ML20210A770
| ML20210A770 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 04/28/1987 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#287-3364 OL-5, NUDOCS 8705050158 | |
| Download: ML20210A770 (69) | |
Text
ORIG NA_
o\\
'~/
UN11ED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO: 50-322-oL-f (EP Exercise)
LONG ISLAND LIGIITING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
O LOCATION:
liAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK PAGES:
4130 - 4196 DATE:
TUESDAY, APRIL 28, 1987
/fj k
O ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Oficial Reporters 444 North Ca stol Street 070
[hhhhp Washington,
.C. 20001 PDR DO (202) 347 3700 r
PDR NAT1oNWIDE COVERACE
71300000 4130 cuewalsh 7
-Q I
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4
X 5
In the Matter of:
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
- Docket No. 50-322-OL-5 6
(shoreham Nuclear Power Station, s
(EP Exercise)
Unit 1) 7
_______________________________----X 8
Court of Claims State of New York State Office Building Third Floor Courtroom 10 Veterans Memorial Highway L
Hauppauge, New York 11788 l
Tuesday, April 28, 1987 The hearing in the above-entitled matter 13 reconvened, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 o' clock a.m.
BEFORE:
JOHN H. FRYE, III, Chairman 15 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 16 Bethesda,- Maryland 20555 17 OSCAR H. PARIS, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 18 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bethesda, Maryland 20555 FREDERICK J. SHON, Member 20 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 21 Bethesda, Maryland 20555 22 23 1
}
24 I
25 i
i i
i I
i l
M 71300000 4131 Cuewalsh 1
APPEARANCES:
2 On Behalf of Long Ialand Lighting Comnanvr 3
KATHY E. B. McCLESKEY, ESQUIRE I
SCOTT D. MATCHETT, ESQUIRE 4
Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street 5
P. O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 6
On Behalf of Suffolk Countvr 7
KARLA J. LETSCHE, ESQUIRE 8
SUSAN M. CASEY, ESQUIRE Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 9
South Lobby, 9th Floor 1800 M Street, N. W.
10 Washington, D. C. 20036-5891 11 On Behalf of the State of New York t 12 RICHARD J. ZAHNLEUTER, ESQUIRE Special Counsel to the Governor 13 Executive Chamber O
Room 229 14 State Capitol i
Albany, New York 12224 15 On Behalf of the NRct 1
16 CHARLES A. BARTH, ESQUIRE 17 ORESTE RUSS PIRFO, ESQUIRE l
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j
is 7735 Old Georgetown Road Bethesda, Maryland 20814 l
20 21 22 23 l
24 25 i
1
71300000 4132 suewalsh I
-CE) 2 CONTENTS 3
Direct Croma Redirast Recrona Voir Dire PHILIP EVANS 4134 4154 4
SUSAN C. SAEGERT STEPHEN COLE 5
SPENCER FORD ROWAN, JR.
ELIZABETH LOFTUS 6
(Resuming) 7 8
EXHIBITS Idantified Admitted LILCO Exercise Exhibits 5, 6, 7, 30 8, i' and 10 4153 II e ****
12 13
' s_,
a 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
!O
71300101 4133 cuewalsh
. O
>aoc==o1"os 2
(10:00 a.m.)
3 JUDGE FRYE:
Are you ready to begin?
d MS. LETSCHE:
Yes, I believe so.
3 JUDGE FRYE:
Dr. Loftus needs to be sworn, 6
doesn't she?
7 MS. LETSCHE:
Yes, she does.
8 JUDGE FRYE:
All right.
JUDGE FRYE And, I will just introduce her to 10 the Board.
Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, who is sitting between Dr.
II Saegert and Dr. Cole.
And, do you want to swear the 12 witness?
13 JUDGE FRYE Yes.
We are happy to have you O-Id here.
Would you raise your hand, please?
13 (Dr. Loftus is sworn by Judge Frye.)
16 JUDGE FRYE:
Now, when we had left off last 17 evening, the Staff had not yet cross-examined.
But, what I 18 am wondering is whether it would be better to take LILCO l'
first and Mr. Zahnleuter and then come in with the Staff.
20 MS. MC CLESKEY:
I think it might be less 21 confusing.
22 JUDGE FRYE:
I'm sorry?
23 MS. MC CLESKEY:
It might be less confusing if 24 we do it. that way.
25 JUDGE FRYE:
All right.
O
71300101 4134 cuewalsh 1
I MS. LETSCHE:
I agree with that.
2 JUDGE FRYE:
All right.
Let's proceed on that 3
basis, then.
MS. MC CLESKEY:
All right.
5 Whereupon, 6
PHILIP EVANS, 7
FORD ROWAN, 8
STEPHEN COLE, 9
SUSAN C. SAEGERT
'O and
'I ELIZABETH F. LOFTUS 12 resumed the witness stand and, having previously been duly 33 sworn, were further examined and testified as follows:
- O 1d CROSS EXAMINATION 15 BY MS. MC CLESKEY
(Continuing) 16 Q
Professor Loftus, you have studied verbal warnings for fires in public places, haven't you?
I8 A
(Witness Loftus)
Yes.
'8 Q
And, you have written such fira warnings 20 yourself, right?
21 A
What I have written is messages to communicate 22 with people in highrise buildings and other settings to 23 instruct them on where to go and what to do in case of a 24 fire.
25 Q
Right.
And, the emergency warning system work
71300101 4135 cuewalsh
{]
you have done has all been in connection with fires, right?
3 2
j A
Well, that's not quite right.
I did at least 3
have discussions with the federal government about d
instructions for bomb threats and other natural disasters 5
besides fires.
6 Q
Fires, bomb threats and what else?
7 A
I don't think we actually wrote any warnings for 8
other disasters but we certainly did have discussions about bomb threats and -- I just don't recall right now what other 10 potential disasters were included in those discussions.
II Q
Okay.
You wouldn't characterize some -- your i
12 work as studying emergency response behavior, would you?
i 13 A
I would say that I am primarily an expert in Id human information processing, and that is how people 15 comprehend information and store that information and 16 retrieve that information for later use.
17 Q
Now, in doing your work, your fire emergency la work, it's true that a fire emergency and in a closed place 19 like the train tubes or the buildings has a real potential 20 for making people panic, doesn't it?
l 21 A
The potential is there, yes.
22 0
Yeah.
And, of course, that sort of emergency is 23 l
not a community-wide disaster situation, is it?
24 A
Well, in a more local sense there is a community j
25 involved in that disaster and it can be -- especially in the
{O
. ~... _., _ _ _
71300101 4136 cuewalsh case of a large highrise building it can be a fairly large 2
community.
3 0
When you use the term " community" you are saying that there might be a number of people in the building?
5 A
Yes, hundreds *)r more.
6 Q
Right.
And, do you agree that verbal 7
instruction in addition to an alarm, a bell alarm, in a fire 8
emergency makes for a better warning system in a fire emergency?
IO A
Well, in our work in the highrise in the federal buildings, we included not only an auditory signal but also 12 the verbal instructions to produce what we felt would be the
'3 most efficient kind of warning.
Id O
So, the verbal warnings really help?
15 is Well, they were absolutely necessary, yes.
16 0
Okay.
Could you tell us, in your view, what the
'7 characteristics of a good verbal warning system are?
'8 A
well, there were certain psychological principles that we followed in designing the verbal messages 20 that communicated with people in the highrise buildings, and 21 I used those same principles when I -- also when I worked 22 for the Bay Area Rapid Transit to design messages for the 23 subway system.
24 They include things like repetition, repeating 25 essential information, using what we call high frequency
,n-.,
,,,.--.r-
,,r,,-,
- m
-.--,...e,-
71300101 4137 cuewalsh
(])
words rather than low frequency words, words that are common I
2 in the English language rather than words that are rare.
3 Those were examples of some of the principles.
d My more current work on designing jury 5
instructions that are more comprehensible to people involve 6
other principles such as using verb forms rather than 7
nominalizations, framing things in the active rather than in 8
the passive tense whenever possible, et cetera.
9 0
Would the active rather than the passive tense 10 apply to the emergency warnings also?
il A
It would as a general principle unless there is 12 some reason not to do that.
13 0
Okay.
And, what about specificity?
Is that an O
Id item that you would want to take into account in the is emergency warnings?
16 A
I'm not sure what you mean by that.
17 Q
Being specific about what people should do and 18 what danger is?
19 A
Well, that sounds like good advice in general, 20 yes.
21 Q
All right.
l
~
22 A
Another principle was giving people the reason 23 for what you are asking them to do.
If you ask people to-24 engage in a particular behavior or to refrain from that 25 behavior, if you supply a reason you are more likely to get
(
1
71300101 4138 cuewalsh 1
I
-)
compliance.
2 And, so we followed that general principle in 3
telling people not to use elevators and giving them a reason d
for that. request.
5 Q
And, in doing your fire emergency warnings, it 6
was also important to you, wasn't it, to be sure that people 7
understood how long they had before they needed to act, what 8
the time constraint was?
