ML20236U488
| ML20236U488 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 11/20/1987 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#487-4984 ASLBP, OL, NUDOCS 8712030094 | |
| Download: ML20236U488 (137) | |
Text
,
p p!
3
(\\t-\\
w t; -.
[O UN11ED STATES li NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MMTER OF:
DOCKET NO: 50-443-OL 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF OFF-SITE NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
EMERGENCY PLANNING (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) l 2-\\'*\\
HANG IN THERE WW 1
EVIDENTIARY HEARING
}
\\
f LL O
E*
~./
My%dw&
n, f nh6 LOCATION:
CONCORD, NEW HAMPSHIRE PAGES:
6399 - 6539 ~
DATE:
NOVEMBER 20, 1987
........ =...........................................................................
\\
gh, O 9
Heritage Reporting Corporation Official Reporters 12 L Strm. N.W.
O.
Wunmgton. D.C. 20005 (2021 628 4844 8712030094 071120 PDR ADOCK 05000443 T
pyn 3
l' CERTIFICATE
()
2 3
This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the 4
United States !!uclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
5 Name: Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al.,
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) 6 7
Docket Numbers 50-443-OL and 50-444-OL 1
8 Place:
Concord, New Hampshire 9
Date: November 20, 1987 10 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original 11 transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear 12 Regulatory Commission taken stenographically by me and, 13 thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under the direction 14 of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a 15 true and accurate repprd of, t e fo e oing oceedings.
16
/S/ D [
_ M M
(
17 (Signature typed):
Kent Andrews 18 Official Reporter 19 Heritage Reporting Corporation 20 21 22 23 24
]
l 25 l
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
6399 1
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 3
4 In the Matter of:
)
)
Docket Nos.
5 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.,
)
50-444-OL 6
)
OFF-SITE EMERGENCY (SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2)
)
PLANNING 1
l 8
EVIDENTIARY HEARING i
9 l
- Friday, i
10 November 20, 1987 11 Hall of Representatives New Hampshire Statehouse 12 Concord, NH 13 O
rne edove-eatit1ea metter came oa ror neeria9, 14 pursuant to notice, at 9.02 a.m.
15 BEFORE:
JUDGE IVAN W.
SMITH, CHAIRMAN 16 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 17 Washington, D.C.
20555 18 JUDGE JERRY HARBOUR, MEMBER Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 19 U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 20 JUDGE GIISTAVE A.
LINENBERGER, JR.,
MEMBER 21 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 22 Washington, D.C.
20555 23 24 25 O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
t i :
I i
6400 f
(3 1
APPEARANCES:
I k-)
2 For the Applicant:
3 THOMAS G. DIGNAN, JR., ESQ.
1 GEORGE H.
LEWALD, ESQ.
4 KATHRYN A. SELLECK, ESQ.
Ropes & Gray 5
225 Franklin Street A
Boston, MA 02110 6
e For the NRC Staff:
7 i
SHERWIN E. TURK, ESQ.
8 RICHARD G.
BACHMANN, ESQ.
t Office of General Counsel 9
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 10 L
For the Federal Emergency Management Agency:
11 H. JOSEPH FLYNN, ESO.
i 12 GEORGE WATSON, ESQ.
Federal Emergency Management Agency 13 500 C Street, S.W.
-()
Washington, D.C.
20472 14 For the State of New Hampshire:
15 1
GEORGE DANA BISBEE, ASST. ATTY. GEN.
16 GEOFFREY M. HUNTINGTON, ESQ.
State of New Hampshire 17 25 Capitol Street Concord, NH 03301 18 For the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
19 JOHN TRAFICONTE, ASST. ATTY. GEN.
20 CAROL SNEIDER, ASST. ATTY. GEN.
STEPHEN H. OLESKEY, ESQ.
21 ALAN FIERCE, ESQ.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts 22 One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, MA 02108 23 For the New England Coalition Against Nuclear 24 Pollution:
25 (No appearance)
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
~
h*ih?G::
76
.,. n, s;
' (:.Mp; 6401 p...r..
-,}*
1 APPEARANCES:
(Continued) 2 For the' Seacoast Anti-Pollution Leacues l
3 ROBERT A.
BACKUS, ESQ.
Backus, Meyer, & Solomon 4
116 Lowell Street Manchester, NH 03105 5
JANE' DOUGHTY 6
' Director Seacoast Anti-Pollution League r
7 5 Market Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 8-For the Town of Hampton:
9 PAUL McEACHERN, ESO.
10 MATTHEW T.
BROCK, ESQ.
Shaines.& McEachern 11 25 Maplewood Avenue P.O. Box 360 12 Portsmouth, NH 03801 13' For the Towns of Hampton Falls and North Hampton and South Hampton:
14 ROBERT A.
BACKUS, ESQ.
15 Backus, Meyer & Solomon 116 Lowell Street 16 Manchester, NH 03105 l
17 For the Town of Amesbury:
18 WILLIAM S. LORD, Selectman 19 Town Hall Amesbury, MA 01913 20 For the Town of Kensington:
21 SANDRA F. MITCl! ELL 22 Civil Defense Director Kensington, NH 03827 23 24 l
25 O
Heritage Reporting Corporation f
(202) 628-4888
w Y-.-.,
T k I
i.9 x
,.,r
- 3... '
6402 4
^
1 INDEX 2
WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT ~ RECROSS EXAM 3
Panel:
DENNIS MILETI 4
ANTHONY CALLENDRELLO PAUL FRECHETTE 5
EDWARD LIEBERMAN by Mr. Traficonte (resumed) 6411 6
7 8
EXHIBITS:
IDEN: RECDs REJD:
DESCRIPTION:
j Massachusetts Attorney General:
10 No. 7 6413 Article entitled 11 Technological Disaster in the Non-Therapuetic 12 Community by Joan Nigg from Environment and 13 Behavior, Vol. 19,
-O-
"o-4, 3#1r 1987 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
~24 25 O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
f a
l' s
6403 i
(3 1
PROCEEDINGS i
A>
2 JUDGE SMITH:
Good morning.
t 3
The first order of business, if there is no other 4
preliminary business, will be to rule on Mr. Fierce's motion i<
1 5
for 60-day extension to keep the evidentiary record open.
i 4
6 We also wish to announce that before the day is over we'd like 1
7 to have another discussion of timing and the witness sequence L
l 8
bearing in mind that the next hearing presents some problems.
[
f 9
We'll take that up as close to the end of the day as we can.
10 Is there any other preliminary business?
t 11 Okay, then we will rule on the motion.
In essence, j
12 Mr. Fierce requested that 60 more days be extended to the end 13 of the scheduled time for the evidentiary hearing which would 7) 14 bring it to some time in February, so that he may have an 15 opportunity to work with his traffic expert and computer 16 modeler on matters that he states were surprising to him in the 17 cross-examination of this panel.
18 This motion followed a discussion of the changes in 19 the traffic control point diagrams, but they centered on the 20 document that has been discussed quite a bit, the manning 21 sequence document.
22 Has that been given an exhibit number?
23 Yes, sure, it's Massachusetts Attorney General's 24 Exhibit 3.
That document, which has been represented as one 25 that developed after the discovery period closed, and not for i
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
= - - _ _ _ = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l 1.
[ ;,:
l 6404 (a~T 1
the purpose of the hearing, but developed in the due course of 2
working with Manchester State Police and other police agencies.
3 One of the reasons ascribed for the need is that the 4
management -- the traffic expert, or the computer modeler, 5
would not be available to work on this problem in December, 6
because of his wife is expecting a baby.
We'll talk about that 7
just for a moment.
8 It's not that we would be insensitive to that type of 9
problem, but the Appeal Board has made it very, very clear in 10 several cases that the scheduling of a licensing hearing cannot 11 center around the individual personal problems of parties or 12 witnesses of that nature.
Mr. Fierce states that the manning 13 sequence is important, however, because he wants to plug it O
14 into the computer run.
15 We are very much persuaded by Mr. Dignan's arguments 16 in addition to some of our own observations.
One is that this 17 really should not be a matter of surprise to Mr. Pierce.
The 18 subject matter of the exhibit should not be a surprise, because 19 beginning on Page 44 of the direct testimony, there is a 20 discussion of sensitivity runs on the mannlag of control 21 points.
"Certain of the runs were," and I'm quoting from that, 22 "Certain of the runs were conducted to quantify the results of 23 different arrival times of personnel at control points.*
And 24 then the various sensitivity runs are characterized and 25 reported on.
Generally the conclusion in some of them -- I O
Heritage Reporting Corporation 1
(202) 628-4888
1 6405
(~)
I haven't. read them all for this purpose -- is that different
.,a.
2 arrival times -- that the runs were relatively insensitive to-3 different arrival times.
4 That testimony is taken up again on Page -- that idea 5
is taken up again on Page 67 of the direct testimony where it 6'
was stated there, "The sensitivity runs were performed to 7
quantify the affects on the ETE of most traffic control 8
measures now 1:.iing in effect."
9 So we don't believe that Mr. Fierce can fairly claim 10 surprise on the issue of the late arrival of sequential manning 11 of traffic control points in view of the testimony which was 12-provided.
The date is September 10th.
I think probably it 13 wasn't provided actually until a few days later.
At least we O
14 didn't receive it until the 14th.
So that has been over two 15 months.
16 At the very beginning of this proceeding we, in view 17 of the motions to not start the proceeding, we made it clear 18 that we would expect the parties to cooperate on off weeks and 19 during the week for discovery -- in discovery as it was needed.
20 We believe that if Mr. Pierce was concerned about that 21 testimony, that he should have demanded the basis for it much 22 earlier.
L 23-In fact, there's another aspect to the hearing, too, 24 that we thought about, and that is very early on the first 25 issue, the adequacy of the personnel reporting to the traffic O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l
. ;l1, 6406 (f
1 control points was litigated, or it seemed to me just by
.2 memory, over several days, and that is one of the things that 3
Mr. Fierce states is of concern to him; that the accuracy.of, 4
the total accuracy of personnel managing traffic control points 5
and access control points needs further work on by his expert.
6 But there, again, that was the first issue that came up.
7 Now, looking at the Federal Rules of Evidence with 8
respect to this matter, I'm reminded that under the Federal 9
Rules as they exist now, and somewhat of a departure from more 10 historic versions of it is that experts need not identify in 11
'their expert testimony the bases of their. opinions.
That is 12 supposed to be taken care of by an adequate discovery program 13 before the trial.
O 14 There would have been no obligation, it may have been 15 a good idea, but there would have been no obligation for the 16 experts on this panel to identify the basis for the -- the 17 factual basis for their sensitivity runs.
But even going a 18 step farther, a representation, which we accepted, is that the l
a 19 manning sequence document we're talking about, Massachusetts 4
20 Attorney General's Exhibit 3, wasn't even a basis for that 21 testimony.
It was just a document that happened to be 22 developed in the regular course of business.
23 So there is a dual reason why they were not obliged 24 to identify it at the time of their testimony, even if it 25 existed at that time.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
j.-
l 6407 1
..()
1 Then, finally, one of the reasons for not allowing
.{
.I 2
the extension of time is that the manning sequence issue is, as 3
Judge Linenberger called it, at a level of noise, or it is at a f
4 level of detail of implementation which we believe falls below 5
that which we would see as requiring any additional time 6
whatever, let alone two months, 60 days.
And as we have I
7 discussed several times during the cross-examination, we just
'8 wonder how much time should even have been devoted to cross-9 examination on this subject.
10 And then, finally, we observe that we are not 11 foreclosing rebuttal.
There is almost a month remaining.
l i
12 There are two hearing weeks and two off weeks remaining before 13 the scheduled close of the evidentiary record, and we believe O
14 that given the importance of the matter and all the 15 considerations that I have just alluded to, that no additional 1
16 time should at this time be granted.
17 Now, if you want to proceed, Mr. Traficonte.
18 MR. FIERCE:
Your Honor, Alan Fierce for the Attorney 19 General's office.
20 I'm not sure I understand your ruling, and I ask for 21 some clarification.
You said you are not ruling out rebuttal 22 testimony, but it would be due by the end of the close of the l
23 currently scheduled weeks?
24 JUDGE SMITH:
No, we're not ruling on that.
All we
'25 are ruling is on your request for right now, today, an
}'
Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 i l l
i
~ ~ _ _ _ _
L
J 6408
()
1 automatic 60-day extension to close the record to February.
If 2
within the normal course of events you wish to bring rebuttal 3
testimony, we haven't foreclosed that.
4 MR. FIERCE:
Well, that's the --
5 JUDGE SMITH:
As such, categorically; we have not 6
categorically ruled out you bringing rebuttal testimony into 7
this hearing on anything that meets the requirements for 8
rebuttal testimony.
9 MR. FIERCE:
So at most --
3 10 JUDGE SMITH:
It's the 60-day extension that we are 11 ruling on.
12 MR. FIERCE:
That's the confusion I had, because I 13 think a number of the parties were under the impression, at
'~)
14 least from events that occurred perhaps prior to your joining 15 the Board, Judge Smith, that one needed to file a notion for 16 leave --
17 JUDGE SMITH:
Oh, no, no.
18 MR. FIERCE:
to file rebuttal testimony.
19 JUDGE SMITH:
Mr. Fierce, perhaps you were not a part 20 of the telephone -- oh, you were, I recall, you were part of 21 the telephone conference call when I explained what I thought 22 the intent of the Board was by that order.
And then later on 23 we reconfirmed it right here in the hearing, and you may not 24 have been here then.
But the intent of that order, that order 25 was with respect to filing rebuttal plans was vacated, and it Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 d
. :s; f, U '
6409
.: ;,()
I was explained in that order never intended to restrict the 2
rights that a party would otherwise have for rebuttal.
It was 3
intended to be an additional opportunity, not really an 4
additional requirement.
So that order would not way restrict 5
your opportunity for rebuttal.
We'll look at rebuttal 6
testimony as is traditionally looked at.
7 MR. FIERCE:
And just to finally clarify then, the 8
date by which that rebuttal testimony would need to be filed, l
9
-in the Board's view, is the last scheduled day for hearings 10 that we have in December?
11 JUDGE SMITH:
Well, that's right.
We're going to 12 discuss -- we're going to discuss the remainder, the schedule 13 for the remainder of the hearing later this morning.
And we O
14 don't totally and categorically rule out either that the 15 hearing session after the scheduled session may be necessary.
16 We're just saying as we sit here now we think that the hearing 17 should be concluded by that time.
18 MR. FIERCE:
My question is --
19 JUDGE SMITH:
But that's going to be -- we're going 20 to look at it and see what we're going to do about it.
21 MR. FIERCE:
Yeah, you may be right, and I think 22 perhaps I did overstate it yesterday when I said I was certain 23 it would extend, and it may not go beyond the end of the 24 scheduled period.
But my question now is, if it does, does the 25 extended date then become the final drop-dead date for the O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
$i',
9
(-
6410
'(J 1
filing of rebuttal testimony.
2 JUDGE SMITH:
Mr. Fierce, we don't want to rule on 1
}
3 specifics like that.
Let's wait until we have our discussion 4
of what is going to happen for the rest of the hearing, and see 5
what rebuttal you want to bring in, or whatever the situation
?;
6 is.
But you're asking right now for a automatic kick-in of 7
opportunity for rebuttal, and we're not prepared to give that 8
to you.
9 The rules for submitting rebuttal testimony in NRC 10 hearings are vague at best.
And we take it on an ad hoc basis I
11 to see what the parties' needs are, what the opportunity is.
- i 12 We are not going to not hear an important piece of evidence in L.O -
13 this proceeding becauso we ran out of hearing timo in the 14 scheduled time.
15 On the other hand, we're not going to sit here today 16 to tell you that you have more time than that is scheduled.
17 Prudently, you should plan, I would say, to present rebuttal 18 testimony within the time scheduled.
19 MR. FIERCE:
Thank you, Your Honor.
20 JUDGE SMITH:
Sure.
21 MR. TRhPICONTE:
Good morning, Your Honors.
22 Good morning, panel.
23 24 l
25 I
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i j
i PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6411
()
1 Whereupon, 2
ANTHONY CALLENDRELLO 1
3 EDWARD LIEBERMAN i
4 DENNIS MILETI 5
PAUL FRECHETTE 1
6 having been previously duly sworn, were recalled as witnesses d
t 7
herein and were examined and testified further as follows:
8 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resumed) 9 BY MR. TRAFICONTE:
10 0
Good morning, Dr. Mileti.
11 A
(Mileti)
Good morning.
12 0
I would like to pick up the general line, further 13 questions on the general character of community response in g
n 14 emergencies, Dr. M11eti.
}
15 Yesterday, I gave you a copy of an article that's 16 entitled Technological Disaster in the Non-Therapeutic 17 Community.
Do you recall that?
18 A
(Mileti)
Yes, I do recall it.
l
O Now, its authors include a Joanne Nigg, and I believe 20 you testified that you do know her; isn't that correct?
21 A
(Mileti)
Yes, I know her well.
22 Q
Is she a recognized authority in the disaster I
23 response area?
24 A
(Mileti)
Everyone in the area knows her, e of her 25 work.
O J
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 t
.?
y, o
=:
y;.
' i,Y','
'f,.
t
~ J g
PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6412
[)
1 Q
Is she a recognized authority in that area?.
D 2
A (Mileti)
I think well of her, yes.
l-3 Q
Is she a recognized authority in that area?
4 A
(Mijati)' I think most people think well of her, yes, ii 5
JUDGE SMITH:
I think you have your answer.
((
6 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Okay.
t-7 JUDGE SMITH:
He said everyone knows her, and if 6C 8
that's not recognized, I don't know.
E.
i
- .c 9
MR. TRAFICONTE:
All right.
10 BY MR. TRAFICONTE:
Si 11 Q
You've had an opportunity to read this article now, 12 haven't you?
13 A
(Mileti)
Yes, I've read it.
Q X.
14 0
I would like to just for the record read the abstract
.k 15 that appears on the first page, front page of this document.
f},
16 Again, for the record, this article is from Environment and t
17 Behavior, Volume 19, No. 4, July 1987.
18 MR. DIGNAN:
I object.
We've got an article written 19 by somebody who is not going to appear here.
And I understand 20 hearsay's all right, but either we put the article in and ask 21 the witness if he agrees with it, and let him talk about it, 22 but this selective reading the abstract into the record and
]
23 this sort of thing which then becomes evidence, I object to.
I 24 have no problem if you want to mark the article, ask Dr. Mileti 25 whether he agrees with it or doesn't agree with it, and go from O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
_________-_____.A
y 1
..d 1'
PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6413
.b f T j
']
1 there.
But selective reading of a witness whose -- of what 2
amounts to are the words of a witness who is never going to 5
i f
3 appear here, I object to.
)
i 4
MR. TRAFICONTE:
I think that's a good suggestion.
j
)
5 Let's -- I'd ask that we have this marked as the next exhibit j
1 a
y 6
right now for identification on behalf of the Commonwealth.
i 7
JUDGE SMITH:
That seems to be -- do you object to 8
that?
9 MR. DIGNAN:
No, Your Honor, not for identification.
10 (The document referred to was 11 marked for identification as 12 Massachuset.ts Attorney General 13 Exhibit No. 7.)
O
14 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Well, in the spirit of expediency, I 15 won't read the -- pardon?
16 JUDGE SMITH:
I don't -- your objection was mooted by 17 the accommodation, but I see nothing wrong, and I think it's 18 rather a classical approach to cross-examination for him to 19 read a relevant portion of it that he thinks is relevant, and 20 ask the witness if he agrees with it or not as compared to the 21 whole article.
Fortunately, she didn't write a book.
22 (Laugher.)
23 MR. DIGNAN:
Your Honor, it's classic cross-24 examination to read the witness something he's written, and ask 25 him if he still agrees with it, for impeachment or other
,O
'J Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L
.jp PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6414
[
- l )
I things.
It's also classic to hand a witness an article, j.f 2
perhaps NRC practice, and say, are you familiar with the jf 3
article, and have him say, yes, I am, which has been fg l
4 established here.
And then at that point ask him, do you agree
}$
5 with it, because if he agrees with it, then you can ask him 6
questions.
{
7 If he says, I disagree with it, then you have got a 8
different route you've got to follow, because I'm not going to 9
get to cross-examine the author of the article.
~
10 JUDGE SMITH:
Right.
11 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Can I respond to that, because I 12 think perhaps we have unclarity on what the point of this t
13 article is?
~
,(-)
14 This article came up in the context of questions 15 eliciting a response or an opinion as to whether a dispute 16 exists in the literature on the applicability of the model of 17 the therapeutic community to a technological disaster.
Is 18 there a dispute, I think was my precise question, in the 19 literature.
20 This is, obviously, in the -- this is a piece of that 21 literature.
Dr. Mileti was unaware of it.
It's now marked, 22 it's before him, he's read it and I would like to pursue a line 23 of questioning concerning it.
24 JUDGE SMITH:
So you would hope to establish by his 25 testimony after reading the abstract not necessarily that he
,~m
,s)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4880
N..,..
): ".;v 3s PANEL NO. 7
' CROSS 6415 I' (])
1 agrees or disagrees with tne abstract, but that.he agrees that 2
a dispute exists.
3 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Precisely.
4 JUDGE SMITH:
Well, I --
T l
5 MR. DIGNAN:
If it's being used for that limited 1
6 purpose, I haven't got a problem.
7 JUDGE SMITH:
Okay.
8 JUDGE LINENBERGER:
A point of clarification here, 9-Mr. Traficonte.
Do you mako a distinction between dispute and 10 disagreement?
11 MR. TRAFICONTE:
If I do, when pressed it would be 12 that a' dispute is a -- it would be a more significant event in 13 an intellectual community than a disagreement.
If the words O
14 have any distinction, a dispute is a slightly more significant 15 event.
16 JUDGE LINENBERGER:
Well, which do you consider that 17 you have heard from the witness to be the situation here, 18 dispute or disagreement?
19 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Let's use another word, debate, 20 which is clearly stronger than dispute and disagreement.
l 21 JUDGE LINENBERGER:
Thank you.
22 MR. TRAFICONTE:
I think that may be closer to my 23 point.
24 BY MR. TRAFICONTE:
25 0
Dr. Mileti, I do want to read the abstract that O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
ll >
, p.
i 4 '
PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6416 q( ')
1 appears on the front page of this document, Exhibit 7, 4
2 Commonwealth Exhibit 7.
l 3
"The importance of a therapeutic community has been 4
proposed as a useful mechanism for overcoming the trauma and l
5 stress experienced by disaster victims.
This article reviews 6
the origin, components and applications of the therapeutic 7
community concept for natural disaster situations.
The 8
question is raised whether such a mechanism emerges in response 9
to environmental hazards other than rapid onset, natural
)
10 disaster agents.
Using case study data from two technological l
i 11 events, one involving the aerial application of pesticides, and 12 the other disposal of asbestos tallings, it is concluded that 13
()
under certain circumstances the classic therapeut.ic community I
7 14 is unlikely to develop in technological disasters.
15 "The factors mitigating against its development are i
i 16 examined with a primary focus on the question of 'true i
17 victimization', the formation of victim clusters, and the 18 emergence of community conflict."
