ML20235Z189
| ML20235Z189 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/21/1987 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#387-4133 OL-3, NUDOCS 8707270210 | |
| Download: ML20235Z189 (176) | |
Text
--
s OYG RTL 9
UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION IN THE MATTER OF:
DOCKET NO: 50-322-OL-3 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Emerge.ncy Planning)
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1)
O LOCATION:
HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK PAGES:
18505 - 18679 DATE:
TUESDAY, JULY 21, 1987 a
/0)
ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC, g
Official Reporters 9707270210 870721 W N rth Capitol Street P.DR ADOCK OS000322 Washington, D.C. 20001 T
PDR (202) 347-3700 NATIONWIDE COVERACE
i
~
_66500000 18505 marysimons 1
1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
3 4
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5
6
X 7
In the Matter of:
8 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY
- -Docket No. 50-322-OL-3 9
(Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, 10 Unit 1) 11
X 12 Court of Claims 13 State of New York 14 State Offics Building 15 Third Floor Courtroom 16 Veterans Memorial Highway 17 Hauppauge, New York 117 88 18 Tuesday, July 21, 1987 19 The hearing in tre above-entitled matter 20 reconvened, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 o' clock a.m.
21 BEFORE:
22 MORL u B. MARGULIES, Chairman 23 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 24 U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 25
- Bethesda, Maryland 20555 a
66500000 18506 marysimons 1
JERRY R.
KLINE, Member g-)
L/
2 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 3
U.
S. Nuc3 ear Regulatory Commission a
Bethesda, Mary 3and 20555 5
FREDERICK J.
SHON, Member 6
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 7
U.
S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission s
Bethesda, Maryland 20555 9
APPEARANCES:
10 On Behalf of Long Is3and Lighting _ Company:
11 JAMES N. CHRISTMAN, ESQ.
12 MARY JO LEUGERS, ESQ.
13 STEPHEN W. MILLER, ESQ.
ja Hunton & Williams 15 707 East Main Street 16 P.
O.
Box 1535 17 Richmond, Virginia 23212 18 On Beha3f of Suffo3k County:
19 CHRISTOPER M. McMURRAY, ESQ.
20 DAVID T.
CASE, ESO.
21 RONALD ROSS, ESO.
22 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 23 South Lobby, 9th Floor 24 1800 M Street, N.
W.
25 Washington, D.
C. 20036-5891
. O
66500000 18507 marysimons l
/~-
1 On Behalf of the State _of New York:
.\\
i 2
RICHARD J.
ZAHNLEUTER, ESO.
i 3
ADRIAN C. JOHNSON, ESQ.
]
i 4
Special Counsel to the Governor 5
Executive Chamber 6
Room 229 l
7 State Capitol 8
Albany, New York 12224 9
On Behalf of the NRC:
10 RICHARD G. BACHMANN, ESO.
11 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 12 7735 Old Georgetown Road 13 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 y
15 16 17 1B 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
66500000 18508 marysimons CONTENTS 2
Voir 3
Direct Cross Redirect Recross Dire Board 4
EDWARD LIEBERMAN 18511 18516 5
6 7
EXHIBITS Suffolk County Exhibits 9
Exhibit No. 19 18520 18550 Exhibit No. 20 18520 18550 10 Exhibit No. 21 18524 18550 g
Exhibit No. 22 18542 Exhibit No. 23 18544 18550 Exhibit No. 24 18551 18573 12 Exhibit No. 25 18553 18573 Exhibit No. 26 18605 I3 Exhibit No. 27 18620 18631 t()
Exhibit No. 28 18620 18631 g,
Exhibit No. 29 18632 18641 Exhibit No. 30 18632 18641 15 Exhibit No. 31 18633 18641 16 LILCO Exhibits 18 Exhibit No. 1 18515 Exhibit No. 26 18513 18515 39 20 Morning Recess................................
18559 21 Luncheon Recess...............................
18601 Afternoon Recess..............................
18642 22 2A 25
i
)
66500101 18509 suewalsh 1
o PROCEEDINGS 2
(9 : 00 a.m. )
)
3 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Good morning.
The first 1
4 matter that the Board would like to take up is the motion of 5
the State of New York for leave to file a response to the 6
rebuttal testimony of Edward B. Lieberman.
7 We do have the July 10th pleading of the State 8
of New York, and we have what cEn be termed a counter motion 9
filed by LILCO on July 17 th, 1987 titled "LILCO Motion for 10 Leave to File Surrebuttal Testimony of Edward B. Lieberman 11 on the Suitability of Reception Centers and LILCO Response 12 to State of New York Motion for Leave to File Response to 13 Rebuttal Testimony of Edward B.
Lieberman."
O 14 Mr. ZAhnleuter, do you wish to respond to 15,
LILCO's latest pleading of July 17th?
16 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
Yes, Judge Margulies.
I 17 received the cover motion but, as you know, the cover motion 18 is contingent upon the surrebuttal testimony of Mr.
19 Lieberman.
And that I just received this morning, because 20 it was served by telecopier on the offices yesterday.
21 So, I haven't had a chance tc read the 22 surrebuttal testimony which is -- it looked like 20 or 30 23 pages long.
So, I would appreciate having some time perhaps 24 over the lunch break to read that testimony, because that's 25 really the gist of LILCO's cover motion and also the gist of t
j
66500101 18510 suewalsh l
'}
I LILCO's propocal which is that they have no opposition to 2
the State's rebuttal if Mr. Lieberman's surrebuttal is 3
allowed.
4 So, I would like to have an opportunity perhaps 5
over lunch to read the surrebuttal testimony.
6 JUDGE MARGULIES:
That's a reasonable request, 7
and it will be granted.
The Board has not received a copy 8
of the proposed surrebuttal by --
9 MR. CHRISTMAN:
It was hand-delivered to 10 Washington yesterday.
I will hand-deliver yet another copy 11 today.
12 MR. BACHMANN:
May the Staff have a copy also?
13 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Sure.
Actually, to save time LO id and so I don' t have to dig it out of my briefcase right now 15 perhaps we ought to wait until the break and then I will be 16 glad to give it to you.
JUDGE MARGULIES:
Sure.
Are you ready to IB proceed, Mr. Christman?
19 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Yes, sir, we are.
You will note 20 Mr. Lieberman has already taken the stand.
I would 21 appreciate it if you would swear him in.
22 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Mr. Lieberman, would you 23 please stand and raise your right hand?
24 (The witness is sworn by Judge Margulies.)
25 Whereupon,
l 1
66500101 18511 suewalsh
/
1 EDWARD B. LIEBERMAN
(.
2 was called as a witness by and on behalf of the Applicant, 3
the Long Island Lighting Company, and having been first duly 4
sworn was examined and testified as follows:
5 DIRECT EXAMINATION 6
BY MR. C'HRISTMAN:
7 Q
Mr. Lieberman, for the record will you give your 8
name and occupation or j ob?
9 A
Yes.
My name is Edward B. Lieberman.
I am 10 President of KLD Associates located in Huntington Station,.
11 New York.
12 My background is in transportation engineering.
13 Q
Thank-you..
I'm going to show you a document it' 14 which has been marked as LILCO Exhibit 1 and admitted into 15 the record contingent upon your testifying on it.
That's 16 entitled " Written Testimony of Douglas M. Crocker, Dale E.
17 Donaldson, Diane P.
Dreikorn, Edward B.
Lieberman, Roger E.
18 Linnemann, Michael K. Lindell, Dennis S. Mileti, and Richard l
l 19 J. Watts on the Suitability of Reception Centers."
It's 1
20 dated March 3 0, 1987 and it was submitted as your and others 21 direct testimony in this proceeding.
22 Attached to it is a number of attachments l
23 through the Letter T, also part of LILCO Exhibit 1.
24 Were the portions of that that you sponsor 25 prepared by you or under your supervision or control?
O
____m_______
66500101-18512 suewalsh I
1 A)-
A Yes.
km 2
O Do you have any corrections you want to make to 3
either the direct testimony or the Attachments A through T d
to that testimony?
5 A
Yes, a few.
Most of them are typos.
On Page 7 6
of the direct testimony in the answer to Question 7, Item 7
- 2. C, the last line says "Thus, V..."
should be equal not 8
minus.
That's a typo.
9 HR. CHRISTMAN:
And, I will note for the record 10 that we already made that correction in the version that was 11 served before hearing on everybody.
12 WITNESS LIEBERMAN:
I now go to Exhibit T, which 13 is KLD-TR-201-A.
On page 4, the fourth line from the Id bottom, reference is made to TR-291.
That should have been 15 typed as TR-192.
16 On Page 13, the second paragraph, the fourth 17 line, there is a symbol typed as V, sub-I.
That should have IB been V, sub-1.
One should have been the subscript.
19 On Page 21, which is Table 3-5, under the 20 heading " Capacity" and the sub-heading " Total," the first 21 entry should be 567, not 573.
22 That's the extent of the changes in Exhibit 3, 23 and that's the extent of the changes in the written 24 testimony.
25 BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
(Continuing)
I
66500101 18513 suewalsh le3 1
Q Thank you.
Let me show you a second document, y
()
2 and this one is dated May 27th, 1987.
It's entitled j
3
" Rebuttal Testimony of Edward B. Lieberman on the i
d Suitability of Reception Centers."
It's 43 pages in length 5
and has two attachments, A and B.
6 MR. CHRISTMAN:
And, Judge, I would like to ask 7
that this be marked for identification as LILCO Exhibit 26 8
which I believe is the next number.
9 JUDGE MARGULIES:
It will be so marked.
10 (The document referred to is marked-l 11 as LILCO Exhibit Number 26 for 12 identification.)
13 BY MR. CHRISTMAN:
(Continuing)
((
14 Q
Now, this document that's entitled as your 15 rebuttal testimony has now been marked LILCO Exhibit 26.
16 Was that prepared by you or under your direction and 17 supervision?
l 18 A
Yes, it was.
19 0
Do you have any changes or corrections to make 20 to that?
21 A
v cs, I do.
On page 14, in the second line of 22 the answer to Question 17 the word "are" should be inserted 23 between the words " centers" and " actuated."
24 Q
So, it reads "... routes to the reception 25 centers are actuated controllers..." correct?
O
66500101 18514 suewalsh I
I
-/}
A That's correct.
Moving ahead to Page 17, the 2
fifth line of the first full _ paragraph on that page should 3
read, "While the length of the queues will certainly exceed d
a s treet length... " the word "will" should be inserted 5
between.the words " queues" and "certainly."
6 On the next page, Page 18, this is a 7
clarification.
The first line following the equation in the B
center of the page where it says now, "But the v/s term..."
9 I think it would be clearer to say, "The first term on the 10 right-hand side," instead of v/s.
II And, then the last word in that line which I
12 continues on the next line is now typed as " compare."
It 13 should have been typed as " compute."
f-i't Id On the next page, Page 19, the third line of the 15 third paragraph for the answer to Question 22, the last part 16 of that line should read, all roads were clear of 17 expressway capacity reductions."
The word " capacity" is 18 missing.
It should be inserted after the word " expressway."
19 And that completes the corrections to this 20 exhibit.
21 Q
Now, with those corrections are the documents 22 labeled LILCO Exhibit 1 to the extent you are responsible I
23 for that and LILCO Exhibit 26 true and correct to the best 24 of your knowledge and belief?
25 A
Yes, it is.
They are.
_________-___-_______a
66500101 18515 suewalsh 1
MR. CHRISTMAN:
Judge, with that I would like to
("))-
2 move into the record LILCO Exhibit 1 to the extent it has 3
not already been admitted, and LILCO Exhibit 26.
4 MR. McMURRAY:
No obj ection.
5 MR. ZAHNLEUTER:
No objection.
6 MR. BACHMANN:
No obj ection.
7 JUDGE MARGULIES:
The condition for the 8
admission of LILCO Exhibit Number 1 is removed, and it is 9
admitted. unconditionally.
10 (The document previously marked as 11 LILCO Exhibit Number 1 for 12 identification is admitted into 13 evidence.)
10 14 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Exhibit Number 26 for 15 identification is admitted as LILCO's Exhibit Number 26.
16 (The document previously marked as 17 LILCO Exhibit Number 26 for 18 identification is admitted into 19 evidenc e. )
20 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Thank you.
And, with that this i
21 witness is ready for cross-examination.
22 23 24 l
25 I.
66500202 18516 joewalsh I
r
-/'%.
I JUDGE MARGULIES:
Who is going to lead off with d
2 Mr. Lieberman?
3 MR. McMURRAY:
I will, Judge Margulies.
4 CROSS EXAMINATION 5
BY MR. McMURRAY:
6 0
Good morning, Mr. Lieberman.
7 A
Good morning, Mr. McMurray.
8 Q
Mr. Lieberman, you've submitted three separate 9
reports in this proceeding which you call TR-192, TR-201 and 10 201.A, correct?
II A
That's correct.
12 Q
Okay.
And, those reports purport to be 13 p--
analyses, among other things, of the capacities of the L
I4 routes approaching the reception centers, correct?
15 A
That's correct.
16 Q
Do you have Attachment T in front of you?
That 17 is, TR-201.A?
18 A
Yes, I do.
19 Q
Just so we use consistent terms, I will just 20 from now on refer to it as 201.A.
That is the attachment to 21 LILCO's testimony.
22 Can we turn to Figure 2-2 which is the second 23 map -- I'm sorry, which is on Page 3 of that report?
Do you 24 have that in front of you?
25 A
- yes,
66500202 18517 joewalsh 1
Q And, this is a map, is it not, that shows the 2
routes to which evacuees from the EPZ have been assigned to 3
reception centers?
4 A
That is correct.
5 0
Where was this map taken from?
6 A
I can't tell you what the original source was.
7 Q
Going to Page 9, this is a schematic drawing of 8
some of the routes and intersections on the approaches to 9
the Hicksville reception center, correct?
10 A
That's correct.
11 Q
Okay.
And, the ones that are circled are.the 12 ones that were analyzed up to the time that 201.A was 13 issued, correct?
14 A
Yes, I believe --
~
15 O
When I say the "ones," I meant the intersection 16 that had been analyzed, correct?
'l 7 A
That is correct.
l 18 O
And, the figure on Page 10, the next page, are 1
19 the intersections that were analyzed for the Roslyn l
20 reception center up to the issuance of 201.A, correct?
21 A
That is correct.
22 O
Okay.
And, then the same on the next page for 23 the Bellmore reception center?
24 A
Yes, that's correct.
25 Q
Going back just to Page 9 for a second, you've 10 1.
66500202' 18518 joewalsh I
)
designated various intersections by number, correct?
- Well, 2
by letter and number designation, correct?
3 A
That's correct.
They.are listed on the Table 1
d 3-2 which is on the previous page.
l 5
0 Okay.
And, an intersection, the first letter of 6
which is an H would be a Hicksville approach, correct?
7 A
Correct.
8 Q
And, a B would be Bellmore and an R would be 9
Roslyn, right?
10 A
That is correct.
Not all of these are on Il approaches.
We have a few that actus11y serve as traffic 12 exiting from these facilities.
13 O
Let's look at Intersection H-4 for a second.
14 That is the intersection of Route 107 and Old Country Road, 15 right?
16 A
That's correct.
17 Q
And, it's true, is it not, that evacuation 18 trattic, at least as you have assigned it along these 19 routes, will be approaching this intersection from both the 20 northbound and the southbound direction?
21 A
That is correct.
22 Q
And, I think you stated earlier in depositions, 23 haven't you, that this is the most critical intersection in 24 the Hicksville area?
25 A
I'm not sure I made that statement, that it's
66500202 18519 joewalsh 1
the most critical.
I might have.
I don't recall it.
2 Q
Would you agree that it's one of the most 3
critical intersections in the Hicksville area?
4 A
I think that's a fair statement.-
5 Q
.And, I think that in your transcript of your 6
deposition taken in March you stated that this is the 7
critical intersection for the Hicksville reception center.
8 Would you stand by that statement?
9 A
It is a critical intersection.
I'm not sure 10 it's the critical intersection, 11 Q
By critical, you mean that it raises some of the 12 more critical issues regarding the capacity and the ability 13 to handle the flow of traffic to the Hicksville-reception
.~~
14 center, right?
15 A
No.
I think it's fair to say that it's critical 16 in the potential sense.
As our analysis has demonstrated, 17 the controlling factor in the movement of evacuees to the 18 reception centers is actually the monitoring service rates, 19 not the intersection capacities.
20 Q
Let's take a look at two documents.
At this 21 time, Mr. Lieberman, I would like to show you two documents, 22 the first of which is on KLD Associates letterhead.
It's a 23 letter dated. June 23 rd, 1986 to a Mr. Dan Talmor.
24 MR. McMURRAY:
And, I would like to have this 25 document marked as Suffolk County Exhibit Number 19 for O
j 66500202-18520 i
joewalsh I.
I L{}
identification.
2 JUDGE MARGULIES:
It will be so marked.
3 (The document referred to is marked i
d as Suffolk County Exhibit Number 5
19 for identification.)
n 6
MR. McMURRAY:
And, the second document is a l
7 drawing of an intersection.
On the upper right-hand side l
8 there is the legend " Broadway Route 107" next to the 9
north / south route.
And, on the east / west route it says "Old 10 Country Road."
11 In the upper left-hand corner, there is a 12 heading " Data Collected."
And, I would like to have this 13 marked as Suffolk County Exhibit 20 for identification.
rg Ld Id JUDGE MARGULIES:
It will be so marked.
15 (The document referred to is marked 16 as Suffolk County Exhibit Number 17 20 for identification.)
18 BY MR. McMURRAY:
(Continuing) 19 Q
Mr. Lieberman, as part of your analyses of the 20 various intersections you asked another firm, I guess named 21 ATI, to collect certain data at the intersections, correct?
22 A
That's correct.
23 Q
Okay.
And, that included counts of traffic 2d volume at various intersections, correct?
25 A
On the approaches, yes.
E0
66500202 18521
. joewalsh
(;
1 Q
And, this is the letter that you sent to ATI 2
asking that firm to perform that task, correct?
3 A
That's correct.
4 O
Actually, Mr. Goldblatt sent it, and he is one 5
of your employees, correct?
6 A
That is Correct.
7 8
5 10 11 12 13 jg 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1
22 23 i
24 i
25 i
- O l
1
}
66500303 18522 suewalsh 1
y')
Q And, as part of the enclosures to Suffolk County 2
Exhibit Number 19, the drawing that is Suffolk County 3
Exhibit Number 20 was included, was it not?
d A
It appears to be, yes.
It's Mr. Goldblatt's 5
handwriting.
6 Q
The schematic was drawn by Mr. Goldblatt, as you 7
understand it?
8 A
Right.
9 Q
Okay.
And, as you look at this drawing this 10 purports to be the intersection of Route 107 and Old Country Il Road, correct?
12 A
That's correct.
13 Q
Okay.
Now, looking at the southbound approach LO-Id to the intersection on Route 107, there are three lanes as 15 that approach goes into the intersection, correct?
16 A
That's what is shown here, yes.
U Q
Okay.
And, there is a left-turn bay there, 18 correct?
19 A
That's correct.
20 Q
And, there'n a left turn; there is an arrow that 21 designates a left turn there, correct?
22 A
That is correct.
23 0
Okay.
And, for the other two intersections 24 there are straight arrows, correct?
25 A
You mean, the other two lanes I assume?
66500303 18523 suewalsh 1
Q The other two lanes, right.
There are straight I
)
2 arrows, correct?
3 A
Right.
There should be a right turn arrow on 1
4 the outside lane.
5 0
And, the little box next to the left turn bay, 6
the little black area I take it is the designation where the 7
meter should be placed taking the counts?
8 A
It's actually the counter, right.
9 Q
The counter, okay.
And, there are two tubes 10 that are designated as running across that approach; isn't 11 that right?
12 A-That's correct.
13 0
Okay.
One of them just runs across the lef t-
'd 14 hand -- the left turn bay, right?
15 A
That is right.
16 Q
And, the left-hand turn I think we've already 17 established on the southbound direction is one of the 18 evacuation movements that would be made by -- strike that.
19 That's one of the movements that would be made 20 by evacuation traffic, correct?
21 A
Well, it is the movement that would be made by 22 evacuation traffic on that approach.
23 Q
Okay.
Looking at the intersection of the 24 nortNbound direction the right-hand movement again is the 25 evacuation movement tha't would be made by evacuees, correct?
O
66500303 18524 suewalsh I
I A
That's correct.
2 O
Mr. Lieberman, are you aware of where the lights 3
are placed facing the southbound approach -- let me strike d
that.
5 Do you know-how many' lights face the southbound 6
approach?
7 A
My recollection, it was two lights, two signal 8
. lead s.
9 Q
Mr. Lieberman, at this time I am going to show 10 you a photograph which I will represent to you as the H
intersection we are studying from the southbound direction, 12 and I wi13 ask you to identify it as well.
13 MR. McMURRAY:
Judge Margulies, at this time I id would like to have this photograph marked as suffolk County 15 Exhibit Number 21 for identification.
16 JUDGE MARGULIES:
It will be so marked.
l L
17 (The document referred to is marked IB as Suffolk County Exhibit Number 19 21 for identification.)
20 MR. CHRISTMAN:
We would like to have a copy of 21 this photograph at counsel table.
22 (The photograph is distributed.)
23 BY MR. McMURRAY:
(Continuing) 24 Q
Mr. Lieberman, first of all, do you recognize i
25 this intersection?
}
l
)
o
I '-
I 66500303 18525 i
l suewalsh
- k. )
1 A
Yes.
It does appear to be the entrance to the l
2 intersection of Old Country Road looking south along Route 3
107.
d O
And, over in the left-hand, the bottom left-5 hand, corner of the picture is the left turn bay that we 6
have been' discussing, correct?
7 A
That's correct.
8 C
The southbound approach?
9 A
Right.
10 0
Now, looking at the signals facing this 11 approach, there are three such signals, correct?
12 A
Well, there are only two on the approach.
The 13 signal on the left is really misplaced.
It's actually over
.h l
14 the -- it's too far to the left.
But it does, in fact,
?5 control traffic in both directions.
