ML20247G263
| ML20247G263 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Seabrook  |
| Issue date: | 03/30/1989 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| CON-#289-8422 ASLBP, OL, NUDOCS 8904040178 | |
| Download: ML20247G263 (266) | |
Text
_ _-
< = = ==. =_m
- M G \A_
= . ~ .- ... = ~ - -- -'
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l l
l ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of: ) '
) Docket Nos.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al., ) 50-444-OL
) OFF-SITE EMERGENCY (SEABROOK STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2) ) PLANNING EVIDENTIARY HEARING O
Pages: 17411 through 17672 Place: Boston, Massachusetts Date: March 30, 1989 rA 6(
/ il( s
- HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION d
6 opw.taporre O1- 1220 L Street, N.W., Suke 640 Wastdagton, D.C. 20005 h'
(202) 628 4888 8/04040178 DR 890330 ADOCK 05000443 PDC
l 17411 UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Sec50T&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 Thursday,
$ March 30, 1989 Auditorium Thomas P. O'Neill, Jr.
Federal Building 10 Causeway Street Boston, Massachusetts O The above-entitled matter came on for hearing, pursuant to notice, at 9:10 a.m.
BEFORE: JUDGE IVAN W. SMITH, CHAIRMAN Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Reguletory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 JUDGE KENNETH A. McCOLLOM, Member Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 JUDGE RICHARD F. COLE, MEMBER Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
17412 APPEARANCES:
For the Applicant:
THOMAS G. DIGNAN, JR., ESQ.
GEORGE H. LEWALD, ESQ.
KATHRYN A. SELLECK, ESQ.
JAY BRADFORD SMITH, ESQ.
JEFFREY P. TROUT, ESQ.
GEOFFREY C. COOK, ESQ.
Ropes & Gray One International Place Boston, Massachusetts 02110-2624 For the NRC Staff:
SHERWIN E. TURK, ESQ.
ELAINE CHAN, ESQ.
EDWIN J. REIS, ESQ.
Office of General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 For the Federal Emeroency Management Agency:
H. JOSEPH FLYNN, ESQ.
G 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.
PAMELA TALBOT, ASST. ATTY. GEN.
MATTHEW BROCK, ESQ.
LESLIE B. GREER, ESQ.
Commonwealth of Massachusetts One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor Boston, Massachusetts 02108 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
17413 APPEARANCES: (Continued)
For the State of New Hampshire:
(
GEOFFREY M. HUNTINGTON, ASST. ATTY. GEN. I State of New Hampshire l 25 Capitol Street I Concord, New Hampshire 03301
)
For the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League:
ROBERT A. BACKUS, ESQ.
Lackus, 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.
9 Kopelman and Paige, 77 Franklin Street Boston, Massachusetts P.C.
WILLIAM LORD Town Hall Amesbury, Massachusetts 10913 For the City of Haverhill and Town of Merrimac:
ASHOD N. AMIRIAN, ESQ.
P. O. Box 38 Bradford, Massachusetts 01835 For the City of Newburvoort:
BARBARA J. SAINT ANDRE, ESQ.
JANE O'MALLEY, ESQ.
Kopelman and Paige, P.C.
77 Franklin Strskt Bost on, Mase.achusetts 02110 0 Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
l 17414 APPEARANCES: (Continued)
For the Town of Newbury:
R. SCOT 7 HILL-WHILTON, ESQ.
Lagoulits, Clark, Hill-Whilton & McGuire l 79 States Street 1 Newburyport, Massachusetts 01950 1
ANGELO MACHIROS Town Hall Newburyport, Massachusetts 01950 For the Town of Salisbury:
CHARLES P. GRAHAM, ESQ.
Murphy and Graham 33 Low Street Newburyport, Massachusetts 01950 For the Town of West Newbury:
JUDITH H. MIZNER, ESQ.
