ML20236A756
| ML20236A756 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 07/22/1987 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#387-4151 OL-3, NUDOCS 8707280205 | |
| Download: ML20236A756 (84) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:- - - - w L OY GINA ' cc., .U;N11ED STAl'ES i O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ! 1 l IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-322-OL-3 I LONG ISLAND LIGHTING COMPANY (Emergency Planning) (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) N TO LOCATION: HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK PAGES: 18680 - 18762 DATE: WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 1987 . 0I 0 t ( O ace-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. Official Reporters M4 North Capitol Street 8707280205 870722 PDR ADOCK OSOOO322 Washington D.C.20001 7 PDR (202.', '.'00 NATIONWIDE COVERACE
66600000 18680 marysimons / I \\ )T UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j 3 i d BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 5 6
X 7
In the Matter of: 8 LONG ISLAND LIGHTING OMPANY
- 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 l Id State Office Building 15 Third Floor Courtroom 16 Veterans Memorial Highway 17 Hauppauge, New York 117 88 I8 Wednesday, July 22, 1987 19 The hearing in the above-entitled matter 20 reconvened, pursuant to notice, at 9:00 o' clock a.m. 21 BEFORE: 22 MORTON B. MARGULIES, Chairman 23 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 24 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 25
- Bethesda, Maryland 20555
(
66600000 18681 marysimons ~ I T] JERRY R. KLINE, Member \\- 2 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 3 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission d Bethesda, Maryland 20555 5 FREDERICK J. SHON, Member 6 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 7 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 8 Bethesda, Maryland 20555 APPEARANCES: O On Behalf of Long Island Lighting Company: JAMES N. CHRISTMAN, ESQ. 12 MARY JO LEUGERS, ESQ. ~. 13 STEPHEN W. MILLER, ESQ. 14 Hunton & Williams 15 707 East Main Street 16 P. O. Box 1535 I7 Richmond, Virginia 23212 I8 On Behalf of Suffolk County: I9 CHRISTOPER M. McMURRAY, ESQ. 20 RONALD ROSS, ESO. 21 Kirkpatrick & Lockhart 22 South Lobby, 9th Floor 23 1800 M Street, N. W. 24 Washington, D. C. 20036-5891 25
66600000 18682 Inarysimons >O I On Behalf of the State of New York U 2 RICHARD J. ZAHNLEUTER, ESQ. 3 Special Counsel to the Governor d Executive Chamber 5 Room 229 6 State Capitol 7 Albany, New York 12224 8 On Behalf of the NRC: 9 RICHARD G. BACHMANN, ESQ. 10 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Il 7735 Old Georgetown Road 12 Bethesda, Maryland 20814 13 14 15 16 17 IB v. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 10
66000000 18683 marysimons ( *) l -[~') CONTENTS q w-2 Voir Direct Cross Redirect Recross Dire Board 3 (Witness Resumed) (EDWARD B. LIEBERMAN 18705 18741 5 6 7 EXHIBITS Identified Admitted g Exhibit No. 27 (Video' Tape) 18755 10 State of New York Exhibits II Exhibit No. 3 16712 Exhibit No. 4 18712 12 13 M o rning Rec e s s................................ 187 0 5...... W s' 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 y'.),
66600101 18684 suewalsh 1 1 PROCEED INGS 2 (9:00 a.m.) 3 JUDGE MARGULIES: Back on the record. The Board d has considered the motion of the State of New York for leave 5 to file a response to the rebuttal testimony of Edward B. 6 Lieberman. 7 The State seeks to file a response in two areas, 8 one designated under Roman Numeral II regarding KLD TR-9 201.A; and, it 's second purpose, under Roman Numeral III is 10 to comment on LILCO's May 27th rebuttal testimony. 11 In permitting the filing of rebuttal testimony 12 to TR-201.A, the Board said it should extend only to the 13 differences between 201.A and 201. In the proffered 14 rebuttal testimony under Roman Numeral II, the testimony 15 extends beyond the differences between TR-201 and TR-201. 16 Analysis is again made of TR-201. 17 Under Roman Numeral III, New York seeks.to file 18 rebuttal because it has alleged Mr. Lieberman did not 19 understand and misrepresented positions of the State 20 witnesses. The State says if left unaddressed the Board 21 will be mislead and hamper its consideration of the issues. 22 Why we have this late filing under Roman Numeral 23 III is unexplained. There are very good reasons not to 24 accept the State of New York's request. The Board is 25 reluctant though to follow this course because the subject l/~ >(
66600101 18685 suewalsh 1 matter is complex. We want the experts to have a full 2 opportunity to present and explain their positions and to 3 respond to those in opposition to their analysis. 4 It will be of more assistance to the Board to 5 have this information than not to have it at all. For those 6 reasons, we will grant the motion of New York State to file 7 its rebuttal. 8 We make similar findings in regard to the LILCO 9 motion for permission to file surrebuttal. Deficiencies in 10 that request include the matter of timeliness, li repetitiveness and the need to conclude the litigation l 12 within a reasonable time. 13 But once again, as with the State of New York, i A 14 the Board wishes to give the parties the opportunity of 15 providing a final analysis in this complex area. It should 16 assist the Board in coming to a decision to have a fully 17 explained and complete record, although this information is 18 age. Sresed:ed with obj ectionable material. 19 In order to make this information part of the 20 record, we will grant Applicant's motion to file surrebuttal 21 testimony. The Staff has presented a very lucid analysis of 22 what was offered, and one of its conc?.usions is if one 23 motion is granted the other motion sho01d be granted.
- And, 24 we are following that thinking.
25 In fairness to Staff, we grant its request that i 1 l
1 1 66600101 18686 suewalsh i I i its witness, Mr. Urbanik be dble to comment on the rebuttal .rg g 2 and surrebuttal testimony filed. We will only accept a 3 focus response, and to that end Mr. Urbanik's comments must 4 be submitted in writing. 5 The parties who have cooperated so well in 6 scheduling this proceeding should be able to schedule the 7 appearances of these witnesses so that they may be examined 8 on their statements. There should be sufficient time within. 9 the next week and a half to do so. l 10 I don't believe we have heard argument of 11 counsel on LILCO's motion of July 17 th, 1987 to strike 12 portions of the rebuttal testimony because the witness , f. 13 relied on New York State law for their position. 14 MR. BACHMANN: Judge Margulies, before we get 15 -into that, going back to your previous ruling, Staff would 16 like to ask a reconsideration of the requirement that Dr. 17 Urbanik's testimony be in writing. 18 I spoke to him last night and, of course, you 19 know he is down at Texas A&M University. His schedule '.s 20 such that I believe after today he will be essentially in a 21 travel status. He will be in New York City, and then he is 22 coming from New York City out to the hearing and will be 23 here Tuesday. 24 I do not believe it would be possible 25 logistica11y to be able to get his comments, translate them . ) mi...ni. i... i. _h.w.-. ._..___m_m-_._ .._m.i
66600101-18687 suewalsh .ci 1 into proper format and submit them to the Board and parties (_) 2 in writing prior to his testimony on Wednesday. I 3 understand from him, and having discussed it with him 4 yesterday on the telephone, his comments will not be 5 extremely long. 6 .They will not take a great deal of time.- And, I 7 think they should be relatively easy to understand. They 8 are just going to be general opinions about the various 9 pieces of testimony. I do not expect his Comments to last 10 more than maybe five or ten minutes at the most. 11 So, I would request that you reconsider the 12 requirement that it be done in writing. I do not believe 13 that logistica11y we could do it. And, as a result I think 14 the Board would be deprived of 'his comments on this latest 15 piece of testimony, 16 JUDGE MARGULIES: Do the parties wish to comment 17 on that? 18 MR. McMURRAY: Yes, Judge Margulies. I would 19 object to that procedure. The parties have all had to work 4 20 very hard in order to submit written testimony. I don't 21 think the Staff should be given any extra consideration in 22 this regard. 23 These are very complex issues. The attorneys 24 here are laymen with respect to the traffic engineering 25 issues. ' V) (" l f
66600101 18688 -suewalsh I 1 I don't think it's fair to expect me t:o listen _) (- 2 to 10 minutes of Mr. Urbanik and then be able to cross-3 examine on it. Now, he has got a week. .I think he should d be -- yeah, a week before he is coming up to be cross-5 examined, and I think that's sufficient time in order to put 6 down on paper 10 minutes of comments. 7 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I would agree with Mr. McMurray 8 and add that another benefit of having the comnents in 9 writing is that the experts for all parties can review the 10 comments and assist the examiner. And, that's a benefit 11 that would not be able to be had if Mr. Urbanik gave his 12 comments orally unless the experts were with us that day. 13 And, I know that the State witnesses do not plan O 14 on being there next week. 15 JUDGE MARGULIES: Mr. Christman. 16 MR. CHRISTMAN: The precedent in this case is 17 that in those long hearings we had in '83 and '84, at the 18 end of each cluster of issues the parties were allowed to l 19 present oral rebuttal testimony. It was done on at least 20 one occasion, and I think more than one occasion. 21 And, rather than not have the testimony I think 22 the. oral testimony should be allowed. { 23 (The Board members are conf erring. ) 24 25 I
66600202 18689 joewalsh 1 ' JUDGE MARGULIES: The Board will not change its j (] (e I 2 ruling. If all that is involved is 10 minutes of testimony, l 3 Mr. Urbanik should have no real problem in reducing that to 4 writing. 5 MR. BACHMANN: Well, in that case, Your Honor, 6 would it be permissible if the testimony were submitted in 7 slightly less than the formal format that we have been using 8 up'until now, because I don't think we will be able to 9 cipher it through our office and get it here in time. 10 Dr. Urbanik could probably create it, but he 11 doesn't -- he is not in the situation where he would know 12 how to put it in the exact proper format that we lave been 13 submitting it. 14 JUDGE MARGULIES: Well, I don't think we have 15 any real problems with the format if it doesn't meet the 16 technical requirements, but we want to see his testimony in 17 writing so that the parties can respond to it and they are 18 not faced with it broadside and unfocused comments. 19 MR. BACHMANN: Judge Margulies, assuming that we 20 finish tomorrow with the State witnesses, I assume that the 21 hearing would then reconvene on Wednesday with Dr. Urbanik. 22 At what point -- is there a particular deadline, and I hate 23 to ask this, that you would like the testimony, if we can 24 get it put together, submitted? 25 JUDGE MARGULIES: Well, my last comment was that [v .__________________m
66600202 18690 joewalsh l I I expect the parties to be ible to put all that together and 2 come up with a package. 3 MR. BACHMANN: Well, is there a particular time d that the Board would desire his testimony? 5 JUDGE MARGULIES: Well, I'm not going to put a 6 time limit on it. I think the parties should be able to 7 work these things out. 8 MR. CHRISTMAN: Judge, I think we can work 9 things out, but this calls something else to mind which is 10 our motion to bring Dr. Lindell back. II JUDGE MARGULIES: Yes, we will get to that. 12 MR. CHRISTMAN: Okay. 13 JUDGE MARGULIES: The Board would like to hear 37y 0^- Id responses to LILCO's motion to strike from the rebuttal 15 testimony the reference to New York State law. 16 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: LILCO's motion cites three 17 reasons for striking the State's testimony on illegal turn 18 movements. One reason is that the testimony is beyond the 19 scope of this proceeding because it concerns the statute. j 20 The second reason is that the testimony consists of legal 21 conclusions which can only be sponsored by a lawyer or a law 22 enforcement officer, And, the third reason is that the 23 testimony is untimely. 24 With respect to LILCO's first reason, and it is 25 that the testimony is beyond the scope of the proceeding,
66600202 18691 joewalsh r i LILCO states on Page 1 of its motion that the Board, 4 k. 2 however, has consistently held that the applicability of New 3 York statutes is a matter for New York tribunals and is, d therefore, beyond the scope of the present proceedings. 5 I would like to refer back to the Board's Order 6 of June 22nd, 1987 regarding LILCO's notion to strike the 7 testimony of Dr. Hartgen and Mr. Millspaugh. In that Order, 8 on Page 7 -- excuse me, Page 3, the Board stated: The Board 9 identified transportation and traffic problems and adequacy 10 of evacuation routes as matters that were within the scope 11 of the reopened proceeding in its Memorandum and Order of 12 December lith, 1986. We shall, therefore, admit testimony 13 that addresses the adequacy of evacuation routes because it 14 is relevant to~ admitted issues in this case. 15 Now, it's the State'. position here that the 16 evacuation routes are inadequate, because they call for 17 people to make illegal and unsafe turn movements.
