ML20091J045

Surrebuttal Testimony of Eb Lieberman on Phase II Emergency Planning Contention 67.Certificate of Svc Encl. Related Correspondence

ML20091J045
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	06/04/1984
From:	Lieberman E KLD ASSOCIATES, INC., LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20091J024	List: ML20091J022 ML20091J045
References
NUDOCS 8406050371
Download: ML20091J045 (11)

Text

'.

M

• BElgyo CWEgpoMDO LILCO, Junn 4, 1984 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 00g,ppy NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

'84 JUH -5 A10 :46  ;

Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Eoard, fr": CF SFC"

In the Matter of C (('.l i,'c ,

)

)

LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ) Docket No. 50-322-OL-3

) (Emergency Planning Proceeding) l (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, )

Unit 1) )

SURREBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF EDWARD B. LIEBERMAN ON BEHALF OF LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY l ON PHASE II EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION 67 j 1. Q. Please state your name and business address.

l A. My name is Edward B. Lieberman. My business address is l

KLD Associates, Incorporated, 300 Broadway, Huntington Station, New York, 11746.

! 2. Q. Could you briefly summarize"the purpose of this surre-l buttal testimony?

A. Yes. In his surrebuttal testimony, Professor Herr asserted that the distribution of travel times for com-muters within the EPZ was "very much higher if one

! exanined 1980 census data than if one used the NCTR results." Tr. 8486. This was the first time'that Pro-fessor Herr had questioned the travel time distribution obtained from NCTR survey. A closer examination of the travel time dintribution obtained by Professor Herr from the 1980 census datalf reveals that it is not directly 1/ The distribution is presented in Suffolk County Exhibit EP-42, Table ANR-1, column 2. SC Ex. EP-42, ff. Tr. 8522.

Oh L

4-l comparable to the distribution of travel times from the NCTR survey which is currently in the record.2/

The purpose of this testimony is to demonstrate i that had Professor-Herr used the census data and NCTR survey results to produce comparable data sets, he would have found that differences between the sets are not r

statistically significant. Thus, rather than changing l

the number of transit-dependent persons, the use of 1980 census data as a source of commuter travel times would only have confirmed the analyses presented in LILCO's direct and rebuttal testimony on Contention 67.

3. Q. Why isn't the distribution of travel times for commuters obtained by Professor Herr from the 1980 census data l comparable to the distribution from the NCTR survey?

A. The distributions that are currently in the record are.

different in three respects:

1) the distributions present data for dif-

! ferent population groups. The census data reported by Professor Herr are for Suffolk County, while the NCTR survey results are specific to the population within the Shoreham EPZ; l

2) the' census data used by Professor Herr contain' travel time information for all workers not working at home. This in-formation includes travel times for workers using any of four commuting means: (1) automobile or truck,

- 2/.- See Attachment 9,. Table 8 to the. Joint Attachments for the Testimony of Matthew C. Cordaro, John A. Weismantle and Edward B. Lieberman on Behalf of Long Island Lighting Company on Phase II Emergency Planning Contentions 65 and 23.C., D., and H.

n .

O (2) public transportation, (3) bicycle or walking, and (4) motorcycle or other means. The NCTR results are based only on the first of these four categories, namely, workers who commute to work by car; and

3) the distributions have been reported in terms of different time intervals.

Of thesr three differences, the last is the most signif-icant. A comparison of the time intervals used to report the census and NCTR data indicates that multiples of 5 minutes form the lower bounds of the census inter-vals while they form the upper bounds of the NCTR inter-vals.

Time Intervals Reported Census data (min.) NCTR results (min.)

0-4 5 or less 5-9 6-10 10-14 11-15 15-19 16-20 20-29 21-25 30-44 26-30 45-59 31-45 60 plus 46-60 61-90 greater than 90 The practical effect of this difference in the reporting of time intervals is to create the illusion of a higher distribution of travel times for the census data than for the corresponding NCTR data. To better illustrate this point one needs to examine Attachment 1 to this testimony, which is a printout of 1980 census data for

UT

.. . I t

n~ l

[

l. travel times of workers'for the Town of Brookhaven pre-sented on a minute-by-minute basis.3/ These data indi-

! cate that people tend to answer questions regarding their travel times by responding with times that are some multiple of five minutes. Thus, it is the travel times expressed as multiples of five minutes that are the critical data points in comparing time intervals.