19 Now I want to pose the question to you again.
Do you 20 recognize a debate in your field of expertise on the l
21 applicability of your model, or the model of a therapeutic l
22 community for technological disasters, including radiological l
23 disasters?
l 24 A
(Mileti)
I'm confident that some difference of 25 opinion would exist just knowing the points of view of, for
[b i
s-a Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
L_____________
3'.
[,!
PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6417
,,/
1 example, your experts, and, however, I don't think that this-l,,
2.
particular article speaks to that debate.
l-
'3 Q
Are you familiar with a scholar in your field named 4
Ronald Perry?
.M 5
A (Mileti)
Yes, I know Ronald Perry well.
\\,
'6 Q
And he is in the same field of expertise as yourself?
7 A
(Mileti)
Ron is formerly trained as a sociologist, 8
and he researches emergencies.
f.
9 Q
He has a similar field then as yourself.
10 A
(Mileti)
In general, yes.
11-0 Is he a recognized authority in that area?
12 A
(Mileti)
Everyone in the field would recognize him, 13 yes.
.O 14 Q
I would like to show you another article.
15 A
(Mileti)
Thank you.
16 MR. TRAFICONTE:
I'd like to have this article that 17 is in German, unfortunately --
18 JUDGE SMITH:
I suppose you sense that we have 19 problems with-it.
20 (Laughter.)
21 MR. TRAFICONTE:
If I can just --
22 JUDGE SMITH:
Fortunately, Judge Linenberger handles 23 German, and this, I suppose, you want as Exhibit acht.
24 (Laughter.)
25 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Yeah, wold.
1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
... - -. -..-... ~
$l. _..-
d"
\\
H w
{,~#
PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6418,,
ff 1
'(Laughter.)
e 2
MR. TRAFICONTE:
I have to apologize.
Ronald Perry
/;p 3
is, as I understand it, an American scholar, and his research E:M 4
and writing is primarily in English.
This piece, however, is
[#
5 not, nor have I been able to locate any English version of it.
J l
6 And I have only recently found it, and I have read it, and I am.y; 7
prepared to translate portions of it today.
I realize that f
8 perhaps could represents some disadvantage.
9 BY MR. TRAFICONTE:
a 10 Q
Dr. Mileti, do you read German?
11 A
(Mileti)
No, I do not.
.c 12 MR. TRAFICONTE:
What I propose doing is this.
I'm 13 iD going to offer a translation of a couple of lines subject to
'~'
14 check, which I believe is Mr. Dignan's phrase.
And then I 15 would like to have this admitted for impeachment purposes only.
16 And I would make available a full translation subject to check.
17 MR. DIGNAN:
I'm going to go on this one early, Your 18
- Honor, 19 First of all, what just happened, and I think if i
20 anybody explored Dr. Mileti, he has a very satisfactory 21 explanation of saying that the first article doesn't even speak 22 to the debate.
Now we're going to throw something in for 23 impeachment purpose which the witness can't ready, and cross-24 examine apparently on that basis.
25 I think until the translation is produced, this O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
4:,.9
- hh
% chjb; 8;
l
^V lMI'/['
PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS-6419 :3-sc
{J.
l doesn't go any further.
ij 2
JUDGE SMITH ' Well --
~$
3 MR. DIGNAN:
I'm not -- want to mislead the Board.
I 4
had high school' German.
I do recognize the words "in den", and
!).
<iL 5
about there it stops.
I have no ability to protect the j{
6 witness.
I have no ability to understand -- I don't understand d3 7
right now.
I do not think Mr. Traficonte would ever 8
mistranslate. 'That I'm not. concerned with.
What I'm concerned-Y 9
-with is I'm not a good enough German scholar to go through the 10 rest of the article at the same time, and see whether I've got 11 an objection that what's being said is taken out of context.
12 I don't think this should be allowed to even be 13 started until we've got an English translation that we can all O
14 agree on.
15 JUDGE SMITH:
I think that Mr. Traficonte must have 1 <6 known that if you made a formal objection, that he would be 17 defeated on it.
I took it as a practical suggestion on how we 18 could proceed today, but in view of his objection, which is, 19 you know, an appropriate objection, I don't think you can do 20 it.
21 Maybe something can happen.
There may bo a -- well, 22 I doubt if we can round up a translator this morning any more.
l 23.
MR. TRAFICONTE:
Well, it's really --
24 JUDGE SMITH:
Are you familiar with this article in 25 its English version?
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l l
1 l
w 1 v.
t l
~
PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6420
(~ )
1 MR. TRAFICONTE:
He's not going to be able to answer ss 2
that if he doesn't -- I mean, he doesn't know what the article 3
ie.
4 THE WITNESS:
(Mileti)
The answer is no, and I agree 5
with the lawyer.
I don't even know what the title is.
6 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Well, Your Monors, I really -- this 7
is an important point, and I hesitated to use this, and I did 8
only because it runs directly to this issue of there being a 9
debate in the literature among established recognized scholars.
10 And if I could read one line of this subject --
11 JUDGE SMITH:
Well, how about this.
What if you were 12 to examine him under the hypothesis that there is an article.
13 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Fine.
,s i)
14 JUDGE SMITH:
Would you object to that?
I mean, then 15 he can either prove it or not prove it.
Then his cross-16 examination is of no value.
What we're just trying to do is 17 move along with --
18 MR. DIGNAN:
I know what you are trying to do, Your 19 Honor.
20 JUDGE SMITH:
-- and protect what he's interested in.
21 MR. DIGNAN:
And I'm trying to protect a record, and 22 a witness, and a client.
Here is my problem.
23 The first article was offered up.
If we can debate 24 this freely with nobody taking umbrage at arguments.
The first 25 article was offered up.
I read last night when I was with Dr.
(-
LJ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4688
hy
,.y.
- Eyl, '
PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6421 t
1 Mileti.
And Dr.jnileti, asyou'haveheard,hasalreadystatyd
.Q,,
n' 6
2 under oath this does vot speak to the debate we're talking (ff,,
I
'1 s
6 And I'm sure it;',<htyr.ody wished, to explore it with him,
'3 about.
L/
(
x; 4
becausehe'sexplainedittome,hewiltmakeitcrystaleqear
,3 5
why that article doesn't even speak to this debate.
- ,7 g
6 Now, I don't know whether the now one does or not.,
7 And the problem is I can't find out by reading it, Dr. H11eti' 8
can't find out by reading it, and the only pcrpose of the, irf d' {
9 examination is to create evidence -- excuse me - f to put l
j.
10 evidence the fact that the debate exists.
And if that's the
?
'11 narrow focus of the' document, to allow a piece to'De taken cut justt$r.nkisurbair.
12 or a hypothesis to go and cross on it, I 13 If they've got some English articles th$t. ve can deal I
g b
14 with, we'll have him red.it here, and see what th,ey can do r
15 with it.
I know they ate r$t goirig to get a case cd debate out l
16 of that first one.
That one \\t'.n dlear on.
But I just don't 17 know what's here.
I'm not danylig Mr. Tpficonte's assertions.
.f f.
18 at'all I just can't verify it',. deal"with.'it, redirbeh on it,
/{
19 or do anything with it.
20 JUDGE SMITH:
What.ia the p2rpose of it?
To 21 establish that there is a debate pf.d that there --
t les, arlang scholars'that Mr. Mileti 22 MR. TRAFICONTE:
(
23 would recognize.
24 JUDGE SMITH:
Haven't you aiready established 25 independent of ti;e Nigg article, and the Perry article, of
)
C
)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
7 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _
i (g S"
q QQ '
,; \\
\\'Q m
E,;i PANEL'NO. 7 - CROSS 6422 b' I
s s
,..O/
1 course, that Dr. Mileti recognizes from his own expertise, Ib g
4 p
2 experience and communication in the area that there is a f{';;
3 debate?
5 L
4 MR. TRAFICONTE:
If I have established that, we may
}
.1
-((
5 not need to --
6 JUDGE SMITH:
I thought that he did say that.
@7*
1 e
7 Wasn't that your testimony, that you recognize there d5,
.r:
8 is a debate on your -- in the social sciences community on the f
9 issue of technological disasters, and therapeutic community?
10 THE WITNESS:
(Mileti)
Yes, I thought I said that, 11 as there is a debate on just about everything in the social 12
- sciences, j
. i t' 13 JUDGE SMITH:
And you say that -- you say that O
1 14 independently of the article by Cuthbertson and Nigg?
15 THE WITNESS:
(Mileti)
I beg your pardon, sir?
I 16 couldn't hear.
17 JUDGE SMITH:
I mean, it wasn't necessarily the 18 article by, or even the article by Cuthbertson and Nigg upon t
19 which you base that opinion.
It's based on your own 20 recognition of debate in the field.
21 THE WITNESS:
(Mileti)
Yes, sir, that's correct.
22 BY MR. TRAFICONTE:
23 0
well, I'd like the witness to turn to Page 138 in the 24 testimony.
And Dr. Mileti, if I might read this to you at the 25 top of the page before the beginning of the paragraph that O
HerAtage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 s
I
(
L
. 'ff.},h' p ria,y
- f,9' p
a, PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6423h..
Is ' begins there, there is the. sentence, "The position that b
2-radiological. events are unique argues against the basic premise.
3 on which the social steiences rests that there are notable y,
l 4
reasons and patterps in human behavior that are discoverable
,5 through systematic scientific inquiry.
The position is also
, fj 6
contradicted by empirical evidence."
7-Did I read that correctly?
8 A
(liileti)
Yes, I believe so.
9 0
would you like to attempt to harmonize your view that 10 there is a debate in the literature on the difference between 11 radiological emergencies and natural emergencies, and this 12 testimony?
o 13
,A (Mileti)
I don't think there is a debate in the O
14 literature that radiological emergencies are different from 15 natural emergencies.
Iti MR. TRAFICONTE:
At that point I think I am going to 17 have to make reference, even in the hypothetical way, to the 18 piece of Ron Perry if I may.
I'll do it --
19 JUDGE SMITH:
Wait.
20 MR. TRAFICONTE:
I'll do it in this --
21 JUDGE SMITH:
Now, didn't he just give you the answer 22 that you would really like to have here?
I mean is there 23 still a dispute between you and the witness?
24 He says there is -- he does not think there is a 25 debate that there is a difference between a natural disaster O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
~ v.QY
%;f;it '
.:?
-.+
.y.
l 7
PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6424. ',
. s:.y..
1 p
- Q; l
and a technological disaster.
Aren't you trying to establish 2
by your cross-examination that there is indeed a difference?
(-
- n 3
MR. TRAFICONTE:
Your Honor, it isn't -- this i
X l
4 testimony doesn't run to the fact that there is a difference.
.' ;.f,.'
]
l l
5 Of course, there is a difference between natural and
,c l
6 radiological.
The point is the difference in the character of 7
the human response to each of those types of disasters.
8 In the context in which this testimony is set, the 9
section is headed on the preceding page, the uniqueness of 10 radiation.
And if I can supply the context -- Dr. Mileti, why 11 don't we turn back one page.
The first sentence of that 12 section roads, "The ability to transfer the principles of human 13 behavior in emergencies is questioned by some as not being O
14 applicable in emergencies that involve nuclear power plants."
15 So, Your Honor, the context of his point is that --
16 on the following page -- to believe that radiological events 17 are unique in regard to the way they affect response 18 contradicts the premise on which the social sciences rest is 19 Dr. Mileti's view essentially that there is no debate; that 20 anybody in the social sciences would not believe that the 21 character of human response to radiological emergency is going 22 to be fundamentally different than it is to a natural 23 emergency.
24 JUDGE SMITH:
I 25 MR. DIGNAN:
May I respectfully point out that the
/U Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I,7 l Q '.,
go 3,:
it - "
PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6 4 2 5 ,
- ])
'I witness' testimony doesn't say contradicts.
The words are 2
carefully chosen.
He says the position that radiological al b
3 events are unique argues against the basic premise on which i,
j o:
4 social sciences rest, and he goes on from there.
It is clearly
.r.,
5 an expert witness giving his view, and saying that the other 1e
\\ -
s 6
view argues against certain principles.
He didn't say
,[
7 contradicts; he says argues against.
And I think the words B
" argue against" saying, as opposed to a flat assertion of H
9 contradiction, is a much different thing, and this is the 10 problem.
l 11 The testimony, if you start cn1 Page 137, is clearly 12 Dr. Mileti saying, you know, there are two points of view here, 13 and then going on to say this is my view and I think I'm right.
O 14 JUDGE SMITH:
It does seem to me that his direct 15 testimony establishes exactly what you are trying to establish, 16 the best you hope to establish by ycur line of cross-17 examination.
He acknowledges at the outset that there are 18 others in the field who, in his view, take a position which is 19 contrary to the basic premise upon which the social science 20 rests.
But it's only his view, but he acknowledges at the 21 outset that others disagree, and that's what you are trying to 22 do.
23 I guess I am missing your point.
24 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Well, I don't understand a debate 25 within a field of expertise to involve one side characterizing O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
m Y!f,'l t
(
'l - ~
PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6426 I b( )
I the other as contradicting the basic premise of the social
[.
2 sciences.
That is not --
S.
3 3
JUDGE SMITH:
That would be the essence of a strong V
0' 4
debate.
I don't know.
I think that -- I don't know how you 5
could establish your point any better than his own direct 6
testimony.
Why don't you, if you are unhappy with what he 7
means by that, why don't you inquire as what he does mean by 8
it.
9 BY MR. TRAFICONTE:
10 Q
Dr. Mileti, what do you mean by the sentence that 11 appears on 138?
12 A
(Mileti)
Was that the sentence that begins "The 13 position", et cetara?
O 14 0
Yes.
15 A
(Mileti)
I think your prior characterization of my 16 meaning behind that sentence was misplaced.
All I mean to say 17 here was that I recognize that there are some people in the 18 social sciences who believe that the factors that shape human 19 behavior in response to emergencies are categorically different 1
20 in radiological emergencies, and that the principles between 21 that and the propositions that we have established over the 22 years hold to determine public response in responses don't 23 apply by virtue of the character of radiation.
24 And I disagree with that.
I think those same 25 propositions hold.
We need to look at the same variables, but O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_ _ _ _ _ _ ~ _ _
- @r h
W.
PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6427 r,
, ll s*-
]
1 as I say later on in my testimony, I might as well just state
- f. T 2
it again.
I can't find it right now.
The quantities of those F
3 variables certainly could, would and have varied dramatically l
4 across different emergency events within one class of b:.j li 5
emergencies, as well as across classes of emergencies.
!1 6
Q People who take the other view from your own are
!l
' ?
i 7
respected scholars in the field, are they not?
M
)
8 A
(Mileti)
I think that's a matter of debate.
The 9
place where this came out was in the views of James Johnson,
~
10 Jr. and' Stephen Cole in the Shoreham litigation where they 11 reached conclusions, for example, that the strong relationship l
i 12 we know exists between the kind of emergency information people i
J i
13 get in an emergency, and what people do in response to that O
14 emergency would not hold in a radiological accident.
And I l
15 grossly disagree with that.
They disagree with that statement
. i 16 themselves in some of their publications as I've cited in my 17 testimony.
18 0
Well, does Ron Perry disagree with you?
l f
19 A
(Mileti)
I don't believe that I have ever talked to 20 Ron about this.
2]
Q If Ron Perry disagreed with you that radiological 22 emergencies can -- strike that.
23 If Ron Perry disagreed with you that the knowledge we 24 have arising out of natural disasters is transferrable on to 25 radiological disasters, would you acknowledge serious dispute O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
i l
1 l
2$-
': 2. (
. jy PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6428
/
f"D 1
on that point in the literature?
%)
e
,is 2
A (Mileti)
I would have to say that what the debate is
!ljn 3
focused on, if there is one, is whether or not the general ik 2,
4 principles hold in all kinds of emergencies rather than just
}{
5 comparing natural to technological.
6 0
No, but the precise question was, if Ron Perry --
7 you've mentioned Zeigler and Johnson, and you are clearly aware i
8 that they are our experts in this proceeding.
I'm asking you' i
9 about Ron Perry.
3 10 If Ron Perry believes that radiological -- that you 11 cannot extrapolate from natural disasters, or natural 12 emergencies on to radiological emergencies, would you then 13 7
recognize a serious debate on that issue in the literature?
14 A
(Mileti)
I wouldn't call it serious, although there 15 would be cause for Ron and I to have a debate.
16 Q
It is a fact isn't it, Dr. Mileti, that human 17 communities have a pre-emergency fear of radiation that's been 18 empirically validated to be much greater than fear of any 19 natural disaster?
That's accurate, isn't it?
20 A
(Mileti)
In general, yes.
However, a good portion 21 of the research that's been done to compare differences between 22 people's perceptions of risk across different hazard types has 23 been focused on the perceptions of risk held by undergraduate 24 students at the University of Oregon, which is most of the 25 research was done by some social psychologist up there.
V,O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1.
.Y$~
5> ~ [y,.
- y. ;.
Lf?![
. PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6429e vc
,o L.({}
.Idon'tquarrelwiththefactthatpeopleingeneral,].
1 lii-2 in terms of the average-level of risk perception, perceive the,
l l
3 risk of radiological accidents higher than the risk of some l
4 natural hazards.
However, in the diversity amongst human 5
~ beings, there are some people who perceive the risk of natural
- 1 6
hazards higher than they do the risk of technological ones.
[
7 And recent research being done at Oak Ridge National s
8 Laboratories.on a more comprehensive set of investigations than' 9
t h'e Slovik type of work is. compiling evidence that might lead
~
+
10 us to change our point of view on that.- That in fact some 11 chemical hazards are perceived with higher risk than the risk-12 of radiological hazards.
13 Q
If that research does come out though, it would
.']-
- [
14 involve changing our point of view, as you say.
Right now our 15 point of view is that the public fears radiation more than any 16 other natural hazard; isn't that correct?
17 A
(Mileti) 'Yes, and I'm willing to admit that the 18 public perceives the risk of radiological hazards in an average 19 sense, if we were talking about the mean of human perception of 20 risk, higher than it does natural hazards.
21 Q
In fact, the literature makes it clear, doesn't it, i
22 that the public generally considers the radiation to be as 23 fearful as terrorism and war; isn't that correct, at that level 24 of threat?
25 A
(Mileti)
I can't recollect today what data base C:)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
l
i
"' l[f.
QQ;
".y y., :. -
to.
PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6430
'D
,(])
I would lead me to conclude that.
But as I said, I'm willing to '
2 admit that in reference to natural hazards the data that exists
?
3 so far would lead one to conclude that in general the mean of
{
l 4
hazard risk perception is higher for radiological hazards than "Ap 5
for natural hazards.
6 Q
And I think yesterday we understood from your 7
testimony that fear, or as it was described, pre-emergency 8
fear, is a factor in human response to an emergency, isn't it?
c 9
A (Mileti)
I believe what I said yesterday, which is 10 what I said in my testimony at Shoreham and what I'll say today 11 is that the record that exists suggests that pre-emergency fear' 12 is a factor that influences situational risk perception 13 formation, and that, in turn, has an effect on response.
O 14 0
Okay.
So as long as the record is clear, you are 15 really saying it's a cause of a cause, aren't you?
16 A
(Mileti)
It's very difficult for social scientists
~
17 to talk about cause and effect.
10 Q
You had no difficulty in your testimony.
19 A
(Mileti)
The key determinant or determinants is a 20 word that we often use in the place of cause.
However, the 21 record -- the data suggests that pre-emergency fear has no 22 direct effect on what people do in response to emergencies, but 23 has an indirect effect through their situational perceptions of 24 risk.
25 Q
All right.
Not to belabor the point, but you O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_____m-_____
-A.
- n. p,
iff.: -
~ :l g.
m.
PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6431 f.
f]
1 acknowledge that fear is a determinant of a determinant, don't l
1 2
you?
'y? a=
3 A
(Mileti)
Yes, I think we even read that out of my 4
testimony yesterday.
j 5
Q Okay.
And you will also acknowledge, won't you, d
6 there are other scholars in the field who believe that fear is 7
a direct determinant of response, aren't there?
8 A
(Mileti)
Yes, I believe that was the basic 9
proposition in some of the testimony provided by Interveners' 10 experts at the Shoreham litigation.
11 Q
Well, it's also, isn't it, the view of Ronald Perry
~
12 that fear, and particularly fear of radiation at TMI was a 13 determinant of the human response at TMI?
That's his position,-
14 isn't it?
15 A
(Mileti)
That may be his position, but the data from 16 TMI do not confirm that point of view.
17 Q
Well, there is a dispute on that then between you and 7
18 Ron Perry.
19 A
(Mileti)
There can't be a dispute with the data.
20 The data are what the data are.
And the --
21 Q
That's clear, there's no dispute on the data.
There 22 is a dispute on what the data means, isn't there?
23 A
(Mileti)
There can't be a dispute about how Ron and 24 I might interpret the data if we were looking at the same data.
25 The most comprehensive data set I know of from Three Mile O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- 3l;t.". ~
.:l:5 g
T 5
r PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6432 h
1 Island was analyzed, and it leads to the conclusion that during
)
v 2
the Three Mile Island event people's pre-emergency fear of 3
radiation did not have a direct effect on what the public did,
~J' 4
but rather, had its effect through only -- its only effect
&i 5
through people's situational perceptions of risk.
s 6
Q Did I understand your testimony to be that there 7
cannot be a dispute over the proper interpretation of the data a:
8 from TMI?
l 9
A (Mileti)
Not if we're looking at the same data.
10 0
Okay.
Are you aware of an article that Ronald Perry 11 has written that proposes, or theorizes that pre-emergency fear 12 at TMI was one of the determinants of human response to that 13 emergency?
Are you aware of an article by Mr. Perry that says l
l
~
7 14 that?
15 A
(Mileti)
I have a vague recollection of reading 16 several articles by Ron Perry and perhaps co-authored by Mike 17 Lindell that talked about something related to this several 18 years ago.
I haven't seen it recently.
19 0
Well, then there can be a dispute, can't there, on l
20 the proper interpretation of the TMI data base?
21 A
(Mileti)
Not if we're looking at the same data.
And 22 the best data available was the -- well, you don't want to know 23 that.
24 Q
Well, is the best data available the data gathered, 25 or some of the best data gathered by Cynthia Flynn for the NRC?
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
(yj'[
"Y,
.y,.
Ty v;.
PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6433 +
1 A
(Mileti)
In general, I would say that's some of the 2
best data available of all the investigations that were
- f. '
- !k 3
performed.
Tp
.4 Q
I don't have the NUREG number, but the.Flynn material 3.7 5
.was commissioned by the NRC.
.y, 6
Now, if Ron Perry wrote an article claiming that pre-h 2
7 emergency fear was a direct determinant of human response at L
f 8
TMI based on the Flynn data, would you say that there could be'
-f 9
a debate on.the proper interpretation of the data base at THI?
10 A
(Mileti)
It would depend on whether he looked at all 11 the Flynn data, or whether he did another analysis of it.
[
i 4
12 There have been several different analyses of that data.
,j 13 Q
You have written an article with Mr. Perry, haven't f
s-14 you?
,f ac 15 A
(Mileti)
I have written more than an article with My 16 Mr. Perry.
We know each other since graduate school, and have 17 written a book together and several articles.
2 18 0
It's the case, isn't it, that the literature 19 indicates that part of the fear, perception of fear that the 20 population has with regard to radiological emergencies concerns I
21 the perceived level of threat that they represent to the 22 community; isn't that correct?
23 A
(Mileti)
It's hard for me to distinguish between the 24 two.
