ML20246A148
| ML20246A148 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 06/30/1989 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#389-8877 ASLBP, OL, NUDOCS 8907060167 | |
| Download: ML20246A148 (139) | |
Text
-
s.
1 I
- i.
UNITED STATES s
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION OR G N A_
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i
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
\\
Pages:
28185 through 28296 Place:
Boston, Massachusetts Date:
June 30, 1989 TR 0/
0I ACFh4 HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION l
k 40 Sgua OpidsfReportarr l
NO 1229 L Street, N.W., Sake 608 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 62H888 J
4
'G907060167 890650
~
' * * ~
f'Dn ADOCK 05000443 d
FN
28185 f~ ~N UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i-ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of:
)
)
Docket Nos.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
50-443-OL o
NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.,
)
50-444-OL
)
OFF-SITE EMERGENCY (SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2)
)
PLANNING e
EVIDENTIARY HEARING
- Friday, June 30, 1989 Tax Court Hearing Room Thomas P.
O'Neill, Jr.
Federal Building 10 Causeway Street Boston, Massachusetts em(,)
The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to notice, at 8:33 a.m.
BEFORE:
JUDGE IVAN W.
SMITH, CHAIRMAN Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 JUDGE KENNETH A. McCOLLOM, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission j
Washington, D.C.
20555 JUDGE RICHARD F.
COLE, MEMBER Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 a
1 l
1 1
(.m
(
)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 N-1
l 1
28186 l
APPEARANCES:
For the Aeolicants:
.]
i THOMAS G. DIGNAN, JR.,
ESO.
I GEORGE H.
LEWALD, ESQ.
l I
KATHRYN A.
SELLECK, ESQ.
JAY BRADFORD SMITH, ESQ.
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 For the Federal Emeraency 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 Massachusetts:
JAMES M.
SHANNON, ATTY. GEN.
JOHN C.
TRAFICONTE, ASST. ATTY. GEN.
ALLAN R. FIERCE, ASST. ATTY. GEN.
i PAMELA TALBOT, ASST. ATTY. GEN.
MATTHEW BROCK, ESQ.
LESLIE B. GREER, ESQ.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108 1
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 m.m.__
28187 APPEARANCES:
(Continued) f,em)
%J
.For the State of New Hampshire:
GEOFFREY M. HUNTINGTON, ASST. ATTY. GEN.
State of New Hampshire 25 Capitol Street Concord, New Hampshire 03301 For 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 Amesbury:
BARBARA J. SAINT ANDRE,.ESQ.
/N Kopelman and Paige, P.C.
()
77 Franklin Street l
Boston, Massachusetts WILLIAM LORD Town Hall
.Amesbury, Massachusetts 10913 For the City of Haverhill and Town of Merrimac:
I r
ASHOD N. AMIRIAN, ESQ.
P.
O. Box 38 Bradford, Massachusetts 01835 For the City of Newburyoort:
BARBARA J.
SAINT ANDRE, ESO.
JANE O'MALLEY, ESQ.
Kopelman and Paige, P.C.
77 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts 02110 i
I l-.,em i
Heritage Reporting Corporation s
(202) 628-4888 1
28188
{
APPEARANCES:
(Continued) l For t.ie Town of Newburv:
R.
SCOTT HILL-WHILTON, ESQ.
Lagoulis, Clark, Hill-Whiltor & McGuire 79 State Street Newburyport, Massachusetts 01950
~
For the Town of Salisbury:
CHARLES P.
GRAHAM, ESQ.
Murphy and Graham
.3 Low Street
'::awburyport, Massachusetts 01950 For the Town of West Newbury:
JUDITH H. MIZNER, ESQ.
Second Floor 79 State Street Newburyport, Massachusetts 01950 For the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board:
ROBERT R.
PIERCE, ESQUIRE Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 I,
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
o
' y;b v.
'28189 l ['t 1 H D.E K.
^#).
q WITNESSES:
DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS EXAM
' Witness'
' Thomas J.
Adler
' (Prefiled) 28198
. by Mr. Fierce 28196.
.~
by Mr. Dignan 28199
- by Mr. Turk 28202 by Mr.'Dignan 28228-
- by Mr. Turk 28236 by Judge' Cole 28238
. by Mr. Fierce 28242 by Mr. Dignan 28251' by.Mr. Turk 28259 (Prefiled) 28262 by Mr.. Fierce 28260 by Mr. Dignan 28263 by Mr.' Turk 28265 by Mr. Fierce 28272
.y
.{
..s EXHIBITS:
IDENT.
REC.
REJ.
DESCRIPTION:
. (No exhibits.)
a.
l l
r 4
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
___-___._________.2,-_________.,
_______.__._m
28190 1EQEX INSERTS:
PAGE t
Revised Rebuttal Testimony of 28198
~
Dr. Thomas J. Adler on behalf of Massachusetts Attorney General re: Interaction of Commuter Flow and Evacuation Traffic Flow within the Seabrook EPZ Testimony of Dr. Thomas J. Adler 28262 on behalf of the Massachusetts Attorney General concerning j
JI-56, reception center parking I
I Joint Stipulation regarding 28285 pre-emergency information issues Stipulation regarding METPAC 28286 6-30-89 i
O l
l
)
l I
4
~1 l
l l
Heritage Reporting Corporation i
(202) 628-4888 L_-
28191
' "'N 1
E B Q G E E D.J_ H G f.
(
)
'w/
2 JUDGE SMITH:
Good morning.
3 Is there any preliminary business?
4 MR. DIGNAN:
Yes, Your Honor.
5 We have two stipulations that have been entered, 6
and if Your Honor and the Board approve them, I would 7
suggest they be bound into the record at this point.
8 One is a stipulation, the METPAC stipulation which 9
Mr. Traficonte mentioned.
10 The other is the stipulation with respect to pre-11 emergency information issues which, in effect, takes out of 12 the case all of JI-39, except Basis A thereof.
This is one 13 I think we also indicated to the Board would be forthcoming.
- /~'g 14 And what I was planning to do is present them to 15 you.
If the Board approves them, they could maybe just be i
16 bound in the record would be the easiest thing so everybody 17 would have a copy and it would be in the record of the 18 proceedings.
19 JUDGE SMITH:
That's fine.
20 Mr. Turk, I noticed the Staff has not joined in 21 this stipulation.
22 MR. TURK:
I was not consulted while it was being i
23 drafted and really only saw the final product, Your Honor, 24 the pre-emergency information stipulation.
25 I have no objection to that one,
-ceg
)
Heritage Reporting Corporation N_-
(202) 628-4888 I
l l
1 l
J
1 I
i 28192 1
I have not yet seen the stipulation on METPAC.
1 2
(Pause. )
3 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Your Honor, while we're waiting 4
for Mr. Turk, I would just also mention that we are going 5
to, as soon as the copies arrive or at a convenient break, l
6 we're going to offer into evidence as an exhibit a blank set 7
of the FEMA EEM forms used to do exercise review.
8 You will recall that I had marked as exhibits, I 9
think, three separate portions of the EEM, and at that point 10 in the transcript indicated that I would want at some point 11 a complete set of blank sample EEM forms.
And I had 12 overlooked doing that and I caught it the other night.
And 13 we're making copies of that, and we would like it marked and
{
f 14 then I would offer it into evidence.
15 The easiest thing is probably give it a new 16 number, but it would include already marked exhibit numbers, 1
d 17 Mass AG exhibits.
It would include those.
18 JUDGE SMITH:
I don't have my exhibit records 1
19 here.
20 JUDGE COLE:
Well, the last number is 126.
21 MR. TRAFICONTE:
it would include at least Mass 22 AG's Exhibit No. 95, and I believe some additional ones 23 which I had never offered into evidence.
And I think the l
24 most convenient way to do it is just to bring it in and then 25 I would offer it as the next exhibit, and offer it into Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-488s l
28193 f-73 1
evidence.
1 x/
2 JUDGE SMITH:
It's probably 130, isn't it?
3 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Our records show that we have 4
126.
5 JUDGE SMITH:
So what is it you are offering, 127 6
now?
7 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Exhibit 127, which would be a 8
complete set of the FEMA EEM forms, exercise methodology 9
forms.
10 And just so everyone can find the locations in the 11 record, a portion of this document was marked as an exhibit 12 for identification No. 95.
13 JUDGE COLE:
On May 18th.
[]l 14 MR. TRAFICONTE:
On May 18th.
'\\',
15 JUDGE SMITH:
Which has never been offered.
16 MR. TRAFICONTE:
It was not offered purposefully.
17 JUDGE SMITH:
All right.
18 MR. BACHMANN:
I show an Exhibit 101.
I i
19 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Okay.
You are right.
I've just 20 located the same one.
I think we already have a number.
21 I think the way we did this was Exhibit No. 101 is 22 what I'm describing.
And at that point in the record I 23 promised I would actually produce it, and that was not done.
24 JUDGE SMITH:
And we already have it noted as 25 received.
i Heritage Reporting Corporation
\\-.
(202) 628-4888
l 28194 1
MR. TRAFICONTE:
It is received, yes.
2 All right, so we can change that.
We don't need a 3
new number.
That's what I couldn't find last night.
4 JUDGE SMITH:
So disregard 127.
It has not been 5
identified or anything.
~
6.
MR. TURK:
He is not offering it.
7 As I understand, the offer of these EEMs is now 8
withdrawn.
9 MR. TRAFICONTE:
In fact, I had not checked this 10 portion.
11 JUDGE SMITH:
All he's doing is supplying the 12 copies as required.
13 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Yes.
(
14 JUDGE SMITH:
There is no evidentiary ruling made 15 or required.
All he's doing is conforming to the rule.
16 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Yes, that's right.
17 JUDGE COLE:
That's MAG 101?
18 MR. TRAFICONTE:
It is MAG 101 which was offered 19 and admitted.
That's right.
20 JUDGE COLE:
Yes.
21 JUDGE SMITH:
Okay.
22 MR. TURK:
Your Honor, on the stipulations, I 23 would like to ask that during the morning recess I be given 24 a few minutes to review them.
25 JUDGE SMITH:
All right.
l l
I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
)
1 I
l
28195 r~N 1
Okay, we have on our bench this morning three kN/
2 copies of a motion for the Board to accept an exhibit.
l l
3 A quick perusal indicates that they are the same exhibits 4
orally offered by Ms. Greer yesterday, as to which the Board 5
directed her to do it in writing.
6 We are not receiving these service of these 7
exhibits this morning, not even courtesy copies of them.
8 The methodology followed by Ms. Greer is very 9
unorthodox, to bring such a significant matter to the 10 Board's attention and seek to have it received into evidence 11 at the closing moments of-the hearing.
The significance of 12 the subject matter is very great.
13 Therefore, we are not going to handle it as we've
/N 14 handled, for the convenience of the parties, many motions 15 orally made spontaneously.
16 We are going to handle this in accordance with the 17 formal rules of the commission because of the importance and 18 significance of it and the lateness of it.
19 So I'm returning to you the courtesy copies.
We 20 are in no position to accept them.
21 (Document returned to Mass AG.)
22 23 24 25
- s-t Heritage Reporting Corporation
\\
(202) 628-4888 w
ADLER - DIRECT 28196 1
JUDGE SMITH:
We're ready for Dr. Adler then.
2 Is there any other preliminary business?
3 (No response) 4 Whereupon, 5
THOMAS J.
ADLER 6
having been previously duly sworn, was recalled as a witness 7
herein, and was examined and testified as follows:
8 MR. FIERCE:
Good morning, Your Honor.
9 It would be our intention to present Dr. Adler 10 first on the reception center parking piece, if that's the 11 pleasure of the Board and the other parties.
12 Do that one first?
13 MR. DIGNAN:
I wanted to do the ETE one first.
14 That's what I was setup to do.
15 MR. FIERCE:
It makes no difference to us.
16 JUDGE SMITH:
All right, take the ETEs then.
17 MR. FIERCE:
ETEs, okay.
18 DIRECT EXAMINATION 19 BY MR. FIERCE:
20 Q
Good morning, Dr. Adler.
21 A
(Adler)
Good morning.
i I
22 Q
Do you have before you a document which is 23 entitled, " Rebuttal Testimony of Dr. Thomas J. Adler on l
l 24 behalf of James M.
Shannon, Attorney General for the 25 Commonwealth of Massachusetts concerning interaction of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
I ADLER - DIRECT 28197
>-^s 1
commuter flow and evacuation traffic flow within the
(
I N
2 Seabrook EPZ," dated June 30th, 1989?
I l
3 A
(Adler)
Yes, I do.
4 Q
Do you recognize that document?
l 5
A (Adler)
Yes, I do.
)
6.
Q Is this the testimony that you have prepared for 7
this proceeding on that topic?
8 A
(Adler)-
Yes, it is.
l 9
Q I understand there are a couple of delineations of 10 changing the date and also a couple of the captions on the 11 diagrams.
12
.In that form, is this testimony true and correct 13 to the best of your knowledge and belief?-
/N 14 A
(Adler)
Yes, it is.
t 15 Q
And is this the testimony you would like to offer 16 into evidence in this proceeding this morning?
17 A
(Adler)
Yes, it is.
18 Q
All right.
19 MR. FIERCE:
At this time we would offer into 20 evidence and ask that it be bound into the record the 21 rebuttal testimony of Dr. Adler on this reception center 22 parking issue -- excuse me, the commuter traffic issue.
23 JUDGE SMITH:
Any objection?
24 MR. DIGNAN:
No objection, Your Honor.
25 JUDGE SMITH:
The testimony is received.
r
(
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
~ _
ADLER - DIRECT 28198 1
(Rebuttal testimony of 2
Thomas J. Adler on behalf 3
of Massachusetts Attorney l
4 General concerning 5
interaction of commuter flow 6
and evacuation traffic flow 7
within the Seabrook EPZ.
8 follows:)
9 i
10 11 12 13 14 7
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
]
22 I
1 23 J
l L
J 24 1
25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
7
...i.
I
-i
'f;m
\\
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L'%
ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD -
Before the Administrative Judges:
Ivan W. Smith, Chairperson Dr. Richard F. Cole Kenneth A.McCollom
- ~
In the Matterof
..PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF NEW Docket Nos.
50-443-444 OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
(Off-site EP)
O June
,1989
C U W-( REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF DR. THOMAS J. ADLER ON BE OF JAMES M. SHANNON, A*ITORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
.jN COMhiONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSE7TS,
.Q CONCERNING INTERACTION OF COMMUTER FLOW AND EVACUATION TRAFFIC FLOW WITHIN THE SEABROOK EPZ Department of the Attorney General Commonwealth of Massachusetts One Ashburton Place Boston, Massachusetts 02108-1698 (617) 727 2200 I
i O
C rm b
j 1
j f
1.1DENTIFICAT10N OF WITNESS I
- Q. -
What is your name and current occupation?
q a
A, My name is Thomas J. Adler and I am President of Resource Systems Group of lNorwich, Vermont.
q LQ.
' Are your professional qualifications as set fonh in the testimony and attachments j
filed for this case on September 14,1987 and summarized in testimony submitted on February 21,.
1989?
(.:
A.
Yes, they are.
1
?
II. TESTIMONY
. Q.
Have you had an opportunity to review the Supplement to Applicants' Rebuttal-4, Testimony No.16, as submitted on June 13,19897 -
A.
Yes, I have. That testimony seeks to address the somehat narrow issue over which f : the Board has retained jurisdiction by focussing on the impact on ETE's of returning commuters
\\
whose trips pass through cenain critical intersections or along constraining roadway sections used
, by beach area evacuees. We were provided both with a written copy of that testimony and with additional technical materials supporting the analyses described in the testimony. Specifically, the Applicants provided printed and computer readable copies of output from the IDYNEV sensitivity run described in the testimony and a supplementary " link node" map that serves as an index to the outputs.
-Q.
Would you begin by summarizing briefly your understanding of the Applicants' June 13,1989 Supplemental Testimony?
A.
That supplemental testimony includes sections which: 1) identify the focus of '
analysis as being on the effects of commuter traffic on " critical paths" which are defined generally as those evacuation routes which constrain evacuation times,2) describe why a representation of commuter flows through all parts of the network may be unnecessary and represent that the effects f
of commuter flows are accounted for by an area wide 15% capacity reduction factor,3) describe 1
l Ad!ct Rewming Comnwters RebutW 2
" preliminary analyses" which estimate the effects of commuter traffic on ETE's,4) describe a
" sensitivity study" modeling these effects directly in IDYNEV, and 5) present a comparison between the commuter database compiled from a survey conducted in 1987 by Social Data Analysts for the Massachusetts Attorney General and commuter data derived from KLD's 1985 survey.
Q.
Do you agree with the chosen focus on " critical paths"?
A.
I agree that, in practice, the most important effects of commuter traffic flows in the Seabrook EPZ will be along a limited number of evacuation routes. While it would be desirable conceptually to include explicit representation of all commuter traffic flows, the chosen focus on a limited number of constrained paths is a practical and cost-effective altemative which, if properly applied, can accurately represent effects on ETE's.
Q.
Do you agree that it would be substantially more effort to model all commuter traffic i
flows than to model selected, major flows?
i A.
At this point, for the Seabrook EPZ, yes, I do.
Q.
Do you believe that the effects of returning commuters are adequately accounted in the use of a 15% highway capacity reduction factor 7 f
1 A.
As reiterated in the Applicants' Supplement to Rebuttal Testimony No.16 (page 8),
)
)
this capacity reduction factor was originally applied to "intermpted flow" facilities to account for j
i the effects of driver uncertainty and shon-term disruptions during an evacuation. Intenuptions in congested traffic flow caused by vehicles which mn out of gas, become overheated, or otherwise become disabled by accidents, by drivers stopping to ask for directions or obtain information about the evacuation, and by the unfamiliarity of drivers with the mutes are not amenable to explicit i
modeling but could cenainly account for the full 15% capacity reduction. The effects of retuming commuters, on the other hand, are simply additions to the traffic stream that can be modeled directly. In my opinion, it would be prudent to use the 15% reduction factor to account for all uncertainties which are not amenable to modeling and to estimate the ETE effects of returning l
commuters using properly executed sensitivity runs.
l I
Adler Returning Commuters Rebunal i
[
3 I
b C
Q.
Do you agree with the preliminary analyses outlined in Applicants' Supplement to Rebuttal Testimony No.16, pages 12 to 25?
A.
I agree ' hat it is possible, in concept, to develop a mugh estimate of the effects of returning commuters by the types of calculations presented, but I disagree with several very imponant details of the calculations presented. For example, at the bottom of page 16 the Applicants assert that, at the Rt.1/Rt.1 A/Rt. I10/Mudnock Rd. intersection in Salisbury, it is appropriate to consider the effects of only the commuter trips fmm the south since commuters l
heading nonh and south will " time share the intersection and the numberof trips from the nonh is l
lower. This would be an appropriate assumption if the intersection were managed by a traffic signal or by an efficient traffic guide system. However, during the portion of the evacuation (the i
first two hours) for which commuter flows are highest, this intersection will be unstaffed by traf guides and will operate with existing traffic controls. The existing traffic contmls allow free movement along Rt. I nonh and south but have stop sign control for traffic eastbound and westbound along Rt.1 A. Thus, for the first two hours until the guides arrive, each carload of westbound Salisbury Beach evacuees will have to stop and wait for gaps in the total nonh south traffic before proceeding. This means that the capacity for this evacuation route could be reduced by as much as the total of the nonh plus south Rt. I commuter traffic. Funber, the lost and clearance times for Rt. l A traffic will be even much greater than assumed in the Applicants' analyses which have given the same priority to westbound Rt. I A traffic as to the Rt. I traffic. In other words, in their analyses most of the vehicles heading westbound on Rt. l A do not stop at the Salisbury Square intersection. In actuality, a great deal of time will be lost by this traffic stream when each vehicle stops at the stop sign there. Together, these effects will more than double the l
extent of capacity reduction calculated by the Applicants.
