ML20245B376
| ML20245B376 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/20/1989 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#389-8830 ASLBP, OL, NUDOCS 8906230150 | |
| Download: ML20245B376 (383) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:_ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION r, m 181 \ \ d., I G. ~, i C ! i i d -. ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- In the Matter of: )
) Docket Nos.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al., ) 50-444-OL
) OFF-SITE EMERGENCY (SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) ) PLANNING EVIDENTIARY HEARING l
l Pages: 26282 through 26585 Place: Boston, Massachusetts ~
. Date: June 20, 1989 v.
,, u\
'k , !
_.,.:Y x.. L HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION OpcialReportes gI i
- e. .
1220 L Strwt, N.W., Suke 600 Washington, D.C. 200H 9 0620 .. (202) 628 4888
.g.lg- 62M)2h,.: OW'$$d#
1
26282 UNITED STATE 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i Os - ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i l In the Matter of: )
) Docket'Nos.
4 PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-443'OL J NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al., ) 50-444-OL l
# ) OFF-SITE EMERGENCY ]
(SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) ) PLANNING ]
-q =
- EVIDENTIARY HEARING l Tuesday, {
June 20, 1989 i i Auditorium Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr. Federal Building 10 Causeway Street , Boston, Massachusetts ' The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to notice, at 9:06 a.m. I i BEFORE: JUDGE IVAN W. SMITH, CHAIRMAN ] Atomic Safety and Licensing Board R U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission i Washin'gton, D.C. 20555 JUDGE KENNETH A. McCOLLOM, Member ; Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
, Washington, D.C. 20555 JUDGE RICHARD.F. COLE, MEMBER-Atomic Safety and Licensing Board l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 6 .'
i(, Heritage Reporting Corporation i \, . (202) 628-4888 1
26283 APPEARANCES: O For the Applicants: THOMAS G. DIGNAN, JR., ESQ. GEORGE H. LEWALD, ESQ. KATHRYN A. SELLECK, ESQ. JAY BRADFORD SMITH, ESO. JEFFREY P. TROUT,- ESQ. GEOFFREY C. COOK, ESQ. WILLIAM L. PARKER, ESQ. Ropes & Gray *
, One International Place
. Boston, Massachusetts 02110-2624 For the NRC Staff:
SHERWIN E. TURK, ESQ. ELAINE I. CHAN, ESQ. EDWIN J. REIS, ESQ. RICHARD BACHMANN, ESQ. Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 i For the Federal Emercency Manacement Acency: H. JOSEPH FLYNN, ESQ. LINDA HUBER McPHETERS, ESQ. Federal Emergency Management Agency 500 C Street, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20472 For the Commonwealth of Massachusettai, JAMES M. SHANNON, ATTY. GEN. - JOHN C. TRAFICONTE, ASST. ATTY. GEN.
, ALLAN R. FIERCE, ASST. ATTY. GEN.
PAMELA TALBOT, ASST. ATTY. GEN. MATTHEW BROCK, ESQ. LESLIE B. GREER, ESQ. Commonwealth of Massachusetts One Ashburton Place, 19th Flcor Boston, Massachusetts 02108 l \ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26284 APPEARANCES: (Continued) f'N k )
For the State of New Hamoshire:
GEOFFREY M. HUNTINGTON, ASST. ATTY. GEN. State of New Hampshire 25 Capitol Street Concord, New Hampshire 03301 a Eor the Seacoast Anti-Pollution Leacue: ROBERT A. BACKUS, ESQ. -
, Backus, Meyer & Solomon
. 116 Lowell Street P.O. Box 516 Manchester, New Hampshire 03105 JANE DOUGHTY, Director Seacoast Anti-Pollution League 5 Market Street Portsmouth, New Hampshire. 03801 For the Town of Amesburv:
BARBARA J. SAINT ANDRE, ESQ.
,7 s Kopelman and Paige, P.C. ; 77 Franklin Street \m- Boston, Massachusetts WILLIAM LORD i Town Hall Amesbury, Massachusetts 10913 i
For the City of Haverhill and Town of Merrimac: ASHOD N. AMIRIAN, ESQ. l P. O. Box 38 -) Bradford, Massachusetts 01835 l 1 For the City of Newburvoort: BARBARA J. SAINT ANDRE, ESQ. JANE O' MALLEY, ESQ. 4 Kopelman and Paige, P.C. I 77 Franklin Street I Boston, Massachusetts 02110
,l l
Heritage Reporting Corporation Y)) (,, (202) 628-4888 i l
1 [ ) 26285
~'
APPEARANCES: (Continued) , For the Town of Newburv: R. SCOTT HILL-WHILTON, ESQ. l L&youlis, Clark, Hill-Whilton.& McGuire I 79 State Street Newburyport, Massachusetts 01950 a For the Town'of Salisbury: CHARLES P. GRAHAM, ESQ.
. . Murphy and Graham
. 33 Low Street Newburyport, Massachusetts 01950
' For the Town of West Newburv; JUDITH H. MIZNER, ESQ i, Second Floor 79 State Street Newburyport, Massachusetts 01950-For the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board: !
ROBERT R. PIERCE,. ESC RE Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission-Washington, D.C. 20555 t i N 1 1
.i 1 } Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
26286 j
~ i INREK i WITNESSES: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS EXAM i Thomas J. Adler by Mr. Parker 26288 by Mr. Bachmann 26302 by Judge Cole 26306 ;
by Judge McCollom . 26313 3 by Mr. Fierce 26315 -l by Mr. Parker 26328 -j' by Mr. Bachmann 26328 -
- Thomas Urbanik II f (prefiled) 26337 )
by Mr. Turk 26336 ) by Mr. Fierce 26340 ! by Judge Cole 26449 q by Mr. Turk 26452 j Thomas J. Adler (prefiled) 26482 J by Mr. Fierce 26481 by Mr. Dignan 26486 i by Mr. Fierce 26504 by Mr. Dignan 26505 ) rs l by Mr. Fierce 26514 5
\ s/ by Mr. Dignan 26515 by Judge Cole 26517 by Mr. Fierce 26518 I
l EXHIBITS: IDENT. REC. REJ. DESCRIPTION: 1 Massachusetts Attorney General: I 124 26322 26324 Excerpt from Emergency Highway Traffic Plan f Heritage Reporting Corporation ; (202) 628-4888 '
) . l l 26287 l ~ lHEEX INSERTS: PAGE Testimony of Thomas Urbanik II on 26337 behalf of the NRC Staff on JI-4 and 7A (SPMC) Testimony of Dr. Thomas J. Adler 26482
~
l on Behalf of Massachusetts Attorney General Regarding - JI-1,2 and 3 Affidavit of Dr. Thomas J. Adler 26484 i re: Interaction of Commuter Flow and Evacuation Traffic Flow Within ; the Seabrook EPZ Massachusetts Attorney General's 26585 l Cross-Examination Plan for i Testimony of Thomas Urbanik II Applicants' Cross-Examination Plan for 26585 Testimony of Thomas J. Adler on ETEs and Returning Commuters m
- eN
\(\~s/) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
ADLEP.- CROSS '26288 1 EBQCEEEIEGE Ii 2 JUDGE SMITH: Good morning. 3 Is there any preliminary business before we resume. 4 the cross-examination of Dr. Adler? 5 (No response) i 6 JUDGE SMITH: You may proceed, Mr. Parker. 7 MR. PARKER: Thank you, Your Honor. -; L - 8 Whereupon, 9 DR. THOMAS J. ADLER 10 having been first duly sworn, resumed the~ witness stand q 1 11 herein, and was examined and further testified as follows: 1 12 CROSS EXAMINATION (Continued) 13 BY MR. PARKER: 14 Q Good morning, Dr. Adler. 15 A (Adler) Good morning. 16 - Q I would like to return to the quote on page 4 of 17 your testimony. 18 A (Adler) Yes. 19 Q And the reference you use for that quote? l 20 A (Adler) Yes. i i 21 Q From what document - -we know what document'it is.. ! l 22 .. -Would you read-the sentence preceding the quote? ; l 23 A (Adler) Yes. l I 24 It begins: "Thus it will be seen that-handling 25 the nonpermitted diverted traffic can be a very difficult ';
! Heritage Reporting Corporation (202). 628-4888 !
ADLER - CROSS 26289 1 task, and where traffic volumes are heavy it may require a g_) 2 very sizable, well organized staff." 3 Q What is the title ' of the section that you' re 1 4 quoting from? 5 A (Adler) " Emergency Highway Traffic Regulation 6 Josts." J 7 Q What is the chapter? 8 A (Adler) The chapter is: " Functions, equipment and j l 9 personnel of emergency highway traffic regulation centers j 10 and posts." 11 Q And what scenario is being described in the 12 section that you're quoting from? 13 A (Adler) The scenario is one of the emergency l f- 14 evacuation scenarios which is either a defense emergency or ' 15 other catastrophic event. 16 - Q Isn't that quote responding to a post-nuclear 17 attack scenario? 18 A (Adler) The regulations that are described here, 19 in fact, are regulations both for post-nuclear attack and 20 for other types of natural or catastrophic events. 21 Q But the section that you're referring to, it is ' 1 22 describing a post-nuclear attack; isn't it? l 23 A (Adler) It doesn't say specifically. It's, as I 24 said, under a section that's titled, " Emergency Highway 25 Traffic Regulation Posts," and their general emergency [ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
ADLER - CROSS 26290 1 highway traffic regulation operations which were authorized 2 under an emergency standby order, Federal Highway , 3 Administration No. 10-4.3, which is a general policy to 4 regalate traffic following a nuclear attack or a major , 5 peacetime disaster. So it's a nuclear attack or a peacetime 6 disaster, is my reading of it.
- 7 Q Isn't that scenario that you paint dissimilar to -
8 an evacuation at the Seabrook Station? - 9 A (Adler) I believe an evacuation at the Seabrook 4< 10 Station would be categorized as a major peacetime disaster. 11 Q The text that you're quoting from assumes that the l 12 traffic guides would be police officers, doesn't it? 13 A (Adler) The majority of this regulation, in fact, 14 deals with emergency traffic regulation as if it were 15 implemented by police or other state or local officials. 16 - In some cases they describe the use of local or i I 17 highway offic3als in states, or others. And I'm not certain 18 that it's strictly " authorized police" that they' re 19 describing. 20 Q And the advice that's being given in that section
~
21 is asking the police officer to prevent someone from 22 entering an area that has already been Svacuated after a 23 nuclear attack? 24 A (Adler) Again, I don't believe it's specific to a i 25 nuclear attack. I didn't read that, and maybe there's b Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i
')
I. j ADLER - CROSS .26291' 1 1- something in the section, but I didn't read that it's I,. d ( 2 specific to a nuclear attack. ] 3 Q But it does assume that the person is permitted?
]
4 A .(Adler) Excuse me? ] I That the person has to have a permit to enter. i 5 Q il
~
6 A (Adler) The approach to traffic regulation that's l 7 described in this document which is, by the way, the -- 8 document that's referenced in the Manual on Uniform Traffic. 9 Concrol Devices and the section on Emergency Highway 10 Management, has a different approach to traffic regulation 11 than that implemented in the SPMC. 12 In particular they assume that access control o 13 would be handled in part by a permit program.and in part by,
- b. 14 essentially, asking questions of people who.wish to return i 15 in order to verify that they should go in.
i 16 - But the major difference is, I believe, in the 17 fact that some of the individuals will have permits and will 18 be able to proceed directly into the zone. Others will be 19 stopped much as I assume the access control at this -- in )
-1 j 20 the SPMC will be implemented -- will be stopped and asked 21 questions to verify that they're authorized to enter the 1
22 zone. - 23 Q Were you provided with the Applicants' response to 24 the Town of Amesbury's first set of interrogatories? I ' 25 A (Adler) I do not believe so. Beritage Reporting. Corporation , (202) 628-4888
'l d2______:___-__-_-_________:___---_ _ _ . - _ - _ _ _ - - _ - _ _ - ._= ._
ADLER - CROSS 26292 1 Q Do you know what the experience is of the people , 2 who are traffic guides? 3 A (Adler) Mr. Fiorce generally described them to me
.4 and I believe there was an indication that some of the 5 individuals had had some traffic management experience, but 6 many or most had not.
7 JUDGE SMITH: The Board wants to interrupt here -
~
1 l 8 for a moment, Mr. Parker. - 9 As a consequence of your cross-examination on this 10 point we have recognized now that the challenged language in 11 the motion, in the nature of objection in limine with 12 respect to human behavior of drivers in an emergency, should 13 have been granted. , 14 We now are focused on the fact that the quoted ! l 15 language there compares peacetime driver behavior with 16 drivers who are raxious and distraught following a nuclear 1 1 17 attack. It is exactly that kind of behavior that we found 18 would not exist in an emergency at a commercial nuclear 19 power plant.
]
20 So therefore we're going to revisit the motion and 21 grant the motion to strike. 22 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, may I be heard? , 23 JUDGE SMITH: No. 24 MR. PARKER: Thank you, Your Honor. l 25 JUDGE SMITH: The language is clear; it's just l l [ ! '- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L__ _ ___ _ -
ADLER - CROSS 26293 1 'that we had overlooked it. He just pointed out to us, we , t" 2 better read it again and it became evident that we wanted to 3 reread that. I had missed the contrast. And the Board i 4 discussed it again and it became apparent that we had not ! 5 focused that there was such a contrast being made. l 6 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, I would like to, at this ' 7 time, make an offer of proof by offering the entire section -l
' i
- 8 from the Guide to Highway Traffic Regulation in an Emergency J 9 from which this particular section was derived and for the 1
10 purpose of showing what it really would have meant. 11 As this cross-examination was proceeding I was 12 prepared on redirect to offer in that entire section, to put 13 it in the proper context that it deserves. 14 Obviously, I'm not going to get that opportunity ] O 15 now on redirect. But I would like to make that offer as an 1 l l 16 offer of proof to s'how what the context was with respect to 17 the Board's ruling it has just made. 1C 1 19 1 20 21 I I 22 23 24 i 25 j Heritage Reporting Corporation s (202) 628-4888
.-e _
_ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ~ . - _ _ _ . _ _ _ .
ADLER - CROSS 26294 , 1 MR. D h \N : Your Mcnor, before you rule on that i 2 request, can I just have a clarification from the Board? l 3 The motion as drafted, as I recall it, moved to 4 strike everything on page 4, beginning with, "The U.S. 5 Department of Transportation". 6 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
- I 7 MR. DIGNAN: To the bottom.
-]
8 JUDGE SMITH: Right. - 9 MR. DIGNAN: And what I am asking is, do I 10 understand the Board has granted that in full? 11 In other words, it's not just the quote, but the 12 entire text. 13 JUDGE SMITH: No, in full. 14 MR.' DIGNAN: Thank you, q a 15 JUDGE SMITH: In full. l l 16 We note that it is bound into the transcript in l 17 the form -- I mean, it is not shown as being deleted in the 18 version bound into the transcript. 19 You can proffer whatever you wish to proffer. 20 MR. FIERCE: Well, I would like to have -- again, 21 I don't have assistants to do this for me. 22 JUDGE SMITH: However, I might say, having ordered , 23 that aection deleted, the cross-examination on it similarly 24 is not germane. 25 MR. FIERCE: Well, all I am doing, Your Honor, at Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
ADLER - CROSS 26295 1 this time if I had assistance -- 2 JUDGE SMITH: You can do whatever you want to do. 3 MR. FIERCE: I would like to have marked as an 4 exhibit the section of the manual that Dr. Adler has. I 5 would like to offer it into evidence as a proffer, have it 6 put in the rejected category so that -- 7 JUDGE SMITH: Indeed, just proceed with it. - 8 MR. FIERCE: Pardon? 9 MR. DIGNAN: Well, could we complete the cross-10 examination before he does redirect? 11 JUDGE SMITH: All right. I'm sorry to interrupt 12 but I -- 13 MR. DIGNAN: I think Mr. Parker is almost through. 14 But I thought we could wrap that up, then we could go to l 15 whatever Mr. Fierce -- 16 - JUDGE SMITH: The difficultly was when I 17 interrupted, I.was not as attentive to what Mr. Parker was 18 doing. I don't know if he was still on that subject matter. 19 I think he had switched to the next one, i 20 MR. PARKER: Yes, sir. 21 JUDGE SMITH: I should have waited, but I didn't. 22 MR. DIGNAN: He tells me he has just one more 23 topic to cover. 24 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 25 MR. DIGNAN: And then it will be in order for Mr. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l -
ADLER - CROSS 26296 1 Fierce to do whatever he wants to do. 2 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 3 Proceed, Mr. Parker. 4 BY MR. PARKER: 5 Q Dr. Adler, I asked a question, whether you had . 6 reviewed the Applicants' response to the Town of Amesbury's i 7 first set of interrogatories. And you said that Mr. Fierce
- 8 and you discussed those interrogatories, but you had not I 1
9 read them. , 10 A (Adler) Mr. Fierce discussed specifically the 11 issue of prior experience of the ORO traffic guides. 12 Q Do you know how many ORO traffic guides have prior i 1 l 13 traffic guide training or police training? I 1 l l 14 A (Adler) Mr. Fierce provided me with the numbers 4 15 that I believe were provided by the Applicants. And I don't 16 recall them at the present time. I recall them being 17 decidedly a minority of the total. 18 Q In terms of percentages, what is a " decided" 19 minority? 20 A (Adler) Oh, again, I don't recall the exact ! 21 numbers, but it was certainly less than 50 percent. l 22 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Excuse me, but I would like to . l l 23 make sure that you are talking about the same thing. l l 24 I believe you said police officer training or l 25 traffic guide training? l
'- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
1 ADLER - CROSS 26297-
)
l 1 MR. PARKER: Yes. j k, 2 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Is'that -- 3 THE WITNESS: (Adler) Oh, excuse me. ; 4 JUDGE McCOLLOM: -- what your answer was? 5 THE WITNESS: (Adler) No. I was under the 6 impression you were asking about prior experiences in a l 7 ' traffic management perspective. -]
~
l 8 I recalled that we had some' discussion about the l 9 training, and I believe the majority had been through the 10 training program as it's defined here. 11 MR. PARKER: Yes, that's correct. I 12 What I was actually talking about -- Your Honor, 1 13 I'm sorry, I didn't make copies for the Board, but I would i 44 14 like to show the witness the Applicants' response, s- 15 Applicants' response to the Town of Amesbury, first set of 16 interrogatories which lists the personnel who have police 17 experience and other traffic guide experience, and ask the 18 witness if that would be something that would be significant 19 in his determination of whether the training, the cadre of 20 people who were to be trained who had prior experience would 21 be significant, in his view, of the overall training effort 22 of Applicants. i 23 MR. FIERCE: I'm going to object, Your Honor. I I 24 guess he's going to show the witness a document. The 25 document is one the witness has not seen, he's just Heritage Reporting Corporation
\'(, (202) 628-4888
ADLER - CROSS 26298 1 indicated. And I'm going to object on the grounds there is 2 no foundation yet for asking the question that he's 3 apparently going to put to Dr. Adler regarding if this is 4 the training that the people have had -- 5 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, you are right. 6 I don't see any link between the document and Dr. 7 Adler as sufficient to examine him on. You haven't ' 8 established it yet. - 9 MR. FIERCE: Or that the facts allegedly contained 10 in the document are true. 11 JUDGE EMITH: You won. You won. 12 BY MR. PARKER: 13 Q Dr.. Adler, you were told that the Applicants were 14 going to provide training to traffic guides. 15 A (Adler) That's correct, yes. 16 - Q And you also believe that no prerequisites to 17 training and no prior experience of the people to be 18 trained -- strike that. 19 That the traffic guides have no prior experience. 20 A (Adler) That there are at least some who have no 21 prior experience, that's correct. 22 MR. PARKER: Excuse me. . 23 (Counsel confer.) 24 BY MR. PARKER: 25 Q In developing your testimony, you discounted the
's Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 l l ADLER - CROSS 26299 1 experience of those who had experience, didn't you? () 2 A (Adler) I didn't specifically discount. All I 3 indicated was that there wasn't a prerequisite for prior 4 experience, and therefore the training had to recognize that 5 not everybody would have previous experience and the 6 training would have to be essentially all-encompassing. 7 MR. PARKER: I think I've laid a foundation now to -)
~
8 introduce these responses. 9 MR. FIERCE: Well -- 10 JUDGE SMITH: These are -- what? 11 MR. FIERCE: I'm still objecting. 12 (The Board confers.) 13 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Parker, would you review what it 7~, 14 is you are o5fering into evidence? Applicants' responses to (_, 15 interrogatories? 16 - MR. PARKER: Yes, Your Honor. 17 JUDGE SMITH: And how do you connect that to this 18 witness? 19 MR. PARKER: Dr. Adler states that the people who 20 are to be trained don't have any -- there is no 21 prerequisites and the content of the training is deficient. 22 And I'm saying that there are a cadre of people who have 23 prior experience that not only can do the job, but can also 24 assist other people in doing the job. 25 And I think that has a bearing on the -- a 1 1 l
'l( Heritage Reporting Corporation
, (202) 628-4888
ADLER - CROSS 26300 1 potential bearing on his assessment of the training program. 2 JUDGE SMITH: It has relevance. 3 MR. PARKER: Yes, and this is information that was 4 provided to the Massachusetts Attorney General and not 5 shared with their witness.
~
6 JUDGE SMITH: And what? 7 And not shared? 8 MR. PARKER: Not shared with their witness in its 9 entirety. , 10 (The Board confers.) l 11 JUDGE SMITH: Parker, unless you can establish Mr 12 that the information in the answers to the interrogatories 13 is somehow imputed to this witness, you can't use the 14 interrogatories as such to cross-examine him.
- 15 Now if the information in the interrogatories is 16 otherwise in evidence or going to be in evidence, that's an 17 entirely different matter. You can propose hypothetical 18 questions to him.
19 But the interrogatories standing alone, unless 20 those interrogatories are somehow connected to him or 21 imputed to him or refresh his memory or some other way 22 pa'sses through his mind into his testimony, you can't use , 23 those interrogatories in your cross-examination. 24 MR. PARKEP Very good. 25 I have one further question, Your Honor. I
\- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
I I l
r ADLER - CROSS 26301 1 BY MR. PARKER: 2 Q On page 5 of your testimony, what isLthe basis of 3 your statement on line 4 that the. traffic guides --.that 4 there is an absence of instruction on methods for i 5 efficiently direct!.ng traffic?
~i
' 1 6 A (Adl er)' The basis was my review of the 7 instruction guide and lesson. plan and student handouts that -
8' I was provided. i 9 Q Specifically on the absence of instruction, what 10 was your basis and knowledge on.that? 11 A (Adler) Again, that the formal lesson plans and. 1:2 student handouts contained no' specific detail on efficient t 13 management of traffic. l . 14 0 What would you expect to have the Applicants 15 provide you with? 16 - A (Adler) The Applicants provide? 17 I would have expected in thege modules a detailed 18 discussion of the subject of traffic s,tnagement, of how to 19 manage traffic flows through intersections along different (
-1 20 sections of roads in an efficient manner.
l' 21 And I could be more specific if you would like, 22 but generally that's what I would expect to see. 23 MR. PARKER: Your Honor, I have no further 24 questions. -] 25 ( l l (>/~ Beritage Reporting Corporation ;
\
(202) 628-4888 l
l l ADLER - CROSS 26302 . I 1 CROSS-EXAMINATION , 2 BY MR. BACHMANN: 3 Q Good morning, Dr. Adler, I'm Richard Bachmann, 4 counrel for the NRC Staff. I just have one or two very 5 brief questions. And this goes back to part of your cross-
~
6 examination yester day. 7 You indicated that you had trained individuals ! 1
~
8 when you were doing -- as far as directing traffic -- when 9 you were doing data collection; is that correct? , 10 A (Adler) That's correct; yes. 11 Q Have you, yourself, ever had any formal 12 instruction in training in directing traffic? 13 A (Adler) I have not; no. 14 Q So your comments, essentially, on what should be 15 cortained in a traffic training program are just based on ! 16 experience that you have sort of picked up along the way; is 17 that correct? 18 A (Adler) More than picked up along the way. , 19 Some research that I have conducted on safety of
-1 20 traffic operations; on efficiency of traffic operations; and 21 experience that I picked up along the way, that's correct.
22 Q So you're really not holding yourself out as an . 23 expert in what should be contained in directing traffic 24 training? 25 In other words, you've never really gotten / Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I ADLER - CROSS 26303
~ , . .,-
1 involved with how police, for instance, train their people? 2 A- (Adler) I have read police. training manuals-as an 3 example, yes. I But you've'never actually really observed a whole 4 Q 5 traini'g session or really got very deeply involved-on how, 6 for instance, police train their traffic guides or people 7 who direct traffic?
~
8 A (Adler) I've'never been through a session. 9 As I indicated, I have read training manuals for 10 state police, in particular. ] 11 0 3 ave you ever had any in-depth discussions'with 12 the people who administer the training of police as traffic 1' 13 directors? 14 A (Adler) Not that I can recall. 15 Q So really it's just as I said, what you've' picked 16 up by reading, generally, sort of vague experience along the ( 17 way; is that correct? 18 A (Adler) More than vague experience. 19 Understanding of what makes traffic flow efficiently; what 20 contributes to safe operations of traffic management. 21 Q But this is stuff that you had picked up by your 22 reading and not by instruction and training? l 23 A (Adler) Not by formal instruction and training; 24 by reading and by discussions with others who are involved 25 in the field.
, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 e e-t- etw-= -,me,.e & m- i. ,+,.,s,. . . . , - , , ,
ADLER - CROSS 26304 1 Q Discussions in what field? 2 A (Adler) In the field of traffic safety and 3 traffic operations. 4 Q Discussions with people who are trained people who 5 direct traffic? (Adler) i 6 A Not specifically with trainers, state 7 police trainers, but again reference to manuals that have -l 8 been developed to develop training modules. - l 9 Q So really, the only contact you've had with j 10 directing traffic has been what you've read? 11 A (Adler) And again as I' ve indicatec'., limited 12 experience in our own business of directing traffic in the 13 context of data collection. 14 Q And that you, more or less, learn by doing? 15 A (Adler) Not so much learn by doing; learn by in i 16 advance talking to others who have done that kind of work, 17 reading material about safe operations and those kind of 18 context. 19 Q When you say "that kind of work," you mean data 20 collection?
~ '
21 A (Adler) Data collection and traffic management in 22 general. We've read the' state police manuals that describe . 23 how the state police are expected to efficiently and safely 24 direct traffic. 25 Q So it's just basically some discussions with w Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 626-4888
ADLER - CROSS 26305
,, 1 people on traffic management --
I ') Objection, asked and answered. ( ,/ 2 MR. FIERCE: 3 MR. BACHMANN: Well, we keep getting one more word 4 in each time he answers my question, I'm just trying to make 5 sure I understand the fact that it's reading manuals and ; I 6 discussing with people -- 7 MR. FIERCE: Objection, asked and answered.
- l i
8 MR. BACHMANN: I have no further questions, 9 MR. TURK: Wait a minute. 10 (Counsel confers.) 11 MR. BACHMANN: Let me ask just one more question 12 and I will change the line of questioning. 13 BY MR. BACHMANN: , . 14 Q When you had your people out there doing data I C 15 collection -- 16 - A (Adler) Yes. 17 Q -- how extensive was the training that you gave 18 them in directing traffic? 19 A (Adler) Oh, it ranges from individual to 20 individual. We had a crew of 30 individuals, roughly, a 21 year or two ago and the training was extended over an hour 22 and a half in essentially a classroom setting; and then, 23 on-the-job training with individuals who were experienced 24 doing that. 25 Q Before you did the data collection did you take !<s f( ) Heritage Reporting Corporation lKs / (202) 628-4888 l l )
26306 1 them out and show them how to direct traffic? 2 A (Adler) We did it in a classroom and then we did 3 it hands-on in the field. 4 Q While you were doing the data collection; is that 5 correct? 6 A (Adler) With. individuals who had experience, yes. - 7 Q What did you train them to do? i 8 A (Adler) Specifically? - 9 Q Yes. 10 A (Adler) ~It's a long answer. 11 There were a number of elements of the training. 32 We described how to set up cones to divert traffic. We 13 taught them how to lay out stop -- stop traffic and lay out a 14 traffic counters. We instructed them in the proper use of 15 equipment. There were a number of elements to that 16 training. 17 Basically, e:aphasizing safety in the context that 18 we were concerned about. We' re not so concerned about 19 efficiency of traffic operations in that kind of context. 20 MR. BACHMANN: I have n further questions.
~
21 EXAMINATION BY JUOGE COLE 22 JUDGE COLE: Just a couple of questions, Dr. , 23 Adler. 24 Do you know how many hours of instruction, the 25 classroom instruction, the traffic guides will receive or Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26307
,s 1 have received *or plan to receive?
(, 2 THE WITNESS: (Adler) I don't recall the exact 3 number. I recall it being in some of the materials, but I 4 don't recall the exact number of hours. 5 JUDGE COLE: Do you believe that you have a feel 6 for the number of hours that might be required to train a 7 traffic guide in his tasks? 8 THE WITNESS: (Adler) I believe I have a general 9 idea. The majority of the training, as I read it, really 10 doesn't rela ~ce so much to traffic control as to a general 11 understanding of what's happening in the emergency dealing 12 with specific issues like how to handle the communications 13 equipment and things like that, that do require very s 14 detailed instruction.
\s/ 15 JUDGE COLE: Do you know how many separate ,
16 training modules they have for the traffic guides? 17 THE WITNESS: (Adler) The traffic guide training, 18 I understand, is a single module, as I understand it, lesson 19 plan EM1011C. I expect that these individuals also go N 20 through other training modules on less directly related to 21 traffic and access control. 22 JUDGE COLE: Do you believe that the competence of 23 an instructor -- competence and experience of an instructor 24 is an important factor in the training? j 25 THE WITNESS: (Adler) I believe it would be. l s
\' Heritage Reporting Corporation
)
(_/ (202) 628-4888 1
26308 1 JUDGE COLE: Do you know anything about the 2 competence of the instructors that will provide the training 3 to the traffic guides? 4 THE WITNESS: (Adler) I don't specifically know. l 5 JUDGE COLE: If a considerable portion of the 6 people that will be serving as traffic guides have had 7 previous experience in directing traffic, do you think this - 8 would go a long way towards alleviating the problems that 9 you have with the traffic guide situation? 10 THE WITNESS: (Adler) If those individuals who 11 did hcve experience were always the ones who staffed the 12 posts, the key posts and the posts which had only a single 13 individual assigned, I think it would be very useful.
. I 14 I think it would be important, however, that those l
15 individuals who have little or no experience doing traffic 16 management be placed in posts which are not critical or l 17 which are paired with somebody who did have experience. 18 But, yes, certainly if -- 19 JUDGE COLE: Would it be reasonable to assume that 20 people that are allocating the human resources to different 21 traffic guide posts would have a knowledge of those 22 particular postr where they might expect the biggest traffic , 23 problems? 24 THE WITNESS: (Adler) I think that would be quite 25 important, yes. l!
\- Heritage l Reporting Corporation !
l (202) 628-4888 1 c_____________ _ ..
26309
. ). 1 JUDGE' COLE: Do you think that they would 'I
( 2 consciously make an effort to put knowledgeable people at 3 those critical posts? 4 THE WITNESS: (Adler) I understsnd that the 5 allocation process of personnel to posts is based, in large 6 pr.rt , on the time of arrival of ind3viduals. Those 7 individuals who arrive first are assigned to posts which are 8 the higt.est level of priority. 9 And I am concerned with that. Obviously, I think 10 that the method of allocation should be quite different; it 11 should be based on experience and training and competence. 12 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir. 13 on page 4 of your testimony you make reference to g 14 a 75-second dnterval. Is this a rule of thumb of traffic 15 control engineers, the 75 seconds for -- 16 - THE WITNESS: (Adler) The 75 seconds is an 17 interval that is used in the model that computes ETEs for 18 this particular evacuation. 19 As I indicated, I believe in this testimony it's 20 not critical that the timing be exactly 75 seconds. The 75 j I 21 seconds is in between ranges that are typically used in a I 22 managing traffic; generally from a minute to two minutes. 23 The issue is to balance on one hand efficiency of i 24 operations which would argue to make the time allocated to a 25 given movement very long, so that you don't have very much \ Heritage Reporting Corporation k_, (202) 628-4888 m-~- . - -
26310 1 time spent stopping one stream of traffic and trying to 2 start up the other stream of traffic. 3 And on the other hand, balancing the fact that i 4 there are individuals waiting in opposing movements who want l 5 to make those movements. And cross-traffic is an example. 6 As I indicated, I don't think that 75 seconds per ; i 7 se is critical. What is critical is that individuals who - 8 are guiding traffic don't allow competing traffic flows, 9 that is, traffic flows that are competing with evacuation 10 traffic to interrupt traffic on a frequency of say less than 11 once every 30 seconds. 12 Or on the other extreme, that they don't hold 13 traffic from competing streams for very long periods of time 14 leading to levels of frustration which normally occur in 15 congested conditions. 16 - 17 18 19 20
~
l 21 22 23 24 25 b Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26311 1 JUDGE COLE: Speaking in general terms about the 2 design of an evacuation plan, would it be reasonable to try 3 to design out these conflicting intersections and route 4 traffic so you had a minimum number of conflicts like that? 5 Would you agree with that, sir?
~
l 6 THE WITNESS: (Adler) Yes, generally. 7 JUDGE COLE: Do you think this has been attempted - 8 in the plan that's proposed? 9 THE WITNESS: (Adler) I think the major areas of 10 conflict, which are areas with which I have concern, are 11 areas where there will be during the first two hours, for 12 example, returning commuters and others who are conflicting 13 with the evacuation streams. 14 The evacuation streams -- the evacuation routes 15 themselves are selected in ways that tlam evacuation streams 16 themselves don't conflict very much with each other. 37 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir. 18 The question I asked you before, I believe you 19 answered it, but I don't know whether you completed the 20 snswer or I got the full kind of response I was looking for. 21 It had to do with the number of hours of instruction. 22 THE WITNESS: (Adler) Yes. 23 JUDGE COLE: I believe you said you tight have 24 read it some place. 25 THE WITNESS: (Adler) Yes. l ll Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4088
26312 1 JUDGE COLE: But you could not recall the number. 2 Sir, do you have your own estimate of the number
- 3. of hours of instruction that you believe might be required 4 for a traffic guide, assuming, of course, that the 5 instructor is experienced and competent?
6 THE WITNESS: (Adler) Yes. 7 JUDGE COLE: How many hours of instruction do you 8 think would be reasonable? 9 THE WITNESS: (Adler) On strictly the subject of , l 10 how to guide traffic -- and not on the subjects, the 11 additional subjects that are contained in the lesson plans 12 which do cover a number of issues related to the general 1 13 nature of emergency and the general nature of evacuation, 14 for simply training an individual to manage traffic -- l 15 I believe an hour or so of classroom training would be 16 sufficient. 17 But most importantly would be hands-on, real life 18 experience out actually directing traffic at an 19 intersection. l l 20 I think that kind of experience -- an hour of that l l 21 kind of experience is worth 10 hours in the classroom. 1 22 JUDGE COLE: All right, thank you. . 23 That's all I have. 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 (
-1 26313-m 1 EXAMINATION BY JUDGE McCOLLOM 2 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Can you describe to me the-3 difference between the capability for traffic management' I 4 that a traffic guide is expected to have in this situation l
5 compared to a fully trained police officer,.if you wish? 6 THE WITNESS: (Adler) I believe they are..somewhat 7 similar. A fully trained police officer who is trained in 8 directing traffic in particular would have many of the-9 skills. 10 I believe the additional skills or the additional 11 training that's required for support of an evacuation, the 12 type of evacuation we are dealing with.here, are details of 13 how the evacuation itself works. I 14 JUDGE McCOLLOM: No, I think you missed my 15 question. 16 - THE WITNESS: (Adler) Sorry.. 17 JUDGE McCOLLOM: A traffic guide isn't expected to i 18 have all of the talents of traffic centrol that a police ] l 19 officer has. 20 Isn't that correct? 21 THE WITNESS: (Adler) There are certainly 22 elements of training of police officers which would go 23 beyond what would be required presumably by these traffic 24 guides.- 25 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Do you have a feel for that? -Can Beritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888
I 26314 1 you describe to me the differences that are expected from 2 this traffic guide in this situation as compared to a fully l 3 trained police officer? 4 THE WITNESS: (Adler) Yes. 5 A state police officer, for example, would be 6 expected to be able to deal with medical emergencies. The - 7 most common kind of traffic direction that a state police - 8 officer is faced with is a highway accident. And, of - l I 9 course, the first response in a highway accident, or one of I i 10 the elements of the response in a highway accident is to 11 deal with the medical emergency aspects. 12 I would say that's a major difference. And beyond 13 that, I'm not sure whether -- 14 JUbGE McCOLLOM: Are all the traffic guide posts 15 expected to be having the traffic guide out there actually 16 waving the traffic through? 17 THE WITNESS: (Adler) There are different 18 assignments at each of the traffic guide posts, and 19 certainly there is a wide variety of different assignments. 20 Some of the assignments, I think, could be described as
~
21 fairly cushy. There isn't very much traffic and there isn't 22 a whole heck of a lot to do. 23 And on the other hand, some of the assignments are 24 quite demanding. And in between, there is obviously the 25 full range. I
\- Heritage Reporting Corporation ,
(202) 628-4888
ADLER - REDIRECT 26315 1 You are correct. Some of the posts don't require 2 individuals really to be directing traffic in a very active 3 way. 4 JUDGE McCOLLOM: I guess this also goes back then 5 to the comment you made awhile ago about having allocation 6 based on the need there and having the experienced people go 7 .to those places. 8 THE WITNESS: (Adler) Yes. 9 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Yes. 10 Okay, thank you. 1 11 JUDGE SMITH: Do you have redirect? 12 MR. FIERCE: I just have a couple of questions. 13 And the first item would be with respect to the document l .
14 that Dr. Adler has. \' / 15 Yesterday when we left this, Dr. Adler was going 16 back to look for the page number of the cite.
17 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 18 BY MR. FIERCE: 19 Q Did you ever find that page number? 20 A (Adler) Yes, I did, and I read from it. 21 Q And you indicated it came from a section of the 22 Guide for Highway Traffic Regulation in an Emergency. 23 Do yeu have that section with you today? 24 A (Adler) Yes, I do. 25 Q I understand that portion of your testimony has l (
'1A) \m/
Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
ADLER - REDIRECT 26316 1 now been stricken. 2 MR. FIERCE: But at this time, Your Honor, I would 3 like to make a proffer and offer proof by offering that 4 whole section to show the context in which this quote has 5 come. 6 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 7 When we ruled on this before, we observed that had - 8 we read the section in the entirety, if we had focused on g 9 the entire section at the time of our initial ruling, we J 10 would have seen that the language undertakes to compare 11 peacetime driver behavior with drivers who are anxious and 12 distraught in a nuclear attack situation. The language of { 13 the paragraph in question itself explains that. 14 And on that alone, we should have granted the 15 motion when made. 16 - Nevertheless, Mr. Parker's cross-examination 17 pointed us back to that paragraph. But in addition, he
.. 18 extracted elaboration on that point.
19 Given that, we are going to allow you to address 20 the matter. 21 MR. FIERCE: Well, all I want to do at this time, 22 Your Honor, is make this proffer, an offer of proof of that , 23 section of the testimony. Dr. Adler, in response to Mr. 24 Parker's -- 25 JUDGE SMITH: Do you understand I am giving you Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-48E9
ADLER - REDIRECT 26317' 1 the opportunity'to address the motion in light of the 2 Board's observation comparing peacetime with the anxious and 3 distraught behavior of drivers following a nuclear attack? 4 Do you understand that? 5 MR. FIERCE: You are allowing me to ask the 6 witness some more questions? 7 JUDGE SMITH: No. I'm allowing you to, amend your
~
~
8 arguments ss you sought leave to do and you were earlier 9 denied. 10 MR. FIERCE: Okay. 11 Right at the point in time when I saw Your Honors 12 conferring, Mr. Parker was asking some questions about this 13 particular section and whether it applied solely to a 14 nuclear attack. And Dr. Adler's responses to those l \- 15 questions were, no. As he read this language and the 16 section that it was in, he'saw that it referred to two 17 things. 78 He described that it responded to defense 19 emergencies, including nuclear attacks, and other peacetime, 20 major peacetime disasters was the phrase he used and I wrote
~
21 down here. And he described major peacetime disasters to 22 include a nuclear incident at a nuclear plant. l 23 And so that when he sees the word " emergency" as 24 we see it here in the second sentence of this quote, in an 25 emergency he believed that that applies to a major peacetime i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
ADLER - REDIRECT 26318 I disaster as well as to these other emergencies that this 2 section of the -- that woulri be my argument and the context 3 for Dr. Adler's comment that it applies to both nuclear 4 emergencies and major peacetime disasters would come from 5 the document itself which I would proffer into evidence to 6 show that context. That Dr. Adler is right, that the word 7 " emergency" here in this quote applies to that broader term -
~
8 that is used in this document. 9 JUDGE SMITH: Give me the document. , 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 - 17 18 19 . 20
~
21 22 , 23 24 25 l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 ADLER - REDIRECT 26319 s 1 JUDGE SMITH: Given the paragraph cited, that is, I might say, Dr. Adler, a very unlikely interpretation, j
\m/ 2 3 I see a contrast in that language and I see you 4 read it otherwise.
)
5 (Document proffered to the Board.) 6 JUDGE SMITH: Dr. Adler, do you bring any 7 particular insight that you wish to share with the Board of - 8 how you read that language as not comparing peacetime 9 situations with wartime emergencies? 10 Do you have some special talent, some special 11 insight, some special expertise that we're not aware of that 12 would enable us to read that paragraph in that fashion? 13 Or are you just reading it according to its normal f' 14 language and interpretation?
- 15 THE WITNESS: (Adler) I have no special talents.
l 16 I note in my testimony that this document does deal heavily 17 with nuclear -- 18 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, sir. Yes, I'm talking about 19 that particular paragraph. I read it as contrasting the two 20 situations. And I just wondered if there is something that 21 you can share with us that allowed you to come to a
, 22 different conclusion.
23 THE WITNESS: (Adler) The only thing that I ' 24 would -- the reason that I included that quote is that it 25 does say, in particular, that even in simple events like *) l 4 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l 1 I
ADLER - REDIRECT 26320 1 emptying a football stadium, that it's a complicated task. 2 And that was really the only intent of putting the quote in 3 there to say that it's a complicated task. 4 JUDGE SMITH: Oh. Well, then you would be just as 5 happy if we deleted the part about emergencies. Your 6 thought would come through just as well. 7 THE WITNESS: (Adler) As I said, the point that I 8 was trying to raise was simply that it's a complicated task 9 and it requires training. , 10 JUDGE SMITH: But you have no special insight that 11 can explain to us that the emergencies alluded to in that 12 quoted language are not an allusion to wartime emergency. 13 You have nothing about your expertise that would 14 enable -- 15 THE WITNESS: (Adler) Nothing about my expertise. 16 - JUDGE SMITH: Just the way you read it? 17 THE WITNESS: (Adler) And the context of the 18 overall document which is under the emergency standby order ' 19 to plan for both nuclear attacks and major peacetime 20 disasters. 21 No, I have no other special knowledge of the 22 document, though, Your Honor. , 23 (The Board confers.) 24 JUDGE SMITH: Well, we believe that the most 25 logical interpretation given to the language as quoted, the i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
ADLER - REDIRECT 26321 1 author undertakes to compare peacetime complexities with an 2 even greater circumstance to be found in wartime nuclear 3 attack circumstances. ' 4 Therefore, our ruling stands. 5 MR. FIERCE: Nevertheless, Your Honor, I would 6 like to proffer the document, have it rejected, and put in
~
, 7 the rejected --
~
8 JUDGE SMITH: Well, go ahead, do that. 9 MR. FIERCE: Without the assistance of my 10 paralegal. 11 But nevertheless, since I don't have the document 12 -- 13 BY MR. FIERCE: 14 Q Dr. Adler, do you have a copy of the section of 15 the Guide for Highway Traffic Regulation in an Emergency
< 16 from which this quote comes?
17 What do you have there, the entire document? 18 A (Adler) I have in fact the entire document which 19 I think in totality describes the context of that. 20 Q How many pages is that whole document? 21 A (Adler) Well, it has a set of appendices. I 22 would say it's 50 pages in total. 23 Q Well, can we select a shorter segment that 24 contains perhaps the chapter you identified on functions, 25 equipment and personnel?
~
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
ADLER - REDIRECT 26322 1 Would that section alone give the context for that 2 quote? 3 A (Adler) I believe that plus the authorization 4 which is described in my version in Appendix H. 5 Q The authorization? 6 A (Adler) Yes, that describes the context of 7 emergency highway traffic regulation.
- 8 Q Okay.
- 9 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, perhaps we could do this ,
10 at the break. I would like to have the cover page, the 11 index, the section that Dr. Adler's quote came from and this 12 appendix that he's just referred to marked as the next Mass j 13 AG Exhibit No. which, whatever that is. 14 JUDGE COLE: That would be 1247 15 JUDGE SMITH: It's 124. 16 - MS. GREER: Yes. 17 JUDGE SMITH: And you are going to offer it? 18 MR. FIERCE: 124, and I would like that marked as 19 a Mass AG Exhibit, and I am making an offer of proof 20 understanding, Your Honor, that you've rejected this. 21 (The document referred to was 22 marked for identification as , 23 Massachusetts AG's Exhibit No. 24 124-) 2F MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, 34 it's going in, I want 4 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
b ADLER - REDIRECT 26323 1 the whole document. 2 JUDGE SMITH: It's not going in. It's being 3 rejteted. 4 Are you going to object? 5 MR. DIGNAN: No. What I wish to have done, 6 though, is that the proffer to'be and the rejection to be of 7 the entire document. B I'll tell you, frankly, why. 9 JUDGE SMITH: Well, Mr. Dignan, he can proffer a 10 dead horse if he wants to and there is nothing you can'do l l 11 about it except object. 12 MR. DIGNAN: No, you can't object to somebody 13 throwing something in the rejected exhibit file. But I 14 guess what you can do is point out to the Board that there 15 is another section that makes absolutely clear that the 16 Board's instincts were right as to whether or not the up j I 17 front was nuclear attack. 18 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, I wa5 just trying to be 19 convenient. 20 I'll proffer the whole document. l i 21 MR. DIGNAN: Thank you. 1 22 MR. FIERCE: I have no problem with that. l 23 JUDGE SMITH: Well, Mr. Fierce, as I stated, you 24 can proffer whatever, you want to. You can proffer yourself 25 into that. And if he objects, that's it. We are not going Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
ADLER - REDIRECT 26324 1 to use it in our decision. 2 MR. FIERCE: I understand that, Your Honor. This 3 is going into the rejected exhibit file. I am making it as 4 an offer of proof. 5 For the convenience of all the parties and Mr. 6 Dignan, I will proffer the whole document rather than a 7 portion of it. I have no problem with that.
- 8 (The document referred to, 9 having been previously ,
10 marked for identification 11 as Massachusetts AG Exhibit 12 No. 124 was rejected.) 13 JUDGE COLE : There are two documents. The 14 document that you ha.ve, Dr. Adler, is dated 1974? 15 THE WITNESS: (Adler) That's correct. This is a 16 guide that has been updated on a regular basis several 17 times. 18 JUDGE COLE: And Mr.' Parker has the updated 19 version. 20 MR. PARKER: Yes. 21 We have a version dated 1988. The text, I 22 believe, for this section where the quote is, is the same. . 23 But I'm not sure if the '74 version includes the total index 24 that the 1988 version would have, especially the Part 5 on l 25 evacuations for natural disasters, technological hazards and Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 l ADLER - REDIRECT 26325 1 nuclear attack which -- the quote is from Part 2.
\s - 2 Otherwise, the documents are the same, to my knowledge.
3 THE WITNESS: (Adler) I haven't specifically 4 compared the tables of contents. They are similar. 5 JUDGE SMITH: The Board reviewed enough of the 1 6 document. We thought that the quoted language spoke for l 1
*l 7 itself, but we reviewed enough of the document to see that 8 the thrust was not nuclear attack. It even places in there ,
}
9 where the effects of the nuclear attack are, you know, the 1 10 mapping of it. And we are satisfied with our ruling. 11 But you just do whatever you want to do. 12 MR. FIERCE: I know that. 13 JUDGE SMITH: You can use an old one, a new one, f 14 an in between one, anything you want.
\' l 15 MR. FIERCE: Let me just ask Dr. Adler, j 16 -
BY MR. FIERCE: 17 Q Did you ascertain that the quote also is in the 18 new version in the same fashion as it is quoted in your l 19 testimony? 20 A (Adler) That specific quote is. I didn't check 21 the whole section to see whether the rest of the section is
. 22 similar or identical.
23 0 Well -- 24 JUDGE SMITH: Your idea of doing it after lunch 25 had merit. (N Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
ADLER - REDIRECT 26326 1 1 MR. FIERCE: Why don't we decide, over the break 2 and come back to this one. But we are going to proffer one 3 of these documents. I would like to show the newer one to 4 Dr. Adler and see if he would subscribe to submitting that 5 one.
- 4 6 JUDGE SMITH: Are you still on redirect?
7 MR. FIERCE: I just have a couple of questions.
- 8 BY MR. FIERCE:
1 9 Q Dr. Adler, you indicated, with respect tc the kind ! 1 10 of training that traffic guides ought.to have, that real i 11 life experience would be a valuable component of that. 12 And I'm wondering if you could describe for us 13 whether that real life experience can be simulated in a mock 14 setup of an intersection say on a back lot of a large piece 15 of property some place. 16 - A (Adler) Certainly some elements could be 17 simulated. But the complexity of the entire operation 18 probably could not unless there was actual -- there were 19 large numbers of vehicles moving through the intersection 20 and moving through in the way that they would be moving 21 through during the early stages of an evacuation under 22 heavily congested conditions with icng traffic streams in , 23 each direction and some of the key intersections having 24 heavy amounts of conflicting flow of commuters returning 25 home. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
I-ADLER - REDIRECT 26327 1 Q And would simply a few minutes experience with O2 heavily congested real life conditions be sufficient to train a guide? ( 3 l 4 A (Adler) I believe that it should be at least an ; 5 hour or so simply to allow the individual to get some idea of the range of things that happen under those conditions.
~
6 7 Q If the assignment process that you would recommend - 8 were to be implemented such that more experienced guides 9 were assigned to the more demanding traffic posts, do you 10 have an opinion with respect to whether that would actually 11 lengthen the time that it would take to staff the posts? 12 A (Adler) I believe it certainly wouldn't shorten i 13 it. It would lengthen it, if anything. I'm not sure l t l 14 whether the individuals how have experience live closer or
15 farther away from the access posts. It's a relatively 1
16 smaller number who have that experience, and I assume that 17 staffing in the sequence of high priority and more demanding 18 posts first would necessarily mean that if you were to try I l 19 to match those posts up with the more experienced 20 individuals, that it would lengthen the time that would be j 21 required to staff the posts. l 22 MR. FIERCE: I have no further questions. 23 JUDGE SMITH: Anything further? 24 MR. PARKER: I have no questions. 25 p- s ( Heritage Reporting Corporation N (202) 628-4888
- ADLER - RECROSS 26328 1 ,
RECROSS-EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. PARKER: 3 Q Dr. Adler, regarding assignment process, are you 4 saying that there is no level of training that would make 5 one competent as a traffic guide? 6 A (Adler) No, I'm not saying that at all. 7 What I'm saying is that certainly hands on j 8 experience is a very important component of that. And 9 certainly individuals who have more experience are going to ; 1 l 10 be more competent than individuals who have less experience. l 11 There are a range of things that happen in the context of l 12 traffic operation, some of which could be observed in an 13 hour. Some of which may not be observed over a period of 14 several weeks. l 15 O But there is some level at which one could be l l 16 trained to man a congested. traffic point. l 17 A (Adler) Certainly. Yes. 18' MR. BACHMANN: I have a question, Your Honor, just 19 based on Mr. Fierce's redirect. 20 RECROSS-EXAMINATION
~
21 BY MR. BACHMANN: 22 Q This simulated congested traffic flow, Dr. Adler, ,
- 23 do you have any personal knowledge or observations of this l
24 type of simulation ever being done? 25 A (Adler) No. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
'l I
ADLER - RECROSS 26329' l
. 1 Usually simulation isn't the approach that's used 2 to train traffic guides as I understand.it. It's in the 3 field hands on. .
4 Q Well, how would one get hands on experience of 5 congested evacuee traffic flow?
~
6 A (Adler) Evacuee traffic flow, it would presumably 7 only be in the event of an emergency. But congested traffic - 8 flow is a routine assignment for state and local police 9 managing congested traffic flows after scheduled events, 10 certain in the period of time when the beaches empty in the 11 summer periods. There are many times when there is l 12 congested traffic flow, and times when individuals could be i 13 paired up with experienced traffic officers to observe f 's 14 operations and to assist with operations. 15 Q Are you suggesting that the ORO traffic guides be 16 paired up with the local police in the noncooperating ] I 17 communities? j J 18 A (Adler) I am not suggesting any specific type of 19 arrangement like that. There are certainly opportunities, 20 for example. in New Hampshire, I would assume, or in other . j 21 locations where these individuals could get experience 22 managing congested traffic flow. 23 MR. BACHMANN: No further questions. j 24 JUDGE SMITH: Anything further? 25 (No response. ) Heritage Reporting Corporation \ (202) 628-4888
ADLER - RECROSS 26330 1 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 2 (The witness was thereupon excused.) 3 4 5 i 7 *!
- l 8
9 . 10 11 12 l 13 14 j 15 16 - l 17 18 19
*\
20 l
. I 21 j 22 .
1 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26331 1 JUDGE SMITH: I thought we were going to have 2- another Adler piece? 3 .Are you going to argue Urbanik's motion? ) 4 What's going to happen now?- 5 MR. FIERCE: I thought Dr. Urbanik came next, and
~
6 before we did that we would argue that motion. And then Dr. 7 Adler would come back. a o l 8 JUDGE SMITH: Who is going to argue the motion?
\
1 ' Are you going to argue the motion, Mr. Turk? 9 10 MR. TURK: I will for the Staff, Your Honor.
. 11 JUDGE SMITH: All right.
12 Mr. Turk, we do not expect extensive argument on 13 this motion.
/' 14 MR. TURK: That's fine, Your Honor.
15 JQDGE SMITH: If you would concentrate on the 16 second item, the relevance would be the most helpful. We 17 don't need any advice on item No. 1, " Legal conclusions." i 18 And we have read and disagree with Mr. Fierce on 19 item No. 3 as to those series of questions. In some I 20 instances, mischaracterize the questions. And in any event, 21 any infirmity, if any, is remedied by his opportunity to
. 22 cross-examine.
