, e
people had in their minds when they heard the words "told you" (over radio?, personally, as they directed street traffic?), "official" (someone in a uniform?, someone else?),
"prevent traffic congestion" (for purposes of safety?, for convenience?), and so on.
The question also presumes a conflict in the minds of evacuees (you want to go one way, and "they" want you to go another) which is a scenario which ignores actual human perception in actual emergencies as they are being experienced -- a "collective will" with "collective safety" as the prime motive for individual behavior.
Finally, this question would elicit biased answers from respondents by its questionnaire position; it comes directly after the "Chernobyl" question and some respondents would answer this question with that type emergency mind, bg Finally, this Survey was performed over the telephone during which family "spokespersons" were interviewed.
Family "spokespersons" were individuals who were not able to take into account in the interview the input from other family members, for example, the discussions between family members leading up to protective action decisions.
The correct unit of analysis for the interview should have been the entire family and not just one self-selected "spokesperson", since in a real emergency protective action decisions would be made in the process of family interaction.
Dr. Cole's colleagues Drs. Johnson and Zeigler well understand this family evacuation decision-making process; they have, in fact, even O
2.,.
e
' C.* * ',
diagrammed it (see Stanley D.
Brunn, James H. Johnson, Jr.,
and Donald J.
Zeigler. 1979.
Eingtl Recort on a Social Survey of Three Mile Island Area Residents, East Lansing:
Michigan State University, Dept. of Geography, page 46.)
Interviewing individual "spokespersons" rather than the family unit, therefore, significantly deflates the internal validity of the study design.
The Survey gathered behavioral intentions data from individuals, yet it is largely groups (for example, families) who respond to actual emergencies.
Family behavioral intentions and "spokesperson" behavioral intentions are not the same.
O O
28
\\
4 CURRICULUM VITAE BRUCE DAVID SPENCER Citizenship: United States Social Security No.: 061-44-1097 Office Address:
Home:
Department of Statistics 1323 Lake Street Northwestern University Evanston, IL 60201 2006 Sheiidan Road (312) 869-8328
~
Evanston, Illinois 60201 (312) 491-5810 and NORC University of Chicago 1155 East 60th Stroit Chicago, Illinois 60637 (312) 702-9851 EDUCATION Ph.D.
Yale University,1979, Statistics M.S.
Florida State University.1974, Statistics B.S.
Cornell University,1973, Biometry PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 1980 - present Assistant to Associate Professor of Statistie:s and Education, Northwestern University 1985 - present Director of Methodology Research Center, NORC, University of Chicago 1984 Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of Statistics and Center for Economic Policy Research, Stanford University 1982 - 1985 Sampling Statistician, NORC, University of Chicago 1978 - 1980 Senior Staff Officer and Study Director, Committee on National Statistics, National Academy of Sciences p)
\\
t 6
ti
)
PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES Consulting National Academy of Sciences U.S. Bureau of the Census U.S. General Accounting Office U.S. Department of Education Private businesses, law firms, and school districts Awards Palmer O. Johnson Memorial Award from the American Educational Research i
Association in 1985 Associate Editor Journal of Educational Statistics Memberships in Professional Organizations American Educational Research Association American Statistical Association Institute of Mathematical Statistics Royal Statistical Society Population Association of America g'O PUBLICATIONS r
Books Bl Benefit-Cost Analysis of Data Used to Allocate Funds.
New York:
Springer-Verlag,1980 (based on my 1979 Yale doctoral dissertation, Benefit-Cost Analysis of Data Used to Allocate Funds: General Revenue Sharing).
B2 Estimating Population and income of Small Areas. Panel on Small-Ares Estimates of Population and Income, Committee on National Statistics, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, l
1980.
i This book includes the Panel's report and nine papers with attributed j
authorship. As Study Director for the Panel, I was lar3ely responsible for drafting the report. I also wrote seven papers in the book, which are listed below (with page references).
I
'Models for error in posteensat population estimates." (pp. 217-228) j "A note on the use of postcensal population estimates in employment and t
1 i
unemployment measures." (pp. 215-216)
- O Posicensai per cantia income estimation me<aea> or iae cen>== 8 reae
Summary." (pp. 188-193) i i
i
e-
- 3 O\\
b)
"Revenue sharing allocations and the effects of data errors."(pp. 205-214)
"Effects of biases in census estimates on evaluation of posteensal estimates." (pp. 232-236)
"Postcensal population estimation methods of the U.S. Bureau of the Census ? (pp. 131-187)
"The role of judgement in postcensal estimation."(pp. 194-199)
Articles Al "Sufficiency, minimal sufficiency, and the lack thereof." - The American Statistician 30(/): 34-35,1976 (with A. Sampson).
A2 "Implications of equity and accuracy for undercount adjustment: A decision-theoretic approach." Pp. 204-216 in U.S. Bureau of the Census.,
Conference on Census Undercount: Proceedings of the 1980 Conference.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce,1980.
A3 "Issues of accuracy and equity in adjusting for census undercount."
Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Social Statistics Section, Washington, D.C.,
1981.
(
A4
'On estimating population and income for local areas."
Statistical Reporter 81-8: 377-381,1981 (with E. Kitagawa).
A5 "The sense and nonsense of s:hool effectiveness."
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 1(1) 1981: 43-52,1981 (with D. Wiley).
A6 "Small-area analysis." Pp. 607-614 in J.A. Ross, editor, International Encyclopedia of Population. New York:
The Free Press,1982 (with R.
Lapham).
A7 "A note on statistical defensibility."
The American Statistician, 36(3): 208-209 (with comments 209-216), 1982.
A8 "Feasibility of benefit-cost analysis of data programs."
Evaluation Review. 6(5): 649-672, 1982.
A9 "Concerning dubious estimates of the effects of census undercount adjustment of federal aid to cities.'
Urban Affairs Quarterly,18(1):
145-148, 1982.
A10 "Technical issues in allocation formula design."
Public Administration Review, 42(6); $24-529,1982.
All "Feasibility of benefit-cost analysis of public data."
Proceedings of the American Statistical Association. Social Statistics Section, Washington, D.C.,1982.
Al2 "Distribution of federal benefits according to statistical formulas:
i l
t
Ay
..'o discussion of paper."
Proceedings of the American Statistical
.p Association. Social Statistics Section. Washington, D.C.,1982.
v A13 "On interpreting test scores as social indicators: statistical considerations.' '/ournal of Educational Measurement. 20(4): 317 334, 1983.
A14 "Test scores as social statistics:
comparing distributions."
Journal of Educational Statistics. 8(4): 249-270, 1983.
A15 "Toward conducting benefit-cost analyses of data programs."
Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Social Statistics Section, pp.46-51,1984.
A16 "Simplifying complex samples with the bootstrap."
Proceedings of the American Statistical Association. Survey Research Section, pp. 46-51, 1984.
r A17 "Uncertain population forecasting", Journal of the American Statistical Association. 80: 306-314, 1985 (with J. Alho).
A18 "Avoiding bias in estimates of the effect of data error on allocations of public funds, Evaluation Review. 9: 511-518, 1985.
Al9
' Optimal data quality *, Journal of the American Statistical Association.
80 564-573, 1985.
A20 "Statistical aspects of equitable apportionment," Journal of the American Statistical Association, 80: 815-822.
A21 "Test score decline:
what and how well does it measure?
Proceedings of the American Statistical Association. Social Statistics Section, pp. 57-7 64, 1985.
A22
' Conceptual issues in measuring improvement in population estimates,*
pp. 393-407 in Second Annual Research Conference.
Washington, D.C
- U.S. Bureau of the Census,1986.
l t
A23 "Toward conducting benefit-cost analyses of data programs." Pp. 38-59 in R. W. Pearson and R. F. Boruch (eds.) Survey Research Designs:
Towards i
a Better Understanding of Their Costs and Benefits.
New York:
Springer-Verlag.
i 7
i Techalcal Reports "Needed data quality for an ambiguous decision problem." Discussion Paper
- 40, Center for Economic Policy Research, Stanford University,1984 (with L.E. Moses),
f
- Efficient niethods for sampling out-of-school seventeen-year-olds in the National Assessment of Educational Progress." Discussion paper a86-3, Methodology Research Center, NORC,1986.
5 May 1987 o '
i
)
e
5 L
h I
E"N l
d k
MILETI, SPENCER - DIRECT 9155 l
1 JUDGE SMITH:
Beginning then on the next transcript t
f I
J2 page, following the transcript page,,will be Applicants' 3
-Rebuttal Testimony No. 4, which is received.and bound ~into th'e f
4 record.
~
5 (Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony' 6
No. 4 follows:)
v 7-8 f
9 t
10 11 1
f e
12 i
4 l
13 6
14 i
15 i
i f
16 i
17 i
i 4
i 18 19 i
20 I
21
}
l 22 t
1 i
23 i
r l
24
()
2s i
?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
O,
,n/
iQ k
({}
Dated:
February 8, 1988 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, at al.
)
50-444-OL
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1
)
(Offsite Emergency and 2)
)
Planning Issues)
)
APPLICANTS' REBUTTAL TESTIMONY NO. 4 (REBUTFAL TO THE CORRECTED TESTIMONY OF DR. ALBERT E. LUIDFF REGARDING THE BEACH PLANKET SURVEY CONDUCTED FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS) l Witnesses:
Bruce D. Spencer Dennis S. Mileti j
Applicants' rebuttal testimony regarding the Beach Blanket Survey conducted on July 17, 18 and 28, 1987 by AEL Associates for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was developed from two viewpoints:
the external validity of the Survey, or the ability to generalize the survey results to the general population which did not participate in the i
Survey, and the internal validity, the Survey's ability to
()
I
2 measure what it claims to measure, and associated freedom from bias.
I.
Analysis of External Validity P
The Beach Blanket Survey is not based on random sampling.
Random sampling involves deliberate randomized selection of respondents from an identified or identifiable population of respondents.
No such deliberate randomization was utilized in the Beach Blanket Survey.
To show that no randomization was used and to indicate the many ways that the sample could fail to be representative (in any sense of the word), it is useful to review the major steps in the Survey.
1.
Three days in mid-July, a Friday, Saturday, and Tuesday, were chosen on which to conduct the Survey interviews.
O 2.
The New Hampshire shoreline was divided into four sections.
Beachfronts within each section were to be surveyed on each of the three days.
3.
Each of the beach areas was subdivided into pieces; it is assumed that the pieces did not overlap and that all the pieces put together covered the entire beach under survey.
According to Attachment 4, p.
2, interviewers were
{
"told to divide the beach area into roughly equivalent pieces", and so it is deduced that the pieces for any given I
beach consisted of roughly the same area.
It is also assumed that each piece was a strip of land running from the seawall to the waterline.
}
- a 1
j 4.
Subpieces were then systematically chosen within 7_
\\'
each piece (or within each group of three contiguous pieces).
One subpiece was to be selected from the part of the piece that was 3/4 of the way from the seawall to the waterline, one subpiece was to be selected from the part of the area that was 1/2 of the way from the seawall to the waterline, and one subpiece was to be selected from the part of the area that was 1/4 of the way from the seawall to the waterline.
5.
Ber.ch blankets were to be selected within each subpiece.
The selection of the blankets was not determined by a deliberate randomization.
Rather, the selection was up to the discretion of the interviewers subject only to certain quotas by sex and by three broad age groups.
Based on the above brief review of AEL procedures, it is seen that at no point in this Survey was randomization used.
It is possible, however, for a non-random sample to yield useful data.
To clarify this statement we would like to describe some differences between random and non-random samples.
All of us make inferences every day from experiences that do not result from random sampling.
Sometimes those inferences are valid for situations not exactly the same as the ones immediately experienced, and sometimes not.
In the same way, statistics calculated from samples sometimes are accurate measures of what the results would be if the statistics were calculated from the entire population from which the sample was drawn.
When the sample
. l
is a random sample, statistics such as proportions are f}
generalizable to the population from which the sample is drawn, in the following sense:
if the sample were selected repeatedly and independently, the average value of the statistic (i.e., averaged over the various samples) would equal the value of the statistic for the whole population.
If the sample is not a random sample this generalizability does not hold; the value of the statistic might, on average, equal the statistic for the whole population, but it very well might not.
The only way to attribute generalizability to a non-random sample, such as the Beach Blanket Survey, is by an act of faith or by subjective judgment.
Generalizability does not ensure accuracy, i.e.,
that the 7-)
statistic from any single chosen sample is close to the V
statistic for the population.
The typical magnitude of the error -- the difference between the statistic for the sample and the statistic for the whole population -- is called the standard error.
With random samples the standard error decreases as the sampled size increases; with non-random I
samples this need not occur.
Also, with random samples the r
standard error can be assessed internally, from the chosen 4
sample itself.
The standard error for non-random samples cannot be assessed internally -- only by comparing the l
results of a non-random sample with accurate external benchmarks can the standard error of a non-random sample be assessed.
f
' l
4 O
~S Some impression about the possible accuracy of a non-(G random sample can be gleaned from consideration of the manner in which the sample was selected.
If the selection seems free of systematic biases or tendencies to over-represent or under-represent some groups, then we may be willing to believe that the sample might yield accurate results.
In order to judge whether the Beach Blanket Survey might yield accurate statistics we examined the consequences of the various stages of sampling described in Paragraphs 1-5 above.
1.
The first stage of sampling is really the restriction of the Survey to responses by people at the beach.
No reasons are presented to show why one would be justified in generalizing any conclusions which might apply
(])
to persons at the beach to conclusions appropriate to people at other locations than the beach.
2.
The next stage of sampling is the restriction of the Survey to a few days in mid-July.
No reasons are presented to show how one would be justified in generalizing to other days.
If one is interested in how people would respond to the Survey on a "typical" day, then one would want to calculate statistics for each day separately and see if the responses were consistent from one day to the next.
The statistics presented in Attachment 4 most heavily represent Saturday and least represent Tuesday.
Different kinds of people use the beaches on different days; for example, 60% of those interviewed on Tuesday reported that they would "do as
()
E t
b
)
told" if a policeman told them to go in a different direction, compared to an average of 50% for those interviewed on Friday and Saturday.
3.
The next stage in the sampling is the choice of four particular beach areas to represent all of the New Hampshire beachfront.,
"Beach Survey", indicates that roughly 2/5 (41.6%) of the interviews occurred at Hampton Beach, 1/4 (28.6%) at North Hampton (Boar's Head to 101C),
1/10 (11.5%) at Seabrook, and 1/5 (18.3%) from 101C to Odiorne Point.
Counts from aerial photographs on July 18 in early afternoon using these same geographical boundaries show discrepancies from the sampled proportions:
Actual Proportions O
Sampled (from 1987 beach Beach Procortions coeulation counts)
Hampton 41.6%
57.6%
North Hampton - 101C 28.6%
10.1%
101C - Odiorne Point 18.3%
21.6%
Seabrook 11.5%
10.7%
Furthermore, the coverage of the individual beaches was far from uniform across the three days of the Survey.
For instance, nearly half of the interviews at North Hampton Beach occurred on Tuesday, whereas only 16% of all interviews occurred on a Tuesday; also, 97% of the Boars Head interviews occurred on Saturday, with only 3% on Friday, and none on Tuesday.
In addition, it appears that certain sections of O
the shorefront (North Beach, Foss Beach, Bass Beach, Little (3
\\/
Boar's Head and Plaice Cove) may not be represented at all in the Survey.
4.
Dividing each beach into pieces (as described on Page 2 above), ensures that all parts of the beach areas are covered by the Survey.
However, since approximately equal numbers of interviews occurred in each piece (it is assumed),
a higher ratio of interviews per beach blanket occurred in pieces with few beach blankets than occurred in pieces with more beach blankets.
Thus, the Survey would tend to under-represent persons who clustered near other persons at the beach and it would over-represent persons who placed their blankets at some distance from other blankets.
5.
The manner in which the selection of subpieces occurred, as described earlier, entails that the subpieces tended to be located along three horizontal strips running lengthwise along the beaches, one strip 1/4 of the way from the seawall to the waterline, one strip 1/2 of the way from the seawall to the waterline, and one strip 3/4 of the way from the seawall to the waterline.
Persons who settled their blankets very close to the seawall would not fall into these selected subpieces and therefore would not at all be represented in the Survey.
6.
The fact that the interviewers could decide which beach blankets in a subpiece they would select for the sample, subject to quotas on age and sex of respondents, O
4 suggests that certain types of people wars more likely to be b
interviewed than other types, e.g.,
blankets occupied by approachable-looking people would be more 11.tely to be chosen than other types.
Indeed, this selectivity may explain why the cooperation rate was high (Attachtunt 4, page 3 notes that there were "very few refusals").
Thiu selectivity tends to cause systematic errors in the Survey statistics.
The use of quotas by sex and age was an attempt to control the selectivity, and certainly the selectivity would have been even more severe without the quotas, but selectivity still occurred for people in age and sex subgroups, e.g.,
1 approachable-looking middle-aged men were more likely to be interviewed than other middle-aged men.
1 7.
In addition to the fact that the use of quotas doea not completely control systematic errors from interviewer selectivity, the use of quotas also introduces systematic error into the Survey statistics because the sex and age groups are represented in the Survey according to prespecified target values (quotas) and not according to the numbers in which they actually are present on the beach or in whatever population to which the Survey is supposed to be generalized.
Thus, if the actual proportion of beach-going persons aged under 25 is really 40% then the survey will
- l over-represent them because 52.6% of the surveyed people were under 25 years of age (the quota was set at around 1/2).
Additionally, age quotas used in sample selection on O,
\\
all beaches were based on a 1983 survey of Hampton Beach.
5 O
There is no basis on which to assume that age and sex quotas j
for.Hampton Beach are equivalent to those that'would occur f
for Hampton Beach in 1987 or on other beaches.
The Beach Blanket survey report (September 14, 1987) l states (Attachment 4, pp. 3-4) the sampling error is l
plus or minus five percentage points.
This means that in theory if the Survey were to be repeated an infinite number of times, that 95% of the time we would obtain the same l
results."
That-statement is wrong, and was later amended (Errata to Testimony of Dr. Albert E. Luloff.
. December 14, 1987) tot 1
g This means that in. theory if the survey were to be repeated 100 times using the same techniques, in 95 out of 100 times the results obtained for a particular O
auestion wou1d not vary by more than 5 percentase pointe from the results which would have been obtained had every beach-blanket group on the beach been surveyed.
The amended statement would be correct if certain f
1 i
conditions held, namely:
1 i
(i) the sample were a random sample.
(ii) the standard error were actually 2.5 percentage l
points (we may infer that Dr. Luloff means sampling error to refer to approximately two times the standard error), and (iii) the sample size were sufficiently large.
I 1
IMfortunately, Dr. Lulof f's theoretical interpretation of
[
j sampling error is not applicable because the Beach Blanket l
Survey is not based on a random sample and there is no known I
i way to calculate the standard error for the Survey.
!O j I i
i Two conclusions that follow from the fact that the Beach
()
Planket Survey is not based on random sampling aret (1) there is no statistical-theoretical basis for assuming that its conclusions are accurate, and (2) the estimates of sampling error presented in the report are meaningless and have no statistical-theoretical basis.
Furthermore, the manner in which the sample was selected involves so many kinds of selectivity and unequal representation of persons on the beaches that the statistics calculated from the Survey should not be trusted even to the extent of generalizing to the beach population on the days i
sampled.
Generalization to other populations is certainly l
not supported by such a blatantly non-random sample.
II.
Analysis of Internal Validity Applicants' Direct Testimony No. 7 on Evacuation Time Estimate and Human Behavior in Emergencies and Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 3 demonstrates that the behavioral intentions of people (be those intentions voiced on a beach i
blanket or anywhere else) are not indicative of actual behavior in an actual future emergency.
We do not detail this viewpoint here; our conclusion is simply that even if this Survey had sound behavioral intention measurement (internal validity) and sound external validity (discussed l
),
above), it would shed little light on the actual behavior of O-beachgoers in an actual future emergency at Seabrook.
This t
basic point must not be lost in the context of this critique of the technical aspects of this poll.
Human response to an actual emergency would largely be directed by factors which prevail during the emergency as it is experienced.
These j
factors were not simulated in the Beach Blanket Survey, nor could a survey adequately simulate these factors.
Behavioral intention polls of beachgoer behavior can be nothing more than what respondents thought the day they were interviewed taking into account only what they may or may not have had in mind before questions were answered.
Actual public behavior in an actual future emergency is the consequence of other factors which cannot be simulated in pre-emergency polls or i
surveys.
But these other factors and how they affect i
behavior are well kncwn, based on actual emergencies, and these should guide and shape emergency planning for actual emergencies at Seabrook, not a behavioral intention poll.
The Beach Blanket Survey at best held the potential to gather "factual" data (how people got to the beach the day they were interviewed, for example) and speculative perceptual data (how people "thought" they might behave in a future unexperienced emergency) from tne persons interviewed.
However, flaws of internal validity in the Survey design and l
interview schedule were profound and numerous.
There is really little if no basis, therefore, to conclude that the c:)
f :
r-answers interviewees gave to the questions which they were n(-)
asked can be taken as any measurement of behavioral intentions (let alone actual future emergency response behavior) or even of much of the "factual" data the Survey was designed to collect.
a.
Internal Validity of Behavioral Intentions.
There are many reasons why the internal validity of the Beach Blanket Survey was too low to generate trustworthy data on the behavioral intentions of beachgoers.
The reasons for this conclusion follow.
The Beach Blanket Survey was performed on the wrong unit of analysis.
It appears as though the Survey assumed that the driver in beach-going groups would make emergency response decisions for that entire group.
As a result interviews were conducted with individual drivers instead of the entire group of persons who came and/or would leave or shelter with the driver.
The Survey approach incorrectly assumed that drivers would have the significant decision making power to determine group emergency response.
Empirical evidence teaches that engaging in protective actions (for example, evacuation) in response to emergency warnings and situations is largely a group affair.
For example, people prefer evacuating in family or intimate groups when all other things are held constant.
The structuro of this Survey -- drivers were interviewed rather than the entire intimate group which comprised the "beach O
- a i
blanket" -- was such that drivere were not able to adequately account for the decision-making input from other "beach blanket" members, all of whom would engage in discussions leading up to response decisions in an actual emergency.
The correct unit of analysis for the interviews performed in this Survey would have been the entire "beach blanket" intimate i
group and not just the driver.
In a real emergency actual response decisions would be made through a process of group interaction in which the driver would provide only one voice.
This emergency response group decision making process is well understood, and it has even been diagrammed regarding family i
evacuation decision making (see Stanley D.
Brunn, James H.
Johnson, Jr., and Donald Zeigler, 1979, Final Renort on a Social Survey of Three Mile Island Residents.
East Lansing:
O Michigan State University, Department of Geography, page 46).
l This fundamental flaw in the Survey design suggests that answers to behavioral intention questions for all I
respondents (except perhaps those who came to the beach alone) are not reflective of even what "groups" thought, and i
it is these "groups", as noted, who would make collective j
response judgments in an actual emergency and not just drivers.
This flaw in the Survey has dramatic implications f
I for the answers obtained to intended emergency response behavior questions 7, 8,
9, 10A, 10B, 10C, 10D, 10E, 10F, J
10G, 11A, 11B and 12.
These questions gathered data solely i
^
on driver behavioral intentions.
Answers to these questions, O
i
, I h
~
.s therefore, are the intentions of a response unit that is not ss/
relevant.
