ML20235B418
| ML20235B418 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 09/11/1987 |
| From: | Urbanik T Battelle Memorial Institute, PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATION, NRC, TEXAS A&M UNIV., COLLEGE STATION, TX |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20235B374 | List: |
| References | |
| OL, NUDOCS 8709240096 | |
| Download: ML20235B418 (28) | |
Text
- - - - _ _
i 4
\\
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
)
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i
l BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARg
)
)
in the Matter of
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-444 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, ej al.
)
Off-site Emergency Planning
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
TESTIMONY OF DR. THOMAS URBANIK 11 ON BEHALF OF THE NRC STAFF ON TOWN
}
OF HAMPTON CONTENTION 111, AND SAPL CONTENTIONS 18, 31, 34 AND 37 Please state your name and occupation.
Q.1.
A.1.
My name is Thomas Urbanik 11.
I am a Research Engineer associated with the Texas Transportation Institute of the Texas A&M University System, College Station, Texas.
Q. 2.
Have you prepared a
statement of your professional qualifications?
I A statement of my professional qualifications is attached A.2.
Yes.
to this testimony.
In what capacity are you testifying in this proceeding?
i Q.3.
I am testifying on behalf of the NRC Staff, for which I serve A.3.
as a consultant through the Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories.
Battelle is responsible under contract to the Nuclear Regulatory 8709240096 970911 PDR ADOCK 0500 3
_g
Commission for reviewing evacuation time estimates (ETEs) for nuclear facilities and related emergency planning issues.
Briefly summarize your experience with emergency planning for Q 4.
nuclear facilities.
A.4.
I was principal author of NUREG/CR-1745,
" Analysis of Techniques for Estimating Evacuation Times for Emergency Planning Zones" (November 1980), which described the limitations of several methodologies and some alternatives for determining evacuation time estimates.
Also, I provided input to the development of the current guidance for evacuation time estimate studies which appears in Appendix 4 to N U REG-0654 / FEMA-RE P-1, Revision 1, " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants" (November 1980).
In addition, I reviewed for the NRC the inillal evacuation time estimate submittals of approximately 52 operating and near term nuclear facilities against the i
guidance of N U REG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Revision 0 (January 1980), the l
results of which are published in NUREG/CR-1856, "An Analysis of Evacuation Time Estimates Around 52 Nuclear Power Plant Sites" (May I am a co-author of the CLEAR computer model for estimating f
1981).
evacuation time which is published in N U REC / C R-2504,
" CLEAR A Generic Transportation (Calculates Logical Evacuation and Response):
l Network Model for the Calculation of Evacuation Time Estimates" (March 1982).
I also was a co-author of an independent assessment of the Power Station evacuation times which is published in Seabrook Nuclear L_-__________
- ~
NUREG/CR-2903, "An Independent Assessment of Evacuation Time Estimates for a Peak Population Scenario in the Emergency Planning Zone of the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station" (November 1982).
I have appeared on behalf of the NRC Staff at a number of licensing hearings including the 1983 Seabrook hearings concerning evacuation time estimates.
What is the purpose of this testimony?
Q.5.
I l
A.5.
The purpose of this testimony is to address five contentions concerning Revision 2 of the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan (NHRERP), August,1986.
Specifically, Town of Hampton Contention 111, and Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (SAPL) Contentions 18, 31, 34 and 37 question the validity of certain aspects of the Evacuation Inc. (KLD Study),
l Time Estimate Study prepared by KLD Associates, contained in Volume 6 of the NHRERP, Revision 2.
This testimony addresses the adequacy of the current evacuation time estimates in the KLD Study, based on the guidance of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Rev.1, Appendix 4.
This testimony does not address the availability of resources necessary to implement the evacuation plan such as traffic resource availability has been reviewed by control personnel and buses; FEMA.
reasonable that the current estimates in the KLD Study Q.6.
Is it differ from previous estimates?
4 I
continuing process of A 6.
Yes.
The revised estimates reflect a refining the emergency plans at Seabrook Station and reflect an expanded data base.
Does the KLD Study reasonably estimate vehicle counts within Q.7.
the plume exposure pathway emergency planning zone (EPZ), including beach areas?
The KLD Study represents an analysis of many existing A.7.
Yes.
data bases plus additional data collected by KLD Associates reflecting both peak weekend beac'h traffic and weekday traffic.
The August 1985 collection of roadway data at other than peak times, referred to in Hampton Contention lil, does not detract from the validity of the data, because the August 1985 data were only used to define roadway characteristics and not to estimate vehicle counts.