}
In the Town of Hampton calculations (beginning page 19), the Applicants use 641 inter-town internal commuters as the base for calculations, based on their 1985 survey data. The more f
g recent survey conducted by consultants to the Massachusetts Attorney General shows over 1800 x
such commuters, a difference of almost three-fold. (See Attachment F to the Supplement to
{
Adler Retuming Commuters Rebut'al 4
Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No.16.) Accounting for only this difference would increase the computed effects on lost capacity to over 15%. Several other points included in the Applicants' discussion of Hampton commuters deserve funher comment. First, on page 20 to 21, they note
{
that Rt.101C is not a critical path for Region 13, Scenario 3; that Rt. I congestion spillback effects from evacuations of Nonh Hampton, Rye and Ponsmouth cause the Rt.101C capacity constraint.
{
If this is the case, then Portsmouth commuters, which comprise the largest single concentration in the EPZ, should also be modeled. The Applicants' testimony assens that Routes 101C and 101D
~
s;e more likely to be used by commuters than is Rt. 51 because the former roads would be less i
q congested. This assenion is contradicted by the Applicants' previous IDYNEV runs which show Routes 101C and luiD being heavily congested through the period when commuters would be attempting to mtum home. (Recall that the beach closing occurs before employees are advised to return home.)
Q.
Did you have an opponunity to review the IDYNEV sensitivity study reported on e
pages 28 to 36 of the Applicants' Supplement to Rebuttal Testimony No.16,7 A.
Yes,I did. Sufficient information was provided by the Applicants,in addition to the written testimony, to permit me to review the assumptions made and the detailed outputs from that study, Q.
Do you agree with the assumptions and inputs to IDYNEV used in that study?
A.
Although I was unable to replicate all of the inputs provided to IDYNEV,I was able to verify that the general methodology used to represent retuming commuters is an appropriate one.
. However, there are four specific inputs which I believe should be corrected. First, the Rt.1/Rt.
1 A/Rt.110/Mudnock Rd. intersection is modeled during the early stages of the evacuation when the intersection is unstaffed as allowing direct movements without stop control on Rt. I A westbound. This problem was discussed earlier in this testimony. Second, at this same intersection, Rt.110 west of the intersection is modeled as having two lanes westbound (for evacuees) and one lane eastbound (for retuming commuters) when, in fact, it has only a two-lane total cross section just to the west of the intersection. Third, the capacity reduction factor was 4
Adler Returning Commuters Rebuttal
-5
/%
decreased from 15% to 10% on alllinks. Even if one does not agree with me that this fraction should be retained to cover other effects (see above), there are twoproblems with doing this; 1) the capacities are now overestimated for expressway ramps and mainlines for which the 15% capacity reduction was intended to represent actual deterioration of flow under congested conditions, and 2) this increase in roadway capacity confounds the comparison of ETE's with and without commuters,in effect masking a 5% ETE increase in the retuming commuters run. And fourth, the number of Hampton commuters used is only one-third the number identified in the more recent Massachusetts Attomey General's survey. This last item, in panicular, is quite imponant in terms of the effects on ETE's.
Q.
If these four factors were properly accounted, would the effect of retuming commuters on ETE's be amplified?
A.
Yes, it would, panicularly if the full population of Hampton commuters were added.
s Q.
Did you conduct a more detailed comparison of the IDYNEV outputs from equivalent Region 13, Scenario 3 runs with and without returning commuters.
A.
Yes, I did. I mentioned earlier that we were provided detailed outputs from these runs, and with those outputs were able to constniet a more detailed portrayal of the effects of retuming commuters, as modeled by KLD.
Q.
Would you please describe these effects?
A.
As correctly noted in the Applicants' testimony (page 36) the overall ETE increased i
from 6:00 to 6:05 after commuters were added to the network. (As I noted earlier, the 6:05 includes an effective 5% capacity increase; were an apples-to-apples comparison made, the retuming commuters scenario ETE would be approximately 6:25.) This relatively small change in overall ETE, however, presents only part of the picture; there are significant changes in the evacuation times for critical beach areas and for the Massachusetts portion of the EPZ caused by the addition of retuming commuters even as modeled by the Applicants' consultant. For example, the Applicants' own I DYNEV output files indicate that the ETE for the Massachusetts portion of i
a
Adler Retuming Commuters Rebunal 6
the 5 mile ring increases from 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> to 6 hours6.944444e-5 days <br />0.00167 hours <br />9.920635e-6 weeks <br />2.283e-6 months <br /> - an increase of 20%. Funhermore, the
\\
Applicants' output files indicate substantial changes in the rates at which the beach areas evacuate when the effects of return commuters are included. Figures 1,2, and 3 compare the "with commuter" and "without commuter" fractions of beach traffic remaining in the Salisbury, Seabrook, and Hampton (south of Rte 51) Beach areas for each hour after a simultaneous beach closing in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. As shown by the Applicants'own sensitivity run the presence of return commuter traffic significantly reduces the rates at which the beach areas can be evacuated during the first 3 to 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> of an evacuation. These runs show the following changes in Beach area ETE's:
Beach Ana ETE's (relative to OTE)
O Deach A ma w/o Commuters w/ Commuten ETE Inemase Salisbury 4 Hrs 30 Mins 5 Hrs 35 Mins 24 %
Seabrook 4 Hrs 45 Mins 5 Hrs 45 Mins 21 %
Hampton 5 Hrs 5 Mins 5 Hrs 50 Mins 15 %
These changes in ETE's indicate that the umbrella assumptions currently being used to represe the effects of commuter flows mask imponant effects. Clearly, the inclusion in these runs ofjus limited portion of the total return commuter traffic bears out the claim that more explicit (but still shon of complete) modeling of all commuter traffic is required to adequately anticipate the effects of these conflicting flows.
Q.
Do you believe that ETE's based on the modeling of returning commuters as demonstrated by the type of sensitivity stucy Applicants have now done, shoulc! be incorporate i
into the NHRERP and the SPMC7 Yes, more explicit modeling of returning commuters should be incorporated in a A.
- - - - - - ---~ ~
~
~ ~
.A$ct Returidr,g Commeers Rebuttal 7
r IC revised base run for all scenarios and regions. The results presented in NHRERP Vol. 6 should be updated, as appropriate. ". 2: ef ETE': fr t ~:
6[I'i 87
- 1: ::_
'- d d '-
i,memJ im :Jm.~. '
. i;' :x - ' -i The methodology used by KLD for the commuter sensitivity study appears to be an appropriate one and, with the changes in input assumptions n earlier (including some representation of Ponsmouth commuters), would produce more reliabic ETE's.
1
.I\\s l
1 O
\\
O Region 13 Scenario 3 1.0 0.9 0.8
= = =.
Fraction of 0.6 Vehicles 0.5 Remaining Alongr ::
o 0.2 0.1 0.0 i
i i" i' i" "
i m..n.gg,;,7 Figure 1 O
1 O
Region 13 Scenario 3 1.0 0.9 0.8
- =':.
Fraction of 0.6 Vehicles Flemalning 0.5 Seabrook Beach 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 i
i i
i i
i 0
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
Time afterM( u)
Figure 2 O
9 Region 13 Scenario 3 1.0 0.9 0.8 E w/o mu ers Fraction of 0.6 Vehicles Remaining 0.5 j
Along Hampton Beach 0.3 0.2 0.1 0.0 0
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
Time etterm(H re Figure 3 9:
ADLER - CROSS 28199' f
MR. FIERCE:
I do have extra copies for anyone who -
.f-
's
_.1
-\\
'2 does not have ituyet.
-3 MR. DIGNAN:
May I proceed,' Your Honor.
q
.l 4
JUDGE SMITH:
Yes, please.
5
. CROSS-EXAMINATION-iq 6
BY MR'. DIGNAN:
7 Q
Dr. Adler, this is going to be a fairly brief.
l I
8 cross-examination; I simply want to be'sure I understand I
9 certain things-about the testimony.
10-As I understand on page 4 you have quarrel with j
11 the methodology Mr. Lieberman used in the sensitivity runs 12 that he made; is that right?
13 A
(Adler).That's correct, for addressing the issue 14 as he defined:it.
- f 15-Q And as I understand on page.5 you are saying that.
16 : '
you also have no quarrel with Mr. Lieberman's conclusion 17 that the ETE-for Region 13 increases by only five minutes, 18-assuming only a 10 percent capacity reduction is used; you 19 do not quarrel with that aspect of it?
l 20 A
(Adler)
That's correct.
21 Q
By the way, could you describe for us what you 22 understand Region 13 to be?
23 A
(Adler)
Region 13 is an evacuation of the entire l
24 Massachusetts portion of the EPZ and an evacuation of a 25 portion of the New Hampshire EPZ; primarily Seabrook and
}
t Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
ADLER - CROSS 28200 1
Hampton.
2 Q
It's, in effect, a keyhole type evacuation; is it 3
not?
4 A
(Adler)
Yes, that's right.
5 Q
And it's a 5-mile ring around the plant then with 6
the blade of the key extending out to ten miles in a 7
southward direction.
8 A
(Adler)
In Massachusetts, yes.
9 Q
Right.
10 Now, I also understand you are saying that if, as 11 you believe should have been done, the 15 percent assumption 12 was incorporated rather than a 10 percent.
13 It is then your judgment that the ETE would 14 increase an additional 20 minutes for this area; is that 15 right?
16 A
(Adler)
Approximately, yes.
17 Q
Now, you on page 6 give another bunch of ETEs.
18 one is up at the top of the page.
You give one 19 for the Massachusetts area Region 13; right?
20 A
(Adler)
Yes.
21 Q
And then you give some for certain towns?
22 A
(Adler)
They're actually for certain beach areas 23 rather than towns.
24 Q
Now, what you are noting there is that when you 25 put the commuters into Region 13 as a whole you redistribute k
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
ADLER - CROSS
'28201
/~' ?
1 the last man out.
That l's to say: while the overall ETE
\\s-2
'only increases by 5 or in yourLjudgment 25 minutes,~where 3
the last man out comes from changes; 'isn't that'right?
4 Isn't that what you're pointing out?
5I A
(Adler)
Yes, in part.
6
'O Right.
7 Now, Doctor, even though you have, for example, 8
noted on page 6 that the ETE for-the Salisbury. Beach area.
9 would go up by 24 percent, that is the ETE of the. Salisbury 10 area assuming that what one is doing is evacuating all of 11 Region-13; correct?
12 A-(Adler). That's the assumption'in'the run, yes.
'13 0
You don't mean to imply that if a run had been 14 done only for an evacuation of Salisbury and nothing else; A
15 and then commuters had been put in you would up-the ETE by 16 24 percent?
17 A
(Adler)
I haven't done that run; no.
18 Q
Okay.
19 And you are aware that the PARS are ordered by.
20 regions rather than towns, are you not?
21 A
(Adler)
I understand that; yes.
22 Q
All right.
23 MR. DIGNAN:
That's all I believe I have, Your 24 Honor.
25 JUDGE SMITH:
Do you have any questions?
y
]
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
ADLER - CROSS 28202 1
MR. TURK:
Thank you, Your Honor.
2 CROSS-EXAMINATION 3
BY MR. TURK:
4 Q
Dr. Adler, I would like to ask you something about 5
the testimony which appears on the bottom of page 2.
6 You indicate that interruptions in congested 7
traffic flow caused by various listed reasons could 8
certainly account for the full 15 percent capacity 9
reduction.
10 A
(Adler)
Yes.
11 Q
Are you saying that necessarily would happen?
12 A
(Adler)
That it would necessarily happen on all 13 roads, a 15 percent reduction would occur?
14 No, it wouldn't necessarily happen on all roads.
15 Q
It's just possible that it would happen in some 16 places?
17 A
(Adler)
I believe it's likely it would happen in 18 many places; yes.
19 Q
But you're not saying that we need to apply a full 20 15 percent capacity reduction on all roads then?
21 A
(Adler)
Not on all roads.
22 And, in fact, it is not applied on all roads.
It 23 kicks in when a road becomes very congested, the 15 percent 24 reduction factor.
And I believe under congested flow 1
i 25 conditions the roads that are very congested, the 15 percent l
l l
~
Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888
j l
1 ADLER'- CROSS.
28203' f
1 reduction isn't indeed appropriate.
2 Q
And then you say the effects of returning 3
commuters on the other hand are' simply additions to the l
4 traffic stream that can be modeled directly.
j 5
A.
(Adler)
Yes.
6
.Q And you're suggesting, I take it, that that 1
)
7 modeling be done rather than including returning commuters
.{
8 in any kind of a capacity reduction factor?-
9 A
(Adler)
Yes, as Mr. Lieberman did in this run.
I 10 11-12-13
[
14 X
-15 16 l
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
ADLER - CROSS 28204 1
Q So that last sentence on that page, then, on that 2
page where it says, "It would be prudent to use the 15 3
percent reduction factor to account for all uncertainties 4
which are not amenable to modeling and to estimate the ETE 5
effects of returning commuters using properly executed 6
sensitivity runs," you are not saying that the 15 percent 7
would apply to those two clauses in the sentence.
8 I take it the "and" which you have in italics is a 9
separate concept.
10 A
(Adler)
What I was intending to state there was 11 that it would be appropriate to add returning commuters,.and 12 in addition, apply the same 15 percent reduction factor 13 that's been used in earlier runs of the model.
p 14 Q
Have you done any modeling apart from reviewing 15 Mr. Lieberman's modeling for returning commuters?
i 16 A
(Adler)
On the returning commuters, we did do 17 some modeling early on; that is, in reviewing the New 18 Hampshire plan in the New Hampshire plan proceedings.
We l
19 had done a limited amount of modeling of returning i
20 commuters.
21 Q
When you say "a limited amount", can you describe j
22 what you did?
23 A
(Adler)
It was very selective.
We looked at a j
24 couple of what we considered to be key locations and added 25 commuter volumes onto those, not as explicitly has Mr.
j l
l 5 Heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888 i
!L__----
t ADLER-- CROSS 28205
- -, i 1
Lieberman has done in the runs that are presented in his 4
testimony.
's 2
3 Q
So Mr. Lieberman has done a more extensive, more 4-appropriate modeling than your early modeling?
5 A
(Adler)
Yes.
~
6 Q
Why didn't you continue your efforts?
7 A
(Adler)
We at the time were simply attempting to 8
demonstrate that returning commuters would in fact have an 9
effect on ETES, and believed that we had demonstrated that.
10 Q
You didn't attempt to demonstrate exactly to what 11 extent the effect would exist, what the magnitude of the 12 effect would be?
13 A-(Adler)
We demonstrated that the magnitude was
- 9}
14 sufficient to warrant, we believe, further effort.
' '/
i 15 Q
And you believe that further effort'is needed now?
16-A (Adler)
I believe, as I state in this testimony, 17 that the runs that Mr. Lieberman has done are by and large 18 appropriate methodology.
That some modest extensions of 19 what's been done and some adjustment of some of the 20 parameters might, as well, be appropriate.
21 Q
And you want him to go out and do that work?
22 A
(Adler)
I'm not wanting anybody to do anything.
23 I'm just suggesting it to the Board.
24 Q
Well, what I'm curious about, Dr. Adler, is why i
25 haven't you undertaken the job?
(
)
Heritage Reporting Corporation
's
/
(202) 628-4888 I
i I
f l
l ADLER - CROSS 28206 I
L 1
A (Adler)
Our assignment with the Massachusetts I
2 Attorney General wasn't to complete an ETE study for the 3
Seabrook evacuation.
4 Q
They didn't ask you to model returning commuters l
1 5
in order to show the effects, is that right?
6 A
(Adler)
They asked us to show the effects.
7 O
To show an example of the effects?
8 A
(Adler)
Yes.
9 Q
But not the magnitude?
10 A
(Adler)
The approximate magnitude, which is what 11 we attempted to do.
12 Q
So you are now saying that your early modeling did j
13 show the approximate magnitude of the effect.
14 A
(Adler)
It showed that the effect could be an 15 important effect.
It didn't model for all ERPAs.
It didn't 16 model the complete EPZ.
It modeled sections of the EPZ.
17 Q
Limited sections?
18 A
(Adler)
Yes.
19 0
Very limited?
20 A
(Adler)
Yes.
21 Q
Would it have been a considerable task for you to 22 do a full-scale job?
23 A
(Adler)
Given that we didn't have access to the 24 data that were collected on roadways, all of the site visits 25 that had been done, the notes of the site visits that had Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 ADLER - CROSS 28207 I
px I
b'en conducted by KLD staff, it would have been a fair
\\w ')-
(
2 amount of effort for us to complete the recording of the 3
network and to conduct the run.
4 We'were also limited in that we had a version.of 5
the model which was limited in the number'of links and nodes 3
6 that it could handle, and we would have exceeded that 7-capacity very rapidly.
8 Q
You didn't go out and collect your own data?
9 A
(Adler)
We didn't collect data to the extent that 10 KLD did.
KLD did a multi-day site visit, recorded 11 geometrics of all of the roadways in the area and all of the 12 intersections.
And we certainly didn't undertake that level-13 of effort.
j/~'
14 We did travel through all of the areas modeled by
\\_
15 KLD and verified the basic parameters that were used in 16 their runs, but we didn't collect any data that would be 17-extensive enough to undertake a full modeling of the 18 returning commuters issue.
19 Q
If the Mass AG was to ask you to please go out now 20 and do a full-scale modeling effort to show all of the 21 returning commuters in the EPZ --
22 MR. FIERCE:
Who's paying for it, Mr. Turk?
1 23 MR. TURK:
We'll get to that.
I 24 BY MR. TURK:
I 25 Q
And to present your results, how much effort would
/
(
Beritage Reporting Corporation i
\\-
(202) 628-4888
l ADLER - CROSS 28208 1
be involved?
1 2
A (Adler)
Rough order of magnitude, I would say 3
five or six person months for all commuters aggregated to a 4
reasonable extent; not for all origins and destinations of 5
commuters.
That would simply be not feasible.
6 Q
I'm sorry, for not?
7 A
(Adler)
To model all origins and all destinations 8
of all commuters, as Mr. Lieberman points out in his 9
testimony, isn't feasible.
One would have to aggregate to 10 some extent to do that kind of representation.
11 Q
So what would take you five to six person months?
12 A
(Adler)
Rough estimate, yes.
13 We've never really sat down and --
y 14 Q
No.
15 What would take five to six person months?
16 A
(Adler)
To do the modeling of returning commuters 17 at a level of aggregation which would model the major 18 origins and major destinations of all commuters in the EPZ.
19 Q
And if the Mass AG had asked you to do that, you 20 would be willing to do it?