- And, 18 therefore, we believe that the testimony is within the scope 19 of this proceeding.
20 In addition, LILCO wraps up its argument about 21 the scope of the proceeding on Page 2 of its motion by 22 stating that the present testimony is simply another in a 23 series of attempts to argue that New York laws would be used 24 to prevent the public from getting help in an emergency and 25 ought not to be considered by this Board. This assertion is
- s
l 66600202 18692 Joewalsh 1 I -[' } simply not true. 2 What the present testimony is is DOT's statement 1 3 that -- DOT is the Department of Transportation -- the d public will follow New York's traffic laws. That ought to 5 be considered by this Board, because it's the Department of 6 ~ Transportation's position that through the traffic planners 7 we should plan on the fact that motorists will follow the 8 traffic laws that guide their conduct on the highways. 9 Therefore, it would not be prudent for LILCO to 10 assume that the public would make illegal turn movements. II LILCO also relies on the Board's prior treatment 12 of the legal authority contentions and the zoning issue that 13 arose in this proceeding just a few months ago. And, there D Id is an important distinction to be drawn there, because those 15 subjects deal with the legal authority of LILCO to perform 16 certain acts as part of its plan. 17 The issue that we have here is different, 18 because it involves acts of the public. It's not LILCO 19 that's making these illegal turn movements; it's the public; 20 it's the motorists who are evacuating. 21 The real issue for this Board to decide is not 22 one of legal authority but one of, can the LILCO plan be 23 adequate if it relies on an assumption that motorists will 24 make illegal turn movements. 25 With respect to the second reason that LILCO FC:)
66600202 18693 joewalsh (v~) gave for striking the testimony, that is that the testimony I 2 is a legal conclusion that can only be sponsored by the 3 lawyers or a law enforcement officer. LILCO states on Page d 2 of its motion that it is true that in the past the Board 5 has permitted non-lawyers to offer legal interpretations. 6 In those cases, however, it has been the job of those 7 persons to understand the meaning of the law. Thus, they 8 have had adequate basis for interpreting the relevant 9 documents. For instance, emergency planners have been 10 permitted to offer their interpretation of regulations or of 11 NRC opinions regarding those regulations, because to engage 12 in emergency planning these persons must understand the 13 relevant laws; That is not the case here. Neither Mr. 14 Hartgen or Mr. Millspaugh has demonstrated sufficient 15 background with the relevant statutes to offer an opinion on 16 them. l 17 I will proffer that that is the case here. That 18 is, that it is the j ob of Dr. Hartgen and Mr. Millspaugh to 19 understand how turn movements are legally executed at l l 20 intersections. And, for example, I would like to refer to i 21 Page 3 of the direct testimony of both gentlemen where Mr. i l 22 Millspaugh relates some of his qualifications, and he says: 1 23 As Supervisor of the Traffic Engineering Design Section, a l 2d position I have held for 20 years, I am responsible for 25 developing and implemen' ting procedures for designing traffic M. O
66600202 18694 joewalsh 1 I } improvements. In particular, my duties involve assessments 2 of signalized intersections, city streets, urban arterials 3 and freeways. 4 In addition, the Board's Order that I referred 5 to before, dated June 22nd, 1987, regarding LILCO's other 6 motion to strike testimony by Dr. Hartgen and Mr. 7 Millspaugh, it says on Page 7 that witnesses are entitled to 8 state the basis for their conclusions and that "...we expect 9 witnesses to provide the basis for their conclusions." 10 As you can see by looking at the testimony that Il LILCO seeks to strike on Page 7, the conclusion is that the 12 LILCO plan fundamentally rests on at least two illegal and 3 unsafe turn movements; and, the basis for that conclusion is 14 the vehicle and traffic laws, particularly the two sections l 15 that are cited in the testimony in the preceding sentence. 16 17 18 19 20 21 l 22 23 24 25 l i -
'66600303 18695 marysimons (} 1 I think that the testimony that is submitted is 2 consistent with the Board's ruling on June 22nd. 3 Also, ruling in the State's favor on this issue d is consistent with the Board's prior ruling with regard to 5 Mr. Papile and the other witnesses from REPG. 6 There the Board allowed the testimony that dealt 7 with interpretation of ALAB 855 and the Board's prior 8 decision in LBP 85-31. 9 The third point in LILCO's motion to strike is 10 that the testimony is untimely. However, if the State is 11 guilty of untimeliness, then so is LILCO. I think we have 12 discussed this aspect this morning already. 13 The surrebuttal testimercy Illed lur LILCO just a O) 14 few days agv has been accepted by the Board over the 15 timeliness objection. I think the line that determines 16 timeliness has become fuzzy and the timeliness objection to 17 this testimony that the States seeks to admit now is not 18 appropriat e. 19 However, LILCO claims that because of the date 20 at which this was raised that LILCO has been treated 21 unf ai rly, and I would point out that there has been no 22 demonstration of any act of pre]udice to LILCO by the 23 raising of this testimony in the July 10th submission. 24 So I would oppose the LILCO motion to strike. 25 JUDGE MARGULIES: Mr. McMurray. ['
66600303 18696 marysimons I I q ') MR. McMURRAY: Yes, Judge Margulies. I'll be 2 brief. 3 On the first issue that Mr. Zahnleuter addressed d of the three, I agree with what he said and just want to 5 reiterate that it's important to distinguish between what we 6 have been calling the legal authority issues in the past and 7 this issuc. 8 The legal authority issues have dealt with 9 whether or not LILCO has the authority to do X, Y or Z. The 10 question here is different. The question here is can LILCO Il assume in its analyses that people will act contrary to what 12 the law dictates. It's really a driver behavior issue or a 13 human behavior issue. Are people going to do something 7-LU Id different than what the law requires, what they have been 15 taught in driving school, et cetera, et cetera. 16 One of the basic assumption in Mr. Lieberman's 17 analyses in at least two intersections is that people are 18 going to do something that the law says they can't do. 19 So we are not attacking the issue of whether 20 LILCO has authority to do something. We are attacking the 21 assumptions underlying an analysis. There is a very, very 22 major distinction there. 23 On the issue of these witnesses' ability to 24 address New York State traffic statutes, I think LILCO's 25 arguments here are groundless.
66600303 18697 marysimons I As I understand it, these witnesses deal with (~)T l 2 traffic statutes in New York State every day and even in 3 some instances have drafted them. So that I don't think d LILCO has an argument there. 5 On the timeliness issue I think the Board has 6 basically this morning said we are going to let these points 7 in and let them be heard and let there be a full airing of l 8 the issues, and I think that that puts that argument to I i 9 rest. i 10 JUDGE MARGULIES: Mr. Christman. 11 MR. CHRISTMAN: I think the motion adequately 12 sets out the case, but let me add this on the last issue, 13 the untimeliness. (O ~' Id All of this business about LILCO is untimely, 15 to, and we let in all this testimony that is untimely is 16 quite different from the present situation. What has 17 happened here is that a brand new legal issue has been 18 raised very late in the game. 19 The rest of that testimony responds to various 20 filings of other parties and talks about the traffic 21 analysis, but what has happened here is that a new, a brand 22 new issue has been inserted into this proceeding that could 23 easily have been raised earlier, but wasn't, very late in 2d the game. That is why it is untimely. 25 As to whether there is any prejudice, there is (
66600303 18698 marysimons I I -{ always prejudice when one party raises a new issue this late 2 in the proceeding. 3 JUDGE MARGULIES: Mr. Bachmann. d MR. BACHMANN: The only point the staff would 5 like to raise on this issue iE the competency of the 6 witnesses. I do not agree with Mr. McMurray and Mr. 7 Zahnleuter that these people because they are traffic 8 engineers can speak to the legality or the illegality of a 9 particular traffic movement. 10 I have heard it say that there are so many traffic laws that we all break them every day and we don' t 12 even know it. 13 The way this testimony is phrased, it is so flat L Id out, it is illegal underlined from people who are non-15 lawyers while albeit tr affic engineers and with a reference 16 in an attachment to the New York State vehicle traffic law 17 which ultimately would have to be attached to this where we IB don't even know if it is the latest edition or whether there 19 have been decisions on it or anything else like that, I 20 think it is really getting too much into the legal field, 21 and basically I do not feel the witnesses are competent to 22 be able to make such an absolute flat out statement and have 23 it just stand unopposed in that case. 24 For that reason, I would support the motion to 25 strike. 1
66600303 18699 marysimons 1 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: May I may a brief response, ~ ) 2 Judge Margulies? 3 JUDGE MARGULIES: Yes. d MR. ZAHNLECTER: I have proffered that these 5 witnesses are competent to testify about the legal and 6 illegal turn movements at intersections and it appears that 7 my adversaries have proffered that they are not. The way to 8 resolve that appropriately is through cross-examination when 9 the witnesses are on the stand. 10 The witnesses are here and that is what they are 11 available for. 12 (Beard, conferring. ) 13 JUDGE MARGULIES: As to LILCO's motion of July 14 17 th, 1987 to strike portions of the rebuttal testimony 15 because the witnesses rely on New York State law for the 16 position that certain turns are illegal, we deny the motion. 17 Although it is true that we have deferred 18 deciding certain issues pending local court interpretations 19 of New York State law, we d2d so where the legal 1 20 interpretations in effect were decided in higher contentions 21 or issues before us. 22 That is not the case here. Whether or not the 23 described turn is illegal under New York State law would not 24 itself be dispositive of the issue here. 25 Mr. Hartgen and Mr. Millspaugh provide other j ,s
66600303 18700 marysimons I I -) evidence of why the turns should not be made, and Mr. 2 .Lieberman sets forth the need for police assistance at the 3 intersections. i We are not looking to Mr. Hartgen and Mr. l d l 5 Millspaugh to interpret State law so that we may' render a 6 decision on State law and consider that dispositive. We 7 view their statement that the turn is illegal as their basis 8 for their conclusion as traffic experts that the Lieberman 9 analysis was incorrect. It is an assumption that underlies 10 their analysis. I' We accept the testimony as the basis for their 12 conclusion and we have followed this line of reasoning in 13 deciding similar questions upon which experts can rely, but
- _D Id we do not consider their opinion as being a dispositive 15 interpretation of New York State law.