It is likely that during the driver interview process other beach blanket members may have engaged in voicing their opinions (some obviously would have overheard the interview as it was being conducted).
This "spontaneous" interaction, however, could not approximate the actual group decision making process that would occur in an actual emergency for many reasons:
(a) many "beach blanket" intimate group members who would participate in emergency response group decision making would have undoubtedly not spoken up during the driver's interview since they were not invited to participate, (b) "beach blanket" intimate group members were away from the blanket during the driver interview and could not participate spontaneously -- this was true in 25% of the interviews -- as indicated by responses to question V10B in the Survey frequencies, and (c) whatever "spontaneous" interaction which could have occurred during the interview was likely severely limited by other factors that would not constrain group interaction during a real emergency, for example, sleeping, eating and so on.
Some of the behavioral intentions questions on the interview schedule (see questions 7, 8,
10A, 10B, 100, 100, 10E, 10F, 10G and 12) are of the sort that asked respondents to speculate about behavioral intentions in response to simulated emergency information.
Yet the emergency O
s information simulated for respondents in reference to these p
(
)
questions was not similar to the emergency information that would be provided in a Seabrook emergency.
In fact, under cross examination Dr. Luloff disassociated himself with any claim that the Beach Blanket Survey was designed to simulate EBS response.
(January 11, 1988, II. 8224-26)
An actual response to an actual emergency by beachgoers, however, would certainly include hearing EBS messages, as well as a three-minute sounding of the sirens.
It seems grossly inappropriate, therefore, to suggest that behavioral intentions in response to something else would resemblo behavioral intentions in response to actual EBS information that beachgoers would respond to in an actual Seabrock emergency.
We can only conclude, therefore, that the Beach Blanket Survey 's a study of behavioral intentions in response to something other than the character of an actual Seabrook Station emergency.
It.is not possible, therefore, to conclude that the behavioral intentions which respondents voiced in reference to questions 7, 8,
10A, 10B, 100, 10D, 10E, 10F, 10G and 12 would be similar to intentions that would be voiced in response to the actual emergency l
information which would characterize a Seabrook emergency.
1 Question 8 in the Survey portrays emergency scenario characteristics that are inconsistent with the Seabrook plan as to render answers to this question meaningless with regard to behavioral intentions.
(Z) _ - -
,6 A similar problem exists for question 7 which asks respondents to incorrectly assume that "designated" shelters have been identified.
Finding a "designated" shelter is not the same thing as going inside a building.
It seems very unlikely that behavioral intentions would be the same in response to question 7 were the question reworded to reflect actual Seabrook emergency planning and actual emergency public information.
Question 9 also contains bias.
This question reads as follows:
Suppose the first shelter you went to was already filled to capacity, what would you do?
Would you search for another shelter or would you evacuate the area, or would you do something else?
This question requires that the respondent assume that a
()
"search" must be engaged in to find an alternative shelter which suggests that seeking another shelter may be burdensome; the wording of this question would "direct" people to answer with the alternative major protective action, that is, "evacuate."
Indeed, Attachment 4 reports frequencies of 55.0% intended evacuation in response to this question versus 31.4% intended seeking another shelter.
In a real emergency, however, the "search" for another shelter could be but a few steps away.
In this way the word "search" in this question significantly biases results toward l
respondents selecting evacuation as their behavioral intention.
l Questions 11A and 11B read as follows, respectively:
) !
If you were in your vehicle for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> and traffic had fl moved less than 1 mile, would you remain in your car as k
authorities insist, or would you get out?
Suppose you were in the car / truck / van for 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> with little movement -- would you still remain in your car as authorities insist or would you get out? frequencies report that 14.5% intended car abandonment after 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />, while 38.3% intend it after 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br />.
Two points are relevant regarding this sequence of questions and answers.
First, there is significant bias in questions on questionnaires that are sequential such as these; bias certainly operates in terms of question interaction to inflate second question response.
Put simply question 11B is biased to overestimate car abandonment since it would be heard by some respondents as follows:
"Ok, so you wouldn't consider abandonment of your car after one hour, O
what about if we tripled the time and said three hours?"
Intended car abandonment almost tripled from 14.5% to 38.3%.
A third question was not asked, for example, "what about if we said you were in your car with little movement for 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br />
-- then would you abandon your car?"
Were this third question asked, intended abandonment would have proportionately increased due to the bias introduced by question sequencing.
j Second, these questions and answers illustrate more than bias; they illustrate how behavioral intentions and actual emergency public behavior can be dramatically different.
Dr.
Luloff uses the car abandonment "data" on which to suggest
()
l '
)
that car abandonment is a likely Seabrook evacuation problem, f~')
kJ yet, we do not know of one evacuation in the history of the United States where car abandonment has ever been an impediment to evacuation.
It is surprising that Dr. Luloff would have us ignore decades of actual data on actual behavior in evacuations (including evacuations precipitated by technological emergencies) in favor of respondent speculations based on biased questions in a poll.
Dr.
Luloff's concern over car abandonment is an imprudent hypothesis for yet another reason.
It appears as if his concern presumes that an abandoned car is one left on the road as opposed to one driven onto a shoulder and out of other traffic's way.
This presumption is unreasoned and unreasonable when viewed in light of the public's true O
concern for others in emergencies.
b.
Internal Validity and "Factual" Data.
This Survey also sought to gather data on "facts" in addition to data on behavioral intentions.
In particular, questions 2, 3A, 3B, 3C and 3D served to provide a basis for estimating auto occupancy.
These questions about "facts" relevant to estimating auto occupancy, however, each contain enough bias to render auto occupancy estimates based on answers to these questions untrustworthy.
The reasons for this conclusion follow.
Question 2 read as follows:
"Counting yourself, how many people are with you today?"
The answers given to this O _
e.
l j
question would be just that; that is, how many people were
' 'i with the respondent.
Answers would have undoubtedly included people who met each other on the beach, but who did not come to the beach in the driver-respondent's vehicle; these persons, for example, could have walked to the beach from their house or motel.
The point is simply that the wording of question 2 would have biased results in terms of overestimating the number of people who came to the beach together.
Question 3A read as follows:
"How did your party get to the beach today?"
Answers to this question were:
1 = car (truck, van), 2 = motorcycle, 3 = bus, 4 = bicycle, and 5 =
other.
A total of 107 or 18.3% of the respondents answered that they walked or got to the beach in some other way while 461 or 79.1% answered that they came in a car, truck or van.
These answers cannot be trusted since respondent referents could have varied depending on how the question was interpreted in terms of ".
. get to the beach today."
Some respondents could have driven to friends / relatives / hotels /
motels and then walked to the beach.
There is no way to know which part of their journey they had in mind when this question was answered.
Question 3B read as follows:
"How many vehicles did your party take to the beach today?"
There is no way to know, as was the case in question 3A, what respondents may have had in mind when this question was answered.
For O..
0 1
example, was beach defined as local friends / relatives or 7,U motel / hotel; was number of vehicles envisioned as the number literally taken to the interview cite or to the local domicile, and so forth.
The point is simply that different respondent referents could have operated to jeopardize the internal validity of this question.
Questions 3A and 3B, discussed above, both lack internal validity and answers to these questions are hardly trustworthy for the same reason.
Both questions are unreliable measures; answers would not be the same if the Survey were repeated since respondent answers would vary depending on reference to what people happened to be thinking when the questions were asked.
The questions did not seek to
-make measurement reliable; the answers therefore lack internal validity.
Question 3C read as follows:
"Where did you park?",
and the answers provided were:
1 = parking lot, 2 = back or front yard, 3 = street, and 4 = other.
This question and its answer categories is an unreliable measure.
There is no way to know if back or front yard parkers were actually parked in driveways or if they were parked in yard overflow parking areas since different respondents could have defined the answer choice in different ways.
Question 3D read as follows:
"About how long did it take to get from where you parked your car to the beach?"
557 respondents answered from 1 to over 10 minutes (see O.-
.U 1
h frequencies in Attachment 4).
Since 557 is 95% of the total 584 respondents, this implies that all but 2'7 respondents had a car parked at the beach.
This is inconsistent with answers to question 3C in which 51 or 8.7% of respondents claimed to not have parked but rather to have walked to the beach; this is inconsistent with answers to question 3A in which 107 or 18.3% of respondents answered that they got to the beach by walking or in some other (non-car, truck, van, bus, motorcycle or bicycle) way, and is inconsistent with Dr.
Luloff's direct testimony at page 12 in which he claims that 18.3% of the respondents got to the beach by walking.
These inconsistencies are not a surprise.
What they reveal is simply that questions on surveys which lack internal validity and which are unreliable produce results which cannot be trusted.
Obviously, these inconsistencies illustrate that it is impossible to use the data collected as part of this Survey regarding parking / walking, number of cars at the beach and so on with confidence.
The "factual" data collected as part of this Survey simply lacks internal validity and is inaccurate.
Additionally, the vehicle occupancy rate calculated by Resource Systems Group is equally untrustworthy since it relied solely upon quite questionable data gathered with internally invalid measures.
Invalid unreliable survey questions are, in essence, a "rubber ruler"; that is, the Survey would not produce the same results were it replicated.
O - - - _ -.
1 I
..x MILETI, SPENCER - DIRECT
-9156 1'
MR. LEWALD:
I have no examination of these 2
. witnesses', Your Honor, and they stand ready.for cross-3J examination.
4 JUDGE SMITH:
The corrections are included in the 5
testimony, is that correct?
6 MR. LEWALD:
They are, Your Honor.
We have earlier to'ay filed an-errata for these two pieces of testimony along d
7 8
with the third, along with the corrected testimony incorporated 9
in the documents that went with them.
10 JUDGE SMITH:
Mr. Fierce.
11 MR. FIERCE:
Thank you, Your Honor.
12 These two pieces of testimony are, each of them, fgV 13 separately a critique of one of the two surveys that the 14 Massachusetts Attorney General's office had commissioned to be 15 done by two of its expert witnesses, one by Dr.. Stephen Cole 16 through his company, Social Data Analysts, Inc., and the other 17 by Al Luloff Associates.
18 The Dr. Cole survey was a telephone survey conducted 19 of 1400-some-odd residents of the EPZ in both Massachusetts and 20 New Hampshire.
And the survey conducted by Dr. Luloff was a 21 survey conduc ted on the beaches in New Hampshire over the past 22 summer.
23 And I do that partially, that summary partially, for l
24 the sake of the audience who has no idea what we're talking
()
25 about here this afternoon.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
~
-_m.
a
+/
MILETI, SPENCER - DIRECT 9157 1,
The concern I have is that, when the Rebuttal 2
Testimony was received in our' office, that was the first time 3
that the Massachusetts Attorney _ General's Office was given any 4
indication or notice that there would be expert testimony filed 5
by Dr. Spencer or that expert testimony would be filed by Dr.
6 Mileti covering this particular topic, the critique of these 7
two surveys.
8 And I was concerned for two reasons.
One is that it 9
caught me by surprise.
We had not prepared any rebuttal 10 testimony ourselves by a statistician seeking to support on 11 statistical grounds the elements that those surveys sought to 12
- promote, 3
13 And secondly, it also was a violation of the 14 discovery rules, 2.740(e)(1), which required that the 15.
Applicants supplement their discovery questions which directed 16 requested them to identify, in advance, those experts, the 17 subject matter and the substance of their testimony at such 18 times as they knew they were going to be presenting those 19 witnesses.
20 Now, the testimony that these witnesses are reoutting 21 was filed back in, I'm guessing now, I think it was in 22 September.
And the Applicants must have known at some peint 23 prior to the filing of that testimony that this expert witness, 24 Dr. Spencer, would be testifying; and that Dr. Mileti would be 25 testifying on a new and different topic than he had testified
(}
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
c t
g-l)
T-MILETI,. SPENCER - DIRECT 9158 1
- on before.
And I.believe the Massachusetts Attorney General's 1
2-'
office'and the other' Applicants -- excuse me, the other 3-Intervenors were entitled to know whether that'was happening, 4
what the substance'of that testimony was, and would have been.
5 given an opportunity to do two things at that point..
6' We could have perhaps conducted some informal 7
discovery, if not formal discovery, and had an opportunity 8
perhaps to go into Dr. Spencer's background and his methods f or-9 conducting the; critique that he did.
We haven't had that 10 opportunity.
11 And the second thing is, we don't have an 12 opportunity, we didn't have an opportunity at the deadline for 13 filing rebuttal testimony, to come in with any rebuttal to that 14 critique ourselves.
15 And so I do believe we have been' prejudiced.
But I
- 16 don't believe that the appropriate relief here would be for me 17 to move to strike the testimony.
I have had some time to 18 prepare cross-examination and I have done that to some extent, 19 and I will proceed with that tcday.
20 But I think that this violation of the rules should 21 not go unchallenged.
And what I would ask the Board to do, and 22-I would so move, is indicate to the Applicants in an order that 23 further violations of Rule 2.740(e)(1) as we proceed into the
. 24 sheltering portion of the New Hampshire plans case not be 25 tolerated, and that any further violations will be met with an
()
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
~
m 4
3
/ -
MILETI, SPENCER - DIRECT 9159 1-appropriate sanction.
That's the motion I'd like to make 2
today.
3 And in addition to that --
4 MR. DIGNAN:
I'll reply, Your Honor, with your 5
permission, to that.
Oh, excuse me, are you finished?-
6 MR. FIERCE:
In addition to that I would also ask 7.
leave, we are exploring the possibility right now of filing a 8
rebuttal to this testimony.
I can't say for certain today that 9
that will be done.
We are exploring that possibility.
We're
. 10 exploring whether we'd have both the funds available to do that
- 11 and whether the experts can do it within the time frame that 12 I'm sure this Board would allow me to have, which I'm sure p
%d 13 would be no more than a week or two.
. 1.4 But I would ask leave, if we do proceed with that r
15 rebuttal to this particular testimony, to be allowed leave to 16-file it; and if we could have at least two, if not three weeks, 17 to do so, I believe that would be sufficient time.
18 And the third thing that I would ask would be that, l
19 with respect to the cross-examination I'm planning to be doing 20 this afternoon, that I be given extra leeway, if you will, to 21 pursue some questions in the mode of a deposition with Dr.
22 Spencer in particular to discover information that I would have 23 otherwise done through discovery in the normal rnode.
24 And I don't anticipate that I would be making a
()
25 lengthy series of questions out of that, but it would be a 1
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- - + Sz73 a
i~
h*
MILETI,-SPENCER - DIRECT 9160 1'
.sma11' number.
But I do need to have that leeway in order to, I 2-believe, appropriately. cross-examine this witness at this. time, 3-given the circumstances.
4 So those are the three requests that I would have
~
4 5
attached to that motion, and if Mr. Dignan wants to. respond.
~
6 (Continued on next page.)
7 8
9 10 11 12 i
\\ /
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 J
21 22 23 24 i
!C:)
2s l
Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 l
fN i
U 9161 1-MR. DIGNAN:
Well, for starters, I assume, Your 2
Honor,.if you put out any order, I assume you will include _the 3-AG'in it, because I'm sitting here looking at three pieces of Au testimony; 9 by Edwin J. Oliveira, which is in the nature of s
5-expert testimony of the traffic officer about certain things.
6 Another one by Thomas Mullen on a survey he's-made of 7
things, and a rebuttal piece by Dr. Thomas Adler with respect-8 to ETEs. I never knew any of this was coming until it was 9
delivered.
10 I'm not' complaining; I'm not upset; that's the way 11 you try a case.
<m 12 But that's the way they treated us; I treated them N~)
15 the same way; and I don't know what their gripe is.
14 MR. FIERCE:
Let me tell you what our gripe is, Your 15-Honor.
We followed the rules.
We have a discovery question 16 which asks the Applicants directly to name their expert 17 witnesses and to supply the information that the rule requires, 18 the sum and substance of their testimony.
19 Therefore, we are entitled to the benefit of the rule 20 requiring supplementation.
21 MR. DIGNAN:
For rebuttal, too?
Where does it say 22 that in the rule?
23 MR. FIERCE:
I don't know that there's any exception 24 for rebuttal testimony, Mr. Dignan.
And if you would ask the 25 Applicants directly to show you where the question is in
-( }
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
J
. f'! ~
i A-9162 1
discovery they have put to our office on'this point', I don't 2
think they can come up with an answer, because it is not there.
3 There isn't a question in discovery they put to us about our 4
experts. I would be happy to follcw the rules if the rule 5
applied to us:
it just so happens that it doesn't.
6 It does apply to them.
That's the difference.
Mr.
7 Dignan has been trying to slide aro;nd this point throughout 8
the earlier part of the proceedings; and what I wanted to do 9
today is-to bring it to a head.
10 I don't think there's a discovery question that they 11 can point to that says with respect to the contentions we're
(~
12 litigating here, the ETE contentions, name your expert
- v) 13 witnesses, Mass. AG's office.
14 JUDGE SMITH:
Didn't the Board direct the parties to 15 make their rebuttal requirements known as soon as the 16 respective parties knew what they were to be?
17 MR. DIGNAN:
Yes, Hour Honor, the answer is yes, and 18 I brought up to the Board the fact that probably you couldn't 19 do it until you completed your cross-examination.
And I have 20 no gripe here. I've taken this testimony.
I'll deal with it.
21 But I sure don't like the accusation I've just heard.
22 JUDGE SMITH:
Have you complied with that?
23 MR. DIGNAN:
I think I have, Your Honor, because I 24 didn't, as I said to the Board, I didn't know until we 25 completed cross-examination and we indicated on the record
()
Heritage Repo/ ting Corporation (202) 628-4888
a 4
.f 3
-d 9163'
.1
'that,-with respect'to the ETE, we'd probably.be offering some-
'2~
' rebuttal.-
3 And every bit of this testimony comesfin under ETE, 4-as,it is, because ETE has included this human behaviors thing.
5 I-feel we've complied with that order.
6 But the point is that we're hearing a sanctimonious-7-
speech over here; I'm seeing two new witnesses here.
I have no 8
. gripe, and I-don't see what gripe they've got, frankly.
r 9
JUDGE SMITH:
Have you complied with the order?
10 MR. FIERCE:
Your Honor, I believe there are three 11 witnesses.
I don't think anybody has any doubt.that we were 12-planning to offer the rebuttal testimony of Thomas Adler. I 13 even moved at one point for leave to file his-rebuttal 14 testimony, and there was some discussion on the record about 15 that.
16 I also don't think there was any question that we
[
t 17 were planning to file the rebuttal testimony about counting the i
18 number of unobservable parking spaces throughout the EPZ.
19 JUDGE SMITH:
All right, just give your f
20 representation that you have complied.
i
.21 MR. FIERCE:
With respect to the third witness, Edwin 22 Oliveira, that was one that caue up at the very last minute in 23 our office.
We did not bring anyone's attention to the fact 24 that we would be filing his testimony; but I can assert on the
()
25 record that it was only within the last week that that Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4808
y s
P
[
9164-1 testimony was filed, that it was obtained and we had knowledge
'2
-of it.
3 JUDGE SMITH:
All right, the Board's prepared to
'4' accept the representation of both counsel that'they have made 5
their best effort to comply with the Board's order.
6
~The Board's order supersedes'the discovery 7
requirements.
We don't have to go into that.
And it will;be-a 8
standing order of the Board that all rebuttal-testimony be made 9
known to the parties in the case, at least in outline form, if 10 that is practical, as soon as the need for it is recognized by 11 the sponsoring party.
That, I think, has been fundamental NRC 12-practice in most jurisdictions.
13 It certainly has been what we have expected in this 14 case and will expect in the future.
In the mean time we accept 15 the representations of both counsel.
16 I should think that that satisfies all your requests 17 for relief.
18 MR. FIERCE:
I appreciate the Board's order.
I just 19 want to clarify:
you said with respect to all rebuttal 20 testimony.
I know the Mass. AG's office is looking forward in 21 the sheltering portion of the case to perhaps revised filings 22 of direct testimony, and I would assume your order applies to 23 that as well.
24 JUDGE SMITH:
Well, there'll be a day for the filing
()
25 of direct testimony.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
7, I~
9165
.1 MR. FIERCE:
This is what I'm talking about directly, 2
Your. Honor.
Under the discovery rules, if the Applicants are 3
intending to refile their direct testimony, now I don't know 4
what's going to happen, but the discovery. rules apply to that 5-
. filing; and we are entitled to know, even now, if they know 6
they are intending to file the testimony of an e; sert witness, 7
we' re entitled to that supplementation.
8 MR. DIGNAN:
Mr. Fierce, you have what we filed 9'
before, right?
Right.
10 We are all waiting to see what FEMA does.
Now, how 11 can I possibly know what I'm going to file when I don't even 12 know what FEMA's going to do yet?
13 MR. FIERCE:
All I'm saying is that I would --
14
. JUDGE SMITH:
What is happening here here is we've 15 covered rebuttal, and we will be covering the shelter.
16 What we're missing now is -- the point to be made is i-17 what do we do with outstanding discovery requests which require 18 supplementation in the future, when it's not covered in 1
19 rebuttal?
20 It is my view that the parties, as a standing rule, 21 should make known fundamental changes in their position as soon 22 as they are known.
23 MR. DIGNAN:
I certainly will be making known the 24 fundamental change in our position, if there be one, after I
(}
25 see FEMA's position.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
7-9166 1
But our position as it stands now --
2 JUDGE SMITH:
I'm not predicting that you're not 3
going to do it. I'm just trying to lay out the groundwork for 4
the balance of the proceeding.
I fully appreciate, you know, 5
that you can't do it now.
I'm just saying that when the 6
positions are known they should be made known to the parties.
7 MR. DIGNAN:
I can tell them this much right now:
if 8
FEMA switches 180 degrees, I'm going to think it's a wonderful 9
position, and whatever I file will support it.
10 If FEMA stays where it is -- you've seen what I'm 11 going to do.
12 JUDGE SMITH:
You're not coming fully to grips with
-)
Lj 13 the problem raised by Mr. Fierce.
He's pointing out we've 14 satisfied the problem as far as rebuttal is concerned.
15 Now he's concerned that outstanding discovery 16 requests may not be honored timely; and maybe you'd better just 17 talk to that directly.
18 MR. DIGNAN:
Well, Your Honor, I haven't got in front 19 of me the Board's potential order.
20 JUDGE SMITH:
I'm speaking in the abstract.
21 MR. DIGNAN:
So am I.
But what I'm saying is, for 22 example, just to get it a little more concrete, assuming the 23 schedule that you propose stays in effect, the FEMA position 24 will come in on March 14.
("')
25 On the 28th, you have, 14 days later, you have
%/
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
4 9167 1
scheduled the filing of the direct testimony af ter that.
2 JUDGE SMITH: I would not think that that --
3 MR. DIGNAN:
I have no problem if a week before then, 4
I've got a pretty good idea of what I'm going to say of picking 5
up the phone and telling them what's coming.
I think they 6
pretty much know, and the names of the witnesses.
7 But you've got a two-week period in there, and what 8
really is going to tell people what the positions are going to 9
be is that prefile --
10 JUDGE SMITH: All I want is your representation that, 11 when your position is known --
12 MR. DIGNAN:
You've got it, Your Honor.
-,s
\\
)
13 JUDGE SMITH:
I'm not --
14 MR. DIGNAN:
When our position is known, it will be 15 made public.
16 JUDGE SMITH:
And I'm not finding that you have not 17 done that.