Does the KLD study reasonably rely upon a telephone survey to Q.8.
estimate the time required for notification of an emergency and the elapsed times to commence evacuation trips?
A.8.
Y es.
The KLD study utilizes general census data, consistent with general ETE practice, in addition to data collected from a telephone The telephone survey represents data not usually collected as a survey.
part 'of evacuation time estimate studies.
It is, therefore, a much better than average data base.
Furthermore, notification time is not a f
I significant factor in evacuation time estimate studies where evacuation time
4.
. Is. significantly: longer than preparation time, as is the case for much of
)
3 the population at Seabrook.
Q.9, Does the KLD Study adequately account for the number of vehicles on the roadway when beach area parking lots are full?
There are not significant numbers of vehicles on the A.9.
Yes.
roadways at ' the. time when beaches are at capacity, relative to the Furthermore, the physical number of parked vehicles in beach areas.
storage capacity of roadways is very limited, generally accommodating no it takes more than about 200 fully stopped cars per traffic lane per mile, ten miles of_ roadway to ' store 2000. vehicles under very congested Highways that are congested generally have less than 200 conditions.
vehicles stored ~per lane per mile.
Does the KLD Study adequately consider that vehicles may be Q 10.
delayed exiting parking lots?
A.10.
Yes.
The capacity of the beach area roadways is inadequate to service all vehicles immediately.
Furthermore, as previously indicated, Therefore, a the roadways have very limited capacity to store vehicles.
large number of vehicles must essentially remain in the parking areas until sufficient time has passed to provide the roadway capacity necessary to meet people's desire to leave.
The entire ev::uetion time estimate process 'Is focused on this very simple relation between roadway capacity and the number of drivers who desire to use the roadway.
I
i i
I.
Q.11.
For effective traffic control of beach-areas during an evacuation, is - it essential that - traffic controllers have had prior experience with typical beach traffic problems?
i l
A.11.
No. -The traffic control plans for an evacuation involve special l
routings to minimize evacuation times and are fundamentally different from l
tho. unorganized traffic flows normally associated with beach traffic.
I
]
Beach traffic control during the summer is essentially limited "poin t" control which assigns the right of way at an intersection based on available downstream space.
There is not normally (i.e.,
in non-emergency conditions) an areawide plan such as exists in the
/
NHRERP and KLD Study to most effectively utilize roadway capacity.-
Q.12.
Are the ETEs in the KLD Study reasonable given that extensive congestion exists during peak summer weekends?
A.12.
Yes.
The evacuation times for peak summer traffic are longer than the typical times required for beach traffic to leave.
Furthermore, the effective evacuation capacity is larger than is normally available for beach traffic due to the extensive traffic control plan.
Q.13.
Does the KLD Study adequately address the time required to clear roadways in adverse weather conditions?
l A.13.
Yes.
The KLD Study's adverse weather estimate is based on f
roadways being either wet or slick, but passable.
Decisionmakers j
i
8
< (.
considering available alternative protective actions during adverse weather I
conditions would determine whether additional time Is required to clear roadways and driveways based on actual conditions and available l
resources, and add any additional time to clear roadways and driveways to the previously calculated ETE.
Are emergency vehicles and buses likely to be hampered by the Q.14.
congestion caused by evacuating vehicles?
Emergency vehicles and buses are essentially traveling in-A.14.
No.
Only the "off-peak" direction, using the normal traffic lane flow pattern.
traffic control measures (such as the intersection locations with unusual of Route 51 and laterstate 95) would require alternative routing of vehicles returning to the EPZ.
Q.15.
What is the relationship between the number of people per vehicle and the number of vehicles evacuating the beach areas?
A.15.
Beach traffic is estimated from parking capacity, and beach population is then estimated based on an assumed vehicle occupancy.
Vehicle occupancy, however, has no effect on the number of evacuating vehicles for the beach component of evacuating traffic.
Q.16.
Does the KLD Study accord appropriate treatment to the breakdown of vehicles, vehicles running out of gas, and traffic accidents?
A.16.
Yes.
ETEs typically recognize that these rare events (relative l
to the number of vehicles) are handled through the assignment of planned resources as they are needed in an actual emergency. That is to say, by identifying the necessary resources in the emergency plan to handle contingencies such as breakdowns, the impact of these events is minimal, l
if not negligible.
