ML20082H445
| ML20082H445 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 11/28/1983 |
| From: | Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL-3, NUDOCS 8312010157 | |
| Download: ML20082H445 (85) | |
Text
-
LILCO, November 28, 1983 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION S%
k O
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board kjy Tr}
(~
o
@y In the Matter of
)
Ros; y,
)
- MB C
Sm LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
) Docket No. 50-322-OTB,3 "W
) (EmergencyPlanning)Prockhding)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
{g Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND RESPONSE TO POLK TESTIMONY I.
Introduction LILCO hereby moves for discovery on, and response to, the Testimony of Peter A. Polk on Behalf of Suffolk County Re-garding Contentions 23.D. (Shadow Phenomenon) and 65 (Evacua-tion Time Estimates), filed in this proceeding on November 18, 1983.
This motion is based on this Board's November 14, 1983, Memorandum and Order at 2, permitting the filing of supplemen-tal testimony in light of changes in relevant circumstances, and on Suffolk County's failure seasonably to supplement an-l-
swers to discovery in violation of $ 2.740(e)(2)(ii) of the i
Commission's Rules of Practice, which requires such supple-mentation when a party "knows that [a] response though correct when made is no longer true and the circumstances are such that I
a failure to amend is in substance a knowing concealment."
The remedies being sought are:
(1) expedited discovery consisting of document production and 1 day of depositions with hg2 G312010157 3
]}\\ S. (3'3Q[ ' d.
-GAA o
~
C'( /h
. i 1
respect to the matters to which this motion is directed, and (2) the right to file supplemental testimony with respect to each of these areas not struck for other reasons, prior to the appearance of LILCO's witnesses for questioning on those areas.
LILCO believes that the requested discovery can be completed within a week of the entry of an order granting this motion, and the supplemental testimony filed one week later.
The areas of the Polk Testimony as to which the requested relief is sought are the following:
1.
The analysis of evacuation times for a 10-mile EPZ set out in Mr. Polk's testimony between page 3 line 1 and page 10 line 6, and Attachment 3 thereto.
This request is a contingent one, being asserted only in the event that LILCO's " Motion to Strike Portions of the Testimony of Peter A. Polk," also being filed today, is not granted.
2.
The analysis of the frequency of occurrence of acci-dents in an emergency evacuation (page 10 line 17 through page 12, Table 2), and Attachment 4 thereto.
3.
The analysis of the number of vehicles expected to run out of gasoline during an emergency evacuation (page 12, last 2 lines through page 16, Table 3), and Attachment 4, Table 3 thereto.
II.
Background
In support of this motion LILCO states as follows:
A.
Results of Discovery LILCO requested on discovery, both through interrogatories and on depositions, whether suffolk County had prepared any analyses of (1) evacuation times for a 10-mile EPZ, including shadow effect, (2) the basis for the County's expectation as to the frequency of accidents in an emergency evacuation, and (3) the basis for its expectation as to the number of evacuating automobiles expected to run out of gasoline.
These questions and answers yielded the following results:
(1) 10-Mile EPZ Evacuation Time Estimates:
Suffolk County provided a June 1982 document entitled "Suffolk County Radio-logical Emergency Response Plan: Preliminary Evauation Analy-ses," containing evacuation time estimates for a 10-mile EPZ, l
though without a " shadow" effect.
That document was discussed in the' deposition of Mr. Folk, on September 27, 1983 (Polk Dep-osition at 91-95).
It was also discussed the next day in the September 28 deposition of Mr. Polk's supervisor at PRC Voorhees, Andrew Kanen (Kanen Deposition at 36-45, 57-58).
In l
l neither case did the witness indicate that he had analyzed j
evacuation times for voluntary evacuees, independent of their effects on evacuees from areas to be evacuated.
In both cases, 1
i Suffelk County counsel instructed witnesses not to answer ques-tions relating not just to the results of any ongoing consider-ation of evacuation of a 10-mile EPZ but even as to whether-such an evacuation was being studied.
Both on deposition in late September (Polk Deposition at 108-109; Kanen Deposition at
- 57) and in answers to interrogatories answered through September (Answers to LILCO Interrogatories 52, 53, 58, 59, 60 of August 8, 1983), the County insistently reaffirmed that it had performed no analyses of evacuation times concerning a 10-mile EPZ other than the June 1982 analysis 1/ and refused to de-scribe even the scope of work intended to substantiate their contentions.
LILCO was thus totally surprised by the " evacuation shadow" analysis appearing on pages 3 through 10 of Mr. Polk's i
testimony.
(2) Accidents During Emergency Evacuations:
At page 10-12 of his testimony, Mr. Polk provides an estimate of the fre-quency of occurrences of traffic accidents during an evacua-l I
' tion.
Mr. Polk, on deposition (Polk Deposition at 129-131, 176-177) stated that he had neither provided any information t
l t
i 1/
The November 1982 " Preliminary Evacuation Time Estimates for the Shoreham EPZ," by PRC Voorhees (hereinafter, "1982 Voorhees Study"), was based on a 20-mile EPZ.
l l
t l
i h
4 with respect to the frequency of accidents daring an evacuation for Contention 65.D., nor collected any such information since.
In his deposition, Mr. Kanen of Voorhees stated (Kanen Deposi-tion at 79-82) that he had not performed any assessment of the frequency of accidents for a Shoreham evacuation independent of the 1982_Voorhees Study for Suffolk County (some appears in that analysis), and that Voorhees evacuation time analyses did not typically consider the effect of accidents.
With respect to work in progress, Mr. Kanen was instructed by Suffolk County counsel not to answer.
To the extent that the matter is raised in the County's Contention 65.D.,
it suggests that the County would be relying on Police Department witnesses.
On deposition, however, Police l
l Department witnesses disclaimed any specific knowledge of the l
area.
(Monteith Deposition at 149-150; McGuire Deposition at 29-31; Roberts Deposition at 73-77).
l Thus, LILCO was totally surprised by the appearance of Mr.
Polk's analysis in his testimony.
(3)
Running out of Gasoline During Evacuations:
Mr.
I Polk's testimony, at pages 12-16, contains an estimate of the l
number of vehicles expected by suffolk County to run out of gasoline during an evacuation of the Shoreham EPZ.
Mr. Polk f
testified on deposition that while he was aware that some such
(
l l
l t
f l
calculations might have been performed at some time by PRC Voorhees, none had been for Suffolk County, and that he had not been asked to be a witness for the County on this subject (Polk Deposition at 131-134).
Mr. Kanen's testimony was to the same effect (Kanen Deposition at 90-93).
Again, the language of Contention 65.D. suggested that this matter was one on which Police Department witnesses would testify, but on deposition they disclaimed any special knowledge of the area.
(McGuire Deposition at 29-31; 52-53).
Thus, LILCO was totally surprised by the appearance of an analysis of cars running out of gaso-line in Mr. Polk's testimony.
B.
Discovery Context During the period of discovery, the process of determining exactly what the County intended to state on any given conten-tion was complicated by the large number of contentions, the large number of potential witnesses, and the fact that discov-ery was proceeding concurrently by deposition and interrogato-ry, and not in any prescribed order.
During this period, which lasted through October (the last deposition was held on October 14; followup questions and answers to interrogatories and sup-plemerls to answers continued through November), it was not possible, given the multiplicity of issues and potential wit-nesses being proffered by the County, to know whether one had received a definitive answer on virtually any given question.
F One choice at any of potentially dozens of points would have been to file motions to compel discovery on each issue at the time a potentially unsatisfactory answer was received; an-other was to keep trying to obtain information by asking ques-tions until every answer consisted either of a reference to a previous answer or an assertion of privilege.
The number of issues on which motions could have been filed would have run into the dozens,2/ and if filed piecemeal as they arose, would have driven all concerned to distraction.
In addition, this Board made it clear on more than one occasion during the course of discovery that it disfavored the parties' attempts to use it as a deus ex machina to solve their discovery problems, rather than attempting to work them out with each other.
(Prehearing Conference, August 9, Tr. 472 line 10 - 473 line 5 (Laurenson, J.); Prehearing Conference September 26, 1983, 588 line 3 - 589 line 24 (Laurenson, J.)).
For this reason LILCO forebore from filing motions to com-pel all along the discovery path, and attempted in its November 2 letter to counsel for Suffolk County to seek answers to lim-ited documentary questions not satisfactorily answered by 2/
See Letter from Donald P.
Irwin to Lawrence Coe Lanpher and Attachments thereto, attached te LILCO's subsequently with-drawn Motion to Compel Discovery of Suffolk County dated November 10, 1983.
F
. formal discovery.
Only on November 10, when that letter had not been answered, did LILCO seek to compel discovery from the County.
Again, the Board's response was not such as to encour-age resort to its compulsive powers:
Finally, we understood that the parties devel-oped a framework for resolving discovery dis-putes following our Discovery Conference.
We see no reason why LILCO's motion to compel cannot be resolved among the parties within that framework.
In any event, the motion to compel will follow the regular schedule set forth in S 2.730 unless it is withdrawn.
In the meantime, on November 10, the County had filed on the Board a letter in response to LILCO's November 2 letter.
(Lanpher to Irwin, November 10, 1983).
This letter, which was not sent to LILCO counsel before it was sent to the Board, re-fused any accommodation on discovery and told LILCO, in es-sence, that if it was dissatisfied with the County's answers to discovery it should have filed motions to compel as each inci-dent arose.
LILCO det, ermined to take the Board's suggestion in its November 14 Order and withdrew the motion pending a review of the actual content of the County's testimony.3/ That notice of 3/
The motion was withdrawn on November 21, 1983, the first working day after the filing of testimony.
Counsel for LILCO had earlier notified counsel for Suffolk County by telephone, on November 19, that this withdrawal would be filed.
F
_g_
withdrawal, filed before an opportunity to review Suffolk Coun-ty's testimony, recited LILCO's understanding that the Board wished the parties to attempt to resolve discovery disputes on their own, cited the November 2-November 10 exchange of letters between LILCO and Suffolk County counsel as an illustration of LILCO's atcempts to work things out informally and the County's wintry response to them, and reserved the right to seek leave to amend or supplement testimony for good cause shown in the event of surprise.
III.
Argument What has happened, then, is that LILCO, in trying to avoid recourse to compulsory process on discovery, sought informal accommodation in its November 2 letter.
That attempt was abruptly refused by the County.
LILCO withdrew its November 10 motion to compel in the hope that its fears about the possible l
gap between the results of the discovery process and the Coun-ty's intended direct case would not be realized.
However, they have been, in the three areas outlined above, and in others being described in separate motions.4/
I F
l 4/
Numerous school personnel, totally unheralded by the Coun-ty, filed testimony (Testimony of Juanita Zuckerman, et al.);
l others filed testimony, with only a few days' notice and no l
indication of interest, qualification, or any other basis for presumptive expert qualification (Testimony of Robert W.