16 LILCO's July 17 th motion to strike is denied. 17 We now have New York State's motion to strike 18 the testimony of Mr. Lieberman in respect to his answer to 19 question 4 in the surrebuttal testimony in which Mr. 20 Lieberman states there will be police officers at the scene 21 of turns. 22 We would like to hear from the other parties on 23 that motion. This was a motion that was made orally late 24 yesterday. 25 FO
i s + 66600404 18701 ) suewalsh l 1 MR. McMURRAY: Judge Margulies, yesterday we 2 were denied the opportunity to present into evidence a 3 document indicating that LILCO cannot rely on the Nassau d County Police Department in its planning. That includes 5 analyses which attempt to show that the reception centers 6 and the roads can, in fact, handle the evacuating traffic 7 going to the reception centers. 8 I think that was unusual since, in fact, the 9 Board was applying more stringent standards in an 10 administrative hearing than even the Federa,1 Rules of 11 Evidence call for. On the other hand, LILCO is being 12 allowed to introduce evidence to the effect that the police 13 will be available and implying that they will be (O Id implementing the traffic controls or the turn movements that 15 Mr. Lieberman has recommended. 16 I think that this puts the County and the State 17 at a d}sadvantage and offers LILCO a unilateral advantage in 18 this proceeding. I think if we can't discuss the police, 19 whether they are going to be there, then that same issue 20 should be denied LILCO as well. 21 So, I support the State's motion. 22 JUDGE MARGULIES: Mr. Christman. 23 MR. CHRISTMAN: You know, the two situations 24 that Mr. McMurray just discussed are different as night and 25 day. He has presented a document without a witness and says F[ _-._.__m___._..m-_ ________m______
t 66600404 18702 suewalsh .I '~' I -) he isn't being allowed to talk about whether the police are (.s 2 present. 3 We have presented a live witness who has l d ' testified yesterday -- it's already in the record -- that he 5 expects police to be at the intersections. And, he can be f 6 cross-examined on his reasons for thinking that. We do have 7 a live witness with an opinion and who can be cross-examined 8 on his basis for that. 9 In contrast, the County has not presented, or 10 the State, a witness on that subject. They have instead II tried to introduce an orphan dtcument which doesn't say that 12 the police wouldn't be there in an emergency. It says L 13 something else. .O Id And, they want to introduce that to -- so that 15 they can base on it an implication -- and I might say a 16 slanderous implication -- that the police in an emergency 17 wouldn't try to help people or wouldn't do their duty or IB would banish or abandon their jobs, whatever. In the first 19 place, the document simply doesn't show that. In the second 20 place, there's no witness here to sponsor it or to be cross-21 examined on it. 22 So, there is absolutely no parallel between the 23 situation of our witness giving his opinion and Mr. McMurray 24 trying to put in that document. As I say, Mr. Lieberman has 25 already testified about his opinion on that. It's already
a; l]'$ T (. 66600404 18703 L suewalsh -u vf' there is simply nO bisis for striking X 1 in the~ record.
- And, 2
that particular pard of the written testimony now. 3 MR. BACHMANN: I might add that Mr. Lieberman l d has been cross-examined as to whether he has ever consulted 5 with the Nassau County Police Department. He has indicated 6 he hasn't. 7 He is unaware of any formal arrangements.
- But,
) 8 as Mr. Christman pointsi ort, he has his opinions as to how 9 that would happen. He has been subj ect to cross- 'O examination. 11 I see no reason why his testimony should be 12 stricken. 13 JUDGE MARGULIES: The Board denies the motion to O 14 strike. We see no analogy between what appears to be an 15 attempt to link our not admitting Suffolk County Exhib3t 16 Number 22 for identification into evidence and the testimony 17 of Mr. Lieberman. 18 We would not accept without a sponsoring witness 19 the letter of July 1st, 1987 offered for the truth of its 20 contents which recite matters that go beyond merely reciting 21 what che contents of the resolution were that was passed by 22 the New York County Board of Supervisors on June 16th, 1986. 23 There was no cae who could be cross-examined en 24 the otl2r statements in the letter and the matters 25 pertaining to it. For example, what was the extent of the /^%V n
l i 66600404 18704 suewalsh -l I j} writer's express knowledge on whether LILCO requested County 2 facilities for use in its plan? 3 We further note that the letter says nothing d daout stationing police at intersections as counsel for 5 Suffolk County stated. We would not accept the document 6 into evidence without a live witness who could testify about 7 its contents. 8 The situation here is entirely different.
- Here, 9
we have a live witness under oath who could testify to the 10 contents of his own written testimony. It is his own Il testimony that is being presented here today, not a letter 12 going from parties who are not present to one -- to the 13 Board who are not competent witnesses. D Id You can certainly cross-examine Mr. Lieberman on 15 his statements. His testimony should not be stricken for 16 lack of a sponsoring witness as was done with Suffolk County 17 Exhibit Number 22 for identification. There might be other IB grounds for striking his testimony, but not for that reason. 19 Similar to the testimony that sought to be 20 stricken from Mr. Hartgen's and Mr. Millspaugh's testimony, 21 we view his statements as to police officers being present 22 at the intersections as being his opinion upon which he 23 bases his expert analysis of what the traffic situation is. 24 We do not look to his testimony as being definitive of 25 whether or not police officers will or will not actually be
66600404 18705 suewalsh I be3 1 at those locales. V 2 The motion to strike is denied. 3 We would also like'at this time to hear d testimony by Dr. Michael Lindell in rebuttal. It is part of 5 the motion of July 17 th, 1987. We have the written motion. 6 And, we would.ike the responses of the other parties, too. 7 MR. McMURRAY: Judge Margulies, we didn't 8 realize that the Board was going to ask for argument on this 9 motion at this time. And, I would like to ask that it be 10 put oft either until after lunch or tomorrow morning. 11 JUDGE MARGULIES: We will put it off until after 12 lunch today. 13 MR. McMURRAY: Thank you. O' 14 JUDGE MARGULIES: Let's take a five minute 15 recess. 16 (Whereupon, a recess is taken at 9:40 a.m., to 17 reconvene at 9:48 a.m., this same day.) 18 JUDGE MARGULIES: We will continue with the 19 examination of the witness who has been previously sworn. 20 Whereupon, 21 EDWARD B. LIEBERMAN 22 was resumed as a witness called by and on behalf of the 23 Applicant, the Long Island Lighting Company, and having 24 previously been duly sworn, was further examined and 25 testified as follows;
- O
66600404 18706 suewalsh .l I CROSS EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. ZAHNLEUTER: 3 Q Good morning, Mr. Lieberman. d A Good morning. 5 0 Could you tell me please with respect to the 6 Bellmore reception center how many intersections have you 7 analyzed in terms of exiting traffic? 8 A Well, from recollection, I can say two. 9 Q And, with respect to Hicksville? 10 A Signalized intersections, again from M recollection, three. 12 Q And, Roslyn? 13 A One. Id Q One? 15 A
- yes, 16 Q
Could you please identify the intersections near 17 the Bellmore facility? I8 A That's the intersection of Newbridge Road and 19 Route 27. That's Intersection B.3. To ease everyone's 20 reference, look at Table 3-2 on Page 8, TR-201.A. The j 21 intersection I just identified is identified as B.3 there. 22 And, on the following sketches, you could find out the 23 geometric location. ] 24 The other one associated with the Bellmore 25 facility identified in Table 3-2 as B.5, which is the E
i 66600404' 18707 suewalsh f~i 1 intersection of Newbridge Road with Merrick Avenue to the V 2 south of the facility. 3 There are other local streets which we mention d where traffic exiting from Bellmore onto'Newbridge Road 5 could make their way to the east along local streets and 6 then move either north or south to Merrick Avenue -- sorry, 7 to Sunrise Highway or Merrick Avenue, respectively. 8 So, there are many outlets from Bellmore other 9 than those two intersections. 10 0 You said which you mentioned. Which you 11 mentioned where? 12 A Why don't you ask that again? 13 Q Didn't you just say that the intersections _0') 14 besides the two that you identified as B.3 and B.5 were 15 mentioned somewhere? 16 Could you tell me where, please? 17 A I remember writing it. I can't tell you whether 18 it's in testimony at the moment or in this report or in 19 deposition. I just don' t recall. But, I did call attention 20 to -- I don't have a Hagstrom here, but there are a number 21 of local streets which are serviced off Newbridge Road 22 between Merrick Avenue and Sunrise Highway which provide 23 access to travellers exiting the Bellmore facility. 2d Q Were those intersections analyzed to the same 25 extent that the intersections that you identified as B.3 and <O %) n
i l 1 '66600404 18708 suewalsh r 1 I } B.5 were analyzed? 2 A No, because we expect the volume of traffic at-3 those uncontrolled intersections to be much lighter.
- And, d
what we think as a practical matter is that traffic will 5 move in whichever direction it's possible for them to move. 6 Z.cc ording to our analyses, the two signalized 7 intersections will provide adequate capacity for them even 8 under the restriction of a six hour arrival period. I use 9 that term to indicate that a six hour arrival period 10 translates into the highest evacuation routes -- sorry, evacuation volumes which leads to the highest monitoring 12 rates. So, that it's under those conditions that we 13 analyzed the two signalized intersections I identified in D Id Table 3-2. 15 In the event short term fluctuations lead to 16 queuing on the approaches to those intersections then these 17 other outlets provide another way for that traffic to move. 18 If you will give me a moment, I will be able to identify it. 19 (The witness is looking through documents.) 20 Well, there are a number of them. There is 21 Clinton Street, Hick Street, Orange Street and so forth, 22 Nassau Street. All of these are local streets which move 23 east / west and can take the traffic to other local streets or 24 to a col]ector called Center Avenue and from there they can 25 turn north or south and get onto Sunrise or Merrick.