Second Floor 79 State Street Newburyport, Massachusetts 01950 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
17415/17416 9 WITNESSES:
1EEEE DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSE EXAM plBE VOIR Panel:
Stephen M. Baldacci Anthony M. Callendrello Edward B. Lieberman '
Dr. Dennis S. Mileti by Ms. Mizner 17417 1 by Ms. Chan 17453 by Judge Cole 17455 by Judge McCollom 17461 by Mr. Lewald 17464 .
by Mr. Turk 17469 1 by Ms. Mizner 17474 by Mr. Fierce 17506 i
EXHIBITS: IDENTIFIED RECEIVED REJECTED DESCRIPTION Applicants' 50 prev. 17473 Traffic control O post number E-WN-03 4
INSERTS: EASE Massachusetts Attorney General's Cross-Examination Plan of the Traffic Management Panel on Issue Transit Dependent 17494 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1
! REBUT"AL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17417 l
.[ 1 F. E Q R E E R I. H G E 2 JUDGE SMITH: Good morning.
3 Is there any preliminary business before we begin?
4 (No response) 5 JUDGE SMITH: Are you going to inquite?
6 Who is going to cross-examine?
7 MS. MIZNER: Your Honor, I am going to cross-8 examine on behalf of the Town of West Newbury. And I have 9 provided you with my cross-examination plan.
10 . Whereupon, 11 STEPHEN M. BALDACCI 12 ANTHONY M. CALLENDRELLO 13 EDWARD B. LIEBERMAN
() 14 DENNIS S. MILETI 15 having been previously duly sworn, resumed the witness stand 16 and were examined and further testified as follows:
17 CROSS-EXAMINATION 18 BY MS. MIZNER:
19 Q Good morning, gentlemen. My nane is Judith Mizner j 20 and I represent the Town of West Newbury.
21 I'm going to be directing my questions primarily 22 to your testimony on pages 100 through 106 of your 1
23 testiraony.
24 MR. TURK: Your Honor, may I inquire before 25 counsel begins, if the Interveners and Mass AG have some l *s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
'= . - - - - - _ - _ - - - - _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . . . _ . . _ _ . - _ . . - -_ - - - - __. - - - - _ - - _ . , . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ - - _ _ . . _ . . -
1 1
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17418 1 estimate of how long the c;: amination of this panel will take 2 today?
3 JUDGE SMITH: If you' re able to help we would l
l 4 appreciate it.
5 MS. MIZNER: Well, I would hope that I would be 6 done in a half an hour.
7 MS. GREER: I suspect that my portion of cross-8 examination will probably take in the range of maybe an 9 hour1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br />, possibly not that long. Of course there is Mr. Fierce 10 who wants to cross-examine on the traffic management plan 11 itself. And I really am not in the position to estimate how 12 long his cross-examination would take. I would think it 13 would take at least a few hours.
(- ) 14 MR. TURK: I noticed that Mr. Fierce wasn't here 15 and I was wondering if the Interveners had some idea of when 16 he would come, but it sounds like he will be here this 17 morning.
18 MS. GREER: At the break I'm supposed to give him 19 a call and let him know how we're coming along here. And if 20 in fact it looks like we're going to be getting to him later 21 on this morning he will come down. If we're not going to be 22 getting to him until this afternoon he will come down this 23 afternoon.
24 I suspect that we will -- we may get through this 25 panel today.
O kI Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17419 l
1 JUDGE SMITH: Are you~ worried about Urbanik?
)
2 MR. TURK: Yes.
3 JUDGE SMITH: Can you stop him?
4 MR. TURK: He's here.
5 JUDGE SMITH: He's here. You probably didn't want 6 to hear that, did you? I'm thinking that the way the events 7 are turning out we could have worked in that other panel and 8 that would have saved him the trip.
9 MR. TURK: Well, he is here, Your Honor. And I 10 just note that earlier in the week Mr. Fierce told me that
\
11 he had not yet been able to prepare much cross-examination 12 for this panel and he thought he would take only a few hours 13 and he thought we would actually reach Dr. Urbanik
() 14 yesterday, Wednesday. And on that representation I had 15 called Dr. Urbanik and tried to see if he could come in even ;
16 earlier than he has come in. He wasn't about to. He flew 17 in late last night and I'm hoping that we will be able to 18 reach him and conclude his testimony by the end of the week.
19 BY MS. MIZNER:
20 Q Has any Member of the Panel driven the West 21 Newbury bus routes?
22 A (Baldacci) Yes, I have.
23 Q And when did you do that?
24 A (Baldacci) Well, I have driven the routes a 25 number of times beginning last fall about the time the N Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17420 1 survey was performed and as recently as a week or two ago.