21 A
(Adler)
If they had asked us to do it, we would 22 be willing to do it assuming that we had, again, access to 23 the model, the I-DYNEV model in a way that would have 24 allowed us to extend the model in its dimensions to make 25 that effort possible with I-DYNEV.
b Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
y[
'I, ADLER CROSS 28209-
=1-
.Q Has anyone ever precluded you.or told'you;you 2'
would not be granted' access to I-DYNEV?
J 3
A (Adler)
No.
4
-5'
<.+;
6
'.7-8 9-10' 11:
12-13-14 15' 16
'17 18 19 20 21 22
. 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 626-4888
_1___._______----_-_..____
ADLER - CROSS 28210 1
Q There's a reference in your testimony on page 3, 2
and I believe it appears later as well, this is at the 3
bottom of page 3 4
A (Adler)
Yes.
5 Q
You say:
"The more recent survey conducted by 6
consultants to the Massachusetts Attorney General shows over 7
1800 such commuters," and I assume those are inter-town 1
8 internal commuters.
9 And you say:
"It's a difference of almost three-10 fold from the Applicants numbers."
11 A
(Adler)
Yes.
12 Q
What is the survey you're referring to?
13 A
(Adler)
The survey is the survey conducted by j
14 Social Data Analysts, which I believe Dr. Cole presented in 15 part in the New Hampshire hearings.
16 MR. FIERCE:
That's Dr. Stephen Cole?
17 THE WITNESS:
(Adler)
Yes, sorry.
18 BY MR. TURK:
19 Q
No further work on it, just that reference -- the 20 work that was referenced in the New Hampshire testimony?
21 A
(Adler)
Yes.
22 Q
Am I correct, is that the survey where 23 approximately 1200 households were contacted?
24 A
(Adler)
Yes, that's my recollection.
25 Q
Since you've only got a 1200 household data base 9
Heritage Reporting Corporation t
(202) 628-4888
4 I
ADLER - CROSS 28211' j
f-'(
1 Land the fact that you're talking about 1800 such commuters,.
-(
2 I. assume that's an extrapolation.from~the data?
3-A (Adler)
Yes, it is.
4 Q
Magnified'out to an EPZ?'
i
-5' A
(Adler)
That's correct.
6
.Q Wide proportion?
7 A
'(Adler)
Yes.
8 Q.
And that's the same survey referred to in the f
9 first paragraph on page 5; isn't it?-
10 You say:
"That the number of Hampton commuters 11 uses only one-third the number identified in a more recent 12 Massachusetts Attorney General's survey?"
13 A
(Adler)
Yes.
14 Q
That's the same one.
('
15 Now, on that same page yon go on to discuss'a 16 '
Region 13, scenario 3 modeling effort.
17 Could.you refresh me on that: Region 13 is the 18 keyhole up to five miles?
1 19 A
(Adler)
In New Hampshire.
20 Q
In New Hampshire and Massachusetts?
21 A
(Adler)
The five miles is in New Hampshire and it 22 turns out to be the entire EPZ in Massachusetts.
23 0
Because, essentially, as Mr. Dignan was getting 24 into it that's the blade of the key?
25 A
(Adler)
Yes, that's right.
f(
Heritage Reporting Corporation N
(202) 628-4888 1
i
i ADLER - CROSS 28212 l
1 Q
So it includes both the 5-mile as well as all 2
Massachusetts towns out to ten miles?
3 A
(Adler)
Yes.
4 Q
And scenario 3 was which one?
5 A
(Adler)
Scenario 3 was midweek summer good 6
weather condition.
7 Q
And if I'm not mistaken that's the only region and 8
scenario that's referred to in your testimony; is that 9
correct?
10 A
(Adler)
It's the only region and scenario for 11 which the consultants to the Applicants completed a run with 12 the returning commuters.
13 Q
Am I right, it's the only one referred to in your
(
14 testimony?
15 A
(Adler)
And it's, I believe the only one referred 16 to in my testimony directly; yes.
17 Q
Did you make any effort to model for other regions 18 or scenarios?
19 A
(Adler)
As I indicated in the New Hampshire case 20 we did do limited modeling for some of the other regions and l
21 scenarios.
l 22 Q
That's not reflected in your testimony?
23 A
(Adler)
It is not reflected in this testimony; 24 no.
25 Q
Is it correct that the midweek summer good weather E
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
l i
I 1
l l
i
ADLER - CROSS 28213 1
scenario has the largest number of returning commuters as 92 opposed to a weekend or an evening scenario?
l l
3 A
(Adler)
It is lower than both weekend and evening 4
scenarios.
There are some scenarios which are nonsummer 5
scenarios which have, I believe, either the same number or 6
slightly more.
7 Q
No, you're not understanding my question.
8 In terms of the numbers of returning commuters.
9 A
(Adler)
Yes.
10 Q
Isn't the good wee.cher midweek scenario, the one 11 which has the largest number of commuters?
12 A
(Adler)
As I indicated, I don't recollect 13 specifically whether the ones that took place in the off-14 season had greater numbers of commuters because of the 15 vacation periods in the summer.
16 Q
Of course, chere's a large amount of business 17 that's summer-related in the seacoast area; isn't there?
18 A
(Adler)
It's a fair amount; yes.
19 Q
The hotels and motels are fully staffed?
20 A
(Adler)
Yes.
But relative to total regional 21 population it's really not that significant.
22 O
When you describe on the bottom of page 5 an 23 overall increase in the ETE of five minutes, and you say 24 that was correctly noted in the Applicants' testimony.
25 A
(Adler)
Yes.
9 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I 1
l ADLER - CROSS 28214 1
Q That again, is the same region and scenario; isn't i
i 2
it?
3 A
(Adler)
In this testimony the explicit references 4
in ETEs are all to Region 13, scenario 3; yes.
5 Q
Is it correct then, that if you're going to look 6
at an evening scenario there would be fewer commuters to add 7
to the network?
8 A
(Adler)
Certainly.
9 Q
So that you would expect less than this five 10 minute increase for an evening scenario?
11 A
(Adler)
Probably, yes, 12 Q
And the same for a weekend; isn't that right.
13 The weekend would have a lesser number of 14 commuters than midweek?
15 A
(Adler)
Yes.
16 Q
In that same paragraph you indicate -- essentially 17 what you' re saying there is an apples to oranges comparisor.
18 And if an apple to apple comparison was made, i.e.,
if a 15 19 percent capacity reduction factor was utilized in both 20 modeling efforts?
21 A
(Adler) Yes.
22 Q
Then you believe the ETE would be approximately 23 6-hours and 25 minutes; is that correct?
24 A
(Adler)
Yes.
l 25 Q
Did you do a run that showed that?
9i
~
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
j i
l ADLER - CROSS 28215 l
7/
l' A
(Adler)
I did not, no, d
\\-
2
'O Did the Applicants?
3 A
(Adler)
They did not do that rt.n, no. -
1 4
Q So this-is a rough estimate on your part?
i
'k 5
A (Adler)
'Yes, j
1 t
6 Q
It could be a little bit more or it could be a j
7 little bit less?
8 A
(Adler)
That's correct.
I 9
Q In the same paragraph you indicate that you looked
)
E10 at the Applicants' I-DYNEV output files.
11 And then you say:
"Those files indicate that.the 12-ETE for the Massachusetts portion for the 5-mile ring 13 increases from 5-hours to 6-hours, an increase of 20 f
14 percent."
15 Now, when you say the ETE for the Massachusetts 16 portion of the 5-mile ring, what towns or ERPAs are you 17 referring to?
18-A (Adler)
If you want ERPA letters, I would have to j
i 19 get my copy of volume 6.
The towns that I'm referring to 20 include Salisbury, I believe, and Amesbury.
)
21 Q
Does it include, also, the New Hampshire towns I
22 which are in the same regions, same ERPAs?
23 A
(Adler)
It is still the Region 13 evacuation f
)
24 meaning those towns are evacuating.
This evacuation time is 25 only for those Massachusetts towns within the 5-mile ring.
i i
i
)
Heritage Reporting Corporation N- '
(202) 628-4888 j
l 1
J
b ADLER - CROSS 28216 1
So it does not include Seabrook and Hampton in that respect.
t 2
Q Now, as I recall, the Applicants did not model for 3
Salisbury and Amesbury separately from other parts of the 4
EPZ that would be evacuated with them; is that correct?
5 A
(Adler)
They modeled an evacuation of all of 6
those towns together.
7 Q
Salisbury, Amesbury, and other towns?
8 A
(Adler)
And other towns in Massachusetts; yes.
k 9
0 Did you do a modeling effort for Salisbury and 10 Amesbury by themselves?
11 A
(Adler)
We did not, no.
12 Q
So when you say that the ETE for Salisbury and i
13 Amesbury increases from 5-hours to 6-hours, that's a rough
/
14 estimate on your part?
15 A
(Adler)
No, it comes from the I-DYNEV output 16 files.
And maybe I can clarify how it is that that is 3
17 possible to get out of that run.
18 It is an evacuation still of that entire region of 19 all of those towns.
But it represents the time to clear 20 Amesbury and Salisbury only.
21 Q
on page 6 you also say that your figures -
you 22 refer to figures 1, 2,
and 37 23 A
(Adler)
Yes.
24 Q
And you say that those figures reflect fractions 25 of beach traffic remaining in Salisbury, Seabrook and j
l OI Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 t
l
p l
ADLER - CROSS 28217.
,r{
l Hampton beach' areas?
4 e
i l
N!
-2 A
(Adler)
Yes.
3 Q
For each hour after a simultaneous beach closing l
4 in New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
5 Now, is.it correct that if there was a
~
6 nonsimultaneous beach closing those -- for instance, if New 7
Hampshire closed before Massachusetts, that your figures 8
would not be applicable?
i 9
A (Adler)
That would likely change; yes.
10 Q
All right.
11 And, in fact, the number of vehicles remaining 12 would be less if there was a nonsimultaneous beach closing; 13 is-that right?-
/~'N 14 A
(Adler)
They would be less in some portions and
(
15 more in others, I would suspect.
And again, we haven't done 16 '
that run.
17 Q
So you can't say, as we sit here today, what the 18 effect would be depending on -
19 A
(Adler)
It depends on which beaches went first 20 and it depends on which beach you're looking at.
21 Q
On page 7 of your testimony -- this is an answer 22 to the question of whether you believe ETEs based on 23 modeling of returning commuters should be incorporated into 24 the emergency plans?
25 A
(Adler)
Yes.
f Heritage Reporting Corporation
\\~.
(202) 628-4888 l
l
I ADLER - CROSS 28218 1
Q There are two sentences that I don't quite 4
e 2
understand, and this is on page 7.
3 You say:
"The results presented in NHRERP Volume 4
6 should be updated as appropriate.
A set of ETEs for the 5
Massachusetts communities alone should be prepared for 6
Massachusetts decision-makers."
\\
7 A
(Adler)
Yes.
l 8
Q Is what you're referring to there simply that the 9
affects of returning commuters should be incorporated into 10 NHRERP and the SPMC7 11 A
(Adler)
The first sentence that you read is an 12 indication that I believe that the returning commuters ought 13 to be addressed directly in that volume.
j 14 The second sentence is that ETEs should be 15 estimated as well for the Massachusetts communities separate 16 from New Hampshire communities; and that's possible with the 17 runs that have already been conducted.
18 Q
So that sentence does not refer to returning 19 commuters?
20 A
(Adler)
It also refers to returning commuters.
21 Q
Also or only?
22 A
(Adler)
It also refers to returning commuters.
23 The ETEs that are currently included in the SPMC 24 are ETEs for an entire region including, in most cases, New 25 Hampshire communities as well as Massachusetts communities.
I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
ADLER - CROSS 28219
/']'}J 1
What I have indicated here, as I believe it would v\\
2 be appropriate for Massachusetts, for the SPMC to have an 3
ETE'for the Massachusetts portion of the EPZ.
That is, the 4
time'that it would take'to clear the Massachusetts 5'
communities.
6 In many of the runs presented in Volume 6,~the 7
Massachusetts communities clear well before the New 8
Hampshire communities.
And I'm simply indicating that it 9
would be appropriate to separate out the Massachusetts 10 versus New Hampshire.
11 MR. TURK:
Your Honor, I believe the last answer 12 that the witness has given me indicates that this sentence 13 in his testimony is not a rebuttal piece on returning
(
14 commuters, but is, in fact, a new attempt to file direct
\\'
15 testimony concerning the modeling of ETEs that should be 16 done for Massachusetts.
17 I would therefore move to strike that sentence 18 from his testimony as well as the last answer of the witness 19 as inappropriately filed at this time.
1 20 JUDGE SMITH:
The last?
21 MR. TURK:
The sentence which states:
"A set of I
22 ETEs for the Massachusetts communities alone should be 23 prepared for Massachusetts decision-makers."
24 MR. FIERCE:
Your Honor, that's absurd.
25 He just explained to you how this is integral to i
l
\\
(d Heritage Reporting Corporation j
(202) 628-4888 i
l I
mu
(
ADLER - CROSS 28220 1
the whole discussion of returning commuters.
Because the 2
ETEs for the regions often give you only the ETE for the 3
critical path -- only give you the ETE for the critical path 4
which Mr. Lieberman and Dr. Adler agree for most of the 5
scenarios and regions is going to be up in New Hampshire.
~
l 6
So to show the affects of the returning commuters 7
on the Massachusetts ETEs they need to be separated out.
8 This is a discussion integral to the discussion of 9
returning commutere.
It's consistent with his testimony on 10 ETEs which he filed earlier. I don't see any problem with 11 that.
12
" Returning commuters have a disparate impact on 13 the ETEs for New Hampshire and for Massachusetts."
That's 14 the point.
l 15 MR. DIGNAN:
That's not so.
16 MR. FIERCE:
It is so.
l 17 MR. DIGNAN:
And the witness just said it wasn't 18 so.
19 JUDGE SMITH:
What's not so?
20 MR. DIGNAN:
That it has a disparate impact.
21 See, when I examined Dr. Adler -- this is what Mr.
22 Fierce keeps trying to say: if you do model 13 -- this is 23 why my cross was so brief of Dr. Adler.
If you model Region 24 13 which is everything, as Dr. Adler testified when I asked 25 him, what you find is you redistribute the last man out of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
ADLER - CROSS 28221 1
Region 13.
That is to say, while.the ETE for. Region 13 as a lk-_ -
2 whole only goes up five minutes or 25, depending upon which 3
assumption you use.
4 The fact of the matter is, the last guy out comes 5
from a different place, all right.
That's true.
6 It's not that they're disparate commuters.
If you 7
model --'and that's why I asked Dr. Adler -- he has no 8
reason to believe that if you modeled on1't Amesbury, let's 9
say, without commuters and then put.the commuters back in, 10 he's not'saying that would increase by 24 percent.
11 MR. FIERCE:
I think he explaineO 'o'you --
12 MR. DIGNAN:
And it's not that you get disparate 13 ETEs with commuters.
If you model the same region with or
(
14 without commuters the change you're going to get is k
15 depending upon which assumptions you put in, in the ranges 16 both Dr. Adler and Mr. Lieberman are talking about in Region 17 13.
18 What you do is,'if you model the whole region, the 19 bigger the region, you will redistribute who is the last guy 20 out.
21 MR. FIERCE:
Your Honor, we're saying if you look 22 at separate regior.s, there's a selective use here of Region 23 13.
l l
24 MR. DIGNAN:
Since the PAR is not by region, 25 that's the relevant one.
p Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
ADLER - CROSS 28222 1
MR. FIERCE:
Dr. Adler in some length explained 2
the problem at Salisbury Square and the way it has been
{.
l 3
modeled now which will have an impact on ETEs for those 4
Massachusetts communities and ERFAs.
l 5
If you looked at different ERPAs and different 6
regions, there would be a disparate impact of the returning 7
commuters affects.
8 MR. DIGNAN:
Well, after this motion is over I 9
want further cross-examination, because I think the witness 10 absolutely denied that.
11 MR. FIERCE:
I think he didn't deny that at all, 12 Your Honor.
13 MR. DIGNAN:
Wel], let's find out.
14 But after the Board rules, I would like further 15 cross.
16 MR. FIERCE:
Clearly, this is a relevant sentence 17 to the whole testimony.
18 JUDGE SMITH:
My difficult y is, I'm having a hard 19 time relating the question and answer to the debate that 20 you're having.
21 This seems to be a political judgment.
22 MR. FIERCE:
It's much more than that, Your Honor.
23 It is based on knowledge of the way the returning 24 commuters have impacts. It would be a mistake not to sort 25 out Massachusetts from New Hampshire because you would be I
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
S
,.I'.
5"
- /f
'ADLER - CROSS 28223 q.;
1-misinforming the decision-makers about the affects of
,{\\
-2 returning commuters'unless you did that.
~
3 (Board confers.)
)
)
4' 5
6 7
1 8
l I
9 l
l
.10
'll 12 13 14 15 16 l
17 18 l
19 20 21 22 i
I 23 24 25-I
)
Heritage Reporting Corporation V
u (202)'628-4888 1
ADLER - CROSS 28224 1
JUDGE SMITH:
Why do you want this sentence in 2
there?
3 MR. FIERCE:
Your Honor has reserved jurisdiction j
4 over just a narrow portion of the issue, the effect of 5
returning commuters on beach going evacuees.
6 Those effects are addressed by looking at, as we 7
know, essentially three paths.
Out from Salisbury Beach is 8
one path.
Out Route 286 at the state line is the second.
9 And out New Hampshire through what's called the northern 10 path is a third.
11 The impacts of returning commuters, at least 12 theoretically you would have to admit, could have different 13 impacts on each of those three pathways.
14 Dr. Adler hap testified that in fact if you looked 15 at his diagram in Figure No. 1 that there is a significant 16 impact for Salisbury Beach.
17 JUDGE SMITH:
Right.
I understand that.
18 MR. FIERCE:
If you looked at the impact for 19 Seabrook, it's not so great.
And if you looked at the 20 impact on Hampton Beach, it's also -- there is an impact j
I 21 there.
There's a disparate impact beach by beach by beach 22 by the returning commuters.
23 This means for decision-makers that you need to l
24 have more precise information perhaps than you have got with 25 looking at a Scenario 13.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
ADLER - CROSS 28225
/
1 Now there are scenarios that just take a closer 1 _;
\\o 2
look at some cxE these beach areas..The way that ETEs are 3-derived now always are going to include either a two-mile or 4
a five-mile ring around Seabrook which essentially forces 5
you to look at a number for just the pathway that happens to 6
have the longest ETE.
7 We've made the assertion in the ETE case and we're 8
consistently making it here as well, that Massachusetts 9
decision-makers want to know the. impact of these issues on 10 their people and their evacuees.
And there are some 11 regions, we think as well, where there are going to be 12 impacts.
13 There is a two-mile ring with a downwind keyhole 14 toward Massachusetts which perhaps would have a different-j t
15 impact if the returning commuters were modeled.
16 Dr. Adler just doesn't have that model in order to 17 do that run, but you can take a look at his Salisbury Beach 18 data and get some indication that there might very well be 19 an increase in those ETEs for those regions.
20 JUDGE SMITH:
Given that you are referring here 21 not to the fact that these communities exist in a different l
22 political subdivision, but because of their physical 23 location.
24 MR. FIERCE:
Absolutely.