A I don't recall including that information in the 10 messages that either went to the occupants of the elevators or the occupants of the fire floor or --
12 Q
Well, you told them there is a report of a fire,
'3 didn't you?
<O
'd A
Yes, a fire has been reported on this floor.
15 Q
Right.
Now, when you did your fire warnings, 16 were there any governmental regulations or guidelines that
'7 you had to take into account about warning systems for
'8 fires?
A Well, there were a number of constraints on the 20 messages that we developed.
This was done in collaboration l
21 with another professor in my department.
So, for example, 22 we had some hardware constraints.
The -- we were designing 23 prerecorded taped messages, and the tapes could only be so l
long.
24 25 We had other kinds of constraints that in some
71300101 4139 cuewalsh
~Q sense were beyond our control such as constraints dictated l
2 by the width of the stairwells through which people would be 3
walking, and that constrained the information that we could d
communicate to people.
5 There were those sorts of constraints if that's 6
what you mean.
7 Q
Okay.
Did your warnings work?
8 A
We tested the warnings in -- that we prepared 9
for the Seattle Federal Building, a 37-story building.
I 10 would say they worked pretty well, at least well enough that the government hired us to put those same systems into other 12 federal buildings around the country.
13 In terms of the Bay Area Rapid Transit System O
Id there was never an actual test of the warnings that I wrote 15 for the subway.
16 Q
Now, for the highrise your response refers to a 17 test, not an actual emergency of the system, right?
18 A
It was a test, yes.
19 Q
But, you didn't tell people that there wasn't an 20 emergency.
You simply ran the warning system and saw what 21 l
they did and then questionnaired them, right?
l 22 A
Yes.
23 Q
And, then for the Bay Area you didn't do that 24 kind of test, and you also don't know if there ever was an l
emergency responding to your warnings?
25
! O
71300101 4140 cuewalsh I
I A
That's correct.
2 Q
Now, for the highrise, are you aware of any 3
emergency situations in response to your warnings?
A I'm not aware of any, no.
There have been a lot 5
of false alarms but I don't know about any actual emergency.
6 0
In developing your system, did you review other 7
fire warnings that others had written?
8 A
We looked for whatever related literature we could find and found very little.
And, for the most part we l0 designed our. system based on fundamental psychological princip3es rather than to borrow from other fire warnings.
12 0
And, you have reviewed the EBS messages and 13 found them wanting; isn't that right?
i-It A
Yes.
15 Q
Have you rewritten EBS messages?
16 A
No.
17 Q
Could you, if someone asked you to do it?
'8 l
A If I had the -- yes, if I had the time I could certainly write messages that would be an improvement on the 20 existing ones.
That would be rather simple.
21 Q
So, in general, you would agree that it's 22 possible to devise effective emergency warnings for nuclear 23 power plant emergencies, right?
i 24 A
Well, in my opinion it's certainly possible to 25 improve on the ones that were used in the exercise.
You
!O l
71300101 4141 cuewalsh
(])
would then need to test them within the whole information I
2 environment to see what kind o2.' effect they had.
3 Q
Okay.
Mr. Rowan, do you agree that it's d
possible to devise effective emergency warning systems for l
5 nuclear power plant emergencies?
l 6
A (Witness Rowan)
I agree that the messages could 7
be improved over the ones used in the exercise.
8 Q
Okay.
And, Mr. Evans, I take it you agree?
9 A
(Witness Evans)
I agree.
30 Q
Professor Saegert, I take it you would agree?
II A
(Witness Saegert)
Yes.
They could be improved.
12 Q
Professor Loftus, have you reviewed the NRC 13 regulations or guidelines regarding emergency information to O
id the public?
15 A
(Witness Loftus)
I believe that I saw them at 16 one time, but I don't have them well enough in mind to tell 17 you about them now.
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O
71300202 4142 jcewalsh I
I
-Q Q
So, an in-depth review of those regulations 2
,333,t part of your critique of the EBS messages for your 3
testimony?
A That is correct.
5 Q
Okay.
Mr. Rowan, have you?
6 A
(Witness Rowan)
I am sorry.
Could you repeat 7
the question?
8 Q
Sure.
Have you reviewed the NRC regulations or guidelines regarding emergency information to the public?
'O A
Yes.
'I Q
Okay.
In what kind of detail?
12 A
Well, when we first began looking at this, I 13 guess in January, I looked at a number of the -- we have iQ Id excerpts here.
I am not sure that I can say I reviewed it is all, but I looked at a good portion of the material.
16 Q
What about you, Mr. Evans?
I7 A
(Witness Evans)
I can't say whether I I8 specifically reviewed them or I was briefed on them by 19 counsel or by Mr. Rowan.
20 0
Professor Saegert?
21 A
(Witness Saegert)
Exactly what document are you 22 referring to, Cathy?
23 Q
Have you looked at 10 CFR, Part 50, and have you 24 looked at NUREG 0654 in the Emergency Information Section?
25 A
I have looked at the latter document.
I am not I(h
.v
71300202 4143 jcewalsh O
ure ebout the rir e oae-2 O
You read it?
You read NUREG 0654?
3 A
Right.
d Q
Was it in conjunction with your preparation of 5
your testimony?
6 A
Yes, it was.
7 Q
Did you look at it -- I take it you also 8
reviewed the EBS messages in some detail to prepare the 9
testimony?
10 A
Yes.
Il Q
Did you look at NUREG 0654 in conjunction with 12 that review of your EBS messages?
13 A
More or less.
O id Q
When you were doing that process, did you 15 compare the EBS messages that LILCO used during the exercise 16 to any of the guidelines or criteria in NUREG7 17 A
I don't remember doing that specifically.
18 Q
Okay.
Thank you.
Professor Loftus, did you 19 read EBS messages for any other nuclear power plants in 20 preparing your testimony here?
21 A
(Witness Loftus)
No.
22 Q
Mr. Evans, you said yesterday that you hadn't 23 either.
Mr. Rowan, have you?
24 A
(Witness Rowan)
No, I don't think so.
25 0
Professor Saegert, have you?
O
71300202 4144 joewalsh I
-(]
A (Witness Saegert)
No.
2 Q
Professor Loftus, have you reviewed at all the 3
ENC setups for other nuclear power plants?
A (Witness Loftus)
No.
5 0
Has anyone on the panel?
6 A
(Witness Evans)
No.
7 A
(Witness Rowan)
No.
)
e A
(Witness Saegert)
No.
Q Mr. Rowan, you wouldn't characterize the New IO York Times as a local paper, would you?
I A
(Witness Rowan)
That is a good question.
The
'2 New York Times is one that I read everyday in Washington, D.
13 C., and I almost consider it a local paper there.
But I Id think a fairer characterization of it would be that it is 15 probably a secondary paper in this area.
I am not sure, but 16 Mr. Evans might know better.
He has been in the newspaper
'7 business for 30 years.
'8 A
(Witness Evans)
Yeah, I would very definitely characterize the New York Times as a local newspaper, and I 20 think that the New York Times would defend that proposition 21 vigorously, knowing the editors of that newspaper.
22 O
What about the Washington Post?
Would you 23 characterize that as a local paper?
24 A
Yes, indeed.
Having competed against it on a 25 local basis for more than a decade, it is very definitely a I
.1
71300202 4145 joewalsh g
local paper.
1 2
O Would you characterize it as a national paper as 3
well as local?
d A
Yes.
5 Q
Mr. Evans (sic), do you agree with that?
6 A
(Witness Rowan)
He is Mr. Evans.
7 Q
I am sorry, i
8 (Laughter.)
9 A
(Witness Evans)
I usually agree with what I 10 say.
II (Laughter.)
12 0
I have been so concerned about remembering Mr.
13 Evans since I hadn't met him before the hearing, and I had O
3d met you.
Mr. Rowan, do you agree with Mr. Evans' statement is about the Washington Post being local and natilonal in 16 character?
17 A
(Witness Rowan)
Well, the way I would l8 characterize it is it is local and national in character in 19 Washington, D. C.
I am not sure if it is widely read up 20 here.
I don't know if I call it local in Suffolk Country, 21 New York.
22 I am not familiar with what the people read 23 everyday.
I have read Newsday, and the New York Times and 24 the New York Post and the New York Daily News, and my list 25 of papers that are available at the newsstand down here O
l
71300202 4146 i -I.joewalsh-I
-]
stops right there.
2 Q
Okay.
That is a fair point.
In the context of 3
sending a Washington Post representative to the ENC during the exercise, would you characterize the Post as a local 5
paper?
6 A
Well, let me see if I can answer it.
I will 7
answer your question.
I might not characterize the paper as 8
a local paper, but what that reporter. files to the 9
Washington Post would go on the Washington Post - LA Times 10 news service.
'l Correct me if I am wrong, Phil, but Newsday is 12 owned by the Times-Mirror Corporation, and therefore, it 13 would have access to the information that the Washington Post reporter filed, so it might, indeed, end up in the Id 15 local media.
16 Q
Now, Professor Saegert, in your testimony, in 17 your written testimony, and also I believe yesterday, you 18 made a statement to the same effect.