4. Q. How do these three differences affect the comparison of the two travel time distributions?

A. I will address each of the differences in turn. First, Professor Herr has presented census data for trav'el times for all workers in Suffolk County. These data are also available on township and census tract-by-census l tract bases. We have obtained those data for the Town of Brookhaven and for the Shoreham EPZ, using the same process of summing census tract data that was used in LILCO Exhibit EP-32.

l l

l l 3/ While it would'be preferable to have this information on a Shoreham EPZ-specific basis, the census tapes at this. level of'

' detail'are available only on a town basis and not on a census tract-by-census tract basis. Therefore, the information for the Town of Brookhaven was' chosen as~the best approximation for EPZ-specific data.

l-

Travel Time Distributions from 1980 Census Time Suffolk Town of Shoreham Interval (min.) County (%1 Brookhaven (%) EPZ (%1_

0-4 2.1 2.0 2.7 4-9 9.8 9.3 9.4 10-14 13.5 13.0 12.3 15-19 13.4 13.3 13.2 20-29 17.4 17.4 18.8 30-44 17.7 18.0 17.4 45-59 7.7 8.2 7.9 60 plus 18.4 18.8 18.3 A review of these data shows that while there are some variations among the distributions for Suffolk County, the Town of Brookhaven and the Shoreham EPZ, these veri-ations are not significant and the three distributions are basically identical.

Second, the census distribution for Suffolk County presented by Professor Herr as well as those for the Town of Brookhaven and the Shoreham EPZ presented above contain travel time distributions for all workers and are not directly comparable to the NCTR distribution which describes just those commuting by automobile.

Since the group of transit-dependent individuals that are at issue are those belonging to automobile-owning households where the automobile will not be available should an evacuation be ordered, it follows that the NCTR data base is the more proper one. Comparable information can be obtained from the census data if one goes back to the detailed census tapes which include the

original individual responses. Attachment 1 contains the detailed census information fcr the Town of Brookhaven.4/ A comparison of travel time distributions for all workers and for those workers who travel to work by car indicates a-significant difference in the per-centage of commuters traveling 60 minutes or more.

Travel Time Distributions from 1980 Census for the Town of Brookhaven Time Workers Traveling By Interval (min.) All Workers (%) Car, Truck, or Van (%)

0-4 2.0 1.4 5-9 9.3 9.1 10-14 13.0 13.3 15-19 13.3 13.7 20-29 17.4 18.4 30-44 18.0 19.1 45-59 8.2 8.7 l 60 plus 18.8 16.3 l

This difference is due to the fact that over 55% of the workers traveling more than 90 minutes do so by means of public transportation.5/

Third, if one uses the same intervals to report the census data and NCTR results the comparability of the two data set becomes obvious. This comparison can be made either by translating the NCTR data into the same

~

l 4/ As noted 1n footnote 3 above, it would have been' preferable to present this information for the Shoreham EPZ.

5/ It is interesting to note that only 4.5% of the workers in the Town of Brookhaven travel to their jobs by means of public transportation, I

L L

time intervals as the census data or vice versa. To present a comprehensive comparison of the data, we have done both, using census data for the Town of Brookhaven since that is the only census data base we have that is detailed enough to permit this permutation. (Remember that the NCTR data are for the SPZ, which lies predomi-nantly in the eastern part of Brookhaven township, with abcut 10% of the EPZ population in Riverhead township).

Comparison of Travel Time Distributions Using Census Data Time Intervals Time Interval Census Data NCTR Results (min.) (%) (%)

0-4 1.4 3.4 5-9 9.1 8.7 10-14 13.3 10.6 15-19 13.7 12.5 20-29 18.4 21.9 30-44 19.1 20.8 45-59 8.7 7.1 60 plus 16.3 15.1 Comparison of Travel Time Distributions Using NCTR Data Time Intervals Time Interval Census Data NCTR Results-(min.) (%) (%)

0 9.0 10.1 6-10 13.8 11.8 ,

11-15 14.2 12.9 16-20 13.5 15.4

'21-25 5.2 6.9 26-30 12.0 13.5 31-45 .13.7 13.2 46-60 9.7 9.2 61-90 6.5 4.6 greater than 90 2.3 2.4 4

s a - - -

. . l l

These two tables clearly demonstrate that the data from the 1980 census and from the NCTR survey are closely comparable and that Professor Herr's assertion that the census data reveal "very much higher" travel times is simply incorrect. To provide further substantiation for this conclusion, we performed a Kolmogorov-Smirnov sta-tistical test on these data. This test revealed that at the 99% confidence level the hypothesis that there is no statistically significant difference between the NCTR da*:a and the 1980 census data cannot be rejected.

Accordingly, it is my continuing belief that use of the NCTR survey data is a proper means for estimating the number of transit-dependent persons within the Shoreham EPZ and that'the later use of 1980 census, which did not become available until almost one year after the NCTR survey, would not have produced a signif-icantly different result.