23 So if you will focus on item No. 2, the relevancy, 24 we can move along. 25 MR. TURK: Thank you, Your Honor. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ = _ _ = _
26332 ) 1 The relevancy argument, as I see it, is -- well, 2 it's a little difficult to understand. The thrust of it { 3 seems to be that -- well, let's look at the question and 4 answer which I objected to as irrelevant. 5 The question was: "Have you reached a conclusion 6 as to whether the traffic management provisions in the SPMC , 1 7 comply with the guidance and criteria of NUREG-0654, _ 8 Appendix 4." That's question 9 at the top of page 5 of the l 9 testimony. . 10 And the conclusion is: yes. In fact, the traffic j 11 management plan does comply with the guidance and criteria 12 of Appendix 4. 13 Now, how that can be irrelevant, I don't ! 14 understand. b[f this Board is to do anything with regard to 15 traffic management, it needs to determine whether or not the 16 legal criteria have been satisfied. That's the most 17 relevant and central issue before you. l 18 If, in fact, compliance with 0654 on traffic 19 management is irrelevant, then why are we considering 20 traffic management at all? 21 JUDGE SMITH: Well that's not what he says. 22 He says, NUREG-0654 doesn't relate to traffic . 23 management. 24 MR. TURK: No, that's not correct, Your Honor. 25 In his prior objection as to legal conclusions, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
26333 1 one of the things he objected to was question and answer 7. 2 In that answer we provide for the I,oard's information 3 precisely what provisions in Appendix'4 relate to traffic 4 management. And there are two senteaces in 0654, Appendix 4 5 that do provide guidance on traffic management. 6 And the two provisions there are: number one, that 7 special traffic management plans may be developed by an - 8 applicant in order to effectively utilize available 9 capacity. That's one of the guidance criteria. 10 The second is that -- and this is also in 0654, 11 Appendix 4 -- that an applicant should provide specific 12 recommendations for actions that could be taken to 13 significantly improve evacuation time. 14 Those are the two guidance' criteria in 0654. N 15 JUDGE SMITH: Well I see more. I see, for 16 example, "The entire road network shall be used." 17 HR. TURK: That's correct. 18 JUDGE SMITH: "The local routes shall be carefully 19 selected." 20 MR. TURK: Well, that's not so much traffic -- 21 okay, I see your point, Your Honor. That is guidance as to 22 how to develop an ETE in terms of utilizing the entire road 23 network. l 24 0654 then provides that as an alternative to l 25 developing an intricate ETE special traffic management plans 'I Heritage Reporting Corporation
\~/ (202) 628-4888 l
26334 1 may be developed. 2 And this is located on pages, I believe, 4- -- 3 JUDGE SMITH: 5. 4 MR. TURK: -- 5 of Appendix 4. 5 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. 6 We have already ruled on item 3, that we just 7 simply disagree. We've read each of those questions and - 8 answers. They are straightforward traditional questions and
- 9 answers by an expert. Sometimes they have been ,
10 mischaracterized by Mr. Fierce. 11 In any event, the witness is available for cross-12 examination. 13 With respect to number one, legal conclusions, we 14 have ruled upon this many, many, many times that an expert 15 using regulations regularly in his practice of his expertise 16 may testify with respect to it. 17 In any event, NUREG-0654 is not a legal document; 18 it's a technical document for technical peaple, written by 19 technical people. 20 So the entire motion in every respect is denied. 21 MR. TURK: We're prepared to proceed at this point 22 with calling Dr. Urbanik unless Your Honor wishes to take a , 23 morning break. 24 JUDGE SMITH: I still thought that we were going 25 to see Adler all the way through. That wasn't the plan. i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
2633 1 Well, we misunderstood. k 2 MR. TURK: If I can clarify. My understanding is 3 that-because traffic management had been considered back in 4 March, the only witness who had not been heard on traffic 5 management was Dr. Urbanik. So it's my understanding that-6 we were going to finish with his piece so we can conclude 7 the traffic management portion of the case. 8 JUDGE SMITH: All right.
. 9 MR. TURK: And then go en to the ETEs.
10 JUDGE SMITH: Then this probably would be a good 11 time to take a morning break, and then we'll have Dr. 12 Urbanik. 13 15 minutes. 14 (Whereupon, a 15 minute recess was taken.) 15 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Turk? i 16 - MR. TURK: At this point the Staff calls to the 17 stand, Dr. Thomas Urbanik. 18 And, Your Honor, I note that he has appeared 19 before you before. I assume he remains sworn unless you
*i 20 care to reswear him. !
1 21 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
. 22 Whereupon, 23 THOMAS URBANIK II 24 having been previously duly sworn, was recalled as a witness 25 herein, and was examined and further testified as follows:
1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - DIRECT 26336 1 DIRECT EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. TURK: 3 0 Dr. Urbanik, I'm not sure that all of the Judges 4 on today's panel have met you before. 5 If you would, would you please state your name and 6 address and occupation? 7 A (Urbanik) My name is Thomas Urbanik II, I'm a
- 8 research engineer with the Texas Transportation Institute of 9 Texat A&M University. .
10 Q Have you prepared testimony for presentation in 11 this proceeding? 12 A (Urbanik) Yes, I have. 13 MR. TURK: At some risk to myself, Your Honor, I 14 have placed in front of the witness a document entitled, 15 " Testimony of Thomas Urbanik II on behalf of the NRC Staff 16 and Joint Intervenor Contentions 4 and 7-A (SPMC) . " Bearing 17 a date at the top of April 3rd, 1989. 18 BY MR. TURK: 19 Q Do you have that document before you, Dr. Urbanik? 20 A (Urbanik) Yes, I do. 21 Q And is this testimony that you prepared for 22 presentation in this proceeding? . 23 A (Urbanik) Yes, it is. 24 Q And have you had an opportunity to review this 25 document? Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I i URBANIK - DIRECT 26337 j J 1 A (Urbanik) Yes, I have.
\s_ 2 Q To the best of your knowledge and belief, is it i
3 true and correct? ! l 4 A (Orbanik) Yes, it is. 5 Q Do you wish to adopt it as your testimony in this 6 proceeding? 7 A (Urbanik) I do. 8 MR. TURK: Your Honor, at this point the witness 9 is available for cross-examination. i 10 (Pause) 11 MR. TURK: Let me back up for a minute. 12 I would ask that the testimony be admitted and 13 bound into the record as if read. 14 JUDGE SMITH: Do you have any additional 15 objections? 16 - MR. FIERCE: No. 17 JUDGE SMITH: The testimony is received. 18 MR, TURK: Thank you, Your Honor. 19 (Testimony of 20 Thomas Urbanik II 21 on behalf of NRC !
, 22 Staff on JI-4 and 23 7-A (SPMC) follows:)
24 25 ( Heritage Reporting Corporation l Nw (202) 628-4888 .
i
, t 4/3/89 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
( i i . In the Matter of ) l Docket Nos. 50-443 OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF 50-444 OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et g. Off-site Emergency Planning - (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
~
TESTIMONY OF THOMAS URBANIK II ON ' BEHALF 0F THE NRC STAFF ON JOINT INTERVENOR CONTENTIONS 4 AND 7A (SPMC) Q.1. Please state your name and occupation. l A.I. My name is Thomas Urbanik II. I am a Research Engineer
- i associated with the Texas Transportation Institute of the Texas A&M University System, College Station, Texas.
b
)
Q.2. Have you prepared a statement of professional qualifications? A.2. Yes. A statement of my professional qualifications is attached to my testimony filed in the t2HRERP phase of this proceeding, and is bound into the transcript following Tr. page 7372.
. Q.3. In what capacity are you testifying in this proceeding?
A.3. I am testifying on behalf of the NRC Staff, for which I serve as ! a consultant through the Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories. Batta11a is responsible under contract to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for reviewing evacuation time estimates (ETEs) for nuclear' facilities and related emergency planning issues. 1
i l Q.4. Briefly summarize your experience with emergency planning for 91 ' nuclear facilities, including Seabrook Station. ; A.4. I was principal author of NUREG/CR-1745, " Analysis of Techniques for Estimating Evacuation Times for Emergency Planning Zones" (November 1980), which described the limitations of several methodologies and some alternatives for determining evacuation time estimates. Also, I provided input to the development of the current guidance for evacuation time estimate studies which appears in Appendix 4 to NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, . Revision 1, " Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants"(November 1980). In addition, I reviewed for the NRC the initial evacuation time estimate submittals of approximately 52 operating and near ] l term nuclear facilities aga hst the guidance of NUREG-0654/ FEMA-REP-1, Revision 0 (January 1980), the results of which are published in i NUREG-CR-1856, "An Analysis of Evacuation Time Estimates Around 52 Nuclear Power Plant Sites" (May 1981). I am a co-author of the CLEAR computer i model for estimating evacuation time which is published in NUREG/CR-2504,
" CLEAR (Calculates Logical Evacuation and Response): A Generic Transpor- .;
l tation Network Model for the Calcula+. ion of Evacuation Time Estimates" . (March 1982). I also was a co-author of an independent assessment of the Seabrook Nuclear Power Station evacoation times which is published in . NUREG/CR-2903, "An Independent Assessment of Evacaation Time Estimates for a Peak Population Scenario in the Emergency Planning Zone of the Seab ook Nuclear Power Station" (November 1982). I also am a co-author of two l studies which evaluate certain aspects of the I-DYNEY computer code utilized in the current ETE for Seabrook Station: NUREG/CR-4873,
" Benchmark Study of the I-DYpr" Evacuation Time Estimate Computer Code" (June 1988); and NUREG/CR-4874, "The Sensitivity of Evacuation Time Estimates to Changes in Input Parameters for the I-DYNEY Computer Code" (June 1988). I have appeared on behalf of the NRC Staff at a number of licensing hearings, including the 1983 and 1987 Seabrook hearings 1
. concerning evacuation time estimates.
Q.5. What is the purpose of this testimony? , l A.5. The purpose of this testimony is to address the' issues raised in Joint Intervenor Contentions 4 and 7A, concerning traffic management in the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities (SPMC), with respect to portions of the Seabrook Station EPZ lying within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This testimony does not address the availability of resources necessary to implement the evacuation plan such as traffic contro1' personnel; resource availability has been reviewed by the Federal EmergencyManagementAgency(FEMA). Q.6. Have you reviewed the traffic management strategies and plan , contained in the SPMC? A.6. Yes. Traffic management strategies and plans are principally set forth in SPMC Appendix J. I have reviewed Appendix J and other i pertinent provisions'of the SPMC against the criteria and guidance l l contained in NUREG-0654, Appendix 4. ;
.i Q.7. Please identify the regulatory standard or guidance criteria against which traffic management plans are to be evaluated.
l
4 l A.7. 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix E, 5 IV, requires applicants to prepare and submit an analysis of the time required to evacuate various sectors and distances within the plume exposure pathway EPZ for transient and permanent populations. NUREG-0654, Appendix 4, provides guidance as l to what is to be included in an evacuation time estimate study and how it - might be presented. As a general matter, applicants are directed to make . a complete review of the road network; to utilize the entire road network.
- carefully selecting local routes to minimize their impact on the major routes; and to avoid depending only on high-capacity routes. Id. at 4-5.
NUREG-0654 indicates that, "[a] alternatively, special traffic management plans may be developed to effectively utilize available capacity." Id. Further, NUREG-0654 provides that "[s]pecific recommendations for actions that could be taken to" significantly improve evacuation time shall be given." Id. at 4-10.
~
\
l Q.8. What is the purpose of traffic management planning in conjunction with radiological emergency planning and preparedness? A.8. As set forth above, NUREG-0554 permits applicants to develop
~
special traffic management plans in order to effectively utilize available
~
capacity, and directs them to provide specific recommendations for actions l that could be taken to significantly improve evacuation times. In essence, then, traffic management plans provide a means to identify and plan for those actions which could be taken to significantly reduce evacuation times in the event of a radiological emergency thereby providing the lowest reasonably feasible evacuation times; in addition, the goal of traffic management is to make the most effective use of available traffic management resources.
Q.9. Have you reached a conclusion as to whether the traffic management provisions contained in the SPMC comply with the guidance.and criteria of NUREG-0654, Appendix 47 A.9. Yes. I have concluded that, as a general matter, the SPMC traffic management plan is adequate and that it complies with the guidance and criteria of NUREG-0654, Appendix 4. I have also determined, however. that certain refinements to the traffic management plan should be made, as
. set forth in detail below.
Q.10. Has the SPMC traffic management plan been properly designed? j A.10. Yes. The traffic management plan is the result of a systematic l and thorough analysis, taking into consideration all pertinent considerations. l Q.11. - Should normal rush hour traffic and beach traffic congestion i experiences be the guiding considerations in determining the deployment of traffic guides? A.11. No. Although daily traffic conditions provide insight into the , perfonnance of individual intersections, the significant controlling intersections in an evacuation may be different from the intersections
. which are most congested on a daily or summer basis. For example, traffic during the summer may be very congested in the beach area, as traffic movements may be impeded by persons looking for parking spaces, accessing or leavira businesses, or " cruising". If we consider the evacuation paths as branches, limbs, and the trunk of a tree, the critical points are l likely to be near the trunk of the tree where traffic is converging from
)
1
many areas. If we consider I-95 as the trunk, the neighborhoods and beach areas are the branches. Many alternatives exist for different branches to feed the limbs. It is generally not important to determine which branches feed into bottleneck intersections at any given point in time, as this sequence does not usually affect the overall ETE. It is more important
~
that the bottlenecks which control the efficiency of the evacuation be . identified; and these locations are generally likely to be nearer to the ( trunk than to the branches of the evacuation roadways. - Q.12. Has the SPMC appropriately considered the available road network and potential bottlenecks in developing a traffic management plan? A.12. Yes. The SPMC has conssuered fully the available road network in the Seabrook EPZ. In a roadway network like Seabrook with large numbers of evacuees, the most efficient method to identify potential bottlenecks is to use computer simulation to assess the performance of the - roadways during an evacuation. The I-DYNEV computer simulation model was used to develop the traffic management plan contained in the SPMC. Q.13. How does computer simulation relate to the development of a , traffic management plan? A.13. The computer simulation model is used to evaluate roadway - performance based on expected routes to be used in leaving the EPZ. However, the computer simulation model does not provide an answer directly on what to do in formulating a traffic management plan. Rather, the ! l Computer is a tool used to evaluate alternatives including specific
7_ O traffic management plans. The process is an iterative one in which q alternative strategies are evaluated until a final plan is developed. l Q.14. How are traffic management strategies developed? !
~
A.14. There are several steps including the identification of congested intersections, the identification of capacity enhancement measures, and the identification of secondary traffic control points. Q.15. How are congested intersections identified? A.15. Congested intersections are identified as one of the direct outputs of the traffic simulation model, l Q.16. How are capacity enhancement measures determined? A.16. There are two basic types of capacity enhancement measures that can be implemented: improved routing, and special traffic control measures. Potential routing and traffic control locations would be identifieij as a result of the initial computer simulation of the roadway system. . Q.17. Please describe how improved routing may serve as a capacity I
. enhancement measure.
A.17. Many evacuees will tend to use the most familiar or shortest route to freeways such as I-95. If everyone used this approach, however, some roadways would be underutilized. Traffic managenent plans are implemented to route some evacuees to routes which would otherwise be underutilized. For example, traffic from Plum Island may tend to access (
l I-95 from Route 113; the SPMC traffic management plan routes this traffic to Routes 1 and 1A South, to make better use of available capacity. Q.18. Please describe a special traffic control measure which could serve to enhance road capacity. A.18. A special traffic control measure could utilize two lanes of . traffic where only one is normally available. For example, in the SPMC, I two lanes of traffic are taken through Salisbury Center from Route 1A to Route 110, as shown in traffic control point (TCP) No. B-SA-06. 4 Q.19. Is it appropriate to use a large number of special traffic control measures? A.19. No. Only wh'ere there is a potentially significant impact on ETEs are special traffic control measures appropriate. One must also look at the impact on emergency vehicle traffic before implementing a special traffic control measure.
, 1 i
Q.20. In a traffic management plan, how should one determine which l locations require traffic control personnel? A.20. First priority is given to locations with capacity enhancement measures and locations that are bottlenecks. Lower priority locations are . those having significant congestion. The lowest priority locations are those locations where additional personnel may help to handle unexpected 1 contingencies, but are not otherwise needed. ' O
Q.21. How are the required number of traffic control personnel , determined? A.21. The number of traffic control personnel is determined by the l l required funetions at each location. One person per intersection is ( - I generally adequate for routing purposes. Locations with special traffic control measures could require additional personnel, based on the specific measure to be implemented. Q.22. Does the SPMC specify the use of an adequate number of traffic centrol personnel? A.22. Yes. The SPMC provides an adequate number of traffic control personnel in its traffic management plan. The number of traffic control positions (TCPs) is adequate, and was developed using an appropriate methodology. Q.23. Are there any locations in the EPZ which require additional consideration for the placement of traffic control personnel beyond that which is provided in the SPMC? , A.23. No. The SPMC traffic management plan establishes appropriate and sufficient locations for traffic control. Q.24. How are the number of traffic control devices determined? A.24. The type of traffic control determines the number of cones and other devices used. Two cones are generally enough to discourage traffic in a single 12-foot lane. More cones may be required at locations with wider pavement, such as skewed intersections or roadways with shoulders. (
Q.25. Is an adequate number of cones provided for in the SPMC? A.25. In general, the number of cones is adequate, but some locations appear to have an inadequate number of cones based on the criteria stated in A.24. Also, it may be appropriate to provide at least three cones per location to handle any contingencies that may arise. Q.26. Is the SPMC's preference for the use of cones, rather than other devices such as barricades, inappropriate? . A.26. No. The use of traffic cones is consistent with the need for rapid deployment and flexibility in planning, and is also consistent with the SPMC's objective of discouraging (but not prohibiting) vehicular passage. Q.27. Are the traffic control diagrams contained in the SPMC sufficie'ntly clear and adequate? - A.27. The traffic control diagrams are generally adequate for their intended purpose. However, some of the diagrams lack adequate detail, or are out of date. ,. Q.28. Please explain your comment with respect to these problems in the diagrams. . A.28. During a recent visit to the EPZ, I observed that while some dia-I grams reflect traffic signals, other diagrams do not; the diagrams should be revised to reflect existing traffic signals. In addition, the diagrams at many interchanges do not accurately reflect the size of traffic islands at the ramp terminals, producing an inaccurate depiction of where cones
should be placed and where traffic guides should be stationed. Finally, one diagram (TCP No. E-NP-Oli is out of date, and should be revised to reflect recent road reconstruction. Q.29. Are these diagram revisions likely to affect evacuation times?
~
A.29. No. Revisions made to reflect traffic signals and island size - would assist traffic control personnel in their duties, and are unlikely
. to affect evacuation times. With respect to the instance of road reconstruction, the only practical impact is to reduce the number of personnel required, inasmuch as the reconstruction implemented some of the traffic control measures contemplated by the SPMC.
Q.30. Does the fact that'a TCP diagram may be out of date constitute a deficiency in the plan? I A.30. - No. Emergency planning is an evolving process, and revisions i should be expected to be ongoing. Further, there will always be some l discrepancies that will have to be addressed at the time of an actual emergency. Q.31. Are there any other recommendations you wish to make with
. respect to improving the current traffic management plans?
A.31. Yes. The closing of an interstate highway is a major undertaking 1 and should be considered carefully in a traffic management plan. In this regard, certain access control diagrams and summaries should be revised.to reflect a more gradual phase-in of controi measures and advance warnings as traffic approaches Georgetown Access Control Post GT-2 (p. J.122) and l I i
Haverhill ACP No. HA-4 (p. J-134). Implementation of this recommendation 1 will require additional traffic control devices beyond those identified in these portions of the SPMC. Q.32. What effect are such revisions likely to have on evacuation times? , A.32. Improvement of these diagrams will facilitate the realization of evacuation times which have been estimated in the SPMC ETE. . 0.33. Do you agree with the assertion that an uncontrolled evacuation would be faster than a controlled evacuation under the SPMC? A.33. No. The SPMC allocates personnel and resources in an effective manner at locations necessary to assure that there will be an efficient evacuation. Such an evacuation will undoubtedly be faster than an
~
evacuation conducted without a traffic management plan. Further, even if the number of traffic control personnel and resources provided in the SPMC were to be doubled, there would be no significant effect on the ETE, since they would be deployed at non-critical locations. . Q.34 Does the SPMC traffic management plan provide appropriate consideration to the Gillis Bridge? . A.34. Yes. Route 1 is not a bottleneck location in this part of the roadway system. Intermittent operation of the bridge should cause no significant problems. O
r ( Q.35. Would making Route 1A one-way from Salisbury Beach improve the I. evacuation time? A.35. No. Some cars would be able to exit the Salisbury Beach parking area somewhat faster until the additional on-street space is filled.
- However, this would have no effect on the ETE, as downstream locations closer to I-95 control the ETE. .
Q.36. Are there adequate traffic management plans for Plum Island? A.36. Yes. The primary evacuation route -- via Plum Island Turnpike, Ocean Avenue, Rolph Lane, and Hanover St. to Route 1 South -- has four TCPs at appropriate locations. An alternative route via Route 1A also exists. These provisions are sufficient. t p ( ,/ Q.37. Is the intersection of Merrimac Street, Mosely Street and Spoffard Street a critical location relative to the need for a TCP? A.37. No. This intersection largely handles local traffic. l Q.38. Is there a need for a TCP at State and High Streets? A.38. No. This is not a major evacuation route. Q.39. Is there a need for a TCP at Low Street, Route 1, and Pond I Street? A.39. No. Route 1 is the only major evacuation route at this point. I A traffic actuated signal will accommodate any of the local traffic = entering the evacuation stream at this location.
Q.40. Is there a ne$d for additional traffic control beyond that provided in the SPMC, at the City of Newburypert High School, Anna Jacques Hospital, or other locations within the City of Newburyport? A.40. No. The points specified are local access points at non-critical locations. No bottleneck locations appear to have been omitted from consideration in the SPMC. i Q.41. Do the TCPs adequately address impedance, traffic volume, l l breakdowns, driver response, speed of approaching vehicles, and . topography. A.41. Yes. The TCPs were developed taking these factors into i consideration. As set forth above, however, further refinements should be made at two access control points along I-95. Q.42. Are more traffic control guides required to be provided in the O Town of'Amesbury than are specified in the SPMC? A.42. No. Numerous locations have been suggested for designation as TCP locations by the Town of Amesbury, including the intersections of Friend and Sparhawk, Route 110 and Rocky Hill, Friend and Main, Friend and .. School, Whitehall and Friend, Friend and Highland, Pond and Friend, Pond and High, Greenleaf and Friend, High and Whitehall, Congress and Elm, Monroe and Elm, and Highland and Route 110. However, these intersections reflect locations that are not critical in terms of controlling evacuation times, and need not be designated for traffic control. l l O
Is it necessary that traffic guides be familiar with local areas 7 (v/ Q.43. j in order for the traffic management plan to be effective? A.43. No. The TCP diagrams provide the information necessary to implement the evacuation strategy. It should be remembered that
- evacuation traffic is not typical of normal traffic patterns, and normal experience is therefore not a controlling consideration. ,
Q.44. Are TCPs required at Route 286 where it intersects with South Main, Adams, and Washington, or at the intersection of Seabrook Road and Forest Road? A.44 No. These three intersections of Route 286 are intersections with local streets. Alternative local routes exist which can be used to l evacuate the area, and are likely to be used by local residents. Access V to Route 286 is possible in any event, due to the slow moving traffic ! which may be anticipated to be present. The intersection of Seabrook Road 1 and Forest Road involves two local roads with limited traffic volumes, and similarly does not require a TCP. Q.45. Is there a need for TCPs at Page School driveways and Route 113, Stewart Street and Route 113, Childrens Castle driveways and Route 113, Bridge Street and Route 113, Coffin Street and Route 113, Garden Street and Route 113. Crane Neck Road and 113, or any other locations in the Town of West Newbury? A.45. No. These West Newbury locations are not major evacuation . routes requiring traffic control positions, and many local evacuation (') V route alternatives exist.
Q.46. Is parking for traffic guides a problem? A.46. No. Traffic guides are instructed to park out of the traffic flow. Many alternatives exist depending on the location, including side i streets and off-street parking areas. Q.47. Are you familiar with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control -
~
Devices (MUTCD)? ! A.47. Yes. The MUTCD is the standard reference for traffic engineers , with respect to the design and installation of traffic signs, signals and markings. Q.48. Is the traffic management plan contained in the SPMC consistent with the MUTCD? A.48. The SPMC traffic management plan is generally consistent with the MUT00, except to the extent discussed above concerning two access control points on I-95. Q.49. What is the significance of the concept, " fulfill a need," as used in the MUTCD?
~
A.49. This concept provides that traffic control devices should only be installed if necessary; the overuse of traffic control devices is , considered to be counterproductive. Q.50. Is the SPMC traffic management plan consistent with this concept? A.50. Yes.
Q.51. Does the SPMC traffic management plan comply with the need to i 1
" command attention," as indicated in the MUTCD? l s
A.51. Yes. The traffic guides will be wearing safety vests and will be equipped with flashlights. No further special designation of traffic guides is required. l Q.52. As used in the MUTCD, please explain the statement that devices t should " convey a simple meaning". A.52. The MUTCD indicates that traffic control devices should Wnvey a )
)
simple meaning. Traffic control devices use standard shapes, colors and words (or symbols) to convey messages. Traffic cones are devices that i convey a simple meaning. ) O Q.53. Does the SPMC traffic management plan designate traffic control devices consistent with this philsophy? A.53. Yes. ! Q.54. How do traffic engineers attempt to convey respect for traffic .1 control devices and personnel, consistent with the MUTCD? l A.54. The most important concept is to comply with the basic principles of traffic engineering. This has certianly been done in the SPMC development of the traffic management plan. In addition, the deployment of standard traffic control devices and the wearing of special safety vests by traffic guides, assists in commanding the respect of motorists. i
Q.55. Are the number of traffic control points designated in the portion of the EPZ Massachusetts adequate to make effective use of available roadways? A.55. Yes. Traffic control points are provided at critical locations I where capacity enhancement can provide significant benefits. There are , only a limited number of points where such activities are appropriate. In . addition, many additional traffic control points are provided to handle ; contingencies such as accidents. In other words, the SPMC provides more
*rafic cortrol points than are actually required, based on capacity enhancement needs and the desire to handle contingencies.
Q.56. Does the SPMC traffic management plan take advantage of available opportunities to reduce evacuation times to as great an excent as is reasonably feasible? A.56. , Yes. Q.57. Does the SPMC utilize appropriate and sufficient capacity enhancing measures and other traffic control strategies? A.57. Yes. The SPMC has identified those actions that could significantly improve evacuation times, consistent with NUREG-0654, . Appendix 4. Q.58. What is your conclusion regarding the SPMC traffic management plan? A.58. The SPMC traffic management plan was developed in a systematic manner using sound traffic engineering principles, and is generally 9
. =
- j I
. t consistent with the guidance of NUREG-0654, Appendix 4. Some additional j
~!
refinement of the plan is necessary, as set forth in A.28 and A.31 above,
. but the required changes can easily be made.
I I 6 . o e e e 1 I l a
. .l i
2 e d
'l 1
. . - . . . . . . . . .. . , . . . .. .~ - . . _ . . . . - . . _ . . . - . . . . . . . . . - . . . .
i URBANIK - DIRECT 26338 1 MR. TURK: I would also like to take an 2 opportunity, Your Honor, in light of the fact that the other 3 traffic management testimony was presented several months 4 ago, to go through this testimony very briefly and indicate, 5 in general terms, what the testimony states.
~
~
6 Your Honor may recall that there were numerous 7 contentions submitted by various local towns in which they
- 8 contended that additional intersections were required to be 9 staffed with traffic control personnel in order to satisfy ,
10 their view of what an adequate traffic management plan would 11 contain. 12 Now, part of Dr. Urbanik's testimony considers the 13 traffic control posts that are assigned by the SPMC traffic 14 mant.gement plan. And he concludes that those posts are 15 adequate. That no additional posts need t provided for. 16 - In addition to that, Dr. Urbanik proceeds through 17 his testimony to indicate what the relevant standards are in 18 NUREG-0654, Appendix 4, which we discussed briefly this 19 morning with respect to the Mass AG's motion in limine. 20 As I indicated, then there are essentially two l
. J 21 criteria that govern the evaluation of traffic management 22 plans. One is whether or not the plans make effective use ,
23 of all available capacity on the roadways. 24 And the second standard is whether the plan has l 25 identified specific actions that may be taken in order to Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 , 1
]
URBANIK - DIRECT 26339 ) 1 achieve the most reasonably prompt evacuation times. I ) ( j 2 Dr. Urbanik has reviewed the traffic management 3 plan with respect to those two criteria and has concluded j 4 that those criteria are satisfied. l l 5 He also goes on in his testimony to address other ! 6 specific assertions made in contentions which are before you ) 7 concerning traffic management. 8 He does note that there are certain revisions that i 9 should be made to the traffic management plans. These have l I 10 to do with what he suggests is a need for additional traffic 11 cones, beyond that which is specified in the different 12 diagrams in the traffic managvment plan. 13 He identifies certain diagrams in the plan that l
,S , 14 should be revised. And he identifies a need for more l
_- 15 gradual phase of traffic control at two exit points on 16 I-95. , i 17 And, Your Honor, the testimony does go on at some 18 length beyond those points, but those are what I believe to 19 be the central themes and thrusts of the testimony before 20 you. 21 With that, Your Honor, the witness is available 22 for cross-examination. 23 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Fierce? 24 MR. FIERCE: Thank you, Your Honor. 25 [ Heritage Reporting Corporation
\ _/
s (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - CROSS 26340 1 CROSS-EXAMINATION 2 BY MR. FIERCE: 3 Q Good morning, Dr. Urbanik. 4 I just wondered if there had been any changes to 5 your resume since we last had you on the witness stand -l 6 testifying up in the New Hampshire proceedings, since I 7 don't see a new resume that has been provided for you now? -
~
8 A (Urbanik) Well, certainly there are things that - 9 have' transpired since then. I don't even have a copy of l l 10 that with me, so it would be kind of hard update it. 11 Q Are you in the same position you were in then? 12 A (Urbanik) Yes, I am. 13 Q Doing the same kind of work you were doing that 14 you described for us in New Hampshire? 15 A (Urbanik) Well conceptually, but the nature of ) 16 research in that we don't repeat a lot of things; we're l 17 always doing new things. As time goes on we're working on 18 new and different projects. 19 Q The testimony indicates that you're working under 20 a contract that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has with
~
l 21 Battello Pacific Northwest Laboratories. ! 22 Can you tell us what the terms of that contract 23 are? 24 A (Urbanik) Essentially our support to the NRC 25 Staff for anything related to evacuation time estimate Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - CROSS 26341 1 studies and licensing of plants. () 2 Q You are to provide support to the NRC Staff? 3 A (Urbanik) Right.
~
4 The NRC Staff has no technical capability in this 5 area. 6 Q Does that contract have any particular terms or 7 conditions with respect to ETE studies? 8 MR. TURK: Your Honor, I'm going to object. I l 9 think the testimony itself indicates that Dr. Urbanik is a i 10 consultant to the Staff through this contract. Obviously, I 11 he is a consultant to us for evacuation time estimate 12 studies. 13 I don't see the relevance or the meaningfulness of j s 14 this line of inquiry. I
\,,/ 15 JUDGE SMITH: I see the relevance, but I don't 16 know why he's repeating what's already in the direct 17 testimony.
18 MR. FIERCE: Well, I'm asking specifically about 19 the terms of the contract with respect to reviewing ETE 20 studies.
~
21 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) I didn't understand your 22 last question, so you're going to have +o -- 23 JUDGE SMITH: Do you have anything in mind? 24 MR. FIERCE: What specifically does it -- 25 JUDGE SMITH: Is this discovery or do you have a [^ Heritage Reporting Corporation
\ (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - CROSS 26342 1 purpose in mind? 2 MR. FIERCE: I have a purpose in mind, yes. 3 JUDGE SMITH: Could you be more specific as to the 4 question. 5 MR. FIERCE: Okay. 6 BY MR. FIERCE: 7 Q Does the contract ask that you review ETE studies - 8 in any particular way? 9 A (Urbanik) I don't believe so in terms of -- the 10 contract is pretty general in terms of providing technical 11 assistance. 12 I mean, I've been involved in this process since 1 l 13 the guidance was drafted. So, you know, I am the NRC's 14 technical expert in this area. i 15 Q The contract does not mention the term " traffic I l 16 management plan," does it? 17 MR. TURK: Do you have a copy of the contract, Mr. 18 Fierce? 19 MR. FIERCE: I don't have a copy of the contract. 20 MR. TURK: Well, Your Honor, the witness has 21 already indicated that he doesn't have a recall at this time 22 of what the exact provisions in the contract are. So unless . 23 someone is going to provide the contract, I don't see where 24 we're going to go in terms of a meaningful record. 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - CROSS 26343 1 BY MR. FIERCE: 2 Q Does the contract mention traffic management 3 plans? 4 A (Urbanik) I couldn't answer that specifically. 5 The contract is very general in nature and is not 6 very long in terms of details. Whether the word " traffic 7 management" is or isn't in it, I can't do that off of o .
. 8. recall.
9 10 11 12 13 14 l \, 15 16 - 17 18 19 20 21 - 22 6
'23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - CROSS 26344 l 1 Q Are you currently reviewing other traffic ' 2 management plans for the NRC? 3 MR. TURK: " Currently" meaning today as he sits 4 here? 5 MR. FIERCE: No. Not today as he sits here, Mr. 6 Turk. I mean, we can make it a long cross-examination if . l 7 you would like. *i
. I 8 Currently, is that part of his ongoing activities?
9 MR. TURK: Well, why don't you ask if he's ever I 10 done it. 11 MR. FIERCE: I'm asking is he currently reviewing 12 traffic management plans for the NRC. 1 i 13 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) Well, I'm currently 14 reviewing Seabrook. ' 1 15 MR. FIERCE: Okay. ' 16 - BY MR. FIERCE: 17 O Are you reviewing any 7ther traffic management 18 plans? 19 MR. TURK: Currently. j 20 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) Currently as in? 3 21 MR. TURK: Today. 22 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) Today. . 23 No. 24 BY MR. FIERCE: 25 Q During your ongoing work efforts over the last few Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ! l 4 _____---_.-___-N
URBANIK - CROSS 26345 1 weeks or months?
/ 2 A (Urbanik) Over the last few months, I have also i 3 reviewed Zion. Prior to that, some work on Shoreham. ;
i 4 I don't know how many months is a few months. ; 5 Q Traffic management plan work at Zion and at 6 Shoreham; is that correct? 7 A (Urbanik) Well, traffic management is a part'of 8 every evacuation time estimate study. So whenever I review 9 a traffic, or review an evacuation time estimate study, 1 10 traffic management plans are a part of that. 11 Q So it comes in as a subsidiary part of your work l l 12 in reviewing traffic management plans; is that correct? l 13 A (Urbanik) An integral part would probably be a . 14 better characterization. ! 15 O When you review traffic management plans as part 16 of your work, an integral part of your work in doing ETE 17 studies, what standards and criteria do you personally apply I l 18 in looking at them in order to make your judgments? 19 MR. TURK: Going beyond what's in the 0654 20 guidance? 21 MR. FIERCE: That's right. l l l 22 (Pause . ) 1-l 23 BY MR. FIERCE: i 24 Q No. " Including". 25 What are the standards that you apply? Herita.ge Reporting Corporation s (202) 628-4888 __li_.____________.____________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _
1 URBANIK - CROSS 26346 Well, the standards are delineated in i 1 A (Urbanik) 2 my testimony in regards to NUREG-0654, Appendix 4, which is 3 the operative guidance for evacuation time estimate studies 4 which include traffic management plans. ] 1 5 In addition to that, I bring, you know, 15 or more 1 years of teaching, research and preactical traffic ) 6 7 engineering, including traffic management expertise to the -l 8 problem. 9 Q But are there any other standards, guidelines, . 10 criteria, rules of thumb that you apply when you are j j 11 assessing a traffic management plan, either this one or the 12 one at Zion or the one at Shoreham? . l 13 A (Urbanik) Well, certainly within that context 14 there are rules of thumb and everything. But it's part of 4 15 my profession. I don't think there is a unique aspect in l 16 the sense of special rules that were developed exclusively 17 within this domain. It's part of the transportation 18 engineering expertise with certain obvious unique aspects 19 for these types of emergencies. l 20 Q Well, why don't we ask you how you went about the l . 21 process of reviewing this traffic management plan? 22 A (Urbanik) Well, we start with the evacuation time , 23 estimate study, the methodology 1 ,d assumptions that go into 24 that, how they develop that, what problem locations are 1 25 identified as a result of that process, and then looking at Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
I i URBANIK - CROSS 26347 1 the traffic management' plans that emanate from that. 2 The process is an iterative one. It's not one 3 that, you know, like designing a beam where we know all the i 4 things going in and we design it and we' re done. The i 5 process is iterative. l 6 So there is no one magical answer. I mean if I 7 were given the same assignment, the traffic management plan -] I 8 might look somewhat different. But there are only a limited ] l 9 number of critical locations in terms of where certain types j 10 of control such as capacity enhancement would be applied. 11 So it's really a review function. I didn't 12 develop the plan. I looked for good, sound principles and 13 their application. That's what I saw in reviewing it. l
. l r~ 14 Q Well, what did you attrt with in your review 15 process? ]
16 - Did you have the I-DYNEV model and take a look at 17 how traffic was interacting over time and at particular 18 intersections? ; 19 A (Urbanik) No. It goes back probably eight years 20 when I first got involved.in this process and where we did 21 our own independent studies and developed our own j 22 understanding and knowledge of this particular emergency 23 planning zone. 24 So all that is part of an ongoing data base and a 25 refinement. The process, you know, didn't start in recent O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
~ -- --
R URBANIK - CROSS 26348 I 1 time. It's been ongoing. 2 So I bring to it my knowledge developed 3 independently and then with a good understanding of the EPZ, 4 the critical roadways, I then evaluate what we found and 5 what we saw against what the Applicant developed and found l 6 and recommended for implementation and found that basically
- l 7 we are in substantial agreement as to where the bottlenecks 8 are, what kind of capacity enhancement techniques you would -
9 use. So it's e very long and drawn out process that this . 10 has all gone through. 11 Q How long was this process with respect to the 12 diagrams in Appendix J7 13 MR. TURK: Objection to form. 14 BY MR. FIERCE: 15 Q Well, let me take you back to that process, Dr. 16 1rbanik. 17 You say it's a long, drawn out process of 18 comparing what you had found with what they have used. 19 Is that correct? 20 A (Urbanik) No , I don't think I said that. 21 Q I'm trying to understand how you went about the 22 process, and I'm trying to get some specific information. . 23 Did you take a look at the traffic v'.nagement plan l 24 diagram for specific intersections in Appe.. dix J and compare 25 them with how earlier studies had designed those specific l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 9i j
URBANIK - CROSS 26349 1 intersections? 2 A (Urbanik) .Yes, I did.
-3 Q And how long did that process take you?
4 MR. TURK: The process of comparing diagram to 5 diagram? 6 What's the question? 7 MR. FIERCE: The process he just described, Nc. - 8 Turk. 9 JUDGE SMITH: I would understand the question to 10 be the process of comparing diagrams with earlier versions 11 of the same situation depicted. 12 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) That would be over a 13 period of a couple of weeks. That particular exercise is 14 not particularly difficult given that you have to understand O 15 that I already have great familiarity with the EPZ. So it's 16 not a process. You have to take credit for all the time l 17 that's been involved in the process, and having understood 18 what's going an there to begin with. 19 BY MR. FIERCE: 20 Q Are you saying that that was not the critical. 21 element in the process for you, the comparison of.the SPMC 22 diagrams with the older diagrams? 23 JUDGE SMITH: He was never asked if it was a 24 critical element. He was just simply asked for one of the 25 things. O I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
j URBANIK - CROSS 26350 1 BY MR. FIERCE: 2 Q Well, I gather from the way you gave your answer 3 perhaps as much as from the words that you didn't think that 4 that process was the particularly critical one. l 5 Is that correct? 6 MR. TURK: "The" particularly critical one. 7 MR. FIERCE: Yes. 8 MR. TURK: I don't know that we have identified 9 that there was any particularly critical one. , 10 JUDGE SMITH: Your cross-examination has at least 11 two members of the Board wondering, and apparently Mr. Turk. 12 MR. FIERCE: All I am trying to do, Your Honor, is 13 to get this witness to identify -- 14 JUbGE SMITH: It may very well be, Mr. Fierce, but 15 I'm telling you that you have two members of the Board who 16 have to decide the facts who don't know what you are doing. 17 MR. FIERCE: I'm trying to find out.what he did I i 18 and he won't tell me. I 19 JUDGE SMITH: Ask an appropriate question and you 20 will get an appropriate answer, or move on. j 21 BY MR. FIERCE: 22 O Specifically step by step, what did you do to , 23 review the traffic management plan for Seabrook after you 24 were instructed through the contract with Battelle this time 25 to do so? Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 j
URBANIK - CROSS 26351 l 1 MR. TURK: Objection to form, Your Honor. There ' g 2 is no -- 3 MR. FIERCE: I don't want to know -- l 4 JUDGE SMITH: Sustained. l l 5 MR. FIERCE: I don't want tu tsow what he did over l 6 nine years. I want to know what he did to prepare this 7 testimony in revieuing the SPMC's traffic management plan. 8 And I'm trying to find out specifically what he did. < 9 JUDGE SMITH: What did you do in preparation for i
- l 10 this testimony?
11 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) Am I to proceed? 12 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, please. 1 13 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) Well, essentially I got ! i 14 the docunient and other documents. I made a trip to 7 ~s ' ( 15 s_/ Washington to meet with Staff to review a number of ! 16 documents that they had. There is many appendices in this 17 process. Reviewed a number of them to make sure there 18 weren't others that might be relevant to what I needed to 19 know. l 20 I read and reviewed this document, compared this 21 traffic management plan with the previous -- well, I guess 22 it's not previous -- also, the New Hampshire plan to see 23 wha'e kinds of changes were made in th< traffic management 24 regarding Massachusetts. 25 I made a trip to the EPZ to rs 4ew the traffic [ Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
URBANIK - CROSS 26352 1 diagrams that are in here with what's actually existing in 2 the field to see whether or not they accurately represented 3 what was going on. I did that in the context of having read 4 all of the contentions and the specific locations that were 5 identified by the various police chiefs and others as being 6 possible problem locations. I reviewed those in the field.
- 7 And then I you know,- after doing that, returned to
- 8 the office and started working on my testimony.
9 l ! 10 11 l 12 13 14 15 16 - 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L_______=_____=_____________........
URBANIK - CROSS 26353 MR. TURK: Your Honor, just so the record is 2 clear, Dr. Urbanik was referring to the fact that he had I 3 reviewed this document. I noted at that time that he was 4 looking at Appendix J to the SPMC which is the traffic 5 management plan. i 6 And also, he said he reviewed the diagrams in
~
7 here. When he made that statement he again was referring to -
~
8 Appendix J. 9 BY MR. FIERCE: 10 Q Did you also make a reference to volume 6 of the 11 New Hampshire plans, Dr. Urbanik? 12 A (Urbanik) Yes, I did. 13 Q. So you compared the Appendix 6 diagrams with the 14 diagrams in the New Hampshire -- Volume 6 of the New 15 Hampshire Radiological Emergency. Response Plan; correct? 16 - A (Urbanik)- Yes, I did. In a general sort of way. 17 Q I didn't hear you may that you reviewed the. 1 18 diagrams from earlier studies? 19 MR. TURK: Earlier Massachusetts studies? 20 BY MR. FIERCE: 21 Q Earlier studies for Seabrook? 22 A (Urbanik) No, I don't know that I specifically l 23 reviewed documents from other studies in terms of traffic I 24 diagrams. . 25 Q Did you conduct any I-DYNEV runs in the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
-__=_.
~ ~ -- - - ~
URBANIK - CROSS 26354 1 preparation of this testimony? 2 A (Urbanik) No , sir. 3 Q When you met with the NRC Staff did they ever tell 4 you, in sum or substance, that they would like you to review 5 the contentions in the traffic management plan in order to 6 assist them in defeating the contentions in the litigation 7 over the SPMC? 8 MR. TURK: Objection. Well, I should note that I ) 9 don't care about whatever answer may come out, but I object, 10 Your Honor, because I think it gets into attorney / client 11 privilege as well as attorney work product. 12 MR. FIERCE: We've received many questions to our i 13 witnesses of this similar nature, Your Honor, and it goes to 14 what it ir -- < 15 JUDGE SMITH: Overruled. i 16 - MR. TURK: Could we have the question again. 17 (Whereupon, the Reporter played back the pending 18 question.) 19 JUDGE SMITH: You may answer, please. 20 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) Oh , I'm sorry, I got 21 confused there. 22 I have never been told in any manner, shape, or , 23 form what to do regarding evacuation time estimate studies. 24 I have been totally given complete freedom in direction and 25 in no case have I ever been told to lean one way or another Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
3 URBANIK - CROSS 26355 l 1 regarding anything, period, at any site in the United ( 2 States, j 3 BY MR. FIERCE: I 4 Q What was it they told you to do at that meeting, 5 if anything? 6 MR. TURK: Your Honor, do I dare make the 7 objection again? 8 JUDGE SMITH: I think you may now. 9 MR. TURK: Then I do. 10 JUDGE SMITH: Sustained, i 11 BY MR. FIERCE: 12 Q When you met with the NRC Staff who were you 13 meeting with?
-g 14 A (Urbanik) Principally with Legal Staff, but I '
(ss 15 believe also at that meeting Falk Kantor from -- whatever { 16 that branch is in emergency planning -- did come by and we l 17 chatted about what's going on. I 18 But essentially, yo'2 know, I'm just instructed -- 19 given the contentions and asked to prepare testimony. I'm 20 not instructed in any way what to conclude or how to do my 21 analysis, i l 1 22 Q Were there any recommendations with respect to the 23 SPMC's traffic management plan that you have made to the I I 24 Staff that are not incorporated in your testimony? 25 A (Urbanik) Absolutely not. [ Beritage Reporting Corporation ( (202) 628-4888 l l
.l______ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _ _ . . _. _____ _ _ _ . _ _ I_Y ' ~~' ' '~'
1 1 1 l URBANIK - CROSS 26356 1 Q Did you write this testimony by yourself? 2 A (Urbanik) The testimony represents my thoughts 9l i 3 with the assistance of my Legal Staff. 4 Q Your Legal Staff or the NRC Legal Staff? 5 A (Urbanik) Well, I'm here on behalf of the NRC, so 6 the NRC's Legal Staff. 7 Q Did they write the questions and you write the ! 8 answers, is that how it worked? 9 A (Urbanik) For the most part I write the questions , i I 10 and the answers; and then, in terms of clarification, 11 amplification they tend to extract more details out of me. 12 I'm a rather brief individual, as you may or may not notice, 13 and so they often ask for clarification and amplification of 14 what I'm putting in there. They may suggest a particular 15 line to further amplify what's going on. And they may ask 16 questions when they're confused. 17 JUDGE SMITH: Is that all? 18 MR. TURK: No, Your Honor. 19 (Laughter) 20 MR. DIGNAN: That's most of the questions. 21 BY MR. FIERCE: 22 Q Now, in your testimony in answer 17 you indicate . 23 that an example -- you offer an example of what an approved 24 routing strategy does. And you used as the example the j 25 traffic coming off of Plum Island, which you say may tend to l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - CROSS 26357 1 access I-95 from Route 113; is that correct? 2 A (Urbanik) Yes. 3 Q And the traffic management plan routes this 4 traffic south on Routes -- two routes, 1 and 1-A south; is 5 that correct? 6 A (Urbanik) Yes. 7 O And you believe that Plum Island traffic would 8 normally access I-95 at Route 113; correct? 9 MR. TURK: Well, the testimony says, "It may tend 10 to access I-95 from Route 113." 11 . BY MR. FIERCE: 12 Q Does a significant portion of the Plum Island 13 access I-95 from Route 1137 14 MR. TURK: Under normal conditions. l O' t 15 BY MR. FIERCE: 16 - Q Under normal conditions? 17 Beach conditions, beach weekend conditions? 18 A (Urbanik) I don't specifically know the answer to 19 that. 20 Q Do you have familiarity with the traffic routing 21 patterns that normally occur on summer beach weekends of the 22 traffic coming off of Plum Island? 23 A (Urbanik) I haven't studied Plum Island in any 24 great depth; no. 25 Q Have you studied the normal traffic routing I l /' \ Heritage Reporting Corporation
\ (202) 628-4888 i
i URBANIK - CROSS 26358 1 patterns of summer weekend beach traffic coming off of 2 Salisbury Beach? 3 A (Urbanik) Yes. 4 Q Where does that traffic normally go when it gets 5 to Salisbury Square? 6 A (Urbanik) It continues on 110 toward I-95 and
- 7 495.
- 8 Q Isn't there a significant amount of traffic that 9 both turns to the north on Route 1 and to the south on Route 10 1 at that intersection?
11 A (Urbanik) Well, there's some of that, too, yes. 12 You know, it's hard without stopping people on the 13 road and asking them who they are and where they're going 14 and coming from to know exactly who is who in each of the 15 vehicles. So you have to only -- you're only able, as a 16 causal observer, to make some generalizations in terms of 17 large flows. 18 Causal shouldn't be -- causal is a bad choice of 19 terms. 20 Q Are you familiar with the normal local traffic 21 patterns that exist during weekdays in the six Massachusetts 22 EPZ towns? 23 MR. TURK: I'm going to object to the form in that 24 the question asks about the local traffic patterns without 25 identifying what it is he is looking for. Traffic going on Beritage Reporting Corporation . (202) 628-4888
=
l i URBANIK - CROSS 26359. j _, 1 to I-95 or simply shoppers going to the shopping mall or 1 , [t 2 what? 3 JUDGE SMITH: I thought it was clear enough. 1 4 The question is: does the witness understand it? 5 MR. FIERCE: I only wanted'to make the distinction ; 1 6- of not the beach areas now, but the locc1 traffic patterns .
-l 7 in the six communities off the beaches.during weekdays.
8 MR. TURK: With respect to accessing I-957 l 9 MR. FIERCE: No. i 10 BY MR. FIERCE: 11 Q Just generally where those traffic patterns and 12 heavy traffic flows are and at what times of day? 1 1 l 13 A (Urbanik) I don't purport to know the details of 14 many of the local traffic movements and do not believe they 15 are particularly important to developing an effective. 16 evacuation plan. l 17 Q On the answer to question number 6 - in answer 6 18 on page 3 of your testimony you say: " Traffic management .j 19 st Ttegies and plans are principally set forth in the SPMC's 20 Appendix J." 21 I'm curious where else they might be set forth? 22 (Pause) 23 BY MR. FIERCE: 4 j 24 Q Is there another place? , 25 I thought they were in Appendix J. *{ i l Heritage Reporting Corporation ' (202) 628-1888 l
URBANIK - CROSS 26360 1 (Witness reviewing document.) 2 A (Urbanik) Of course, we're only looking here at 3 the Massachusetts portion of the EPZ, but there are other 4 traffic management plans in the New Hampshire document. 5 Q But with respect to the SPMC's traffic management 6 strategies and plans, they are contained in Appendix J, I 7 agree with you there. 'But it's the word " principally" that 8 threw me, which seemed to imply that you thought, perhaps, 9 there were strategies that were set forth in other parts of . l 10 the plan as well. l 11 Is that true? 12 A (Urbanik) Well, certainly some of the things l 13 like, I believe some of the tow truck material is elsewhere, 14 is it not? l 15 Q Oh, okay. 16 - So that's what you were referring to? 17 MR. TURK: As an example? ! l 18 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) As an example, yes. 19 I mean, principally that's where they are. But 20 there are other things that are hanging out there like the 21 tow trucks and that's the only one that comes to mind at the 22 moment. . 23 Radio communications, all the other things that 24 are part of the plan are elsewhere. l 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation ' (202) 628-4888 ( L_ -_ _ _
)
URBANIK - CROSS 26361 , I BY MR. FIERCE:- i,
-s 1
( 2 Q Now the next sentence in answer 6 you say: "You've ; l 3 reviewed Appendix J and other pertinent provisions of the 4 SPMC against the criteria and guidance contained in 1 5 NUREG-0654, Appendix 4." l 6 First, just again to clarify, the-other pertinent ) 7 provisions are those provisions you're referring to now 'i 8 about tow trucks? l l 9 A (Urbanik) Yes, sir. 10 MR. TURK: As examples. 11 BY MR. FIERCE: 12 Q Well, if you can think of anything else, I would 13 appreciate it, besides tow trucks? 1 14 Is there anything else that-is a pertinent 0 l 15 provision you reviewed against these criteria and guidance? l 16 - A (Urbanik) Well, I -- 17 (Pause) ; l THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) 18 I would have to look i 19 through all of the appendices to do a census. I'm trying to , I 20 recall and not very well. 21 BY MR. FIERCE: 22 Q Did you review the assignment process for the 23 traffic guides? 24 A (Urbanik) There is a list of how the stations are ; 25 manned; ras, I reviewed that. Heritage Reporting Corporation Os (202) 628-4888
i URBANIK - CROSS 26362 1 Q Did you ever review a list of the staffing times 2 of the traffic control posts during the graded exercise? 3 A (Urbanik) I've seen those numbers; yes. 4 Q Now, your reference here to NUREG-0654 and 5 specifically to Appendix 4, that is an appendix, is it not, 6 Dr. Urbanik, which pertains directly to evacuation time 7 studies, is it not? , 8 MR. TURK: As opposed to traffic management? 1 9 BY MR. FIERCE: . 10 0 Its direct application is to evacuation time 11 studies, is it not? 12 A (Urbanik) Yes, it is with the understanding that 13 traffic management is a part of evacuation time studies. 14 Q We51, in the section that you had referred to 15 earlier on page 4-5, traffic capacities need to be taken 16 into account, section 3 of Appendix 4. 1 *i I'm sorry, I thought you had a copy. I'll wait. 18 (Document proffered to witness by NRC counsel.) I 19 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) Would you give me the I 20 citation now? ! 21 BY MR. FIERCE: 22 0 on page 4-5 there is a -- the beginning of section . 23 3 labeled " Traffic capacity," which you had referred to i 24 earlier as containing some language pertinent to traffic 25 management plans; is that correct? l l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
- _ ___-__.-__.-.---_____A
i URBANIK'- CROSS 26363' 1- A (Urbanik) Yes, sir.
.( 2 Q Can you specifically identify which sentence here 3 it.is that you're referring to? ;
4 MR. TURK: Well, it's quoted verbatim in the )
~
5 testimony. I 6 MR. FIERCE: Is it? I l 7 "i
. i 8
9 j 10 .l n 11 ; 12-13 14 .] 15 i 16 -
)
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
-25 Heritags Reporting Corporation \ (202)' 628-4888 ~
-vr.