16 I think it was intended to control the lef t-turn 17 '
movement from the northbound approach and it's actually 18 placed too far to the left for the southbound approach.
19 But, I think it's reasonable to expect that southbound 20 vehicles will recognize it as such.
21 0
There are three signals that control the 22 southbound approach, correct?
23 A
I think that's a fair statement.
2d Q
Now, which of these signals contains the left-25 turn arrow controlling left turns, protected left turns, D
l
. L-L
~ 66500303 18526 suewalsh I~
I j}
onto Old Country Road?
2 A
That's the one all the way to the left.
]
Q That's the one you were just discussing?
]
l 3
d A
Right.
5 0
Okay.
And, the other two just have balled 6
j' lights, correct, no arrows?
1 7
A That is correct.
8 Q
Okay.
Now, I believe you stated that the signal 9
on the left is actually placed somewhat to the left of the ID left turn bay, correct?
II A
Right.
Correct,-I should say.
12 0,
And, the center signal is placed just a little 13 bit to the right of the left turn bay, correct?
LO 14 A
It's difficult to tell from this angle.
It 15 might be actually in line with the left turn bay, or it l
l 16 might in line with the lane delineation line.
It's l
17 difficult to say.
IB Q
Without looking at the picture, is this 19 something you have knowledge about, this placement?
20 Do you know --
21 A
I recall looking at the State's videotape, and 22 my recollection was that that signal actually is addressing l
23 the left turn bay.
24 0
When you say addressing, you mean --
25 A
Well, I mean it's more closer -- it's closer to
l i
66500303 18527 suewalsh j
'()
I the center line of the bay than it is to the adjoining 2
lane.
That's my recollection of the videotape.
,'i 3
O And, it's true, isn't it, as you look straight d
d on the other light -- the other light on the right-hand side i
5 is facing the right-hand lane, right?
6 A
Well, it's difficult.
Whether you can call it
)
7 the right-hand lane -- there is a very wide shoulder there I
l 8
to the curb.
You can just catch it in the lower right-hand
]
9 corner.
It's paved.
10 And, in fact, it's used -- that asphalt paving 11 is used as a right turn de facto right turn bay.
So, it's a 12 question of semantics.
i i
13 But, it is directly over the second lane to the l
14 right of the turn bay, left turn bay.
)
15 O
Now, it's true, isn't it, that in your analysis 16 of the capacity of this intersection, as reflected in TR-201 17 and 201.A, you assumed that people would be taking a left-18 hand turn not only from the -- when I say people I'm talking i
19 about evacuees -- left-hand bay but also from the middle 20 lane as you look at Suffolk County Exhibit 20, correct?
21 A
Well, that middle lane would be shared by 22 throughs and left-turns under the conditions that we 23 expect.
I think essentially what we asserted with that is a 24 reasonable expectation that some lef t-turners would, in 25 fact, turn from that lane, yes.
O
66500303 18528 suewalsh h(]')
I Q
When you say some, are you talking -- do you i
2 know what percentages you are talking abou t?
3 A
No, I really couldn't say.
d O
That's handled by the HCM software; is that 5
right?
6 A
- yes, 7
Q Is that something you've looked at, to see how B
many turners are taking a left from the center lane?
9 A
I'm not sure it's in the printout but it 10 probably is.
I don't think I analyzed that separately, no.
II O
It's a significant portion of the left-turners 12 though, right?
13 A
I don't know what you would call significant.
I EO 14 would have to look at the numbers.
It really doesn't matter 15 actually.
16 0
Well, let me ask you to step back for a second.
17 You are familiar with the terms " protected" and " phasing" 18 and " permitted phasing," right?
19 A
That's correct.
20 Q
Okay.
Now, protected phasing is where a 21 movement is protected from interference with other, with 22 impeding traffic.
For instance, a left turn arrow; is that 23 correct?
24 A
Well, it doesn' t have to be a lef t turn arrow.
25 It can be a ball green.
o
)
66500303 18529 suewalsh
)
0 That's an example, right?
)
1
(
2 A
That's correct.
3 Q
Okay.
-And, in the example we are looking at d
here there is a protected phase in the entire signal phase 5
with a left turn arrow designating left turns for left-l 6
turners, correct?
7 A
That's correct.
8 0
okay.
And, that's distinguished from a 9
permitted phase; isn't that right, where under a permitted I
10 phase you've got the ability to move but you may have to 11 address or confront impeding traffic.
For instance, where l
l 12 left turns are taken at a ball green, correct?
And, left-13 turners would have to compete with on-coming traffic.
14 Is that right?
15 A
Well, as I said before, it's possible for a 16 protected left turn to be facing a ball green.
So, the 17 presence of a ball green does not necessarily imply that's 18 it's only a permitted rather than protected.
19 In this case --
20 Q
Let's talk about the movement, though.
21 A
Yeah.
I'm talking about the movement.
22 Q
Where there is a permitted phase, that means 23 that the traffic that's taking the movement may have to move 24 and find gaps between oncoming traffic, for instance?
25 A
That is correct, yes.
10
66500303 18530 suewalsh J
4 i{ }
I Q
Okay.
Now,.at this intersection there is a 2
protected phase for the southbound left-turners, correct?
3 A
I think we've been through that.
d 0
And, that's reflected by the green arrow, right?
5 A
That's reflected by the green arrow.
6 O
And, as part of your analysis, you did assume, 7
didn't you, that the evacuees would take a left turn from 8
the center lane during the protected phase?
9 A
Yes, that's correct, given that they are at the 10 stop light.
11 0
Okay.
And, that left arrow -- strike that.
12 When the lef t -- when the green arrow is green 13 gg-during the protected phase and the left-band signal, can you L
18 tell me what the center and right. signals are showing, Mr.
15 Lieberman?
16 A
Well, I believe that at this intersection the 17 lef t turn phase services both the northbound lef t turn and 18 the southbound left turn.
So, under that condition the 19 other signals would show a red.
20 0
Okay.
So, that 5~ald be the signal that we have 21 stated is somewhere between the lef t turn bay and the center 22 lane and the right-hand signal would both be showing a red, 23 right?
24 A
That's right.
In fact, the left-turners would 25 be looking at a red but they probably would recognize the --
66500303 18531
.suewalsh 1
Q The green arrow all the way to the lef t would be 2
displaying a green arrow, right?
l 3
A Yes, that's right.
So, if they are familiar 4
with it they would see the green arrow and they would go.
1 5
0 All right.
So, you assumed then that during.the 6
protected phase the center lane -- people in the center lane 1
7 would be taking a left turn even though the signal above 8
them showed a red, correct?
9 A
Under police guidance, right.
10 0
Under police guidance?
l 11 A
Oh, yes.
12 O
Is it your testimony, Mr. Lieberman, that for --
13 in this ana3ysis you assumed that the police would be 14 setting up a traffic flow that would include double left 15 turns?
16 A
I assumed that if -- I assumed first that the 17 police would be stat-ioned there.
Second, it is a reasonable 18 expectation under the condition of heavy pressure for left 19 turns p3us an overflowing left turn bay and with an excess 20 of green time in that adjoining lane that some lef t-turners, 21 evacuees, would instead of vaiting patiently for the left 22 turn bay to move forward would take the initiative and move 23 forward to the stop line in the adjoining bay, seeing an 24 empty stop line, an empty lane with a green signal showing.
25 O
So, you assumed that people in that Jane would
.O
i 66500303 18532 suewalsh 1
not be following the rules of the road?
2 A
I'm assuming that people in that lane would 3
follow the directions of the police who would see a lef t-d turn flasher on the car and in the interest of expediting 5
movement and in the absence of a queue extending from the 6
reception center, which makes all this discussion academic, i
7 would, in fact, move that car forward.
B 9
10 11 12 13 LO 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
66500404 18533 joewalsh
{}
I Q
Mr. Lieberman, it's true, isn't it, that the 2
3 eft-turners from the southbound direction are taking left 3
turns at the same time that northbound left-turners are turning, correct?
a 5
A That's correct.
It's a large intersection.
6 O
And, have you determined whether or'not there is 7
the possibility of encroachment by the left-turners from the 8
center lane on the left-turners coming from the northbound 9
direction?
10 A
I'm not sure I understand what you mean by 11 encroachment.
12 Q
Is it possib3e that their paths could intercept?
13 A
Anything is possible, but there is enough room O
14 for their paths to pass each other.
15 Q
Isn't it true though that in a movement like 16 this, the two paths could interfere with one another?
17 A
Not likely, given the geometrics of the 18 intersection and the width of Old Country Road.
19 0
Well, is this something that you've analyzed or 20 you have gust eye-balled?
21 A
Well, I've analyzed it from the point of view of 22 standing at the intersection and looking at it.
23 Q
Did you take any measurements?
24 A
I have not taken any measurements within the 25 intersection.
We have taken measurements, of course, of O
i
66500404 18534 j oewalsh I
q"']
the lane widths which essentially defines the intersection.
An s
7 Q
Have you done any particular studies to 3
determine whether or not there would be encroachment by the d
center lane on the northbound lef t-turners?
5 A
I don't think the term " encroachment" is 6
properly served here.
7 0
Well, conflicts, then?
Have you made any 8
studies about whether there would be conflicts?
9 A
Well, what I'm saying is that it's possible for 10 that proj ectory to occur without conflict.
II Q
So, it's your testimony then, Mr. Lieberman, 12 that you are assuming police control out there to initiate 13 these left turns, correc t?
Id A
I didn't say the police control initiated it.
I 15 think the police control would be responsive to the needs of 16 the evacuees, given that there is no queue extending from 17 the reception center.
18 And, it's the 3 atter issue which you seem to be 19 ignoring.
20 0
Well, Mr Lieberman, are you or are you not 21 assuming that police would be directing people from the 22 center lane to tnke left turns?
23 A
I think the police would acquiesce and provide 24 access for evacuees signaling a left turn from that lane.
25 Q
By directing them to turn left, correct?
!O
'66500404 18535 joewalsh 1
A Right.
U 2
O And, isn' t it true that absence of that police 3
control that you are asserting that people from the left --
d in that center lane might not take left turns if they are
{
5 facing a ball red?
6 A
I think that's reasonable, yes.
7 Q
Let me refer you to Page 32 of your testimony.
8 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Which testimony?
Of the --
9 MR. McMURRAY:
I'm sorry.
Of TR-201.A.
10 BY MR. McMURRAY:
(Continuing) 11 Q
At the bottom paragraph, you say:
" Note that, 12 in the interest of maintaining a conservative posture, the 13 above analysis does not assume an expectation of lower (O
14 background traffic volume.
Nor does it include 15 consideration of active traffic control beyond the installed 16 traffic signal control."
17 Do you see that?
i 18 A
Right.
That relates back to TR-3 92.
It's not 19 stated clearly here, but that was the intent.
20 Q
You are talking about the analysis that you 21 conducted in TR-201 and 201.A, aren't you?
22 A
Right.
But, it's not de-coupled from what we 73 did earlier.
24 If you look at TR-192 you will find that we had 25 specified a particular lay-out of police control at that
- O 1
l
66500404 18536 joewalsh t
i i
I intersection.
And, effectively what I'm saying here, when I 2
use the term " active police control" I was referring back to 3
those sketches in TR-192.
d O
Well, you go on to say, don't you, that the 5
control -- strike that.
6 "Since the calculations have shown that 7
intersection capacity is not a limiting constraint on 8
evacuating traffic movement, no special controls were 9
considered in this analysis."
Right?
10 A
That's correct.
Il O
Okay.
So, in TR-192 and 192.A, you were not 12 considering special traffic controls, right?
13 A
I think you misstated the question.
I think you 1.
id meant to say 201.
You said 192.
15 0
In 201 and 201.A, you were not specifying 16 special controls, right?
17 A
Well, that's correct.
But, go on to the next 18 sentence.
"However, those controls..." meaning those 19 special controls, "specified in Appendix C of TR-192..."
20 Those are the guides that I was not assuming.
i 21 Q
But, you are assuming -- or, you are 22 recommending that in order to achieve flows above and beyond 23 what you were able to achieve in your analyses that are 24 reflected in 201 and 201.A, right?
25 A
Try again.
That question is not well defined.
RD
-_..____2__-_-
66500404 185'37 j oewalsh
\\{ }
1 When you say "those" what those are you talking about?
2 Q
The traffic controls that are specified in 192, 3
okay, and those that are also in Table 310 of 201.A.
4 A
Now, you are linking two things together here.
5 O
Well, then let's just take the first one.
The 6
traffic controls that are specified in 192 are IOCommended 7
in order to achieve flows better than you were able to 8
achieve in your analyses that were conducted for 201 and 9
201.A, c orrec t?
10 A
That is true.
11 Q
Okay.
So, the results that you reported in 201 12 and 201.A were not supposed to rely on special controls, 13 correct?
Ib 14 A
Those controls that have been indicated in TR-15 192, that is correct.
16 Q
All right.
Now, we have established though that 17 with respect to the intersection at Route 107 and Old 18 Country Road, in fact, you were relying on the presence of 19 police, correct?
20 A
Given the scenario usea in the analysis, yes.
21 Q
Okay.
And, the -- then, this statcment that is 22 made on Page 33 of TR-201.A is not accurate, is it?
23 A
Yes, it is.
Remember, the controls specified in 24 TR-192, if you took at look at the sketches, involves 25 rerouting of background traffic, establishment of cones and
9 66500404-18538 joewalsh l
I
/}
having several police not only there but in Jerusalem I
2 Avenue.
3 Essentially what I'm saying here is this d
analysis does not depend upon those special controls.
5 That's what it says.
It doesn't say anything about not 6
depending upon a single policeman without cones there.
7 Q
Well, it doesn't say that it depends on pollCe B
control, does it?
Nowhere in your report do you say that-9 the results of your analysis depend on police control, 10 telling people to make movements that~they might not M
normally make, does it?
12 A
Not explicitly.
13 LO 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
66500505 18539 marysimons
/
}
l Q
And in f act you lead the reader to believe that 2
you're relying only'on the installed traffic signal control?
3 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Obj ec tion, argumentative.
4 MR. McMURRAY:
This is cross-examination.
5 JUDGE MARGULIES:
We will permit the question.
6 WITNESS LIEBERMAN:
Well, I've already answered 7
it.
I've said that under the scenario that we used as a 8
basis for analysis the expectations are that there would be 9
traffic, evacuation traffic that would attempt to use that 10 adjoining lane in the absence of a queue which I have to M
repeat, and if there is a policeman there, which I expect 12 there will be, he would allow such movement.
13 BY MR. McMURRAY:
eO 14 Q
But you've already stated that some people might 15 not take that left turn in the presence of a red ball over 16 their head, correct?
17 A
In the absence of a policeman that waves them IB on; that's correct.
19 Q
And you stand by this statement at the top of 20 page 33 "Nor does it include consideration of active traffic 21 control beyond the installed traffic signal?
Do you stand 22 by that statement?
23 A
Yes, with the understanding that the active 24 traffic control is referenced in the next paragraph, which 25 in turn references TR-192.
h
66500505-18540 marysimons I
You will also notice in 201A that there is a 2
list of intersections at which we recommend police control, 3
and that is Table 3-10.
So your conclusion that we have assumed no 5
police control at all is not correct.
6 0
What I'm asking is -- well, let's move back a 7
minute.
8 Mr. Lieb erman, in conducting your analysis you 9
did computer runs using the HCM procedures, right?
10 A
That's correct.
II Q
And in using those HCM procedures is it your l
12 testimony that in fact you were assuming police control?
13 A
Under the scenario that we have' established.
I h'r i
Id think this is about the third time we've done this.
l 15 0
And are there any other intersections, Mr.
1 16 Lieberman, that you can identify for me where you are 17 assuming that a police officer will be instructing evacuees I8 to make movements that they might not otherwise make?
19 A
I'm not suggesting the police officer here is 20 instructing the evacuees to make a movement he wouldn't 21 ordinarily make.
22 What I'm saying to you is that these evacuees 23 are sitting at the stop line with a lef t turn flasher going 24 and the policeman in the absence of a queue, and I have to 25 keep saying that, would in fact, in my view, have expedited i
1 66500505 18541 marysimons f^\\
the movement of that vehicle toward the reception center.
l V
2 I
O But we have already established that some people 3
may not take that movement absent a police officer there, j
d right?
5 A
That is correct.
6 Q
Now are there any other intersections where you 7
have assumed there is police control where people might be 8
instructed to make moves that they wouldn't make in the i
9 absence of a police officer?
10 A
There is one other that comes to mind.
II O
And what's that?
l 12 A
That's the southbound approach on Willis Avenue 13 at the eastbound LIE service road in Roslyn.
b' 14 O
Have you discussed with Nassau County police 15 officials your plan or your suggestion that left turners 16 take a Icft at the center lane?
17 A
No, I have not.
18 Q
You don't know if they think that is a good idea 19 or not, do you?
20 A
Normally I'm sure they would say it's not, and I 21 would agree with them.
22 Q
You don't know whether they would think it would 23 be a good idea in an emergency though, do you?
24 A
That's correct.
25 Q
You don't know whether they might not be worried O
l
i 66500505[
38542 marysimons I
I
-(]
about conflicting paths, do you?
2 A
No, I have no firsthand knowledge of that, but 3
it really doesn't matter.
We have also done a backup.
analysis assuming that such traffic were not permitted and 5
it makes no ditference.
)
6 MR McMURRAY:
Judge Margulies, at this time I 7
would like to hand out a document I would like to mark as 8
Suffolk County Exhibit ---
9 JUDGE MARGULIES:
22.
10 MR. McMURRAY:
--- 22 for identificatica.
II (The document referred to was 12 marked for identification as 13 7
Suffolk County Exhibit No. 22.)
L Id Judge Margulies, let me inform you that this is 15 a certified copy of a letter that has been sent to the 16 Board, and as such it needs no authentication.
Its I7 foundation is laid by the contents of the document, and I I8 would like to refer the Board and the parties to the letter, 19 and especially to the last paragraph which states that "I 20 respectfully request that the Nassau County Police 21 Department and the Nassau County Medical Center be removed 22 from the plan," and that is referring to the LILCO plan.
23 I move that this be admitted into evidence at 24 this time.
Under the Federal Rules of Evidence 902 (a) it is 25 properly admissible, and if you like, I will show you the l
66500505 18543 marysimons l
~ actually certified copy with the raised seal, sir.
(J 2
JUDGE MARGULIES:
Is there any objection?
3 MR. CHRIS7 MAN:
Yes, I obj ect.
'I'm not d
absolutely sure that the certification cures all of the l
l 5
foundation problems that might be raised.
This is once 1
6 again an orphan document of the sort that has been excluded 7
before and I will make the objection for the record.
8 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Can you read Rule 902 (a) or 9
can you show us Rule 902 (a) ?
10 MR. McMURRAY:
Unfortunately, I don't have it II with me here.
I will endeavor to get a copy.
What 902 (a) l 12 says is that when you have a certified or sealed copy of an l
13 official document like that, there is no need for ih t
14 authentication and it may be admitted into the record 15 without further authentication.
16 As far as the foundation goes, the relevance of 17 the document is plain from the face of the document and the I8 testimony we have here from Mr. Lieberman regarding the 19 presence of Nassau County police officers, and therefore 20 there is a sufficient foundation laid that it is re3evant i
21 probative, material and therefore admissible.
22 JUDGE MARGULIES:
We would like to see Rule 23 902 (a) before we rule and we reserve decision on the rule.
1 24 MR. McMURRAY:
Yes, sir.
25 Mr. Lieberman, at this time I would like to show
66500505 18544 marysimons i
I you a document which is headed "1985 HCM Signalized 2
Intersections."
It deals with the Old Country Road and 3
Broadway intersection.
At this time I would like to have this document 5
marked as Suf folk County Exhibit No. 23 for identification.
6 JUDGE MARGULIES:
It will be so marked.
7 (The document referred to was 8
marked for identification as Suf folk County Exhibit No. 23. )
10 BY MR. McMURRAY:
II Q
Do you recognize this document, Mr. Lieberman?
12 A
Well, it is a document which represents the 33 printout of the HCM software package.
I can't tell you just I'
by looking at it whether it's ours or the State witnesses.
15 Q
Well, under the "Name of Analyst" there is R.
16 Goldblatt, right?
U A
No.
This appears to be a State document.
It I8 says "B.
G."
l I9 JUDGE MARGULIES:
We may not be looking at the 20 same document.
21 MR. McMURRAY:
Yes.
I'm sorry.
I think we have 22 the wrong document.
23 (Pause.)
24 MR. McMURRAY:
Judge Margulies, I don't know how 25 you want to handle this.