66600404. 18709 suewalsh l i kev 1 So, these are just safety valves, if you will, 2 which al3ows exiting traffic to make other choices in the i 3 event the short term fluctuations produce longer queues. j d O You haven't quantified the capability of these 5 other streets that you mentioned such as Clinton to absorb 6 exiting traffic, have you? 7 A Well, local streets -- l 8 Q Could you please answer yes or no before you 9 give an explanation if you think you need to give one? 10 A No, I have not quantified it in writing; that's 11 correct. Local streets would provide a capacity of at least 12 600 vehicles per hour. 13 Q Okay. Could you please identify the three II\\' 14 intersections near the Hicksville reception center that you 15 have analyzed in terms of exiting traffic? 16 A Again, referring to Table 3-2, Intersection H.5, 17 the intersection of Hicksville Road and New South Road, 18 which is south of the facility. 19 Old Country Poad and New South Road, which is to 20 the east of the facility. 21 Old Country Road -- 22 Q Excuse me. Is that H.12? 23 A I'm sorry, you are right. It's H.12. H.13, Old 2d Country Road and Park Avenue, which is at the entrance to 25 tne facility. U
66600404 18710 suewalsh I /~N I And, actually the fourth one is H.4, Broadway D 2 and Old Country Road. So, actually four intersections were 3 analyzed explicitly. There are other outlets that d evacuation traf fic could take, but we didn' t analyze them 5 expressly. 6 Q With respect to Roslyn, could you please 7 identify the one intersection that you analyzed in terms of 8 exiting traffic? 9 A That is R.4 in that table, which is the 10 intersection of the eastbound service road and Roslyn Road, H which is a north / south arterial. I? O In TR-201. A there is no discussion about exiting 13 traffic, is there? , O, I" Id A I don't think that's true. I would have to 15 examine the document. 16 Q You prepared it, Mr. Lieberman. Could you show 17 me where in TR-201.A you have discussed exiting traffic? 18 (The witness is looking at a document.) 19 A Okay. Table 3-5 provides an analysis of 20 intersection Number R.4, which is an estimate of capacity 21 and evacuation flow. And, since R.4 does not lie along a 22 path as indicated in Table 3-2 its only function is to 23 service exiting traffic flows. 24 And, these data are shown explicitly in that 25 table. s
i I l l -66600505 18711 1 joewalsh I("N 1 Q Is there anything else in TR-201.A? 1 ' \\.) l 2 A Well, the analyses shown for the four 3 intersections named for Hicksville do include the approach 4 volumes exiting from the reception centers. And that is 5 list'd in Table 3-7 for those intersections. 6 Q Do you know if there is anything else? 7 (The witness is looking at a document.) 8 A I believe that covers it, after a scan of the 9 report. 10 Q So, your answer is other than the charts that 11 you referred to there is no discussion in TR-201.A about 12 exiting traffi,c? 13 A It appears to be that way, yes. '.( ) 14 O Other than the intersections which we have 15 discussed, are there any other intersections that you have 16 analyzed in terms of traffic that has already departed from 17 the reception centers? 18 A No. We can't predict the paths of travel of 19 exiting traffic. They can take any route they please and in 20 so doing will disperse over the available streets to them. 21 Q Okay. Mr. Lieberman, I would like to hand you 22 two documents, and I will pass them out and then ask you to 23 identify them. 24 A All right. 25 (The documents are distributed to the parties, (
i
- 66600505, 18712 joewalsh 1
7 i l- -r'v the Board members and the witness.) l N) 2 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Judge Margulies, for 3 identification purposes I would like to have the diagram d which has an intersection sketch at the top marked as New 5 York State Exhibit 3 for identification. 6 JUDGE MARGULIES: It will be so marked. 7 (The document referred to is marked 8 as New York State Exhibit Number 9 3 for identification.) 10 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: And, the other document which II is headed "1985 HCM: Signalized Intersections" I would like 12 to have marked as New York State's Exhibit 4, please. 13 r -, JUDGE MARGULIES: It will be so marked. iS f J Id (The document referred to is marked 15 as New York State Exhibit Number 16 4 for identification.) 17 BY MR. ZAHNLEUTER: (Continuing) IB Q Mr. Lieberman, could you please identify New 19 York State's Exhibit 3? 20 A Is that the one with the sketch? 21 Q Yes, it is. It says on the top Newbridge Road 22 and Sunrise Highway. Did you or KLD prepare this document? 23 A Yes. This was prepared in advance of the 24 publication of TR-201. It has since been replaced. It is 25 now obsolete and not pertinent to 201.A. [ g )g x e
66600505 18713 j oewalsh 1 Q Do you know if the traffic volumes listed in J y~ - ( i 2 this document are obsolete? i 3 A I would have to check the analyses which were l 4 conducted for 201.A in order to answer that. If you give me 5 a five' minute b;;es.k, I c an do that. M 6 Q Mrl Lieberman, I would like to continue and'then 7 perhaps after the regular break you can check these figures. 8 A Well, I'm not sure what the relevance of this 9 biscussion is if you are referring to 201.A. As far as I'm 10 concerned, until we can show relevance I don't know why we 11 are wasting our time. 12 O Okay. Mr. Lieberman, at the bottom of New York 13 State's Exhibit 3, there is a reference to outbound EB 360. if] 14 Could you please explain what that means? 15 A Yes. The 360 corresponds to the figure given on 16 Table 3-1 under reception center /Roslyn, entrance LIE 17 service roads and, that is the monitoring rate. 18 Q Table 3-1 in 201.A? 19 A Quite right. The northbound offers another 20 figure of I believe 180 -- I have a poor copy here -- which i 21 differs from the 216 shown in Table 3-1 and again represents 22 the fact that you are looking at an obsolete analysis which 23 is out of t'ine with 201.A. 24 And, it may well be at that time the monitoring 25 rates were 180 rather than 216. If you check my deposition, _ _ _ _ _. _. _ _ _ ______________.__________________i
66600505 18714 joewalsh i I l -(~} you will see that we conferred with LERO, asked them to w/ l 2-increase monitoring rates slightly at one place or another. 3 And, apparently one can infer from this data that this is d one of the locations where they increased it from 180 to 5 216. 6 Q Would you look at the chart which is above that 7 figure, and do you see under the column EDT there is a 360 8 for the line that says evacuation? 9 Would you please explain what that means? 10 A Let me call your attention to TR-192, Page 19, II Figure 5-1. On that figure, there are three schematics 12 indicating the patterns of flow entering and leaving each 13 reception center. ! r") 14 For the Bellmore center, you will notice that 15 flows entering from Sunrise Highway into the center can gxit 16 back out Sunrise Highway, then making a right turn onto 17 Sunrise Highway. It's the only maneuver possible, since 18 there is a median with a guardrail there. And, it's 19 possible for them to also continue through and get out by 20 way of Newbridge Road and at that point either travel north 21 or south, north to Sunrise Highway or to one of the 22 east / west local streets, south to Merrick Avenue or to one 23 of those east / west streets to the south. 24 I would have to check to see whether this 25 pattern which was drawn prior to September of 1986 is still jes .U
~ 66600505 18715 j oewalsh f:' l' in effect at the time the analysis for 201 was done. I } 2 can't represent that -- well, it appears -- I can infer by 3 virtue of the fact that 360 vehicles per hour is.shown as evacuation flow eastbound, it implies that these are exiting { 5 flows who have been monitored at that rate, have returned to 6 Sunrise Highway moving eastbound and have approached the 7 subject intersection in an easterly direction. l 8 Q Is it your testimony that KLD estimates that 360 9 vehicles per hour will exit the reception center onto 10 Sunrise Highway? II A Until I look at the pertinent analysis 12 literature, I can't make that statement. I can only say 13 this is what the situation was prior to the publication of (O 14 201. I can't tell you without access to the information 15 what it is for 201.A. 16 Q Are you able to tell me how many vehicles per 17 hour exit the reception center onto Newbridge Road? 18 A The answer is the same. According to this 19 document which applies only to 201, the implication is that 20 180 vehicles exited onto Newbridge Road and they all turned 21 left, thereby approaching that intersection in a northbound 22 route; and, the assumption is made that they make right 23 turns. 2d Q Do you see the 180 on Exhibit 3 that's in the 25 line for evacuation under northbound? D-
l l l 66600505 18716 joewalsh -i h'_') I A That's exactly what I just talked about. (/ 2 O Is it your testimony that at least 180 vehicles 3 will exit the Bellmore reception center onto Newbridge Road? d A I have to give you the same answer I gave you 5 before. This data is obsolete. I cannot provide testimony 6 for the current data Uithout access to my records. 7 Q Would you turn please to Page 7 of TR-201. A? 8 Table 3-1 lists some information for the Bellmore reception 9 center. The figures 360 and 180 are there. 10 Do they help you refresh your recollection sbout II whether the information on New York State Exhibit 3 is 12 correct? 13 (The witness is looking at a document.) b Id A You said Page 7 of 201. A? That's Table 3-1. 15 0 Yes. 16 A And, I just finished telling you that the 17 monitoring rate is 216, not 180. 18 Q I'm speaking of Bellmore, and I see that there 19 is a 216 -- 20 A I'm sorry. 21 Q -- under Roslyn. Are you confused? 22 A I am. I was looking at the Roslyn. Right. 23 And, that's 180 that -- 24 Q Based on -- 25 A -- enters by way of Newbridge Road.
l 66600505 18717 joewalsh if'g I Q Fased on that information presented in Table 3-V 2 1, are you table to determine whether New York State's 3 Exhibit 3 information is correct? I d A No. 5 Q Why not? O A Because Exhibit 3' pertains to the analysis that 7 was done for 201. I cannot tell you what the analysis is 8 for 201.A until I look at the literature. 9 0 Wel1, Table 3-1 is 201.A, isn't it? 10 A Quite right. But that does not imply that the 11 assumed deployment of exiting volumes is as shown on your 12 Exhibit 3. 13 I do believe you've gotten the up-to-date 14 analyses. 15 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Judge Margulies, may I request 16 that we take a short recess to that Mr. Lieberman can check 17 the literature that he referred to verify whether New York 18 State Exhibit 3 is correct? 19 JUDGE MARGULIES: We will take our mid-morning 20 recess at this time. 21 WITNESS LIEBERMAN: May I make another 22 suggestion, sir? 23 JUDGE MARGULIES: Yes. 24 WITNESS LIEBERMAN: If there are other 25 intersections he would like to query me on, he should tell
66600505 18718 joewalsh I T' me now so.that I can get all the literature and not have to 2 break up the testimony. 3 JUDGE MARGULIES: Can you do that, Mr. d Zahnleuter? 5 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: The other intersection that I 6 wanted to talk about was discussed yesterday and verified to 7 be accurate yesterday. So, I don't need to do that. 8 JUDGE MARGULIES: We will take a 15 minute 9 recess. 10 (Whereupon, a recess is taken at 10:20 a.m., to Il reconvene at 10:35 a.m., this same day.) 12 13 UuJ
- 4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
.J e
66600606 18719 marysimons V"N 1 JUDGE MARGULIES: Back on the record. b 2 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Resuming) 3 BY MR. ZAHNLEUTER: 4 Q Mr. Lieberman, on New York State Exhibit 3, is 5 the figure 360 in the Evacuation column for the eastbound 6 direction correct? 7 A No. Well, when I say " correct," I mean it 8 differs from the analysis associated with 201A. 9 Q What should the new number be? 10 A 180. 11 Q And for eastbound left it's zero? 12 A For the evacuation, yes, not for background. 13 Q Right, for evacuation at zero. For eastbound (CT) 14 right it's zero? 15 A Right. The assumption is they will move through 16 that intersection. 17 Q For westbound left is there a different number 18 besides 276? 19 A Yes. It's 92. 20 0 And zero for westbound through and right? 21 A Correct. 22 Q And for northbound it's zero left and zero 23 through? 24 A Correct, and 180 right. 25 Q The 180 is correct? O v n
A 66600606 18720 marysimons -l /~J)- I A That's correct. 2 Q And southbound is still zero? 3 A That is correct. l d Q Now this 180 in the eastbound through column 5 means that 180 vehicles per hour will leave the Bellmore 6 facility by way of Sunrise Highway and travel through the 7 intersection at Sunrise Highway and Newbridge Road; is that 8 correct? 9 A That is correct. 10 Q And the 180 in the northbound right column means Il that 180 vehicles per h 2r will leave the Bellmore facility 12 and go onto Newbridge Road and make a right-hand turn. at the 13 corner of Newbridge and Sunrise; is that correct? r, Id A Well, that is the assumption that we make. The 15 reason we make these assumptions is because we want to 16 burden the intersection to the east and take a conservative 17 posture in connection with the capacity estimation for that I8 intersection. 19 Specifically I'm referring to intersection B-4, 20 : which is the intersection of Bellmore with Sunrise Highway. 21 We took the most conservative posture in terms of exiting 22 traffic so that we could " burden" that intersection with as 23 much exiting traffic as we think is reasonable. l 24 As I said earlier, we don't really know where l 25 tl:e exiting traffic is going and within the context of our N)
66600606 18721 marysimons .f" I (-)/ work we don't really care. We do, however, want to assume a 2 conservative posture when we do our capacity analysis. 3 Q So it is possible, isn't it, that vehicles d leaving the Bellmore facility onto Newbridge Road could 5 travel through or to the left at the intersection of Sunrise 6 and Newbridge? 7 A Did you say Newbridge or did you mean Sunrise? 8 Q Let me rephrase that. 9 It is possible that vehicles which leave the 10 Bellmore facility and travel north on Newbridge Road could 11-travel through the intersection of Newbridge and Sunrise or 12 make a left at that intersection; isn't that possible? 13 A They have the option of making any of three O 14 turns. 15 Q What is the basis for your assumption that all 16 would make a right turn? 17 A I just told you. We wanted to make sure that we 18 had a conservative posture at intersection B-4, and the only 19 way we could do that was to load it as heavily as would seem 20 reasonable. So we sent all this exiting traffic out there. 21 It is likely, as I said, that some of them will 22 use the local streets that I mentioned and disperse in a 23 more general fashion than what we have indicated. l 24 Q Mr. Lieberman, what is conservative about I 25 assuming that all traffic will make a right turn at that [)h l i 4 l l ___._____________________________.______________U
i 66600606 18722 marysimons -l I intersection? 2 A What's conservative about it is that it tends to 3 lengthen the north / south green time since you are focusing d all the traffic onto the same movement and thereby taking 5 away green time from the east / west direction which is 6 servicing inbound traf fic. 7 0 Wouldn't this right-hand maneuver also favor the 8 westbound left maneuver? 9 A No. ID Q Why not? II A The westbound left maneuver is serviced by an 12 exclusive phase --- 13 Q Pardon me? I just didn't understand that word. Id A Okay. There are three phases at that 15 intersection. One phase services left-turn movements off 16 Sunrise Highway concurrently. 17 The second phase services all movements along 18 Sunrise Highway, including permissive left turns. 19 And the third phase services north and 20 southbound traf fic concurrently all movements f rom each 21 approach. 22 To the extent that you lengthen the last phase, 23 which I will call phase 3, reduces the amount of green that 24 you can provide the east / west traffic, and therefore it is a 25 conservative point of view that we have taken here. rn ,k/
i 66600606. 18723 marysimons 1 I would like to point out that there are two l 2 lanes on the northbound approach. Effectively what we have 3 'done_is we have focused all this exiting demand on one lane, 4 and.that, too, tends to make the traffic operations through 5 that intersection less efficient. So effectively you are 6 going to have unbalanced queues requiring longer green time 7 to clear. Q Have you performed any sensitivity analysis to 9 ascertain whether the right-hand turn onto northbound IC Newbridge is more conservative than, for example, a through 11 cr a left? 12 A No. I think we have taken a conservative stance 13 by assuming that in our analysis none of the traffic travels h' 14 along the local streets. To the extent that such traffic 15 does-that, then the volume of course on that approach will 16 decline accordingly. 17 0 I believe yesterday you testified that 50 18 percent of the traffic would exist the Bellmore facility and 19 go north on Newbridge and the other 50 percent would go 20 south; is that correct? 21 A Right. That's the assumption used in forming 22 these analyses. 23 O And what is the basis for that assumption? 24 A We expect that LILCO will have a guide who will 25 encourage traffic to do just that.