19 The panel has equated the inconsistencies that 20 you picked out of the LILCO EBS messages and other emergency 21 information with the emergency information given at TMI, 22 isn't that right?
23 A
(Witness Saegert)
I don't think that I would 1
1 24 say that I equated it.
What I said was that LILCO has 25 systematized some of the problems in providing clear,
!O
,-,..y y
..---.c.
.,---,____,-,----.m._
--.-m-w,m__w____w..-
71300202 4147 joewalsh O
consistent, timely information that were haphazardly engaged 2
in during the TMI incident.
3 Q
And generally you have concluded that the d
handling of the information during the exercise is 5
comparable to the handling of the information during the 6
emergency at TMI, right?
7 A
In its problems.
Clearly there are elements 8
like the EBS messages that did not exist at TMI.
9 Q
Right.
Now, does anyone on the panel disagree 10 with Professor Saegert's assessment?
II A
(Witness Evans)
No.
12 Q
You all agree, right?
13 A
(No response.)
O Id Q
Mr. Rowan, it is true that among the other 15 information given during TMI, that during the course of the 16 accident, the NRC said there could be a hydrogen explosion.
17 The Governor variously advised that the emergency was over, 18 and later that people should evacuate, and that Metropolitan 19 Edison gave out false information about the cause and the 20 severity of the accident, isn't that right?
21 A
(Witness Rowan)
Yes.
22 Q
And, Mr. Rowan, there wasn't any ENC at TMI, was 23 there?
24 A
The answer to that is, no.
But there were 25 places tha't the press was congregated.
At an American 0
71300202 4148 joewalsh I
-]
Legion Hall, at a school, and most frequently at the parking 2
lot across the way from the power plant itself.
3 So, it serves some of those functions, but the answer to your question of was there an ENC, is no.
5 0
And these other congregate places were sort of 6
ad hoc, right?
7 A
Yeah, I would use that characterization.
That 8
is right, yes.
Q And there were no EBS messages at TMI, were 10 there?
A No.
12 Q
In fact, there was very little emergency
'3 planning at TMI, right?
i 14 A
I would have to agree with that, is Q
Right.
Now, Professor Loftus, you and others, 16 including the fellow witness panel and LILCO witnesses in
'7 sane cases have pointed out certain confusion and
'8 inconsistency in LILCO's EBS messages, and the things that you have pointed out in your testimony include that within 20 one EBS message LILCO said there was release, and then there 21 was no release.
That we told people to shelter cattle, but 22 not themselves.
23 That we identified emergency classifications and 24 explained that there are four, but didn't state the 25 hierarchy of the four, and that we described potential dose l
l
71300202 4149 joewalsh
< I. ss_)
levels as percentages of EPA, PAG's in a way that people 1
2 might not understand.
That is about a fair summary, isn't 3-it?
d A
(Witness Loftus)
Well, except for the fact that 5
I wouldn't say, in response to your last point, that people 6
might not understand.
That they invariably wouldn't 7
understand.
8 Q
Right.
I understand.
I understand what you are 9
saying.
Now, Professor Loftus, you don't think that those 10 difficulties. rise to the level of the problems with the 31 information given at TMIs do you?
12 A
I am not sure that I know enough about the 13 details of what people were given at TMI-2 to make that --
O id to answer your question yes or no.
15 0
All right.
Well, just take the three examples 16 that I gave you in my previous question to Mr. Rowan, that 17 the NRC said there could be a hydrogen explosion at the 18 plant, that the Governor variously advised that the 19 emergency was over, and then that people should evacuate, 20 and that Metropolitan Edison, the utility at TMI, gave out 21 false information about the cause of the accident, and the l
22 severity of the accident.
23 Do you equate the difficulties that you see in 24 the EBS messages with that information?
25 A
I think there are difficulties in both
(
71300202 4150 joewalsh
,e I
-]
situations, and I am not sure I would want to.
It would be l
2 like equating apples and oranges.
I have identified, along 3
l with others the difficulties with the EBS messages, and I am not prepared to compare them to some other difficulties 5
right now.
6 A
(Witness Saegert)
My tectimony is being 7
characterized, and I think it would be reasonable for me to 8
say what the comparison was based on.
I mean, it is not reasonable to compare a drill 10 with an emergency.
The point of a drill is to show how you were prepared for an emergency, which will definitely be 12 more complicated, confusing, and unpredictable than a
'3 drill.
- O
~
'd What I was talking about was the information 15 system, and comparing it to the guidelines that were 16 developed in the Kemeny Report.
That the industry be 17 forthcoming, which it was not.
18 It was a stated and a clear policy of LILCO in this to ask questions only -- to answer questions only when 20 they were asked, not to provide information to the press 21 unless it was requested, not to be prepared to provide 22 elaborations and extensions of information that was in the 23 public domain because of the EBS's.
24 Those are examples of not being forthcoming.
25 There was another recommendation from the Kemeny Commission 10
=
71300202 4151 joewalsh
(])
that had to do with being timely and consistent, and even in I
2 a drill, which is obviously a lot easier than an emergency, 3
the system didn't work that way.
The system worked the d
opposite way.
It made it difficult, as we showed with that 5
chart, for people involved in this process to have timely 6
~
and consistent information, and that was designed into the 7
system.
8 We are talking about testing a system.
We are 9
not talking about two real accidents.
What I am saying, is 10 the system was similar to the one that Med Ed developed ad 31 hoc.
This one was developed with foresight, and it had 12 other problems, and one of the major criticisms of Med Ed 13 and of the information flow in that situation was that O
id technical information was given out by people who were 15 j
unprepared to interpret it in lay language clearly and I
16 articulately and with facility.
That was clearly the case 17 in this exercise also.
18 And additionally, many of the technical details 19 were not available in a way that the public could 20 understand, just as Dr. Loftus has said.
21 When you give people advice on what to do, you 22 also want to give them reasons.
That was something that was 23 not followed, so what I was doing was comparing the report 24 on what were the systemic problems to an analysis of this 25 system, and I think that this system would fail in many of
(
i
.._._,,,_.._.-,-,_.--_.,_-.,__m.
,,.,.c..--....
71300202 4152 joewalsh I
]
the same ways that the system -- the non-system failed at
/
2 TMI, because they internalized the negatives, the absence of 3
forthcomingness, the absence of timely, well-versed kind of staff responses, and they didn't do the positives.
5 So, that is what I meant.
6 7
8 9
i 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 l
)
19 20 21 22 l
23 f
f 24 25
!O
71300303 4153 marysimons
({')
Q So is it fair to say, Professor Saegert, that a 1
2 great deal of your difficulty with what happened at the 3
exercise stems from the planning aspects?
4 A
Yes.
5 0
And, Professor Loftus, have you ever read the 6
Kemeny Commission report on TMI?
7 A
(Witness Loftus)
No.
8 Q
Professor Saegert, have you?
9 A
(Witness Saegert)
Yes.
10 Q
The entire report?
11 A
Not all the volumes I don't think.
I read the 12 ones having to do with the human behavior and information 13 and that sort of thing.
O Id MS. McCLESKEY:
Those are all my questions.
15 At this time I would like to move into evidence 16 LILCO Exercise Exhibits 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10.
17 JUDGE FRYE:
Any objection?
18 MS. LETSCHE:
No.
19 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
No objection.
20 MR. BARTH:
No.
21 JUDGE FRYE:
All right.
So ordered.
22 (LILCO Exercise Exhibit 23 Nos. 5 through 10, inclusive, 24 previously marked for identifi-25 cation, we admitted into evidence.)
O
71300303 4154 carysimons I-(]
I JUDGE FRYE:
Mr. Zahnleuter.
2 RECROSS-EXAMINATION 3
BY MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
d Q
I would like to ask you to refer to page 219 of 5
your testimony.
Well, I don't have a specific question 6
about that page, but I do want to say that you're asked a 7
question on that page.
"Please explain why the contents of 8
LILCO's EBS messages were inconsistent and conflicting and why that would result in involuntary evacuation?"
Then your answer contains a description of EBS No. 2, and then it goes on to talk about EBS No. 3.
,2 I would like you to look at EBS No. 3, which is 1
I3 in Attachment 8 to your testimony.
<O i.
(Pause.)
15 I can help a little bit perhaps.
What I would 16 like you to do is compare the fifth paragraph on page 1 of
'7 EBS 3 which says "A minor release of radiation into the air la occurred at 8:19," and Item 2 on page 2 which says " Field l9 monitoring teams have been organized and dispatched to 20 collect data on the amount of the release."
21 In your opinion, are the two paragraphs 22 consistent or inconsistent?
23 A
(Witness Loftus)
Well, I'll speak first.
In my 24 opinion, there is an inconsistency here because the first 25 sentence, a minor release indicates that the writers of this
!O
,__._y_
.y
._..y.__
- t
-71300303 4155 carysimons
()
message know something about the amount of radiation that 1
2 has been released, and the subsequent paragraph on field 3
monitoring indicates that we don't know about the amount of radiation.that exists.
So I see that as an inconsistency.
5 Q
Does anyone else have anything to add to that?
6 A
(Witness Rowan)
Well only this observation.