Pe-trilak; Testimony of Dr. George Jeffers, et al.; Testimony of l
l (footnote continued)
In short, LILCO has been surprised, and not through its own fault.
LILCO is loathe to believe that the County did not know until the last minute who its witnesses were to be on the matters outlined above or what they would say.
To that extent, LILCO believes that the County was under an obligation to have seasonably supplemented any answer in which an ultimate sponsor of testimony indicated that he had not been asked to testify, or that he had not performed any work to date, since that an-swer was surely known as of some date by the County to be no longer correct.
Furthermore, County knew full well of LILCO's strong interest in learning the County's basic arguments.
In short, LILCO believes that the circumstances are such as to make its failure to supplement a " knowing concealment" within the meaning of i 2.740(e)(2)(ii).
More generally, the County has taken advantage of the unavoidable confusion of a multifront discovery proceeding, in combination with this Board's policy of discouraging resolution of discovery disputes (footnote continued) l Nick J. Muto, et al.; Testimony of Leon W. Campo).
In addi-l tion, substantial portions of the Suffolk County Police Depart-ment testimony on Contention 65.C.4 treats issues relating to traffic control strategies not described in the contention or illuminated on discovery despite attempts during discovery to l
bring such information to light.
(Testimony of Richard C.
Roberts, et al.,
at 13-53, and Attachments 4-7 thereto).
l l
l I
{
l
i by formal process, to hide behind an assertion of privilege so broad as to shield any meaningful discovery as to what witness-es were actually working on to support the County's conten-tions. "In doing so, the County has unfairly and improperly frustrated the discovery process and produced surprise.
This motion is focused on those traffic issues, from among the nu-merous ones outlined in LILCO counsel's November 2 letter to counsel for the County, on which actual prejudicial surprise has resulted.
IV.
Relief That a remedy for this situation is needed is obvious; what it should be is less so.
Striking of testimony as a sanc-tion, while an available remedy, is not required.5/
Certainly, LILCO is entitled to file rebuttal testimony, 10 CFR
$ 2.743(a).
However, at least with respect to traffic issues (including both Contention 65 and Contention 23.D.), limited discovery is also needed, and taking it on cross-examination before the Board and other parties is an inefficient use of re-sources.
Since, at least under LILCO's proposed schedule the 5/
This is a totally separate matter from the striking of testimony for lack of relevance, materiality or reliability, or other grounds which disqualify it as potential evidence under 5 2.743(c) of the Rules of Practice.
y g
-c
---s
- - ~,
n n
w-
r
- traffic witnesses seem likely not to appear until January 1984, LILCO believes that an expedited discovery period with reepect to the areas outlined above, coupled with the opportunity to file supplemental or rebuttal testimony in December in accor-dance with the Board's November 14 Order, would make the most sense.
LILCO proposes the following schedule with respect to those portions of.the testimony of Peter A. Polk not struck by the Board:
December 2:
LILCO files document discoverys/
and a specific notice of deposition for'Mr. Polk.
December 6:
Suffolk County produces documents requested December 9:
Deposition of Peter A. Polk
. December 19: LILCO files supplemental testimony This schedule.would permit LILCO to obtain the information uit was entitled to have had on discovery initially, so as to present a direct case which meets that of the County head-on.
The second alternative is to afford LILCO discovery now on the l
l s/
The documents are expected to consist of a description of t
the PRC Voorhees model and the input listings and output listings for the analyses underlying Mr. Polk's Testimony on Contention 23.D.,
and his information with respect to accident frequency and gasoline mileage.
I l
l
r
- matters raised in Mr. Polk's testimony, but reserve supplemen-tal testimony for a later, rebuttal phase.
If the traffic is-sues are not likely to be heard before January, LILCO submits that the first alternative, embodied in the above schedule, is more efficient.
V.
Conclusion For the above reasons, LILCO requests that the Board per-mit the conduct of discovery and the filing of supplemental testimony on the areas outlined in this motion pursuant to the schedule set forth in Part IV above.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY llf-By
' Donald P.
Irwin Lee B. Zeugin Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 i
DATED:
November 28, 1983 l
f l
i O
1 UNITEE STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAE BEGULATCFY COF. MISSION t
3 2efore the A12r12_falg11_And_lisinE102 BoAId 4~------,-
x 5 In the matter of a
6 LCNG ISLAND LIGHTING CCMP ANY Docket No.
i 7 (Shereham Nuclear Foser Sta tion, s
5 0 -3 22 -C L-3 i
8 Unit 1)
( Eme rg ency Plan nin g )
x 9
to Washington, D.C.
11 Tuesday, September 27, 1983 12 Depcsition of PETER A. POLK, called for 13 examination by counssi for IILCC in the above-entitled 14 action, pursuan t to notice, the witness having been duly l
15 sworn by ALFRED, H. WARD, a Notary Public in and f or the I
16 Dis trict of Columbia, at the offices cf Hunten and i
17 Willia ms, Suite 700, 1919 Pennsylva nia Avenue, N.W.,
18 Was hin g ton,
D.C.,
at 9: 44 a.m., the proceedings being 19 taken down by Stenomask by ALFRED H. WARD, and 20 transcribed under his direction.
21 22 l
l I
l O
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
=-.- -
91 1
A It doesn't really correspond.
I cannot define 2 the weather conditicn.
It ccrresponds te weather 3 conditions in which roadway ca pacity would be reduced by 4 40 gercent.
That is the definiticn.
5 0
But you haven't ycurself tried to do any kind 6 of studies that would correlate, say, a given depth cf 7 snow with a given decree of reducticn in readway 8 ca paci tie s.
9 A
Mo.
My quess would be that vculd he dependen t 10 not only on the depth cf the sncv but the availa tility 11 of snow removal equipment and various cther f acters.
12 0
Dc you still have a copy of the June 1982 reme 13 entitled Suffolk County Radiclogical Emergency Responso 14 Plan Preliminary Evacuation Analyses?
15 A
Yes, I do.
~
16 0
Would ycu look at page 3 of that memo, 17 please?
18 That page is a table entitled Table 1,
19 Evacuaticn Times, is it not?
20 A
It is.
21 0
Were you invcived in the work which led tc th e 22 producticn of this table?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
92 1
A Yes.
4 2
0 What was your role in the work that led tc the t
a 3 producticn cf this table?
4 A
The work was done under my everall directicn.
5 Q
Did that work follow the general kind of 6 methodolcoy we were discussing before lunch in terra of 7 development of routes and assignment of cars to those 8 ccutes in the evauation of an EPZ?
9 A
Yes.
10 Q
And were the esiculations on using tha t 11 methodciccy performed using a ecmputer program of 12 Voorhees, or were they manual calculations?
s 13 A
These were run throuch the'model.
14 0
It is the same model ycu used fcr ycur typical i
15 evacuation plan calculation, ica't it ?
16 A
That's right.
17 0
As I understand this table, it provides fer 18 two alternate evacuatien scenarios, one called a radial 1
l 19 evacua tien and the other called all-vest evacuaticn.
20 Is the page following this page 3 an 21 illustration of the evacuatien rcutes taken in a radial 22 eva cua tien?
l l
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
=
9.3 C
1 A
Yes, it appears to be.
2 0
In an all-west evacuation, do ycu know hcs th e
,7 3 rou tes vculd be different frca those specified in the 4 radial evacuation?
In other words, did you simply drop 5 the eastern routes, cr were there some intertitial 6 routes added?
7 Or do you recall?
l 8
A I do not believe there were additional rcu tes i
9 added, but in fact, the eastern routes, the routes 10 leadin g to the east were drcpped frca censideration.
11 0
So what you simply did was you loaded cars i
12 scuehow cnto the routes which were heading vest anyway.
13 A
That's right.
14 Q
But you in any ev ent got all of the ca rs --
15 ycu had the same inventcry cf pec;1e and cars within the is EPZ for both rakial and western evacuations.
17 A
That's right.
18 Q
I see you are nodding your head.
19 A
I believe so.
I hope so.
l 20 C
Lecking at the radial evacuation eclumn first, 21 an I correc t in believing t ha t there is a range of 22 evacuation tines specified in terms of hours and.11nutes
(
L ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W,. WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 l
i
94 1 ran gin g between two hcurs and 30 minutes and five herrs 2 and 45 minutes for the radial evacuation pattern?
s 3
A That is correct, with an annotaticn next tc 4 the five hour and 45 minute time.
5 0
Understood.
6 Now, that evacuation time is the time for the 7 last vehicle, I take it, to leave the EPZ by whatever 8 specified secter or by whatever specified evacuaticn 9 route is listed.
10 A
That is correct.
11 Q
De you consider this radial evacuation 12 calculation to represent an accurate evacuation scenario 13 f er a ten mile EFZ using the methcdolo;y you have 14 descri b e d S?
15 A
With the possible exception of the number cf 16 v eh icl e s.
17 The purpose of this short exercise was tc 18 examin e the differences between the radial and the 19 all-w e s t evacuation strateg y, and a s such, the 20 popula ticn and vehicle nunbers were develcred more er 21 less on first cut basis.
22 Q
As I understand it, the perclation you are L
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTCN. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
95 1
t alkin g about was appecximately 160,000 parsons, is tha t 2 ccrrect?
7 3
A That is correct.
4 Q
And for vehicles it was approxianately 60,000,
5 is tha t correct?
6 A
Yes.
7 Q
Vith tha exception, though, ycur answer is 8 basically yes, isn't that ccrrect?
9 A
Yes.
10 Q
Ncw, as I understand it, ycur all-west 11 evacua tion scenario shcws a rance of outputs from th ree 12 hcurs and 30 minutes to five hcurs and 45 minutes, again 13 depending on the evacuation route specified, is that 14 correc t?
15 A
Yes.
16 Q
Is it also your belief tha t again, with the 17 qualification as to the number of people and the number 18 of vehicles, the results depicted f or the all-west 19 evacua ticn are essentially accurate using your 20 m ethod olegy for a ten rile EPZ.
21 A
Yes.
22 Q
Have you had a chance te review a large and
\\
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
10.8 1
A Uh-huh, yes.
2 Q
Iet me ask ycu to come ba ck for a minute te 3 Appendix A of the transition plan and there to Table 14 4 on pag e V-3.
Table la is entitled " Evacuation Time
~
5 Estima tes ( Pinu tes ). "
Have you ever reviewed that 6 table ?
7 A
I do not recall this table.
8 Q
If you will assume with me that care number 12 9 is a base case --
10 A
U h -h u h.
11 0
-- which represents tctal evacuation of the 12 ten-mile region, out in the richt-hand columns sculd --
13 dc you liave any sense as to whether the evacuation times 14 indica ted in that table appear intuitively reasonable or 15 intuit iv ely unreasonable?