18 MR. DIGNAN:
I understand.
19 JUDGE SMITH:
Just trying to get to the probleta, an 20 understanding among the parties and move on.
21 MR. DIGNAN:
You have my representation to that 22 effect, Your Honor.
23 Finally, as I understand it, there was really a 24 second motion made, which was a motion to allow the filing of 25 surrebuttal, and I do oppose that.
{}
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L
f-1
'/
9168 1
JUDGE SMITH:
Well, I don't think we have a specific 2'
motion yet.
We're not giving any blank checks.
3 There's three things:
the sanction, we've taken care 4
of that; and the admonition, we've taken care of that.
5 We're not giving any blank checks as to an absolute 6
right to file surrebuttal, or the right to engage in a 7
deposition-like cross-examination, until the particular need is 8
known to you and a representation made, and we're convinced.
9 Okay?
And I did not understand you to be asking for 10 anything more than that, either.
You're just putting us on 11 notice that that's what might come up, is that right?
12 MR. FIERCE:
I am requesting certain leave today with
,-V 13 Dr. Spencer.
And it rnay well have been appropriate to pursue 14 those very questions regardless of my request to you today, but 15 I would be anticipating, perhaps, you to say this seems a 16 little slow here.
17 That's the kind of questions you get when you're 18 pursuing things in a deposition mode.
And I'm just putting you 19 on notice that I'd like to pursue some of those questions that 20 may not be terribly exciting.
But it's the position that I've 21 been put in.
22 JUDGE SMITH:
Okay, that's enough.
The ruling we 23 make is we understand the concern that you have raised and will 24 be sensitive to it.
We are not telling you that you can engage
/'
25 in whatever cross-examination you think might do the job.
(._)T Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
'y'
<~
j, 9169 4
1, But you have~ appropriately put:us on notice that 2
that's'what you want to'and the reasons for it and that we 3
understand it.
'4 Now, are your panels available for cross-examination?
5 MR. LEWALD:
Yes, Your Honor.
6 JUDGE SMITH:
Mr. Fierce?
7 MR. FIERCE:
I have one separate point I want - to 8
make, and it is with respect to Dr. Mileti.
As you may recall, 9
Dr. Mileti participated in a panel of witnesses that supported 10 the Applicants' Direct Testimony No.7.
And that testimony that 11 primarily was written by Dr. Mileti concerned a series of human 12 behavioral issues, some of which related to.the ETE I
13 contentions, and some of which related to the sheltering 14 contentions.
15 And I think, as you may recall, the understanding l
16 that was made to Dr. Mileti and that portion of his human E
17 behavior testimony that related to the sheltering portion of 18 the case was t at that cross-examination would be deferred 19 until such time as Dr. Mileti appeared.
He was scheduled to 20 appear on the Applicants' sheltering panel as well.
21 I am still assuming that Dr. Mileti will be appearing 22 for the Appliconts in some way, shape, or form on a piece of 23 testimony the Applie. ants will file, whatever it is, with i
24 respect to sheltering, and I would like to make the sarne 25 arrangement, if you will, with respect to Dr. Mileti's
(}
Heri ta ge Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 9170 1
testimony here today.
2 Some of the testimony does relate to the sheltering 3
issue.
As I understand our proceedings here this week we're 4
really to wrap up the ETE portion of the case.
5 I frankly have not been the attorney in the Mass.
6 AG's office who's been working in the sheltering issues, and 7
what I would like to do is essentially ask leave of the Court 8
at that point in time should Dr. Mileti appear again on a 9
sheltering panel for the Applicants that whoever is 10 participating for the Mass. AG in doing that cross-examination
's 11 to be allowed, if they so choose, to go into some of the 12 statements Dr. Mileti has made here in this rebuttal testimony
,SV 13 that relates to sheltering.
s 14 I am not going to be going into those issues today.
15 JUDGE SMITH:
I think you have problems with your 16 assumption that Dr. Mileti will be back.
What do you do in 17 that event?
18 MR. FIERCE:
If he's not back, then I lose that 19 opportunity, Your Honor.
20 JUDGE SMITH:
Do you have any quarrel with that, Mr.
21 Dignan?
22 MR. DIGNAN:
I'm mystified as to what this has to do 23
-- what his testimony here, which is critiques of two surveys 24 put in on ETE, have to do with sheltering?
t']
25 I rnay be missing something.
V Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
4 m m.
f i
C s_/-
9171 1
I suggest, Your Honor, that 2
. JUDGE SMITH: 'You may not have to catch it,.because 3
if he doesn't -- if he forgoes his opportunity to cross-examine 4
on what he-perceives this to be and Dr. Mileti doesn't'come 5
back --
.h 6
MR. DIGNAN: 'That's correct, he has a probleu.
7 JUDGE SMITH:
Except'his argument may be that if you 8
object on the basis of it being beyond the direct' examination 9
of a reappearance of Dr.-Mileti, and they say, well, itiwas in 10 the direct examination previous, that's where the' problem.might--
11
.arise, is that correct?
12 MR. FIERCE:
That's correct.
. )
13 MR. DIGNAN Beyond-the-scope objections haven't gone 14 very far, Your Honor, so I'm not too concerned about that.
15 JUDGE SMITH: Well, it's not because you haven't j
[
16 wanted them to succeed, it's just that it's been difficult to 17 identify the scope.
18 Yes, what I recommend that you do, is if you feel 19 that there are discrete portions of the testirnony today that 20 you believe is within the scope of anticipatory testimony by
!~
21 Dr. Mileti later on, roaybe you better identify it.
I don't I
22 know.
23 Otherwise, the prudent thing would be for you to i
t 24 cross-examine on everything.
But it's up to you.
But I can i
25 see the scope argument coming up.
[}
l' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) G28-4888
f 9172 1
MR. FIERCE:
I'm ready to proceed.
2 JUDGE SMITH:
All right.
3 CROSS-EXAMINATION 4
BY MR. FIERCE:
5 O
Good afternoon, gentlemen. My name is Allan Fierce, 6
and I'm an Assistant Attorney General with the Massachusetts 7
Attorney General's office.
I know Dr. Mileti knows who I am, 8
but this is the first opportunity I've had to meet Dr. Spencer, 9
who I believe is from Northwestern University?
10 A
(Spencer) That's correct.
11 Q
A f ine school.
My alma mater, in fact.
12 At the initial point here, I would like to inquire of f~.3 O
13 the panel, with respect to these two pieces of testimony --
14 MR. FIERCE:
I should add, by the way, my outline, 15 you will note, includes questions with respect to all four 16 pieces of testimony.
17 However, I believe the two pieces from Dr. Mileti 18 separately are last on that list.
Do you have the outline?
19 Oh, I ' ro sor ry. ?
20 JUDGE SMITH:
Thank you.
21 BY MR. FIERCE:
22 O
Gentlemen, correct me if I am wrong.
I belf. eve both 23 the pieces of rebuttal testimony you have filed are essentially 24 divided into two sec tions, one conc erreing internal validity and 25 one concerning the external validity of these surveys.
{}
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
\\
I i
k/
CROSS - MILETI 9173 1
And I want to know if you contributed jointly in
[
2 writing these pieces or divided the work up in some fashion?
3 A
(Spencer) We divided the work.
I wrote the external 4
validity.
5 A
(Mileti) And I wrote the internal validity parts.
6 O
Now, each of the pieces also contains what I might 7
call a third section, and I believe that was written by Dr.
8 Mileti as well; that is, essentially to the effect that, 9
regardless of the internal or external validity of these 10 surveys, behavioral intention surveys of this sort don't really 11 tell us very much anyway.
12 Do you recall those sections of your testimony, Dr.
V 13 Mileti?
14 A
(Mileti)
Yes.
However, as I recollect it, it was 15 that behavioral intentions regarding future public emergency 16 behavior --
17 O
Correct.
18 A
-- aren't indicative of that future behavior.
19 O
And you wrote that sec tion of each of these two 20 pieces?
21 A
(Mileti) I'm pretty sure that I did. I would have to 22 look and see, but I certainly t'ecollect writing that sort of 23 thing many times.
24 Q
Okay, Dr. Mileti, the sections you wrote regarding 25 the internal validity of these two surveys is essentially an k'~T l
I
/
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
r o, : a..
CROSS -.MILETI 9174
.,f assessmenk'made on'your part subjectively and'does not include
(
-1
-2 any objective or empirical gathering of data.in order to. reach
.;c 3
the conclusions you did, isn't that correct?
4 A
(Mileti) No, I wouldn't say~that.
The judgments I 5
was casting regarding the internal validity of the survey 6
instruments I was reviewing, as well as other aspects of.these 7
two polls, that would bear weight on their internal validity --
8 for example, who was interviewed -- stand on knowledge that.I 9
think is based on data and an empirical record.
10 However, it is true that I did not collect data in 11 New Hampshire.
12 Q
And with respect to these two surveys, you didn't do 13 empirical assessments of them.
And by that, I mean you didn't 14 sit (Swn and test the questions on.a sample subgroup of 15 students of yours at the university in Colorado; or you didn't 16 sit down with your calculator and calculate. specific degrees of 17 bias that might have been generated from one question to the 18 next?
It's not a quantitative analysis, is it?
19 j
20 A
(Mileti)
No, I wouldn't agree with that statement.
J 21 I certainly did look at some of the cross-tabs and have 22 referenced them in my rebuttal testimony where different 23 answers came up for, in essence, the same question, and the 1
24 answers were different.
And I thought that that was evidence 25 that there was a lack of internal validity.
(
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
t CROSS - MILETI 9175-( [L 1
In reference to students at Colorado, in reference to 2
'at_least the SDA telephone survey, I've gathered data that I L
3
.think bears weight to the invalidity of many'of. the questions.
4 This questionnaire is so similar to the one Stephen 5
Cole used at Shoreham in New-York a few years ago, and I have a 6
_ graduate seminar in research methods, and I gave it to them as' 7
their final exam with one question:
critique this poll.
8 And they wrote for over three hours and could have 9
written more, but the period ended.
I think that bears 10 empirical evidence, et cetera.
11 But it is true, I did not gather any of.my own data 12 in New Hampshire..
13 O
The answers given by your students during a final 14 exam constitute empirical evidence of the invalidity of that
\\
15 survey?
4 16 A
(Mileti)
I think that the answers that a
{
17 professional sociologist or aspiring professional sociologist 18 might give regarding their judgments about the quality of this i
l 19 particular set of questions is important data, yes.
l 20 O
Would you say that that kind of data is more or less 21 valid than the telephone survey done by your graduate student 22 that was stricken from your direct testimony here?
23 A
(Mileti)
I don't recollect a survey done by a 24 graduate student of mine that was stricken from my testimony l
l l-25 unless it was done after I had left.
i s
()
I-Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 e
J-
CROSS - MILETI 9176
-3 i) 1 Are we thinking about the same one?
Which one did 2
you have in mind?
3 O
The one I'm thinking of was a survey, a poll, if you 4
will, done by telephone, of a graduate student of yours who 5
contacted, I believe, perhaps a dozen or so response 6
organizations in the Three Mile Island area; and I believe you 7
were cross-examined about that, that poll, that telephone poll, 8
and that a motion was made and the testimony was stricken.
Do 9
you recall that, Dr. Mileti?
10 A
(Mileti)
I recall an exchange.
I don't recall that 11 it was stricken.
But then, I could have missed something.
I'm 12 not an attorney.
It could have happened and I didn't notice.
13 O
I'm asking you now whether you believe that the kind
/s 14 of data generated by your students in that final examination in 15 your view constitute more or less reliable evidence, scientific 16 evidence, than was contair.ed in that poll generated by your 17 graduate student?
18 MR. TURK:
Your Honor, I want to object to what may 19 be an inherent premise in this question.
That's the reference 20 to the fact that something may have been stricken from the 21 Record.
If counsel would identify the fact that something was 22 stricken and the basis for the striking.
23 There may be an implication here that for some 24 reason the testimony was not reliable, as opposed to the fact 25 that there may not have been a proper witness for cross O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4889
7
}
- D CROSS - MILETI 9177 d;..
1 examination.
t 2
-JUDGE SMITH:
Well, part of the prcblem is.that Dr.
3' Mileti apparently has no memory of that testimony being 4
stricken; nor does he know the reasons f or it.
So.you have a 1
5 difficult task in trying to examine him-through that.
Forget 6
the fact it was stricken and examine him with respect to any
-7 comparisons he can make.
8 MR. FIERCE:
That's what I. thought I was doing with 9
the last' question.
I have withdrawn the reference to the f act 10 that it may have been stricken and am just taking him in his
~
11 opinion wheth9r the poll taken by-the graduate. student, in 12 comparison with the kind of data that can be generated by 13 graduate students-on a final exam,.ehich in his mind have more 14 scientific merit.'
15-THE WITNESS (Mileti):
The two efforts were
,~
16 substantially differert.dn content.
17 I think both would have some. merit, and both would 18 have sorne limitations placed upon them.
I think the ability of
?
i 19 graduate students to oesenstrate that they've learned in a J
20 t'minar isveryimportant;Iwouldn'tsayphat.thatconstitutes 21 quantified evidence.
Certainly their eram was an essay exam; it was q'alitative evicence, but nevsertheless some 22 therefore u
23 evidence.
And I certaitily was pleased with most of their 24 performances; as I recollect, most of them pa'ssed.
25 BY MR. FIERCE:
}
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
l
CROSS - MILETI 9178 I )
1 O
Well,-isn't it perhaps the 1sgical reason why you 2
ware pleased with the results that you saw on that final exam 3
the notion that they were trying to write what you would like?
4 A
(Mileti) I believe they wrote things that I, as their 5
professor, thought were proper judgments, so in that-sense, 6
yes.
I as their teacher evaluated their performance as good 7
performance.
8 G
Getting back to the surveys at hand, though, Doctor, 9
in both cases you're looking at questions which you believe 10 would generate bias in the answers to those questions; and also 11 to the questions which follow, isn't that correct?
12 A
(Mileti)
Certainly in part my testimony addressed 13 that particular issue, yes.
/'~'3 k/
14 O
And with respect to whether any particular wording of 15 a question generates a bias or influences the outcome of an 16 answer, which I think might be a more appropriate way to say 17 it, isn't that judgment, when made after the fact, after the 18 survey has already been done and completed, essentially a 19 subjective judgment on your part?
20 A
(Mileti)
It's a professional judgment, and so 21 therefore the extent to which professional judgments are 22 subjective, the answer to your question is yes.
23 However, I would add that if there were a way to 24 quantify bias, bias wouldn't be a problem; that quantification 25 could be used to remove the biasing effect from the findings.
K-Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
. CROSS 1-MILETI 9179
- O.
1
-18 nresi wit 8 ei i
ts t it < e't e-
.2-quantifie'd; and the way'to address it is not in ex post facto 3
mudslinging at other professionals, but before questionnaires a
4
- are put together,
.5 Q
And in ' fact, when questionnaires are put together,'it 6
sometirees is the standard practice, is it not, to include 7-questions in dif f erent orders; as they-are administered to a 8
large population, some could get Question X before Y, and 9
others could get Y before X, and you could see whether there 10 was,any variation in the results, couldn't you, Doctor?
6 11 MR. LEVALD:
Is that a question?
I am going to 12 object to it.
13 JUDGE SMITH:
it's a question, yes.
I mean, is that 14' the basis for your --
15 MR. LEWALD:
Yes, I thought he made a statement.
I 16 didn't know that --
l 17 JUDGE SMITH:
He saved it at the last minute with the 18 question.
i 19 Do you want the question read back?
20 MR. LEWALD:
If the witness understands the question, P
i 21 that:s what I -- I won't press it.
22 THE WITNESS: (Mileti)
If you'll forgive me, could 23 you repeat it, please?
24 BY MR. FIERCE:
25 O
I don't know if I can repeat it exactly word for l
()
[
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
r-(
CROSS - MILETI 9180
,m
(
)
1 word, but it was this:
that if you were designing a v
2 questionnaire in advance, and you wanted to really test whether 3
there was any impac t on the wording of questions, or the 4
ordering of questions, you could order Guestion X before 5
Question Y in one portion of your survey and order Question Y 6
before X in another, and then compare results to see whether 7
they differed any significantly, and based on that, could make 8
some assumptions about whether you had some bias; isn't that 9
correct?
10 A
(Mileti)
It is true in general, yes.
However, one 11 would also have to control for other factors, for example, the 12 comparability of respondents in the two different studies in 13 some sort of experimental design.
(9) 14 O
Sure, but af ter the f ac t, as you sit down as a 15 professional sociologist to analyze a survey that has already 16 been completed that didn't utilize that technique, your 17 assessment of whether one question influenced the outcome of 18 another, or your assessmer.t of whether a question's wording 19 itself influenced the answers to that question, essentially 20 become a subjective judgment, prof essional opinion, call it 21 what you will, isn't that so?
22 A
(Mileti)
Yes.
My professional opinion is all I have 23 to go on, and in evaluating this questionnaire, I used my 24 professional expertise.
25 However, I'd also like to point out that there were em i
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
CROSS - MILETI 9181
).
1-other indicators that might be considered objective.- For i;
2
. example, on Page 21 of the Rebuttal Testimony No. 4, we talk 3
about_there how different estimates of the percentage of_ people 4
who might have -- who you would_ conclude walk to the beach 5
varied on the basis of different ways-that you could get that 6
data f rom dif f erent points in the questionnaire.
7 At one point you'd conclude 95' percent of the people 8
-- that only 25 percent, or five percent of the people, walked 9
to the beach; on the basis of other evidence that 51 people, or 10 8.7 percent, walked to the beach; and yet f rom other data f rom 11 the same questionnaire that 18.3 percent of the respondents 12 walked to the beach.
i n
13 And I think that provides some empirical evidence 14 f rom the data itself that, depending upon which question you 15 wanted, you could come up with a different answer, suggesting 16 that there was some problem of a rubber ruler operating in the j
t 17 instrument somewhere.
[
18 0
Well, that specific example is a problem, pernaps, 19 with that question itself, not with the whole survey, isn't 20 that correct?
21 A
(Mileti)
I was only talking about that data.
22 Q
That's right, and your judgment with respect to tnat 23 question isn't meant to be a condemnation of the entire survey; 24 but it is a question -- it raises a question about the wording 25 of that particular question on the survey?
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
CROSS - MILETI 9182
( )
1 A
(Mileti)
Well, it centainly raises more than a 2
question.
It provides evidence that something was not 3
operating in a very consistent way in the measurement of this 4
particular factor.
5 And if I computed those numbers, or compiled them, 6
after I had formed my judgment about some of the problems with 7
the other parts of the questionnaire, I did not compile numbers 8
like that for all the questions, because in some cases there 9
was not a basis to compile numbers that could illustrate that 10 there was a problem with the internal validity.
11 H.owever, it was clear to me, and I think it would be 12 clear to any trained sociologist that had a background in 13 methods, that there were problems in both of these O
N' 14 questionnaires in reference to internal validity.
15 What I believe any prudent scholar would say is the 16 substance of my testimony.
17 G
Dr. Mileti, you believe you've performed this 18 analysis of the internal validity of these two surveys in an 19 objective way, don't yout 20 A
(Mileti)
I believe I tried my best to be objective.
21 I'm enough of a sociologist to know that the.e's no such thing 22 as a totally objective human being, and I have to say that, in 23 doing this, there were times when I felt myself feeling grossly 24 disappointed because I had, for example, offered similar 25 critiques to almost identically same questions and O
N/
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
CROSS - MILETI 9183 p)s 1
questionnaires out at Diablo Canyon; and then again on Long y
2 Island, and have had conversations with Stephen Cole and others 3
regarding these questions.
4 Some of my advice was taken to heart and they tried 5
to clean up b6me things; but others was just ignored.
G And so, there were points when I did feel frustrated 7
by seeing what I think is shoddy sociology presented in a very 8
important decisionmaking arena; and I'm embarrassed for my 9
discipline by it.
10 And I tried not to have that tolor what I wrote; and 11 I believe what I wrote, and I believe that others would agree 12 what I wrote who had a similar background to mine.
13 0
Were you embarrassed for your discipline with respect
(/
's the telephone poll that was
(
14 to your own survey that was 15 conduc ted by your graduate student?
16 A
(Mileti)
Certainly not.
I couched when I presented 17 that in my testimony those findings, I didn't even call it a 18 study, I called it an assessment, and I was happy to critique 19 it myself.
It was some information when there was none.
I 20 certainly didn't present that as if it were an ability to 21 prophesize into the f uture; it was people's recollections on do 22 you remember whether or not workers didn't show up for work.
23 It was their best recollection done long af ter the event, and I 24 criticized the quality of that sort of information.
25 It was some information when there was none, and I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
CROSS - MILETI 9184
()
1 think I presented it in that context.
2 0
'Dr. Mileti, you've stated, have you not, that survey 3
results of this nature, the Social Data Analysts survey and the 4
Cole survey, with respect to their behavioral intention 5
questions are the worst conceivable inf ormation ' th' ' could be i
6 assembled upon which to base judgments or judge emergency 7
plans?
8 A
(Mileti)
I think the SDA survey and the Cole survey 9
are the same thing.
10 0
Excuse me, the SDA survey and the Luloff survey.
11 A
(Mileti)
I'm sure that I've said in the past that l
12 behavioral intention polls about how people think they might 13 behave given a future emergency is the worst possible data I
()
i 14 could imagine using to then base emergency plans on, presuming n
15 that people's voiced answers, when an emergency was not going 16 on, is indeed what would happen in terms of public behavior r
17 when an emergency did occur.
I 18 I certainly have said that in the past.
I don't know t
19 if that's exactly what you asked in the question, but I 20 certainly believe that today, still.
f 21 Q
And you've taken this position in the past at other 22 NRC proceedings?
You mentioned some of them a minute ago.
23 A
(Nileti)
I've taken it, yes, at other NRC
+
24 proceedings, and I've also taken it at other places that had 25 nothing to do with the NRC.
(
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
CROSS - MILETI 9185
)
1 Q
And--I believe you just indicated that you've met Dr.
2-Cole at. previous NRC proceedings as an opponent, I take it, in 3
the past, is that correct?
4 A
(Mileti)
I sure have.
5 Q
How many' times?
6 A
(Mileti)
We've have probablyfencountered each other 7
at NRC hearings perhaps physically three -- most likely four, 8
times.
And we've talked once on the telephone.
9 0
Were there other NRC proceedings where you each filed 10 opposing testimony but did not physically meet?
11 A
(Mileti)
I don't remember.
I suppose it's possible,-
12 but I sure don't remember.
You don't agree with his views, he doesn't agree with 13 0
14 yours, is that fair to say?
15 A
(Mileti)
That's a pretty general question.
I'm sure J
16 he must have some views that I agree with, but probably not in 17 reference to behavioral intentions being able to predict future 18 emergency behavior'for the public.
19 I know that we disagree on that point; I'm sure that 20 there might be other things that we've never chatted about that 21 we might agree about.
22 Q
On November 20, 1987, in these proceedings, didn't 23 you say that you "grossly" disagreed with Stephen Cole's view 24 that there's a strong relationship that we know exists between 25 the kind of emergency information people get in an emergency i O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
m.
~
i CROSS - MILETI 9166 1
and what people do in response to that emergency?
And that 2
that would not hold in a radiological accident?
3 A
(Mileti)
I'm sorry, would you please repeat that 4
more slowly?
5 0
All right.
