ML20083C060
| ML20083C060 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 12/19/1983 |
| From: | Irwin D HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL-3, NUDOCS 8312220086 | |
| Download: ML20083C060 (32) | |
Text
_ _.
?
%~
LILCO, Drccmber 19, 1983 00CKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
-.. ~
)
LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3
)
(Emergency Planning (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )
Proceeding)
Unit 1)
)
LILCO'S RESPONSE TO SUFFOLK COUNTY MOTION FOR DISCOVERY ON TRAFFIC ISSUES On November 28, 1983, LILCO filed a motion for discovery and responsive testimony with respect to certain portions of Suffolk County's November 18 testimony on traffic issues (LILCO Motion),1/ asserting that LILCO had been unfairly and prejudi-cially surprised by the County's testimony.
On December 8, the County replied, opposing LILCO's Motion but alternatively seeking further discovery of LILCO if the Board granted LILCO's Motion (SC Response).2/
On December 12 the Board granted the discovery portion of LILCO's Motion, and requested LILCO to 1/
LILCO's Motion for Discovery and Response to Polk Testimo-ny, November 28, 1983.
2/
Suffolk County's Response to LILCO's Motion for Discovery and Response to Polk Testimony or, in the Alternative, Suffolk County's Motion for Discovery and Response to Lieberman Testi-mony and to Revision 2 of the LILCO Plan, December 8, 1983.
DT
- i c)c ;A
-\\bg :
8312220086 831219 PDR ADOCK 05000322 G
/
-2
- n respond by December 19 to that portion of the County's motion which sought f.rther discovery of LILCO (Tr. 1289-90).
'The County's motion seeks discovery in three areas:
(1) With respect to two topical reports attached to LILCO's profiled direct testimony:
KLD TM-139 and KLD TM-140.
(KLD TM-139 sets forth a statistical analysis substantiating, but not changing, the earlier trip generation times sat forth in the LILCO Transition Plan.
KLD TM-140 analyzes the effects of varying two aspects of the evacuation plan on evacuation time estimates:
first, the effect of constructing an addition-al road'through the northwest sector of the EPZ along an exist-ing LILCO right-of-way; and second, the effect of noncompliance by evacuating motorists with assigned evacuation routes.)
(2) With respect to changed " routing strategies" and other unspecified aspects of Appendix A to Revision 2 to the Shoreham emergency plan; and (3) With respect to all further revisions to the Shoreham emergency plan beyond Revision 2.
This response will take up eac,h of these three issues in turn.
However, a brief word of background is necessary before going to the specifics of KLD TM-139 and KLD TM-140.
The SC Response does not contain any substantive justification of the County's own discovery policy, which LILCO asserted produced unfair surprise-in direct testimony.
Since the Board has granted LILCO's discovery motion, that issue has been put to e
4.
rest except to the extent that the County has tried to equate LILCO's discovery policy with its own as a justification for further discovery of LILCO.
That equation simply cannot be drawn, and LILCO disagrees profoundly with the County's attempt to draw it.
- Without repeating here the detail already set forth, LILCO's Motion asserted that the County's discovery policy con-sisted of refusing to permit LILCO to inquire even as to the identity of the subject-matter areas being worked on by County witnesses and consultants; the actual content or results of ongoing or completed work, a fortiori, could never even be ap-proached.3/
The County's responsive papers do not deny this fact.
The result, of course, was that LILCO was unable, de-spite diligent and, according to the County, repetitive efforts in discovery, to learn even that the County was having its con-sultants perform a computer analysis of evacuation times, an analysis of the frequency of autos running out of gasoline dur-ing an evacuation, and an analysis of the frequency of automo-bile acciden'ts.
All of these appeared for the first t_ime in the County'n direct testimony and materially amplified and gave 3/
County counsel's response on depositions, when asked how LILCO was to avoid surprise, was to state that LILCO could in-quire into facts underlying the deponent's opinions.
Without being allowed to inquire even as to the identity, much less the content, of those opinions the County considered relevant to issues in this case, the County's proffered remedy is akin to finding, and then arranging, needles in a haystack.
content to various County contentions.
If LILCO had been al-lowed to learn of them, it could have focused its direct testi-i mony even more clearly on issues in controversy at that time rather than having to do so now.
However, since LILCO was not allowed even to learn those areas in which the County was doing work, any meaningful follow-up on ongoing work was impossible.
In stark contrast, LILCO never refused to disclose the i
identity of areas of. consultants' ongoing work.
LILCO turned papers over when they were completed.
The County knew what LILCO was working on and, when it was completed, what the re-sults were.4/
Even as to work actually in progress, the County was allowed to inquire (contrary to the misleading impressions excerpted by the County from deposition transcripts) as to its subject and nature, the parameters being investigated, and the timetables for completion.
With such a discovery policy, the County could have (and frequently did) follow up on the results of discovery as to ongoing work.