-'im. s

73 rook /o.<,~/e-o. ATTACHMENT 1 -

C e l'790 L MSles li'to AF. I" 4 MSPf PT AI 10f4 PL AfC4If47 P AC9 A CE - P AR T 11 G5/21/d4 7 C e (-

' ECil llo,e Cu a:41 Y 103, STAIL Jh

( II-4 1C A;15 t# I r 4:n P:P.8 %I ls e 4 C 4 d P'3t'l l'a fi 06 4:444 5 NOT tsOREIN ; AT HUM [ aY IRAVEL TIMt (

4LL abAn[MS N JI CAR. ThUCA, PUCLIL alCYCLE OR MOTOPCYCLE DM

( ..

• LR A l'au Al HuML og y&N I R A NS P(,w l A T I P4 =4LKED UNLY UIHER MEANS g

(- 10ift. TAAVLL TIWF 135017 12405F 6315 4050 955 p 1 MI'#UTF 533 130 0 360 13 2 MINUTLS 994 ST9 20 385 0 g- 3 MINUICS 875 700 0 168 7 g 4 NI:4UTLS 335 273 10 55 0

$ fllWI Fh 10i39 9525 18 1055 141

( 6 FI'DJf CS 228 214 14 0 0 g' 7 p!NUit s . 907 e67 0 40 0 S dINUTFi 627 627 0 0 0 e 9 "INUTLS 63 63 0 0 0 g 10 *1'401 f S 16409 15395 155 691 168 11 Mit.UTFS 42 42 0 0 0

( 12 Fir 4UTES 952 903 8 29 12 .g 13 d!NUTri hl 191 0 0 0 4 14 wir40T55 24 24 0 0 0 g 15 4tNut rS 17497 16589 210 612 86 4

16 l'40i L S 65 65 0 0 0 1T 'I f 4Ji E S 153 153 0 0 0 g la YIN lies 19 wlNuiss 247 0

215 0

0 0

24 0

8 0 (.

20 4INuTES 16300 16301 120 262 117

, 21 11NilES 22 22 0 0 0 J2 *tlNJIFS 19 19 0 0 0 (-

23 11NUlr5 147 134 0 13 0 g 24 MINuffS 42 42 0 ,0 0 25 MINJiES 6248 6125 39 40 44 U 26 fllv>TES 0 3 0 0 0 2T 4INUTCS O O O O O g

29 MINUTES 113 113 0 0 0 D 29 .11 NUT C S 0 J J 0 0 30 ' 11r4UTF S 15201 14402 140 119 90 g

31 'ilNUfFS 0 0 0 0 0 (

32 4t Nutr S 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 g 33 *INUILS 34 MINJTES O 0

O O O 0

O (

35 *INJTCS 3310 3711 24 43 32 g 36 919UTCS 14 14 0 0 0 g 3F 'I'rJTLS 0 0 0 0 0 34 MINJILS 70 to 0 0 0

( 39 4INUI65 10 10 J 0 0

(

40 4INJI. S 5195 5055 103 21 6 41 -8 t Nu t r $ 0 0 0 0 0 4 42 tiduTES t es 16 0 0 0 g 41 wirt JT CS 14 14 0 0 0 44 '41*41825 0 0 0 0 0 45 MINult5 R303 dO32 94 30 9T g

46 4l e+1 T E S 0 3 0 0 0 (

47 4f'4JIES 0 0 0 0 0 g 4.6 9 t N:J T C 3 19 19 0 0 0 g 4" ilN' lit S O a 0 0 0

' 50 4IP41f t S 1221 2215 7 F 0 3 51 4I vul t S 0 3 0 0 0 g

.'52. 41:4t'I t' S 0 0 0 0 0

-m e o. om p ** * * ~

% A =s ~ m m l

'l

, ... e 0

3OOOOOOeOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONh4+

.e ett 4 e e P@

mN DOOOOOO+OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONOe m -

ae e 4 =s 3 O O C O O O O O O O O e O O O O - O O O O .* O O O O N O O O O O O O O O m * -8 m o 4 h m eoe e N e O =* 9

+7C 3 O e O =* N O m O O O O N e O @ C @ O O O O m O O O O p O O m o tri O O O O -e > O e e 4 m. # = N o c .4 e m o e

+ N

+ 7 N

9 c ceta P

mNNM 3

n Oe emO=s ** N O *=0 9 O O O O4 O O @ O O. p O O O O P.+ O O O O O

. 4 O O me O ee O O O O r m4 e= O. =e

, 4 @ 4 @ m 4 A f9' ?A

@ N 44Nm s

' A M @ A M M M A M @ to M tA M # M M M e e e e#! M Vs e e e se en m M W e to @ M M e W AWL

== P= 6.J em w n= W>= .44 W >We.W.=W> W 6= n= > >=W==LL.*=%J e- W W==Wa=W.=We=W.-We.Wa.w t.a w >W==W6.W>=W W4.W>W

> n= > W W W W W W *=

e.