66600606 18724 __ marysimons I We also expect that if there is any imbalance in 2 one direction or the other that an. equilibrium process will 3 take' place which will tend to balance that outflow into two d directions and, in addition, as I have said several times, 5 encourage others to use the local streets to get out of any 6 queueing that may arise and get onto either Merrick Avenue 7 or Sunrise Highway further east. 8 Q Now when the traffic proceeds north on Newbridge 9 it makes the right-hand turn onto Sunrise. Highway. Where 10 KLD anticipate that the traffic will proceed to next? II A To intersection B-4. We assume that they remain 12 eastbound, which just an assumption on our part, they could 13 go elsewhere, again, for the express purpose of loading that r Id intersection. 15 Q At intersection B-4 did you assume that the 16 traffic would equally disperse into three possible 17 directions? 18 A I would have to get the literature for that 19 intersection. You indicated you would not query me beyond l 20 the intersections you mentioned. So I can't answer you 21 without looking at that. 22 Q Let's refer to the eastbound through traffic at 23 the Newbridge Road and Sunrise intersection. What is the 24 basis for your assumption that all traffic would proceed 25 through and that zero would make a left and a right? f-l
66600606' 18725 marysimons ( 1 A When you say all traffic, I assume that you are ) 2 referring to the evacuation traffic? 3 Q Yes, the traffic that is on the highway after d having gone through the reception center. 5 A Well, that traffic includes background traffic, 6 and I'm trying to focus on which component you're 7 addressing. Are yr,u addressing the evacuation traffic that 8 exits the facility? 9 0 I would like to focus on the evacuation traffic 10 that you have identified as 180 vehicles per hour in the Il eastbound through lane. 12 A Okay. I've said it before. The reason we did 13 that was to burden the intersection *B-4 which lies to the tO 14 east of the Newbridge Road intersection so as to lead that 15 as heavily as we could in a reasonable sense. 16 I have also said we don't know what traffic will 17 do after the exit the facility and they could take any 18 movements. I have given you the reason we assigned them 19 through. 20 0 Since evacuees might be unfamiliar with the 21 returns paths, wouldn't they tend to return along the paths 22 that they came in on? 23 A I think they would be equally unfamiliar with 24 those paths also. We are 40 miles from the station.
- But, 25 regardless, what you are suggesting is, if I' understand you f
("% M.
66600606 18726 marysimons I I '"h correctly, is that they would make a "U" turn on Sunrise -D 2 Highway to get back to Meadowbrook. Is that what you are 3 suggesting? O Perhaps, however it is that they arrived at the 5 reception center. That's one option and that's what I'm 6 suggesting. 7 A I don't think it's rea'sonable to assume "U" 8 . turns. I don't recall seeing any "U" turns at that 9 intersection and I've spent quite a bit of time there. 10 Q Would it be unreasonable to assume that they II would make a left on Newbridge? 12 A It's possible. 13 Q But you didn't assume that, did you? Id A No, for the reasons given. IS Q And the reason was to load as much as possible 16 the intersection B-4? U A Right. I think I could tell you that regardless 18 of how we -- suppose we split that traffic three ways. We 19 are talking about 60 vehicles per hour in each direction, 20 one per minute. I'm not sure where you are going. I mean 21 we're talking about a very light component of the total 22 traffic here. 23 Q If evacuees, for example, on the eastbound 24 section of this Newbridge and Sunrise intersection were to 25 make a left turn, wouldn't that affect the capacity analysis I )
66600606 18727 marysimons l r I that you undertook? ) 2 A If 60 vehicles were to make a left turn, it J would have zero effect on the capacity analysis because they d would make that turn during the left-turn phase, a protected 5 left-turn phase. We're talking about one vehicle a minute. 6 The duration of that left turn phase is dictated 7 by the westbound flow along Sunrise, which is making a left 8 turn towards the Bellmore facility. That is a much higher 9 volume than the left-turn movement from the eastbound 10 approach could ever attain. 11 Q I think what you are telling me then is that at 12 an intersection cars heading in various directions would be 13 competing with each other for green time; isn't that true? 14 A As an overall statement, that's true, as a 15 general statement. 16 Q And in this case the cars making the left on the 17 eastbound part of this intersection would in effect be 18 losing out in that competition? 19 A No way. 20 0 Then they would be competing for green time? 21 A No, not in this case. Let me try and cay it 22 again. The lef tbound movements off Sunrise Highway are 23 serviced by a protected phase followed by a permissive 24 phase. The duration of that phase is dictated by the larger 25 of the two movements. What I'm telling you is that the .O E-m
66600606 18728 marysimons I I -}' larger of the two movements is the westbound movement. 2 So if 1 were to split the eastbound movement 3 three vays or any way you choose, it would have affect the d duration of that protected phase. 5 Q You haven't done any sensitivity analysis to 6 confirm or deny this testimony that you have just given, 7 .have you? 8 A I can do it right now. 9 (Pause.) 10 The VOC ratio for the left turn westbound is approximately .7. For the left turn eastbound it is now 12 .2. If I were to load say 60 more cars making the eastbound 13 lef t turn it would raise the VOC ratio to about .4, which is p, l Id still less than.7 of the westbound lef t turn. So the IE leftbound left turn is still the critical movement. 16 0 You assumed 60 vehicles per hour. You could 17 just as easily assumed 100 or 150, correct? j 18 A If I assumed 120, it would move the VOC to .6, 19 or a little under. I'm linearly changing this which is 20 reasonable since I'm looking at the protected phase. It's a 21 reasonable thing to do. i 22 In actual fact, as the left turn movement 23 increases, you're going to get some people moving through 24 the permissive phase, and I've made no allowance for that. l 25 You would have to get up to, in my judgment' -- O .O I
66600606 '18729 marysimons I as a matter of fact, if I put the entire 180 making left ('] 2 turns, the westbound'left turn movement would still control. 3 L A 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 $( 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
10 i G@y/ 4600707 E 18730 'csuewalsh 1 I O I also asked you to look off the record during 2 the break at the intersection of 107 and Old Country Road, 3 and with respect to County Exhibit 28. Have you been able d to verify whether the figures for the evacuation line are 5 correct? 6 A What's the question? 7 Q Well, specifically, are the figures 126 for 8 wes tbound, through and right for evacuation traffic correct? 9 This is County Exhibit 28. 10 A Yes, they are, for the 7 to 10 a.m. time period. Il Q What was the basis for your assumption that in 1 12 the westbound direction zero would make a left, 126 would go p 13 through and 126 would go right?
- pl;-)
Id A
- It was essentially arbitrary.