I think perceived risk and perceived threat are close 25 enough that they might be the same concept.
In some context, O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
J l
s A'+
I
- ,:o PANEL NO. 7 -' CROSS 6434 l ()
.}
1 they could be defined different, and in others, they could be e:s -
l,$3 >
2 defined the same.
.hg '
3 Q
Well, maybe my question wasn't clear.
J'i 'i 7,
I 4
In the literature it's clear, isn't it, that the j
)
5 level of fear among the population of a radiological emergency l
,s-i 6
is connected to the perceived level of threat of a radiological
.)
]
7 emergency?
There is a connection between the fear and the 8
perceived threat that a radiological emergency represents.
..f';
9 A
(Mileti)
If what you are asking me if people who are
%3
.xin 10 fearful have some -- do they perceive that they have something
.;g '
11 to fear, I think the answer is yes.
12 O
Yes, but I'm asking you a more precise, I'm trying to S
13 ask a more precise question, which is you would acknowledge O
14 that the literature indicates a high level of fear of
{
15 radiation, that's correct in the United States, that's correct, 16 isn't it, Dr. Mileti?
.g 4
17 A
(Mileti)
I believe what we were talking about was
- ,Q. '
.K '
18 that perceived fear of a radiological emergency, or that hazard
'* l 19 was higher than other hazards.
I don't recollect where on a 20 scale that might fall.
21 0
Well, then let's go back and revisit that.
22 I thought it was your testimony that it was higher 23 than any fear of a natural disaster in the United States.
24 A
(M11eti)
Given the published literature to date, 25 yes.
I've already said that.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4089
{
4 9,
PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6435 l( )
1 Q
And isn't it the highest because of the perceived h
2 level of threat, or the public's perception of the level of 3
threat to a community represented by a radiological emergency?
. h-id1 i
4 A
(Mileti)
I'm sorry, I don't recognize the precision 1ri l
!!l 5
in that question.
It seems like a tautology.
Yes.
6 Q
Now your review of the literature and your own 7
research on social response to emergencies, and the development j'
8 of a therapeutic community, in any of that work are you aware 9
of any cases where the social group involved included a large 10 number of transients?
l I
11 And by large, let's be precise.
I want to limit it, 12 More transients than non-transients.
Are there any cases where je 13 a community that was hit by a disaster had in it more non-G 14 communal members than community members?
15 A
(Mileti)
I'm sorry, I can't answer that question.
I 16 simply don't have a recollection of the proportion of evacuees, 17 for example, in the catalogue of emergencies that have been 18 done that were permanent residents versus visitors to a 19 community.
There certainly have been studies of emergencies 20 where today I would conclude would have had to have involved 21 visitors in the community.
For example, evacuations of coastal i
22 communities during hurricane season or what have you in i
i 23 Florida.
But it's my hunch that there would have been l
24 visitors to the beaches there.
I just simply don't have that l
l 25 precise recollection.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
.jN :
' fhk g
PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6436i
[( )
1 0-The questica gasn't whether there were transients.
2 It would be hard to la igine a circumstance where there wouldn't j 3
be a transient in a cty onity when it was hit with an s
4 emergency.
The question was, is there anything in the 5
literature a situation where a group is hit with a -- strike 6
that.
A community is hit by a disaster, or an emergency N
7 arises, and the population is made up more of transients than 8
it is people who reside in the community.
9 A
(Mileti)
There could be, but I don't have a j
10 recollection today.
11 Q
You are not aware now as you sit there that there is 12 any literature like that.
13 A
(Mileti)
No, I think I already said that.
(3 14 Q
Are you aware of any study of that precise issue?
15 A
(Mileti)
There have been studies of special 16 populations, some of which may have involved transients as 17 defined as a special population, but I sure don't recollect any 18 today.
19 0
Now it's your testimony, isn't it, that we can be --
20 we can assume and comfortably predict that a therapeutic 21 community will emerge in the Seabrook EPZ in the event of a 22 radiological emergency; that part of your testimony, isn't it?
]
23 A
(Mileti)
I do believe that, yes.
l 24 Q
And that you are aware that at least in the beach 25 areas and in the beach towns in the summer months there are O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
i
- ~____.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _
1 gh,
4:. -
- .. y PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6437 y
- s.: "
1 more transients, or if you don't know this, you can take it
(,
)
2 from me, there are more transients in those areas than there o
,.g:
4 3
are residents.
f 4
Are you also prepared to make the claim now that that 5
will not have any impact on the emergence of a therapeutic gf,..
A 6
community, the fact there being more transients than residents?
7 A
(Mileti)
On the presumption that the transients are 8
people.
I'i 9
0 Yes, they're people.
t 10 A
(Mileti)
Yes.
Then I think the therapeutic communal 11 response would emerge.
J 12 Q
And again to ask the question, do you have any 13 evidence, or is there any evidence in the literature that has i:
14 addressed that question of communal response to an emergency 15 when that community was made up of more than half transients?
16 A
(Mileti)
I've.already said I can't answer that
?,
17 question, but there certainly have been transients in
,- 1 18 evacuations before, and I don't know of any evidence to suggest 19 that certain categories of human beings were excluded from that 20 typical human response.
21 0
well, if I understand the emergence of a therapeutic 22 community as a concept, it does involve the community 23 protecting itself, does it not?
I believe those are almost 24 verbatim from your -- those words are from your testimony.
25 A
(Mileti)
Sure, but, you know, you could -- people Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_ __,__u_.. - -. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -. - - - - -.
d y
'E.
PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6438
).( )
1 are people, and these other words that we invent are actual
.g 2
deifications, if you will.
I'm just talking about human p
3 beings, and we can call them communities, we can call them
' }h
./
4 families, we can call them small groups, we can call them
@w 5
visitors, but they are basically people.
ijf 6
Q Oh, I see.
So the word " community" is not a term of 7
art in soci' ology?
- N-~
q.7 8
A (Mileti)
Yes, it is a term of art, and it has o
il 9
specific meanings.
But in reference to the adjective a
10
" therapeutic community", it deals with the people being on
?
- h 11 which the threat is imposed.
O[
12 O
I see.
So that it's your understanding then, and
[
13 it's your position that therapeutic communities emerge among
,_s5) 14 any assemblage of people when an emergency strikes.
Jl 15 A
(Mileti)
Experiencing a common threat imposed by j.
16 some externality with a rapid onset, and I could describe the 17 parameters of that further.
18 0
I see.
So that the word " community" might be --
19 strike that.
20 So that there is no necessity, in your view, that the 21 people know each other.
They could be a collection of 22 strangers, and an emergency can arise, and the therapeutic 23 community would ensue.
That's your position, isn't it?
24 A
(Mileti)
In fact, there is -- yes.
In fact, there 25 is evidence to suggest that strangers come together and form,
(~s
(_~)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
s'.
."ch q 1,*/l. .
"a:
-4y:
y tr ra-
,}
PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6439 )f;;.
,(])'
1 in some studies into work groups and work at length, et cetera.
2 Q
Yes, but I thought it was your testimony that there li,.; ;
5-3 is no evidence that you are aware of of communities in which 1,
4 more than half of the population of the community was
.e.:
5 transient, and a therapeutic community arose.
You are aware of lie m
- Y G
no evidence of that.
f; w
7 7
A (Mileti)
I already answered that question.
I don't
[,[
8 see what it had to do with the question you just asked me.
1 9
JUDGE SMITH:
Listen to this.
I think it could have ip 10 been shortened somewhat if there had been more careful is; 11 attention to the question and answer.
You asked him at the
('
12 beginning of this as to whether the fact that there would be a kj s
.W 13 large number of transients, that more than half the population
- 74. -
O b
14 would be transients, would it have any effect upon the (g
15 therapeutic community.
And he's answered all along on i.'. '
16 either/or, either a therapeutic community emerges or it doesn't 17 emerge, and you never did get your answer to what influence 10 upon a therapeutic community would the number of transients 19 have, if there is any.
20 MR.' TRAFICONTE:
Well, let me answer that question 21 directly then.
22 BY MR. TRAFICONTE:
1 23 0
What impact, if any, on the emergence of a 24 therapeutic community will the large number of transients in l
25 the Seabrook -- in the beach areas of the Seabrook EPZ have, in i
\\
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
1 I
l
- {};.
'. p,
^ 1: ~ t "r: -
6440jJ.d PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS s
1
-ca p)
..3J).)
1 your view?
q 4~
2 A
(Mileti)
I could hypothesize half a dozen things.
Il'g s$,
3 think,-for example, transients would be, if advised to p;- 1 D
4 evacuate, for example, evacuate and not return to the community 9:/-
.q-5 after the emergency was over, and that would account for a
~
V, l
6 variation in their response to the emergency from people who
',5 7
live there.
J,'
o 8
In reference to evacuation behavior or sheltering f;s s.L -
9 behavior, I don't believe that it would account for variation l[. -
.c
'?
10 in their willingness to help one another engage in protective q
11 actions.
..J 12 0
Dr. Mileti, one further, or last question along this.
13 line At TMI, is it your view that a therapeutic community, as O
14 you understand that. term, emerged in 19787 15 A
(Mileti)
It depends on what time period in reference 16 to the TMI accident, or event, or incident, whatever you want 4
17 to call it we're talking about, I think there are indications
.e 18 to suggest that were a study done of people helping one 19 another, that we would find that that did characterize the 20 warning response period.
However, that after the event, it was 21 very clear that a dramatic amount of conflict arose in the 22 local commun'ty.
There have been several studies done on 23 that, and that's quito predictable.
That kind of conflict even 1
24 emerges after natural disasters after the emergency period is 25 over.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
43
.-y,:.
?.
PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6441.8 n
(-)
1 Q
Well, let me rephrase my question.
- [.;
2 Does the human response to TMI as a radiological Q
w 3
emergency confirm or disconfirm your view that the therapeutic lff-m 4
community will emerge in response to a radiological emergency?
jf.
M 5
A (Mileti)
If what you mean by response to a
'.E 6
radiological emergency is engaging in protective actions during 1
.7 7
the threat period, the existing evidence that is available J,
/
8 Jeads me to conclude that it would.
9 0
Well, let me put it this way.
If this was 1978, and 10 you were testifying on the TMI emergency plan for an operating 11 license, and you had made the same predictions as to what will 12 happen in the event of an emergency at THI should it occur, 13 same predictions that you make in your testimony here, would
~
14 what happened confirm or disconfirm that testimony?
15 A
(Mileti)
Well, there is a lot of suppositions in 16 your question.
If I were testifying about the emergency plan 17 in 1978 for Three Mile Island, I'd probably be there with 18 interveners rather than the other side, because it was a lousy 19 plan.
I 20 I believe that in response to emergencies of the kind 21 we're talking about here in a rapid onset event where a human 22 collective is at risk, that the record is so clear that I feel 23 I can speak with confidence, and that TMI does not provide 24 evidence to discount that confidence that people help one 25 another.
l l
(~x()
I Heritage Reporting Corporation f
(202) 628-4888 I
L PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6442 5 (m_)
1 Q
So it does not disconfirm, what happened at TMI does
'[.
2 not disconfirm your view generally of human response to f 7.y
?.: -
3 radiological emergency.
.y{.-
4 A
(Mileti)
It does not disconfirm my view about people S
coming together and helping one another in any kind of L.
6 emergency, inclu' ding radiological emergencies.
3j 7
It also, I might add, doesn't disconfirm my 8
conclusion that there'd be significant conflict after the s
9 emergency is over in emergencies that have both natural i
10 character as well as technological.
But there is typically
.s.
11 more after technological.
12 0
Your testimony here has nothing to do, does it, with 13 what happens after the emergency.
Your testimony is focused on
~
14 human response to the emergency as it affects the emergency 15 planning process.
16 A
(Mileti)
It's focused on, yeah, human response to 17 warnings of an emergency.
18 O
Well, and also human response to the emergency.
19 A
(Mileti)
Well, one --
20 0
You tell us, for example, that people are going to 21 ride-share, that there is going to be spontaneous sheltering.
22 Ycu tell us that there is not going to be role abandonment, and 23 that emergency workers are going to respond and do their --
24 perform their roles.
That's all part of your testimony here, 25 isn't it?
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
t
' *;QY
.F 1.::
R-PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS
'6443ff,,
l()
1
.A-(Mileti)
Yes, it is.
~
.w 2
Q-So you are telling us about -- you are predicting g
,e 3
human response during an emergency, aren't-you?
? ',
?
?
.h{$'
4 A
(Mileti)
I'm predicting -- of course, warnings are
- )
i 5
part of the emergency.
pp.
J 6
Q But more than warnings.
Your testimony doesn't
.'. 8 <
di.
7 concern itself just with warnings.
You're making statements
- ]g 8
about what human beings are going.to do during the emergency.
Yy!
K 9
A (Mileti)
Yes, sir, but warnings are part of the 10 emergency.
[
11 Q
Now, I'd like to push on, take up another line, and j..
4 12 very briefly discuss, Dr. Mileti, factors that you acknowledge i.
13 cause emergency response.
- p O
14 You acknowledge, don't you, I believe you did 15 yesterday that there are a series of variables -- I think you 6;
16 said almost an unlimited number -- that determine human 17 response in an emergency.
That's correct, isn't it?
18 A
(Mileti)
There's a long list of factors that social 19 and behavioral scientists have.found that covary or have 20 statistically covaried with response to emergencies, yes.
21 Q
Just for the record, would you define covary?
22 A
(Mileti)
It's a statistical relationship between an 23 independent and dependent variable.
For example, it's found 24 statistically that as one factor increases, another factor 25 statistically increases or decreases in a statistically Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l q; s,
- p G,'.
.;l:
r, PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6444ll.,,
i },h F/.
1 significant relationship.
And the literature is riddled with
/
<g, -
1~
2 statistical relationships between what we were calling y,
i1
'typ ;
3 yesterday-sender and receiver determinants and dependent Ir 4
variables like what people did in response to emergency 5
warnings, for example.
ffI?
- d: -
6 Q
Now, just so my language is clear and the record's
.{
7 clear, if two phenomena do covary in that sense, one could be 8
said to be the determinant of another; that's correct, isn't h'
+l 9
it?
j 10 A
(Mileti)
Not necessarily, no.
It could -- there 11 could -- and people have illustrated, for example, statistical 12 relationships.between the number of storks flying over a town 13 and how many babies are born.
It just establishes that they G'
14 correlate.
One may not be determining the other.
It could be 15 a spurious relationship, or et cetera.
16 0
All right, so that your view that information, the 17 available information to an individual, is it a determinant of 18 that individual's response to an emergency?
19 A
(Mileti)
I believe it's a key determinant.
I 20 0
All right.
Is that based on some notion that it 21 covaries statistically?
22 A
(Mileti)
One would presume unless oppressor 23 variables were operating in a particular data set that you 24 would observe a statistical relationship, yes.
25 Q
No, but is your view that it is a key determinant O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
i
M.g V
r PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 644531
- T,
- G -)
[(
I based on the fact that there has been some statistical research fi.
2 and it covaries?
a?."
l W~
.?3l 3
A (Mileti)
There has been a lot of different l
dh, 4
statistical research in a lot of different emergencies, and
.Q. t t
5 that have illustrated that there is covariation between one or
6 some or a large set of the information variables one would look )
Y 7
at, and in response to emergencies.
8 Q
I'm going to put the question again.
I think you
'Jc 9
have answered it, at least in part, f tl
~
i 10 Then your view that information is the key 11 determinant is based on the f act that information covaries with "
c 12 response, yes or no.
.v, 13 A
(Mileti)
Yes, it would includo that.
]
14 0
Right.
So another scholar who determines that other 15 factors covary with response would be entitled to call those 16 other factors determinants, wouldn't he or she?
7 t
17 A
(Mileti)
I think any prudent social scientist would
}'
18 make the conclusion about what's a determinant and what isn't a ~
19 determinant on the basis of looking at the entire empirical 20 record which would include, of course, statistical 21 relationships, but shouldn't be limited to it.
22 MR. TRAFICONTE:
I'm going to ask to strike that 23 answer and just put it again.
I don't think I got an answer to 1
24 that question which was pretty precise.
l 25 JUDGE SMITH:
Well, let's read it back, please, both
()
1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
t p.l
~
i.
I
.h PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6446 i
.)
I the question and the answer.
if i
2 (Accordingly, the record was read back by the
.$l
, m.
3 court reporter.)
Gr..
M'y 4
JUDGE SMITH:
No, I think that was -- the motion 5
is -- well, what do you say, Mr. Dignan, but we believe
,y' a 4
?rt 6
the -- the Board believes that the answer was responsive.
You
.f4
",2 7
might want to -- you might want to clarify what he meant.
He i
l 8
didn't actually use the word "covary", but you might inquire, 9
but we concur that it's responsive.
10 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Fine.
Let me just follow up then.
x
<L 11 BY MR. TRAFICONTE:
12 Q
To summarize, you believe that you are right that l
i 13 information is the main, or key determinant of a response based l
)
14 on the fact that it could covaries with response, and you 15 acknowledge that other researchers who do discover other 16 factors that covary with response would be entitled to consider 17 those determinants of response; is that accurate?
18 A
(Mileti)
Yes and no.
It depends on the context in 19 which the researcher is using it, and can I explain?
20 0
I'm sorry, did you ask me can you explain?
21 Yes, please.
22 A
(Mileti)
We have a whole raft filled with factors 23 that have shown to statistically covary with human response to 24 emergency warnings.
To make a good judgment about which are j
25 the most important factors versus which are not so important,
~J Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
h,R.,tp.-
Tff>;'!f
,T.h, N.
, ]
PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6447<.'
. !*O i
1 eaa to axe eooa $=a9 ent eso=t whio' re1 tioa n1 re re 1 9
s'ye
.n 2
versus which relationships are spurious, one would need to not
- ..y _
3 simply take a simple bivariant correlation in a particular J-4 study and reach a conclusion that that relationship holds all 5
the time, and outside of the context of.a broader model or 6
theory that would include looking at the effect of a particular P,
7 factor while holding the effect of other factors constant, for 8
example.
9 Another way of dealing with that is looking at how N
10 conclusions based on empirical evidence might vary either 11 quantitatively or qualitatively across a range of emergency 12 events rather than simply looking at one particular emergency 13
. event.
14-Q Is your view that, arid your belief that information g;-l.
15 is the key. determinant, is that an assumption, a theoretical i
16 assumption that you make?
17 A
(Mileti)
It would depend on the context in which I 18 was using it.
It could be seen as a statistical conclusion.
19 It could be seen at the outset of a study as a hypothesis.
It 20 could be seen as a recommendation for policy.
It would depend 21 on how I was using it.
22 O
Well, let's take up that thiril.
My question is, is 23 your view that information is the key determinant of response a 24 theoretical assumption or it based on some empirical evidence, 25 and your response was it could be a function of whether you're OG Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
a, a.
2,
...i,.
s-a
'i j
g:..:
8,, ;
x.
.. l ",
- $$f'N w;p
,~:#.r.
y,
't.'
' i<. '
PANEL EQ. 7 - CROSS 6454,y; p.
1
'O But we agree -- I'm sorry.
Are you finished?
k q;
2 A
(Mileti)
I just think that's the most prudent
-(
' We have no way of prophesizing what t!hese dif ferent y,
3 course.
f,. 0 k:,
4 characteristics would be when an emergency actually occurs 5
since they are eubject to change and could change by events
/]i 6
that are beyond people's control or knowledge about.
.l
+
i 7
Q But we've agreed, haven't we, that fear of a 8
radiological emergency is extremely high in the United States, 9
higher than the fear of any natural disaster as far as you 10 knowY l
11 A
(Mileti)
I believe what I said is I know that there 12 is data and research that ranks people's perceived risk of 13 different hazards one to another.
That most of the existing g
14 publications would conclude, and therefore I conclude that 15 people's perceived risk of radiological accidents are higher 16 than those of other accidents, but I don't remember the i
17 particular quantity that that level of risk perception would 18 take.
I'm willing to presume that it's high.
I know that it's i
19 high.
20 0
And it's not necessary, is it, in your view, that any 21 empirical research be done on the level of pre-emergency fear 22 that exists in the Seabrook EPZ for proper planning?
That's 23 not a necessary -- that's not a necessary task.
24 A
(Mileti)
I think what's neces -- no, I don't think 25 so.
I think what's necessary is that the planning presumed O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
m Qflfij-
~y Wl f'
?h A
- 3 hgM;i[
PANEL,NO. 7 - CROSS, 6455 [5 q-1 h-thatit.couldbehighinanactualfuture$mergency,aswellasi$
+
1
/jf i
2' that it could be lov and recognize thas it could change, and
'\\
.jp 3
design an emergency warning system that maximizes the 3
1 4
probability of being effective regardless of what configuration' 5
that might have in the future.
[s
.i.
6 0
wn11, if you assume -- I'm a' 11t'cle puzzled by your
~,$1..
7 assumption that'it's high and low. cIf you mean we'11' assume an D 8
average level of fear, aren't you going'to Le underestimating
'thelevaloffear.ifthefearofaradk.ologicalemergencyit 9
i empiricallydemonstratedtobaveryhighibtheUn.ttedStati!a?
10 j
11 A
(Mileti)
I'm sorry, cedid you repeat that quc?: tion?
]
\\
12 I think --
..j 1
13 0
Well, maybe you just explained how it is that you"are
.O 14 going to assume it's high and assume it's low in the design of 15 your emergency system.
f 16 A
(Mileti)
Well, I think we should presume that there i
17 will be, because averace -- the mean perpon doesn't respond to 18 disaster warnings; individuals do.
And if we docr.gned e 19 warning system on~r.he presumption that fear was at a mean J
20 level, either the national level or a local populations
- mean e
21 level of perceived fear, there is variation in how people 22 perceive risk, for example.
And that variation not unly would
\\
23 exist across a range today if we measured it today, it would i
I 24 exist across a range in the future.
And that our warning 25 system, or any warning nyst u should presume that it.can be, or O
Heritage Reporting Corporat.lon (202) 628-4889
)
3
./
7
%g(h?- -
A PANSL NO. 7 - CROSS 6456%
I!k,.
l,O 1
try to address dein,erreceive cor both reorie who h ve 1o-
.y 2
prior emergency risk perceptions as well as.high prior, or pre-
'E q
s' v:
3 emergency risk perceptions.
}'8 Soinatregardlessofwhatkindofhumanbeingisin '[,5 4
5 the IPZ',' the emergency' warning system can be, or maximize the
.f.f i
6 probability of being effective for all of them.
,[
7 JUDGE SMITH:
Would this be a good time for a morning
/
r-8 break.
9 MR.TRANICONTE:
Yes, we can take a break, sure.
10 JUDCE SMITH:
Fifteen minutes, please.
11 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
I i
12 JUDGE SMITH:
You may proceed when you're ready.
13 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Thank you, Your Honor.
14 BY MR. TRAFICONTE:
k 15 Q
I'd like to push ahead and take up another line of 16 questioning concerning, Dr. Mileti, your view and discussion of l
i-17 the TMI incident.
Let's step back first.
Let me ask you this.
18 TMI was a radiological emergency, wasn't it?
q 19 A
(Mileti)
Yes, I think it was.
20
-Q You among others in your field have studied the human 21 response to THI, haven't you -- haven't they, you and they?
22 A
(M11eti)
Different Aspects of human response, yes.