I don't really think right now I
66500505 18545 marysimons I want to mark as an exhi' i t the document that was original]y 2 handed out. Can we substitute this one and mark it as 3 Suffo3h County Exhibit 23? d JUDGE MARGULIES: Yes, it will just be a l 5 substitution. It was properly identified, isn't that 6 correct, for the identification number in terms of the 7 document you are presently handing out? 8 MR. McMURRAY: That's right. 9 If everybody could just set aside the other one 10 that we handed out inadvertently and we'll collect it. II BY MR. McMURRAY: 12 O All right, Mr. Lieberman, do you have a document 13 in front of you which is an HCM Signalized Intersection i (O Id printout for Old County Road and' Broadway,-and where it says 15 "Name of the Analyst" it says "R. Goldblatt"? 16 A That's correct. 17 p And that is Suffolk County Exhibit 23, correct? IB A So noted. 19 O Going to the second page -- well, before we do 20 that, Mr. Goldblatt is one of your employees; is that right? 21 A That's correct. 22 O And this I will represent was provided to the 23 interveners by LILCO. I take it that this is part of the 24 analysis that was done of the Old County Road and Broadway 25 intersection for the time period of 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.; is .O
66500505 18546 marysimons I that right? 2 A This was the first analysis that was done, and 3 it was later replaced by a more accurate analysis. O There 2s a later version of th2s printout? 5 A Oh, yes. 6 Q Has that been provided to the interveners? 7 A Yes, indeed. This one was used for TR-201. The 8 later one was used for 201(a). This is now obsolete. 9 Q For our purposes I think it will do. 10 A It won't do for my purpose. Q Well, on the second page let me refer you to the 12 section that says intersection geometry. Do you see that? I3 A Yes. Id O The last column is headed "SB" and that means 15 southbound; is that right? 16 A That's Correct. I7 0 Now under the subheading " Type" are the I8 designations L, LTT and R. Do you see that? I9 A Right. 20 0 This column shows that there are four lanes as 21 you show them in the southbound approach, correct? 22 A That's correct. 23 0 I will represent that the circle around the LT 24 type and the width that says 12 is not yours, but it's ours, 25 but referring you to that entry, that shows, doesn't it, !O I l
66500505' 18547 marysimons ) I that for this analysis you assumed that lane 2 would be 2 hand 1dng both left turning traffic and through traffic, 3 right? d A That's correct. .5 0 Let me ask you this. Since the time you did 6 this analysis and. assuming that left turners would be taking 7 a left under police direction from the center lane, have you 8 done any sensitivity analyses at this intersection to 9 determine what the ef f ect would be 11 people did not take a 10 left from the center lane? II A Yes, we have. 12 0 When was that done? 13 A Yesterday. (1 id 0 And have you done such an analysis for the other 15 intersect $on that you discussed, and I think it was Willis 16 Avenue and the eastbound LIE service road? 17 A Yes, we have. IB Q You note here that there are four lanes for the 19 southbound approach to this intersection. Can I ask you why 20 you assume that there are four lanes instead of three as 21 seems to be indicted by the sketch which is Suffolk County 22 Exhibit 207 23 A Well, I mentioned when we were looking at the 24 photo that there is a wide paved shoulder to the right of 25 the three lanes. The shoulder is an asphalt with three (
0 66500505 18548 marysimons -] 'I lanes in concrete. And the observation was that vehicles 2 s31p into that shou 3 der that make right turns from it. 3 Our role as engineers is to describe the real world, what actually goes on out there, and if in fact a 5 shoulder of that width is in fact available for use by 6 moving traffic and is used by moving traffic, then proper 7 design requires that such movements be properly represented. 8 Q At how many intersections would you say in your entire analysis of all the approaches to all the reception 10 centers would say that you designated shoulders as right turn lanes? 12 A Well, I can't give you a number. It should not 13 be restricted to shoulders either. There are some locations y Oc Id where the outside lane is so wide that although it is not 15 delineated as two lanes, it is used as two lanes by traffic 16 on that approach and in keeping with such observation and '7 consistent with the highway capacity manual we do in fact I8 designated it as two lanes in that case. I9 Q Can you tell me roughly at how many 20 intersections you may have considered a shou 3 der or a large 2I lane, a wide lane be used as a right turning lane? ?? A As I said, I haven't made a separate compilation 23 of that number. I can try to do so by this afternoon. 2a O How did you determine whether or not a lane or a 25 shoulder was appropriate for right turns such that you could EO L
l 66500505 18549 marysimons l { in the input to the agency have effectively added another 2 lane for arning? '3 A Well, of course, it had to do the with the d geometrics and it had to do with actual vehicle usage. 5 0 Well, I take it that this practice is based on a 6 field survey that was done by you or your group? 7 A Several field surveys, yes. 8 Q And right turns from the shoulder were caserved 9 at all of these intersections? 10 A Wherever we specified it; that's correct. Il Q Did anyone determine whether or not parking was 12 permitted along those shoulders? 13 A Yes, that was determined. Id Q And what were the results? 15 A The results were that through conventional use 16 there was no parking. I don't think there was a. formal 17 designation of whether a particular pocket was used for 18 parking or not. Perhaps there was. I just didn't check 19 that. But I do believe that in every case where a right 20 turn shoulder was used that observations were made, and I 21 believe in most cases it was checked that no parking was 22 permitted. 23 0 In most cases no parking was permitted, but not 24 all? 25 A It may be all. I have not pursued it to that O
'66500505 18550 marysimons l I
- (
level of detail,.but then I could check that for you if you 2 wou3d like. 3 MR. McMURRAY: Yes, please. Judge Margulies, at this time I would like to 5 move into evidence Suffolk County Exhibits 19 -- did we 6 start off with 18? 7 JUDGE MARGULIES: We started with 19. 8 MR. McMURRAY: Okay. 19, 20, 21 and 23. 9 JUDGE MARGULIES: Is there any objection? 10 MR. CHRISTMAN: No, sir. II M.R. BACHMANN: No obj ection. 12 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: No obj ection. 13 JUDGE MARGULIES: They will be admitted into ld evidence. That is 19, 20," 21 and 23. 15 MR. McMURRAY: Thank you. 16 (Suf fo3k County Exhibit Nos. 19, 20, 21 and 23, previously marked I8 for identification, were admitted I9 into evidence.) 20 BY MR. McMURRAY: 21 Q Mr. Lieberman, let me refer you to a document 1 22 headed "1985 Signalized Intersections" which pertains to the 23 castbound LIE service road and Willis Avenue, and where it 24 says "Name of the Analyst" there is the name Rubin M Goldblat t. Do you see that?
66500505 18551 marysimons I A Yes. It says R. Goldblatt. 2 0 And that is Rubin Goldblatt, correct? 3 A Correct. d MR. McMURRAY: Judge Margulies, at this time I 5 would like to have this document marked as Suffolk County 6 Exhibit 24 for identification. 7 JUDGE MARGULIES: This is for the Willis Avenue B intersection. 9 MR. McMURRAY: That's correct. 10 JUDGE MARGULIES: It will be so marked. 11 (The document referred to was 12 marked for identification as, 13 Suf folk County Exhibit No. 24.) A ~ Id BY MR. McMURRAY: 15 Q Is this one of the HCM printouts which was 16 j generated as a result of your analysis of the intersection l 17 of the eastbound LIE service road and Willis Avenue, Mr. IB Lieberman? 19 A Yes. This is another obsolete printout. It has 20 been replaced since then. l 21 Q And going to the second page, again you have 22 assumed -- let's look at the southbound lane -- you have 23 assumed, haven't you again, that the lane next to the left 24 turn bay would be used as a lef t turn lane; is that correct? 25 A Well, it would be used as a shared Jane with () left turners and throughs sharing that 2ane. A
66450606 18552 suewalsh (, 1 Q I am going to refer you to KLD TR-201A, Page 2 10. Do you have that in front of you? '0 ~ 3 A Yes. o 4 Q On this drawing, the intersection that we are 5 looking at now.is designated Intersection R-2, correct? 6 A That is correct. Actually, it is the automatic 7 traffic counter that is so designated. 8 Q The intersection that has an RT next to it is 9 the one we are talking dbout here, right? 10 A I believe so. 11 Q And in order to get to this intersection, 12 evacuees would be heading west on the LIE, and get off at 13 the ramp right by the nos2yn Reception Center, and take a i'k 14 left at the intersection that is marked at least on here as 15 R-1, correct? 16 A That is correct. 17 Q Okay. So, they would be heading south on R-1 18 down to R-2, correct? 19 A Tha t is correct. 20 Q Now, let me show you a document I would like to 21 have marked Suf f olk County Exhibit No. 25 f or 22 identification. 23 This is a schematic drawing -- I will say it is 24 a drawing, which in the middle of it has a drawing of a road 25 labeled Long Island Expressway, and next to the North-South O
66450606 18553 i suewalsh-j i I Road it has Willis Avenue, and in the upper left hand corner 2 it'has the heading which says: Head ways. 3 Do you have this document in front of you? d A Yes. 5 JUDGE MARGULIES: It will be so marked for 6 iden'-i f icat ion, j 7 ( Above referenced document is marked 8 Suffolk County Exhibit No. 25, for 9 identification.) 10 BY MR. McMURRAY: (Continuing) II O Again, this is one of the drawings that was 12 included with Suffolk County Exhibit 19, right? 13 A It appears to be, yes, sir, ld O And at the intersection that we are talking 15 about, is the intersection on the bottom half of this 16 diagram, correct? 17 A Yes. IB Q Okay. So that if one were to label this 19 intersection the east bound road, the road that is going 20 east-west, wauld be labeled LIE service road, or south 21 service road, or east bound service road, correct? 22 A Yes. 23 Q There is a lef t turn bay at this intersection, 24 correct? I 25 A There is a left turn bay on the southbound I l - - _. _ _ o
r_________________---_-_ h* I 66450606 18554 suewalsh I j) approach to this intersection. 2 O And this' diagram also shows two straight arrows, 3 correct, in the southbound direction? d A That is correct. 5 Q So'there are two additional lanes besides the 6 left turn bay? 7 A That is correct. 8 Q And the left turn movement from this left turn 9 . bay onto the LIE eastbound' service road, is the evacuation 10 movement that will be taken by evacuees going to the Roslyn 11 Reception Center, right? 12 A That is correct. 13 Q And as a matter of fact, the Roslyn Reception <O ~ 14 Center is just of f the bottom right of this diagram, 15 correct? 16 A It is in the lower right hand corner, yes. 17 Q Again, the little black mark next to the left 18 turn bay represents the counter that was placed there? 19 A That is correct. 20 Q And there were two tubes placed across that 21 road, is that correct? 22 A The.t is correct. 23 O One running just across the left turn bay, 24 right? 25 A That is correct. .O
66450606 18555 suewalsh ~~l I q ) Q And the other runs all the way across the road? 7 A That is correct. 3 Q Now, can you tell me from looking at this d diagram where the lights -- strike that. 5 Can you tell me how many lights face the 6 evacuees who are traveling southbound into this 7 intersection? 8 A I have a photograph of it, but not with me here. 9 0 Let me see if I can refresh your recollection. 10 Somewhere over the left turn bay, or somewhat to the left of II it, is there not a small signal that has just the left turn 12 arrow? 13 A I can't retrieve that from memory; it may be. .:O Id ~ Q Do you recall the placement of any of the lights 15 over this intersection? 16 A Not by recollection, no. I7 Q This is another intersection I believe you 18 stated where you assumed there would be police control with 19 people from the center lane at this intersection also taking 20 left turns, isn't that right? 21 A Yes, I think that is a reasonable expectation. 22 O Have you conculted with Nassau County Police 23 officials as to whether or not they believe this is a 24 reasonable way to go? 25 A I have already said I have not consulted the 1
4 66450606 18556 suewalsh 1 .Nassau County Police. 2 Q Providing this or any other intersection, 3 correct? 4 A That is correct. 5 0 And I take it that my other questions about the i 6 Nassau County Police would also apply to this intersection, 7 Correct? 8 A I am not sure which questions you are referring 9 to. 10 Q I will have to go through the litany of it then. 11 A I have not conferred with Nassau County Police. 12 I don't know if that is complete for you. 13 Q Can you tell me any other intersections, Mr. I 14 Lieberman, where you assumed police control of the sort that 15 you have assumed here at Willis Avenue and the LIE eastbound 16 service road, or on the intersection of 107 and Old Country 17 Road? 18 A It is not clear to me what you mean by, "of the 19 sort?" I do assume police to be at -- all have reloaded 20 into sections. I don't know whether they will go to all the 21 ones I recommend, but I think it is fair to say they would 22 certainly be at the intersections in the vicinity of the 23 reception centers. 24 0 I take it that you would agree with me that 25 using two lanes for left turns rather than one increases the O l 1 i .___l
l 66450606 18557 suewalsh I. I } number of people who are taking left turns into the Roslyn 2 Reception Center, isn't that right? 3 A Well, it has that potential. Actually, it d wouldn't happen that way, but it has that potential. 5 0 Can you tell me whether you assumed at any other 6 intersection that there would be double left turns? 7 A No. 8 l Q You can't tell me, or you haven't assumed any? 9 A To the best of my recollection, the situation 10 would not be permitted at any intersection that I can think II of. 12 In other words, if you go along the various 13 paths, I would have to think about it, but I don't believe LLO l-Id that there are too many -- I don't think there are any other 15 locations where the geometrics would permit a dual left 16 turn. 17 These two locations, the geometrics, in my view, 18 would. 19 O Are there any other intersections where you have 20 assumed that under police control the people might move, or 21 make movements that they might not otherwise make, absent 22 police control? 23 A No, I don't like the characterization of the 24 question. The movements here -- I guess the implication I 25 am getting here is that the movements we are speaking of are !(_)
l 66450606 18558 suewalsh [J~j 1 either impossibic to make or dangerous in nome way, and I 2 take issue with that. 3 Q My question though is, and I can have it read 4 back, whether or not you know of any other intersections 5 where police -- where you assume police control where people 6 will be directed to make moves that they might not make in 7 the absence of police officers? 8 A I think the entrance to the Bellmore facility 9 from Sunrise Highway, that is not an entrance that the 10 public makes at all. We assume that both lanes -- that 11 entrance way is wide enough to accommodate two lanes, and I 12 believe that two lanes will form in that entrance way, so 13 here is a movement that people would not ordinarily perform tO 14 at any point. 15 I think the same is true of the entrance to the 16 Hicksvi13e facility. Two lanes will form on the entrance 17 way to that facility. 18 Q At which entrance? 19 A That would be the western entrance, if memory j 20 serves. 21 Q All right. 22 A There are two lanes on the exit ramp from 23 Seaford, Oyster Bay southbound, to Old Country Road, just J 24 recently been widened. There could be two lanes moving onto 25 Old Country Road. The geometrics would permit that. i
i 66450606 18559 suewalsh I -) O Is that a movement you assumed in your analysis? l 2 A I don't reca13 now. I would have to check. 3 Q Would you do that? d A Certainly. 5 MR. McMURRAY: Judge Margulies, would you like 6 to take the morning break now? 7 JUDGE MARGULIES: Yes, it would be a convenient 8 time. Let's recess for fifteen minutes. i l 9 (Morning recess taken at 10:30 a.m., to 10 reconvene at 10:48 a.m., this same day.) 11 12 13 LO i, 15 16 l 17 18 19 20 21 22 l 23 24 25
66500707 18560 j oewal sh .f-1 JUDGE MARGULIES: Back on the record. f 2 MR. McMURRAY: Judge Margulies, for the Board's 3 information, I've placed on your chairs Rule 902 of the a Federal Rules of Evidence. And, I apologize. I said 902.A 5 before. It's actually 902, Subparts 1 and 2 that I'm 6 relying on. 7' JUDGE MARGULIES: If you read the Advisory 8 Committee note, they speak in terms of -- in the form of 9 acknowledgment of "or certificates or authenticating copies 10 of public records of broad application." 11 MR. McMURRAY: It says the acceptance is of 12 broad application. 13 JUDGE MARGULIES: If it was the original ifh 'k) 14 resolution, I would have no problem with it. But, this is i 15 in terms of a letter to the Board. And, that's why I'm 16 troubled by it. 17 MR. McMURRAY: When you were talking about broad is application, where were you referring to, Judge Margulies? 19 JUDGE MARGULIES: I skipped that broad 20 application, but in terms of caples of public records -- and I don't know.if a letter -- 21 22 MR. CHRISTMAN: I have another -- 23 MR. McMURRAY: This is more than a letter. This 24 is a document that has been signed by all of the 25 supervisors. The authenticity of this document and of those O
i '66500707 18561 j oewalsh i m i signatures has been certified. It has got a raised seal on sd J 2 here and the signature of the person who was permitted to 3 give such certification. 4 MR. CHRISTMAN: I would like to be heard, too. 5 MR. McMURRAY: And, it is a public record. I 6 don't know why the Board would think it's not a public 7 rec ord. 8 MR. CHRISTMAN: Well, it is still just a 9 letter. But, I don't think I contest that this is an 10 accurate copy of a letter that was actually signed by the 11 people it purports to be signed by. That isn't the whole 12 story. 13 There is still no witness here to sponsor this. 14 It certainly can' t be put into evidence with my witness on 15 the stand. It's not proper as a matter of evidence to put 16 in a letter signed by someone else not in the courtroom when 17 my witness, who has no information about this document 18 except what he can get by reading it, is the one on the 19 stand. 20 MR. McMURRAY: Well, that's the whole point 21 under the Advisory Committee note. It says -- it talks 22 about admissibility without extrinsic evidence. That's why 23 you don't need to have a witness attest to the authenticity. 24 And, as far as laying a foundation, as I said 25 the relevance, the probativeness, the materiality is stated
1 66500707 18562 1 j oewalsh l es 1 in the basis of the document. It needs no further b 2 foundation. l l 3 The whole purpose of this rule is to permit 4 documents to go into evidence without having a witness to 5 put them through. 6 MR. CHRISTMAN: Well, authenticity is not the 1 7 whole story. There is no one to be cross-examined; there is l-8 no one to explain what this means. It's simply not l l 9 competent evidence, leaving aside the fact that it's 1 l io doubtless an authentic copy of what it says it is. l 11 MR. McMURRAY: Well, the document speaks for 12 itself. This rule contemplates having no witness which you 13 put this document in there. i 14 JUDGE MARGULIES: That means you don't have to l bring in the County Clerk and have him authenticate the 15 16 document. But, that -- l 17 MR. McMURRAY: Or any of the gentlemen who 18 signed this letter. 19 JUDGE MARGULIES: But, we do -- in terms of its t l 20 contents, we do have a problem of hearsay. 21 MR. McMURRAY: That hasn' t been a real problem 22 in this proceeding, Judge Margulies, the admission of i 23 hearsay. I 24 MR. CHRISTMAN: Well, it was last week. There i were several things excluded for hearsay. 25 O
1' 66500707 18563 j oewalsh F[r i 1 You will also recall that your fellow counsel, 2 or the counsel for the State, argued that authenticity .3 wasn't the point at one point last week. There were other factors that go into foundation other than simply 4 l l 5 authenticity. 6 MR. McMURRAY: Well, certainly the relevance of 7 the document is clear from reading it. 8 JUDGE MARGULIES: Do you wish to be heard, Mr. 9 Bachmann? 10 MR. BACHMANN: The Staff seems to have the same 11 problem that the Board does insofar as were this the actual 12 resolution, then I don't think there would be any problem. i __ 13 But, we have a J etter to the Board. I don't ia think that it is this type of document that is contemplated' 15 within the purview of the Rule 902. I; is not what I would 16 consider the public document that is encompassed by the 17 rule. And, I'm troubled by -- again along with counsel for 18 LILCO -- establishing the reliability of what is contained 19 therein. 20 To the extent that the second paragraph 21 describing the gist or the pertinent part of the resolution 22 is concerned, I don't think I would have that much trouble. 23 The rest of it, I do. 24 MR. McMURRAY: Judge Margulies, the rule -- when 25 it refers to the types of documents that this rule is ] a
66500707 18564 j oewalsh (f]/. i supposed to apply to, it says, "The document purporting to w 2 bear the signature in his official capacity of an officer or 3 employee." Now, it doesn't say it has to be a resolution. 4 It just says the document purporting to bear the signature 3 in his official capacity of an officer or employee. 6 That's certainly what this document is. It 7 doesn't say it has to be some sort of -- it doesn't have to a pass a threshold test of officialness. I also say that the 9 relevance and materiality of this letter -- it's clear that jo if LILCO wants to call witnesses from Nassau County and try 11 to say that the letter means something different from what 12 it says, they are certainly entitled to do that. 13 MR. CHRISTMAN: That is clearly not an answer to (O \\ 14 putting in an inadequate evidentiary exhibit. 15 Our objection stands, lack of adequate 16 foundation and hearsay apart from the question of 17 authenticity. 18 MR. McMURRAY: I would also state that hearsay 19 has admitted in this proceeding time and again. And, I 20 think probably that argument goes to the weight, not to the 21 admissibility of the evidence. 22 JUDGE MARGULIES: Well, let's take the last 23 paragraph, for example: "I respectfully request, therefore, 24 that the Nassau County Police Department and the Nassau 25 County Medical Center be removed f rom the plan." O
66500707 18565 i .joewalsh I sq 1 liow does that relate to the matter at issue in (/ 2 terms of Mr. Lieberman's traffic analysis? 3 MR. McMURRAY: Well, if you refer to the second 4 paragraph it says: "No county f acilities are to be 5 available for us by LILCO as part of its emergency plan 6 unless prior approval by resolution is first obtained by the 7 Nassau County Board of Supervisors." 8 I respectfully -- and if you go down to the 9 bottom paragraph, he's asking that where the Nassau County 10 Police Department is relied on by LILCO in its plan planning 11 for the radiological emargency that those references be 12 removed. And, therefore, tb Jounty is saying that LILCO 13 cannot rely on the availability of the Nassau County Police 14 Department. l 15 MR. CHRISTMAN: Any citizen can call the police 16 in the tin.e of an emergency, and the police as they always 17 do will do their duty. And, we all know that. 18 MR. McMURRAY: Well, this goes to the weight and 19 not to the admissibility. l l 20 (The Board members are conferring.) 21 MR. McMURRAY: Does the Board need to see the 22 raised seal? 23 JUDGE MARGULIES: No. That's no problem. The 24 Board will not admit the document. It will be in the record 25 as a record marked for identification. And, if you want to
66500707 18566 joewalsh i make an offer of proof on it, feel free to. 2 But, the Board has determined this is not the' 3 way to get into the record this type of evidence. 4 MR. McMURRAY: May I have a more explicit ruling 5 as far as the reasons for the Board's denial of this 6 exhibit? 7 JUDGE MARGULIES: The Board, number one, 8 questions the relevancy. It isn't very specific in terms of 9 Mr. Lieberman's testimony. You spoke in terms of it to relating to planning when the document itself says plan. f. 11 It's just something very, very general. It 12 speaks of facilities. It doesn't necessarily refer to the 13 police. ja MR. McMURRAY: It refers to the Nassau County 15 Police Department. 16 JUDGE MARGULIES: Pardon me? 17 MR. McMURRAY: It refers to the Nassau County is Police Department, the last paragraph. 19 JUDGE MARGULIES: Okay. I'm sorry, But, it's 20 too general. It doesn't relate to the specific situation we 21 have here in the traffic analysis. 22 There is. no one here to be examined in terms of i 23 specifically what it means. And, absent a witness to tell 24 us what it means, the Board will not accept it. 25 If you want to make a statement on offer of O
66500707 18567 j oewalsh !.1 .je's 1 proof, Mr. McMurray, you are free to. vJ l 2 MR. McMURRAY: Yes, Judge Margulies, I will make '3 an offer of proof. 4 Suffolk County Exhibit 22 for identification is ) 5 .a letter from the Office of the Executive to this Board, 6 dated July 1, 1987. It is signed by Thomas Gulotta, the 7 County Executive, and the six supervisors of the towns in 8 Nassau County. 9 It is certified with a seal and the authenticity 10 to document the signatures is thereby stated by the person 11 who has the authority to make that certification. 12 Mr. Lieberman has stated despite what is stated 13 in TR-102.A that no special controls were assumed beyond the b\\ - 14 signals at the intersections; that, in fact, at certain 15 intersections he is relying on police officers to direct 16 people to make traffic movements that they might not 17 otherwise would make. In doing so, he has increased the 18 capacity of those turn movements beyond what they would be 19 under normal circumstances where just the signals were 20 working and there wasn't a police officer at the 21 intersection. 22 Therefore, he is relying on police 23 intervention. And, this document indicates that Nassau 24 County police will not be available for purposes of LILCO's 25 plan and ask that the Nassau County Police Department be
"T '66500707 18568 joewalsh i removed from the plan. And, it cites a resolution saying 2 that unless prior approval of the resolution is first 3 obtained f rom the Nassau County Board of Supervisors that, j 4 in fact, no county facilities are to be used by LILCO as 5 part of its emergency plan. 6 I think it's evident that facilities is meant 7 brcadly to include the Nassau County Police Department, not a just talking about physical buildings. Therefore, if this 9 document were admitted into the record it would reflect on 10 the validity of Mr. Lieberman's analyses cecause he would 11 not be able to rely on the presence of Fassau County police 12 officers to enforce the type of movements that he is 33 assuming they would enforce. 14 Therefore, it would cast doubt on the ~ 15 reliability of his capacity analyses and the results that he i 16 has obtained, including the conclusion that the 17 intersections can handle the demand. 18 MR. CHRISTMAN: Judge Margulies, I -- i 19 MR. McMURRAY: I'm not done yet. l L 20 MR. CHRISTMAN: I'm sorry. l 21 MR. McMURRAY: The document -- strike that. In 22 light of the fact that it casts doubt on Mr. Lieberman's i 23 results, it is plainly relevant to this proceeding and 24 should have been admitter. 25 Now I'm done. .O
66500707 '18569 joewalsh 7rw 1 MR. CHRISTMAN: Judge Margulies,-part of your _b 2 ruling'wac-a question as to relevancy. I think you should 3 inquire of Suffolk County, if Suffolk County is contending 4 in this proceeding that the Massau County police would-not 5 try to help members of the public to the reception centers 6 in a radiological emergency, because if they are not 7 contending that then there is no relevancy whatsoever. 8 JUDGE MARGULIES: That was implicit in my ruling 9 that this letter is most general, number one. And, it to doesn' t cover the county's responsibilities independent of 11 being called upon by LILCO. 12 And, there is no testimony here that LILCO would 13 be called upon -- the County would be called upon to provide 14 police. All we have is testimony here by the witnese as an 15 assumption, and he didn't describe it as being part of the 16 plan. And, it may very well be it is part of the County's 17 independent responsibility to control traffic at the 18 intersections. 19 MR. McMURRAY: That may be, Judge Margulies, but 20 wouldn't you say that goes to the weight and not the 21 admissibility? 22 JUDGE MARGULIES: No. Plus the fact that in 23 proceedings of this type we like witnesses to come in and to l 24 be sworn and to be cross-examined on important issues as l 25 this. And, we don't have any witnesses that have come in
I 66500707 18570 l joewalsh i c;.d have been sworn and can be examined on their position. y-)x L 2 MR. McMURRAY: Well, Judge Margulies, you raised 3 a point regarding -- lack of testimony regarding-whether or a not LILCO is relying on the presence of Nassau County 5 police. I can establish that right now. 6 And, if that's what is holding back the Board, I 7 think we can dispense with that quite quickly. 8 JUDGE MARGULIES: Well, irrespective of that on 9 matters of this importance, I want living witnesses 10 testifying under oath and not to try issues in this fashion. l 11 BY MR. McMURRAY: (Continuing) 12 0 Mr. Lieberman, regarding the intersection of 13 Willis Avenue and the LIE eastbound service road, do you /O i 14 have that intersection in mind? 15 A I have it in mind. 16 0 Have you done any studies or analyses of that l 17 intersection to determine whether or not that intersection is can physically accommodate two lanes of traffic turning 19 left? 20 A Yes, it can. 21 O Have you measured the intersection? 22 A We've measured, as I said earlier, the widths of 23 all approach lanes which, in effect, measures the 24 intersection. 25 0 Well, don't you need to also look at the middle f') \\_/ l
i 66500707 18571 j oewalsh i i 1 of the intersection to determine whether or not lef t-turners i 2 turning from the center lane might not conflict with 3 something else? 4 A Well, there's no geometric impediment.