25 JUDGE SMITH:
And given the fact that the Appeal 1nr)
Heritage Reporting Corporation
\\~/
(202) 628-4888
i l
l ADLER - CROSS 28226 1
Board has explained that they expect a full record on this 2
issue, we will receive it in the context of the entire i
3 testimony, in the context of the whole issue, of all of the 4
evidence on the issue.
5 Do you want to examine?
6 MR. DIGNAN:
Yes.
7 I think Mr. Turk still has some.
8 MR. TURK:
I hase just a very small portion, Your 9
Honor.
10 BY MR. TURK:
11 Q
Dr. Adler, on those three figures that are 12 attached to your testimony, the black bar indicates the 13 fraction of vehicles remaining in each of the three beach 4
14 areas with commuters.
And the gray area indicates the 15 fraction of vehicles remaining without commuters model.
16 Is that right?
17 A
(Adler)
Yes.
18 Q
When you put in these figures for commuters, which 19 commuters have you inserted into those figures?
20 A
(Adler)
The commuters that were modeled 21 specifica1.'y are the ones listed in the Applicants' 22 Supplement to Rebuttal Testimony No. 16.
23 They include the major coinmuting populations in 24 Salisbury and Newburyport and Hampton and several other 25 communities in New Hampshire and Massachusetts.
They Heritage Reporting Corporation I
(202) 628-4888 l
l.
L ADLER.- CROSS 28227
[
1-include returning commuters in both comntunities in 2
Massachusetts and New Hampshi:e.
3 Q
So that, for instance, in Figure 1, all of the 4
gray bars indicate the full number of commuters for 5
Massachusetts and New Hampshire that were modeled by the 6
Applicants?
7' A
(Adler)
The gray bars are the runs that were --
8 Q
I'm sorry.
9-The black bars.
10 A
(Adler)
Yes, that's correct.
11' O.
And the same would be true then for Figures 2 and 12 37 13 A
(Adler)
Yes.
/'
- 14 Q
What assumptions did you make about the hours of 1
15 employment for those various commuters?
16 A
(Adler)
I didn't conduct these runs.
17 The assumptions that are made in the Volume 6 18 analyses of employment that were in part the basis of these 19 runs are that this evacuation occurs at midday and that the 20 majority of the full-time employees are on location.at that 21 time.
22 And I don't recall --
23 Q
You essentially utilized the same assumptions that 24 Mr. Lieberman did as far as the hours of employment?
25 A
(Adler)
These come directly from the runs that Beritage Reporting Corporation
\\~~/
(202) 628-4888
1 I
ADLER - CROSS 28228 1
were done by Mr. Lieberman.
These aren't my own runs.
i 2
Q You didn't make any additional assumptions on i
3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> of employment?
4 A
(Adler)
I did not.
5 I did not, no.
6 0
Or days of employment?
7 A
(Adler)
I did not, no.
8 MR. TURK:
All right, that's all I have.
9 MR. FIERCE:
Do you want me to do a few redirect 10 first or --
11 MR. DIGNAN:
You are going to have more redirect 12 to do after I finish than you've got now, I assure you.
13 MR. FIERCE:
I just thought you might have --
g 14 FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION 15 BY MR. DIGNAN:
16 Q
Dr. Adler, I just want to be sure I understood you 17 earlier.
18 Coming to your page 6, if you would be kind 19 enough, Doctor.
You put there, for example, the beach area 20 of Salisbury.
j 21 A
(Adler)
Yes.
22 Q
And you say without commuters, four hours, 30 23 minutes; with commuters, five hours and 35 minutes.
ETE 24 increased 24 percent, correct?
]
25 A
(Adler)
Yes.
J
)
G; 5
Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
j
..'j.
ADLER - CROSS 28229-l
- w 1
Q Now what you are talking about there is when you i
\\
2 looked at.the output runs, this is what happens to that l
3 particular area when one evacuates all of Region 13.
4 Isn't that right?
)
5 A
(Adler)
Yes.
1 6
Q R3ght.
j i
7 You do not mean to-imply by that testimony that if 8
one were to model only Salisbury without commuters, then i
9 model it with commuters, that you would have a 24 percent 10.
increase on that ETE.
.l 11 A
(Adler)
I didn't do that run, and I don't know 12 what the outcome exactly would be.
13 Q
Well, in fact, it would probably be the same.
)
14 Another 5 percent increase, wouldn't it?
}
15 Because what you would assume is nobody else moved 16 and Salisbury alone was being evacuated, right?
17 A
(Adler)
If it were Salisbury alone --
18 Q
Alone.
19 A
(Adler)
-- evacuating, Salisbr.ry has a l
20 substantial number of returning commuters.
21 Q
That's right.
22 A
(Adler)
And there would be an impact on the ETEs 23 that would be more than the five minutes.
24 Q
No.
25 More than 5 percent?
1 i
Heritage Reporting Corporetuon
\\
(202) 628-4888
ADLER - CROSS 28230 j
1 A
(Adler)
More than 5 percent, I believe, yes.
2 Q
Well, you've only got 5 percent on Regien 13 as a i
3 whole even on your assumptions, didn't you?
4 A
(Adler)
Five percent on Region 13 as a whole, 5
because the critical path in that case wasn't one that was
~
6 substantially affected by returning commuters.
7 Q
Okay.
8 Now let's assume we did a Massachusetts-only ETE 9
run, the kind you are talking about, for Massachusetts 10 communities only.
I' 11 A
(Adler)
So Massachusetts communities only are 12 evacuating?
13 Q
Right.
j 14 A
(Adler)
Yes.
15 Q
Isn't that what you are suggesting should be done?
16 A
(Adler)
No.
17 I was suggesting here simply that the results from 18 the evacuation -- the results of Region 13 and the results 19 of all other region evacuations be presented both in terms 20 of the ETEs that result for the entire region and the 21 results for some portion of that region.
22 O
All right.
23 Let's assume that was done.
24 What possible use would it be?
25 A
(Adler)
What possible use would it be?
f heritage Reporting Corporation l
(202) 628-4888
ADLER - CROSS 20231 1
C Yes.
92 A
(Adler)
I understood that the protective action 3
decision was made separately in Massachusetts from New 4
Hampshire.
5 O
I concur in that.
6 But if you are going to evacuate Region 13, right?
7 A
(Adler)
Yes.
8 Q
The ETEs for everybody in there, the individuals, 9
are going to be what is for the Region 13 scenario, correct?
10 A
(Adler)
It will be for the entire -- to get the 11 last person out of that region, it will be six hours and 12 five minutes.
13 Q
Right.
14 And so in order for the look at Massachusetts only 15 to have any usefulness, one would have to assume that you 16 are going to change the PAR and not evacuate the whole l
.j 17 region.
18 In other words, if all you could do is evacuate 19 the whole region, having this information in Massachusetts 20 is useless.
21 Isn't that right?
22 MR. FIERCE:
Objection to the basis for the 23 question "if all you could do".
24 I mean, obviously we have two states and they will 25 do what they will do.
9 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l ADLER - CROSS 28232 1
JUDGE SMITH:
Overruled.
2 BY MR. DIGNAN:
3 Q
Go ahead, Doctor, answer the question.
4 A
(Adler)
I am not an expert in protective action 5
decision making.
~
6 Q
I know you aren't.
7 But let's assume with me --
~
h 8
A (Adler)
Yes.
9 Q
-- that all you can do, for whatever reason, is 10 evacuate 13 as a whole.
'l 11 A
(Adler)
Yes.
12 Q
Okay?
13 You agree with me that having a bunch of data on 14 what is going to happen to individuals who happen to be 15 resident in Massachusetts as a group is useless, because you 16 are going to do 13.
17 A
(Adler)
If the decision has been made to evacuate 16 Region 13, then you evacuate Region 13.
19 Q
Now how likely do you think it is, sir, under any
~
20 circumstances, that a scenario will develop where only the 21 Massachusetts portion of the EPZ is evacuated and nothing is 22 done with New Hampshire, considering the New Hampshire towns 23 are closer to the plant?
24 A
(Ad.le7)
I can't say that I know.
But I assume 25 that Seabrook would always be evacuated at a minimum.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l
]. f '
.j -
.ADLER - CROSS 28233 Jy'^~
' 1
.Q In-short, all that we're ever going to'do in the-
'2
'real world.is evacuate 13 or something'close to it because 3
by definition you're going to get the New Hampshire people l
'4 out of there because they.are closest to the plant,. right?L I
5
.A
.(Adler)
You are' going to evacuate some portion of 6
New Hampshire, I' assume, yes.
7 Q
So keeping that in mind,; sir, why do we want to go.
8 to the bother-and-trouble of having a Massachusetts-only set 9
of data when'13 or something-close to 13 is going to be the
~10 choice every single time?
11 A
(Adler)
As I said, I believe that it's relevant
'12 to have'ib the SPMC the amount of' time.that it. takes to 13 evacuate the Massachusetts communities.
14 Q
Why?
15 A
(Adler)
Because, for example, it could be that to 16 evacuate Massachusetts communities takes only one hour,_and 17 to evacuate the New Hampshire part of the EPZ takes six 18-hours.
19 0
It may be, but you are never going to evacuate 20~
only the Massachusetts communities, are you?
21 A
(Adler)
No, buc you could evacuate only the New 22 Har.p.oire communities.
23 Q
And if that's so, then you evacuate less than 13,_
24 correct?
i 25 A
(Adler)
That's correct, yes.
fr~
l
{
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l L____ _ ____
ADLER - CROSS 28234 1
Q And then the Massachusetts communities, the 2
election is to shelter them or leave them there, correct?
3 A
(Adler)
I don't know exactly what they will do.
4 0
Well, you're not going to be evacuating them, by 5
definition.
6 A
(Adler)
That's right.
i 7
Q So why do I need an ETE?
8 A
(Adler)
To determine whether in fact you should 9
do that or not.
10 I assume that in that condition you are evaluating 11 different evacuation scenarios, so you want to compare what 12 happens if you evacuate Massachusetts communities under 13 Region 13 or you don't evacuate them under some other 3
14 scenario.
15 Q
In other words, what you are suggesting is that 16 the decision-maker in Massachusetts may take the position 17 that when New Hampshire says, go, or let's say the plant 18 suggests under the SPMC, take all of 13 out.
19 If they had this data, they could reach a 20 conclusion, according to you, that let New Halapshire go but 21 ne're going to hold everybody in Massachusetts?
22 A
(Adler)
I don't know what decision they would l
l 23 make.
24 I'm saying that it would be, I assume, useful 25 information to have.
And again, I'm not an expert in l
l l
Heritage Reporting Corporation L
(202) 628-4888
L ADLER - CROSS 28235 d
V k
jr-'
L1, protective action decisions.
2 JUDGE SMITH:
All right.
s-3 Left to your own devices, would you still want to 4
' defend that statement on page 77 5
I mean.given that, do'you have'a large degree of 6
assurance that that is.useful?
7-
.THE WITNESS:
(Adler)
I don't have a large degree 8
of assurance.
.9 JUDGE ~ SMITH:
Do you want to defend the' statement 10 or would you like to withdraw it?
11 MR. FIERCE:
Your Honor, he's defended the 12 statement.
He just did vigorously.
13 JUDGE SMITH:
All right.
- f 14 I don't know if he did~or not.
I'm just asking i
15 him.
i 16 THE WITNESS:
(Adler)
I didn't withdraw it.
17 JUDGE SMITH:
Did you feel you did?
18 THE WITNESS:
(Adler)
I thought it was relevant 19 information.
20 JUDGE SMITH:
Do you feel you defended the 21 statement in this exchange?
22 THE WITNESS:
(Adler)
I'm not sure whether I 23' adequately defended it.
I tried to portray --
24 JUDGE SMITH:
I'm asking your professional 25 judgment whether you want to continue to defend that i
Heritage Reporting Corporation
\\m, (202) 628-4888
l l
ADLER - CROSS 28236 c
1 J
1 statement there in view of the cross-examination.
l 2
THE WITNESS:
(Adler)
I believe it is relevant in 3
the same way that 4
JUDGE SMITH:
You are not answering the question.
5 MR. FIERCE:
Your Honor, he's defended the 1
6 statement --
7 JUDGE SMITH:
He understand the question and he's J
B not answering it.
9 MR. FIERCE:
He's saying it's relevant, and 10 therefore he defends it.
11 JUDGE SMITH:
He can say yes.
1 i
12 Go on.
I 13 MR. DIGNAN:
I have nothing further.
j i
14 JUDGE SMITH:
Redirect?
15 MR. TURK:
Your Honor, one follow up to Mr.
l 16 Dignan, if I may.
I 17 FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION 10 BY MR. TURK:
j l
19 Q
Dr. Adler, what's the assumption in the I-DYNEV I
i 20 modeling about shadow evacuation?
I l
21 A
(Adler)
There is no specific assumption in the l
l l
22 I-DYNEV model.
It's an input assumption.
j l
23 Q
Okay.
l 24 What's the input, the modeling input assumption?
1 25 A
(Adler)
I believe the input assumption is that l
l 1
i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
r-----
7 3
b
'l pi-ADLER - CROSS 28237-c q
s '~
1 the shadow evacuation-is approximately 50 percent for' areas j
2 not otherwise evacuated.
m 3
Q Fifty percent.from within the-EPZ?
]
4-A' (Adler)
Yes.
5 Q
And'25 percent from outside the EPZ?
6
- JL (Adler)
There is no modeling specifically'of 1
.7 evacuation outside the EPZ.
.i 8
Q Do you have an opinion.-- assume that a 9
Massachusetts decision-maker was to recommend and would go i
110 on the EBS system and they recommended an evacuation of i
11 Massachusetts towns.
12 A
~ (Adler)
Yes.
- 13 Q-Which,.of course, you would agree are more distant 14.
from the plant than Seabrook and Hampton.
15-A (Adler)
Yes.
16 Q
What do you think is a likely response of persons 17 in Seabrook and Hampton if they hear that Massachusetts 18 towns which are farther-away are being evacuated?
19 Do you think they are going to say, maybe we 20 should get out of here, too?
21 A
(Adler)
Oh, I believe that they would probably be 22 evacuated in any case, yes.
23 Q
They would be evacuated in any case?
24 A
(Adler)
Yes.
25 Q.
And if they weren't, they would do it on their 7
Beritage Reporting Corporation
\\
(202) 628-4888
i I
28238 f
1 own, isn't that right?
l x-2 A
(Adler)
'I believe a substantial number would, 3
based on the social data analyst survey, yes.
4 EXAMINATION BY JUDGE COLE 5
JUDGE COLE:
And under those conditions, Dr.
)
6 Adler, of what value would be the ETEs for Massachusetts 7
communities alone?'
8 THE WITNESS:
(Adler)
Specifically?
9 JUDCE COLE:
Yes.
10-THE WITNESS:
(Adler)
For Massachusetts alone 11 under that condition, there wouldn't be a direct -- it 12 wouldn't represent the ETE in total.
The ETE in total is 13 represented by the --
14 JUDGE COLE:
The number could possibly be 15 misleading, wouldn't it?
16 THE WITNESS:
(Adler)
It wouldn't be misleading.
17 It would still tell how much time it would take to evacuate 18 the Massachusetts communities.
19 JUDGE COLE:
I' m sorry.
20 Would you repeat what you just said?
21 THE WITNESS:
(Adler)
It would still say how long 22 it would take to evacuate the Massachusetts communities.
23 JUDGE COLE:
If the New Hampshire people weren't l
l 24 going to evacuate also.
25 THE WITNESS:
(Adler)
No.
(
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l l
28239
'l If the New Hampshire people did evacuate.
j 2
JUDGE COLE:
But you are asking for an ETE for the l
3 evacuation of Massachusetts communities alone.
j 4
THE WITNESS:
(Adler)
No, no.
-i 5
The number that's in there, for example, on the
~
6 top of page 6, the six hours, for example, that's listed at 7
the top of page 6 for the five-mile ring is the amount of 8
time that it would take to evacuate Massachusetts 9
communities within five miles under the condition of Region 10 13 evacuation.
1 11 JUDGE COLE:
No, I was focusing on the sentence on 12 page 7.
13 THE WITNESS:
(Adler)
Oh.
14 JUDGE COLE:
Where you say, "2i set of ETEs for y
15 Massachusetts communities alone."
16 I thought that's what we were talking about.
17 THE WITNESS:
(Adler)
Oh, no, not at all.
No.
18 What I intended to mean there wasn't an evacuation 19 of Massachusetts communities alone.
It was simply the time 20 to evacuate Massachusetts communities if, for example, 21 Region 13 were evacuated.
The number equivalent to the 22 number that I gave at the top of page 6.
23 JUDGE COLE:
So if the last person out under that 24 scenario were somebody from New He.mpshire, you don't want l
25 that number.
You want the last Massachusetts resident out?
)
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
a f
28240
}/ 'g
'l
.THE' WITNESS:
(Adler)
No, I think thatinumber is
.t 2'
important as well, but for a different reason.
3 JUDGE SMITH:.But isn't that a: political reason 4
and not,a scientific reason?-
5 THE WITNESS:
(Adler)
I' don't think.it's just a 6
political reason.
.It is useful, I believe, for example,.in 7
l 8
monitoring the progress of.the. evacuation and to know 9
. whether we expect Massachusetts, the southern portion'of the
~
10 EPZ'to be evacuated in three hours or in eight hours.
11 For example, if I were manning an operation 1 center 12 and wanted to know-whether I'm going to need replacements of-13 traffic guides, it would be relevant for'ma to know whether-
[
14 I'm going to.be done in.three hours or it's going'to take 10 ss/
-15 hours to get out.
16 Now the difference isn't that severe here, 17 obviously.
But it would be relevant for me to know how to 18~
advise the staffing-of --
19 JUDGE SMITH:
And that's the context in which you; 20 have made that statement, then?
21 THE WITNESS:
(Adler)
That's the context that 22 that is intended.
23 I'm not implying that one should look at an 24 evacuation only of Massachusetts communities by any -- I 25 understand that's not a relevant, never a relevant decision.
2 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
r.
I l
F l
l l
28241 J
1 JUDGE COLE:
In fact, the number wouldn't be of l
2 great value, would it?
l l
3 THE WITNESS:
(Adler)
It would be of value as I 4
said.
I i
5 I'm not sure how it would be of value to l
6 protective action decision.
7 JUDGE COLE:
Okay, thank you.
8 THE WITNESS:
(Adler)
But it would be value, I 9
believe, in staffing the operations.
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 ADLER - REDIRECT-28242 r'4 1
-JUDGE SMITH:
All right.
1 4
2:
Mr. Fierce?-
1 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
=
4 BY MR. FIERCE:
5 0
You have recommended thatLany further work be j
d 6
done.
j
~
7 Take a look at the. issues that you've identified 8
with respect to the returning commuters in and around 9-Hampton; correct?
10 A
(Adler)
Yes.
11 Q
And you' re concerned that not enough returning 12 commuters in.Hampton were modeled among Other things?
13 A
(Adler)
Yes.
/
14 Q-YouLalso have concerns about --
I
\\
15 MR. DIGNAN:
Does this come of the cross?
16 MR. FIERCE:
Yes, it does.
I 17 MR. DIGNAN:
Whose?
18 MR. TURK:
Whose?
19 MR. FIERCE:
Both of yours and the Judges.
1 l
20 MR. TURK:
There is nothing there.
-)
1 21-MR. DIGNAN:
If I said the word "Hampton" I will 22 eat the transcript page.