A vehicle blockage would only affect the evacuation time if it occurred at the controlling location on an evacuation route, and only then for the time necessary to remove the vehicle. Only in the most unusual circumstances (such as the breakdown of a large truck) is it likely that tow trucks would actually be necessary to remove the disabled vehicle; in other circumstances the stalled vehicle is likely to be pushed to the roadside.
The impact on evacuation times is, at most, the time required for an emergency vehicle to respond and remove the disabled vehicle, and in most cases there is no impact.
Q.17.
Is it necessary that all traffic control posts identified in the ETE be covered by traffic control personnel?
A.17.
No.
While it is important that critical control locations be covered on a timely basis to avoid impacts on the ETE, the current traffic control plan is more extensive than needed to control critical locations which might affect the evacuation time estimates.
Nonetheless, it would be desirable to set priorities to permit the traffic control posts at critical
[
locations to be covered first.
i
Q.18.
Does the KLD Study give adequate consideration to the estimated population, despite its lack of consideration of future growth in traffici A.18.
Yes.
Evacuation time estimates should be based on current conditions, if populations change, revisions of the plan may be part of the continuing process of emergency planning.
necessary, as future growth in population size, like future changes in road
- However, capacity, are inappropriate for inclusion in an ETE.
In this regard, the KLD Study correctly omits consideration of projected population growth.
Should the KLD Study consider the time required for traffic Q.19.
control personnel to question evacuees concerning their destination?
There is no need for traffic control personnel to question A.19.
No.
evacuees, and the KLD Study accordingly need not include this time as a factor in the ETE.
Does the KLD Study take into account the length of time for Q.20.
which traffic lights will remain green?
Depending on the location and type of traffic control, A.20.
Yes.
many movements will occur as if the light were in fact " green" 100 percent of the time, regardless of the traffic signal's actual color at the One of the main reasons for traffic control is to make optimum use l
time.
To the extent of available capacity by effectively managing " green" time.
that intersecting movements are discouraged or eliminated, more " green"
{
time is available to other movements.
f Q.21.
To what extent will " background" traffic exist during an evacuation?
A. 21.
" Background traffic" is defined as vehicles passing through the EPZ rather than originating there, and is not' normally included in evacuation traffic estimates.
Except on major "through" highways, which in the case of Seabrook is essentially l-95, traffic on evacuation roadways is normally assumed to be virtually 100% evacuation traffic.
During the early stages' of an evacuation, 3000 vehicles have been included by KLD i
routes.
Once as "through" traffic that may also be using evacuation perimeter traffic control has been established, however, "through" traffic effectively will have -been eliminated from evacuation roadways.
No additional consideration of background traffic is appropriate, beyond that considered In the KLD Study.
Q.22.
Does the KLD Study utlitze an appropriate reduction in capacity for adverse weather conditions?
A.22.
Yes.
While SAPL Contention 31 states that a 40 percent reduction factor for certain snow conditions is suggested by the Highway Capacity Manual, SAPL is misusing those data.
It is helpful to quote directly from the original report entitled " impact of Weather on Freeway
I Capacity" by Gary Ries of the Minnesota Department of Transportation.
i Mr. Ries states in his conclusions:
This study was not meant to be definitive, but rather to quantify the general feelings traffic engineers have about the effects of weather on traffic flow, and to help in establishing traffic management responses to various weather conditions.
The one year study did not offer sample sizes large enough, in many cases, to fully establish the effects of weather,
but did provide information sufficient to improve on the guesswork often resorted to in traffic management.
Regarding rain and snow data, Mr. Ries states:
fer each increment of precipitation The sample size, n,
varied widely, e.g., there were 41 examples of days with a trace of snow but only 1 exampic of.03 inches of snow.
In general, the sample size for any particular degree of rainfall is small, often only one.
The maximum observed reduction in capacity in the Ries data is 19.3 percent for rain and 29.3 percent for snow.
I have reviewed all the available literature on the effects of adverse weather on highway capacity and have concluded that a 20 to 25 percent reduction in capacity is reasonable for the planning basis used in evacuation time estimate studies, and it would be inappropriate and overly conservative to use a greater reduction for adverse weather conditions.
Extreme conditions, however, such as flooding or deep snow would'have to be factored into a protective action decision at the time of an accident, based on actual conditions.
Does the KLD Study afford appropriate treatment to topography Q.23.
and potential " choke" points?
\\ '
.\\>
1 A.23.
Yes.
Topography is giveri appropriate consideration in the capacity estimates.