16
'dR. d EURRAYa I'm goino to object.
What do 17 you mean by " reasonable," Mr. Irvin ?
18 3E. IEWI.N:
Feasonable en the basis of general 19 knowledge of the Shoreham EPZ, what review he ha s been 20 able tc conduct to date of the IILCC transition plan, 21 and his knowledge as a traf fic engineer and particular 22 planne r.
And I guess I wculd also add as one more basis 9
C ALDERSON REPoRDNG COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
i 10.9 1 his own comparison of th e ten-mile FF2 in June E2.
2 THE WITVESS s The only study that we made tha t 3 corresponds to the ten-mile EF2 was that repeced cn in 4 the June 1982 document, which I believe listed an 5 evacua ticn time cf 5 hcurs and 45 minutes.
And that is 6 really the only reference point tha t I ha ve f or 7 ass essing the reasonableness of this time estimate.
8 EY P.P.
IRWIN4 (Resuming) 9 0
Within the range cf variability of ctudies of 10 this kind t h'a t you have seen, dc you regard the' 11 differences in reported tines between base case 12 a nd p
12 in your case as radically different er as beinc sert of 13 within the rance of expectable scattering of data and 14 assump tiens, the kinds that planners and engineers use?
15 A
Well, 20 percent is a f airly significant 16 dif ference.
17 C
Do you understand hev mcbilizatict time is l
18 ured in the 1I100 medel?
I 19 A
No, I think perhsps ycu oucht to explain 20 that.
21 0
If I were to ask you to assune that the 22 Vccrhees model starts at a different time in the t
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W. WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2346
-w e
w - -, - - +
e v-
,,-y,-,.-i.--,-y--
,,--v-,
- -., - - - - - - -, - +
.y
-w
12.9 C
1 Q
Do you recall wha t a rrangements exist at 2 Oconee ?
(
3 A
Nc, I do net.
4 0
Voorhees werked os the Seabrook report alsc, 5 didn't they?
6 A
The work we did a t Seabrock, similar tc the 7 work we did at Zion, was thrcuch FEF. A snd was conducted 8 under slightly different conditiens than mest cf cur 9 other work.
10 0
Dc ycu recall what assumption was made abcut 11 the conditions under which scheci children were 12 evacuated from the EPZ in the Sea brock stud y?
13 A
I didn't verk en the Seabrcok project.
14 0
Do you recall what assumptiens are made in the 15 Ccunty 's evacuation plan, the on' e prepared in November 16 of '8 2, concerning the cccurrence and effect of 17 accidents or stalled vehicles en read.s leading out of 18 the EPZ?
19 A
In the County 's Ncvember ' 8 2 wo rk ?
20 0
That is cerrset.
21 A
There war ne special analysis conducted as 22 part o f that time estimate study.
i I
L i
!~
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C.20024 (202) 554-2345
130 1
0 To your experience with other evacuation plans 2 on which you 've worked, is special consideration given 3
te the effect cf accidents er stalled vehicles, 4 particularly in those analyses?
5 A
Again, I think it is fairly site specific.
In t
6 an area where traffic ccnditicas are less of a prchlem 7 -- an d let me define that a bit.
In an area where a 8 vehicle treaking dcwn may nct prcduce a major capacity 9 res tra i n t, this may be given less emphasis than in an 10 area where one lane being taken from the system may in 11 fact increase the evacuation times considerably.
12 0
Do you recall in any of the Voorhees studies 13 on which you have verked which do give explicit 14 con sid eration tc the ef f ect cf accidents or stalled 15 vehicles in estimatine evscuaticn times?
16 A
Nc, I de net.
17 0
Can you recall any in which they were not 18 cen sid e r e d, cther than Ehcreham?
19 A
I don 't believe they were censidered in 20 Calloway.
Well, that's one anyhow.
21 0
I take it yer have net done, er Vccrhees has 22 not done, any study of eith er the incidence of acciden ts s
l ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHINGTON. O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
111 1
cr stalled cars er anything related tc accidents in Iong 2 Island er the incidence of stalled ca rs in icng Island
(
3 which would proyide an empirical basis for determininc 4 how of ten accidents are likely te occur in the FFZ 5 during the evacuation of Shoreham?
6 A
Nc, acthing that yielded aay reportable 7 restits.
8 0
With respect to etalling of cars, one of the 9 Ccunty's contentions suggests that a number cf cars say 10 in fact stall because they run out of gasoline.
Pave 11 you evaluated any infermatien that suggests any 12 rescrtable results as to the length of tine cars would 13 typica lly take to run out of gas, or how much gas ther 14 typically have in their tanks, er hcv Icnq it takes to 15 run out of gas at idling er.eed?
Have you been a to consultant en that general suhdect?
l 17 A
A consul tant to whcm?
l 18 Q
To the County.
l 19 A
Nc, we haven't.
'4e have been interested ir 20 that subject, but we have nct produced any reports en 21 it.
22 Q
And ycu are cet c u r re ntly verking cn any?
I
\\
l I
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
/
112 1
MR. Mc AYs Objecticn.
I'll inctruct the e.
2 witness not te answ :r the quest;,.
That is possibly e
3 g et tin g into work product, Mr. Irwin.
4 HR. IPWIN You 'r e going te lead re te ra k e a 5 con tin uing request.
If ycu're coinq to instruct ycur 6 witness not to discuss matters which are currently in 7 progress, we run a substantial risk of surprise when 8 testim ony is so ugh t.
9 I'm no t asking f or results; I'm just asking 10 fcr areas in which the werk is undertaken.
11 NR. MC MUEEAY:
I am sorry.
As I described 12 e a r lie r, Mr. Irwin, even the discussiens cf the areas 13 would reveal the mental processes a nd strategies in the 14 litigaticn by councel for the Ccunty.
?r. Folk has bee n 15 asked to undertake werk for the Ccunty and we will nct 16 let him reveal the nature of the tasks nor the results there are net any results -- because te de sc wer1d 17 18 reveal work product.
So I will instruct the witness no t 19 to answer the questien.
20 BY ME. IFWIN:
(Fesumina) 21 0
Mr. Polk, do you have any prcfessional 22 opinions er have ycu assembled inforraticn with respect L
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W WASHINGTON. D.c. 20024 (202) 554 2345
13.3 1
te how icng it takes a car idling or cars of varicus 2 sizes idling tc usa any assured arount cf gascline?
3 A
We have in the past looked into that subject 4 and I de not have these figures in my head.
5 Q
Are those figures written down anywhere?
6 A
I am not sure if they a re.
I imagine that 7 scmewh ere thero is seme esiculaticn en a piece cf 8 paper.
9 0
Dc you have reason to believe that these 10 calculations, or whatever they are, were accurate when 11 made?
12 A
Yes.
13 Q
Do you know whether they are con -istent er are 14 based on -- did you compile thera independ en tly or we re 15 they basically literature searches based en empirical 16 work done by Covernment agencies or other 17 organizations?
18 A
I believe it was a ccmbination cf the tuc.
19 Q
Is it your testimcny that ycu are aware of th e 20 existence of such calculaticns, but that ycu de act knov 21 where they are?
22 A
I ar not even awa re of the existence.
I as ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
i l
134 l
1 aware of the fact that at one time this is comething l
2 that was discussed in out office, and I am not sure if 3 whatever calculatiens were performed still do exist.
4 0
And was this performed in connection with you r 5 retenti:n by Suffolk Ccunty?
6 A
Nc.
7 Q
I take it that you hsve not yet been asked, at 8 least at this date, to be s witness by the Ccunty with 9 res pec t to their contentions as to the likelihood of to cars running out of gas and stalling on highways ?
11 A
That is correct.
12 0
Mr. Polk, are you f amiliar with the term 13 referred to as a shadev pheremenen?
14 A
Yes, I am.
15 0
Can you cive me a definition of that term?
16 A
The sbadow phenomenon ref ers to that secrert 17 of the population which, although not specifically 18 eccam ended fer evacuatica frcm an area, nevertheless 19 does i vacua te.
20
(
In verk perforced by Vocrhees with which ycu 21 are f amiliar cther than tha t at Shoreham, have any cf 22 the Voorhees analyses ccncidered the occurrence cf the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
176 1
A I think this is ancther a rea that falls ett cf 2 our domain and more into that of the beha vicral 3 s cien tis ts.
4 0
Do you kncv cf any prescribed ccutes in the 5 LILCO plan which are contrary to matcrists' perceptiens 6 of the mest expediticus way cut of the EPZ?
7 A
I am not familiar enough with the latest 8 evacuaticn rcutes in the LILCO evacuation plan te ansvar 9 that.
10 0
Let's look at Cen ter. tion 65-0, and let 's icek 11 at Iaragraph 1 cf that cententien.
Paragraph 1 states 12 tha t " Anticipated traffic a ccidents and a utomobile 13 b re akd o wns, including runnine cut of cas (f or exsmple, 14 the Suffcik County Pclice rerper$ded in 1982 te 1C,CCC 15 incidents such as accidents and breakdowns on the 16 Suffolkk County portion of the IIE)," et ce te ra.
Eid 17 you previde any cf the information for this paragraph?
18 A
Nc.
19 Q
Have you cc11ected any infctmatica with 20 respect to either the incid ence or frequency of 21 occurrence of accidents or autemctile breakdevns on l
22 Suffolk Ccunty reads?
(
L i
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON O.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
17.7 1
A Vo.
2 Q
Dc you have any inferraticn which succests 3
tha t the incidence of such accidents or breakdowns en 4 Suffolk County reads differs materially from reported 5 frequencies of such cccurrences en read systems 8 elsewhere in the nation?
7 A
I have ne such inferration.
8 Q
In Pa ragraph 2 cf Contentien 65-D, there is a 9 reference to the absence of shculders en some prinary er 10 seccndary routes that shculd be used during the 11 e va cua tion.
l'a ve you any speci
routes in mind in 12 that paragrach?
Let me back up fcr a second.
Did ycu 13 take any role in the draf ting of that paragraph?
14 A
No.
15 Q
De ycu knew cf any reads where the absence of 18 shoulders, roads used in the evacuation plan where 17 should ers might have an impedino effect?
18 A
None come to mind spe ci fi call y.
1g Q
On Cententien 65-E on Page 134, there is a 20 discussien of the ecngestien te he enecuntered by 21 eva cua ting motorists that will result from evacuation 22 and ea rly dismissais et schecis and the evacuation of C
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
!i i
i l
i 1
i 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
l 3
(
3 In the Matter of I
4 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, (Emergency Plannmg Proceeding) 5 Unit 1) l 6
7 Washington, D. C.
l l
8 Wednesday, September 28, 1983 l
9 Deposition of:
10 ANDREW C. KANEN 11 called for oral examinati.on by counsel for Long Island Lighting l
12 Compeny in the law offices of Hunton & Williams, Suite 700, 13 191ir Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W., Washington, D. C.