The difference between LILCO's and the County's discovery policies is the difference between merely guarding against i
4/
In point of fact, the results of KLD TM-139 merely corrob-orate, and do not change at all, those already presented for 1
loading times in the Emergency Plan.
The results of the com-pleted parts of the right-of-way corridor analysis in KLD TM-
~ 140 were turned over to the County in discovery.
The County also knew that LILCO was doing the " noncompliance run" aspect of KLD TM-140 before Mr. Lieberman's deposition; inquired about it at some length during the deposition; and (unlike numerous other areas) never followed up with a document request for the results of it.
See pp.
7-9, below.
. _. _ _. _. ~.., _ _,.
. ~.,,,
E speculation on_ specific details of ongoing work, and stonewalling any inquiry even as to the identity of subject matter areas.
It is a profound difference.
The County's re-quest for further discovery on KLD TM-139 and KLD TM-140 must be assessed in that light.
I.
KLD TM-139 and KLD TM-140 a.
KLD TM-139: "The County should not be granted further discovery on KLD TM-139.
The County argues that it was not provided meaningful discovery on report KLD TM-139 (SC Response at 6).
This assertion is incorrect, because the County was provided with the major factual information underlying KLD TM-139 during discovery and had the County but applied the types of statistical analyses presented in a report already prepared by the County (see note 5 below), it could have developed KLD TM-139 independently.
As the County correctly notes, the purpose of KLD TM-139 was to. support the validity of the trip generation period used in the modeling runs already presented in Appendix A to the LILCO Transition Plan (see SC Responso at 8); it was not de-signed to change that period, and did not.
In fact, the gene-sis of KLD TM-139 was a concern raised by Suffolk County wit-ness Bruce William'Pigozzi during his deposition that cumulative probability distributions for trip generation were not clearly reflected in the LILCO Transition Plan (see Pigozzi Deposition Tr. at 20).
The probability distributions contained in KLD TM-139 are' based largely on factual information from a survey conducted by the National Center for Telephone Research (NCTR) in October 1982.
As the County concedes, the results of this survey were
~
produced for the County during discovery (SC Response at 8 n. 3-).
The only additional factual information used in produc-ing KLD TM-139 was the time required to transport school chil-dren from their schools to their homes.
This information was obtained by calls to County school districts within the EPZ --
a source of information that is at least as readily available to the County.as to LILCO.
W With these factual data, KLD merely applied universally accepted statistical and probabilistic techniques to produce trip generation distributions.
These techniques should not have surprised Suffolk County since the County's own consul-tant, PRC Voorhees, had used similar, if not identical, tech-niques to produce time distributions for the evacuation of the k
auto-owning population from the Shoreham EPZ $/ Had the County but applied those techniques to the results of the NCTR survey it could have produced KLD TM-139 independently.
Thus, the County was not unfairly surprised by KLD TM-139 and was not deprived of meaningful discovery.
5/
" Preliminary Evacuation Time Estimates for the Shoreham EPZ," PRC Voorhees, pp. 27-31 (November 1982).
The absence of a detailed explanation of the technique used by PRC Voorhees to produce its time distributions makes it impossible to make a detailed comparison of those techniques with those used in KLD TM-139.
b.
KLD TM-140:
The County complains vigorously of sur-prise with respect to that portion of KLD TM-140 dealing with
" noncompliance analysis"6/ --
i.e.,
with the effect on evacua-tion times of assuming that specified percentages of evacuating drivers will take routes other than the ones assigned to them.
That complaint is invalid, for several reasons.
First, the County knew in fact that " noncompliance" runs were being undertaken by LILCO.7/
In Mr. Lieberman's deposi-tion, substantial discussion of those runs took place even though they were still in progress.
The County's papers recite only those portions of the transcript where specific inquiries into details of still ongoing work were objected to.
But the County's papers do not disclose the further discussions.
Those showed (1) that the work was about halfway finished and was in-tended to be completed in time for the litigation, (2) that a 6/
The County's paper suggests, incorrectly (SC Response at 9), that this is the only part of KLD TM-140.
There is another portion relating to development of a road through the northwest portion of the EPZ along an existing transmission right-of-way.
The County received full documentation underlying the completed portions of that analysis during discovery.
7/
Indeed, the County could have realized that
" noncompliance" studies were being undertaken even before Mr.
Lieberman's deposition.
One of the documents turned over by LILCO on September 16, 1983 in response to the County's docu-ment production request of August 3 (SC Response at 7) is_a letter from Mr. Lieberman dated September 22, 1982 (Attachment 1 hereto).
That letter discusses, at pages 1-2, the analogous concept of " evacuation route diversion."
Thus, the suggestion that the County first learned of these analyses at Mr.
Lieberman's September 20-21 deposition is probably incorrect.
._m__
__-_____-___m_
8-f' range of variables was being modeled, and (3) that the analyses related to entire routes (Lieberman Deposition Tr. 87-88).