Let me break that into two questions.
6 Dr. Cole's view with respect to your position that 7
there'is a strong relationship between the kind of information 8
people get in an emergency, and what people do in response to 9
that emergency, Dr. Cole-takes issue with that' view in the 10 context of radiological accidents, isn't that true?
11 A
(Mileti)
I suppose in general, yes.
However, it 12 would be better if he answered that question.
.13 However, as I recollect these most recent hearings, 14 under cross-examination Dr. Cole restated his position, which 15 was at variance with his prefiled testimony in which he said 16 all he and his colleagues were claiming was that emergency 17 information could not eliminate all shadow evacuation.
It was 18 in reference to that particular phenomenon.
19 So I think he does agree that emergency information 20 has an effect on what people do in response to an emergency.
21 And I suppose that he and I might argue to what 22 extent it might have an impact, and to what extent other 23 f actors might af f ect emergency response.
24 O
Do you remember being asked a question back on 25 November 20 and giving this answer:
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
~w
,_-r
-w,
- + - - -
CROSS - MILETI 9107
~( )
1 "Question:
People who take the other view from_your 2
own are respected scholars in the field, are they not?
3 "Answer (Mileti):
I think that's a matter of debate.
4 The place where this came out was in the views of James 5
Johnson, Jr. and Stephen Cole in the Shoreham litigation, where 6
they reached conclusions, for example, that the strong 7
relationship we know exists between the kind of emergency 8
information people get in an emergency and what people do in 9
response to that emergency would not hold in a radiological 10 accident.
And I grossly disagree with that."
11 Do you recall giving that answer, Doctor?
12 A
(Mileti)
It sure sounds like me.
I don't recall 13 saying those words, but it sounds like me talking.
(
14 O
And in these proceedings, also in November, later in 15 November on the 30th, didn't you make an uncalled-for, highly 16 critical comment about Stephen Cole?
17 A
(Mileti)
I certainly remernber making a comment that 18 the attorneys for the MS AG, as well as Mr. Dignan, thought was 19 inappropriate.
I don't know that it was highly uncalled-for, 20 in my opinion.
21 O
Well, it wasn't responsive at all to the question, 22 was it?
23 A
(Mileti)
That's a --
24 MR. LEWALD:
Objection.
25 JUDGE SMITH:
What's the question -- the second f~)
Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) G28-4888 l
l t
I CROSS - MILETI 9188
(,)
1 question, that is being objected to?
us 2
MR. LEWALD:
He's asking the witness, really, to give 3
a legal ruling on whether or not some answer was responsive to 4
a question, and I 5
JUDGE SMITH:
Oh, all right.
6 MR. LEWALD:
And the witness has testified earlier 7
that he didn't think that his answer was uncalled-f or,' and now 8
we're getting off into the legal grounds as to whether or not 9
it should be stricken because it's non-responsive.
10 JUDGE SMITH:
If that's what you have in mind, Mr.
11 Fierce, the objection should be sustained.
12 MR. FIERCE:
I'm not suggesting that I'm asking the 13 witness for a legal conclusion here at all, but why don't I
('%
(s/
14 just ask the witness whether he made this statement?
He 15 recalls making this statement, and the question comes f rom the 16 transcript on November 30th at Page 6467.
17 MR. DIGNAN:
I have a copy of it, do you?
I think it 18 is November 20th.
At least that's where 6467 is.
19 MR. FIERCE:
Okay.
I stand corrected.
20 DY MR. FIERCE:
21 O
And the question begins, "Now on the very first page there's a reference to an article you had 22 of this article" 23 written -
"there is the following two sentences, ' Methods of 24 sociological research along with social theory are the 2S heartbeat of the discipline.
They separate sociological r
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
f F
CROSS - MILETI 9189 i )
i researchers from general members of the public.
As lay members 2
of society, we observe human life and we make generalizations.
3
"'But no matter how astute and insightf ul our 4
generalizations are, they are not scientif ic, and are therefore 5
open to criticism for being unreliable and biased.'
6 "Now, in light of'that, which I am sure you would 7
agree with today, that statement that I read, you still would 8
adopt, wouldn't you?
9 "Answer (Mileti):
I think it's a great statement and 10 I would like you to read it to Stephen Cole."
11 Do you recall making that statement?
12 A
(Mileti)
Yes, I do.
I also recall asking you to not 13 to tell Stephen that I did it.
14 Q
And I haven't told Stephen that you did it.-But I'm 15 bringing it up today because I think it night be relevant to 16-this next question that I'm going to ask you, which is --
17 MR. DIGNAN:
Well, before you ask another question, 18 you read this and had the witness say he said it.
Now, your 19 colleague, Mr. Traficonte, was successful in getting that 20 stricken the last time.
Now do I understand it's now in 21 evidence, now that you've had him repeat it?
22 Your Honor, if you look at that page, what occurred -
I 23 l
24 MR. FIERCE:
Your Honor, first of all, I'm going to i
P 25 object --
p
(
Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 P
CROSS - MILETI 9190
,m (s_j 1
MR. DIGNAN:
Excuse me --
2 MR. FIERCE:
to being hit with objections from two 3
attorneys on the other side.
4 MR. DIGNAN:
Well, he's being hit for some reason.
I 5
had --
6 JUDGE SMITH:
Well, let's short-circuit it.
Having 7
followed the cross-examination plan, I'm aware that he's not 8
offering that statement as evidence in this case.
9 MR. DIGNAN:
Well, I'm aware he's not, too.
10 But we got a problem here.
The witness -- the reason 11 I'm in it is because I had the witness at the time it happened 12 before when the statement was in.
Mr. Traficonte objected to 13 the remark; I agreed with him; and it was stricken, l'
k%/
14 Now we've asked the witness to repeat it into the 15 record now.
What's its status?
16 It's in, as far as I can see.
And I can't believe he 17 means that, but that's the status of the record.
A stricken 18 matter has been brought back into evidence.
19 JUDGE SMITH:
What do you say, Mr. Fierce?
20 MR. FIERCE:
I want it in the record today that Dr.
21 Mileti is admitting that, on November 20, he made that 22 statement.
23 JUDGE SMITH:
Overruled.
24 MR. DIGNAN:
So stipulated.
25 BY MR. FIERCE:
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
CROSS'- MILETI 9191 t
( )-
1 O
Now,_Dr. Mileti, in the field of sociology, when one 2
professional sociologist disagrees grossly with another.
3 professional sociologist's views, and has made highly critical, i
4-uncalled-for remarks publicly about that.other sociologist, how
~
5
.much stock would other fair-minded professionals in the field 6
place in a completely subjective critique of that second 7
sociologist's work --
8 MR. LEWALD:
Objection.
9
.MR. FIERCE:
-- made by the first sociologist?-
10 JUDGE SMITH:
What's the basis of your objection?
11 MR. LEWALD:
This is an argumentative question that 12 he's presenting to the witness, and asking the witness for an 13 evaluation of the worth of an argument, and whether or not 14 admitting or asking about uncalled-for responses is --
15 JUDGE SMITH:
It calls for a hypothetical answer, and 16 the premise of your hypothetical question is unlikely to be 17 established to Dr. Mileti's satisfaction and so --
18 MR. FIERCE:
I agree with that, and I'm asking a 19 hypothetical question, and I think it's a serious one when you 20 have a debate between sociologists.
21 JUDGE SMITH:
How do you plan to prove the hypothesis 22 of your question?
23 MR. FIERCE:
I have read the statement.
The witness 24 has agreed he made it.
He doesn't have to -- he won't admit 25 that it's a critical statement.
That's for us to judge; Your O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
CROSS - MILETI 9192
. O i
"eeer to 3 o 2
MR. TURK:
Your Honor, the premise of the question 3
was that the' comments by Dr. Mileti;were uncalled-for.
And I
'4 haven't heard that Dr. Mileti's agreed to that.
5
' JUDGE SMITH:
I agree.
1.
6 MR. FIERCE:
I would expect him to deny it, Your 7.
Honor, but you heard the question and you heard the' answer.
8 JUDGE SMITH:
Okay, so your approach to it, if I 9
understand it, is you're going to ask us to infer from the 10 record that the statement was uncalled-for, and you're asking 11 Dr. Mileti to assume, contrary to his own belief, that the 12 question, the comment, was uncalled-for?
.13 MR. FIERCE:
No.
I'm taking him now into the realm 14 of hypothesis.
15 JUDGE SMITH:
Right.
f 16 MR. FIERCE:
We're not talking about Stephen Cole.
I J
17 think this is a serious question, 18 JUDGE SMITH:
But that's not the question whether it j
l 19 is serious or not; it's -- the question is -- it is a j
20 hypothetical question, and I can't conceive of how you're going 21 to prove the hypothesis to make the answer meaningful?
22 MR. FIERCE:
I don't think I nerd to get the witness p
23 to agree with the hypothesis --
24 JUDGE f;MITH:
Exactly right. That's your problem.
l 25 i
LO l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l l
L
e I
-CROSS - MILETI 9193
. )
in order to prove it.
I have' read 1
MR. FIERCE:
t 2
the statement. I.want to be able to make the argument; it's at j
5 3
least arguable, Youi Honor.
It's arguable.
4 JUDGE SMITH:
The only thread that I can see that you 5
reoceed on here is convincing.the Board that somehow those-6 statements are unca'iled-for.
And I don't know if the Board's
[
7 prepared to do it.
I mean, you're asking a hypothetical 8
question without any plan in mind how you-are going to prove 9
the hypothesis.
.i 10 MR. FIERCE:
I believe I've proved the hypothesis, 11 Your Honor, and I can, when a question is asked that has.
12 nothing to do with Stephen Cole, and the witness resporas in 13 the f ashion that he did -- has nothing to do with Stephen Cole
(
O 14
-- if that is not uncalled f or -- that was the basis f or the l
15 motion to strike, and Your Honor struck it.
16 JUDGE SMITH: That's not the problem.
The problem now 1
17 is you're asking this witness to give you an opinion based upon 18 that hypothesis, t..J he doesn't agree with it.
19 MR. FIERCE:
Your Honor --
l I
20 JUDGE SMITH:
As I understand it --
i 21 MR. FIERCE:
--- you're posing a barrier here that I 22 think is an unnecessary one.
I've got a right to argua based
)
f 23 on the record here -- I've met that hypothesis.
24 JUDGE SMITH: No question.
You can argue that.
25 MR. FIERCE:
And obviously, when a witness is being j
i I
)
h Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 t
CROSS - MILETI 9194
(~~x i
()
1 asked a series of questions like this, they're not going to be 2
admitting that they were being highly critical in an uncalled-3 for way; that's asking too much of the witness.
4 Let me make that arguroent to you.
5 JUDGE SMITH:
What is the answer that you expect him 6
to give here?
7 MR. FIERCE:
I'm asking now, in the field, I think 8
this is true probably for a variety of professions, where you 9
have individuals who publicly have been at odds with each other 10 in a variety of forums, one of those members has called, has 11 stated that he grossly disagrees with that other professional.
12 In addition, other members of the profession perceive 13 that that prof essional has made uncalled-f or, highly critical
'/
14 remarks about this other professional.
15 I want to know in the field, with fair-minded men and 16 women, who are members of that profession, put much stock in a 17 critique that that first sociologist makes of that second 18 sociologist's work.
19 JUDGE SMITH:
Do you understand the question?
20 THE WITNESS:
(Mileti)
Yes, I do, Your Honor.
21 JUDGE SMITH:
I hear no objection now: it's a 22 different question.
23 MR. LEWALD:
If he understands i t, no.
I don't have 24 any objection.
25 JUDGE SMITH:
You may answer it.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
T, x
_ r,i O_
CROSS - MILETI 9195' I) 1 THE WITNESS:
(Mileti)
I think in sociology it would
[
2 vary, and it would depend upon the quality of_the critique that t
3 was performed.
I 4
What people would do would be to look at what was t
5 being critiqued and look at the substance of the critique and 6
come to their own independent judgment.- It's called the peer 7
review process.
t 8
It also generates the equivalent of rebuttal in
-9 sociology, where people write critiques and then rejoinders to 10 journal articles that get published, et cetera.
11 We scholars are always criticizing one another as e
12 part of being a scholar in an open society.
But I think that's 13 what would happen in my discipline.
14 BY MR. FIERCE:
15 0
And to the extent that that critique is one which is 16 primarily a subjective critique, rather than one based on 17 empirical research or other objective criteria, then you're t
18 saying that the members of the profession might not place as
[
19 much stock in that critique, is that correct?
t 20 A
(Mileti)
No, I didn't say that at all.
. 21 O
I thought you said it depends on the nature of the 22 critique?
23 A
(Mileti)
Well, whether it was a good critique or a 24 bad critique, if it was as good as the critique I've offered of 25 Stephen Cole's poll, I think people would agree with me.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
h CROSS - MILETI 9196
.( )
1 O
Well, what constitutes a-good or a bad critique?
In 2
the field, wouldn't those people who might be skeptical of.that 3.
first sociologist's critique of : this other's work. look to see.
4l whether the methods employed in critiquing that work were 5
objective or empirically based, and if they were they could 6
assess the validity of that critique, isn't that true?
7 MR. LEWALD:
There are three questions, I.think, that 8
have been put to the witness, Your Honor, and I'm going to 9
object to the form of;that.
He started off with a question, 10 then he elaborated on that with another question, and then 11 ;r another question followed.
. 12 MR. FIERCE:
Let me back up.
13-BY MR. FIERCE:
14 O
What constitutes a good critique?
15 A
(Mileti)
One that's competent; that speaks about 16 what's good and what's bad, or catalogues or does a competent i
17 job at what one is attempting to do.
. 18 O
And how do scientists know whether it's competent, 19 it's valid, unless they look to see whether the scientific j
20 method bao been applied appropriately in doing the work?
21 A
(Mileti)
The scientific method is a way about going 22 about stating and then testing a hypothesis.
And it's a method 23 applicable to any scienr.e, and can be applicable to those 24 sociologists who choose to approach it scientifically.
25 I don't think that method is the method that is
(
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
CROSS - MILETI 9197
(
1 applicable to critiquing whether or not there's a. potential for 2
bias or a lack of internal validity in a poll, particularly 3
when basic canons or rules or procedures about how not to write 4
questions free of bias are violated.
I 5
I think that a sophomore undergraduate with one 6
undergraduate class in research methods would be able to detect 7
some of the problems with some of the que stions in these two 8
polls.
Certainly not all of them.
9 So I guess I don't understand your question about use 10 of the scientific method in critiquin<g a poll that obviously 11 violates how to write less-biasing qsestions.
1 12 O
Well, I think that is my point:
that that rophomore 13 student, when applying certain principles that he has been 14 instructed to apply, using subjective methodology, boy, this 15 principle doesn't seem like it applies here to these questions, 16 could come to the conclusion without doing any data collection 17 that the question was poorly drawn.
That's what you're saying, 4
18 isn't it?
19 A
What I'm saying is that if a basic rule is violated -
20
- for example, don't put answers in questions -- all someone 21 needs to do is detect that there's an answer in a question to 22 reach the conclusion that's not the best way to word a t
23 question, that it holds the potential for bias, and one cannot 24 therefore conclude that the answers are as internally valid as 25 they could be.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.~-
'i s
CROSS..MILETI 9198 l
-( )
.1 And we must inbor when we construct such 2
questionnaires -- and it's very difficult to do, I grant anyone 3
that --1to remove as many sources of bias or systematic error t
~4 as is possible,-rather than leave them obviously there.
5 JUDGE SMITH:
I think you're straying somewhat from l
l 6
your. objective here in your cross-examination.
Item II.
7 MR. FIERCE:
I was going to try to tie it up right 8
now, Your Honor.
9 BY MR. FIERCE:
10 0
Let me bring you back to the question that I asked, 11 and ask a variant on it:
if you had that situation, that kind 12 of a debate that was observed by other fair-minded 13 professionals,.where one had grossly disagreed with the other's
)
views, where you had the perception that that sociologist had 14 15 made uncalled-for public critical remarks of that second 16 sociologist, isn't it at least true that the members of the 17 prof ession would give that critique done by that first 18 sociologist of the second's work an extra measure of scrutiny 19 when they looked at it and tried to judge whether it was good 20 or bad?
21 A
(Mileti)
No, I don't believe so.
I think it would 22 draw more attention to the work, and more people would read it, 23 which is sometimes why people get in debates to begin with.
24 However, I think people would look at it and make 25 their own judgment, and I think if one brought in a dozen O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I h' I
CROSS - MILETI 9199
()
1 sociologists chosen at random from the nation, and let them 2
read the transcript -- and I. don't think sociologists would say
- 3 that my comment, I wish you'd read that to Stephen Cole, was a-4 critical comment.
5 I think after they saw the poll, they'd agree with 6
it.
7 O
Dr. Mileti, I want to change the topic at this point j
8 and ask you some other questions regarding your views and the i
l 9
differences you have with Stephen Cole, and I'want to see if I 10 can summarize accurately for,you -- see if I can get your l
11 agreement in a quick way of what essentially the position you 12 take with respect to emergency information and its role in 13 generating emergency response is.
r.
(
14 Let me just take it slowly, piece-by piece.
You do 15 agree, it is part of your view, I have gathered and seen in j
16 your testimony, that f or planning purposes, of emergencies at
[
17 nuclear plants, the planner should assume that pre-emergency
[
l 18 fear of-radiation is very high.
Isn't that correct?
1 19 A
(Mileti)
I would prefer restating it by saying
[
t l
20 planners st vuld presume that there are people who would have I
i 21 high levels of fear, as well as people who have low levels of h
5 22 fear, as well as people in between, because one therefore might j
I 23 be able to cover all the bases, given what people might happen l
24 to fear or not fear in the future when an actual emergency i
l 25 occurs.
-l i
+
()
i Heritage Reporting Corporation i
(202) 628-4888 l
l
)
<:t,,+,
1
-c t
9,v.
CROSS - MILETI 9200 i
({
1 So I guess my answer is a qualified yes.
s 2
O And you also believe that this pre-emergency fear has t
?
3 a role?
It is one of the determinants which influences what 4
you call the people's situational perception of risk in an 5
emergency, is that correct?
s 6
A (Mileti)
It's one of many factors, yes, that can
?
-7 affect situational risk perceptions.
There are many others.
8 O
And one of the others is what you would call the 9
character of the public information available at the' time of
+
10 the emergency, isn't that correc t?
l 11 A
(Mileti)
Yes, of course.
However, I would not call 12 it one of the others, because information takes on many-13 dif f erent configurations, and one would want to look at it 14 more than as one factor; but rather in the multitude of factors 15 that comprise emergency information.
And they certainly would 16 affect and interact with other factors to help shape i
17 situational risk perceptions, yes, ducir g the emergency.
18 Q
And you believe that when the character of the public
}
19 information is poor during an emergency, then pre-emergency 20 fear could become a more significant factor as a determinant of I
21 response, isn't that true?
t 22 A
(Mileti)
In general, yes, as well as people's sex 23 and whether they are married or not, or all the other factors 24 that could affect things.
25 Dut I would particularly f ocus that comment, or would l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
_ _ _ ~ _ _ _,,. - _., _, _ _.. _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _, _ _. _,., _. _ - _ -
- V t
I
.t i
'M CROSS - MILETI 9201
()
1 qualify it, by-saying I wouldn't. lump all the emergency 2
inf ormation together, and I would distinguish between of ficial 3
information and whether there was any or not. For example, an t
4 EBS system and an ENC's behavior and that sort of thing, versus
-l 5
the other kind of information, because in that kind of a
i-6 situation, where we have emergency plans that official 7
information has a more profound effect than the generic.
C' information.
i 2
9 So one could have confusing general information and 10 not-so-confusing EBS and ENC sorts of inf ortnation, and ha ? - the 11 public form a good situational risk perception.
In that l
12 situation, that's kind of in the middle.
13 14 15
)
16 4
17 18 19 20 21 i
j 22 23 24 25 O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
CROSS - MILET!
9202 r"s
(_)
1 O
Okay, but your concern is that the official public 2
information be as good as it possibly can; isn't that true?
3 A
(Mileti)
If we're doing emergency planning, why not 4
plan to make it be as best as we possibly can, given what we l
5 know; yes.
6 Q
And because the better the official public 7
inf or tna t i on, the less a f ac tor in determining response such 8
things as pre-emergency fears, sex, et cetera, will be?
9 A
(Milet1)
In general, yes.
10 0
Now, I think I've heard you say at some point in time 11 that good public information, officiel public information, is 12 the key determinant in emergency response during emergencies; 13 would you agree with that?
14 A
(Mileti)
Oh, yes, I know I've used that and have 15 written it, and the reason is that if we didn't have good 16 emergency information, then other factors would potentially 17 play a larger role.
And I would say in looking across 10 emergencies that, I wouldn't say there wasn't good emergency 19 information there but rather the lack of it was still the major 20 reason other f actors may have had a greater influence.
21 Q
Stephen Cole doesn't believe that; does he?
F 22 A
(Mileti)
I can't say I'm sure what Stephen believes.
23 I do know that we've certainly disagreed on the relative 24 effects of pre-emergency differences in the public that have I
25 been illustrated to covary with response in subsequent Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4880 1
CROSS - MILETI 9203 g)s
(
1 emergencies versus emergency information.
2 My recollections come from litigation five years ago 3
and they're not clear.
But I do know there's a basis for 4
Stephen and I disagreeing, as well as other of your experts and 5
I disagreeing.
6 0
Would it be fair to say that he ascribes a much 7
greater value, would say that it's a much more important 8
determinant of emergency response, to look at pre-emergency 9
fears than you do?
10 A
(Mileti)
I don't know if he'd actually say that, and 11 I really don't.
If you -- I really don't think thets's that 12 much disagreement between what I say and what Stephen says.
I 13 do know that he -- I'm not even sure he's even read the
~]
14 research on how people respond to emergencies or ever been to 15 one.
16 And I think the thrust of his expertise is centered 17 on his poll.
So I don't know whether it was he or Don Zeigler 18 or James Johnson with whom I may have argued that at other 19 nuclear plants.
20 I certainly do recollect talking about that before.
21 O
Is the primary issue that you have debated in the 22 past at these nuclear plant proceedings been the shadow 23 evacuation issue?
24 A
(Mileti)
It certainly has been one, but I would say 25 the primary issue is role conflict.
I think more attention is O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) G28-4888
CROSS - MILETI-9204 l3
(/
1 focused on that.
But certainly a lot of attention has also 2
been focused on what's been called shadow or voluntary 3
evacuation, from my point of view; I'ra sure there are other 4
issues that I don't know about.
5 0
Now, taking it a step further, your views then 6
suggest to emergency planners that steps be taken to review EBS 7
messages in particular, and official public information in 8
general, to determine whether they contain the characteristics 9
as you see it of good public information; isn't that true?
10 A
(Mileti)
Yes, I would make that recomtnendation, but 11 certainly not that as the sole recommendation; no.
12 O
Oh, certainly not.
But that, with respect to EBS 13 messages, there needs to be a determination, in your view, that O
14 the messages contain the characteristics, the attributes of 15 good public information; isn't that true?
16 A
(Mileti)
They certainly wouldn't need to contain all 17 the things that I would recommend.
There have been emergencies 18 that have put out the equivalent of EBS messages where the 19 public has responded quite well.
And so there is no magic 20 yardstick that says it would have to contain all those things 21 to a certain degree.