We could have 15 split it three ways. In my view, it wouldn't have made any g 16 difference. 17 Q Now, you have stated that it wouldn't make any 18 difference. Have you conducted any sensitivity analysis or 19 an analysis of any kind to confirm or deny that? 20 A I can do it right now. 21 Q Well, if there were changes would there be an 22 effect on your capacity figures for this 2 intersection? 23 A I can't tell you until I look at it. 24 Q Mr. Lieberman, did -- 25 A Do you want me to answer the other question O t
no o\\66600707-18731 ,suesalsh i-1 .f']/ before you ask me a new one or do you want to strike that? +- 2 I don' t know what you want to do. 3 Q Regard]ess, I have another question. And, what. d I would like you to do is to tell me if the westbound i l 5 traffic were split in three equal parts, one-third left, one-1 6 third <through, one-third right, would that have an effect en 7 your capacity analysis? i 8 A Yes. It would have a beneficial effect. A 9 critical movement on the westbound approach is a through 10 movement. II Q In this case, Mr. Lieberman, would it have been 12 more conservative to assume that all traffic made a right-13 hand turn at that intersection like you did at the Bellmore 'k~ 14 facility? 15 A You are speaking here about the westbound 16 approach? 17 Q Yes. 18 A No, just the opposite. If I removed the 19 vehicl es, 126 vehicles, from through and moved them onto 20 .right turn I would be reducing the v/c for the through 21 movement from where it is now about.75 and increasing the 1 22 v/c for the right' turn movement from where it is now at 23 about .3. 24 In my view, the through movement would work 25 better and the right turn v/c ratio would still be less than )
66600707 18732 suewalsh i I the through movement. 2 So, effectively what we did is by assuming a 3 through movement we actually burdened this intersection more d heavily than by having that movement make a turn. 5 Q What would the most conservative movement of 6 traffic be through this intersection in a westbound 7 direction? 8 I It would be to assume that anybody goes through. Q That is, 252 would go through in the westboun3 ) 9 10 direction? II A That's correct. 12 O I would like to refer you back to New York State 13 Exhibit 3 for a minute. At the bottom of the page -- EO Id A Are we finished with this intersection? 15 Q Well, my question doesn't pertain to it. Do you 16 have New York State Exhibit 3 before you? df 17 A Yes, I do. IB Q Okay. There is a calculation at the bottom 19 where it says inbound equals. Would you explain to me what 20 the (.3) represents? 21 A Let me explain the whole formula there. Refer 22 back to Table 2-1 of 201.A, you v_11 see that the inbound 23 evacuation flow is Path 2.A. The total, assuming 100 24 percent EPZ evacuation, all the traffic assigned to that 25 path from within the EPZ is 5,513 vehicles. We assume, as
66600707 18733 suewalsh 14' with all other paths, that 30 percent of these people will .2 actually go-to the reception centers. That's what the.3 3 implies. d The six again pertains to the most optimistic 5 arrival period of six hours. The resultiny calculation of 6 276 is the evacuation flow on a per hour basis along that 7 path moving toward the reception center and making a left 8 turn, according to this document, on the westbound approach 9 to Newbridge Road. 10 Q Is it true that you assumed that 70 percent of II the EPZ evacuees evacuated but did not arrive at the 12 reception center? 13 A Did not travel to the reception center, that's '(I 14 correct. Some of these will move to locations between the 15 EPZ and the reception center, and the remaining would move 16 to locations to the west of the reception center presumably. 17 Q Can you show me any calculations in 201.A or 18 elsewhere where you account for the presence of that 70 19 percent population figure? 20 A Where? 21 Q In the locations where you just mentioned that 22 they would go to, namely the roads between the EPZ but not 23 at the reception centers? 24 A Yes. That's imputed in our stipulation that the 25 level of service along the east / west highways will be tO
66600707 18734 suewalsh I continually at level of service F over the entire distance 2 of 30 miles. Some of those folks will leave the east / west 3 highways before reaching the areas of the reception centers, d others will continue west, presumably on the east / west 5 highways. l 6 Q You did not include the 70 percent of the 7 evacuees in your background traffic volumes, did you? 8 A You mean, in the immediate locations of the 9 reception centers? 10 Q In any of your calculations involving background Ii traffic volumes? 12 A That is correct. 13 7, Q Did -- b" 14 A That's not quite right. We didn't specify who 15 constituted background traffic. We have said several times 16 in writing and orally that in our view the background 17 traffic will be less than what it is during normal times. 18 So, we did not identify sub-components of the 19 background traffic as to whether they represent local people 20 or perhaps some evacuees from within the EPZ. 21 Q Is there a number or a calculation that you can 22 show me with regard to any intersection that you analyzed 23 which shows that you accounted for the 70 percent of the 24 evacuees? 25 A I think I've answered that. ro l
l l 66600707-18735 suewalsh ) I Q Can you answer that yes or no? 2 A If you are looking for a number, there is no 3 such number. d MR. ZAHNLEUTER: That concludes my cross-5 examination. 6 JUDGE MARGULIES: We will go to Mr. Bachmann. 7 CROSS EXAMINATION 8 BY MR. BACHMANN: 9 Q Mr. Lieberman, yesterday during cross-10 examination you responded to a question concerning vehicles 11 making left turns from through lanes. And, in fact, I think 12 this was brought up a couple of times and you said something r 13 to the effect that you assumed it would be a policeman there 0 14 or at least some sort of traffic control. 15 But, you said in one of your responses to that 16 sort of question: And, in the absence of a queue extending 17 from the reception center, which makes all this discussion 18 academic -- I realize I'm quoting out of context, but I am 19 trying to give you the context of it, what did you mean that 20 it makes all of this discussion academic? 21 Could you explain that? You started to explain 22 it. I don't think you ever fully got it on the record. 23 A Well, I think it's important to get a picture of 24 the traffic environment under the assumptions of the 30 25 percent factor and the underlying routing that we have <O
66600707 18736 suewalsh I I } specified. What we have shown in 201.A is that the 2 capacities of all the intersections on the approaches to the 3 reception centers are in virtually all cases greater than d the evacuation demand, maybe one exception and possible two. 5 But, in all cases the capacities servicing the 6 evacuating flow is -- again with one exception -- greater 7 than the monitoring rates. What that means is that the 8 intersections will allow more cars through in a given period 9 of time than can be serviced at the reception centers. 10 Consequently, the reception center servicing II rate represents the controlling bottlenecks in the system. 12 Since the number of arriving cars to the reception centers 13 exceeds their ability to service these cars, queues will qg_ d Id form. And, the queues will propagate upstream along the 15 approaching paths and will, in fact, depending upon the 16 arrival period which is an important parameter and number of 17 people coming for the monitoring service, extend along the I8 approaches to the intersections. 19 The question is the intersection to the 20 immediate west of the western entrance to the Hicksville 21 facility. And, according to our calculations a queue will 22 grow and occupy that approach. 23 The flow of vehicles to the reception center 24 from that approach will, therefore, proceed at no higher 25 rate than the rate at which the monitors service the cars at (
66600707 18737 suewalsh I the head of that queue despite the fact that the capacity of 2 the intersection can service cars at a higher rate. That's 3 academic. That's what makes it academic. 4 So, just to use round numbers, if it helps 5 clarify matters, if the capacity of the intersection was, 6 say, for evacuating traffic 600 vehicles per hour and the 7 monitoring rate was, say, 400 vehicles per hour you could 8 only move 400 vehicles towards the reception center from 9 that approach despite the fact that the capacity is higher. 10 And, that's why the HCM analysis which cannot 11 cope and does not consider the effects of queues originating 12 downstream produces results which in the real world are 13 academic, as I used the term. Q~ lo Now, the question may arise, why bother with an 15 intersection analysis? 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
l 1 66600808 18738 joewalsh I nT I The answer is, we don't know this relationship \\> 2 between reception center monitoring rates and the 3 intersection capacities until we do such an analysis. So, the analyses are done consistent with the 5 constraints of the HCM, under the assumption that there is 6 no bottleneck down stream, and those are the numbers that 7 appear in TR 201.A. 8 Then we have to superimpose on that the real 9 world effects of the queueing which originates within the 10 reception centers, and what we find is the situation I described just a moment ago. 12 Q Just to follow on that, are you saying then that 13 these intersections where we postulated perhaps the presence Id of a policeman to take traffic out of its normal let's say 15 left turn lane, that you would not have to even consider 16 thatt that you would exceed the -- that the capacity of the 17 intersection would be higher than the ability to monitor 18 even without a need for using those extra lanes? 19 A Yes, certainly. As I mentioned yesterday, we 20 had done that kind of sensitivity study. The use of the 21 adjoining lane increases capacities, and I can look it up, 22 in the neighborhood of about ten percent for lef t turns. 23 If you assume no policeman there, if you assumed 24 that evacuees act in a robotic disciplined, and do not use 25 that adjoining lane, restrict their movements to the turn
66600808 18739 joewalsh r"N I bay, resulting capacity of that left turn movement is well d 2 above the associated capacity of the monitoring rate. 3 So, while there har; been a lot of discussion ~4 about this adj oining lane, in the real world, again, I use 5 the word it is academic. 6 The reason I analyze it in that way is'because 7 as an engineer I have to try to represent the real world as 8 closely as I can. So, during the first pass over this 9 entire analysis procedure, where we are analyzing the 10 capacities of approaches to intersections under the 11 assumption that there is no down stream bottleneck, I have 12 to ask myself: What is a reasonable expectation of vehicle 13 movement under the condition of a pressurized environment, tO 14 under the condition of an excess amount of green available 15 for the adjoining lane, under the knowledge that the left 16 turn bay will, in fact, overflow into that adjoining lane, 17 and I have come to the conclusion that the best way to IB represent that, most realistically to represent it, is as I 19 have done under the assumption that some left turners will, l 20 in fact, use that adjoining lane, and under the reasonable 21 expectation that there will be a policeman there who will 22 not arrest anyone who wants to make a left turn from there, 23 especially since that policeman knows he has two J anes on 24 the receiving leg. 25 It is not the sort of thing that you do under O l l ^ --
66600808 18740 joewalsh 1 I -A normal conditions. Under normal conditions, this traffic 2 usually is restricted to the turn hay. There are situations 3 where even under normal events, under pressurized d conditions, traffic will use the af.j oining lane and make an 5 illegal turn. 6 In fact, the State testimony, I recall, refers 7 to experience which is disruptive and which led them to 8 prohibit that kind of movement. The experience means that 9 people do it. It is not recommended under normal times. It 10 may not be legal, but it is done. II Getting back to energency situation, I applied 12 by perception of a reasonable expectation. 13 MR. BACHMANN: I have no other questions, q"x) Id JUDGE MARGULIES: Mr. Christman? 15 MR. CHRISTMAN: If I could have about ten or 16 fifteen minutes to go over my notes. Some of the questions 17 that I was going to ask have already been asked and 18 answereu, and I can shorten my redirect by about the amount 19 of time I take at the break. 20 JUDGE MARGULIES: You are saying you want to 21 recess for lunch. We have taken our morning break. 22 MR. CHRISTMAN: Oh, well. Well, I was asking 23 for ten or fif teen minutes or a lunch break either one will 24 be all right. 25 MR. McMURRAY: If it is a choice of one or the lA 'd D
66600808 18741 j oewalsh (~Y l other, I would prefer just taking a short break and coming w) 2 back. 3 MR. CHRISTMAN: That is okay with me. d JUDGE MARGULIES: Let's take a ten minute break. 5 (Recess taken at 11:20 a.m., to reconvene at 6 11:37 a.m., this same day.) 7 JUDGE MARGULIES: Back on the record. 8 MR. CHRISTMAN: Thank you, Judge. 9 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 10 BY MR. CHRISTMAN: 11 Q Mr. Lieberman, you said yesterday that after the 12 machine counts of traffic were done by a company called ATI, 13 I think, at the various intersections, you had people go out 14 and record turn movements. Why did you do that? 15 A In order to perform the intersection analysis to 1 16 estimate capacities, using the H04 procedures, it is 17 necessary to specify the approach movements stratified by 18 turn movement. The approach volumes satisfied by turn 19 movement. 20 With the exception of, perhaps, one or two 21 approaches, that information cannot be derived from the 22 machine counts. The purpose of the machine counts was to 23 primarily obtain estimates of background traffic volumes and 24 since there are two tubes associated with each ATR, or 25 automatic traffic recorder, we used one tube to span all the rO (_)
66600808 18742 joewalsh i
- 1
~% I -(O approaches -- I am sorry, all the lanes on the approach, and 2 the second tube to estimate the volume of traffic generally 3 in a turn bay sometimes over a lane which services shared d traffic, shared in the sense that traffic in that lane would 5 make a turn or move through. l 6 The point is, we had two tubes, why not use 7 them. 8 For those tubes placed across the turn bay, we 9 hoped and expected that it would give us reasonable estimate 10 of turn volumes in that bay. There are two series of data collections. The 12 first extended over a period of several days, in predated TR l 13 192. Here we were seeking not only traffic volumes on j_. Id selected approaches, but we also wanted to explore what day 15 of the week and what span of time constituted the worst case 16 condition in the sense of maximum traffic volumes. U The second set of machine counts were only 18 twenty four hours or so, because the first set yielded the 19 times of day and the weekday as the dominant, high volume 20 condition. 21 Now, we have a choice. We can take the machine 22 counts with whatever turn movements are available, and then 23 guess about the stratification of quote, "the other 24 traffic." Or, in the interest of getting consictent turn 25 movements, we could go out in the field and manually observe I i
6f600808 18743 ' j oewalsh / L the turn movements on each approach. 2 Now, by taking data at different times, one with 3 machine counts, and the other in the field to get turn d percentages, one must expect that there are going to be some 5 differences. As the State pointed'out in its testimony, of 6 the 28-paths that they have explored servicing evacuation 7 traffic, at 13 of them, our turn movement counts yielded 8 lower volumes than machine counts. 9 They failed to state that the other 15 yielded 10 higher volumes, which indicates that the field counts to get 11 turn movement specific percentages, were not biased. 13 12 were low, 15 were high. One of the low ones was based upon 13 a mistaken impression that the westbound approach to Willis 14 Avenue on the northern Long Island service road serviced 15 only left turners, so that Is questionable, so there is no 16 basis for an assessment on that issue. 17 But the point is that we needed the turn 18 movements in order to perform the analysis, and these turn 19 movements had to be consistent with one another. We then 20 applied the turn percentages to the machine counts, which 21 gave us the total background volumes in order to come out 22 with a turn movement specific volumes used in our analyses. 23 As I mentioned yesterday, we conducted 24 sensitivity analyses. In these, we used the machine counts 25 for what the State perceived as a critical left turn n.