- 20006, 10 beginning at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, September 28, 1983, before 15 Annabelle Short, Notsry Public in and for the District of 18 Columbia, when were present:
U ON BEHALF OF LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY:
18 HUNTON & WILLIAMS BY:
DONALD P.
IRWIN, ESQ.
'8 LEE B.
ZEUGIN, ESQ.
707 East Main Street 20 Richmond, Virginia 23212 21 Also Present:
EDWARD LIEBERMAN, KOD Associates 22
{
.,..m, d
36 1
A I do not believe that we ever conducted a 10 mile 2
evacuation study for Shoreham.
3 Q
Do you recall a document entitled suffolk County 4
Radiological Preliminary dated June 19827 5
A Yes, I do.
e Q
Does that document contain evacuation time estimates 7
based on a 10 mile EPZ around Shoreham?
e A
This document provides information on the very a
preliminary or 10 mile EPZ, it does not represent or purport
(
10 to be an evacuation study of a 10 mile limit.
11 Q
It was formed using your Nvac Plan Model, was it not?
12 A
That is correct.
13 Q
It was formed also, as I understand it, using essen-14 tially the same data base as within the 10 mile EPZ as later 15 went into your November 1982 study, did it not?
16 A
The application of the model is primarily sensitive 17 to the various capabilities on that basic assumption that would ta be made in describing the scenario of it.
18
'Q Can we come back to my previous question?
3 A
Repeat the question.
21 Q
The question was, wasn't the data base at least with 22 respect to the 10 mile EPZ in terms of road carrying capacity, e
_ _ =
i 37 population, distribution, intensity and other inputs to the I
'2 model essentially the same as you used in your later November 3
,1982 study?
4 A
No, it was not.
I 5
Q What was the basic difference?
e A
It was different in the respect that in the subsequent i
7 application of the model we did include the shadow phenomenon, 8
a possibility of voluntary evacuation which might take place in 9
the area which was at that time 45 conservatives mixed up by a 10 member.
11 Q
Can you define the term shadow-phenomenon for me, Mr.
12 Kanen?
13 A
I cannot give you a universal definition but my 14 definition.
I view it as primarily consisting of the people 15 that may respond to an emergency on a voluntary basis as opposed to to official captions.
17 Q
And those people who definitionally live or be located 18 outside in the context of an emergency, either living or outside 18 the area which is being evacuated?
3 A
Not necessarily.
Just rate in as well as outside of
{
the EPZ boundary.
21 22 Q
I am not saying the area evacuated whether it is one
38 1
sector, I mean definitionally outside the area being evaluated.
2 You are nodding yes.
3-A Yes.
4 Q
Other than the incorporation of a shadow analysis, in what other significant respects did this June 1982 analysis 5
a differ methodologically in terms of the data, assuming a 10 7
mile EPZ from your November 1982 study?
8 A
I cannot give the specifics but I believe that this 9
particular memorandum was annotated and identified in terms of
.(
the fact that we had not looked at what the potential impact of 10 11 traffic on these facilities at or just beyond the boundary of 12 the EPZ and the consequences of any such constraints impacting 13 the population because of conditions that might exist at the 14 boundary of such an EPZ.
15 Q
How do you physically distinguish that from consider-16 -
ation of the shadow phencmenon?
17 A
The shadow phenomenon involves the movement of a 18 movement of people in addition to those that have been asked or 18 been advised to take specific action.
The shadow phenomena 20 increases a larger population base into a protective action and 21 activity as opposed to this issue which comes as a consequence 22 of traffic circumstances at or near the perimeter of the area
39 1
defined.
~2 Q
I assume only the involvement.of people moving out 3
.from within a zone.
4 A
Yes.
5 Q
What way did you modify your model to include consid-e eration of congestion at or about the perimeter of those being 7
evacut.ted in the November 1982 analysis independent of the 8
shadow phenomenon?
9 A
It is common practice for us to extend our routing to pattern beyond the boundary of the EPZ to make sure that there 11 are no constraints or, if there are such contraints, what if l
12 they are like the consequence of such constraints.
13 Q
How far ot$t did you extend it in your November 1982 14 analysis beyond the boundary you used?
15 A
I believe it went out 20 miles.
16 Q
That is the exact perimeter boundary.
Did you 17 evaluate congestion on the 20 mile EPZ boundary?
18 A
No, we went beyond.
18 Q
How far beyond did you go?
20 A
I am not sure of the exact distance that it was
{
finally incorporated in the model.
I know we did a special 21 22 analysis on the Long Island Freeway on the Sunrise Highway that l
l l
i i
(
40 took us probably in the order of 5,or 10 miles.
1 2
Q Mr. Kanen, when you were extending the Evac or 3
evacuation of potential congestion beyond the limits of the 4
EPZ, you indicated that you took cars either 5 or 10 miles out 5
beyond the EPZ boundary a distance of 25 or 30 miles from the a
plant.
Is that aspect of your analysis specifically displayed in the November 1982 report you submitted to the county?
7 a
A I do not believe it is.
9 May I make a comment on the question you ask?.
i 10 Q
Sure.
11 A
I said that I know that on one or two particular 12 routes I am aware of the analysis we conducted 5 miles outside 13 the boundary.
I did not indicate that I was aware that we had 14 done that or what the mileage or distance was that we had done 15 on the EPZ as a whole, I was only specifically doing that that 16 I had personal knowledge of.
17 Q
Do you recall what groups those were?
Is A
It was the Long Island Expressway and I am fairly 18 certain there is Sunrise.
20 Q
Now when you were considering traffic on those two 21 routes beyond the 20 mile EPZ, do you recall how you loaded 22 those routes?
By that I mean where did those cars originate j
)
1 from?
2 A,_ Let me respond this way and see if that answers your 3
, question.
The primary focus of our analysis was to determine what will happen to the traffic which is normally inbound 4
5 towards the EPZ presuming that at the perimeter the volume of e
traffic will be precluded from entering the risk zone.
We 7
looked at the consequences of these large volumes of traffic l
8 being diverted from entering what could constitute a risk zone.
9
' Q When was that analysis performed?
-(
10 A
I believe it was performed last summer.
11 Q
The summer of 1982?
12 A
Yes.
13 Q
And that is an integral part of the November 1982 14 analysis with respect to at least.the Sunrise Highway and the 15 Long Island Expressway?
16 A
Pardon me?
17 Q
Meaning that whatever the re'sults were of this analysi s is involving diversion back of automobiles which would have entered Hi the EP Z, the results of that analysis are factored into the time 20 estimates contained in the November 1982 report?
(
21 A
It was considered as soon as there was analysis 22 resolution of a significant problem and as to the best of my
42 1
recollection that diversion of traffic outside the perimeter 2
was not allowed to be a detriment to this particular analysis 3
that is described in the document that you referred to so we 4
did not use it as a delay factor to this fact which is the 5
time estimate.
6 Q
Now I understood that this analysis which you have 7
just described and you now tell me did not have any quantitativo a
effect on your analysis was the second of two respects in which e
analytically your November 1982 analysis differed from the June
.(
10 1982 analysis, the first one of which had been the shadow 11 effect.
The shadow effect is still an analytica1' difference 1.2 but did I hear you correctly in saying that the second effect 13 really didn't make a difference in the outcome of your November 14 1982 analysis even though you may have conducted it in theory?
15 A
No, I did not say that.
I said that the subsequent 16 analysis which involved a radically different EPZ configuration, 17 the particular elements that we analyzed at a distance of 5 to 18 10 miles outside of the EPZ on the Long ' Island Expressway, was to presumed for that distance at that site specific location not 20 to be a detriment to traffic distance of 18 or 19 miles away 21 from the plant.
That analysis does not allow itself analogy-22 wise to be transferred to a site specific location 11 or 12
43 1
miles away from the plant.
2 Q
I understand, but I thought you also said that your 3
, analysis of potential congestion on the two routes for which 4
you evaluated the Long Island Expressway and the Sunrise Highway 5
was not allowed to influence the results of your other etudy.
6 A
On that one component of that analysis which dealt 7
with the traffic arriving at the sita as being diverted, the a
analysis of outgoing traffic that would become congested by 8
virtue of it going beyond, at that site of course that would be
'O involved in the overall evacuation.
11 O
You are saying that is a different analysis from the 12 shadow analysis.
In your analysis of other plants using the 13 10 mile EPZ, say for instance Catawba, have you considered tha.s i
effect of perimeter congestion?
15 g
7,,,
16 Q
And how analytically is that affected, sir, those l
'I analyses?
18 A
By extending the network beyond the specific limits l'
of the EPZ, and I am responding to your question in the context that that is part of our normal concept of operation.
I cannot l
(
L testify here that the specific road at the Catawba site was extended beyond the perimeter.
We looked at the perimeter 1
l
l 1
conditions on all sites that you see to what extent congestion 2
beyond.the perimeter might have an influence upon the ability 3
,of the people to evacuate.
4 Q
Is that aspect of your analysis documented anywhere?
5 I gather it is not documented in its own terms in the Shoreham' s
analysis.
I am glad to give you a copy but I just would be 7
interested in your pointing to where.
8 A
I believe that you will note on page 96, Figure 61, 9
that our route designation goes beyond the limits for which
(
10 evacuation is recammended.
11 O
Which part of Figure 61 are you pointing to?
12 A
On the right side of that figure it has an arrow with 13 the connotation Final Intersection in the area where evacuation 14 is recommended.
As you can see from the tabulation, intersec-15 tions.beyond that are considered in the analysis.
16 Q
As I can see from the tabulation, intersections beyond 17 that are considered -- you are talking about Intersections Nos.
18 14 and 15.
18 A
That is correct.
N Q
Those are outside the 20 mile EPZ.
(
21 A
They are beyond the point for this particular scenario 22 of analysis, it is beyond where it is recommended.
It is normal
45 1
that whatever the limit is, it could im 20 miles, it could be 2
whatever that sector is represented by this particular figure.
3 Q.
Analytically, Mr. Kanen, is what you are telling me 4
that what you have done is you have looked beyond the boundary 5
of the area to be evacuated to see in essence whether congestior.
6 of cars leaving the EPZ stacks up cars that are still trying to 7
get out to see what kinds of delay that stack-up occuring beyond.
e the evacuation boundary produces?
9 A
Yes.
10 Q
Did you evaluate that perimeter congestion problem 11 independent of your evaluation of the shadow effect?
1.2 A
I am not sure that I know the scenario suggested 13 specifically and independently but the mechanism would normally 14 be applied in any analysis we do so it is something that we would 15 take into consideration, voluntary evacuation as well.