- And, 5
there's no flow impediment at that intersection for a dual 6 3 eft turn movement. 7 Q You said there is no geometric impediment. What 8 do you mean? 9 A I mean that there is enough room for two lanes 10 to move from the southbound approach onto a three-lane 11 receiving leg. 12 Q Are you assuming that right turns on red would 13 be taken from the northbound approach to that 2 intersection 14 in your analysis? 15 A No. 16 Q There would be no right turns on red? 17 A My recollection is that there is a no RTOR sign 18 for the nortNoound traffic. 19 Q Have you determined whether or not there are any l l 20 obstructions with regard to the adequacy of the vision of -- 21 strike that. 22 Have you determined whether there would be any 23 obstructions to the vision of drivers making a lef t-hand 24 turn from the center lane? 25 A In my view, there is not. l' 1
66500707 18572 j oewalsh 1 Q Is that comething you've studied? 2 A I have been at the intersection, and I have 3 observed it. I've even photographed it. That's my 4 conclusion. 5 0 And, what's that conclusion bace(t on, just your 6 observation? 7 A Observation and measurements of the geometry of 8 the approaches. 9 Q Have you attempted to determine whether under to some circumstances there might be obstructions to the vision 11 of left-turners from the center lane which might make this 12 movement a dangerous one? 13 A I suppose if there were a stalled truck on the u inside lane of the northbound approach which would 15 physically obscure the vision of left-turners from either 16 3ane, that could be a problem. 17 But, that's a situation that could occur 18 anywhere. 19 Q Under emergency or non-emergency conditions? 20 A Whatever. 21 MR. McMURRAY: Judge Margulies, at this time I 22 would like to move for the admission into evidence of 23 Suffolk County Exhibits Number 24 and 25, 24 JUDGE MARGULIES: Is thele any obj ection? 25 MR. CHRISTMAN: No, sir. No obj ection. O
66500707 18573 j oewalsh 1 MR. BACHMANN: No objection. 2 JUDGE MARGULIES: The'two documents are admitted 3 into cvidence. 4 (The documents previously marked as 5 Suffolk County Exhibit Number 24 6 and 25 for identification are 7 admitted into evidence.) 8 BY MR. McMURRAY: (Continuing) 9 Q Mr. Lieberman, with respect.to Suffolk County 10 Exhibit Number 22, had you seen that document before your 11 cross-examination today? r2 A Yes. I saw it certainly yesterday. Counsel 13 showed it to me. I may have seen it earlier, but I don't L 14 recall. 15 0 And, have you had any discussions with anyone 16 regarding this exhibit? l 17 A With counsel. 18 0 Anyone other than counsel? 19 A Not to my recollection. 20 Q On the first page of Suf folk County Exhibit 21 Number 4, this is the computer output from the analysis of 2a the Willis Avenue and eastbound LIE service road 23 intersection, in the middle of that page is a listing of 24 traffic volumes. 25 Do you see that? fD
66500707 18574 joewalsh 1 A I'm sorry. I'm trying to catch up to you. Is 2 this '-- SC-24 is which, Willis Avenue and eastbound LIE 3 service road,? A Q Right. 5 A And that is Mr. Goldblatt's analysis; is that (. what you are referring to? 7 Q Right, that's what I'm referring to. g A I'm sorry. And, the question is? 9 Q Okay. In the middle of the document are some io data under the heading " Traffic Volumes." Do you see that? 11 A Yes, I see that. 12 O Okay. And, the -- under the southbound column -13 which is the far right-hand column across from the 14 designation FLeft" is the number 650. 15 Do you see that? g A Yes. 17 Q Okay. And, that is the number of vehicles that le will be taking a left turn from the southbound approach to l 19 that intersection towards the Roslyn reception center, 20 correc t? 21 A Okay. I can't testify that that is the latest 22 figure we are using. As I said, this particular analysis 23 has been replaced by a more recent one. 24 I believe that figure has not changed greatly. 25 To answer your question, whatever the figure we are now 1
~ 66500707 18575 j oewalsh lq.'). 1 using is that traffic will make a left turn on the 2 southbound approach. 3 Q And, that number -- for the purposes of looking 4 at this document, let's say 650 is assumed to be distributed I 5 between the extreme lef t turn lane and the lane next to it, 6 right? 7 A In some fashion, right, the fashion being 8 determined internally by the HCM prccedure. 9 Q Let me refer you to Page 5 of this document. 10 That's headed " Volume Adjustment Worksheet." Do you have 11 that in front of you? 12 A Yes, I do. 13 Q Okay. Can you briefly describe what this page L 14 does or represents? 15 A Well, within the HCM procedure there are some 16 adjustments made to volume for the purpose of analysis. The 17 two adjustments that are indicated here is that associated 18 with PHF which is the peak hour factor, which I can define. 19 And, another is the J ane utilization factor, capital "U", 20 which I can also define if you would like. 21 The effect of both adjustments -- to indicate 22 how they are done, the actual specified volume is divided by 23 the PHP and mult2 plied by the lane utility factor. And, as 24 an outcome of those arithmetic operations you have an 25 adjusted group volume, grouping, a lane group.
66500707 18576 j oewalsh .i O Let's just step back a second. One of the .O. 2 factors you represented or you mentioned here was PHF. That 3 stands for peak hour factor? 4 A Quite right. Yes. 5 Q And, I believe you said that that number is 6 divided into the actual volumes to come up with an adjusted 7 volume, Correct? g A Well, that's one of a series of steps, yes. 9 It's 650 that would be divided by.99 in this case. io Q Okay. So, that the higher the peak hour factor 11 the smaller the increase in adjusted volume, correct? 12 A Yes. Peak hour factor represents the 33 variability of traffic demand over the period of the design (O' 14 hour. Under conditions of congestion, the peak hour factor 15 is unity which would be the case here, of course. We backed 16 off by.01 just'as a matter of policy. I 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l.* 1 q 1 )
66500808 18577 marysimons I 1 Q You say "Under conditions of congestion, the-2 ' peak hour factor is unity." Where do you get that from? 3 A That is as defined. That is indicated in the 4 HCM, and I can look 2t up for you if you would like. 5 Q So under cond3tions of congestion it's your 6 testimony that traffic vo3ume does not fluctuate; is that 7 right? 8 A Ho, not at all. It merely says that the entire 9 green is filled with demand throughout its extent. 10 Q But it's true that the volume could fluctuate 11 during that hour even under conditions of congestion, right? l 12 A Yes, but that would affect the tall of the queue 13 and not the head of the queue. 14 Q And here when we discuss volume, another way to 15 look at that is traffic demand, right, demand on the 16 available capacity? 17 A You have to be careful here, and it depends on 18 whether you are taking the perspective of a planner or of a 19 traffic engineer. 20 The planner would consider the approaching 21 demand. From the operations perspective you would be 22 focusing on the intersection that you're analyzing. So one 23 has to be careful how that term is used and you have to put 24 some descriptors to indicate how you are using it. 25 The volume as used here is the actual volume of l 1 J a
.t 66500808 18578 marysimons 1 traffic awaiting service. .O 2 O That is 650 vehicles, right? 3 A As indicated here, yes. 4 O And if the peak hour factor had been lower than 5 99, the adjusted volume would be greater than the 657 as (, indicated on this page, correct? l 7 A Well, that's an arithmetic truth, but it's not l relevant here. 8 9 Q Isn't-it true that for most of the evacuation 10 movements in your analysis you assigned a peak hour factor 11 of 99 to those movements? lq. 12 A Oh, yes, quite right. That reflects the fact 33 that there would be, as we expect, extensive queueing ) ja resul ting from the shortfall in the monitoring service rate 15 relative to the approaching demand. Consequently, there 6 will always be vehicles waiting to be serviced at the 17 intersections. is Q Now you mentioned ingestion. Isn't it true that 19 the peak hour factors on different approaches to this same 20 intersection are lower than 997 21 A Quite right. 22 O Is it your testimony that those approaches won't 23 be congested? 2a A They are less likely to be congested because 25 they would only be servicing in this particular case (2) l l .h.
1' 66500808 18579 marysimons i e 1 background traffic. 2 O How were the peak hour factors for the 3 approaches, other than the southbound approach, calculated, 4 do you know? 5 A It has been a while since we established that. 6 I would have to get that to you. I can't recall. 7 0 Well, was it again based on an estimate of what 8 traffic would be like or was it based on calculations or 9 based on actual background traffic data? 10 A Actual background traffic data. 11 Q Was the southbound approach based on a 12 calculation derived from actual data or was it an estimate 13 based on your assumption that there would be congestion f L 14 throughout the time period? 15 A No, it was based on calculation of the l 16 evacuation volume which would be approaching this 17 intersection as a consequence of the assumption that the 18 entire EPZ would be evacuated. 19 Q Just so the record 1c clear, this analysis, by 20 the way, is of a case where there is 30 percent evacuation 21 and 100 percent background traffic; 1s that right? 22 A That's correct. 23 Q And what were the data that you used to 24 calculate.99 PHF? 25 A Well, all this documented in TR-192 and TR-201A. EO
\\ ~ 1 66500B08 18580 marysimons 7 i On page 6 of 201A we have Table 2-1 which lists the various (m] \\~ 2 paths of travel to the reception centers by evacuees. For 3 the intersection we are discussing here, which is Roslyn, we a are speaking here of path 3A which services traffic from 5 zones, which are defined in TR-192, and I.:an find that for 6 you. 7 But at any rate, we assume that 30 percent of s the 7,588 vehicles would in fact take this path to the 9 Roslyn Reception Center. That is the basis of our 10 calculations, with 30 percent representing a 50 percent 11 surfeit relative to the FEMA guidelines. 12 So if we take 7,588 and multiply by .3, we have 33 a total of 2,276 vehicles. We have assumed that these k-vehicles would arrive in the neighborhood of the reception 14 15 center over a range of 6 to 9 hours. We conducted these 16 analyses for the worst case condit1on :.n this sense, namely, 17 the heaviest loading at the intersection just by assuming is that it's 6 hours. So we would have about 380 vehicles per 19 hour. 20 What I'm saying here is tl.at represents 21 congested conditions for that approach which we have 22 quantified by an analysis which estimates the queue length 23 that would develop there, the queue length growing at the 74 rate c1 19 vehicles per hour and eventually reaching a 25 maximum length of 114 vehicles. This is shown in Table 3-8 n, s
l l L '66500808 18581 L marysimons I 1 on page 28 of that report. \\ 2 When you have a queue formation that grows, then 3 you have a consistent supply of cars waiting to be serviced l 4 at the' intersections along that path. Under those 5 conditions, if you look at each 15-minute within an hour you 6 will find a steady demand, that is a constant demand for 7 service. That translates into a PHF of unity, and the.99 e is an approximation to that. 9 0 And again you used.99 for most, if not all, of 10 the evacuation movements in your analyses, correct? 11 A Yes. If you look at Table 3-8 under the six-12 hour arrival period assumption, you'll find that every path 13 has a queue growth over the first six hours. Consequently 14 it follows that.there will always be a supply of vehicles 15 awaiting service. Is Q While we are on these tables, we'll move tc 17 another matter. Go to page 20 of your rebuttal testimony. 18 (Witness complies.) 19 Do you have that page in front of you? ?0 A Yes, I do. 21 Q In response to Question 24, the last paragraph, 22 you say that your analysis rigorously treats the controlling 23 factor, the monitoring rate, which leads to the formation of 24 queues that in turn limit the flow of traffic on the access 25 roads.
l 9 66500808 18582 marys: mons -{ } 1 Do you see that? 2 A Yes. It references page 26 of 201A. 3 Q Let's go to page 26 of 201A. 4 It's there you discuss the monitoring capacity 5 of the various reception Centers, right? 6 A We13, we discuss it, but the actual values for l 7 the monitoring rates are shown in Table 3 1 on page 7. l 8 Q At the bottom of page 26 of 201A you do a 9 calculation showing the total percent of the population that 10 can be monitored at each reception center within the 12-hour 11 period, correct? 12 A I think we have to define what you mean by 13 population. I think what you mean is the --- O ja Q What do you mean by"the total percent figures \\ 15 under this last column on this table? l 16 A Well, that's explained in the sentence leading 17 up to that table. The percentage values are obtained by l 18 dividing the monitoring capacity for each center by the 19 value of assigned traffic, and by assigned traffic we mean 20 the traffic from within the EPZ under the assumption that I 21 100 percent of the EPZ is evacuated. ] 1 22 O Now in the third column there is a heading j l 23 " Monitoring Capacity." Do you see that? j 1 24 A That is correct. 25 0 And at Roslyn I take there being two areas that O
66500808 18583 marysimons 1 one has a monitoring capacity of 360 vehicles an hour and 2 the other one having a monitor 2ng capacity of 216 an hour; 3 is that correct? 4 A That's correct. 5 Q For Bellmore you state that there is 180 6 vehicles per hour capacity with respect to one area and 310 7 vehiC3 es per hour capacity with respect to the second area? 8 A It's not with respect to areas. It's with 9 respect to paths. Yes, those figures were taken from Table 10 3-1 which I referenced earlier. 11 Q Well, 3 et 's go to Table 3-1. The last column is 12 headed " Monitoring Rates" and there is both a primary and a 13 secondary rate represented, correct? l 14 A That's correct. 15 Q Now the primary rate is based on the assumption 16 that a vehicle can be monitored within 100 seconds, a 17 vehic3e and all its passengers, correct? 18 A Well, it's more than an assumption. It has 19 actually been calibrated. 5 20 0 But it's based on that rate per vehicle, 21 correct, 100 seconds? 22 A That rate per vehicle per monitoring station; 23 that is correct. 24 Q And I take it to the extent that that monitoring 25 rate per vehicle is not correct, that the monitoring rates
l 66500808 18584 marysimons i or the capacities that you've calculated for the various 2 reception centers are also not correct; isn't that right? 3 A Well, you've made an assumption about a correctness here, and it follows that any change in the 5 hundred second figure either up or down will change these 6 monitoring rates accordingly. 7 0 You're not a health physicist, are you, or s trained in health physics in any way? 9 A Not formally, no. 10 Q . And I take it you have observed LILCO personnel 11 actually going through the monitoring procedure, haven't 12 you? A That's correct. There was a full-scale training-i3 14 session in early June where this did in f act take place. 15 0 Okay. But you don't know, do you, whether those 16 personnel were using a procedure that is accepted among 17 health physics experts, do you? 18 A Well, I can't testify of my own knowledge that 19 that's the case. 20 Q And you don' t know even whether FEMA has 21 endorsed that procedure, do you? 22 A Not of my own knowledge; that's correct. This 23 is information provided to me by other members in LERIO. 24 O Getting back to the table on page 26, your 25 calculations there of the total percent then could change if O
66500808 18585 marysimons I _fg 1 the 100 second per vehicle per monitoring station estimate U 2 had to be increased? I 3 A Definitional3y that's true or decreased of 4 course. 5 Q Let 's go to Table 3-8. Now that table 6 represents a queue analysis that you've done for the 6-hour 7 and 9-hour arrival periods; is that right? 8 A That's correct. 9 Q Let's Just focus on the 6-hour arrival period 10 now. There is a heading " Path" and then there is a heading 11 " Rate of Queue Growth" and under that a variety of numbers. 12 Do you see that? 13 A Yes.