OOOOOOOOO?OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO&O}OOOO&O&

7. ..7. 7. .~ ;F .Z. .T.. 2. 2 .:. 2 7. 7 2. .Z. .T.2. 2. 7. 2 .Z :.

.a'* . . 2. 2. 2. 7. 2. .Z. .t .r .Z 7. .?. 2. 7. 7. 7 e= T< 7

=7 E T t E t K T T G 7 E t K K K Y Y E T E T T K K E T T T K T E t E ?" T T ' T . =.,9 .

88% 4 @ 4 h e @ O 88 N "8% 4 @ 4 *= @ @O8 @C.4N94@ 4 P* Y *.P O ** W~

J'n e e e et% e 4A 4 4 4 4 @ 4 4 4 (. 4 *= *. N e # O. O. *>==

>P=*=**P b @ W (D e e in 10 to OJ C 10 EC 7 'm S. S Y' p p e p g y e A  % * , A R'  % * %

=

1 REUaED CORRESPONDENCE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE get yg g -

US.RC In the Matter of LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, UniS4 l gDN -5 A10 :46 (Emergency Planning Proceeding)

Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 y g y:

Y', , ING A S D' -

I certify that copics of LILCO'S MOTION TO FldCd ILE EURREBUTTAL TESTIMONY ON PHASE II EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION 67 and SURRE-BUTTAL TESTIMONY OF EDWARD 3. LIEBERMAN ON BEHALF OF LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY ON PHASE II EMERGENCY PLANNING CONTENTION 67 were served this date upon the following by first-class mail, postage prepaid, or by hand (as indicated by one astorisk) or by Federal Express (as indicated by two asterisks).

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 Atomic 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 Bernard 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 Commission (to mailroom)-

East-West Tower, Rm._430 Bethesda, MD 20814 4350 East-West Hwy.

Bethesda, MD 20814 Stewart M. Glass, Esq.**

Regional Counsel Eleanor L.'Frucci, Esq.* Federal Emergency Management Attorney Agency Atomic Safety and Licensing 26 Federal Plaza, Room 1349 Board Panel New York, New York 10278

- U .~ S.-Nuclear. Regulatory Commission Stephen B. Latham, Esq.**

East-West Tower, North Tower _ Twomey, Latham & Shea 4350 East-West Highway 33 West Second Street Bethesda, MD 20814 Post Office Box ~398

,Riverhead, NY 11901 kh? -

i '

t' ~ Fabian G. Palomino, Esq.** Ralph Shapiro, Esq.**

Special Counsel to the Cammer & Shapiro, P.C.

Governor 9 East 40th Street Executive Chamber New York, New York 10016 Room 22n State Capitol James B. Dougherty, Esq.**

Albany, New York 12224 3045 Porter Street Washington, D.C. 20008 Herbert H. Brown, Esq.*

Lawrence Coe Lanpher, Esq. Jonathan D. Feinberg, Esq.

Christopher M. McMurray, Esq. New York State Public Service Kirkpatrick, Lockhart, Hill Commission, Staff Counsel Christopher & Phillips 3 Rockefeller Plaza 8th Floor Albany, New York 12223 1900 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 Spence W. Perry, Esq.**

Associate General Counsel

'Mr. Marc W. . Goldsmith Federal Emergency Management Energy Research Group Agency 4001 Totten Pond Road 500 C Street, S.W., Rm. 840 Waltham, Massachusetts 02154 Washington, D.C. 20472 MHB Technical Associates Ms. Nora Bredes 1723 Hamilton Avenue Executive Coordinator Suite K Shoreham Opponents' Coalition San Jose, California 95125 195 East Main Street Smithtown, New York 11787 Mr. Jay Dunkleberger New York State Energy Office Martin Bradley Ashare, Esq.

Agency Building 2 Suffolk County Attorney Empire State Plaza H. Lee Dennison Building Albany, New York 12223 Veterans Memorial Highway Hauppauge, New York 11788 Gerald C. Crotty, Esq.**

Counsel to the Governor Executive Chamber State Capitol-Albany, New York 12224 d

\c Lee /. gfugin

~

Hunton & Milliams-707 East Main Street-Post Office Box 1535-Richmond, Virginia 23212 DATED: June 4,_1984 H

!? y E _ _ _

__.