7 When I was at Three Mile Island they had a release that 8
occurred and it was characterized as not being a large 9
amount and everyone wondered how they knew.
The reporters 10 were running.around and trying to figure out and using equipment that none of us were trained to use and nuclear 12 activists that opposed nuclear power were riding around in 13 automobiles.
()
id I remember at one point they drove up because 4
15 they saw a bunch of reporters standing around and said look, 16 here is our Geiger counter and it's in red.
Well, no one 17 else's was in the red, and consequently we didn't believe 18 them as a matter of fact and I didn't report that particular 19 thing.
20 You've got a lot of conflicting information 21 there, and you've got built into this message an idea that 22 we know how much it is.
It's " minor."
But we had to send 23 people out to collect information on the amount of the 24 release.
25 Now in real life that would probably be the
- O e
i
._--._-_,_,n._.,-,_
,,,..,,,....-,,_,,.-,_..__n_-,
71300303 4156 mrysimons I
-(~
right thing to do.
You still want to go out and find out v
2 how much you could measure somewhere else.
But for the 3
public hearing this or for a reporter, like I used to be d
hearing this, it tends to make you believe that they don't 5
know what they're talking about.
6 Q
Mr. Loftus, I'm not asking you to redraft the 7
EBS message, but if there any way that this inconsistency 8
should have been rectified?
A (Witness Loftus)
Well, it seems almost certain I
that it should have been rectified, and at least as far as this inconsistency is concerned, it would be possible to fix 12 up this little problem, or big problem, depending on your 13 perspective.
b Id MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Thank you.
I have no other 15 questions.
16 JUDGE FRYE:
Mr. Barth.
37 MR. BARTH:
I'm ready to commence with Dr. Cole I8 and Dr. Saegert.
Is that acceptable?
I9 JUDGE FRYE:
I'm sorry?
20 MR. BARTH:
I'm ready to commence with Dr. Cole 21 and Dr. Saegert.
Is that acceptable?
22 JUDGE FRYE:
Surely.
23 MR. BARTH:
I have no questions regarding what's 24 happened this morning.
25 JUDGE FRYE:
I'm sorry?
73 U
l l
l
71300303 4157 acrysimons Q
l MR BARTH:
I have no questions regarding what 2
has transpired this morning.
3 JUDGE FRYE:
- Fine, d
RECROSS-EXAMINATION 5
BY MR. BARTH:
6 Q
Dr. Saegert, you were deposed, to my 7
recollection on January 15 in Washington.
Do you recall the I
a deposition?
9 A
(Witness Saegert)
Yes, I do.
10 Q
And at page 85 you testified that you were not Il prepared to set forth your views on the contention which we
)
12 are now litigating because you had not seen Dr. Cole's 13 survey results; is that correct?
O Id A
That was one reason.
I also said at that time is that I had just begun to work on the case and had had very 16 little time to look at materials or to develop my testimony 17 at that point.
18 Q
Have you examined Dr. Cole's survey?
19 A
Yes, I have.
20 0
Could you tell us when you examined that survey?
21 A
I'm very unsure of the dates.
It was perhaps 22 three weeks or four weeks before our filing deadline, 23 something like that.
24 Q
Could you tell me when you first prepared your 25 testimony?
s l
l
71300303 4158 n2rysimons A
Well, I began to work on it really shortly after l
2 my deposition, reading material that had come out since I 3
l had last testified and going over the materials involved in l
these contentions and so on.
But I developed it in stages.
d 5
I would develop parts of it and then add information to it 6
as information became available.
7 Q
As I read pages 143, 165 and 188 of your 8
testimony, you appear to adopt and subscribe to Dr. Cole's study.
Do you do so?
10 A
I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you.
'I JUDGE PARIS:
Neither could I.
12 BY MR. BARTH:
13 Q
As I read pages 143, 165 and 188 of your
'O-i.
testimony, you appear to adopt and subscribe to Dr. Cole's 15 study.
Do you do so?
16 A
(Witness Saegert)
I appear to have subscribed I7 to Dr. Cole's testimony?
18 Q
Adopt and subscribe.
19 A
Does that I mean that I agree with it and that I 20 use it in my testimony, because I do use it and I do agree 21 with it.
22 O
Is it a good study?
23 A
Yes, I think it's a good study.
24 Q
Are you professionally qualified to make such a 25 judgment?
71300303 4159 marysimons
~]
1 A
To some extent.
I've conducted one large-scale 2
survey for the City of Denver, and I was trained at the 3
Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, d
which is one of the leading survey institutes in the 5
country.
6 MR. BARTH:
Your Honor, could I ask your 7
indulgence and ask the reporter to read the answer back, 8
please.
9 JUDGE FRYE:
This most recent one?
10 MR. BARTH:
Yes.
II JUDGE FRYE:
All right.
12 (The answer was read by the reporter.)
13 MR. BARTH:
Thank you.
That's sufficient.
Id BY MR. BARTH:
15 Q
Dr. Saegert, let me refer you to the deposition 16 which was taken Tuesday, January 15, 1987.
17 MS. LETSCHE:
Excuse me.
Perhaps before you get f
18 started I can give the witness a copy of the transcript.
l 19 JUDGE FRYE:
Of the deposition?
20 MS. LETSCHE:
The deposition, yes.
21 (Counsel Letsche-placed the copy of the 22 deposition referred to before the witness.)
23 WITNESS SAEGERT:
What was that page number, 24 please?
25 BY MR. BARTH:
.O
=
71300303 4160 corysimons
__q 9( )
Q That is the deposition you have that your 2
counsel gave you?
A (Witness Saegert)
Yes, it is.
Q I refer you to page 83, line 12.
The question 5
there by Mary Jo Leugers on behalf of Hunton and Williams 1
6 was "Have you done any research surveys," and your answer was "No."
Is that what the transcript states?
s A
It is, but if you read the answer before that, we were talking about surveys of Long Island residents, and 10 I have done no surveys of Long Island residents.
If you i
look at lines 9 through 11, that was the context of my 12 answer.
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 i
20 21 22 4
23 24 25 m
I t
.,.,__._._..c..
.,,,_,,,,._.....,-.-m_
,,..~..,....
71300404 4161 cuewalsh I
Q I accept your explanation.
Dr. Cole, according 2
to your testimony, you have made over 150 surveys in the 3
last several years; is that correct?
d A
(Witness Cole)
Yes.
In my professional career, 5
I've made at least 150 surveys.
6 0
Is the art of surveying reasonably well 7
developed?
Is it experimental or is it well established?
8 A
I would say that, yes.
9 0
Is the technology well established, sir?
10 A
Yes.
13 Q
And, there is nothing new in the survey that is 12 now before us that is over and beyond the bounds of what you 13 have previously done; is that correct?
Id A
Methodological 1y, no.
15 Q
Is the present survey that is now before us more 16 Complicated or complex than others that you have done?
17 A
No.
There are some that have been a lot simpler 18 than this, but there are some that have been much more 19 complicated.
20 Q
As I look at the survey which is Attachment 14 21 to your testimony, that has a number of calculations in it, 22 well over 50; is that correct?
23 (The witness is looking at a document.)
24 A
Excuse me.
What do you mean by calculation?
25 Q
Mathematical manipulations such as your O
71300404 4162 cuewalsh I
-(~ )
addressment of the weights given to the figures as a result v
2 of the double telephone lines --
3 A
Yes.
O
-- the calculations of sample sizes, the 5
calculations of the parameters of the population which it 6
projects?
7 A
It does have statistical calculations.
I 8
haven't counted how many of them.
O Could you estimate how many there are in that I0 thing by looking at it?
I have the time to wait.
I'm interested in the complexity of what you 12 have done with other surveys.
'3 3
A Well, the weighting procedure was one
, l '8 V
'd calculation.
The way the weights are computed is, you plug 15 in the weights, read zip code into the computer, and the 16 Computer does the calculation.
'7 Q
You have previously testified in this Shoreham
'8 proceeding regarding surveys, have you not, sir?
A Yes, I have.
20 Q
And, as I recall reading, there was an 21 implication by some people that your surveys are biased.
22 And, the Licensing Board in 21 NRC 644 found such 23 allegations lacking in merit.
24 Do you recall this kind of exchange in the past?
25 A
Yes, I do.
ln.C
71300404 4163 cuewalsh
(])-
3 Q
And, was there bias in your past surveys, sir?
2 A
Was there any bias?
3 Q
Correct.
d A
In my opinion, there was no bias that influenced 5
any substantive result.
There was certainly no intentional f
6 bias.
7 As I've testified in the past, the word " bias" a
is a very funny word.
There is no way to objectively 9
determine whether a survey is biased, because since the 10 human language is variably interpreted by different people 33 some people can read a particular question as " biased" and 12 others can see it as not biased.
13 In my opinion, none of my surveys have been 1
~
14 shown to be biased in such a way as the wording of 15 questions, the placement of questions or any of the other 16 techniques used have had any significant influence on the 17 substantive results.
18 0
Is there any bias in the survey which is 19 attached as Attachment 14 to your testimony, sir?