- s s-14 Q
Is this queue growth growing from the reception 15 center back? 16 A That's correct. 17 Q And I take it that tue rate of queue growth is 18 dependent on the monitoring rates in the various reception 19 centers, right? 20 A That is correct. 21 Q So to the extent that menitoring rates were 22 greater, the rate of queue growth would be greater, correct? 23 A Given that the number of monitors remains 24 unchanged. 25 Q With everything else remaining constant, the RJ
~66500808 18586 marysimons-ET) - 1 rate of queue growth would increase, right? v 2 A That is true. 3 Q And also the maximum queue after 6 hours would 4 also be increased, right? 5 A Definitionally. 6 Q Now the available storage column means what? 7 A That goes back to the data shown in Table 3-3 on a page 17, and a description of how those figures were 9 obtained appears on page 13 and concludes on the top of page io 60. Effectively this is an estimate taking into account 11 rather complex issues and a rather conservative estimate of 12 the actual storage space which is assumed to contain these 33 vehicles as they queue along the various paths on their way u-ja ' to the recept'7r center, the queues having the originating 15 point within reception centers. 16 0 I take it as part of your queue analysis you 17 compared the maximum queue figure for each path to the is ava21able storage figure; is that correct? 19 A That's done in Table 3-8. 20 0 And where the maximum queue did not exceed the 21 available storage, you assumed that there would be no bad 22 effects from the queue; is that right? 23 A There would be no potential ill-effects from 24 intersecting queues. 25 O Now I take it that where the maximum queue 1
66500808 18587 marys2 mons l .fm 1 exceeds the available storage space there would be potential '\\J 2 ill-effects from conflicting queues, correct? 3 A As long as the word " potentia 3" is in there, I 1 4 wou3d accept that. { 5 Q And when you say conflicting queues, could you 6 explain what we both mean by that term? 7 A The only Conf 13Ct of consequence is a situation a where a queue which extends.from a recept 3on center 9 interferes with the progress of vehicles in another queue to j i 10 the extent that the reception centers are starved, and by 11 that I mean that the rate of inflow to the reception center 12 is less than the monitor $ng rates and the queue to that 13 reception center-dissipates. 14 So you have a situation, or you could potentially have i 15 a situation where the monitors are availab3e to do their 16 work, but they have an insufficient number of cars. And the 17 extent of such interference woul.d have to be long enough so 18 that any such delay extends the total servicing of evacuees lo beyond 12 hours or thereabouts. 20 21 22 23 24 25 l /"T .(> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ =
i 66500909 18588 suewalsh r: 's 1 Q Now, I think in your analysis you concluded that -) 2 except for one or two examples, the maximum queue was_always 3 less than the available storage space, correct? 4 A I believe all of them were less. Some were i 5 close. But, as it turned out all were less. 6 O
- Okay, j
7 A And, I should add that in my view the estimate e of queuing I believe are on the conservative side, meaning 9 that what you see here is a reasonable estimated upper bound 10 for queuing. 11 0 The -- if the monitoring rate at the reception 12 centers had to increase there could be more queues which 33 exceed the available storage space, couldn't there? (n - v-14 A That would follow, yes, given again that the 15 number of monitors remains unchanged. 16 O Right. Everything else remaining constant. 17 And, the number of queues which might potentially exceed is available storage space and therefore might potentially 19 Conflict would, of Course, depend on how great the increase 20 in monitoring capacity had to be, right? 21 A I guess you really mean decrease in monitoring 22 capacity. 23 Q Decrease in monitoring capacity, increase in 24 monitoring time. 25 A Yes, that would follow. (;
66500909 18589 suewalsh b 1 Q Have you done any sensitivity ana3yses to O j 2 determine what the queue lengths would be if LILCO's 3 monitoring rates -- strike that. 4 Have you done any sensitivity analyses to l 5 determine what queue lengths would be given higher l l 6 monitoring times, higher than 100 seconds per vehacle per 7 monitor? e A Well, the procedures are simple enough. The 9 rate of queue growth is simply the difference between the 10 service rates and the demand. So, it follows immediately. 11-O So that one could calculate it, assuming one -- 12 assuming you had to double the monitoring rate -- 13 A I guess you mean half it. 14 Q" Well, half the capacity, double the amount of 15 time it takes to monitor an individual, one could figure out 16 then what the queue length would be after six hours? 17 A Yes. 18 O Have you done any -- you haven't done any study 19 like that? 20 A No. That's a trivial exercise. 21 O When you say it's a trivial exercise, what do 22 you mean? 23 A Well, I mean that one could easily compute the 1 24 various columns, the first two numerical columns on Table 3-25 8. .I() x l
.66500909 18590 -suewalsh (($1 1 Q Don't you think it's important to do an analysis ) l 2 so that if LILCO is not correct in its 100 seconds per 3 vehicle estimate it will know what the consequences of that 4 error are? 5 A It's an analysis that could be done very easily 6 by LILCO itself. They have people who could look at this 7 and do it themselves. 8 Q Okay. In other words, LILCO could crunch the 9 numbers themselves? 10 A Sure. 11 Q Okay. But that hasn' t been done, to the best of 12 your knowledge, has it? i3 A Not to my direct knowledge. I should point out u that the figures in Table 3-8 under A are for the assumed is six hour arrival period. Remember that 201.A says that we 16 are speaking here of a range between six to nine hours. 17 And, you will notice that under B the situation is is quite different. There is no essential queue problem. in So, that's another variable that enters into 20 this whole picture. 21 0 There is no queue problem assuming a 100 second 22 monitoring rate? 23 A Well, somewhere you could increase that time and 24 there would still be no queue problem, because essentially 25 what happens over the longer arrival period is that the [] \\/ 1
66500909 18591 suewalsh I east / west highways act as a storage medium for this f 2 evacuation traffic mixsng in with other traffic. 3 And, therefore, the queues originating from the 4 reception center themse3ves would decline as the arriva3 5 period increases. So, you would have to take both variables 6 Into consideration in any such sensitivity Study. 7 Q Well, at some point though if the amount of time 8 taken to monitor individuals increased, you could get 9 maximum queues that exceed available storage, couldn' t you, 10 depending on the amount of increase in the monitoring rate? 11 A And, depending upon the arrival per1od and the 12 number of monitors, of course. 13 0 Table 3-9 is titled " Total Service Times." Do '(S 14 you see that? That's on Page 30. 15 A Right. That speaks to the six hour arrival 16 period. 17 0 Okay. And it also speaks to the 100 seconds per 18 vehicle per monitor rate, correct? 19 A Right. That's the middle column in that table 20 that indicates the monitoring rate. 21 O Okay. So, again the accuracy of that monitoring 22 rate is assumed in this teble, correct? 23 A Together wi th the number of monitors, right. 24 Q And, assuming you keep the number of monitors 25 constant, if you had to increase the amount of time
665dO909. 18592 ,suewalsh 1 necessary to monitor people the total service. time would 2 also increase, correct? 3 A That would follow. Another thing I should point 4 out as you already know,1s that we are dealing here with the 5 assumption of a 30 percent response of evacuees travelling 6 to the reception center. It's another variable of interest. 7 Q So, if the percentage of people were less than 8 that, the total service time might be lower, correct? 9 A Not proportionately, though. 10 0 Okay. And, if the amount of the population, the 11 EPZ population, going to the reception centers is above 30-12 percent the total service time would increase, wouldn't it, 13 although maybe not proportionately? j 14 A Again, assuming that the entire EPZ is evacuated 15 over the same time frame, yes, that would follow. l 16 0 And, in your analys2s, 2n 201 and 201.A, I take 17 it that you assumed that the entire EPZ was evacuated? 18 A Yes. We took a worst case condition in that 19 respect. 20 0 Let's move off the monitoring times and move 21 onto that subject. How was it that you assumed that 100 22 percent of the EPZ would evacuate? 23 Let me restate the question. 24 When you did your analysis in 201 and 201.A, how 25 did you reflect your assumption that 100 percent of the EPZ
- ( )
i
1 66500909 18593 suewalsh I 1 would evacuate? 2 A That goes back to Table 2-1 where we indicate 3 number of vehicles associated with the entire EPZ 4 evacuating. It's an assumption that we took looking at an 5 extreme condition, the rationale being that while the NUREG I 6 0654 expects the analysis to address a spectrum of accidents 7 the point of view that we took is to go way out in the tail 8 of the distributions, compound worst case on worst case and 9 see what happens. 10 And, then given that other scenarios could occur 11 of lesser magnitude these results woul6 be modified 12 accordingly. 13 O Okay. Let me make sure I understand how it was L 14 that you took that into account. In other words, in your 15 analyses you took into account 100 percent EPZ evacuation by 16 applying the LILCO plan 30 percent figure to 100 percent of 17 the EPZ population, correct? 18 A That is correct. 19 0 You didn't model the roads between the EPZ and 20 the reception centers and place 100 percent of the EPZ i population on those major east / west routes, right? That's 21 22 not what you are talking about when you say you took 100 l 23 percent of the EPZ population into account? 24 A We did assign 100 percent of the population on 25 the roads, yes. l /
66500909 18594 suewalsh i() 1 Q Was this in your computer analyses of the 2 capacities for the various reception centers, the capacities 3 of various reception centers? 4 A No. We used desk calculators, not computers. 5 That work is described in TR-192. 6 Q So, that was in the assignment process that you 7 assumed that 100 percent of the people would be on the roads 8 between the EPZ and the reception centers, correct? 9 A No. The 100 percent assumption is made right up 10 front before any work was done. That would be a planning 11 basis for the purpose of analyzing traffic flows to the 12 reception center, and that we would consider only that case. 13 And if, in fact, fewer people evacuated then the (O. 14 numbers could be adjusted thereafter. The assignment 1 13 process followed a distribution process as described in TR-16 192. And, the entire procedure was an iterative one where ( 17 we distributed and assigned traffic in such a way as to 18 satisfy the constraints of the system and other criteria as i9 well. 20 0 In your analysis of -- as reflected in 201 and 21 201.A, you were looking at a base case of 100 percent 22 background and 30 percent of the population of the EPZ, 23 right? 24 A That's correct. 25 0 Okay.
66500909 18595 suewalsh a 1 A I think I should say that we argue that the 100 2 percent background case was a very conservative assumption 3 since we are convinced -- I am convinced that redistribution of the background traffic will undoubtedly 4 5 take place and the background levels would actually be less. 6 But, in the interest of -- in the spirit of 7 cons ervatism, if you will, we assumed a 100 percent figure. 8 Q When you say background levels would be less 9 than 100 percent, on what do you base that opinjon? 10 A Well, there is a natural response of traffic to 11 select routes which are in'the driver's best interest, and 12 in planning a driver's best interest usually is expressed in 13 terms primarily of travel time and to a lesser extent, 14 distance. 15 Given that under the situation of an emergency i 16 like this where you are imposing additional traffic on l 17 certain routes, both on the access controlled highways as 18 well as the access routes to the reception centers, it is 19 reasonab]e to expect that if a large scale trip distribution 20 and trip assignment modeling procedure would actually take 21 place much of the background traffic would either select 22 other routes which are less crowded or if an elastic 23 assignment model were used you would find that fewer trips 24 would be made. 25 Consequently, the bottom line is that the !O O i
66500909 18596 suewalsh
- r-1 background traffic would be less for both reasons.
- First, b.
2 fewer trips would be made, particularly to retail centers 3 since shopping is a discretionary trip; and, secondly, 4 because people would take other routes. Instead of taking 5 Seafor6/ Oyster Bay, they might take another route that 6 parallels it and so forth. l 7 So, that's what I mean when I say that in all-e likelihood background traffic would be somewhat less. 9 0 Is this a particular issue that you have io studied, that is the relationship of background traffic to l 11 an emergency response? 12 A I don't think anyone has studied that, including 13 myself. l 14 0 It's possible, isn't it, that a number of l l 15 background traffic trips could increase in the f ace of an l 16 cmergency at Shoreham where a monitoring advisory was given 17 to people within the EPZ and broadcast as well outside the is EPZ? 19 Isn't that possible? 20 A Well, anything in the world is possible. But, I 21 don't think it's a persuasive point of view. 22 0 Well, isn't it possible that there may be trips 23 generated by people coming from -- going from places of work 24 to pick up relatives or to do other things in preparation 25 for evacuation? .O
66500909 18597 suewalsh I ,,-s 1 A You mean within the EPZ? (_) 2 Q Or outside the'EPZ. 3 A Evacuation from where? 4 Q From where they reside? 5 A Well, I think we are dealing in a speculative 6 arena. There could be -- I could argue, for example, that 7 the Grumman Aircraf t Company would let out earller and have 1 i 8 all these people off the roads by the time the evacuees 9 arrive. We didn't do that in calculating our background 10 traffic. 11 So, I think we took a conservative stance in 12 that respect. 13 O There could be a fast-moving event though where '( ) 14 those circumstances would occur, correct? 15 A A fast-moving event has nothing to do with it. 16 There is still going to be a two and half hour period 17 between the time a general emergency is announced regardless is of how fast that escalation takes place and the time that 19 the first evacueos get in the neighborhood of reception l l 20 centers. Two and a half hours is a long time for Grumman to l 21 discharge and others. 22 Q Let me back up. I think I lost track. With 23 respect to people outside the EPZ, isn't it possible that 24 they, in the face of an evacuation order or a monitoring 25 order, may want to take trips for various purposes and, \\ f' __.___._.___.______________i
4 66500909 18598 suewalsh i therefore, might increase the background traffic in the area 2 between the EPZ and the reception centers? 3 A Oh, now you are talking about -- okay, you've a changed the question. 5 It's a possibility. You can't rule it out. 6 Q Have you considered the likelihood that people 7 from around the reception centers might want to leave that 8 area because they consider it an unsafe place to be or an 9 unpleasant place to be? 10 A Well, I don't think it would have a substantive 11 effect, but if they do so within the f.'.rst two and a half 12 hours it would, in fact, clear the area of background traffic. i3 kY Q If they waited until evacuees appeared though i4 15 after that two and a half hour period before making their 16 decision that the area was unsafe and one that they didn't 17 want to be in, then their trips might mix with evacuation is f 3 Ow, right? 19 A I don't think it's a persuasive possibility, 20 because if people were concerned then they would act 21 presumably in a manner which reflects this concern, which 22 means they would probably be gone by the time the evacuees arrive. 23 24 0 Consider the possibility that the concern isn't 25 raised in their mind until people arrive at the reception
I 66500909 18599 I suewalsh I / 1 centers and the local residents then learn what is going on 2 at the reception center? 3 Might not this generate trips that could raise 4 background traffic? 5 6 7 \\ 8 9 10 11 >2 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 i 21 22 23 i I 24 25 l
66501010 18600 Joewalsh i A Well, let 's assume it does Just for the sake of (" 2 discussion. It, therefore, follows that these trips would 3 be away from the recept 2on centers. The evacuees are 4 travelling toward the reception centers, 5 There might be some fictional effects, but I l 6 think on the whole we are really dealing with speculation 7 and small effects. 8 Q So, you are speculating as to the fact it's 9 going to b'e small effect, right? 10 A No, I'm not speculating, I'm concluding about 11 your speculation. 12 O You are assuming, are you not, that people 13 attempting to leave their residence wouldn't make a choice ) ' or wouldn't be perhaps required.to travel for some distance 14 15 along the evacuees' path? 16 A I just think it follows that if a person were 17 sufficiently motivated by concern to leave the area he 18 certainly wouldn't travel toward the reception center. He 19 would travel away from it. 20 And, his trip would be initiated as soon as he 21 feels comfortable in doing so. l 22 Q Well, even if he didn't travel on the exact 23 evacuation paths he might travel through the same 24 intersection those evacuees are going through, correct? 25 A Quite possibly, put we are already dealing with L([) l 4 l
66501010 18601 joewalsh I 1 100 percent background traffic. And, I think on balance _h~ - i 2 that background traf fic will be significantly reduced. ^ 3 I think if you -- I don't know, since we are l 4 speculating we may as well try to quantify the speculation. 5 What area around the reception center are you talking about, 6 one block, two blocks, three blocks, 10 miles? 7 Q That's just something you haven' t looked at, 8 correct? 9 A That's something that I have not tried to 10 quantify, that's correct. 11 MR. McMURRAY: If you want to take a lunch break 12 now, Judge Margulies, this is a fine time with me. 13 JUDGE MARGULIES: We will recess until quarter W 14 of two. 15 (Whereupon, the luncheon recess is taken at 16 12:07 p.m., to reconvene at 1:42 p.m., this same day.) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
66501010 18602 j oewalsh 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 (li42 p.m.) 3 JUDGE MARGULIES: Back on the record. We will a discuss the motion at the end of the day rather than 5 interrupt the cross-examination of the witness. 6 MR. CHRISTMAN: Judge Margulies, Mr. Lieberman 7 was asked to find some information out over the lunch hour, e and I think he is ready to give that information. 9 Do you want to do that first? 10 JUDGE MARGULIES: Would you, please? 11 WITNESS LIEBERMAN: My recollection is that 12 there were three questions. The first asked whether -- or 13 how many approaches incorporated lanes u. sed for right turns which either were shoulders or were lanes 2n excess of 16' ja 15 feet which were delineated as a single lane but used as 16 two. And, I will read off what these approaches are. 17 Sunrise Highway at Babylon Turnpike, the lane is width was 10 feet. That is the right turn lane. Sunrise 19 Highway at Bellmore Avenue, also 10 feet. Sunrise Highway 20 and Newbridge Road, eight feet. Route 107 and Scotch 21 Street, nine feet. Route 107 and Newbridge Road, 10 feet. 22 Route 107 and West John Street, 10 feet. Route 107 and l 23 Hempstead Turnpike, 10 feet. Old Country Road and the LIE, l 2a 10 feet. Route 107 and Old Country Road, 12 feet. The second question dealt with the southbound 25 H
.66501010 18603 joewalsh I I approach to Old Country Road Just off the exit ramp from 2 ' southbound Seaford/ Oyster Bay Expressway. The question is 3 whether we used one lane or two lanes for that right turn. 4 The answer is, we used one lane. 5 And, finally in connection with the use of 6 shoulders the question was whether parking was prohibited at 7 some or all of these approaches. The answer is that we 8 assigned such turn lanes only when traffic actually used 9 that turn lane as observed over an extended period of time 10 and when parking was prohibited for at least 120 feet 11 upstream of the stop light. 12 JUDGE MARGULIES: Was there also a question on 13 the identification of the lights at Willis Avenue? 14 WITNESS LIEBERMAN: There was such a question. 15 I guess I assumed that counsel for the County would resolve 16 it, so I didn't look into it. 17 Whereupon, 18 EDWARD B. LIEBERMAN 19 . resumed as a witness called by and on behalf of the 20 Applicant, the Long Island Lighting Company and, having 21 previously been duly sworn, was further examined and 22 testified as follows: 23 CROSS EXAMINATION 24 BY MR. McMURRAY: (Continuing) 25 Q Maybe at a break, if it's possible, if you have
66501010 18604 j oewalsh - i the materials here that might help you resolve that I would i,cV) 2 ask you to do that, too, Mr. Lieberman? 3 A Yes, if we have the photo of that. We do have a photos of all these intersections. If it shows it, I will 5 be glad to do it. 6 O Okay. Mr. Lieberman, 2et me refer you to Page 7 14 of your rebuttal testimony. Now, it's true, isn't it, e that using the Highway Capacity Manual procedures when i 9 determining the capacity of an intersection one of the ~ 30 inputs is certain signal timing data; is that correct? 11 A If you have a pre-timed signal and you are 12 performing an operations analysis of the intersection, then 33 the signal timings are indeed input. } 1a Q Now, as I understand your testimony no Page 14, 15 the signal timing data that you used in calculating the 16 capacities of the intersections was based on data taken in 17 the field,. correct? 18 A In part. Certainly, we looked at that 19 information. We also, as you know, requested the State to 20 provide us with the phasing bounds -- that is, the minimum I i 21 time and maximum times for each phase at each actuated ) 22 control area. They did, in fact, provide us with what 23 information they had. 24 And, as I indicated in my deposition, that 25 information was not in a form which we found fully j
l 66501010 18605 joewalsh 1 y~s, I definitive. But, at any rate we did reference it and made V: 2 some reasonable inferences from the data they gave us. Here-3 again, the information of interest represents the minimum 4 and maximum phase times rather than phase durations. 5 MR. McMURRAY: Let me show you a document which 6 I would like to have marked as Suffolk County Exhibit Number 7 26 for identification which is a package of materials, the 8 first page of which has a chart on it, the heading 9 " Location, Babylon Turnpike and Sunrise." i l l 10 JUDGE MARGULIES: It will be marked Suffolk 11 County's Exhibit Number 26 for identification. l~ 12 (The document referred to is marked 13 as Suffolk County Exhibit Number 14 26 for identification.) 15 BY MR. McMURRAY: (Continuing) 16 Q Do you have that document in front of you? 17 A Yes, I do. 18 Q Okay. Is this the signal timing data that was 19 sent to you by the State? 20 (The witness is looking at the document.) 21 A I can't testify that everything in this package 22 was, in fact, sent to us. This package looks a little l 23 thicker than what we received. 24 I would have to check that. 25 Q Let me represent to you that my information is ) II2) l 1
66501010 18606 j oewalsh 1 i that this is what was provided to you. And, I would like my . (),. 2 questions to be based on that assumption. If we run into a 3 prob 3em, please let.me know. 4 A Well, I won't be able to let you know until I 5 have a chance to check our records. 6 0 Do you have the signal timing data here that you 7 received from the State? Again, we can wait for a break for 8 you to check that if you would like. 9 I think we can go along with my questions to without this being a problem. And, if it is a problem let 11 me know. 12 A All right. Why don't we move along and see what 13 happen,s? } 14 Q Now, I understand that you compared your results 15 with the data you received from the State. Putting that 16 aside, it's true, isn't it, that the -- your input data 17 regarding the signal timing were not derived in any way from 18 the State data? 19 A No, that's not a precise statement. The input 20 timing had to adhere to the State's data, such as we J 21 understood it, from the point of view that we would not use 22 a longer phase, effective phase, than the State data 23 indicated was there unless our fie3d observations were at a 24 variance with the State data which can happen. 1 25 If, in fact, we observed phase durations which ( l l l
66501010 18607 j oewalsh .p q were 3cnger than the State data indicated, then we would use 1 2 what's out there. It's one of the problems of an operating 3 agency, that dials get changed and these changes are not 4 reflected in the records. So, we use -- so, we gave perhaps 5 more weJght to what we observed than to the State data. 6 Q Now, when you are out in the field -- strike 7 that. 8 With respect to each intersection that you 9 observed in the field, how much time was taken collecting 10 the signal timing data? 11 A I can't answer precise 3y. Generally, when we 12 went out to the field or when people went out to the field 13 they went out during the heaviest traffic conditions because 'k-it's under those conditions that we could'get the maximum 14 15 phase durations. And, then they went out during light flow 16 conditions to get the minimum phase durations. 17 Their instructions were to stay out there long 18 enough so that this objective could be reached in each flow 19 period. 20 0 Well, how -- do you know that as a fact the 21 maximum phasing was observed? 22 A No guarantee of that. People felt that if the 23 traffic was heavy and by their judgment the green time 24 appeared to be maximum and that this judgment was reinforced 25 by subsequent cycles, then they felt comfortab3e with their RJ
66501010 18608 ' 'j oewalsh i l i assessment. + 2' But,'again unless you actually open up the i 3 contro31er cabinet and look at the dial settings, which is a what we origina13y requested of the State, there is no such l 5 guarantee. 6 Q And, I take it your answer would be similar with 7 respect to minimum green times? You can' t be absolutely 8 sure that you observed the minimums either, right? 9 A Tne minimums, you have a better handle on given ~ io that there is a single vehicle there and it moves off the 11 detector as it should, the associated phase duration would 12 be the minimum, 13 0 So, of the two phases there :Us a little less ) certainty with respect to the maximum green time, right? u 15 A That's possible. But, I think that in either case we are within a few seconds. it 17 Q Within a few seconds? 18 A Yeah, perhaps -- I can't put a number to it. 19 Maybe one, two or thrse seconds at the most I would say. 20 0 Well, it's true, isn't it, that the capacities 21 for a particular movement can be very sensitive to changes 22 of just a few seconds, can't they? 23 A If the phase duration is short, then certainly 24 the dif ference between, say, six seconds and nine seconds is 25 a 50 percent difference. And, that's why when I said i O
66501010 18609 joewalsh 1 1 earlier that the minimum phase duration had a higher 5 2 confidence limit that's important. 3 If the maximum phase duration is on the order 4 of, say, 20 seconds and we are off by one second or two 5 seconds, you are down to a 10 percent difference. 6 Q A 10 percent dif ference though based on just two 7 seconds of difference, right? 8 A Well, I'm not sure sure it's linear but, yeah. 9 Q As a matter of fact, you did an analysis at 10 Herald Square where increases of just a few seconds of green 11 time decreased congestion significantly; isn't that right? 12 A No. It was a lot more to it than that. The 13 offset structure, synchronization of the signals there were 1 14 more important than the changes in phase durations. 15 Also note that that geometric configuration is 16 much more sensitive to small changes in signals than simple l 17 four-legged intersections. 1B Q Nevertheless, the increases in green time were 19 an important part of your solution to that problem, of 20 congestion at Herald Square, right? 21 A I don't think there was very much difference in 22 the phase durations. I think again what we did was to 23 synchronize the signals in such a way that the available 24 green time was fully utilized. { 25 In fact, I recall that in some cases or for some 1 l