)
2 Q When you say the survey are you referring to the 3 field survey in November?
4 A (Baldacci) Tnat's correct.
5 Q And so you personally drove all three West Newbury 6 bus routes at that time?
7 A (Baldacci) No , ma' am, I did not participate in 8 that particular road survey at the time.
9 Q But you have personally driven all three of the 10 routes? !
11 A (Baldacci) Yes. That's correct.
12 Q Any other Member of the Panel driven those bus 13 routes?
() 14 A (Lieberman) Yes.
about three or four weeks ago throughout all the bus routes I was driven by Mr. Baldacci 15 16 of West Newbury. And I drove a few of them myself 17 subsequently.
18 Q Directing your attention to page 101 of your 19 testimony where it says, "For bus route 1 the intersection 20 of River Road and Coffin Street allegedly lacks a street 21 sign."
22 Did you find a street sign there?
23 A (Baldacci) No, ma'am, there's no street sign.
24 Q And on that same portion of your testimony you 25 refer to a fork in the road. Now, if ;rou' re driving down
\ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17421 l
1 River Road which is the evacuation bus routes, what you're h'"h -
2 referring to as a fork is actually a fairly sharp left hand 3 turn on to -- right hand turn on to Coffin Street, is it 4 not, River Road continuer virtually straight at that point?
5 A (Baldacci) In my opinion it would be accurately i
6 characterized as a fork at that point, not as a sharp right 7 turn.
8 Q On the map at J-112, Appendix J, page 112 which is 9 West Newbury evacuation bus route No. 1, does River Road 10 appear to continue in a fairly straight fashion at that 11 point?
12 A (Baldacci) River Road continues on in a 13 predominately straight fashion.
() 14 15 Q Did you drive beyond the intersection of Coffin Street and River Road?
16 A (Baldacci) Yes, I did.
17 Q How wide is -- did you measure the area beyond 18 that, the width of the road beyond that?
19 A (Baldacci) I did not take a tape measure and 20 measure the width of that road. No, I did not.
21 Q Did you make an estimate of how wide it is?
22 A (Baldacci) Based on my knowledge of the other 23 roads in West Newbury and the roads I have measured in West ,
l 24 Newbury I could make an estimate as to how wide it is, yes.
25 Q And what would that estimate be?
1 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17422 i
1 A (Baldacci) You're speaking of the portion of 2 River Road beyond the fork of Coffin Street and River Road.
3 Q Beyond the intersection of Coffin Street and River 4 Road?
5 A (Baldacci) Right. I would have to estimate the 6 width of that, you know, the average width because I didn't !
7 measure any particular point to be on the order of 18 feet.
8 Q Is that area, again the same area beyond the 9 intersection of Coffin Street and River Road, is that paved 10 or unpaved?
11 A (Baldacci) I don't recall where the pavement 12 ends, but I believe it would be fair to say it's largely 13 unpaved. Certainly beyond the area of the fork.
() 14 Q And how long does that road extend before it's 15 blocked off?
16 A (Baldacci) That portion of River Road deadends 17 approximately half a mile from the fork of Coffin Street and 18 River Road.
19 Q What kind of shoulders are there on the roadway, 20 if any?
21 A (Baldacci) Again, I did not measure that 22 particular portion of the road so I can't tell you the width 23 of the road and the shoulders. But I would say that there 24 are shoulders available the entire length of the road.
25 Q And what are those shoulders made out of? What
\ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
\
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17423 kind of material is along side the dirt road there?
1 v
} 1 2 A (Baldacci) I don't recall the material.
3 Q Did a bus drive down that portion of River Road 4 beyond Coffin Street?
5 A (Baldacci) Yes, ma' am. I rode on a school bus 6 down that road.
7 0 It went down beyond the intersection of Coffin 8 Street?
9 A (Baldacci) That,'s correct.
10 Q And the bus turned around there?
11 A (Baldacci) That's correct. At the deadend.
12 Q What kind of school bus was this? Was it a full 13 size school bus?
([3) 14 A (Baldacci) Yes. T believe it was a GMC. I may 15 be incorrect, but it was a full size. Full length and 16 width.
17 Q And when did this bus ride occur?
18 A (Baldacci) That was in the morning of February 19 27th, 1989.
20 Q Directing your attention to page 102 of your 21 testimony which deals with bus route No. 3.
22 Now again it says, "There allegedly is no sign."
23 You drove this bus route as well; is that correct?
24 A (Baldacci) Yes. That's correct.
25 0 And your testimony says, "There allegedly is no
/'N Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17424 l
() 1 2
sign at the intersection of Turkey Hill Road and Roger Street."