URBANIK - CROSS 26364 1 1(R . TURK: Page 4 of the testimony, Answer 7. 2 BY MR. FIERCE:. 3 Q Well, in Answer 7, you say, NUREG-0654, Appendix ) 4 4, provides guidance as to what is to be included in an 5 evacuation time study. And I don't have any problem with ) 6 that. 7 You say, "As a general matter, Applicants are 8 directed to make a complete review of the road network." 9 That's for the evacuation time study, correct? . 10 A (Urbanik) Right. 11 But you seem to be confused by the separateness of 12 the documents. And the guidance was never put together in a 13 way that doesn't allow some flexibility in presentation of 14 material. And you can't do the ETE study without the 15 traffic management. 16 - And so it's an iterative process, and it's all 17 integral. The fact that it's a separate document doesn't 18 make it separate. 1 19 Q Well, I understand that you have to have a plan in 20 order to conduct your ETE study. You have to know where the 21 cars are going in order to calculate the times. 22 But I'm still unclear what it is about this . 23 particular paragraph on the introductory section here of 24 Part III or Section III of this that gives guidance as to 25 how that traffic management plan is to be developed. Heritage Reporting Corporation me2, e2 ..... 1
URBANIK - CROSS 26365 1 I do see t'he language that describes what -- in 2 the body of the paragraph at the time and through the middle 3 which describes essentially assessing the road network if 4 one -pes not have a special traffic management plan. But 5 apparently the cars would bo traveling, without a special 6 plan, in the routes that would be available to them to 7 travel without any modifications to the roadway, correct? - \ . l 8 MR. TURK: Your Honor, I'm going to object. I l l 9 think NUREG-0654 speaks for itself. l 10 If the question is simply is specific guidance 11 given in 0654 for developing traffic management plan, I have 12 no objection. 13 MR. FIERCE: He says it is, and I'm trying to 14 explore that with him, because I don't understand it. 15 MR. TURK: He says what? 16 - MR. FIERCE: He says there is guidance here for 17 traffic management plans. 18 BY MR. FIERCE: 19 Q Correct, Doctor? 20 MR. TURK: The document speaks for itself. 21 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) Could you -- 22 MR. TURK: I object, Your Honor. 23 JUDGE SMITH: Would you refer to the specific 24 language in his testimony? 25 MR. FIERCE: Well, he says, in Questions 6, he's Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - CROSS 26366 1 reviewed th'e traffic management strategies in Appendix J and 2 other pertinent provisions of the SPMC against the critoria 3 and guidance contained in NUREG-0654, Appendix 4. 4 And the next question aska what is that itandard 5 guidance against which traffic management plans are to be 6 evaluated. 7 And now he points us to, if you read the ne::t 8 answer -- 9 JUDGE SMITH: Right. I see it. , 10 MR. FIERCE: -- some language on page 4-5. And 11 I'm exploring that language with him and asking him whether 12 that really does apply to traffic management plans or 13 doesn't it really apply to evacuation time studies. 14 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 15 You are suggesting that that language, as I 16 understand your line, that language does not direct the 17 network actually be used in a traffic management plan, but 18 the entire network shall be considered in arriving at ETEs. 19 Is that what the reading suggests that you give to , 20 it? 21 MR. FIERCE: Well, I am posing now that the 22 question as to how to interpret the first part of that . 23 section, and asking whether that applies to a kind of a 24 situation where one does not have a special traffic 25 management plan in place, but is looking at the evacuation Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - CROSS 26367 1 times that would be expected if the traffic were to just D k,, 2 flow on the roads that are there and available to them. 3 JUDGE SMITH: And you're looking at 4-5, Roman i 4 Numeral III, Traffic Capacity? I l 5 MR. FIERCE: Right. l 6 JUDGE SMITH: And you are. suggesting that what j l 7 again? 8 MR. FIERCE: Well, I read the language in the top - 9 and the middle parts of the paragraph. And then I see 10 another sentence that says, " alternatively". 11 Before I get to the " alternatively", I'm trying to 12 see what it is that the alternative sentence applies to. 13 BY MR. FIERCE: 14 Q And the main body of the paragraph, isn't that
%- 15 applying to a situation where estimates of evacuation times 16 are to be made of an entire road network that is there and 17 available to an evacuating population?
18 A (Urbanik) Could you repeat your question? 19 We've had a lot of discussion and I -- if you ,, 20 could ask me a question. 21 Q Okay. 22 I'm trying to understand the meaning of that first 23 paragraph in Section III, Traffic Capacity which I see talks 24 about the analysis of travel times, and the suggestion is 25 that in doing that analysis entire road network shall be Heritago Reporting Corporation s,, , (202) 628-4888 _ :r_: __--__ _- _ _: - - -- - - - --
URBANIK - CROSS 26368 1 used. 2 And then I see further on down, " Alternatively, 3 special traffic management plans may be developed to 4 effectively utilize available capacity." 5 Well, if you don't have a special traffic 6 management plan in place to enhance capacity on certain 7 roads and to direct and channel traffic, isn't it true that ,
*i 8 the first part of that paragraph is referring to -- I lon't 9 know what to call it -- a non-special traffic management ,
i 10 plan where you are just assessing the evacuation times that 11 would occur if the people were to use the roads that are 12 there and available to them? 13 MR. TURK: Your Honor, I assume the question is 14 asking for this witness' understanding of the document as he 15 uses it. 16 - JUDGE SMITH: Right. 17 MR. TURK: As opposed to a legal interpretation of 18 0654.' l 19 JUDGE SMITH: Exactly. Exactly. As he uses it. j 20 MR. TURK: Maybe the problem is Mr. Fierce may not
~
21 understand the phrase "special traffic management plans". I 22 And perhaps if he would focus on that and get Dr. Urbanik to . 23 explain his understanding of that phrase as opposed to 24 traffic management plans gener, ally. 25 MR. FIERCE: I'll try that. I'll try that Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
U URBANIK'- CROSS 26369 I suggestion. Any way I can get there.
.l
.1 2 BY MR. FIERCE: ,{
I 3 Q Maybe let's start with that sentence, 4 " Alternatively,_special traffic management plans may develop l-l 5 to effectively utimize available capacity."
*~
6 What do you understand "special traffic, management 7 plan" to be, Dr. Urbanik? -) 8 A (Urbanik) I understand special traffic management 9 plans to be things where you are utilizing roadways in ways
~
10 that they would not normally be used. 11 The traffic control at Salisbury Center is a 12 special traffic management plan and where you are.trying to-13 essentially get more capacity out of the system than you 14 would otherwise. That's why the traffic management is all l l O 15 part of determining the. capacity to'come up with the 1 l 16 evacuation time estimate study. l l 17 JUDGE SMITH: When you. refer to "more capacity", i 18 you're talking about more capacity in a radial dispersion 19 direction as compared to more capacity for normal use? j 20 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) Well, I don't think 21 radial dispersion is -- l 22 JUDGE SMITH: Well, you get.more capacity.back , 23 toward the beach, couldn't you? 24 You don't want that. 25 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) Yes, right.
/
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888'
.. ..-.- - . . - . . - . . . . . , . . - -a.... .
URBANIK - CROSS 26370 1 JUDGE SMITH: You want more capacity in the 2 direction of evacuation, don't you? Oi l 3 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) Yes, sir. 4 MR. TURK: Your Honor, if I can assist, if Mr. ] 5 Fierce would permit me. 6 The prior discussion in 0654 seems to me to relate 7 to where you might have a plan that simply has evacuation *i
- l 8 route markers put up on the highway. So you are identifying j 9 the routes to be used as opposed to a special traffic ,
10 management plan which the witness has now indicated is i 11 something where you would enhance capacity beyond what the ) l 12 roads normally would handle. l l
\
13 MR. FIERCE: Well, I think I'm beginning to 1 i 14 understand. I just want to know what category.Dr. Urbanik 15 puts the SPMC's traffic management plan in. 16 - BY MR. FIERCE: 17 Q Is it in the alternative special traffic ! I 18 management plan category, because it uses capacity enhancing 1 1 19 measures as you have just described at Salisbury Square, and i 20 we also know it uses them at I-95 and Route 1107 N l
-l 21 JUDGE SMITH: Is " capacity enhancing", in your I 1
22 view, the same as special traffic management necessarily? . 23 Is " capacity enhancing" necessarily the use of a 24 road network in a special way not normally used, or is J 25 " capacity enhancement", can that also be used to enhance l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I 1 URBANIK - CROSS 26371 l 1 capacity in the way that the roadway network is normally (, 2 used. 3 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) Yes. It's both in the 4 sense there are two ways to enhance capacity of the network. 5 One method is through routing, by using roadways 6 as we were talking earlier coming off of Plum Island, using 7 a route that perhaps would not be the one that would be -] ! 8 first to pick based on your either knowledge, which may be ] 9 limited. 10 The other kind of capacity enhancement, which is i 11 really the one that's referred to here when we talk about ] 12 special traffic management, is referring to doing things 13 like making streets one way that would be normally two-way, ', 14 making an in-bound lane an out-bound lane in order to get t-- 15 two lanes where there is only one. 16 - There is not -- and this is only suggested where 17 you can demonstrate some advantage in doing so, and would 18 only be done in a limited case. 19 Therefore, this document includes special traffic
*1 20 management and just more routine types of things that you 21 would expect.
22 JUDGE SMITH: And just more routine types of 23 capacity enhancement? 24 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) Right, through routing 25 and things of that nature. [ Heritage Reporting Corporation (_,/ (202) 628-4888
.- . - . . . ~ . - - . . .
URBANIK - CROSS 26372 1 MR. TURK: Let me just note for clarity, Your 2 Honor, that when he said "this document", the witness held / I 3 up Appendix J. l 4 BY MR. FIERCE: So the SPMC is a special traffic management plan I 5 Q 6 which has been designed to effectively utilize more capacity 1 f 7 than would otherwise exist without those special procedures? 8 A (Urbanik) Yes, sir. 9 MR. TURK: To utilize more capacity than would , ) 10 otherwise exist? I 11 Are you saying that there is more capacity 12 provided than normal, or the utilization of the capacity is 13 greater than normal? 14 MR. FIERCE: I think my question was to utilize 15 more capacity than was normally available. 16 - MR. TURK: I'm not sure the record is clear. 17 JUDGE SMITH: I don't think that that question, 18 even though Dr. Urbanik answered it "yes", I don't think 1
~
19 that question even comports with the previous exchange. I 20 mean it's out of the blue. It's a mechanical question and 21 not amenable to the type of answer Dr. Urbanik gave it. I 22 don't see how he could have answered that way. . 23 MR. TURK: Maybe we could ask the witness -- 24 JUDGE SMITH: How could you have answered it that 25 way? l Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l
i URBANIK - CROSS 26373 1 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) Could.I have the question i 2 read back? , i 1 3 JUDGE SMITH: Please read it back. 1 4- (Accordingly, the record was played back by the J 5 court reporter.) 1 6 1 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 l lt 14 15
-I 16 -
1 17 18 1 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 t
. . , . . . _ .._.. , . +d-.- , -..~,,.,,-m_
i i URBANIK - CROSS 26374 1 JUDGE SMITH: We have spent a lot of time on what 2 I think is a rather simple idea. 3 MR. FIERCE: I thought it was, too, Your Honor. 4 JUDGE SMITH: He's explained that sometimes you 5 enhance the capacity of the roadway network in the direction l
' /
Sometimes you 6 and in the manner it is normally used. 7 enhance the capacity of the roadway network in a manner not
- l 8 normally used, and he gave some examples.
9 And the SPMC, I believe, contains examples of , 10 both. And you've asked him then to label it one way or the i 11 other. l 12 MR. FIERCE: Yes. ! 13 JUDGE SMITH: And that's a pointless question, in 14 that some aspects of it might do that, right. But I think 1 l l l l 15 you're making an extremely complicated situation out of what 16 should have been covered in just a few questions and 17 answers. 18 We all understand. We've all heard this 19 testimony. You want him to give it a label now and what 20 that label is going to. l . l 21 BY MR. FIERCE: 22 0 Isn't it true, Dr. Urbanik, that there are special , 23 traffic management plans that in some places utilize 24 additional capacity through special procedures. l 25 And that there are the plans which don't utilize Heritage Reporting Corporation ,, (202) 628-4888
1 URBANIK - CROSS 26375 1 those kinds of capacity enhancing measures, but cortainly 2 facilitate traffic with traffic guides along roadways but k_ 3 don't, in fact, enhance capacity in the way that the special 4 strategies do? 5 MR. TURK: Objection to form, Your Honor. 6 JUDGE SMITH: Sustained. 7 BY MR. FIERCE: 8 Q Doesn't NUREG-0654 in this paragraph set forth two 9 kinds of traffic management plan? ) l 10 JUDGE SMITH: Here you're speaking of the overall 11 plan somehow as the SPMC as compared to components of a , 12 plan. I 13 Is that what you're saying? 14 MR. FIERCE: Yes. 1 15 JUDGE SMITH: You want to label it. j 16 - You just want the man to give you a label, is that l i 17 what it is? 18 MR. FIERCE: I certainly do. , i 19 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 20 But you've spent so much time over it that when 21 you get it, it will be worthless. 22 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, I disagree. I 23 JUDGE SMITH: Move on. 24 BY MR. FIERCE: 25 Q Would you answer the question? Heritage Reporting Corporation N (202) 628-4888' _ _ _ - _________-_____________ c - - -- --- - - --
l, URBANIK - CROSS 26376 1 JUDGE SMITH: No, move on to your next question. 2 You've wasted too much of our time on this. Oi I l 3 MR. FIERCE- Your Honor, this is a important l 4 point. 5 JUDGE SMITH: Move on, Mr. Fierce. 6 BY MR. FIERCE: 7 Q Can you tell me what it is, specifically, here 8 that gives guidance to evaluating a traffic management plan 9 of the type we have for Seabrook in the SPMC? , 10 MR. TURK: I'm going to object, Your Honor. 11 The predicate says, includes the assertion that 12 this is a special traffic management plan. 13 JUDGE SMITH: Sustained. 14 BY MR. FIERCE: 15 Q What gives guidance from NUREG-0654 to your review 16 of whether this plan meets the criteria that are applicable 17 to this plan? 18 Show me the language that applies to this plan? 19 A (Urbanik) Well, the language is the entire , 20 appendix and how it all fits together. The essence of going 21 to unusual means, if you want to use it, special means, is 22 delineated in this section we're describing. . 23 What the intent of ell this is, is to have the 24 analyst look at means of enhancing capacities if that, in 25 fact, can produce some benefits in terms of reducing the 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - CROSS 26377 __ 1 time estimate. 2 So the test is the effect of the capacity 3 enhancement on the ETE. If the traffic management will
)
4 reduce the ETE, then the special traffic management will 5 reduce the ETE and the resources exist to do it, then it's a . l 6 good strategy. 7 Q And if another strategy would additionally reduce
'8 the ETE, does that other one become a better strategy?
i j 9 And does this section require the use of the l l 10 better strategy? 11 JUDGE SMITH: He's talking about with respect to ! 12 special traffic management devices. 13 MR. FIERCE: Oh, no, I haven't been allowed to ' i 14 categorize this plan that way, Your Honor. 1 15 JUDGE SMITH: If that's your interpretation, 1 i 16 that's fine; that's your problem. ; 17 MR. FIERCE: This plan -- 18 JUDGE SMITH: Just answer my question: your answer 19 is, no? Then I don't understand the question. 20 NR. FIERCE: Well, I asked him what it was in this 21 paragraph that applies to this plan and ho gave me an answer 22 about looking to see whether there were strategies that 23 reduce capacity, and if there were strategy that would be a : 24 good one. 25 MR. TURK: Reduce evacuation times. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 .
* * '** " * * **v e
.e. m._,,,, . , ,
URBANIK - CROSS 26378 i l 1 MR. FIERCE: Reduce evacuation times by enhancing ! 2 capacity. 3 And I asked if there were another strategy l 4 available that would further reduce evacuation times, would 5 that be a better strategy and does this section require the 6 use of that. 7 JUDGE SMITH: And I'm asking you to clarify your 8 question as to whether or not you're referring to special 9 traffic management procedures. , , 10 And your answer is what? 11 Your answer I believe is, no. 12 MR. FIERCE: The answer is, yes. 13 JUDGE SMITH: The answer is, yes. 14 All right, the answer is, yes. 15 MR. FIERCE: If you're supposed to look to see -- 16 - JUDGE SMITH: The answer is, yes. l 17 Then you may answer. 18 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) If an additional strategy 19 would significantly reduce the evacuation time, and that , 20 strategy was implementable within the resources available;
~
21 then it would be a candidate for inclusion in the study. 22 I do not believe any such strategies exist. , 23 BY MR. FIERCE: 24 Q Well, beyond being a candidate for inclusion in !
)
25 the study, does this section require the use of the best Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l l 1 i { . ._ .
URBANIK - CROSS 26379 1 strategy that can be implemented? 2 In other words, the one that can reduce the ETEs l , 3 the most? l 4 JUDGE SMITH: Now you're getting into a line of 1 5 questioning where I believe -- I'll just stay my hand on 6 this. l
- 7 MR. FIERCE: Well, I'm not asking a legal l
8 question, I'm asking his view. 9 JUDGE SMITH: I think you are. 10 But let's see if he regards it as a legal question 11 or as a traffic manager's question. 12 MR. TURK: I'm going to object on the grounds that 13 it was asked and answered, Your Honor. The witness already
-~ 14 stated that if there's --
\~s/ 15 JUDGE SMITH: The distinction is, require as 16 compared to be a candidate for consideration.
17 MR. TURK: I would only note that the witness has 18 already said if there's an additional strategy that would 19 significantly reduce evacuation times. And that's where he , 20 said that would be a candidate for inclusion. 21 But I think the problem with this question is -- 22 JUDGE SMITH: Well, we know what he's trying to 23 do. He's trying to get this witness to say, you know, if 24 you can change things, then it's required. 25 And that's where I think you come bumping up Heritage Reporting Corporation x (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - CROSS 26380 1 against a legal interpretation and not a traffic management 2 interpretation. As a traffic manager I would imagine he 3 could say, yes, let's build some new roads. It's a legal 4 question is where you're going to. 5 MR. FIERCE: Well, my questions have all been 6 along the line of asking how he interprets. 7 JUDGE SMITH: How he interprets. All right. 8 MR. FIERCE: This guidance in his reviews of thi9 9 plan. , 10 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, I ~ chink he said it. 11 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Don't you think he answered that 12 question? 13 MR. FIERCE: Well, he said it would be a candidate 14 for consideration. 15 JUDGE McCOLLOM: That's right. 16 BY MR. FIERCE: 17 Q Is that all the guidance is that it should be 18 considered a candidate for consideration, but if it 19 significantly reduces it doesn't necessarily have to be ,, 20 utilized even though it may be implementable? l 21 A (Urbanik) There is not an absolute requirement to 22 implement any special traffic management strategies. . 23 It was intended when the document was put 6.ogether 24 that it would be looked on in terms of whether or not it 25 was, in fact, implementable. ' - Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - CROSS 26381 -[
'l If you look on page'4-10 under "other . 2 requirements," the second paragraph refers to: "Where 3 significant costs may be involved, preliminary estimates of 4 'the cost of implementing these recommendations shall be 5 given."
6 The intent of all this was, surs, there may be 7 another way of getting the beach traffic out of Hampton. We 8 could build a new bridge'all the way across the bay and 9 connect it directly to I-95. There was no thought that 10 anything along those lines would be implementable.due to the 11 cost involved. 12 So there is a resource and cost constraint on 13 anything that might be done, and there is not -- the 14 guidance was intended to get people to examine to see if 15 they could, in fact, do it. Not to require them to do it,- 16 but to see if it could be done within the resources 17 available. 18 Q You understand that manpower, traffic control' 19 personnel control manpower has not been a resource problem . 20 for the ORO organization; correct? 21 A (Urbanik) I'm not personally involved in the 22 resource availability issue. 23 But I can'say looking at the traffic management 24 plans and the number of people that would be required to 25 implement that, there's certainly a significant number of Heritage Reporting Corporation
, (202) 628-4888
_ _ _ - _ - - _ _ =
URBANIK - CROSS 26382 I ' 1 people relative to implementing, certainly, special traffic 2 management plans. 3 So if I were to believe that there were some 4 additional special measures out there that should be 5 implemented, I would certainly raise them. I don't feel 6 that that's the case. 7 Q There is a sentence here that reads: " Care shall 8 be taken to avoid depending only on high capacity interstate 9 and similar type routes because of limitations of on-ramp
- q I
10 capacities." 11 Does that sentence apply to the Seabrook traffic 12 management plan? 13- MR. TURK: As opposed to the ETE for Seabrook? 14 MR. FIERCE: The question stands. 15 MR. TURK: Objection, Your Honor. 16 - I think it misses the point to the witness' prior 17 testimony. Traffic management is part of the ETE process. 18 JUDGE SMITH: I'm not sure'that the prior 19 testimony is really clear on how he understands this entire 20 section. 21 Indeed, I have taken from it that he understands l 22 that ETEs may be reduced or minimized -- reduced by using , 1 23 the entire road network, but there are some certain 24 precautionary statements there that tells the planner what 25 to look out for; what your problems might be. As compared Heritage Reporting Corporation 1 (202) 628-4888 I i
^ ' " * ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ^~
i i I URBANIK - CROSS 26383 I ' ' to working those in to the ETE calculation. I don't know. 1 . i
}
y ,/ 2 That's just my reading, and it seems to be i 3 consistent with his testimony. j 4 Would you comment on that? l 1 5 How is it that you interpret this paragraph? 6 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) That paragraph arose out l 7 of work that was done by -- under contract to FEMA. And 8 when this guidance was drafted, the person that drafted that 9 section was taking his experience with some disclaimers that 10 a FEMA contractor raised in the analysis of one of the 10 1 11 sites that FEMA was working on. l l 12 And their consultant said, you know, just because j 13 there's a big interstate out there doesn't mean that you can 14 access it. 5f you only have one ramp going on to an eight
\ 15 land facility and all the traffic is going to be on that 16 ramp, the capacity of the interstate is functionally 17 meaningless from an evacuation time standpoint.
18 So that's really just all it is; it's a warning to 19 the less-initiated to don't, you know, just think that there 20 is a big facility out there and you immediately have all
~
21 that capacity available. 22 Certainly, this analysis takes in all aspects of 23 that kind of problem. There is no way using the modeling 24 that's used here that you could over uso Interstate 95 25 because you are modeling each ramp as an entity. So that f' Heritage Repoa. ting Corporation (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - CROSS 26384 1 disclaimer or that warning is duly noted in these ETEs. 2 JUDGE SMITH: Well, your testimony, as I 3 understand it so far is that, this is an iterative process 4 and that is why you find it both the management and the ETEs 5 are integrated problems.
~
6 Is that what you view this language here to be? I 7 mean, don't give too much credit in your ETEs for the on-8 ramps; at the same time don't send too much traffic up that 9 way. , 10 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) Yes. 11 JUDGE SMITH: Is that what that means? 12 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) Yes. 13 MR. TURK: For clarity, Your Honor, may I just ask 14 the witness at this time, when he was referring to "this 15 analysis as having considered all aspects of the interstate 16 and ramp capacity," whether he is, in fact, referring to 17 Appendix J7 I should say, the SPMC ETE? i 18 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) Yes. 19 The traffic management is part of the ETE, so I am 1 20 referring to the traffic management as included in
. i 21 Appendix J.
22 BY MR. FIERCE: , 23 0 Dr. Urbanik, all of the traffic coming off of i 24 Salisbury Beach is routed onto Interstate 95 or Interstate 25 495; correct? Heritage Reporting Corporation ' (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - CROSS 26385 1 MR. TURK: Can the witness open his Appendix J? 2 MR. FIERCE: Sure. 3 MR. TURK: If he feels it's necessary. 4 (Pause) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 - 17
~
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 l 25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ______ :_ _r:_ -
l URBANIK - CROSS 26386 i l 1 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) That's substantially 2 true, but not totally true in the sense that there are 3 people that may be in the area of the beach that are 1 4 actually modeled as leaving from their home which might be J 5 elsewhere, which would not necessarily put them on those
~
6 ramps to get onto the interstate. 7 So that that is, in essence, where the principal 8 amount of traffic off of Salisbury goes. But people are 9 not -- the traffic management doesn't preclude you from , i' 10 doing other things. It discourages you. So there is some 11 traffic that will divert to other areas. 12 The model is at best an abstraction of what's 13 going on. It's not totally where every individual flow is l 14 taking place. 15 BY MR. FIERCE: I 16
- l Q The encouraged movements for all the traffic 17 coming off of Salisbury Beach routes that traffic onto i
18 either I-95 or 495, correct? 19 (Witness reviews document.) 20 A (Urbanik) I believe that to be correct. 21 Q And you indicated earlier that some of the traffic l 22 coming off of Salisbury Beach during a normal weekend would . l 23 turn north or south on Route 1 at Salisbury Square., correct? l l 24 A (Urbanik) I think you indicated that. l 25 Q Do you disagree with that? Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - CROSS 26387 1 MR. TURK: Well, the testimony was -- you asked if 2 a significant amount would go north or south. And he said 3 there would be some of that. 4 MR. FIERCE: That's what I thought I just said. 5 BY MR. FIERCE: 1 6 Q Didn't you say that some of the traffic would be 7 turning north and south on Route 17
- 8 MR. TURK: Under normal conditions.
9 BY MR. FIERCE: 10 Q Normal weekend conditions. 11 A (Urband k) Yes. Certainly some traffic would be 12 turning at Salisbury Center north and south. 13 Q So how has care been taken to avoid depending only 14 on high capacity interstates in the SPMC for the critical 15 population in the beach areas? 16 - A (Urbanik) Okay, I see where you are coming from 17 now. 18 That disclaimer is done so that you don't totally 19 rely on that if there is in fact a better alternative. 20 Implicit in what you are saying is that there is a better 21 alternative. And the analysis would not suggest that there 22 is in fact a better routing scheme in terms of getting the 23 people out. 24 Again, what it was trying to do in the guidance l
.l 25 was not have you focus on getting onto a large capacity G Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
~
~ -
- - i
URBANIK - CROSS 26388 1 facility using a single ramp. That high capacity facility 2 is used at a number of locations. 3 So what you are driving at I don't think is in any 4 way a problem in the sense that we're relying too much on a 5 single access point to the freeway. In fact, there is a 6 number of different measures that are being used to utilize 7 more than one ramp to get on. Some of the traffic will go 8 to 495. Some will go on to I-95 using a loop ramp. Some if l 9 it will U-turn and come on using another ramp. So we are in , 1 l 10 fact dispersing that ' traffic over a number of ramps to get i 11 on the facility, 12 Q You have not run I-DYNEV to verify that, have you? l 13 A (Urbanik) I think you asked me the question l 14 whether I've run I-DYNEV. And I said "no.". l 15 Q Is there anything else here in -- 16 - A (Urbanik) Can I -- in regard.to running I-DYNEV 17 specifically to model evacuation scenarios relative to the 18 ETEs as being done in this hearing. I have run I-D'YNEV in 19 general and also have run I-DYNEV on at least portions of 20 the Seabrook EPZ. 21 Q Is there anything else in this paragraph or 22 anywhere else in Appendix 4 of NUREG-0654 which you see as . 23 guidance for a traffic management plan of the type we have 24 here for the SPMC? 25 MR. TURK: Including his direct testimony which Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 he - - - -. ...-...
!4
. URBANIK - CROSS 26389 1 refers to page 410 of 0654?
2 MR. FIERCE: Yes. 3 BY MR. FIERCE: 4 Q Well, why don't we start with this paragraph. l
)
5 Other than what you have mentioned so far, is there anything 6 else.in that paragraph that you see as guidance for review 7 of the Seabrook SPMC's traffic management plan? 8 A (Urbanik) No. There might be a sentence here or 9 there that one could construe as relating.to this, .and'I've 10 argued earlier that the whole document has to be looked at 11 in its entirety. 12 As far as a well written document, Appendix 4, in 13 hindsight, is atrocious, okay. It's poorly organized. .It's ) 14 got a lot of problems in terms of presentation. It was 15 written at the end of 1979, early 1980. It's a nine year 16 old document. 17 Traffic management as we know.it today was not as 18 refined. The Seabrook traffic management plan is'one of the 19 most extensive in the United States. -There'is probably only
-20 one or two that are even comparable to it.
- 21 So the guidance doesn't provide a lot of help. ~
22 This traffic management has evolved over the last nine 23 years. 24 Q Well, are you saying then that the mere 25 application of the standards, these nine year old standards Heritage Reporting Corporation
\ (202) 628-4888
.. ___ _ r - -
~ -- - - --
URBANIK - CROSS 26300 1 to review a traffic management plan like that for Seabrook 2 isn't going to give you a full measure of the adequacy of 3 that plan? 4 MR. TURK: I'm going to object, Your Honor. 5 It seems like how what he's getting into is the 6 legal conclusion and what is the legal standard against 7 which the plan should be compared to. 8 JUDGE SMITH: May I have that question back, 9 please? , 10 (Accordingly, the pending question was played 11 back by the court reporter.) 12 JUDGE SMITH: Is that what you were saying? You 13 can answer that. Is that what you were saying? 14 I did not hear him say.that. 'I heard him say that , 15 the science has gone beyond NUREG-0654. 16 - MR. FIERCE: I thought I heard him say that these 17 standards therefore are not really the ones we ought to 18 apply to modern day traffic management plans. That's what I 19 ' thought I heard him say. 20 MR. TURK: I didn't hear that. But if that's your 21 impression, I would ask the witness to clarify. 22 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. , 23 JUDGE COLE: I thought he said it doesn't provide 24 much help. 25 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) Right. ~ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 Ol 1
- _ - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ ._- b
URBANIK - CROSS 26391 1 It doesn't provide -- it only provides a 2 conceptual framework in which to look at what we're trying 3 to do. It tells you the philosophy we're trying to 4 articulate here in terms of a tradeoff between resources and 5 doability and costs and things of that nature.
~
6 It certainly provides no guidance about the-7 . size / shape of the cones, how to draw the diagrams, how to do 8 the detailed traffic engineering that's needed to-go in
. 9 support of-that.
10 Whether'that's a -- that would be a deficiency if 11 you just gave it to somebody and they had no background, no 12 professional training in traffic engineering to do a good 13 job. I would agree with that. i 14 So certainly you have to-go well beyond the 15 guidance in terms of looking at some of the individual 16 details like the cones and the signs and the things. But we , 17 have other applicable, you know,. documents that help'us as 18 transportation people to a'nswer some of the details. 19 . 20 21
. 22 23' 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation-(202) 628-4888
I I I t URBANIK - CROSS 26392 ) 1 BY MR. FIERCE: j 2 Q Let me just clarify what your understanding of the 3 legal requirements are, i 4 Does this establish the legal requirements, the 5 standards, in your v.4 sw, for review of traffic management i
. l 6 plans? /
7 MR. TURK: I'm going to object, Your Honor, on two l 8 grounds. 9 One, again he's looking for a legal conclusion. . 10 Secondly, we've had extensive testimony already 31 about what the guidance is and what it does. 12 I mean unless Mr. Fierce is going to say here is ) 13 some other provision in the regulations or 0654 that apply, l l 14 15 I mean I would challenge him to find any language that is more applicable than the ones that Dr. Urbanik has focused 9l ' 16 on. . 17 JUDGE SMITH: Well, going back to your concern 18 about the legal conclusions. Dr. Urbanik necessarily has to 19 have some concept of the legal limitations or the legal
*i 20 framework under which NUREG-0654 is designed and has been 21 applied. Otherwise', he might feel very free, as he 22 testified, in finding a plan inadequate because it doesn't .
23 build a new bridge across the hay. 24 MR. TURK: That's right. 25 JUDGE SMITH: So he has to work that into his Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - CROSS 26393 i
, 1 professional assessment. So that aspect of it, your I
\ 2 objection is overruled.
3 Now what was the other point? 4 MR. TURK: The other point is that we believe that l 5 Dr. Urbanik's testimony does focus on the relevant parts of 6 the guidance that applies to traffic management plans. And 7 I don't understand the line of questioning unless Mr. Fierce 8 is going to say, well, here is a provision that applies that 9 you haven't considered. 10 JUDGE SMITH: Well, it's about time that he either , J 11 terminate his line or point out that there is something j 12 overlooked, because you have been on that concept for some 13 time, f . A 14 MR. FIERCE: Well, I don't think there is any 15 secret of what's going on here, Your Honor. i i 16 - The NRC Staff wants to try to use this witness to ) 17 define a very, very narrow set of criteria for reviewing 18 emergency plans. And then in their proposed findings they 19 are going to argue that that very narrow set of criteria has 20 been met, and therefore the plans.are fine and all the 21 contentions fall. j 22 Whereas, I believe this witness is saying that, in 23 traffic management professional review of a plan, there is 24 much, much more that goes into this -- 25 JUDGE SMITH: That's right.
'y Heritage Reporting Corporation (s, (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - CROSS 26394 1 MR. FIERCE: -- that would determine whether a 2 plan is adoquate in a traffic management sense. And I'm l 3 gning to be arguing to you that these very, very narrow 4 standards certainly ought not to be all there is in terms of 5 reviewing whether there is inadequacy here or not with this 6 plan. 7 JUDGE SMITH: But you had better match up your
- 8 argument with his testimony a little bit better.
9 MR. FIERCE: Well, that's what I am trying to do, , 10 Your Honor. I'm trying to elicit from this witness whether 11 his understanding -- 12 JUDGE SMITH: Why don't you suggest, if you have 13 one in mind, another traffic management concept. He made 14 the distinction betw6en the concepts given to him in 15 NUREG-0654 and in the execution of the concept which takes 16 into account more detailed aspects of his science. 17 MR. FIERCE: Well, I thought I -- 18 JUDGE SMITH: But you are not wrestling with that 19 at all as far as I can see. 20 MR. FIERCE: Well, I thought I was. 21 JUDGE SMITH: You are trying to force an idea into 22 a mold that you see in his testimony which does not exist , 23 that I have been able to discern. 24 His testimony, I think, is clear that he believes 25 that NUREG-0654 is the concept that has to be applied, and Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I l 1 URBANIK - CROSS 26395 1 that the plans meets those concepts. IO 2 MR.' FIERCE: I'm not sure -- 3 JUDGE SMITH: Now tell me a concept that-you think-4 should be in'there. - 5 MR. FIERCE: Well, we discussed one earlier. ~ The l
.)
6 concept that if.there is an. strategy that can be 7 implemented, it's feasible to implement it, and in fact -- 8 JUDGE SMITH: Yes,.but you didn't do very well. 9 MR. FIERCE: -- it reduces -- it reduces ETEs. 10 JUDGE SMITH: But your question was so ill-defined ] 11 and so unproductive that it didn't do . anything for you. 12 MR. FIERCE: Only'because I encountered such 13 resistance, Your Honor. I think Mr. Turk knows what I'm ) i 14 trying to do and he's throwing up his objections repeatedly. ! 15 JUDGE SMITH: I think we all understand what you 16 are trying to do. ) 17 MR. FIERCE: But I'm being aboveboard on this. I
]
l 18 don't think these criteria apply. 19 JUDGE SM7TH- Being aboveboard does. not allow you 20 to do something that is just undoable.
'21 Proceed. Go ahead. !
22 MR. FIERCE: It's certainly doable to ask a , I 23 witness whether his understanding-of this guidance is such. 24 that a traffic-management plan like that we have here-in the 25 SPMC would be adequate if merely the provisions set forth in
, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202). 628-4888
l [ l URBANIK - CROSS 26396 i l 1 NUREG-0654 are met. l 2 JUDGE SMITH: And nothing else. l 3 MR. FIERCE: And nothing else. 4 MR. TURK: My problem, Your Honor, is this Board j 5 is going to have to make a finding on whether Commission 6 regulations are satisfied. We don't go about setting new 7 standards for utilities in any regard.
~
l 8 We have identified in our testimony what are the 9 legal standards -- , 10 MR. FIERCE: You think you have. 11 MR. TURK: Well, Mr. Fierce, unless you are going l 12 to identify another standard, which you haven't done yet, I 1 1 13 don't see that there is any contest. 1 14 I also note that Dr. Adler, in his testimony, j i 15 never suggested there was some other strategy. He had some { 16 nits to pick, but he hasn't come along in his testimony and ! 17 suggested there is some God-knows-what strategy for the 18 Board to consider that would provide an adequate plan and 19 that this plan is not adequate for failing to consider that , 20 strategy. 21 I don't see the point of the questioning. It's l 22 not connected up to any evidence. . 23 MR. FIERCE: The record will -- 24 JUDGE SMITH: Where are you, on No. 7 still? 25 MR. FIERCE: Yes, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - CROSS 26397
,-s 1 JUDGE SMITH: You are trying to elicit from this
'\,_,' 2 witness a simple conclusionary statement --
3 MR. FIERCE: His understanding. 4 JUDGE SMITH: -- that you are going to come back 5 with in proposed findings.
~
6 But it won't do you any good because it will be 7 void of analysis and reasoning. You are going to have to do 8 better before you are going to be productive. l
. 9 And don't explain to me that it will all become 10 clear on proposed findings, because we've had that little >
11 discussion before. 12 MR. FIERCE: I think I'm entitled to ask the 13 witness what he understands the legal requirements to be. gN 14 MR. TURK: Well, you've done that.
\
\ 15 MR. FIERCE: That's all I'm trying to do.
16
- MR. TURK: Your Honor, let me note one other 17 thing.
I 18 There is nothing in 10 CFR, Part 50, that gives ] 19 you guidance in determining whether or not a traffic 20 management plan is adequate. In fact, there is nothing 21 there that discusses traffic management plans. 22 Th3 only Commission guidance that we are aware of 23 is in NUREG-0654, Appendix 4. 24 JUDGE SMITH: That's right. d 25 MR. TURK: Now Mt. Fierce has still not identified A Heritage Reporting Corporation ( (202) 628-4888 I --
l URBANIK - CROSS 26398 1 any additional guidance that has to be met, or any 2 regulation that has to be met. He hasn't even suggested l l 3 what additional strategies have not been considered that 4 would provide a better plan. ] 5 So the whole line, I think, is irrelevant, because
~
6 it won't help you in your --- i 7 MR. FIERCE: See, that whole comment, in my view, 8 just exhibits a very crabbed and narrow view of what the ] 9 legal standards are. , 1 10 MR. TURK: Well, what is the standard then? j l 11 JUDGE SMITH: Let's have a broad view. You still ) 12 have not explained to this Board or allowed us to infer what ) 13 is it you are doing. l
. l 14 MR. FIERCE: Well, I believe that NUREG-0654 15 doesn't set standards for traffic management plans. That j 16 the standards that need to be applied probably are not 17 specifically there in NRC guidance documents like this. And 18 that therefore the Board is going to be thrust in a position 19 that it is into often where it is looking at an issue .
20 without a specific guidance and must apply the standard of 21 adequate protection. 22 And I believe that in applying that standard, when . 23 one looks at a strategy that would significantly minimize 24 dose versus one that does not, a strategy used that does not 25 maximize dose reduction -- 1
-' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
URBANIK - CROSS 26399 { 1 JUDGE SMITH: All right, put it to him. Put it to 2 him.
^
3 MR. FIERCE: -- is not going to be acceptable. 4 JUDGE SMITH: Put it to him. Put your question to 5 i 5 him. Stop dancing around on hypothetical' that nobody '
~
6 understands yet. 7 MR. FIERCE: Well, he believes there is some l 8 guidance here. That's what I'm trying to explore, whether this guidance is in fact the legal requirement or guidance, 9 . 10 and whether the standard is adequate protection. 11 JUDGE SMITH: What is your next question. -l 12 BY MR. FIERCE: 13 Q Do you believe that the SPMC provides adequate ) j 14 protection -- would provide adequate protection to the , ( 15 public -- J 16 - MR. TURK: Objection. Overbroad in terms of SPMC 17 generally. Secondly, the use of the term " adequate .g 18 protection". 19 JUDGE SMITH: Had you finished your question? 20 MR. FIERCE: Well, I certainly hadn't finished my ! 21 question. 22 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 23 BY MR. FIERCE: 24 Q Do you believe that tN SPMG vinld provide 25 adequate protection to the public if it did not utilize
=[
5 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - CROSS 26400 1 traffic management strategies which maximized the dose 2 reduction the public would obtain, but instead use 3 strategies which provided them with significantly higher 4 dose? l 5 MR. TURK: Objection, Your Honor. l l 6 JUDGE SMITH: Sustained. ) 7 BY MR. FIERCE: 8 Q If this traffic management plan meets only the 9 standards in NUREG-0654, Appendix 4, do you believe that 10 that plan is adequate under NRC law? l 11 MR. TURK: Your Honor, I -- ! 12 JUDGE SMITH: As he understands it, as it has been 13 explained to him in the performance of his duties under the i 14 contract, and his understanding of the genesis of it. 15 MR. TURK: May I note, Your Honor, that, in ! 16 context, Dr. Urbanik's testimony points out that at page 410 i 17 of 0654 the following language appcars? 18 And that is, that the utility should provide 19 " specific recommendations for actions that could be taken to 20 significantly improve evacuation time." l 21 Now obviously the purpose for improving evacuation 22 times is to get people out and minimize their dose. So if . 23 that's understood, then I don't understand the question of 24 Mr. Fierce. 25 JUDGE SMITH: Well, these are trick questions. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - CROSS 26401 1 Don't disabuse yourself of any idea there. He's searching 2 for neat little answers that are going to go into proposed 3 findings. He's not searching for deep analysis of this because his questions are certainly not designed for it, and ! 4 S that's why we are becoming impatient with you, Mr. Fierce. 6 Nevertheless, read the question back.' i 7 He can answer it if it's what I think it is. 8 (Accordingly, the pending question was played 9 back by the court reporter.) 10 11 12 l 13 14 15 16 - 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 '[ Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation I
URBANIK - CROSS 26402 1 JUDGE SMITH: I am a little bit concerned about 2 NRC law. I am somewhat concerned about the use of the word i 3 "NRC law," as we have understood it to be NRC requirements, I 4 he can answer the question, if he has an answer. 5 (Pause) l 6 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) It I s difficult for me to I 7 answer in the sense that what your implication of "only ,. 8 meets" is intended to mean. I 9 JUDGE SMITH: We'll take your answer in the .. 10 context of your previous testimony, which I would assume it 11 has been propounded that way. And that is, 12 EJREG-0654, Appendix 4 gives broad conceptual guidelines. i 13 And it does not provide implementing detail. And that's the j l 14 way you have understood it to be. 15 Now, with that concept and with that thought in 16 mind, how you described it, if you can answer the question,
]
17 answer it? 18 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) The only specific 19 requirements are those that we presented in the testimony , 20 and talked to. And that's the only legal requirement that 21 I'm aware of in terms of what has to be done. 22 But I believe that the SPMC goes well beyond that. . 23 And I also -- 24 JUDGE SMITH: Stop there, you don't have to say 25 that. That is not a part of your question. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - CROSS' 26403 1 I think you're making the question a.little bit i 2 more complicated and the Board has refined it. 3 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) Okay. 4 JUDGE SMITH: Are there any a'dditional' concepts i 5 .that you believe are required by the NRC that are not y 6 reflected -- any concepts that are not reflected in 7 NUREG-0654 that are required by the NRC for traffic 8 management plans and ETEs? l, 9 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) There is no requirement . 1 10 anywhere in the guidance that diagrams, such.as the ones we 11 are looking at, be produced. 12 However, the history and evolution cf the process 13 and sites with larger populations such as Seabrook would not
- i. 14 allow one to really develop a plan without them.
15 In one sense you're not required to do them, but I i 16 can't see how you could get through the process without 17 doing it. i 18 Does that make any sense? ; 19 JUDGE SMITH: I think you're really making the 20 whole question much more complicated than it is. It's
-21 almost a truism, if NUREG-0654 sets out the Commission-22 guidance'for traffic management plans and ETEs, and if the 23 plan meets those guidance, this is syllogistic. It's a i
24 simple syllogism, as I understand the question to be. 25 If NUREG-0654 sets out the concepts and the plan O Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation _ - _ _ _ _ = - = - - - - - - -- r- ~-
O URBANIK - CROSS 26404 1 meets those concepts, is the plan adequate within the NRC 2 requirements? It's a syllogism. O, 3 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik)' Do you want me to answer 4 that? 5 JUDGE SMITH: A equals B; that is the only sense 6 in which we have understood the question to be. 7 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) And the answer is, yes, i 8 it's adequate. 9 JUDGE SMITH: Now, you can proceed. , 10 You don't have to accept that answer or anything. 11 You can proceed with additional concepts or point to I 12 something else. But it's time that you do it now. 13 BY MR. FIERCE: 14 Q Dr. Urbanik, you believe that this is the place 15 where the NRC has intended to articulate the standards for 16 traffic management plans? 17 MR. TURK: I'm going to object, Your Honor, asked 1 18 and answered. 19 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, I think it has been. 20 MR. FIERCE: Well, the premise to your question-to 21 him was -- 22 JUDGE SMITH: Let's make sure that we have all , 23 these ducks in a row. 24 That was a premise to our question. I think it 25 has been asked and answered. But let's make sure that the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
7_ 2640S I URBANIK - CROSS 1 witness - you may answer. 2 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) Could you state the 3 question again. 4 BY MR. FIERCE: 5 Q I asked you if you believe this is the place where 6 the NRC intended to set forth the standards for traffic 7 management plan. 8 JUDGE SMITH: NUREG-0654, Appendix 4? 9 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) Yes. d 10 BY MR. FIERCE: li Q At the time this NUREG-0654, Appendix 4 was 12 promulgated you believe that the intention was to address 13 traffic management plans as well as ETEs?
. r 14 MR. TURK: Objection, Your Honor. \
15 JUDGE SMITH: On what basis? I 16 - MR. TURK: Asked and answered in the.last 17 question. 18 JUDGE SMITH: All right, sustained. 19 MR. TURK: I have to note, Your Honor, when I 20 object on the grounds of asked and answered I'm not looking 21 to seal the witness' lips; I'm looking to avoid harassment 22 to the witness and a waste of all of our time. 23 JUDGE SMITH: Well, on the latter ground, you're 1 24 sustained. On the earlier ground, he's not being harassed.
~ '
25 He's capable of resisting. ) Heritage Reporting Corporation ; (202) 628-4888 l l 1 I i
,..s.,
. - + , . - -
_e-
..e
__.w_m_s.,,. m.,n., ,- .. . . . ,o- + - - * .
. .e- .y
I URBANIK - CROSS 26406 1 Do you feel harassed? 2 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) No,, sir. 3 MR. TURK: Only when I deal with him, Your Honor. l 1 4 (Laughter) ! 5 BY MR. FIERCE: 6 Q With respect to your answer to question 8, why 7 isn't it the goal of traffic management planning to see if 8 the available traffic management resources are sufficient 9 -- and I'm talking specifically about personnel resources -- , i 10 to conduct an orderly efficient evacuation? 1 l 11 MR. TURK: Why isn't it the goal to see if j 12 resources are sufficient? j j 13 MR. FIERCE: Yes. I l 14 MR. TURK: Where have we ever said that's not part 15 of the process? f l 16 - MR. FIERCE: In your answer on page 4 you say: "In 17 addition the goal of traffic management is to make the most q 18 efficient use of available traffic management resources." 19 JUDGE SMITH: Where is that found? 20 MR. FIERCE: Last sentence on page 4 of his 21 testimony, last line. l 22 (All parties reviewing document.) , ; 23 JUDGE SMITH: As compared to assuring that 24 sufficient traffic management resources are available. 25 MR. FIERCE: That's right. l l l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - CROSS 26407 l s 1 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) The guidance was ( ~
\ ,) 2 constructed with the knowledge that resources in the real 3 world are constrained, not unlimited; and therefore, the 4 traffic management had to be consistent with what is, in 5 fact, available resources. ]
, . I 6 BY MR. FIERCE: I 7 Q So just as a goal of traffic management planning - 8 shouldn't it be the case, however, that planners ought to 9 look to see whether adequate personnel are available to 10 effectuate an orderly efficient evacuation? 11 JUDGE SMITH: You're postulating now adequacy 12 which exceeds availability? 13 MR. FIERCE: Yes.
's 14 JUDGE SMITH: It's a metaphysical question, isn't 15 it?
16 - MR. FIERCE: It may well be. But I think there's 17 a practical -- i 18 JUDGE SMITH: Well, we don't have a metaphysical 19 jurisdiction. 20 MR. FIERCE: There's a practical element here as 21 well. That when one is engaged in the process and you have _ 4 22 available manpower you can draw on, isn't it a goal of 23 traffic management planning to see where you might need 24 additional personnel resources and try to get them. 25 JUDGE SMITH: You changed your question. [ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
-_L____ _
URBANIK - CROSS 26408 1 MR. FIERCE: I'm driving at the same point, Your 2 Honor. I may have changed the question, yes. 3 JUDGE SMITH: Now you have postulated a situation 4 where additional resources are available. And so we go back 5 to his question, the most effective use of those available 6 traffic management resources. 7 MR. FIERCE: Well, I think he talked about state 8 and local police earlier as available resources. 9 JUDGE SMITH: I think you better ask your question , 10 again and make sure that the premises of your question are 11 understood. 12 MR. FIERCE: Well, let's start with my earlier 13 question. 14 BY MR. FIERCE: 15 Q Isn't it a goal of good traffic management 16 planning for nuclear sites to ascertain whether the 17 available traffic management resources are sufficient to 18 conduct an orderly and efficient evacuation? 19 And by "available traffic resources," I mean the 20 ones that are in place there in the cities and towns. 21 MR. TURK: Your Honor, I'm going to object on the 22 grounds that the inherent premise of the question is, . 23 sufficiert for adequate protection. 24 In other words, to meet some sort of an ETE 25 standard as to which, as you well know, there is no / Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 URBANIK - CROSS 26409 1 standard. 2 So my objection is, when Mr. Fierce says isn't the 3 goal of good traffic management planning to identify if 4 resources are sufficient; sufficient for what? 5 JUDGE SMITH: Well, he has also had another fatal
~
6 aspect of the question because he got into the nontraffic 7 management area of availability of state and local police 8 officials which is purely a legal question. He has to take 9 those as a given. Those constraints as a given; he can't 10 analyze that. 11 Sustained. l 12 BY MR. FIERCE: 13 0 Is it a purpose of traffic management planning to 14 ensure that emergency vehicles and transit-buses can travel l l 15 to all points in the EPZ without significant delays? l l 16 - JUDGE SMITH: Is to make that happen? To be able 17 to make that happen? 18 MR. FIERCE: To see -- the planning process, to 19 see whether the strategy that you have on the table is going . 20 to allow that to happen. And in the iterative process you 21 change it if it doesn't. 22 JUDGE SMITH: Does this question also imply a 23 quantitative or a qualitative goal required by the ETEs or 24 the traffic management plan? 25 MR. FIERCE: No, I didn't posit that. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ev. .
URBANIK - CROSS 26410 1 MR. TURK: I think it's inherent, Your Honor. 2 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I believe it is. The whole i i 3 line is interent along that line. j 4 MR. FIERCE: This I think is independent of ETEs. 5 If the transit-buses -- 6 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 7 It's independent of ETEs. And now, a traffic
- 8 management plan has a particular quantitative goal or 9 qualitative goal that it must achieve that result? .
10 MR. FIERCE: No. 11 JUDGE SMITH: Then explain what you mean by your 12 question, because it wasn't clear to me. 13 Did you understand it? 14 You thought you did. 15 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) No. 16 - I have some problems with his question when he got 17 to the part of about adding the significant delay on the end 18 of it. If it's' just a question about access to police and 19 fire and stuff, I think that's a qualitative question that 20 could be answered. 21 HR. FIERCE: Well -- 22 JUDGE SMITH: Inherent in all your questions is, . 1 23 some goal that has to be met in ETEs or some product, some 1 1 ! 24 empirical product that has to be 3chieved in traffic ) l I 25 management plan. ! l (202) 628-4888 i L________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ j
URBANIK - CROSS 26411
~ 1 MR. FIERCE: That's right.
(_/ 2 JUDGE SMITH: And it's all necessarily connected 3 in the causal chain to dose savings. 4 Every one of your questions along this line 5 ultimately lead in a causal chain to dose savings. 6 MR. FIERCE: Well, perhaps, ultimately. 7 JUDGE SMITH: Right.
- 1 8 MR. FIERCE: But I believe, ari I'm not looking at l . 9 the quantitative question here but the qualitative one.
10 I'm asking whether a traffic management plan -- ) l 11 let's posit one which does not permit the emergency vehicles 12 to get into certain areas. 13 JUDGE SMITH: All right.
' e' 14 Why don't you ask that kind of question.
I
\'
15 MR. FIERCE: We pose a problem for a traffic j l 16 management planner such that he would want to look at other 17 possible strategies. 18 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) Access to emergency 19 vehicles is a consideration in the development of the , 20 traffic management plans. Taken to its illogical conclusion l 21 we could make all the roads one-way out of the EPZ to
, 22 maximize getting out. But that would not allow any 23 emergency access.
l 24 So we do have to consider emergency access. It 1 . l 25 does not necessarily mean 3ccess in all directions on all ! [i/ Heritage Reporting Corporation s , (202) 628-4888 l l l L_-______-:____:__-_______________ _ _ _ _ _ _ --_. __ .-r -. - - - - - -. - ,-.
URBANIK - CROSS 26412 1 roads at all times. 2 BY MR. FIERCE: 3 Q Would a plan that did just that, directed all 4 roads to be one-way roads leading out of the EPZ, but which 5 did not allow in emergency vehicles, police, ambulances, tow 6 trucks; would such a plan, in your view, meet the criteria 7 set forth in NUREG-06547 - 8 A (Urbanik) No. 9 JUDGE SMITH: Is this a good time to break? , 10 MR. FIERCE: Yes. 11 JUDGE SMITH: Let's return at 1 o' clock. 12 (Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m. the hearing was recessed 13 to reconvene at 1:00 p.m. this same day, Tuesday, 14 Jt'Ae 20, 1989.) 15 16 - 17 18 l 19 ! 20 1 ! 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - CROSS 26413 1 AEIEBEQQH EEEEIQH 2 (1: 06 p.m. ) 3 JUDGE SMITH: Proceed. 4 Whereupon, 5 THOMAS URBANIK II
~
6 having been previously duly sworn, was recalled as a witness 7 herein and was examined and testified further as follows: 8 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued) 9 BY MR. FIERCE: 10 Q Dr. Urbanik, in your Answer No. 10, you say, "The 11 traffic management plan is a result of a systematic and 12 thorough analysis taking into consideration all pertinent 13 considerations." 14 Is it a pertinent consideration that Newb0ryport 15 didn't want to have the Salisbury Beach traffic flowing down 16 into its town on Route 1? e 17 A (Urbanik) Yes, it's pertinent that all parts of 18 the plan be coordinated. 19 Q But just because a given town didn't want to have 20 the heavy beach traffic flowing through it, should that have 21 been a determining factor in the ultimate strategies that 22 were adopted? 23 A (Urbanik) I don't think that was the determinant. 24 I think it was part of the alternatives that were 25 considered. There are other considerations in terms of the
~
l Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 l
i URBANIK - CROSS 26414 { 1 traffic management strategy. There is the presence of the 2 bridge which creates some uncertainty in using that routing 3 which makes it undesirable, in my estimation, to overly rely l 4 on going over the water at that location. l 5 Q In Answer No. 11, you give us an analogy here ! 6 about a tree with a branches, limbs and a trunk, and i 7 indicate that the critical points are likely to be near the -) 8 truck of the tree where traffic is converging. 9 Using that analogy, does it make any sense at all , 10 then to put traffic guides out into the branches? 11 A (Urbanik) Yes, it does, from an assurance l 12 standpoint in the sense of providing the evacuees some sense 13 of I guess public involvement in the evacuation and to 14 handle a number of contingencies that may occur. 15 The types of things would be, for example, an 16 accident and the need to respond to that would be an example 17 where it's not particularly critical from an evacuation 18 capacity standpoint. But from a more general traffic 19 management, we need to be able to identify and deal with . 20 those kinds of things. 21 Q Well, how does one identify out in tc. branches 22 then to where to put a traffic control post? , 23 A (Urbanik) That process would certainly be more 24 subjective. But for the most part, those were identified in 25 consultation with the various police chiefs, although with Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - CROSS 26415 I 1 at least one exception. 2 Q In doing your analysis of the traffic management 3 plan, have you had any consultations yourself with police 4 chiefs or local officials? 5 A (Urbanik) Not in the last few years. 6 Q In your Answer No. 20 where you are discussing how 7 to determine locations of traffic control personnel, and I - 8 assume that means traffic control posts as well, you 9 indicate the first priority is bottleneck locations, and 10 lower priorit'y locations are those having significant 11 congestion. 12 Is it your view that there ought to be traffic 13 control posts with personnel at places where there is 14 significant congestion assuming that personnel resources are 15 available? 16 - MR. TURK: At all significant congestion points? 17 MR. FIERCE: Locations having significant 18 congestion. 19 MR. TURK: As opposed to -- my question, Mr. 20 Fierce, is -- 21 MR. FIERCE: My question stands, Mr. Turk. You 22 can object if you would like. It's a clear question. 23 MR. TURK: I'm looking for clarification, Your 24 Honor. 25 The first part of the answer refers to the first Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - CROSS 26416 1 priority being given to locations -- 2 MR. FIERCE: I object. He's signaling his 3 witness. 4 JUDGE SMITH: No , he's not. 5 MR. TURK: I'm not signaling. 6 JUDGE SMITH: It's his testimony. 7 MR. FIERCE: If the witness wants me to clarify 8 the question, I'll clarify the question. 9 JUDGE SMITH: Well, how about -- . 10 MR. FIERCE: But not for Mr. Turk's benefit, I 1 j 11 won't. i 12 MR. TURK: All I'm saying, Your Honor, is -- 13 JUDGE SMITH: Never mind. He's going to clarify ) 14 it. Clarify it. The witness wants it. & 15 BY MR. FIERCE: Wl l l 16 Q Is it your view then, Dr. Urbanik, that in 17 assessing where to place traffic control personnel and 18 traffic control posts you would look at those locations l 19 which have significant congestion and place traffic control , 20 personnel there if the resources are available? l 21 A (Urbanik) I don't believe you would, and it's not 22 clear from your question where the "there" points. But .j 23 let's assume that you are saying each intersection as a for 24 instance. 25 Just because there is congestion at every Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l i i URBANIK - CROSS 26417 I 1 intersection along a route does not imply, in my estimation, 2 the need for traffic control personnel at every 3 intersection. ) 4 This reference to looking at congestion is 5 obviously where there is congestion in the system, that's 1 6 where most of the traffic is. 7 So in terms of where you would deploy your 8 resources for breakdowns and other things, you would look at I 9 congestion as being an indicator of the general areas where ] 10 to deploy additional resources. 11 Q If you had a congested road, a major evacuation 12 pathway that did have intersecting streets every block, 13 let's say every normal city block, are you saying that you , l 14 only need to have traffic control personnel located every.so 1 i
\ 15 many blocks, but not every intersection?