66501010 18610 joewalsh i movements we actually reduced green time and got higher 2 throughput because of that. 3 0 If, in fact, you did overestimate green time, 4 say, by three seconds or on that order you may have, in 5 fact, then overstated capacity at a particular intersection 6 by as much as 10 percent or more, couldn't you have, Mr. 7 Lieberman? 8 A If, in fact, it was a true overstatement that 9 possibility arises, yes. 10 Q On Page 14, going over to 15, you state, "Our 11 analysis is consistent with State-supplied data." By that, 12 do you mean the comparison that you just described earlier? 13 A Right. I used the word " consistent" 14 purposefully there. I 15 Q Because you didn't mean that your data was requal 16 to the State's data, right? 17 A Right. Because of the lack of definition that is we had of what these numbers really meant in terms of phase 19 duration. l 20 0 Looking at Suffolk County Exhibit 26, is it your 21 testimony that f rom the inf ormation that 's given here -- and 22 you may have trouble answering this question based on your n previous statement. 24 Based on the information that's provided in this 25 exhibit, one cannot derive the input data which the Highway O
66501010 18611 j oewalsh 1 Capacity Manual procedures demand for intersection capacity 2 analysis? 3 A Yes, that's our point of view. 4 Q Would it surprise you it, in fact, you could 5 derive that information from the State data? 6 A Yes, it would, because these are not pre-timed 7 signals. 8 Q Now, with respect to intersections not 9 controlled by the State, are there some intersections you 10 analyzed where controllers were owned or operated by Nassau l l 11 County? l l 12 A Well, given that they are not owned by the 13 State, I guess that's -- they could either be owned by the 14 County or by the towns. I could not distinguish which. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
66501111 18612 marysimons 1 Q Did you obtain any actual data with respect to 2 the settings of the controllers for those controllers that 3 were either owned by Nassau County or the town? 4 A No. In those cases we relied on observed 5 timing. 6 O Did you ask Nassau County for that information? 7 A No, we did not. 8 Q Did you ask any town for that information? 9 A No. 10 Q On page 15 at the fourth line down you say "The 11 analyses documented in KLD TR-201 and 201A used the HCM l 12 software to computer the signal timings that would be 13 provided by the actuated controllers responding to the ) projected traf fic demand during an evacuation." 14 15 Do you see that? l 16 A Yes. 17 Q And those computations were based on your is estimated maximum and minimum green times as derived from 19 your fie3d observations, correct? 20 A No. I think I wrote in the answer that we did 21 reference this 2nf ormation provided to the State in doing 22 SO. 23 Q Now isn't it true that even in an evacuation the 24 actuated controllers would be constrained by their settings; 25 isn't that right? O
i 66501111 18613 j marysimons 1 ( 1 A Yes, of course. 2 Q There is not unlimited green time assigned to 3 any phase, right, there are ceilings? 4 A That's correct. 5 Q So even 11 you were looking at a simulated 6 evacuation, you weren't using the actual settings in the 7 Controllers, but rather used estimates based on your 8 observations in the field, right? 9 A I think I have answered that twice already. 10 0 Let's go to page 9 of your rebuttal testimony 11 where you discuss growth rates in quest 1on and answer 10. 12 I'm sorry, let's go over to the top of page 10. 13 You state in the second sentence, "Using data d' > 14 compiled by Nassau County in 1976 and in 1985, we have 15 compiled a list of growth trends on the highways and access 16 roads to the reception centers," and you reference 17 Attachment A to the testimony. Do you see that? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Now in 1979 it's true that there was a gasoline 20 crisis; isn't that right? 21 A I recall in 1974. 22 O You don't recall a gas crisis in 1979? 23 A I think that was rather short compared to the 24 1974. 1 25 O Do you have any information as to whether or not
{ 66501111 18614 marysimons 1 that gas crisis reduced trafile growth for any length of 2 time? 3 A Without question it reduced traffic during that a period of time. 5 Q Did it reduce traffic growth over time? l 6 A Over what time frame are you using the word 7 growth? 8 0 Well, over any amount of time that you can think 9 of. 10 A Well, if you reduce the total amount of travel 11 during the period when gasoline is in short supply, it 12 follows that the growth during that period will be reduced. y Q Do you know whether or not if you determined ) 14 traffic growth rates from after that second gasoline crisis 15 whether you might not get much higher annual growth rates 16 for traffic? l 17 A Well, if -you used an unusual event, a year in 1 is which an unusual event took place as a basis for calculating 19 growth, then certainly you would get higher rates. But the 20 1976, I don't believe there was a gasoline crisis. In 1985 7i there is no gasoline crisis. What happens in between I i 22 don' t believe is relevant. 23 0 Why do you say what happens in between is not 2a re3evant? Wou3dn't that have an effect on the growth 25 between '7 6 and '85? l l l -______-_______-____--_____l
66501111 18615 marysimons -1 _r ~, 1 A No, I don't believe it will. (- 2 A Why? 3 A Because it's a short-term event. Essentially what we did is examine data during 1985, and I don' t believe 4 5 there is any memory in that process in the sense that what 6 happened in 1979 somehow influences the VMT in 1985, six 7 years hence. 8 Q Do you actually know the influence that gasoline 9 crisis had on growth rates or are you just speculating? 10 A My answer was not the growth rates. My answer 11 was the amount of traffic in 1985 has no memory process 12 relative to what occurred as a singu3 ar event in 1979. 13 Q Well, let's say you took the period from 1980 to 14 1985, have you calculated what the annual growth rate would 15 be for that period of time? 16 A Well, if 1980 represented a depressed year in l 17 terms of vehicle miles of travel, then the growth rate in 18 that period would be higher than the growth rate that I 19 have, but it would be improper to do that. 20 Q What li it was not the end of the gasoline 21 crisis, but it occurred sometime after the end of the 22 gasoline crisis? 23 A By "it" you mean what? 24 Q Let me be more precise. If in fact you modeled 25 from 1980 to 1985 and the gaso3ine crisis was over sometime .A_
66501111 18616 marysimons 1 before 1980, would there be the effect that you Just 2 described regarding a depression or starting off with the 3 depressed growth rate? 4 A Yes, there would, because what they published in 5 1980 represents data taken over a previous time period which 6 would be 1979 and would directly reflect this singular event 7 of shortfall in gasoline. 8 Q What is your basis for your opinion that there 9 would be no memory I think, as you put it, with respect to to 1985 traffic as related to the 1979 gas crisis? 11 A Well, in all my reading I have never seen any 12 causative factors. I have looked at nationwide growth 13 rates, secular growth rates before the event and after the ) 14 event and they are comparable. So there was a short-term 15 disruption due to the shortf all in gasoline and then the 16 resumption of the historical growth rates in VMT afterwards. 17 Q Isn't it true, Mr. Lieberman, that in general 18 traffic growth rates are increasing at a faster rate than 19 population growth rates? 20 A I think that's true. The population growth rate 21 in Nassau County in that decade was probably even less than 22 2/3rds of 1 percent. 23 Q But the traffic growth rate could be greater, l 24 right? 25 A Greater than what? I O
66501111 18617 marysimons I -s 1 0 Than 2/3 rds of 1 percent? U 2 A No, the 2/3rds of 1 percent was the traffic l 3 . growth rate.' Now what I've just said is that the population 4 growth in Nassau County was less than that. It depends upon 5 many factors, not the least being the robustness of the 6 economy, the number of jobs in the area, employment rates '7 and so forth. 8 Q But as a general matter you agree that the 9 traffic growth rates are higher than the population growth l l 10 rates? l 11 A On a nationwide basis that's true. You can't 12 make that statement for a particular region because it 13 depends upon the specifics of that region. la Q Do you know whether it applies to Nassau County 15 or not? 16 A I've just said that it does. My recollection is 17 that there has been a lower growth rate in Nassau County in 18 terms of population than the 2/3rds of 1 percent that we've 19 noted in automobile travel. 20 0 In the second paragraph, page 10, you're talking 21 about Nassau County population figures, right? 22 A That's correct. l 23 Q Let's go back to page 9. In the last sentence 24 you say "The plan should be developed and analyzed based on l l 25 current conditions. " i i l
66501111 18618 marysimons .~ i Do you see that? i O 2 A Yes. 3 0 Your analyses are based on 1986 proj ected a population figures, aren't they? l 5 A he. It's not based on population figures at 6 all. It's based upon traffic counts which we took in the 7 field a short period of time before we conducted the a analysis. 9 Q In determining the amount of evacuation to ao traffic demand there would be at those intersections you 11 took 100 percent of the EPZ population as stated in Appendix 12 A, correct, and determined how many vehicles would be .13 generated if there were an evacuation of 100 percent? () ja A That's quite true, which.was pro]ected to I 15 believe 1985 and subsequently found to be overstating the 16 population within the EPZ. The EPZ population right now in 17 1987 is somewhat below our proj ections made in doing that is study. i9 Q You're talking about summer population or winter 20 population? 21 A Specifically summer population. 22 Q And what data did you rely on for that 23 statement? 24 A This was done sometime ago. I think LILCO has a 25 report that they put out every year with the demographics of O
66501111 18619 marysimons I /~} l various towns and locations in Long Island, and I'm basing V 2 my statement on a recollection of what I read in that 3 report. 4 Q When was the report issued? 5 A I think this report was 1986. Probably there 6 has been a report since then. 7 Q And it's your recollection that the proj ections 8 or the data regarding population as issued by LILCO 9 suggested that the EPZ population in 1986 was not as great 10 as the 1985 projected population figures that are in the 11 LILCO plan? 12 A Right. 13 Q Do you know what the name of that report 1s? l 14 A It has the same title every year. It's just the 15 date changes. I can't remember offhand, but I can get it 16 for you if you would like. 17 MR. McMURRAY: Thank you. 18 At this time I am now handing out two documents, 19 the first of which has a heading at the top "15-Minute, 2-20 Channel Axle Count," and under the reference to location it 21 says " Southbound Broadway at Old Country Road." 22 I would like this document marked as Suffolk 23 County Exhibi t No. 27 for identification. 24 JUDGE MARGULIES: We wi13 mark it as soon as 25 counsel for the applicant gets their copy.
66501111 18620 i marysimons { i (Pause while the document is distributed to the ,O 2 Board and the parties.) 3 JUDGE MARGULIES: The two-page document will be 4 marked Suf f o3 k County Exhibit No. 27 for identification. 5 (The document referred to was 6 marked for identification as 7 Suffolk County Exhibit No. 27.) 8 MR. McMURRAY: The second document is a one-page 9 document with a drawing of an intersection at the top and a ~ io chart below it. The drawing says "BWY" for Broadway and 11 "Old County" for Old Country Road. 12 I would like this document marked as Suffolk 13 County Exhibit No. 28 for identification. ) JUDGE MARGULIES: It will be so marked. 14 15 (The document referred to was 16 marked for ident111 cation as 17 Suttolk County Exhibit No. 28.) 18 BY MR. McMURRAY: 19 Q Mr. Lieberman, earlier we looked at a document 20 which was Suffolk County Exhibit 19 which was a letter to a l 1 21 firm called ATI which requested some counts. ) l 22 Let me refer you to Suffolk County Exhibit 27. 23 This is a printout of the traffic counts taken at Broadway 24 and Old Country Road on Thursday, July 17, 1986, correct? 25 A Yes. O
l 66501111 18621 marys3 mons i I l 1 Q Pursuant to your request to Mr. Dan Talmore of l .g4 2 ATI? 3 A That's correct. 4 Q Let me ask you also to have Suffolk County 5 Exhibit No. 24 in front of you. I'm sorry, Suffolk County 6 Exhibit 23 in front of you. 7 (Counsel Christman places Suffolk County Exhibit l 8 23 before the witness.) 9 Do.you have everything in front of you? i 10 A Yes, everything is here I think. 11 Q With respect to suffolk County Exhibit No. 27 12 there are two sort of, it looks like major columns here, one 13 that is headed "Left" and the other says "Other." Do you 14 see that? 15 A Yes. l 16 Q Now the left counts are the counts that were 17 taken by the tube that was placed along the left turn bay as 18 indicated on Suffolk County Exhibit 20; isn't that correct? 19 A I hope so. What I mean by that is I hope that 20 the tube did not extend into the adjoining lane so as to 21 pick up traffic in that lane. 22 Q Do you have any reason to believe it did? 23 A It's always possible. 24 0 Has anyone informed you of that, that that 25 happened? FD r
66501111 18622 l 'marysimons 1 A No one has informed me that it has happened, but l . (~) 1 v 2 it is a possibility. You see, all you'need is an actuation 3 by the left wheels of a through vehicle over that tube and a the count includes that vehicle in its count. 5 Q But you are just speculating as to whether that 6 happened and you don't really know whether that happened or 7 not, do you? 8 A I would say more precisely I don't know the 9 extent to which it happened. to Q It's true, isn't it, that the counts under the 11 heading "Other" were based on the tube that extended alOng i 12 all the lanes also as represented as Suffolk County Exhibit t 13 No. 20? ) A Not really. It's actually the difference ja 15 between the tube that extended all the way across and the 16 tube in the pocket. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 -O
l 66501212 18623 suewalsh 1 .I 1 Q So, it doesn't include the lef t turning 2 traffic? In other words, there 1s not double counting? 3 A There might be. Again, if you have a yehicle 4 that's -- well, it is double counting. Everybody who passed 5 over the tube stretched across all lanes, and then some of 6 those passed over the tube in the lef t turn bay. So, by 7 definition there is double Counting. 8 Q Does this printout take that into account? 9 A Yeah. The printout assumes that what's labeled ~ to here as left turns did, in fact, conta1n vehicles who made 11 left turns only. 12 O Let me refer you to the second page of Suffolk 13 County Exhibit 27. There you have in the left-hand column } 14 the number of three hour time periods set out, correct? 15 A Yes. 16 Q Okay. And, then two columns under the broad 17 heading "Channe3," one column A, one column B, right? 18 A Correct. 19 Q And, the column A channel represents left turns? 20 A It represents the counts over that tube that 21 we've been talking abou t that was in place over the left 22 turn bay. 23 Q And, B is supposed to represent the traffic that 24 went over the longer tube, correct? 25 A No. Again, it's a difference.
i ) i '66501212 18624 suewalsh 1 Q Now, for the 7 to 10 a.m. time period under ) 2 Column A, there is the number 152 which is circled. Do you 3 see that? I a A Yes. 4 5 0 Okay. I will represent I don't think that's 6 your circle. I think that's ours. 7 That 152 represents the average of the counts to e the lef t-hand turn tube, if you will, for the hours 7 to 10 9 p.m., correc t? 10 A Yes, it appears so. 11 Q Okay. And those numbers there are circled. 12 That is, 17 5 f or the 7 to 8 a.m. period; 146 for the 8 to 9 33 period; and, 135 for the 9 to 10 period; 1s that correct? ) A Well, the copies aren't in good shape but that u 13 looks ibout right. 16 Q And the purpose of averaging out that time 17 period was to derive average hourly flow over that three is hour time period from 7 to 10 a.m., correct? 19 A That is correct. 20 Q And, at the time these data were taken you were 21 trying to get an idea of what background traffic was at this 22 intersection, right? 23 A That's exactly why it's out there, yes. 24 Q Now, the -- for the 7 to 10 a.m. period, the 25 total volume -- if you look all the way over to the right-i
'66501212 18625 suewalsh I I hand column, it's 593, isn't it? 2 It looks like 573 but if you add up the numbers 3 it's 593, correct? 4 A Yes. 5 MR. McMURRAY: Just for the record, I think l 6 everyone should be clear that it looks for a 573. When you 7 add up the numbers it should be 593. 8 BY MR. McMURRAY: (Continuing) 9 Q Let's go over to Suf folk County Exhibit 2e Do 10 'you see that? 11 A Right. That 593, I'm'sure you realize, is the 12 total number of cars that passed over the tube which l 13 extended across all lanes. You are aware of that? 14 Q Including left-turners who also passed over 15 that, correc t? 16 A A portion of the 593 also passed over the other 17 tube. 18 Q Do you recognize Suf f olk County Exhibit 2 8, Mr. 19 Lieberman? That's the one with the intersection on top and 20 the chart down at the bottom. 21 A Yes. That's probably Mr. Goldblatt's 22 handwriting that I see here. 23 Q It was prepared by someone in your office? 24 A Yes. It may not have been him, but it came from 1 25 our office. !O l
'66501212 18626 suewalsh i 1 Q Let's look at the chart for a second.. You have .O 2 in the first column a line for background, a line for 3 evacuation. And, you have a total. j 4 Do you see that? The flist column. 5 A Yes. 6 Q And, the headings of the chart are EB for 7 eastbound, WB for Westbound, NB for northbound and SB for 8 southbound, right? 9 A Quite right. 10 0 Okay. And, above the southbound column it says 11 7 to 10 a.m. Do you see that? 12 A Yes. 13 0 Okay. So, these data reflect a 7 to 10 a.m. 14 time period, right? 33 A Quite right. 16 O Okay. Let's look down the evacuation line. 17 Under -- strike that. 18 Looking under the southbound column, the SB j9 column, underneath the SB are the letters L, T and R. 20 Do you see that? 21 A Yes. 22 Q L stands for left, correct? 23 A YeS-24 O T stands for through, correct? 25 A Qaite right. O
66501212 18627 suewalsh I 1 Q And, R stands for right, correct? ..O 2 A Quite right. 3 Q Looking at the line " Evacuation" there is the 4 number 339. Do you see that? i 5 A Quite right. I j ust -- just to fill out the 6 story, I did an addition while you were asking me the second 7 question. 8 If you sum up the left, through and right, turn 9 values under SB you come out with 593. 10 Q We are going to get to that. With respect to 11 the 339, this represents, does it not, what you have deemed 12 to be the average hourly evacuation demand placed on -- for 13 that particular turn movement assuming that 30 percent of L( ) the EPZ residents go to the Hicksville reception center; is 14 15 that correct? 16 A Give me a moment here to check that. 17 MR. CHRISTMAN: I would like a clarification of 18 that question. Was the last part of the question, this is 19 assuming that 30 percent of the EPZ residents go -- all go 20 to Hicksville, because that's what it sounded like? 21 MR. McMURRAY: Thirty percent -- okay, i 22 BY MR. McMURRAY: (Continuing) 23 0 Why don't you explain how the 339 was derived, 24 Mr. Lieberman? 25 A Fine. As we ta}ked about this this morning, we !O
66501212 18628 suewalsh em 1 assumed that 100 percent of the population within the EPZ 2 does evacuate, they do get on the east / west highways and 3 travel west. Of these, 30 percent are assumed to travel to a their respective reception centers. And, by respective I 5 mean the ones that are assigned to them. 6 I just did an addition here. The paths -- the 7 evacuation paths that are travelled down Route 107 to this 8 Intersection are Paths 1.C and 1.E. And, the total number 9 of vehicles assuming everybody went is 6,770 vehicles if you 10 just add up the 2,500 f or 1.C and the 4,270 f rom 1.E. 11 Consistent with the assumption that 30 percent 12 of these people will actually travel down -- represent those 13 who will go to the reception center for monitoring and , q, T) 14 consistent with the lower range of the assumption that the 15 arrival period will range between six and nine hours, we 16 take the 6,770 and multiply it by.3 and that gives us a 17 total number of evacuees going to the reception center along is these two paths and then divide by the six hours 19 representing the arrival period to obtain the average 20 evacuation flow of 339 vehicles per hour. 21 Q And that added to the background traffic for 22 that movement gives you a total of 416 vehicles making that 23 movement during that hour, correct? 24 A During a representative hour of the first three 25 hour period, that's correct. ______________j
~ l i -66501212-18629 suewalsh~ l 1 Q And, if you look over at Suffolk County Exhibit j 'y 2 23 on the first page, the chart under traffic volumes, if 3 yt follow the line that says left all the way over to the 4 f ar right column under the southbound heading, in fact, you 5 find that 416 figure there, correct? 6 A That's correct. Again, I call to your attention 7 that more recent work has been done on this and I cannot ) 8 testify that at this point in time the inputs for Report 9 201.A is 416 vehicles. 10 Q You don't know whether it has been changed or 11 not? 12 A I can find out in short order. 13 0 Why don't you find that out? l i'() 14 A Fine. Could we take a five minute break? 15 Q Well, let's go on. That would be the work that 16 was done for 201. A then you are talking about? 17 A Yes. That's the work which supersedes this. 18 0 You pointed out earlier, Mr Lieberman, on 19 Suffo3k County Exhibit 28 the data regarding the southbound I 20 traffic for the left, through and right all add up to 593, 21 c orrec t? 22 A That is correct. 23 Q Okay. And, that's the same as the total for the 24 left turn data and the other data for -- as reflected on the i 1 25 second page of Suffolk County Exhibit 27, correct? !6 j .m
66501212 18630 suewalsh 1 A That is correct. 2 Q Okay. But, you will note that the left turn 3 data as derived from the actual traffic counts taken on July 4 17, 1986 show 152 under the column designated "Left." 5 Do you see that? 6 A I think you have to be careful with the 7 semantics here. Let's call those the machine counts, a because the 77 also is derived from traffic counts. 9 Q Okay. The machine counts showed 152, right? 10 A That is correct. 11 Q Okay. And, yet with respect to the left turn 12 designated on Suffolk County Exhibit 28, which I think we've 13 shown has been further inputted into Suf folk County Exhibit ) is 23, the left turns are roughly half of what they are 15 designated to be on Suf f olk County Exhibit 27, correct? 16 A That is correct. 17 18 19 i 1 20 2i 22 j l 23 24 } 25 O
66501313 18631 joewalsh j i 1 MR. McMURRAY: Judge Margulies, at this time I _,-a). I 2 would like to move that Suf f olk County Exhibit 27 and 28 be l i 3 admitted into evidence. 4 JUDGE MARGULIES: Is there any ob]ection? l 5 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: No ob ection. J 6 MR. CHRISTMAN: No objection, with the 7 understanding these are -- I believe the witness said 8 obsolete or superseded documents. So, I think their value V and the value of the questioning may be marginal. 10 But, no obj ection. 11 MR. McMURRAY: Well, the Report that is 201 has 12 been admitted into the record and it's -- 201 1s merely a 13 further refinement of it. So, it's clearly relevant. 14 MR. CHRISTMAN: No objection. 15 MR. BACHMANN: No objection. 16 JUDGE MARGULIES: Suffolk County's 27 and 28 for l l 17 identification are admitted into evidence. 18 (The documents previously marked as 19 Suffolk County Exhibits Number 27 20 and 28 for identification are 21 admitted into evidence.) 22 MR. McMURRAY: At this time, I would like to 23 have three documents marked as exhibits. The first is a two-24 page document, the first of which is a printout. In the 25 upper right-hand corner it says " Thursday." Along the top I /# .t )
66501313 18632 3oewalsh . cs 1 it says "ATI - American Traffic Information Automatic 7d 2 Traffic Recorder Count Details." And, the location deals 3 with R1, WB for westbound, LIE service road at Willis 4 Avenue. 5 I would like this marked as Suffolk County 6 Exhibit Number 29 for identification. 7 JUDGE MARGULIES: It will be so marked. 8 (The document referred to is marked 9 as Suffolk County Exhibit Number to 29 for identification. 11 MR. McMURRAY: The next document I would like 12 marked is a one-page document with again an intersection 13 drawn on the top and below it a chart. At the top it says "Willis Avenue and we'stbound LIE service road, 7 to 10 a.m." 14 15 I would like this marked as Suffolk County 16 Exhibit Number 30 f or identification. 17 JUDGE MARGULIES: It will be so marked. 18 (The document referred to is marked 19 as Suf f olk County Exhibit Number 20 30 for identification.) 21 MR. McMURRAY: The final document consists of 22 several pages headed "1985 HCM Signalized Intersections." 23 The intersection referred to is the westbound LIE service 24 road and Willis Avenue. The name of the analyst is R. 25 Goldblatt. .O
66501313. 18633 .30ewalsh (<I) I would like this marked as Suffolk County 1 (/ 2 Exhibit 31 for' identification. 3 JUDGE MARGULIES: .It will be so marked. 4 (The document referred to is marked 5 as Suffolk County Exhibit Number 6 31 for identification.) 7 BY MR. McMURRAY: (Continuing) 8 Q Do you have these documents in front of you, Mr. l 9 Lieberman? i 10 A Yes, I do. 11 Q Now, just so everybody can understand what 12 Intersection we are talking about, can you show me'on Page 9 13 of TR-201.A exactly which intersection this is that we are 14 looking at now? 15 It may be that it's not shown, in which case we 16 will go someplace else. 17 A I think you should look on Page 10. 18 0 I'm sorry. Page 10. 19 A As indicated on SC-29 under location it, says R-20 1. You will notice a circle also labeled R-1 on Page 10, 21 which is the intersection of the north LIE service road with 22 W113is Avenue. 23 Q At this direction -- strike that. 24 At the approach to this intersection, again were 25 there two tubes going across the road as we discussed
66501313 18634 Joewalsh (p s ) earlier with respect to Route 107 and Old Country Road? b 2 A Yes. The -- one tube covered all the lanes and 3 the other tube covered the inside lane which services 4 through and left turn traffic. i 5 So, I should point out that the designation 6 there that Direction 1 is a left turn only is not correct. 7 O How many lanes are at this' intersection? i e A Lanes are usually associated with approaches 9 rather than with intersections. On the westbound approach, to there are three lanes. 11 Q Let me refer you to Page 2 of Suffolk County 12 Exhibit 31. Under Intersection Geometry, let's look at the 33 second column labeled WB for westbound. 14 Now, under the sub-column Type, for lane 1 15 that's designated as L; isn't that correct? 16 A Right. That 's not correc t. l l 17 Q Is my statement not correct or -- 18 A The designation is not correct. 19 O The designal: ion is not correct? What should the i 20 resignation be f or Lane 17 21 A It should be LT. 22 Q For lef t-hand through? 23 A Correct. Now, I should say, just to make things 24 Precise, that under heavy left turn movements, that lane 25 will act as a de facto left turn lane. So, I would expect 1 ^
'66501313 18635 .j oewalsh 1 1 that with heavy evacuation traffic that's what is going to 2 happen. 3 But, all of that is taken care of by the HQ4 4 procedures. I can point out the page if you would like. 5 Q I don't think that's necessary right now. Under 6 Lane 2, across from Lane 2, the type there is T. 7 Do you see that? 8 A Yes, that's for through. 9 Q That's for through? Is that correct? 10 A That is correct. 11 Q Okay. And, the third lane it is designated as 12 TR for through and right, correct? 13 A That is correct. Again, I should point out that Lv 14 this early work has since been superseded. 15 Q Can you -- let's go back to Suffolk County 16 Exhibit 29. With respect to the first column and the second 17 column which says " Direction - Left Turn" I take it from 18 what you are saying that the data under there reflects not 19 just left-turners but some portion of traffic that was also 20 going straight; is that correct? 21 A Yes. The traffic in that Iane had serviced both 22 left-turners and throughs. 23 Q So, only some fraction of that traffic was 24 actually taking a left turn? 25 A That is correct.