16 Q
Without going into specific numbers that I recognize 17 that neither of us has off the top of our head, can you tell me 18 how the mechanism for computation of that perimeter congestion 18 works?
How do you go about analyzing?
20 A
It is essential ~1 the same as the process which is 21 used internally which relates the likely headways between 22 vehicles against the total time available for the total
1 BY MR. IRWIN :
2 Q..
Mr. Kanen, I cannot recall whether I asked you before 3
. the break or not but we were discussing an effect which I 4
believe I referred to-as a perimeter congestion effect at a commercial terminal on whatever value it may have but have you 6
conducted any analyses at Shoreham which quantitatively try to
-7 model that effect for a 10 mile EPZ?'
8 A
Let me rephrase your question to be sure I understand 9
it.
Do I understand you to say did we do any specific analyses
(
10 at Shoreham that led us to subsequently include the results of 11 those analyses into the model and apply it to a 10 mile EPZ?
12 Is that what the context of the question is?
13 Q
No.
Have you ever tried to quantify this effect for 14 an evacuation in Shoreham which assumes evacuation with a 10 15 mile radius in EPZ?
16 A
We have not conducted an evacuation of a 10 mile EPZ 17 at Shoreham other than the preliminary analysis that we have la indicated.
l L
18 0
Are you currently working on an evaluation of the 10 20 mile EPZ evacuation at Shoreha~ chich includes modeling of this
(
21 perimeter congestion?
l 22 MR. McMURRAY:
Mr. Irwin, I am going to instruct the l
58 1
witness not to answer the question, it is getting into the work 2
product as we have discussed earlier.
I am not going to let yot 3
probe into work that is presently being undertaken.
4 MR. IRWIN :
I will waive my usual response which is 5
left without being abl~e to understand whether the work is being a
done.
It is very difficult to avoid surprise and it is diffi-7 cult to get into the facts which allow me to determine whether 8
analyses are being undertaken.
9 MR. McMURRAY:
As I have said before, you can inquire
(
10 into all facts and opinions about which Mr. Kanen has knowledge, 11 Just not into the work that he is d'oing for the county at this 12 time.
13 BY MR. IRWIN:
I
,,14 Q
Just to get the record clear again, Mr. Kanen, I take p.,
15 it that the June 1982 analysis did not include a consideration 18 of this potential perimeter congestion effect, is that correct?
17 A
That is correct.
l 18 Q
Mr. Kanon, let me show you a document entitled 19 Revised Emergency Planning Contentions dated July 26, 1983, i
20 filed by Suffolk County and other intervenors in the Shoreham t
(,
21 case.
Mr. Kanen, to your knowledge have you ever seen this 22
[
document before today?
l
i l
79 1
A Not generally because that kind of alteration is part i
2 of what.is normally recognized as an optimization program, be 3
it done manually or be it done by a computer.
It is still part 4
of that same process of reallocation and optimization whereas 5
we tend to focus our analysis on a demand kind of analysis.
e We are interested in what would be the logical demand pattern 7
projected from the area.
8 Q
By a logical demand pattern you are referring to the 8
planner's formation of travel sheds and allocation of the
(
10 people within that travel shed to that of an EPZ?
11 A
Correct.
12 Q
Could you take a look at Centention 65D on page 133 13 which asserts that "LILCO's time estimates neglect the potential i
14 l
effects of major vehicle breakdowns or other types of incidents 15 which. block major types of transportation routes," and : hen 16 gives four numbered examples of causes or potential causes of 17 such effects.
If you would like a minute to scan that page, is go ahead.
A Yes, I have looked at it.
Q Has Voorhees prepared in connection with Shoreham any
(
21
. evaluation of the anticipated frequency or severity of traffic 22 accidents which might occur in an evacuation?
80 1
MR. McMURRAY:
I am going to instruct the witness not
~2 to answer with respect to any work that voorhees may presently be doing for the county in preparation for the upcoming 3
4 emergency planning litigation.
5 You may answer to the extent that you don't' intrude 8
on the work product problem.
7 THE WITNESS:
I believe that we prepared an estimate of likely accidents that might occur because we generally do a
9 that on other locations as well and I believe we prepared the to similar estimate of likely accidents that might occur at 11 Shoreham but I am not quite sure.
1.2 BY MR. IRWIN:
If it turhis out that your recollection is correct, 13 Q
14 when would that evaluation have been prepared approximately?
15 A
That estimate would have been prepared last summer.
l 16 Q
In other words, in connection with the November 1982 17 study and its effects would presumtively have been incorporated la either explicitly or implicitly with that study?
18 A
I do not recall if it was incorporated either explicitti 20 or implicitly.
I just recall that analyses were being conducted 21 of the likely number of accidents.
22 Q
Is that a feature which voorhees reports or a factor
f 1
which voorhees reports have explicitly reported in connection
'2 with other emergency planning evacuation evaluations?
3 A -
It is not generally reported as part of the evacuatior, l
4 type study report, it is the kind of analysis that is generally 5
part of an emergency response planning activity similar to the a
earlier issue that we discussed which was the voluntary evacua-7 tion phenomenon which is generally associated with studies where :
a we are doing emergency response planning as opposed to just 9
merely providing an evacuation time estimate.
10 Q
With respect to those evacuation time estimates it is 11 not a factor which is generally specifically accounted for in 12 those estimates as I understand it.
13 A
That is cErrect.
14 Q
Is there a reason why~ that consideration of accidents 15 has not been specifically incorporated as a specific feature of 16 the evacuation time estimates?
l 17 A
It is not spelled out as a direct requirement in 18 Appendix 4 and therefore it generally is not incorporated.
It 18 is also difficult to estimate any global contacts in the array 3
of impact the accidents may have.
21 Q
Is voorhees presently conducting a survey of the
(.
22 effects of accidents in the course of an evacuation plan.
c_-
l
(:
1 MR. McMURRAY:
I will object to that question, Mr.
2 Irwin, -it is intruding on the work product doctrine as I have 3
said before and I will instruct the witness not to answer.
4 MR. IRWIN :
I respond that I have difficulty with 5
avoiding surprise and anticipating facts.
6 BY MR. IRWIN:
7 Q
Mr. Kanen, with respect to accidents are you now in a
the possession of any facts with respect to Shoreham or evacua-e tion from Shoreham which would enable you to form any expert 10 conclusions with respect to the potential effect of accidents 11 or congestion related to them in an~ evacuation from the Shorehan 12 EPZ?
13 A
We have a whole set of facts that are at our disposal, 14 of course, but we have not conducted any specific impact analysf.s 15 of those facts.
We know the likely number of automobiles, we 16 can estimate the number of accidents, but we have not conducted 17 an impact assessment thereof.
18 0
How as an expert traffic planner, analyst or the boss 19 of such people would one go about calculating either the 20 frequency or severity of accidents occurring in an emergency 21
{
planning evacuation?
22 A
One would generally rely upon statistics that are J
90 f
1 which begins on page 136.
This contention relates to the 2
possibility that for any of a' variety of reasons automobiles 3
will either break down or run out of gas prior to leaving the 1
4 EPZ.
Is this possibility a feature which was evaluated 5
specifically by Voorhees in work conducted for the county in a
November 19827 7
A I believe the preliminary estimate-of automobiles a
running out of gasoline was made as part of our work program.
9 Q
You say you believe a preliminary estimate was made.
to Was that reported anywhere to your knowledge in the November 11 1982 evacuation plan?
12 A
I do not know.
I do not believe it was reported.
13 Q
Is it the kind of effect which is implicitly 14 accounted for in your anlayses?
15 A
Not really.
16 Q
If it were a major effect, would you -- all else 17 being equal -- have displayed it in your analysis?
18 Major, for instance, would be a bottleneck.
18 A
I do not believe that it was reported primarily 20 because our estimate was preliminary and I don't believe that 21
(
that analysis was completed.
s.
22 Q
Do you have any recollection of what the results l
1 were of that analysis as a ball park?
2 A -
It refers to a potential number of automobiles that 3
might run out of gasoline and I do not recall the number.
4 Q
That obviously was a function of time and distance 5
on the road?
6 A
Yes.
7 Q
Subsequent to that preliminary analysis have you a
completed any other analysis on the subject either of the 9
likelihood of automobile breakdowns or running out of gas in 10 connection with an evacuation from the EPZ at Shoreham?
11 A
No, we have not.
12 Q
Are you or is voorhees presently working on any such 13 analyses?
14 MR. McMURRAY:
Again, Mr. Irwin, same objection, same 15 reacons.
I will instruct the witness not to answer the question.
16 MR. IRWIN:
Same response.
17 BY MR. IRWIN :
1e Q
Does Voorhees have in its possession at this time any 19 facts beyond those reflected in the preliminary analysis which 20 was not reported that bear on the potential effect of automobile s 21
/
either breaking down or running out of gasoline in the process
. \\m 22 of evacuation?
1 A
No, we do not.
2 Q
Mr. Kanen, have you been asked by Suffolk County to 3
provide expert testimony on the subjects of traffic evacuation 4
or related areas in this Shoreham proceeding?
5' A
No, I have not.
6 Q
Have you received any indication that you will not 7
testify?
In other words, do you have any Laformation as to a
whether or not Suffolk County is likely to desire you to provide 8
testimony?
10
(
A I do not know.
I do not know if I am going to be testifying.
12 Q
Do you have any information as to whether Mr. Polk is 33 likely to be asked to provide any testimony?
14 A
No, I do not.
I Q
I take it from your earlier answers that Voorhees has not completed any analyses for the county -- I trust completed
'I analyses so that we don't compound Mr. McMurray's problem.
18 Voorhees has not completed any analyses for the county 19 since completing the November 1982 evacuation plan, is that 2
correct?
I A
I think that is correct.
22 Q
Again without getting into specific subject matter
1 93
(-
1 areas, Voorhees is, however, in the process of providing factual 2
input to evacuations currently being conducted by the county?
3 MR. McMURRAY:
Wait a.second.
- 4 Could I have that question read back, please.
5 (The pending question was read by the reporter.)
6 MR. McMURRAY:
Answer the question.
7 THE WITNESS:
I do not believe that we are providing a
such input to the county evaluation now.
9 MR. IRWIN :
I'm finished.
10 MR. McMURRAY:
Give me just a minute to go over my 11 notes, if you will.
1.2 MR. IRWIN:
Sure.
13 (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
14 MR. McMURRAY:
On the record.
15 Mr. Irwin, I have no questions on redirect.
16 MR. IRWIN:
And I definitionally have no. recross.
17 MR. McMURRAY:
Okay.
18 MR. IRWIN:
Thank you very much, Mr. Kanen.
18 THE WITNESS:
Thank you.
20 MR. McMURRAY:
We will not waive signature.