16 - A (Urbanik) You have to have them located, yes, at 17 distances greater than every block. You are monitoring for 18 a change in flow. The fact that there is congestion is not 19 significant in and of itself other than it's an indication 1 20 of a major route. 21 If all of a sudden the' congestion disappears on 22 that route, and it would disappear over some length, you 23 don't have to be in any particular point to see the 24 congestion went away. 25 And if you have no expectation that the evacuation Heritage Reporting Corporation
\ (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - CROSS 26418 1 is over, you would then head in the direction from which the 2 congestion was missing, from where your expectation is, and 3 try to find out what was causing it. 4 So, yes, you would have less - you would not have 5 a need for people stationed at any close interval. 6 Q Do you have any standards or rules of thumb you 7 apply to determine how great that interval is? 8 A (Urbanik) No, I don't have any notion other than == 9 something that would be a reasonable walking distance and, . 10 you know, several minutes. 11 Q Do you believe that barricades have any advantages 12 at all in an evacuation over cones? k. 13 A (Urbanik) There might be, or there are probably 14 some locations where one might prefer barricades over cones. 15 But I don't think that it's an advantage that would speak 16 highly to the use of barricades. 17 Q So in most instances you believe that cones would 18 be superior to barricades, is that right? 19 A (Urbanik) I think in most cases, yes, they would 20 be superior. 21 A barricade is a means of closing off a path. So 22 the kinds of places where I could envision barricades being . 23 valuable would be on the perimeter where there is a four-way 24 intersection and one leg leads to the EPZ. You put a 25 barricade across that road discouraging people from going Heritage Reporting Corporation , (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - CROSS 26419
~
p_s 1 that way. , I I ( 2 Q Dr. Urbanik, in the New Hampshire hearings you 3 endorsed the traffic management strategies contained in 4 Volume 6, didn't you? 5 MR. TURK: Are you thinking of specific testimony? 6 BY MR. FIERCE: l 1 7 0 In your testimony and cross-examination, with some -l i
; l 8 minor modifications. But by and large endorsed volume 67 l i
I 9 MR. TURK: I don't recall -- forgive me, Your l 10 Honor. I don'i. reiall there were any traffic management 11 contentions on the New Hampshire side. I 12 MR. FIERCE: There certainly were ETE contentions. 13 MR. TURK: No doubt. I e 14 MR. FIERCE: And Dr. Urbanik thinks that traffic ' f 's
! l
\~- 15 management and ETEs are intertwined. l 16 -
JUDGE SMITH: Why don't you go to your specific 17 question and see if that helps. 18 BY MR. FIERCE: 19 Q Well, didn't you support the use of barricades in 20 the New Hampshire hearings with respect to the plans that 21 were contained in Volume 6 of the New Hampshire plans? 22 A (Urbanik) By recollection, I don't know what I 23 said specifically about barricades. But based on my 24 discussion a little earlier, I would not have been opposed 25 to barricades in certain instances.
./m
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (m,,} (202) 628-4898
URBANIK - CROSS 26420 1 I believe there were some limited application of 2 barricades in the New Hampshire plan. And I think I f 3 indicated just a few minutes ago that I thought that there 4 were some limited applications where barricades might be 5 appropriate, but not necessarily absolutely required.
^
6 Q In the same kinds of situations for which the SPMC 7 is calling for the use of cones to discourage movements, the 8 Volume 6 of the New Hampshire plans uses barricades, does it 9 not? , 10 A (Urbanik) No, I don't believe that's correct. Il Q The same kinds of applications. 12 A (Urbanik) You will have to point me to an example e 13 of what you are indicating, because my perception is that I 14 don't agree with you. 15 Q Do you have Volume 6 with you? 16 - A (Urbanik) Yes, sir, j 17 (Witness reviews document.) 18 Q Well, I'm just flipping through and I see i' 19 occasional diagrams that have the barricade markings on j 20 them. I see one on page I-105 in ERPA-G. Traffic control 21 point No. GRYO3. 22 Do you see that? . 23 A (Urbanik) Yes, I do. 24 Q And there is a right-turn movement which is 25 discouraged with the use of three barricades. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l URBANIK - CROSS 26421 1 And in the SPMC, right-turn movements which are I
\ 2 discouraged s11 are now discouraged through the use of 3 cones, correct?
4 A (Urbanik) It's my understanding that virtually l 5 all of the barricades have in fact been . replaced by cones. 6 Q And in the.New Hampshire proceedings, you didn't 7 recommend that the barricades be replaced by cones, did you? 8 A (Urbanik) No. l 9 MR. TURK: Well, wait a minute. 10 Your Honor, we haven't established anything except 11 that there is one diagram in the New Hampshire Volume 6 12 where there are barricades. 13 JUDGE SMITH: No, now wait a minute. 14 MR. TURK: I've flipped through Volume 6 --
.O 15 JUDGE SMITH: I think Dr. Urbanik agreed with him 1
16 that traffic was discouraged as compared to prohibited by a 17 barricade in that diagram. 18 MR. TURK: That's right. 19 JUDGE SMITH: Discouraged. ,j l 20 HR. TURK: Yes, in that diagram. 21 My point is virtually all the diagrams in the New l 22 Hampshire Volume 6 use cones instead of barricades unless 23 you are going to look at the interstate highways. I mean 24 you can flip through and find virtually every single diagram E 25 uses cones and not barricades.
'f Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_ ~. . .. .- _ .- _
f 1 l URBANIK - CROSS 26422 1 MR. FIERCE: Well, I flipped one page, on page l 2 I-107. 3 JUDGE SMITH: So you say you don't agree with the l 4 premise that the plan -- 5 MR. TURK: The inherent premise in the question
~
6 that I hear is that in New Hampshire they used barricades to 7 discourage right-hand turns. -l
- 1 8 JUDGE SMITH: That's right, yes, j i
9 MR. TURK: And in the SPMC, they use cones. But , j l 10 that's not a correct premise. l 11 In New Hampshire, they use both. In the SPMC, l l 12 they are leaning towards the cones. At this point going l 13 almost exclusively to cones. 14 JUDGE SMITH: You weren't ready for this line, I 15 don't believe, were you? You weren't prepared for it. I i 16 - MR. FIERCE: No , no. I thought he would agree i 17 with me that he endorsed the concepts in place in Volume 6. 18 MR. TURK: He never had a traffic management 3 19 contention to deal with in New Hampshire. 20 MR. FIERCE: He had ETE contentions to deal with. 21 And again argued that in general terms that the strategies 1 22 that had been adopted were -- . 23 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 24 MR. FIERCE: -- incorporated and reasonable. 25 JUDGE SMITH: He was going to go along this line. I Herite.3
; Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 .)
i I
. . . . . _ .___ _ _ _ _ _ _____._._________._____.___.____m
URBANIK - CROSS 26423 1 The witness beliIeved that the strategies in Volume 6, New (m 2 Hampshire plan, were reasonable. Therefore, he-implicitly 3 agreed with -- inferentially he agreed with the use of 4 barricades without precisely zeroing in on it in a manner 5 inconsistent with his testimony now. 6 Is that where you are? 7 MR. FIERCE: Yes. 8 JUDGE SMITH: .That's where he is. That was a big
, 9 leap. And now he made it by at least one example.
10 11 12 13 I l 14
- 15 16 -
17 18 19 . 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 __ __ =__
l URBANIK - CROSS 26424 1 JUDGE SMITH: But you weren't really ready to 2 demonstrate your premise. 3 BY MR. F1ERCE: 4 Q There are other examples in Volume 6, are there 5 not, Dr. Urbanik, of roadways which have two or three cones 6 -- strike that -- two or three barricades in a row to 7 discourage movements? 8 A (Urbanik) Yes. 1 9 I think I indicated earlier that there were a , 10 limited number of locations that used barricades. And my 11 failure to object to barricades does not preclude the 12 acceptance of cones as an alternative. 13 Q Well, in fact, you now believe cones are superior 14 to barricades in almost all instances; correct? 15 JUDGE SMITH: No, that's not what he testified. i 16 - JUDGE McCOLLOM: He has already answered that. 17 BY MR. FIERCE: 18 Q Well, which way would you rather have it, Dr. 19 Urbanik, like it's done in New Hampshire where a number'of 20 intersections use barricades or like it's done in the SPMC 21 where all the intersections and discouraged movements are 22 using cones? , 23 MR. TURK: There's a missing part of the question: 24 in New Hampshire we have state troopers and local policemen 25 who go out to their traffic posts with their cars and 1 1 x- Heritage Reporting Corporation s (202) 628-4888 I l l I
URBANIK - CROSS 26425 , i 1 whatever is in their trunks, as the. Fierce is aware. Here
\ 2 we have the ORO. ]
3 BY HR. FIERCE: 4 Q Just forgetting about the kind of personnel that j
- 5 are there. I'm talking about the device. I
~
,6 Which is the preferab]c device, Dr. Urbanik? l 7 JUDGE SMITH: Answer it?
~
8 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) Which is preferable for 9 what purpose? 10 BY MR. FIERCE: ) l 11 Q For the purposes for.which the barricades and the j i 12 cones are being used in both of these traffic management ( 13 plans, to discourage movements, either turn movements or ' ! 14 straight ahead movements? k- - 15 A (Urbanik) If the operative mode is discourage as 16 opposed to prohibit, then cones in most cases would probably ) 17 be superior. But in certain cases they are not. It's 18 irrelevant. If it's a low volume road like one you pointed 19 out, it matters not. 20 The cones are more readily implementable. There's
. l 21 a lot of logistic problems to barricades. So barricades can 22 only be used in limited application due to a marshalling and 1
23 availability factor. 24 So I don't object to barricades. I just think 25 that cones are probably a more implementable strategy. Heritage Reporting Corporation ( (202) 628-4888-l t
' " " ' '~
E_______'______' T_'Z_'_7_I E 'T
~ ^ ~ ~ ^ ' ~ ~ " ~ ~ " " ~ ~ '
)
URBANIK - CROSS 26426 1 I think whatever you do has got to be responsive 2 to the local resources and needs. I'm not going to get up 3 here and say, there's one unique answer. You've got to put ; 4 it in the context of the real situation where they're being 5 applied.
~
6 Q But if they were equally available and could be 7 implemented in an emergency, you see no real difference then
- 8 between the cones and the barricades once they're placed out 9 on the road; is that your testimony? ,
10 A (Urbanik) In most applications. 11 Q What will be the applications where either the 12 cones or the barricades would be superior? 13 Only in a block movement situation, is that what 14 you're saying, would the barricade be superior? 15 A (Urbanik) Where you're trying to block with a 16 more forceful kind of situation and where you could tolerate 17 people going over the center line, for instance. I mean, 18 you could block that maneuver to the extent that you would 19 give a very strong message not to go through, because 20 traffic would be light enough that if someone so desired to 21 go through they would wait for a gap in opposing traffic and 22 go around the barricade. . 23 Q Do you have an opinion regarding whether cones 24 might be less advantageous than barricades in discouraging 25 movements in situations where the traffic guide who is
\- '
Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
URBANIK - CROSS. 26427 ) 1 present is not uniformed? k j
\ 2 MR. TURK: Objection.
t 3 JUDGE SMITH: Sustained. 4 BY MR. FIERCE: 5- Q In your answer on page 12 to question 33 you are
~
6 agreeing that in the SPMC for the Seabrook' site,.the 7 Massachusetts communities in particular, an uncontrolled , 8 evacuation wouldn't be faster than a controlled evacuation 9 under the SPMC. 10 And I'm wondering in coming to that conclusion if. 11 you are assuming that the uncontrolled traffic flows on i 12 exactly the same routes there as the routes that are 13 selected for the contro11ed'avacuation? 14 A (Urbanik) I am not assuming -- let me start over l 15 again. 16 - I am assuming under a uncontrolled evacuation that J 17 people are going to take what they perceive to be the ] 18 fastest route of the EPZ. And that, in fact, would not be 19 the same route necessarily as the one that would be in the
*1 20 plan.
21 Q But you think that the one that's in the plan 22 would be fastest, nevertheless? 23 MR. TURK: What would be faster? l 24 MR. FIERCE: The route that's in the plan. 25 MR. TURK:- For whom?
.\ Heritage Reporting Corporation
.k (202) 628-4888
.,,.....__7_,_ . . - _ .
URBANIK - CROSS 26428 1 MR. FIERCE: For the controlled evacuation. 2 MR. TURK: I'm going to object, Your Honor. j 3 The whole concept of traffic management is dealing
)
4 with the population as a group. Maybe one individual can ; l 5 get out faster using his own notion than what the plan ! i I 6 provides for, so what. 7 MR. FIERCE: I'm talking about the group. 8 MR. TURK: I object on the bssis of form because 9 that's not clear. , 10 JUDGE SMITH: Overruled. 11 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) I don't really understand 12 your question. Could you ask it again. 13 MR. FIERCE: Yes. ; 14 BY MR. FIERCE: 15 Q You believe that an uncontrolled evacuation for 16 the Massachusetts communities -- and I'll be specific and 17 I'll say in the summertime when the beaches are crowded -- 18 would be faster for the whole group using the controlled 19 evacuation strategies in the SPMC traffic management plan
-t 20 than for --
21 MR. TURK: Objection. l 22 JUDGE SMITH: I think you mangled that question. ,
)
23 How about starting again, will you, l 24 BY MR. FIERCE: 25 Q For the Massachusetts communities, it's summertime Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ;
- _ = -
l l URBANIK - CROSS 26429 f1 when the beaches are crowded, you believe that a controlled 1 2 evacuation using the strategies in the SPMC would be faster l 3 for the whole group than an uncontrolled evacuation; is that i 4 correct? 5 A (Urbanik) I believe that a controlled evacuation 6 is faster than an uncontrolled evacuation for Massachusetts 7 communities.
- 8 Q Would that always be the case in your view at any 9 site?
10 MR. TURK: Outside of Seabrook? 11 BY MR. FIERCE: 12 Q Is that just a given that a controlled evacuation 13 is always going to be faster than an uncontrolled one? 14 A (Urbanik) No , that's not a given. 15 Q What then is it that you need to assess in order 16 to make that determination? 17 A (Urbanik) Whether there would be significant 18 congestion that would affect the evacuation time such that 19 the use of lesser routes can, in fact, divert some traffic 20 and thereby reduce the evacuation time. 21 If we have a low population EPZ with 20,000 people 22 dispersing in four directions on eight different roads, it 23 matters not how they get out of the EPZ. Their evacuation i 24 time is unaffected by the presence or absence of control. 25 Q When you Lay in your testimony that such an Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
=
URBANIK - CROSS 26430 1 evacuation, and you're referring to a controlled evacuation, 2 will undoubtedly be faster than an evacuation conducted 3 without a traffic management plan, are you saying that you ! 4 have evaluated that for Seabrook? l 5 A (Urbanik) I heard you use the word " uncontrolled" 6 and " faster". I don't know if that's what you said. 7 Are you saying controlled is faster or - 8 uncontrolled is faster? 9 0 Well, I'm reading your sentence in your testimony, , 10 second full sentence in answer 33: "Such an evacuation will 11 undoubtedly be faster than an evacuation conducted without a 12 traffic management plan." 13 MR. TURK: Such an evacuation meaning what's asked. 14 in the quest on: " Evacuation under the SPMC. A controlled 15 evacuation under the SPMC." 16 - MR. FIERCE: That's the way I understood it. 17 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) If the question is 18 question 33, the answer is, no. 19 MR. TURK: I think now the mangling is on the 20 other side, Your Honor. Unless I understand -- 21 JUDGE COLE: He asked it the other way around. 22 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) I didn't hear him ask it . 23 the other way around, that's why I'm confused. And I'm 24 sorry. 25 The reason that I know that a controlled Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i URBANIK - CROSS 26431 1 evacuation is faster at Seabrook is that we have special I f._s :
/
k ,)\ 2 traffic control to utilize lanes that'are not normally ) i 1 3 available. ; I 4 BY MR. FIERCE: l I 5 Q But it also eliminates or discourages use of lanes 6 that are normally available, particularly north and south on
~
7 Route 1; correct? 8 A (Urbanik) Right. l 9 MR. TURK: For Salisbury. 10 MR. FIERCE: For Salisbury. 11 BY MR. FIERCE: 12 Q And how do you know unless you've run I-DYNEV - 13 which way is faster for the whole group?
, 's 14 A (Urbanik) Well my recollection is that some of i )
\~/ '
15 these analyses have been, in fact, run. And that, in fact, 16 d-well, I can't say, in fact, what the results were. I 17 would have to go back and try to pick out -- 18 Q Would you agree that that is the way to determine 19 which way is faster by running the model with and without . 20 the controls? 21 A (Urbanik) Yes. 22 We've run this process, as I said, it has been 23 iterative and it started out that the first runs that were l 24 made with I-DYNEV were without the controls. They didn't 25 know on the first run what controls to make. A
'l ) Heritage Reporting Corporation
( ,/ (202) 628-4888 ____=__=
URBANIK - CROSS 26432 j 1 Q But I'm specifically asking, that would be the way 2 to find out? You don't have some intuitive way just by 3 looking at this plan to know that the controlled evacuation 4 would be faster, do you? 5 JUDGE SMITH: When you say "the way to find out," 6 that implies it is the single way. 7 MR. FIERCE: That's my question. 8 JUDGE SMITH: As compared to "a way." 9 MR. FIERCE: Isn't that the way to find out -- , 10 JUDGE SMITH: The single way to find out. The 11 only way. 12 MR. FIERCE: And I'm also asking if it's not the 13 only way, what are the other ways to find out? I
. i 14 MR. TURK: And whether there's some intuition, 15 also. That was part of your question.
16 - MR. FIERCE: Well, your intuition or are there 17 other methods other than running the model that woul'd allow 18 you to determine which way was Easter. 19 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) It is certainly a way. 20 It is, in a site like Seabrook, I would think the preferable 21 way to do it. But it is not the only way. And I can 22 through knowledge of what's gring on and manual calculations , 23 come to a pretty strong conclusion without going through 24 that process. l 25 S- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - CROSS 26433 1 BY MR. FIERCE: 2 Q Have you done those calculations? 3 A (Urbanik) In certain cases, yes; but not in its 4 entirety. You-have to realize that we also ran our own 5 model back when to look at what was and wasn't appropriate t . 6 strategy. 7 So there is a huge history of modeling runs by a l : i 8 variety of people that provide some illumination on the 9 process, too. 10 Q Doctor, -- 11 A (Urbanik) The model is not magic. All it does is 12 automate what you can do manually. And if you've got enough 13 time and enough resources you can do it manually. So 14 there's nothing magic. It's just more systematic and allows s l N- 15 you to do more alternatives by using the computer model. 16
- Q Dr. Urbanik, what do you think about a traffic l 17 management strategy that withholds the placement of access l
l 18 control for the first couple of hours after the declaration 19 of the general emergency? , 20 A (Urbanik) I think that's a practical necessity 21 because of the need to accommodate returning commuters. 22 Q What do you think about a traffic management plan 23 that does not have traffic control personnel in place inside 24 the EPZ for anywhere from 90 minutes to two and a half hours 25 after the general emergency and evacuation order is given?
, Beritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l l
URBANIK - CROSS 26434 1 MR. TURK: Objection, 'four Honor, that's a 2 hypothetical with no possibility of connecting up in this 3 case. 4 MR. FIERCE: I disagree. 5 MR. TURK: You're saying that there's no traffic 6 control personnel in place until 90 minutes after a GE is 7 declared? 8 MR. FIERCE: In a fast-breaking accident 9 situation, they have given us the times. The times that , i 10 were used in the exercise. Given the times that it would 11 take to dispatch their people in a fast-breaking accident j 4 12 that moves quickly from an alert through a site area 1 13 emergency to a general emergency, those would be the delays. 14 JUDGE SMITH: And you call that a strategy? ) 15 MR. FIERCE: I'm not sure it's a strategy or a G1) j 16 nonstrategy. I'm asking him, with that kind of a traffic 4 17 management plan where that is the result, which has those 18 kinds of delays in staffing the traffic control posts, l 19 whether you have an opinion about that kind of a strategy. 20 JUDGE SMITH: You agree that it's strategy, I'm 21 speaking of that? 22 Just go back to your objection. , 23 MR. TURK: Mr. Fierce has referenced the exercise 24 timing or positioning of traffic control guides. I need to 25 look at that document to see if it's right. s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ __ . _ _ _ _ _ _ = _
1 URBANIK - CROSS. 26435 1 So.if I may have a minute, . Your Honor. I' haven't 2 come to your note about whether that's a strategy as opposed _ 3 to a consequence of existing planning. 4 (Counsel reviews document.) 5 6 7 8 . 9 10 j i 11 !)
')
12 13 14 15 16 - 17 18 19 20 21 22 , 23 24 25 Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 .
. . . . - - .e .- ~,,=.m... m% m. +- . .. .m 9p- . ~s...4 a. .... 4 g, u se, . . 34
{ ITPSANIK - CROSS 26436 l 1 MR. FIERCE: I believe that's Mass AG Exhibit No. 2 57. 3 MR. TURK: I withdraw my ob'ection, j Your Honor. 4 JUDGE McCOLLOM: He withdrew his objection. 5 MR. FIERCE: You may anrwer. I 6 MR. TURK: I's my understanding -- if I can 7 refresh myself on the history, Your Honor, not having been- ,
- 1 8 involved for a while. ,
i 9 It's my understanding that there is a stipulation . , 10 between the Applicants and the Mass AG that the time it took , I l 11 to, or the time which manifestod itself in the positioning l 12 of traffic control guides during the exercise would be , l 13 assumed to be the time that it would actually take in an 14 actual emergency. 15 Is that correct? ] 4 16
~
MR. FIERCE: I'm not sure we actually ever 17 stipulated formally to that in any way. I don't think we're 18 disputing it. It would probably be the way I would put it. 1S MR. TURK: The only problem, Your Honor, is that , 20 this chart indicates the time from which the site area 21 emergency was declared, and that's the delta time reference 22 rather than the general emergency. . 23 So perhaps Mr. Fierce's question was slightly 24 improper in form. He should have referenced 90 minutes from 25 the time the site area emergency is declared rather than the '\- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - CROSS 26437 1 time from which a GE is declared. 2 MR. FIERCE: Well, except I'm saying in a fast-3 breaking accident situation, I know that the -- and I call 1 1 4 it a strategy. Your strategy is you decide when it is you 5 are going to call up your people. 6 Their people are not called up to report to the 7 staging arca until the site area emergency. That's their 8 decision, their choice, their strategy. And then they can't-9 get them out into tho field until the times that are set j 10 forth on this document, minus 25 minutes because they have 11 routed them during the exercise over to the Haverhill 12 staging area. 13 So in a fast-breaking emergency, we're going to r-s 14 see those kinds of time delays for staffing traffic control s- 15 posts. And I am just asking Dr. Urbanik what his opinion of 16 that kind of a strategy was. 17 MR. TURK: Well,'I think there is still a problem, l 18 Your Honor, in that I would have to go back and look at what 19 the stipulation was between Mass AG and Applicants. . 20 MR. FIERCE: I don't think there is a stipulation 21 here, Your Honor. I think it's probably an informal 22 agreement. We're not contesting those times. They provided 23 us those times, and we're not saying they are going to be 24 longer. They are not saying they are going to be shorter. 25 MR. TURK: Well, the inherent premise then is that
\ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - CROSS 26438 1 in a general emergency people are not g61ng to move faster 2 to get to their traffic control posts. In fact, won't be 3 directed to move faster than at the site area emergency. So 4 I think that's an inherent flaw in the question. 5 MR. FIERCE: Well, I'm not so sure. The way it 6 worked in the exercise they were trying to get their people 7 out into the field as quickly as they could, because they 8 did not know when a general emergency would be declared. j 4 9 They were trying to get their people in place as fast as . 10 they could, and they were keeping times. That's why we have 11 this list. 12 JUDGE SMITH: Are you satisfied with the question 13 as propounded by Mr. Fierce? 14 Do you understand all the ramifications of it? 15 The question is addressed to your professional 16 judgment as whether you would be satisfied with such a 17 strategy. And I just wondered if you know all the elements 18 of that strategy and the consequences. 19 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) I'm not sure I know what . 20 all the consequences may be. 21 But, yes, I'm basically -- I think I can attempt 22 to answer it. I'm not sure I can answer it satisfactorily, . 23 and I'm not sure -- I think it's a semantic question. I 24 d-t think it's a strategy. I think it may be a reality of 25 what you would have to factor into your decisionmaking ti Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
( URBANIX - CROSS 26439 1 process. k 2 BY MR. FIERCE: 3 Q Well, it's a strategy, isn't it, to the extent 1 4 that they have chosen to call their people up at the site I 5 area emergency rather than say calling them up at the alert? ! 6 (Pause . ) l 7 JUDGE SMITH: I just wonder if this is within the 8 scope of his testimony, his' expertise, his competence. 9 MR. TURK: Well, he is certainly competent to 10 testify to what effect there may be on ETEs with delayed 11 traffic control staffing. In fact, in -- 1 1 12 JUDGE SMITH: But the question asks whether he 13 blesses it, or is it satisfactory to him. Is he pleased 14 with the safety product that is produced. t 15 MR. TURK: As I recall in the New Hampshire 16 litigation, Your Honor, Dr. Urbanik testified that he was 1 17 not concerned with the potential delay for traffic control 18 staffing. Because in any event, all that 'would do was l ! 19 extend the ETEs by the amount of time it takes to staff the i
~
1 ! 20 posts, e.nd that that was something that the decisionmaker 21 would be aware of. , 22 And so when the decisionmaker is making.his 23 protective action recommendations, he would take that into 24 account. And Dr. Urbanik saw no flaw in terms of the 25 preparation of evacuation time estimates for that potential Heritaga Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
~" ' ~' ' ~ ~ ~ ' " * * * ' ~ " " " ~ ~ ' ' " " ' ' ~ ~"
URBANIK - CROSS 26440 , 1 to exist. 2 JUDGE SMITH: The question put to him is a value 3 gyestion. 4 MR. TURK: Yes. "Is it good." 5 JUDGE SMITH: Right. It's a value question. 6 And his answer could be, oh, no, I would much 7 rather have a 15-minute response time. But it's irrelevant. 8 I mean it's not his judgment to make. 9 As I understand the question, you are suggesting , 10 to him that the call up time should be at the alert stage. 11 MR. FIERCE: Yes, and in -- 12 JUDGE SMITH: That's the whole idea that you have 13 behind your question. j/ l l 14 MR. FIERCE: -- a utility plan where you know in 15 advance that you have some timing problems in getting your - 16 people there, wouldn't the better strategy be to call them 17 up earlier so you can gnt them out there into the field. 18 JUDGE SMITH: Better strategy for what purpose? 19 MR. FIERCE: To do all the purposes that they have 20 that people get out there for in the first place: To 21 enhance capacity at certain locations, to provide a safety 22 measure for reporting accidents, for all of the reasons you , 23 have them getting out there at all. 24 JUDGE SMITH: It's the same -- 25 MR. FIERCE: In a utility plan, wouldn't it be a Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
R I l URBANIK - CROSS 26441
)
1 better strateg'y to call them up sooner. 2 JUDGE SMITH: Is that a traffic management j l 3 consideration, or is that a value judgment to be made by j 4 protective action people? 5 Isn't it the same as if it were an unusual event
- 1 6 alert, general emergency or whatever? l 7 MR. FIERCE: No, this is -- *i ~
l 8 JUDGE SMITH: It is beyond his competence to say q i l
. 9 when that should be initiated as far as I can see. I don't I 10 know what competence he has. He's a traffic management and 11 ETE expert.
12 MR. FIERCE: Well, I believe this is a traffic l 13 management strategy consideration. And if-he wants to tell 14 me -- 15 JUDGE SMITH: Well, there is no objection on that 16 basis so we'll just let it go. ! l l 17 MR. TURK: What's the pending question? ] 18 MR. LEMALD: He's answered it. 19 MR. TURK: I thought the witness has already , 20 indicated -- 21 JUDGE SMITH: The pending question is --.what?
, 22 MR. LEWALD: He's answered it.
23 MR. TURK: I thought that the witness has already 24 indicated that, if I'm not mistaken, he was not troubled by 25 this -- O Heritagu Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - CROSS 26442 1 JUDGE SMITH: That was your testimony. 2 That was how you recall his testimony from New 3 Hampshire? 4 Have you answered his question? 5 MR. FIERCE: No, it hasn't been answered. 6 JUDGE SMITH: No. 7 MR. TURK: Could I hear the question again, Your 8 Honor? j l 9 Perhaps Mr. Fierce would simply restate it rather , i 10 than asking the reporter to -- 11 JUDGE SMITH: Well, see, the question alone is not , i 12 going to do you any good, because Mr. Fierce has on several 13 occasions now described the strategy to which he alludes in I l 14 the question. It's the strategy of calling up at the site i l 15 area emergency rather than the alert classification. That J 16 is the strategy to which he alludes, everything else being a 17 consequence. j 18 That is what happened on -- what is that exhibit 19 that you agreed upon? And the variable which would be 20 available to the traffic management decisionmaker is begin 1 21 at the alert stage rather than the site area emergency. And 22 that's the question put to him. , 23 MR. TURK: And that's beyond the scope of the 24 testimony and beyond the scope of the contentions -- 25 JUDGE SMITH: Exactly right. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l f i I
URBANIK - CROSS 26443
,, 1 lMR. TURK: -- which this witness is addressing.
2 JUDGE SMITH: And beyond the scope of his 3 competence. 4 Well, he may be competent but he's not here for 5 that purpose unless'there is an aspect of it that is
. I 6 escaping.
7 (The Board confers.) 8 JUDGE SMITH: So you object on that basis. 9 MR. TURK: Yes. 10 JUDGE SMITH: Sustained. I 11 BY MR. FIERCE: 12 Q Dr. Urbanik, if control of a very congested 13 intersection does not occur until an hour or two into an 14 evacuation and the intersection has developed a natural ( 15 pattern of movement that is not that '.thich is in the SPMC, 16 do you have an opinion as to how difficult it would be to 17 reestablish the traffic control that the SPMC calls for at 18 that point? 19 MR. TURK: When the guide arrives. 20 BY MR. FIERCE: ! 21 Q When the guide or guides arrive. 22 A (Urbanik) I don't think it would be difficult at 23 all to establish the traffic control once the guide arrives. 24 Q During the first hour or two before the guide or 25 guides arrive, will the traffic, in your view, be obeying-Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
,_. ._ z _ _ ,____
. . _ .- .~. .
z
l Il URBANIK - CROSS 26444 1 all of the traffic signals and stop signs? ; 2 A (Urbanik) For the most part, the traffic will be l 3 well behaved, yes. 4 You know, if you are out in a rural area and you 5 live out there and there is a stop sign, are you going to
~
6 r.ake a full stop? 7 Probably not.
- i
~
8 0 You have a discussion doout the traffic control { 9 posts along Route 286. It's Question 44 and Answer 44. And , 1 10 the question asks you about some of the intersecting streets 1 11 along Route 286, and whether TCPs are required there. 12 And your answer is that there wouldn't, and local 13 evacuees have other routes out and could always intersect 14 slow-moving evacuation traffic. 15 In answering that question did you consider the 16 other alternative, however, which is that a traffic control 17 post there would discourage the very congested flow along 18
- 286 that might be in essentially a spill-back condition from .
I 19 accessing those local roads and then traveling into 20 Salisbury Square? 21 MR. TURK: Do you understand the question? l 22 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) No, I don't. , l 23 BY MR. FIERCE: l 24 Q You have your map there. 25 Do you see Route 286 and the local roads that ! Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
URLANIK - CROSS 26445 1 intersect it as Route 286 heads out toward -- well, 2 ultimately toward I-95. First, to Route 1 and then -- is 3 that on your map? 4 A (Urbanik) No, not on the one I've got yet. l 5 6 7 l 6 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 - 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
=
# -* * * - *h'b h%
l I ! URBANIK - CROSS 26446 1 Q Well, just from your answer you indicate the 2 three routes identified in the question: South Main; Adams; l 3 and Washington; and also, the intersection of Seabrook Road l 4 and Forest Road are -- you identify them as local streets. ( 5 So we're talking about roads that interser -c Route 6 286. Do you understand that much? f i 7 Now you believe, as you say here in V answer:
~
l l 8 "You don't need traffic control posts there." And it looks 9 like the focus of your concern is evacuees in the area who . 10 need to get out. And you say: "No traffic control posts are 11 needed because they can get out other ways. And in any 12 event, the traffic on 286 will be slow moving, so they can 13 probably move out and intersect that traffic and join it." 14 That's the way I read your answer; is that what 15 you intended here? 16 - A (Urbanik) I believe that's correct; yes. 17 Q I was asking you whether you also considered 18 another possibility which is, that because traffic on Route 19 286 was moving in a congested flow fashion, perhaps a 20 spill-back condition from the interstate up ahead or for 21 those people who hadn't yet crossed Route 1 from that 22 intersection, wouldn't they be interested and see these side . 23 roads as opportunities that perhaps might get them out of 24 the EPZ quicker. I 25 And then access them in a way that could, in fact, i l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 j l
i URBANIK - CROSS 26447 1 not get them out quicker, perhaps dump them down into the i 1 2 Salisbury area, near Salisbury Square.. And therefore, that ] 3 presents a need to have the traffic control personnel at 4 those locations. 5 MR. TURK: In essence you're asking, isn't there a
~
6 need for traffic control to preclude people from leaving ! l 7 286, getting on to these side streets and taking some other 8 route. 9 MR.' FIERCE: Yes. 10 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) It's always possible for 11 people to do some'of those things. I don't think there is 12 any reason to believe that that effect would be very large. 13 If it was, people would do it on an every day basis leaving e 14 the beach, and I certainly didn't observe any of that kind 15 of behavior either. 16 - You have to have some knowledge of the area to 17 even have a belief that you could get out. 18 BY MR. FIERCE: 19 Q Let me just ask you a couple final questions about
~
20 MUTCD. You're familiar with that, aren't you, Doctor? 4 21 A (Urbanik) Quite extensively, yes. 22 Q And you agree that MUTCD is relevant to traffic 1 23 management planning for emergencies like a nuclear 24 evacuation; correct? 25 MR. TURK: Could we have that again, please. l 1 \[ Heritage Reporting Corporation ; (202) 628-4888 {
URBANIK - CROSS 26448 1 BY MR. FIERCE: 2 O You agree that MUTCD is a relevant document in 3 traffic management planning -- 4 JUDGE SMITH: What does that stand for? 5 BY MR. FIERCE: 6 Q -- for nuclear emergencies? 7 JUDGE SMITH: What do those letters stand for? - 8 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) Manual Ununiformed Traffic Control Devices. There's a national manual that's e - l 9 , 10 put together so that a stop sign in Boston is read as well 11 as in Texas and a variety of other things. It's just a 12 standardization of devices and some general guidelines for - 13 traffic control. 14 MR. TURK: And the question is whether the whole 1 l 15 of the MUTCD is relevant -- Q I 16 - MR. FIERCE: I didn't say the whole. I said, it l 17 is a relevant document. Offers relevant advice. Not every l l 18 word, but relevant advice is in there. 19 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) The principles, the signs 20 and markings and everything that are in there are certainly 21 relevant. But on the other hand, they don't -- weren't 22 really addressed for this kind of a situation, so they don't , 23 offer any unique guidance to solving the problem. 24 BY MR. FIERCE: 25 Q With respect to channelization on interstates, is Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26449 + p_ 1 the guidance offered in MUTCD relevant to how channelization 2 ought to occur here when access control is established? 3 A (Urbanik) It offers sound principles that one 4 would generally follow, yes. ! 5 MR. FIERCE: I have no further questions.
~
6 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Lewald, do you have questions? l l 7 MR. LEWALD: I have no questions. -) 8 JUDGE SMITH: Well, there are aspects of his 4 9 testimony which take issue with your client's point of view, 10 as I understand it. { 11 MR. LEWALD: In certain respects, with respect to l ! 12 diagrams. l 13 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. i 7s 14 MR. LEMALD: Outmoded diagrams and I think access t
\m. -) 15 -- traffic control access guides on freeways. We don't ,
l 16 quarrel with that testimony. l l 17 JUDGE SMITH: Okay, 18 EXAMINATION BY JUDGE COLE 19 JUDGE COLE: Dr. Urbanik, on page 9 of your 20 testimony, question 22. You are asked: "Does the SPMC o 21 specify the use of an adequate number of traffic control , 22 personnel?" 23 And you answered in the affirmative. 24 How did you make that determination, sir? Exactly 25 what did you do?
'[ Heritage Reporting Corporation
(_,/ (202) 628-4888
~-
-----_z ----_-_;
26450 1 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) The most critical aspect 2 is having enough personnel to cover all of the special 3 traffic control measures like Salisbury Center, Route 51 at 4 I-95, the access control points. 5 Then the next level, that's certainly as high a 6 priority as those where there is rerouting taking place. In 7 other words, you're encouraging people to take alternate 8 routes. And I would say those two priorities are mandatory. 9 You have got to have at least that many people, , 10 Beyond that the number is really largely 11 subjective. And it's my judgment that the number to handle 12 just other kinds of contingencies, to be able to spot IS breakdowns or other things and provide some assurance of 14 public involvement is more than adequate. 15 I have no way to quantify that number. But I 16 would certainly say that there are a large number of people 17 in each of the various communities beyond the need for just 18 strict traffic capacity enhancement and maintenance. 19 JUDGE COLE: All right. 20 Are you finished? 21 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) Yes. 22 JUDGE COLE: Page 14 of your testimony, question , 23 42. The question is: "Are more traffic control guides 24 required to be provided in the Town of Amesbury than are 25 specified in the SPMC7" ! Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 26451 f 1 And you state: "No. Numerous locations have been f 2 suggested for designation." 3 By whom, sir? 4 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) All these points were 5 listed in the contentions. I believe -- I'm not sure 6 whether in this case they come from -- but I would presume 7 most of them come from the police. , e i 8 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir. l l
. 9 So none of these that are listed are actual 10 control points. And.in your opinion, it's not necessary 11 that they be designated; is that correct?.
12 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) That's correct. 13 JUDGE COLE: Just a small point on question 31 14 with respect to the closing of an interstate highway. i 0 15 Which interstate highway are you referring to 16 there, sir? Is it a portion of 95 you're referring to? 17 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) It's essentially the 18 northbound I-95 traffic, and the northeast bound 495 traffic 19 that is approaching the EPZ. 4
*1 20 And this traffic control is ultimately aimed at )
- I l
21 keeping people out of the EPZ that have no purpose in being 22 in there. It's essentially the traffic that would be 23 through-traffic, passing through the EPZ on 495. 24 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir. 25 Thank you, i i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ,
.. ~ . . . . _ _ _ . _ . . . ~ . . ,,... . . . - . . . _ . . - - - _ _ . .- .
URBANIK - REDIRECT 26452 1 That's all I have. 2 JUDGE SMITH: Do you have redirect? 3 MR. TURK: Yes, Your Honor. 4 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 5 BY MR. TURK:
~
6 Q Dr. Urbanik, earlier today you indicated that you 7 have a great familiarity with the EPZ. And from that should - 1 8 I -- ( 9 MR. FIERCE: Objection, I don't think that's quite , 10 what he testified. He didn't testify about having great 11 familiarity with traffic patterns in local communities. 12 MR. TURK: His words, Your Honor, were that he had 13 great familiarity with the EPZ. 14 BY MR. TURK: 15 0 And my question is: could you describe what 16 familiarity you have with the roads and highways located in 17 the EPZ? 18 (Pause) 19 BY MR. TURK: 20 Q Are you familiar with them? 21 A (Urbanik) Yes, I am. 22 I have driven the roads and highways on quite a , 23 few different occasions over the last eight years, you know, 24 probably a dozen different expeditions into the EPZ. 25 Q Are you also familiar with all the different Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
URBAN 1X - REDIRECT 26453 1 intersections identified in contentions where it was
/~N k,) 2 suggested that additional traffic control posts need to be 3 designated?
4 A (Urbanik) Yes. 5 I made a concerted effort this year to get to each 6 of the locations that were identified in the contentions. I 7 had difficulty in finding a few of them, but one of them was ; 8 literally in the middle of nowhere. 9 Q Does your testimony then reflect your opinion as i 10 to the need for additional traffic control posts throughout ) i 11 the EPZ in Massachusetts? 12 A (Urbanik) Yes, it does. , l 13 Q Also today you discussed the need for a 14 determination to be made as to whether the traffic
\ 15 management plan can be implemented with resources available.
16 - Have you reached a determination whether there are 17 sufficient resources available to implement the SPMC traffic 18 management plan? 19 MR. FIERCE: Objection, it's beyond the scope of
*1 20 direct.
21 MR. TURK: It's in the cross, Your Honor. 22 MR. FIERCE: Beyond the scope of cross, excuse me. 23 I didn't get into that aspect of it. 24 MR. TURK: Your Honor, the witness indicated that. 25 no thought was given in the preparation of NUREG-0654, i
.k\jh Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
~ ~
" ~ ' ~^
' ~ ~
1 URBANIK - REDIRECT 26454 1 Appendix 4 to the need to construct an additional bridge 2 across the marshes. 3 And he emphasized that the objective of NUREG-0654 4 was determined whether or not the traffic management can be 5 implemented with the resources available. 6 And he indicated that one of the considerations 7 is, is the number of people available relative to the -- 8 what is the number of people available relevant to the 9 general traffic management plan. , 10 This is all in his cross-examination. And now I'm l 11 asking him -- 12 MR. FIERCE: It's in his testimony. 13 MR. TURK: It's in his cross-examination 14 testimony. 15 MR. FIERCE: In his testimony, there are some I 16 points I did not cross-examine on, as Your Honor knows. And 1 17 this I think is just a blatant attempt to go back to the 18 original testimony and essentially underscore things that 19 are there and perhaps in the original testimony. 20 MR. TURK: Your Honor, if I may ask Mr. Fierce, I 21 would be happy when tomorrow's transcript comes out to have 22 Your Honor review it and see if, in fact, the testimony I . 23 recited came out. 24 JUDGE SMITH: And strike 3t if it did. 25 MR. TURK: Well, I would go further: strike it if
- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - REDIRECT 26455 1 it did, but let's get all the bets on the table. If Mr. 2 Fierce wants to stand on his objection, then I would limit 3 his cross-examination of any further witnesses in this case, 4 because it's a totally ridiculous objection he is making now 5 and I don't think we should have to listen to it.
. 6 This testimony I have recited, Your' Honor, was i -
l 7 oral testimony given by Dr. Urbanik in his cross-examination 1 J 8 by Mr. Fierce. J 9 JUDGE SMITH: Well, if you're wrong, Mr. Fierce, 10 what are we going to do about it? 11 How can we save the situation if you're wrong? 12 MR. FIERCE: Well, I think you just have to do 13 what you always do, we rely on your memory of what the
,- 14 cross-exasLnation was and you rule now, Your Honor, and we \
ws 15 live with it. 16 - MR. DIGNAN: No motion for reconsideration? 17 MR. TURK: I'm happy with my judgment -- 18 JUDGE SMITH: No. 19 (The Board confers.) .. 20 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 21 Objection overruled. ; 22 BY MR. TURK: 23 Q And the question again -- do you recall the-24 question? 25 I'll repeat it if you like.
\ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
. . . - - . - -- ._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _,___._. _ _ _ _. m
i URBANIK - REDIRECT 26456 1 JUDGE COLE: Same question now. ) I 2 (Laughter.) 3 MR. TURK: Same question. ; i 4 BY MR. TURK: 1 5 Q Have you made a determination whether there are 6 sufficient resources available to implement the SPMC traffic 7 management plan? ,
; I 8 A (Urbanik) The availability of resources is l 9 determined by FEMA, I don't actually do the resource ,
10 availability. l
- 11 In terms of reviewing the plan, the plan is not 1
12 constrained in any way by resource availability that I know
]
13 of. l- 14 Q Does the plan identify a sufficient number of l 15 resources to implement the SPMC traffic management plan? 16 - A (Urbanik) Oh, yes, it does. 17 Q Also, there was extensive cross-examination about 18 the intent of NUREG-0654, Appendix 4. 19 Could you describe what involvement you had, if 20 any, in preparation of that document? e 21 A (Urbanik) I was one of the principal authors of 22 Appendix 4. , 23 Q You indicated you had not run I-DYNEV to model 24 evacuation for Seabrook. 25 Have you reviewed to any extent the Applicants' l l' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - REDIRECT 26457 l _ 1 use of I-DYNEV? 2 A (Urbanik) Yes. ; 3 I've reviewed both the assumptions and the input 4 data that were used in it and the results that came out. ; I 5 Q Have you reached a determination of whether or not 6 the Applicants' consideration of inputs and the results are 7 reasonable and appropriate? 8 A (Urbanik) Yes. 9 I believe the inputs and the process in developing l 10 them and the modeling were appropriate and therefore the 1 11 results that follow would, in fact, be appropriate, also. 12 And there have been numerous different modeling 13 -attempts. We're talking about in the area of refinement.
'p~ 14 There is no basis for a large difference in numbers from the 15 ones that we had. R 16 -
So we know we're in the right ball park. The only 17 question is: what are the appropriate inputs. 18 Q There was also some examinatio'n as to access for 4 l 19 emergency vehicles. And you may recall one of the questions 20 was: if a plan provided no means of access for emergency s i 21 vehicles would it satisfy NUREG-0654. 22 And you indicated that if there was no access 23 provided it would not meet the 0654 criteria. 24 Could you indicate which criteria you had in mind 25 when you made that statement? ;
\'
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
=
-~
- -~- -
i i URBANIK - REDIRECT 26458 1 A (Urbanik) Well, you also have to provide access 2 for vehicles for transient population, special facilities, I 3 and things of that nature. So if all the roads were one-way l 4 you would deny the importation of necessary resources. { 5 Q And where in 0654 do you find any guidance de ~~.ng 6 with that? 0654, Appendix 47 7
~
8 - 9 , , t 10 j 11 12 13 14 15 16 - 17 , 1 18 19 . 20 I 21 l 22
- i 23 24 b Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
= __ :_-___-____ ___ __ _
URBANIK - REDIRECT 26459 1 A (Urbanik) It's not set out in specific form. 2 You have to do an estimate of the special facility 3 populations. And in order to do that, you are going to have 4 to look at the transportation requirements. 5 And in order to be able to provide an evacuation
~
6 of those facilities, you would have to be able to get those 7 resources in. - 8 The whole planning for all types of disasters has l , 9 always required access for emergency vehicles into an area. j 10 c I~'s not unique to nuclear power plants. We do it in 11 hurricanes and other types of emergency planning. 12 O If a plan provided no means of access whatsoever 13 for emergency vehicles to come into the EPZ, would an 14 applicant be required then to identify a means of getting l 15 vehicles in order to improve evacuation times? 16 - MR. FIERCE: Objection. That question makes no 1 17 sense. 18 If the roads didn't permit access vehicles to come 19 in, would the applicants then have to identify ways for the ? - 20 vehicles to come in. 21 BY MR. TURK: 22 Q If a plan provided no means for emergency vehicles 23 to enter the EPZ, would an applicant tabn be required to 24 identify a means of access or to improve evacuation times -- 25 MR. FIERCE: And amend the plans. Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - REDIRECT 26460 1 BY MR. TURK: 2 Q -- consistent with NUREG-0654. 3 A (Urbanik) I guess I'm not sure where you are 4 going. 5 You've got to provide transportation for that 6 special facility. You've got to p'r ovide, in this case the 7 traffic control people couldn't get in either. The plan - 8 just wouldn't work. 9 Q Do you feel that the SPMC meets this guidance? . 10 MR.' FIERCE: Objection. That's a legal question. , 11 JUDGE SMITH: Overruled. 12 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) It meets NUREG-0654 13 guidance? 14 BY MR. TURK: 15 Q Yes, with respect to providing means of access. 16 - A (Urbanik) Yes, I do. ) i 17 JUDGE COLE: Excuse me. 18 Where in 0654 does it say you need that? ) l 19 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) That you need returning
\
20 access? 1 21 JUDGE COLE: Yes. 22 THE WITNESS: (Urbanik) I don't think it does . l 23 specifically. l 24 JUDGE COLE: That's why I didn't understand your 25 answer.
\- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - REDIRECT 26461 , 1 If NUREG-0654 is silent on that issue, how can you b) l
\m, 2 say it's in compliance?
l 3 MR. TURK: I think the provision, Your Honor -- 4 maybe I was too hesitant.to get into a leading question. 5 Dr. Urbanik's testimony said that one of the 6 criteria in 0654 is that an applicant needs to identify 7 special actions necessary to improve evacuation times. - 8 And I guess my question to Dr. Urbanik should have
. 9 been and let me pose it at this time.
j 10 Let me first of all provide you with a reference 11 in the testimony.
- 12. It's Answer 7 which cites NUREG-0654 at_page 4-10.
13 JUDGE COLE: Okay. Are you saying that's under 12 five other requirements?
\ 15 MR. TURK: Yes.
16 - JUDGE COLE: Okay. . l 17 MR. TURK: There's a sentence there which says, 18 " Specific recommendations for actions that could be taken to 19 significantly improve evacuation time shall be given." 20 k 4 then also on the prior page, Your Honor, 21 starting at the bottom of page 4-9, it says, " Estimates for
. 22 special facilities shall be made with consideration for the 23 means of mobilization of equipment and manpower to aid an 24 evacuation." And it goes on to the next page.
25 y Heritage Reporting Corporation
\ (202) 628-4888
URBANIK - REDIRECT 26462 1 BY MR. TURK: 2 Q And with reference to those two provisions, may I 3 ask Dr. Urbanik if those -- if you believe those provisions 4 provide guidance to the need to providing access for 5 emergency vehicles?
~
6 A (Urbanik) They certainly implicitly do that. You 7 know, I don't know that I would argue that it specifically 8 relates to one-way roadways or other things. But you do 9 have to attend to those folks. And that's why I said , 10 earlier the plan, you know, in its entirety just wouldn't 11 work. 12 So I guess I am begging the question a little bit. 13 It's just not feasible to make the roads all one way. 14 Q Also, you indicated at two points in your cross-15 examination today that one reason for having traffic control 16 guides on the streets is to provide some reassurance. I 17 don't know if that's the exact word you used, but some sort 18 of reassurance to the public that the authorities are I 19 involved, or that there is public involvement. 20 And did you mean to include in that the ORO? In i , l 21 other words, the traffic guides from the ORO are there 22 helping to assist in the evacuation. , 1 l 23 A (Urbanik) Yes. There is no requirement of any l 24 particular type of traffic guides. 25 Q Of traffic? l l
.'s -
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 i URBANIK - REDIRECT 26463 1 A (Urbanik) Guides. The traffic guides or traffic l 2 control personnel do not have to be of any particular type. 3 They just have to be trained and instructed in what 4 objective function they are trying to obtain. ] 5 Q There is also a line of questioning dealing with
~
6 congested traffic. And you were asked whether you believe a l 7 traffic guide should be posted at every intersection along -
~
8 the congested traffic route. 9 And as I recall, you indicated there was no need 10 to post one at every block, but you suggested that traffic 11 guides should or might be positioned within reasonable 12 walking distance and within several minutes. 13 Do you recall that testimony? 14 A (Urbanik) Yes, I do.
\ 15 Q Are you suggesting then that the SPMC provide ,
i 16 traffic guides at every intersection that may be congested, 17 that is, within a distance of several minutes by foot from j i 18 the -- l 19 A (Urbanik) I wasn't making any specific 20 recommendation in terms of something that could be applied 21 uniformly. I think you would have to look at the particular j 22 circumstances. ; 23 Q Do you think that additional traffic control posts ! 24 need to be established in the SPMC beyond what the SPMC now ; 25 provides for? I \ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- . - - - - - - _ _ _ _ - - - . . _ . _ - - _ _ _ _ a
URBANIK - REDIRECT 26464 i 1 A (Urbanik) No. I 2 I think I have already stated that they are more O j 3 than adequate. 4 And walking wasn't the only means. There are 5 radios and lots of other things. I'm just giving an example l i 6 of what you could do to find out what's going on. ) 7 Q. Should your testimony, then, with regard to a
*1 8 walking distance of several minutes be understood in the l 1
9 :natext of a theoretical perfect plan with perfect . 10 resources and perfect conditions? 11 A (Urbanik) It was only intended as an example that j i 12 there could be some s!gnificant distance that could be j 13 covered by someone. That you don't need one at any short l 14 prescribed interval. ! I 15 Q Also, you indicated that some time ago you did 16 your own runs comparing controlled evacuations with 17 uncontrolled evacuations. 18 Do you recall that? Yvur own computer runs. 19 I believe it was in sae context of a model other 20 than I-DYNEV. 21 (Pause . ) 22 A (Urbanik) I guess I don't have the specific . 23 recollection of talkin J about modeling of controlled versus 24 uncontrolled. l 25 Q There was also some cross-examination about the l l l 1 l( / Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 620-4888 t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _
URBANIK - REDIRECT 26465 1 manual -- that the Mt'TCD, .the Manual on Uniform Traffic g 2 Control Devices, and you indicated that.you felt the MUTCD 3 provides relevant advice with regard to signs and markings, 4 but that it doesn't really address this LAtuation. 5 And by that did you mean an emergency evacuation 6 near a commercial nuclear power plant? 7 A (Urbanik) Yes. 8 Q With regard to channelization, do you recall the 9- context in which the MUTCD discusses channelization? 10 A (Urbanik) Well, there are a number of different l 11 contexts. One is on construction zones. Another is in 12 terms of just -- you said channelization? 13 Q Yes. l -
- . 14 A (Urbanik) I guess there is more than one place i /
\ 15 where the MUTCD talks about channelization.