3 Is there a sign there?
4 A (Baldacci) No , ma'am, there is no street sign at 5 that intersection.
6 Q In your testimony you also testified that Roger 7 Street is also the first paved road the driver will see once 8 on Turkey Hill road.
9 Are there what are probably common driveways that 10 look like roads off of Turkey Hill Road before you get to 11 Roger Street? For example, the development, I believe it's 12 Fieldstone Meadows?
13 A (Baldacci) I have been out there many times, I've
() 14 never personally been confused as to what was a road and 15 what was a driveway.
16 Q Is there a paved roadway going into developments 17 off of Turkey Hill that are as wide as other streets in West 18 Newbury?
19 A (Baldacci) I don't know, I never measured the 20 driveways on either side.
21 Q Now I've also referred to a bridge that comes 22 after Roger Street. Is that an elevated bridge? Is there a 23 rise in the roadway before you get to the bridge?
24 A (Baldacci) No, ma' am, it's a bridge over a 25 stream.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17425
() 1 2
Q- Does the road change in any way, shape or form as it goes over there? Does it rise? Does it widen? Does it'
[
'3 narrow?
l 4 A (Baldacci) The road loses its shoulders at that 5 point and you see the structure of the bridge on either side 6 of the road.
7 .Q There's some wooden railings on the side; is that 8 correct?
9 A (Baldacci) I don't recall now whether they're 10 wooden or concrete, but there are sides to the bridge.
11 Q There's a reference in your testimony -- I'm sorry 12 I don't have the page -- to the updating of maps. Has that 13 been done?
() 14- A (Baldacci) The updating of maps is still in -
15 progress. To the extent that the verification effort 16 portion of that project, that is done- .
17 Q Has the map reflecting the existence of this 18 bridge, on the bus route, been prepared?
19 A (Baldacci) I'm sorry, you're asking if the bridge 20 is added to the latest --
21 Q Your testimony says that evacuation map three --
22 I'm sorry, it's on page 102 -- will be updated to reflect 23 the bridge for use as a landmark. Has that been done?
24 A (Baldacci) Yes, ma' am, that has been done. .
l 25 Q Now, the flood plain maps that you used in O Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17426 I
[' 1 checking flood plain areas in West Newbury, what maps were j
%}.
2 those?
3 A (Callendrello) If you cott1d just hold one second 4 I'll get the map.
5 (Pause) 6 THE WITNESS: (Callendrello) It's a map entitled 7 " FIRM, Flood Insurance Rate Map, Town of West Newbury, 8 Massachusetts." The Community Panel number is 2501080005A, 9 effective date June 15th, 1979.
10 BY MS. MIZNER:
11 Q And on that map, on the right hand side there is a 12 column that contains notes to user?
13 A (Callendrello) Yes, I see that.
14 And does the second paragraph of that say in part (D) Q 15 that this map does not necessarily show all areas subject to 16 flooding in the community?
17 A (Callendrello) In part it says that, yes. There 18 is a note tc 2ser that says: "This map is for flood 19 insurance purposes only. It does not necessarily show all 20 areas subject to flooding in the community or all 21 planimetric features outside special flood hazard areas."
22 Q So the fact that the Ash Street swamp is not 23 delineated on this map does not mean that it does not flood, j 24 does it?
25 A (Callendrello) It means that it is not in a flood Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17427
() 2 1 plain, that's what it does mean.
Q As defined in this map which specifically notes 3 that it does not contain all areas that are subject to 4 flooding; is that correct?
5 A (Callendrello) That's correct.
6 Q And did you consult any other flood plain maps?
7 A (Callendrello) No.
8 Q And this map has a 100 and 500 year flood plan on 9 it or flood boundary on it? ,
10 A (Callendrello) Yes, that's correct.
l 11 Q So it would not tell you whether or not portions 12 of River Road would be in a 1, 10, 50, 25 or 70 year flood 13 plain?
() 14 A (Callendrello) That's correct.
How does that logic unfold?
15 JUDGE SMITH:
16 Oh, it's outside the -- are you talking about 17 inside the flood plain or outside the flood plain?
18 MS. MIZNER: Well, what I'm saying, Your Honor, 19 they have suggested that flooding would be extremely 20 unlikely because: (a) because Ash Street isn't on this map; 21 and, (b) because it's in the 100 or 500 year flood plain.