But I certainly would recomrnend to 22 planners that they not ignore the knowledge that we have about 23 public information, including what would be said in the EDS 24 message.
Why wouldn't you take that into account.
25 JUDGE HARDOUR:
Mr. Fierce, would you explain to the O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
~
e CROSL - MILETI 9205
.p 3
-ja (m,1 '
1
~ Board whatipart offthe direct testimony.you are cross-3;;,
2
. examining on?'
3 MR.. FIERCE:s Well. I would like to approach'the bench 4
and do 'this outside the ears of the witness.-
5 JUDGE SMITH!. Yes.
Do you.want other counsel 6
.present?-
i 7
MR. FIERCE:
If they would like to be present.
8 JUDGE SMITH:
AIT right.
It this is important'to 9
you.
Let's go on back to the chambers.
This is not on your 10 cross-examination plan?
L 11_
MR. FIERCE:
It is, it's No. III.
4 12' JUDGE SMITH:
Well, that's what prompted the 13 question.
(T()\\
l l
14~
JUDGE HARBOUR:
It's on 1h6 cross-examination plan.
I 15 JUDGE SMITH:
Come on up.
4 16 (Bench conference.)
17 (Brief recess.)
18 MR. BACKUS:
Your Honor,'before you resume.wi'th the 19.
. witnesses and by agreement with the attorney Fierce there's just'a couple of things-I'd like to bring up, if I.might.
4 20 21 I have no' examination fce this panel.
And I am 22 interested, however, in the discussion that's going to take l
23 place on the scheduling.
Is that going to take plat.e today or 24 not?
25-JUDGE SMITH:
Well, we'll leave it to the pleasure of A
V Heritaga Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ua.a
a
.\\
CROSS --MILETI 9206 7-1!M \\_/
1 the parties..'I understand the schedule-was not served until 2
this morning, at-least to Mr. Dignan.
3 1R. BACKUS:
Nor to me.
4 JUDGE SMITH:
To you.
L
.MR.-BACKUS:
And I would like to reonest that we 6
maybe take_that up.whenever it's the convenience of the Board, 7
but maybe first thing tomorrow morning so we'll know.
8 JUDGE SMITH:
That's fine with us if everybody is 9
ready.
g 10 MR. BACKUS:
The other thing I~just wanted to
.11 mention, Your Honor, because I'd like to a<c leave to be 12 excused for the rest of the day, is, in our view we have a 13 c or.c ern that the record of the 1983 hearings be treated.as part b
14 of the record that's available for this decision that's before 15 this Board.
16 I don't know if the Board has thought about that at 17 all.
Of course, the only memwer of this panel that was there 18 at the time is Judge Harbour.
We believe that that record L
19 should be available to support requests for findings and 20 rulings in this proceeding, insofar as, of course, that the h
[
21 Board can find the testimony relevant and probative.
22 And I just wanted to advise the Board and the parties 23 that in our view some portions of that 1983 record dealing with 24 evacuation time estimates is relevant, and we will be referring 25 to it.
ll.
LO Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
L l
! Ji y;; ^
~
CROSS - MILETI
.9207.
- f_,-
A )-
1 MR. TURK:
Your Honor, I --
2 JUDGE SMITH:
There's no motion, you're just telling-3 us.
4
-MR. BACKUS:
I'm just-telling you and I'm going to
^
5 invite the parties. if 'there's anybody who f eels that this is 6
not part of the record that's available in this proceeding, 7
MR. DIGNAN:
It's not, in my judgment.
8-MR. BACKUS:
It's not, in your judgment?
9 MR. DIGNAN:
Yes.
t 10 MR. BACKUS:
Well, then at some point -
Hn 11 MR. DIGNAN:
I wish it were, but it is note IBecause 12 only one of the Judges heard it, and I'm not sure of the quorum 13 rule.
I don't want to run'a risk that the quorum rule
~O 14 overtakes us later,-but only one of the Judges heard that 15 testimony.
And neither of these Judges were appointed to 1
16 fulfill the duties of the other Judges on that part of the 17 record.
18 MR. BACKUS:
I don't'think the quorum rule need to 19 detain us, because this is a record that was made in the docket
.20 of this proceeding.
It is transcribed.
I think we've.been 21 around this before.
I don't think this is testimony that is 22 primarily dependent on the credibility as determined by the 23 demeanor of the witnesses.
24 But I am interested in using certain portions of the 25 1983 record as a basis for request for findings in this O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 s
l
~.
4 i
m.
^
5 CROSS - MILETI
'9208-g-
9t A 1
proceeding.-
-I certainly hope I'm entitled to do that oriat~
2
- least'get my cost for~ going toca hearing.that has no meaning..
3 MR.'DIGNAN:
Well',1 hit the government for costs,.but 4
5 MR. BACKUS:
I'd love to.
6 MR.-DIGNAN:
-- the point I'm getting at, Your Honor, 7
is that the ETE that was under, wholly apart from the quorum
~
8 rul'e which at least I'd want to look at before I happily 9
. acceded to.that request because I think we could be setting 10 ourselves up for something that is error that can't be cured if-11 we do that.
12 But aside from that, I remind the Board, it was an 13 entirely different ETE that-was heard.. We lost the argument to
- 14 Mr. Backus.
That should have ended it because there was one I-15 ETE hearing and one is all you need.
And he and others a
16 persuaded the Commission that we were dead wrong in that and 17 that we had to have a hearing on this ETE.
The other ETE that d
18 was heard is not this ETE.
19 MR. BACKUS:
No, I'm not arguing.that that's an ETE
- 20 that this Doard -- the ETE, the evacuation time estimate uas 21 discussed in 1983, I don't intend to argue that that's one that 22 should be adopted by the Board in this proceeding.
I 23 understand we've got different ETEs in this proceeding.
- 24 But I think there is testimony in there that's 25 relevant to the issues we're discussing.
(
H8Filaf8 R8p0FliR8 08PPoration L
(202) 628-4888 i
CROSS MILETI 9209 kg
, )
'1' JUDGE. SMITH:
Well, without deciding whether, as a-2-
category of evidence, that transcript.could be cited,.without 3
deciding that, you have a very large problem and that-is,
~
4 citing anything from a large volume, a large body of 5
information, as to which the parties have not'had an
.6 opportunity to address or confront; that's your big problem.
7 I'm not saying whether that should be available or
[.
O not, as a category of evidence.
I don't know, this is the 9
'first time we've ever_ wrestled with the problem. -But you still 10 have another problem and that is, any item of bulky evidence, 11 any pool of bulky evidence, as to which confrontation by the 12 adversaries has not been made available would have relatively 13 small amount of weight with the Board; we would have trouble 14 with that as one principle.
i 15 MR. BACKUS:
The only evidence that I'm interested in 16 is evidence in which all these parties were present that was 17 put in _ on direct examination and cross-examined by these 18 parties who are here with the exceptien of the Town of Hampton.
19 JUDGE SMITH:
Yes, but in what context, that's what 20 my concern is?
21 MR. BACKUS:
In the context of the ETE litigation 22 that we're engaged in now.
23 JUDGE SMITH:
You might have a mild form of 24 evidentiary collateral estoppel or something, I don't know. I I don't know.
I just 25 mean, if the context were sharp and if LO l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
i
s n
\\
\\
CROSS - MILETI 9210
(~T.
- \\_fi
'1.
- simply don't know.
But you see 9 hat the problem would be, I 1
2
.mean, you just could not reach out'somewhere, even'though there-b was evidence received-in the proceeding, you just could not i
3 1
4 reach out into a large. pool of evidence and pick out, out of
~
'5-context or without confrontation-by adversaries, particular
-6 items as a surprise.
7 MR. BACKUS:
Oh, I understand that.
I'm saying that 8
what I'm intending to rely on will not be something that was 9
without conf rontation ; 'it will be material that was admitted 10 and subjected to cross-examination.
11 MR. TURK:
Your Honor, I have a problem with that.
12
'MR. DIGNAN:
Which was much different contentions.
13 MR. TURK:
The evacuation times that we're dealing O-14 with here done by KLD is relatively new.-
As the. Board may 15 recall, I believe-it was done in 19-in progress reports 16 throughout 1986.
It's very different from the ETE that was 17 done back in the 1982 time frame.
18 The only possible use I can imagine Mr. Backus wants 19 to make of the prior testimony is to show that either the 20 Applicants or the Staff at some point accepted some different 21 approach and now they're accepting a new approach.
And maybe 22 that's -- if that's the intention that sounds like impeachment.
23 MR. BACKUS:
I won't play any games with you, Mr.
24 Turk and Mr. Dignan, I'11 tell you exactly what it shows.
It 25 shows.that the evacuation time estimates that the Applicant was Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
CROSS - MILETI 9211 s
(!
I suppoiti.ng in 1983 for an unplanned evacuation were less in 2
time than the evacuation time estimates we're talking about now 3
that the Applicant supports; that's what it shows.
4 MR. DIGNAN:
Well, the ones in Volume 6 were less 5
than the ones we're supporting now, too.
So, I mean, you've 6
.got that point all the way through; what do you need the '83 7
for?
I mean, if you want to make a big issue of that, just 8
cite Volume 6.
9 MR. BACKUS:
I'll be citing to the Applicant's direct ~
10 testimony that was introduced in 1983 as to the evacuation time 11 estimates for an unplanned evacuation.
12 MR. DIGNAN:
But not by these witnesses.
13 MR. TURK:
My problem with this, Your Honor, is if a
\\'~]
14 point is to be made of that old possibly stale record, back to 15 1983, it should have been done through cross-examination of the 16 witnesses who are on the stand in front of this Board.
17 There's no reason why Mr. Backus could not have asked 13 the witness, isn't it true that back in 1983 the Applicant had 19 some sort of an ETE done and it showed an unplanned evacuation 20 would take X amount of time.
And the witness could be examined 21 on it and if there's any significance to be drawn from that 22 fact, it could have been drawn before the Board with all 23 parties having the opportunity to confront it.
24 MR. BACKUS:
The testimony in 1983, Mr. Turk, was for 25 an unplanned evacuation.
I don't understand any of these i
v Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 s
CROSS - MILETI 9212
(\\
\\. /
1 witnesses were asked to testify about the time limits for an 2
unplanned evacuation; that was done in 1983.
The testimony was 3
offered and it was cross-examined.
4 JUDGE SMITH:
Well, we're not making any ruling, but 5
to put the parties on notice what your intentions are.
6 MR. BACKUS:
Yes.
7 JUDGE SMITH:
Mr. Fierce.
8 MR. FIERCE:
Thank you, Your Honor.
9 I wanted to clarify further what I had indicated at 10 the time I approached the bench in terms of more specifically 11 responding to Judge Harbour's question and that is that, I can 12 say it on the record.
I'm really addressing that portion of 13 Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 3 that comes on the first 14 three pages which is essentially that broadbrushed attack on
~'
15 the survey stating that regardless of the internal and external 16 validities, surveys of this type have little merit with respect 17 to behavioral intentions and emergency response.
18 BY MR. FIERCE:
19 G
And, Dr. Mileti, if I could, I wanted to direct your 20 attention to Page 2 of the Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 3 21 regarding the Social Data Analysts telephone survey.
And 22 perhaps we can use this as a quicker way to summarize your 23 views, because it seems to me that it's stated right here.
24 And looking down in the bottom third of the page is -
25
- there are two sentences which reads as follows:
"Human O
V Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
7 CROSS MILETI
'9213
~
~
rSsponse in.an emergency,;is largely directed.by factors which
.1'.prevai1.during the emergency ascit is'being experienced.
There.
~
3 factors,.for example, would include the frequency with which 4
. emergency warnings are heard and confirmed, in terac tion'.wi th 5
.other persons 1as peop1'e engage'in response decisionmaking, and 5
6 other such factors which cannot be taken'.into account by.a' pre -
7 emergency poll."
8 I'm assuming these are still your views today; isn't 91 that correct?
10 A
(Mileti)
Yes,'that's correct'.
11 Q
And your point ~here is that it's for these reasons
{.
t 12 that regardless of the validity of -- the internal validity, 13 the external validity of this poll, emergency planners at
- 14 Seabrook1should not be utilizing data from such polls to assist-15 them in designing emergency plans; isn't that correct?
16 A
'(Mileti)
That's my view in reference to behavioral 3
intentions about what people.would do in the future.. There 17 18 certainly-are legitimate uses of' polls that could be of use to i
19 people who plan for. emergencies.
20 Q
But with respect to behavioral intention polls the 21 key factor, is it not, Dr. Mileti, is your belief that good 22 public information, official public information and primarily 23 the EBS messages will be the key determinant of emergency 24 response; isn't that correct?
25 A
(Mileti)
Public information is the key determinant
()
l Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 i
'7"'
V T'
~
~+wr-e teve--,-et---+-
- m w n r & m -- me-
--m-s
-e-tC-
+ - - +
--t
-wr+--v
--w-r-
=s
r
' CROSS
-MILETI-9214
.n-
~ ~
thatl occurs during the situation to determine public. response.
ksi 1-l
~
2 However,.the passage of-this testimony that'you just read was 3'
-speaking aboutfa'few things t' hat were a bit more generic than 4
that,'that is, that there are other-factors that are 5-situational 1as people: experience an emergency.
That one'can't 6
take into account in' judging what they would do in the future.-
7 1They-could only give their best guess the day they're being 8
interviewed.
9
'And those other fact' ors that shape response aren't 10 operating, but they would operate in an actua15 emergency.
~
~11
'(Continued on next page.)
12 13 0-14 4
15 3
16 17 18 19 20 l
21' l
22 i
23 24 25 O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l-
~. -.
Y
~
9215-1 ~
Q If you were wrong, if good public information in the-f4 V
2J form of;EBS messages andfother public information doesn't exist 3
during an emergency, then pre-emergency fear and other 4
determinants of behavioral response in emergencies will be ever 5
more pronounced, isn't that true?
6 A
(Mileti).
It is true that if public emergency 7
information is very poor, then other factors will account for 8
' variation in public response in emergencies, yes.
9 Q
And one of those would be pre-emergency fear?
10 A
(Mileti)
It's possible, yes.
But there could be 11 variations across events on that, but certainly other factors, 12 including pre-emergency fear as it has a direct impact on 13 situational fear, could play a larger role, yes.
I've always
. (])
14 said that.
15 Q
Therefore, the quality of the information, whether 16 it's good or not so good, is critical, isn't it, Dr. Cole?
17 A
(Mileti)
I would agree with that, and I'm Dr.
18 Mileti.
.19 Q
Excuse me.
Dr. Mileti. I am sorry.
20 The EBS messages at Shoreham were primarily written 21 by you, isn't that true?
22 A
(Mileti)
No, that's not true.
The EBS rnessages at 23 Shoreham were written by a group of people, and I'm talking 24
.about the original EBS messages that I know about.
I don't 25 know what rev. of the plan they were in.
()
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
O 9216 r
- r y 1
They had~some EBS messages before I-ever met them,
.V
+
L2 and.then they had what I believe are better EBS messages af ter.
3.
ithat, and'the EBS messages they have now are different yet.
^
4 But when. I was involved,.there were a group of people 5
who were-involvedLin writing the EBS' messages, and we.all rnade 6
contributions.
And I participated enthusiastically in 7-
, contributing to the ideas that were on the table, but I 8
certainly wasn't the one who wrote th'em.
9 Q
.And here at Seabrook, the EBS messages -- not the 10 ones that are in the plans, but the ones that have been 11 offered, recommended for use, if you will, by the Applicants to-12 the State of New Hampshire, were also drafted,by a group of 13.
people among whom are yourself, and members of the New
'(][
14 Hampshire Yankee Staff, isn't that true, Doctor?
15 A
(Mileti)
I don't think so.
I think they were.-- if 16 we're talking about -- I should be careful here.
If you mean 17 the EBS messages which were handed to you as the latest EDS 18 messages during the hearings in Concord --
19 Q
That's right.
20 A
(Mileti)
I don't know if a group of people drafted 21 them.
I reviewed some EBS messages and made some comments and i
22 recommendations; and I believe a person drafted them rather 23 than a group of people.
t
- 24 O
Do you know who that person is?
l-l 25 A
(Mileti)
Evelyn Fisher.
I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4880 l
9217 7) 1 O
Pardon?
2 A
Evelyn Fisher.
3 O
Evelyn Fisher.
And do you know what her background 4-and qualifications are?
5 A
(Mileti)
I believe she's a planner.
She may have 6
told me what her educational background is, but I don't 7
recollect.
8 0
Your basic conclusion with respect to the proposed 9
EBS messages, the recommended EBS messages, is that once honed 10 more closely to follow what you consider to be the ideal types 11 for emergency information, these prototypical attributes, then 12 you would think that the EBS messages for Seabrook Station 13 would provide the listening public the most solid footing on i,,I 14 which to base decisionmaking.
Does that sound familiar to you, 15 Doctor?
16 A
(Mileti)
I believe you're reading from my prefiled 17 ETE testimony from a few months back.
18 O
And I think it was also paraphrased in an answer you 19 gave during cross-exam, but that is essentially your view, is 20 it not?
21 A
(Mileti)
Yes, I think those messages labored to take 22 into account the factors that research has shown as important 23 to take into account in emergency information; and again, 24 that's not to say that if I picked up those EDS messages I 25 couldn't find a way to improve them or change them, but that rm U
He ritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 s
9218 1
would never end.
Q) 2 O
And the judgment about whether those messages need 3
those attributes is yours, isn't it, Dr. Mileti?
You're the 4
one who's reviewed them, not some committee, isn't that 5
correcL7 6
A (Mileti)
I certainly have reviewed them.
And I have 7
not been silent about my judgments about them, but others have 8
also reviewed them, and as I understand it, will review them.
9 I'm not sure if all the reviews have been done.
10 G
Other professionals who have been involved in 11 emergency warning drafting in prior proceedings?
12 A
(Mileti)
I don't think I know if I can answer that 13 question.
I do know, for example, they were submitted to the
('/
14 emergency preparedness officials at the State of New Hampshire i
s_
15 level, and I would presume that those persons had some 16 background in emergencies, but I don't know what it is.
17 O
There was a statement that you made in response to 18 cross-examination on Page 6477 of the record, if you have that, 19 and it is as follows, "The current EBS messages are currently 20 undergoing review in light of what I think constitute the ideal 21 type for warnings for the public."
22 Do you recall that statement?
23 MR. TURK:
Your Honor, Dr. Mileti is not my witness, 24 but I want to note an objection on several grounds, not to the 25 form of the question, but to the fact that this is testimony l ()
Heritage Reporting Corporation I
(202) 628-4888
(
L
9219 a
.eg
-1 that was presented.previously; there was' cross-examination on k.I line seems~to me to have been explored 2-it previously. The whole 3
previously; I don't see that it's picked-up in this rebuttal 4
. piece offered by Dr. Mileti, and with no disrespect, I think 5
we're' treading over the same ground with no purpose.
And out 6
of time.
7 JUDGE SMITH: Well, we know what his purpose is.
8 MR. TURK:
I don't.
I don't have the benefit of Your 9
Honor having the outline in front of me.
10 JUDGE SMITH:
I do think.it could probably go more 11 directly to it, and move to your purpose a little bit'more-12 directly, if you wouldn't mind?
13 BY MR. FIERCE:
()
14 G
Dr. Mileti, are you aware of any other professionals 15 in the field of emergency-warnings like yourself who've written 16 EBS messages in the past; who participated in the drafting of 17 EDS messages in the past f or nuclear plants, who is involved 18
- now reviewing the proposed EBS messages for Seabrook or was-19
- involved in the drafts that you and others presented to us at 20 the hearings in Concord?
12 1 A
(Mileti)
I'm not aware that another Dennis Mileti-22 type person is reviewing those EBS messages.
However, I did 23 send a copy of them to a friend of mine who shares my 24 expertise, but his judgments wouldn't bear any influence on I
25 what emergency preparedness for this nuclear power plant would I
()
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l-f
[.
+.
r 9220
~:
1 be.
2.
'O.
It would not be incorporated.in any. recommendations 3'
or' opinions you might offer?
4 A
(Mileti)
No.
I didn't solicit his judgments, and I 5
think his would--be the same as mine.
It's just that my friend, 6
John Sorenson, collects EBS~ messages.
So I sent him this 7
latest set.
8 He's a nice fellow, by the way.
He is not weird r
9 that he sollects EBS messages.
10 0
I'm sorry.
I didn't hear that --
11 MR. TRAFICONTE:
You may have overheard counsel.
12 BY MR. FIERCE:
'I 13 Q
All right, Dr. Mileti, prior to your work on the EBS
[(
14 messages here for Seabrook, what's the.last, most recent set of 15 EDS messages that you did work on?
Was it Shoreham?
i 16 A
(Mileti)
No.
I worked on some, the equivalent of 17:
EB-- only nuclear power plants, that I know about, call them 18 EBS messages.
But since working on Shoreham's, I also worked 19 on emergency broadcasts for the President of Colombia for the 20 next eruption of Nevado del Ruiz, and emergency announcements j
i 21 for the director of the Department of the Interior and the l-l.
22 Director of the U.S. Geological Survey for updates regarding 23 the impending great Southern California earthquake.
24 Those are the two that I recollect.
25 O
The last nuclear plant EBS messages you worked on,
()
Heritage Reporting Corporation j
(202) 628-4888 l
y
~.
a s a
9221
-d-
.1 were those at Shoreham?'
,%5 Shoreham 2
A (Mileti)
No.
Wolf Creek came in between 3
and Seabrook,'as I recollect.
4 Q
Dr. Mileti, in the litigation over the February 1986 5-exercise at Shoreham, the.Intervenors there highlighted several 6
inconsistencies with.the EBS messages used which they claimed 7
would detract from the effectiveness and decrease the a
8 likelihood-that LILCO's protective action recommendations would 9
be followed.
Do you recall that?
10' A
(Mileti)
-I think you may be referring to the EBS
.11 messages that were used during-their last full participation, 12 although --
13 Q
I said the February 1986 exercise.
(}
14
.A
-(Mileti)
Yes, I do remember those EBS messages, yes.
15 O
Did you also participate in reviewing those messages?
4 1GL MR. LEWALD:
I'm going to object to the "also" in the 4
17
. question.
18 JUDGE SMITH:
Do you want to strike "also?"
19 BY MR. FIERCE:
20 0
Certainly.
21 Did you participate in reviewing those EBS messages 22 before they were utilized?
23 A
(Mileti)
No, I didn't review them before they were 24 utilized.
25 Q
Where did they come from if you didn't review those i
. ()
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
4
~
9222 yi 3..I 1
-EBS.~ messages?
2' A
(Mileti). Those - EBS messages were the example EDS 3
. messages'in whatever rev. of the plan was in place prior to the
~
4-exercise, and then they were changed to suit what was going on
~
~
5 during the~ exercise by whoever it was that isrued EBS messages 6
during that exercise.
s 7
And to this. day, I don't know who those people or 8
person was.
9
-Q Do you recall participating in the hearings, the 10 litigation, that resulted from that February '86 exercise?
11 A
(Mileti)
Yes, I do.
12 O
And you participated with respect to this challenge 13 the'intervenors had raised, the Suffolk County intervenors had
~ O.
14 raised, to these EBS messages, didn't you?
15 A
(Mileti)
-I offered testimony about emergency 16 information, including a comment on the EBS messages that came 17' out during the exercise, yes.