20 A
Not in my opinion, no.
l 21 Q
I see throughout the survey you use the terms 22 "it is a random survey."
Is it a random survey?
23 A
It was based upon a random sample.
24 i
Q And, that was done by using a random digit l
25 generator in the computer which simply spit out the last O
71300404 4164 cuewalsh I
four numbers of telephones; is that correct?
2 A
That's correct.
That is the standard procedure 3
used by all major survey research companies today in d
generating samples.
5 Q
And that computer had no slant, no prejudice, no 6
feeling of race, religion, color, creed, or anything like 7
that.
It simply generated these numbers sort of by the law 8
of impartiality; is that correct?
A Correct.
10
.(Laughter.)
Q And, that makes the survey random; is that 12 right?
33 A
What makes the survey random is that every i
i L
Id single person with a residential telephone had an equal 15 chance of being selected.
That is essentially the 16 definition of a random sample.
I7 A random sample is one in which every member of the population has an equal probability of being accepted.
'8 19 This was a stratified random sample meaning that it was 20 broken down into three geographical areas, so within each of 21 those three geographical areas every family with a 22 residential phone listing, whether that phone was a listed 23 or an unlisted number, had an equal probability of being
]
24 selected.
25 And, therefors, it was based upon a random i
_ _ ~
1 71300404 4165 cuewalsh
(])
sample of residential phone listings.
3 2
0 You sa'y that a random sample is one in which 3
every member of the_ population has an equal chance of being d
included, and that happened here?
5 A
Yes.
I specified that it's a random sample of 6
households with telephones.
And, over 97 percent of 7
households on Long Isl'and have telephones.
8 Q
Because it's a random sample you can thereby 9
make estimators of the population parameters from the sample 10 statistics; is that not correct II A
Yes.
12 Q
And, you can do this with a certain degree of 13 confidence.
In your case, you projected for the EPZ a 95 O
Id percent confidence level with a random error of five percent is on each side; is that correct?
16 A
Correct.
17 Q
Let me look just a trifle closer, sir.
If you 18
~
do all the households on Long Island in the EPZ -- now, if 19 you use the word "Long Island" you should strike it, because 20 I'm only concerned with the EPZ -- do all households have an 21 equal opportunity to be included in your sample in this 22 particular case?
23 A
Every household that had a telephone, yes.
24 Q
How about the householde that had two 25 telephones?
O
71300404 4166 ruewalsh Q
A They had a slightly higher chance of being 2
included.
And, we adjusted for that in the weighting.
3 Q
How about the -- weren't the telephone samples taken between 5 and 10 in the evening?
5 A
You are talking -- now, you are beginning to 6
talk about something other than the sample.
You are 7
beginning to talk about the response rate to the sample.
So, I have to understand what you are referring a
to.
Are you talking about the sample of numbers or are you
'O talking about the interviews we completed?
Q Were not the interviews which comprise the 12 sample done between 5 and 10 in the evening, sir?
'3 A
Most of them.
Some of them on Saturday were
- -'O id done during the day.
Call-backs for people who were not at is home on the evening were atitempted during the day on 16 Saturday.
17 It's also standard procedure in survey research.
'8 Q
And, does this not, the 5 to 10 p.m., appear upon Page 39 of your testimony?
20 (The witness is looking at a document.)
)
21 A
39 of the testimony or of the report?
22 Q
Of the testimony?
No.
Thank you for the 23 correction.
It's Attachment 14.
You are correct.
It's 24 Line 18.
25 A
Yes, it does.
!O
- =
J
- 71300404 4167 O
Q And when I returned to the motel last night 2
after dinner, I saw the Long Island Expressway full.
I saw 3
police, I saw firemen.
There were people in the hotel.
I d
saw restaurants busy.
5 Did those people have an equal opportunity to be 6
included in your survey?
7 t
A Absolutely.
8 Q
When they weren't home at 5 to 107 A
We called back.
If people weren't home, we 10 called back..
Il The standard procedure used for the scientific 12 random sample surveys is if somebody doesn't answer the 13 phone you make three additional attempts to call them.
- Now, O
id somebody might not be home on a given day at a given time, is but we are going to call those people back.
16 Q
Is it not true that in these telephone surveys 17 when you go between 5 and 10 that you simply leave out vast 18 quantities of people who are not at home during those times 19 and make these kind of generalizations?
20 Before you answer, sir, I would like to point l
21 out I'm paraphrasing the " Sociological Method" by Stephen 22 Cole on Page 62.
i 23 A
It is possible that it could leave out some 24 people, but I would very much disagree with your 25 characterization of the amount as a vast amount.
There O
l l
I
,.--,,,,-,..--n
,nn,--
gg-.-
,,- m,-,,,--ew -,-,-
w-,-
r,w,
<m--
71300404 4168 cuewalsh I
could be some people, not very many, on Long Island who 2
consistently work at night and are not home and who do not 3
have other members of their household at home.
We tried to call those people back on Saturday.
5 I would say that the total number of people whom we could 6
not contact because they were not home in the evening was a 7
relatively small number.
8 And, furthermore, it's the only procedure really to follow in surveys, and it's done by all major survey 10 research companies since the great majority of people work during the day and certainly aren't home during the day.
If 12 you were to call during the day, the cost of doing surveys
'3 would double.
- D Id Q
I understand the practicalities, sir, but since 15 j
we are dealing with the public health and safety, is not the 16 only method which is to be considered is a simple random
'7 sample, and I've asked you is that so.
And, so you think
'8 about it.
'9 Was this an actual random sampling?
20 MS. LETSCHE:
I object to --
21 l
WITNESS COLE:
It certainly was a random sample.
22 BY MR. BARTH:
(Continuing) 23 l
Q And the answer to the first question?
24 A
It was a random sample, yes.
25 0
Would the people who were at work and not at
. !O 1
l I
71300404 4169 cuewalsh O
home neve e= eeue1 ovvere==1tv2 2
A I say we tried to call those people back, and we 3
called them on Saturday.
The chances of not getting those d
people were very slim.
5 Q
I recall you tried to balance your survey of l
6 households on a sex basis; is that correct?
7 A
Within the household, we selected the respondent 8
to be interviewed using a sex quota.
We interviewed either 9
the male or female head of household, and we used a sex 10 quota system.to make sure that the distribution of sex in our sample corresponded with the distribution of sex in the 12 population.
13 This was very important, because it's well known O
14 that women have different attitudes towards nuclear power is than men.
If we had not done that, and if we had over-16 sampled women, the survey could have been distorted.
17 Q
But, if it were a random sample would this make 18 any difference?
19 A
It's a random sample of households, as I point 20 out.
It is not a random sample of individuals.
21 We selected a random sample of households, and 22 within each household we selected a male or female adult 23 head of household as an informant on what that family would 24 do during a nuclear emergency at Shoreham.
25 Q
And, did not your instructions to the people O
71300404 4170 cuewalsh I
actually making the telephone calls, was that if you had two 2
women in a row go for a man the third time and vice-versa in 3
order to balance the sexual ratio out?
A No, that's not the correct instructions.
It was 5
not two women in a row.
It meant if they had more than --
6 they keep track of how many men and women they have.
7 So, if somebody, let's say, had interviewed 8
three women then they had to interview a man.
Q And, on that fourth telephone call, Dr. Cole, l
'O did everybody who remained have an equal opportunity or do you only go for a man?
12 A
I don't know what you mean by everybody who I3 remained.
We are dialing households here.
We are using
'o r
'd these people as informants as to what the household would 15 do.
16 Certainly, every household had an equal
'7 opportunity.
'8 Q
Regardless of whether it was headed by a male or 19 a female at that time?
Without regard to male -- I thought 20 you gave instructions to go for a male the next time.
21 Does that not make the sample not random?
22 MS. LETSCHE:
I object.
This has been asked and 23 answered several times.
24 WITNESS COLE:
I will answer it if the Board 25 would like.
!O
71300404 4171 guewalsh C
(Laughter.)
3 2
JUDGE PARIS:
Go ahead and answer it.
3 JUDGE FRYE:
Yes.
Why don't you answer it?
d WITNESS COLE:
I've never said, nor do I claim 5
now, that we have a random sample of individuals.
It is 6
clearly stated in the report that we have a random sample of 7
households and that within the households we used a male or 8
female head of household as an informant to tell us what 9
that household would do.
10 BY MR. BARTH:
(Continuing)
Il Q
And, on that fourth telephone call I again ask, 12 did all households that remain have an equal opportunity of 13 being in your survey?
O Id A
All households, yes.
15 0
And, if there is a household with only a woman?
16 A
That person wouldn't have been answered (sic).
17 But, that wouldn't effect the randomness of the sample.
18 JUDGE PARIS:
Excuse me.
You said that person 19 wouldn't have been --
20 WITNESS COLE:
That person wouldn't have been 21 interviewed.
We had to keep a sex quota because in 22 telephone interviewing it's a strange fact about our society 23 perhaps, but women answer the phone more than men.
You 24 know, in most households the woman is the one who answers 25 the phone.