16 - Q If I'm not mist'aken, thero is a chapter -- it 17 could be Chapter 6, but it goes back awhile. But it's my 18 recollection that the MUTCD discusses the placement of cones 19 at certain intervals with respect to construction projects, 20 if I'm not mistaken. l' 21 Do you recall that? 22 A (Urbanik) Yes, it does. 23 MR. TURK: I have nothing further, Your Honor. l 24 JUDGE SMITH: Anybody? 25 Mr. Fierce, anything further?
, Heritage Reporting Corporation
\ (202) 628-4888 !
l
.,,sn mm.,-- . . , .,
26466 ! 1 MR. FIERCE: No. 2 JUDGE SMITH: Any more questions, anybody? 3 (No response.) ! 4 JUDGE SMITH: All right, you are excused. 1 5 (The witness was thereupon excused.) 6 JUDGE' SMITH: Mr. Adler? 7 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, just a couple of matters
*]
8 that I wanted to quickly raise. 9 I have neglected to mention at the beginning of , 10 the morning that I again have received a call from Jane 11 Doughty. She is still ill and apologizes for the fact that l l 12 SAPL is unrepresented here at the hearings, particularly 1 13 last week at the end of the discussion on monitoring and I i 14 also this week as we move into ETEs. But she hopes she will 15 be able to join us shortly. l 16 - I also spoke on the phone with Mr. .iconte. He 17 is working on a reply response to the opposit .is to the 18 Mass AG motion regarding the onsite exercise. 19 JUDGE SMITH: Incidentally, he got a copy, he was
*l 20 served with the Staff's brief?
21 MR. FIERCE: Yes. He did get the Staff's brief. 22 JUDGE SMITH: That's fortunate. We haven't been.
- 1 ;
23 MR. DIGNAN: We didn't get it either. 24 MR. TURK: You have not been, Yocr Honor? 25 JUDGE SMITH: No. I haven't.
\' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
26467 1 MR. TURK:. We will arrange for it to be telefaxed 2 up here immediately if I don't have it in my possession now. 3 JUDGE SMITH: I think that sometimes people are 4 just automatically thinking.we are down back at our -- those 5 participants who have been home a lot think that we're home 6 a lot in odr office, and we're not. We are up here working. 7 MR. TURK: Your Honor, I do have a' copy which I 8 will have xeroxed. I'll have several copies made. And
, 9 needless to say, we are very much aware that you are here 10 working this whole period, Your Honor.
11 I apologize for not getting you this sooner. It 12 was to have been telefaxed up here last week. We must have i 13 missed it.
-s 14 I'm told it was telefaxed late Friday, and too l \- 15 late for you to receive.
1 ! 16 - MR. FIERCE: In any event, Mr. Traficonte -- 17 MR. DIGNAN:. I take it the Board is going to grant 18 a reply? 19 It's just automatic? 20 This is a big, huge motion. It's this thick. 21 I've replied. The Staff is apparently replying or has 22 replied. And automatically the Attorney General assumes 23 he's got another right of reply. 24 MR. FIERCE: He's working on a reply. It will be 25 ready for you, we hope today. If not today, tomorrow. Mr. Heritage Reporting Corporation k (202) 628-4888-
)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - a I
26468 , 1 Traficonte, unfortunately, begins two days of Vermont -- one ; 2 and perhaps two days of Vermont Yankee hearings in 3 Brattleboro starting tomorrow, and would not be available to I l 4 come into argue that whole motion, but hopes that perhaps it I 5 could be scheduled for Friday. 6 JUDGE SMITH: See, it's not only reply, but 7 argument on it, too. , 8 MR. DIGNAN: Yes. 9 I started out by wondering why we had to schedule . , { 10 argument on it. I mean the customary thing in this business 11 is somebody fiJes a motion, somebody files a reply. If, as 12 and when the Board has a genuine need to question the 13 attorneys because something is not clear to them, then you 14 have a short oral argument. , 15 And we've started -- I 16 - JUDGE SMITH: It does seem to be the standard now. ! 17 MR. DIGNAN: Yes. The standard has become in this 18 case you file a motion. You sort of throw a little piece of 19 paper out there and see who bites. Get every argument you ) 20 can and then you've got an automatic right of reply. And 21 then if you are not sure that's done it, you ask the Judge 22 to schedule a big oral argument. . l 23 It's not too late to go back to the old rules, 24 Your Honor. l 25 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, it does not happen to be Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 26469
~
a somewhat unusual motion. 1 2 JUDGE SMITH: It's.too late, Mr. Dignan. We will ) 3 neven get out of this pattern, I don't think. 4 (Laughter) 5 MR. FIERCE: . This one is an unusual motion, Your 3 1 6 Honor. It's a very important issue. 7 JUDGE. SMITH: But Mr. Dignan'is exactly right. 8 The Attorney General has, in almost every instance of any-9 significant matter,:has just assumed that replies are in 4 10 order, and they are not provided for in the rules. 11 MR. FIERCE: Well. 12 JUDGE SMITH: He's just. going to have to'-- 13 (Counsel confer.) 14 JUbGE SMITH: Let'me finish talking. 15 NW. GREER: Sorry. 16 - JUDGE SMITH: And then he will have to follow -- 17 he cannot assume that we wil1~ accept his reply. He is going. l 18 to have to seek leave to file ~one. i i 19 . MS. GREER: In fact, I believe that Mr. -- what I j
*i 20 was going to tell Mr.. Fierce was that I believe that Mr.
21' Traficonte was going to try to be available to move, or was - 22 going to ask Mr. Fierce to move the Board to accept the ! 23 reply. ' 24 MR. DIGNAN: You know, if you will recall, that. 25 motion came in. I went along with arguing a. piece of it the l ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888.
..._.4
1 26470 j l l 6 1 next day in order to be sure that they had a right to have j 2 real relief if they were going to get it on the question of I 3 observers around. 4 I walk in here, and the motion in that respect was ! l 5 this long. It was, hey, we want it. No reasons given 6 really. I come in and I argued the thing. And Mr. 7 Traficonte went, I believe by my watch, an hour and 15 8 minutes trying to convince you that I was wrong. I think my 9 argument came after that -- and which he argued in support , 10 of the motion that supposedly was fully briefed. i 11 I think I had a grand total of five er ten minutes 12 to tell you my position. And the Board ruled. 1 13 Now on the balance of the motion, it was a big, 14 thick thing with lots of attachments and all of that. I J 15 have addresed it, I've addressed it mainly along the lines 16 that I don't think his D.C. Circuit case makes it for him on l l l 17 his underlying legal theory. 18 The Staff -- I'm sorry, Mr. Turk, I am reminded I 19 have read it and got a recall. I think when you get the 20 Staff's reply, the Staff has laid out a different approach l 21 leading to the same result. They are working mostly on the 22 question of jurisdiction and the Board's inherent right to , 23 hold the record open or not hold the record open. 24 Now it seems to me that both areas of this have l 25 been fully covered in response to a motion that presumably I l Y Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26471 , 1 was well' thought out. They know they were seeking _ O2 3 extraordinary relief here. And now we're going to have a reply, and they want it scheduled for oral argument. 4 I just don't understand it, unless a pretty good' t 5 showing is made to you that some argument is made that they 6 could not' reasonably have anticipated. 7 Now, I am not going to argue the Staff's brief for l 8 them. That's their business. But I know on my own the
, 9 basic thrust of my brief is, Your Honors, pick up the case
, i 10 they are relying on. It doesn't say what they say it says, 11 and this situation is distinguishable from one that was 12 before the D.C. Circuit.
13 Now Your Honor did mention one matter you may l 14 think it requires further inquiry from the Board to the j i 15 attorneys. You brought up -- ] 1 16 - MR. FIERCE: The chemical waste case. , 17 MR. DIGNAN: -- the recent decision of the wasta 18 case as to how that affects things. l 19 JUDGE SMITH: No, as a matter.of fact, I haven't l 20 gone back to that case. I suggested that I thought that it 21 did not. 22 MR. DIGNAN: That's where I came out and why I 23 didn't cite it. But that's neither here nor there. 24 MR. FIERCE: It was cited in the Staff's brief, 25 Your Honor, and -- I \ Heritage Reporting Corporation ks (202) 628-4888
. . . - .. . . . . . - . ~ . . . ., .. ,.. -. - . . . - . .
g i i 26472 1 MR. DIGNAN: But this is where I am used to 2 hearing -- 3 MR. FIERCE: And Mr. Traficonte, I'm sure, will be 4 addressing that issue in the reply. 5 6 7 9 . 10 i 11 l 12 l 13 14 15 1 16 - J l 17 f 18 19 20 21 22 , ( 23 24 25
~ \' ' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 l 26473 j 1 MR. DIGNAN: This is what I am used to hearing 2 when the Board is scheduling oral argument. When the Board l 3 has found a case or something at least I agree, I didn't ! l ' l 4 cite -- and I'm prepared to give you my reasons why. l 5 That's a real short, that's a five minute oral l l . i 6 argument, bingo-bingo. The case is either apposite or it 7 isn't. 8 But this thing is turning into a Supreme Court 9 case at this point whether they're going to keep a record 10 open. And there's nothing in the regulations that requires 11 you to do this. ! 12 And for the life of me, for the life of me, I 13 don't see why this one can't be decided on the paper. 14 JUbGE' SMITH: I know. I don't know if it can or
!O 15 not.
16 - I want to hear what the Staff has to say. Replies 17 to motions are not provided for in the rule. I guess we can 18 look at many things and decide whether we want to hear them. l 19 But o.ne thing that we will bear in mind is that, 20 this was the Attorney General's product based upon a 21 situation that has existed. That is, the regulation and the 22 law to which they allude has existed for a long time. Ever i 23 since the USC v. NRC case, i l 24 (Counsel confer.) 25 Please don't do that.
'f Heritage Reporting Corporation
( ,/ (202) 628-4888
._______ _ = _ _ _ _ =
)
i l 26474 ! 1 Go ahead, consult. j 2 (Counsel confers.) l 3 MR. FIERCE: All I'm doing is passing a message l l 4 along for Mr. Traficonte. I think when the reply is ready ! i 5 we will make the motion that you consider it, particularly l 6 in light of the NRC Staff's brief. And also, arguments that 7 have been made in Mr. Dignan's brief that just have not been - 8 addressed by us yet. They' re important arguments and we 9 would like to have that opportunity. , 10 I think after reading that Your Honors may well 11 determine whether oral argument is necessary. We will l 12 certainly abide by your ruling. 13 JUDGE SMITH: All right. ! 14 MR. FIERCE: We would like an opportunity, 15 perhaps, to respond to your questions and concerns. And you 16 can certainly set limits on the length of that argument and 17 make it very short. 18 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, we can. That's right. 19 Okay, let's go ahead. 20 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, I need a point of order 21 here. We have Dr. Adler ready to testify on, really, three 22 pieces of testimony. We have his ETF testimony which I , 23 would move to next. 24 We have the affidavit that he had filed I believe 1 25 back in -- it could have been March on returning commuters. I k/ Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 1 1 _. I
26475 ' 1 And we have the very short' piece on parking 2 capacit'ies in the reception centers. 3 I don't know how the Board wants to proceed on l l 4 these matters. 5 We do also have outstanding a motion in limine on ! 6 the Applicants' recent filing = on returning commuters which 7 has in it some issues which bear on Dr. Adler. I was - I 8 hopeful that we could argue that motion.while he was here l , . 9 because it's going to involve some questions about how 10 quickly he can assess the material that-has been provided or l 11 will be provided from the Applicants about how those new ETE 12 sensitivity runs were done. 13 I'm really ready to move in- any direction on any 14- of those items at the Board's pleasure. ( 15 HR. DIGNAN: Mr. Fierce, I indicated to you 16 yesterday, I was prepared to stay right now -- you knew this . 17 -- to cross-examine two pieces of Dr. Adler in less than an 18 hour, if you would just put them on. I 19 One is his piece on ETEs as a whole; and the other 20 is the affidavit on returning commuters. j 21 I'm here ready and waiting, you know that. I 22 don't know what we're palavering about. 23 MR. FIERCE: Well, my only question is: whether 24 we're going to get into the returning commuters issue now. 25 MR. DIGNAN: Yes.
\\_s Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_... .. . ~ . . . . . - . . -. . . , _ . . _. , . . . . ... . . _ . . , . . .
i l 26476 1 MR. FIERCE: Or whether it's going t'o be an 2 issue -- 3 MR. DIGNAN: Yes. Yes. 4 I am ready to cross-examine and I want to cross-5 examine him today. 6 MR. FIERCE: -- that we're going to put off for a 7 little while depending on the outcome of this motiors in 8 limine. 9 MR. DIGNAN: That motion in limine has ntthing to , 10 do with it. Adler's piece -- 11 MR. FIERCE: Well, I think it does to the extent l 12 that he -- j 13 JUDGE SMITH: Wait a minute. 14 MR. DIGNAN: He goes first. He goes on. If I ! i 15 cross-examine Adler that has nothing to do with whether the ] l 16 Board allows or doesn't allow my piece. ! 17 JUDGE SMITH: Are you saying you're reserving your 18 judgment as to whether you offer Dr. Adler depending upon 19 how we rule? 20 MR. FIERCE: No. 21 I'm just saying that there may well be another 22 piece on returning commuters from Dr. Adler. I'm leaving , 23 this to the Board's discretion -- 24 JUDGE SMITH: I understand. 25 MR. FIERCE: -- to decide whether they want to Y Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 i I 26477 1 have him go now on returning commuters and perhaps come'back t ( ,/ 2 at another date also on returning commuters. 3 MR. DIGNAN: The answer is -- 4 MR. FIERCE: And likely come back. 5 MR. DIGNAN: -- I want him to because otherwise I 6 don't know. 7 Look, let's get this piece in and cross it unless -l
- k 8 he wants to withdraw it. {
l 9 JUDGE SMITH: Now, you're willing to take the risk -) 10 of proceeding now and, perhaps, have him come back with an-1 11 additional piece of testimony. j 12 MR. DIGNAN: Yes. Because I'm not going'to be 13 very long with this piese and I want it out of the way. l fs 14 JUbGE SMITH: He's ready. l l 15 Let's go. 16 - MR. FIERCE: I'm willing to do that. 17 I do want to have an opportunity to argue that 18 motion soon, however. 19 MR. DIGNAN: Mr. Fierce, you're the guy who wants 20 this guy on the road at 3:30. I have given you a commitment 21 and I will still give it to you. But if you keep talking. 22 about things that aren't before us, he ain't going to get on 23 the road by 3:30.
- 24 MR. FIERCE
- I have nothing further to say.
25 JUDGE SMITH: What are you going to cross-examine.
' \)
s_, Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation l ___-______-__-____--___-_____-__-______ __ _____ __-_____-__ ___2 _. . - _ - - _ . -
- _:=_ -=
26478 1 him on now? Parking? 2 What are you going to cross-examine him on? 3 MR. DIGNAN: I wasn't going to do it. 4 I can, if you want me to. 5 JUDGE SMITH: No , no. 6 MR. DIGNAN: Because we have to decide on that, i 7 whether you're going to take the testimony. I mean, this is 1 8 a piece of rebuttal that came wafting out of the woodwork 9 unannounced. . 10 JUDGE SMITH: See, here is the difficulty: I don't 11 have and I don't think any member of our Board has his 12 testimony on ETEs. 13 When was that filed? , i 14 Have you got that? ' 15 MR. FIERCE: April 3rd. I 16 - (Document proffered to the Board.) 17 MR. DIGNAN: And the other piece we're talking 18 about, Your Honor, was a piece that was included in a 19 presentation by the Mass AG on the affidavits. It's the 20 affidavit of March 26 - presentation of March 27th. 21 JUDGE SMITH: That's the one that we discussed in 22 our memorandum and order of May 5th. 23 MR. FIERCE: Correct, Your Honor. 24 JUDGE SMITH: So he's going to testify defending 25 that position; and the ETEs; and the reception center Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i .
]
i i 26479 q 1 parking. Three items. O\ 2 MR. DIGNAN: Yes. 3 And the reception centers, as I say the question 4 before the house is whether-you're going to take it. This is 5 another piece of rebuttal that floated out of the woodwork 6 yesterday. I don't know, if the Board is going to grant 7 them further rebuttal. 8 JUDGE SMITH: You're objecting to it, then?
, 9 MR. DIGNAN: Yes, I am.
10 Your Honor, I would like the Board, especially the { 11 technical members and yourself, to review this piece of { t 12 testimony. When you get all through this thing, he, instead 13 of using 250 square feet, he wants to use 300 or something 14 like that.
\
15 JUDGE SMITH: Are you suggesting that the legal i' 16 member of the panel can't follow the mathematics involved in 17 that? I've got a calculator. j i 18 (Laughter) l 19 MR. DIGNAN: One sometimes attributes one's own 20 weaknesses to others, and that's unfair, Your Honor. 21 JUDGE SMITH: No, that's all right. 22 I think it's a legitimate concern. i l 23 (Laughter) l 24 MR. DIGNAN: I hope that the technical members and 25 especially the legal member of the panel'will review this '! l l l: i j Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ; b - - --- - -
- - _ - _ =
26480 1 thing and tske a look at it. 2 What he does is: he takes and he uses 300 or 340 3 square feet and lo and behold he comes down and he puts in 4 some other fudges and he says, we're down to 100 places 5 insttad of whatever we have. 6 And I remind the Board that our guys testified all 7 we need was 80. *! 8 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor -- 9 MR. DIGNAN: Is it worth it to crowd this record . 10 up with more -- ! 11 MR. FIERCE: The issue is not -- 12 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 13 MR. FIERCE: I had two more pieces that I thought 14 I was going to file today, Your Honor, and I apologize l 15 because of some of the difficulties I'm having in my office 16 and it looks like it will be tomorrow. l 17 I'm telling you one of them is a piece evaluating l 18 the facility stay time calculations that go into that 19 parking lot piece, that when read together with Dr. Adler's 20 piece, in fact, makes this a very meaningful piece of 21 testimony. 22 And the second piece is Dr. High -- . 23 MR. DIGNAN: Well, then I'll cross him when the 24 part that makes it meaningful comes in. Today I want to 25 cross him on two things: I want to cross him on the ETE 1 I Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888 ; i 1 1
ADLER - DIRECT 26481 1 piece; and I want to cross him on the affidavit. 2 And if we keep palavering he's not-going to beton 3 the road at 3:30. 4 JUDGE SMITH: Let's go on the ETEs and we'll defer 5 this until later, the parking. 1 . 6 And the returning commuters affidavit -- 7 MR. FIERCE: I have a few extra pieces of each of 8 those, returning commuters.
. 9 (Document proffered to Board. )
10 Whereupon, 11 THOMAS J. ADLER 12 having been previously duly sworn, was recalled as a witness 13 herein and was examined and testified further as follows: 14 DIRECT EXAMINATION -(Continued); N 15 BY MR. FIERCE: 16 - Q Good afternoon, Dr. Adler. 17 Before you do you have a document dated April.3rd 18 entitled, " Testimony of Dr. Thomas J. Adler, on behalf of 19 James M. Shannon, Attorney General for the Commonwealth of 1 20 Massachusetts concerning Contentions JI-1, Ji-2 (ETEs), and 21 JI-3 (data collection) ?" l
. 22 A (Adler) Yes, I do.
I 23 Q Is.this the testimony that you have prepared for 24 this proceeding regarding those three contentions? 1 l 25 A (Adler) Yes, it is. Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
ADLER - DIRECT 26482 1 Q Is this testimony true and correct, to the best of 2 your knowledge and belief? 3 A (Adler) Yes. 4 Q Have you had an opportunity to review this and 5 note any corrections or addit ions you would want to make? i 6 A ,( Adler) I don't h211 eve so; no. l 7 MR. FIERCE: At this time, Your Honor, I would *: I 1 l 8 like to offer into evidence and ask that it be bound into 1 l 9 the transcript the testimony of Dr. Adler on Contentions . 1 ! 10 JI-1, JI-2, and JI-3. 11 JUDGE SMITH: Do you object? 12 MR. DIGNAN: No, with the understanding that, you l 13 know, Your Honor, I said we would not file a motion in 14 limine with respect to this piece, that I have the right to, 15 in findings, deal with the question of whether or not i 16 eertain of this testimony simply should not have been 1 17 received. With that understanding, no objection. 18 (The testimony of 19 Dr. Thomas J. Adler on I
-\
20 behalf of the I l l 21 Massachusetts Attorney 22 General concerning . 23 Contentions JI-1, JI-2, 24 and JI-3 follows:) 25 ' j Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l {
N (
\
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND. LICENSING BOARD Before the Administrative Judges: Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole Kenneth A. McCollom - l l
- )1
)
In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
) 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) (Off-Site EP)
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, EI AL. )
)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ) April 3, 1989
) - [' TESTIMONY OF DR. THOMAS J. ADLER ON BEHALF OF ;
JAMES M. SHANNON, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, CONCERNING CQMIENTIONS JI-1, JI-2 (ETEs) AND JI-3 (DATA COLLECTION) j
. 1
, . Department of the Attorney General l Commonwealth of Massachusetts One Ashburton Place Boston, Massachusetts 02108-1698 (617) 727-2200 *
\
w I
g UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
,. ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Before the Administrative Judges:
Ivan W. Smith, Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole Kenneth A. McCol';.m -
)
In the Matter of ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
) 50-444-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) (Off-Site EP)~
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, EI AL. )
)
(Seabrook Station, Units I and 2) ) April 3, 1989
) i ik kJ) TESTIMONY OF DR. THOMAS J. ADLER ON BEHALF OF JAMES M. SHANNON, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS, CONCERNING
, CONTENTIONS JI-1, JI-2 (ETEs) AND JI-3 (DATA COLLECTION)
I.
SUMMARY
OF TESTIMONY In this testimony Dr. Adler presents his views in support of three contentions: JI-1, JI-2, and JI-3. As to JI-1, Dr. Adler agrees that there is no evacuation time study report which describes the derivation of the SPMC's ETEs, and-he i explains why Volume 6 of the NHRERP cannot suffice as such a study for the SPMC's ETEs. As to JI-2, which asserts that the SPMC's ETEs are too unrealistic to form the basis of adequate protective action decision-making, Dr. Adler sets forth the (
\
S
F 1 reasons why, in his opinion, the SpMC's ETEs are unrealistic and are likely to be longer. He also explains why, in his l opinion, the lack of special facility ETEs and an ETE for the l transil-dependent segment of the population violate the provisions of NUREG-0654, Appendix 4. Finally, as to JI-3, Dr. . Adler sets forth the reasons why protective action , decision-makers need to have the abilities to make real-time ; estimates of the beach vehicle population and to translate l those estimates into ETEs, and he explains a range of methodologies for accomplishing these results at a reasonable I cost. ' II. IDENTIFICATION OF WITNESS Q.1. What.is you name and current occupation? f' A.l. My name is Thomas J. Adler, and I am president of Resource Systems Group of Norwich, Vermont. Q.2. Are your professional qualifications as set forth in the testimony and attachments filed for this case on September 14, 1987, and summarized in testimony submitted on February 21, 19897 - A.2. Yes, they are. . III. IESTIMONY Q.3. Are you familiar with Contention JI-l?
- A.3. Yes. It asserts that no evacuation time study has been done to assess what the realistic evacuation times would be in Y. J ~2~
..p)
( the Massachusetts portion of the EPS in light of the special difficulties, circumstances, and delays in conducting an evacuation in Massachusetts under the Seabrook Plan for Massachusetts Communities ("SPMC"). The contention further asserts that Volume 6 of the New Hampshire Radiological Emergency Response Plan ("NHRERF"), which was published in August 1986 and .5 contains KLD's ETE assessment for the Seabrook Station EPZ, did not take into account the special circumstances and delays in l
~
i conducting an evacuation in Massachusetts under the SPMC; so it { j cannot be relied upon solely as the.ETE study for the SPMC. ) 1 1 l i Finally, the contention asserts that a new ETE study needs to be conducted to meet the requirements of the NRC's regulations and NUREG-0654. .
) 0.4. Do you agree with the contention?
l A.4. Yes I do. I am very familiar with Volume 6, which describes the NHRERP's ETEs and how they were derived, and it makes a number of assumptions about conditions in the Seabrook EPZ which either will not or may not apply for an evacuation conducted in the Massachusetts portion of the EPZ pursuant to the
- SPMC. To some extent, the SPMC implicitly acknowledges that differences exist because it contains ETEs'(at IP 2.5, Attachment 4, p.20) which do not come from Volume 6 or the IDYNEV runs that produced the Volume 6 ETEs.
Q.5. Does the SPMC contain an explanation of where those ,; ETEs in IP 2.5 come from or how they were generated? .
- ([ V 1 -
A.5.' No. That is the problem. The SpMC's ETEs are provided without any explanation of how they were derived. The SpMC ' contains no separate volume akin to Volume 6, nor does it contain a supplement to volume 6 explaining the assumptions and methodobogiesusedincalculating its ETEs. Q.6. Isn't it pretty clear that the SpMC's ETEs were developed by KLD using the IDYNEV model and the same link-node
- network described in Volume 67 A.6. Yes, we have learned this through discovery but there .
is no way of knowing this from examining the SpMC. And that knowledge still doesn't explain how KLD came up with these ETEs, which are not consistent with those described in Volume 6. KLD has apparently used some new assumptions, inputs, and data to calculate the SpMC's ETEs. In no single place are all these new assumptions, inputs, and data presented or justified. Some of these assumptions can be found in the Applicants' ETE testimony from the NHRERP hearings; others are found in the NHRERP transcript (in the cross examination of Applicants' ETE panel). But there is no single document which presents and justifies these assumptions. Q:7. So long as the SpMC's protective action decision-makers have an accurate set of ETEs, why does the SpMC . need to contain,' to " publish" if you will, the assumptions and analyses which produced the ETEs? p 1 l i
9
~
f e A.1. There is one legal reason and at least three practical ones. The legal reason is that NUREG-0654, Appendix 4, calls for a written study, a " report," describing how ETEs were calculated and presenting those ETEs in a particular way. Publishing only the end result, the ETEs, does not, I believe, satisfy NUREG-0654, Appendix 4. The three practical reasons
, for having a published ETE study underscore the need for the legal requirement. The first practical reasons for having an ETE report, a written report, is that, as with any piece of scientific analysis, it permits others to examine the study to ascertain how reliable it is. Since ETEs are an important tool for PAR decisionmakers, and lives may. depend on their accuracy, it is important that the analysis which produced them be s readily available for critical analysis and review. We have '
been hampered in our analysis of the SPMC's ETEs for this very ' reason. The second practical reason for having a written ETE 3 analysis is that it provides PAR decisionmakers with useful knowledge about the ETEs so that they can apply them or adjust them with appropriate judgment and sensivity to the conditions , at hand in a real emergency. For example, if the PAR I decisionmakers for NNY's Offsite Response _ Organization ever find themselves considering PARS at a time orior to the staffing of the ACPs and TCPs, they may wish to know what the assumptions were in the ETE study about staffing times. A
.i published report, either contained in the Plan or accompanying
-s-
it as an appendix, will allow decisionmakers ready access to this information. The third practical reason is to permit update work to be done in a prompt and certain fashion -- and without necessarily hiring the initial ETE consultant. As conditions change, e.g., population growth occurs or road . improvements or changes are made, those who are responsible for ensuring that the ETEs are updated to realisticly reflect ; current conditions will, if they have an ETE study to review, have a way of knowing how much things have changed in assessing whether to hire a consultant to do some update work. And if they do decide to do an ETE update, having a thorough study explaining the existing ETEs will permit a new contrector (as well as the old one) to do the update work without re-doing the entire effort from scratch, f Q.8. Doesn't an ETE study for the SpMC exist, in effect, on' computer tape in the form of the KLD IDYNEV runs which generated the SPMC's ETEs? A.8. No. There are a whole series of assumptions, and numerous sets of data used to produce model inputs, which would . not be reflected on the tapes. For example, while the Board . has indicated that 31,000 vehicles would be an appropriate number of vehicles to input into the IDYNEV model in the " beach areas" for a day with " reasonably expectable peak occupancy," PID, 9.122, and an IDYNEV run which generates new Scenario 1 l ETEs would indicate white the modler distributed the 31,000
\ .,
~ ~
l
i l I l i vehicles along the beaches,1that tape would not indicate I
\
whz the 31,000 vehicles were distributed in this fashion. Some { analysis must occur before the 31,000 vehicles can be divided i among the numerous beach' area origin, centroids. Only a published ETE study, accompanying those runs, can provide this information. This is apparent from examining. volume 6 itself.
~
Most of the Analyana it contains are not described on the
)
IDYNEV runs themselves; only the results of those analyses are shown. Volume 6 is a necessary-document which, along with'the IDYNEV runs, explains the derivation of the NHRERP's ETEs. Q.9. Well, then, how about Volume'6 in combination with the IDYNEV runs for the SPMC's ETEs . . . taken together don't they constitute an ETE study for the SPMC7 A.9. No.- As I noted before, the analyses set'forth in Volume 6 make a number of: assumptions about conditions in the l EPZ which either will not or may not apply for an evacuation-conducted in the Massachusetts portion of the EPZ pursuant to the SPMC. This is not to say that Volume 6 has nn analyses bearing on the SPMC's ETEs; it just cannot be relied upon as , the comoleta set of analyses supporting the SPMC's ETEs. What 1 i 1 is needed is a supplement to volume 6, or perhaps an amended / updated Volume 6, which describes the pertinent analyses underlying the SPMC's ETEs. Until this supplement-is
.q 1/ Runs reflected in IP 2.5 in fact.use only 29,000 vehicles ;
in the beach areas. '
\
.* * -_.N.- T.-*4 _ 1_ es_____________-_ ___g.sC
I t i j publishSd, there is no ETE study for the SpMC's ETEs that satisfies NUREG-0654 or any of the practical reasons for having a published ETE study. Furthermore, NUREG-0654, Appendiz 4, states that ETEs "should be updated as local conditions change i 4 (e.g., change in type or effectiveness of public notification . system)." NUREG-0654, App. 4, p. 4-1. This type of change (sirens) and others have occurred from Volume 6 to the SpMC, - and they necessitate that some new analyses be undertaken to justify the assumptions and inputs used in the IDYNEV runs that produce the SpMC's ETEs. Q.10. At a couple of points you have made reference to a number of assumptions made in the Volume 6 ETE study about cor.ditions which will prevail in an evacuation of the Seabrook EpZ but which will not or may not apply for an evacuation conducted in the Massachusetts portion of the EPZ pursuant to the SpMC, What are these assumptions? ' A.10. I will list eight of the most obvious and important ones. First, there is the size of the beach population on peak j days. Volume 6 used a figure of 25,470 (see Volume 6 at 2-11, . E-5). For modeling purposes, these vehicles were then allocated to the various beach area " origin centroids" shown on Figure 1-3 of Volume 6. (See also the Traffic Demand table for - l Scenario 1 and 2 in Volume 6, pp. M-1 through M-5.) The Licensing Board has now ruled that this number was too small and should have been 31,000 for a day with " reasonably .
.-__m_____._ ___..__- _ .__ _ _
expectable peak occupancy" and 35,000 for a day with the
" expectable maximum peak occupancy." PID, 19.122. These differences in the beach population will affect the ETE analysis significantly.
, Second, the Applicants have now indicated that the plan will be revised such that Traffic Guides will not activate Access Control Points ("ACPs") for approximately two hours after the Order to Evacuate ("OTE"). Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 9 at 33. Applicants are now also assuming that the Traffic Guides will not be able to man Traffic Control Points ("TCPs") immediately in fast-breaking accident I
l scenarios; instead, it will take up to 3.75 hours after an SAE is declared to staff the ACPs/TCPs. Id. at 26. These assumptions both differ from the assumption made in the Volume 6 analysis that all traffic control measures are in effect thfoughout the evacuation. Volume 6, 10-70. These differences will affect the ETEs. Third, the volume 6 analyses assume that TCPs/ACPs will be staffed by state / local police. The SPMC cntains two " modes" .
, however, and in " Mode 2" the staffing will be done using civilians recruited by NHY who are not professional traffic handlers. In this mode, the ETEs are very likely to be longer than they would be in Mode 1, because non-professionals just can not be counted on to move congested flow traffic as a
efficiently as experienced police officers can. Some addition ( r
l l l factor'needs to be applied to the SPMC's Mode 2 ETEs to account for this. Fourth, the configuration of the TCP/ACP diagrams in the j SPMC differs in some significant respects from that found in Volume 6, and these changes will affect the ETEs for some ERPAs. - Fifth, I understand that the siren system was assumed to be a fixed-pole system in Volume 6 whereas the system being relied
- i upon by the SPMC is a mobile siren system that needs to be driven into place at the Alert, then erected, and then .
I sounded. The potential delays in notifying the Massachusetts ) l beach population in a fast-breaking accident scenario (like the 1 one used for the ETE planning basis in Volume 6) have not been ! analyzed and factored into an ETE analysis for Massachusetts, I nor has there been an analysis of the potential impact on ETEs l l of hearing differing EBS messages directed separately at 1 Massachusetts and New Hampshire beach-goers. Sixth, the Volume 6 ETE study assumed that 25 percent of I the population within the EPZ but outside the Region ordered to I evacuate will voluntarily evacuate. Volume 6 at 9-3. The . Applicants abandoned this assumption during the NHULRP
~
hearings, however, and adopted the view that voluntary evacuation would be 25-50% in those portions of the EPZ not , ordered to evacuate but within a distance from Seabrook equal to or less than other portions which had been ordered to evacuate. Mass AG testimony on this topic was that the
l
- f volunt'a'y r evacuation in Massachusetts would be in the range of
\ i s- 56%. See Attachment 5, p. 10, to the Testimony of Zeigler et I
al., fol. Tr. 7849. ! Seventh, the Volume 6 ETE study assumed that all the crowded beach areas, including those in Massachusetts, would be closed using a " beach closing" announcement at the Alert level
, and.that the day-trippers would begin their trips from the beach areas at that time. Egg Vol'ume 6 at 10-13. The SPMC, however, does not even permit consideration of a beach closing in Massachusetts until the SAE level. SPMC, $3.6.l(E), p.
3.6-10. While the ETE analysis in Volume 6 assumes as its i planning basis that there is a simultaneous decla' ration of an Alert and an SAE, and a simultaneous " beach closing" if'"s announcement in New Hampshire and Massachusetts, it appears
~-
that for many othe'r accident scenarios the New Hampshire beach-goers may have their beachas closed first and may move over to the Massachusetts beaches after the Alert is declared but before the SAE is declared. No analysis of this on the Massachusetts ETEs has been attempted. Given the different . emergency classification levels which trigger consideration of beach closings in Massachusetts and New Hampshire, it appears that the " planning basis" used in the Volume 6 ETE study, which assumes that tbe beaches in New Hampshire and Massachusetts are always closed simultaneously for all summer scenarios, is not likely to be the typical situation encountered. A more f-~ \
f appropriate planning basis should be utilized which, while retaining the Volume 6 assumption that the accident is a rapidly escalating one, assumes that there is at least some difference in time between the beach closings in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. - Eighth, the size of the permanent resident population has grown since Volume 6 was published in August 1986, and it should be reflected in the SpMC's ETEs. It appears that the Ip 2.5 ETEs were calculated using the three-year old data. Q.11. What is it, then, Dr. Adler, that you are recommending be done with respect to an ETE study for Massachusetts? A.ll. I am recommending, and it appears that Appendix 4 of NUREG-0654 requires this, that an appropriate ETE study be d2n2 for an evacuation from the Massachusetts portion of the EPZ conducted pursuant to the SpMC. That study should assess the impact on ETEs of the conditions that will likely prevail in Massachusetts under both Mode 1 and Mode 2 conditions. A more ) appropriate ETE planning basis should be used in conducting the . l analysis. Upon completion, the analyses and assumpti'ns u that . I constitute this study need to be published as a " report," as required by NUREG-0654, and either incorporated into or ' appended to the SpMC. That written report should then be made
)
available to all interested parties for their review. g m
(N Q.12. Have you reviewed the Evacuation Time Estimates
'_/
A ("ETEs") included in the SPMC7 A.12. Yes, I have. They are listed in IP-2.5, Attachment 4. Q.13. Are the ETEs shown in IP-2.5 Attachment 4 the same as
, those described in NHRERP Volume 67 A.13. No, they are not. The ETEs shown in IP-2.5 Attachment 4 are only for Region 8 A as defined in Vol. 6 and for a new region (Region 13) not defined in Vol. 6.1 In addition, the ETE's for Region 8 are different from those shown in Vol. 6.
Q.14. Why were these Regions used for the Massachusetts ETEs? A.14. We assume they wished to isolate the Massachusetts [' ETEs from those for the New Hampshire routes. Q.15. Have you evaluated the IP-2.5 ETEs with respect to Coritention JI-27 A.15. Yes, I have. Q.16. Would you first summarize that Contention? A.16. JI-2 states that the IP-2.5 Attachment 4 ETEs are - unrealistic and in particular that realistic ETEs would be longer. i 1 l 2/ Region 8 is designated the Inner South Pagion and contains { ERPA A (Hampton Falls, Seabrook, and Hamptos. Beach) and ERPA B ' (Amesbury and Salisbury). Egg Volume 6, Table 10-3, p. 10-5. 1/ Region 13 is depicted on p. J-188.of Appendix J of the SPMC. It contains ERPAs A through E, i.e., all NH towns within 5 miles and all Mass. towns. q U
Q.17. Do you believe that those ETEs are unrealistic and that realistic ETEs would be longer? 1 A.17. Yes, I do. 0.18. Would you explain the basis for this opinion? A.18. There are several bases for this opinion, as listed , . I in Bases A through I of Contention JI-2. Basis A refers to l inefficiencies in traffic control personnel. The IDYNEV runs . 1 used to prepare the IP-2.5 Attachment 4 ETEs assume implicitiv ! that the civilian traffic guides staffing SPMC traffic control ' ' posts ("TCPS") in Massachusetts are as efficient as New 1 j Hampshire State Police would be in directing traffic through l 1 those TCPs. Prudent planners would not make this assumption. The tasks that civilian guides will be called upon to perform are ones for which they have had only short training and no real experience. (My testimony on the SPMC's training for traffic guides will be filed next week.) In addition, at key TCPs, the guides will undoubtedly be asked by evacuees for specific routing instructions and/or for information about the I emergency. It is unlikely that they will be able to dispatch . such evacuees as rapidly as would a State Police ~ Officer. Furthermore, guides must, at several of these key TCPs, act as a traffic signal would, periodically stopping traffic flow from - one direction ln order to allow flows from another direction. The IDYNEV model runs assume that these guides alternate flow directions on a 75 second cycle and that only 2.5 seconds are - 3
- 14 -
1
1 lost each time the flow direction is changed. Nowhere, however, are traffic guides instructed that they should maintain a 75 second cycle nor are they provided stopwatches to - monito~r flows. For all these reasons, I must conclude that : l , these traffic guides will not be able to move the traffic in Massachusetts as efficiently as state / local police would.
; Q.19. Would you describe your evaluation of Contention JI-2, Basis B?
A.19. Basis B states that the SPMC's ETEs are based on incorrect assumptions concerning the number of cars that will-flow across Massachusetts roads. I evaluated this Basis together with the related Basis E, which states that the number l of vehicles evacuating from and through Massachusetts is underestimated. .There are five issues that are raised by these bases: 1) that Massachusetts beach-area transient populations are underestimated, 2) that EPZ-resident returning commuters' and shoppers are not accounted for in the model, 3)'that flows - l of New Hampshire beach transients through Massachusetts are not l l represented in the model. runs, 4) that through traffic levels -
, on I-95 and I-495 as represented in the model do not correspond to procedures regarding establishment of Access Control posts
("ACPs"), and 5) that the Massachusetts permanent resident l population is underestimated for 1989. Q.20. Would you explain why you believe Massachusetts l l beach-area transient populations are underestimated in the
, 1 SpMC's ETEs?
( .
- m. _ _-
A.20. The ETEs shown in IP-2.5 Attachment 4 reflect beach ' population estimates as derived from 1987 Avis Airmap counts showing 29,293 total vehicles. This total is approximately 2,000 less than the 31,000 vehicles specified in the Board's PID. Also, the SPMC's ETEs are based on an incorrect - distribution of the vehicles counted in the beach areas, i.e., the distribution shown on the Avis photos. The Avis Airmap .
'1 distribution is, I believe, seriously flawed in that it i
. 1 underrepresents the vehicle population at Salisbury Beach. i l
Vehicles ,actually observed (7211) at that area of Salisbury in ! l the July 1987 Befort flights conducted for the Massachusetts t Attorney General tota.'. over 1,000 more than the number projected in that area from the Avis Airmap counts (6119). The Avis Airmap projections imply that only 21% of the total beach population is in Salisbury whereas the actual Befort vehicle
~
counts show that 30% are in Salisbury. By comparison, the NHRERP Volume 6 estimates place Salisbury's beach parking capacity at 32% of the EPZ's beach total. See Volume 6 at E-5. KLD's parked vehicle counts based on 1985 overflights, as ., reported in Volume 6, id,, similarly show 32% of the total . counted beach vehicles to be located along Salisbury l Beach.1/ Thus, the projections for Salisbury Beach from the
~
Avis l - 3/ By comparison, for Seabrook Beach, the Avis Airmap counts j l show 10% of the EPZ beach population while the Befort ' overflights show 9%, and the Vol. 6 estimates are 10%. 4
j' Airmap' counts are anomalous and likely understate actual Salisbury Beach populations as a proportion of the total beach population. Since the EPZ total beach vehicle population is also underestimated'in the data used,to prepare the IP-2.5
, Attachment 4 ETEs, the resulting times,are unrealistic estimates, particularly.for the Massachusetts portion of the
~
, EPZ.
Q.21. Turning to the second issue you mentioned about the.
+
" number of cars" that.will flow across Massachusetts roads, have you previously prepared for the Board in connection with this proceeding a discussion of the effects of returning EPZ-resident commuters and shoppers, and is that discussion equally applicable to the ETEs presented in IP-2.5 Attachment 47
' ( A.21. Yes. My affidavit dated March 27, 1989 does address this issue in some detail and it is applicable to the IP-2.5 Attachment 4 ETEs.
Q.22. As to the third issue you mentioned, would you explain what flows of New Hampshire beach transients through Massachusetts are not represented in the model runs used to . prepare IP-2.5 Attachment 4 ETEs? A.22. At TCP A-SE-06 in Seabrook, the intersection of~Rt. l.
- l. lA and Rt. 286, (at NHRERP, Vol. 6, I-13), the guide is instructed to do the following, " Facilitate traffic movement.
from southbound Route 1A onto westbound Route 28E. If westbound traffic on Route 286 becomes congested, then send y L_---------_=-=-- - - - ~~ - - - - - - - - -
traffic' southbound on Route 1A. When Route 286 traffic moves away from the intersection, revert to guiding traffic onto Route 286. Thus, the preferential movement is onto Route 286, however, keep traffic moving out of Seabrook Beach even if Route 286 is congested." . However, despite this explicit instruction and despite the fact that the IDYNEV model shows Route 286 becoming congested - within minutes after a New Hampshire beach closing message, and staying congested for hours, the IDYNEV model used to prepare ' the IP-2.5 Attachment 4 ETEs routes none of the Seabrook l l traffic south on Rt. lA into Salisbury. Were it to do so, as l i it should, the Massachusetts ETEs would be increased. i Q.23. Turning to the fourth issue about the " number of s cars" that will flow through Massachusetts, would you explain your earlier statement that through traffic levels on I-94 and I-495 as represented in the model do not correspond to I procedures ~regarding establishment of ACPs? A.23. Yes. The IDYNEV runs used to prepare the IP-2.5 Attachment 4 ETEs include 3,000 vehicles assumed to be on I-95 . at the start of the evacuation. According to Applicants' , Direct Testimony No. 7, dated September 12, 1987, fol. Tr. 5622, p. 72: - This es'timate of 3000 through-vechiles represents those who entered the EPZ prior to the implementation of access control and have not as yet completed their travel by the time the Order to Evacuate (OTE) is given. At the OTE, the number of through
,,_,___,_____ _____m - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - '
l I t vehicles could be substantially less than i the number which occupy the network at the
\- time the access controls are applied. This reduction in vehicles reflects the fact that 1 many of these vehicles will have exited the l EPZ between the time the access control was !
applied and the time the OTE is given. l l The testimony later indicates that 4,600 vehicles are shown on ' the interstate system in films taken on July 4 and 5, 1986.
~
, Thus, use of the 3,000 through vehicles as assumed in these runs is based on the explicit assumption that acess control is
. in place before the OTE. In fact, in the 1988 FEMA Evaluated Exercise, the key interstate ACPs in Massachusetts were not staffed until over an hour after the SAE was declared.
Further, we now learn through the Applicants
- Rebuttal Testimony No. 9 dated February 29, 1989 at p. 33 that, " Traffic t
guides will be instructed to activate the ACPs appromately two N' hours after the OTE, orovidina that traffic volume has declined to-the extent that the activity of screening motorists will not j i result in the formation of long queues of inbound vehicles." ! 1 If this is indeed the policy for staffing ACPs, the assumption' ^ of only 3,000 through vehicles is unrealistic. Actual , through-traffic counts at the Hampton toll. booth and on I-95 at the New Hampshire / Massachusetts state line indicate that
, directional volumes frequently exceed 6,000-vehicles per hour on Fridays, Satu'rdays, and Sundays in July. If ACPs were not established until two hours after the OTE, some number of these. ,
vehicles would continue to flow through the EPZ along I-95 and l
~ ~
S e,, en..y +ehe .4 % . _, _sm.,e._ m. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I-495.To test the effects of this additional flow, we performed Scenario 1 runs with IDYNEV which added along,I-95 a flow of 4,000 vehicles per hour in each direction (northbound and scathbound) for one hour and forty minutes after the beach closing (1:15 after the OTE). Under these conditions, traffic - flow onto I-95 at key on-ramps was impeded, and the ETEs were extended by slightly over one hour. Thus, this through traffic
- caused by failure to promptly staff ACPs at or before the OTE, as originally assumed in Volume 6, could have a significant effect on ETEs and cannot simply be ignored as in the IP-2.5 Attachement 4 ETEs.
Q.24. As to the fifth issue, how will 1989 resident population figures affect the ETEs? A.24. As I indicated, it appears that the Volume 6 1986 estimates of the permanent resident population were used to calculate the IP 2.5 ETE. Dr. Albert Luloff has filed testimony concurrently with this testimony in which he states that the permanent resident population figures should be used in any properly done ETE study for the SpMC. . Q.25. If the factors that you described above were . accurately accounted for, would the resulting ETEs be realistic? A.25. No, I do not believe that they would be. The ETEs as
~
projected by the Applicants, without these factors accounted for, already approach and exceed ten hours for some scenarios, j Sag NRC Staff Ex. No. 1, fol. Tr. 6742. The additional factors ,
describ6d above will add at'least one hour to the ETEs, meaning that a summer evacuation could extend from two o' clock in the afternoon until the early morning hours of the next day. Over a peri ~od of time that protracted, lack of food, lack of sleep
, and restrictions on other' bodily functions will undoubtedly affect driver performance and behavior in ways that simply can
. not be extrapolated from other observed conditions. See my corrected testiony fol. Tr. 7181, 76-77.
Q.26. Have you examined JI-2, Basis I? l A.26. Yes, I have. Basis I asserts first that the SpMC contains no ETEs for the transit dependent population and those l in special facilities. This is true. There are no such ETEs in the SpMC At all. This, in an of itself, violates NUREG-0654, Appendix 4, in my opinion. As I read Appendix 4, there are separate requirements for calculating the transit de' pendent ETEs and the special facility ETEs. As to'the "non-car-owning population dependent upon public transport" (Appendix 4 at 4-9), i.e., the transit dependent population, Appendix 4 requires an " estimate of the time required to . evacuate that seament" of the population. Id. (emphasis supplied). As to the special facilities,-however, ETE
"[elstimates" (plural) "shall be made," and "[elach special facility shall be treated on an individual basis." Id. at 4 9 4-10. Thus, while a single ETE needs to be calculated for the transit dependent population (for each Scenario and Region), ,
/~]
v
the ET2'for gash of the special facilities needs to be included in the ETE study. None of this is contained ir. the SPMC, however. 0 27. Are these ETEs for the transit, dependent populations and special facilities in Massachusetts contained in Volume 67 A.27. Volume 6 contains no individualized ETEs for the ,
*l special facilities in either Massachusetts or New Hampshire. ,
1 So Volume 6 does not resolve this NUREG-0654 deficiency. But Volume 6 does contain, in Section 11, some calculations which - purport to support the transit dependent population ETEs contained in Tables 10-10a through 10-10d of Volume 6, pp. 10-71 through 10-74. Q.28. Are those calculations and transit dependent ETEs
\
contained in Volume 6 of the New Hampshire plan adequate for SpMC purposes? l A.28. No, there is no assurance that they are. First, I would ask that you re-read my testimony which I filed in the NHRERP hearings (fol. Tr. 7181) where I s'et forth (at 61-68) my analysis why those transit dependent ETE calculations contained , in Volute 6 are not reasonably reliable in the context of the NHRERP. Most of that analysis applies here, too. In the context of the SpMC, however, those transit-dependent ETE . calculations in' Volume 6 are even less reliable. There are a number of reasons for this. First, the bus transportation plan analyzed in Section 11 of the NHRERP was one which assumed that
rm buses would first report to staging areas. (v) See volume 6 at 11-19, 11-20. The SpMC uses a different transportation plan for buses: route guides are to be dispatched to travel to each of the bus yards, where the bus driver instructions are to be given and the dosimetry is to be handed out. The buses will i then be driven in convoy fashion back into the EPZ, led by the ,j i route guides, and they will not stop at the staging area. j SpMC, IP 2.5. This process is very likely to take longer than ;
. \
the bus mobilization scheme analyzed in Volume 6, but neither l the SPMC nor Volume 6 attempts to analyze how long the SPMC's 1 bus mobilization process will take.
)
Q.29. Why is the SPMC's bus mobilization process likely to ]
]
take longer then the process analyzed in Volume 6. I, ,I A.29. In Volume 6 it is assumed that buses should be able V to start arriving in the local communities within 1-1/2 hour's after the Order to Evacuate and that within one additional hour "a sufficient number,of buses necessary to evacuate the schools and the transit-dependent will be on-hand and will have started evacuation activities." Volume 6 at 11-20. But if we assume ~I the same ETE planning basis used in the Volume 6, where the.SAE occurs only about 25 minutes prior to the Order to Evecuate, then the 1-1/2 to 2-1/2 hour arrival assumption appears to be quite improbable. This is because the route guides are themselves are not notified to report to duty until the SAE , level is reached. SPMC, Figure 2.1-1. They are then to report t
<~x j '(j -
1 I t - _ )
i first tib the staging area for briefing, assignment, and equipment issuance. SPMC, IP 2.10, p. 25, Attachment 3. They then must drive to their assined bus yards, meet up with the buses,- and then ride on the buses back into the EP2, and then drive to their particular assignments. Given the extremely , distant location of many of the bus yards, Eg.e Testimony of Maureen Mangan and John Poalillo on Behalf of the Attorney . General James M. Shannon, Regarding the Actual Availability of the SPMC's Manned Vehicles and Drivers, filed February 21,
- 1989, these Lyn trips (to the bus yards and back) plus the )
i mobilization time for the route guides to report to and be briefed at the staging area will very likely take considerably j i longer than 1-1/2 1/2 hours for many of the buses. So a i I
" sufficient number of buses necessary to evacuate the schools l and the transit-dependent" will not likely be available within i
2-1/2 hours of the Order to Evacuate. Q.30. Are there other reasons why the Volume 6 transit-dependent ETE calculations cannot be relied upon in the context of the SPMC? . A.30. Yes, many of the Massachusetts bus routes analyzed in , Volume 6 have been modified, and there is obviously no l l assessment in Volume 6 of the time it will take the buses to - circulate on these new routes. Q.31. What is it that needs to be done to produce a reliable set of ETEs for the transit-dependent segment of the population in the context of the SPMC.
i A.3I.' An entirely new analysis needs to be conducted using w' appropriate SpMC-specific assumptions, and that analysis needs 1 to be documented in a written report, or as a portion of the-NUREG-0654 ETE report. Then that report needs to be disseminated for review and critique by all interested parties. ) l Q.32. Isn't it nevertheless reasonable to assume that the
-1
, transit-dependent ETEs under the SpMC will always be shorter than the general population ETEs?
A.32. No. Until s proper analysis of the Massachusetts i transit-dependent ETEs is done, and until a proper set of l general population ETEs has been calculated, it would be j l imprudent to make this assumption. Perhaps it is reasonable l for the summer scenarios, for which the ETEs are very long, to
'~' I make this assumption. But for the off-season scenarios, such as Scenario 8 (off-season, mid-week, evening, good weather),
the- transit-dependent ETEs could well be longer. Q.33. Have you reviewed Contention JI-3 dealing with implementation of a beach population monitoring system? A.33. Yes, I have. , Q 34. Why is such a system necessary? A.34. The size of the beach population-at the start of the evacuation has a direct and significant effect on ETEsE but that population rises and falls dramatically from day to 1/ The impact of beach vehicles counts on ETEs is felt not' just for the beach area ETEs but for the 5-mile and 10-mile ' ETEs shown on'the Ip 2.5 ETEs as well. Tne impact is systemic,
. ,e- not localized.
1 l = h
day and'even over the course of a single day. According to estimates accepted in the Board's PID, the beach vehicle count ! can exceed 30,000 on summer weekends, or approximately one-third of the total evacuation traffic. The IP-2.5 Attachment 4 ETEs are specified for ten discrete scenarios, but - l those scenarios evaluate only three beach transient population sizes: 100% of peak, 75% of peak and none. There are two ; related questions which must be answered in order to accurately determine ETEs for a particular evacuation: 1) At the time of an evacuation, how many beach area vehicles are, in fact, present? and 2) What is the ETE for that number of beach area vehicles? Q.35. Would you describe how a system to answer those questions might work? A.35. There is a full range of possible designs for the sys'em. t Here, I will simply explain the basic structure of the system and describe some illustrative examples of how the i 1 system could be implemented. There are two basic components on l which the structure is based. First, there are several -
"real-time indicator variables" that can be used to determine .
the beach vehicle population at a particular point in time. One obvious indicator variable is the net vehicle accumulations as measured by traffic counters arranged in a cordon on the roads feeding the beach area. Inductance loop counters (with associated modems for transferring data to a central
microcomputer) could be located in a cordon on:
- 1) Route 1A in Salisbury, MA;
- 2) Route 286 in Seabrook, NH;
- 3) Route 51 in Hampton, NH;
- 4) Route 1A in Hampton, NH.
The system could.be programmed to record hourly traffic volumes - in both directions at each counting station. The hourly data could then be transferred by phone to the central computer at
- s pre-determined intervals or on demand. Transfer of the data
, and programming of the counters could be acLieved from the central computer by phone using standard telemetry software.