23 Q
In' general, would you say that the human response to 24 the TMI emergency confirmed human response to other types of 25 emergencies, or was it in accordance with human response to s,]
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 n.
i,
' *b $
z"y;,tk.,
- g s
19 ig;,
l,}V
':y.
l;
(,l
~ PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6457.$.
7 c
)
other types of emergency?
+
2 LA (Mileti)
I don't believe that anything that occurred,)
17;:
3 at Thr'ee Mile Island would disvalidate the general principles h
?.;y.
4
'about what are the relationsh'ips between determinants of human jf;3(
.g.;
5 response and actual response.
The particular configuration, in
.[ ?
6 terms of w$at people.did, may have'been similar to or 7
dissimilar to what people did in response'to other emergencies.
cl,
8 Q.
Well,-if I could just plug it into the testimony 9
earlier, the debate as to whether or not you can take the 10 principlas we've learned from studdwj natural disasters and 11 use those principles in forming an adequate emergency plan for Je !
.n.
12 a radiological emer.gency, that debate has one empirical example j
13 in the United States to consider, doesn't it?
O 14 That's to say there has been an example of a 15 radiological emergency in the United States for the -- in which 16 that debate, or with which that debate must be concerned.
17 A
(Mileti)
Let me just preface my response by saying 18 that I think one would take into account not just what's been 19 learned from human response to warnings of natural emergencies 20 and translate that to emergency preparedness for a nuclear 21 power plant, but rather, one would consider the entire data 22 base which would include some technological emergencies as.
23 well, and one of those was Three Mile Island.
24 I think if we had a more elaborate data base E
25 regarding emergencies at nuclear power plants, we wouldn't be
.i d
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 a,,.
h'.
v o-M;.kff.
., '.i.C
- c s.g.g
.41{
PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6 4 5 8 " ?;
- w
-;()
.h.h.,
1 discussing emergency planning for nuclear power plants.
We 2
probably wouldn't have nuclear power plants.
fy.
. ~..
3 Q
My point is that there is a set of one empirical
f; 4
cases of radiological, significant radiological emergencies in 3;
O 71[
5 the United States.
That's correct, isn't it?
6 A
(Mileti)
I think there may be a few -- a handful of
'.!'i 7
other emergencies one would want to consider.
Certainly Three b
8 Mile Island is the largest emergency that I know of that stands
.[,
9 out.
10 0
So it is significant, isn't it, in terms of the 11 debate as to whether the principles of human response to 12 emergencies derived from the study of natural disasters can be
.l 4) 13 carried over into radiological emergencies?
It is significant N
l 14 for that debate what happened at THI', isn't it?
g..
- \\
15 A
(Mileti)
I think that what he.ppened at TMI is a el, 16 significant data point.
I disagree with the premise that we're_
i I
17 just transposing knowledge from just looking at a subset of the
- i 18 existing data base and 2.imiting it to natural emergencies.
We 19 have also studied other technological emergencies, t
20 0
Well, let me put it this way then.
The use of 21 information and knowledge we gain from nonradiological 22 emergencies being applied to radiological emergencies, you 23 don't have any problem with that distinction?
l 24 A
(Mileti)
I like that better, thank you.
25 Q
Fine.
TMI would be a test case, wouldn't it, to see
(~)
(e I
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 j
1 l
L o
... 4e
.t e
x lt ; M!I 7..
3;
':M PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6459.nu
.$/
l)
I whether'it is sound to use the principles we've learned, or the
,l 2
knowledge we've learned from nonradiological emergencies and j,@
3 apply that. knowledge in planning for radiological emergencies?
f 4
A (Mileti)
I can only answer that by saying that I
?+ -
W, 5
think TMI is an important data point that one would want to jy 6
consider.
It's the antithesis of a test case in that nothing 7
was done right at TMI in reference to how one would go about
~
ik 8
helping the public respond.
'I 9
0 That isn't the thrust of my question, Dr. Mileti.
10 I'm not asking you whether they did it right, or whether the 11 plans were adequate.
I'm asking whether or not what happened,
'[....
12 the human response to the TMI incident would be a test case for 13 those trying to study the applicability, or trying to determine 14 the applicability of the principles learned from the 15 nonradiological emergency field on to the emergency 16 radiological field.
17 A
(Mileti)
I thought I said that it was an important 18 data point one would have to consider.
I don't know what you 19 mean by test case.
I don't think it's a typical case.
20 0
As I said, it's the single empirical example we have 21 of significant human response in the United States to a 22 radiological emergency, isn't it?
23 A
(Mileti)
I agree it only happened once, yes, and 24 that there are no other events that I know of that approximate 25 it.
1
/NU Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l
,e Y
Y ?:6' W
'1 NI
- QL l
d!
I 6460'.$'h..
PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS w
\\
O 1
o so, ror exe vie, veur vie-that bea 1= tor etioa --
.7:!i R,
4 2
strike that.
Q
{
3 Your view that information is the key determinant of
. k, w
c.-
l-4 human response to radiological emergencies could be tested by yE n-5 looking at the human response to the TMI emergency.
C j
6 A
(Mileti)
I believe it would be grossly inappropriate
?!
l 7
not to include looking at what occurred at Three Mile Island in 8
making an ascessment.
I also concur that had I done a piece of 9
research at Three Mile Island on public warning response, I 9
10 would have looked at a raft of information variables to see how
,[
i 11 they would have related to measure them as a social scientist
~i 12 would.
I think TMI is a very significant case.
I don't think J,
13 it's the only case that should be looked at.
I think it's an O.
14 important case that should be looked at.
7" 15 Q
Well, you discuss it at length in your testimony, 16 don't you?
17 A
(Mileti)
I discuss parts of what happened at Three 18 Mile Island in my testimony, yes.
19 Q
Now, so the discussion is clear, can you give us a 20 definition of overresponse?
21 A
(Mileti)
In general, overresponse has -- is used as 22 a value judgment by those who would come in and judge the 23 behavior of the public as responding in ways that are 24 disproportionate to what the person making the judgment would 25 have considered in hindsight as a reasoned response in an O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
ii-ii n
..f "
Q-
\\ yp;{g l*
- Y_yl0."yfG
- &'t y
'\\
P1 V Q
z.
p;
?
f7.,
.a
_ ;; ?
- g.
's },'l-
'((
PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6461.g C,..g dy
{'
emergency, and the converse is true for underresponse.
1 ll;,
y
'2 O
All right, I understand that's your definition.
Then 31
. 5'.
3 I'm going to provide another definition with which we can use p
that term for the purh>oses of this testimony if you will permit. g',;,.
4 5
me.
6 I'd like to define overresponse not in a pejorative 7
sense, or in a value sense, Dr. Mileti.
I would like to define
,,x 8
overresponse as human response that exceeds what the objective 9
situational -- strike that -- the objective situation would 10 call for in an emergency.
[
11 So, for example, and I believe the literature uses 12 the term in this way, if a certain portion of a population is j.-
?W 13 directed to evacuate, and a different portion or a larger
'J.
- a l
14 portion evacuates, that would be overresponse by those not
~,
,~
15 instructed to evacuate.
I want to define the term that way, 16 and I am not making or, attempting to make any value judgment 17 the way I would say that my children overrespond.
I'm not 18 trying to make any value judgment about that response.
It's l
I 19 just a -- I'm attempting to use it in descriptive fashion.
20 Can we agree that we'll be using that term that way?
21 A
(Mileti)
I'm happy to.
I think that's --
22 Q
Fine.
23 A
(Mileti)
-- James Johnson, Jr.'s definition, and if 24 you want to use that one, I'm happy to.
j 25 0
Now it's the case, isn't it, that in natural l
i O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
S$
$1 ',a*;.,
'jf:j r
i
' i.f
- f PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6462ff
[
1 disasters the literature makes quite clear that underresponse, z,r
.2 strike -- let me withdraw that question and do the same thing
}
t yr:
3 for underresponse although it's probably pretty obvious how we r;
4 were going to be using that term.
sp.c 5
And likewise, underresponse would be a failure on the $:;
.q.
6 part of a relevant population to respond in accordance with the ?l '
y e
7 objective level of risk in its situation, and in accordance C-8 with directions.
t 9
So, for example, if a portion of the population is 10 directed to evacuate because there is a real objective risk 11 present, and it does not, or a portion of that population does 12 not evacuate, that portion is underresponding.
And again, no f(,
13 pejorative sense of that term is intended.
O 14 We can use that term, can't we, Dr. Mileti, with that 15 meaning?
You've used in that meaning, haven't you?
16 A
(Mileti)
It's just that that was a very long 17 question, and I'm not sure what parts of it were included in 18 the question and excluded.
19 If what you mean by underresponse is people who were I
20 advised to engage in a protective action and then don't engage 21 in it in time, yes, I'm willing to call that underresponse for 22 the purposes of our conversation this morning.
23 O
Well, that's certainly what I was trying to say.
24 Now it's a fact, isn't it, that the literature on 25 natural disasters -- strike that.
O-Heritage Reporting Corporation j
(202) 628-4888
.,$:;.j&i, g
s.
PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6463
")
1 The literature on nonradiological disasters makes
' f.
.j:
2 clear that underresponse is essentially the problem for 5;$
@Y
'3 emergency planners; isn't that correct?
m 4
A (Mileti)
Some of the literature does,.yes.
2g "3
5 Underresponse occurs sometimes, and sometimes it doesn't.
And u z 6
overresponse occurs sometimes and sometimes it doesn't in
(':
1 7
nonradiological emergencies.
!r.
I 8
Q No, I understand there may be variation, but 9
generally do you believe that underresponse is the predominant
_ -l l
4 10 problem in regard to response to natural disasters?
i G
l 11 A
(Mileti)
In general, thinking about the universe of 12 all conceivable natural disasters, I would say, yes,
.:ff 13 underresponse is a bigger problem than overresponse.
k g
14 Q
Now was there underresponse or overresponse to the n;
~
15 radiological emergency at TMI?
16 A
(Mileti)
To my way of thinking, there was both.
.-(
17 0
well, in general, when you sum up all the parts of i
18 the response, can you make a general -- do you have a general 19 view as to whether there was over or underresponse?
20 A
(Mileti)
In using the terms as we have agreed to 21 define them today.
22 Q
Yes, yes.
23 A
(Mileti)
In my view, I would say there was both.
24 0
Okay.
Well, let's take the protective measure of 25 evacuation.
It's a fact, isn't it, that at some point during i
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- .ke.
X.
y:Q
- y.,gj~
m.
' ;. s '.
.n PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6464 j '
1-the TMI incident children under five and pregnant women within N'o, 2
a certain distance from the TMI plant were instructed to
' f4 3-Cj 3
evacuate; isn't that correct?
h:
2' 4
A (Mileti)
That's one of the protective action W
- y. :
5 recommendations that was made to the public, but not the only
// z 6
one, yes.
7 Q
Well, it was the only official recommendation made to
.8 the public, isn't that correct?
9 A
(Mileti)
No, that's not correct.
10 Q
What other official instructions to evacuate were h
n.a 11 made to the point in TMI?
12 A
(Mileti)
That's --
13 O
By official, I mean made'by officials stated by O
14 officials of the State of Pennsylvania Civil Defense, or the 4,
15 state office generally, state offices generally.
16 A
(Mileti)
That's.a different question than the last 17 one that you asked.
18 0
Well, then, let me limit it by that limiting 19 language.
20 A-(Mileti)
That was the Governor's advisory for 21 preschool-age children and pregnant women to evacuate.
22 0
Yes.
I 23 A
Was the only official evacuation advisement issued.
24 Q
Now, as I understand the literature, that would have 25 instructed 10,000 people to leave the area, approximately; O
Ileritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- %;g PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6465 0;,'
.j(;
7%
(,)
1 isn't that correct?
,'d.
2 A
(Mileti)
Gosh, to the best of my recollection, I i?7g 3
think it was more like 2500 rather than 10,000, but I could be 9<
- e 4
wrong.
.^
5 Q
I stand corrected.
O 8l1 7
6 And, in fact, upwards of 139,000 people evacuated, 6;
7 didn't they?
'l 8
A (Mileti)
As I recollect it, it was.a little bit 9
higher than that; closer to perhaps 144,000.
y1 10 0
144,000.
So we had an official recommendation to a f,
.i 11 portion of the population that would total 2500, but we had an
- /
A 12 actual evacuation totaling upwards of 144,000 people; is that 7[!
i 13 correct?
7s
(_)
14 A
(Mileti)
Yes.
i, j
15 0
Now, would you characterize that as overresponse?
5' 16 A
(Mileti)
No, not given what I know.
I have always 17 said and as I've said in my testimony I'm amazed that more 18 people didn't evacuate given the kind of risk information that 19 was going to the public during that emergency.
20 0
Well, let's talk about the information available to k.
21 the public during that emergency.
I take it it's your view 22 from your testimony that it I think you called it the worst 23 information disaster in history.
Is that a fair statement?
24 A
(Mileti)
Absolutely.
I think that it was an l
25 incredibly -- they made every mistake you could possibly make i
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
l 1
PM)"
hk.
- 1 1.G PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6466 A.
'3;.
- i 1
in terms of public emergency information during Three Mile v
2 Island.
- l..!:'.
ch 3
Q And who's the they?
T!:~
~
4 A
(Mileti)
Everybody that was giving information to C
5 the public.
I 6
Q Well, who is they?
'I'.
7 A
(Mileti)
That emergency information came from a t
'.h 8
variety of sources, and as I, and I've tried to outline in my
^{
9 testimony with a little more precision than I'm -- maybe I
'h 10 should just refer you to my testimony I provided on Pages, 11 approximately from 170 through 179, and then in the appendix an 12 attempt to outline the kind of emergency information that was 7,.
13 going out, and emergency information went to the public from,
~, ' '
O 4
14 of course, the Governor's office, but also civil Defense and 15 the national media and a variety of other sources.
16 Q
So we have, in fact, the NRC was one of the --
17 A
(Mileti)
Oh, absolutely, yes.
18 Q
So we have information made available to the public 19 from the NRC, from the news media, from the Governor's office, 20 from Civil Defense, perhaps even other sources.
21 A
(Mileti)
I'm sure a raft of other sources, yes.
22 Q
And I take your testimony to be that the net result 23 of this was a confusing, conflicting set of information 24 provided to the public; is that a fair statement?
25 A
(Mileti)
Yes, I agree with that.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4808
l l
. ^hy.f l %{
PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6467M,.;
0,*
- l (lf.
es.Or 1
' ty;l,.'
o And in response to the confusins, conf 11ctin9 set of x':
'@S
.T '.
2 information, although only 2500 people were instructed to jy
- f.
3 evacuate, 144,000 people did evacuate.
Md ;
4 A
(Mileti)
Yes.
.'4:.':; -
5 0
In response to the conflicting information, is 7.;:
6 that --
7.j '
A 7
A (Mileti)
In response to the information that was 47.5 8
available, yes.
43 9
Q And it's your view that.that conflicting information.j{'
Ag 10 caused all of the other people who were not instructed to
, /.,{r,%
11 evacuate to evacuate.
1.w -
.v 12 A
(M11eti)
Not just that it was conflicting, but the "y.[
l 13 character of the information that was available to the public 14
'.(
p 14 about what was going on, or not going on.
j, i.
x;.
15 0
And it is your view that the pre-emergency fear of l/.'
16 radiation that you have acknowledged is high in the United y
. e...
17 States is not the cause, or the determinant of why 144,000
[,
l8' peo.18 evacr9ted instead of 25007 19 A
(Mileti)
It certainly would have had a role, and 20 it's been empirically demonstrated that it had a role in 21 influencing people's situational perception of And I 22 might add that I would presume that whatever sectors that might 23 influence how people form a situational porception of risk that 24 they bring into an emergency, as yesterday we defined as 25 receiver determinants, play a more outstanding role in forming 1
Heritage Reporting Corporation
]
(202) 628-4888 4
&::b-%
e..&.
.MO nif;+'
. W, s. '1!
PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6468))d'
+~
i,,)
1 those situational perceptions when the character of public jp,
'i ;,
5t' 2
emergency information is poor as it was at Three Mile Island.
3ll
-x :.
3 Q
So I take that point to be that if information is
.itS 4
poor, then pre-emergency fears can become more significant as a,1(f "q.
5 determinant of response.
'2;})
';yp 6
A (Hileti)
Absolutely yes.
9./$
7, aw 7
O And the better the information the less a factor pre- :Ji
.Y.
8 emergency fear will be.
J S;g 9
A (Mileti)
I do believe that.
I think -- I believe
}t 10 I've stated it in my testimony.
~
11 Q
And if the information is good enough, I take your 7.f.,
12 point to be that the pre-emergency fear will essentially play
$h.
13 little to no role in the response.
'[i 7) t 14 A
(Mileti)
Pre-emergency fear does not have a direct 1;
15 relationship to response.
It would have its effect through 16 situational perceptions of risk.
17 0
But it's something that planners can control by S
10 designing an adequate information system.
19 A
(Mileti)
Well, you could call it control if you 20 want.
I call it help.
But I think that one can address the 21 fact that in any population for any kind of hazard, be it 22 natural or otherwise, including technological, including 23 radiological, one must recognize beforehand in emergency plans 24 that there will be members of the population, or could be, who 25 are extremely fearful of a particular hazard agent, and that O
V Heritage Roporting Corporation (202) 620-4088
',m ijf:.;
WN$.; <
. D:;r
- r },
s U @'
PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6469gy.
N 1
there could be people who have less fear than that.
And that 2
the emergency warning system should be designed to help all
- rc 3
those people come to form the most securate perceptions of risk 4
during the emergency as possible.
g,
.y..
5 0
If I can just press you for a yes or no, I'm going to I
}-
.. -f 6
ask that question again.
It's your view, isn't it, that good W:<
7 information in an emergency information system can essentially
.;:y:
8 control for pre-emergency fear?
i.
9 A
(Mileti)
Goodinformationwouldreducetheeffectof-jj;
}
10 pre-emergency fear in terms of impacting people's situational n
ga 11 perception of risk.
That is, their situational perceptions j
u 12 would be more the result of the information than the fm.
p 13 0
I'll take that as a yes answer from you.
O 14 A
(Mileti)
I'm haopy to add a yes.
y d:
15 0
Okay.
Then I can assume that your view of the 16 pattern of evacuation at TMI is essentially that pre-emergency 17 fear did play a role at TMI' and there wasn't a good
(
18 information to countervail against it.
19 A
(Mileti)
It's been statistically demonstrated that 20 pre-emergency fear did impact situational risk perception at 21 Three Mile Island.
22 0
And that there was no good emergency system to 23 countervail it.
That's your view, isn't it?
24 A
(Mileti)
I've gone to great length to describe what 25 a horrible public emergency information system --
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
b4;Q.
Q~
ag v
~';%'.
e.( '-
PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6470,((.
i ~. p)
- y:.:
l '(<, ( -
. Q, Right, so --
1
^, '..
< f;,j,
\\
- . c,,.,,
~
2 A
(Mileti)
-- public emergency existed at Thre'e Mile.
}.$.(,,
3 Island.
-Q ssf,.
- n,I u.
i 4-Q So it's your view then that in this instance because
.7t 1 q<
5 the Seabrook plant has adopted an adequate emergency 37
^$. l' 6
information system in your view, the kind of response that Q(
't.; s 7
occurred at TMI will not happen again.
It will not happen in
'h(l, 5
8 the event of an emergency at Seabrook.
fff.
.m 9
A (Mileti)
I think the probability, because of
-;?
M 10 emergency planning, of botching up public emergency information 73 11 in a future emergengy at Seabrook is much lower, and therefore si n.v.
.Y.
12 as a consequence, public response would not take on the same
- . fs, m
13 descriptive character as what was observed at Three Mile i [G 14 Island.
2.
15 Q
So what's called in the literature as spontaneous 16 evacuation, or evacuation of groups who were not ordered to 17 evacuate or directed to evacuate would not occur in a Seabrook 18 emergency the way it occurred at TMI.
19 A
(M11eti)
Yes, and I think my testimony speaks to 20 that.
21 0
So I'm clear and the Board is clear, the sole 22 difference, in your view, or the key difference, in your view, 23 in what happened at TMI and what would happen at Seabrook if it 24 were licensed under the existing proposed plan is the quality 25 of the public information system; that's correct, isn't it?
O
(/
Heritage Reporting Corporation I
(202) 628-4888 I
I
i$,
' 3;.
c f.f N.c,13 il PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6471;M~
7
- 7 D E
QQ 1
'A (Mileti)
Could you repeat that question?
j.y, n'z3 y
%g 2
Q Sure, sure.
It's your view that the. key difference i, h -
v D.... [...
l.13 between the human response at.TMI and a human response to a g$mf MR
,? ?
Seabrookemergencyisbasedontheadequateinformationsystem;.g.~,
j!?
4
,s.,
5 that you believe the Seabrook plan has in it?
?[
.s.
6 A
(Mileti)
If we're talking about the. general public h'
~
m 7
response to warnings, then in general I agree, yes.
.U, 4 p, 8
Q All right, now, you're not aware that the utility has :i 9
proposed any controls of any kind over the news media in the
- h.
A 10 event of a radiological emergency, are you?
W;
~;v 11 A
(Mileti)
No, and I'd be real surprised if.they were-d:p
.q
.,;;> 7 g
'7 12 able to pull that off.
- i 13 Q
Haven't you at some time proposed that a 40-mile band,',
1 14 around -- in the event of an emergency, there should be a 40-
.t -
L.
i 15 mile blackout area for news?
Haven't you made that proposal at 4 16 some point?
17 A
(Hileti)
I don't ever remember in my career using 18 the word " blackout".
I would recommend, in general, that 19 emergency information be disseminated to as many people as l
20 possible.
21 Q
No, I'm not talking about dissemination.
I'm talking 22 about control over nonofficial sources of information in the 23 event of an emergency.
24 You have recommended that there be a, which is my 25 term for a blackout, but you have recommended that there be en O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
2aqsi'
' f.' 5Eh,I ly+tl& ~
Rl:
b(..
.c PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6472..].
1 area where there is control taken of local media, haven't you? k
!.- 9c
,$p.
2
-A (Mileti)
I have to say honestly I don't recollect c';W
.. ~
that.
What are you referring to?
W.
3 ig.
4 0
Well, as a matter of fact there will not be any 4.?
ihi 5
control over the local media in the event of a Seabrook
.4lkb e
l,,
.d 6
emergency, that's correct, isn't it?
,9.i 7
A (Mileti)
Again, I don't know.
I'd be real surprised
.h 8
if there were such control.
I don't think it would be possible' i
1 9
.to pull off, and the emergency plan should presume that there f.:j; '
10 isn't such control.
11 Q
Now, it's your view that at some point during the THI 12 incident an NRC official, or perhaps more than one NRC 13 official, made public statements that had bad -- that included
~,
Q
- l 14 some wrong information, and is part of the conflicting 15 information package that was presented to the public; isn't J
1*
J6 that correct?
.el 17 A
(Mileti)
Yes, as I recollect my testimony, it says 38 that the NRC said there was a hydrogen bubble that could 19 explode without explaining what explosion meant.
20 Q
And I also believe it's your view that such a NRC 21 statement could happen again in the event of a Seabrook 22 emergency.