They also showed the philosophy and method of modeling route deviation (Tr. 126-29), (4) expected interplays among modeling variables in a. noncompliance scenario (Tr. 130-35), and (5) the fact that noncompliance and "noncontrol" -- i.e.,
the absence of traffic guides and trailblazer signs -- were both being mod-eled (Tr. 135).
The transcript pages are attached for the Board's convenience.
Thus, the fact is that Suffolk County was not surprised:
it knew everything it was possible to know prior to the work's actually being finished, which did not occur, in fact, until shortly before its November 16, 1983 cover date.8/
Second, Suffolk County often followed up on discovery after depositions with requests for documents or information disclosed for the first time in deposition.
LILCO always hon-ored such requests.
But the County never followed up with re-spect to the " noncompliance" analyses that became a part of_KLD TM-140.9/
8/
The County suggests'(SC Response at 6-10) that LILCO should have voluntarily supplemented its discovery answers and sent KLD TM-140.to it immediately upon completion.
Even if it had been completed significantly before the testimony filing date, the suggestion comes with ill' grace from the party which had coldly refused LILCO's November 2 letter requesting any such documents from the County and offering a reciprocal ex-change.
9/
The County did, in fact, request those analyses which became the right-of-way route portion of KLD TM-140; LILCO pro-vided them.
(See Lieberman. Deposition Tr. 236 (attached)).
-~
T a
apw e
e--
-ww+-we-+--il-9
-*-=re,
- Pr-ea-w+.y+T&
-yw ve--y-+',-gw-e
-1
=-; air p-7=er
- v9""'1nr f-F M FF9't-'"M-c" T-N-"?-
- +=t'--F*"MPT*
Third, KLD TM-140 is a well documented, self-explanatory work which simply presents the assumptions, variables and re-sults of several computer runs using KLD's models.
One does not need.reamc of ancillary materials in order to understand both itr resulto and its methods.
In any event, the County has long since cbtained printouts for numerous runs which are lit-tle different from those appearing in KLO TM-140.
It has also conducted considerable discovery on the models, which have not changed.
In short, there is nothing new left to disgorge to the County except the actual printouts for these noncompliance runs, and these are of only cumulative value.
Thus even if discovery were justifiable in the abstract, there is literally little if anything left for the County to discover.
Fourth, the County did not even ask for discovery on KLD TM-140 in a timely way, i.e.,
in the general motion filing of November 28, but rather has done so only by way of response to LILCO's November 28 motion.
Even hers, again by contrast with LILCO, the County has not particularized either its basis for or its expected results of discovery with respect to KLD TM-140.
See SC Response at 13'-14, which gets no more specific than to assert that KLD TM-139 and 140 " raised a number of questions which the County would like to pose.to LILCO and Mr.
Lieberman."
There is no showing what the nature of these ques-tions would be, much less why they are necessary on discovery rather than cross-examination in the hearing.
j; The County has not shown a basis for further discovery on KLD TM-140.
Its request should be denied.
II.
Revision _2 to the LILCO Transition Plan Suffolk County has asserted a need for further discovery with respect to changes in " routing strategy" contained in Re-vision 2 to the LILCO Transition Plan.
As with its requests for discovery on KLD TM-139 and TM-140, Suffolk County has failed to request discovery in either a timely or a specific manner.
The County received Revision 2 on November 8.
More than a month passed before the County asserted a need for dis-covery on Revision 2.
This need, when finally asserted, was premised on nothing more specific than "a number of significant changes, particularly in LILCO's routing strategies" assertedly made in Revision 2 (SC Response at 14).
Suffolk County has made no attempt to link its concerns about Revision 2 to par-ticular issues raised by Contention 65.
Indeed, if LILCO's pending motion to strike the testimony of Inspector Roberts, et al.10/ is granted, the issue of routing strategies, even if sufficiently detailed, would no longer be litigated under Con-tention 65.
10/
LILCO's Motion to Strike Portions of the Direct Testimony of Inspector Richard H. Roberts, et. al. on Contention 65 and 23.H., November 28, 1983.
_)
Thus, the County has not shown a basis for discovery on Revision 2 of the LILCO Transition Plan.
III.
Future Revisions to the LILCO Transition Plan Finally, Suffolk County asserts a blanket need for further discovery on all.!utu_e revisions to the LILCO Transition Plan.
This request is simply premature.
Without the existence of these revisions their relationship to any issue being litigated can only be speculation.
They certainly do not create an auto-matic right of discovery.
As counsel for LILCO noted at the Conference of Counsel on December 1, 1983, a Revision 3 to the LILCO Transition Plan is now being finalized.
This revision will contain changes that arguably relate to Contention 65.
In large measure, these changes are being made to be responsive to comments contained in the testimony of Inspector Roberts, et al.