The bi-directional traffic data could then be summed to determine net vehicle influx for use in calculating the beach population. The cost of equipment for this system would be approximately $20,000. The accuracy of this calculation would
\
depend both on the placement of the counters and on the length of time between calibrations of the system. Short of implementing this full system, there are numerous other indicator variables which could be statistically correlated with beach vehicle populations and which then could be used to estimate the actual beach vehicle population at the time of an evacuation. For example, the traffic flow on one'of the major beach feeder roads (i.e., Rt. 51), the number of tolls collected at the Hampton toll booth, or the number of vehicles parked in the state park lots (Hampton and Salisbury) are each likely to be good indicators of the size of the beach population at a prticular point in time. More generally, it 4 \
l l I l i would be"possible to conduct beach vehicle counts on several l days using simple 35mm overflight photography. The effects of up to seven variables such as weather, time of day, day of week, mdnth, holiday period, and water temperature could be statistically correlated with the actual measured counts on - eight overflights.I# A smaller number of overflights could be performed if the number of variable were reduced. From this exercise, a simple calculation template could be constructed that took as inputs the weather, time of day, and other l variables whose effects had been measured. This template could then be used to estimate beach vehicle populations at the time of an evacuation. The second component of this structure is one which k translates beach vehicle estimates into ETEs. The ideal way'to f make this translation would be to have IDYNEV installed so that a ne"w run using actual beach vehicle estimates could be completed at the time of the emergency. Alternatively,
" sensitivity tests" of the type described in NHRERP Volume 6 (p. 10-16) could be performed with a range of beach vehicle -l populations from 0 to 35,000 in increments of 5,000 to 10,000 .
1 vehicles (i.e., 3 to 6 runs), and a table could be constructed i of ETEs from those runs, with a simple interpolation ' methodology described for calculations involving beach f/ The overflights conducted by consultants for the Massachusetts Attorney General cost approximately $2,000 per flight including air time, photography, and photo-interpretation (vehicle counts). .__hh___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____L_y__3_g,ga __ _ _ r ,. ,, _ _ _ , , _ _ ~ _ - _ __
ADLER - DIRECT 26483 y 1 BY MR. FIERCE: ( 2 Q Do you have in front of you another document as 3 well, Dr. Adler -- 4 MR. DIGNAN: Is that received, Your Honor? 5 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, it's received. 1 6 BY MR. FIERCE: 7 Q -- a document dated March 26th, 1989 entitled, 8 " Affidavit of Dr. Thomas J. Adler regarding interaction of 9 commuter flow and evacuation traffic flow within the 10 Seabrook EPZ?" 11 A (Adler) Yes. 12 Q Is this an affidavit that you prepared for this 13 proceeding regarding the returning commuters issues that you
/N 14 believe were still open for consideration in this 15 proceeding?
16 A (Adler) Yes. 17 Q Is the information contained in this affidavit 18 true and correct, to the best of your knowledge and belief? 19 A (Adler) Yes. , 20 Q Are there any corrections you would wish to make 21 to this before we offer it into evidence?
. 22 A (Adler) No.
23 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, at this time I.would like 24 to offer into evidence and ask that it be bound into the 25 transcript the affidavit of Dr. Thomas J. Adler regarding ID) ( A /' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 1 ADLER - DIRECT 26484 1 interaction of commuter flow and evacuation traffic flow 2 within the Seabrook EPZ j l 3 JUDGE SMITH: Any objection? ] 1 4 MR. DIGNAN: No objection. ] l 5 JUDGE SMITH: Received. J 6 (The affidavit of 7 Dr. Thomas J. Adler on ' 8 behalf of the 9 Massachusetts Attorney . i 10 General regarding 11 interaction of commuter 12 flow and evacuation traffic ) i 13 flow within the l 14 Seabrook EPZ follows:) ) 15 1 1 16 - 17 l 18 19 20 21 22 , 23 24 25 1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l I i f 4 4 O Q 0 4 4
, r UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ; 1 Before the Administrative Judges: Ivan W. Smith, Chairperson Dr. Richard F. Cole l Kenneth A. McCollom ! l l
.l In the Matter of ,
l PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW Docket Nos. HAMPSHIRE, ET AL. 50-443444-OL : (Seabrook Static ., Units 1 and 2) (Off-site EP) I 1 March 26,1989 l i AFFIDAVIT OF DR. THOMAS J. ADLER REGARDING INTERACTION OF COMMUTER FLOW AND EVACUATION TRAFFIC FLOW WITHIN THE SEABROOK EPZ l Department of the Attorney General - Commonwealth of Massachusetts One Ashburton Place
/ Boston, Massachusetts 02108-1698 (617) 727 2200
/
= _ _ - . _ _ _ . . - . - . . . - . - - _ _ .
. q ThomasJ. Adler deposes and says as follows: in
- 1. I am President of Resource Systems Gmup and author of testimony in the New Hampshire Plan hearings regarding the Seabrook Evacuation Time Study. My background and qualifications are a matter of record in this proceeding. This affidavit responds both to the general concerns raised by the Atomic Safety and Ucensing Board (ASLB) regarding the effects of commuter traffic on Evacuation Time Estimates ("ETEs")
i in the Partial Initial Decision and to the specific arguments addressing this concem listed .' by Edward B. Ueberman in his affidavit of 25 January 1989.
- 2. The ASI.B received a substantial amount of testimony on the issue of commuter traffic flow effects on ETEs in the hearings on the New Hampshire Plan. The Massachusetts Attomey General ("MassAG") presented testimony which demonstrated that the amount of commuter traffic and its potential effects on evacuating traffic flow warranted explicit consideration of the commuter traffic in the ETE simulation model
)
calculations. The Partial Initial Decision concurred in part, stating at page 256 that, "[t]he m New Hampshire decisionmakers are entitled to the most accurate ETE reasonably achievable."
- 3. Explicit modeling of commuter traffic flows is both possible as a modest extension of the ETE work completed to date (NHRERP, Vol. 6) and is necessary for accurate estimation of Seabrook ETEs. In my opinion this commuter traffic could extend the ETEs for some of the evacuation scenarios by as much as several hours.
- Having reviewed Mr. Uberman's affidavit, I find no clear evidence to the contrary. To determine the effect more accurately will require explicit modeling of the commuter
~
traffic flows.
- 4. Examples and calculations described in the affidavit of Edward Ueberman purport to show that commuter traffic will have little effect on Seabrook ETEs. These ,
calculations make several key assumptions and omit certain factors which I believe lead to substantial underrepresentation of the effects of this traffic. V
Adler Returning Commutar Afficavit 2 l l S. In 42, Mr. I.ieberman compares the characteristics of beach evacuees and commuters, but does not include resident evacuees. Beach evacuees account for only I 30% of the evacuating traffic, even on a Summer weekend. The majority of the renutining ; traffic is residential. He implies that understanding the characteristics only of the beach traffic will allow us to reasonably estimate interactions. His Exhibit A estimate of time to commute home implicitly assumes no interaction beyond what occurs during normal i rush hour. For sorne individuals, such as those who commute from the Hampton village - 4
- I area to locations in the EPZ to the north and west and who thus must move with the evacuating traffic stream, the commute home could extend as long as the full EPZ .
evacuation time (over 6 hours).
- 6. Mr. Lieberman's 43 and 95 assen that only certain " critical paths" for summer scenario full-EPZ (Region 1) ETEs are of interest in this matter. However, the NHRERP Vol. 6 includes ETEs for six non-summer evacuation scenarios and for evacuation of nine sub-regions of the EPZ. The accuracy of each of these ETEs, as well as the peak summer scenario considered in Mr. Lieberman's affidavit, are all of concern. ETEs for evacuation of sub-regions which include substantial employment centers such as Portsmouth (16,570 employees according to NHRERP Vol. 6), Newburyport (9,477 employees) and Amesbury (7,483 employees) will be affected much more heavily, proportionately, than j will the ETE for summer scenarios for the entire EPZ. For example, the evacuation times for the off-season mid-week mid-day Scenario 5 evacuation are estimated as only 4:05 for most of the sub regions (NRC Staff E. No. I fol. Tr. 6742). The " Traffic Congestion Pattems" diagrams in NHRERP Vol. 6 for Scenario 5 show the downtown areas of Portsmouth, Newburyport and Amesbury as being heavily congested only 30 minutes into the evacuation and this congestion persisting in Ponsmouth and Newburypon throughout the evacuation (diagrams attached at "A"). Were commuter flows in these areas modeled explicitly, it is likely that new " critical paths" would appear within these 9'
)
Adler Returrung Commuter Affidavit 3 i l n densely-populated areas and that the evacuation times would be extended considerably. I
- 7. At 44, Mr. Ueberman lists several beach evacuation paths. The Route 51 path is described only panially. In fact, there are two paths which use a portion of Route 51. As i shown in NHRERP Vol. 6 Traffic Control Post diagram D-HA-02, traffic from the Hampton beach area using Route 51 is directed into a reverse-flow lane in the I-95
\'
interchange area and is continued west along Route 51. A separate, " critical path" route l involves traffic evacuating along Route 101C from the Hampton beach and Hampton - 3 village areas which is directed onto Route 51 and from there to the I-95 nonhbound on-
, ramp. This latter route directly affects the Region 1 Scenario 1 ETEs and is the one specifically referred to in my earlier testimony outlining the effects of 200 additional j commuter trips on ETEs.
- 8. At 38 Mr. Ueberman argues that commuters will use secondary and tertiary roads to travel home, based on their " consummate knowledge" of the area's roads. If s true, then evacuating fesidents, who presumably have the same consummate knowledge, !
( will also use these roads and they will not be as uncontested as Mr. Ueberman implies. l At any rate, most secondary and tertiary roads at some point intersect with the ! l congested primary routes. -
- 9. At 39 Mr. Ueberman again assens that most commuters will arrive home 1 l
l 1 within two hours. This assenion is at best unsupponed. Commuters returning from outside the EPZ (42% of the total, according to NHRERP Vol. 6) will in many instances be forced to cross heavy volumes of evacuating traffic. Commuters returning to locations which require travel along with evacu.: ting flow will similarly be impeded substantially. Explicitly modeling this traffic flow would allow a determination of how important this effect is in the Seabrook EPZ.
- 10. At 310, Mr. Ueberman deals only with "with the flow" commuters and does i not consider counter and cross flows. The employment location calculations shown in M
V
Adler Returning Cornmu'er Affidavit 4 Exhibit B rely on 1980 Census data. However, employment growth has been very high in the EPZ, as noted in Vol. 6. and thus these location data are likely to be inaccurate. GI !
- 11. With reference to Mr. Ueberman's ill, according to the more recent (1987) survey conducted by MassAG (Social Data Analysts), over 1,800 EPZ residents work in ;
Hampton but do not live there, compared to 641 as estimated by Mr. Ueberman. l
.) '
- 12. At 412, Mr. Lieberman argues that commuter trips from Hampton to the west and south would not use evacuation routes. While he references Rt.101C, which in fact -
services a substantial portion of the Hampton village area, he fails to note, as described in my T7 above, that Rt.101C is a critical evacuation route. He also assumes that ,, commuters heading sc,uth out of Hampton would use Rt.1, a route which would bring l 1' them through very slow-moving traffic and within less than one mile of Seabrook, Station, instead of I-95 or another route to the west.
- 13. At 413, Mr. Ueberman says that commuters headed west will find "less
~
congested paths" to get home. This implies that: (1) there is a more optimal evacuation ; route and, (2) that residents have not already saturated those routes. The most obvious "other. route" is Rt.101C which, in the Vol. 6 ETE calculations is already saturated and is a
" critical path."
- 14. At 314, Mr. Ueberman discusses Hampton to Exeter traffic. This origin-destination pair was an example used in my earlier testimony to illustrate the type of traffic movements excluded from the Vol. 6 ETE calculations. There are many such origin-destination pairs that, all together, amount to substantial flows of traffic which will ~
affect not only the Region 1 evacuation times, but also sub region ETEs. For this particular origin-destination movement, the MassAG survey identified over 180 commuters compared to the 72 estimated by KLD using 1980 Census data. In addition, there are numerous other destinations that will be accessed using this critical bottleneck, from Hampton: for example, Newfields, Stratham, Brentwood, Kensington and other O
I Adhr Returrurig Commuter Affidavit 5 tow.r, to the southwest. Finally, there are other origins such as the commercial strip g) t I l () along Rt. I through Hampton Falls and Seabrook which will likely be served by Rt.101C. l
- 15. The calculation shown in Mr. Ueberman's 315 is based on the unsupported 1 assumption that only one-third of the Hampton-to-other EPZ-town tdps would use this l q
interchange area and uses a base commuter volume only one-third of that estimated in
, f the MassAG survey. Also, as nott.d in 414 above, there are other major origins and destinations of commuter traffic that will add significantly to these volumes. -
- 16. At 316 - 321, Mr. Ueberman describes the effects of cross-flow traffic, using
, the example of Salisbury commuters. This example also uses dated locational data and unsupponed assumptions about directional distributions of the trafEc. More importantly, it does not include any of the traffic from the substantial employment centers in Seabrook to the immediate north and Newburypon to the immediate south.
Using the same method of calculation employed by Mr. Ueberman and based on NHRERP Vol. 6 data, Seabrook would add 1,495 Seabrook-to-other-EPZ-town commuter , 1 ( ,/ vehicles and Newbuyport would add 1,490 Even if only 20% of the Newburyport trips went through the Salisbury Center intersection (and none from Seabrook did), they l 1 would more than double the volume of counter-flow traffic as calculated by Mr. Ueberman. 4
- 17. In his calculations of delays at 319, Mr. Ueberman ignores the "stan-up" {
delays of approximately 2.5 seconds per platoon and the " clearance times" necessary to
-l open and hold a gap in the evacuating traffic. Depending on exactly how these counter-flow movements are managed by the TCP guides, these additional delays could be substantial.
- 18. In 319 and 320, Mr. Ueberman argues that the effects of conunuter traffic are within the 15% capacity reduction factor applied by I-DYNEV and therefore can be "
assumed to be subsumed by the " conservatism" of the model. First, it is likely that the I C/ l
l l Adler Retuming Commuter Affidavit 6 l full effects of returning commuters will be much higher than estimated by Mr. 4 Lieberman, as described above. Second, the 15% reduction factor is included in the I-1 DYNEV model to approximate the effects of congested flow, not to account for counter-flow or other commuter traffic. According to the testimony of Dr. Avishai Ceder (foL ! Tr. 5169 at 15-19), the 15% factor is not sufficient even to account for this congestion-related effect. Third, the differential effects of commuters on evacuation progress over time and across different locations within the EPZ are not represented at all by this - t uniform factor and thus evacuation times for different sub-regions and different evacuation scenarios will suffer greater inaccuracies. ,
- 19. At 322 - 326 Mr. Lieberman discusses Town of Seabrook commuters, but deals mostly with his " conservative" approach in treating roads as " rolling terrain",
l' rather than " level". This argument uses " conservatism" as the umbrella for effects not considered in the Seabrook modeling. Mr. Lieberman states that his " conservative posture" is a "[pirudent' approach in the face of uncertainty. However, uncenainty is not i properly accounted for by superimposing still more levels of conservatism." The more , appropriate alternative approach, suggested by the ASLB in its Panial Initial Decision, is to " superimpose" reality in this process by explicitly modeling the retuming i commuters. Otherwise, it is difficult to know exactly what the ETEs represent and whether they are overly conservative or underestimates of expected ETEs.
- 20. The ETE calculations assume a single 90/10 split for volumes of evacuating
~
versus opposing commuter traffic fiows. The ASLB in its Partial Initial Decision notes at
- p. 250-251 that the Highway Capacity Manual contains factors to represent the effects of different directional splits on roadway capacities but, "[dloes not believe the matter is of serious consequence." In fact, since commuter traffic will represent an i crease of between 35% and 50% over total evacuation traffic volumes (see 425 bel : u), a split closer 1
to 50/50 in early stages of the evacuation (representing saturation of bot 4 directions) is l O
Adhr Returning Commuter Amdavit 7 p more realistic than the 90/10 split assumed in Vol. 6 calculations. At a 90/10 split, total roadway capacity (both lanes) for an otherwise " ideal" two-lane road is 2800x0.75 - 2100 vehicles per hour ("vph"). Of this,0.9x2100 - 1890 vph is availaole for the evacuating flow lane and the remaining 210 vph is available for opposing flows. At a 50/50 split, the Highway Capacity Manual's directional factor is 1.0, meaning that 1.0x2800 - 2800 vph is the total available capacity and 0.5x2800 - 1400 vph is available for each travel direction. f For the evacuating flow direction, this represents a 26% reduction in capacity below the ~l conditions assumed in the Vol. 6 ETE calculations. By contrast, at a 100/0 split (no i i reverse flow) evacuating capacity increases by only 5% above that available at a 90/10 ' split. Thus, assumption of a 90/10 directional split for the full evacuation sequence l substantially overstates the capacity of any roads which carry significant reverse-flow I commuter traffic. This is clearly a significant effect that must be explicitly represented in 1 order to obtain accurate ETEs. I l ,A 21. At 327 Mr. Lieberman states that it is reasonable to conclude that some l commuters will experience higher than normal delays in getting home. If commuters ! are delayed by evacuees, it is only logical to assume that evacuees are delayed by commuters. Lieberman states in 32 that his purpose in submitting Exhibit A was to obtain "[nlecessary insight into any interaction between the two traffic streams." However, his rnalysis sugests that interactions are limited to effects of evacuees on commuters, and not vice versa. He asserts in 327 that for commuters who live and work in the same town and for those who commute on non-evacuation routes, commuting
, times will not be increased. This ignores the " compressed" nature of the commuter surge that will have the effect of causing congestion on many roads not normally congested and ignores the delays that will occur at points where evacuating traffic streams must be crossed. '
- 22. At T28 - 329 Mr.1.ieberman states that his sensitivity runs revealed no effect i
4
\-
l l i Adler Resurrung Commuter A5 davit 8 on ETEs of longer trip generation times for commuters to reach their homes. These tests are not realistic because they ignore the extreme ranges in commuting times that will occur (for example, for commuters attempting to return home with the flow of evacuees), because they test the effects on only one scenario (presumably Scenario 1 which is very insensitive to trip generation times) and because they do not report sub- , region evacuation time differences.
- 23. At 330 - 335, Mr. Ueberman wrongly usumes that we added commuters for .
our sensitivity runs to Route 51 by increasing Hampton Beach loadings. In fact, they were loaded to Rt.101C and created delays at the I-95 on-ramp. Loading employment - related trips to Rt.101C is consistent with KLD's use of two worker load nodes on Route 1 in Hampton, well away from the beach area. These worker loadings are not covered unde. de " beach count" umbrella and therefore, do not represent any double or triple counting. Mr. Ueberman's argument holds only if every job in Hampton is at the beach. His own model says th'at they are not and in panicular that there is a substantial employment area that would access Rt.101C, as we modeled.
.24. In its Partial Initial Decision, the ASLB similarly inferred at p. 252 that, "The commuters working at the beach would clearly constitute a major portion of the problem, but should not be considered in Dr. Adler's hypothesis." In fact, the major employrnent center of concem is that within the village area of Hampton, away from the beach and along the substantial Rt. I commercial strip. Route 101C will be used by the large number of returning employees and shoppers who are located along Rt.1 south through Hampton Falls and into the Town of Seabrook. During an emergency, ,
employees and local shoppers (whose return home is also not modeled in the Vol. 6 ETE calculations) along Rt. I north of Rt.107 would be unlikely to travel south on Rt. I toward
)
Rt.107 because that route would take them past the " main gate" to Seabrook Station, a point less than one mile from the nuclear plant itself. Instead, these employees and
Adler Returrutig Commuter Amd2Vit 9 [3 shoppers would likely head nonh on Rt.1. In the center of Hampton Falls, this Rt.1 . Q'] nonhbound traffic is encouraged by the NHRERP's Traffic Management Plan to continue k north on Rt.1. (See TCP A-HF-01 in Vol. 6 at I-7.) According to the NHRERP's Traffic j Management Plan (see TCP D-HA-05 in Vol. 6 at I-42) when these returning commuters
, and shoppers heading nonh on Rt. I reach Rt. 51, traffic barricades will " discourage" them from accessing Rt. 51 westbound and " facilitate" their continued northbound travel
~
f on Rt.1. The next intersection they reach is Rt.101C (see TCP D-HA-01 in Vol. 6 at I-38) where traffic controls will permit those employees and shoppers who so wish to turn left onto Rt.101C, heading west toward the the intersection with .I-95, where the Rt.101C . j i traffic is routed onto I-95. (See TCP D-HA-02 in Vol. 6 at I-39.) Except for those j employees and shoppers who live in Portsmouth or Rye, all others who live to the west, northwest or south will use this route. Thus, Rt.101C is vey likely to be used by a large number of these returning employees and shoppers, and their presence on this
, bottleneck link has not been explicitly modeled. Volume 6 indicates only that some effort was made to estimate the number of transients who would be parked at lots i servicing retail establishments outside the beach area. That effon yielded small numbers because a was based on data collected prior to 1981 as compiled in the NRC's "Kaltman" report. Since the time at which those data were co!!ected, however, commercial growth along the Rt. I commercial strip has been dramatic. Thus, one cannot argue that the ,
estimate of transients along Rt.1 is so " conservative" that it is reasonable to ignore the trips generated by retuming employees and local (EPZ-resident) shoppers.
. 25. Mr. Lieberman concludes at 436 that the expense of explicit modeling of commuter tro" , "[wlould be entirely disproportionate to the minor amount, if any, of additional accuracy which would result." This conclusion depends on two critical assumptions: 1) that the additional accuracy would be inconsequential, and 2) the expenses would be disproportionately large. As noted in detail above, the assertion that (3
'G)
j AdlIt Returnirig Commuter Affidavit 10 l 1 no significant improvement in accuracy would result is seriously flawed by a combination ! I of omissions and unrealistic assumptions in his analyses. According to the data and
~
)
\
analyses presented in NHRERP Vol. 6, approxunately 35,000 returning commuter trips I would be generated, above those already accounted for in the Seabrook ETE calculations. For the summer scenarios, the excluded commuter traffic amounts to an increase of 35% l in the network traffic volumes. For the off-season scenarios, this traffic represents more than a 50% increase. Mr. Lieberman's affidavit deals explicitly with only a very small
~.
fraction of this total. It ignores completely the major employment centers of i l Portsmouth, Amesbury and Newburyport. . j i
- 26. The expense of explicit modeling of commuter flows is not even estimated in I Mr. Lieberman's affidavit. The MassAG has conducted an extensive survey which includes up-to-date information on EPZ resident commuters' origin and destination patterns. Using a Bayesian statistical estimation proceduret, these data could be I
, combined with the employment data already compiled by KLD and U.S. Census joumey-to-work data to from a complete, reasonably accurate estimate of commuting patterns.
According to NHRERP Vol. 6, KLD has already conducted an extensive survey of, "[t]he entire highway system within the EPZ and for some distance outside." These data could be used directly to extend the network coding to include important commuter routes.
- 27. The ASLB's statement that decisionmakers are entitled to the most accurate ETE reasonably achievable will be effected only if the Seabrook ETEs are modifica to explicitly reflect returning commuter traffic.
~
Signed under the pains and penalties of perjury Y Thofnas J. Adler 26th day of March,1989 1 Bayesian estimation is an approach commonly used to combine two or more sample datasets in order to obtain new estimates of randora variables or parameters. _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . --- -~ -
J l l l 4 1 I 1 9 l e e O O ATTACHMENT A 1
\
1 4 6 4 i
O, 1 l 1 l 4 9 e 1 l 1 1 l l O l m 4 4 O 1 I i I
m ., l l l A ra
.n:#.yW *
.~..AA ar-1..
O
/ .J *>t, .- ~'/
. . - = . ,
,,,, 7 ==.= I. .? / , ' .'
... ~ ~. (
~
4/
\
,7*.. -
' '.* W ~ ~ - ---- - -- ,
_y _ -s.
,,". m. . ,
/,,,.*, , y i -
=
. -i
,,, c'
(; "" , 4 .,=, - / .,
; ,.~
- s .I ~, s .s.m.,
',o i- .t ... {g
... g. ~
i, ,', .?. . ,,, .g. , g
-y. ... ..
=.. *
.m l *
. . \ y .j . e- 2
.. j s ....,.. \i escr= .
~. v y , .. - . -.
a.. . * -* :=.- . .
.. =
f ,,,,
-..a A -
~' \
*%a- . i.A 4
.. . o. . - \.
. .g . , , ..
.... s
~ ~ .
r.... a x. !.%- .t. y , g., . _ '. :. ~
~ . .",
~
, ,/ ,s
. t ,--...
. - .,.. .s ; \, .;; ...s w: .
; y.s ,.. , ,,. r. t
.=. . \ .,~* ,. 3 3 .
N 4 s ~.
..1. . ( ..
\
sy-}~Wy .[
.-jt
~ "
T 1-
- i. .
s
.i
~. .: . .v .
,- .a.
- /,
8 8. an.n ..M s . .. u, a-s z
/ .m
.3,.
,t , -.,,
s a .. . . , , "
,\ < s
== ev 'a'
\., ante
. .s s; u...
'== ! ***"u" . ).3. g,-.., .,- ;;-- .
.y A 5 ... y 4
.'= , V g.
,,,' P, .' "**
.e -
L .% . .
~%.
c*I ..
"'1 -. . .
==...
. Y
/
/, ([. '*
9' k ,,
., 8,,,
- - F ; kN ,- .*e
$ N.
. ./.....
= T. r' , ~
\1; ag. ,'.{-'
f ,.
.. g,
/< - ~ - j ' '"
.6. N , /, s . %,, ,
h gure 10-Ja. - "'"""' , /. ./ .
~
",'ra!fic Conccstien Patte:;.s l** " " * '
. . -.u
/
t2. 3 a. e Crder to E'Vacuate -.* 10-29 .' ,= A~ o
e. [ J k , ~ . y. . -
./
. .~*,,,.. .
u a. . , , ,
,,, d
.twem.st?
..., . ..w. A/
.===.= s
,.~~',"4',
. \
s
,, . .p/ .
f
'~
O\A = / .
/, ~ q .,.7,..-~ s
. ses f
jjg,.1, e 88 4 g> s,e .' s T .
,3, a ..
e -
. r-j ~*
b ,, , .
- i. . -
\ %
Ii i, 0 *
't g 7 ' 4,
/ ,,. N., .1 1
7 .. 7 q-i
=*
i = . ,,,, 7 *.
!. .IL, ~. :..;
,3.
\
y .;: '" , -
; um. - "y 1 . -,.* N _
.... - \,,
. * ,. .1 g7 =,,, _ '"j . . ~ .-=g e 2
?,,
~/ =,,.,, N
~.
,l1
.t a=
'y o ry,
#' a.="*a **u "" M ...["
[ c
~ ,e .
s
.t. l9 /,
\
. / ,1-; s..
. .. ,'o== = . + .y .= A \**
e
== , .
]
1 "Nr., l.\ ~.,, .
- 4. S. y 3
..f ~ s#--.'.
- T_ p='$',.
~ '. \ ,,\ ~. ~a. .. .
. .s' ,,,
N ,3, - / ,
*. o.
,,. ./ % , '
,/ -
I3 r 2 N. . A .
,v s. .
, g,, .-.
- - m. . . , , . ,
- i.a e,."" a . a
... r >
AN ,... . ". .a,,
'a
/ 1 r..*. - . " . -> , .,a 'y
*- J.
s L -Q .././
- .. ~ A anma, ',, .
'= ,
3,, "\ . . ,
- 4 ,. "' N ^,
, ,.7,,, ... <
..?. . , ,e < ..-
'j; *
* ==*y, , -
i ,
/
t ..
* ) s/ .A ,7. - . ,... .
1 e .. ,
. ; ,. ya ,o
'* ~~ x Qt/ ,
c:
...,,,,,, ,. / '.,
. .s
"*6,, . e.av [8 Figure 10-3b.
.L / :-
"'raf fic Congestion Patterns
- C
""' for Region 1, Scenario 5, a ', f,,
at time 1:00 after , Order to F'vacuate 7 ;a
- - - - - - - - - _ . - _ _ , . _ _ _ _ _ ---___m ,
.i
',.,o..e6
.~ ..
H % .K ' L/
'=
! . t. .%*~ . i
.i
/ ..t
.., 4 --
.*-===="..
.=m.= h..., \
g ,.. ... . s
\
1e/.? i
.. / . .
g . . ,
*\A =
... s,s .a s / .,*--
. ~
,4 _ 7 -- . ... __., ...
' 's ,7, . ...
.. m ,,
. - . . .ru n
,3,
' , , . -e= : l s
,o ". .. !.
1
.. . . . .T . .
g ... [
.#.Te u. '." '
- p. y ,,
- q. ,,,,
i.,
)e
- i 1 '\s./ arv=
y ". "f - - * / 7 '! I "*
*g**.J.. . *
. .. =. .- . , , . * - - .".,- -4 * - .. .
..\--
/
.?s,;
'% 3
,. - 3
.a. . .-
su -
.. 4s . .
.e N.
n s,s. {
. J. , * ' ",r**r
.Y
. . T } *- N
, S. glA
/ ""*~ ~
l
, ..a s?.: , " .,
'n .
.* - . . ..g, c'-y [ c A% ""
,,*. ,'~
.t.. fp /
s
.si ,
.. --e \ ., . . / , ,# N .*.
. .... - [ <./ .i . .
,. g s v -
, x-
~4' '
a 7 . a,- s ._ I
. ,A A 2
f 2 g . ,:: s. .. ..' s c .
~,_
y / .,
,,,,,,,,,,,N " , -, . ,4*
8 -
- "r ;.... ,;. A
\. . , f... a
-e s .s .g. u.....
. a g . , , 'g .-
-.t. g 3 ,;~.._g;
.i1
_\;..+-,-.a. A g ,s x.
. ,w a
/ !
W- 7
.. n i g ,,.. .... rg-
...., )
=="",,,, ,3. . ?
e ~%
, , ,g
- r. %. .. .
,. .f.....
~ '
n.=vo. / .g. , 1
.e
,r----- ~. ..__ j
... 's.. ,.,
w/ Iy
,i ; ,,
Figure iu-3a. *
"*4,',, , .8 .
Traffic Concestion Patterns
.. a = for Poqicn 1, Scenario 5, ',p ,
e at timo 0:30 af ter "*. Crder to E'vacuate ( == 1 10-29 * *
- 1
=m;
~ ..u. ,,
e ta
, ." b., '
's ,e . -'./ .
= ~ ***
me woma.. . d ..
- e. u., no.s..ov,u .A. /
e.esma.e g -- ..., [
,, # " . I
\ ,, 7 -'.. ,
\
gg ,i
. ..m \d * "
, , , , , , , , .. . .o.. .y .
"a s ...
.m a .
r i s ., i- . .,wm. -
'3* "
um I 1 " -
. .=% !.
. 'C . . . tL ;..
T 0 ' s g 7 4,. 's
.a
,,, e 7 ..
, ).~.,,,*'
I
~ .. .g., .
- w. * - *g. . *
.. 2l\, .. """-q *).y.=..
= == .
a a= = r=e
,a -
m , , , " . . .**f.#
.. ."I. (. .Q. '
s.. 35 .,,. . . ..
- . ag N
. *jI}a... # ',.. t. g';r,**yp
.?. -
/
f" ' . j . C
~ ~.A.., '_~
s
""* t.t %' :.'."
*- p /' *
/ s '.
.t. lr / \ -
..-e
/ a \ ., . / ,o ; ',
. ,- s,
/ s.===,=. . .- ._
.g
+ .
g a x .' ~
== -
4
"' f' . , ...
.. .s v ,-.1;;
- N
,- 4, . ..
,,,,,,3 ,, ._. .,. .
* \
A ( I3 %
.3 N
,g..
_/ ...
/
, .,s s.
s.maarro. "
.e s - - . - -,, == .?
a
,/ A . 47. *
. \eg, ' ,, *3. 3,~ a,s. .*
.s.. sau . s..a -
**"' . . . , .' s .
. . . , . . ' -- F* -- ) ,g, 94... / /
3,, \. .
==== ..e
= A ,
"s ,
\ . -~
' . . .g
- g. ,
""""=*
~%,-
..?.
. .= .",.A * ~. ,.
.. l .-. . ,
*3'
- mso.
1 s
,, m .4.. "- .'.<. .c I
- I
..- ) a/a"> ,-
i .e . .. t ..
- l. 1 I.j
-- --- ------ ,I
,& f S
s ..are.=, ,. / '7.. g l3
.P.s .. .. ,
.2. Figure 10-3b. [ $,~
~*n~~' "'raffic Congestion Patterns :-
. s -
for Region 1, Scenario :.,, at tirno 1: 00 after **, 1 Order to Pvacuate N -N "* 10-30 ! "" *
. ...P % - -
" :/
.eo.aasaf ,g. ,, ,
a ,, g . v . s, .. p.f .
==
q j*
--mae
-e. .-.. **'.a. .
~
.r ,,
~
,886 set .! a.s
- - ; e y
', "a
. T' ,
1
=-
"] ,
- -< i .<
i ' i" ."" 8
.?.. ;.. y o .
i
.?. .7- ,,'%a . . .* . ..
i 1
, g y. e a . ,, % ,,,, i' a.*.,'
I \ am m a V *./ . T"e r' .c* ., *- g
*','.,'"'>1'" - . ,. * -?.
.8.. 2
.sf \
s A '%
~.
A a.a -
. .t., y . ?.
- s. .
',g s
..?. - gla .
p ,
'*; ' yp tl "'
__ ] f a -
~~.s. 7y -
""* ~yL'
~-
, . / *"
; , / .
x . si . . . .. _. . . . s.
'" . . / s.s s,
-., \ '/ ?. # 9, "C **.
,, s -
.mosto. , ,,,,,,,,,, 7. , .
(
/ &(\. . .
- _ ,,'l , .. 5
'\ .,, ,
\
,,6 .:r-e - * . \ -
M. .ih
,'3 = ", ..
.. .r M . .' j=.g' *
's,
. . ),
.., g .= a.a , . .
g
\ t 's L,w. .;- .. : . .w - f
\ .- -
%g A
i,,
=
,. .f..., ,-.a,. , .. .
- s ,
a
, .s..
. \,
., . A'N9.,- %..e. .
i' .* a.4 =~_ .:'4* g .y**/ . .. ,/
, \
,,3 == ===w ..e A -
"_'..e, g ; g
~~
.c
= -
. c .
,t.,.-
7 ,,,,, A "'3, .
?."=
"' "'N.
=g ,=; .
.=
,s . -
n ,.= / . . z
) = ,.p':. - ,
%s - . . <
. e. ..
"" g
--- , / ,,,
/,,e--- ...,,
), ;/ ,
- w. = w.n.,
L :
,g, Figure 10-3c.
.,=
i
.= %
Traffic Ccroestion Patterrs' ,
. for P.cqion 1, Scenario 5, N .
m ./ .. at time 2:00 after
- e"" ""
Crcier to I'vacuate 10-31 ~
' s
~ m.
j r[ qua.
) -
y ..... ..
~
. + . ..? % . '" ,
~ ..','
et.uaAE8f " [ . j
.n
./
- a=esa.a= .s ../ *"
a te . , ,
- # 5 og '
. . . . g. ,. ,,
. u .. e
, . .. .., . /. \, ~ . _, ., #. ~.
e a. =* "#** CN4 4.4. s % .g , a.e n 9 n e a .*
- n
.e4 9 E
e e Ta. r.n.m j #
... a6 massato,
[ 3 I. '
.a i
se
.= I Ie o D " " i "e'*
...a* . m. .... e
,.,.8 eg '," '
g.
- O * .
.y ...b. .*
e .- e ;. ..
,3, \
-.- 1, ~e. .-. e.
g \ T a, .. e ...-. # e ,e, . #
\
, . . / ' """ -. '> .t. ~ s 8
"" y. '" *
..s-- . . . . .". ....- - . N
, .e
**'/ .u. ***' #
' n.e
[ D g
.m
.u. .
,, , ,,,',9" p . , ,8, y g , . ..e e "g
. g.., 3;c . \
! . . g- .
~~
,, . ,1 >
=, ,
m
-. .w 8 ,,'
4
-; ,, e.- es
.e-. ~ . .- ,
c ,g, 4
.. r ...
.,"' . 7 -
, 9 .-
'. t, . ,*. e.. :e . .,
.**' ~~..$e. F \ *
. O
*l t e .= j 'I **". \ g \
g .e i simos,.e "*
- t. Especten g , .'
-e agueumsfem y*. 8f' '
A I :(y ' ..-
~ =%n 1
\. ' '**
g 7 "". "1 .
- r. .y h & f ( ' '.
.,,.s, g., . .
**.../ 1 * ,
- e. .
II . .. e as. e ., %
,,, , .?.. Bj .$ .. , * % "*"
3 M ** s , .a w .
,/ %
*
- u.
- 8. mm *
..e I
/ "g *. M G .. O
~ ,
j ,,
- T .e 'q".t..""
g a
# \, s' eaa N s.umsume,..** *
.4.n*
- .\.ne e o \
a., \, - .
..ar.
,"3+ ..*..N...*-~.'>
- - .n.
,a. ., ... /
/* .
.=.
. .as
/ \' e
. us. .#
,, .. e
~*
ag ge ...- H.
~
7 . ..e f.,
..? p. . e ,". ~.4,f A
.mu. .S. *.s. .
.m 7 g ,
*A ,f,,y 7 ,/.. * .
l ,/. a. O sowounveent y*ta8.= f n ... 7 pr == ** e-a A/ ,.
.. 3
)B i
l! * - j I / i. . .
., i a ?...
.. s
/
/ ~~~ ~ ... ,___j c .
N ',i , W. .WWetST p l ru. *
.9 . ~A,',, r ..,.'3 Figure 10-3d. /
Traffic Concestion P:tterns E
..aa=6 for Region 1, Scenario .a, N. A g
~
at ti. c 3 :'10 a f ter e.,, -- Ordee to Fvacante / ," 10-32
-)
yh ~~ - & , . O 1
~ ..n t . ! *%** ..
p .
" .. . A f. .
j
. . . , 4/ '
l
= = = = . -. s
\ .,
.3.7./ . ,
.- i f ..
*i .
\4 -
.w.-- / ., ,
ee a .
- s. , / ; ... -
I [\... , . t m ..,
, .g.
'~-* .
, y -
s
- r. ". . a . .. -
~
3 ,, ...i " .,. y *
- s " "'.- ( / -
y .sf - r ..
. l . N.,. . . .
I ... .
- ./- -.
.. . .s , . .t -- ..s- .t.
s ...
... ... s .... ...,- i
. .. . . .i \ - ..
.R. '% .
-a
.~ =. y .
aa .
. f* . .?.g\
N 4 1
,, .s.-
,lA u
o ~. .9., v: * . ., ['. = s oe ,6LLs - ** e.eQ
- . k, . s ...,,;.
... .g g -p.
.,o A% =**
4-
~~~~~~s .jr / N* .
,/j' i . ** .,i'l '"L
[ [/ ,s & **..g- x
- (s e..=ne = g y ,_ eg. .N , . 's ' A IA\
V ,. x. - F;;~ .
,\. .
, . /_ . .-r\. .
i e. e .
. . . . a- '."
g,.,,,.i .- -
%s.
\ ,a. ...
i .. 4.e \ . . ,. s
\ ca.ancos
..-s. - % .-
s ri s ,s . .- . . - /. ..
. .. . s
.s n .. ,, 3 i
! ' ~'
-= M a(' a,,
A !
. y . .
g.:. ,@N {- 1
. .. . .- .. t...A .
,/ a. - -vr-.b.
s
.\v A.- . .. ,. .. e . . . '
[. , ' ~5 - x n*..', ~/ l e{ &, = F*-A s .-~.- / ;
""t .,,~*,., '
.t . n.w j
*>y-,,
- s'
- i ,
g
....,g /
x ; . *..2. .-
.g. .s. r. F..
..a- ,,, f . .. .
'y. ' ,
l *
- - - . - - . y .o
.u.,.. // .,
. * *. . er..- - . .
L
\ } , .R.= /
! *f/. / i,4 e
,e**
. ?... .
,- "N I
* <--. -. s ~ ~ ~ ,
/
/ ,,,
~ '" .
,fg A Figure 10-3e. .6'"
.....,n
[t - U. Traffic Congestion Patterns ~, .
. ., s for Region 1, scenan.o 5, aR ,*
at ti.c 4:00 after is , Order to Evacuate ,% [.,., r.- 10-33 1 _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ -
. 1
~ .
.. . +;
- -== r s .4
.... ..., .. 4/
.L *
.. <..s+"d* .; .
\ r .[Llf **. .
'~ ay#
om
- a. .. .
.i -
1 A.
*-" A' .
.. Q."..a/. --
. .~.
,.s .
a.. .,,
,. . 1 m
s ... 4
/ ~e, .,
- I * .
... s g. x o .3 .* -- ! .c.
... 's, ,
.t %,,, . . .' q.
- q ' i ,,,,
i 1g7-
~
y ?./ T **e . ." ,*-. T. * ' I a== ... ;
- a. .
/ =a=
. . *.' -. .. 1 N
.. .fc4 . -- 3 1., / _
~j L L
'"/ - "" -
i .- i
.?
..~.#,,...-a N
,. .?. IA '"'
# ". g 1 .. . .e *~
'l .Te.^. '.F.'
.t*c *.s.,- .% ,,,,.. . .
;,.- 3 ,.sy ,
. ,.a o
.t. P
\
.s *
~ ,* . :. . ~.
.. , .=* \ ., Ng- .*.
e s.== = =i . au m. ,g . / .i -..
"g. s 3 .
, .Tw . -
y %s+ w --d .e
- i
\ .,~ * \
\ su \.=.
e .p,'.= .r ;- ~
./
/
.v y g s
,2, ' .. . -
.; .- . . 2 -
*~s. . .. * '
i sw i
\
g ;. . s g,
.-~r g r .s.:.
i - -
/ z.s. - s .
.s.. .
. s.
7..,..
,s ..t..
a s {.", --
~'i
.r,
=
~
# *;--- ) A --d.h' / ,
-e ,,*,,. .f . "%.
j
- c e:pj'~~',n?.d'
- = g.. ...
g -. .,s~ . .. f' g *7
=="--* . c lA A ? **[.
,, , Ah g,' 7 6""E.:, . .. -. -X
('h p. , W.
'" T y t * *E ,/'A . .- ?
~ * '
. . . . /
..* . , 'i #
~N .I , /,e, ^p wa
- i. ,,,
I,. ., / = . r~---. ~ .-_ .Q .
. 'N S ./ e* r
/ -
g .. ,
// .? f:
....,s
[y~ 1 Figure 10-3f. *
... e Traffic Conqestien r'atterns e . :. ,
for oegion 1, Ecenario S, N.. .- at ti:c S:00 af ter .." e Order to Evaclate .. N..<g /* n-10-34 a_ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ ._ ~ .- . . _ _ _ - . _ - . . - _
i l. ADLER - DIRECT 26485 1 i
^
1 (Cross-examination plan proffered.to ') 2 the Board.) 3 1
.1 4
5 g . 8
. 9 10 11 -
12 . 13 14 15
,. 16 -
17 18 19 j 20 21 - -
. 22 23 i l
24 25
'g Heritage RepoLting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 l
_ - c_____-_____ . . . _ . - _ _ . . _ . - _ . . . . _ . _ . _-- _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _
1 ADLER - CROSS 26486 1 MR. DIGNAN: I've been asked by my able secretary 3 2 to advise the Board that I composed this entirely myself on 3 the word processor and therefore any typographical errors j i 4 and misspellings are my own. 5 CROSS-EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. DIGNAN: 7 Q Good afternoon, Dr. Adler. Good to see you again.
- 8 A (Adler) Good afternoon.
9 Q Dr. Adler, I would like you to go to page 5 of . 10 your testimony, if you would. 11 A (Adler) This is the ETE testimony? 12 Q That's right. We are on the ETE testimony until I 13 tell you differently. 14 A (Adler) Okay. 15 Q And in there you state that our ETEs in the SPMC l 16 do not satisfy NUREG-0654, Appendix 4. j 17 Would you kindly get out a copy of NUREG-0654, 18 Appendix 4, and tell me by line and page which portions of 19 the document you rely on for that statement. 20 A (Adler) The --
- i 21 Q Line and page, Doctor, please.
22 A (Adler) Certainly. . 23 Q I'm not going to quiz you further. I just want 24 you to give me the lines and pages you rely on for that 25 statement. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
ADLER - CROSS 26487 1 A (Adler) Throughout Appendix *4 are reference.to a _s 2 report that's prepared describing the evacuation time
~
3 estimate. I refer you to page 4-1 under che introduction 1 4 describing -- 5 .Q What lines?
- 6. A (Adler) The first line, "This section of the -
7 report should make the reader awsre". 8 In that same section,-the introduction, which
. 9 refers to that report as well, page 4-2, Section B, General 10 Assumptions states, "All assumptions used in.the analysis 11 shall be provided."
12 Q And it is your understanding that those -- oh, 13 excuse me, i 14 Were there any more you wanted to reference? Did i 15 I cut you off? 16 - A (Adler) Throughout the document are references to 17 a report. , 18 Q No, no, Doctor. I'm not interested in throughout. 19 That's a long document. 20 A (Adler) True. 21 Q I want to know the page and the line of the
. 22 references you are relying on for the conclusion you express 23 in your testimony.
24 A (Adler) Page 4-5, Traffic Capacity. "This 25 section of the report shall show", this is the first line, ', Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ( _
ADLER - CROSS 26488 1 and it describes the various items of capacity calculations 2 that shall be provided in the report. 3 Q And those are the pieces that you rely on, as I I l 4 understand, for the proposition that there must be a report 5 and it must be part of the emergency plan.
~
6 Is that right? 7 A (Adler) Yes. - 8 Q Now if you would come to page 21 of your 9 testimony. You state, "The SPMC does not have special ETEs , 10 for transit-dependent populations and those in special 11 facilities." 12 And you say, "This in and of itself violates 13 NUREG-0654, Appendix 4, in my opinion." 14 Same question, line and page, where do you find 15 support for that opinion? 16 - A (Adler) Page 4-9, the second complete paragraph 17 on that page, "An estimate of the time required to evacuate 18 that segment of the non-car owning population dependent upon 19 public transport shall be made in the manner similar to that 20 used for the auto-owning population. This estimate shall 21 include consd.deration of special services which might be 22 initiated to serve this population subgroup. Such services , 23 might include fixed route departures from designated 24 assembly points." 25 The following paragraph describes special facility Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
ADLER - CROSS 26489 (~s 1 estimates. " Estimates for special' facilities shall be made-2 with consideration.for the means and mobilization of 3 . equipment and manpower to aid an evacuation and the needs 4 for designated employees or staff'to delay:their evacuation 5 in order to shut down industrial facilities. Each special 6 facility shall be treated on an individual basis." 7 Q Doctor, I didn't really ask you to quote. And you - 8 want to get out of here by three.
- 9 All I need is the page and line.
10 A (Adler) Okay, so that's page 4-9, second-complete 11 paragraph. The next paragraph on-4-9, continuing onto page 12 4-10. 13 Q That's it? That's the second'on special needs ETEs', 14 A (Adler) 15 yes. 16 - Q Now would you be kind enough to come with me to 17 page 9 of your testimony, please? l 18 A (Adler) Yes. j 19 Q Therein at the bottom of the page, four lines up,
-l 20 you begin a sentence, "In this mode," and I think we can 21 agree you are referring to Mode 2? . 22 A (Adler) Yes.
23 Q ...the ETEs are very likely to be longer;than 24 they would be in Mode 1 because nonprofessional just-cannot 25 be counted on to move congested flow traffic as efficiently' \! O g J- Heritage Reporting Corporation
\/ (202) 628-4888
ADLER - CROSS 26490 1 as experienced police officers can." 2 And you go on to say that some additional factor 3 will be needed to be added for that. 4 Now my first question to you is this. On pages 14 5 through 15, you return to this subject. 6 A (Adler) Yes. 7 Q And do I understand in there, on pages 14 through - 8 15, you are laying out all your reasons for holding this 9 opinion that the nonprofessional can't do it as well as the - 10 professionals? 11 Or did you have some additional reasons that you 12 haven't laid out in 14 and 157 13 A (Adler) Those are certainly the principal 14 reasons. 15 Q Are there any others, Doctor? I 16 - A (Adler) There may be, but those are certainly the 17 principal ones. 18 Q Well, if there may be, take a minute pause and 19 tell me what they are? 20 (Pause.) . 21 A (Adler) I don't come up with anything 22 substantial. . 23 Q All right. l 24 After mentioning short training and no real 25 experience, the next reason you give is, "At key TCPs the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
ADLER - CROSS 26491
~~s 1 . guides will undoubtedly be asked by evacuees for specific 2 routing instructions and/or for information about the 3 emergency. It is unlikely they will be able to dispatch 4 such evacuees as rapidly as would a state police officer."
5 Why? 6 How long does it take to say "no", no matter 7 whether you are wearing a uniform or not? 8 A (Adler) If a civilian is willing to say "no" and
- 9 move a person along, then it should take about the same 10 amount'of time.
11 Q Well, you know the plans call for these people in 12 such situation to say " turn on your EBS radio," don't they? 13 A (Adler) Yes.- f 14 Q Okay.
' 15 Don't you think they could say that just as well i 16 as a state police officer?
17 A (Adler) They can certainly say it as well. , 18 Whether they will not is a qu6stion. 19 Q You.think they will be afraid? 20 A (Adler) They may be, yes. 21 Q Incidentally, Doctor, you're talking about state
. 22 police officers here.
23 A (Adler) Yes. 24 Q You are a resident of Vermont, is that correct? 25 A (Adler) That's correct. Heritage Reporting- Corporation (202) 628-4888
ADLER - CROSS 26492
'l Q And I'm a life-long resident of New England.
2 A (Adler) Yes. 3 Q I've never seen a state police officer in New 4 England directing traffic other than where you mentioned it, 5 an accident scene and other than something like getting the 6 traffic out of the Patriot's Stadium. 7 Have you ever seen a state policeman in this 8 region assigned day by day to direct traffic? 9 A (Adler) I didn't hear the two reasons. - 10 I've seen them at special events certainly 11 directing traffic. 12 Q Yes, I've seen them at Patriot's Stadium. 13 A (Adler) Yes. 14 Q Emptying the cars there on occasion, right? 15 A (Adler) I haven't seen them at Patriot's stadium. 16 - Q And I've seen them at the scene of an accident. 17 A (Adler) I've certainly seen them at special 18 events. There are some towns in our state, in particular, l 19 where there is little to no local police force. And so the 20 state police are called on to do some slightly more routine ! 21 traffic directing than might be the case in a less rural 22 setting. . 23 Q Well, it is true that many small towns in Vermont l 24 are covered by the state police. 25 A (Adler) That's correct. j l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
\
l l l L___-__-_ _ _ - _ - _ _ - - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ >
ADLER - CROSS 26493
-~s 1 Q But do they really direct traffic there?
i )
's-/ 2 I confess I've never seen it.
3 A (Adler) I -- 4 Q And I have spent a lot of time there. 5 A (Adler) I believe it may be the case. We have a 6 number of very large ski areas in the State of Vermont as an And I believe that they may be used on occasion at
~
7 example. t l 8 some of those ski areas. 9 Q Now the third and last reason you give is that the 10 guides must act, as you say, as traffic signals, according 11 to you, keeping a 75-second -- you will drop the phrase "in 12 green time", and you say they can't do it because they 13 haven't been instructed and they don't have stop wat'ches,
/N 14 right? '- 15 A (Adler) I didn't say they couldn't do it. I said 16 that absent instruction about exactly how to do it and 17 absent some --
18 Q Stop watch. 19 A (Adler) -- method of keeping trsck of time, they 20 would be unlikely to do it. 21 Q Why do you think a state or local police officer
. 22 would do it better?
23 They don't have any instructions either, according 24 to you. 25 A (Adler) They have had instruction on managing --
/'
(s- Heritage Reporting Corporation m (202) 628-4888
-l l
ADLER - CROSS 26494 1 Q In the model? 2 A (Adler) -- traffic. 3 Q That you've got to maintain 75 seconds under the 4 model? 5 A (Adler) Not 75 seconds. . 6 Am I testified this morning, under traffic guide 7 training, seventy-five seconds, I believe, Mr. Lieberman 8 correctly notes in various places, isn't absolutely 9 critical. - 10 What is critical is that that interval not get 11 exceptionally short so that you don't allow every car that i 1 12 comes up to an intersection to go through and stop the 13 evacuation flow. 14 Q So it isn't -- 15 A (Adler) On the other hand -- 16 - Q Go ahead, Dr. Adler, finish your statement. 17 A (Adler) In any case, I've lost the train of my
\
18 thought, but I believe what I was indicating is that most 19 importantly is that a reasonable interval be maintained.
.1 20 Q Well, you don't need a stop watch to keep a .
21 reasonable interval, do you? 22 A (Adler) Some people do. It's difficult to gauge - 23 time when one is engaged in a task with which one isn't 24 previously familiar. 25 A state policeman may know that over an ir.terval Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I j ADLER - CROSS 26495 l l e 1 or an hour, or over the interval of a minute approximately X l f ' l N. 2 cars would go through. A civilian who has had no previous 3 experience in managing traffic may not know that. 4 Q And in any event, you don't know that the state 5 police -- they don't carry stop watches, do they? 6 A (Adler) I don't know that they carry it as part 7 of their regular equipment. 8 Q So in any event, you stand by your view that
- 9 absent a stop watch and some instruction, a traffic guide 10 can't keep these reasonable intervals, whereas a state 11 police officer or a local police officer can?
12 A (Adler) I didn't say "can't". I said would be 13 less likely to. 14 Q You also refer in your testimony to the siren 15 system on page 10. 16 - A (Adler) 'Yes. I i 17 O And this is your item five on that page? 18 A (Adler) Yes. 19 0 You refer to " potential delays in notifying
-l 20 Massachusetts beach population".
21 A (Adler) Yes. l
. 22 Q What potential delays are we talking about? I 23 A (Adler) You mean how long? l 24 Q No.
25 What ones? What delays? ( . Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l I ADLER - CROSS 26496 1 A (Adler) The delay is the delay in getting the 2 mobila siren system into the area. ) 3 Ct Well, assuming the mobile siren system is found by 4 tho other licensing board to comply in all respects to 5 NUAEG-0654, do you still have a problem? ; I 6 A (Adler) If it complies with NUREG-0654, I don't l 7 know that that speaks to how quickly that is in place? 8 Q You don't? 9 A (Adler) How quickly it's in place? . 10 Q You don't understand that there is a 15-minute ? 11 rule that we have to operate under, and that's the big thing i 12 we've been litigating before the other board? 13 A (Adler) I didn't' understand that it was 14 necessarily 15 minutes, no. ; 15 Q You didn't? 16 - A (Adler) No. 17 Q Doctor, shadow evacuation. 18 A (Adler) Yes. 19 Q On page 11, it's actually 10 to 11. 20 You make this statement. You point out that we 21 have adopted the view that voluntary evacuation or shadow 22 evacuation be 25 to 50 percent in those portions of the EPZ . 23 not ordered to evacuate, but within a distance from Feabrook 24 equal to or less than other portions which have been ordered 25 to evacuate. HeritLge Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888
ADLER - CROSS 26497 1 Then you go on to say, " Mass AG testimony on this O. 2 topic was that the voluntary evacuation in Massachusetts be 3 in the range of 56 percent." 4 My question to you is very simply this. 5 Fifty to 56 percent,-is that a significant 6 difference that you think anything turns on on ETEs, this 7 difference between 50 percent and 56 percent? 8 A (Adler) Not between 50 and 56 percent, but
- 9 between 25 and 56 percent.