Potential choke points such as busy intersections are
).
also given adequate treatment.
There are no bridges within the EPZ that would constitute Impediments t? traffic. flow more severe than the surrounding roadways in general,, and brl'dges therefore do not constitute
" choke" points for the SeabrookDEPZ.' 3 i
V g
.l Q.24.
Does the KLD Study utilize an appropriate means for
- l 4
s determining the number ' of buses required to evacuate persons without j
L cars?
s A.24.
Yes.
Census data-for persons without vehicles are often used 1
to determine the number of bus trips required, however, this is done in l
the absence of more specific data.
It is not generally believed that all those without vehicles will require that special transportation be I
provided.
Actual surveying of residents. Is the preferred method of assessing needs, although the use of census data is acceptable since it i
overstates bus needs..
The KLD Study's reliance upon these telephone survey data provides an appropriate means of estimating the number of buses to evacuate these persons.
l Q.25.
Does the KLD Study reasonably assume that 15 seconds is required p9t-passenger for boarding buses by persons in special j
facilities?
I
__.__m__m_ _ _.
__.._.__._.m.___.
Yes, fifteen seconds per passenger, on average, appears to be-A.25.
reasonable as it results in a'10 minute loading time for a 40 passenger it should be noted' that there are two fundamental reasons for vehicle.
are primarily concerned that considering special facilities.
First, we adequate resources be identified for transporting this special population component given that some special transportation is likely to be required.
Smoh'd, for low population sites (not Seabrook), the time required to o
evacuate the special facilitleg may be longer than for the general population.
Therefore, protective action decisionmakers may decide to take a different course of action for special facilities than for the general population.
At Seab' rook, where evacuation times are constrained by
. roadway capacit.y,' the actual loading time for special populations is unlikely. to l$e o significant consideration in overall evacuation times.
Q 26.
Does he KLD Skudy reasonably categorize the roads in the Seabrook EPZ7 A.26.
Yes.
KLD selected four categories of roadways to represent
\\
the range of conditions of two lane roads in the Seabrook EPZ.
They then conducted a rigorous analysis using the appropriate Highway Capacity Manual techniques.
This procedure is reasonable and appropriate.
i g
0.27.
Does the KLD Study afford appropriate consideration to the vehicles that may be out of service due to repairs?
i i
i
4. -
A.27.
Yes.
.No specific account is usually given to the small number of vehicles that may be out of service. Some familles have more than one vehicle, some would obtain a ride with friends or relatives, and a very
'few would need transportation assistence.
The identified bus resources yzould be able to accommodate the small number of persons requiring assistance.
Nevertheless, the KLD Study increased bus passengers by six percent to account for this potential demand. This treatment does not affect the ETE and is therefore acceptable.
Q.28.
Does the KLD Study provide sufficient detail concerning the traffic simulation model and its application?
A.28.
Yes.
The. KLD Study is, in general, extremely detailed and-more than adequate to meet review needs.
To the extent that additional Information 'is not included in the study, it is unnecessary for review purposes.
Q.29.
Does the KLD Study appropriately consider vehicle passing?
A.29.
Yes.
SAPL Contention 31 mistakenly assumes that the directional distribution factor, fd, is related to vehicles making a passing maneuver, suggesting a poss!ble lack of familiarity with the Highway Capacity Manual procedure.
l Q.30.
Does the KLD Study appropriately assume an average vehicle occupancy of 2.6 persons per vehicle for permanent residents?
L_____________
.i
7 I.
l.
A.30.
Yes.
The KLD average vehicle occupancy of 2.6 persons per vehicle for permanent residents of the EPZ is based on detailed analysis; it is also reasonable, since it results in slightly more than one vehicle per household, consistent with ETEs for other sites.
The fact that vehicle occupancy rates for persons returning home or picking up family members
[SAPL Contention 31) is less than 2.6 per vehicle for permanent residents has no effect on the evacuation time estimates.
Q.31.
Does the KLD Study reasonably estimate the permanent population within the Seabrook EPZ?
A.31.
Yes.
The population estimates utilized in the KLD Study appear to reasonably reflect the current permanent population in the Seabrook EPZ.
Q.32.
Does the KLD Study reasonably estimate the transient population within the Seabrook EPZ?
A.32.
The question of transient populations has been subjected to extensive study and scrutiny.
The methodology and assumptions utilized by KLD to estimate transient populations are reasonable.
The KLD estimate of peak populations is about 8 percent (approximately 7000 vehicles) less than the NRC estimate by Kaltman when compared on a similar geographic basis.