LILCO has under-taken to make these changes at this point to narrow the focus of litigation on Contention 65 to the significant issues and not to divert that focus to minor documentation errors and other peripheral matters.11/
11/
Indeed, the types of changes that will appear in Revision 3 are of the type that would normally be discovered and cor-rected during the review of an emergency plan by state and local governments and the utility seeking a license.
Since these levels of review have not been available in this procecd-ing, LILCO has tried to take this opportunity to improve the Plan and focus the litigation on areas of true disagreement.
-12 LILCO believes that the changes in Revision 3 that bear on Contention 65 are not substantive and therefore do not warrant discovery.
However, LILCO appreciates that the County may not agree with this characterization of the changes.
Thus, LILCO would be willing to make Edward Lieberm'an available for one day of deposition as soon as possible after the filing of Revision 3,
contingent on the County's filing a timely, specific notice of deposition and on its compliance with the Board's December 12 bench order requiring it to grant discovery to LILCO on Mr.
Polk's testimony.
LILCO believes that this offer should allay any reasonable County concerns about the significance of changes in Revision 3 and should facilitate the litigation on Contention 65.
Respectfully submitted, LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY By G
Donald P.
Irwin Lee B.
Zeugin Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O.
Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED:
December 19, 1983
LILCO, Dscambar 19, 1983 I
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I
In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 I, Donald P.
Irwin, hereby certify that copies of LILCO'S RESPONSE TO SUFFOLK COUNTY MOTION FOR DISCOVERY ON TRAFFIC ISSUES have been served this date upon all of the fol-lowing by first-class mail, postage prepaid, or (as indi'cated by one-asterisk) by hand, or (as indicated by two asterisks) by Federal Express.
James A.
Laurenson,*
Secretary of the Commission Chairman U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Licensing Commission Board Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing East-West. Tower, Rm. 402A Appeal Board Panel 4350 East-West Hwy.
U. S.. Nuclear Regulatory Bethesda, MD 20814 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Jerry R. Kline*
Atomic Safety and Licensing At3mic Safety and Licensing Board Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission East, West Tower, Rm. 427 Washington, D.C.
20555 4350 East-West Hwy.
Bethesda, MD 20814 3ernard M. Bordenick, Esq.*
David A. Repka, Esq.
Mr. Frederick J.
Shon*
Edwin J.
Reis, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 7735 Old Georgetown Road Ccmmission (to mailroom)
East-West Tower, Rm. 430 Bethesda, MD 20814
-4350 East-West Hwy.
Bethesda, MD 20814
Elotner L. Frucci,-Esq.*
Stswert M. Ginos, Esq.**
Attorney Regional Counsel Atomic Safety and Licensing Federal Emergency Management Board Panel Agency U.
S. Nuclear Regulatory 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 Commission New York, New York 10278 East-West Tower, North Tower 4350 East-West Highway Stephen B. Latham, Esq.**
Bethesda, MD 20814 Twomey, Latham & Shea 33 West Second Street David J. Gilmartin, Esq.
P.O. Box 398 Attn:
Patricia A. Demptey, Esq. Riverhead, New York 11901 County Attorney Suffolk County Department Ralph Shapiro, Esq.**
of Law Cammer & Shapiro, P.C.
Veterans Memorial Highway 9 East 40th Street Hauppauge, New York 11787 New York, New York 10016 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.*
James Dougherty, Esq.*
Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq.
3045 Porter Street Christopher McMurray, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20008 Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill Christopher & Phillips Howard L. Blau 8th Floor 217 Newbridge Road 1900 M' Street, N.W.
Hicksville, New-York 11801 Washington, D.C.
20036 Feinberg, Esq.
Jonathan D.
Mr. Marc W. Goldsmith New York State
. Energy Research Group Department of Public Service 4001 Totten Pond Road Three Empire State Plaza Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Albany, New York 12223 MHB Technical Associates-Spence W. Perry, Esq.**
1723 Hamilto'n Avenue Associate General Counsel Suite K Federal Emergency Management San Jose, California 95125 Agency 500 C Street, S.W.
Mr. Jay Dunkleberger Room 840 New York State Energy Office Washington, D.C.
20472
-Agency Building 2 Empire State Plaza Ms. Nora Bredes Albany, New York 12223 Executive Coordinator Shoreham opponents' Coalition 1951 East Main Street Smithtown, Now York 11787 f
Donald P.
Irwin
'Hunton & Williams 707 East Main Street P.O. Box 1535 Richmond, Virginia 23212
. DATED:
December 19, 1983
'U'
i' ATTACHMENT 1
,m KLD ' ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED f.
300 Broadway Hurenglon Stahon, NY 11746
?
S 16) 549 9003 4
, September 22, 1982
~
Dr. Mark Blauer f
l LILCO 100 E. Old Country Road Hicksville, New York 118,01
Dear Mark:
The. purpose of this letter is to document three types of studies which should provide,useful informatio,n.in con-nection with the SNPS Emergency Evacuation Plans s
1_.