23 (Laughter) 24 MR. FIERCE:
You talked about New Hampshire versus 25 Massachusetts, Mr. Dignan, and I would like to pursue it 7
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l I
l ADLER - REDIRECT 28243 1
please.
2 JUDGE SMITH:
No objection.
3 Go ahead.
4 BY MR. FIERCE:
5 Q
You also talked about the 101C -- the treatment of 6
101C and I think it was the Route 1 congestion spill-back 7
effect which was on page 4 of your testimony; correct?
8 MR. TURK:
Who asked about that?
9 Your Honor, this is supplement direct, it's not 10 redirect.
1 11 MR. FIERCE:
This is going to show you why --
12 MR. TURK:
You had an opportunity to file your 13 direct.
You got it late last night and now you're adding to 14 it.
15 JUDGE SMITH:
Either object or don't object.
16 MR. TURK:
I'm objecting.
17 JUDGE SMITH:
What's your basis on this?
18 Because you can't perceive the relevance to the 19 cross?
20 MR. TURK:
No, it wasn't a subject of the cross, 21 Your Honor.
22 BY MR. FIERCE:
23 Q
Dr. Adler, if the ETEs -- after they were done in 24 the way that you had suggested showed an ETE for Region 13, 25 a New Hampshire critical pathway was twice as long as the i
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l 1
ADLER - REDIRECT 28244 ETE for that portion of the region which is in 91 2 Massachusetts; could that be a relevant piece of information 3
for Massachusetts decision-makers?
l 4
A (Adler)
As I indicated, I believe it's relevant 5
to a number of issues.
The one, obvious pragmatic one would 6
be the operations issue: how Jong do you have to staff 7
traffic guide posts.
8 Q
But it could also be relevant for protective 9
action decision-makers if their ETE for the Massachusetts 10 portion of the region was significantly lower than what the 11 overall ETE for the region was if that were a New Hampshire 12 number?
13 A
(Adler)
I assume so.
But again, I don't have a 14 detailed understanding of the protective action decision 15 responses.
16 JUDGE COLE:
Excuse me, I've got to interject 17 here.
18 Are you saying the relevant for operational 19 purposes meaning that when the Massachusetts residents get 20 out you're going to take away the traffic guides and the 21 people that are helping the New Hampshire people get out 22 through Massachusetts routes?
23 THE WITNESS:
(Adler)
There is only a very 24 limited number of locations where 11ew Hampshire residents 25 are coming out through Massachusetts.
There are a large 9
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
E ADLER - REDIRECT 28245 1
number of traffic guide posts in communities in 2
Massachusetts that essentially could be closed down once the 3
Massachusetts communities were evacuated.
4 But, no, certainly I wouldn't recommend closing 5
down key traffic control posts -- access control posts, for 6
example, on Route 95 and 495.
I wouldn't say shut down the 7
whole thing.
8 It's simply a matter that some of the other 9
traffic control posts can certainly be closed down much 10 earlier than the 6-hours or so.
11 JUDGE COLE:
But you would find that out in the i
12 field; wouldn't you?
13 THE WITNESS:
(Adler)
Yes.
4 14 And, however, it would be relevant to know that, I 15 believe, in advance so one would know whether one should 16 direct -- should continue to call replacements, as an 17 example, or whether one should stop doing that in advance.
(
18 You have to get replacements there in advance of 19 when they're needed.
20 JUDGE COLE:
Thank you.
21 BY MR. FIERCE:
22 Q
Dr. Adler, if you just took a look at that region 23 which is a 2-mile ring around Seabrook and then contained a 24 keyhole portion that was the rest of the Massachusetts 5-25 mile ring.
And I believe there is such a region, although I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 j
i l
l l
ADLER - REDIRECT 28246
/~ )
1 don't know the number of it right offhand.
/
\\
2 And you were also to make the changes in the model
~'
3 at Salisbury Square, the corrections that you have indicated 4
in your testimony.
5 A
(Adler)
Yes.
6 Q
Is it conceivable that the critical path for that 7
region might turn out to be the Route 1 pathway out of 8
Salisbury Beach?
9
'A (Adler)
It's possible.
I haven't done that run, 10 so I don't know for sure, but it's certainly possible.
11 Q
And so that run should be done to determine l
12 whether that, in fact, might be the case?
13 A
(Adler)
As I've indicated, I believe it would be
[
'N 14 useful to do the runs for each of the regions that are
'r
)
l 15 modeled in the SPMC and in Volume 6 to determine what the 16 affects are.
I I
17 Q
And these affects right now are unknown; would 18 that be your view?
19 A
(Adler)
We don't know exactly; no.
20 Q
Do the Applicants know?
21 A
(Adler)
I don't believe so unless they've done 22 those runs since this first one.
j 23 Q
And so, the recommendation would be to do the runs a
24 for all the regions in scenarios for which these concerns 25 about returning commuters exist; and then show for the l
, ~x l
(
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
l
ADLER - REDIRECT 28247 1
Massachusetts portion of the EPZ what that ETE would be and 2
look to see what it is in the New Hampshire portion of the 3
EPZ?
4 One or the other might be the critical pathway and 5
be a higher number?
6 A
(Adler)
Yes.
7 The critical path is different for different 8
scenarios and different region evacuations.
9 Q
Also, these runs that you looked at provided by 10 KLD did not contain the beach distribution that you had 11 recommended in your earlier testimony, did it?
12 A
(Adler)
No, they included the beach distribution 13 as it was modeled previously.
14 Q
And if that distribution existed -- the one that 15 you had recommended with 40 percent of the 31,000 vehicles 16 being in Massachusetts, would that also tend to perhaps i
17 shift the critical pathway down to the Massachusetts portion 18 of the EPZ?
19 A
(Adler)
Yes.
20 In our runs with that population modeled as 40 21 percent down in Massachusetts, the critical path does shift
)
22 down to Massachusetts.
j 23 Q
Now, in response to one of the questions from Mr.
24 Turk about data collection and whether you had collected any l
25 data or not; was there data in the Cole survey that you l
1 l
\\
t Beritage Reporting Corporation I
(202) 628-4888 i
l l
4 h
l L__------_----
ADLER - REDIRECT 28248 1
utilized for your initial examination of the returning 92 commuters?
3 A
(Adler)
Yes.
4 The initial examination of returning commuters 5
that I presented in the New Hampshire testimony did use 6
directly the data from the Social Data Analyst Survey, so-7 called Stephen Cole Survey.
B BY MR. FIERCE:
9 Q
With respect to the New Hampshire ETEs there's a 10 recommendation here regarding the examination of the impacts 11 in Portsmouth.
12 Would an examination of those impacts in l
13 Portsmouth somehow have an impact on the returning commuters issue as it affects the beach?
9 14 15 MR. TURK:
Objection, outside the scope of the 16 cross again.
17 MR. DIGNAN:
I join in that objection.
18 MR. FIERCE:
Your Honor, this happens to be a very 19 quickly written piece of testimony and if Your Honor 20 understands what is said here on page 4 here clearly, I'll 21 have no problem.
But as I --
22 JUDGE SMITH:
So you're seeking the --
23 MR. FIERCE:
I would like, if you're going to 24 sustain this objection, leave to have Dr. Adler at least 25 make clear for you this point.
9 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
7 1
ADLER - REDIRECT 28249 l
l 1
JUDGE SMITH:
You can't have it both ways.
2 Either it's follow-on from cross or you want to 3
seek leave to clarify part of your direct.
4 MR. FIERCE:
I believe it's follow-on on the cross 5
because it does reflect this issue of if there could be a 6
great disparity between the New Hampshire ETE and the 7
Massachusetts ETE why a Massachusetts ETE needs to be done 8
in order to have realistic times presented for decision-9 makers in Massachusetts.
10 I thought it might not be clear why including 11 Portsmouth in the runs has an impact on the beach evacuees, 12 but it does.
13 JUDGE SMITH:
Do you object?
I 14 MR. DIGNAN:
It's beyond the scope of the cross.
j 15 JUDGE SMITH:
He says if we overrule that he wants 16 to clarify his direct.
17 MR. DIGNAN:
Yes, I do object.
18 I got this testimony at 6 o' clock last night.
I 19 sat up with Mr. Lieberman until about 11 o' clock; then I 20 went home and he did some more work.
I came in here and did 21 a quick cross and now he wants to supplement it.
22 MR. FIERCE:
It's not a supplement, it's merely 23 clarification, Your Honor.
24 JUDGE SMITH:
Well, let me say, Mr. Fierce.
25 MR. FIERCE:
I'm not adding any new points.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
'~
(202) 628-4888 1
I J
l l
1 ADLER - REDIRECT 28250 1
/~'N l'
JUDGE SMITH:
.The Board in'our memorandum and
~
\\ ')
t 2-
. order of May 5th expressed a certain amount of bewilderment
)
3 or amazement that you were talking about Portsmouth.
4 commuters in all of this.
i 5
MR. FIERCE:
Yes.
6 JUDGE SMITH:
And I think you:were pretty much put 7
on notice that we didn't think that was a very probable 8
aspect of the problem.
9 MR. FIERCE:
But it does relate and we wanted to 10 give you an opportunity to try to understand that.
11-JUDGE SMITH:
Go ahead, overruled.
12 We'll accept it'as a matter'of Board' discretion.
13 We'll let.you explain that statement.
Q 14 BY MR. FIERCE:
15 Q
With respect to the statements on page 4 about the 16 Route 101C not being a critical path and the Route 1 17 congestion spill-back issue, this is a situation where the 18 beach traffic is evacuating out Route 101C; correct?
19 A
(Adler)
The beach traffic is actually evacuating 20 along a number of routes including 101C.
I 21 Q
And in a situation where no traffic guides are in 22 place that traffic crosses Route 1; correct?
23 A
(Adler)
Yes.
24 Q
And therefore, the returning commuters in and 25 around that intersection and the flow along Route 1 will
. (
Beritage Reporting Corporation l
's-(202) 628-4888 o_
l l
ADLER - RECROSS 28251 1-have an impact on the beach traffic?
2 A
(Adler)
Yes, it will.
3 Q
And then can you explain to us then how the 4
Portsmouth commuters and the Portsmouth evacuation issue 5
relates to this particular intersection here?
6 A
(Adler)
Portsmouth is at the northern terminus in 7
New Hampshire of Route 1.
Route 1 goes up, essentially, 8
into Portsmouth.
9 Portsmouth has the largest employment of a single 10 town in this region.
And the Portsmouth evacuees -- sorry, 11 the Portsmouth employees will be essentially using a large 12 portion of the capacity of Route 1 which could otherwise be 13 used by beach evacuees as an example.
14 MR. FIERCE:
I have no further questions.
15 MR. DIGNAN:
Your Honor, I have a couple of i
16 questions that came out of the interchange between the 17 witness and Dr. Cole.
c 1
16 RECROSS-EXAMINATION 19 BY MR. DIGNAN:
)
l 20 Q
Dr. Adler, I think I finally -- in your
)
21 interchange with Dr. Cole maybe dawn broke over my marble 22 head -- if I understand what you're talking about correctly,
{
l 1'
23 it is not that you want a new ETE done; it's that you want 24 the data presented in a certain way.
That is to say -- let l
i 25 me finish.
t U
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
{
F e"
ADLER'- RECROSS.
28252 cr
1 What.you want done for Region 13 is:.that.the ETE
'{
\\-
2
.will not only be -- there will not'only be a. piece of paper 3
' showing us what.the ETE is for the whole region; but you 4-want the piece of paper to include in another column, 5
perhaps, what the ETE will be for the last person out -- if 6
I can use that term -- in Massachusetts, assuming all of 7
Region 13 is done?
8 A
(Adler)
Yes.
Assuming the same evacuation 9
scenario.
10 0
In short, the data is already there?
11 A
(Adler)
Yes.
12 Q
It's just how it is compiled?
13 A
(Adler)
Yes.
! 7~'
14 Q
You want a separate book made out of it?
k 15 A
(Adler)
Well, not a separate book.
16 Q
Well, a separate paper.
17 And you would want that information, as I 18 understood your testimony--- and we may have a difference of I
19 opinion of its usefulness.
20 A
(Adler)
Yes.
21 Q
You want that information whether the ETE we're
)
22 talking about included or didn't include commuters; you 23 think it's useful to have it?
24 A
(Adler)
Yes.
25 Q
Whether or not commuters were included?
Beritage Reporting Corporation
\\s (202) 628-4888
ADLER - RECROSS 28253 1
A (Adler)
Yes, but especially with commuters 2
included.
3 Q
Yes.
4 But you would also want it without commuters?
5 A
(Adler)
Yes.
6 Q
Right.
7 I thought you did.
8 MR. DIGNAN:
Your Honor, at this point I move to 9
strike everything starting with the question:
"Did you i
10 conduct a more detailed comparison of I-DYNEV," on page 5 --
11 excuse me, I'm in the wrong place.
12 Yes, that's right.
13 JUDGE McCOLLOM:
What page are you on?
14 JUDGE COLE:
Page 5.
p 15 MR. DIGNAN:
Page 5:
"Did you conduct a more 16 detailed con.parison," through the end of the testimony, 17 because this testimony doesn't go to the issue before you 18 which is: do commuters affect ETES, whatever ETE we're 19 looking at.
20 This is a plea by him that whatever ETE is done, 21 with or without commuters, that we also compile some data 22 showing who is the last guy out -- what town is the last guy 23 out within that region.
And that's not the issue before 24 you.
25 The issue before you was: should the ETEs be f
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
]
1 ADLER - RECROSS 28254 tN
'l redone modeling for commuters.
In other words, do the b
2 commuters have such an affect on ETEs they ought to be in.
'i' 3
What this is, is an argument'that data should be
'4 extracted'from ETEs'already done or.to be.done.. So that in 5
addition to having the number involved with the evacuation 6
of a regi.on as a whole you also have subnumbers.
And that's not relevant to the returning commuter issue.
That is an 7
8 argument of how the ETE data should be presented.
9 And.it's a separate issue.
It-is not an issue in 10 any contention I'm aware of here.
And certainly, is not an 11 issue that arises out of the concern expressed by the Board 12 and the Appeal Board in which this, testimony is supposed to
-1 13 be directed to.
j
/~'
14 So I move to strike all of that.
And clearly, 15 preserving my one/ loss record, if the Board does not concur
'j l
16 '
with me in the motion as phrased, that is, from that point i
17 in page 5 on, certainly, I wish now to renew the motion Mr.
18 Turk made on the last question and answer because that 19 clearly goes under this analysis.
20 MR. FIERCE:
Your Honor, it's an inappropriate 1
21 motion on the merits and inappropriate procedurally.
22 On the merits we have been through this.
There is
(
23 no question that he advocated a separate set of ETEs be 24 provided for Massachusetts decision-makers.
25 MR. DIGNAN:
Not ETEs, data from.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
\\~.
(202) 628-4888 1
l ADLER - RECROSS 28255 1
1 MR. FIERCE:
It was a separate set of ETEs from l
1 2
the data from the runs.
The runs do show the data for 1
3 Massachusetts and they can be extracted; and that was Dr.
l 4
Adler's testimony on the ETE portion of the case.
J 5
Here we are noting the affects of returning 6
commutors.
And all of the parties, Mr. Lieberman in his l
)
7 supplemental rebuttal testimony No. 16 and Dr. Adler here 8
are looking at three pathways.
9 We are finding separate affects on three separate 10 pathways.
One of the pathways seems to be critical for New 11 Hampshire fairly frequently; that's the northern pathway.
12 The pathway that would be critical for 13 Massachusetts is the southern one along Route 1A.
j 14 There are different affects at cause by returning 15 commuters.
If we are to have a set of ETEs that are 16 realistic for decision-makers, and we adopt the strategy 17 that we're taking on the ETE portion of the case, obviously, 18 we're saying, we have to have the impacts of returning 19 commuters examined in the set of ETE runs that are presented 20 to those Massachusetts decision-makers because the affects 21 of returning commuters is not one which is equally 22 distributed up and down those three pathways.
It depends.
23 And we're not even sure how it relates to other 24 scenarics.
No one knows yet.
Mr. Lieberman has very 25 carefully focused one region, one region.
There are other a
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L__________
ADLER - RECROSS 28256.
.fe~N 1.
regions for which Dr. Adler at least has suspicions here sJd 2
that the critical pathway may be shifting to Massachusetts 3
and there will be a greater affect shown on ETEs if those 4
runs were done as.well.
5
.They need to be done.
We need to break out what 6
the ETEs.are for New Hampshire and for Massachusetts.
It's 7
in the data.
You do the run and you can see what the last 8
car out was, wherever it was.
You can also see what the 9
last car out was for Massachusetts and for New Hampshire.
10 The data is there.
It's not difficult to do.
It 11 can.be done.
It relates to returning commuters and we've 12 said that.
13 Procedurally my objection, Your Honor, is the
N 14 testimony is in..You're not supposed to strike testimony 15 that's in.
16 JUDGE SMITH:
Are you just asking that they do it
~17 or make it available aside from this issue?
18 MR. FIERCE:
No.
19 We have a contention.
20 JUDGE SMITH:
I know.
1 21 MR. FIERCE:
We have a contention that nays there 22 is no ETE study compiled for Massact.osetts.
There is no ETE 23 study for Massachusetts in which we are claiming that there 24 is no set of ETEs.
25 JUDGE SMITH:
That's not what this testimony is Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
ADLER - RECROSS 28257 1
here for though.
2 MR. FIERCE:
No, I just heard Mr. Dignan say there 3
is no contention anywhere.
4 JUDGE SMITH:
Isn't the issue raised by --
5 MR. FIERCE:
There is a contention somewhere.
But 6
we're only trying to be consistent with the other testimony.
7 JUDGE SMITH:
Let me know when you're donc, I 8
would like to say something, would you.
9 MR. FIERCE:
I have one more thing.
10 We're only trying to be consistent with the other 11 testimony we have presented which was that there do need to 12 be these two sets.
We're not coming in now and saying, 13 well, as a result of returning commuters we think there only 14 needs to be one set.
15 We have said all along we think there needs to be 16 two sets.
And this gives us extra reason to believe there 17 need to be two sets of ETEs, extra reasons to believe that.
l 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
___m.__
4 l
I ADLER - RECROSS 28258
(
fS 1
JUDGE SMITH:
Would information which was limited
)
l \\
)
(
'N 2
to the effect of returning commuters on the ETE, limited to I
3 that, be useful to the decision-maker by political
)
1 4
jurisdiction?
l l
5 MR. FIERCE:
Absolutely.
1 i
6 JUDGE SMITH:
Just limit it to that.
l l
7 MR. FIERCE:
Absolutely.
f l
8 The ETEs are different.
They are different.
i i
I 9
And to the extent you want to provide realistic 10 ETEs to decision-makers, even if they are only --
1 11 JUDGE SMITH:
I'm not talking about that.
12 I'm talking about the exact effect of returning 13 commuters on the ETEs by political jurisdiction.
f'
14 MR. FIERCE:
Right.
15 JUDGE SMITH:
By Massachusetts /New Hampshire.
16 The exact effect is essential to the Massachusetts 17 decision-makers in their protective actions.
18 MR. FIERCE:
The ETE is central.
And we're saying 19 the ETE for Massachusetts --
20 JUDGE SMITH:
You don't want to -- you just don't 21 like to answer my questions.