22 I'm suggesting that there is nothing in the 23 testimony or on the basis for the testimony that would 24 oupport or reject a finding that parts of River Road are in 25 an area that floods and is on a different kind of flood Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
c REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17428 1 plain.
2 JUDGE SMITH: All right. I understood you were 3 focusing on a part of River Road outside'of the flood plain 4 map.
5 MS. MIZNER: There are two separate areas that 6 deal with flooding. Ash Street is not on the flood plain 7 map and for that I'm suggesting that there has been 8 testimony that it does flood.
9 MR. TROUT: Excuse me, is it that Ash Street is 10 not on the map or is it that it's not within the flood plain 11 shown on the map?
12 MS. MIZNER: Ash Street is not delineated 13 according to this testimony as within the flood plain map.
14 In a flood plain area.
15 MR. TROUT: But it is shown on the map.
16 MS. MIZNER: Well, Ash Street is in West Newbury.
17 I think we can all agree on that.
18 JUDGE McCOLLOM: It's shown on the map.
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17429 g 1 MS. MIZNER: It actually is on the map and that
}
2 map contains the streets in West Newbury.
3 BY MS. MIZNER:
4 Q On page 103 of your testimony, you stated that, 5 "It is not expected that flooding on River Road would be 6 severe enough to prevent bus travel based on the following 7 school bus listings which travel River Road for most of the 8 year."
9 Now, do you know whether the flooding on River 10 Road in 1986 was severe enough to prevent school buses from 11 going down their routes on River Road?
12 A (Callendrello) I don't know. I don't know if any 13 other member of the panel does.
() 14 (Panel confers. )
15 THE WITNESS: (Callendrello) No , we do not know.
16 BY MS. MIZNER:
17 0 You didn't check with the school department to 18 determine what, if anything, they do when buses cannot 19 travel their normal routes?
20 MR. TROUT: Excuse me, is this the same school 21 department that wouldn't answer our interrogatories?
22 MS. MIZNER: Mr. Trout, those interrogatories were 23 answered, and I think that's uncalled for.
24 THE WITNESS: (Callendrello) No, we did not check 25 with the school department. I
\ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17430 1 BY MS. MIZNER:
2 Q Does anyone on the panel have any knowledge as to 1
3 whether children are left to get to school as best they can 4 or not to go at all if weather or road conditions preclude a 5 bus from going down its normal route?-
6 MR. LENALD: Objection. This is' arguing with the 7 Panel. It's not proper cross-e:ramination.
8 JUDGE SMITH: It may have some tinges in 9 argumentation to it, but that's pretty much what cross-10 examination is like. It hasn't come to that point.
11 MR. LEMALD: We are arguing about'a school bus now 12 for children.
13 JUDGE SMITH: Now, that's another matter. That
() 14 may be irrelevant. I don't know. But it's not 15 argumentative yet.
16 MR. LEMALD: Well, I would submit that it's 17 irrelevant then, and object to it.
18 MS. MIZNER: Well, Your Honor, since they have
- 19 based their conclusions on the school bus routes, I suggest l
20 it is relevant.
21 JUDGE SMITH: It seems to be right there on page 22 103. Overruled.
23 BY MS. MIZNER:
24 Q Does anyone remember the question?
25 -A (Callendrello) No, I'm corry.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
it REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17431 1 Q- Does any' member of the Panel have any knowledge as-
~
- 2. to whether-children are left to get to school as best they 3 can or not go at all if weather or road conditions preclude 4 the bus from. going down its normal route?
5 A (Callendrello) 'I don't have any knowledge.
6 HR. DIGNAN: 'Ms. Mizner, would it assist your 7 cross-examination if I stipulated on behalf of the 8 Applicants that if a flood occurs and that flood is so high 9 buses can't get through, the buses won't get through and 10 some other protective action will have to be taken?
11 I'm just wondering if-I so stipulate will that 12 take care of this detailed cross-examination, because if the 13 buses can't get through, the buses can't get through.
() 14 15 That's a fact.