Determine the impact on evacuation time estimates, when'a portion of the evacuating population leaves their respective, assigned evacuation routes and proceed to their destina-tions.on alternate paths; 2.
Determine the effect on evacuation time estimate's of transierit " incidents" in the form of', disabled cars along the evacuation route which block a lane of. traffic for a period'of times r
3'.
' Determine the effect on evacuation time es'timates of "counterflow" traffic which enters the EPZ after ".mobilizatilon time" in order to collect-family members for subsequent evacuation.
We wi11 discuss each'of these studies in turn:
1.
Evacuahion Route Diversi'on Many vehicles which divert from assigned routes will seek low-volume streets which are not represented on our evacuation network.
For example, some southbound traffic on Ridge Road,
might divert to travel southbound on (the parallel) Raynor Road, which is not represented on the evacuation network.
LC0427 5
4 SC DOCUMENT REQUEST 3 x -.
Dr. Mark Dianar SGptcmbar 22, 1982 Clearly, we cannot represent all such alternate paths, nor can we accurately predict which alternate paths will be selectpg:byidivertingvehicles.
We therefore propose to retai w the curt.ent network and to represent diverting vehicles by suitab1f modifying turning percentages along each route.
These diverting vehicles'will continue to move toward their destination nodes on,the periphery of the EPZ, but along different paths.
The extent of such diversion will have to be expressed parametrically.
We suggest 3 sensitivity runs:
(a) 10 percent diversion; (b) 20 percent diversion; (c) 30 percent diversion.
That is, we will divert traffic along each evacuation route to the total extent of 10, 20 or 30 percent.
We will select several
" diversion points" along each route and assign a portion of the total diversion at each point, such that the total extent of the diversion for the route is 10, 20 or 30 percent.
The simulation model would then be executed to estimate travel M=es for. each assigned diversion extent.
2.
Transient Incidents A capacity-reducing incident is a random event in time, location and extent.
To provide a' realistic basis for such a study, we will perform a literature search to obtain data which relates the number and extent of lane blockages, as a function of vehicle-miles of travel.
(such data exists, at least for freeways.)
Since we know the vehicle-miles of travel during
' evacuation, we can.thereby estimate the expected number of incidents which could occur.
We can then "specify" incidents in time and.by location, accordingly.
The number of such studies which could be perfdrmed is, of course, unbounded ~.
I suggest we limit the number of studies to just,2, varying the locations at which the incidents occur for the worst case of simultaneou's evacuation.
For each such' incident, we will estimate the associated decrease in capacity, in accord with data available in the literature.
The durations of the incidents will also be taken from data avail-able in the literature.
For each study we will execute the simulation model to estimate evacuation times.
3.
Return Trips This study is fairly extensive, requiring the superposition of traffic entering the EPZ and destined for the centroids, with e
r
. -, -, _. - - -,., - -. - -- -. - ~. _
,r-
-w,..--,
,_,r.,-
.,,,,,.-_,-.,m,m.
_-,..--,,,,_r.-,--.,Y,m_,..,-,--,,.m
z.*
s,
. traffic leaving the centroids to evacuate from the EPZ, during the simulation analysis.
To perform this study, we will need additional data, viz. the work-to-home, travel patterns within the EPZ, by. mode.
Planning agencies generally acquire such data pagi' dicially.
We will determine the availability of thisM-*
o
{f we determine that suffolk County has this data, we data.
can e
either reqsest it directly, or obtain it through'the libraq ' system.
e If another agency has this data (e.g. the now-defunct Tri-State Planning Agency or the State DOT), we will request it, directly.
Depending on the format of this data, we will process it so as to develop inputs to the Traffic Assignment model.
This model will provide us with the work-to-home traffic patterns within the EPZ.
This data will then be used to prepare inputs to the simulation model.
It will not be necessary to change the network since we already permit travel in both directions along all of the major
~
(It will be necessary to add Entry Links at the periph-routes.
ery of the EPZ which will be used to generate the work-to-home trips.)
Likewise, we do not plan to change the existing set of centroids.
We suggest a total of 4 runs for this study--the entire EPZ and each of the 3 quadrants.
For each run, we will conservatively assume that all work-to-home trips take place.
Estimated Costs and Schedule Cost Time (weeks)_
Study 1
5 2
4 11 3
- Assumes that the needed data is available G
9 E
e 4
If you require additional detail, please contact the undersigned.
^m -
'4 {,,,
^
Yours truly, 6
i.
62 di~
Edward.Lieberman, P.E.
Vice President ELacy e
e e
e e
e e
9 M
e e
e O
O 9
e 9
e 9
e 4
9 e
O 4
87 t
these, cn the basis cf privilege and en the base cf its 2 calling for speculation, because work is ongoing.
3*
C Is there a schedule for completion of the 4 work?