23 A
(Mileti)
I believe the public emergency information 24 system at any nuclear power plant, including Seabrook, should 25 presume that that kind of statement could in fact occur again.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
(
1
,.f;f f.QR Q'
g$
Nf'h '..
6473}r.'
~
PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS i
gy 1
~I don!t know whether it'would be by the NRC or not, but the
.{t j m;
s-
,. g.
! ! 'l 2
odds are pretty high that somebody else would make it.
yl-w 3
Q Well, but the NRC is regarded as a very credible
'[h,f.lf, l
l; 4
source, is it not, for information concerning radiological
$h.[
'5 emergencies?
~
l, 6
A (Mileti)
People's perception --
n.
7 Q
That's what I'm talking about.
"E
.,.e <
'v.
8 A
(Mileti)
-- of the NRC varies.
There are some 9
people who would regard it as highly credible.
In general, I Q
10 would say that information coming from the NRC in the future N
11 would be interpreted as coming from an agency who certainly 12 should know about nuclear power plants.
13 0
So the public at risk that heard information from an 14 NRC official in the Seabrook -- strike that.
15 People in the Seabrook EPZ who received information v
16 from an NRC official would find that information credible, 17 wouldn't they?
18 A
(Mileti)
Some of them would and some of them 19 wouldn't.
People who heard it would certainly hear it.
20 0
Now in the event of a Seabrook radiological 21 emergency, wouldn't there be the same amount of conflicting and 22 contradictory information provided to the public in the EPZ as 23 had occurred at TMI?
3 24 A
(Mileti)
I would be astounded that there would ever 25 be an emergency at a nuclear power plant in this nation where O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.: "i ' s : ' l c.ppij.?gyi :.M. g. ],
g G.3$hTy&.
- IIi A J:',
u
.. u.. n
,<.<.,a
.;g f,*f.,* *,
[
rN,
~
'~
,.4'
' ?;
3
, ~,
.@3 k.
PANE 6 NO. 7 - CROSS 64745.h 6
' D; '
^'$,t 1
information was botched up as bad as it was at Three Mile gif
- n. -
,Q~;C 2
Island.
" ' Q:.. 1
- 3 However, to err on the side of caution,'I believe G7.
x.
- f. 3 4
that a public emergency information system-as part of emergencyf;g(
c.,
W g,_
5 planning at nuclear power plants should presume that there will y.
~ 6 be a lot of conflicting emergency information in the public 5:9..
c 7
domain.
- y.. '
8 Q
If I can try to clarify this, your view essentially
&y 9
is that if we can make the distinction between official and
(
.10.
private confusion, at TMI there was official confusion and
]
11 private confusion in terms of sources of information.
And you 12 would predict that in the event of an accident at Seabrobk C
13 there would again be private confusion in terms of information 0
14 provided.
Is the question clear?
j 15 A
(Mileti)
Let me see if it is, and I'll just explain 16 what I believe it is, and I think I may have it.
17 It would be my point of view that the public 18 emergency information system at Seabrook or any other nuclear 19 power plant presume that there will be conflicting and 20 potentially confusing public information available to the 21 public, and that some of that will come from neighbors and 22 friends and relatives.
I presume that's what you mean by l
23 private.
And --
24 0
Well, I meant the news media, too.
Private in the 25 sense of anything other than official.
l O
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-48B8 I
{'ff' > '! 'f.t kk ~ ,:~,,'
- l
~ ~ MW 4.n i ([.b ~ 64.75k' PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS %g2}jg l '. ,A (Mileti) And I also.woul'd recommend that it be ' '.f,f.? Ab ',. p. 1 2 presumed that information. that's conflicting come from officiall.:;4 l , _ g.1 3 -sources if by official you mean people who work in different 'y l ,17 [;, 4-government agencies at different levels of government, or work '.y . y.. 5 for different credible public institutions of other sorts. .g 1 L.., j 6 Q And it's your view, in fact, it's your prediction 4
- L
.k. 7 that all of those sources of information available to the g: 8 public would have -- would provide conflicting information
- [
e.h 9-about what would be happening at the Seabrook plant in the ,[ j i 10 event of an emergency. I! 4, 11 A (Mileti) I would have to hypothesize into the future 12 and into this imagined emergency that some of them would 13 confirm each other, and some of them would conflict with each ?.: O z. 14 other, and who knows what the proportion might be. 15 Q And your testimony that the plan and the warning .[ 16 system that exists then as being proposed is adequate, and your 17 testimony that predicts that human response will not be similar 10 to what happened at TMI is based on some notion that the public l l 19 -- strike that -- that the warning system, the emergency i 20 warning system provided by the plan would control for all of 21 this other conflicting inforn.ation which you believe will 22 exist; isn't that accurate? l 23 A (Mileti) No, I wouldn't use the word " control for". { 24 Q What's a better word other than control for? 25 A (Mileti) Take into account and recognize that it's ba Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l
j7 wf '. A;g.qa Y ~ _ ' ' 'y
- )k f'f'
' k..;- 5;) 9^ PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 64765.'l 1.l.6) 3Xll ' 1 possible that it could occur. ,g th - ~2 'Q 11 ell, but it's got to be a little bit stronger than k ';J + 2% (( " 3 that, dcean' tit,Dr.Mileti,becauseyoubelievetheemergencyjgl f[ 4 warriing system is essentially going to unplug the effect of the [h. .c Ig; a 5 conflicting information that you acknowledged played a role in 4 I'- 6 response to TMI? y 7 A (Mileti) I don't know what you mean by the word f' 4,.. 8 " unplug". My point of view as is stated in --
- s.,1 9
Q It's not a technical term. 10 A (Mil (;ti) Perhaps it is for an electrician. 'i 11 My pc> int of view is that, as stated in my testimony, 12 having an EBS nystem, and having the EBS messages repeated as 13 often as they would be, would focus most members of the fsU 14 public's attention on that source of information. ~ 15 O No, T understand that, but this is an important point l 16 so let me belator it a little bit. 17 It's your view, and your testimony in your 1 18 predictions abo:tr. how human beings are going to respond to a 19 Seabrook emergency is based on this view, that an adequate 20 emergency warning system will -- I'm searching for a word other 21 than control -- counterbalance other conflicting information l 22 made available to the public in the event of an accident at 23 Seabrook. That's your view, isn't it? 24 A (Mileti) I just can't agree with your j, ! l 1 t 25 characterization of my view. My view is that an adequate i i i\\J Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
iv..fh gD ?y.., y; y gy @yngdy '.. ;, +g. i; }Q) Y_e
- t 1.g.
\\ PANEL NO. 7.- CROSS 6477.gl-k j() 1 public emergency warning system would do much to help people kh .? ~ yy,, 2 form perceptions of risk consistent with the best available
- .U.<
MC 3 information presuming that that's the information going out $[i i kb '4 through that official warning system. 2jn l: 5 Q But your presumption here is that there is.'oing to 1rw// v [ 6 be an; official information system that you have reviewed and y,fh 'h"{5.{j 7 you find is adequate, and you have said here on the stand that' w. 8 there is going to be conflicting information provided by a 14 '
- h.?
9 whole host of other sources you have assumed that's going to be ff. H:: ',E3 10 going out to the public at Seabrook; that's correct, isn't it? 11 A (Mileti) Absolutely, and it's occurred in every j d 12 emergency information system I've ever seen in an actual $2 h.' 13 emergency. h' T. 14 Q And that same mix of public and private information jf 9 15 was made available to the population at TMI, wasn't it? j;? u 16 A (Mileti) There wasn't an emergency public .'.e 17 information system at TMI. That was largely the problem.
- }[f 18 Q
And that's the point. That's the difference. That's "$.') f 1 19 why you can predict, and you have predicted that if the 1 20 emergency warning system that you have reviewed is in place, 21 the response to the information mix will be different by the 22 population in the Seabrook EPZ; isn't that correct? 23 A (Mileti) In general, yes. However, let me correct 24 your presumption. l l 25 I have indeed reviewed the emergency public 1 l f~r b Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l A
r___-_ l 1 ...W' 9f"I'y 8 ' ' Oj. I' . /Y#l . " j.,7
- GM 5
ye n S ~64789fd;' ,;i:0 PANEL NO. CROSS information system at Seabrook,.and'I.made comments abou&'how] 1 ~,, 49): 2 it should be improved, and we went over some of.those during'gyj j[; r 3 deposition.- I mean, so your supposition that.I acedpted it'~as'.[n i. ! <3 v.) 4 It was-presented to me was incorrect. e. S'*y 5 Q Well, but your testimony says that essentially the . 1p 4 . g -:;~ ,.1' 6 emergency warning systein that's in this plan is adequate, .g l s. .7 doesn't it? i.$n :-ff- -yJ L Thepublicemergencywarningsysteminthishgc: 8 A '(Mileti) W 9 plan goes leagues beyond most.public emergency warning systems, y .%g 10 and that's because the regulations for emergency planning for a /t, c l 11 nuclear power plants took most of the sociological principles ))e, ] r 12 that I would talk about into account'in drafting those Q .k.. 13 regulations, but I've made recommendations that I think could W. O 14 improve that information. ?M. .y 8 15 Q Well, let me follow that up then. I'll ask you two f:[ 4 16 questions. jg' g.% 17 Is the emergency warning system that's in the -6 i 18 Seabrook emergency plan adequate? ~ i 19 MR. DIGNAN: Objection. Now this is what I got to j l-20 yesterday. The adequacy or inadequacy of the public 21 information program and warning system is not in this case. 22 It's not a contention that's live in this case. It was settled l 23 by summary disposition. I 24 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, if I could respond, and it 25 will be brief. l O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i 1
l h,yky y, 'TN .O@N1.W' - NNl l %.:Qh Q ~? ,7,, f Qh. 'I PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 64795h/ sc We'renotcontesting.asacontentionorindependently,M.., O 1 ,4 ' j~.. 2 that it is or is not adequate in accordance with regulations. 'g X 3 We're trying to test the credibility.of this witness' .Q l 4-prediction about human response to an emergency at Seabrook. 4 'K ~.y 54 'It's quite clear from his testimony that he is of the school of ?f. y,y 6 sociologists who believes that the key determinant of response .{
- l,
..l 1 i n ', 4 7 to emergencies is information. That has now been made clear h' ' 8 many times, I think. 9 And if that's the key determinant, I think I'm ) 2: 10 entitled to inquire on his view of the quality of that [ w 11 information that's going to be provided under this plan. 12 JUDGE SMITH: Well, where -- is there anyplace in his -13 direct testimony where he addresses the quality of -- O 14 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes, there is, Your Honor. If you 15 give me a minute, I'll find the reference. 9.. 16 Page 156 and following. Section C is entitled l i 17 Evaluation of Seabrook EBS Messages, in which he proceeds to c 10 set forth the evaluation criteria he applies to the reading of 19 emergency messages. And on Page 157, there is a section 20 entitled Evaluation Results, and it follows for a few pages 21 where he presents his views on the quality of the emergency 22 messages, and I would just comment that I believe he provides 23 those views because he believes it's important -- l 24 MR. DIGNAN: I have no problem with examination on 25 this testimony about EBS, because among other things, as the O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l 3[p ~, }- ?[ PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6480'I '(:) f.? ' (, J Bcsrd is aware although it will be handled in a separate panel, (.p. 2 an open contention in this case is notification and +,
- !p 3
communications, and EBS is part of that. If he wants to lf, N 4 restrict it to the EBS, that's fine. But that last question
- ['
?x 5 was a blanket question of whether the overall system was 6 adequate, and that issue is not open. The EBS messages are k 7 open because there is a narrower issue still in the case of 8 notification and communication. 9 MR. TRAFICONTE: I was asking the question not in the 10 legal sense, if I could refine it, and maybe that's our 11 dispute. I'm not asking him whether he views the emergency 12 warning system as adequate under the NRC, regulations. I'm 13 asking him as an expert in information systems whether it's his u: ('-) ~ 14 view that the information system proposed in the plan is 15 adequate and will therefore have the effect on human response l" c 16 that he believes information systems must have in order to 17 predict the kind of response he's predicted. 18 MR. DIGNAN: Then can the question be phrased without 19 the word " adequate", and just ask the direct question does he 20 believe that it will be effective in dealing with this human 21 response problem? He keeps throwing the word " adequate" -- 22 MR. TRAFICONTE: That's fine. 23 MR. DIGNAN: in and out of the question. 24 MR. TRAFICONTE: That's fine. It was a good 25 suggestion. It was in fact the second question I was going to emU Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
- ~9 t;hf;,'
G-cy, . r.Qy., , t ris. $' ~ 4;$ ' PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6481 M ' diY - M 1-ask. I withdraw the question about adequacy, and I'll put the 2 question this way, Dr. Mileti. M-3 JUDGE SMITH: It just shows the value of .T ,r:._ $)y: 4 procrastination in ruling. 5 (Laughter.) + s. .. ;n ,6' JUDGE SMITH: It seems.to work out. 7 BY MR. TRAFICONTE: d 4 8 Q Do you believe that the emergency warning system as -9 it exists now in the Seabrook plan will have the effects on 10 human response to a radiological emergency at Seabrook that you h. 11 have described in your testimony? I t' S 12 A (Mileti) 'I can only answer that question in this rg m. 13 way. I only look.ed at those portions of the emergency public TI' O ~ 14 information system that I could com/nent on from my area of 15 expertise. And I'm not sure that what I saw was in fact what's :[ 16 in the plan. I've never seen the plan. I've seen paper, and 17 I've had discussions with people. I presume what they told me, ll 18 and the paper that I saw came from the plan, and I can't split l 19 hairs and say if I saw an area where something in my opinion i 20 could be improved, that would -- is absolutely necessary. 21 What I can say is I reviewed different parts of the 22 public emergency information system. I saw arenas in which I 23 thought improvement could go on, and I let people at the i 24 utility know about that. i I 25 0 Well, let me just push on that a little bit, Dr. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
h ff: .. l j;. t T ~ d. .p. PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6482h'g [h T'? I 'Mileti. Ia
- g ',
2 I understand the basis of your testimony, and correct.:.t?' p[;;'cI. 3 me if I'm wrong, to be that in light of the emergency warning .M' 4 system in the Seabrook emergency plan, in light of that 15(: t Qj 5 emergency warning system, and in light of your knowledge and 'f 3: 6 views concerning the impact of information on human response to'y- ~ t 7 a radiological emergency, or to emergencies in general, you are 2" 3.9i 8 predicting and you're testifying here as to how the population S 9 in.the Seabrook EPZ is going to respond to a radiological 10 emergency at Seabrook. Now that's correct, isn't it? 3 11 A (Mileti) Yes. '"s - v. 12 0 And is it your testimony that you have not reviewed .s m 13 in detail nor were you asked to review in detail what that jy .O s 14 emergency warning system,.and what the information provided'to , J;,. 15 the public in the emergency plan is? h., .f. 16 A (Mileti) I thought I just said that I reviewed V> 17 information. I just can't say that I know for sure that it's .J. 18 in the plan. I can't believe that they, for example, would 19 have provided me with EBS messages to review that they had no 20 intention of using. But I have to presume that they were in 21 the plan. I never physically had something that said "the 22 plan", and then turned to the portion that said, " example, EBS 23 messages". 24 Q Well, in your own mind have you put your arms around 25 all of the informational components of this plan? Con you say O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I.,, . q l F . ;j, PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6403 Jk ' em) 1 (_ 1 you have reviewed all the parts of this plan that involve the jS I 1..g 1 2 information being made available to the public? t, 3 A (Mileti) 1 'Netainly haven't reviewed decibel levels ' 48 6 4 on sirens, cod that's emergency information, but I have no t,g, ] 5 expertise. I have to presume that people would be able to hear L$ l' n. 6 the sirens, because I mean I -- in order to get NRC license, I L 7 thought they had certain regulations about that, but I'm not an i[ 3 ',:0 $ l 0 expert on some aspects.- 9 Q Let me put it this way. It's a fact, isn't it, that on i /i 10 what you are really testifying to is that your understanding of. 'M 9tl. i 11 the NRC regulations'and the requirements for an adequate r..: 12 emergency plan, your understanding of those regulations is such 1/ = 'y 13 that if a plant is licensed in accordance with those I') $w s \\' 14 regulations, and,I'm speaking generically, if a plant is
- ,j[ '
s
- A, 15 licenced in accordance with those regulations, it's your view, b-je 16 isn't it, that the information provided to the public in those
.~ 17 circumstances is going to be an adequate emergency information 'In 18 system and will. override, as we've discussed -- I've just come '.s'$, 19 up with another verb -- will override the effects of the other 20 determinants of response?' That's the character of your 21 testimony then, isn't it? 22 A (Milet1) No, I don't agree with that. I was -- 23 O So it is not a general -- it is not a generic' point j 24 you are making. You are saying that this particular emergency 1 25 evacuation syrtem -- strike that -- eraergency information I i I f) 1 (/ 1 ..Herityge Reoorting Corporation 1 (202) 628-4888 )
_{ r. 2.y' .v. ~ r' '2 PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6 4 8 4 *T.'d:. y, .m 1j 1 ayatem is going to have the effect that you predict. fkL . e v... 2 A (Mileti) I believe that the regulations that are AA. s D'! ' ' 3 generic to all nuclear plants take a huge, giant step toward ejg '. m:', 4 . installing things that are important; for example, the 6 1 5 existence of an EBS system. 35~ ~ s u 6 My judgment, in reference to this testimony, is based.. 7 on the supposition that the emergency information presented 8 through the EBS system to the public is as good as I could gi: 9 imagine it, because I think I have an expertise that's useful 0. 10 and has an impact, and it presumes that my comments are in fact )k 11 taken into account. f . dn ' 12 O It's a fact, isn't it, that'the only components of
- E o
13 the plan that we're litigating here that you have reviewed are l ' -r,_% \\J v 14 the EBS messages; that's a fact, isn't it? 15 A (Mileti) No, I don't believe that. There were pre-i 16 recorded messages that aren't EBS messages. ~.,. : 17 0 I'm sorry, I didn't hear that answer. 'l B 18 A (Mileti) There are pre-recorded messages that are 19 not EBS messages per se. There are the actual EBS messages. 20 There are other aspects of the public warning system as well. 21 0 hell, I'm not asking what other aspects there are. 22 I'r asking what you have reviewed. I'm asking you what have l 23 you reviewed that forms the basis of your testimony that human 24 response at Seabrook will be as you described. 25 A ( Mile t.i ) The character and form of public /0 (_ t' Heritage Reporting Corporation f (202) 628-4888 I I l
at j A, .., m ^ ., y ~. @; 64 85 h . 'h N PANEL 110. 7 - CROSS ,' ' O, 4.r{e. 1 info =metten as it wi11 de disseminated to the ved11e throu2h .ip,y 'g+ 2 the EBS system.
- k);.
':X 3 Q No, I'm asking a more specific question. 'J;'fi
- w...
4 What documents, what information packets, if you }%,T$ 0 5 will, what kinds of things have you reviewed that form the e .c 6 basis for your judgnhnt the human response at Seabrook will be - 3i. di.- 'I ' 7' ac you described? 69 S 8 A ,(Mileti) I reviewed all the EBS messages I was k'& 9 given. I presume they were part of Rev. 2 of the plan. f.j. 10. ' O Okay. You don't know that they were, or you don't Q 1. .s e 11 know one way or the other? 4 12 A (Mileti) I believe that they were. I can't say I. .fc 13 know that for a fact. Q \\ 14 Q Now, you reviewed these. Now, when did you conduct ..G .r N 15 this review? ....K 16 A (Mileti) I conducted more than one review of the EBS 'f 17 messages.
- f 18 Q
When did you conduct those reviews? '/ ' 19 A (Mileti}- I did my first review prior to my 20 deposition. I did other reviews after. visit to the planning 21 headquarters. I don't remember when it was except that I was 22 there the week the stock market hit its height. And I -- maybe 23 that was August. And then I suspect in between then and now, I 24 may have offered some more comments, but the bulk of my c 1 25 comments came after my review after the stock market peaked. O Heritage / Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 z--
9.f '.,,. Wjgic fe."Q@fki u., 4- ,,5 ., :. m . b.s .4 n: ','I PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 648,6;;d[t, lb' 1. O And that was after your deposition? ,-l T _ ab 2 A (Mileti) Yes, as I recollect. '; /.l,'7f[
- Q 3
Q As far as you know have the EBS messages that are in irg .Z 4 the plan been changed to reflect your review? . ;f g; - o..n 5 A (Mileti) I have.no idea. Ipresentedmy--asIsaycY![ 4 1. 6 in my testimony -- the current EBS messages are currently
- ..),T
'. i :. n 7 undergoing review in light of what I think constitute the idealk' W .AS$ 8 type for warnings for the public of this sort, and I presume . ;c 9 that someone is considering my recommendations. 7,38 10 0 All right, let me get at this this way. ?.pty ns I cvw ..a, 11 When you reviewed them at the different times that ' T-g{ 12 you did, did you form the judgment that as presented to you .;(, ;, ,g 13 they woro going to be -- they were of a certain quality that ,,t2 14 they would cause the kind of human response that you predicted, {'.(,$ 15 in your testimony? S.fk q ~ j 16 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, could I object in terms of . ~.fr i 17 repetition? I call the Board's attention to 157 to 159 of the $t.. )
- j 18 direct.
If it isn't asked and answered, it's awfully close to (>- 19 asked and answered in there. l 20 MR. TRAFICONTE: I'm sorry, I didn't hear the rest of 21 Mr. Dignan's comment. I missed it. Would you say what you l 22 Aaid again? 23 MR. DIGNAN: Asked and answered in the direct. The 24 witness spells out what his views of the messages were, and the 25 f a.:t that he did recommendations, and the fact that they are o Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l
~#
- \\
i y. s,. g .g.. 4 h.l\\ y:.; , ilf,e ~..a ' @I? PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 648785.L wlL i"
- f. 9 O (y:(h 1
being reviewed. jh( ...W 2 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, that wasn't my question. I'm;'?-f- ':.,. ; 5 3 not asking him what his views of those messages were. 7.:. - .c, V. 4 MR. DIGNAN: Then I misheard your question, Mr. ji@, we 5 Traficonte, and I apologize. .. 'pf,n E3j2 6 MR. TRAFICONTE: My question is more precise than "'g '* 4 7 that. l . yg ' nnu 8 BY MR. TRAFICONTE: .bh5.' 'M. 9 Q I'm not asking you for what your reviews were. I'm.jl,% ; ' ';.z.:p. 10 asking you whether you formed the judgment at the time you readlif these messages that they were good enough to have the impact on j;:; 11 M. 12 human response that you have predicted in your testimony. .j,'4..
- ] 2 13 A
(Mileti) Well, I've written my testimony after all ': y The.0f.g I 14 my reviews of the EBS -- well, in the process of doing it.
- f..
j 15 first time I read the EBS messages I was astoundingly pleased , flf m: 16 with how precise the messages were able to address one of the -R l q.y f 4 ',.yl 17 major problems in getting emergency information to the public, j 18 and that is what areas need to engage in protective actions and f. 19 which areas don't, and I thought that was a very good 20 accomplishment that not many other utilities are able to do 1 21 that easily. And I thought the messages were good. 22 I reviewed them subsequent to that, and had other 23 opinions about how they could even be improved better. And in 24 my testimony say that once honed to more closely follow what I 25 consider to be the ideal types of emergency information, these O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
%.j @'i wm +,. 3:- - ;.3. g, c. ,4 g. ,,o a 3;. p ' i; k.> P,ANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 64 88 '.ik" ..m. ym w# ;.