b ,66501313 18636 %.T:joewalsh 1' Q All raght. And, under the column " Direction 2: 2 B-RT+TR" 1 take it those are the counts for the bclance of 3 the traffac going through that intersection? 4 A Yes. ;That would be from the tube that stretchcd. 5 all the way'across minus those in this lane. Q With respect to the -- let's go to the second 6 t 7 pnge of Suf folk County Exhibit 29. Under the heading Column 8 A,'left, for ' the 7 to 10 a.m. period, the number sta ed 9 there is 683, correct? 10 A No, the number is not correct. But, it's stated 11 that way. 12 O Well, that number was derived, wasn't it, from i3 taking the average of the counts for the 7 to 8, the 8 to 9, 14 and the 9 to 10 period? 15 A' Thatfu-right, and mistakenly interpreted as 16 being left-turners only. 17 0 In fact, it includes some through people, is correct? 39 A Actually, most of the vehicles there are 20 through. 21 Q Let 's go to Suf f olk County Exhibit 3 0. Look at 22 the westbound column -- strike that. 1 .23 There are some entries an the left-hand column. 24 There is background; there is CER; there is evacuation; '5 there is total. l I 1 _ ___________ U
'66501313 18637 joewalsh 1 1 I think that the line that says CER and the line i 2 of data poing across are not yours; 1sn't that correct, Mr. 3 Lieberman? 1 l 4 A The handwriting looks different, so I will 5 accept that. 6 Q I will represent to you that I think it was put l 7 there by someone other than somebody in your office, so that 8 it was -- that data was not put there by your office. 9 With respect to the other handwriting though, 10 was this prepared by somebody in your office? 11 A Yes, that's correct. 12 O Okay. Now -- 13 A I would like to point out, if you will excuse me 14 -- I should have done that before on SC-28. You will notice 15 that the breakdown in turn movements on these two exhibits 16 are lef t, t hrough and right as opposed to the machine counts 17 which are some movement, presumably plus other. 18 'O Right. 19 A And, that's a vital point right here. 20 Q With respect to the data going across for 21 background in the westbound column, for lef t turn it says 22 182. My copy is a little unclear with respect to the 23 throughs. 24 Do you know what that number is supposed to be? 25 A I could back it out if you would like. ICE)
66501313 18638 joewalsh 1 Q. Okay. O 2 (The witness is doing a calcu3ation.) 3 A That's'1107. 4 Q How did you derive that figure? 5 A We13, I assumed whoever CER is was able to read 6 the original copy. I added up his three figures and then 7 subtracted the two other figures on our line, left me with s 1107. 9 Q Okay. It's true, isn't it, that if you add up i lo the counts under Columns A and B on the second page of 11 Suffolk County Exhibit 29 and the counts as represented for 12 the westbound column for the background data, you come up 33 with the same number? () ja A That's true. The totals agree. 15 MR. CHRISTMAN: May I have permission to give 16 the witness an original copy of this so he can -- 17 JUDGE MARGULIES: You may. 18 (The witness is provided a document.) l l 19 WITNESS LIEBERMAN: I've Just received the 20 original copy, and it does confirm that that figure is 1107. 21 BY MR. McMURRAY: (Continuing) 22 Q Let me back up a second. The westbound approach 23 to this intersection is the approach that evacuees would be 24 taking, correct? 25 A That is correct. i I Lrt _ _ _______
66501313 18639 Joewalsh I 1 Q Okay. And, the lef t turn is the turn that _f._q V 2 evacuees would be making to get to Roslyn, correct? 3 A That is correct. 4 O So, underneath the sub-column L for left, you 5 have evacuation 379. Do you see that? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Okay. Was that derived the same way as you l 8 explained before with respect to the other intersection we 9 were discussing, 107 and Old Country Road? 10 A Yes, it was done the same wey. I can walk you 11 through it for the record. 12 If you look at Table 2-1 of TR-201.A, you will 13 find Path 3.A has a total volume, assuming everybody from t W( ) 14 the EPZ il there, of 7,588 vehicles. If you take the 7,588 15 multiplied by.3 to represent that 30 percent of that total 16 actually will come here for the purposes of monitoring and l 17 then divide that by the six hours of the lower range of the 18 estimated arrival period you do, in fact, come up with 379 19 vehicles per hour on average over those six hours. 20 0 And, you add the 379 to the 182 and you comt up 21 with a total hourly volume of lef t turns of 561; isn't that 22 right? 23 A Right. The background turn movements, of 24 course, were obtained by fie3d studies to determine turn 25 percentages. And, that 's where the 182 cotaes f rom. I
l '66501313 18640 joewalsh-1 f_ 1 It's obtained by taking. the total volume as l 2 obtained by the tube that stretched all the way across that 3 approach and multiplying it by the turn percentage that was 4 observed in the field. 5 0 Was that done on the same day as these data were ) 6 taken? l l 7 A No, it was not. 8 Q And, how long was the field observation that led 9 to the.ad]ustment to this data? 10 A I don't recall exactly. 5t was at least 15 11 minutes and may well have been longer. 12 O Fifty or 15? 13 A 15. And, we took two periods. As I mentioned ) in the deposition,. we took a representative a.m. period and 14 15 a representative p.m. period for all approaches at all 16 Intersections in order to get turn percentages for the 17 purpose of breaking down the machine counts into specific i is turn movements. 1 o Q And, on average did these faeld observations 20 take about 15 minutes for each time you observed? 21 A No. I would say as a minimum it would be 15 22 minutes. I can't tell you what the average is. 23 Q Now, going over to Suf fo3k County Exhibit 31, on 24 the first page under the heading " Traffic Volumes" under the l l 25 column westbound for lef t turns, you have the number 561 l l l ll.
1 i 66501313 18641 joewalsh I. I which agrees with the 561 on Exhibit 30, correct? .O 2 A That's correct. Again, I have to tell you that' 3 SC-31 is an older analysis. I can't tell you whether the 4 final results in 201.A' reflect any changes. l 5 Q That's something you could find out quickly? 6 A Oh, yes. 7 MR. McMURRAY: At this time, I would like to 8 move that Suf f olk County Exhibits 29, 30 and 31 be admitted 9 into the record. 10 JUDGE MARGULIES: Any objection? 11 MR. CHRISTMAN: No, sir. 12 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: No obj ection. 13 MR. BACHMANN: No objection. '( 14 JUDGE MARGULIES: They will be admitted as is Suffolk County Exhibits 29, 30 and 31. 16 (The documents previously marked as 17 Suf f olk County Exhibits Number 29, 18 30 and 31 for identification are 19 admitted into evidence.) 20 MR. McMURRAY: Judge Margulies, I don't know 21 what your plans are today for breaks. I'm not near l 22 finishing. I think we are going to go most of the day, l 23 Probably all of the day. And, we are going to go on for 24 some time, I think. 25 I don't know whether you want to take the two 10-1C
66501313 18642 joewalsh i minute breaks, one 15-minute or what. This is a good ..O 2 breaking point if you would like to take a break. 3 JUDGE MARGULIES: Let's take a 15-minute 4 recess. If we need another one, we will take another one. 5 (Whereupon, a recess is taken at 3:05 p.m., to 6 reconvene at 3:23 p.m., this same day. ) 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 = 15 16 17 IB 19 20 21 l i 22 23 24 25 l l 1
66501414 18643 marysimons l-I -e-% JUDGE MARGULIES: Back on the record. () 2 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resumed) 3 BY MR. McMURRAY: O Let's go to page 33 of your rebuttal testimony, 5 Mr. Lieberman. 6 (witness complies.) 7 A During the break I had enough time to confirm l 8 that the State data which you gave me as an exhibit was in 9 fact the same as we received. In the time I had I couldn't 10 respond to your other requests. I'll wait for the next II break. 12 O Okay. Go to page 33 of your rebuttel testimony. 13 (Witness complies.) , /~ ' id And, by the way, when you referred to the State 15 data, you were talking about Suf folk County Exhibit 26; is 16 that correct? 17 A Yes. i 1 IB Q Now on page 33 of your rebuttal testimony, in 19 the last sentence of the first paragraph you state that 20 "Once on these highways, traffic is assumed, as a worst 21 case, to travel at Level of Service F, presumably at a low 22 speed of approximately 17 and 20 miles an hour." 23 Do you see that? 24 A
- yes, 25 0
Let me refer you now to page 7 of your 1a__-_.-_--_
66501414 18644 marysimons /} testimony, I'm sorry, of your initial testimony, and that is I 2 LILCO Exhibit No. 1. 3 Do you have that in iront of you? 4 A Yes. 5 0 Now is your 17 to 20 mile per hour estimate 6 based at all or connected in any way with the equation 7 that's the calculation that is set out in response to 8 question 77 9 A Yes. 10 Q I think it is back under Item 2 of that answer Il that you estimate the mean speed along all routes and then L 12 you set out a calculation, correct, and you come out with 18 l l 13 miles per hour? h 14 A Roughly, yes. 15 O The level of service represents the force flow 16 conditions, correct? l 17 A By definat2On. 18 0 Under force flow conditions isn't at possible 19 that as more demand 7.s placed upon a particular road that in 20 tact the flow on that road or roadway section could drop 21 below the capacity of the road? l 22 A Yes, indeed. You'll recall that we reduced the 23 capacity of the road by 15 percent to account for that, or 24 we did three years ago. 25 O When you under Item 2B says " Estimated capacity I '(2)
66501414 18645 marysimons 1 is 1,800 vehicles VPL," what do you mean by 1,800 VEPHL? 2 A That is vehicles per hour per lane. 3 O And that is the estimated capacity for the LIE d level of service conditions? 5 A Roughly. 6 O Now you apply what you call an equation of state 7 where you basically divide the density of the traffic along 8 the road into that estimated capacity and come up with a 9 figure of 18 miles per hour. Do you see that? 10 .A Right. II Q In fact, since you could get flow that is below 12 the capacity of a road for force of flow, couldn't that 13 figure be below 18 miles per hour? - - -O Id A At points along the highway, celtainly. 15 Q Couldn' t it be that the average is below 18 16 miles per hour? 17 A Based on recent data, I think 18 miles an hour 18 is a conservative estimate of speed along a congested 19 h2ghway. I think we can reference several papers which show 20 that level of service "F" overall produces a speed somewhere 21 between 20 and 30 miles an hour, with points lower than 20 22 miles an hour and with other points at higher than 30 miles 23 an hour. I think what we have here is a conservative 24 estimate of speed over that distance. 25 O Do those papers discuss the kind of conditions 1 i _______________ a
66501414 18646 marysimons . O, L I that would exist in an evacuation? 2 A Well, congested flow is congested flow. You 3 would have to describe to me how it changes if a portion of d the traffic stream is evacuating. 5 0 I'm sorry, I didn't understand what you said. 6 A Well, what I'm saying is you have made a 7 distinction between congested conditions under normal times 8 and congested conditions where a fraction of the traffic 9 demand consists of evacuees, and I can't answer your 10 question unless you describe to me how that fraction 11 Intluences the be0Avior ot' the entire traffic stream. 12 Q Well, isn't it true that there are different 13 degrees of congestion even under level of service "F"? 14 A Yes, there is a range of density which will be-15 different at different points along the highway ranging from 16 a queueing situation where the density might be -- I've seen 17 data points as high as 130 vehicles per hour per lane to 18 points you have virtually very close to free flow conditions 19 where the density might be done to 20 or 30 vehicles per 20 hour per lane. It's a very highly variable situation. i 21 Q And assuming an evacuation of 100 percent of the 22 EPZ, you might confront as.a driver traffic densities more 23 approaching the 132 vehicles per lane per mile, couldn't 24 you? 25 A If you look at the data you find that the 130 LO o
66501414-18647 marysimons I -[ figure are very few in number. In other words, what you 2 look at is a scatter diagram where each point reflects an 3 averaged density over time at some point along the highway, d and if you look at these points what you find is that the l vast bulk of the points lie between say 60 and 100 or 5 6 perhaps a 110 with a much lighter representation beyond 110. 7 We used 100, which is an average representation, 8 and it's actually a little high, for conditions which have 9 been measured in the field extensively. 10 Now the fact that you have an evacuation means II that the trip purpose of some of the people on the highway 12 as datterent than normal, but it does not translate into 13 higher densities. Id 0 Could densities get greater as more people 15 attempt to force themselves onto the road? 16 A That is included in this span of points that I 17 just indicated where you have a range of some 60 to 130. So 18 under the conditions where people are forcing themselves 19 onto the road you set up what is effectively an metering 20 condition. At the Gore point where such mergers take place, 21 generally you find that queues form behind them. 22 The throughput or the discharge volume from that area 23 f all s below capaci ty, as you pointed out, and therefore the 24 flow that enters the next downstream section is below the 25 capacity of that section and that's why you get this \\
66501414 18648 marysimons f
I U
1 which we've est2 mated to be approximately 7 a.m.
to 7 p.m.
O,-
2 It is virtually no traffic from the State Park 3
southbound on that highway at that point in time, 7 a.m. or d
perhaps an hour later on a workday.
5 O
That's under non-emergency conditions that you 6
are talking about, correct?
You are talking about --
7 A
On a typical workday, whether it's an emergency 8
or not.
I don't know if the people at the Park -- whether 9
there are going to be any people at the Park at that time of 10 day.
It's not a large camp ground there.
I don't know II where these people would come from.
12 O
Well, are there residences or population between 13 the Park and Route 257
)
id A
There are some, not too many.
15 Q
Let's go to Page 35 of your rebuttal testimony.
16 Page 35 is the section dealing with the reception center 17 sites, right?
18 A
Just the 11rst questaca of that section.
19 Q
Okay.
Let's actually turn to Page 39.
In 20 response to Question 41, you are discussing the Hicksville 21 reception center.
And, you state that, "The entire outflow 22 from Area B exits onto New South Road, with half travelling I
I 23 south and the other half north toward Old Country Road."
]
I 24 Do you see that?
25 A
Yes.
i
)
66501515' 18659 suewalsh
-r I
Q Now, as I understand it, LILCO is not going to 2
have any traffic guides actually on the roads; 1s that 3
right?
They are going to be restricted to the reception d
centers is my understanding.
5 A
Well, I'm not -- I don't think I can testify 6
directly on that.
It's entirely possible that Nassau County 7
would permit LILCO guides to make suggestions to the police 8
that are assigned.
9 And, at any rate, guides at the exits of the 10 facility which are off the street could indicate to those II who are leaving that they would like them to split in that 12 direction.
And, I think it also makes sense that if, in 13 fact, there is congestion or Indic.ation of heavier traffic
,,!O
'\\ /
Id in one direction the exiting traffic would be inclined to go 15 in the other, and so an equilibrium process would take 16 place.
I7 Q
Just so you know, Mr. Lieberman, on Page 37 of 18 your initial testimony, your response to Question 61, the 19 question was asked, "What trafile control does the plan 20 contemplate?"
21 The answer is given, "LERO traffic guides will 22 occupy stations, only on LILCO property, specified in OPIP 23 4.2.3.'
24 Does that refresh your recollection about where 25 the LILCO traffic guides are going to be?
Page 37 of your i
L0
66501515 18660 suewalsh-l l I
initial testimony.
I 7g
%)
2 A
No.
I see that, but I don't see any i
3 contradiction here if you are implying one.
I d
Q It says there that, "The Nassau County police l
l 5
will be asked to provide traffic control off'LILCO property 1
6 at all signalized intersections along the paths defined in 7
the KLD ana3yses."
I 8
Do you know whether there are any agreements 9
j with the Nassau County police to do so?
I 10 A
Not to my knowledge.
I don't think such 11 agreements are actually needed, but that's for the legal l
12 people to argue about.