21 MR. IRWIN:
I take it, by the way, although you did 22 not indicate so yesterday, you do not waive signature on Mr.
1 f.
N 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 4
i
x 5
In the Matter of:
8 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY DOCKET NO.
7 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, :
50-322-OL-3 8
9 Unit 1)
(Emergency Planning) 10
x 11 Hauppauge, New York Friday, September 9, 1983 13 Deposf, tion of RICHARD C. ROBERTS, called for 14 examination by counsel for LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY 15 in the above-entitled e.ction, pursuant to notice, the witness having been duly sworn by NICHOLAS J. TORRE, a 37 18 Notary Public within and for the state of New York, 19 at the H. Lee Denison Building, Veterans Memorial Highway, 20 Hauppauge, N.Y.,
commencing at 9 :30 a.m., the proceedings 21 being taken down by Nicholas J. Torre, and transcribed 22 j
under his direction.
1 l
i g+
1 s
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W., WASHtNGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 564 2345 j
73 1
that consideration--
2 A
I have.
I haven't given it consideration 3
24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> a day, but I have.
As the thought crosses my mind and when I 4
look at a page and I see two and a half hours, six hours, 5
I don't have a way of guesstimating the minimum amount s
of time it would take to evacuate that entire area.
a 7
I just don't have it.
I know this:
I am a
not personally comfortable with the time estimates that e
io are given.
"I am just not comfortable with them.
Q That is simply based on your experience in the areai?
12 A
I have seen incidents, and here again, 13
(
becaus'e--I would appreciate if you would understand 34 that, for several years I have not been a sector car j
15 i
operator.
I am not an initial responder.
16 I know, because of the needs of the service 37 in the field, by banging your hand on the table and saying, -"I need two more sector cars," or, "I need 3,
greater service response in this area," say, in the time 3
that I was in the sixth, we added one, two, three--three 21
\\
sector cars, and more particularly, two of them right g
23 l
25
---.__,-.___.___________""*""*-T+-v---a-
~
,4 1
there in that Northern Brookhaven area because of 2
the complexities of the communities, phenomenal
'I 3
growth that was resulting, and the needs that were 4
there.
5 when you see motor vehicle accidents that 6
occur and they are not just fender-benders, where you 7
can move those off to the side, and people who won't a
get out of their cars to help you push other cars off 9
to the side, damaged in the accident, and then you have io constraints.
It takes time for tow trucks to arrive.
it 12 Meantime, traffic is tied up.
Alternate routes are not is necessarily always available.
Parallel roads may not
_,..(
14 exist.
A tractor trailer may go over on its side 15 and it is two and a half hours before you remove it, is without consideration for off-loading.
i7 These situations occur.
Do they occur 18 i,
every day?
No.
Do they occur during the day or night?
Yes.
Do they occur weekends and holidays?
Unfortunately,
20 21 yes.
Do automobiles collide with each other?
- Yes, 22 23 24 7X.
25 J
75 1
they do.
Are they more likely to collide more often 1
2 with each other during periods when people want to move 3
a little quicker than they are now?
I would think, yes, apropensityabists.
Yes.
4 5
Will there be a need to service the people?
Yes.
What will you do when you get there?
Priorities 6
will exist.
7 e
obviously, as long as the needs are met and the road is clear, under the assumed circumstance, g
you will satisfy the transportation needs of those left ja along the side of the road and get the others going.
3, If y u have a tractor trailer, you have 12 to get that thing out of there.
If you have three or 13
('
four cars, personal injuries, ambulance response, fire.
34 These are unknowns, but they do occur and become very' real.
g Q
To your knoyledge, is anyone in the suffolk 37 County Police Department currently engaged in any 18 studies to determine what reasonable time estimates 3,
should be plugged into the LILCO plan?
A Not aware of anyone doing that, in the Police Department.
23 24
. (-
~
i 76 1
Q Is anyone in the planning department 2
engaged in such studies?
3 A.
Planning and research in the Police 4
Department or planning outside?
5 Q
Both.
Planning and research within the department.
Are you aware of any such studies?
6 A
Not within the department.
7 Q
Suffolk County Police Department.
Not aware g
of any?
g l
A
- Yes, 10 Q
What about the planning department for Suffolk County?
12 l
A I don't interface with that unit.
I don't 13
,g.
know.
Q You don't know if any planning is going on I
there within that respect?
A No.
37 Q
Are you aware of any studies in the planning 3,
epa nt of SWon hty raladng in any way to de 19 LILCO emergency plan for Shoreham?
A No, sir, not aware.
21 Q
When we started out, we identified three 22 23 24 N
77 1
plans, sir, a LILCO-County plan, a Voorhees-County 2
plan, and the LILCO transition plan.
3 Do you recall that?
4 A
Yes.
5 Q
Are you aware of any current efforts by 6
the Voorhees organization to make time estimates under 7
the LILCO plan for evacuation?
8 A
No, sir, I am not.
9 Q
Inspector Roberts, did you study the routes 10 that are contemplated in the LILCO plan for evacuating it various sectors of the ten-mile EPZ?
12 A
Do you mean traffic control?
i 13 Q
Well~, maybe the easiest thing to do is 14 get an example.
I will show you what I will represent 15 to you is a copy of the LILCO plan, and I will direct 16 your attention specifically to a drawing or a map that 17 is in that plan.
18 This particular one is referred to in the ig lower right-nand corner.as Figure 9, Zone A.
The Zone A that is referred to there, I 20 believe, is shaded in green.
Do you see that?
21 A
Y***
22 23 24 25
l 1
C 1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
SUCLEAR REGULATOEY COMMISSIch cosrd Atomic _S 11tr_gqi Licensine 3
Egiore the 1
l 4
....------x I
5 In the matter oft 6
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING C04 PANI 4
Docket No.
l 7
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, a
50-322-OL-3 8
Unit 1)
(Esargenry Planning) i g
...._____x M)
Ha uppinge, ?la w York 11 Ihursday, September 1,
1983 i
C.'
12 Deposition of JOSEPH MONTEITH, called for 13 examinatica by counsel for Long Island Lightino in the 14 above-entitled action, pursuant to notice, the witness l
(
15 having been duly sworn by ALFRED H. WARD,1 N o ta r7 16 Pubile in and for the District of Columbia, at the 17 offices of the County Attorney, Eigh th Floor Conf erence 18 Room, H.L.
Dennison Building, Hauppauga, Nav York, at 19 9:35 a.m.,
the proceedings being taken down by Etenomask 20 by ALFRED H. WARD, and transcribed under his direction.
21 22 ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, I
400 v1RGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554 2345
145
(
1 implemented.
Do you recall having a discussion along 2
th"ose lines?
3 A
fes.
4 Q
Mow, ara you still able.to make that 5
intellectual discussion?
6 A
res.
7 Q
All right.
Leaving aside for the noment any 8
considecation of whether or not any component of the 9
plan as contemplated is legal or illegal, is it your to testimony that given sufficient time the LI1CO plan 11 could be Laplasanted?
12 A
I don't think I can answer that question.
As
(
13 I indicated before, I did not do a thorough analysis of 14 that plan sad what I saw is defects in the plan for 15 reasons of the laws and I don't think I could make a 16 judguent itka tatt without having done that analysis.
17 Q
To your knowledge h'ss anyone within the 18 Suffolk County Police Depsetaant andertskan such an 19 analysis?
20 A
Not to lir knowledge.
21 Q
fo your knowlai7e his anyone within the 22 Suffolk County Police Department undertaken any analysis O
ALDEA$oN REPoATING CoMPAN(,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASNINGToN. D.C. 20024 (202) 564 2345
146 (L
1 which was ; rives ta anyona als? to parait them to analyze 2
the LILCO plan in that light?
3 A
could you he more specific?
4 Q
Sure.
Is your knowlsiga, is any employee or 5
agent -- independent contractor, consultant or otherwise 6
-- of Suffolk County angaged in any effort to determine 7
whether,or not the LILCO plan could be implemented in 8
some period of time?
9 A
Not to my knowledge.
10 0
And, therefore, to your knowledge no one in 11 the police department is gathering data or doing any 12 work that dould be a part of surh analysis, is that
[
13 correct?
14 A
It would be a violation of law,.ns I 15 understand it.
16 Q
Iou maka repeated ref erences to the viola tion 17 of law.
Is there soma specif(c ordinanza or la w tha t 18 has been passad in Suffolk County that says the Shoreham 19 plant insofar as it calls into play any law of Suffolk 20 County is a nullity, it lossn't exist, ignora it?
21 A
Can I confer with my counsel?
l 22 Q
Ihat 's really a legal question, but you have l
ALDERSoN REPoATING COMMY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W. WASNINGTON. 0.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
149 l
1 have been trader.
2 Q
Dilworth is the fellow who just retired?
3 Turn, if you would, to psge 128.
Were you 4
involved in preparing the contentions set forth at 5
Contention 65, 65-A, et ceters?
6 A
Can I hsva a nosent to read thes?
7 Q
Sare.
8 (Pause.)
9 A
Yas, I asi s part in the preparation of these 10 contentions.
11 Q
Those contentions deal in large part with the 12 subject of evacuation times, is that correct?
(
d 13 A
In part, yes.
14 Q
fo the extent that Contention 65 desis with 15 evacuation times, did you or anyone in the police 16 department, to your knowledge, make any determination as 17 to whether or not the estimated evacuation times in the i
18 LILCO plan were accurate?
19 A
I didn't.
I don't taow if snyone else did.
20 Q
Do you have an opinion as to whether or not 21 the estimated eva:uation times in the LILC3 plan are 22 se: urate?
l l
l
(
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGMA AVE S.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 564-2345
150
/
1 A
It was my opinion from reading the plan that 2
the evacuation times -- the mobilization times and 3
evacuation times were understited; that in fact it would 4
tsk e longe r tha n LILCO --
5 Q
Iou diin't study the avscuation times or give 6
an order to anyone in the police department?
7 A
Not that I'm swire of.
8 Q
So to the extent that these contentions 9
contend that the evacuation times in the LILCD plan are to understated, the basis for that contention comes free 11 someone other than the police department as far as you 12 know?
13 A
Well, the basis could come from someone other 14 than the polica departsent.
I agree with the basis.
15 However, I ion't believe the plan takes into account s 16 lot of factors that might occur in the real world that 17 would tend to impede the flow of traffic, prevent people 18 from mobilizing, would make it dif ficult to remove 19 patients from hospitals and nursina homes, and that 20 taken in totality would ganettily slow down the process.
21 In the coal world in my experience thinas 22 don't always go according to the way they're supposed to I
ALDERSoN REPcRTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIR0lNIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON D.C. 20024(202) 554-2345
_J
1
(
1 3NITED STATES OF AMEPICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULAT3RY COMMISSION 3
Eiflge the Atomic ?= fety and Licensinc " card 4
.------x 5
In the matter ofs 6
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING 03MPANY a
Docket No.