- g s,)
I prototypical attributes, I think the EBS messages for the (4p. t Q. ~c gij[ 2 Seabrook station will provide the listening public a most solid .RV: 3 footing from which to base sound decisionmaking. fsl 4 Q What page were you reading from? I'm sorry. ryg. . <, ~ 5 'A (Mileti) I'm looking at Page 159. . i{h M 6 And so if you think my judgments about emergency }' 2 ? ? hM 7 public information are important, the answer is yes. I W wouldn't have made them if I didn't think they were important.f fy' 8 . r.... 9 Q No, it's even more global than that, isn't it, Dr.
- WC 26 10 M11eti?
It'syourviewthatinformationprovidedtothepublic#h$ 11 in the form of an emergency warning system is, in the first "O M 12 instance, the key determinant of human response? .s, 13 A (Mileti) Yes, I believe that. ~. [f. (_) c: 2 14 Q And in the second instance, going to countervail or libf
- . m.-
uc 15 countermand or counterbalance all of the other conflicting U p;iR .:n-16 information in the information soup, as you call it, that's out [J. J ,?. 17 there in the Seabrook EPZ. 18 A (Mileti) I would say help overcome. } 19 0 Well, but overcome, not just help overcons; it's 20 going to overcome the other conflicting information. l 21 A (Mileti) I can't say that it's going to overcome all 22 of it. It would certainly help overcome it for most people. 23 0 Okay. Well, it will overcome the other conflicting 24 information to an extent sufficient to ensure that your 25 predictions about human response to a Seabrook emergency are ) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i i
~ rv.;ggl x!; i.
- p<
^ 'l ^ g ??'; m ,: t. 6489h.n "' l:I-PANEL'HO. 7 - CROSS q Q. 5( 1 going to be accurate. That is to say, it will not look like $w$ - ,s.... 2 another.TMI. ')h! g.'; j. .i - i 3 A (Mileti) I do believe that, yes. 4 0 So it's not just help overcome. These emergency -- h.p, jiv... S the emergency warning system is. going to overcome both all the T
- .30 6
other determinants of human response, and the fact that there .Y.u. 7 is going to be other conflicting information provided to the k, .:Tf},'g 8 public. i 4. 9 MR. BACHMANN: Objection. That question has been' .M
- @h;b 10 asked and answered a number of times.
We are just going over 4lU ,l y 11 the same ground over and over again. 14
- 7. >p
'k? 12 JUDGE SMITH: What do you think? ry 13 MR. TRAFICONTE: I don't think it's the same ground.- i 14 I'm trying to make this very clear, because I think this runs g,., g< 15 directly to the issue of the strength of this witness' d. z 16 generalizations and predictions about human response. I think 17 this is a very important point about the strength of what he Yf '5 18 said about how people are going to respond in this EPZ. 19 MR. DIGNAN: I want to join the objection, and say 20 that if anybody has any doubt as to Dr. Mileti's views as to 21 the effect of his views as to what good emergency information 22 can do in his judgment, they just haven't been here for the 23 last two days. He's answered this question not just a couple 24 of times this morning, he answered it yesterday, and it's about 25 the fourth time this morning. I join the objection. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
9p? dh . ?';:- '57. $f ,.5f PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6 4 9 0 N/. .?x -(): {, 1 JUDGE SMITH: How does -- as we understand the 2 distinction that you.are making now is what is the $$5 gj. . c. Oyy .i... % 3 proportionate role of the EBS information or the emergency 4 information in overcoming the effects of other sources of 9 .s. 5 information, what is the proportion. ' ;:
- g!,
3e 6 And I don't know, it just seems like there still.is at af ' % y :' ~j@ 7 disjoinder between your question and the answers that he is. 8 trying to make it clear that for most people there will be an l$fn 9 effective remedy against misinformation and now you are
- y,
,y. 10 exploring that degree, is that it? Or I don't know, I've lost f, rc 11 it, frankly. si?J 31 12 MR. TRAFICONTE: I think it's the position of this L3G34 it.: j 13 expert that the public information provided by the emergency { 5
- g -
14 warning system will sufficiently overcome the other conflicting 15 information in the soup that's provided to the public as well '.h 16 as overcome the other determinants that he acknowledges that i f 17 can cause response to emergency so that, as he's testified, Al i 18 what happens in a Seabrook emergency will not look like what 19 happened in a TMI emergency. I think that's -- I l 20 JUDGE SMITH: And he's testified, it seems to us that t i I 21 he's testified several times that that alone will not 22 accomplish that purpose. 23 MR. TRAFICONTE: Will not accomplish that purpose. 24 JUDGE SMITH: That standing alone. It will help. It ) 25 will be a factor, but standing alone it will not. I) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
4 -l ; %.;f [4 ! q'W)
- q.,
, c.b,i Q.. ' v'. f, PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 649 ,7, .i 1 MR. TRAFICONTE:' Let me ask him that. .l ~ n. my hfh 2 BY MR. TRAFICONTE: 1-9 ;; .;p 3 0 Will that alone accomplish that purpose, if you .. y /: Wj '3 '4 followed our colloquy? [ x. 5 A (Mileti) I'd like my question to define what that J.; y 1 4-6 is,.please.
- g
[ Will the emergency warning information sufficient 1'y. w 7 Q 8' contirol for these other f actors, including conflicting 0,%O!' ' 9 $p,, ,fr; 9 information that you have acknowledged will exist, and the a . yp(,;g 10 other determinants that we have been discussing? 11 A (Mileti) In my belief, and I honestly do believe -p W. 12 this,- that good emergency public information will be the major',.d$ a , r.. - t 13 factor that determines what the public does in an emergency, " 3,!.1 . :. n.: O r 14 and that it can help remove the constraints of other factors 4 @,h( 15 including fear, but also factors like sex. We can help both G.. 16 men and women who need to, for example, form certain j;*, w. 17 . perceptions of risk, form them independent of their sex, if we~. y.; .n-18 devete attention to honing public emergency information. 19 If we ignore the important role of information, those 20 other factors will play a larger role, i 21 Q I understanding, Mr. Mileti, but we're really talking i 22 about degree here. I don't think anybody quarrels with help. 23 The verb to help the response, or to help mitigate is not the 24 point. It's your testimony that the information provided is 25 going to control, sufficiently control the other determinants. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 )
=.0 bd ..e .m PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6492 :{gy, .,(.) .s r 1 It's not a matter of helping; it's a matter of actually y ',;. .. g.. y - Q. :. 'y 2 sufficiently controlling'for the other determinants. 'g ~4: 3 MP.. DIGNAN: I object. The witness specifically 4 rejected that word " control
- when it was put to him the first F.:.
5 time, and nos we'7;e examining on the assumption that not only Ihaven'theardhimsay..,,g% 6 has he accepted it, but he's used it. 7 it yet. h* l '. ;;d[: 8 JUDGE SMITH: No. _}jd l c SS 9 MR. TRAFICONTE: I don't think that's an important ,' fd . tE 10 dispute, Mr. Dignan, is the control, or countervail, or . kTM . ::s 11 counterbalance. I don't think we are having a serious dispute .fi,f,# N.g..q% 12 on that point. I 'y\\ 13 JUDGE SMITH: This time, this time his answer also
- l<
- r. s n.
14 indicated that it was, as he used the word " major", which 'hT[ 3, 15 implies not in itself total, and what you mean by control, I .y 16 don't know. We'd better ask him. To me, control means 5> ~3 17 standing alone, it would accomplish the effect. .q.# 18 MR. TRAFICONTE: Let me put the question this way. 5 N, 19 JUDGE SMITH: He's rejected that at least twice now. 20 MP. TRAFICONTE: Let me put the question this way. 21 DY MR. TRAFICONTE: 22 0 Let's imagine this plant gets licensed with the plan 23 as proposed, and there is a radiological emergency that occurs. 24 Will human response in the EPZ resemble what happened 25 at TMI? Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
,E .y.
- ,;, y,
f 2.l.. 'g .T y PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6 4 9 3 - :j,. - l f-p hi.g-() 1 A. -(Mileti) I can't imagine that it would. g. ca 2 0 And is the reason why it will not because of the Q g; 3 l nature of the information system that's in this plan? 'jj y 1 m. l 4 A (Mileti) A large part of it would be. I would also $;. # 1
- /
l 5 want to include the recommendations I made regarding the words b. l 17 ! l 6 that are spoken to the public through the EBS system be taken, p}rg l 1 -y ; 7 to heart. 2ef j . "4E 8 Q Well, that's what I mean by the emergency warning .Jl ).v. 9 system. 10 .Are you distinguishing'between the emergency d l 11 information system and the EBS messages? y l 12 A (Mileti) The EBS messages are part of the emergency. gi
- as 13 information system, but not all of it.
3 f} L 14 Q Have you reviewed any other parts of the emergency j:. 15 information system other than the EBS messages? _ j' 16 A (Mileti) Yes, how many -- yes, I have. d.? 17 Q Those are the recorded messages you mentioned? 'l.',; 18 A (Mileti) The number of radio stations that it would i; 19 go out over, and some of them would be recorded. 20 Q When you reviewed these EBS messages, Dr. Mileti, you 21 had some reservations, did you not, about what you call the 22 dimension of credibility of the sender? That's right, isn't 23 it? 24 A (Mileti) I think I called it naming who the EBS 25 message was from in the message. p] \\' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
uplh[6 , $Q S, {# ".k n,
- r.. ?
t 4 y-Q.f PANEL NO. 7'- CROSS 6494i g " (h~. p 1 70 Well,;the source, in.other word's. f) o c, m vp I. 2 A (Mileti) The sourcel yes. . [g
- 3
- Q The source of the information.
Source is one of the.'.( .g 4: = sender determinants, in your view, isn't it? 3.' j ,, /( '5 JA -(Mileti)' Yes. ii j,,. 6 Q Andit'sanimportantcomponentofhowinformationis.[( s.. "[' 7 received by the public, isn't it? .* s E,t yM ..e 8' A (Mileti) It's one of.the factors that affects the wi. 9 believability of emergency warnings as well a.s response to y,;[j 10 emergency warnings. j 11 Q So that in terms of the content of a message, we [j@. .w 12 could sit here and read the words of the EBS message, and you fh h;:q& '; h 13 could sit there and say, this is an excellent, ideal-type
- g
~O 14 message,butanothercomponentofhowthatpublicwillreceive43.g: h 15 those words is the ascribed' source of that message. That's the g',$f 16 thrust of your testimony, isn't it? .[';k; 17 A (Mileti) In general, yes. 18 0 And one of the elements as to how it receives that w an: 19 information is the credibility of the source. K 20 A (Mileti) What's important is credibility of the 21 emergency information, and one of the factors that affects that 22 is the credibility of the source. I 23 0 So the answer is yes, it's the credibility of the 24 source that plays a role in how the information that yor nave 25 reviewed is going to be received by the population in the .O Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 l' i I j
l }&& ht.
- g.g
'ff';.; U /. PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6495l an. ? . v). \\ j..- (j 1 Seabrook EPZ? .ih3 ' d ';. j 2 /A (Mileti) Credibility of the source is one of the 3 factors that affects credibility of the information, and thatfsN.5,,... 1 ,. q e j 4 one of'.the~ factors that affects believability of the.
- h. ') b;
- .. z 5'
information. < ;.(&p?
- lc; 6
Q So the answer is yes?
- .S
.M 'ykj?Jy1 7 A (Mileti) Through the sequence I have just traced. 0 out.. "W .yst; 9 Q ~Which I think is exactly the sequence that I said. ,.w 10 A (Mileti) If it is, I'm happy to agree to it. ' ?@s? 11 Q Okay. Now you had some concerns, did you not, when [.g
- 29 12 you reviewed the EBS messages as to the credibility of the
< VM. .g; 13 source for those messages? .S O . ql- \\ .l7 14 A (Mileti) No, I had a concern that it didn't name a 6 ' V@;' e 15 source. 16 0 Well, wouldn't that impact on the credibility then? "'dh 17 A (Mileti) It could have an impact on the credibility 1p 18 of the emergency information. 9 c. 19 0 Well, that's what I said. It would impact on the lf. 20 credibility by not -- by the failure to name a source. 21 A (Mileti) But I've distinguished between the 22 credibility of one source and the credibility of the 23 information, and that's an important technical distinction. 24 Q Well, it might be to you, but the point here is that 25 there is the credibility as an important component on how the ] 1 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
..Q-di.I " - .x l. x ' '{ ;,. 1 PANEL NO.'7'-- CROSS 6496 ,9 ^ :),.. M. I public receives this information. That we've agreed on.
- ,
- f @y; V.j 2
~A (Mileti) Credibility of the emergency information .gh) ..y c 3N yes.~ 't ! ~Lig! 4 .Q As a function'of the credibility of the source of .y. t. S that information. f.,; That'snottheonlyfactorthataffectsthe'Ii$sz, flj. [ 6 A (Mileti) 7 credibility. 9$' u%- M ..fn2'- 0 0 It is a factor. I think we are hairsplitting, and 1.$1 'F iw 9 I'm not trying to do it. ,d-10 JUDGE SMITH: I think you're being just a little bit Di.h
- W; 11 too wary here, although I don't advise you to drop all
'Id w: 12 wariness. But I really think that the question is simple. You; 13 acknowledge that the source is a factor in assessing the \\- 14 credibility of the information.
- g@;e 15 Now the question, as I understand it, is quite
?.,. 16 simple. If you have no source, does not the absence of the }- r. 17 source also influence the credibility of the information? yl 18 THE WITNESS: (Mileti) Oh, yes. I would totally ,] 19 agree with that statement. 20 MR. TRAFICONTE: Why don't you agree when I say. 21 MR. DIGNAN: Could I point out something, Your Honor? 22 The witness is acting wary, and I don't blame him. 23 I'll tell you why. The series started this way: Dr. Mileti, 24 you had some concern about the credibility of the source of the 25 EBS messages. The answer was, my concern was there was no t3 U Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
... at
- .}: J H ;;
r ys.,.,,c. PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS
- 6497?l?*#f 1
source. And then bang, off we"went. In other words, the thin e. ..I ','lf,$:f(h,j f 2 wholly flipped.
- 'y 3
Now, he may be wary, but I hope he is. ,r 4 MR. TRAFICONTE: He's certainly been instructed to ' ' t.X - ~.pg 5 be.
- :.e4
- .;g 6m;-
6 JUDGE SMITH: We want him to be careful. '? '0$b 1 7 MR. TRAFICONTE: As I --
- e.g@.,
8 JUDGE SMITH: But he does seem to have a tendency not k.S.', 9 to want to accept the language of the question and his answer. .2. M 10 You know, he is very, very wary and he wants the answer back in!' M o;; 11 his words, and it makes the cross-examination more prolonged.. [.2 3 12 It makes it more difficult for Mr. Traficonte, but he's being y r y:{ 13 careful and we're not faulting him for it. l?Ci , ~y. l 5. 14 BY MR. TRAFICONTE: v: s;:. 15 Q Now, it was your opinion when you reviewed these EBS . iA i ~p-
- s -
t u a 16 messages, because of the failure to assign any source to the
- -.t 17 message, that that was a problem in terms of their impact on J.
18 the population that would receive them; that's correct, isn't 19 it? 20 A (Mileti) It would have an effect on how the 21 population received it, yes. 22 0 Well, it would make it less effective. 23 A (Mileti) Yes, I would have to, in general, agree 24 with that. 25 0 And it would make it so much less effective that you O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
2 'N. j&_'. ~ .y [.' '?-]; ~ ~' I s '.3.- .me u. ; ..- e t.
- b..
,i (64987 a.c ~ PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS m: l U.! .l' wouldn't be able~to predict that this information would have g Y? ys 5 7 2 the magical effect that.you have described in your testimony E '('/ 4 '3 and countervail the other influences; isn't that correct?- i 4 'A (M11eti) No,'I can't say that, andIcan'tbethat.), f: ', j '$ 1 5 precise about taking one little bit of emergency information 6 and changing it and making a projection about how that would 'j 7 affeet human response. I -- .( i ,4 a 8 Q But believability is -- I'm sorry. jg a ig.9 9 A (Mileti) I only feel comfortable saying given s.g gp 10 everything that's known about how best to put public emergency - f.7 11 information out, taking advantage of everything that's known, 12 that the kind of estimates I would make about emergency 13 response by the public in an emergency at Seabrook would hold. 'M O s 14 0 Well, let me put it this way. When you reviewed the' CQ M 15 EBS messages and you realized there was no ascription of 'j$ 5 16 source, did you say to the client, or to the utility, well, you j u 17 have not ascribed any source for this information, but that .lkif 18 doesn't matter? You can go ahead and use them as they are, and 19 I'll still testify that the effect will be sufficient to cause Mk 20 the Seabrook response to be different from the TMI response. 21 A (Mileti) No, sir, I did not say that. 22 0 You did not. You in fact said, did you not, that 23 they should change the way they are proposing to disseminate 24 the EDS message, and ascribe a source? l 25 A (Mileti) I told them they need to put source in, i .O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
1h lb 'l ( PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6499 2.,y l(nj 1 yes. t, l 2 Q Yes, and did they do that? f\\ 3 A (Mileti) It's my sense that they're taking that y i oc 4 recommendation to heart right now, and addressing it. I don't 5 know -- 6 Q No, I didn't ask you whether they're going to address [ 7 it. I asked you did they do it. Is the EBS message that we're j Y! 8 litigating as part of the plan here, does it ascribe -- those -O 9 EDS messages, do they ascribe -- do they ascribe the 10 information to a source? 11 A (Mileti) If you're going to ask me about a 12 particular EBS message, I'd kind of like to see it, but the 13 sense is -- es (\\-) 14 0 I'd like to ask you about all of them together, any 15 one of them. j 16 A (Mileti) If we're going to talk about particular 4 i 17 sets of EBS messages, I'd like to see them. It's my sense that l 18 the versions of the EBS messages that I saw did not have source ) i l 19 attributed to them. 20 0 I understand that, and my question was you then 21 recommended that a source be ascribed in order for the 22 information system to be made better. And now I'm asking, was 23 that done, and I'm asking you that question. 24 A (Mileti) I think it was. You probably would be ] 25 better off asking -- l ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
l o l l PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6500 g ) (,-) .pt 1 Q Well, I understand that, and I'm going to ask Mr. , jZ,7 { i 2 Callendrello that question in a minute, but I'm asking you do '.n, 3 you know whether or not that was done? I 4 A (Mileti) I've been working with people at the r i 1 5 utility on EBS messages, and I have the sense that it is being 6 done. 7 Q You had the sense. Do you know whether it has been } 8 done? t 4 9 MR. BACHMANN: Objection. This question has been i 10 asked and answered so many times. 11 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I think -- all right, I think 12 that that's the best answer he can give. I mean, he cannot 13 state with the level of certainty that you would extract from i /~l I i \\' 14 him that it has been done, and yet he's selected a word which I 15 think is responsive. l 1 16 MR. TRAFICONTE: Fine. 17 MR. DIGNAN: And could I remind the Board of 10 something else? 6 19 It's the age-old problem. To the extent that these ( 20 messages are part of the plan, there are only certain people ( 21 who can answer definitively that it is going to be done, it's j 22 not going to be done or not, and it's not my people. I have 23 instructed them, incidently, Your Honors, as long as they 24 preface it with "My opinion is it should be," it's okay, but I 25 we're chasing this guy who is sitting over there as r^3 L-) l 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
4n? .y
- 3. xa PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6501
/'N .A_) 1 Callendrello. I don't know. Supposedly we want to move d.. f .y', 2 along. I 3 MR. TRAFICONTE: I'm going to proceed. I believe 4 this is important, and I'm not going to reargue the point that I 5 we're not chasing the adequacy of the messages here, but we're 6 attempting to go to the source of this expert's judgment that y 7 this plan is adequate, and that the human response is going to 0 be as he described in his testimony. 9 BY MR. TRAFICONTE: 10 Q Now, if they have not taken your advice and ascribed 11 a source to the messages you reviewed, are you still prepared 12 to sit here and say that the emergency plan will have the ~ 13 impact, the emergency information provided will have the impact 14 on the Seabrook population that you describe in your testimony? 15 A (Mileti) As I -- in essence, in my testimony it says ) l 16 once honed to more closely follow the ideal sorts of message 1 17 attributes that I made recommendations on. My testimony is 18 based on the fact that those revisions are made. And, yes, it 19 would include identifying source as I recommended. 20 0 Okay. So it has to ascribe the source to be adequate I 21 from your expert view, in your expert view. 22 A (Mileti) There is just too much empirical evidence 23 suggesting that that's important to overlook it. j 24 Q So the fact is whatever the circumstances are if the j i 25 messages ascribe a source, your view is they could be adequate. f'\\ '\\.) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l 1 _______a
l ...c,, + . y; ~ PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6502 () 1 Ifithey don't, they can't be adequate. ~. 2 A '(Mileti) No, I wouldn'tLagree with that, because I ~ ( i .71 3 didn't recommend a source. I recommended multiple sources. j~ 4 Q. Okay. Now, Mr. Callendrello,.do the messages as they I 5 are now proposed in the plan ascribe a source, or a series of 5-6- sources? 7 (Pause.) i 8 A (Callendrello) In the sense that I believe Dr. ,9 Mileti means a source, which is this message is coming from 10 whatever, the governor, New Hampshire Emergency Management, 11-that statement is not contained in the messages as they exist 12 in Revision 2 of the plans. o 13 However, there is mentioned in there of the fact that l 14 State of New Hampshire Civil Defense and public health 15 officials are responding. There is no indication that that is 16 the source of the information, however. .i l 17 Q So you essentially did not, or the utility did not 18 take up Dr. Mileti's' suggestion; is that a fair comment? l 19 A (Callendrello) I -- i 20 MR. DIGNAN: Excuse me, excuse me. Could I have that l 21 question again? 22 MR. TRAFICONTE: I can restate it if you want me to 23 restate it. 24 MR. DIGNAN: Thank you. 25 BY MR. TRAFICONTE: O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ! 1 l !