10 Q Yes, but 50 percent is the top number we factored il in, right? 12 A (Adler) It wasn't factored into the Volume 6 ETE 13 study. 14 Q But we can agree that the 6 percent is nothing
} \-' 15 anybody is going to get upset about?
16 - A (Adler) I can agree that the 6 percent wouldn't 17 significantly affect ETEs. 18 Q Now could you come to page 20, please, of'ycur 19 testimony, and 21. 20 A (Adler) Yes. 21 Q And if we could, review it.
. 22 A (Adler) Yes.
23 Q You state there, "The ETEs,.as projected by the 24 Applicants, without these factors accounted for". - 25 And can we agree that the "these factors" are the f~ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
e ADLER - CROSS 26498 1 inclusion of the 31,000 figure that the Board found in the 1 2 New Hampshire portion of the case as opposed to the figure 3 we used; the cars going across Massachusetts, the New l 4 Hampshire transients and their dealings with Route 286 and 1 5 1A, the through-flow of 3,000 cars problem, and the 1989 , 6 population figures taken from Dr. Luloff's testimony which 7 has been excluded? 8 Those are the factors that we're referring back 9 to, is that right? - 10 A (Adler) Yes, they were the factors listed in 11 earlier questions and responses. 12 Q Okay. 13 You say, "The additional factors described above 14 will add at least one hour to the ETEs." Oka J7 15 ... meaning that summer evacuation could be 16 extended from 2:00 in the afternoon until the early morning 17 hours of the next day." 18 All right? 19 A (Adler) Yes. 20 Q Now you were referencing back, I take it, to the . 21 scenario you mentioned in the first part of that answer 22 where you say, ...already approach and exceed 10 hours for . i 23 some scenarios." 24 Is that right? 25 A (Adler) Yes. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
ADLER - CROSS 26499 Okay. l' Q 2 That 10-hour scenario you are talking about is the 3 summer day with sudden rain, isn't it? ; l 4 A (Adler) That's correct. 5 . 8 I ' 9 10 11 12 ., 13 14 15 16 - 17 18 19 . 20 ., 21 ;
- 22 23- 1 24 25 *!
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
ADLER - CROSS 26500 1 Q Now, did you make a specific run with these 2 factors in it to get that extra hour on top of the 10? 3 A (Adler) No. 4 What we did was a specific run with only one of 5 those factors in which was the additional through traffic. 6 Q More importantly, is it your testimony that you're 7 going to add an hour to every scenario or just to the big - 8 one? 9 A (Adler) No, it wouldn't be uniformly an hour to . 10 ever scenario. 11 Q Now taking the 10-hour one. 12 A (Adler) Yes. 9 13 Q Where we're going to add an hour and make it 117 14 A (Adler) Yes. 15 Q Same question: that's a 10 percent increase? 16 - We agree? 17 A (Adler) Yes. 18 Q Do you think a plus or minus 10 percent on an ETE 19 is anything to worry about in the real world? 20 A (Adler) I would be -- 21 Q For the decision-maker? 22 A (Adler) Again, I'm not the decision-maker and I . 23 don't understand all the factors that go into the protective l 24 action decisions. 25 I believe an additional ene-hour on some of the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
. . _ . _. . ~ _. - _____ - - _ _ _
i ADLER - CROSS 26501 s 1 scenarios is significant. ( \ , (_ / 2 Q Can you think of a PRA that would change because I 3 the decision-maker thought the evacuation would take 4 11' hours as opposed to 107 5 A (Adler) I cannot know. 6 Q Are the problems you bring up on bodily functions
- i 7 then, when increased to 11-hours, the same problems that -!
. 1 8 would exist after 10?
l - 9 A (Adler) They would certainly become more 10 significant. l 11 Q Ten percent more significant? l 12 A (Adler) I don't know about 10 percent. I suspect l 13 those become a little bit more expediential. r~s 14 Q I don't mean to be facetious or even a little k, N- 15 risque. 1 1 16 - My problem is: does this hour piled on top of 10-l 17 hours make any difference at all in the real world to tne , 18 people who are going to have to perform? 19 A (Adler) When you say, people who have to perform, 20 are you referring to evacuees? 21 Q The decision-makers. The people who are going to l . 22 get the people out, make decisions on what to do and so l 23 forth? 24 A (Adler) I do not know how those individuals will 25 respond. (/^) Heritage Reporting Corporation
\s_/ (202) 628-4888 w___=______:_______ _.
ADLER - CROSS 26502 1 Q Now finally, you have a piece in here in which you 2 make an argument that we should have -- for lack of a better 3 term I'll use -- a real time indicia of the beach population 4 worked out; correct? l 5 A (Adler) Yes. . i 6 Q Is this the same testimony and principle that you 7 and some of your fellow panel members testified to up in New - 8 Hampshire? 9 A (Adler) It's the same general concept, yes. . j 10 0 Was it any, really, different? 11 A (Adler) We've outlined -- 12 Q Other than you've come up with a few devices that 13 you specifically recommend now? 14 A (A[iler) Yes. 15 We've added some additional detail as to how it 16 could implemented. l 17 Q And since that time have you learned of any other 18 place where this is being done? I notice you couldn't tell 19 me of any place where it was being done up in New Hampshire. f 20 Have you learned since then that there's any place 21 on the universe where this is being done? l 22 MR. FIERCE: Objection, the question implies there . 23 may be other places where it needs to be done more than it 24 would be need to be done for Seabrook or equally. 25 MR. DIGNAN: Certainly does. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
ADLER - CROSS 26503 O 1 JUDGE SMITH: Overruled. I i 2 THE WITNESS: (Adler) I am not aware of an 3 application identical to this; no. ] 4 BY MR. DIGNAN: 5 Q Well, you'ro not even aware of an application 3
- 1 6 close to what you're suggesting; right?
7 A (Adler) Oh, there are several applications where 8 flows are monitored, not on a corridor as wide as this.
- 9 Q Where in an emergency planning situation for a {
10 nuclear power plant we have put, in effect, a system like i l 1 11 you're talking about here?- 12 A (Adler) No. 13 MR. DIGNAN: That completes my cross-examination ( '~# 14 of the ETE testimony, Your Honor. 15 And I'm now on page 3 of the cross-examination 16 plan which 1 have submitted which deals with the affidavit. 1 17 Is it permissible for me to go forward or did you 18 want to have other people do whatever cross they wanted. 19 JUDGE SMITH: I think it's cleaner if we keep it I 20 discreet. 21 MR. DIGNAN: Then at that point, Your Honor I have
. 22 completed my cross-examination with respect to the ETE 23 testimony.
24 MR. BACHMANN: The Staff has no ETE cross-25 examination. ( Heritage Reporting Corporation
\/ (202) 628-4888
ADLER - REDIRECT 26504 1 JUDGE SMITH: Do you have redirect? 2 MR. FIERCE: Just a couple. 1 3 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 4 BY MR. FIERCE: 5 Q Dr. Adler, you have looked at ETE runs that were 6 provided to you through the discovery process; correct? 7 A (Adler) Yes, we have.
*l 8 Q Do any of those runs that you have seen use a 50 l
9 percent shadow-evacuation? . j i 10 A (Adler) I do not believe so. 11 Q Do you have knowledge as to what the shadow-12 evacuation factor that's used in those runs is? 13 A (Adler) I don't recall exactly. I would have to I I 14 go back and take a look at the descriptions that were i
)
15 provided. ! I 16 - Q In fact, it could be the 25 percent factor? i 17 A (Adler) It could be; I don't recall specifically. 18 Q But it's likely not to be the 50 percent? 19 A (Adler) I, again, don't recall the 50 percent 20 shadow-evacuation. 21 Q If the ETE runs that y0u have evaluated indicate 22 that the beach population gets moving within five minutes of' . 23 the alert which is simultaneous with a site area emergency; l 24 correct? 25 A (Adler) Yes. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
=__=__-__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ . _ - - .. - . . - _ _ .
l ADLER - CROSS 26505 1 Q In other words, the notification occurred at the 2 alert? i i 3 A (Adler) Yes.. l ) 4 Q If,'in fact, the notification'of the beach 5 population came 15 minutes later, would that have a direct 15 minute impact on the.ETEs?
. 7 A (Adler)- It could, if thosel individuals onLthe' 8 beach, in fact, didn't start evacuating until 15 minutes 9 later than'they did if'they were alerted 15 minutes earlier.
'10 HR. FIERCE: 'I have no further questions.-
i 11 JUDGE SMITH: Any questions'on ETEs? 12 CROSS-EXAMINATION 13 BY MR. DIGNAN: 14 Q Dr. Alder, Mr. Liebermann came up and told me it's 15 50; do you deny it? 16 - A (Adler) As I said, I don't recall.specifically. 17 Q That's all right. 18 A (Adler) If he says so, I would -- 19 Q In other words, you have no recollection one way 20 or the other? 21 A (Adler) . We have quite a pile of. runs, as Mr.. f i
- 22 Liebermann knows and as I'm sure you are aware.
23 Q I'm not trying to hook you. ] 24 It's uniformly that 50 out:to the radius.with the 25 keyhole of 25; isn't that right? O Beritage- Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I i f
I I l ADLER - CROSS 26506 1 l 1 A (Adler) Again, I don't recall specifically. ! I l 2 Q And it's that 50 that matches up with your guy's l 3 56? i 1 4 A (Adler) If that is, indeed, the run that's done, 5 then I would agree there is some substantial difference. . 6 Q Turning now to your affidavit, please, Doctor. ; i 7 MR. DIGNAN: If that's in order, Your Honor. ., i
. 1 J
8 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. ! 9 MR. TURK: I didn't hear the last answer. - l 10 Dr. Adler said, I would agree that there is no 11 substantial difference; right? 12 THE WITNESS: (Adler) If indeed the runs were 50 13 percent. I beideve my testimony was directed, however, to 14 Volume 6 ETEs, which again my recollection is that it's not 15 50 percent assumed in volume 6. 16 - MR. TURK: Your Honor, this was covered in the New l 17 Hampshire litigation. 18 MR. DIGNAN: May I have a moment, Your Honor. 19 (Pause) 20 BY MR. DIGNAN: 21 , Q Doctor, I would like to take you to page 3 of your 22 affidavit. - 23 A (Adler) Yes. 24 Q My first question to you is: I know this is dated 25 March 26th to the affidavit itself, was it drafted Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
-i ADLER - CROSS .26507
)
1 essentially then or a few days'before or what? ] 2 A (Adler) Yes.
'You took'the oath on the 26th I' guess, but did you l 3 Q 4 draft it --
~
5 A (Adler) It was dated -- it was drafted within ,a 6 several days of the 26th. 7 Q So on or about March 26th is a fair.-- i 8 A (Adler) Yes.
- 9 Q on or about March 26th you. state in paragraph 3:.
/
10 " Explicit modeling of the commuter traffic flows"1--'this is. 11 in paragraph 3 - "is both possible as a modest extension of 12 the ETE work complete today and is necessary for accurate 13 estimation of Seabrook.ETEs." 14 I am concentrating on your statement that.it is 15 possible as a modest extension of the ETE work. 16 - A (Adler) Yes. . 17 Q Do you mean to imply there that it's not all that 1 18 difficult to do this modeling1 1
- 19 A (Adler) What I mean to imply.is that the modeling 20 effort that has gone into volume 6 is extensive. And to add. j 21 the additional detail to that isn't a substantial percentage
- 22 over the level of efforts already gone in. '
23 In other words, there's -- 1
~
24 Q Well, do you think it is or is not -- are you ! 25 implying there that it is not very' difficult'to model the :
)
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I __-~_.u-_--_.. . _ . ~ _ . . . . . ,._.- L- ._-...L___-.- _ . . - - _ _ _ . - _ . _ _ _ . .._._._-------_--___-_-____-__a
ADLER - CROSS 26508 1 commuters? 2 A (Adler) It is -- I've known all along that it's 3 not a trivial exercise, I'll put it that way. And it 4 certainly will be -- 5 Q Well, you've told Dr. Cole that it's very 6 difficult; haven't you? i 7 A (Adler) We said --
~.
*l 8 Q No, my question is very simple: haven't you told 9 Dr. Cole in answer to a question that he put to you on March .
l 10 28th that it is very difficult? 11 A (Adler) March 28 of this year? 12 Q Yes? I 13 A (Adler) I don't believe I talked to Dr. Cole l l 14 since the New Hampshire plan hearings. ; 15 Q Well, that's a good trick because Dr. Cole wasn't 16 at the New Hampshire plan hearings. j i 17 MR. FIERCE: Objection. I think there's confusion 18 in this question, bec'ause the data that would be used mes 19 from a Dr. Cole from Social Data Analyst and we have 20 another. 21 BY MR. DIGNAN: l 22 Q The Dr. Ccle I'm referring to is Judge Cole. . 23 A (Adler) Excuse me. 24 MR. FIERCE: There was confusion in the 25 questioning, Your Honor. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l L - _ . _ _ _ - - . _ - _ _ . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ . _ - - _ _ _ . .
ADLER - CROSS 26509 p 1 BY MR. DIGNAN: j
\- ~ 2 Q Didn't you tell Dr. Cole in answer to a question 3 on March 28th that it was very difficult to model commuters?
4 A (Adler) I said that it propably -- I don't recall 5 the exact context of the question. Certainly, to model all 1 l 6 commuter flows within the zone is a very difficult exercise. j
. 7 Q Well, the exact context and I'll read it to you.
8 He was questioning you, if you recall, about why 9 you assumed the manning certain TCPs. 10 Do you remember that? 11 A (Adler) Yes. 12 Q And in the course of that rather lengthy answer 13 you gave him you said the following: "But again, in direct 1
/~'T 14 answer to your question, yes, it would be desirable,"
\
~'
)
15 meaning the model that he had suggested. 16 - A (Adler) Yes. 17 Q "I believe that it would only have the effect of, ; l 18 at least in the model and the abstract of the model reducing 19 evacuation times for some areas a bit, and it would be very, 20 very difficult to do that just as it's very difficult to 21 model returning commuters."
- 22 That's what you said, didn't you?
23 I'll be glad to show it to you. 24 A (Adler) If that's in the transcript, I believe 25 that I said that; yes.
-~,
( I Heritage Reporting Corporation t \- ' (202) 628-4888
ADLER - CROSS 26510 1 Q Do you believe that when you answcred Dr. Cole 1 2 that you believed it? 3 A (Adler) Yes. 4 In the context of the modeling exercise that I was 5 describing there it would have been -- l 6 Q No , no, no. ] 1 7 Did you believe what you said to Dr. Cole, that it
*j 1
8 is very, very difficult to do that just as it's very 9 difficult to model returning commuters. . ! I 10 That was the answer you gave him? I 11 MR. FIERCE: Objection, he's about to give an i 12 answer and Mr. Dignan is cutting him off repeatedly. l 13 Let him answer. 14 THE WITNESS: (Adler) I made that statement and I 15 believe it is difficult to do explicit modeling of all 16 returning commuters. 17 And I believe, however, as a modest extension to 18 the work, as I have described here, it is possible to model 19 the essence of the returning commuter problem which is the 20 major commuter flows. j
. 1 21 BY HR. DIGNAN:
22 Q So you considered your statement to Dr. Cole that . ! 23 it is very difficult to model returning commuters to be 24 totally consistent with your statemont, your affidavit that 25 explicit modeling of commuter traffic flows is possible as a Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
. R J
ADLER - CROSS
~
26511 1 modest extension of the ETE. f
'l 1
2 You find those' statements consistent, sir? 3 A (Adler) In the context, yes. The very difficult 4 was in the context of modeling all commuter flows in the-5 EPZ. :) 6 What I considered to be a' modest extension is to model essentially the important commuter flows, which are~ -
~
7 8 the commuter flows in the areas of major evacuation routes. , 1
- 9 Q Dr. Adler, do you believe the modeling of 10 returning commuters would ever result in shortening the ETEs 11 in the situation where you have a peak population involved?
12 JUDGE McCOLLOM: A what population? , 13 MR. DIGHAN: A peak population involved. 14 THE WITNESS: (Adler) It depends on what i 15 assumptions are made in the absence of modeling those trips 16 explicitly. 17 If one were to,' for example, have a very large 18 adjustment factor which includes, for example, returning-19 commuters; and then, instead of using.that adjustment 20 factor, model them explicitly, then it's possible that it 8 21 could reduce ETEs, yes. ) l
-. 22 If they had essentially been completely ignored in ]
23 a study, to add them in I believe would only increase the 24 ETEs.
'i 25 Heritage Reporting. Corporation {
(202) 628-4888 l
ADLER - CROSS 26512 1 Q You are right. We have " ignored". That's a 2 pejorative word, but we haven't included them in our study. 3 Isn't that right? 4 A (Adler) Yes, that's correct. 5 Q So it can only increase ETEs. 6 A (Adler) It would increase ETEs, yes. 7 Q Okay.
- 8 'At least in the peak situation. I 9 A (Adler) Yes. ,
10 Q And that peak situation is nine or ten hours? 11 A (Adler) The peak situation under Scenario 2, 12 which is the summer weekend with a sudden rain storm, is in 13 excess of ten hours, yes. 14 Q Suppose jacked them up an hour. 15 Again, you would have no more basis for thinking 16 that was significant than the basis you gave me with respect 17 to your earlier testimony concerning adding an hour for the 18 other five factors. 19 Is that right? 20 A (Adler) Whether the hours for this or something 21 else, it's the same hour basis. 22 0 Doctor, you state on paragraph 21, if you will, in . 23 your affidavit, in the second sentence, "If commuters are 24 delayed by evacuees, it is only logical to assume that 25 evacuees are delayed by commuters." Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 = __ _: _ ___ _= - - r:_ -- - -- - - - - -
ADLER - CROSS 26513 Why? Why is it logical to assume that? g'~} ( I 1
\~ / 2 A (Adler) Because, in essence, it means that the 3 two traffic streams are somehow conflicting.
4 Q Well, let's assume that they are conflicting by 5 the fact that this congested stream of evacuees is going 6 through an intersection blocking a commuter from crossing
, 7 that intersection to go home, right?
8 A (Adler) Yes. ; l
- 9 Q Now they are certainly delaying that commuter. l l
10 A (Adler) Yes, that's right. ] 1 11 Q Now one of them may get courteous or there may be j l 12 a red light or whatever, and the commuter pops on through 13 having been delayed. j i
/'~'A 14 A (Adler) Yes. j
\_- l 15 Q Those evacuees aren't going to be delayed, are J 16 they?
1 1 17 They are just going to fill up the congested mess 18 again. 19 A (Adler) It depends on where that occurs. If it 20 occurs at one of the bottlenecks in the road network, then 21 it certainly will delay the overall ETE by a small amount. 22 Q How could it, Doctor? 23 That traffic is going to close right up, isn't it? 24 A (Adler) At some locations where there are 25 bottlenecks, a reduction to any degree of the rate of flow
,i~x
(' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i ADLER - REDIRECT 26514 I 1 will result 'in an increase in ETEs. 2 Q But can't you agree with me that you have gone a 3 little strong to say that it follows that if commuters are 4 delayed by evacuees, it is only logical to assume that 5 evacue6s are delayed by commuters? 6 It just isn't going to be so in many cases, isn't 4 7 that right? t 8 A (Adler) It's not going to be so throughout the j i 9 EPZ. But in certain locations, it will be. , j 1 10 MR. DIGNAN: That's all i havs, four Honor. 11 Thank you. 12 JUDGE SMITH: Does Staff have questions? 13 MR. BACHMANN: The Staff has no questions. 14 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Fierce? i 15 MR. FIERCE: No questions. 16 - MR. DIGNAN: Let the record show I made very good i 17 on my promise to have Dr. Adler on the road at 3:30. 18 MR. FIERCE: We appreciate that. 19 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 20 BY MR. FIERCE: 21 Q Quickly, Dr. Adler, you were asked about the peak 22 population returning commuters issue which might extend an , 23 hour. 24 What about summer nonpeak days? Isn't the impact 25 there going to be even greater? Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
ADLER - RECROSS 26515 1 A (Adler) The proportional impact for one hour 2 increase would be greater on a nonpeak day, yes. 3 Q And particularly nonpeak days being weekdays when 4 the greatest commuter flows occur 5 Is that when you would expect the greatest impacts 6 on ETEs to be? 7 A (Adler) For returning commuters specifically, 8 yes.
. 9 MA. FIERCE. No furthur' questions.
10 RECROSS-EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. DIGNAN: 12 Q But, Doctor, the impact of an hour on top of a 13 peak, at least in the other setting you said it would be 14 proportional rather than one hour on every scenario, right? 15 A (Adler) Excuse me? 16 - Q When we talked about the first one hour. addition 17 to the 10-hour scenario because of the five factors in your -l 18 prior testimony. l 19 A (Adler) Yes. 20 Q You said that would be proportional'in the other 21 scenarios, right, rather than adding an hour on top of every i
. 22 one of them? ;
23 A (Adler) No,'not necessarily. ; I 24 Q You di(n't say that?. '! 25
- A (Adler) I don't recall, or at least I didn't *!
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
ADLER - RECROSS 26516 1 intend to say that exactly'. Because certainly in the 2 weekday scenarios where there are more returning 1 3 commuters -- l 4 Q No, no, I'm not talking about more returning 5 commuters. I'm talking about when you and I discussed in 6 your other piece of testimony that you had added an hour on 7 to the 10 hours because of five factors. The five factors
-)
8 being you recall. 9 A (Adler) Yes. , 10 And I asked you, I thought, whether you would I Q 11 increase all those by an hour. And you indicated, at least 12 to my layman's terms, no , it wouldn't necessarily be an hour 13 on the lower scenarios. i l 14 A (Adler) That's right. It could be more or less. l 15 Q Okay. 16 - Now you are saying, however, in the commuter 17 situation the increase would be greater in the scenarios 18 were the ETEs were shorter than where they are longer? 19 A (Adler) No. It would be greater in the scenarios 20 where there are more. commuters. 21 Q Why? 22 A (Adler) Why? , 23 Because there are more commuters that are adding 24 to the traffic stream. 25 Q But there are fewer people getting out of the l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l l
26517
-"x 1 beaches, too, aren't there?
I' (Adler) s 2 A That's correct. 3 Q So how are you so sure -- 4 A (Adler) But the ETEs -- 5 Q -- that because there are more commuters you.are 6 going torget a bigger increase in the ETE than you will
, 7 taking care of commuters on the peak day? -
8 A (Adler) I'm not certain that that will take
- 9 place, but it's likely that more commuters will result in a 10 longer extention of ETEs than less commuters on weekends.
11 Q The fact is you. don't know, do you, Doctor? 12 A (Adler) I don't know exactly. I haven't modeled 13 them in full detail, no. 14 MR. DIGNAN: That's all. 15 EXAMINATION BY JUDGE COLE 16 - JUDGE COLE: Dr. Adler, the evacuation time - 17 estimate for the weekday is less than for the weekend, 18 correct? 19 THE WITNESS: (Adler) Yes, taking comparable 20 scenarios and comparing them. There are, as you know, a 21 number of scenarios in both parts.
. 22 JUDGE COLE: It might be proportionately more, but 23 the total might be less.
l 24 THE WITNESS: (Adler) Or the total might be more. 25 Depending on the circumstances of the evacuation. 1 i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 j l _____m_____ . _ _ > _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ ____.__ms. .m __ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ....m..__ ___ _ . _ _ _ . _.____._._ _ __
ADLER - REDIRECT 26518 1 But, yes, it could go either way. 2 JUDGE COLE: But you really haven't worked that 3 out and you don't know. 4 THE WITNESS: (Adler) I haven't done extensive , 5 runs with any scenarios outside of the peak weekend summer, , 6 the peak weekday summer, and then one off-season scenario. 7 So I don't know exactly how it would affect each of the , 8 scenarios, no. 9 JUDGE COLE: Okay, thank you. - 10 MR. FIERCE: Just to round that out. 11 FURTHER REDIRECT EXAMINATION 12 BY MR. FIERCE: r 13 Q It's not just the scenarios. 14 Would you also say it may be an ERPA, there may be 15 ERPA variations on the impact of the returning commuters? ! 16 - A (Adler) Oh , there's certainly variations among l i 17 the ERPAs. That's correct. Among the evacuation regions 18 as an example, yes. l 19 Q And generally is it fair to say that you are going 20 to be finding greater numbers of returning commuters on 21 weekdays than you are on weekends? 22 A (Adler) The numbers would generally be larger, - 23 yes. 24 MR. FIERCE: No further questions. 25 JUDGE SMITH: You are excused. Heritage Reporting Corporation , (202) 628-4888
26519 1 Thank you. 2 (The witness was thereupon excused.) 3 JUDGE SMITH: A fifteen-minute break. 4 (whereupon, a recess was taken.) 5 6
, '7 8
l
. 9 10 1
11 12 13
's . 14 l
15 16 - i 17 ! 18 l 19 20 21 l
- 22 i 23 1
24 ; 4 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26520 1 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 2 We're ready now to take up the Massachusetts , 3 Attorney General's objection in the nature of a motion in 4 limine to supplement Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 16. 5 Before we begin, Mr. Fierce, one of the major 6 arguments you make in this motion is that our jurisdiction 7 is sharply limited, which is consistent with our memorandum - t 8 and order of May 5th. But I read just very quickly an 9 appeal on that in which I thought you were arguing exactly , I I 10 the opposite to the Appeal Board. 11 MR. FIERCE: Well, I was arguing only that 12 initially I had not read your PID to have narrowly excluded j 13 all other aspects of the returning commuters issue that I i 1 14 now know that you have. l 15 JUDGE SMITH: How did you learn that we have? l. 16 - MR. FIERCE: In the discussion that we had with , i 17 you on May 15th, I believe, and in the order of May 5th. 18 JUDGE SMITH: I see. 19 So your argument to the Appeal Board was clearly 20 what we had done in the December PID. l 21 MR. FIERCE: My understanding of what had happened 22 shouldn't prejudice my right to appeal those aspects of the , 23 returning commuters issues. 24 JUDGE SMITH: No , I'm not suggesting that. 25 MR. FIERCE: That was my only argument to the l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 1 I vp 4 me p.%m ,a. w.e+e
26521 m 1 Appeal Board. .'And the Appeal Board has -- v
) 2 JUDGE SMITH: I just want to make sure that --
3 MR. FIERCE: I initially had --
- 4. , JUDGE SMITH:- When I see two different arguments 5 different ways, I just wondered wl'ich one --
6 MR. FIERCE: No. I initially had thought you had' 7 retained jurisdiction of everything. I have now been 8 advised otherwise and I promptly appealed.
. 9 That.got us into the issue of whether the appeal 10 was late. I argued that it shouldn't have been deemed late 11 for various reasons. One of the reasons was that the fair 12 reading that we gave to that PID was that you hadn't 13 excluded those other. issues, but still wanted to take a look N 14 at them.
15 And clearly, now that I know what your ruling 16 is -- 17 JUDGE SMITH: Now, in here you are just reflecting 18 how we -- 19 MR. FIERCE: That's right. 20 JUDGE SMITH: -- defined our jurisdiction. 21 Mr. Dignan, who is going to argue this?
- 22 MR. DIGNAN: I am, Your Honor, and I will be 23 brief.
24 As I understand it, we have before us the motion 25 on the supplemental No. 16.
'[ Heritage R3 porting Corporation (202) 628-4888 - , - = _ = _ _ _ _ = _ _ , - _ _ _ _ - .
26522 1 Is that correct, Your Honor? i 2 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. I i 3 MR. DIGNAN: All right. 4 JUDGE SMITH: Dated June 19. 5 MR. DIGNAN: Now the first point that's basically 6 made is that it wasn't authorized by the Board. And in the l 7 last analysis, of course, the Board must decide what it did ?. J 8 and did not authorize. We thought it was. ) l But to at least direct the Board's attention to j 9 . 10 what governed us in this piece, which basically when you get 11 all through it is an attempt to do certain sensitivity type 1 12 runs to demonstrate. We must review the bidding in this. I 13 Our basic theme on this has always been that the 14 return that would be gained from what we believe 's an 15 extensive effort to model this thing isn't worth it and Mr. 16 Lieberman back in New Hampshire testified that he had 17 conservatism built in and all that sort of thing, and 18 that's why we didn't feel it was necessary. 19 The Board did not accept that analysis up in New 20 Hampshire and indicated. And then we came in with an 21 affidavit, which I don't want to bore everybody going over 22 again, but basically projected the same theme. . 23 Again Mr. Lieberman went through this is what I 24' see out there. I don't think it's going to make a big 25 difference because of (a). And in addition, it's going to Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 1 m _ .. __ . . . . . -_ ._
26523 1 be a heck of an effort to model all these people and the 2 return won't be that great. 3 Now the reason you've got the piece you did and 4 what we are-focusing in specifically was Dr. McCollom's 5 statements to Mr. Lieberman in the transcript of May 15. 6 If you recall, we were discussing the problem as a-
. 7 whole, and I asked your permission to let Mr. Lieberman. -
8 address directly the questions of the Board, and yta 9 reminded me he was under oath and he did. 10 And the question that Dr. McCollom put in this 11 exchange is this. It's on page 21004. 12 Judge McCollom: "I realize that'in order to model 13 the complete system that the number of changes that you 14 initially said, Mr. Dignan, are what Mr. Lieberman thinks
\
15 are necessary. 16 -
"Is there something less than that which might be 17 called a sensitive kind of thing that will put a smaller !
18 number in that would not take the massive change in the ! 19 model and just the one location-that then when wiggled for. 20 the sensitivity measurement might give you an indication as 21 to what the impact is and whether it is' negligible or not?" 22 And I asked Mr. Lieberman to address that 23 question. And on page 21006 is his answer to it to Dr. 24 McCollom. 25 He said, "Yes, it is possible to identify what one *l l ( Beritage Reporting Corporation ; (202) 628-4888 '
i 26524 I would call the critical intersections or potential choke l 2 points of the network and to estimate the commuter loading 3 in the vicinity of those choke points to see whether they 4 tend to lengthen the ETE rather than do the wh, ole network. ; 5 That is a possibility." 6 Now, it was that tr t we were focusing on, and 7 that's what this testimony is basically designed to do, to - 8 address that question. 9 There were two sensitivity runs testified to in , 10 there, and we thought this is what responded to the Board 11 question. If somebody wants to say we've been a little l 12 verbose in this and a little over-complete, I plead guilty. 13 But the point is, obviously the thrust of this was 14 to direct ourselves to Judge McCollom's question which is 15 could we give, and we've got two sensitivity runs in there i 16 and each of those shows it adds five minutes. And we feel j 17 this supports the theme we have pushed all along that we're i 18 down into the noise when you take into consideration all the 19 conservatism and so forth built in. 20 So that's why we think it responds to what the 21 Board wanted and the Board authorized. 22 Now if we are in error on that, the Board will so , 23 rule. I can't do better than that. That's why I disagree 24 with their first point. 25 The second major thing they go into -- l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
fl 26525 1 JUDGE SMITH: Well, my memory is that we turned it. f- s k, s 2 back to you. We turned it back to the Applicants to address l 3 in the way that they deemed best. i 4 MR. DIGNAN: Fine, i 5 But I just wanted to be candid with you. 6 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, I understand. , 7 MR. DIGNAN: The structure of this was directed -j l 8 directly at Dr. McCollom's suggestion. And I would be less
. 9 than candid with you if I tried to give you any other I
10 justification for what we did. ] 11 JUDGE SMITH: Right. 12 MR. DIGNAN: Because we thought -- 1 13 JUDGE SMITH: That's the addition to it.
~ / 14 MR. DIGNAN: Yes, that put a handle on it. You f^ l 15 know, could we come up with a sensitivity study which would 16 demonstrate that our basic thesis here was correct, because 17 it would show that the increase that came up on modeling 18 these small parts gave it.
19 And that's what we did, and I'm just being very 20 straight with you. That'.s.why we came up with the approach 21 we did.
. 22 JUDGE SMITH: All right.
23 MR. DIGNAN: Now, next in the motion we have a 24 long dissertation on why they need more time to reply, and 25 I'm setting that aside. I' assume that's to be argued Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 _ __._ _ __________E______.. ___I___ _ _ _ _
I i 26526 l 1 another day, and I have a few things to say about whether 2 they are right on that. 3 JUDGE SMITH: You mean that's not going to be 1 4 argued today? i 5 MR. DIGNAN: Well, I will argue it today if you 6 want, on the question of whether they should get until July [ 7 7th to reply. .
~.
8 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 9 MR. DIGNAN: But do you want to hear that now or . 10 do you want to deal with that later, because -- ; 11 JUDGE SMITH: Well, let's see what's left. l 12 MR. DIGNAN: -- if you exclude the testimony, the 1 13 problem goes away. That's all I'm thinking. 14 JUbGE SMITH: Right. 15 Well, let's go to the relevance. 16 - MR. DIGNAN: All right. 1 17 JUDGE SMITH: I mean t he scope of the reserved l 18 jurisdiction. 19 MR. DIGNAN: Okay. 20 Now from there on the motion deals in specifics, 21 and again I'm probably going to be surprisingly, or at least 22 I hope surprisingly brief. . 23 Basically the motion argues in various areas that 24 Dr. Lieberman is going into matters that are not before the 25 Board. That is to say, his runs, and they don't say this Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i
)
26527 i
-~ 1 but I think they would. agree to this,.and it's on the 2 Massachusetts side. They include the commuters that are not ;
3 strictly those intra-EPZ commuters. ; 4 Now, in addition, they argue _that there is a lot , 5 of material in here that is other than directly dealing with ; 6 this. 7 Now, one espect he's dealing with in this -j 8 testimony, which I think is perfectly legitimate no matter j l
. 9 what, is just as he did in his affidavit, which of course l l
10 will not be offered if this is accepted, is defending the j l 11 basic Applicants' thesis on this. ! 12 That is'to say, here are my reasons for continuing ] 13 to believe that there is no return on doing this cort of l 14 thing, becauEe it's taken care of in the conservatism. 1 15 So a great deal of the testimony objected to is in 1 16 that, and I think it's perfectly relevant. It's a perfectly i 17 legitimate defense of our position. 18 JUDGE SMITH: Well, okay. Now as to the 19 conservatism, that was one of the particular facts that we 20 noted created a factual dispute, and we did ask that that be 21 resolved.
. 22 MR. DIGNAN: That's correct.
23 JUDGE SMITH: So you don't have to worry about 24 that one. 25 MR. DIGNAN: All right. , Heritage Reporting Corp 3 ration (202) 628-4888
= = _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
26528 1 Then the second is -- 2 JUDGE SMITH: You're talking about the 15 percent. 3 MR. DIGNAN: Yes, the 15 percent. 4 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 5 MR. DIGNAN: He moved with the 15 percent and -- 6 well, don't hold me, and there are other conservatism, the 7 level and nonlevel terrain and so forth. -! 8 Another aspect that is noted in here is that 9 outside EPZ, as I said earlier, commuters were included in , 10 the Massachusetts run. Now the AG is absolutoly correct on 11 that on the Massachusetts side. 12 And, first of all, we did do it and we did it for 13 a reason. If Dr. Lieberman were to testify on this, be 14 asked on this, he will testify that on the Massachusetts < 15 side, clearly. in his judgment, were he to forget the : 16 commuters that aren't intra-commuter in the model, and this 17 is all we're talking about, in the model, it could literally 18 be charged that the model isn't giving you a real world 19 result if you just forget that those cars are on the road. 20 And so he had to include them, in his judgment, in 21 order to come up with a realistic number. 22 And I am sure that had we run the model excluding , 23 all of those people down on the Massachusetts side, we would 24 have been faced with a charge later, well, your number isn't 25 realistic because actually on the roads are all these other 1 l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 26529 1 people. f-~ k 2 We do not offer the testimony for the purpose of j
.y 3 proving that if you model all the Massachusetts commuters, l 4 it's only five minutes. In candor, if he's asked the 5 question, would you get the same number if we asked you 6 about all.; the answer is this, "yes", because he's modeled?
i 7 it. 8 It's only offered for the. purpose of demonstrating
. 9 what the intra-EPZ commuters down there would do, but the 10 problem is you can't model them.alone.and get a realistic
.l 11 result, because they -- in particular what Dr..Lieberman 12 tells me is the problem is our old friend, that interchange 13 between 110 and I-95. And there is so many commuters who
,/"' 14 are not intra-EPZ commuters involved there were you just to I t I
\ 15 pretend they didn't exist, the model would not be giving a 16 result which he felt he could defend professionally.
17 JUDGE SMITH: Okay, but that makes us then revisit 18 our initial decision in which we sort'of didn't pay l 19 particular attention to commuters returning from outside the l
*l I 20 EPZ to their homes within the EPZ. And maybe you tre saying J1 that we gave you a break there that we shouldn't have.
. 22 MR. DIGNAN: Well, I don't know whether you 23 gave --
24 JUDGE SMITH: Because if the commuters arriving l 25 within the EPZ from outside have an impact upon other Heritage Reporting Corporation (s. (202) 628-4888
26530 1 commuters -- 2 MR. DIGNAN: They don't. 3 JUDGE SMITH: Well, you know -- I 4 MR. DIGNAN: Your instincts were right. It comes ] 1 5 out five minutes. The problem is we ran it that way because 1 6 Lieberman felt he couldn't run it without them and defend , 7 the result professionally before the Board. 8 JUDGE SMITH: All right. I l l 9 MR. DIGNAN: In fact, it's turned out -- ' 1 10 JUDGE SMITH: I see. I 11 MR. DIGNAN: -- your intuition was correct. ! I 12 But wholly apart from whether you gave us a break, { i 13 more importantly we now have, as you have indicated, ' 14 guidance from on high. And after -- i 15 JUDGE SMITH: We do? l l 16 - MR. DIGNAN: -- remonstrating with yours truly 17 that seven lawyers couldn't figure out the real argument 18 that had been made to him, the Judges above had gone on to 19 say in this opinion that they don't really see how they can 20 perceive a significant difference from the standpoint of 21 potential impact upon ETEs between the commuter urip 22 originating just outside the EPZ and one having a nearby , i 23 origin barely within the boundary. 1 24 The Appeal Board seems to, in its own way -- l 25 JUDGE SMITH: Well, when? Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26531 1- When did they say that?' 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
, 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 .
17 18 '
.)
i j 19 <
*\
20 f 21 .
. 22 23 24 25 il Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 626-4888
26532 1 MR. DIGNAN: In AIAB-917. 2 MR. FIERCE: In ALAB-917. 3 I just got it yesterday, Your Honor. 4 JUDGE SMITH: Well, we don't have that. 5 MR. DIGNAN: Oh, you don't. 6 (Laughter) 7 MR. TURK: I can get copies for you, Your Honor. 8 MR. DIGNAN: They let me have it pretty good. 9 MR. TURK: What they did was, they declined to , 10 find that the Mass AG was late in appealing on returning 11 commuters, and they said th'e whole_ issue of returning 12 commuters should be taken up at one time after your next 13 decision. 14 MR. DIGNAN: Yes. 1 1 15 They felt that the issues were so interwoven and l 16 so forth that they wouldn't take it up separately. 17 JUDGE SMITH: The whole issue of returning l l 18 commuters? ! 19 MR. DIGNAN: Yes. 20 Maybe you want to take an opportunity to read the 21 decision, Your Honor. I have a copy with me.' 22 JUDGE SMITH: Well, do they tell us to do , 23 anything? l' 24 MR. DIGNAN: No. Oh, no. l 25 They haven't told you to do anything. They told Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 6281-4888 l o____________ __.__r____r_______-------.-__ _ _ - _r
26533
-~s 1 me 'to learn how to write a brief.
/ $
%/ 2 (Laughter) 3 MR. DIGNAN: But they told me that regularly, so 4 that's nothing new.
5 The point I'm making is that in the opinion they 6 do note this difficulty in perceiving a significant
, 7 difference. And all I bring this up for is to point out to 8 the Board, this is what Dr. Liebermann is saying: if you're 9 going to have the model runs made, at least down on the 10 Massachusetts side, you're going to have the model run made, 11 you can't ignore them, because otherwise you get a result 12 that fairly can be questioned that you just wished away a 13 whole bunch of cars that are really going to be there.
T (T/ 14 JUDGE SMITH: Your whole argument and the argument
'~' 15 by, apparently, -- the reasoning of the Appeal Board and 16 everyone's argument was that we were convinced in our l
17 initial decision that the solution to the problem was a 18 model run. j 19 MR. DIGNAN: That's right. 20 JUDGE SMITH: And no place did we ever say that. 1 l 21 We never said that. l
- 22 MR. DIGNAN: I know you didn't.
23 JUDGE SMITH: And we have yet to say it. 24 MR. DIGNAN: I understand that, also. l 25 Your Honor, this comes down to why I think the l l s~ l ( ) Heritage Reporting Corporation l '/ '- (202) 628-4888 l l l
I . 26534 1 whole testimony: we met the original reservation of 2 jurisdiction with an affidavit that didn't have any model 3 runs in it. It was a continued defense of the position we 4 have taken all along. 5 And, obviously, we still can pursue that defense; . 6 that's one of the reasons I cross-examined Dr. Adler on this 7 question of whether or not he hadn't told Juo9e Cole that,
- 8 in fact, this is a very difficult exercise.
9 Now the point is, after Your Honor indicated that . 10 you felt -- and this I'm to blame for -- you couldn't 11 resolve it on the affidavits. And maybe you were saying, no 12 more, Mr. Dignan, I've got to have those affidavits cross-13 examined before, in my miad, I can make the decision. 14 That coupled with Judge McCollom's suggestion -- 15 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 16 - MR. DIGNAN: -- finally led us to, Ed, can you go 17 back there pick a piece of this out, run that kind of a 18 sensitivity. And he ran one on the Massachusetts side, 19 which as I say, does admittedly include people outside the 20 EPZ. Now the one up in Hampton, the second one, does not. 21 And in full candor I've got to tell you, the 22 answer to that one is not that it is absolutely clear that . 23 the outsiders can't affect Hampton. It's that he ran it 24 with Hampton. There are a few of them and we were running j 25 out of time to get the testimony done. The input streams Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888
i 26535 g i have to be adjusted even more to get at the outside EPZ l ( 2 commuters up in Hampton. , j 3 But what we felt is, we had one run internally in 4 Hampton, one run using.the externals down in Massachusetts. I 5 And we had a piece of testimony that was pretty good at 6 meeting Dr. McCollom's questions, I mean assuming it 1 7 withstands cross-examination. That is, we think this -l
* )
8 demonstrates that our basic thesis here is that the
- 9 commuters are going to be -- to use a phrase -- lost in the 10 noise of the conservatism in the study of this was correct.
11 JUDGE SMITH: Lost in noise of what? 12 MR. DIGNAN: That the commuters are lost in the 13 noise of all the conservatism -- 14 JU5GE SMITH: Conservatism. ( 15 MR. DIGNAN: -- and other things that are built 16 into the model'the way it was run initially. 17 Now finally, there is an objection at the end to 18 the section of the testimony'in'which Mr. Liebermann says, 19 if he used the -- what I will call.the Adler data -- the MAG 20 data he wouldn't get any different result. , 21 Well, okay, I'll pull it out provided they will
- 22 stipulate that if we use their data we wouldn't get a 23 different result. That, I granted, is an anticipation. I'm 24 sure that whatever we put in here --
25 JUDGE SMITH: I'm sorry. Beritage Reporting Corporation
~/ (202) 628-4888
26536 1 1 MR. DIGNAN: -- they'll come in and say -- { 2 JUDGE SMITH: I' m sorry. 1 3 I just slipped off. 4 (Pause to review document.) ! 1 5 MR. DIGNAN: What I'm looking at now is the 6 objection to Part 8 that begins on page 7 of their motion, j 1 7 Your Honor.
~.
8 And in it what they're objecting to is that f 9 portion of the testimony where a panel in essence says, if , j 10 we took the -- just for lack of a better word -- the Adler 11 data and used it, we're not going to get a different result 12 for the following reasons. 13 Granted, that's anticipatory. I'm essuming, you
. i 14 know, if form follows in this case, we put in some ETE 15 sensitivity runs and we're met the next day, but if you j
. l 16 would have used this data you would have.get a different i I
17 result. And all we were trying to do is meec that upfront i 18 and say,'we don't think that data will change the result. 19 I think that's perfectly relevant to the task that 20 was at hand. 21 So as I say, the one objection I really cannot 22 deal with beyond putting myself in the Board's hands is the , 23 outfront objection that we haven't done what the Board 24 wanc2d. That's for the Board to decide. 25 But in terms of the relevance of what we have Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
{ l-l q J
'26537 ;j l' done, I think it is established. The offer ir right down on f-
- .2 the line of only one issue:.the internal commuters. .
l 3 I agree that on the Massachusetts side, the way-it 4 has been'run, the answer would be the same for both internal-l , 5 and external. In other words, we've got.that data,.but we: 6 aren't offering it for that purpose.
, 7 All my witness had to do was run an ETE'that he --
8 felt he could professionally defend in front of this Board; 1 9 and he felt he had to include that in order.to do'it. 1 10 So I just don't think the motion is well taken on { 11 that basis. 12 And- at the Board's convenience I'm prepared to - 13 address this question why we have to have a lot of delay 14 before its cross-examined or before Dr. Adler can talk about- q 15 it. 16 - Your Honor, before the Board does reach a 17 decision, would you like to have a copy of this 18 ALAB-917 to review? 19 JUDGE COLE: I don't think we need it. 20 JUDGE SMITH: When was it dated? 21 MR. DIGNAN: It's dated as being issued and served
- 22 on June 16th. q
'1 23 We got a telephone -- you know, the Appeal-Board's: ] 1 24 secretaries always call, that call came in -- I received the 25 message late on Friday and it was in our mail on Monday 1
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ., i l _ _ _ . _ _ . . . _ _ . . _ . _ _ . . . _ . _ . s_,. - , . _ _ .
l 26538 l 1 morning at Ropes and Gray. l 2 MR. FIERCE: I did as well. 3 JUDGE SMITH: Normally an officer of the Appeal 4 Board informs us of decisions that they think might be 5 helpful to us. , , 6 MR. DIGNAN: We understand what they did in 7 fairness to the Appeal Board, because the opinion in no way , 8 reverses, directs or anything to the Licensing Board. 9 It denies my motion to throw out a notice of . 10 appeal. 11 JUDGE SMITH: I guess I'm not up on this. l 1 1 12 This statement: "The data base was provided to the 1 13 Applicants for this use in doing ETE runs for the 14 Commonwealth's own use." i i 15 I don't understand that. I don't understand the 16 review of MAG data base. 17 Why did you do that, again? Just being nice? 18 MR. DIGNAN: I'm sorry, Your Honor. 19 You're talking about the -- 20 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Part 8 on page 7 of the motion in j 21 limine. 22 MR. DIGNAN: Yes. . 23 But Your Honor wc? quoting to me from our -- 24 JUDGE SMITH: I was quoting from the motion, page g 25 7, and I still don't understand what we are to conclude from Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ' i l i
26539
, 'd 1 .section 8 of your testimony.
I 2 MR. DIGNAN: Okay. 3 The point that is being made in section 8, it's an 4 anticipatory piece. That is tossay, what we anticipate in
~
5 these cases is, every time we do a sensitivity run or any 6 kind of a model'atudy the rebuttal that comes in or the
, 7 attempted rebuttal is, oh, yes, but you used the wrong data,- -
8 you should have used our data.
- 9 JUDGE SMITH:- I see.
10 MR. DIGNAN: And what we asked Mr. Lieberman to do' 11 and what he did, is my understanding, he looked at this data 12 and said, look, I've looked at it and just it simply isn't
, 13 going -- even if I ran it with that data.it's not going to l ,/N 14 give me a different result.
15 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 16 - This is an "even if" piece. ! ) 17 MR. DIGNAN: Yes. 18 JUDGE SMITH: Now another thing I'm wondering 19 about is, why did Mr. Lieberman in his affidavit and l 20 apparently in his present testimony some place, why does he 21 talk about the evacuee mobilization time when we disregarded l
. 22 that as being a factor in the ETEs? He must believe that it l 23 is?
24 MR. DIGNAN: 'Well, he believes that it is. 25 But more importantly, as I read your initial
)
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i _ , _ _ , _ _ ~ - .-- --.- . - . , - . - . - ..- - - . - .
e 26540 1 decision in this matter you referred to that. You said, 2 that didn't get the job done. And in so doing it, if I j i 3 recall your decision correctly, you went through the 4 proposed findings, in effect, that we had made and said it 1 5 didn't make sense to you. And after I read them over I , j i 6 decided it didn't make sense either. 7 What Mr. Lieberman is trying to do here is, maybe < 8 again, ebell out exactly why he thinks the mobilization 9 times won't have an effect. . , I 10 And to me it's a very logical proposition. ! 11 JUDGE SMITH: We already found that it would only 12 affect the sequence of who evacuates. ) 13 MR. DIGNAN: Right. ,
. I 14 JUDGE SMITH: And it wouldn't effect the ETE. l 1
15 MR. DIGNAN: And until the mobilization his point f 16 is -- and I was never clear from the decision whether you l 17 absolutely rejected it or you said it didn't get there. But l l 18 the point being made is: until you get the mobilization i 19 times because of commuters up to where the mobilization time 20 approaches that of the whole ETE it doesn't have an effect. 21 It just turns out that they're the last guy out instead of 22 somebody else. . 23 JUDGE SMITH: And I thought we found that. 24 He's not secure. 25 MR. DIGNAN: Well, no, I guess what it is, is I'm Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26541 1 not secure. Mr. Lieberman is always. secure. It's me that's
\
2 not secure.
3 The point is that you did not deem that to be an l 4 answer to the commuter problem because you still found that 5 there was a problem with the commuters. 6 JUDGE SMITH: An answer? We deemed it not to be a
, 7 contributory problem.
8 MR. DIGNAN: I get the point. What you're saying j 9 is, all you said was the problem is that the commuters may 10 effect the overall ETE by their action within. It is not 11 that you were finding that the commuters may be so delayed 12 they would contribute to lengthening the ETE. 13 JUDGE SMITH: I think we found exactly the way it ( 5 14 was testified to. That the commuters returning home, the 15 mobilization time -- the time it takes commuters to get home 16 *- before their trip from home begins, would only affect the 17 order in which evacuees evacuate. And would not affect the 18 overall ETE unless it takes commuters so long to get home l 19 that they are'at the tail end of the ETE. ! -l 20 MR. DIGNAN: Right. i 21 JUDGE SMITH: And I thought we found that. It 22 seemed to be a very specific finding and I guess we weren't 23 as clear on that as we thought we were. 24 MR. DIGNaN: And there also may be a certain 25 amount of, you know, it's draftsmanship and you're writing (N- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
26542 1 and trying to cover everything. And maybe we did recover 7 2 it, I don't know. 3 But the major point I'm trying to make -- 4 JUDGE SMITH: So you did sensitivity runs on the 5 mobilization delays, too? 6 MR. DIGNAN: No, no. 7 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, sure you did.
- 8 MR. DIGNAN: Yes. I'm sorry.
9 These are not the sensitivity runs at the end. , 10 These are the sensitivity runs where we just jacked up the ) 1 il mobilization times; yes. I 12 These were previously conducted runs, Your Honor. 1 13 These were run for this purpose. l l l 14 So as I say, Your Honor, without attempting to l I 15 address line-by-line anything here my point is simply this. 16 the Lieberman piece that is before you is designed to do two 17 things. I 18 It is designed to press the original defense which 19 we still feel is valid, we do nct understand to have been 20 rejected, but rather indeed your exact words in your 21 dec'2 ion, in the Board's decision, was that we were in j 22 default; that we hadn't explained it well enough. And that . l 23 is, it's too hard to do and when you do it you're not goint 24 to get much. 25 The other aspect of it is, and candidly was, it Heritage Reporting Corporation - (202) 628-4888
! 26543 1 was directly right at -- we thought Dr. McCollom had come up 2 with a way to cut this Gordian knot and that is to run the 3 sensitivity study. 4 And I thought that's what the Board wanted; and I 5 think it's relevant. 6 MR. FIERCE: May I respond, Your Honor? 7 JUDGE SMITH: Just a moment, let me catch up here. 8 9 l 10 11 12 13 l- 14 15 l 16 - 17 18 19
-?
20 21 22 23 24 25 i Heritage Reporting Corporatiory ) (202) 628-4888 m ..._..__- _ __ ..._-_____.__m_._ . _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
26544 1 JUDGE SMITH: Our finding 9.47 or 9.48, I just 2 don't know how we could have stated it any clearer. 3 MR. DIGNAN: You did. 4 JUDGE SMITH: But, Mr. Fierce, you nevertheless 5 object to the inclusion of evacuee and mobilization time. . 6 MR. FIERCE: Oh, yes. 7 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, evacuee and mobilization -- , 8 excuse me. 1 1 9 You know what I did. I just had a glitch in . 10 thought processes here. I think we need some time. I need 11 some time. 12 (The Board confers.) 13 NR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, the other thing I am 14 reminded of is the continued relevance of this. And I quite 15 agree it's repetitive and you have decided it. But keep in 16 mind there are two aspects in a sense to the problem and 17 it's easy to forget one of them. 1 l 18 The runs at the end, the key runs, the runs we did l 19 in response to Dr. McCollom's question established that the l 20 commuters aren't going to affect this time. We say it goes 21 up five minutes. 1 22 But that doesn't alleviate the question of whether . 23 somebody is saying, well, yes, that's right given this. But 24 couldn't the mobilization time tack something on and above i 25 that. And we are just closing that off. Heritage Reporting Corporation { (202) 628-4888 l
)
u_- = --- -
26545 1 f- s 1 Now, maybe the answer is the Board:has closed it ! ( 2 off. And if so, strike it. But Mr. Lieberman reminds me to 3 put a complete package together, he felt it was necessary to l i 4 note that again. 5 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 6 I think that one of the problem is the Board l
, 7- compartmentalized the issue perhaps more than a thorough - -
j 8 scientist would prefer. They would prefer to look at the
- 9 larger picture, and we saw just a very narrow picture raised 10 by the Attorney General.
11 All right, Mr. Fierce. 12 MR. FIERCE: Thank you, Your Honor. 13 I just have a couple of quick points. I did want
/h 14 to note that when you look at the transcript of what our 15 discussion was back on May 15th, you see, and there is no 16 question that Judge McCollom asked Mr. Lieberman the 17 question that he did back on 21004.
18 But further on in the discussion, it's clear that ! 19 the Board did not pick up on that suggestion. And at page 20 21015 of the transcript Your Honor makes clear what was ) 21 going to be happening with respect to the contested issues
. 22 that were still before you under your jurisdiction.
l 23 There had been another discussion separate and 24 parallel to that discussion regarding what runs the 25 Applicants might do using the Cole data, the social data (s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 . h _______..________l--_.___.___-_2_e_9_-2: -- _i_L_._- _?m_.e _a_.e___-_____ r _g m a m - 2. m 4 -a ve n sra me:-e e m.-m.- ._
26346 J 1 analyst data that might perhaps solve all of our concerns 2 about returning commuters and subsume this narrower problem j l 3 in it. l 4 But with respect to the issue before you for l l 5 litigation, on that page of the transcript you state, j
)
6 " Presumably Mr. Lieberman will testify as to the matters in i 7 his affidavit and be cross-examined on it, and presumably -{ 8 Dr. Adler will similarly defend his views." 9 Now that's, as far as I can tell, the way we had .