22 MR. FIERCE:
I'm trying to answer.
23 JUDGE SMITH:
There is something about my 24 questions that bug you, because you don't like to answer 25 them.
,s
\\
(
Heritage Reporting Corporation
\\w /
(202) 628-4888
ADLER - RECROSS 28259 1
MR. FIERCE:
I think I do like to answer your 2
questions.
I try to --
3 JUDGE SMITH:
Do it in your way.
4 I don't have any more questions for you.
5 (The Board confers.)
6 JUDGE SMITH:
Ten-minute break.
7 (Whereupon, a recess was taken.)
8 JUDGE SMITH:
We grant the motion only to the 9
extent that the statement on page 7, "A set of the ETEs for 10 the Massachusetts communities alone should be prepared for 11 the Massachusetts decision-makers".
12 That's out.
13 Okay, what do we do now?
14 MR. DIGNAN:
I have no more examination, Your 15 Honor.
16 JUDGE SMITH:
Do you any more questions on this?
17 MR. FIERCE:
No, I don't.
18 MR. TURK:
May I have just a minute?
19 (Counse?. confer. )
l 20 MR. TURK:
I have one point I want to follow up on 1
21 Dr. Cole's questioning, Your Honor.
l l
22 PECROSS-EXAMINATION 23 BY MR. TURK:
24 Q
Dr. Adler, you may recall Dr. Cole asked you about 25 your statement that for operational reasons you might want k
Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i l
ADLER - DIRECT 28260
,y 1
to know what the times are.
V l
\\
\\_/
2 MR. TURK:
Well, actually, I don't know if this is s
3 necessary now if that sentence has been taken out.
4 JUDGE SMITH:
Mr. Turk, it's your call.
It's your 5
call.
j 6
MR. TURK:
With that ruling,'Your Honor, it's not 7
necessary.
So I have nothing further.
8 JUDGE SMITH:
The rules of the Tax Court are 9
different than the rules downstairs in the auditorium.
10 Did you see the sign up there?
1 11 MR. DIGNAN:
No food or drink.
12 JUPGE SMITH:
No food or drink.
13 We' re obliged to follow the local rules.
'~'S 14 (Pause. )
)
\\ -'
15 I'm sorry.
16 (Laughter as parties exit.)
17 JUDGE SMITH:
All right, let's go to the next 18 piece.
19 DIRECT EXAMINATION 20 BY MR. FIERCE:
21 Q
Dr. Adler, do you have before you a document 22 entitled " Testimony of Dr. Thomas J. Adler on behalf of 23 James M.
Shannon, Attorney General for the Commonwealth of 24 Massachusetts, concerning JI-56, Reception Center Parking" 25 dated June 19, 1989?
i f-~s
[
)
Heritage Reporting Corporation
\\_/
(202) 628-4888 l
4
r-_ - _
ADLER - DIRECT 28261 1
A (Adler)
Yes, I do.
^
2 O
Is.this another piece of testimony that you have 3
prepared for this proceeding?
4 A
(Adler)
Yes, it is.
5 0
I don't see any corrections that have been noted 6
on it.
7 Are there any that you wish to make at this time?
8 A
(Adler)
I have not made any corrections.
9 0
Is this testimony true and correct to the best of l
10 your knowledge?
11 A
(Adler)
Yes, it is.
12 MR. FIERCE:
At this time, Your Honor, I would 13 offer into evidence the testimony of Dr. Thomas J. Adler on 14 behalf of James M.
Shannon, concerning JI-56, Reception 15 Center Parking, and ask that it be bound into the 16 transcript.
17 JUDGE SMITH:
Do you object?
18 MR. DIGNAN:
No, objection, Your Honor.
19 JUDGE SMITH:
The testimony is received.
20 21 22 23 24 25 E
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
-ADLER - DIRECT 28262 l
1-(Testimony of Dr. Thomas J.
t Adler on Behalf of James M.
2 3
Shannon, Attorney General for--
4-The' Commonwealth of 5
Massachusetts, Concerning 6
JI-56, Reception Center.
7 Parking follows:)
i 8
9 1
4 10 q
11 12-13 i
14
)
~ '
3 15 1
16 j
j 17 18 l
1 19~
20 21~
22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation
\\s (202) 628-4888 i
1
t Gt UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD s
Before the Administrative Judges:
Ivan W. Smith, Chairperson Dr. Richard F. Cole Kenneth A.McCollom In the Matter of I
i PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OFNEW Docket Nos.
50 443-444-OL (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
(Off-site EP).
June 19,1989 i
TESTIMONY OF DR. THOMAS J. ADLER ON BEHALF OF JAMPS M. SHANNON, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
'f COMMONWEALTH OFMASSACHUS!rrI3, 1
CONCERNING CONTENTION JI-56, RECEP'ITON CENTER PARKING
)
i Depanment of the Attorney General Cmiucinwealth of Massachusetts One Ashburton Place Boston. Massachusetts 0210R-1698 (617) 727,2200
O I. IDENTIFICATION OF Wri NESS Q.
What is your name and current occupation?
A.
My name is Thomas J. Adler and I am President of Resource Systems Group of Norwich, Vermont.
I Q.
Are your professional qualifications as set forth in the testimony and attachments
.i filed for this case on Septernber 14,1987 and summarized in testimony submitted on February 21, 1989?
A.
Yes, they are.
Q.
Referdng specifically to the subject of this testimony, do you have any praticular qualifications orexperience?
A.
Yes. As a professor at Dartmouth College,I taught a graduate-level coune in traffic engineering which covend in detail the subject of auto paddng lot layout. I have personally e
supervised and/or reviewed the layout r ' several dozen large surface parldng lots, and so am very familiar both with general design principles and with practical operationalissues.
E TESTrMONY Q.
Have you reviewed the Supplement to Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No.17, prepared by Joseph Bisson and Anthony Calendrello and dated June 1,19897 A,
Yes, I have.
.j Q.
Does that testimony contain estimates of parking capacity at the ORO Reception Centcrs, as requested by the Atomic Safety and L! censing Board?
1 A.
Yes, it does.
1 Q.
Do you believe that those estimates are reasonable?
A.
No, I do not.
Q.
Would you explain the basis of your opinion? '
y i
A.
The Beverly Reception Center clean car parking areas contain a total of 44,934 square feet and the North Andover Reception Center contains 45,595 squam feet for clean car
-3 Adler Reception Center Parking Testimony f
2 1
\\
parking. The Applicants' calculations indicate parking capacity for the Beverly lots of 180 cars and 382 cars for North Andover. Dese calculations assume that each parked vehicle occupies only 250 square feet. In practice, even the most efficiendy configured paddng lots require approximately 300 square feet per space and factors such as the shape of the lot and the amount of tumover in the lot can easily increase the requirement to over 400 sqmre feet per space. The Institute of Transpartntion Engineers' Transportadon and Trq01c Engineering Handbook (1982) l 1
shows a range of 276 to 340 square feet per parking space for efficiently configured parking lots,
.l not including end aisle areas.
To more accurately determine how rnany car parldng space.s,would fit in the areas
]
designated forpr.rking at the two designaaed Massachuwtts receation centers, I developed conceptual layout plans for those areas, based on the recepdon center sketches attached to the Supplement to Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No.17 and using what appeared to be the optimalj layout. For the Beverly Reception Center, I was able,to fit 132 g.1= Pealar parking stalls, each i
g 9' by 18' and allowing 26' wide two-way access aisles with end access where necessary. At the North Andover Reception Center,137 parking stalls of similar dimensions could be provided. He i
Applicants' assumed parking capacities are more than 35% higher than these estimates.
)
Q.
After you completed that analysis were you provided copies of aerial photographs of the reception center sites, as submitted by the Applicants?
A.
Yes, I was.
I l
Q.
Would you describe what effects, if any, the details shown in these photographs j
have on youresdmates?
{
A.
'Ihe North Andover parking area is striped in a pattern similar to the layout that I i
had assumed in performing calculations for this lot. 'Ihere are cars shown in the lot, making a i
determination of parking capacity relatively straightforward. Dere is a substantial amount of equipment stored along the long side of the parking lot shown in the foreground of the photograph, It appears that this storage area was excluded from the lot width of 170' given in the sketch, I
because there are five rows of parking (at 18' per row) plus three aisles (at 26'per aisle) apparent
i Adler Reception Center Pading Testimony 3
in the photograph, whose combined width should be 168'. The section of the lot shown to have a capacity of 70 cars in the Applicants' sketch is occupied in the photograph by a large pile of what appear to be utility / telephone poles. Here does not appear to be any striping of parking spaces in this area. If this pile of poles were removed, I estimate, from the photographs, a clean car parking lot capacity of 133 cars. This compares to the 137 cars that I estimated based only on the reception center sketch. If the poles were not removed, the capacity would be only 115 spaces. The aerial photograph indicates that the controlled vehicle parking area is entirely filled with equipment.
The Beverly lot, as shown in the Applicants' other aerial photograph, appears to be completely unstriped. There is equipment stored along the northerly edge of the, tea selected for clean car parking; again, it appears that storage area was properly not included in the 175' lot width shown on the reception center sketch. The pattem of parking established by the parked vehicles shown in the photograph is somewhat inefficient and would result in a lower capacity than I estimated based only on the recepdon center sketch. He vehicle ronitoring and contmiled vehicle e
parking areas are occupied,in the photo, by substantial quantides of equipment.
Q.
Is it appropriate to assume that the lots will be used to their full capacities by i
visitors to the centers?
A.
No. As stated by Dr. Urbanik, one of the NRCs witnesses in the hearings on the New Hampshire Plan, it is more commonly the case that lots are not used to full capacity because of parking tumover and other factors. The Applicants have asserted in their Supplement to Applicants' Rebuttal Tesdmony No.17 that the average residence time in the clean cc parking spaces will be less than 15 mu tes. At the capaci ies emmwd by the Applicants, one space in u
t each lot would change occupants on average once every 5 seconds (180 spaces times 4 turnovers per hour = 720 turnovers per hour = 12 per minute = 1 per S seconds). This extremely rapid tumover rate will result in significant reductions in usable capacity. h will result in congested conditions within the parking lots and delays for vehicles seeking open parking spaces.
i In addition, the Beverly parking lot is not striped at all and the N. Andover lot is only pa:tially striped to indicate the optimallayout as assumed in my estimates. If the appmpriate layout
I l
L 1..
Adler Recepdon Center Pading Testimony 4
y of rows is not somehow designated, the effective capacity would be significantly mduced.
Similarly, if individual parking stalls am not marked, the capacity will be reduced by inefficient vehicle spacing. Odd sized gaps will be formed between parked vehicles, aisles will become irregular, and, given the high demands for parking, vehicles may becorne blocked by other parked vehicles.
Q.
Could you estimate the usable capacity provided by the ORO reception center lots, I
~
accounting for these factors?
A.
If the lots were completely striped to designase optimal row and stall placements and if 3 to 5 atrendants were provided at each lot to expedite movement into available spaces, up
- a 90% of the physical capacity may be achieved (approximately 119 cars in the Beverly and 123 in the North Andover clean car lots). Absent these measures, I do not believe that more than 100 cars -
could be accommodated, on average, at the Beverly lot. Because the N. Andover lot is partially striped and has a simpler configuration, the utilization rate would be slightly 1.gher than'at the Beverly lot, ac.w-msdating up to 110 cars.
Q.
Does that conclude yourtesdmony?
A.
Yes, it does.
s 1
l
-ADLER - CROSS 28263 1
MR. DIGNAN:
May I proceed, Your Honor?
2 JUDGE SMITH:
Yes, please.
3 CROSS-EXAMINATION 4
BY MR. DIGNAN:
5 Q
Dr. Adler, this again will be very brief.
6 I could not ascertain from your testimony and I'm 7
sure you can tell me, how may square feet are you giving a 8
car in your analysis on page 2 and 37 9
A (Adler)
The analysis that I did wasn't to 10 determine in advance how many square feet it would take to 11 park a car, but rather, to use standard dimensions for l
12 parking aisles and stalls.
13 0
Okay.
14 What's the dimension you used for the stall?
15 A
(Adler)
For stall, 9 by 18.
And for an aisle, 16 two-way perpendicular traffic flow, 26 feet.
]
17 Q
Can you give me an approximation of how many l
18 square foot per car that works into after you get to the end
]
l 19 of -- I understand you didn't start in advance, but --
1 I
20 A
(Adler)
Right.
.i 21 Q
-- can you give me back a number?
1 22 A
(Adler)
The best way to do it is to take the
,1 23 square footage, which I have listed for each of the lots, i
24 and divided by the number of spaces that I ended up with.
25 So, for example, both lots, as it turns out, have l
9l I
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
1
I ADLER CROSS
-28264
~7~'
1 approximately 45,000 square feet.
And I determined k'
2 somewhere in the neighborhood of 135 parking spaces for each 3
of those lots.
And I' don't have a calculator with me.
4 0
Okay, no, I can do it with those numbers.
5 A
(Adler)
Yes.
6 0
I have one other question.
7 A
(Adler)
Yes.
8 Q
You-are the same Dr. Adler who supported the 9
thesi s up in New Hampshire that you could park a car in 10 every wear mark and curb stone in New Hampshire.
11 7sn't that right?-
12 A
(Adler)
We gave an estimate in New Hampshire of 13 the total-parking capacity of all of the spaces, yes.
O 14-MR. DIGNAN:
Thank you.
1 15 That's all.
16 JUDGE SMITH:
Do you agree with the premise of his 17 question?
18 THE WITNESS:
(Adler)
Excuse me?
19 JUDGE SMITH:
Did you agree with the premise of 20 his question?
- 21 THE WITNESS:
(Adler)
The question --
22 JUDGE SMITH:
Well, are you satisfied with the 23 answer, are you?
24 MR. DIGNAN:
I am.
25 (Pause.)
1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L
1 ADLER - CROSS 28265 1
MR. DIGNAN:
Your Honor, if by any chance Your l
l 2
Honor thinks there was something tricky or not understood, I 3
would be glad to have the witness have the witness have the 4
question again.
5 JUDGE SMITH:
No, I understood the question, but 6
you didn't get an answer to your question.
7 MR. DIGNAN:
I know I didn't, Your Honor.
8 JUDGE COLE:
You didn't need an answer.
9 MR. DIGNAN:
Not beyond what I got, let's put it 10 that way.
11 JUDGE SMITH:
All right, i
12 Mr. Turk?
13 CROSS-EXAMINATION 14 BY MR. TURK:
15 Q
Mr. Dignan has gone right to the heart of the 16 matter, and I wanted to ask a question about the stall space 17 that you assume would exist.
1 I
18 A
(Adler)
Yes.
I 19 Q
And as I see on page 2, you do say it's 9 feet by 20 18 feet.
l 21 A
(Adler)
Yes.
22 Q
What's the average width of a vehicle these days, 23 an automobile?
24 A
(Adler)
I can't say that I know exactly what the
)
I 25 average width is.
It's certainly less than nine feet.
)
i Heritage Reporting Corporation I
(202) 628-4888 1
n.
q
.r ADLER - CROSS-28266 1
.Q Well,'let me give you some information.
1,
' 0 2
.A (Adler)
Yes.
3 Q
I used-to.have a pretty big boat of.a car.
It was 4
a '76 Caddy.
Probably the widest car in existence.
And it 5
was six feet wide.
l 6
Aren't most vehicles within that dimension?
7 A
(Adler)
Not most vehicles.
8 Q
Most automobiles.
9 A
(Adler)
Automobiles range in width.
And, of 10 course, if you include side mirrors and other appurtenances, 11 they take up more space than that, yes.
12 Q.
Well, actual vehicle body width, do you know any 13 automobiles that are wider than six feet?
N"'N 14 A
(Adler)
I don't, no.
'15 O
Why is it necessary to allocate nine feet for 16 every vehicle in a parking lot?
17 A
(Adler)
That is a standard stall width.
It 18 allows you, for example, to open your doors.
You need a 19 foot and a half -- it allows you a foot and a half on either 20 side, or a total of three feet between vehicles on either 21 side.
22 And, generally, an American car that has doors 23 swinging open takes two to three feet to open the door.
24 Q
Two to three feet?
25 A
(Adler)
Yes.
.m
(
Beritage Reporting Corporation A
(202) 628-4888
s ADLER - CROSS 28267 1
Q And that's optimum parking lot --
1 1
l 2
A (Adler)
Nine feet, in the old days when there 3
were a lot of those wide Cadillacs, it was common to have 4
stall widths as wide as 10 feet.
And it depends a lot on 5
the use.
6 If the use is, for example, a lot of supermarkets 7
like to have even wider stall widths to allow shopping carts 8
and movement of packages in and out of cars.
9 Nine feet, I believe, is a practical dimension for 10 a lot, a high turnover lot such as the one that's being 11 proposed.
12 0
You would agree we are not really looking to build 13 an optimum parking lot here.
14 A
(Adler)
No, but it's certainly the case that --
g 15 Q
No, you don't agree, or, yes, you agree?
16 A
(Adler)
I agree that you don't want to have an 17 optimum parking lot in all respects.
But you certainly want 18 to support the kind of use that's anticipated, which is a 19 very extremely high turnover use.
It's a much higher 20 turnover than any other use that I'm personally aware of.
21 Q
There are in fact a substantial number of cars 22 that are no more than 60 inches wide, five feet wide.
23 Isn't that right?
24 All the little cars coming out of Japan and 25 European cars?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
.I s
ADLERo-CROSS 28268
- j/~
-1 A
'(Adler)
There are.
)' 7 2
Yes, there is a mix of! vehicle widths'and lengths, I
3 yes.
4 Q
.I know you are familiar with lane widths on roads.
l 5
A (Adler)
Yes, I am, j
6 0
Is it.true that interstate highways have a 7
prescribed or design width of 12 feet per vehicle?
8 A
(Adler)
Yes.
9 Q
And is it also true that. alleys and streets may l
10 have lane widths as narrow as eight feet 11 A
(Adler)
There are, yes.
12 0
-- to allow the passage of moving vehicles?
13 A
(Adler)
Excuse me?
f
14 Q
For the passage of moving vehicles.
15.
A (Adler)
There certainly are in certain locations 16 roads that are as narrow as, or lanes that are as narrow as 17 eight feet, that's correct.
Typically where there aren't 18 hard obstructions on both sides.
19 Q
And you have observed beach traffic parking areas, J
20 haven't you?
1 21 Q
Beach parking areas.
22 And would you agree that a lot of the parking in 23 beach areas in the vicinity of Seabrook station have 24 vehicles parked closer --
j 25 A
(Adler)
Oh, very close together.
\\
'[
Heritage Reporting Corporation N.
(202) 628-4888 j
ADLER - CROSS 28269 1
Q Very close together.
2 A
(Adler)
Yes.
3 Q
Without nine feet being allocated for cars.
4 A
(Adler)
That's correct.
5 Q
And people manage to park there anyway.
1 6
A (Adler)
In the lots, in particular, in the lots 7
which are typically day-use lots where somebody comes in in 8
the morning, parks there car, and leaves again in the 9
afternoon, and there is a single period of accumulation.
10 In the very high turnover area --
11 Q
Well, wait.
12 In that instance, there may be how many feet 13 between -- how many feet per stall?
14 Six - seven feet?
15 A
(Adler)
Oh, we didn't measure.