5
-A Ve don't have a schedule as such.
We are 6 pro cee ding as rapidly as we can.
j 7
As I indicated, --
8 Q
Do you have a gcal in your own sind as to 9 when y cu uculd like to finish this scrk?
10 A
As soon as possible.
I as getting a little 11 tired, ycu know.
12 BR. IEWIN:
He has been told it would to 13 useful to have in time for litigation.
14 EB. McHUBBAY:
Bakes sense.
15 C
Without going into the substance of your,
C 16 study, about how far along are you?
17 Can you give us a percentage as to how far 18 along you are?
19 A
It is not easy, but I veuld say we are 20 certainly half way.
21 C
And the purpose of the study is to try to 22 determine what or hev different percentages of compliance ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASNINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 864-2348
C.
E8 1 vill affect the evacuation times?
2 A
Culte right.
3' C
Are you studying a range cf percentages of 4 com pliance ?
5 A
Yes.
6 C
Is the analysis that you are doing only in 7 terms of compliance with destination or the route, entire 8 rcute?
9 et En tire route a s well as destination.
10 C
Mr. lieberman, I will show you what I b eli e ve 11 are histegrams that have been generated by your firm, for 12 the evacuation time studies that you have done for 13 Sho reh a m.
14 A
let me correct you, these are histograms 15 generated by the Suffolk County Planning Department.
16-C They are?
v 17 A
Yes.
18 ER. IRWIN:
So the record is clear, this is a 19 dccument entitled, " Histograms, Number of Yehicles 20 Generated at Origin Node," with a legend, "Shoreham," of 21 about SC pages.
22 C
Have you generated eny similar histograms cf ALDERSoN REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRONA AVE, S.W. WASH 4NGToN. D.C. 20024 (202) 564-2345
PF 89 1 the source nodes?
l 2
A' For the sensitivity study, we prc-rated it, 3 stretching from two-to-three-hours.
We kept the same 4 pattern but pro -ra t ed.
i 5
i Other than that, the other changes had to do 6 with the partial evacuation scenarios.
Naturally, what we j
7 did there, of ccurse, was having defined the area at risk, 1
8 ve retained the histegrams shown here and in the appendix, 9 and for all cther source nodes, we specified a level of 10 flow which we felt vculd reasonable represent voluntary 11 evacca tion f ron there.
12 So, if we are dcing cne quadrant, we use 13 these histograms; everywhere else, apply flow ra tes at a 14 lesser level.
15 C
I am icst, I th' ink.
Probably because it is 16 time f or lunch, 17 A
Could be.
7 l
18 Q
1et me ask you this:
Which sensitivity is analysis are you talking about, first of all?
20 A
Going back inte Arsendix A, you vill find 21.there is a whole schedule of cases there.
Some cases d eal 22 with just the two-mile radius, within one quadrant cr the ALDEA$oN REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINLA AVE S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (M 5541346
126
(
1 these hast routes'in accord with the objectives stated 2 earlier and transmit this information to each individual 3 user.
4 C
- As ycu said earlier,.thcuch, sese cf 5 those users may not perceive that the route you have 6 selected is, in fact, the one that will protect him?
7 A
That is quite possible.
.8 Q
I believe you said earlier that you were 9 dcing a sensitivity anairsis that sculd alsc cover this to issue?
11 A
Tes.
12 C
I von't get inte any cf the results cf
(
13 that analysis.
14 How is it that one, in a sensitivity 15 analysis, would study the rcuta deviation?
16 A
Well, that is an area of some 17 uncertainty.
It is very straightforward, once ycu have 18 designed the route structure, to identify the paths tha t 19 you would like people to take.
It is quite another 20 thing, though, to accest that some propertien cf the 21 traffic stream vill deviate from that, but you don 't 22 know where they are going te deviate te and tc what
~
ALDERSON REPORTING ColdPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHmGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
12 ")
1 exten t.
2 So that is an area of uncertainty.
Cne 3' can stipulate the percent of deviatica, and that is ust 4 a number.
5 Civen that they don't take the path ren 6 vant them to, what path will they take?
7 The only way you can do that, within the a cen tex t cf the sensitivity study and consistent with 9 what you are trying to achieve, is to use scue 10 reasonableness criteria.
That is, again, by doing
~
11 scuething that I described earlier, taking a. lock at th e 12 map and then identifying those destination nodes which 13 are reasonable alternatives to the one which is assigned.
14 Using this criteria and the number that 15 you selected for non-ccapliance, as a means for 16 modifying your trip table, ycu can cese up with 17 different route patterns.
You then [ao through the 18 computational precedure tc see what the consequences are.
19 To my knowledge, there is no formula for 20 doing this.
It is a trial and error thing.
21 What we are trying tc find out, given 22 that you do this, what is the consequence in teras of 4
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON. D.c. 20024 (202) 554 2345
k/g>k,$
/
IMAGE EVALUATION Q,
g//,,y"+,
/&
+
gy,,,
+,,
m em.