The largest differences between the two I understand estimates appear to be in the maximum beach population.
that the Applicants are conducting an additional analysis of peak beach populations and may provide a better estimate of the beach population.
I will review this analysis on behalf of the NRC Staff, when it becomes
]
available, to determine whether the ETE needs to be revised.
i Q.33.
Do transients need to be famillar with host community locations 3
or how to get there in order to satisfy the evacuation time estimate assumptions?
A.33.
No.
Traffic control personnel will direct evacuees to the appropriate reception areas based on the traffic control plan for each intersection.
Q.34.
Does the KLD Study use reasonable bus travel times?
I A.34.
The bus travel times appear to be slightly optimistic.
In the absence of actual travel time data, the inbound bus speed on at-grade l
1 primary highways is subjective.
I would consider 30 mph as achievable
{
under local circumstances at Seabrook, which would add at most 15 minutes travel time to the inbound bus travel evacuation times if one
)
concludes that the 40 mph estimate utilized by KLD is optimistic.
Furthermore, it should be noted that even with this modification, only a few scenarios exist where bus evacuation times may be longer than the general population automobile evacuation times for Seabrook.
l
i !
l Does the KLD Study appropriately consider the phenomenon of Q.35.
" spontaneous evacuation"?
A.35.
Yes.
For those scenarios involving partial evacuation, 25 percent of those within the EPZ who are not asked to evacuate are j
i assumed to evacuate; this approach is reasonable.
Spontaneous I
evacuation beyond the EPZ is not likely to affect the evacuation time i
estimates at Seabrook.
Nonetheless, it is my understanding that the Applicants are preparing a sensitivity analysis of spontaneous evacuation beyond the EPZ which may indicate whether revisions to the NHRERP are necessary.
O.36.
Does the KLD Study provide adequate consideration to evacuation preparation times?
A.36.
Yes.
I have reviewed the trip generation times for the various population segments used in the KLD Study and find them to be reasonable.
Q.37.
How would driver behavior during an evacuation affect the ETEs?
The literature indicates that driver behavior during evacuations A.37.
is, in' general, exemplary.
I am not aware of any empirical data, which would suggest that driver behavior might affect the evacuation time estimates.
Q.38.
Does the KLD Study adequately consider the problems of transporting the mobility-impaired and other special needs populations?
A.38.
Yes.
Persons in special facilities and other persons who have special medical needs are not identified in the KLD Study, but are identified in the local plans because their needs are highly individualized.
The key considerations are identifying their location and identifying the resources to meet their transportation needs.
Assuming those with special needs' have been identified and that the resources are available, the KLD Study has identified the time frame in which they can be evacuated.
Q.39.
llave the population data in the KLD Study been presented in a manner consistent with the guidance in NUREG-0654, Rev.1, Appendix 4?
A.39.
Yes.
The population data in the KLD Study have been presented in " roses", according to the guidance in NUREG-0654, Rev.1, Appendix 4.
Q.40.
What is your overall conclusion regarding the adequacy of the KLD
- Study, relative to the guidance of NUREG-0654, Rev. 1, Appendix 4?
A.40.
The KLD Study was prepared in a manner consistent with the guidance of NUREG-0654, Rev.1, Appendix 4.
Furthermore, it provides the necessary basis for the development of emergency plans ~ for the
evacuation of the Seabrook EPZ under a variety of conditions.
The KLD Study is likely to aid decisionmakers in the selection of appropriate Protective actions in the event of an emergency at Seabrook Station.
1 1
l
\\
CURRICULUM VITAE URBANIK If,' Thomas P.E., Ph.D.
EDUCATION:
Ph.D., Civil Engineering, Texas A&M University, 1982 M.S., Transportation Engineering, Purdue University,1971 B.S., Civil Engineering, Syracuse University, 1969.
B.S., Forest Engineering New York State College of Environmental Science and Forestry, 1968 PROFESSIONAL LICENSES:
Registered Professional Engineer, Michigan No. 22008 Registered Professional Engineer Texas No. 42384 EXPERIENCE:
1982-1986 Department of Civil Engineering
- Lecturer Civil Systems Group Texas A&M University College Station, Texas 77843-3136 undergraduate instruction in transportation engineering and planning, traffic engineering, and highway design.