()
l l
71300404 4172 l
cuewalsh G
I
-Q If all you do is interview the person who comes 2
onto the telephone, you generally end up with a sample of 3
about 60 percent women.
Now, it's well known that women d
have more negative attitudes towards nuclear power than 5
men.
There are big differences.
6 I found this in my survey.
Everybody who has 7
studied this has.
Therefore, it was absolutely essential to 8
this particular survey to make sure that we did not over-represent women, and that's why we used the sex quota I0 system.
l BY MR. BARTH:
(Continuing) 12 Q
Did the three percent of the households who do 13 not have telephones, they had no opportunity to be included
<o i
Id in your survey; is that correct?
15 A
That's true.
16 Q
How did -- in computing the number of households that actually are, I understand you took the number of
'8 household telephone lines and adjusted this by some basis for those that had two telephones; is that correct?
20 g
y,,,
21 Q
And, this appears on Page 48 of your testimony I 22 believe, Dr. Cole.
23 A
The report or the testimony?
24 Q
That's what I will find out.
Page 48 of 25 4.
!O
I A
Yes, that's true.
2 Q
And, I look at the first one that you have about 3
456,000 residential listings in Nassau County and 28 percent 4
of the households had two or more phones.
5 A
Correct.
6 Q
Could you tell us mathematically how you arrived 7
then at how many households there are?
8 A
We assumed that 28 percent of the households 9
would have two numbers, and we did a calculation on the 456 10 and came up with a total of 392,741 unique households.
Il Q
And, how was that calculation done?
Was it not 12 done by dividing the total number of residential lines by 13 1.28?
O 14 A
I don't know.
This was done by a statistical 15 consultant to my company.
I did not do this calculation 16 myself.
17 Q
Let us work it backwards, then.
Let us assume 18 that there are 456,000 residences.
What is 28 percent of 19 that?
l 20 MS. LETSCHE:
Judge Frye, I object to a request 1
21 that this witness perform mathematical calculations --
22 WITNESS COLE:
I don't have my calculator.
Can 23 I get my calculator in the other room?
24 WITNESS LOFTUS:
Here.
25 MS. LETSCHE:
I'm sorry?
O
71300404 4174 cuewalsh 1
I JUDGE FRYE:
I think Dr. Loftus apparently has a 2
calculator.
Maybe you could borrow that.
3 (The witness is provided with a calculator.)
WITNESS COLE:
This is a calculator?
I want my 5
own calculator.
6 (Laughter.)
7 WITNESS COLE:
I want a recess to get my own 8
calculator if I have to make any --
MR. BARTH:
I have a Texas.
You can use it if 18 you can use a Texas.
WITNESS COLE:
I have my own calculator which 12 I'm used to.
And, if I have to make any calculations --
I3 JUDGE FRYE:
Are you going to have very many Id calculations?
15 MR. BARTH:
There are only three, Your Honor.
16 JUDGE FRYE:
All right.
Well, why don't you 37 just get the calculator?
I8 MS. CASEY:
Where is it?
19 WITNESS COLE:
It's in my briefcase'.
You will 20 see it as soon as you open the briefcase.
21 MR. BARTH:
I have no objection if he takes a 22 couple of minutes and goes and gets it, Your Honor.
23 JUDGE FRYE:
That's what she is doing now.
1 24 MR. BARTH:
This might be a good time for a 25 small break, Your Honor.
i
_,,-,.-.-._.._,___.~.___,.,___m_....
,m_.,-.-.._,
....m..
71300404 4175 cuewalsh 1
JUDGE FRYE:
All right.
Why don't we take a 15 2
minute break, then.
3 (Whereupon, a recess is~taken at 11:53 a.m.,
to d
reconvene at 11:10 a.m.,
this same day.)
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 j
22 23 24 l
25 l0
71300505 4176 joewalsh 1
JUDGE FRYE:
I see we have the calculator now.
2 WITNESS COLE:
Yes.
I made the calculations.
3 JUDGE PARIS:
What page are we on again, please?
MR. BARTH:
Page 48 of Attachment 14, Your 5
Honor.
6 JUDGE FRYE:
Could you repeat your question, Mr.
7 Barth, so we have --
8 BY MR. BARTH:
(Continuing)
Q There are three figures for counties having 18 multiple lines, Nassau County, 28 percent of the lines going 3'
to two houses, Suffolk County, 18 percent, and the EPZ, 14 12 percent.
The question, in very general terms, because we i
13 are not trying to trick anybody, is are the figures on Page
'd 48 which Dr. Cole uses correct?
15 JUDGE SHON:
Mr. Barth, you said 28 percent of 16 the lines going to two or more houses.
I think it is the 37 other way around.
28 percent of the houses having two or
'8 more lines.
39 MR. BARTH:
Thank you.
I always accept 20 corrections from the Board.
Especially when I am wrong.
21 BY MR. BARTH:
(Continuing) 22 Q
Dr. Cole, you understand the parameter of the 23 question.
Could you check your figures and tell us if they 24 are correct?
25 A
(Witness Cole)
Yes, I think they are.
71300505 4177 joewalsh 1
~f')
Q Can you tell us how you arrived at-this?
It is V
2 my understanding, and we have good statisticians on the 3
Board, that if you -- for Nassau County, with 456 d
residential lines, 28 percent of those being doubles, you 5
have an adjusted 392,000 residences, is that correct?
6 A
Approximately, yes.
7 Q
Could we take that 392,000 residences, and of 8
those 28 percent have two lines, is that correct?
9 A
No.
'O Q
No?
II A
Yes, I am sorry.
28 percent of those have two 12 lines, yes.
13 Q
And could we take 28 percent of 392,000, and see 14 what that turns out to be?
15 JUDGE PARIS:
Can I ask a question at this 16 point?
Is -- it is 28 percent that have two or more, is 17 that right?
18 WITNESS COLE:
Yes.
19 JUDGE PARIS:
So, there are some that have three 20 or four phones, or something?
21 WITNESS COLE:
Yes.
In fact, very few have 22 that.
Not enough to include in the calculations.
[
23 JUDGE PARIS:
Oh, okay.
24 BY MR. BARTH:
(Continuing) 25 Q
Could you make that calculation?
What is 28 (2)
71300505 4178 joewalsh I
-(~';
percent of 392,000?
- x. y 2
A (Witness Cole)
Yes.
3 Q
I get a 109,000, is that what you get?
A Yeah, 110,000, more or less.
5 0
And we add to that 392,000, and what do we get?
6 A
About 502.
7 Q
And that does not match your original figure of 8
456, does it?
A That is not how the calculation was made,
'O though.
Would you like for me to explain to you how the calculation was made?
I can do that.
12 0
I would appreciate it if you would, sir.
'3 A
Sure.
We said that 28 percent of the households g
'd had two or more lines, therefore, we didn't want to throw 15 out all of those households, so we subtracted 14 percent of 16 the 456,676 listings, which is 63,935.
We subtracted 63,935
'7 from 456,676, and came up with 392,741.
'8 Now, there was some rounding error, because 28
'9 percent is reported here, but we actually used -- we carried 20 it out to several decimal places in the calculations and so 21 on, and in some of the other figures there are slight 22 discrepancies between what those calculations would indicate 23 and what is indicated here, but they are all a result of 24 rounding error in the calculations.
25 0
Could you explain how, then, when I take the I r^)
'LJ
71300505 4179 joewalsh
(]
final figure you have, which is supposed to be the total I
2 number of households, 392,000, and your assumption on Page 3
48 is that 28 percent of those households have two lines, d
and we added that 28 percent, and we get 502,000.
5 A
You are adding back in people that are already 6
in there.
You are assuming that all 28 percent aren't in.
7 In the 392 are the households.
We have already computed the a
total number of separate households.
You are assuming that 9
all 28 percent of the households were excluded from the 392, 10 and that is an incorrect assumption.
Il That 392 is the total number of households that 12 exist on Long Island in that County, based upon this 13 calculation.
O 14 Your assumption assumes that that figure is excludes all households that have multiple listings, and I 16 believe that to be an incorrect assumption.
17 Q
Dr. Cole, you have a number of people who refuse 18 to even answer your people that made the telephone calls, 19 isn't that correct?
About 990 in the EPZ?
20 A
There were a number, yes.
They are reported in 21 a table in the Report.
22 0
Is that a serious problem in the telephone 23 surveys, or is that just a minor problem?
24 A
I would say that of all of the problems that 25 exist in telephone surveys, this is a relatively serious O
71300505 4180 1
joewalsh I
one.
2 Q
The refusenicks?
3 A
That is right.
Ideally, we would like to d
interview everybody whom we call.
5 0
And does this detract from the validity of your 6
survey?
7 A
In my opinion, I do not think so.
I think it is i
a a general problem in survey research.
We can't force people who do not want to participate in research to participate,
'U but there is.no indication in my data, in my analysis of these data, that this refusal of some people to participate.
12 would have changed the substantive results of the survey.
'3 Q
Just a minor glitch.
Looking at your vita, I 7
i
'd notice on page 3 that Houghton Mifflin, if I pronounced it is correctly, published your sociological method, is that 16 Correct?
'7 A
I could give you the history of that book.