MS. MIZNER: That's a fact, and the issue, one of 16 the issues, I believe, is whether the roads are such that it 17 increases -- in any event, Mr. Dignan, I believe I am 18 through with --
19 MR. DIGNAN: All right.
20 MS. MIZNER: -- flooding except for one more 21 question that deals with Ash Street.
22 BY MS. MIZNER:
23 Q Will the panel agree that there is an unpaved, 24 unpaved in a stretch between Middle Street and Montclair 25 Road?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CP.OSS 17432 1 A (Baldacci) Yes, there is a stretch of Ash Street 2 between Middle Street and Montclair' Road that is not paved.
3 Q And you drove that route as well?
4 A (Baldacci) I've driven it myself and I've also 5 ridden on a bus down there as well.
6 Q And what is on the side of that road?
7 A (Baldacci) The portion of Ash Street that's not 8 paved between Middle and Montclair Road for some distance 9 along that road, either side, there is a low wetlands area.
10 Q Now, would a combination of flooding and an 11 unpaved road increase the likelihood that that area would be !
12 impassable to buses as compared with simply flooding over a 13 paved road?
( ) 14 A (Lieberman) No. The effect of flood is to 15 physically make the road impassable independent of the 16 roadway surface.
17 Q Could the impact of water on an unpaved road 18 create a level of muck or mud that would perhaps render 19 unimpassable what might otherwise be passable?
l 20 A (Lieberman) My recollection of that road is that 21 the soil is mostly sandy rather than organic.
22 If, in fact, there is a marshy surface, which I 23 did not observe, then that you are suggesting is correct, '
24 but I did not observe that on Ash Road, t
25 JUDGE SMITH: Off the record for a moment. >
(/ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
f t
[ REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS. 17433 I- l' (Discussion off the record. ) .
BY MS. MIZNER:
2 h' :3 Q' On page 103 of your testimony there is reference 4 to a field study done to determine the ' ability of buses ' to 5 access and egress the transfer' point.
6 Is that the same as the travel that was done on
., 7 February 27th that's described on page 104, or is it a 8 separate study?
9 A (Baldacci) Those words do not pertain exactly to 10 that date, although a similar function was performed on that'
. 11 date.
12 Q When was the field study at the tr,ansfer point 13 done?
() 14 A (Baldacci) The field study, as referred to.in 15- those sentences, was performed November of ' 88.
16 Q And did any member of the panel personally conduct 17 that study?
- 18 A (Baldacci) I was not a participant in that 19 particular study, although I think I said that I have ridden 20 on a bus February 27th and performed similar functions.
21 Q Now the field study that was done in November, is 22 that the one that is discussed cn page 129 of your 23 testimony?
24 A (Baldacci) Yes, that's part of the report that 25 was written on that field study. ;
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS . 17434
[ 1 Q And that saye that a bus could turn around at the 2' transfer point, the last sentence?
3 A (Callendrello) No. It says, " Turning of the 4 buses can be made using the driveway area." It's not 5 necessarily turn around.
6 Q Would you explain to me what turning of the buses 7 means?
8 A (Callendrello) The way that transfer point is 9 situated, the bus would need to pull in and, in essence, 10 make what I call a K turn; pull in and then back out to 11 turn.
12 Q So you would need someone there to assist in 13 backing the bus out or directing traffic while the bus is
() 14 backing out?
15 A (Callendrello) If there were traffic coming down 16 that road, you would need somebody to assist, although that 17 road is not -- well, you would need somebody to assist if j 18 there was traffic coming, yes.
I 19 Q Now on February --
20 JUDGE SMITH: Wait. The Board wants to observe 21 that the need or lack of need to have somebody assist in j I
22 turning a school bue around has fallen below the level of J i
23 planning considerations that we believe we have to hear in 24 this case, f 25 l
(
Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL'NO. 9'- CROSS 17435 1 BY MS. MIZNER:
2 Q On February 27th of ' 89, what direction was the 3 bus traveling on Stewart Street? Was it going from Main 4 Street down Stewart Street or coming up?
5 A (Baldacci) That morning we turned left off on 113 6 onto Stewart Street and traveled to the transfer point in 7 that direction.
8 Q All right, now you said this was just after a 9- snowstorm had gone through the area.
10 Was this a significant snowstorm in terms of the 11 inches of snowfall?
12 A (Baldacci) I'm not sure I understand the 13 "significant". i
() 14 Q Did you run into snowplows while you were out 15 driving around?