7 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, a
50-322-OL-3 8
UnLt 1) a (Emergency Planning) 9
--_______x 10 Hauppauge, New York 11 Thursday, September 1,
1983 C.
12 Deposition of PHILIP MCOUIRE, called for 13 examination by counsel for Long Island Lighting in the 14 above-entitled action, pursuant to notice, the witnes:
~
15 having been duly sworn by ALF3ED H. WARD, a Notary 18 Public in and for the District of Columbia, at the 17 offices of tha Cosaty Attornev, Eighth Floor Conference 18 Boom, H.L. Dennison Building, Rauppauge, New York, at 19 4:15 p.s.,
the proceedings being taken down by Stenomask 20 by ALFRED H. WARD, and transcribed under his direction.
21 22 4
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
O 20
(
1 be people taking U-tucns or doing whatever or going into 2
ar'eas whera the plan doesn 't want them to go, and this 3
will happan.
4 Q
Ihat's the Kind of thing you have to try to 5
solve, I guess, with sign markers to identify th ese 6
evacuation routes.
7 A
1 don't know what you mean by sign markers.
8 Q
A sign that says goes this way.
I mean, 9
that's one way you do with traffic.
10 A
Not really.
We d on't change any normal 11 traffic flows with signs.
(.
12 Q
So with respect to iobilization --
13 A
Do you understand my answer?
You know, if 5
14 traffic goes soma way saran days a weak, we don't stick 15 a sign out there that says today it goes differently and 16 tomorrow it will be the same.
17 Q
Did you conduct any studies yourself or are l
18 rou aware of any studies that were conducted to 19 determine (aethat or not the mobilization plan 20 contemplated in tha LILCO plan that you studied is 21 workable?
22 A
I said I studied it.
What do you masn by a Al.DERS'oN REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
21 (I
1 study?
2 Q
I know that you read it.
3 A
All right.
1 4
Q Now, after you read it did you say they have 5
sssumed that ther :sn get 15 fire trE:ks in to this a ras 6
and the way you test that is to say I'm going to go out 7
and I'm going to call 15 fire trucks.
8 A
& test, sir?
Is that what you mean?
9 Q
A test, yes.
10 A
No.
11 Q
You indicated you were familiar, for example,
(',,
12 with a test that Inspector Monteith conducted where he 13 hai peopla :all?
Do you recall that?
14 A
res, sir.
15 Q
Are you f amiliar with any other kinds of tests 16 thtt vara :endu: tad for purposes of determining the l
l 17 workability of'the LILCO plan?
l 18 A
No, sir.
19 Q
Are you svare of any tests that see either 20 under way right now or that are contemplated by any 21 Suffolk County esployees in cluding police to test th e 22 validity of the LILCO plan?
k ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC,
22
(
1 A
No, sir.
2 Q
3ther than the reliance on telephones, the 3
reliance on beepers and the reliance on everybody 4
getting to'thair post within 1 given time, are there 5
other factors that you think are bad about the LILCO 6
aobilization plan?
7 A
In s, sir.
8 Q
Iell ne what they are.
9 A
I don't believe LILCO eeployees could 10 accomplish some of the missions that the plan is going 11 to ask them to do.
I don't believe a lot of the 12 equipment is going to be available that the plan 13 mentions sach as drackers and buses and the part of 14 converting the railroad trains to temporary ambulances 15 at Port Jefferson station.
All this sounds ludicrous to i
16 me.
I*a not trying to be snart.
17 Q
Do you have anything other than your years of l
18 experienca n the forre that lands you to that i
19 conclusion?
I'm not trying to be smart with you.
2)
What I*a trying to figure out is have you gone l
21 out and amie tests or conductai studies or 7ona to 22 school to see whether 'or not some facet of this plan is l
l l
i ALDER $oN REPopTING COMPANY,INC,
23
(
1 Q
Yes.
2 A
What do you maan by that?
3 Q
Well, how long do you think it would take l
4 LILCO to do it?
5 A
rhat's what I thought you mean t.
6 Q
I'm sorry.
7 A
I thou7ht you wace 71ving na thosa studies 8
again.
9 Q
No.
to A
Just.too long that it would be effactive.
11 Q
Twenty-four hours?
Forty-ei7ht hours?
A
(
12 week?
Five hours?
Just give me the best estimate you 13 can of how long you think it would take to nobiliza all i
14 these LILC3 workers?
15 A
Yo 7at than to avert traffic post that will 16 have to be at least 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> I would think and know that 17 they are there which is the other problem with the plan, 18 I believe.
19 Q
What you are saying I think is to get them all 20 there and to have some means of verifying the fact that 21 they are thera.
22 A
Dependant, I mean.
Are we talking in the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
29 1
siidle of a blizzsed or on a nice Monisy af tarnoon?
I'm 2
sure sometimes it could take 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> just to travel 3
half of 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br />.
I'm talking like normal conditions.
4 Q
that's basei on your experian=a but not on sny 5
studies you've done to estimate that?
6 A
Yes, sir.
7 Q
%re you aware of any studies that are under 8
var to determine how Lon7 it would take?
9 A
No, sir?
to Q
Any othat probless with the mobilization cart 11 of the LILCD plan, and we are now talking about h
12 sobilization of energancy wortars?
I i
13 A
fes, sir.
The nobilization aspect, no.
14 Nothing comes to my mind really.
15 Q
That otaar asps:ts of the LILCO plan do you 18 believe are unworkable?
l 17 A
I don't believe gasoline and diesel fuel could 18 be passed out for tank trucks to the general public 19 especially under those situations, under varying levels 20 of that situation.
21 Q
Is that a anchanical probles, or what is the f
l 22 reason for that?
l
(
1 l
ALDER $oN REPORT NG CoWANY. INC,
30 1
A It's a techaniral problas.
I'm sure it's a 2
legal probles.
3 Q
What do you'mean legal problem?
4 A
Well, they are not siloved to dispense fuels 5
lik e that at the side of the road like ice crema pumps.
6 I've saan LLKa inring tha gas shortsga of '74 how people -
7 behave when they want their tank filled up, you know.
8 3e know that if people killed trying to get 9
gas shot on the line, I didn't see that but I saw fist to stick ups and things like that.
I'm sure that is what 11 will prevail.
12 Q
ghat are the mechanical problems you have in 13 mind about,ispensing gas?
The nozzle too big ?
14 A
that nozzle is too big or they wouli line up, 15 how they would know how to line up.
Would they be in 16 the right line for unlesied, leaded?
How do they pay 17 for it?
18 Q
Any other problem with respect to the process 19 of dispensing faal?
20 A
lo.
21 Q
Any other problems with respect to :te
'an?
22 A
In what aras now ara we talking about?
)
-.__A g
o,,
31
~
1 Q
We 've talked about sobilization of the workers 2
thsaselves and you described why you don't think the 3
LILCO plan would work.
We've talked about problems in 4
dispensing fuel, and you described why you don't think 5
that will work.
6 What other aspects of the LILCO plan based on 7
your review and experience will not work 7 8
A Well, I mentioned that I don't believe the 9
LILCO employees could cope with the traffic problem.
I 10 don 't thint there is an adaquite or thara sven could be 11 adequate naasures taken for the cars that will break 12 down, run out of gas or have accidents.
13 Q
Again, Ls that basal on your experiance in the 14 County, or is that based on some study that you have 15 done or are aware of ?
16 A
Sy experien=a.
17 Q
Are you aware of any study or test that has 18 been conducted to test this area of the plan?
19 A
No, sir.
20 Q
Are there any particular areas, you know, 21 intersartions or areas of the County that you think 22 breakdowns would be troublesome?
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
48
(
1 would in fact take to evacuate under the LILCC plan?
2 A
Have I attempted?
3 Q
Ios.
Isu're saying LILCO says we can evacuate 4
this zone or the entire zone in so many minutes oc so 5
asny hours and To't're string not enough, LILCO.
Right?
6 A
fes, sic.
7 Q
Have you made an effort to deterzine how long 8
it would tske?
9 A
I have an opinion of how long it would take.
10 Q
What is that opinion?
11 A
A complete evacuatisa would be in the area of
('
12 days, not hours.
13 Q
Shat do you base that on?
14 A
The way the plan goes about doing it, my 15 observations over 27 years of the people, the general 16 type of paspla involvad, the things you run into when 17 rou try to accomplish something of this scope.
I never 16 did try it of this scope but I would have to assume that 19 if I did something that was 1/100 of it what the 20 problees would, you know, would be 1/100 or maybe mora, 21 probably asce becsuse this one thing sssumas in my 22 recollectisa that everybody is willing and when the time t
ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC,
52 i
1 an intersection where there is a red light and even 2
though the light said that certain people had the right 3
of way beca'use the light was green he would try to stop 4
them and you don't think'he could stop them.
5 A
Some gasple would stop.
He sight gat run 6
over.
He would not accomplish his mission.
7 Q
But in your opinion trying to direct traffic 8
contrary to an existing traffic control systes is very 9
difficult.
10 A
Very difficult and dangerous, yes, sir.
11 Q
Do you have any opinion as to whether there 12 would be a problem with cars running out of gas?
13 A
I's sura thare would be.
14 C
Have you attempted to analyze that particular 15 f acet of tne plan in any detail?
16 A
I have given it considerable thought, but I 17 haven't come up with an any numbers.
18 Q
31ve ne the benefit of your thought.
How do 19 You go about it?
20 A
I know there are going to be cars lined up.
21 Not everybod y is going to start with a full tank.
Their 22 first interest is going to be getting out of the EPZ as
(
3 ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY,INC,
c3
(
1 aine would be I suppose if you can consider that 2
cessonabla, and you would pesbsbly bslan=a it with 3
gettino the most siles and maybe worry about cetting gas 4
shan it gets uniar s quarter.
Naybe if there were a 1
5 ststion nest and if the station was open you might be 6
all right, but under those conditions I think there 7
would probibly bs 1 ist of people running out of gas.
8 Q
Look on page 128 of contention 65.
Five or 9
six lines down it says, " Evacuees will be caught in to queues or delsrei is heavily rongestel traffi: within 11 the EPZ."
12 Are you svare of any particular studies that 13 were done to determine the nature or extent of that 14 probles?
15 A
I havn observed testfic within that ares for f
16 many years on high volume days.
l 17 Q
Ehat are the high volume days?
18 A
They sea getting acce and more =osson.
i i
19 Fra nkly, we used to talk about rush hour on the LIE.
l 20 Now it's almost 1.ike 16 hours1.851852e-4 days <br />0.00444 hours <br />2.645503e-5 weeks <br />6.088e-6 months <br /> i day.