18 Q
EBS Message No. 2 stated, did it not, Dr. Mileti, 19 that, "A very minor release has occurred," and then in the same a
20 message stated that a release was not imminent. Do you remember 21 that?
(
22 A
(Mileti)
I sure do.
And I was the reason the j
23 attorneys on the other side found that out.
I criticized that 24 message in my deposition.
25 0
You admitted that that could have been confusing and l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
l '.
9223
(_.)
l' it wasn't a trivial inconsistency?
2 MR. LEWALD:
Objection to the argumentative question.
3 Admitted.
There's no need of that choice of words in the 4
sentence, that question.
5 JUDGE SMITH:
Admitted gives the connotation that he 6
had an interest in the statement.
You haven't established 7
that.
8 MR. FIERCE:
Your Honor, I happen to be reading from 9
the partial initial decision.
10 JUDGE SMITH:
It's the word "admit" that's causing 11 you trouble.
If you rephrase it to substitute the word "state" 12 for admit, I don't think you'd have any trouble.
13 BY MR. FIERCE:
14 O
Did you state that it could have been confusing? That 15 it was not trivial?
16 A
(Mileti)
I don't remember if I said it could have 17 been confusing, and if I said it was trivial.
18 I do remember being asked during my deposition by a 19 Suffolk County attorney what -- and I just vaguely remember --
20 what faults might there have been in the EBS messages that I 21 had reviewed.
And that was one that I pointed to, and I wasn't 22 asked a specific question about it.
But it was the very first 23 thing I saw that I told LILCO I thought there was a fault in 24 the EDS messages.
25 So I didn't admit to it; I volunteered it during my O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l 9224
~ /^i L(_)
1
_ deposition.
2' G
I'm only. reading from'the partial initial decision, 3
Dr. Mileti',-which has a sentence ~that reads as follows:
"LILCO 4
admitted that this could have been confusing and that it was 5
not ' trivial.'"
6 And-the citation includes, among other things,.a 7
reference to the transcript at Page 3212 and -13 and 3365 to -
8 66, to your testimony.
Could ou have used the word 9
"admitted"?
10 A
(Mileti)
Well, first let me say I'm not LILCO.
I'm 11 Dennis Mileti, and I have no idea if I could have used the word 12 "admitted" or not.
I do remember that deposition very clearly 13 down to what kind of soda I had at the break, and I --
O 14 O
This reference is to the transcript, Dr. Mileti.
15 JUDGE SMITH:
Well, you're not going to go very far 16 along that line.
You have him testifying that he stated it.
17 Now you're trying to place upon him a sponsorship of a message 18 or a position or something which hasn't been established.
And 19 you haven't established it f rom that.
You don't know what --
20 could be that LILCO's proposed findings cited his statement. I 21 don't know.
It could be an admission by LILCO.
22 But you're not going to be able to pin onto him "an 23 admission", or privity toward any position that admission would s
~
24 be connected to.
25 MR. FIERCE:
I don't want to ascribe any legal O
Heritaga Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
~
9225 y.
- (,/
1'
. connotation to the question.
I don't have the transcript.
I 2.
only got the --
3 JUDGE SMITH:
Just the-ordinary use of the word 4
"admit."-
I mean, that's your problem. - You're stuck with that, 5
and you don't need to do'that.
. hl 6
BY MR. FIERCE:
7 G
.Dr.'Mileti, this partial initial decision also tells 8
me the following:
it states on page 165 that, "Dr. Mileti 9
argued, however, that in his opinion, the confusion arising-
'10 from EBS Message No.2 would have only made the public 'more t
11 vigilant,' and more likely to keep tuned to LILCO's EDS e
12 system."
13 And again, there's a reference to the transcript at
,,d 14
'Pages 3376 to -77 to your testimony.
Do you recall making that 15 statement, Doctor?
16 A
(Mileti)
Yes, in general, I certainly do. 'And it i
t 17 was in the context of what I thought the public would do.
That 18' EBS message did not exist in isolation; it was -- I'm not sure 19 I remember this, but it may well have been prefaced by a prior
[
20 EBS message; and I certainly know that a subsequent EBS message i
21 came out.
i 22 And in looking at the entire set of simulated i
23 information that went to the public during that exercise, that 24 was indeed my judgment about what effect I thought it might 25 have.
Not that I would recommend that it ever be repeated in l
()
Heritage Reporting Corporation 1
(202) 628-4888 i
i A--
__m,_
9226 k_)
1 another EBS message.
It's a glaring inconsistency.
2 Q
Are you aware, Doctor, that the Licensing Board 3
viewed this matter as an integral part of a fundamental flaw 4
found to exist during that local exercise?
5 MR. LEWALD:
Objection.
6 JUDGE SMITH:
What's the basis of your objection?
7 MR. LEWALD:
It has no relevancy to the cross-8 examination what the licensing board viewed a particular 9
finding or -- and the question just asked if he has an 10 awareness of it.
And if he does, what relevance does it have?
11 JUDGE SMITH:
Well, I think hold your objection, and 12
-- your objection's premature.
Overruled on that basis.
13 MR. LEWALD:
It isn't premature.
o 14 JUDGE SMITH:
The next question may be -- does he 15 agree with him.
That could be the next question.
I don't know 16 if it is or not.
17 MR. LEWALD:
Well, I don't, either, but he could ask 18 that so the question he does ask 19 JUDGE SMITH:
Well, he has to lay the predicate for 20 it.
Overruled.
But you can bring it back.
21 Go ahead, you may answer.
Do you remember, do you I
i 22 recall the question?
23 THE WITNESS (Mileti):
I'm sorry, I don't.
24 BY MR. FIERCE:
25 0
Are you aware that the Licensing Doard viewed this i
)
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
9227 (J
1 matter regarding EBS Message No.2 and its inconsistency as an
- :2 integral part of a fundamental flaw that it found to exist 3
during that LILCO exercise?
4 MR. LEWALD:
I'm going to object to the 5
characterization of what the licensing board filed unless we 6
have a record support for it.
7 JUDGE SMITH:
A different basis in that.
It is a 8
well-made objection.
9 MR. FIERCE:
If you would like me to mark that 10 portion of the decision as an exhibit and offer i t --
11 JUDGE SMITH:
Just show it to the parties and I don't 12 think that they'll challenge the authenticity of it.
13 Give the case number and the slip opinion --
~ (-)
14 MR. FIERCE:
Sure.
LPB 88-2. And there's a 15 discussion of these EBS messages on page 165, 166, 167, 168; 16 and on page 168, the opinion states, "We view this matter as an 17 integral part of the fundamental flaw found under Contentions 18 EX-38 and EX-39."
19.
MR. LEWALD:
I don't know if the witness has ever 20 read the decision --
21 JUDGE SMITH:
Well, you objected -- you objected 22 before --
23 MR. LEWALD:
Well, it's a different question now, and 24 I assume that he's asking him whether he agrees with or not?
25 JUDGE SMITH:
Whether he was aware of it.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
[
~ ^
9228 s
'1 MR. DIGNAN:
Well, we. find out if the witness has.
2
.readLthe' decision.
The. decision just came out.
3
- JUDGE SMITH:, We can't find out because.you're 4~
objecting.
'A 5
MR. DIGNAN:
Well,'he's never asked if_he read it.
l
~
6 JUDGE SMITH:
Well, I think se can get it all 7
straightened out.
You've seen the reference now.
You're not 8
challenging that he's' citing it correctly, I don't think. So 9,
he's not propounding a pointless question to the witness.
10 Now the thing is'he can establish whether the 11 witness is aware of it, which was his original question.
12 Are you aware of it?
13 MR. DIGNAN:
Can we approach the Bench, Your Honor, O~
14 because I, at least, read this decision, and I think some 15 things are being taken terribly out of context, but I don't 16 want to tip the witness off.
Can we go to the Bench and talk 17 to you about this?
18 JUDGE SMITH: All right.
i 19 (Bench conference.)
20 JUDGE SMITH:
While we were off the record, I asked 21 Dr. Mileti to.tell the Board whether he had read the Shoreham l
22 initial decision which issued last week and what his 23 understanding was with respect to the EBS messages.
24 And, Dr. Mileti, would you restate what you told the i
25 Board?
l
)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4088 j
i-l
9229
(_)
1 THE WITNESS:
(Mileti)
I said that I did glance at 2
the section in that report that talked about the Board's 3
disappointment in that particular EBS message and their generic 4
concern that communications were not, in their opinion, done 5
well during the exercise, which would include EDS messages but 6
wasn't limited to EDS messages.
7 JUDGE SMITH:
Okay, now, the difficulty that we're 8
facing here is that there are a lot of anticipatory objections 9
coming up, and when the time comes for them to be made, we will 10 listen to thera.
11 In the meantime, we do have a cross-examination plan 12 and it's not our practice to leap ahead on a cross-examination 13 plan to make a prejudgment as to whether the parties are going
\\ )N 14 down a road that they shouldn't.
That certainly wouldn't 15 foster the use of cross-examination plans.
16 We are just about ready to put the rcord on a state 17 where your objections can be made and a ruling can be made.
18 Now let Mr. Fierce continue.
You won't lose your i
19 opportunity.
Continue, Mr. Fierce.
Just let there be enough 20 of a record here for us to have an objection made in context.
21 BY MR. FIERCE:
22 O
Just so we can be clear, Dr. Mileti, this is a 23 situation where there was an emergency exercise of ernergen c y 24 plans at Shoreham, plans which contained emergency broadcast 25 rnessages that you and others had advised on with respect to O(~N Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1, r
.g' w 9230 1
k,)s.
_1 their content;_but that, during that exercise,'because.of the
.2 situations which developed, modifications-had to be made in EBS 3
messages.
4-Modifications.were-made, and as a result oflthe
}- y 5
litigation that has ensued af terwards, _some flaws, _ some 6'
problems, were found in those EDS messages.
7 Isn't that essentially what we're talking about?
8 A
(Mileti)
I --
9 MR. TURK:
Objection on relevance, Your Honor.
t 10 Unless we're having the same EBS message here as was at issue 11 at Shoreham, I don't see what relevance the decision in i
12 Shoreham as to those messages has to what this Court must f
1 13 address with respect to the Seabrook plant.
14 JUDGE SMITH:
Premature.
Con't i nue.
Just'let him 15 establish some relevance.
Continue.
16 MR. LEWALD:
Could we have the question again?
17 MR. FIERCE:
Can you read it bhck, please?
18 (Whereupon, the previous quettion was read back by 19 the Reporter.)
20 l
21 22 i
23 24 25 O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
r-
,_ 7-s -
b-
~
9231
,w-hh I
r-1 MR. LEWALD:-
I'd like to object to the question.
He 2
asking him,-is that what they're talking about; what are they:
i, 3
talking about, what particular thing?
4 JUDGE SMITH:
Do you know t. hat Mr. Fierce was
~
5 alluding to?
r 6
-THE WITNESS:
(Mileti)
I think so, but I know -
I 7
never really know lawyors, forgive me, are alluding to, but I O
think I understood the quest' ion.
9
. JUDGE SMITH:_ All right.
Overruled.
10 What do you understand the -question to be?
11 THE WITNESS:
(Mileti)
I participated in putting 12 together for LILCO some prototype EBS messages in some way
"'s 13 similar to those that exist here.
Arfd there was an exerciso (Q
14-and the legal process concluded there were some flub-ups and 15 how they handled those EDS messages.
16 JUDGE SMITH:
That's a fair understanding; right?
17 MR. FIERCE:
That's rights.
18 MR. TURK:
.That's a question or two.
Do 1 understand 19 Dr. Mileti is saying that's what happened or is that --
20 JUDGE SMITH:
That is how h.a is construing the 21 question; and that's to the satisfaction of Mr. Fierce.
22 MR. LEWALD:
Is that the question he's going to 23 answer, not the one that was put?
24 JUDGE SMITH:
That's the question you inay answer.
25 MR. TURK:
So we're waiting to see what the answer is Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4868 k.
NF l i,.
f.q.
MILETI, SPENCER
. CROSS 9232
~
1 to.that.
- 2 JUDGE SMITH:
Well, he's already answered 1the 3
question in the sense of describing it.
But you agree _that 4
that is'the sib;ation that you_just testified to?
5 THE WITNESS:
(Mileti)
That certainly is_the way I 6
viewed it; yes.
7 RBY NR. FIERCE:
-8 O
Now, that being the case, Dr. Mileti, don't we have
'9 to conclude from that sequence of events, that~ drafting EBS 10 messages on the spur cz' the moment, either during an exercise 11
-and for our purposes, anticipating what might happen during a 12 real emergency, and we have to assume that the EBS messages 13 actually broadcast might not be as perfectly drawn as you would
)
14 do it yourself, given the leisure of your review process, to 15 come up with that ideal prototypical message?
16 A
(Mileti)
Yes, indeed.
In fact that's what occurred 17 to me when I first saw the EDS messages that were used during 18 the exercise at Shoreham.
And one of the first things I 19 concluded was, and I certainly didn't use these words but some 20 lawyer some place might say, there's a fundamental flaw here, 21 there's a problem here.
We never instilled in those who would 22 write the EBS messages the kinds of basic principles or 23 knowledge that need to be kept into account when those 24 prototypical EBS mesnages are revised.
25 And I recornmended right there on the spot to Long O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
k'
~
'MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS 9233-l.ll;}
l 1
-Island Light Company'that-what they do'io: create a-training 2
program or module or.whatever it is that,would help educate the p
3 people in subsequent exercises in an emergency should-there be 4
one;-with-the kinds of things tx) keep ir, mir.d whe$n those 5;
prototype EBS messages are revised.
6 And I made the same recomn.endation to the people here
'7.
at Seabrook and they're proceeding as is Long Island Light-8 Company to. put something on that f ront' together,
q 9
But I agree with you, yes, just having ' those messages 10 is not adequate.- The people.who would use chrem as exarnples ore 11 beginning places in an actual ernergency aluo need to have in' 12 mind what kinds of things should go into'thone messages.
13 I said that on the witness ntana Ett LILCQ-as 7 14 recollect as well.
15 MR. FIERCE:
Your Honor, might I-have just a minute-4 16 to confer with Mr. T r s f i con te.
17 (Counsel conferring.)
18 MR. FIERCE:
I'm ready to proceed.
19 BY MR. FIERCE:
20 0
Dr. Mileti, when we were together initially for the 21 first time conducting your deposition I believe you told me 22 that when you review EDS messages it is somewhat of a 23 painstaking and detailed procers; 1sn't thet correct?
24 A
(Mileti)
It generally takes me a long time because I 25 have to review them over and over and over again because I O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
,u,
,e.
r
};
'E-u,.
J i, MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS 9234 ig '~
1 don't catch everything the first time'I look at them.
2:
0 -
ICan-you describe for us briefly the process that you S) go ; through ' when you review l EBS. messages to determine whether 3
k i
4 they do meet all the prototypical attributes that you would 5
like-to-see in good'EBo is ?
6 MR. LEWALD:
a gc g to object to the scope of this y
7-question.
We've_had wii
,he past as to what the l
8 ingredients are, and this doesn't have any direct relationship 9
to the testimony that we filed.
It's on a very limited issue, 10
.as to,Lagain, what constttutes a good-EBS message.
11 MR. FIERCE:
I'm not -- I don't want to go into that 12 part of it, I'want it to go into the time question.
13 JUDGE SMITH:
Oh, you're still on item number three 14 in-your cross-examination plan?
15 MR. FIERCE:
-Yes.
16-JUDGE SMITH:
I just don't see how that furthers your 17 purpose there.
I really think you ought to see what you can do 18 with this point or go on.
19 MR. FIERCE:
Well, it's an important point and it's a l
20 fundamental point, and that's why --
r 21 JUDGE SMITH:
Well, I know, but it has its inherent i
22 limitations.
23 MR. FIERCE:
If I might just have a little bit more l
l 24 leeway on this, Your Honor, I think I can move it ahead.
25 JUDGE SMITH:
Well, if it's that important to you,
(
i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
l
MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS 9235
(,)
1 well, you can.
But you seem to be starting back at very basic 2
fundamentals.
3 BY MR. FIERCE:
4 Q
Just on the question of time to review, Mr. Mileti, 5
can you describe briefly how long it does take on a message to 6
go through that review process to do it right?
7 A
(Mileti)
Well, I wouldn't, if I were doing it right 8
review just one message, I'd look at all of them because you 9
need to look for consistencies across all of them.
10 But basically what I do is sit down and read it with 11 one thing in mind so that I can be focused on just that one 12 thing.
For example, the specificity with which the risk
(~3 13 location is named in the message.
And I'd read the whole
\\-)
14 message just with that in mind.
15 That was the thing I liked best about the very first 16 version of the Seabrook roessages when I saw them because they e
17 named towns.
Arid it's clear what towns were at risk.
If he's 18 named a town you knes if you were in it or not.
And then I 19 read them again with something else in mind.
And then I read 20 them again with something else in mind.
21 And then to be honest with you, I lose my 22 concentration and have to stop and come back another time.
And 23 I know this is subjective, and you won't like it for that 24 reason, but that's the only way I know how to do it.
And it 25 just simply varies.
If it's an EBS message in which multiple f
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
g 1
h 4
MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS 9236
( l 1
protective action recommendations are being rnade f or dif f erent 2
areas of an EP2, for example, I think it requires more time 3
than if it's a more simple retomnundation for protective action 4
or just to go get the brochure or what have you.
So it would 5
vary by that.
6 And also it would vary by type of hazard, but of 7
course we're talking about nuclear powerplants here.
8 0
Well, I think that's a very important answer because 9
what it suggests, doesn't it, Dr. Mileti, is that during a real 10 eniergency or perhaps during the exercise as we saw down at 11 LILCO, that the time constraints involved in drafting that EBS 12 message are so constricted that you can't always be certain (O3 13 that you have achieved the goal of achieving the best EBS 14 message possible; isn't that true?
15 A
(Mileti)
I would say, yes.
You can't conduct a 16 formal review, which is what I was describing rather than a 17 ininor change to an EBS message which is what's more likely to 18 characterize what happens in an actual emergency; we're talking 19 about two different things.
I was talking about the kind of 20 evaluation I might do when I'm acting in my consulting role for 21 a utility.
22 Dut in general I would say that, certainly people in 23 an emergency, if it's a quick breaking emerEency, would have 24 less time to think about everything as opposed to if it's a 25 slow breaking emergency when they'd have more time.
n
(_)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L_
>i Ly g_
-MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS 9237
()'
i 1
And I would just like'to underscore'that the --
2 putting together the absolute best possible conceivable message 3
that Dennis Mileti and even Stephen Cole would agree on is 4
something that might take'a long time.
But it's not necessary 5'
that emergency information be perfect.
And it's impossible in 6-fact that it's going to be perfect infan actual emergency.-
j 7-But the kinds of warnings that typically go out in-8 emergenc ies don ' t even think about spec if yi ng. location.
I 9
mean, so a lot of the things are already built in to the extent' 10 that~they.can be built in.
11 JUDGE SMITH:
Mr. Fierce, the Board, I think.you'll 12 have to agree, has been very patient with you on this line, 13 We've made the.-
your adversaries and the other parties 14 subside on their objections when they did have apparent 4
15 relevancy basis with the promise that you'd be tying it up i
i i
16 soon.
17 MR. FIERCE:
We are there.
I 18 JUDGE SMITH:
And I just can't see that you're tying 19 it up.
All right.
i 20 MR. FIERCE:
Well, maybe I need to do that with the i
21 next question or two, because I'm there.
I believe --
22 JUDGE SMITH:
Yes, you do.
You certainly do.
23 BY MR. FIERCE:
24 0
We are at the point, Dr. Mileti, where even -- strike 4
25 that -- where I want to ask you this question which is, given
(
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS
- 9238, I) 1
. that these messages cannot be perf ect and that in the heat of.
2 an emergency when messages need to be redrafted promptly it is 3
difficult to come out with that perfect product.
In that 4
circumstance, shouldn't emergency planners, therefore, expect 5
pre-emergency fear and other potential determinants of
'6 emergency response might play a greater role than they would if 7
you were just looking at those messages in the comfort'of your 8
armchair back-in Colorado, the prototypical messages?
Do you 9
understand that question?
10 A
(Mileti)
-I think so.
11 Q
Do you want to try and answer it?
12 A
(Mileti)
I wouldn't expect there to be perfect 13 emergency information in any emergency.
What I think a good 14' emergency planning can achieve is putting.out adequate i
15 emergency information to the public.
For example, the -- we 16 have to go back to the beginning.
The first huge giant step 17 towards helping the public get good emergency information is 18 having an EBS system.
So we've accomplished that, that step 19 number one and we have that.
20 The next step is what goes into the EDS system.
And i
t 21 we have canned prototype example, obviously, the messages have 1
22 to be revised if emergencien could be anticipated down to the 23 last word you say to the public you could probably avoid the 24 emergency to begin with.
25 But you have a good example.
And then if'we have
(:)
Heritage Reporting Corporation i
(202) 628-4888
i MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS 9239 p,),.
1 people who would in that emergency provide that public
('-
2 information and have them be trained with what to keep in mind 3
when you're putting that sort of emergency information 4
together, I feel confident that we're going to get out 5
emergency information that if there's an emergency at a nuclear 6-powerplant I'll participate in critiquing the EBS messages and 7
there will be things to critique.
8 Dut people at risk will know that they're at risk.
9 And people not at risk will know that they're not at risk.
And 10 people who should evacuate will hear that they should evacuate, 11 and they'll hear it frequently enough, it will become confirmed 12 for them, et cetera.
13 And will there be flaws in the emergency system?
'{]
,,)
14 Yes.
But will we have labor to achieve provision of good 15 information so people can help make good decisions?
I think 16 the answer is, yes.
17 Q
My question -- my point, it may be a subtle one, it 18 doesn't seem like it to me, because think of it this way, 19 Doctor, you've got a theory which suggests that emergency 20 messages will be good; and therefore, that will be the key 21 determinant of an emergency response in an actual emergency, 22 but Dr. Cole believes that perhaps emergency messages won't be 23 so good during an actual emergency regardless of how well 24 designed they would be ahead of time, and therefore 25 pre-emergency fears become a relevant topic to examine, knowing (x
(
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
n 1
MILETI, SPENCER
- CROSS-9240:
,,c
., )s
' a.
-1 that:you've got.a situation where you won't have that perfect' 2
l mix of good public information.
Do you understand that point, 3
Doctor?
=4-MR. LEWALD:
I'm going.to object to the question, 5
it's totally argumentative.
He got the answer, the prior 6-answer to the prior questions.
He doesn't like the answers so 7
he's now arguing with the witness about it.
'8 JUDGE SMITH:
No, he's laying -- he is, I hope, 9'
laying the foundation for his next question and that is, does 10 the witness understand the context of what the next question is 11 going to be.
Is that what you're doing?
If you're.not, get to 12 your point here, if that's not it.
13.
MR. FIERCE:
Well, that's my point, Your Honor, and 14 let me try to rephrase it.
15 JUDGE SMITH:
Well, no, I'm not -- there's nothing I
16 wrong with the phrasing of it, so long as Dr. Mileti 17 understands it.
And we all understand what it is.
In the 18 first place it's not a question.
The only question is, do 19 you -- does he agree with your premise for your next question; 20 isn't that where we are?
21 MR. FIERCE:
Well, let me just start, does he agree i
22 with this premise?
23' JUDGE SMITH:
Do you agree with Mr. Fierce's 24 statement as to the state of affairs, you snow, the difference 25 between you and Dr. Cole on this point?