16 A (Baldacci) We were driving around after the snow 17 had stopped falling, so I did not encounter any snowplows.
18 Q Was the pavement clear?
19 A (Baldacci) On which road?
20 Q On Stewart Street.
21 A (Baldacci) Not entirely, no.
22 Q How much snow was on the road, approximately?
23 A (Baldacci) I'm sorry, could you repeat the ;
24 question?
25 Q How noch snow was on the road?
N/ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-48S8
l REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17436
'T 1 A (Baldacci) Enough to make the road white in
[O 2 sections.
3 Q Did the bus travel the hill beyond the transfer 4 point in the direction of Middle Street?
5 A (Baldacci) Yes, I road on the bus from the 6 transfer point up the hill towards, I believe it Archelaus 7 Road and Sawmill Brook Road.
8 Q Now, I believe there is to be two buses waiting at 9 the transfer site to take people away; is that correct?
10 A (Callendrello) Yes, that's correct.
11 Q And where are they going to be located?
12 A (Callendrello) They will be located at the j 13 transfer point. They can either be located within the fence
() 14 15 line or in the driveway or along the side of the road.
How wide is Stewart Street at this particular Q
16 point?
17 A (Baldacci) I don't have any exact measurements on ;
18 that.
19 Q Are there any shoulders on Stewart Street on 20 either side of the transfer site, or does it kind of drop 21 off into deep gullies before and after the substation?
22 A (Baldacci) There are some shoulcers on either ,
1 25 side of Stewart Street at the end of the pavement.
24 Q And how wide are these shoulders?
25 A (Baldacci) I didn't measure them exactly. I f
l f
\/ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17437
(~h 1 could estimate them for you if you would like.
,\
]
2 Q Okay.
3 A (Baldacci) On average, I'd say between one and 4 two feet.
5 Q Now on page 129, again the verification refers to 6 a town school bus passing the observation bus.
7 Do you know where the observation bus was when it 8 was passed?
9 A (Baldacci) I think I've stated I was not present 10 there at the time of this survey, so I couldn't tell for 11 sure. l
.12 Q So you don't have any additional information on 13 that point?
() 14 15 A (Baldacci) No, ma' am.
Are there still specific routes for West Newbury Q
16 buses to travel from the transfer point to the reception 17 center? Are those still in effect?
18 A (Baldacci) The maps that are presently in use for 19 the -- the bus route guides are given a map of the Town of 20 'Newbury showing the transfer point on it with the entire 21 town, and that they are free to find their way on the most 22 expeditious route to a major highway. And from there they 23 have another map that leads them to the reception center.
l 24 Q Okay. So in other words, they are nc, longer --
f 25 the map on page J-115 is no longer being followed?
/"
(b/ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17438
[~') 1 A (Callendrello) That's correct.
V 2 Just to correct Mr. Baldacci. He said Newbury. l 3 He meant West Newbury.
4 Q I assumed he meant West Newbury.
5 On page 130 of the testimony, it's the 6 Massachusetts bus routes, Scenario 1. On the bottom it 7 says, " Bus times derived from September and October 1987 8 simulation results."
9 Is that derivation from a computer model rather 10 than actual driving?
11 A (Lieberman) Well, it's a combination actually.
12 The simulation results were used to represent the status of 13 the roadways during the evacuation which can only be done t( ) 14 through simulation.
15 The distances were obtained both by scaling maps 16 and comparing those scaled values with actual odometer 17 readings on vehicles which drove the map; drove the routes, 18 rather.
19 Q Going on to traffic control points. The plan 20 calls for traffic guides to discourage traffic in certain 21 directions; la that correct?
22 A (Callendrello) That is a general instruction for 23 the traffic guideo, yes.
24 Q And does that require talking to motorists?
25 A (Lieberman) Just a minute. I'll answer that.
l
\ /~
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
l
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9'- CROSS 17439
.[$h 1 I guess we're not in that page range that you
(
2 indicated at the outset; is that correct?
3 0 Well, I believe that 104 deals with traffic 4 control points, and these are a few general questions before 5 we get to --
6 A (Lieberman) I'm not trying to restrict you. I'm 7 just trying to find myself.
8 Q It's a general question.
9 A (Lieberman) Yes. The traffic guides are not 10 encouraged to have long conversations with drivers. They 11 are asked to advise them to tune into the EBS station and to 12' cut the conversation short.