21 But a particular problem in that area would be 22 when the crowd starts east from the Hamptons.
That's 40 fiSStoM OSSoOTIMO POMS ANY INC
\\
%bQDdNb
\\}
Response to Recuest 52:
The County objects to parts (ii), (iii) and (iv) of this re-quest insofar as they seek information that is protected by the attorney-work product privilege.
Notwithstanding this objection, and without waiving this objection, the responses below are provided to parts (ii), (iii) ano (iv).
(
Response to 52(a):
, (i)
While the CounEy 'has not yet made a final determina-
' tion with respect to its witnesses or the content of their future testimony in the ASLB proceeding, it expects that witnesses on this matter will include Dr. James H. Johnson, Dr. Donald J.
Zeigler, Dr. Kai l
Erikson, and Dr. Stephen Cole.
i i
(
b L
lNS)$b (ii)
None at this time on behalf.of the County.
(
(iii)
The County cannot speculate regarding studies that may be completed in the future.
However, the studies that have been completed that support that statement include the survey conducted for Suffolk County by Social Data Analysts, and tne inalyses of that survey, which have been provided to LILCO, the Yankelovich survey conducted for LILCO, and the other materials identified by the County in response to LILCO discovery requests.
(iv)
The County has not yet made a final determination as to which documents it will rely upon as evidence to support the statement.
LILCO Recuest 52(b):
(b)
"LILCO evacuation time estimates are inaccurate, unreliable and, in fact, should be far longer" (SC Revised Contention 65),
Response to 52(b):
(i)
The County has not yet made a final determination with respect to its witnesses or the contents of 1
l
-m-k l
f /3)h) their future testimony.
However, witnesses on this matter may include Dr. James H. Johnson, Dr. Donald J.
Zeigler, Philip B.
Herr, Peter Polk, Andrew Kanen, Inspector Joseph L. Mon'teith, Deputy Inspector Philip McGuire, Deputy Inspector Micha,el Turano and Captain Edward Michael.
(ii)
Dr. Bruce Pigozzi.
(iii)
Studies 'that have been completed include the Social Data Analysts survey and the evacuation time estimates conducted by PRC Voorhees, wh'ich are in-cluded in the draf t Suffolk County Radiological Emer-gency Response Plan.
The County cannot speculate
(
regarding studies that may be completed in the fu-ture.
1 (iv)
The County has not yet made a final determination as to which documents will be relied upon as evidence in the ASLB hearing.
_LILCO Request 52(c):
(c)
"LILCO's evacuation time estimates ignore or underestimate the time required for people to
- 156 -
(
J
i
/
mobilize and ready themselves for evacuation" (SC Revised Contention 65.A):
Response to 52(c):
(i)
The County has not yet made a final determination as to which witnesses will testify or the content of their future testimony on this issue.
However, such witnesses may include Peter Polk, 7hilip B.
- Herr, Andrew C. Kanen, Inspector Joreph L. Monteith, Deputy Inspector Philip McGuire, Deputy Inspector Michael Turano, and Captain Edward Michael.
(ii)
Dr. Bruce Pigozzi.
(
(iii)
The County cannot speculate regarding any studies that may be completed in the future.
Studies that I
have been completed to date include the PRC Voorhees analysis which is included in the Draf t Suffolk Coun-ty Plan, Volume II, and surveys conducted by the SCPD, which have been provided to LILCO.
(iv)
The County has not yet made a final determination with respect to which documents it will rely upon as evidence in the ASLB hearings.
q
_w_
"~~
i O $3 LILCO Request 52(d):
(d)
" Heavy traffic congestion for mobilization traffic, due to both high demand and conflicting traffic flow, will lengthen evacuation times (SC Revised Contention 65.B);
Response to 52(d):
See Response to 52(c).
LILCO Request 52(e):
(e)
" Behavior research demonstrates that stress and anxi-ety induced by a radiological emergency at Shoreham
(
will diminish driving skills and awareness, and im-pede the processing of information necessary for a driver to make decisions and drive properly."
(SC Revised Contention 65.F);
Response to 52(e):
(i)
The County has not yet made a determination regarding its witnesses or the content of their future testimo-i
(
ny on this issue.
However, such witnesses are likely to include Dr. Susan Saegert, Dr. James H, Johnson, i
l Dr. Kai Erikson and Dr. Donald J.
Zeigler.
I
(
-E-l
Y/
(ii)
None at this time on behalf of the County.
(
(iii)
See testimony of Dr. Susan Saegert before the Suffolk County Legislature.
The County cannot speculate regarding studies that may be completed in the fu-ture.
(iv)
The County has not yet made a final determination as to which documents it will rely upon as evidence before the ASLB.
LILCO Recuest 52(f):
(f)
"LILCO will either need more than 285 buses or those buses will have to make many more runs than antici-pated by LILCO because LILCO has subet nti:lly underestimated the number of people who will need such transportation" (SC Revised Contention 67.A);
Resconse to 52(f):
(i)
The County has not yet made a final determination as to its witnesses on this issue.
(ii)
None at this time on behalf of the County.
O
- E9 -
(
I
{
(iii)
No studies have been completed on behalf of the Coun-ty concerning the referenced statement.
The County is unable to speculate as to studies that may be com-plate,d in the future.
(iv)
The County has not yet made a final determination as to which documents it will rely upon as evidence in its case before the ASLB.
LILCO Request 52(g):
(g)
"LILCO's ' estimated route times' for the evacuation buses to reach the transfer points are also unre-alistically low" (SC Revised Contention 67.C);
C Response to 52(g):
(i)
The County has not yet made a final determination regarding its witnesses on this issus.
(ii)
None at this time on behalf of the County.
(iii)
Studies that have been completed include the analysis of PRC Voorhees which is contained in the Draft Suffolk County Plan, Volume II.
The County cannot speculate as to studies that may be completed in the future.
k
- se -
b
f
\\
9If$
f (iv)
The County has not made a final determination as to
(
which documents it will rely upon as evidence before the ASLE.
LILCO Recuest 52(h):
I (h)
"Early dismissal (of children from schools) will not result in the timely arrival of children at their homes" (SC Revised Contention 69.C);
Response to 52(h):
(i)
The County has not yet made a final determination as to its witnesses on this issue.
(
(ii)
None at this time on behalf of the County.
-(iii)
Studies that have been completed include the role conflict surveys and the SCPD mobilization surveys that have been provided to -CILCo.
Tne-county casinot speculate as to studies that may be completed in the future.
(iv)
The County has not yet made a final determination as to which documents it will rely upon as evidence before the ASLB.
-m-l
fl]b LILCO Request 52(i):
(i)
"An evacuation of schools, using LILCO employees as bus drivers, would take too long and children would not be adequately protected from health threatening radiation doses" (SC Revised Contention 71.B);
Resconse to 52(i):
(i)
The County has not yet made a final determination as to its witnesses on this issue.
(ii)
None at this time on behalf of the County.
(iii)
Studies tnat have been completed include the role conflict surveys, the consequence analysis performed
(
by Fred C. Finlayson, the SCPD mobilization surveys, the Social Data Analysts attitude survey, and the PRC Voorhees evacuation time estimates in volume II of the Draft Suffolk County Radiological Emergency Re-i sponse Plan, all of which have been provided to LILCO.
The County cannot speculate upon studies which may be completed in the future.
(iv)
The County has not yet made a final determination as to which documents it will rely upon as evidence in the ASLB proceeding.
l s
(
-w-b
' 7 863 LILCO Request 52(i):
(j)
"the time necessary, following mobilization, to accomplish the proposed evacuation of special facilities will be too long to provide adequate protection from health-threatening radiation doses (SC Revised Contention 72.A);
Response to 52(i):
(i), (iii),,(iv) See Response to 52(i) above.
(ii) David M.
Harris, M.D.
LILCO Request 52(k):
(
(k)
"the LILCO Plan cannot be implemented in a timely manner and therefore will not provide adequate i
protection to handicapped persons in the EPZ" (SC Re-vised Contention 73).
Response to 52(k):
i (i), (iii), (iv) See Response to 52(i) above.
(ii)
David M.
Harris, M.D.
1 I
O i
-W-k
)
8/8/83 REQUEST 4
53.
Has Suffolk County ever attempted to define a 10-mile EPZ?
If the answer is anything other than a simple negative please describe such efforts.
Please also provide all documents, studies or reports, including but not limited to caps, which Suffolk County has prepared with respect to defining the boundary of a 10-mile EPZ.
t
{ }{1
Response
(,.
The County objects to this request on the ground enac it seeks information etat is not relevant or that is reasonably calcu-lated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.
Without waiving its objection, the County states that all responsive non-privileged information was provided in response to Phase I discovery.
l t
=
l l
l
[
Al
8/8/83 REQUEST
(
58.
liss Suffolk County performed, or had performed, any computer analyses, en which it intends to rely, of evacuation times for an approximately 10-mile EP27 If so, please state who perforced each such analysis and the name of the computer code used.
Please also provide any summary of the results of each such analysis and ccpies of each input listing and output listing.
s f
Response
Yf.Il M No.
(
I
8/8/83 REQUEST 59.
Has Suffolk County performed, or had performed, any computer analyses on which it intends to rely of evacuation times for an approximately 20-mile EPZ?
If so, please state who performed each such analysis and the name of the computer code used.
Please also provide any summary of the results of each such analysis and copies of each input listing output listing.
LSgc.c4h L 9
l3 $
The County has not yet made a final determination of the evi-dence it will introduce before the ASLB.
However, PRC Voorhees, on behalf of Suffolk County, has conducted an analysis for an approximately 20-mile EPZ, part of which may be relied upon in the hearing.
The analysis is contained in the draft Suffolk County Radiological Emergency Response Plan, Volume II.
The analysis was conducted using the model de-j scribed in Volume II of the draft County Plan.
The County is unable to respond to the rest of this request because it does not understand what LILCO means by " input listing output l
listing."
l l
l
(
l l
l
}
f 8/8/83 REQUEST C
60.
As to each Suffolk County Police Depatteent official identified as a uitness on " traffic" in Suffolk County's July 22, 1983 response to LILCO Discovery Requests (Inspectors Roberts and Montieth, Deputy Inspectors McGuire and Turano, and Captain Michaels), please state specifically whether his testitony will concern the issue of evacuation times and, if so, how.
Please also describe and provide any documentary bases for cach of these witnesses' expected testi::.ony.
1
Response
}l $']
i 4
(
The testimony of each of the identified witnesses will, address the issue of evacuation times.
Their testimony concerning evacuation times will be based on their knowledge and under-standing of traffic, highways, and dr'iver behavior gained through their training, experience and expertise as polica officers in Suffolk County.
Since such testimony has not yet been prepared, the County is unable at this-time to identify the documentary information upon which the witnesses will rely.
(.
.