[
l-Heritage Reporting Corporation i
j (202) 628-4888 1
1 4
MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS 9241
,_s
~
1 THE WITNESS:
(Mileti)
No, I don't, because I don't 2
agree that Dr. Cole's position is what Mr. Fierce represented 3
to me in the premise to the question.
4 BY MR. FIERCE:
5 Q
Let's take Dr. Cole out of it.
If 6
A (Mileti)
You said that, by the way, not me.
7 Q
Premise:
it is your understanding, is it not, Dr.
8 Mileti, that during the course of an actual emergency at 9
Seabrook station the messages that you have reviewed and made 10 comments on could conceivably and may well be revised to 11 reflect the circumstances that pertain at the time; isn't that 12 true?
13 A
(Mileti)
Yes, I would hope and encourage thott in 14 charge of giving out emergency information to feel free to 15 revise them.
16 Q
And that during that emergency when time is of the 17 essence it may be very difficult to devise the perfect message; 18 isn't that true?
19 A
(Mileti)
I wouldn't say that you should ever expect 20 the perfect message.
21 Q
And without expecting the perfect message you might 22 expect that good public information might not be as key a 23 determinant of emergency response as it would be if they were 24 using one or your prototypical messages; isn't that true?
25 A
(Mileti)
In theory I would agree with, however, I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS 9242
/,_T
' \\'!
i must provide an explanation for that.
If we were quantifying 2
things I think things might be in the direction you were 3
talking about.
But I don't think they'd be in the direction 4
substantially, and that's why, for example, I think its been my 5
recommendation that'some, for example, a shadow evacuation be 6
presumed.
Because sociologists can't control things that much.
7 And in fact, the emergency information can't be 8
perfect.
And even if it were perfect some other factors, 9
situational and not situational factors could play role.
It's 10 not a perfect relationship.
11 But I think that were such an emergency to occur, 12 were to occur at a nuclear powerplant and were the raf t filled,
(')
13 raf t f ull of social scientists to come in, as would be the U
14 case, to conduct investigations about why people did what they 15 did, and if they measured emergency information and pre-16 emergency fear, et cetera.
If the emergency information, EBS 17 message that went out approximated the kind that I've 18 recommended, I think we'd find that emergency information would-19 have had a higher statistical effect on informing people 20 situational perceptions about risk, what to do, and then with 21 correlations to what they actually did do.
And I say that with 22 full knowledge knowing that pre-emergency fear has typically 23 been shown to not have a direc t impact on what people do in 24 emergencies, but knowinE that it operates through situational 25 perceptions and that factor is dramatically affected by public t
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
b l
t
--O--.
MILETI,. SPENCER - CROSS 9243' 1
-emergency information including the meager' data available from 2
.Three Mile Island.
f i
3 Q
If.I understand you correctly, Dr. Mileti, earlier in l
4 that last answer,_you indicated that because you believe that 5
the messages might not be entirely perf ect to meet all of the 6
prototypical attributes you have recommended, and you have i
7 here, that with respect to shadow evacuation, keyhole 8
evacuation-in particular, the planners,.particularly those r
9
-devising the ETEs, which is why we're here, should assume.that 10 there could be as much as 50 percent of the population which i
11 would engage in that keyhole voluntary evacuation; isn't that l
12 true?
13 MR. TURK:
Objection, Your Honor.
14 JUDGE SMITH:
All right.
Sustained.
You're not 15 mak.ing-progress on this cross-examination item number three; 16 you're just not making progress.
i-l 17 MR. TURK:
Your Honor, I'm sorry to trouble you.
I 18 just want to know, if the only possible tie-in to the prefiled L
19 testimony that I see is the small piece in Dr. Mileti's 20 testimony that addresses whether or not the beach blanket L
21 survey or the Cole survey which asks people about their r
22 pre-emergency behavioral intentions is a good predictor of the l
23 actual behavior an an emergency.
And there's a part in there j
24 that talks about the ef f ect of good information in an emergency I
25 as having more impact on something that can't be forecast by a
{
(
i Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 h
l r
t
-_m,-___..,-_
-.~-m-
.---_c.,m~-,c-m.
..v
~. - m
--,-,m.
MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS 9244
-s( )
1 person predicting his subsequent behavior.
2 The whole line I think is beyond the scope of direct.
3 JUDGE SMITH:
Are you aware I sustained your 4
objection?
5 MR. TURK:
No, I guess I'm getting rid of the f
6 frustration, Your Honor, 7
(Laughter) 8 MR. FIERCE:
I just want to point out for the record 9
that the only reason I am getting into this is because of the 10 statements on the first three pages of Dr. Mileti's rebuttal 11 testimony which raise these issues again.
And I am going to 12 move on at this point.
rx 23 JUDGE GMITH:
But, Mr. Fierce, you've represented
\\-)
14 that you're following number three on your cross-examination 15 plan.
16 MR. FIERCE:
I was moving into number -- because of 17 the way it's going you can see that number VIII picks up right 18 at this point.
19 JUDGE SMITH:
No, I couldn't see that.
I didn't, I 20 mean, I'm not saying it doesn't.
21 MR. FIERCE:
I am done with three; I'll make that 22 representation.
23 MR. DIGNAN:
IV through VII done, too?
24 MR. FIERCE:
What I will do is follow the outline at 25 this point, Your Honor, and maybe it will be the best approach.
O v
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
MILETI, SPENCER-- CROSS 9245 i'"!
1 BY MR. FIERCE:
2 O
Dr. Mileti, at this point really I think we've 3
already covered.
With respect to that graduate student-4 telephone poll that was mentioned in your prefiled direct 5
testimony in Applicant's No. 7 you were asked some questions on 6
cross-examination, and the transcript on page 6470 indicates 7
that you said that, in defense of that poll done by the 8
student, quote, "I think it was gathered in a systematic way; I 9
think it was gathered in a reliable way; and I think it was 10 gathered in a valid way."
11 Do you still believe that to be the case?
12 A
(Mileti)
I don't have a recollect characterizing it
("%
13 as a poll.
What the f ellow did was call up a dozen or so
\\-)
14 people and ask them one question.
Now, if you want to 15 characterize it as a poll, I suppose it could be one.
16 And the instructions I gave the fellow were to 17 basically ask the same question of appropriate people in the 18 different organizations that he called.
And I saw no reason 19 given the limited character of that assessment, which as I 20 recollect is what I called it in my direct testimony, that that 21 was inappropriate.
22 O
Do you want this Board to believe that you have the 23 same sound judgment to critique the validity and the 24 reliability of the Cole survey that you used in commenting on 25 this telephone questioning done by your student?
O V
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4886
r I
MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS 9246 s
(
)
1 MR. LEWALD:
Objection.
2 I had an objection, Your Honor, to the question as in 3
pure argument a summation.
4 JUDGE SMITH:
Well, I think -- that's not a good 5
basis, but aren't you concerned that this has been, in essence, 6
asked and answered before, I thought.
I thought you went 7
through it rather thoroughly.
8 MR. LEWALD:
It has and now he's summing it up with 9
the witness.
10 JUDGE SMITH:
So, is that what your purpose is?
11 MR. FIERCE:
Yes.
12 JUDGE SMITH:
Why did you come back to it?
I mean,
'}
13 you went to that point and you went away and now you're back to v
14 it; is there a reason for that approach?
15 MR. FIERCE:
There were some questions on the outline 16 that I had that were not covered in the earlier.
17 JUDGE SMITH:
Overruled.
18 You may answer, Dr. Mileti.
19 THE WITNESS:
(Mileti)
I'm not sure I remember the 20 question, but if it was, do I want the Board to believe the 21 testimony I prefiled the answer is, yes.
I dcn't equate the 22 kind of poll that Stephen did with the kind of assessment that 23 my student did when he called up a dozen people to ask them, do 24 you recollect any people not showing up for work, as the same 25 kind of study.
p)
\\-
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- g<>
4.
s q
r MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS 9247
' ' ~^
l' And I don't'know what else I can say.
There wasn't,-
2-as I recollect, a formal questionnaire.
It was a.different 3
kind of thing.
It wasn't asking people'to prophesize about 4
future behavior; it was asking them about what they. remembered 5
from the pasti so on and so forth.
6 The. standards of good scientific research and the J7 discipline of sociology stand regardless of what I do or 8_
Stephen Cole does or what attorneys think; they are what they 9
are.
And they can't be compromised.
The only thing we can use 10 them for is a standard by which to evaluate what was done in a 11 particular study.
-12 I tried to qualify, as I've said, over again, and 13' even said in my written testimony that I didn't view the 14 assessment about calling people up at organizations that my 15 graduate student performed as an elaborate affair.
And I don't
^
16 know what else I can say.
17 But, yes, I do believe what I've said here.
I've 18 said it many times under oath in many different places, because 19 Stephen has virtually used almost the same questions.
The very 20 first time I ever encountered his poll I said almost the same 21 thing.
22 BY NR. FIERCE:
23 Q
I'm making a comparison here, Dr. Mileti, you said 24 with respec t to that student's work that the data he collec ted t
25 was gathered in a systematic way; didn't you?
l
(
Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4880
MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS 9248
-s l'"')
1 A
(Mileti)
Yes.
2 O
And you want the Board to believe now through your 3 ; testimony you filed here that the Stephen Cole data collected r
4, through his survey was not gathered in a systematic way; isn't S
that true?
6 A
(Mileti)
Well, systematic means you use the same 7
measure the same way each time that you use it.
Now, you can 8
use an invalid measure the same way each time you use it and 9
it's systematic.
It just is systematically -- has systematic 10 error or bias.
And so I don't understand how you're using the 11 word "systematic."
Because I think my student was instructed 12 and reported to me that he basically asked the same question 13 the same way.
And I have no evidence on which to conclude that V(~;
14 Stephen -- the questions in this questionnaire that SDA used 15 were not.
I mean, I would presume they were asked the same 16 way.
17 And my critique of the questions don't go to that, it 18 goes to what I was calling systematic bias which came from, as 19 I've explained in my testimony.
For example, the wording of 20 questions and answering where they're positioning in the 21 questionnaire relative to one another.
22 O
You think that the student's data was gathered in a 23 reliable way and have stated so; yet, in this testimony you're 24 presenting today you are stating that you believe the SOA 25 survey data was not gathered in a reliable way; isn't that
(~Jh L
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
{
MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS 9249
,_s, i
\\
1 true?
2 A
(Mileti)
I think the student's calling of those 3
people was as reliable as one could make calling an 4
organization and asking a question.
I don't think that the 5
work performed in SDA poll was as internally valid as it could 6
be.
And I don't recollect speaking to reliability, but 7
reliability certainly is an aspect of validity.
But it's the 8
technical term that has a different meaning.
9 Q
Let me ask Dr. Spencer a question, I promised him I 10 would a the break.
11 Dr. Spencer, are you aware that the Applicants here 12 in this nuclear plant licensing proceeding have relied on the 13 results of a telephone survey of 1300 residents or so of the 14 EPZ which was conducted by the First Market Research 15 Corporation?
16 A
(Spencer)
I'm aware that they took such a survey.
I 17 don't know how they're using the results.
18 0
You're aware of this, too, Dr. Mileti?
19 A
(Mileti)
I don't remember who did, I do remember 20 that a poll was done of some sort or a survey of some sort; and 21 I believe Ed Lieberman had something to do with it.
22 MR. FIERCE:
Excuse me, Your Honor, my book is 23 falling apart.
[
I 24 BY MR. FIERCE:
25 O
Did you, Dr. Mileti, -- strike that.
Did you, Dr.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS 9250 7_)
t'~'
.1 Spencor, have an opportunity to examine volume 6 of the New 2
Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plans?
3 A
(Spencer)
No.
4 O
Have you, Dr. Mileti?
5 A
(Mileti)
I don't think so, but it's possible I could 6
have seen some paper that was housed in that.
I certainly 7
haven't seen the whole thing labeled volume 6.
8 O
Do you, Dr. Spencer, understand what the reason is 9
that the parties here are disputing the results of these two 10 surveys?
11 A
(Spencer)
Only in the vaguest terrns.
12 Q
Can you describe it in the vaguest terms for us?
13 A
(Spencer)
Questions about how paopla would react if 14 they heard an emergency broadcast and -- well, that's generally 15 what they do, would they go in cars, would they walk.
16 0
Did anybody ever say to you, what's at issue here, 17 are the evacuation time estimates for Seabrook Station and 18 whether the people Cao calculated how long it would take to 19 evacuate from the areas around that nuclear plant were based on 20 assumptions that were fair and reasonable about human behavior?
21 A
(Spencer)
No.
22 O
Do you understand that, Dr. Mileti?
23 A
(Mileti)
Yes, I do, that's why I assumed everybody 24 asked me to come and give my opinion.
25 O
I know Dr. Mileti knows who Ed Lieberrnan is, do you Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS 9251
,_s i
\\
i know who he is?
2 A
(Spencer)
Yes, I met him.
3 O
In volume 6 on page 1-2 is a listing of a series of 4
sources of information that were relied upon by Mr. Lieberman 5
ano his company, KLD Associates, when they prepared the 6
evacuation time analysis that they did for Seabrook Station 7
that we are litigating here even today, and there is this 8
statement made with respect ti, that survey instrument as it 9
ticks off among the items that they looked at or procured.
10 And it says, "Developed a survey instrument to 11 solicit data describing the travel patterns, ownership and 12 household size of the population within the Seabrook EPZ, 13 period.
This survey also obtained data a*. the public's d(~x 14 projected responses to an emergency at Seabrook Station."
15 Did you understand, Dr. Spencer, that that survey 16 sought that kand of information?
17 A
(Spencer)
No, I didn't know really what the survey 18 was supposed to do, and I don't know.
19 O
Were you asked to examine that particular survey 20 instrument at all and compare it to Stephen Cole's?
21 A
(Spencer)
No.
22 O
Or Dr. Luloff's?
23 A
(Spencer)
No.
24 O
Did you examine that survey at all?
25 A
(Spencer)
No.
I carse across ref erences to the nU Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS S/32 7,s
~ (~-)
1 survey in Dr. Cole's testimony.
2 O
Dr. Mileti, have you reviewed that survey?
3 A
(Mileti)
I've seen a qu9stionnaire rather than 4
a -- I don't know what a survey is, I've seen the 5
questionnaire.
It was a while back.
And I do remember 6
commenting 6h it, and I remember at the beginning of these 7
hearings in Concord referencing the part of the ETE testimony 8
that I helped Ed prepare or comment -- talk to him about, 9
particularly how he might go about checking the validity of the 10 questionnaire regarding the kinds of social facts that he was 11 compiling information on and what have you.
12 But its been a while back, I don't remember much 13 about the questionnaire specifics.
14 O
Dut you are aware that that questionnaire contained 15 behavioral intention questions?
16 A
(Mileti)
I don't remember the behavioral intention 17 questions.
I remember talking to Ed about behavioral 18 intentions.
19 0
Well then the conclusion, is it not, Dr. Mileti, is 20 that, and Dr. Spencer, is that neither of you is able to make 21 cc.iclusions regarding whether the Cole survey is any better or 22 any worse than the First Market Research Survey relied upon by 23 KLD Associates in making their evacuation time estimates?
24 A
(Mileti)
I wouldn't agree with that.
I have the 25 sense that I wasn't as appalled at Ed's questionnaire as I am O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) G28-4888
k 1
i MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS 9253 7.s
(
)
a
~'
1, at Stephen Cole's.
And had I been he would have known about it 2
and I would have remembered saying it.
But in a technical 3
sense I can't make comparisons today.
Well,'why is that you were not as appalled, Doctor, 4
Q 5
is it because when you see a survey that is conducted for the 6
benefit of the Applicants you're not as appalled?
7 A
(Mileti)
No, I don't believe I'm that biased, if I'm 8
biased at all; and that's not using the sociological definition 9
of the word "bias' but rather the lay use of the word "bias."
10 It's jurt that as I recollect it, they were questions i
11 that were easier sor data to be cornpiled on.
For example, do 12 you own a car, is roore trustworthy.
One could trust that kind e'
12 of a -- I don't remember if that was the question or not.
But k )s m
14 data about how old are you or what have you.
15 0
Just to clarify.
Dr. Spencer, you didn't review this 1G poll for external validity at all, did you?
17 A
(Spencer)
Which poll?
18 Q
The First Market Research Poll?
19 A
(Spencer)
That's correct.
20 Q
Now, Dr. Mileti, on page F-3 of volume 6 where --
21 which is one of the pages in the questionnaire utilized by 22 First Market Research there is thir, question, "If commuter 23 number one were notified of an e:nergency at Seabrook Station 24 while at work or college, wou'.d that person return home?"
25 Is that question, in your view, a behavioral Heritate Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS 9254
(
)
1 intentions question?
2 A
(Mileti)
It's a behavioral intentions question 3
about, as you've read it, I would presume the behavior of 4
someone else as opposed to the person that's being interviewed; 5
is that correct?
In general, yes, it sounds like a behavioral 6
intentions question to me.
7 G
And then it says, "Repeat question for each such 8
commuter."
And I presume that each time it would be asked of 9
commuter number one, in the household commuter number two, and 10 the household three, et cetera, each time it's asked it's a 11 behavioral intentions question, isn't it?
12 A
(Mileti)
It sounds like you're asking people what 13 they would do in a future emergency.
14 (Continued on next page.)
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 u_
9255 s.()
1 O
And question No. 10-A on the next page F-4, and 2
perhaps Mr. Dignan or Mr. Lewald can correct me if I read this 3
wrong because it's very faint in my copy, but I believe the 4
question reads, "How long would it take commuter number one to 5
complete preparation for leaving work or college prior to 6
starting the trip home?"
7 Do you believe that to be a behavioral intentions O
question as well?
9 A
(Mileti)
Yes and no, and let me explain.
It sounds 10 to me like you're asking people if something happened and you 11 needed to leave work, how long would it take for you to'be able 12 to free yourself up, and I think people would have -- if 13 they've worked where they work for any amount of time some 14 sense of that, given knowledge about the social settinE you're i
15 asking people to contemplate.
What's important is that you 16 need to leave quickly for some reason, that it's an emergency 17 doesn't, in my opinion, affect it that much.
If anything, it 18 might shorten the amount of time involved.
19 But -- so, yes and no.
Not as much a behavioral 20 intentions question as the former question you asked me about.
21 And I think it's more one in which people would have a sense of 22 how long it would take them to leave work, once they decided to 23 leave.
And I think they have a basis for that judgment 24 different from speculating v'at they might do in the future as 25 yet unexperienced emergency.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS 9256 q
(;
1 Q
Dr. Spencer, if the phone numbers selected to be 2
called in the First Market Research Survey were drawn in the 3
same or roughly the same manner as the numbers in the Stephen 4
Cole Survey, in other words, disregarding certain phone 5
exchanges on the periphery of EPZ for which only a small G
percentage of the residents in them lived within the EPZ, 7
should the data from those questions, in the First Market 8
Research Survey, not be trusted for that reason alone?
9 MR. LEWALD:
I'd-object to the question, Your Honor, 10 this is not within the scope of the direct, and if he's trying 11 to make this witness his own expert witness, I'm going to 12 object to that, too.
13 Dr. Spencer said he doesn't know anything about the b
He knows that it exists and it has been cited in 14 KLD survey.
15 the Cole testimony, but beyond that he has no awareness of it; 16 and now to use Dr. Spencer as an expert to critique it, I 17 submit is grossly unfair and it is an improper question.
18 JUDGE SMITH:
Mr. Fierce?
19 MR. FIERCE:
Well, I have two points.
Number one is 20 that this is a hypothetical question.
It was a hypothetical 21 question.
I'm entitled to ask an expert question a 22 hypothetical question to find out w5at it is that makes a 23 survey unreliable.
And I ask him if this -- trying to take him 24 away from the survey at hand, the Cole and Luloff surveys, and 25 ask him questions abcut surveys in general, if they have these Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 o
MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS 9257 (O
(_/
1' defects, would you agree that that fact alone makes the survey 2
results unreliable.
So it's a different question than I think 3
Mr. Lewald thinks I'm asking.
4 JUDGE SMITH:
To what part of the direct examination 5
does it go, given to whether it's a hypothetical or not, where 6
does it go?
7 MR. FIERCE:
It goes directly to the point that they 8
would be making with respect to external validity.
I'm probing 9
that assesyment that with respect to external validity there 10 are --
11 JUDGE SMITH:
Just point to the -- oh.
12 MR. FIERCE:
On page four, the last paragraph on the 1
13 page, it's called their "First Point."
And maybe I should read O
14 it.
15 JUDGE SMITH:
Okay.
16 MR. FIERCE:
On Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 3, 17 it's page four at the bottom of the page where I believe Dr.
18 Spencer is summarizing the results of his critique.
And the 19 first point he mbkes is that -- is a point which pertains to a 20 portion of households on the periphery of the EPZ which may 21 have been excluded from the survey.
22 JUDGE SMITH:
I guess now -- I need the question 23 back.
Could you just pa.aphrase the question rather than 24 reading it back.
Just remind me.
25 MR. FIERCE:
Yes.
r Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS 9258 (j
1 JUDGE SMITH:
Well, maybe we better read it back.
2 MR. FIERCE:
If the phone numbers -- I'm making a 3
comparison here.
4 JUDGE SMITH:
Yes, the trouble is --
5 MR. FIERCE:
Between the validity of another poll.
6 It could be the First Market poll, it could be another.
I 7
said, if the First Market Survey had done its telephone 8
sampling in the same manner by using telephone exchanges which 9
excluded those that were on the periphery of the EP2 to some 10 extent, would that f act alone call into question the validity 11 of the validity of the data.
12 JUDGE SMITH:
But he hasn't embraced that survey 13 either, so where do you go with it?
14 MR. FIERCE:
I know that, which is why I'm asking the
'~
15 hypothetical.
16 MR. LEUALD:
There's no basis fer the question.
17 MR. DIGNAN:
Yes, is the Commonwealth representing to 18 us that they're going to demonstrate that the First Market 19 Survey was done the same way?
20 MR. FIERCE:
That is exactly one of the questions 21 that l'a looking at in the surrebuttal testimony.
22 MR. DIGNAN:
Well, you're looking at it.
Is your 23 representation that you're going to make it stick?
Because 24 I'll tell you quite frankly, I've been told it wasn't done the 25 same way, but are you going to make it stick and are you so Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) G28-4888
1 MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS 9259 m
()
1 representing?
2 MR. FIERCE:
Until I talk to my exper t, Mr. Dignan, I 3
can't give you an answer to that.
It's a hypothetical way.
4 JUDGE SMITH:
He's reprencnting that. he has it under 5
consideration.
And if that's the basis of your objection, 6
okay, I overrule it.
I still have troubles with it though.
Vell, Your Honor, he has no basis for 0
the hypothetical.
9 JUDGE SMITH:
He's representing that he has it under 10 cons.deration.
It's a possibility of establishing a basis for 11 it, but he hasn't committed hiraself yet.
Ano if he doesn't do 12 it, it's out.
Let's just put brackets around this testimony.
13 Just remember this was a big question about whether there's I'-
14 going to be any basis ever presented.
15 So if that is the foundation of your objection, for 16 that reason, then it's overruled.
l 17 MR. LEWALD:
If it were a pure hypothetical, correct 18 hypothetical, that would be one matter.