The
'8 book was -- a contract was originally signed with a company
'9 called Markham in Chicago.
Markham was sold to Rand 20 McNally, Rand McNally was sold to Houghton Mifflin, and 21 Houghton Mifflin's list was sold to Harper & Row.
\\\\
0 That explains the problem I have.
It says 22 4
23 Random McNally, and I wondered.
Thank you.
Is it your view 24 that in attempting to balance the sex ratios, that this did l
25 not at all impair the randomness of your survey?
l:0 l
l t
i t
~,,, ---,
,vw,,w.m n,--,-,,
_,,,,mw,,,,,1-.-n,-,,-,
-,,,v w _,,n-
--,-,,--,-w,,--,-m n--,,mg,--ww-,,-
, ~,, - - -,
71300505 4181 joewalsh C
I A
As I explained before, we do not have a random 2
sample of individuals in this survey.
We have a random 3
sample of households.
d It is my view that it did not affect the 5
randomness of our sample of households.
We never claimed to 6
have a random sample of individuals.
7 Q
And insofar as households, after a number of 8
calls, with one sex answering, others were omitted, this did 9
not affect your randomness?
10 A
No, because it is a random process.
How you H
dial those numbers.
12 Q
And in your view, did the -- do you have any 13 sociological data of how many people are occupied in Long id Island during 5 to 10 in the evening on weekdays?
15 A
I don't have any precise data.
But I have done 16 between maybe 50 and 75 surveys for Newsday, and we found 17 that the times when most people are home are in the evening, 18 so the best time to do this kind of research is between --
19 generally between 5:30 and 10:00, and that if you try to do 20 research during the day, that you get a very, very large 21 increase in the number of no answers, substantially 22 increasing the cost and just making it take longer to get 23 your interviews.
24 Q
Intuitively I understand and agree with your 25 answer, but the question is:
Have you made any kind of
{
-,----c.-
- -- ~ - -
c y
-,,m.
71300505 4182 joewalsh
-(~')
study, or do you have any sociological data which would show v
2 what percent of the population household heads in Suffolk 3
County and Nassau County are not at home during 5 to 10 on weekdays?
5 A
I have no hard, statistical evidence on what 6
proportion of the population might not be at home on any 7
given day.
It would vary, I am sure, from time to time.
8 Q
Generally in my area, Dr. Cole, people work approximately 8 until 5, and it takes time to get home.
If
'O you start your calls at 5 o' clock to someone who gets off at work have an equal probability?
I mean someone that is head 12 of a household, of being included in your survey?
'3 A
A household?
. O V
'd Q
Let's assume it takes him an hour to get home.
15 A
A household where someone leaves at 57 16 Q
Leaves his office at 5.
'7 A
Of course, because let's say they called that
'8 person at 5, that household at 5, and received no answer.
'9 They called them back at 8 or 9.
We do call-backs.
That is 20 how we handle this prcblem.
21 If you get e no answer early, you are going to 22 call the person back later on.
It is in everybody's 23 interest.
The researcher and the subcontractor who does it, 24 to complete the interviews.
And we are going to try to get 25 people when they are home, so if people are not at home when iA
)
u)
71300505 4183 joewalsh O
we first dial them, we will call them back later.
2 Q
And how much later?
Is there a pattern for this set up 'n your program?
3 i
d A
They would just call them back at a later point 5
in time, and generally what they do is that they start to 6
call numbers on a page.
If there are no answers, they might 7
start to call them back at 8 o' clock.
If there are 8
additional no answers, they might call them back later on 9
even.
10 Q
And how many calls do they get before you toss 11 in the towel and quit calling?
12 A
Well, the contract with the subcontractor calls 13 for a total of four.
An initial call, and three call-backs, O
Id but generally it is not unusual to make quite a bit more 15 than that to attempt to get completions.
16 Q
And is it not true that only through random 17 sampling are you able to make straightforward probability 18 statements about the population?
19 A
Random samples are the best way to make 20 statements about populations, yes.
l 21 Q
I direct your attention to Page 173, and this is 22 of your testimony, and I hope I am correct this time, where j
23 you state that you went before your focus groups, using a 24 randomization process similar to that for your survey.
l 25 That is at the top of the page, Dr. Cole.
!O
71300505 4184 joewalsh I
,-Q A
Yes, that is true.
That is how we generated the 2
phone numbers in order to recruit the participants in the 3
focus groups.
Q If I read your footnote, we made -- 32 at the 4
5 bottom of that page, we made a special effort to recruit pro-6 Shoreham participants, turning down potential participants 7
who were anti-Shoreham.
How does this jive with everybody 8
having an equal opportunity to be in your focus group?
Did you turn people down?
Is that not bias?
'O A
No.
It would have been much more biased, in my i
opinion, to include 100 percent of the participants who are i
12 against Shoreham.
When we say an equal opportunity, all we
'3 refer to is the sample of telephone numbers that every
- o
'd household has an equal chance of being called.
i 15 Then we use criteria for selecting the 16 participants.
In this particular research situation, it was
'7 essential, we felt, that we have a distribution of opinion l
on Shoreham that roughly corresponded with that in the
'8 population, since clearly that would effect the views of the i
p,op,,
20 y
21 If we had simply taken the first 49 people who 22 agreed to participate, I am afraid we would have gotten 23 practically all of them, or the great bulk of them -- not 24 all of the, but the great bulk of them would have been j
25 against the Shoreham plant.
K c, - -m y--,--..,---.-,--,.m,-
w x r,. m e
--v e,-
m
.%, c
,---,,wme,.y,.-w,v
,.-,--w,wy.%-
e--.-.rm
-e,
71300505 4185 joewalsh Q
As it turned out, the great bulk of them were I
2 against the Shoreham plant, but that is because the great 3
bulk of people on Long Island are against the Shoreham d
plant.
5 Q
I do not disagree with what you say.
The 6
question is limited to a technical question of statistics.
7 Was the sample random, and if you exclude people by any kind a
of criteria, sex, persuasion, or religion, you do not have a random sample.
Is that correct?
'O A
The sample of phone numbers used to recruit the Il participants was random.
The sample of participants was not 12 random.
We never said in our testimony that it was a random 13 sample, nor did we ever make any statistical generalizations l
'd from the focus groups to the population of Long Island.
15 It is quite clear that that would not be a 16 proper research procedure.
I 17 Q
Let me ask you a question about the focus group, 18 sir.
And I direct you to page 213 of your testimony.
The 19 second quote is -- do you have it?
20 A
Yes, I do.
21 Q
The second quote is:
Well, I would feel that 22 there is no more time left.
Now there is a chance of a 23 major one going out now.
24 Who is the person who said this, Dr. Cole?
25 A
The name of the person?
O f
71300505 4186 joewalsh
-(}
Q Yes.
2 A
I don't know.
3 Q
How old was he, Dr. Cole?
A I don't know.
Q Was it a he?
6 A
As I recall, yes.
7 Q
Do you have an approximate age bracket for him?
8 A
I could take a guess, but it would be just as guess.
I do not claim to be able to pinpoint every single
'O quote out of,all these transcripts, and be able to identify the participant.
12 We made no effort in this research to link the
'3 quotations with the participants, nor did we correlate any
'd of the comments made by participants with any of their 5
demographic characteristics.
16 0
Your first sentence, which says I could take a 37 guess.
Would you make a guess?
You were the only one 18 there, none of the rest of us know anything about this.
A As my memory recalls, this was a middle aged --
20 a relatively young, I mean a man, say, 35 to 40.
21 Q
What did he do for a living?
22 A
I haven't the slightest idea.
23 0
Did he grimace when you asked the question, or 24 did he smile?
25 A
Pardon me?
!O
71300505 4187 joewalsh O
Q Did he grimace when you asked the question, or 2
did he smile?
3 A
I couldn't possibly remember that.
There were 4
d literally millions of facial expressions, body movements 5
going on during these focus groups.
I couldn't possible i
6 remember somebody's facial expression, while they made one 4
7 statement out of a massive bunch of transcripts.
I don't j
8 know.
Q Do you know what he did for a living?
10 A
I have no idea.
Q Was he the first to arrive that night for your 12 group, or was he late in the group arriving?
13 A
I don't know.
4 O 14 MR. BARTH:
Your Honor, could I have a few 15 moments with my co-counsel?
i 16 JUDGE FRYE:
Surely.
17 (Mr. Barth confers with Mr. Pirfo.)
l 18 MR. BARTH:
Your Honor, this concludes my cross 19 examination of these people, but I would like to at this 20 time renew our motion to strike this testimony on the focus 21 groups which commences somewhere around page 171.
22 The only support I have found for this kind of a 23 motion so far has been Suffolk County's, which is very, very 24 dear to my heart, on April 20th 1984 they moved to strike 25 testimony stating the testimony is supported by nothing O
4 i
71300505 4188 joewalsh
-]
other than contacts with unidentified sources regarding the 2
hearsay.
3 This is r.nk hearsay.
The only thing we know about these people is what Dr. Cole, who is employed by 5
Suffolk County, has stated about them.