Transport Uperations Program Manager Texas Transportation Institute Texas A&M University College Station. Texas 77843-3135 Duties and responsibilities are to provide specific direction to I
program in its conduct of transportation research projects for fed-tral, state, and local transportation agencies.
e u_--
The range of transportation projects include:
traffic engineering, transportation planning, highway safety, public. transportation, and transportation systems management.
Management responsibilities are to identify and pursue research opportunities, locate and recommend staff, monitor research activities to meet budget and project objectives, develop overall program funding, provide an annual staff review (15 personnel),
supervise preparation of proposals, develop writing and communica
~
tion skills of the program staff, review and allocate work, coor-dinate equipment and staffing needs, recommend and approve perti-nent expenditures for annual budget of approximately $600,000.
1976-1982 Assistant Research Engineer Conducted research, prepared proposals, and provided project super-vision on research activities.
Responsible for final report preparation and presentation.
Research areas included traffic engineering, transportation planning, public transportation and evaluation planning.
1972-1976 Traffic Engineer City of Ann Arbor Department of Streets. Traffic and Parking Ann Arbor, Michigan Responsible to Director of Streets Traffic and Parking, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Responsible supervisory and professional traffic engi-neering work in directing the traffic engineering function of the department.
Work invol ved responsibility for the application of professional engineering skill and knowledge to difficult traffic engineering problems in traffic regulation and control, street use, street lighting, geometrics, parking, school safety, curb cuts, and related traffic engineering activities.
Was directly responsible for the supervision of the traffic signal and traffic sign mainte-nance personnel.
1971-1972 Transportation Planning Engineer City of Ann Arbor Traffic Engineering and Transportation Department Ann Arbor, Michigan l
Responsible to Director of Traffic Engineering and Transportation, f
Ann Arbor, Michigan.
Reviewed transportation aspects of all plans
'{yl7 for development in the city.
Staff member to the Ann Arbor Trans-portation Authority responsible for budget and union negotiations.
Staff Coordinator for the planning, design, implementation, and op-eration of the Dial-A-Ride demand-responsive demonstration project.
1970-1971
~
- Research Assistant Joint Highway Research Project '
Purdue University West Lafayette, Indiana Conducted research concerning high-way related grade crossings.
Designed attitudinal questionnaire concerning public transportation for a home interview survey in Lafayette, Indiana.
fiso analyzed survey results for inclusion in a report on public transportation in Lafayette, Indiana SOCIETY MEMBERSHIP:
Transportation Research Board Institute of Transportation Engineers American Society of Civil Engineers American Society for Engineering Education HONOR SOCIETIES Chi Epsilon CURRENT COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP Chairman, Institute of Traf fic Engineers, Texas Section, Committee on Continuing Education Member, Transportation Research Board, Committee on Intercity Bus Transportation PUBLIC SERVICE Member, We11 born Community Center, Board of Directors CONTINUING EDUCATION / PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Association of 011 Pipelines. Educators Tour, July 1984 j
The University of Michigan, Bureau of Industrial Relations, Graduate i
School of Business Administration, Principles of Effective Supervisory Management U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Digit-61 Computer-Urban Traffic Control / Bus Priority System (UTCS/ BPS)
Course.
l l
N-____-______-_-_____.
Michigan Department of Civil Service, Principles of Public Sector Labor Relations.
CURRENT 5ESEARCil
" Cost-Ef festiveness Analysis for Ranking New Interchanges and Highway Railroad Grade Separations" Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation
" Automated Transit Ridership Data Collection". Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation.
" Computerized Dispatch Aids for Small Public Transportation Providers",
Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation.
" Safety and Operational Evaluation of Shoulders on Urban Freeways,"
Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation.
" Traffic Engineering / Transportation Planning Relative to Evacuation-Time Estimates", Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories.
" Evaluation of Transportation Analysis Techniques Used for Estimating Evacuation Timer at Nuclear Power Plant Sites", Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories.
PUBLICATIONS AND PAPERS Traffic Engineering Understanding Forced Flow, ITE Journal, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Washington, D.C., October 1986.
Safety and Operational Evaluation of Shoulders on Urban Freecys, With Carlos R. Bonilla, Texas State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Research Report Number 395-1, Austin, Texas, August 1986.
The Effectiveness of Using Freeway Shoulders for Traffic, With Wes Lum, District 6-District 7 Joint Annual Meeting, Institute of Transportation Engineers, Vancouver, B.C., Canada, July 1986.
Effects of Shoulder Reductions on Highway Safety, With Wes Lum, American Society of Civil Engineers, Specialty Conference on Effectiveness of Highway Safety Improvements, Nashville, Tennessee, March 1986.