But what he's trying l
19 to do is use this witness as an expert to critique another 20 study.
l 21 JUDGE SMITH:
Right.
That's what I thought, too.
1 22 Dut he has given us a representation that that's not what he's l
l
'3 doing.
l l
24 MR. LEWALD:
And it
.s an expert with whom he has no 25 contractual relationship.
Heritago Reporting Corporation (202) 629-4888 l
l i-
(
MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS 9260
(')T 1
JUDGE SMITH:
Who?
Who doesn't have a contractual u
2 relationship?
3 MR. LEWALD:
The Assistant Attorney -- the Attorney 4
General.
It is not his expert.
He's making this witness his 5
own involuntary expert.
And it's not just to critique another 6
study.
And this is not a pure hypothetical that he's raising.
7 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Your Honor, just if I may interject 8
on that point alone, the use of -- on cross-examination the use 9
of an expert witness in a way detrimental to the party that's, 10 whose witneS. it is, 1s very common.
That in itself wouldn't 11 establish this ss beir g improper.
12 MR. DIGNAN:
Well, he hasn't paid him to critique 13 that other study.
And under the Massachusetts law until you
,s 14 pay an expert to do it, you have no right to answer it.
- Now, 15 whether that law should stick in here is something else again.
16 Dut you're asking him to critique another study that 17 we never hired to critique, i
18 MR. FIERCE:
I never asked that question, Your Honor.
19 MR. DIGNAN:
Of course you did.
20 MR. FIERCE:
Your Honor, I don't have to refer to the 21 First Market Research survey, I'd like to because it's always a 22 difficult question to answer when you ask -- when you criticize 23 something and the question is, would you criticize your own the 24 same way.
Forget about the First Market Research Survey, 25 BY MR. FIERCE:
Heritage Reporting Corporation i
(202) 628-4888 i
7-w MILETI, SPENCER -; CROSS 9261
- A
(,)
1
.O If there were another surveyL that were done of, the 2'
EPZ and it had a sampling system for plucking those phone-3 numbers out of the phone book that' was similar to ' that used in 4-
. the Cole survey,.so'that it. excluded thosefexchanges that were-5 on the periphery of the EPZ,, cont.ained EPZ,residenis,to son.c
~
6.
small extent,.would that in and of i tself ' mean that the f revults 7
of that_ poll should not be trusted?
8 A
(Spencer)
Am I to-assun.e in answering this, because-
.9 surveys have,many. components of error due to the way_the sample, 10-
. was selected, the size of the sample, the extent to which~ the' 11 sample cases were completed, am I tofessume that in all other 12 respects the sample was perf ectly designed and perf ectly
- 13 executed?
')
' 14 G
Ya,-that's what I meant'by, in a11'other respecIs7
~
15-A (Spencer)
Then you probably have a few based on 16 Cole's clainy in the testimony, a f ew percent of.the popnlation 17
-that's excluded from. Lig.samffle odd so they wou1Ga}t be 18 represented by the sampling sc ame.
And you can t en calculate
~
19 limits on the extent to which you might be in error by 20-excluding this population.
~
f 21 Sn, you would get some error and you could calculate 22 mathematically possible limits on the, extent of the error, and 23 then you could see if those -- the' amount of error that you 24 would get is large enough to throw the shole results of the 25 survey into a great question.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4899 e
e I
I y
,-r
-., - + -
g
.ng.4. [ ~ - - -,,, _, - ~ - -,
yay,+,,,.9 s-,
e-
+,,r---
~-
-,4
- r
e J
MILETI, SPENCER
. CROSS 9262
- Ap
.\\._/ -
1'
.O Dr. Survey,= excuse me, Dr. Spencer -- excuse me, it's.
2 getting late.
Dr. Spencer, one concern raised about the First b
3 Market' Survey-is'that unlike the Social Data-Analysts 1 survey, 4.
fthe First Market. survey made no callbacks, the ph'one numbers 8
5 called which went unanswered, a.d that's discussed on page 87 6
of the Applicants'. Direct Testimony No._7 on which Dr. Mileti~
7 participated.
8 Now, one' allegation, isn't it true that when you have 9
a survey t!.at didn't utilize a callback technique, and that 10 survey. asks questions about household size, and specifically 11
.it's question three of the First Market Research survey, how 12
-many people usually live in this household; isn't that data T
likely tu be-untrustworthy because isn't-it a fair assumption j
f.q 13
%') -
14-that the larger-the family the more likely somebody is to be-15 home when the call.omes through?
16 A
(Spencer)
I'm sorry, you said -- it was a long-17 question I didn't follow the whole -- I got sidetracked midway.
18 You said the e's a reference on page 87 of the testimony?
19 G
Of the Applicants' Direct Prefi'ed Testimony No. 7 20 A
(Spencer)
I haven't seen that so I'm not clear on the details a'out the callbacks.
I don't know what was done or 21 o
22 what was not done in the First Market survey.
But with trat 23 understanding I could try to make up some suppositions about 24 what you mean by no callbacks were done and I could make.some 25 assumptions about what might have been done in that First O
.V Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
^
MILET1, SPENCER
' CROSS 9263 1,
Market survey; I don't know if they would be correct 2 --. assumptions or not.
But if you'd like and you want to repeat 3
.the question, I'll try to answer it.
4~
Q A phone call was made once-to each phone number that 5
had been selected, there was no answer for whatever reason, 6
they' moved on to the'next number and never returned.the 7
callback to the first.
Now, if you have that kind of a survey' 8
and one of the questions you were trying to answer and gather 9
data about was, how many people usually live-in this household, 10_
that's one of the questions asked, isn't it a fair assumption 11
-that a no-callback-type survey is going to be more likely to 12 reach large households because of the fair and reasonable 13 assumption that the larger the household the more likely it is l
14 that at any given point in time somebody is going to be hoce?
l^
L 15 A
(Spencer)
I don't know.
I don't know enough about 16 how large families behave, whether they tend to be home more or 17 whether they're large and they go out more; whether larger
.18 families tend to have all the children who are out of the house 19 more, whether they tend to have two working people in the 20 household or one.
I just don't know about their behavior.
So, 21 that's why I can't answer your question.
22 G
Would you be at all suspicious of a survey which 23 gathered data about household size which did not utilize a 24 callback technique?
25 A
(Spencer)
Not necessarily.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS 9264
- f'N b\\_/c Dr. Mileti, in'your prefiled testimony No. 7 --
L l'
O l2 strike-that.
In Applicants' Prefiled Testimony No. 7 on page.
3 88, and that may be a portion thatiwas written Sy Doctor, 4
excuse me, by Mr. Lieberman --
5?
JUDGE SMITH:
Excuse me, may;I interrupt just a 6
moment.
Mr. Traficonte.
7 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Yes.
8 JUDGE SMITH:
I see you're going out, would'you do us 9'
a favor and see if there is a cutoff for the time we're allowed 10
-to be in tnis room while you're out there, you know, if it's 11 convenient.
12 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Sure.
13 JUDGE SMITH:
Sorry.
There was some concern that we 14 have to be ouS, of here by 5:00, but I don't know, we're fin' ding 15.
out.
1.
l 16 BY MR. FIERCE:
l 17 O
Dr. Mileti, on page 88 of Applicants' Prefiled l'
l 18
. Testimony No. 7, in a discussion about the First Market l
(~
19 Research survey there is this statement, quote, "Another i
20-approach to assess whether the potential for bias is actually 21 manifested as real significant bias is to compare the data 22 obtained by the survey with the same or similar data obtained 23 from other sources.
If there is essential agreement between 24 elements of the survey data set and those of other sources, 25 then the prospect of systematic bias of significant extent can j
()
Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 i
[.
1 MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS
'9265
?
, IN 1
be dismissed."
Do you. recall that statement ~in the testimony?
2 A
(Mileti)
I remember reading something like that.
I 3
.didn't write.it.
I certainly. talked.to.Ed Lieberman about-4 that.
And-I have to say, ifLI were writing it I'd never use 5
the word "systematic bias," I'd say "systematic error or' bias."
6 Systematic bias is redundant, but it doesn't make any 7
difference.
8.
O But the essential point you would agree with, that 9-another approach to' assess whether this bias is actually 10 manifested is'real is to compare it with data obtained from 11 other-sources on that point?
12 A
(Mileti)
Oh, yes.
It's standard practice'to do that 13 sort of thing when you're able to do it'and have a good 14 benchmark to measure it against.
16 0
-Dr. Mileti, you've testified earlier in these 16 proceedings and your opinion.that the keyhole shadow evacuation 17-within the EPZ could be as high as 50 percent of the population 4
18 oven with good public information; isn't that correct?
19 MR. LEWALD:
I'm going to object to that, Your Honor, 20 there's nothing in his testimony that we filed that had 21 anything to do with keyhole evacuation.
22 JUDGE SMITH:
And the word is --
23 MR. FIERCE:
Your Honor, can I respond?
24 JUDGE SMITH:
Yes.
25 MR. FIERCE:
Actually, I'd like to do this outside O
~
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) C28-4888
=
.n r---
--r-r-,.,
un
)
i MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS 9266
(~~s, i
.(J 1
the earshot of the witness, if I may.
May we approach the l
i 2
bench?
1 3
JUDGE SMITH:
Yes, come on up.
4 (Bench conference.)
5 (Continued on next page.)
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 O
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 l
l 22 23 24 25 O
G t
i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
F-l 9267
,\\
(,i 1
JUDGE SMITH:
Overruled, whatever it was.
2 MR. FIERCE:
I think we're going to need the question 3
read back, Your Honor.
4 MR. DIGNAN:
I repeat my observation that scope 5
objections aren't going very f ar.
6 JUDGE SMITH:
Would you read the question?
7 (Discussion was held off the record.)
8 (Whereupon, the previous question was read back by 9
the Reporter.1 10 THE WITNESS (Mileti)
Shall I?
11 Yes, as I recollect, I said 25 to 50 percent.
12 BY MR. FIERCE:
13 O
And do you know what Dr. Cole's survey f ound with
(,_)
14 respect _to voluntary shadow evacuation within the EPZ?
15 A
(Mileti)
I don't remember looking at the conclusion 16 first hand.
I remember Mr. Dignan telling me he recollected it 17 was about 50 percent.
18 G
You don't recall looking at the data firsthand?
Is 19 that what you just said?
20 A
(Mileti)
I don't recall the percentage that one 21 would conclude from Stephen's data.
I did have lots of 22 frequencies, but my recollection that you would conclude 50 23 percent f rom that data comes from my remem'vering a conversation 24 with Mr. Dignan.
25 G
You don't disagree that Dr. Cole's data indicates f
tS u>
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
i
MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS 9268
-()
1 that the voluntary shadow evacuation within the New Hampshire 2
portion of the EPZ would be in the range of 50 percent?
3.
A (Mileti)
I thought I just said that's what I 4
remembered.
And that was in reference to keyhole, and I also f
S remember he didn't appraise concentric shadow evac situation.
6 O
Concentric shadow evacuation, to be clear, as you 7
have defined it, Dr. Mileti, is that portion of the evacuation 8
which -- of the population which might voluntarily evacuate 9
beyond the EPZ boundary, the 10-mile ring, isn't that true?
10 A
(Mileti)
No.
It was in the IO-mile ring beyond the 11 concentric ring being evacuated, whatever that might be. If it 12 were the whole EP2, it would be the 10-to-23-mile ring.
13 O
Would you agree or disagree, Dr. Mileti, that on this
' ]'
14 point here at Seabrook, anyway, you and Dr. Cole are in 15 essential agreement?
l l
16 A
(Mileti)
It might look that way from your viewpoint; f
17 in fact, some have said they wondered why we were bothering to 18 argue the point, because everybody came to the same conclusion.
19 20 But I believe that my conclusion is based on 21 knowledge and any -- that Stephen Cole's data would lead to 22 that same conclusion that I would lead to, I think, is 23 coincidence.
I don't trust the method that he used, even 24 though our conclusions might sound similar.
25 Q
I just want to be clear on the answer to that n
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS
,9269 i
question'you~just gave.
Do you -agree, then, 'that with respec t 2
- to; these percentages here at Seabrook, anyway, you and Dr. Cole L.
3
- are'in essential agreement?
4.
As I understand-lthe answer that you just gave, you-5 would say, b'ut'you don't -
you think that essential agre'ement-6
.is only coincidental, is that what you were saying?
7 MR. LEWALD:
Objection.
He's already answered the 8
' question, prior question.
9.
JUDGE SMITH:
I think his answer was very bright andL 10 clear, Mr. Fierce.
11-BY MR. FIERCE:
12 O
I guess what I wanted to know about-your conclucion 13 about voluntary keyhole evacuation is why it is that, even with 14 good public information as you see it, as many as 50 percent of 15 the population at Seabrook might engage in this voluntary 16 keyhole evacuation?
17 A
(Mileti)- As you might imagine, a lot went into me:
18 offering the judgment of 25 to 50 percent voluntary evacuation 19 in the keyhole.
'20 But I'll try to make my answer brief.
First, I 21 considered that that type of evacuation behavior in the 22 empirical record is more strongly evidenced than concentric 23 voluntary evacuation.
I discovered that by accident =
24 Second, I was considering what might be a reasonable 25 thing for planners to keep in mind.
I wasn't. making a prophecy
..O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l-
[1],
~
]
u MILETI,-SPENCER - CROSS 9270
%[
1 about how people would behave.in the future, and~I tried to
~
1 2
consider that the emergency information would indeed be less 3
than perfect in a future emergency.
I think only a prudent:
~
4 person.could do-that.
5:
ButLmy judgment came largely from recognizing what
.6 has been. called voluntary or shadow evacuation, does occur; it 7
came on the basis of knowled'ge that it can be,'when.need be, 8
addressed,'and plans made to attempt to minimize it; and that 9
of all sorts,' keyhole voluntary evacuation likely would be 10 proportionately more than concentric voluntary evacuation, 11-given the empirical record that exists.
12 And I tried to place bounds on what might be a 13 reasonable amount to presume, based on what were, in my
- O 14 opinion, two cases, Three Mile Island, as well as the 15
'Missasuaga evacuation, that provides some evidence on this 16 front.
17 But where there were severe problems either with the 18 emergency information or with how evacuation zones were 19-defined, and those problems could not be as severe in an 1
20 emergency at Seabrook.
21 So I used the empirical record, knowledge about that 22
.there would be an EBS system; that there are regulations,'et 23 cetera, that require that sort of thing; and then used my 24 judgment.
l 25 And likely more went into it than that.
But that
)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.~
f
~
'.]
ON.
l MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS 9271 i
j"Q
-(j 1:
basically sums 11t up.
'I could have said knowledge aboutchow i
2 peopp' behave in 9mergencies.
~3-9 There'are a. variety of other behavioral responses 4.
that the contentions in this litigation have been concerned 51 ~with,'and they include such things as whether people will L6 abandon their' cars after an hour; af ter two; whether evacuees 7-will follow the assigned evacuation routes; whether people will 8
obey traffic guides or take routes which are being discouraged.
9 And on all of these. issues, Dr. Mileti, as I' 10 understand it, your view is that these things won't occurLat.
11
-all, is that correct?
12 A
(Mileti)
No.
.I don't think I've ever said_it won't i
13 occur at all.
I think I've said several times here during 14 these hearings that if you can think a behavior up, it's 15 possible that somebody, someplace, sometime, can engage in that 16-behavior. But will it be a frequent' behavior; is it a probable 17
. behavior?
Is it something that should be presumed as a basis-18 in emergency planning, I think, is the key issue.
19-And in reference to different oehaviors, I've had 20 different things to say about them.
21 Q
What percentage of. the drivers who are caught in 22 traffic jams, let's say on Hampton Beach, for three hours, will 23 abandon their vehicles, in your opinion?
24 MR. TURK:
Objection.
25 MR. DIGNAN:
Your Honor, my partner's giving up
)
Heritage Reporting Corporation a
~
(202) 628-4888
MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS 9272
,,()
1 scope.
I don't see that that has anything-to do with this f
2 direct testimony.
3 JUDGE SMITH:
I don't know where it is, either.
4 MR. DIGNAN:
It might have had something to do with 5
when the ETE panel, No.7, was on the stand.
6 JUDGE SMITH:
Mr. Fierce?
7 MR. FIERCE:
Item No. VIII, Your Honor.
8 JUDGE SMITH:
Well, all right, and you're still 9
pursuing the direction in which -- that you discussed with the 10 Board the bench conference -- have you changed that direction 11 now?
12 MR. FIERCE:
No.
I've passed that point and have 13 moved from No. VII to No. VIII.
G 14 Your Honor, I don't want to be cagey.
I mean, the 15 fundamental point here is whether for purposes of making plans, 16 and for purposes of doing ETE studies, those planners should 17 take a look at surveys of the type that Dr. Cole and Dr. Luloff 18 have conducted; or whether they should be taking a look at the 19 opinions, the expert opinions afforded them by Dr. Mileti.
20 We have a choice here.
21 Now I'm questioning Dr. Mileti primarily, and the 22 other member of this panel as well, on the extent to which 23 these kinds of surveys provide information at least as 24 reliable, or perhaps even more reliably, than Dr. Mileti's 25 summations about how much of this kind of behavior to expect (V~)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
~
4.
s MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS 9273
'W s/
-1 and how much-of that behavior to expect?
2 Because we know from the: testimony already on the: ETE<
-3 portion of the case, that'with respect to the~ETE-study, there
.4 was essentially no unruly traffic behavior which was factored 5_-
into that analysis.
There was essentially no car abandonment 6
that was factored into that analysis.
We know essentially that' 7
all drivers were anticipated to head toward the destinations
'8 that had been assigned to them.
9 These are all conclusions that Dr. Mileti believes to-10 be -- these assumptions, to be correct based on his knowledge 11-and opinion.
12 The surveys offer empirical evidence to the contrary.
13 MR. DIGNAN:
Now, wait a minute,-Your Honor. -What-O 14' was going into in ETE, or the part of ETE that deals withJ 15 whether you should have accounted for car abandonment and a lot 16 of other stuff, came out of the question of whether the ETE, 17 the I-7YNEV model, modelled these various things.
And that was 18 the basic thrust of this whole thing.
19 Now, that was Mr. Lieberman.
Mr. Lieberman didn't use it.
i 20' Now, the Commonwealth thinks Mr. Lieberman should have used it, 21 and they think they've made a case for the fact that the Common 22
-- that they should -- they can argue that, but we're not going 23 to get anywhere asking Dr. Mileti.
It's just totally 24 irrelevant to this testimony that's now being cross-examined.
25 Maybe it's a wonderful question that should have been O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
~ ~
l
!v MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS 9274 1'
asked when that No'. 7' panel was'up there, but they aren't there l
2' now.-
3/
And that's my probl'em. It's way.beyond the scope-of 4
direct.
S MR. FIERCE:
This testimony doesn't have any 6-relevance at all, Your Honor, if it isn't brought essentially-
-7 back into that question, should Ed'Lieberman and the planners 8
for Seabrook have made certain assumptions about human behavior 9
based solely on Dr. Mileti's recommendations, or should surveys 10 of this sort and other information suggest other assumptions 11 that should have been relied on.
12 JUDGE SMITH:
Well, isn't that right?
Isn't Mr.
13 Dignan's point right, that may have been a marvelous point to O.
14 examine then, but not Dr. Mileti?
15 MR. FIERCE:
Well, the question I'm asking Dr. Mileti 16 is whether surveys of this sort provide at least as-reliable 17
-information on these topics as the kind of conclusions he 13 genr, rates based on his own professional opin.4.ons?
19 This is -- I'm questioning the value of the surveys, 20 comparing it to the opinions of Dr. Mileti.
This testimony 21 critiques these surveys.
I'm asking him to weigh these two-22 methodologies, and to give us some of his views as to why his 23 conclusions are more valuable to those emergency planners than 24
.the survey data.
25 And I'm asking him now with respect to issues like Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
J
~
"^
'~
MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS 9275 7-
' 3) -
/1 whether. people can. abandon cars, and whether people will obey 2-traffic guides.
3 JUDGE SMITH:
Well, you know, that's where-I come 4
into the --
5 11R. FIERCE:
How he can come to the conclusion --
6-JUDGE SMITH:
You can carry your thread through,:but 7
you use the thread to go so far and so much -- that's the 8
problem, you know?
It's what you're doing with the thread that 9
troubles the Board.
It's -- I can't deny that there is a 10 thread, and that you do have a connection that seems to me a
11 liberal construction of it, you have a connec tion to the' direct l
12 testimony.
You're just simply going too far.
That's a 13 j udgroen t.
I'm going to ask you to get more directly to your 14 15 point.
Part of your problem, I think, is I think that it is 16 unlikely that you're going to be, in a traditional sense, 17 trapping Dr. Mileti.
18 I think that you can make your points probably just 19 as well as you ever will if you come right out at the beginning 20
.and explain what you're after, and go more directly to your, i.
21 you know, to the conclusion you're trying to develop.
22 Overruled.
23 Well, let's break for the evening.
24 MR. DROCK:
Your Honor, if I could just make one 25 point.
I am scheduled to be at a hearing in a New Hampshire l
Heritage Reporting Corporation i
(202) 628-4888 I
W I
l
.).
c MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS 9276 h
1.
. court tomorrow at 9:OO'o' clock. I'm trying to resolve that.
2 If not,:I would ask,:if the scheduling issue comes 3
up, Mr. Backus would be speaking for Hampton and Amesbury on 4
.that issue.
5 JUDGE SMITH: Okay, thank'you.
6 MR. DIGNAN:
Your Honor, unless somebody has a'real-7 objection, could we agree to take that up when we've finished 8
. with the witnesses?
I'd'like to get all the witnesses on and 9
off, and the record finished up.
I don't think we have --
10 JUDGE SMITH:
Well --
11 MR. DIGNAN:
very much.
I don't know how much 12' more the Commonwealth has with these -- do you think until-13 tomorrow with these witnesses?
14 MR. FIERCE:
No, no.
15 MR. DIGNAN:
How about with the other two with the 16 other two pieces?
17 MR. FIERCE:
I'm having my witnesses.show up 18 tomorrow.
19 MR. DIGNAN:
And I know our cross-examination of the 20 three Commonwealth witnesses is very short.
21 JUDGE SMITH:
All right, just a moment. We don't need 22 this on the record.
23 MR. DIGNAN:
Yes.
I
.24 JUDGE SMITH:
Let's let the Reporter go.
We're 25 adjourned to tomorrow at 9:00.
^
LO Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l i
MILETI, SPENCER - CROSS 9277
{
,.m
(_)
1 IWhereupon at 4:56 the hearing was recessed. to i
2 reconvene the following day, Tuesday, February 9, 1988, at 3
9:00 a.m.)
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Od Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
m
- t,,
n-
.w wn: 4
- 7-
.. - -. ~.. -.
1 CERTIFICATE
.e g
9278 2
3-This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the t
4-
' United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:'
5 6
Name:
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 7
NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
8 Docket Number:
5-443-OL, 5-444-OL 9
Place: Boston, Massachusetts 10 Date:
February 8, 1988 11 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 12 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 13 Regulatory Commission taken electronically by me and,
()
14 thereaf ter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction 15 of the court reporting company and that the recording is a true n
16 and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
[)
{l 17 f
l
_____J2[hd l
18 19 Signature typed:
Kent Andrews 20 Official Reporter 21 Heritage Reporting Corporation 22 23 24 25
()
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l.