6 We don't know who these people are, the purpose 7
of denying hearsay is so Your Honor can take a look at these 8
people, their demeanor, how they react, and get some judgment of credibility.
We have nothing but words in two
'O transcripts which divert from each other.
Sometimes in important ways, sometimes not important ways.
12 We have no idea who this person is, what he
'3 looks like, and I certainly agree with Suffolk County that L
'd v
this is not reliable evidence.
This is unreliable hearsay.
5 This is nameless accusers, which we have been 16 through in the late '50's, and I think that this hearsay, by 17 these focus groups, is a travesty to permit it in here, and
'8 move that it be stricken, Your Honor.
'9 Under the Agencies regulations, from a technical 20 point of view, it certainly is not evidence which is 21 reliable material, and it should be excluded on that basis 22 alone.
23 Under the Appeal Board's rulings, this does not 24 fit expert testimony being relied upon by other experts, 25 which is the only kind of testimony they have allowed which
71300505 4189 joewalsh f]
is hearsay, and that was in Clinton.
I 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 (o
la 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O
71300606 4190 marysimons I
~
-( ';
JUDGE FRYE:
Let's take that under advisement I 2
think at this point since the testimony is not in.
3 JUDGE PARIS:
Dr. Cole, I would like to clarify a matter with regard to your attempts to maintain a 5
representative sex ratio in the people you interviewed in 6
the survey by passing over females after you had accumulated 7
an excess of females.
8 If you had not done that, how would it have changed the results of your survey?
10 WITNESS COLE:
If believe if we had not done that, we would have ended up with more women, and women are 12 more likely to say that they would evacuate under any
'3 r7 circumstances.
They are more likely to oppose Shoreham and Id to be afraid of radiation.
15 So if we had not done that, our estimates of the 16 size of the evacuation shadow would have been larger.
II JUDGE PARIS:
Okay.
Thank you.
'8 JUDGE FRYE:
Are women also likely to carry out
'9 that expressed intent when the real emergency comes along or 20 has there been any research on that point?
21 WITNESS SAEGERT:
I can answer that for TMI.
22 They were more likely, but of course in that case it was 23 related to the specific warnings that were given.
24 However, as far as the material that is out on 25 nuclear power plant accidents because of the association I
v
=
0 4
l 71300606 4191 marysimons
(])'
with fetal damage and milk production and all of that, it's I
2 a different issue than what they say, I understand, but 3
women are also more likely therefore to be evacuated.
4 WITNESS COLE:
I would like to also say that you 5
j have to realize that the decision to evacuate will be made 6
in a social context and a family is going to discuss it, 7
j I believe for that reason that our survey 8
actually underestimates the proportion of people who will 9
evacuate because men are less likely to evacuate and they 1
10 are less afraid of radiation and they are less likely to Il evacuate.
12 But consider a family in which a man is not i
13 afraid and a woman is, and she is there talking about this.
()
14 I think that in a good portion of these cases a man is 15 likely to take his wife's feelings into consideration.
So 16 that might result in an even larger evacuation shadow than 17 what our surveys indicated.
18 JUDGE FRYE:
Redirect?
19 MS. LETSCHE:
I don't believe I have any 20 l
redirect.
21 JUDGE FRYE:
Thank you very much.
We appreciate
}
22 your testimony.
23 That will then get us to ---
24 JUDGE PARIS:
I had a question I wanted to ask j
25 Dr. Loftus.
i C:)
l 1
4
71300606 4192 marysimons I
JUDGE FRYE:
Surely.
2 JUDGE PARIS:
Dr. Loftus, what is a high-3 frequency word?
d WITNESS LOFTUS:
Well, a high-frequency word is 5
simply a word that is used often in the English language.
6 JUDGE PARIS:
I see.
So in the frequency and 7
not in terms of ---
8 (Laughter.)
--- I mean in terms of use.
10 WITNESS LOFTUS:
That's right, and we have sources available that permit us to identify the number of 12 times per million every word in the English language is used 33 so as to identify the high-frequency words and then reject
<Q r
Id the low-frequency words if we choose to in developing 15 messages.
16 JUDGE PARIS:
Do you consider it better to use 37 high-frequency words in messages because more people are
'8 familiar with them?
Is that the idea?
WITNESS LOFTUS:
They comprehend high-frequency 20 words more readily and therefore would be likely to respond 21 to the message.
22 JUDGE PARIS:
You were asked about whether your 23 messages have been used in a real emergency and you said 24 that the ones for BART have not been.
Wasn't there a fire 25 in a BART tunnel some years ago?
71300606 marysimons 4193
(])
I WITNESS LOFTUS:
There was a fire in a BART 2
tunnel, and I believe it was January 1979, which led to the i
3 development of a new evacuation plan and my involvement and retention by BART, yes.
5 JUDGE PARIS:
I see.
So you were a result of 6
that.
7 WITNESS LOFTUS:
Yes.
8 JUDGE PARIS:
Okay.
Thank you.
9 WITNESS LOFTUS:
Not a cause of it.
10 (Laughter.)
11 JUDGE PARIS:
Thank you.
That's all I have.
12 JUDGE FRYE:
Anything based on that?
13 (No response.)
Id Thank you again for your testimony.
15 (Witness panel excused.)
16 JUDGE FRYE:
Where do we stand on the Contention 17 50 panel?
18 MS. McCLESKEY:
I think perhaps the thing to do 19 is to break for lunch and come back with them.
I guess you 20 have to have oral argument on your motions to strike.
21 JUDGE FRYE:
We do.
22 Is Mr. Miller here?
23 MS. LETSCHE:
Let me just say Mr. Miller is not 24 here yet.
He is coming up at some point today based on the 25 assumption that he would be starting first thing tomorrow
,e
71300606 4194 marysimons I
Q morning based on all the estimates yesterday.
So he isn't 2
here.
3 JUDGE FRYE:
Has he left yet, or do you know?
MS. LETSCHE:
I think he was planning (,n taking 5
some sort of early afternoon flight up. I assume he has not 6
left yet.
7 MS. McCLESKEY:
Well, could we call him and ask 8
him to go on and come?
There are shuttles every hour from Washington.
1 10 MS. LETSCHE:
I mean I will certainly call him' II and tell him that we have completed this.
I think as a 12 practical matter he is not going to get here in time to do I3 i
anything today.
Id JUDGE FRYE:
I think you're right.
If he hasn't is left at this point, it's unlikely that he could be here in 16 time to really serve any practical use this afternoon.
I7 JUDGE PARIS:
Which airport does he fly out of?
18 MS. LETSCHE:
I don't know which one he would l9 be flying out of, frankly.
I don't know what his plans 20 were.
I spoke to him yesterday evening and said based on 21 what all the estimates were, it seemed to be a group 22 understanding that we would not be beginning Contention 50 4
23 until tomorrow morning.
24 JUDGE FRYE:
That was certainly my anticipation 25 yesterday.
1
---,---,..--.m,
,,.,.,-,n.,,,,,,-.
,m,,
,_n,,,m.-.,
,,,-.r,,-n,
.,,,,_,w,,,,.,--
71300606 4195 c2rysimons i
O MS. LETSCHE:
So in light of that, it was my 2
understanding that he was planning on leaving at some point 3
in the afternoon today to get up here.
d JUDGE FRYE:
All right.
Is there anything else 5
we can take up in the interim?
6 MS. LETSCHE:
Not that I know of.
7 MR. BARTH:
Your Honor, we might reconsider the a
motion to strike the focus interviews at this time.
9 JUDGE FRYE:
I think we asked quite a few 10 questions that went to the same issue that you have raised, and I think we would like to reflect on the focus groups.
I 12 think perhaps the best time for us to do that is when we are 13 considering the decision.
O 14 All right.
I think in light of that we probably 15 are adjourned until 9 o' clock tomorrow morning.
16 (Discussion off the record.)
17 JUDGE FRYE:
Ms. Letsche, Ms. McCleskey, Mr.
18 Zahnleuter and Mr. Barth, we have apparently a typographical 19 error that we need to straighten out.
20 JUDGE PARIS:
On page 219 of your testimony, the 21 last part of the sentence in the first paragraph reads "And 22 why that would result involuntary evacuation."
23 Should there be a space in between the "in" and 24
" voluntary"?
25 WITNESS COLE:
I'm sorry, yes.
O
71300606 4196
{marysimons I
-(~}
JUDGE PARIS:
All right.
Thank you.
2 JUDGE FRYE:
Thank you.
3 (Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m.,
the hearing in the above-entitled matter adjourned, to reconvene at 9:00 a.m.,
5 Wednesday, April 29, 1987.)
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i
CERTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the h ITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of:
NAME OF PROCEEDING:
SHOREHAM NUCLEAR POWER STATION, UNIT 1 (EP EIERCISE)
DOCKET NO.:
50-322-OL-5 PLACE:
HAUPPAUGE, NY DATE:
April 28, 1987 wsre held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
MARY S'IMONS (q
/
M. WALSH g
T WALSH (TYPED)
Official Reporter Reporter's Affiliation.
W NS J
< 9 BAf.
V O
-_