16 I believe about eight feet is --
17 Q
Or even a little bit less, isn't that right?
18 A
(Adler)
It's conceivable that it could be less, 19 but much less than --
)
20 Q
Maybe a foot, foot and a half?
~
21 A
(Adler)
-- eight feet, and it's tough to get in i
22 and out of the doors.
23 Q
Maybe a foot, foot and a half between vehicles?
i 24 Two feet, perhaps?
25 A
(Adler)
It's certain possible to park a car that f
Heritage Reporting Corporation j
(202) 628-4888
1 i
i j
ADLER - CROSS 28270 q
i l
l
(]
1 closely together, yes.
)
's_/
2 JUDGE SMITH:
Dr. Adler, are you saying that the 3
persons that park at the beach, the first people in cannot 4
leave until the last people leave?
5 THE WITNESS:
(Adler)
Well, in some cases there 6
are -- we observed in looking at the aerial photography some 7
pretty extreme parking examples where on a private lot, for
\\
8 example, on the front lawn there are six cars parked and 9
certainly there are cars --
10 JUDGE SMITH:
That would be true there?
i 11 THE WITNESS:
(Adler)
Excuse me?
12 JUDGE SMITH:
That would be true there?
13 THE WITNESS:
(Adler)
It would be true that you
"}
14 can't get some of those cars out.
(
/
15 The large attended lots are typically parked in a 16 fashion that allows anybody to leave.at any point.
But the 17 basic mode of operation is one where people come in, in the 18 morning, there's an accumulation between 8:00 in the morning 19 and 11:00 in the morning, they accumulate and they hit a 20 maximum capacity sometime around noon or 1 o' clock; and then 21 after 1 o' clock cars start to leave.
22 Yes.
And in some of those cases the cars are 23 parked closer together than nine feet.
24 What I was trying to answer to Mr. Turk was that l
25 the higher turnover spaces are the spaces, for example,
?"'s
(
)
Heritage Reporting Corporation
\\m/
(202) 628-4888
ADLER - CROSS 28271 1
along Route 1A.
There are some diagonal spaces and parallel l
l 2
spaces and perpendicular spaces; in those cases the stall 3
widths are much wider, nine plus feet in many cases.
And 4
the reason is because you have cars pulling in and out 5
fairly frequently and you have to designate those space and 6
you have allow a space that's wide enough to fit any 7
reasonable car basically.
8 BY MR. TURK:
9 Q
Doctor, I have to observe, as this case goes on I 10 get more and more driving experience in the function of 11 time.
12 A
(Adler)
Yes.
13 Q
And in all my experience I recall parking in many 14 spaces where I may go into a store for 10 or 15 minutes and 15 then come back out.
16 A
(Adler)
Yes.
17 Q
I deal with no more than a foot or foot and a 18 half, maybe two feet of space between me and the next car.
19 Haven't you had the same experience?
20 You're from a small town in vermont, I understand?
21 A
(Adler)
Yes.
22 I don't -- that's right.
23 Q
Maybe you don't have the same experience?
24 A
(Adler)
I certainly parked in many spaces, I 25 lived in Boston for four years.
I haven't meesured every Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
ADLER - REDIRECT 28272 1
space that.I have.been in, but'I certainly have been very
- \\s 2
actively involved in lot layout and lot design; and I can 4
3 tell you that'the standards for lot layout are that a nine 1
4 foot space'results in the most efficient operation for any 5
use which results in turnover rather than a long-term 6
commuter lot.
7 JUDGE SMITH:
Would you wind up, please.
8 MR. TURK:
Yes.
9 JUDGE SMITH:
Mr. Fierce?
10 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. FIERCE:
12 Q
Dr. Adler, you looked at the aerial photos for the 13 North Andover lot?
/~%
14 A
(Adler)
Yes.
()
15 Q
And they were marked in the clean parking area?
16
-A (Adler)
Yes.
17 Q
Did the stalls in that North Andover lot appear to 18 be any less wide than nine feet?
19 A
(Adler)
I couldn't scale exactly, but based on 20 the measurements that were presented by the Applicants in 21 their Rebuttal Testimony No. 17 it appeared that they were 22 approximately nine feet apart.
23 0
And just one follow-up question on Mr. Dignan's i
24 question.
When you were estimating the parking capacity in 25 the beach areas and saw an open area that indicated that it Heritage Reporting Corporation t
(202) 628-4888 i
l i
ADLER - REDIRECT 28273 1
had been used for parking, did you allow for aisles and exit
+
2 from those lots?
3 A
(Adler)
Yes, I did.
4 MR. FIERCE:
No further questions.
5 OJDoE SMITH:
Anything further?
6 (No response) 7 JUDGE SMITH:
Dr. Adler, you' re excused.
8 Thank you.
9 THE WITNESS:
(Adler)
Thank you.
10 (The witness was excused.)
11 JUDGE SMITH:
Anything further?
12 We'll announce our ruling on the motion.
13 Do you have a problem with the stipulations?
14 MR. TURK:
Your Honor, I have to note, first of 15 all -- let me take METPAC first.
16 If I was entering a stipulation and I was e. party 17 who was affected by the outcome, I would like different 18 language in that stipulation.
19 As I understand it, it's really a stipulation on i
20 METPAC between the Kisa AG and the Applicants which does not i
21 affect me or my client.
So I don't really believe I need to 22 take a position on that ene.
23 There seems to be an agreement as to which was 24 designed to limit cross-examination. It's an accommodation 25 more than anything else, as I understand it.
l
'{
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
i
1; L
28274 s
1 MR. TRAFICONTE:
That's exactly what it's origin 2
is:;it was designed as an accommodation to limit cross-3 examination.
4 JUDGE SMITH:
Indeed, and that's what many 5
stipulations are for.
~
6 MR. TURK:
And I certainly --
7 JUDGE SMITH:
So you don't object to it?
L 8
MR. TURK:
It's not my testimony that is being 9
affected, Your Honor.
So, no, I don't object.
10 I just should note for the sake of completeness 11 that if I was going to enter the stipulation I would have 12 made it more embracing.
For instancs, on item No. 1 --
13 JUDGE SMITH:
We don't have semi-objections.
I ge
14 mean, it's going to go in or out and that's about it.
s 15 MR. TURK:
Let me note this so the record is
-16 clear, Your Honor.
17 On item No. 1 it indicates that METPAC does not 18 include dose to the population that has already been 19 received prior to the time of METPAC calculation.
20 15m informed by Dr. Bores that that's correct, but 21 that there is no reason why you can't simply put into the 22 model the past dose information.
23 So, No. 1 is correct as far as it goes, but I 24 don't believe it goes far enough.
25 JUDGE SMITH:
Mr. Turk, we only have one option:
Heritage Reporting Corporation
\\s (202) 628-4888
28275 1
yes or no.
t 2
MR. TURK:
But you don't need me to agree to the 3
stipulation.
4 JUDGE SMITH:
All right, that's fine.
5 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Good.
~
6 (Laughter) 7 JUDGE SMITH:
Because when it comes time to find 8
facts on this, it's either we're going to find this or not 9
if it's proposed to us and that's about it.
10 MR. TURK:
I would be pleased if Mr. Traficonte 11 would agree, so that we don't have the wrong facts found, if 12 he would agree that, yes, it's possible to put into NETPAC.
13 MR. TRAFICONTE:
No, we would not agree to that.
14 JUDGE SMITH:
Well, Mr. Turk, I take it that 15 you're not objecting.
16 MR. TURK:
I'm not a party, Your Honor.
I'm not 17 affected; and I therefore take no position.
18 JUDGE SMITH:
You take no position?
19 MR. TURK:
Yes.
20 JUDGE SMITH:
That's good enough.
21 How about the joint stipulation regarding pre-22 emergency information issues?
23 MR. TURK:
This similarly is a document which was 24 presented to me late.
I have had this for several days.
25 JUDGE SMITH:
Why is it that you weren't brought I
I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
28276 1
into this?
92 MR. TURK:
I can't answer that, Your Honor.
3 It's certainly not because I ever indicated I 4
didn't want to be brought in.
5 I am informed that Mr. Donovan of FEMA has looked 6
at this and has indicated he has no objection to it.
I have l
~
I 7
not been able to speak to him directly, but that's the 8
information I have.
And on that basis I don't oppose it.
9 But by the same token, I wonder if I really need 10 to take a position at all.
11 MR. TRAFICONTE:
I think in fairness to Mr. Turk 12 the Applicants and the Interveners proceeded on the grounds 13 that Mr. Turk need not take any position; and for that reason he wasn't included in the discussion surrounding the 9
14 15 stipulation.
16 JUDGE SMITH:
Well, in this instance he doesn't 17 assert any need to take a position.
So it turned out that 18 you were right; that could have been a different result.
19 MR. TURK:
On $his one let me note, Your Honor, it 20 does propose modifications to the pre-emergency information, 21 which is something that FEMA normally reviews on an annual 22 basis.
I shouldn't say " annual," " biennial" basis to the 23 exercises.
24 So I assume that given the fact that I'm informed 25 Mr. Donovan has already looked at this and approved it.
9 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
\\
l 28277 l
1 Given the fact that there will be er.ercises in the future, I 2
have no reason to oppose the stipulation.
3 JUDGE SMITH:
So you don't.
4 All right.
Both stipulations then are received 5
and they will be bound into the transcript.
6 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Your Honor, I know you intend to 7
rule and I also know that we're trying all to get done her 8
by 11:00.
9 Could I just seek for a moment some clarification 10 on the page limitation that was set yesterday afternoon 11 regarding proposed findings.
12 I understand that the Applicants have 300 pages in 13 which to file their initial filing.
I understand we have an 14 additional 200 pages.
15 Two c'arifications: one --
16 JUDGE bMITH:
It's 250, Mr. Traficonte.
17 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Is it 2507 18 JUDGE SMITH:
Yes.
19 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Number one: are you intending 20 that proposed findings be filed by both sides on the 21 returning commuters issue?
22 JUDGE SMITH:
I'm surprised the question comes up.
23 MR. FIERCE:
Just because it's a leftover issue 24 from New Hampshire that having heard the evidence you might 25 decide to rule on it sooner.
That was the only concern.
I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
28278 1
JUDGE SMITH:
I'm sorry, what was your thought 2
again?
When would we do it?
3 MR. FIERCE:
I didn't know what the Board's 4
intention was.
It was conceivable to me that you might 5
decide to rule on the returning commuters issue, a leftover 6
issue from New Hampshire --
7 JUDGE SMITH:
No, we will make it part of the --
8 MR. FIERCE:
-- sooner rather than later.
Then 9
we'll fold the proposed findings on that right into the --
10 MR. TRAFICONTE:
The second clarification that I 11 seek is: the treatment of a page.
I take it, this does not 12 mean we have 550 pages.
But my problem is that -- or more 13 than 550.
14 JUDGE SMITH:
You can add 250 new crisp, shiny 15 pages.
16 JUDGE McCOLLOM:
Whatever they give you.
17 MR. TRAFICONTE:
What I want to know is: how do we 18 treat it if they give me a page and I cross out portions of 19 it.
20 JUDGE SMITH:
Right.
21 MR. TRAFICONTE:
And insert --
22 JUDGE SMITH:
Don't count that.
23 MR. TRAFICONTE:
And insert portions of ours on 24 it.
25 JUDGE SMITH:
Count that one.
j 9
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
28279 1
Yes.
You have a lot of pages.
1 s
2 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Well, I'm still not clear.
3 If I'do that -- if I take a page and "X" it out 4
and insert portions of our findings on their page --
5 JUDGE McCOLLOM:
But you have to leave their l
6 findings; therefore that extends part of the page and that l
7 comes in your 250.
8 The way I would look at it is: you've got 300 9
pages of theirs, you mark something out and whatever you add t
l 10 to it has to come in your 250 that's yours.
11 MR. TRAFICONTE:
So we're given less pages than 12 the Applicants are.
13 JUDGE COLE:
No, because if you accept, for 14 example, 100 pages of the Applicants 250, and then you have g
15 250, you've got 350 pages.
16 MR. TRAFICONTE:
150 of which was written for us 17 by the Applicants.
18 JUDGE McCOLLOM:
And which you accepted.
19 JUDGE COLE:
Or 100.
20 MR. TRAFICONTE:
And which I have accepted.
21 JUDGE SMITH:
See, the reason you don't have as 22 many as they do is that you're relieved of much by way of 23 background explanation.
You have no need to offer any pages 24 on any matter not in controversy anymore.
25 And that is why I think that you probably have Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
j 28280 1
more functionally useful pages at your disposal than the 92 i
1 Applicants.
That was our reasoning anyway.
3 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Fine.
4 Last point -- fine in the sense that I understand, 5
but not fine in the sense that I'm acceding to a page 6
limitation of any type.
7 But if we take a page that they give us and we 4
8 cross out one of the paragraphs on it and add an additional 9
paragraph that for some reason we can type right on their 10 page, is that one of our 250 or is that just an amendment to 11 theirs?
12 JUDGE SMITH:
I guess, Mr. Traficonte, we're going 13 to have to leave you to your good faith on it then.
14 I don't know, I would say you could break it down 15 into partial pages.
But the fact is, we think that we have 16 given you a page limitation that should comfortably take 17 care of your needs.
18 And if you don't believe that it does, and you can 19 demonstrate a need for it, you can ask for more.
20 MR. TRAFICONTE:
I'm primarily interested in 21 understanding when you --
22 JUDGE SMITH:
Just the counting.
23 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Just counting.
24 JUDGE SMITH:
You don't want to go over the page 25 limitation and have something thrown out.
9 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
28281 1
MR. TRAFICONTE:
That's right.
2 And I want to make sure that I understand how the 3
page limitation is interpreted, that's all.
And I think I 4
do.
5 JUDGE SMITH:
New material by you and partial 6
pages and new pages should be counted.
7 MR. TRAFICONTE:
All right.
8 JUDGE S' CH:
Does that take care of it?
9 MR. TRAFICONTE:
That does.
It's clear.
10 Now we'll know if, and when, we need to seek an 11 additional number of pages, we will know how to count what i
12 we have got.
13 MR. TURK:
Your Honor, I don't understand the 14 confusion.
I'm assuming they're going to have a document 15 that's numbered with pages in sequence.
So their total 16 document will be 250 over what the Applicants' total pages 17 is.
If Applicants submits 250 pages, Mr. Traficonte gets a l
s 18 document to file a 500 page.
j J
19 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Well, that's exactly what I i
20 thought, Mr. Turk, but if I understand the exchange we've I
21 had that would not be the way I should count.
22 MR. DIGNAN:
Well, not if you're going to keep
)
23 your commitment which is that you're going to respond in 24 some fashion or another to everyone of my findings.
25 MR. TRAFICONTE:
By either marking it out or --
l l
Heritage Reporting Corporation I
(202) 628-4888 l
l 4
28282 1
MR. DIGNAN:
Let's say I filed 250.
My 7_
i
\\^
\\,,/
2 understanding of what you got to do is -- let's call it the 3
first 250 of yours is mine, marked up or unmarked up; and 4
then you got 250 beyond that if you want.
In fact, it will 5
be interspersed.
In fact, what it will be is interspersed, 6
but the last page number of the whole package better not be 7
above 500.
8 MR. TRAFICONTE:
That I understand.
9 JUDGE SMITH:
I think you're misapplying the idea 10 of marking out one of their pages.
By marking out one of 11 their pages does not cost you a page or anything, not even a 12 word, you have indicated your disagreement with that page.
13 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Yes.
14 JUDGE SMITH:
Just simply by "X'ing" it out or
,-~s
{
\\
\\_ /
15 whatever device you use.
That's free.
l 16 And that communicates an idea to the Board right 17 there without charging you of pages.
18 JUDGE McCOLLOM:
But you don't gain a new page by 19 that.
I 20 JUDGE SMITH:
No, you don't gain a new page.
Any
~
21 type of arithmetic would say, by you crossing one of those 22 out you get another page.
But when you substitute your own
\\
23 page for it that begins to count.
]
l l
24 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Okay.
25
[N Heritage Reporting Corporation
(
(202) 628-4888 l
1 1
L________________.._
- j. <
l 28283 1
JUDGE SMITH:
Can you think of any more logical, 2
better counting method if we're going to have that kind of 3
page limitation?
4 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Those two options -- that is very 5
clear to me.
6 The only concern I have is this middle ground
?
where we take a page of theirs, we cross out a portion of 8
it.
We add a substitute paragraph or sentence, for example, 9
and we do that on an accompanying page that is otherwise 10 blank.
It has two or three sentences and it follows upon 11 the page where we have Xed out most --
l 12 JUDGE McCOLLOM:
Well, I bet they will fix is so 13 there isn't any space left.
14 MR. FIERCE:
They can word process it together, 15 but the point is that every finding that the Applicants have 16 written is going to appear either as is, or with a line 17 through it, but will be read ble.
18 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Yes.
19 MR. FIERCE:
And our concern, of course, is that a 20 very generalized statement takes up only one line in the 21 Applicants' proposed findings, and we disagree with it, and 22 we strike it out, and using the word processor we have to 23 insert a full explanation of why we --
24 JUDGE SMITH:
That's right.
25 MR. FIERCE:
-- disagree with that one line, and
?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
28284 l'
-it might take us two pages to do that, k '/'
2 JUDGE SMITH:
It could very well do it.
3 JU"GE McCOLLOM:
And that comes out of your 250.
4 Mh. FIERCE:
And to the extent that the 5
Applicants' findings are generalized in short ways that we 6
disagree with, we' re going to need more space than the '
7 additional 250 pages than --
8 MR. DIGNAN:
Oh, actually, Allan, what I'm 9
planning to do is do very generalized findings.
I'm going 10 to do it all in 10 pages, and then you only get 210.
11 Come on.
Do you really think my findings are 12.
going to be generalized?
13 MR. FIERCE:
If they are like the last ones, yes.
/
14 MR. DIGNAN:
Can't we walk into the real world --
\\
15 MR. FIERCE:
If they are the last ones, yes.
16 MR. DIGNAN:
-- for the last day of the hearing?
17 JUDGE McCOLLOM:
At 10:357 18 MR. DIGNAN:
Yes..
19 JUDGE SMITH:
Anything further?
20 MS. TALBOT:
Your Honor.
21 Off the record.
22 JUDGE SMITH:
All right, yes.
23 (Discussion off the record.)
y 24 JUDGE SMITH:
Anything further?
25 All right, we are about ready to close the i
{
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
1
2828b j
1 evidentiary record.
I 2
MR. DIGNAN:
Your Honor, before that could the two 3
stipulations be incorporated in the transcript as if read.
I 4
JUDGE SMITH:
Yes.
I did, I thought.
5 But if I haven't, they certainly are.
They will
~
6 be stipulations.
7 (Joint Stipulation Regarding 8
Pre-Emergency Information 9
Issues follows:)
f 10 11 l
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l
Heritage Reporting Corporation f
(202) 628-4888 i
1 1
June 30, 1989 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i
)
In the Matter of
)
j
)
FUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444-OL
)
(Seabrook Station, Units.1 and 2)
)
(Off-site Emergency
)
Planning Issues)
)
LOINT STIPULATION REGARDING PRE-EMERGENCY INFORMATION ISSUES The Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
(" Mass AG"), for himself and on behalf of the other Interveners, and the Applicants hereby submit the following Joint Stipulation, which is intended to resolve all the Pre-Emergency Information issues raised in Joint Intervenor Contention 39 with the exception of those issues raised in Basis A of that contention.