66600808 18744 j oewalsh I I l. movements, and conducted the HCM analysis with that data. 2 And again we found no basis for changing our cor.clusions 3 i that the evacuees will be able to be serviced within the 1 d time frames documented in 201.A. 5 l Q Mr. McMurray asked you yesterday several 6 questions about the maximum and minimum green t'ime for the 7 signal controllers. Is there any reason to think that'the 8 timing data you used significantly deviated from the actual 9 maximum or minimum green times? 10 A No, we do. As I mentioned yesterday, in the 11 course of performing the HCM analysis, that procedure 12 involves the manipulation of the phase durations to 13 represent the actuated control of responses to the proj ected O, g Id traffic volumes. 15 So, in that sense then, the signal timing 16 constitutes an output to the process rather than inputs as 17 you would for pre-timed control. 18 We then compared the signal timing that was 19 produced with the data that the State gave us, interpreting 20 it to the best of our ability, given that without knowing 21 certain things which are, perhaps, embedded within their 22 procedures, we felt that that data was incomplete, and to 23 some extent ambiguous, and we went out to collect signal 24 timing data so that we would have another source of data in 25 order to compare the results of our analysis with what
66600808 18745 joewalsh 1 actually exists out there. ('T \\_/ 2 In our view, the constraints that we imposed j 3 upon our phase durations, both maximum and minimum, fairly d represent, if not exactly, the minimums and maximums of our 5 understanding of what the real world is. 6 Q Well, you did say yesterday that if the green 7 times you used in your analysis were wrong by a few seconds, 8 the results might be off by some percent. I think you -1 9 probably said ten percent. l 1 10 Assume that were the case. To what extent would Il that change your conclusions? 12 A Well, of course, if the disparity is such that 13 our capacity estimates are too low, it would have no ef fect, - a 14 because as I mentioned, the monitoring service rates 15 control. 16 If our capacities are too high by that amount, 17 then it could only have an effect if the resulting capacity 18 were lower than the monitoring rates. 19 In virtually all, with possibly one exception, I 20 think one exception, in all cases that would not happen. 21 In the one case where that is a possibility, the l t 22 question then becomes will this change in capacity extend 23 the service time of evacuating traffic along that path 24 beyond the recommended 12 hours, and the answer to that is 25 that it would not. h L
66600808 18746 ' j oewalsh I I '~' Q You were asked a variety of questions about two 2 intersections in particular yesterday. One of them was 3 Route 107 and Old Country Road; the other was at Willis d Avenue intersection with the LIE service road. 5 With respect to just those two intersections, 6 does your bottom line result from your analysis differ from 7 the bottom line result that flows from the State's analysis? 8 A No, it does not. They differ in detail. There 9 are differences of opinion as to the number of lanes that 10 may be used and so forth, but if you examine their data, II what you find is that in all cases making due allowance for 12 an error in their perception, which I will get to, their 13 analysis show that the evacuating flow will, in fact, be {(' - Id serviced well within the 12 hours. 15 The one exception which I just alluded to is 16 their erroneous conclusion that the inside lane on the 17 northern Long Island service road approach to Willis Avenue 18 services only left turn traffic. 19 Their analysis is based upon the machine counts 20 in that lane being one hundred percent left turns. That is 21 wrong. Most of the traffic through that lane are through, 22 based upon our turn movement counts. If you make allowances 23 for that error, and follow through their analysir, you reach 24 the same conclusion, namely the evacuees along that path 25 will be serviced well before 12 hours. l !O l 1
66600808 18747 j oewalsh I Q You were asked yesterday about she 100 second }{} 2 per vehicle monitoring time, and in the course of answering 3 the question about that, you said that you.jed calibrated 4 the 100 seconds from data from the training session in early 5 June. What did you mean by that? 6 A The training session in early June was a full 7 scale exercise using what I think they call Section B. It 8 was in the Hicksville Reception Center, in which they set up 9 monitoring stations along four aisles, and actually 10 performed the kind of monitoring that would be done in the II event of an actual emergency. 12 The cars, of course, were given by LILCO 13 personnel who circulated repeatedly through tne system. LO 14 This entire operation was video taped from several vantage 15 points. One an aerial view from a cherry picker, others at 16 ground level. 17 We took the video tape from the aerial vantage IB point and analyzed the rate of input / output along each 19 aisle, knowing how many monitoring stations there are along 20 each aisle, broke it down into five minute intervals, and 21 from this derived estimates of the amount of time it took, 22 on average, and in detail, for each monitoring station to l 23 service each car. / 24 The analysis that we performed indicated that 25 the average monitoring time was well under 90 seconds, and O l
66600808 18748 joewalsh l I -] that Jed me to have confidence in the estimated monitoring 2 service rates which are documented in 201.A, which in turn 3 were based upon the 100 second estimate. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 I 23 24 25 l e I
66600909 18749 .marysimons I (J"} Q If I would show you two or three minutes of that 2 aerial vantage video tape, could you identify that as the 3 one you used to get the timing data? d A Yes. 5 MR. CHRISTMAN: Judge Margulies, that is my last 6 question, except to ask Mr. Lieberman to identify that tape. 7 I would like to show two or three minutes of the 8 tape and ask that the tape itself be marked as LILCO Exhibit 9 27 and entered into the record after we have viewed the two 10 to three minutes, assuming Mr. Lieberman can identify it as the basis of his calibration that he has testified about. 12 I will note that this is one of the video tapes 13 that we served on all the parties within a week to 10 days y's) Id after it was made back in June. 15 That discovery has been hold on that June 8th 16 training session and we turned over in response to one of I7 the usual all documents types of requests, the timing data I8 on pages, the paper that was handed out during the exercise 19 and I think all other documents and, hence, there is no 20 question but what the parties have been apprised of this for 21 some time. 22 My offer is to have the video tape marked for 23 identification as Exhibit 27 and that the two to three 24 minutes of it be shown to Mr. Lieberman so he can identify 25 it. ? ) i
9 66600909-18750 marysimons I ~\\ JUDGE MARGULIES: Is there any obj ection? I -(O 2 MR. McMURRAY: Yes, Judge Margulies. 3 Mr. Christman's asserted purpose for putting this video tape into the record is to demonstrate that Mr. 5 Lieberman used it to calibrate the monitoring capacities. 6 We are not disputing that, and it seems to me that unless there is some other purpose that Mr. Christman is trying to 8 use these video tapes for, Mr. Lieberman has stipulated that the video tapes were the basis for his calibrations. We are 10 not disputing that and why put in the video tapes. 'I MR. CHRISTMAN: Because they form the underlying 12 basis, and I'm certain that the interveners are going to 13 contest the 100 second figure. This is the basis for that i,O Id information and it deserves to be in the record for appeal 15 or for whatever purposes. 16 I will say that an additional purpose that can I7 be served by the video tape, it is true, is to give anyone '8 who wants to watch it an idea of how the system actually I9 works at least at that one location in practice. Now that 20 is certainly a useful purpose for the video tape, and I 2I would offer it for that purpose. 72 But the principal purpose at this time is to 23 provide the basis for the time estimates that Mr. Lieberman 24 has testified about which I'm sure will be a subject of ) 25 contest. O i ]
66600909 18751 'marysimons ~< I k'_)- MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Judge Margulies, I would like 2 to obj ect to this offer of the video tape on two grounds. 3 The first is that there is no reason why this d video tape of a training session that was done on June 8th 5 couldn't have been a video tape of a training session that 6 was done on February 8th. It could have been done before 7 the testimony was submitted and it could have been provided 8 to the parties at that time, just like the State attached a 9 video tape to its testimony. 10 This is an attempt to supplement testimony that 'l is improper. 12 Also, whatever information is in that video tape l' I think would be cumulative of the information that Mr. 7 ) Id Lieberman has just testified to. 15 Mr. Lieberman's testimony is in the record and 16 there is no need to supplement or add to the record by 17 showing the video tape which would be cumulative. 18 JUDGE MARGULIES: Mr. Bachmann. 19 MR. BACHMANN: The Staff would not object to 20 putting the video into evidence. We seem to have a trend i 21 here about establishing a complete record, and I suppose 22 this is one more piece of evidence that probably the Board 23 should see. 24 JUDGE MARGULIES: Mr. Lieberman, in what manner 25 did you use the video tape to establish the calibration of ( \\ l
66600909 18752 - marysimons I I time? 2 WITNESS LIEBERMAN: Well, we played it back on a 3 VCR and on a -- I think it was a 19-inch television screen. ^ We then had technicians with as stop watch count the number 5 of cars that entered and lef t each aisle and broke these 6 counts down by five-minute intervals. This was tabulated 7 and we obtained for each five-minute interval an estimate of 8 the monitoring service rates per monitoring station. Then we did a grand mean. We took standard 10 deviations to see what the variability was, and then we plotted it, and I think that plot is part of the surrebuttal 12 that we submitted. 13 JUDGL 'GULIES : Am I correct that you were not r l' here to testify o, to the adequacy of the exercise in terms 15 of what it purported to establish as to whether the proper 16 parts of the body were monitored or anything of that sort? WITNESS LIEBERMAN: That's right, Judge 18 Margulies. I'm not a health physicist and I can't testify on that. I can only say that I did observe the exercise, 20 j and I took that opportunity to be monitored in a car several I 21 times. And, if you would like, I could describe that experience, but I can't testify as to the thoroughness of 23 the procedure. 2d MR. McMURRAY: Judge Margulies, if I could just 25 point out that the testimony, the surrebuttal testimony of
66600909 18753 [ marysimons I Mr. Lieberman that has already been admitted over the County 2 and State's obj ection, there is an Attachment A to it that '3 has a very confusing graph, but this purports to show the 1 d variation of vehicle monitoring rates in each of the four 5 channels over the one-hour training session at the 6 Hicksville Reception Center. 7 So it's my opinion that putting in the video i 8 tape would just be cumulative to this chart which is already 9 in evidence. 10 MR. CHRISTMAN: Judge Margulies, let me say two Il things. 12 One is we are offering this, among other things, 13 as the basic data on which Mr. Lieberman's recent testimony ( Id was based and, second, there are bound to be all sorts of 15 arguments made in the intervenor's findings about well, 16 there may have been a training session but it didn't mirror 17 reality and there are already all sorts of allegations that 18 the timing and the data that LILCO has used do not reflect 19 starting and stopping and that nort of thing. 20 That video tape is useful for showing all of 21 those sorts of things. Area B was set up as it would be in 22 a real emergency with the cars cycled through and starting 23 and stopping was taken account of and all of those things 24 are answered by this video tape and it should go into 25 evidence.