]
l 10 left it with that issue. I had asked perhaps for some time l 11 to respond to the runs they might want to be doing for the 12 Commonwealth. Your Honor indicated we weren't going to be ; l 13 allowing those runs to affect our hearing schedule; that we 14 were going to proceed with the hearing on the contested I 15 issues that were still before you. j 16 - You know, I think this is quite remarkable. They 17 have come in now at the eleventh hour. I was prepared this l 18 week to cross-examine on the affidavit they filed in fanuary l l 19 on returning commuters, and this was not called for by the 1 20 Board. 21 I think you may disagree. And if you do, you 22 think your intent was that you were calling for something . 23 like this, then I will subside. But I don't think that you 24 were calling for something like this, because throughout 25 this I was asking for an opportunity to rebut any new runs Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 9 26547 1 that they wars doing. And what we were talking about was I f ( . N- 2 these other runs for the Commonwealth, and you said, no, we j f 3 weren't going to interrupt the hearing schedule to do that. 4 But here we have a whole brand new set of runs 5 that do nothing more than bolster the affidavit that they i 6 filed back in January. ] 7 And I note that there is literally virtually 8 nothing in here that could not have been done for that 9 January filing.- And what we have is an attempt at the 10 eleventh hour to come in to bolster their case in a way that 1 l 11 'hasn't been permitted for any other piece of testimony in 12 these hearings. 13 And I think it's remarkable that they would )
'I
[ 14 attempt to do so now. And this is due process I'm arguing. j (' 15 Basic fairness. They are coming in at-the eleventh hour 16 dropping a major piece on us here, a piece that requires 17 technical analysis for me even to cross-examine, and asking 18 that it just come in without any thought about it. 19 I don't think you should allow this to come in , I 20 now. I think we should cross-examine the two witnesses on l 21 their earlier affidavits, and you should rule. l 22 However, I recognize this is still an issue open 23 before you and you can always change your mind on it. If 24 you want this piece to come in, hear me out on the basic 25 fairness due process issue. I need some time. I'm only 5 Beritage Reporting Corporation
\~ (202) 628-4888
26548 j 1 asking for about two weeks. 2 We do need to get these materials. I've talked 3 further with Dr. Adler. He does need to have the model that 4 was used to generate these runs. There was some discussion 5 last night about going down to Long Island to do it. I'm in 6 further discussions with Dr. Adler today. He's outlined all 7 the difficulties with that. It's extremely difficult and ,- 8 will take longer to than if the model could be presented to 9 him promptly and he can do the work that he needs to do. . j l 10 MR. DIGNAN: Ha knows that. He knows it can't be i 11 presented to him promptly. We have to compile it for him. 12 That's why we offered it. 13 JUDGE SMITH: Well, all right. ] 14 But assuming, Mr. Dignan, that you are correct , 15 that the Board did indicate that sensitivity runs might be 16 helpful, what do you say to the Attorney General's right to 17 confront that evidence? 18 MR. DIGNAN: There is no question he has a right i 19 to ccafront. It's just a question of how much time he gets
's 20 to do it, Your Honor.
l 21 And I said I was putting that off, but I would be ; 1 22 more than happy to argue that with you now. - l 23 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I think that that really is l j 24 the strongest point we have there. A 25 MR. DIGNAN: Okay. l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 6l 1 i
26549 1 fx 1 JUDGE SMITH: The others, I don't see any material I \
\m / difference between Mr. Lieberman's affidavits of January or
~
2 3 whenever it was and his testimony now. I mean he had the ) l 4 same thing about computer mobilization time in there as he l 5 does now, and we disregarded that, didn't even allude to it 6 on May 5th, and some cross-flow stuff. We didn't even 7 allude to that. 8 I don't even see any material difference that i
- 9 affects your ability to cross-examine, with the exception of i
10 the sensitivity runs, in his testimony of today than as if i 11 it had been on the affidavit. 12 MR. FIERCE: Well, there is no question that 13 that's the key piece of it, Your Honor. (N 14 JUDGE SMITH: Right. 15 MR. FIERCE: Those sensitivity runs. 16 - JUDGE SMITH: It's just restating the affidavit. 17 MR. DIGNAN: Now, Your Honor -- 18 MR. FIERCE: The statements that were in the 19 affidavit, I was certainly prepared to cross-examine on. 20 JUDGE SMITH: But I mean is there a material 21 difference?
. 22 MR. FIERCE: The sensitivity runs add --
23 JUDGE SMITH: Except for the sensitivity runs. 24 MR. FIERCE: No , no. 25 JUDGE SMITH: All right. Heritage Reporting Corporation
\_ (202) 628-4888
26550 1 So we are really focused now on the sensitivity 2 runs. 3 MR. FIERCE: Absolutely. j 4 JUDGE SMITH: All right. I 5 MR. DIGNAN: And I would like to do that. 6 JUDGE SMITH: Really, I see only one issue 7 remaining. -l 8 MR. DIGNAN: Yes, j 9 JUDGE SMITH: And that is -- . 10 MR. DIGNAN: I would like to focus on it if I 11 might, Your Honor. 12 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 13 MR. DIGNAN: Let's start with the argument that 14 you are given. The argument appears on pages 3 and 4, as I 15 understand it, of the motion before you. The argument says l l 16 that the Attorney General got the testimony on June 13th. 17 Correct. i 18 They received the runs on June 15th. They were 19 told on June 17th by Dr. Adler that he needs at least two 20 weeks to do it. Now here's the key. 21 If you look at this entire argument, it comeo down 22 to this. On page 4. "Dr. Adler will still be unable to . 23 review these I-DYNEV runs because they have been done on a 24 substantially different version of the I-DYNEV model than 25 the compiled version provided to him by KLD in 1987. This Heritage Reporting Corporation i (202) 628-4888
I 26551 i 1 new version incorporates the TRAD model. It has a variable iO 2 capacity reduction factor and uses'a new set of links and 3 nodes which Dr. Adler has no means of identifying." 4 Now, we have given them the links and nodes 5 already. We gave them to Dr. Adler today. 6 Now, it's the TRAD model. What you are being 7 asked to believe is you can't cross-examine without Adler. 1 8 first doing some analysis or. playing with the TRAD model.
- 9 Now this is intriguing, because they are all set to cross- )
10 examine No. 16, the other piece. 11 And if you look on page 39 of No. 16, the other - q 12 piece which was filed originally back in April, I 13 believe -- although the errata sheet says April 18th, it~was 14 April 10th, in fact -- you will find reference to the TRAD 15 model. And what we point out is in.this piece of testimony 16 -- 17 JUDGE SMITH: What page? i 18 MR. DIGNAN: This is on page 39. 1 19 It is the section of the testimony' dealing with l 20 traffic guide mobilization, and we're talking about capacity 21 enhancement efforts and so forth. ;
. 22 And in paragraph five on that page, "the modified 23 network configuration exhibiting more relaxed turn movements 24 so that when the traffic guides discourage the movements and 25 the reduced capacities of the key links was input into the
^l r
r Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
T 26552 TRAD model of the I-DYNEV system. The TRAD model was Gl 1 2 executed to perform an integrated trip distribution and trip 3 assignment analysis using equilibrium principles which," and j 4 on and on it goes. 1 5 In short, they are perfectly prepared to cross-6 examine this piece, which also relies on the TRAD model. 7 But all of a sudden the TRAD model is a total mystery with , 8 respect to the supplemental piece. ; 9 MR. FIERCE: I didn't say that I -- . i 1 l 10 MR. DIGNAN: They have known about the TRAD model 1 11 since April. They could have asked for it back in April if i 12 they thought it was a necessary input to advice to him on j i 13 how to cross-examine testimony. ] l 14 And if he can't cross-examine this piece because 15 he doesn't know anything about the TRAD model, I don't know 16 what he's going to do with the piece he's prepared to cross-17 examine, No. 16. TRAD has been out on the street for I l l 18 don't know how long. They never asked us for it. 19 So now you are asked to give them two weeks. 20 Now, confrontation. I understand due process. I 21 have no problem with the Board saying we'll put off the 22 supplemental piece until next week, let's say Wednesday, but - 23 then he's ready to cross it. And by that time they had 24 better be ready to offer anything that Adler has to say in 25 rebuttal, it seems to me. 1 1 ( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26553
' 1 But to say that the TRAD model is a mystery just \~ ' 2 doesn't wash. They have known about it since April 10th.
3 They have never asked us for it. And all of a sudden now 4 it's a big mystery. 5 MR. FIERCE: -Your Honor, now is when they have 6 done the sensitivity runs on returning commuters in a way 7 that they believe washes the. problem away. We don't believe B .that is the case. And we want to see those mmas, and we've 9 got the runs. We can't do anything with them. We have got 10 to have that model in order to play with it. 11 The testimony that was filed on ETEs, I was 12 prepared to cross-examine. There's no question. 13 JUDGE SMITH: How big a problem are the links and ( 14 nodes? That's a rather narrow area, geographic area. 15 MR. FIERCE: I wish I had Dr. Adler here.. I was 16 hoping he could be here for this argument. He is not. 17 I, frankly, dcn't know. But he's telling me that
~
18 this is a substantial effort that went into the work on this 19 s1:pplemental piece of. testimony. It took them, he believes, 20 a number of weeks of work, 21 JUDGE SMITH: Well, it seems to me that the use-of 22 the TRAD model -- I 23 MR. FIERCE: It's not just the TRAD model either. 24 JUDGE SMITH: Just a moment. 25 MR. DIGNAN: You understand, Your Honor, the TRAD I
,r s (N Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26554 1 model -- 2 JUDGE SMITH: No, wait just a second. 3 MR. DIGNAN: No, there is one thing you should 4 understand. 5 The TRAD model was not used in the sensitivity 6 runs that he's worrying about now. 7 JUDGE SMITH: I would assume that they had, yes. , 8 MR. DIGNAN: No. It was not. 9 The TRAD model was used in the ones that were - 10 referred to, that other set you and I talked about. Tne i 11 TRAD model was not used in the ones that did the commuters. 12 If you look at page 30 of the testimony, it says quite 13 clearly in paragraph six, "The TRAD model is used to both 14 distribute and assign evacuating traffic based on 15 egnilibrium principles. TRAD cannot be used for commuter 16 traffic since that trip distribution must be input in the 17 form of the trip table." I i
~
18 It cannot be computed by TRAD. 19 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, he makes it looks like i 20 I'm hanging my hat on the TRAD issue, and he's built this 1 21 up. I haven't. Dr. Adler -- 22 MR. DIGNAN: I do, because on page -- - l 23 MR. FIERCE: Would you let me finish once? 24 MR. DIGNAN: You didn't let me. 25 MR. FIERCE: Would you let me finish? Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 u____-. _m.- . _ _ _ _ _ . . ~ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ .
.]
1 26555 g-s 1 MR. DIGNAN: You didn't let me. I 2 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Dignan, hang on. 3 MR. DIGNAN: Well, no, Your Honor. 1 i My point is -- I 4 5 JUDGE SMITH: When somebody -- I'm not deciding j fi who is right or wrong. For a matter of, convenience, he 7 preempted you'. -] 8 MR. DIGNAN: Okay. ! 1 d
- 9 JUDGE SMITH: He was loud, by volume.
10 (Laughter) 11 MR. DIGNAN: Okay. 12 JUDGE SMITH: Go ahead, Mr. Fierce. 13 MR. FIERCF.: There are a number of changes that
/N 14 have been made to this model since it was provided to Dr.
15 Adler back in 1987. A significant change has occurred in ; I 16 the addition of a number of links and nodes that are just 17 not on .-- 1 18 JUDGE SMITH: Well, we know about those. 19 MR. FIERCE: He needs to have the model that has !
*1 20 that in it in ordor to --
21 JUDGE SMITH: Just wait a minute. Let's focus, 1
. 22 let's narrow down what you had to.say about TRAD model in 23 your motion. ;
l 24 (Pause to review document.) ' 25 (The Board confers. ) ( Heritage Reporting Corporation ! (202) 628-4888 j l l
. _- . . ,.m._. - . - _..s.,._.- -_. , . - . ,. . _
26556 1 JUDGE SMITH: As I understand it, Section 8 of the j 2 testimony, review of Attorney General data base, was used l 3 employing the TRAD model, but nothing else was. That's 4 where we are right now. 5 MR. DIGNAN: No, the TRAD model wasn't used for 6 that either. It wasn't used at all in this. In this, there 7 is nothing -- no use made of TRAD at all. ._ *l 8 JUDGE SMITH: None at all? 9 MR. DIGNAN: No. The use of TRAD was in the piece - l 10 that he's ready to cross-examine, 16. ] 11 JUDGE SMITH: Right. Okay. 12 MR. DIGNAN: Yes. 2 13 And no place in the supplement. I 14 MR. DIGNAN: None. l l 15 JUDGE SMITH: All right. It wasn't used in the 1 b 16 sensitivity runs that's suggested by -- 17 MR. DIGNAN: That's correct. ) 18 JUDGE SMITH: -- Mr. McCollom nor on the -- l 19 MR. DIGNAN: And I mislead you, Your Honor, l 20 because I said earlier -- it's my fault -- that use in the 1 21 ones about loading on the extra 40 minutes. But it was not 22 because those were done way back when before TRAD. - q 23 JUDGE SMITH: I don't know. 24 MR. DIGNAN: So TRAD in fact has not been used at 25 all in this piece. l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l l 26557 i
,- 1 JUDGE SMITH: I'm having a difficult time nailing j \*- I 2 down the fact.
3 Now, okay, what do you say to that? < 4 Now you say they did use it. So you are wrong, 5 right? 6 MR. FIERCE: I don't know if I'm wrong, Your
. 7 Honor. I wish Dr. Adler were here.
8 JUDGE SMITH: Well, all right, let's find out. I 9 Mr. Dignan says so. He talked to Mr. Lieberman. ) 10 Mr. Lieberman, in the supplemental testimony, did 1 11 you use the TRAD model? ; 12 MR. LIEBERMAN: No , sir. I 13 JUDGE SMITH: Okay. l [\ 14 So you are wrong. I (_J 15 MR. FIERCE: It was not used to make assignments l , 16 of the regular evacuees? ' 17 MR. LIEBERMAN: That was done previously. 18 MR. FIERCE: That's the point. 19 JUDGE SMITH: Wait a minute, wait. 20 All right, now, it's been established, Mr. 21 Lieberman who is a witness is under oath said that, with 1
- 22 respect to the supplemental testimony dated June 13th, that 23 the TRAD model was not used. And that is what I thought was 24 the most important thread of your argument as to why you are 25 not ready to cross-examine this panel.
l f) Heritage Reporting Corporation ( N -) (202) 628-4888 l E_-----_------- - - - - - - - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ . - _
26558 1 MR. FIERCE: No, it's one thread. 2 JUDGE SMITH: It's not. 3 MR. FIERCE: One of -- 4 JUDGE SMITH: One thread. 5 MR. FIERCE: One thread, and I could I just -- 6 JUDGE SMITH: But as you said, you know, it's a 7 big deal. It's a big model. I can't go down to Long ,
. i 8 Island. We.have got to study it and all that stuff. All 9 that was mistaken. .
10 MR. FIERCE: No. No , it's very much true. l 11 Let me just point out one thing about TRAD. ] t 12 Mt. Lieberman just said that earlier the TRAD 13 model had been used as the testimony indicates, the original l 14 ETE testimony, to distribute and assign evacuating traffic 15 based on equilibrium principles. I see that that's there.
!1 16 Now he's taken that assignment and he's put that i
17 in these sensitivity runs that he has used for this i 18 testimony. , 19 Now he says TRAD wasn't used in the. sensitivity 20 runs, but the assignment is there. It comes from TRAD. 21 Now we have a run we want to look at. 22 JUDGE SMITH: I don't understand. . 23 MR. DIGNAN: And TRAD is an assigning fact that 24 was shown to you in the original filing back in -- 5 25 MR. FIERCE: There is no question. But we're ! Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 1 E . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . r_ .. , . , , , _ . _ , s.-_.. - _ , ~._
26559 1 looking at a specific ETE run now that they have that they
~
2 claim just white washes away all the returning commuters l 3 issues. J 4 MR. DIGNAN: Well, if it's so important,-why 5 didn't you ask for it then? 6 MR. FIERCE: Oh, come on, Tom. It wasn't that 7 important then. It's important now. 8 JUDGE SMITH: To this moment now, I don't
. 9 understand how TRAD was used in the supplemental testimony.
)
10 MR. FIERCE: I can -- 1 11 JUDGE SMITH: Wait a minute. 12 (The Board confers.) 13 14 i 15 1 16 - 17 18 19 l
-1 20 21
. 22 23 24 25 A Heritage Reporting Corporation
(' (202) 628-4888 _ ___;. ._ _._.. . _ . . . _ - __ . . _ . _ . _ . . . _ . . . . _ .,.m.,_. ____ __ _ _ _# _ ___=___; _
26560 1 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Mt. Lieberman, we're not very 2 knowledgeable about I-DYNEV, so you're going to have to help 3 us along here. 4 The first thing I would like to ask is, in this 5 same sentence on page.4 of the motion in limine the 6 statement is made: "This new version incorporates the .sied 7 model. Also has some other items there. Has a variable ' 8 capacity reduction factor." 9 Would you tell us whether that is something new or , 10 is that the same as has been run in the original data for 11 Rebuttal Testimony No. 167 12 MR. LIEBERMAh, I'm not sure what that phrase 13 means. 14 There is no such thing as a variable capacity 15 reduction factor. The only difference is that the capacity l 16 factor is an input instead of being embedded, but it's not 17 variables held constant as it was in the past. 18 JUDGE McCOLLOM: All right. 19 Then, does that tell me that there's -- that's a 20 very mechanistic model and doesn't change the outputs. 4 21 Carrying it to the next step, when did you, quote, 22 "Use a new set of links and nodes," which apparently were . 23 supplied to the Mass AG today? l 24 Did you use that in the original testimony No. 167 1 25 MR. LIEBERMAN: No. l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.- .- . . ~ - .. . , _ _ _ _ - -
= 9
)
26561
-s 1 These links and nodes constitute the pathways for k.s/ 2' the returning commuters. So for the sensitivity study in 3 the supplemental 16 there are about 140 new links, 4 CITDGE McCOLLOM: That was my next question.
5 In other words, what you did.in order to do this 6 sensitivity modeling was to use that subset of links'and 7 nodes compared:to'what you would normally use for a whole - 8 run..
. 9 Is that the right concept?.
.10 If you were going to model all of the returning. q 1
11 commuters clear over the whole system.you would have a very 12 large set of links and nodes modeling this. q 13 MR. LIEBERMAN:- That's right.
'N 14 JUbGE McCOLLOM: But you're using a subset of- ~
15 them, so there's about 160 or however many? 16 - MR. LIEBERMAN: About 140.- 17 JUDGE McCOLLOM: 140 links and nodes which were 18 necessary in order for you.to model these sensitivities?' 19 MR. LIEBERMAN: In order to model the returning 20 commuters explicitly; yes. . 1 21 JUDGE SMITH: Do you agree that links.and nodes:
- 22 that you used to model the returning' commuters are-a subset
~
23 of the 7 inks and nodes you used before? 24 JUDGE McCOLLOM: No, no. 25 They were a subset of.the nodes that would be Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
- _"- _ *&e -wn.%
_ e.m.. m- ..m. . - . s._ _ - . = - - -.u_m_.._____
26562 1 necessary to model the whole I-DYNEV system for the commuter 2 returning system. 3 MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes. 4 JUDGE McCOLLOM: That was a very large project. 5 It would be a very large project if done. 6 JUDGE SMITH: Well, would it be the links and 7 nodes for the whole EPZ? ,- 8 MR. FIERCE: No. 9 MR. LIEBERMAN: Well, it would be essentially two- - 10 way flow throughout the entire EPZ if we were to model 11 commuters throughou' the entire EPZ. l 12 By focusing only in the coastal region, and only 13 on those roads which service the beach area evacuees, you're 14 able to limit the additional links to 140. 15 And that 140 is a subset of what we would have had 16 to do if we were modeling returning commuters throughout the 17 EPZ. 18 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 19 'For modeling the returning commuters throughout . 20 the EPZ are you using a different set of links and nodes , 21 then you used for all other I-DYNEV run for all of the ETEs? 22 Or is it just a subset of those? - 23 (The Board confers.) 24 MR. TURK: I think you're both right. 25 You're asking two different questions, Judge Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26563
-~ 1 McCollom and Judge Smith. \ws 2 JUDGE McCOLLOM: That's nice to both of us being 3 right.
4 MR. DIGNAN: We don't know what's going on back 5 there. So far you're both right from what we can hear. 6 MR. TURK: The questions you have asked until now 7 -- Judge Smith is asking, as I understand it. 8 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Wait a minute. Let's get
- 9 everybody listening.
10 MR. TURK: I understand Judge Smith to be asking, 11 are these links and nodes additional and different than the 12 links and nodes you considered back when you were doing the 13 I-DYNEV runs for the NHRERP. 14 [N JUDGE McCOLLOM: I see. 15 MR. TURK: And Mr. Lieberman's answer is? 16 - MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes. 17 MR. TURK: And Judge McCollom is asking a l 18 different question and that is: is this a' subset of what you 19 would do if you were going to model the entire returning I 20 commuter phenomenon apart from those in the beach area. l
. 1 21 And the answer to that is?
. 22 JUDGE McCOLLOM: No.
l l 23 MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes. ' i l 24 JUDGE McCOLLOM: But these links and nodes, are ; 25 thel' a modification of the links and nodes of the original-r%
! Heritage Reporting Corporation
\s /J' (202) 628-4888
. . + . . , . ~ . . . . - .w- .. n,-
__;3_+ _;
26564 1 model of I-DYNEV when you were n'ot modeling *;ecurning 2 commuters or is it a separate set of links and nodes that 3 just accounts for returning commuters? l l 4 MR. LIEBERMAN: It's the second. It just accounts 5 for -- with one exception, I had to restructure the l 6 interchange with I-95 and 110 in order to represent the ramp 7 servicing commuter flows.
)
8 JUDGE SMITH: Dr. Lieberman, would you tell us the 9 relationship between the links and nodes used in the entire , 10 evacuation study originally presented up in New Hampshire, . 11 the links and nodes which would be necessa_f to model all of 12 the returning commuters and the 140 links and nodes that 13 vere used in the sensitivity runs in your testimony. 14 In one place show me what the relationship is. 15 MR. LIEBERMAN: All right. I 16 - To represent the pathways servicing the evacuating 17 traffic with no explicit consideration of returning 16 commuters, there were a total of approximately 390 links. l 19 And it is that network which we discussed in New Hampshire. l 20 JUDGE SMITH: And those links and nodes were 21 generally -- 22 MR. LIEBERMAN: Outbound. . i 23 JUDGE SMITH: Outbound. I 24 MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes, sir. 1 1 25 Now, to perform this sensitivity test which was Heritage Report'ng Corporation , (202) 628-4888 ) l l l _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ = _ _ _ , , , , , . - . .-. s
26565 fs 1 limited to four of the six towns in Massachusetts. 2 And in Seabrook and Hampton, namely, the primary 3 beach area towns and the corridor servicing the Salisbury 4 Beach area evacuees, we required another 140 new links to 5 represent the pathways servicing the commuters in this area 1
~
6 -- returning commuters in this area.
, 7 JUDGE SMITH: Are some of those outbound links?
8 MR. LIEBERNAN: No, sir.
- 9 They're all inbound, essentially.
10 Now, if we were to model returning commuters j l 11 throughout the EPZ then I would estimate we would need 12 somewhere between 200 and 250 additional inbound links in ! 13 order to capture returning commuters throughout the EPZ. l f'~'
\
14 JUDGE COLE: The reason why you had no additional j
\ 15 outgoing links is because you had them already included.
16 - MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes, sir, that's correct. < j 17 MR. TURK: There was a question that started like 18 this, Your Honor, and that was to what extent is TRAD or is 19 TRAD at all incorporated in his supplemental testimony, 20 And I think the answer Mr. Lieberman gave yeu was: 1 l 21 no, it's not explicitly stated in supplemental testimony ,
. 22 but it is there is as background. The TRAD runs are part of l 23 the background of the I-DYNEV run or part of the basic 24 I-DYNEV run that is then manipulated -- I L
25 JUDGE SMITH: When? l Heritage Reporting Corporation s_/ (202) 628-4888 1 1
. - . . . .n..._- . - . _ _ _ _ . . . . _ . . . . . . _-
I I 1 26566 1 MR. TURK: -- supplemental piece. 2 JUDGE SMITH: When was TRAD introduced into the j 3 I-DYNEV model? 4 MR. LIEBEEMAN: TRAD was introduced here in order 5 to represent the staged arrival of the traffic guides which 6 go on to testimony of the original No. 16. l 7 MR. TURK: The April testimony. , 8 JUDGE SMITH: Right. 9 For this phase of the hearing. . 10 MR. LIEBERMAN: Yes. sir. l 1 11 MR. TURK: So it's in the April testimony. 12 JUDGE McCJLLOM: Let me ask this question now: did 13 you use the output from the TRAD model in the original 14 Applicants 16 testimony as part of the run that was for the , I l 15 returning commuters? j 16 - MR. LIEDERMAN: Yes, sir. l 4 l 17 JUDGE McCOLLOM: And that's the impact where TRAD ! 18 would have some impact, I gather. Except that you're i 19 telling me now, that's just a mechanistic thing. , 20 MR. LIEBERMAN: That's right. 21 We just took the output which you already had for
.2 two months and usad it as part of this sensitivity run. We .
23 then executr. TRAD again for this sensitivity run. 24 MR. TURK: Your Honor, if I can argue a point. 25 And that is, I don't see that there's anything. +w here. I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
i 26567
,x 1 agree with the Applicants that TRAD has been a part of their I'w /) 2 testimony. It has been explicitly stated in their April 3 . testimony.
4 There is no deprivation of due process to the Mass 5 AG. And all of a sudden now having to confront TRAD. 6 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, may I say a few things?
,. 7 JUDG9 SMITH: Here is what I want to address on 8 that: let's assume that in preparing to cross-examine on the 1 9 earlier testimony, they were negligent and didn't prepare 10 well; does that foreclose them from preparing well now if 11 due process requires it?
12 Or let's say they didn't have any reason to 13 challenge it, but now they do have a reason?
/g 14 MR. DIGNAN: The answer to that candidly is, due \' ') 15 process. Obviously, due process cannot be foreclosed because 16 of -- and I don't think my brother was negligent and it 17 probably was that he didn't see any need to confront it. And 18 that's not my point.
19 I think they have a right to challenge. All I am 20 begging the Board for is, I don't see any reason to July 21 7th. I don't see why it can't be wrapped up next week,
, 22 which is what I had hoped dearly.
23 JUDGE SMITH: All right. 24 MR. DIG : 'AN: Since another birthday has passed. 25 (Laughter.) 1 eN Heritage Reporting Crsrporation
\--) (202) 628-4888
26568 i 1 JUDGE SMITH: Right. 1 2 So now we are down to where we were about an hour J I 3 ago. 1 I 4 (Laughter.) -) l 5 MR. DIGNAN: Right. I 1 JUDGE SMITH: How much time is needed to confront l 6 l this new information? It's a new approach. l 7 , 8 MR. TURK: On that, Your Honor, I think there's 9 inequities and a balancing has to go or. They had the prior ; 10 testimony since April. If they were negligent and you want 11 to give them an opportunity to correct that now, fine, let ] l 12 them have until sometime next week. l 13 JUDGE SMITH: They are never under an obligation 14 to prepare for cross-examination. They can always agree 15 with it. 16 MR. TURK: That's right. 17 JUDGE SMIT': H And they do not give up their right. 18 I mean, it is not latches. There is no theory that I can i I 19 see that required them to do anything, if they elected not , 20 to or they overlooked it, ano not do it now. I get no
)
21 guidance at all from the earlier testimony of April. I just l l 22 don't see how it helps it. I don't seen any logical link. . l 23 MR. TURK: They had .in opportunity for the last 24 two months to examine TRAD and to determine whether they ; 25 wanted to put on any kind of rebuttal testimony to the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
l 26569 s 1 Applicants use of TRAD.
/ )
m, 2 JUDGE SMITH: This is a different application. 3 MR. TURK: All right. 4 MR. DIGNAN: No, it is not. 5 That's the point, Your Honor, it's not different 6 application of TRAD. And I think that's what Dr. McCollom 7 brought up. 8 The TRAD application that has been made was made 4 9 in the original 16. And as Dr. McCollom brought out'in his 10 questioning of Mr. Lieberman, that data was pulled over and 11 utilized in the runs made for commuters. But what had to be 12 done to make the commuter run did not involve anything more 13 with TRAD. 14 I don't want to get into the words -- I really i ("~')s15
\- mean this, probably nobody thinks I do -- I don't like to 16 get into words whether an attorney has been negligent. I ,
17 think rather is that the TRAD piece did not have any 18 significance to the Commonwealth when they looked at No. 16. 19 I've got to assume that because they didn't ask us for it 20 and they're prepared to cross-examine this. 21 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
. 22 MR. DIGNAN: So now it has become significant.
23 And the only point I am making, because I am not 24 sitting here arguing that Mr. Fierce should be required to 25 cross this today or tomorrow, I'll put it on next week. I'm
<w
( ) Heritage Reporting Corporation
'w_/ (202) 628-4888
26570 1 just interested in getting it done next week.
/
2 JUDGE SMITH: I understand that. 3 But we keep going back somehow, you know, I think 4 we escape from the question of the earlier notice of TRAD; 5 we seem to be drawn back to it like a magnet, I don't know. 6 But now you agree that the issue before us is -- 7 MR. DIGNAN: How much time? 5 8 JUDGE SMITH: -- how much time do they need? And 9 how do we decide that? d' 10 MR. DIGNAN: Well, it seems to me -- 11 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor -- 12 MR. DIGNAN: It seems to me -- and this is my view 13 and this is where I guess I get into equity -- if it is one 14 thing that I think the Commonwealth has been afforded 15 throughout this hearing, it's time whenever they want it. 16 And they've been allowed to reargue points and this, that, 17 and the other thing. 18 I recall saying to the Board and, of course, it's i 19 the same Board legally, but the two technical members were 20 different, way back in New Hampshire I advised everybody, j 21 you know, I can be pretty good with continuances and all f 22 that until I get on the critical path. . 23 I can just plead to Your Honor, we are on the 24 critical path now. 25 JUDGE SMITH: It's not a question of that, Mr. , Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ) I
26571 1 Dignan. 7
/
(ss 2 MR. DIGNAN: No , it's a question of whether you're l 3 going to make Dr. Adler work over the weekend. ; 4 JUDGE SMITH: I don't know. See, that's exactly j I 5 what we do not know. We do not have the information we need j 6 to make a decision. i 7 I don't mind making Dr. Adler work over the
~
\
8 weekend, no, that's fine. j
% 9 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, my intention was to have 10 him work over the 4th of July weekend as well. 'I discussed 11 this with him.
12 JUDGE SMITH: See, this member of the Board hasn't j i 13 talked to the other members. l
14 We want your input as to what are the technical \~ ' 15 aspects of requiring it to be done next week compared to the ]
16 week after that. We don't know, and we want that 1 17 information. I don't know how we can decide it without 18 that. ! 19 We do not have before us information to put on the
-i 20 floor today as to how big a job it is. My technical 9
21 colleagues may have their own feeling of how big a job it l
, 22 should be.
'23 But right now before wa consult I thought it would 24 be useful if we had that information. We don't know.
25 r Heritage Reporting Corporation ( (202) 628-4888
4 l l 26572 ) 1 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, I would be happy to have i 2 Dr. Adler come back here from Conway tomorrow morning to 3 tell you what it is he's intending to do and what his 4 schedule is. I mean, I've had that discussion with him, and 5 I've gone 6v?r it with him. And he asked for more time than 6 I ask for here in the motion. , 7 I've got a situation where I'm going to be forcing
- 8 him to work over that 4th of July weekend. But he said he 9 could do it. v 10 Let me just also, looking at the schedule, Your 11 Honor, I see that we are scheduled right now with witnesses 12 that go through the 27th. And on the 28th, it looks like 13 there may still be some Applicant panels that have not yet l l 14 been cross-examined. I know we have yet to cross-examine 15 Panel No. 22, and the training panel, Applicants' No. 20 l
16 have yet to be crossed. 17 I have a piece of testimony from Dr. Adler. It's 18 very short. It's a piece of rebuttal testimony. That has 19 to be scheduled now. . 20 I told you I have two other pieces. I will 21 hopefully have them tomorrow. I understand from my office 22 that one is waiting for me from Dr. High, which is the . 23 redrafted piece showing his calculations on reception center 24 loads. Very short again, but that will have to be 25 scheduled. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
26573 s 1 And there is one additional piece, and I believe 2 it will be in-tomorrow, if I'm lucky. There is a short 3 piece analyzing the transit time through the reception 4 center, the time study they did where they timed the walk 5 from the monitoring trailer into the reception center and 6 around to each of those positions. 7 We have then a 4th of July weekend that I 8 anticipate the Board would take that full weekend and not b- 9 have a hearing scheduled on Monday, July 3rd. I'm basically 10 asking you to extend, what is it, two or three perhaps 11 working days. And I think we may in fact fill those days. 12 This is not a lengthy extension we are suggesting 13 here. Jmd if you would like, I will have Dr. Adler come g[" 14 back tomorrow and you can hear it straight from his mouth in !' 15 terms of his schedule, his commitments and the time it's 16 going to take to do what he thinks is necessary. 17 JUDGE SMITH: Well, there is one thing you can be 18 assured of. If you prevail, it's going to be down in 19 Bethesda. It's not going to be here. 20 MR. FIERCE: We'll do it in Bethesda. 21 JUDGE SMITH: But is there anything else any of
. 22 the parties wish to tell us about the physical demands 23 involvcJ, or the technical demands involved in analyzing 24 what Dr. Adler wants to do, the TRAD --
25 MR. DIGNAN: Yes, I just want to make clear one Heritage Reporting Corporation k (202) 628-4888
-. . -- . . . . -.- - _ . . - . ~.
26574 1 thing. 2 Mr. Lieberman has said, Dr. Adler come down 3 whenever he wants to and run the model down there. We see 4 no reason for him to have to recompile a model and ship it 5 up here. I mean, darn it, he can go down there and do it. 6 MR. FIERCE: Extremely inconvenient, extremely 7 inconvenient. t 8 JUDGE SMITH: Who? Who? Who? 9 MR. DIGNAN: To Dr. Adler. j 10 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, that's of no consequence, 11 absolutely no consequence. 12 MR. FIERCE: And we believe it would be faster to 13 do the work if he had the model up in his own shop. They 14 have done this before. This is not something that we 15 haven't tried. 16 - MR. DIGNAN:- And it took a long time. 17 MR. FIERCE: It took a long time to do the work 18 down in their shop. 19 The people up in Adler's shop, you know, are 20 familiar with their equipment and are doing it on different 21 equipment down there. 22 JUDGE SMITH: Does Adler need the whole thing, or , 23 can he have a demonstration of how it was done? 24 MR. FIERCE: He needs the model. 25 JUDGE SMITH: Well, I know, but can he go down to l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ______________=_ _ _______:_-__. - -
. -r = . a
26575
~ }; s, 1 Mr. Lieberman's place and say, show me how you did this.
\s_fh 2 Let's start it out, see if I'm satisfied.
3 Is that possible? 4 MR. FIERCE: I'm not saying it's not possible, 5 Your Honor. It certainly is possible. I think it will take l 6 longer. It is highly inconvenient to Dr. Adler to do the 7 work. 8 JUDGE SMITH: Here is what I'm wondering about. 4 9 You see, the issue of the TRAD model, the aspect of the TRAD 10 model into the entire controversy has become quite small. l 11 The use of the TRAD model has a plasumption of regularity. j 12 It wasn't something contrived for the returning commuters. 13 It was used regularly in another part of the testimony.
~
fg 14 We have no reason to believe that there is any
- 15 trickery afoot or any skewing. See, there is an assumption 16 of regularity, an assumption which is somewhat bolstered by 17 the fact that it has been'in the testimony and your expert 18 didn't see anything fishy about it here.
19 So in the normal, regular use of it for this 20 hearing, it was employed. So we have no justification at 21 all to expect -- I'm repeating now -- to expect a skewed or
. 22 an aberrant use of it for this purpose.
23 We also have to look at the fact that the use of 24 the TRAD model is only a small -- I mean the use of the 25 sensitivity is only one part of the presentation.
/x
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (,,, (202) 628-4888
. 26576 1 If the presentation depended very, very heavily 2 upon the sensitivity model, we might think that there may be 3 another problem here, but it's only one part of it.
4 Now what we have to decide is what is -- we have 5 no hesitancy to having Dr. Adler work very hard and be very 6 inconvenienced personally to achieve an early preparation. 7 But now what we have to decide is can it be done even with
- 8 great inconvenience.
9 And to do that, we'll have to go to the Board v 10 members and see what their impression of the magnitude of I 11 the problem like this is. l I l 12 MR. FIERCE: Well, I am offering --- 13 JUDGE SMITH: Is there anything else you want? 14 MR. FIERCE: I am offering to have Dr. Adler come 15 in tomorrow and explain to you wnat he would like to be 16 doing with the model. I'm not calling it the TRAD. The 17 model is the I-DYNEV model with these new attachments. And 18 the model he has just won't -- it won't work. l 19 JUDGE SMITH: I understand. I thought I 20 understood it. I don't know why you are saying it again. 21 JUDGE McCOLLOM: I think I would say that the only 22 thing that I saw in the discussion of Mr. Lieberman's is , 23 that he has to get acquainted with these links and nodes. 24 MR. FIERCE: Well, the other thing is the maybe I , 1 25 stated it wrong in the motion and I apologize for that, but I Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l
26577 ~' 1 the model that was provided to Dr. Adler back in 1987 has a t
- 2 fixed 15 percent' reduction factor in it.
3 Dr. Adler wants to be able to change that factor 4 like was done for these runs. He cannot do that with the 5 model. I-DYNEV has been upgraded,. changed, whatever you 6 want to call it. It now has that ability to change that 7 reduction factor. He needs to have that ability. 8 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Okay. k 9 But then you get back to the idea that it not.be 10 more efficient and faster to go down to their place and do 11 it on their computer. 12 MR. FIERCE: We believe it would be more efficient 13 and faster if the model were provided to Dr..Adler for his 14 use in his office. I, 15 16 - 17 18 19 1 20 l
, 1 21 . 22 23 4
24 25 p Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 j i h
.-n-.. .~ --,e , . .- --
t 26578 1 MR. DIGNAN: See, Your Honor, we don't want any 2 confusion. , l' 3 JUDGE COLE: Excuse me. 4 I thought Mr. Lieberman testified that he didn't 5 change the number. 6 Is that correct, Mr. Lieberman? 7 MR. LIEBERMAN: No.
- 8 MR. FIERCE: Oh, it says so in the testimony.
9 MR. LIEBERMAN: No , what I said was that it's j 10 still a fixed number. It's not a variable. l 11 MR. FIERCE: It's not variable. He has changed 1 i 12 the number in the ETE sensitivity run on returning 13 commuters, he changes that number from a 15 percent to I l 14 believe a 10 percent. l 15 JUDGE COLE: But it's still a fixed number.
. 16 -
MR. FIERCE: What I meant variable is, it's .l 17 possible now as an input through the model when you do a run 18 to specify what - you couldn't do that before, it was 19 always a fixed number. And Dr. Adler's version of I-DYNEV
*\
20 doesn't allow him to change that reduction factor to run the 21 'model like it was done for these sensitivity runs. 22 We need the new enhanced model. And I believe it , 23 would be more efficient and quicker if Dr. Adler had it up 24 in his shop -- 25 JUDGE SMITH: Well, let's see what Dr. Adler tays Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
._ . = = = = _ = _ _ .
26579 1 first thing in the morning.
\_ ,/ 2 MR. FIERCE: -- and can work around the clock on 1
3 it. 4 JUDGE SMITH: First thing in the morning we'll see 5 what -- 6 MR. FIERCE: But before -- 7 JUDGE SMITH: Be quiet, I'm talking. 8 We'll see what Dr. Adler says about it the very
- 9 first thing in the morning.
10 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, before we leave I just 11 don't want the Board to leave with a misapprehension. 12 The reason we want him to come down there. It is 13 not simply inconvenience. Dr. McCollom referred to it. It 14 will take Mr. Lieberman about a week to put it in shape 15 where they can give it to Dr. Adler. Whereas, on the other 16 hand if he comes down and just runs it down there, he can do 17 that tomorrow. That's the problem. We took the time the I 18 last time. It was not Dr. Adler running the model, it was 19 the time it took Mr. Lieberman to get the model in shape to 20 give to Dr. Adler. That's what becomes a problem. 21 And so if you order us to ship it up to him, we
. 22 need a week to get it in the position where we can ship it.
23 And that's what.I wish the Board to understand. ! 24 (The Board confers.) 25 JUDGE SMITH: We'll return to this the first thing
. Heritage Reporting Corporation <
\ (202) 628-4888 4
= ,. . . _
26580 i 1 in the morning. 2 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, a practical problem is 3 that, in the course of talking to Dr. Adler as he was 4 leaving and trying to determine what he should do, he's l 5 going up to -- he has a client up in Conway, New Hampshire. 6 He's meeting with him tonight, and the question he asked me 7 is: what am I supposed to do and how to proceed? I said, - 8 call me first thing in the morning. He's going to give me a 9 telephone call. s i 10 JUDGE SMITH: He's not going to be here in the 11 morning? 12 MR. FIERCE: He's going to give me a telephone l
\
13 call at 8:30 tomorrow morning from Conway. If I tell him to 14 be here immediately, my guess is he could probably be here 15 by 10:00 or 10:15. ( l 16 - MR. TURK: Why don't you call his wife or his l i 17 office and get his number for tonight. You can handle that. 18 JUDGE SMITH: In any event, we' re going to returh 19 to this first thing in the morning. We're going to look at 20 the testimony. Maybe we won't have any input from him. 21 This week has long been scheduled for this issue. 22 MR. FIERCE: Just let me know, if you want I will . 23 try to call his wife to try to get a number where I can 24 reach him tonight, to tell him to come down here tomorrow 25 morning, if that's what Your Honor wishes. l l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l 1 26581 1 1 JUDGE SMITH: We want to think about it. I I
\ 2 MR. DIGNAN: The other thing, Your Honor, I 1
3 indicated to you that we need time to, quote, "get it in ] i 4- shape." 1 5 JUDGE SMITH: I know. We are very much aware of 6 that. 7 MR. DIGNAN: No, no, but I may have been a little -l l 8 cavalier. ) 1 V 9 And Mr. Lieberman asked me to inform the Board as l l l 10 to what we mean by that. You see, Mr..Lieberman uses a ] 1 \ 11 computer with a different operating system than Dr. Adler 12 does. So before Dr. Adler can use the model, Mr. Lieberman 13 has to adjust it so it can work on his operating system. i l fN 14 That's what we're talking about when we say "getting it in l
\
D) 15 shape." 16 - It's not that the model changes or anything like 17 that. It's that it has to be worked on so that it will run 18 on Dr. Adler's operating system which is different than Mr. 19 Lieberman's. If he comes down there he can just run it on 20 the operating system as it now stands. 21 MR. FIERCE: I'm still not clear what the Board
. 22 wants.
l 23 JUDGE SMITH: I thought that Adler might be here ! 24 first thing in the morning and we could hear a very limited < 25 accounting from him of what his technical problems are, and
'=fr'^1 ;
Heritage Reporting -Corporation < Y (202) 628-4888-t
~
^ ^ ~ - ' ~ ~ ' ~ - ~ - ~
JT____T_-_________ _ ___ : .: __T ~~~ ~ - ~ ~ ~
I 1 1 i 26582 1 that's not going to happen. 2 MR. FIERCE: I will try to get him here by calling 1 l 3 his wife and then reaching him in his hotel room. ] 4 JUDGE SMITH: Well, the way it stands right now -- 5 MR. FIERCE: If you want him to come.. 6 JUDGE SMITH: The way it stands right now, unless 7 Adler can convince us to the contrary, we would say go down 8 to Long Island and do it. 9 Or we might even consider the possibility of s 10 making a declaratory judgment as to how much evidence is 1 11 necessary, i 12 If we believed that for the Applicant to carry its ) i 13 burden, the sensitivity runs were essential, we would have !
)
14 one attitude. And if we didn't believe that they were
]
15 essential or didn't add material to the matter; we have 16 another attitude. 17 So we may finesse the whole problem; avoid the 18 whole problem. 19 On the other hand, you also have your right to 20 have the re:ord in excess of what we believe our 21 requirements are. So I don't know, do you want it in there 22 no matter what? , 23 MR. DIGNAN: Do I? 24 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. 25 MR. DIGNAN: No, sir. Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26583 i 1 (Laughter) [i 2 MR. DIGNAN: I.always.try it on the' theory.of what 3 it takes to do it. 4 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Do'you want itias' rejected 5 testimony? 6 MR. DIGNAN: No.
, 7 Let's be straight up: if the Board advised me that 8 the Board, you know,.the Board has at least on one occasion
- 9 in dealing with the. motion that my colleague, Ms. Selleck, 10 argued before you.-- Your Honor first referred to this in 11 .the notion of a directed verdict.
12 If the Board is prepared to' advise me that it 13 believes that the burden we had before the. Board has been 14 carried by so much of the Lieberman testimony-as deals with 15 the reasons other'than makingLthe sensitivity runs, with the 16 full understanding that I'm taking some risk in the sense i I 17 that the Board could later review the Adler affidavit in my d i 18 cross and come out the other way"in a final decision. 19 But I'm a big boy, I can make that decision, I 4 20 would pull the runs. ! 21 JUDGE SMITH: We may also take another version of i j e 22 it, which we have to discuss and that is, if-it develops in' l l 23 the cross-examination of the panel that you do have a 24 problem, then we would not foreclose. you: from seeing this to ) L 25 the end,.to the extent that you think is. satisfactory to Heritage Reporting- Corporation- ,
\~- (202) 628-4888 '
i
.. ~ . . - . . . . . - + - - . . . . .
. . . _ . . . . . ~ . - . . .
26584 l 1 carry your burden. 2 MR. DIGNAN: I understand that, Your Honor. 3 JUDGE SMITH: One way or the other 4 It may be that we will let the panel go on and 5 hold that in reserve and see if the burden can be met at the 6 time without that. If we believe that would be essential to l 7 a complete record, then we may address it again. ,
- i' 8 In any event, I guess what we better do is come back to it first thing in the morning. >
9 10 MR. DIGNAN: In connection with Your Honor's last 11 remark could I commend something to you that has occurred in 12 this proceeding in front of the other Board. i 13 When we were trying the so-called " siren case" ;
)
14 before Judge Bloch's Board, one of the things that occurred 15 is that shortly before the hearing commenced the Applicants 16 made a design change to the siren system which enabled us to 17 elevate it much quicker than had been the case before. 10 This meant thdt certain testimony which had been 19 prefiled by us and responded to by the AG in-depth of what 20 would be the effect of sounding these sirens at a lower 21 height if necessary, 1 ;4, levant, if one believed the design 22 worked. .- 23 The AG complained of us even mentioning this on 24 the theory that, you know, this was a surprise. I indicated 25 to Judge Bloch at the time that we were -- we had been and i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
26585 i es 1 still were prepm +d to defend the 25 foot problem; and
\ ,) m 2 indeed, our testimony stayed that way.
3 And Judge Bloch denit with it by saying, that he l 4 would simply allow the testimony in with respect to this new 5 design, but that, however, only if the Board deemed it to be ; 1 6 the testimony that required utilization to get a result, he 7 would then come back and reopen and let people test it 8 further or offer rebuttal if they wanted to. So if the Board should go down that latter route 'l k 9 10 that Your Honor was perhaps suggesting, that is not without i 11 precedent in the proceeding -- although before this Board it 12 is. This is wnat Judge Bloch did with that problem and just 13 said, if the Board concluded that it was necessary for them 14 to address the enhanced capability of raising the siren, he 7'"x
\ \- 15 would so advise the parties, and then an opportunity for l
16 rebuttal would be given. 17 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. l 18 That's the route I was going. However, that's not l 1 19 as neat as one would like it. l
~?
20 MR. DIGNAN: No, it's not. J I 21 JUDGE SMITH: We're adjourned until 9:00 a.m.
. 22 (Whereupon, at 5:14 p.m. the hearing was adjourned 23 to reconvene tomorrow morning at 9:00 a.m., Wednesday, 24 June 21, 1989.)
25 f
'(>-'(
\m-Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation j j
i 1 l l _=______ -_. _ =_ _ _ _ :=- - .
. 1 1 MASSACHUSETTS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S CROSS EXAMINATION PLAN FOR TESTIMONY OF THGMAS URBANK, II ; ON JI CONTENTIONS 4 and 7A ) I. Questions about his current position and any changes ] in his resume since he last testified. Explore his current relationship with the NRC. II. Explore his qualifications to testify on traffic ' management plan issues apart from ETEs III. How was this testimony written, by whom, over what j period of time? What assessment was done? IV. Establish that witness is not very familiar with the Mass EpZ -
. His comment in A.17 that traffic from plum Island may tend to access I-95 from Route 110.
Lack of familiarity with local traffic patterns. V. As to Q. 6/A.6, where.else are the traffic management strategies set forth if not in App. J7 W'nat other
- " pertinent" provisions of the SpMC are there?
VII.a Establish that NUREG-0654 contains virtually no I guidance regarding special traffic management plans . like that used here. l { VIII. As to A.8, why isn't it a goal of traffic management i planning to see if the available traffic management - resources are sufficient to conduct an orderly, efficient evacuation? Isn't it also a purpose to , j ensure that emergency vehicles and transit buses can ' travel to all points in the EpZ without significant delays. IX. As to A.10, is it a " pertinent consideration" that Newburyport didn't want to have Salisbury Beach traffic flowing into town on Route 17 l i 1 i _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ - . _ ._~__. * '~ ' ~ ' ' " ' '
i X. Have you done any ETE runs for the Mass. portion of [(_j)
\ the EPZ7 (If not, he has no way of knowing that the shortest ETEs will be achieved without use of Route 1 l
south out of Salisbury Square.) j XI. Explore his " trunk" analogy. See A.11. F../ put any traffic guides in the " branches"? XII. Establish that he has not run IDYNEU to see whether, if Route 1 southbound out of Salisbury Square were utilized fully, it would result in lower ETE than that for current plan, em 6 ,
-J
! XIII. Establish that he agrees that if the computer l simulation had established an efficient traffic routing strategy but that the S?MC's drafters had 1 s selected a different and less efficiet strategy, then j the strategy selected may not be the most effective l one in minimizing dose'to the public. )
i XIV. As to A.20, have him reaffirm that locations with I "significant congestion" are places where TCPs should J be located. l XV. Establish that in reviewing whether additional TCPs are needed, he ahs not met with and discussed the , concerns of local officials. , t (_, XVI. See if he believes that barricades have any advantages l over cones? If not, why did he. support he use of
. barricades in the NHRERP? {
l XVII. In A.33, isn't he assuming _that the uncontrolled l traffic flows on the same routes selected for the controlled evacuation? XVIII. During the first few hours before the arrival of traffic control personnel, but when traffic off the -i beach areas could be very congested, will that )
. WWgamamuty traffic obey all traffic signals and stop i signs? ;
XIX. As to A.44, wouldn't it produce higher ETEs for the I Mass beach areas if hundreds of cars in the congested ! line on Route 286 were to take local roads over to' ! Route 1 south and head into Salibury Square? If so, shouldn't this be discouraged using TCPs? 2 f
- - -.-. -. = -
1 XX. When MUTCD is speaking of traffic control " devices", ! what does it mean? XXI. He agrees that MUTCD is relevant to traffic management , planning. He endorsed the NHRERP's Vol. 6 including ! its references to MUTCO. l O 4 4 me em
J i I l l l i 1 1 1 1 O P e i
~
I
'i l
l l e d 9 I l 8 0 4
- -. ..-,n, , .
_ " a e*
- l 1
1 1 i June 20, 1989 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
)
before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i
)
In the Matter of ) ,;
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, 31 al. ) 50-444-OL
) F l (Seabrook Station, Units 1 ) (Offsite Emergency }
and 2) ) Planning Issues) !
) l 1
APPLICANTS' CROSS EXAMINATION PLAN FOR TESTIMONY OF THOMAS J. ADLER ON ETEs l AND ON RETURNING COMMOTERS AS TO ETEs:
- 1. The witness will be qusstioned as to the precise l provisions of NUREG-0654 he relies upon for his assertions that the report on how ETEs are done must be in the SPMC (pp.
5 ff.) and his assertions as to the requirement for special facility ETEs in this case (p.21). .
- 2. The opinion that traffic guides cannot move traffic as efficiently as police officers in the setting involved will be explored. -
- a. The witness will be asked whether his entire basis for this opinion is the material on pages 14-15.
- b. Assuming it is he will be asked to justify his position tnat state police officers can 1 _. - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ - - -
a f 1 u
"diapatch" persons making inquiries more-l Y
i
- efficiently than a traffic. guide.
- c. He will be asked to justify how he assumes that police officers will be able to maintain the 70 second green time better than a traffic
. guide without a stop watch.
, 1. Note that police officers do not generally carry stop watches.
T 2. According to Dr. Adler, the police
; . 1 i
officer will have no more knowledge that . a 75 second'grsen time has to be ] maintained =than~does the traffic guide.
- 3. The assertions as to the~ siren system-on page-10 !
will be explored. In particular the witness will be asked to. Justify his assertions as to delay assuming that.NUREG-0654 is met'by the VANS system.- ; a
- 4. The witness will be questioned as to whether he 4 1
really believes use of the 56% figure for shadow svacuation2 (see p. 11) as opposed to 25% - 50% really makes any , difference.
- 5. The witness will be questioned as to the real o significance of his one hour addition to an already existing 10 hour ETE. (See pp. 20-21).
- 6. The issue of.the benefit to be actually derived from his' beach population monitoring system will be explored.-
._ AS TO RETURNING COMMUTERS:-
i ,
\ gi_, . . ~ . . .- . _ - -- -.._ __ _ ..... _ . . -.. . ,__.._ ,m
- 7. His basis for believing that modeling of commuter traffic flows is "possible as a modest extension of the ETE !
work completed to date" will b explored. (1 3).
- 8. Inquiry will be made as to whether Dr. Adler believes that modeling returning commuters would ever result in shortening the ETEs in a peak or near peak situation.
- 9. Inquiry will be made as to why Dr. Adler assumes ,
that if commuters are delayed by evacuees, this means that evacuees must be delayed by commuters. Respectfully submitted,
- A; v
~
~
I
\
l Thomas G. D ignan, Jr. George H. Lewald Kathryn A. Selleck , Jeffrey P. Trout ) Jay Bradford Smith '
~
Geoffrey C. Cook William Parker i Ropes & Gray One Inte. rational Place Boston, ".; 02110-2624 (617) 95;c-7000 counsel for Applicants 4
. 9
l 1 ->
- t M
9 a i l l l l 9 I i ' 4
)
a
- , - . . ...w- , . . . . , . . , . . . . - . . .. .
I 1 I ol [ CERTIFICATE l This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the j United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of: , Name: Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al. (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) o Docket No: 50-443-OL 50-444-OL (Off-site Emergency Planning) Place: Boston, Massachusetts I Date: June 20, 1989 ; were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission taken stenographically by me and, thereafter reduced to. typewriting by me or under the ) i direction of the court reporting company, and that the I transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing
*l proceedings.
/S/ J . Y (Signature typed) : Donna L. Cook Official Reporter Heritage Reporting Corporation
( HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION (202)628-4888 __-__ .a}}