13 Q
And, I take at from our discussion this morning l
\\
Id that you don't know whether the Nassau County police would 15 agree with the various turns or traffic movements that you 16 suggest in your reports, do you?
17 MR. CHRISTMAN:
Obj ec tion.
Asked and answered.
18 JUDGE MARGULIES:
The record is quite extensive, 19 and if it has been asked and answered it wouldn't do any 20 harm to answer it again.
21 You may respond.
22 WITNESS LIEBERMAN:
I think the Nassau County 23 police will take whatever action is needed to keep traff2c 24 moving.
25 BY MR. McMURRAY:
(Continuing) 1
66501515 18661 suewalsh l-I O'
And so, in fact, even'if-they responded they 2
might not implement the various movements that you have 1
3 suggested in your report, correct?
A They might not.
They might do something that's l
5 better.
6 7
l l'
8 i
l 9
I l
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 l
l 17 l
18 l
19 l
l 20 1
21 l
22 23
~
24 25 l
l 66501616 18662 Joewalsh I
Q Mr. Lieberman, in your testimony, you recall a 2
11gure of 2.8 people per vehicle as the number of people it 3
was estimated would be in each vehicle arriving at the d
reception centers?
Does that ring a bell with you?
5 A
Yeah.
I think that was taken from the Suttolk 6
County Planners, way back when, who arrived at that 7
estimate.
8 Q
Is it your understanding that that is the nunber 9
of people in LILCO Appendix A assumed to be in each car 10 evacuating the EPZ?
II A
No.
I don't know how you get 2.8 persons in a 12 car.
That is an average figure.
13 Based on a pro]ected population of 160,000, and Id the 58,403 vehicles given on Table 2-1, on Page 6 of TR 15 201.A, it works out to be 2.74 on average persons per 16 vehicle, which I believe is not reflective of the tact that 17 there are going to be severa3 thousand people in buses.
18 Etiectively what we have done is double counted, 19 you see, and what that does is drive this down.
20 Q
Under Appendix A isn't it assumed that li there 21 1s 100 percent evacuation you would have about 58,000 cars 22 leaving the EPZ?
23 A
That is what I Just said.
24 0
I am sorry.
25 A
I referenced Table ?,1, which shows the sum of G
l l
66501616 18663 Joewalsh I
I 58,403.
2 MR. McMURRAY:
Judge Margulies, do you want to 3
take a second break?
It doesn't have to be 15 minutes.
d JUDGE MARGULIES:
We can take a 10 minute break, 5
then.
6 (Recess taken from 4:05 p.m.,
to reconvene at 7
4:20 p.m.,
this same day.)
8 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Back on the record.
BY MR. McMURRAY:
(Continuing) 10 Q
Mr. Lieberman, during the break, were you able II to determine whether or not the input data for the i
12 evacuation movements as reflected on Suffolk County Exhib2t 13 31, and 23 were changed in the analysis of TR 201.A?
r~
"v)
Id A
There were some changes, but they weren't 15 monumental as far as I could tell by Just scanning it.
16 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Will you keep your voice up, 17 we can hardly hear you.
18 WITNESS LIEBERMAN:
I am sorry.
Is this thing 19 on?
There were some changes, but they weren ' t -- according 20 to the scanning that I did Just in a couple of minutes, they 21 were not large differences.
22 BY MR. McMURRAY:
(Continuing) 23 0
When you say, "not large," do you mean by a
. 24 couple of cars?
25 A
No, at is more than that.
If I had more time --
10
l 66501616 18664
-,oewalsh 1
g,)
11 all you want to do is focus on these volumes, if I had
\\s 2
another ten minutes I could do it for you.
3 0
What I want to know is whether the Exhibit 23 3
d for.the southbound left curn, whether number 416 has I
5 changed, and for on Suffolk County Exhibit 31, for the 6
wes tbound, left turn, whetaer the number 561 has changed?
7 I gue3s I would like to ask the Board to give 8
Mr. Lieberman thei-time to find out, because I am just about 9
done.
4 10 JUDGE MARGULIES:
Why don' t we go into a l
l 11 discussion of the motion at this time, and du ring that l
- 2 period he can review his documents. Mr. Zahnleuter, you were 13 going to look at the proposed surrebuttal testimony of Mr.
14 Lieberman before you wish to respond. Have you had an 15 opportunity to do so? 16 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Yes. I would like to make an 17 anguiry of LILCO first., I am looking at LILCO's motion for 18 leave to file surrebuttal testimony, dated July 17 th, and on 19 page 2, it says in the first full paragraph: LILCO hereby 20 moves for leave to permit Mr. Lieberman to respond to the 21 op2nlons of hirJ work Messrs. Hartgen and Millspaugh in their 22 May 27th rebuttal testimony, and in Part 2 of their July 23 10th testimony. 24 I guess I would like to know if that should read 25 the Viy 27 th rebuttal test 1 mony, Part 2 and Part 3 of their O
4 66501616 18665 joewalsh 1 I July 10th testimony? hr". 2 MR. CHRISTMAN: I don't really know. Since we 3 filed the written rebuttal testimony I think it --- that d is, the surrebuttal testimony, I thirk, will speak for 5 2tself. 6 What he moves for leave to do as to make that 7 surrebuttal testimony, which you have. 8 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I will try to address my 9 response as coherently as I can. I have to admit that with 10 the multiple layers of rebuttal testimony, it is confusing. MR. CHRISTMAN: That is why we called it 12 surrebuttal to make it easier to keep the pieces separate. 13 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: With respect then to the Id portion of the surrebuttal-testimony that deals with the 15 state's rebuttal testimony of May 27th 1987, I oppose the 16 acceptance of the surrebuttal testimony in this proceeding U on the basis of timeliness. I8 My argument is that Just as the state filed 19 rebuttal testimony on July 10th regarding LILCO's rebuttal 20 testimony, so could LILCO have done the same thing. 21 Instead, LILCO filed this surrebuttal testimony 22 on the day before this hearing commenced the traffic issues, 23 giving us insufficient time to cross examine Mr. Lieberman 24 at the time that he was on the stand. 25 The State filed it's testimony on July 10th,
66501616 18666 J oewalsh I giving at least ten days advance preparation time. There is 9 2 no reason presented in the motion for the tallure of LILCO 3 to file this rebuttal testimony to the State's rebuttal d testimony between the period May 27 th through yesterday, 5 which was July 21st (sic). 6 Now, with respect to the portion of the 7 surrebuttal testimony which deals with Part 2 of the State's B rebuttal testimony to -- I am confused. I think it is the j 9 rebuttal testimony to LILCO's rebuttal testimony. 10 I think what I am trying to say is that as of 11 May 27 th 1987, the parties were in balance. In other words, 12 both the State and LILCO had filed direct testiniony on the 13 traff2c issues and both the State and LILCO had filed id rebuttal testimony dealing with those issues. 15 After that, LILCO supplemented TR 201 with TR 16 201.A, and the State filed its rebuttal testimony pursuant 17 to the Board's order of June 12th, which dealt with 201.A. 18 That is what Part 2 dea 3s with; it 2s a response 19 to 201.A. 20 My argument is that at that point LILCO has 21 201.A into the record, and the State has its response to 22 201.A in the record. That is where the balance is in 23 equilibrium, and that is where it should stay. By LILCO 24 seeking to file surrebuttal testimony now directed towards 25 the State's Part 2, which is rebuttal to 201.A, the balance
l 66501616 18667 Joevalsh l -( is upset, and LILCO is seeking at the last minute to get the 2 last word in and I think the Board needs to draw the line 3 somewhere. d And I suggest it is at a point where the l l situation is balanced, and that would be before the 6 surrebuttal testimony by LILCO. 7 I still think that I need to address as part of 8 the surrebuttal testimony which is directed towards Part 3 9 of the State's rebuttal testimony. 10 JUDGE MARGULIES: And where does that start? Il MR. ZAHNLEUTER: In LILCO's surrebattal 12 testimony, I believe it starts on Page 13 where the Question 13 and Answer 15. And I believe the basis f or that believe is LO 14 Part 3 of the State's rebuttal testimony starts on page 15, 15 and in Question 15 on page 13 of LILCO'c surrebuttal 16 testimony there is a parenthetical reference to Page 16 and 17 17 of the State's testimony. 18 My argument with respect to Part 3, or LILCO's 19 surrebuttal testimony directed to Part 3, is that it is 20 cumulative and essent2 ally repetitive of LILCO's May 27th 21 1987 rebuttal testimony. 22 And what I would like to do to show you that l 23 similarity a s direct you to Page 2 of LILCO's surrebuttal 24 testimony, where on points 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, Mr. 25 Lieberman states: This testimony also addresses comments D\\/ L_
'66501616 18668 j oewalsh y 1 that were raised by the State, DOD witnesses, et cetera. >( 2 And lists those five things. 3 On Page 2 of LILCO's May 27 th 1987 rebuttal 4 testimony, in the answer to Question 4, basically exactly 5 the same topics are discussed. 6 So, what it comes down to is that Mr. Lieberman 7 is taking a second chance in the surrebuttal testimony to 8 address the same topics that he addressed in his rebuttal 9 testimony. 10 I think that is cumulative, and burdening the 11 record with repetitive instances of the same information. 12 JUDGE MARGULIES: Am I correct then that your ob ections go to the first four questions as being untimely, 13 3 !(/]- 14 and the remainder being repetitive? 15 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: The first four questions -- 16 JUDGE MARGULIES: In surrebuttal. 17 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I think I drew the line on Page 18 13 to distinguish Part 2 and Part 3. So, I would say that 19 everything after Page 13, specifically the answer to 20 Question 15 is cumulative of the May 27 th rebuttal, and then 21 portions before that that addressed the State's May 27th -- 2E I am confused, I am sorry. 23 I will try to summarize this as best I can. ) ) 24 From Page 13 on -- 25 JUDGE MARGULIES: That we have no problem with. i
~ 66501616 18669 Joewalsh 1 I .-4 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Okay. Then the other part that 2 I have an ob ection to is the part that deals with the May J 3 27 th 1987 rebuttal testimcny, and that is described on Page d 2 of the surrebuttal testimony, but the problem is it as not 5 directed towards any particular page reference in the 6 State's testimony. 7 For example, in Question 3 2t says: The State's 8 July 10th 1987 rebuttal testimony states -- pages 4 and 5. 9 So there is a nice reference there to Part 2 of the State's 10 July 10th 1987 rebuttal testimony, but there is no II references throughout this to sub]ects dealt with in the 12 State's rebuttal testimony of May 27, 1987. 13 JUDGE MARGULIES: Is your obj ection that the ld remainder is untimely? Is that the basis of your objection 15 to the remainder? 16 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Yes. Untime11 ness and I7 repetitiveness. And I have a specific obj ection about a I8 portion that deals with the police. 19 Would it be appropriate to mention that now? 20 JUDGE MARGULIES: Yes. 21 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: It might be more appropriate in 22 the nature of a motion to strike once --- 23 JUDGE MARGULIES: What page is that? 24 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Well, I am speaking of the 25 Answer to Question 4, which references in the involvement of
66501616 18670 joewalsh 1 the police, and my ob]ection is that af the County of r-C 2 Suff olk needs to present a live witness for the purpose of 3 showing that the Nassau County Police are not participating d in the LILCO Plan, then I believe it is also fair that LILCO 5 should need to present a live witness to show that indeed 6 the Nassau County Police are participating in the plan, 7 because Mr. Lieberman has testified today as not competent 8 to provide that testimony, because he, indeed, stated that 9 he had no discussions whatsoever with the Nassau County 10 Police Department. ( 11 Specifically in that answer, there are three 12 references. The top paragraph on Page 4 is one. I am aware 13 that Lane 3 is not currently used for lef t turns during i 14 normal conditions, nor is such use encouraged; but the 15 situation you are analyzing is an emergency with police and 16 personne3 present. 17 There is another reference on Page 3, 5th and 18 6th line from the bottom which says: Such condit2ons will 19 encourage use of Lane 3 by some lef t turns, particularly 20 under direct police control. 21 And in the paragraph that begins with: Note 22 that the intersections involved would be under control in 23 the emergency situation being evaluated, the police officer 2d on the scene would have the authority to allow and encourage 25 the use of left turr.ers f rom the lane in question, et O
66501616 18671 j oewalsh I -( cetera. 2 Those are the specific parts that deal with the 3 polic e. d JUDGE MARGULIES: We could set that aside for a 5 moment as the ob]ection to Question 4, and will you respond 6 to the other ob]ections. 7 MR. McMURRAY: Excuse me, Judge Margulies, may I B be heard on this matter. 9 JUDGE MARGULIES: I was going to hear from Mr. 10 Christman, and then come back to you. And then go to the l II Staff. 12 MR. CHRISTMAN: I think splitting things up so 13 nicely based on page references is not appropriate. We did Id try to recite page references to the State testimony for 15 convenience as much as we could but you cannot simply l 16 conclude from that that the particular testimony in 17 surrebuttal involved has nothing to do with any other 18 portion of the testimony. 19 One simply can' t do that f rom Mr. Zahnleuter 20 simply reading off those page references. One has to look 21 at the subj ects being addressed, which tend to be 22 interconnected. 23 As to timeliness, this motion to present this is 24 pretty much indistinguishable from the State's own motion to 25 file what it calls rebuttal, but it is actually a second
66501616 18672 j oewalsh - 1 shot at rebuttal testimony, and I can't for the life of me 2 see why what would apply to their motion shouldn't apply to 3 our motion, except that it should apply all the more 4 strongly to ours, because we are the party with the burden 5 of proof. 6 That brings me to my next point, which talks 7 about being in balance. I believe it is the Case that at 8 every stage of this testimony filing process the Interveners 9 have been allowed to take a look at our testimony first, and 10 then file their own. 11 That is to say we originally filed our direct 12 testimony first, which 1s unprecedented in this proceeding. 13 They had a chance to respond to that. They then had anot her 14 change to respond to it with their rebuttal, and they have 15 now filed yet another set of rebuttal testimony. 16 LILCO is the party with the burden of proof. We 17 have tried in one package to sum up our responses to their 18 last two filings and put it in now, and I suppose it is 19 possible we could have dribbled it in in two pieces instead 20 of one, but the sub]ects here are coherent, coherently 21 treated, and it 2s much more efficient to put it in the way 22 we have now. 23 As the party with the burden of proof, we are 24 entitled to this last chance to respond to the charges made 25 by the Interveners.
66501616 18673 joewa3sh l - I JUDGE MARGULIES: Mr. McMurray? 2 MR. McMURRAY: Yes, Judge Margulies. 3 Unfortunately, I am really at a disadvantage here to address-d this testimony, since I have pretty much borne the burden 5 today of cross examination, and I really haven't had a 6 Chance to read it through carefully, so I can't give you 7 specific page references to the portions of the testimony 8 where I have a problem. 9 But let me just address the timeliness issue 10 first. I think Mr. Zahnleuter has raised a very good Il point. This hearing has been well conceived. There has 12 been a schedule set out. It has been known well in advance 13 when the traff2c testimony was going to be heard.
- .'O I d*
The State traffic experts submitted their 15 testimony ten days ago, giving LILCO plenty of time to 16 review that testimony before the State witnesses take the 17 stand. 18 LILCO knew when Mr. Lieberman was going to take 19 the stand, and had they wanted to address the issues that 20 were originally raised by the State witnesses back in their 21 May 27th rebuttal testimony, they could have done so, at 22 least within the time the State took. 23 Instead, it is almost a reflexive action, a knee 24 Jerk act2on, when the State submitted its rebuttal 25 testamony, LILCO felt, well, they had to have the 3ast word, l l
66501616 18674 Joewalsh 1 and it submitted it's own rebuttal -- surrebuttal. 2 I don't think that LILCO should be g2ven the 3 opportunity to file in an untimely manner, and have 4 everybody troop back for further cross examination of Mr. 5 Lieberman, and I don't know who finds that appealing other 6 than LILCO. 7 I think it is a waste of time, and we don't need 8 to have further cross examination of Mr. Lieberman, that is t 9 Number 1. 10 On the issue cumulativeness, much of the 11 information we have gone over today is dealt with in his 12 testimony. For instance, the double Janes. 13 Well, LILCO spends a couple of pages in this (f] 14 surrebuttal testimony dealing with the issue of double 15 lanes. We13, we have heard about this. We don't need to 16 have more surrebuttal testimony on this issue. 17 On the double counting, you have gotten both 18 sides. You have gotten the State's side, and you have Mr. 19 Lieberman's opinion, and I think there is enough in the 20 record now for the Board to draw it's own conclusions. 21 I also think that you can't really draw a 22 parallel between the purpose behind the State's rebuttal and 23 LILCO's rebuttal. 24 The State's rebuttal testimony -- the first part 25 dealt with addressing TR 2-1.A, which was a brand new O
66501616 18675 joewalsh 1 I analysis. I don' t think - anybody is arguing that the State 2 d2dn't have a right to address that. 3 Now, with respect to Part 3 of the State's surrebuttal, as I read that, that was a_very finely focused 5 surrebuttal which did not attack every single point over 6 which State witnesses and Mr. Lieberman disagree.
- Rather, 7
it focused on a fundamental misunderstanding on the part of 8 Mr. Lieberman as perceived by the State witnesses regarding 9 how they did their analysis, and the problems that flow from 10 that misunderstand 1ng, and that is what was addressed. II LILCO, though, is taking the blunder bust 12 approach, and marching through the State witnesses testimony 13 and parrying them point for point on every point that they Id disagree on. 15 The procedure has Just got to stop somewhere, so l 16 there is a very -- I Just want to the Board to focus on the I7 fact that there is a very fine, good distinction between the 18 approach taken by the State and the approach taken by LILCO. I9 Now, I am sorry I can't give you page numbers to 20 which I obj ect, but I object to all this testimony on the 21 grounds of untimeliness, cumulativeness, and the fact that 22 it is time for this traffic surrebuttal to stop. l l 23 l l 24 25 0 l
i '66501717 18676 marysimons 1 (- JUDGE MARGULIES: Mr. Bachmann. i 'v 2 MR. BACHMANN: -Yes, sir. I cannot directly 3 address LILCO's surrebuttal testimony without first making d reference to the State's so-called rebuttal testimony. You 5 c&n't exactly have one without the other. 6 The Staff would like to observe that it has been 7 my 2niormation from my witness that Part 2 of the State's 8 rebuttal testimony, and I'll try not to get it confused 9 either, goes considerably beyond the differences between 201 10 and 201A, but that's just an observation. Il Part 3 of their so-called response to rebuttal 12 testimony that New York State has filed, I do not see as 13 called for. The Board ruled that they could file rebuttal 14 testimony based on information because we are using 201A 15 instead of 201. I did not see anything in the Board's order 16 that said that they could Just file a response to rebuttal 17 testimony. And, as a matter of fact, as far as I know, the 18 Board has not ruled on that one yet. 19 To the extent that the Board would a13 ow in all 20 of the New York State's rebuttal testimony in concluding 21 their response to Mr. Lieberman's rebuttal testimony, to 22 that extent I think that the Board should allow in the 23 surrebuttal testimony personally, and I guess the staff 24 would say that we shouldn't allow either one in, either Part 25 3 of New York State's or the surrebuttal testimony. O
66501717 18677 marysimons I I Also, to the extent that one or both of.these 2 documents are admitted, the Staff would request of the Board 3 that the Staf f witness be allowed prior to cross-examination d to make his comments on it because we all might as well have 5 another shot at it, and I think it would help the Board to 6 hear a third party's interpretation of either one or both of 7 these documents. 8 But to sum up what I'm saying is to the extent 9 that the Board would consider allowing in Part 3 of the 10 State's rebuttal testimony, I think it woulc2 only be fair'to Il allow in the surrebuttal testimony. 12 If the Board chooses only to allow in the 13 testimony addressing 201A,.then I think I would accept the 14 fact that we should not let in the surrebuttal testimony by - 15 LILCO. 16 But as f ar as either either one or both of those 17 are concerned, I would request that the Board permit the 18 Staff witness next week on the stand to make brief comments 19 as to his opinion of one or both of these pieces of 20 testimony. 21 That's all I have. 22 (Board conferring.) 23 JUDGE MARGULIES: We will reserve decision. i 24 It 's a li t tl e too compl ex to decide without studying the l 25 matter. 1
.66501717 18678 -marysimons 1 d(~s Could you finish up with your examination of Mr. 2 Lieberman at this time, please. 3 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resumed) d BY MR. McMURRAY: 5 0 Mr. Lieberman, the question I asked was focused 6 on two data points. One was with respect to Exhibit 23, and 7 with respect to the southbound left-turn movements, has the 8 number of turns, that is 416, been changed in the further 9 analysis regarding TR-201A? 10 A -That is at the southbound approach on Route 107 1 11 to Old Country Road; 1s that correct? 12 O Yes. 13 A That left-turn movement has not been changed. O. 14 O Now going to Suffolk County Exhibit 31, and this 15 is the westbound LIE service road and Willis Avenue. With 16 respect to the westbound approach lef t-turn movement, has 17 the number 561 been changed representing the left-turning 18 traffic? l 19 A No, that has not been changed. 20 MR. McMURRAY: I have no further questions for 21 this witness. 22 JUDGE MARGULIES: It is now 4:48. We will 23 recess until tomorrow morning at 9 o' clock. 24 (Whereupon, at 4:48 p.m., the hearing in the 25 above-entit3 ed matter adj ourned, to reconvene at 9:00 - t i
66501717 18679 marysimons I _f-+ 1 o' clock a.m., Wednesday, July 22, 1987.) 5 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
- O i,
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 !O-
CERTIFICATE'OF OFFICIAL. REPORTER This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY' COMMISSION in the matter of: NAME OF PROCEEDING: LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Shorelfam Nuclear Power
- Station, Unit 1) i DOCKET NO.:
50-322-OL-3 (Emergency Planning) PLACE: HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK-DATE: TUESDAY, JULY 21, 1987 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. / g (sigt (TYPED) [ MARY C. SIl10NS Official Reporter ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Reporte 's Affiliation a / GARRETT J. WALSH O ( t/s/a-fiYRTLE SUE WALSH ) 4 s. -. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _}}