t .,v,fi. ?R24 PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6503 i 3 /% k (_) 1 O You have not then, the utility has not taken up Dr. I, i 3-2 Mileti's recommendation then, has it? '/ j f 3 MR. DIGNAN: I object. Rev. 2 is Rev. 2 is Rev. 2. 4 He was asked about the plan, Rev. 2 and read out of it. What } 5 has that got to do with whether or not the utility has taken a 6 the recommendation? ' s- .,7 7 JUDGE SMITH: Is that a separate question? [, j 2 8 MR. TRAFICONTE: Pardon me? i 9 JUDGE SMITH: Is it a separate question? 10 MR. DIGNAN: If it is, it shouldn't have the "then" 11 in it. 12 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, let me go back. 13 BY MR. TRAFICONTE: b 14 0 Dr. Mileti, you made a recommendation, did you not, 15 after review of the EBS messages and Rev. 2, that they be 16 ascribed to a source? 17 A (Mileti) I made the recommendation that sources be 18 identified in the EBS messages, and I presume those were the 19 Rev. 2 EBS messages. 20 0 Well, you're not even sure that -- strike that. 21 A (dileti) I've already said I don't 22 O Yes, strike that. I withdraw that gratuitous 23 comment. 24 You made that recommendation to the utility, did you 25 not? ' n ,U Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l i l
k ,- :5.@
- -f.;
,w ^M PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6504 ?9 S% (m) 1 A .(Mileti) Yes. l{Jj 2 0 Now, Mr. Callendrello, are you aware of that .jp';; s~ 3 recommendation? N IO 4 A (Callendrello) Yes, I am. ,.jj 5 0 And did the utility act on that recommendation and -l((J 6 ascribe sources to the EBS messages? pj}
- 9. 2 7
A (Callendrello) Yes, now with the qualifier that JC l( 10 8 the -- all of the suggestions, all of the ideas that Dr. Mileti jl.%l l 9 had for improving the messages were incorporated into a draft '.]; j q 10 message. As I've stated previously, the utility does not .yc t I 11 control the plan. That is the State of New Hampshire's plan. 12 The suggestions from Dr. Mileti, the improvements are in a N\\ 13 draft form. They have not yet been reviewed by the State of 'O \\' 14 New Hampshire, nor have they been made any formal amendment to I 15 the plan. l I 16 MR. TRAFICONTE: I would like to make a request of i 17 counsel that we be provided the most recent versions of the 18 draft EBS messages, if we might have those. 19 Not now, necessarily, but -- unless you have them I i 20 now. I 21 BY MR. TRAFICONTE: i 22 Q Mr. Callendrello, you answered my question yes, that j 23 you did act on the recommendation and you ascribed the EBS, and 24 the messages as now drafted ascribe the information to, I l 25 believe the answer is a source, or sources? Can you clarify A \\',) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 Y________________. l
- .?Nf
' :ff s,y N PANEL'NO. 7 - CROSS 6505 >$$ lC 1 that2 e .9 2 A (Callendrello) No, I don't have the messages in
- g 3
front of me. 4 Q Is it also a fact that you don't -- also don't know lr, 5 which it is? ayy 6 A (Callendrello) I would know if I could sit down -- n k.:i. 7 Q No, as I would if I could read them. But I'm saying
- ,)
8 you don't happen to know as part of your planning l 9 responsibilities how they are presently worded. 10 A (Callendrello) No, I don't recall that. 11 O Who would know that? 12 A (Callendrello) I believe Dr. Mileti has stated he's 13 reviewed the messages. [D .l (/ 14 Q Yes, and he said when he reviewed them, they were not 15 ascribed to a source, and he recommended that they be ascribed vf il 16 to a source, because it impacts on the credibility. 17 A (Callendrello) I believe what he stated was that the i 18 Revision 2 messages he reviewed were not ascribed to a source, 19 but he made that suggestion and then, in turn, has reviewed 20 subsequent drafts of EBS messages. f, 21 O Oh, okay, maybe I misunderstood. 22 Dr. Mileti, in the redrafts that you, or the further 23 drafts that you reviewed of these messages, were there then 24 ascriptions of the messages to a source, or sources? l l 25 A (Mileti) Yes. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- 'A?,
..,g. ~> r:1 1 veg j PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6506 j 1 Q And what was that source or sources? 2 A (Mileti) I'm sorry, I don't remember today. M. M 3 Q Well, what did you recommend? What had you j.. hh 4 recommended? 'y 5 A (Mileti) When I reviewed -- .'M; - 1;.: 6 0 Yes, initially. 7 A (Mileti) The initial drafts. I recommended that the 'd-43 8 EBS messages make reference to multiple sources; that those .f-{ N 9 multiple sources, there is not a protypical list of multiple- ',y
- d 10 sources that have to be there, but that it would be nice if
- .jp 11 there could be as identified as a source of the EBS messages a 3
l'd 12 group of people which would include those who would know in J;
- y.
13 logical sense about the risk. That is, someone from the js ., -( 14 utility, well recognizing that utilities would have low h w 15 credibility if they broke their nuclear power plant. g i o 16 Q I want to develop that point in a few minutes, yeah. 73 17 A (Mileti) 'And an official of some sort, and someone !E a, 18 who might know about health of some sort, as best I recollect 19 it. That may not be the actual list that I provided them. 20 Q But you provided -- that's what I understood. You 21 provided this as a recommendation, and then you got something 22 back, didn't you, that evidenced some change? 23 Now was the revised draft, did it do what you 24 suggested it should do? 25 A (Mileti) In general, yes. I had a few more O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.ff.* R'h:jj:
- jf
- l 3fg r.1 6507{
PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS ,( )) If 1 questions, and I talked to people at the utility, and then more A-2 revisions were made, and'it happened three or four times. X'i 3 Q Have you seen the final version of it, or the most g;.; . -:ggl 4 recent version?
- .3:
62 5 A (Mileti) To the best of -- as it now stands, there
- )
6 is a new version I have yet to see. f.g. m. 7 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, we do make a request, counsel, }} 8 for that version that the expert witness was speaking on this /3,/ di. 9 point hasn't seen yet, that we te provided a copy of that as 3 ti.' 10 well. .t 11 BY MR. TRAFICONTE: eu .7 12 O Now, Dr. Mileti, can -- 13 MR. DIGNAN: What's the purpose of that? Did you (~s) { k-14 cross-examine him on the one he hasn't seen? 9 .v 15 MR. TRAFICONTE: So that we could ask him to review 1l .n 16 the one that is going to be used in fact so that he can make a 17 statement as to whether it's going to be effective or not. I .u 18 MR. DIGNAN: Counsel, I see very little use in using 19 up hearing time handing this witness a message, and having him 20 examine it and decide whether or not it's good. 21 MR. TRAFICONTE: You don't see any point in that, Mr. 22 Dignan? That's the basis of his expertise. 23 MR. DIGNAN: Not in the hearing room, I don't, Mr. 24 Traficonte. So unless directed by the Eaard if that's the 25 purpose of this, I'm not going t.o agree to produce the version Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 6.9-4888
q)f,
- n.ng 1i-
. c.s, h ) l PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6508]pi ~k )' I the witness hasn't seen.
- t.
2 MR. TRAFICONTE: Okay. I may be missing something .);'.{ y: 3 here. 'I understand this witness to be testifying on -- he's 4 making a prediction on human response in the event of a 5 Seabrook emergency. And it's been quite clear, painfully clear '. ' ?? 6 that.the basis of that expertise is, or the basis of that Jj ' l 7 prediction is his conception of how people respond to 4.- w:: 8 information.
- g
. s. 9 Then we explore the fact that he is not making a };/ 10 generic point about human response, but he's predicting how the 11 Seabrook population is going to respond. j 12 Now we're exploring, well, what information will the r l 13 Seabrook population get. And it turns out he doesn't know, or O-14 he's not sure, or he hasn't seen the final draft yet. 15 Now how that can't be relevant for purposes of i 16 investigating and testing his testimony is beyond me. 9 17 MR. DIGNAN: Mr. Traficonte, your problem is you keep 18 ascribing to him as having said something in his direct that he 19 did not say. I suggest respectfully, sir, that you read 20 carefully the concluding paragraph, which the witness has twice 21 read to you, that appears at the middle of Page 159 in that 22 section. 23 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, I just -- 24 MR. DIGNAN: And I do not find in there the direct 25 testimony you ascribe to the witness. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 \\
l l PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6509 () 1 MR. TRAFICONTE: Fine. I move to strike Dr. Mileti's 2 testimony to the extent that he is here tcstifying as 3 behavioral expert, makes predictions in his testimony as to how 4 the population of the Seabrook EPZ will respond. I move to 5 strike any testimony that concerns predictions of actual 6 response of actual people on the basis of the fact that he has ) 7 not -- i 0 JUDGE SMITH: It's a shortcutting -- I 9 MR. TRAFICONTE: -- by his own testimony read the j 10 necessary information. 11 JUDGE SMITH: Produce the draft. I think that -- 12 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, having ordered it, it will i i 13 be produced. There is no question about it. (O _/ 14 I do not have it presently in the hearing room. I j 15 will send it to the Commonwealth during the coming week 16 MR. TRAFICONTE: Your Honor, my motion is serious. f 17 JUDGE EMITH: Well, you won. + 18 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, then I -- 19 JUDGE SMITH: Keep on arguing with it; see what 20 happens. 21 MR. TRAFICONTE: It's going to be one of those. 22 MR. DIGNAN: Another motion. He wants to strike a I l 23 tiunch of Dr. Milet) 's testimony. 24 JUDGE SMITH: Well, that was based upon -- t.ha t was 2 'i an alternative motion. O Heritage ReporLing Curpuration l (202) 628-4888 l l 1 l
PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6510 () 1 MR. TRAFICONTE: The basis of that motion is 2 actually, and I think that motion has some foundation in light 1 at -- 4 JUDGE SMITH: I guess I had better review the motion. 5 I understood it to be an ei;her/or motion. Either you get the 6 draft 7 MR. TRAFICONTE: No. 8 JUDGE SMI'rH: Well, then I misunderstood entirely. 9 MR. TRAFICONTE: My motion is this. As I now 10 understand the testimony as it's emerged, what we have here is 11 speculation. We have an expert who has made it quite clear 4. ho the basis of his theories of human response is -- 13 information, l .14 We then have the same expert making claims about how 15 a specific group of people, not a generic -- not generic 16 statements about human response, but the specific people in the 17 Seabrook EPZ are going to respond in the event of en emergency 18 at Seabrook. That's been quite clear. 19 We now discover that although he believes the key 20 siet e rmi nant is the information made available to the public, he 21 has not reviewed what the most recent versions of that 22 i n f ur iiie t i on ore. 23 My mot on to strike is simply any testimony triot he 24 is providing in support of a contention that the plan i :, 75 adoquate, this existing plan and ;he i nIormat :on prov ide<1 -r11, aeperu mg c.mpo, e u..n (202) 628-4888
\\ r 9 l. PANEL NO. 7 - CRO'S 6511-3 () I therein is adequatc is pure speculation. 2 MR. DIGNAN: Mr. Traficonte, you have described a 3 type of testimony you want stricken. I will confess I'm having 4 ditficulty responding to your motion because the kind of mhti.on 5 l'm used to dealing with is a mot. ion that comes in and says 6
- trike paragraph three, strike --
7 MR. TRAFICONTd: Well, if you,give me the time, I'll 8 come up with a specific -- i 1 9 MR. DIGNAN: Excuse me, Mr:. Traficonte. I know you s. l 10 are always very courteous, and I'm sure.you will give me the 11 courtesy of finishing my remarks. I? It seems to me,. so that the. motion in this form 13 really can't be acted on. I mean, the Board is being asked to 14 search the testimony and figure out what was in. But I do 15 suggest that 11 the motion is seriously made, and Ifm sure it 16 is if Mr. Traficonte made it, that the more appropriate thing 17 would be to send me something in writing durino this week. 1 10 I'll try to reply,~nnd the Board can rule on it because -- 14 JUDGE SMITH: Well, maybe we can
- t. hat takes a Int 20 of time.
You are all very busy. It seems to me that it can 21 be, he can make -- he can try i t out genetically and see what a 1 1 ?? goneric ruling is. I don't believe you are going to prevail, l l 23 because I think it's clect from his testimony that this is a 24 prodictivo statement, and onco it is predicted and t hsm ho 25 acsumes it, and the rest of his testim'ny is based u pc. it l hw Heritage Reporting Corporation 4 (202) 628-4088 1 l l l J i
t h i ) \\ l PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6512 , 1,, l;i s
- q. )
1 That is why we're going to produce the draft for you. 2j MR. TRAFICONTE: That's fino, Your Honor. Can you 3 just make a reference in the transcript to what is the 4 predi.ctive statement? 5 L JUDGE SMITH: The ones just cited. 6 MR TRAFICJbTE: At wFat page? 7 JUDGE 3MITH: Cited by Mr. Dignan, middle of Page 1 159. "Once 'itoned and more closely follow these ideal 9 prototypic attributes, the EBS messages for Seabrook will 1 04 provide Ehe lishing to the publ'.ic a most solid footing from 11 which tp oase sound decisionmaking.' s s 12 Anst that, to me, isifpredictivestatement. 13 MR. TRAFICONTE: I agree, I agree with that. / \\~J 14 JUDGE Sfi1Tii: And then that is -- based upon that if you'tegh_.ngtobeallowedtopickupthedraft he hasn't seen 15 16 and dee it it meets his test of " honed to more closely follow 17 - idc51 proto.ypic attributes". That is the basis of it. 18 MR, T RAFIC ONTE : So the Board is -- 19 JUDGB SMITH: Everybody ir. h49py with that? 2' O MR. TRATICONTE: I'm happy tiith that. I want en ?! opportunity to -- ?2 JUDGE SMITH: Are you happy with that? Well, cou 21 don't. twe to be happy l 24 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, he's not happy with tha+ 25 MR. DIGNAN: 1 take it the motion is denied. 1'm 4D l lier ; t a ge heporting Corporation [ <?q2) 628-48R8 l t I i t i l i L_----__------_-_
PANEL NO. 7 - CHOSS 6513 (m (_) I delighted. 2 JUDGE SMITH: All right. I guess happiness is too 3 much to extract -- 4 MR. TRAFICONTE: Easy man to make happy perhaps. l l 5 JUDGE SMITH: All right, have we come -- we have to l 6 allow time to discuss the scheduling for the two weeks 7 available. Is this a -- would this be a convenient place to 0 interrupt you? 9 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well -- 10 JUDGE SMITH: Or can we do this? There is one thing 11 that we can't -- we can't extend the time. It is essential 12 that we get to the scheduling matter. 13 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes, sir. O 14 JUDGE SMITH: Can we interrupt you now, take that up, 15 and then i.f we have time left, then resume your cross-16 examination? 17 MR. TRAFICONTE: Of course. 18 JUDGE SMITH: All right, that way we'll be sure to 19 get that essential point in, and then make -- 20 MR. TRAFICONTE : I may be at a stopping point in any il event that we could resume on Monday, so 1 -- 22 JUDGE SMITH: Well, fine. Il you just have a few 23 minutet to a' this stopping point, go eheed and conclurte, but 24 we have to get to the scheduling. 25 MR. TRAF1 CONTE : Why don't we go to the schedule, and O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4883
PANEL NO. 7 - CROSS 6514 (') 1 develop that, and if we have some time, I could probably finish 2 a section and have only one remaining section. J JUDGE SMITH: Well, we would like to make full use of { t 4 the time that is available today, and use it to the -- you 5 know, fill it. But we must get to the schedules. I 6 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, then let's do it. l 7 JUDGE SMITH: Let's get to the scheduling then. 8 Now, would somebody -- would you start out by giving 9 us some estimate of -- let's see, the next week we come back is 10 the week in which the FEMA people may have a problem, that's 11 correct. And I'm wondering -- there goes the man that has the 12 answer to our question out the door. { 13 How much time do you think you will need next week to ( 14 complete your cross-examination? I 15 MR. TRAFICONTE: I apologize, Your Honor. 16 If the Board would just look at my outline. 17 JUDGE SMITH: Yeah, I can't find it at the moment. 18 MR. TRAFICONTE: I believe that if I have just five 19 or 10 minutes more today, I will have finished the fifth 20 sect. ion on the second page which will -- 21 JUDGE SMITH: So you should be eas.'Jy done with your 22 cros.s-examination by the end of the '.3) Mundov. 23 MR. T RAF I CUNTE : Well, it's going tc be even casaer 24 than that, I believe, for the following reason. The ne x t. 75 soction, as you will note -- let me put it this way. O Heritage Reporting Corporaticin (702) 628-4888 l\\ ~ _ _ _ - _ _ _
i 6 6515 ( l Mr. Dignan and I have discussed the possibility of a 2 taking up the section that's numbered 7 on this outline at a 3 point at which Dr. Mileti would come back and be a member of a 4 sheltering -- of the sheltering panel. And I don't believe we 5 have any problem at this point. 6 JUDGE SMITH: It is not going to -- it is not going 7 to destroy your cross-examination if -- l I I 8 MR. TRAFICONTE: Don't mention the details. 9 (Laughter.) 10 MR. DIGNAN: Mr. Traficonte and I have agreed, Your 11 lionor, Mr. Traficonte and I have agreed, assuming it's 12 acceptable to the Board, he had some questions of Dr. Mileti on 13 the spontaneous sheltering portion of this ETE testimony that O 14 he would like to address to him in the context of the whole 15 sheltering issue, and that's fine with me. 16 I want it fully understood that Mr. Traficonte 17 understand between us that but for that one section ETE will be 10 wrapped up and gotten rid of. In other words, I don't want to 19 leave this open so that everybody gets another round of ETE l f 20 testimony cross after the shelter testimony is oftered. It's 7I confined to this one thing. But assuming that's agreedt1-to ! i 22 the Board, I think Mr Traficonte is quite correct that for his ?1 purposes it makes o lot more sense, and probably will ne k e a 24 better record if he crosses that in the context of tho shelter 25 testimony as opposed to in the context of the ETE testimony O lieritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
6516 () I where we put it. 2 So -- well, I guess I'll stop because -- 3 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yeah, that's -- 4 JUDGE SMITH: John is now going to tell you that 5 affects how much time he needs left with this panel. 6 MR. TRAFICONTE: Right, and that I can be very brief 7 with. O In that event, that we can agree to delay that 9 portion of the cross of Dr. Mileti, I would be able to finish l 10 what's set forth on the outline as roman numeral VI and VIII in 11 nu more than two hours. 12 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. 13 MR. TRAFICONTE: I mean, we're talking clearly before 14 the end of the day on Monday. 15 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. 16 MR. TRAFICONTE: But, of course, there would be at 17 that point, as I understand it, then we would have the 18 opportunity for any other cross, and then redirect. 19 JUDGE SMITH: Well, that's what I wanted to ask. We 20 had in the submittal, I understood that Amesbury hed o special l 21 cross-examination. Is that still going to be the situation? 22 MR. TRAFICONTE: Well, Attorney Lord is not here 23 today, is he? '24 MR. BROCK: Your Honor, I'm not sure when you say a 25 s perz i a l cross-examination. i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 6?8-4888
6517 ( )- 1 JUDGE SMITH: Well, what do we have here? Evacuation-2 time estimates, the Intervenor, Massachusetts, Amesbury -- 3 MR. BROCK: Mr. Lord -- excuse me, Your Honor. I 4-understand your point. 5 Mr. Lord, as I understand it, will have a few 6 questions for the panel regarding ETE. I understand it would 7 be very brief, though. H JUDGE SMITH: Okay, then, how about you, Mr. Flynn? 9 MR. FLYNN: I have planned some cross-examination, 10 but I anticipate it would take no more than 20 minutes. 11 JUDGE SMITH: Okay, and then Mr. Bisbee. 12 MR. BISBEE: I don't anticipate any. 13 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I don't think any other .O 14 Intervenor has plans. 15 MR. BROCK: Your Honor, based on the questions, 1 16 would have a few questions, perhaps 15 or 20 minutes worth of 17 questions. 18 JUDGE-SMITH: All right. Then Mr. Bachmann. 19 MR. BACHMANN: It appears at this point that the 20 Staff might have somewhere 15 minutes to 30 minutes of cross-21 examination for clarification of Mr. Lieberman, but that's ?? obout. i t.. 2.1 JUDGE S::ITH: Okay, so we wi.lj -- 24 MR. DIGNAN: Your lionor. l 25 JUDGE SMITH: -- have as a godl, and even 11 wu have i C:) Heri t age RPport i ng L'orporat ion (202) 628-4888 l 1 I f t t
6518 () I to go somewhat late, to finish this panel Monday afternoon -- 2 MR. DIGNAN: Yes, and -- 3 JUDGE SMITH: -- which we should be able to do. 4 MR. DIGNAN: Could I ask another favor of everybody? 5 Dr. Mileti will be here Monday. We'll be starting at 6 1:00. Dr. Mileti is feeling some pressure from his institution 7 that he works for, University of Colorado, regarding the number 8 of classes he has had to miss to testify. I would therefore 9 greatly appreciate it if people -- I know Mr. Traficonte has a 10 couple hours -- if directly thereafter, we could take any 1) questions directed to Dr. Mileti. 12 Unlike the other panels, this one isn't as integrated 13 as the others in my mind, so that we can be sure he can make a f} 14 plane that night to get back to the University of Colorado. 15 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I anticipate that the panel will 16 be concluded. 17 MR. DIGNAN: Yeah, but the point being -- IU JUDGE SMITH: He, in particular. 19 MR. DIGNAN: I'm thinking that if we start -- I guess 20 we ntart Monday at 1:00, wouldn't that be correct, Your Honor? 21 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 27 MR. DIGNAN: And il Mr. Trat.tr.onte goes fm n rrw 23 hours with a break, he'll probably be through -- I meer. two 24 hou rs wi t h a bts k, he'll be through around 3:30. WM wou lit 25 like to at that point have happen, if at all possible, .t s i O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 620-4000
l i 6519 () 1 immediately examine Dr. Mileti, because he's got to get to 2 Boston, get a plans and get back. 3 JUDGE SMITH: I see. 4 MR. DIGNAN: And he can't -- he can't go over and i 5 take a morning plane and -- 6 JUDGE SMITH: Right. 7 MR. DIGNAN: -- make his class as I understand it. i 8 Is that right, Dr. Mileti? !.1 9 TFE WITNESS: (Mileti) That's correct. 10 JUDGE SMITH: I don't see anybody would be obje.ing I 11 to that. We have accommodated -- l 12 MR. DIGNAN: Thank you, Your Honor. I appreciate it. J3 JUDGE SMITH: -- witnesses regularly on that. 14 MR. TRAFICONTE: Just an that point, and completing 15 Dr. Milet8 With regara to this draft, the new draft EBS 16 massage -- 17 MR. DIGNAN: You're going to have that no later, I 10 would think, than Monday of next week, and you may -- 19 MR. TRAFICONTE: Oh, fine, fine, 20 MR. DIGNAN: Yeah. 21 JUDGE SMITH: All right, then we would -- in the 22 normal course of events, we would have gone to Mr Urbanik, but 23 he won't be there, as I understand it, at the beginnina ii the 24 week? 25 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, Alan Fierce from the rV Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
j 6520 1 Attorney General's offico. 2 My understanding would be that the remaining 3 Intervenor panels, ETE panels, would come before Mr. Urbanik in 4 the normal course of events; isn't that correct? l 5 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. Well, that's true. I don't 6 know, we have it down here in a different order, but I don't 7 recall why, but you are right. That would be the normal 8 sequence. 9 MR. FIERCE: And our understanding would be that our 10 first panel would be that which is comprised of Dr. Colin High, 11 Dr. Befort, Dr Tom Adler, would be the first panel we would 17 very much like to get on, because it is Dr. High who is taking 13 the group of students in the environmental studies at Dartmouth 14 to V.anya, Africa, leaving on a plane Thursday evening of that 15 week. 16 JUDGE SMITH: And he may even be available Monday 17 afternoon if we have -- will he be here? 18 MR. FIERCE: He will be here Monday in case there is 19 time. 20 JUDGE SMITH: Well, what do you think about ycur i ?) e r<is s-uxami na t. i nn of the High panel? 22 MR. DIGNAN: I wouldn't think more than hall a day, 23 if Ihat 24 JUDGE SMITH: Then Adler is separate, 1 don't have 25 these actually before me, I just have -- and Adlei wou.!d Luf Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