INUls
!j2 IDOM i,i I !.8 l==
1.25 1.4 1.6 150mm 4
6"
- e >%
++4 4.?O?,8,,
l?is,++
a y
o r
$>hh/
0
<;k > %
//// /
g$h, IMAGE EVALUATlON 4
j//
TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 lf2 Bu E 9 LE
[5 EE 1,l 18_
l'J._._.!I.25 1.4 1.6 l
4 150mm 6"
?
I" Q
'>,/
a C'.
128 1
travel time?
2 C.
The aggregate or the individual?
3 A
Prim ei,ly the aggregate.
4 Q
If routes are proscribed, as they are in 5 rour acdel, why not use a system optimizaticn apprcach 6 in the first place?
7 A
Because then you would be introducing 8 bias of one node relative to another.
9 Q
Would you elaborate?
10 A
Yes.
What it means is that ycu are
' penalizing one route or some routes, relative to ancther 11 12 rou te.
13 Cn that basis, thenJ you get involved 14 with some equity conditions.
15 C
Again, what is an explanation for that, 16 equity?
t 17 A
Since you are discriminating against som e l
18 people, it seems to se there is a f airness doctrine tha t l
19 is being violated.
20 Q
In a sacse of a political or social 21 decisicn? -
l 22 A
-Tes.
s l
L ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 564
,_.___...__._._____._..,.___________..___.______.___,__.---__,____-__...._-2348... - - _..
129 1
Q That it is unfair to make some people 2 ' trsiel icnge r.
3 A
Absolutely.
4 C
How is that different, though, frca 5 annipulating or assigning destination nodes?
6 Is that fair to send somebody to a 7 destination node they might not want tc gc tc?
8 A
That is a presumption, that they dcn't 9 vant to go to it.
Keep in mind we are not sending to people te specific 1ccaticas, their ultimate 11 destin ations.
We are removing people from an area at 12 risk.
13 C
In order to really test the sensicivity-14 of the trip assignment model, do you have to test 15 different percentages cf deviation?
16 A
Yes.
17 Q
Which percen tages are 'you testing ?
18 NB. IRVIN:
We are getting c1cse tc a 19 point where I will instruct this witness not to answer.
20 He are really getting into the outs cf the verk in 21 progress.,,
22 MR. McMURRAY :
I am not trying to intrude ALDEMON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE,5.W, WASNtNGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
130 i
1 inte the results.
2 BR. IBWIN:
The results are interrelated 3 to the scenarios posed.
4 HR. McMURRAY :
Are you instructing the 5 witnes s ?
6 NR. IRWIN:
Yes, with respect to this 7 particular question.
8 Q
Say that 25 percent of the people who are 9 assigned a particular Icute deviate feca that route.
to What is your estimate of what the impact would be on 11 travel time?
12 A
I have ne idea.
13 C
If you had a continuun, one to ten, where l
14 one was not significant at all ud ten was very 15 significant, can you or could you estimate where it 16 would be in that continuun?
17 A
Bell, let me answer ycur question this 18 var:
If we assume non-compliance, then it is reasonable 1g to assume there is acn-compliance throughout the 20 system.
That is to say that ne one class of people is l
21 less compliant than another.
22
-Given that, it Leans that if source acde ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W, WASHINGTON O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
131
(
\\
1 one is assigned to destinatica node A, and actually som e 2 percentage of it goes not only to A but to B, one can 3' expect that another scurce nede that is assigned whcily 4 to B, some percentage vill go to A.
5 There vill he a trade-off among the 6 various origin nodes reflecting their ncn-compliance.
7 Theref ore, it became a very complex matter.
We cannet 8 predict the outecue cf such non-compliance throughcut 9 the system, what it would be, when there is a trade-cff 10 f rcs one to another.
11 That is why I would not care to speculate.
12 Q
After you finish ycur analysis, you will
{
13 probably be acre villing to speculate, correct?
14 A'
I wouldn't have to speculate then.
15 C
For such a sensitivity analysis, vculd 16 you, in crder really to test the sensitivity, deviation,
17 would you have to lock at hev traffic flows might 18 conflict as peccle deviated cff their prescribed rcu tes ?
Ig A-Well, the model would do that.
20 C
The acdel vould de that?
21 A.
Yes.
22 0
For instance, if people violated some of
(_
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W., WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345
_a
.e 132
(
ycur centinecus fiev treatments, as I think ycu have 1
2 them in Appendix A, by violating, there, I mean where
- 3.they are supscsed tc turn right, ther turn left er oc 4 straight.
Would that he accounted for in the model?
5 A
Depends on--there are a lot of dimensions 6 to this thing.
Depends on the kind cf contrcl scenario 7 you wish to accept.