Speed / Volume Relationships on Texas Highways, State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Research Report 327-2F, Austin, Texas, October 1983.
Priority Treatment of Buses at Traffic Signals, Transportation Engineering, November 1977.
Priority Treatment of High-Occupancy Vehicles on Arterial Streets.
State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Report 205-5, 1977.
Evaluation of Alternative Concepts for Priority Use of Urban Freeways in Texas. State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Report 205-1, 1977.
Driver Information Systems for Highway-Railway Grade Crossings, with f
K.W. Heathington, Highway Research Record Number 414, 1972.
)
Evacuation Planning Transportation Analysis for Evacuation:
State-of-the-Art, ITE Journal, Institute of Transportation ingineers, Washington, :D.C., March 1986.
An independent Assessment of Evacuation Times For a Peak Population Scenario in the. Emergency Planning Zone of the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station, with others, U.S. Nuclear _ Regulatory Commission NUREG/CR-2903,.1982.
-CLEAR (Calculates Logical Evacuation And Response), A Generic Transpor
~
tation Network Model for the Calculation of Evacuation Times Esti-mates, with others U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion NUREG/CR-2504 October 1981.
Analysis of Techniques for Estimating Evacuation Times for Emergency Planning Zones, with' others, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission NUREG/CR-1745, 1980.
Analysis of Evaucation Times Around 52 Nuclear Power Plant Sites, with.
others. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG/CR-1856 Volume 1, 1980.
Texas Hurricane Evacuation Study. The Coastal and Marine Council,1978.
Public Transportation Analysis of Rural Pubc Transportation in Texas, with others, State Department of Highwa,s and Public Transportation. Technical Report.
1069-1F, August 1982.-
Intercity Bus Riders in Texas, Transportation Research Record 887, 1982.
The Intercity Bus Industry in the U.S. and Texas, with others, State Department of Highways and Public Transportation, Technical Report 0965 -1 F, 1981.
Bryan-College Station Energy Contingency Study, Metropolitan Planning Organization of Bryan-College Station,1980.
Bryan-College Station Transit Improvement Plan, with others, Metro-politan Planning Organization, 1979.
Ann Arbor Dial-A-Ride Project Final Report, Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, 1973.
' Ann Arbor Dial-A-Ride Operations, Highway Research Board Special Report 136, 1973.
The Greater Lafayette Area Bus Transit Study, with others, Joint Highway Research Project, Purdue University,1971.
Elderly and Handicapped Transportation Guidelines for Evaluation of Human Services Transportation Programs, with others, State Department of Highways and Public Transportation,
{
Report 1065-2F, 1981.
j Evaluation of Selected Human Services Transportation Providers, with Diane Bullard, State Department of Highways and Pu bl i c Transportation, 1980.
Cost-Effectiveness of Accessible Fixed-Route Buses in Texas, with Jose Soegard, Technical Report 1061-1F,1979.
Transportation of the Elderly and Handicapped in Texas:
A Case Study, with Jose A. Soegard, State Department of Highways and Pu bl i c Transportation, Technical Report 1056-2F,1979.
Tota.1 Accessibility Versus Equivalent Mobility of the Handicapped.
Ipstitute of Transportation Engineers, Compendium of Technical Papers, 49th Annual Meeting,1979.
Survey of Vehicles and Equipment for Elderly and Handicapped Trans-pprtation.
State Department of. Highways and Public Transpor-tation, Technical Report 1056-1, 1978.
Corpus Christi Elderly and Handicapped Transportation Study, with R.W.
Holder, City of Corpus Christi, Texas,1978.
I PRESENTATIONS Presentation entitled Shoulder Reductions on Urban Freeway, ASCE Specialty Conference, " Shaping the Future of American Highways", San Diego, CA, April 15-17, 1985.
Presented seminar on transportation analysis at Emergency Preparedness Plans and Programs Workshop Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Williamsburg, V A.
Presentation on Evacuation, Transportation, and Traffic Control, National Emergency Training Center, Emergency Management Institute Evacuation Planning and Response Actions Simulation Course, i
Emmitsburg, Maryland, July 8-12, 1985.
EXTENSION:
Texas Engineering Extension Service, Instructor on various courbes including basic traffic engineering, geometric design of highways and highway capacity.
University of California at Berkely, Institute of Transportation Studies, Extension Programs, Guest Lecturer, highway capacity courses presented to California Department of Transportation.