6521 ( l next. f 2 MR. FIERCE: Tom'Adler, Dr. Tom Adler would be the l I 3 following witness that we would present. 4 JUDGE SMITH: Assume some slippage there, so let's 5 assume he begins at mid-day, mid-afternoon on Tuesday. l 6 And what do you think your estimate would be? I'm l 7 incorporating extra cross-examination to secure the -- l R MR. DIGNAN: I'll be awhile with Dr. Adler. I would l 9 allow a full day. 10 JUDGE SMITH: Full day. So we will -- 11 MR. DIGNAN: I will try to do it less than that, but 12 I'll be awhile with him. 13 JUDGE SMITH: So for conservative planning, we should 14 plo; on him being on the stand through Wednesday. 15 Then Luloff, is there a -- 16 MR. FIERCE: Then we have -- there are two additional 17 ETE panels that we would have left. One of them is a single 18 individual, Dr. Elbert Lulcff. And the other is a panel with 19 Drs. Zeigler, Johnson and Cole. 20 I understand that there is a scheduling problom that ?1 they have that -- was it Dr. Cole may have at the end of that 22 week Su out intention would be to bring on first Dr 1.u l o f f, 2.1 and you may ask Mr. Dignan how long he intends to spend wi t h 24 Ot. Luloff. 25 MR. Li1GNAN: Well, my partner, Mr. Lewald, i', going O Heritago ReporLintj Us ir[io ra t t e >n (202) 628-4888
l l 6522 l () I to be handling the great balance of Dr. Luloff. ) ) '2. What I wanted to know is the Luloff testimony as it-3 now remains, there's one piece that is clearly ETE-related, and 1 4 that's the bed and breakfast and motel section of the t 5 testimony, which I would at least have responsibility over l-6 assessing, and I think that it would be brief, if any, cross-7 examination on that. Frankly, my instincts right now are none. j l 8 Mr. Lewald will address the other, but I wanted to ] i 9 point out, we view the rest of the Luloff testimony as really ] 10 being part of a shelter case more than the ETE case, just as ) 11 they view -- 12 MR. FIERCE: And I don't disagree with that. 13 MR. DIGNAN: And he doesn't disagree with that. And 14 I guess I'd like to inquire of Mr. Fierce as to whether the 1 15 preferable thing wouldn't be to take Luloff -- assuming I 16 commit to no cross of that one section of ETE, would a better 17 thing to do is to put Dr. Luloff off until the sheltering la section. 19 MR. FIERCE: Well, I think that's entirely possible. 20-I would -- I'm just pointing out to you that I do have a 21 scheduling problem with the Zeigler, Johnson, Cole panel at the 22 end of that week. 23 JUDGE SMITH: Well, that would be better -- 24 MR. FIERCE: And I'm wondering who we can stick in l 25 there then if it's not Dr. Luloff. Perhaps we could bring in 1 i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
6523 () 1 Dr. Urbanik as the next witness. 2 JUDGE SMITH: You mean Zeigler won't be available 3 until, or he must be done by the end of the week? l 4 MR. FIERCE: He will not be -- 5 JUDGE SMITH: We're already talking about Thursday 6 morning now. 7-MR. FIERCE: Right. As I understand it, it's Dr. O Cole that is the issue, and he will not be available at the end 9 of that week. 10 JUDGE SMITH: At -- until the end, or? 11 MR. FIERCE: He'will not be available. 12 JUDGE SMITH: During the week at all? 13 MR. FIERCE: That's right. 14 MR. TRAFICONTE: He will not be available at the end 15 of that week at all. 16 JUDGE SMITH: But he will be available before the end l 17 of the week? i l 18 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes, yes, but as we have indicated, j 19 we wouldn't be at that panel before the end of the week. 20 JUDGE SMITH: Well, will he be available on Thursday? 21 MR. FIERCE: I believe not. 22 MR. TRAFICONTE: We would propose that Urbanik, Dr. 1 23 Urbanik go immediately after Luloff. 24 JUDGE SMITH: What was the problem with Urbanik? I 25 had him sort of scratched for this week. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
9 i 4 6524 )' 1 MR. BACHMANN: From what I recollect, he had some .I 2 meetings or conferences to go to this week. .3 MR. BROCK: Your Honor, if I could be helpful, j 4 Hampton still has Mr. Trahan from the Seacoast Health Center, ~5 and Mr. Guadagna. Both of them if -- you know, as far as I 6 know, they would be available. I would have to speak to them, 7 but if either of those witnesses -- frankly, I'd like to get l l 8 them on if we could at the end of the week. 9 JUDGE SMITH: Trahan and? 10 MR. BROCK: Mr. Guadagna from the bus company. 11 JUDGE SMITH: And then there is the -- 12 MR. BROCK: SAPL has one witness. I 13 MS. DOUGHTY: Yes, this is Jane Doughty for the ' O 14 Seacoast Anti-Pollution League. We still have a rebuttal 15 witness, Joan Pilot, to go on.. I 16 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, yeah. And then DeMarco is coming 17 back? 18 MR. DIGNAN: No, Your Honor. 19 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, we have him down here. 20 Pennington? l 21 MR. DIGNAN: A number of those got listed twice in l 1 22 that original run, because it wasn't clear whether they were 23 going to come on in the personnel adequacy section of the case, 24 or the ETE section. They all have testified. My understanding l l 25 is -- we have certainly no desire to further cross-examine i O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L_____-_-___-___
m. b i 6525 r~\\ l (_/ 1 them, which is the only reason they'd come back for. Their ) 2 direct is in. 3 And, so, therefore, Pennington, DeMarco and whoever j 4 else is on that list is not coming back for ETE. 5 JUDGE SMITH: It looks like we may not be filling the I 6 week unless we switch around somewhat. Can Adler come later, 4 7 and begin with the Zeigler panel? We've allowed somewhat more 8 than a whole day for the examination of Adler going -- 1 9 occupying all of Wednesday. Can we just switch that around? l 10 Because if we don't fill the week -- 11 MR. TRAFICANTI: No, we won't -- 12 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, we've got another thing you 13 may want to plug into the equation. Sitting out there, because ( 14 it was put off on the theory of witness availability for NECNP, 15 was the notification and communication section of the case. l 16 And if you will recall that the NECNP witness problem went away 17 because we stipulated that that testimony could come in without 18 being cross-examined. l 19 So our panel is all that's left in that, and we could 20 put that panel on that week. 21 MR. BROCK: Your Honor, I understand NECNP may be 22 sending somebody up to cross, but as I understand it, they are 23 not intending to do that until the end as scheduled after 24 shelter. 25 JUDGE SMITH: All right. Isn't it very likely that O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
4 6526 () 1 if we have to take some testimony in the Washington area, and 2 if it's going to be all Washington -- well, that would be the 3 NECNP examiner, it would be convenient for Ms. Weiss, if that's 4 who it's going to be, certainly for the Board, and others could 5 come down or not come down as they see fit. But I mean if we 6 have to risk a section of the proceeding not being completed 7 the last week, that is the one that is the least damaging. 8 MR. BROCK: Yes, Your Honor. If we have to take that 9 risk, I would agree with that. I mean if it works out that 10 way, that would be my preference. 11 JUDGE SMITH: So I think really the sheltering -- 12 well, I guess we will just have to see as it comes. But then 13 that reserves a major part of the second week for sheltering. ') 14 MR. BROCK: Your Honor. 15 JUDGE SMITH: That puts us fairly well on track, the 16 Sholly panel being out. 17 MR. BROCK: Could we get some estimate from 18 Applicants as to their length of cross on Trahan and Guadagna? 19 MR. DIGNAN: On Trahan, an hour. On Guadagna, I 20 don't know what he's going to say. I haven't seen any draft. 21 MR. BROCK: Well, Your Honor, the direct is going to 22 be the deposition which he gave in this case at which all 23 parties were present and asked questions. And rather than put 24 him on and have him go through and take the Board's time having 25 him repeat testimony that he made only a few weeks ago, it i e~ k_) Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 i i l
] 6527 _ ( )' 1 would be our intent to offer his complete deposition as his 2 testimony in the case. and if any party here has additional 3 questions to ask him, they could ask at that time. But I 4 think, especially since time is a factor and as I understand 5 it, all parties who have an interest in questioning Mr. 6 .Guadagna have very recently done that. If it's acceptable to 7 the Board, that would be the way we would proceed. 8 JUDGE SMITH: Well, how much time is that going to 9 take? 10 MR. BROCK: We would just offer the deposition, Your l 11 Honor, and have -- 12 MR. DIGNAN: Well, I -- that deposition is full of a 13 lot of stuff, Your Honor. You know, if they're telling me they 14 are going to make a blanket offer of the deposition, I guess 15 I'd go back and write the motions, you know. 16 JUDGE SMITH: Well -- 17 MR. DIGNAN: If they really mean that, that they are 18 not going to prepare a set of direct for the guy, and put that 19 deposition in -- 20 JUDGE SMITH: Can't you highlight the deposition as 21 to the part that you wish to serve as direct, and communicate 22 with Mr. Dignan? 23 MR. BROCK: Your Honor, I will do that if asked to. 24 As I say, the proposal was made in the interest of saving time, 25 and also because I did not want to be attempting to 1 i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l l
I . c..; 6528 ( characterize or summarize testimony when Mr. Guadagna was 1 2 questioned by a number of counsel. And to be accurate and to 3 save time, we hoped to just offer the deposition.
- And, 4
frankly, I haven't heard anything from Mr. Dignan as to why 5 that would not be appropriate under the circumstances. 6 JUDGE SMITH: He said that the deposition contains 7 many things. Is the definition pure on the issue that you wish 8 to offer it, or does it have other things in it that 9 deposition? 10 MR. BROCK: Your Honor, in our opinion, the 11 deposition supports what we stated it -- Mr. Guadagna said what 12 we claimed he would say. ) 13 JUDGE SMITH: Well, no, I don't think you understand 14 the point. Does some of it or all of it? l 15 MR. DIGNAN: I want him a live with separate direct l j 16 if that's the purpose of the offer. l 17 JUDGE SMITH: See, the Board is playing without a 18 score card here, because we don't even know what you're talking 1 19 about. I 20 MR. BROCK: I'll tell Mr. Guadagna -- 1 21 MR. DIGNAN: If you will r9 call, the Guadagna -- 22 JUDGE SMITH: Just address this -- I l 23 MR. DIGNAN: The Guadagna story is this, Your Honor. 24 Do you recall there were three exhibits admitted at the very 25 first round? They were admitted de bene. They were admitted l nU Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
6529 (9 _j 1 on the basis of, among other things, a representation made to 2 the Board and a cross-examination plan. And now we're being 3 told, well, I'm going to throw in the deposition because the 4 Guadagna is saying what I said he's going to say, okay? 5 I don't think he said what they said he's going to 6 say, and I'm going to test that one out pretty good. 7 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 1 8 MR. DIGNAN: And what I suggest, to make things move 9 with much more efficiency than they might otherwise, is that a 10 piece of direct be prepared for Mr. Guadagna and put on, or put 11 him on orally in direct, I don't care, and we'll cross-examine 12 it and go from there. 13 JUDGE SMITH: Well, if they want to put on the 14 deposition as a direct, if they -- there's no use in making 15 them rewrite the deposition in the form of direct. l l 16 MR. DIGNAN: My only point there is if that's the l l 17 intent, that's fine with me. I'm just saying I'm going to be 18 in with an objection on parts of it, that's all. 19 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 20 MR. DIGNAN: And then the Board can rule. I just 21 think the more efficient thing would be to pull out the parts 22 they want, and then let's go from there. 23 JUDGE SMITH: Right, the answer that we still don't 24 have is, is all of that deposition, is all of it or just a part 25 of it which you wish to offer as his direct testimony? Are O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 n. 6530 ( )- 1 there extraneous parts in there? 2 HR. BROCK: Well -- 3 ' JUDGE SMITH: If there are, throw them out, and we'll 4 offer the balance. 5 MR. BROCK: Again, Your Honor, the offer was made in 6 the Interest of conserving time. We understood that at least 7 some of the parties were amenable, that they had asked their '8 questions and they could simply -- those questions and answers. 9 could go in to the Board as is. 10 Apparently Mr. Dignan has a problem with that, and 11 therefore we will eliminate those portions of the deposition in 12 which Mr. Dignan asked questions. 13 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. So is your answer to my question .Q v 14 that all of the deposition is relevant to the testimony you 15 wish to adduce througn him? 16 MR. DIGNAN: No, all except where I asked questions 17 is relevant is what I just heard, and that will give you an 18 idea of what this offer is going to be like, Your Honor. I 19-suggest that you direct that direct be prepared. 20 JUDGE SMITH: All right, I don't understand why -- j 21 MR. BROCK: We'll do that. 22 JUDGE SMITH: All right. I 23 MR. BROCK: Your Honor, we will prepare a direct, and l 24 provide it, and when Mr. Dignan starts claiming it's j I l 25 misleading, then -- I withdraw that comment, Your Honor. O Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l
e 6531 (,) 1 JUDGE SMITH: You know, this is simply a syllogism, 2 you know, without even knowing what he's going to say. Is 3 there any portion of his testimony which is not relevant for 4 the purpose to which you offer it? 5 MR. BROCK: Your Honor, I believe that we will offer 6 the portior. of the testimony in which we questioned the 7 witness. There may be other portions, now that Mr. Dignan does 8 not want a complete offer, that I will go through and cut and 9 paste, and may offer portions, and I can't say at this point 10 exactly what those may be. 11 JUDGE SMITH: All right. What we need for next week 12 is an expander, because it looks like we're not -- we don't 13 have the week filled up, and the missing information seemed to f-) 14 be Urbanik. I forget what the situation on that was. 15 MR. DIGNAN: There's also, you should put on your 16 list, I'm not sure how long it will be, but Mr. Lord has a 17 piece of testimony in the ETE piece, Your Honor. I don't think 18 we have got him on the list yet. ( 19 JUDGE SMITH: Yeah, I see that. l ) 20 MR. DIGNAN: It's the Town of Amesbury's testimony, 21 Your Honor. 22 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 23 MR. DIGNAN: Ms. Selleck tells me that their cross is 24 short. 25 JUDGE SMITH: Yeah, have you ever represented the 1 ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l 1 l 6532 i l /^)% \\- 1 Town of Amesbury, Mr. Brock? i 2 MR. BROCK Your Honor, we were recently retained to 1 3 do that basically for litigation of the Massachusetts plans. 4 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, I see. All right. l 5 MR. BROCK: So it's my understanding Mr. Lord will be 6 asking a few questions. He also submitted some direct 7 testimony, and I think just for form I may be the one who puts 8 him on and makes him available for cross-examination on that 9 testimony. 10 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. 11 MR. BROCK: And we could offer him at the end of the 12 week if that would fit in with the scheduling. 13 JUDGE SMITH: All right. You can't be any more 14 helpful about Mr. Urbanik, huh? 15 MR. BACHMANN: I believe that it was the intention of 16 the staff to bring him in after the other parties had put their 17 panels up, and I'm not quite certain now when that's going to 18 be. 19 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I think that the normal 20 scheduling is that -- perhaps my memory is that perhaps it was l 21 this week that he would not be available, and it was the ( 22 following week. So we will count on him being there, too. j i 23 MR. BACHMANN: I believe he can be available the next 24 week, Your Honor. 25 JUDGE SMITH: Yeah, I think that that's the O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l 1 l l I l
6533 <~ (_) I situation. So it looks like we'll at least be able to fill up 2 that week. 3 MR. BROCK: Your Honor, so should I advise Mr. Lord 4 that it is likely that he would be testifying ut the end of the 5 next week, Mr. Lord would be testifying? 6 JUDGE SMITH: I would think so, yes. 7 MR. BROCK: Okay. Could we get an estimate from i 8 Applicants as to the length of their cross with respect to Mr. 9 Lord on his testimony? 10 JUDGE SMITH: Now, from here is when the parties 11 should be getting together, and then coming back to the Board 12 with what you have worked out. All we wanted to do is set the 13 priority, which we have done, en'd know what we have to prepare 14 for. The actual sequence, you can work out among yourselves. 15 MR. TRAFICONTE: Your Honor, if we can just take -- 16 JUDGE SMITH: With what we have already approved. 17 MR. TRAFICONTE: We have one week after that, I 18 understand, scheduled. 19 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 20 MR. TRAFICONTE: Mightn't we just review very quickly 21 what we're intending to do in that week, or would you rather 22 take that up at the end of -- 23 JUDGE SMITH: Well, we'll have the whole sheltering 24 issue remaining, and ideally we'd like to get the notification 25 and communication. But we're saving notification and n Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l l 6534 n (_) 1 communication as one -- 2 MR. TRAFICONTE: Which you might take up -- 3 JUDGE SMITH: -- that's least burdensome if it 4 doesn't get done here. 5 MR. TRAFICONTE: Can we have an agreement then that 6 the first thing on the agenda for that second week will be the 7 Johnson-Zeigler-Cole panel, which as it now seems will then 8 clear everything except the sheltering and the notification 9 panels? Is that -- 10 MR. DIGNAN: YOu mean go before us? 11 MR. TRAFICONTE: Yes, because it really is a hang 12 over from the ETE portion. 13 MR. DIGNAN:
- Yes, m-)
14 MR. TRAFICONTE: Okay, so that Monday, I believe is 15 the 14th of December, we'll start with the Johnson-Zeigler-Cole 16 panel, and then go to sheltering? 17 JUDGE SMITH: All right, does that leave a hole? It 18 doesn't seem now that we have identified that Urbanik will be a l 19 here, it doesn't seem to leave a hole in the next week. I 20 MR. TRAFICONTE: No, it doesn't, right. 21 JUDGE SMITH: Well, all right, within those 22 guidelines, I would urge the parties to be in communication 23 next week and work out something to give to the Board when we ) 24 arrivo so we know what the precise schedule is. l 25 You might tell Mr. Lord -- are you in touch with Mr. l 1 (~) i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
t. 6535 /'s (_) 1 Lord? I'm a little bit concerned about Mr. Lord missing the 2 testimony on ETE, not being here, and coming in and -- oh, he 3 was here? I haven't -- 4 MR. BROCK: Your Honor, he's not been here, and I 5 will review the questions with Mr. Lord, and try to -- I don't 6 believe the questions will be lengthy. i 7 JUDGE SMITH: Well, that would be a big service if I 8 you could do that. 9 JUDGE HARBOUR: Is Mr. Lord's testimony that which we 10 received, which was rather informal, but which I think he 11 Indicated that he, or he was designating that as his testimony? { t 12 MR. BROCK: That is my -- I understand there are two 13 parts. One is Mr. Lord is going to be asking this panel a few I Gs# 14 questions concerning ETE. And the other is the testimony 15 you've referred to in which he will be available, Mr. Lord will 16 be available for cross-examination. 17 JUDGE HARBOUR: That's just two or three pages, I 18 believe. 19 MR. BROCK: That's my understanding, yes. 20 JUDGE HARBOUR: All right, thank you. f 21 JUDGE SMITH: Now, as I stated during the break, I I I 22 will be going over the testimony of Mr. Thomas, and you 23 alluded -- there was an allusion to three items of testimony, ) 24 and could you give me a better identification where those are? 25 I know the days are -- Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 1
t. 6536 () 1 MR DIGNAN: I differ with Joe in that. My 2 recollection, as I said, two, and -- 3 JUDGE SMITH: Well,-I'll.tell you what I would like 4 to do. 5-MR. DIGNAN: 'There were two areas of concern. I 6 don't have the pages with me. I'can describe them I think, 7 Your Honor, if you would like, 8 JUDGE SMITH: We're going'to have -- 9 MR. DIGNAN: I would rather not. 10 JUDGE SMITH: -- a very' busy week next week. I would 11 like for both of you to agree upon the pages that should be ~ 12 reviewed, and one of you, if you will, call up and -- .13 MR. DIGNAN: Do any have to be reviewed, Your Honor? 14 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 15 MR. DIGNAN: Okay. You do understand -- 16 JUDGE SMITH: I understand. 17 MR. DIGNAN: -- that I am not pressing for any 18 inquiry. 19 JUDGE SMITH: I understand that this is a sua sponte 20 effort by the Board -- 21 MR. DIGNAN: Okay. 22 -JUDGE SMITH: -- not in relation to the issues in the 23 case, for twc purposes. One purpose is to assure the integrity 24-of the NRC hearing process which is one of our f' 25 responsibilities.. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
h 6537 () 1 The second purpose is, if possible, based upon the 2 concern that I expressed, to the extent possible, cleanse the 3 record of any implication about Mr. Thomas rather than just 4 walking away from it. 5 MR. FLYNN: You asked a question a moment ago about 6 where the testimony is that you should look at. 7 I did represent to you earlier that I had understood 8 Mr. Dignan to say that there were three separate versions of 9 the same facts. But it would appear in two places, the i 10 examination of October 4th and the examination of November 7th. 11 JUDGE SMITH: Yeah, right. 12 MR. FLYNN: The original voir dire. 13 JUDGE SMITH: And the subject matter was the \\ 'i 14 sequencing -- 15 MR. DIGNAN: There were two items. What I had 16 allusion to was the testimony on the first day, which is 17 October -- 18 JUDGE SMITH: October 7th. j 19 MR. DIGNAN: -- 7th, comparing 20 MR. FLYNN: Oh, I got it backwards. It's October 21 7th and November 4th. 22 MR. DIGNAN: -- testimony as to what the RAC, what he 23 knew the RAC thought with the testimony as to what he knew the 1 24 RAC thought the second time. 25 The other piece I had reference to was internally in () l Heritage Reporting Corporation l l (202) 628-4888 I i !4 i l
l 6538 l () I the second day only, it was a series of questions two pages l 2 apart, concerning efforts to reconvene the RAC. 3 JUDGE SMITH: All right. Now, of course, everyone 4 understands that taking this up does in no way imply that we 5 perceived any candor problems with Mr. Thomas. It is simply 6 that when a suggestion as strong as this is raised we have a 7 responsibility in the protection of the integrity of the 8 hearing process to look at it. That is nothing we would have 9 done based upon our own observation. 10 Is there anything further? If you don't object, 11 we'll just adjourn and -- 12 MR. OLESKEY: I have one point on scheduling, Judge. 13 Mr. Fierce had raised, I think this morning, and also nkl 14 yesterday, a question that you dealt with on the ETE rebuttal. 15 I want to make the Board and the parties aware that we're also 16 working on several rebuttal pieces for sheltering. They are 17 not ready for filing now, and I can't honestly tell you. Ms. 18 Sneider, who is principally responsible, and I have discussed 19 it extensively the last couple of days. 20 I don't know whether they will be ready to be filed 21 by the 18th of December, because of the other work we're doing 22 in this case between now and then. But there are those pieces, 23 and consistent with the obligation that you have indicated we 24 should have to tell you what's happening, there is that 25 activity going forward on that front. O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
[ k4 /; f a t 6539 1' O 1 auoat suren: oxer. 2 Anything.further? 3 All right, we'll adjourn then until Novembel 30,~at l l 4 1:00 p.m. 5 (Whereupon, at 12:38 p.m., the hearing was recessed, j 6 to reconvene at 1:00 p.m., Monday, November 30, 1987.) 7 8 9 10 11 12 r 13 3 O n 15 16 17 ] 19 20 i 21 22 23 24 25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 _ _ _ - _ _. _ _}}