8 If you accept the control scenaric 9 outlined in the plan, that these control tactics are 10 being implemented as they shculd he, even within the 11 centext cf such deviaticns, these vculd not he viciated.
12 If you accept a premise that you have an 13 uncentrclied evacuation for whatever reason, then such 14 violation would be academic, since there is no contrcl 15 tactic.
There would be nothing to violate.
People 16 would gc the way they checse.
17 C
When you say implemented as they shculd 18 be, what do you mean?
19 A
If the contrcl tactics as specified in 20 the plan are, it; fact, carried out bT personnel assigned 23 fer that purpose.
22 C
,What you are caring, if there are people e
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024 (202) 564 2345
1 directing traffic, that is one assumption.
2 A
Yes.
3' Q.
If there are no people out there, that is 4 another assumption?
5 A
Totally diff eren t envirennent.
6 Q
And that, depending on which assumpticn 7 ycu use--lone vill have a different lapact en evacua tion 8 times than the other?
9 A
Yes.
10 C
Is it ycur opinica that a sensitivity 11 analysis that was going to look into the potential 12 deviaticn in routes should look into both assusptiens?
13 A
Yes.
14 0'
What happens when you use the assumption 15 that there vill be nchedy out there directing traffic?
16 Do you just scrt of let the traffic icose 17 and go where it will?
Do ycu or would you assume that 18 some people would follow an established route?
l 19 A
Well, under those conditions, you 'still 20 play the compliance game. ~ Essentially, with 100 percent
(
21 com plia nce., people would follow the routes, even withou t 22 peo ple there.,
ALDERSON REPORTING COldPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE., S.W. WASNINGToN. O.C. 20024 (202) 564-2345
C, 134 1
They say not--since those control tactics 2
are not present, and since the signals are functioning 3 as. _they normally are, there vill be a different response 4 by. th e system.
There vill he different kinds of delays 5 inv olv ed.
6 With changing cf the compliance levels, 7 you will have different routing and this new pattern of 8 routin g vill respond to the existing control tactics in 9 the same way and ccse up with, probably, different 10 res ult s.
11 C
Sounds like there are a lot of different 12 dimensions to this issue.
13 A
Ch, boy, are there ever.
14 C
Is that an issue ycu find pretty l
15 complicated, more complicated than just, for ins tance, 16 run nin g your model?
17 A
Well, keep in mind the acdel is a tecl.
18 We don't think of running the model as solving our 19 p ro ble m s.
l 20 Creating it er identifying the problems l
21 to te studied; develeping the data that is necessary to 22 study it appropriate, and analyzing the results cf the ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE,3.W. WASNINGToN, D.C. ;10024 (2ll@ 554-2345
135 1
model consume much more time and energy than running the 2 medel, which is a mechanistic thing.
3' C
Mr. Lieberman, going back to the user 4 assign ment approach, I believe one way in which ycu said 5 that human behavior--there is an assumption alcut human 6 behavior, that under that approach each driver is 7 assumed to know his minimizing route?
8 A
Ios.
9 Q
Are any other assumptions made about 10 human behavicr when you use tha t approach ?
11 A
One assumption that is indigenous to all 12 assignment models is that time is not an element.
In 13 other verds, you pick a fixed time.
This is not a 14 dynamic a'nalysis.
15 There are advanced formulations where people have applied traffic assignment models and bring 16 17 in the temporal dimension as well.
They divide time 18 inte perieds which they call escchs, e p-c-c-h-s.
19 These are ad vanced formula tions that are 20 acre or less in the research stage.
As commonly used, 21 traffic assignment is a quasi-steady analysis.
That 22 neans that ycu, pick an interval of time and you are l
/
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
400 VIRGNA AVE., S.W. WASHINGTON O.C. 20024 (202) 554-2346
1
~
236 1
C Has anything been put into writing reflecting 2 what your job is supposed to be in reviewing the 3 densibility of paying the right of way?
4 A
That might be within the centext of these 5 menos.
6 Q
Do you recall how many neses there are?
7 A
I don't.
I think there migh t be twe er three.
8 ER. EcHURRAY:
We would like to request at g this time, Mr. Irvin, the menos that Mr. lieberman has 10 just discussed.
I don't believe they were provided in our 11
-- in the material sent to us pursuant to our last 12 discov ery request.
13 ER. IRWIN:
Put t'his in writing.
We vill 14 examin e that for privilege.
15 I assume you will give us, af ter the clesing 16 of the deposition, before or af ter you receive the 17 minutes, a list cf dccuments ycu want.
18 MB. EcEURRAY:
Yes.
As I said yesterday, is tha t is my practice.
20 C
Shat is the state of this right-of-way at 21 this time, sir?
Is that voeds?
Is that residential?
1 22 A
Ch, right-cf-way, as defined, dcasn 't permit l
l l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. NfC.
l 400 VIRGINIA AVE, S.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20024 (202) 554-2345 1
-