A.
Revisions By Applicants Applicants have agreed to make the following changes to the Pre-Emergency Information materials prior to the next public dissemination of the relevant materials or full power 1
operation, whichever comes first:
j l
2 I
nsnsn.n i
l i
I i
1
>3 1.
Calendar 1
\\_/
Complete the proposed changes discussed in the l
l July 29, 1988 letter from George Gram to j
I Richard W.
Donovan.
Conform monitoring and decontamination j
I instructions to those provided by New j
Hampshire, i.e.,
replace, on page 3 of the f
\\
l Calendar, the phrase " Monitoring for radiation
]
l exposure and decontamination, if desired" with I
the phrase " Monitoring for radiation exposure I
and decontamination, if necessary."
l Change the format of the Calendar so that l
columns will be self-contained on each page, j'~~s i.e.,
columns will read from left to right on
'N a single page rather than from the top of one page to the bottom of the next page.
List EBS stations and frequencies on each page of the Calendar.
Include an instruction on the map page (page 5 of the Calendar) or the map instruction page j
(page 6 of the Calendar) to keep car vents and windows closed.
Distinguish between congregate care centers l
and reception centers.
(See Attachment A)
State that neighbors should refrain from using the telephone to check on special needs
/T U !
l individuals unless there is no other practical means to check on these individuals.
Define beach closing and distinguish it from evacuation.
In particular, state the purpose of closing the beach, i.e.,
people at the beaches should leave the beaches; others should not go to the beach.
(See Attachment A) i 1
Include an example of reason to go outside if l
1 sheltering is recommended, i.e.,
to bring in a child.
(See Attachment A) l Add a sentence describing the rationale for i
i precautionary evacuation of school children.
f (See Attachment A)
-Remove the sunbathing graphic.
2.
Transient Flyers Conform information provided by the transient flyers to that provided by the calendar.
i Specifically:
Include instruction to keep car vents and I
windows closed.
Define beach closing consistent with the Calendar.
List EBS stations and frequencies at j
least once.
i 1 1
3.
Route Flyers Conform information provided by the route flyers to that provided by the calendar.
Specifically:
l l
State that transients should follow l
l evacuation plan for the town in which I
t person is located, not for their "own" town.
Include instruction to keep car vents and windows closed.
4.
Posters Conform information provided by the posters to that provided by the calendar.
Specifically:
e List EBS stations and frequencies on the evacuation route posters.
All proposed changes will be submitted to FEMA and are subject to FEMA approval.
B.
Response By Interveners In light of these revisions and undertakings by Applicants, Mass AG agrees that the Pre-Emergency Information issues raised in the Massachusetts emergency planning litigation, with the exception of thors issues raised in JI Contention 39 Basis A, have been resolved.
Mass AG accordingly withdraws JI Contention 39 and Bases B, C,
D, E,
F and G thereto.
Applicants and Mass AG agree to substitute, _
I in place of the current JI Contention 39, the following contention (which tracks Basis A):
Plans and procedures for disseminating pre-emergency information are inadequate.
There is no assurance that the many thousands of transients who frequent the Massachusetts portions of the Seabrook EPZ will have available to them either prior to or at the time of an emergency any information concerning the methods and times required for notification, the protective actions planned, the nature and effects of radiation or a list of sources of additional information.
The SPMC therefore does not meet the regualtory standards as set forth at 50.47 (b) (7), NUREG 0654 II.
G.
and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, IV.
D.2.
In withdrawing JI Contention 39 and Bases B, C,
D, E,
F and G thereto, Mass AG does not intend to waive or prejudice his position with respect to any issue raised by JI Contentions 35, 48 and 49 and MAG EX-9.
Respectfully submitted, COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY FOR ITSELF AND ALL OTHER INTERVENERS OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ET AL.
AND 10 CFR 52.715(c) PARTICIPANTS By:
I$ l 0,
k By: ]w Ad Pamela Talbot Jay /Bradford Smifh Assistant Attorney General Ropes & Gray Department of the Attorney One International Place i
General Boston, MA 02110 One Ashburton Place (617) 951-7000 Boston, MA 02108 (617) 727-2200 f, l
1 1
ATTACHMENT A PROPOSED WORDING FOR PI STIPULATION 1
1.
Distinguish between a reception center and congregate i
care center.
A reception center is a pre-designated facility outside the plume EPZ at which you can:
l
~
receive a referral to a congregate care center, which is a facility operated by the American Red Cross for providing temporary housing, food, clothing and other provisions to those individuals who need a place to stay; and if desired, be monitored to determine the presence of radioactive contamination, if any, and decontaminated to remove any radioactive contamination.
register in order to track those who have been to the reception center; leave messages for family members; receive general information on the emergency; 2.
Define beach closing.
During an emergency, beaches in the area may be closed.
This means that people on the beach should leave the beach area and return to their lodging or home.
People not at the beach should not go there.
3.
Describe the rationale for precautionary school evacuation.
During an emergency, the NHY ORO may recommend to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts precautionary protective actions for school children.
These precautionary protective ac tions would be recommended to ensure that the accountability, safety and security of school children can be maintained.
If an emergency situation exists prior to the start
+
of classes for the day, schools may be closed (similar +- what is done for potential or actual winter storms).
h JXSATTA NH
L 1
i i
I i
-g If schools are in session, students may be l
(
)
evacuated early to the predetermined host facility.
\\~ /
This will ensure that the accountability, safety and security of the school children will be maintained.
4.
Include an example of a reason to go outside if sheltering is recommended.
If you are advised that a release is in progress and you 4
must go outdoors (e.g., to bring in children playing f
outside), cover your nose and mouth with a folded wet cloth and return to an indoor location as soon as possible.
When sheltering is recommended, only go outdoors if absolutely necessary.
1
[ %
\\
L,/
1 e
/*
i
\\ - - _ - - _ -
28286 1-(Stipulation Regarding 2
METPAC, 6-30-89 follows:)
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 l
15 16 17
[
18 19 i
20 l
l 21 l
22 23 1
1 24 25 i
1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
June 30, 1989 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION before the ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
)
In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-443-OL
~
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al.
)
50-444-OL
)
i (Seabrook Station, Units 1
)
(Offsite Emergency and 2)
)
Planning Issues)
)
STIPULATION Now come the Attorney General of The Commonwealth of Massachusetts (MAG) and the Applicants and stipulate and agree as follows:
i 1.
METPAC does not include dose to the population that has already been received prior to the time of the METPAC calculation.
2.
METPAC as used in the June 1988 exercise was programmed on the basis of out of date ETEs.
3.
In its graphic display mode METPAC does not display the deposition footprint, i.e.,
the already released I
radiation.
Such information is, however, included as part of i
the integrated dose printout.
)
i i
i 9I l
l 1
j
44
(
$jf)
\\M' 4.
METPAC-does not quickly'or efficiently plot the.
track of a release.for every 15 minute segment when a "what' if" sequence of several hours is analyzed.'
For The Attorney General of The For the Applicants,
.I O{CommonwealthofMassachusetts,
..s-,
p vl (V h J
d fohn Traficonte oma M. Dignan, Jr.
~*
l
- Chief, Nuclear Safety. Unit Counsel.for Applicants
's; l
\\
_2_
i
28287 l
1 MR. DIGNAN:
Are the originals being given to the 2
reporter?
l 3
JUDGE McCOLLOM:
Yes, they are the signed ones, 1
1 4
yes.
1 5
JUE 3E SMITH:
They are the only ones I had, in any 6
event.
7 The two stipulations are listed separately in the 8
index as a separate category of item.
9 The Board is at this time denying the Attorney 10 General's motion to hold open the record for low-power 11 testing and onsite exercise.
12 We don't reach the issue of whether, for example, 13 the onsite exercise might give rise to a right to a hearing.
14 In fact, our ruling would not turn on that at all even if we g
15 were to assume that the onsite exercise -- and I'm just 16 using the onsite exercise as an example here, because that 17 is the one I think that is most likely to give a right to a 18 hearing.
i 19 But even if we were to assume that that onsite 20 exercise is likely to give rise to a right to a hearing and 21 that an issue may come out of it, we find that we do not 22 have the authority to hold open the record for that purpose.
23 The Board has general jurisdiction in accordance 24 with the Panel Chairman's reconstitution of the Licensing 25 Board Clarification to entertain the motion.
But as we Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
l l
'1 i
i J
28288 j
l r~'g l'
stated, no authority to grant the relief requested.
j
(
)
2 Essentially we agree very closely with Section A i
3
.of the Staff's response to the motion.
4 The Board, under the general' authority granted by.
1 5
the Commission in the Notice of Opportunity for a Hearing,.
6 which is effected by the Constitution Order by the Chairman 7
of the Panel, has two basic general areas of authority.
8 One, is to rule on the admissibility of 9
contentions.
I might elaborate on that just.a bit.
10 Also, we also have the responsibility and 11 authority to rule upon the standing of.a petitioner to 12 intervene, but that isn't relevant here.
13 And then once having found that a contention
{
14 raises an issue for hearing, we have the authority and 15 jurisdiction to hear and decide those contentions.
And,.of 16 course, as everyone recognizes, we also have the additional 17 authority to raise an issue sui sponte, which again is not 18 involved in this consideration.
19 We have no other authority, none whatever.
I 20 We have come to a natural ending to the 21 evidentiary hearing.
There is no more testimony to be 22 presented to us.
There is a motion which we understand will 23 be received to roceive evidence.
But properly before us
)
24 right-now, there is just nothing more for us to do.
i 25 We are required in those events to close the
?f Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
28289 1
evidentiary record when we arrive at that normal milestone, 2
and we have come there today.
3 There is no place in any of the court cases cited 4
to us, any place in the Commission's regulations, no place 5
in any of the Commission's adjudicative decisions which 6
authorize the presiding officers to keep the evidentiary 7
record open solely to ease or to create higher threshold 8
burdens of a litigant.
9 It's a matter down the road, and it is quite j
10 simply just beyond our authority.
11 Even if the NRC as a whole has the responsibility 12 to address the difference between reopening the record as 13 compared to a late-filed contention, or as compared to a l
14 2.206 petition, even if that were the case, that authority 15 has not been granted to licensing boards, and that would be 16 true even if there is a void in the Commission's system of 17 adjudicative fora.
18 And as stated, we found nothing in the cases --
l 19 Union of Concerned Scientists v. NRC, or Mothers for Peace.
20 Everyone calls it " Mom's), the San Luis Obispo case.
The 21 Mothers for Peace -- that suggests to the contrary.
22 Accordingly, this evidentiary record is now 23 closed.
24 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Can I seek one --
l 1
25 JUDGE SMITH:
Indeed, we are not off the record, 1
I 1
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 4
I 1
28290 I
however.
,sI
)
( /'
2 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Yes.
3 JUDGE SMITH:
But the evidentiary record is 4
concluded --
5 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Yes.
~
6 JUDGE SMITH:
-- as of this moment.
7 (The evidentiary record is herein closed.)
8 MR. TRAFICONTE:
I understand that.
9 JUDGE SMITH:
Zap.
That's a magic moment.
10 MR. TRAFICONTE:
The gun, I have a gun in my 11 pocket and I will fire --
12 (Laughter) l 13 MR. TRAFICONTE:
That I understand.
That I ex 14 understand, r
i
\\\\s-)
15 I would like, in the form of a clarification, we 16 are intending, and I think I mentioned this once before, but 17 we are intending to file a contention arising out of the 18 events of last week during low power testing.
19 It happens that, as the Board is aware, as part of 20 this motion, we were asserting a right to litigate the 21 events of low power testing, and we believe now there is 22 such an event loosely defined.
We are not sure exactly what 23 occurred yet, but we have some sense of what occurred.
24-As a peint of inquiry, based on my understanding 25 of the jurisdictional lay of the land, I would prepare such
]7 s Heritage Reporting Corporation
\\s (202) 628-4888
I i
28291 1
I a contention with appropriate motion, whatever that 2
appropriate motion is, and I would send it to this Board.
3 By this ruling, is the Board intending to convey 4
to the Interveners in this case that there is question in 5
its mind as to whether, or doubt as to whether this would be 6
the appropriate Board to which to send such a contention?
7
' JUDGE SMITH:
No.
l 8
We are not talking about the standards which we 9
will apply to such a contention.
10 MR. TRAFICONTE:
I understand that.
11 JUDGE SMITH:
We're not talking about that.
12 MR. TRAFICONTE:
I understand.
13 JUDGE SMITH:
We are not talking about whether it
{
14 even gives a hearing right.
15 But if you wish to have an issue heard which --
16 oh, are you making a distinction between whether the onsite 17 litigation has been decided and is res judicata?
18 MR. TRAFICONTE:
No, no.
19 JUDGE SMITH:
No, I think it's clear then.
20 MR. TRAFICONTE:
My inquiry is just jurisdiction.
21 I had understood that the basis, in part, of your 22 ruling on our motion was jurisdictional.
23 JUDGE SMITH:
We continue to have general 24 jurisdiction, I believe, over all matters which are properly 25 within the Notice of the Opportunity for Hearing, and which Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
(
l 28292 l
l-
[
~1 have'not'been already decided.and passed its way up the q
4 O'~
2 appellate ladder.
3' MR. TRAFICONTE:
- Fine, q
. c 4'
JUDGE SMITH:
Does' anybody disagree with.that?
1 5
(No response.)
~
'i
- 1.,,
6 JUDGE SMITH:
And I don't know why you raised the 7
- question, 7
8 Is there any reason that --
9 MR. TRAFICONTE:
Because.I had understood, and 10 maybe it was just -- I would like to go over the transcript.-
11 But I had understood from the ruling and the grounds for the 12 ruling and,Lin particular, your adoption of Section A of the 13-Staff's response to the motion,. that the grounds, at least' 14 in.part,,of your denial'of our motion, for example, the
'~'
15 portion that sought a prehearing conference or requested a-16
.date for the filing of contentions, was in part based on 17 jurisdiction.
You just simply had no jurisdiction to do 18-that.
19 MR. TURK:
Your Honor, I don't think there is a 20 need for this discussion.
4 21 MR. DIGNAN:
This is called seeking advice from 22 the Judge.
i 23 JUDGE SMITH:
Yes, right.
24 MR. DIGNAN:
And I've got a problem with that.
25 The Court, for ill or good. depending upon which
')
Heritage Reporting Corporation
~%
(202) 628-4888
t l
28293
?
1 side of the room you are on, has made a ruling on the motion 2
you put before them.
3 If you don't like that ruling for any reason, 4
there is a remedy, and it's upstairs.
5 There is never a remedy to then seek free legal 6
advice from the Judge.
I've got a problem with this, 7
because I 8
JUDGE SMITH:
Right, I agree.
9 MR. DIGNAN:
-- don't know if I'm going to respond 10 to that piece of paper he's going to put in.
And I don't 11 want to face an argument t'.t you have made some sort of a 12 ruling with respect to that piece of paper.
13 JUDGE SMITH:
Actually, I was entering into the 14 dialogue with Mr. Traficonte more as a matter of courtesy.
15 MR. DIGNAN:
I understand that.
16 JUDGE SMITH:
Rather than as a part of our i
17 responsibility, because we are done.
I mean, when that 18 gavel came down, we ran out of steam, power.
We don't have 19 it anymore.
All we are is just --
20 (Laughter)
J l
+
21 JUDGE SMITH:
All we are is just nice guys sitting 22 up here.
23 (Laughter) i 24 JUDGE SMITH:
No, that's it.
We have nothing more 25 to do.
\\
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
r 28294
~
1 MR. TURK:
May I make an, observation also?
[k_ /
2 I'm.sorry, Your Honor.
1 3
JUDGE SMITH:
Sure, go ahead.
J 3
4-MR. TURK:
When I heard Your Honor rule, I heard 5
you say that. you.were following the Staff's position, 6
essentially in Section A of our paper.
I heard you say --
l 7
JUDGE SMITH:
We were in very close agreement.
3 8
MR. TURK:
Yes.
9 And I heard you say that'there is no contentions j
10 pending before you now.
11 JUDGE SMITH:
That's right.
12 MR. TURK:
There is nothing before you.
13 JUDGE SMITH:
That's right.
Jr -
14 MR. TURK:
And I understand that to be the thrust j
' 'N-15 of the decision.
16 What.I understand Mr. Traficonte to be arguing 17 here is, Your Honor, aren't you really saying you're making 18 a jurisdictional finding.
And I have not heard that.
I 19 have not heard a jurisdictional determination.
20 When a motion comes in --
21 MR. DIGNAN:
I den't want Mr. Turk to seek advice 22 any more than Mr. Traficonte.
23 MR. TURK:
I do not.
24 My point is when Mr. Traficonte --
25 MR. DIGNAN:
The ruling has been made, Your Honor.
Beritage Reporting Corporation
\\
(202) 628-4888 l
l
28295 1
I suggest anyone who doesn't like it repair to the Appeal 2
Board.
3 JUDGE SMITH:
We did say in our ruling that we are 4
the Board with general jurisdiction, and that's simply a 5
clarification of it.
6 But even se, I don't think that anybody needs our 7
help on it, our advice on it.
8 If there is nothing further, we are going to 9
adjourn.
But before we do, the Board wants to acknowledge 10 the extraordinary service by the reporters in this 11 proceeding.
12 JUDGE McCOLLOM:
Put in a line, applause.
13 (Applause.)
14 JUDGE SMITH:
Particularly since they have not 15 been officially noticeable, but personally noticeable.
It's 16 a demonstration of how well they have done their job.
A 17 good reporter is somebody who intrudes the least amount, and 18 yet comes up with a good record.
And that certainly has 19 been the case here.
l 20 They have never complained.
They have just simply 21 done their job at the highest level of professionalism.
l 22 And, of course, we are much aware of the presence of the 23 reporter, Donna Cook, in the hearing room.
24 We are also aware that bec>. there in some little 25 room, hello, folks, we appreciate your efforts, too.
And Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
28296
_ g-1 that's really heartfelt.
It's an extraordinarily highly
,,\\s 2'
. professional job you have done.
3 THE REPORTER:
Thank you very much.
We are very 4
happy to hear that.
You have all been so nice to work with, 5
so you've made it easy for us.
6 JUDGE SMITH:
And as we expressed at the close of 7-the last phase of the hearing, the Board is personally and 8
officially appreciative of the high level of civility and 9
professional decorum that we were afforded in the 10 proceeding.
It has made life easier for us and for all of 11 us.
12 So with.that, the record is closed.
13 (Whereupon, at 10:48 a.m.,
the hearing was
/'
14 concluded.)
i 15 16 17 18-19 20 1
l 21 22 23 24 25
/
i Heritage Reporting Corporation
\\s (202) 628-4888
CERTIFICATE This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
4 Name:
Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al.
(Seabrook Station, Units I and 2)
Docket No:
50-443-OL 50-444-OL (Off-site Emergency Planning)
Place:
Boston, Massachusetts Date:
June 30, 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 direction of the court reporting company, and that the transcript is a true and accurate record of the foregoing proceedings.
/S/
(Signature typed) :
Donna L.
Cook Official Reporter Heritage Reporting Corporation i
HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION (202)628-4888
_ _ _ _ _ _ _