EXPERT WITNESS Presented expert testimony before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, concerning evacuation times at several nuclear power plant sites including Three-Mile Island, Diablo Canyon, Indian Point, Seabrook and Shoreham.
UNITED STATF.S OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD in the Matter of
)
)
Docket Nos. 50-443 OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-444 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, M.
)
Off-site Emergency Planning
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I
hereby certify that copies of the attached testimony in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk,
by deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system,
or by double asterisks, by express mall, this lith day of September, 1987.
Helen Hoyt, Esq., Chairman
- Gustave A. Linenberger, Jr.*
Administrative Judge Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Jerry Harbour
- Ms. Carol Sneider, Esq.**
Administrative Juage Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One Ashburton Place,19th Floor Washliigton, DC 20555 Boston, MA 02108 Beverly Hollingworth Richard A. Hampe, Esq.**
209 Winnacunnet Road New Hampshire Civil Defense Agency Hampton, NH 03842 107 Pleasant Street Concord, NH 03301 Sandra Gavutis, Chairman **
Calvin A. Can.1ey, City Manager Board of Selectmen City Hall RFD 1 Box 1154 126 Daniel Street Kensington, NH 03827 Portsmouth, NH 03801
' Stephen E. Merrill Paul McEachern, Esq.**
Attorney General.
Matthew T. Brock, Esq.
George Dana Bisbee**
Shalnes & McEachern Assistant Attorney General 25 Maplewood Avenue Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 360 25 Capitol Street Portsmouth, NH 03801 Concord, NH 03301 Roberta C. Pevear Angle Machiros, Chairman State Representative Board of Selectmen Town of Hampton Falls 25 High Road Drinkwater Road Newbury, MA 09150 Hampton Falls, NH 03844 Allen Lampert Mr. Robert J. Harrison Civil Defense Director.
President and Chief Executive Officer-Town of Brentwood Public Service Co. of New Hampshire 20 Franklin Street P.O. Box 330 Exeter, NH 03833-Manchester, NH 03105
= Charles P. Graham, Esq.
Robert A. Backus, Esq.**
McKay, Murphy and Graham Backus,- Meyer & Solomon 100 Main Street 116 Lowell Street Amesbury, MA 01913 Manchester, NH 03106
' Diane Curran, Esq.**
Philip Ahren, Esq.
. Harmon 6 Weiss Assistant Attorney General 2001 S Street, NW Office of the Attorney General
' Suite 430 State House Station #6 Washington, DC 20009 Augusta, ME 04333
- Edward A. Thomas **
Thomas G. Dignan Jr., Esq.**
Federal-Emergency Management Agency.
Ropes s Gray 442 J.W. McCormack (POCH) 225 Franklin Street Boston, MA 02109 Boston, MA 02110
' H.J. Flynn, ' Esq.**
William Armstrong Assistant General Counsel Civil Defense Director Federal Emergency Management Agency Town of Exeter 500 C Street, SW 10 Front Street
]
Washington, DC 20472 Exeter, NH 03833
{
Atomic' Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel
- Boa rd*
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555
LJane' Doughty ** '
Docketing and Service Section*
Seacoast Anti-Pollution League' Office of the Secretary 5 Market Street-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Portsmouth, NH 03801 Washington, DC 20555 Maynard L. ~ Young, Chairman **
William S. Lord **
. Board of Selectmen Board of Selectmen l
10 Central Road Town Hall - Friend Street South Hampton, NH 03287 Amesbury,. MA 01913 Michael Santosuosso, Chairman ** '
Peter J. Matthews, Mayor Board of Selectmen City Hall South Hampton, NH 03287 Newburyport, MN 09150 Mr, Robert Carrigg, Chairman Judith H. Mizner, Esq.
Board of Selectmen Silverglate, Gertner, Baker Town Office Fine and Good Atlantic Avenue-88 Broad Street North Hampton, NH 03862 Boston, MA 02110 R. K. Gad li t, Esq.**
Mrs. Anne E. Goodman, Chairman Ropes & Gray Board of Selectmen 225 Franklin Street 13-15 Newmarket Road Boston, MN 02110 Durham, NH. 03824 Gary W. Holmes, Esq.
Honorable Gordon J. Humphrey Holmes s Ellis United States Senate 47 Winnacunnet Road 531 Hart Senate Office Building Hampton, NH 03842 Washington, DC 20510 W$
L-Sherwin E. Turk Senior Supervisory Trial Attorney
_____---___--_._.wmm..-.__.
_____._m--_--_.