- O
66600909 18754 marysimonc i I (Board conferring.) 2 JUDGE MARGULIES: The Board will deny the 3 request to put the video into evidence. You could have it marked for identification and we will put in the record, but the record is complete in terms of Mr. Lieberman's use of 6 the video and how he calibrated his results from it and there is no dispute as to that. 8 It seems you want to put the video in for an additional purpose, which is beyond the ability of Mr. IU Lieberman to sponsor that for other purposes. 11 So to that extent we will permit you to mark it 12 for identification and put it into the record to that extent 13 and it is not admitted O.- t 1d MR. CHRISTMAN: Fine. We will provide three 15 copies for the court reporter. The parties already have 16 copies. I7 Does the Board want a copy since it's not in? 18 JUDGE MARGULIES: We would like to have a 19 complete record even of the --- 2v MR. CHRISTMAN: Excluded documents. 21 JUDGE MARGULIES: --- exhibits marked for 22 identification. It doesn't have to be done this minute. 23 MR. CHRISTMAN: I think we have it in the 2d anteroom. We'll have it by this afternoon anyway. 25 That's all the questions I have. . v) \\(
66600909 18755 marysimons l' I }' JUDGE MARGULIES: Do you want that marked? 2 MR. CHRISTMAN: Yes. Please mark it, if you 3 wou3d, as LILCO Exhibit 27 for identification. d JUDGE MARGULIES: It will be so marked. 5 (The video tape referred to 6 was marked as LILCO Exhibit 7 No. 27 for identification.)- 8 JUDGE MARGULIES: We will recess for lunch until 9 1:30. 10 MR. McMURRAY: Judge Margulies, may I bring up a II point before we recess? 12 JUDGE MARGULIES: Yes. 13 MR. McMURRAY: I'm not sure how much longer we Id have to go today really because as far as redirect or 15 recross goes virtually every item that we've had discussion 16 about since my cross-examination of Mr. Lieberman and the j 17 things I would be conducting recross on are items that are 18 in his surrebuttal testimony, double left lanes, the traffic 19 counts versus his application of other percentages and 20 things like that. 21 So, therefore, I propose that I have no recross 22 that would not be also things that I would be bringing up in 23 my further cross-examination of Mr. Lieberman next week, and 24 I suggest that maybe some of the other parties want to go 25 forward, but that I not go forward now with recross but o
) l 66600909 18756 l marysimons I rather save it until we bring Mr. Lieberman back next week 2 or whenever the parties agree because it's going to be on l 3 the same subj ect matter. 4 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: I agree. I have no recross. 5 MR. BACHMANN: No recross from th[ staff. 6 JUDGE MARGULIES: Do you have anything, Mr. 7 Christman? 8 MR. CHRISTMAN: No, sir. It sounds to me as 9 though we should take up the Lindell matter and then go home io for the day. 11 JUDGE MARGULIES: Is there any objection to 12 taking up the Lindell matter now? 13 MR. McMURRAY: I guess we have no obj ection. \\[,} \\ 14 JUDGE MARGULIES: You are excused, Mr. 15 Lieberman. Thank you. 6 WITNESS LIEBERMAN: Thank you. 17 (Witness Lieberman is excused.) 18 JUDGE MARGULIES: I would like time to re-read 19 the motion and then we will take argument on it. 20 (Pause.) 21 JUDGE MARGULIES: We are ready to hear argument 22 on LILCO's motion to present rebuttal testimony by Dr. 23 Michael Lindell. The motion was filed July 17, 1987. 24 Mr. McMurray. 25 MR. McMURRAY: Judge Margulies, Mr. Ross will be h_____________._.___________________
l 1 66600909 18757 'marysimons I L: 7-- handling this argument for the County. ' '\\ )j 2 MR. ROSS: Judge Margulies, the County cpposes 3 the motion. Our position is that any further testimony at d this stage would be cumulative as the record is now complete J 5 and the Board can make a 6ecision based on what is prenently. 6 in the record. 7 I might note that Dr. Linde11's position has 8 already been presented and it is a part of this record. I 9 cite the LILCO testimony at page 17, Question 25: 10 " Question: Dr. Lindell, you've used surveys to M study behavior intentions in your work, haven't you? 12 " Answer: Yes, I have, but there is a 13 r -- significant difference between the aims of my work and those Id of Dr. Cole's. I did not collect behavioral intentions data 15 in order to estimate the number of persons who would 16 evacuate in a real emergency." 17 Dr. Linde11's answer continues to elaborate the 18 differences between his'use and Dr. Cole's. 19 The County's position was similarly presented 20 and already is in the record in this proceeding. I cite to 21 our direct testimony at pages 23 to 25, 27, 33 and 56, 22 Further, the Nuclear Safety article in question 23 has also been made a part of this record and has been 24 entered as LILCO Exhibit 6. 25 There is no need at this stage for further 9
66600909-levse marysimons I testimony.on the question presented. All the parties have 2 been heard and the Board has before it all the evidence it 3 needs to read what is in the record and make an assessment d on the question. 5 Any further presentation would be cumulative and 6 Would Simply serve to further prolong the proceeding. 7 JUDGE MARGULIES: Do you wish to be heard, Mr. 8 Zahnleuter? 9 MR. ZAHNLEUTER: Yes. The State agrees with the 10 County and I would like to add just one little point that 11 since the article is in the record that the Board is free to 12 read that article and can assess the merits of the testimony 13 and the contents of the article by itself. 14 JUDGE MARGULIES: Mr. Bachmann. 15 MR. BACHMANN: The argument has been made that 16 Dr. Linde11's testimony would be cumulative. Unfortunately, 17 we do not have Dr. Linde11's testimony to determine whether 13 it-is. 19 I would suggest that, like the Staff, Dr. 20 Lindell, if he is going to submit additional testimony, do 21 it writing, and having received it, perhaps at that point a 22 better determination could be made as to whether or not his 23 testimony is indeed cumulative. 24 We seem to have at least a minor precedent here 25 that testimony will come in fairly later and in order that .n .V
t 66600909 18759 marysimons I I g the Board may have a more complete record. Without actually '2 seeing Dr. Lindell's testimony, it's difficult really to 3 come to a reasoned response to the argument that it is d cumulative. ] 5 So I might suggest that if it could be served on 6 the Board and parties that we might make a decision based on 7 that having actually seen it. 8 MR. ROSS: Judge Margulies, I would like to 9 respond. ) Again, we have in the record already the answer Il that I previously read to Question 25. We have Dr. 12 Linde11's response. Clearly he anticipated that this 13 question would come up and he har given us that response. le 14 The Board has it and the Board has our position on it. The 15 Board additionally has the article and can make the 16 determination without further presentation. II JUDGE MARGULIES: Mr. Christman. 18 MR. CHRISTMAN: Well, it's fine for one party to 19 say that in his opinion he thinks the record is just fine 20 and he doesn't see any need for evidence from the other 21 party. I think we can all agree that we don't see any need 22 for evidence from the other parties who oppose our 23 positiori. However, that is not dispositive nor a very 24 persuasive argument particular in this case where the 25 intervenor's wicnesses had the last word appearing after the i i
~ i 66600909 18760 marysimons I applicant's witnesses appeared and were asked in this case 2 no questions. l l \\ 3 The intervenor witnesses then appeared and l 1 d testified orally and added a great many things to their 5 written testimony, some of which we have put into our motion 6 without giving the applicant who has the burden of proof a 7 chance to respond. 8 Out of simply fairness, we believe we ought to 9 be given that right to respond, particularly in a case where 10 what the intervenor witnesses said orally on the stand 11 implied that, among other things, that Dr. Lindell doesn't 12 really hold the opinions that he swore to in his testimony. 13 Simply fairness suggests that that be rebutted. (Il 14 As to the cumulativeness, I do agree with one 15 thing that the counsel for the Staff said, which is that 16 it's hard to argue that something is cumulative in the 17 ab s t rac t. 18 What we have offered to do is provide brief oral 19 rebuttal limited to Dr. Linde11's view of the intervenor's 20 view of his work which are subj ects that came up during the 21 oral testimony of the intervenor witnesses, and the 22 testimony would be limited quite precisely to those 23 subj ec ts. So the testimony, in my j udgment, will not be 24 cumulative. 25 MR. ROSS: Judge Margulies, again we have a O
66600909 18761 marysimons I I difference of opinion. Counsel for the Staff has suggested g 2 that we get written testimony. The motion befcre us calls 3 for a brief oral presentation. d Finally, the counsel for LILCO suggests that 5 they are entitled to get the last word in on the subj ect. 6 The fact of the mattcr is we have a complete record and the 7 last word itself is immaterial. All the evidence is in the 8 record and the Board can make the determination without 9 giving LILCO a chance to repeat the testimony that was 10 presented. II JUDGE MARGULIES: Thank you. 12 (Board conf erring.) 13 JUDGE MARGULIES: The Board finds this situation LG Id very similar to the one we had this morning with the other 15 two motions to file rebuttal and surrebuttal. 16 There is the allegation that the expert had his I7 testimony misinterpreted and misrepresented by the other 18 side, and he does not want to leave the Board with an 19 incomplete and erroneous impression. 20 Our ruling on this motion will be the same as 21 the ruling on the earlier two motions that we made today, 22 and we will permit Dr. Lindell to present rebuttal. It will 23 be limited to the extent as described on page 4 in the first 24 ' paragraph under conclusion, but it must be in writing. The 25 other parties must have an opportunity to see it before he !G
66600909 18762 marysimons l testifies and the Board will leave it to the parties to fit 4 c~ l 5.. l 2 him into the remaining schedule. 3 Is there anything further? d (No response from the parties.) 5 There being nothing further, we will recess 6 until tomorrow morning at 9 o' clock. 7 (Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the hearing in the 8 above-entitled matter recessed, to reconvene at 9:00 o' clock 9 a.m., Thursday, July 23, 1987.) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 l l 20 21 l 22 l I 23 24 25 ts/ 1 l
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 (Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1) DOCKET NO.: 50-322-OL-3 (Emergency Planning) PLACE: HAUPPAUGE, NEW YORK DATE: WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 1987 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission. (sigt) / 4-t m (TYPED) N MARY C. SIMONS Official Reporter ACE-FADpRAL REPORTERS, INC. Rep fter's Affiliation C/fd [/ / GARRETT J. WALSH ' Ju1w i c j MYRTLE SUE WALSH . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _}}