13 Q Now correct me if I am wrong, but my understanding
( ). 14 is that barricades have been replaced by cones, with three 15 cones to be used in place of the barricade; is that correct?
16 A (Ca11endre11o) That is correct.
17 Q And the instructions are also for cones not to be 18 placed to obstruct a roadway? That they are not to position 19 cones or barricades to completely block passage?
20 A (Lieberman) With one exception, that's correct.
21 Q What is the exception?
22 A (Lieberman) That's in Salisbury.
23 Q Okay. Now the traffic control point E-WN-05, 24 which is at page J-110, and depicts Bridge and Church 25 Streets coming together and then crossing over the river?
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 w________-__-__-____ _ _ _ _ _ .
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17440
)
1 A (Lieberman) That's right.
2 Q Is that an accurate depiction of Bridge Street as 3 it crosses the river? Is there not a turn?
4 A (Lieberman) Yes, there is a turn on Bridge Street 5 as it approaches.
6 Q Beyond River Road and onto the bridge?
l 7- A (Lieberman) That's right.
8 Q Has this map been changed to reflect that?
9 A (Callendrello) It has not yet been changed. It's 10 my understanding that we are in a program of map upgrades.
11 Whether that is an item that will be included in the 12 upgrade, I don't know. But it's not shown on the present 13 map and I don't know of any plan right now to specifically
() 14 15 incorporate that roadway.
On the diagram there is the word " parents" with an Q
16 arrow above it, and then to the left of that word there are 17 two Xs which are denoted traffic barricades? I assume that 18 would mean that there are six cones that are supposed to go 19 there?
20 A (Lieberman) I don't think we will actually put 21 six cones out there, but the way it's now specified that 22 would be correct.
23 Q And if you were to do that, would not six cones --
24 could you position six cones to tiock off half of the 25 roadway so that you would still have room without
/'
t Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17441 1 obstructing the passageway?
)
2 A (Lieberman) As I said, we would not put six cones 3 there.
4 Q Are the diagrams going to be -- these are the 5 diagrams that are being handed out to the traffic guides?
6 A (Callendrello) They get the entire manual, but 7 this diagram would be in the packet given to the traffic 8 guide, yes.
9 Q And are they going to be told not to follow the 10 instructions on the map, but to adjust it? Or are there 11 going to be given new maps?
12 A (Callendrello) I think based on the suggestion 13 that Mr. Lieberman made, we are going to have to modify the
() 14 diagram to show the proper number of cones to achieve the 15 desired strategy.
16 If he says that six cones are too much and we 17 would block traffic, we will make sure the diagram shows the 18 correct number of cones to achieve the desired result.
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17442 1 .A (Lieberman) You will find a note in our testimony
)
2 which says to the effect that we are going to update all 3 these diagrams.
4 Q I'm just working with the latest set that I have.
5 This particular checkpoint calls for basically 6 three different sets of cones to be implemented, does it 7 not?
8 A (Lieberman) I'm not sure that I understand what 9 you mean by a set.
10 Q There are cones to the left, the ones we have been 11 discussing with the Xs to the.left of the word " parents" 12 that appear to be on one side of the river. There is 13- another group of cones at the intersection where River Road
() 14 comes into Bridge Street to direct traffic onto Church Street. And then there are another group of cones going 15 16 across Bridge Street and part of Church Street; is that 17 correct?
18 A (Lieberman) As shown on the diagram, yes.
i 19 Q And there is one traffic guide for this control
- 20. point; is that correct?
l 21 A (Lieberman) 'Ihat's correct .
22 Q Now this road is also ">n a bus route, is it not, 23 coming down Church Street and turning onto River Road?
24 A (Baldacci) Yes, that's correct.
25 Q Do you think that an additional traffic guide to O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
\ _. __ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _
i REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17443
() 1 2
deal with the different sets of cones, the bus traffic and returning parents might he2p facilitate the movement of 1
I 3 traffic at this point?
4 A (Lieberman) It's problematical actually. We 5 tried to' minimize the number of guides at a particular 6 location because of the concern that the guides would be out 7 of synchronization with one another, so one guide would be 8 indicating movements for approaching traffic while the other 9 guide would have his back turned and be indicating other 10 kinds of movements which would conflict.
11 This is based upon discussions I have had with the 12 gent 13 man who consulted with LILCO and who taught traffic 13 control to New York City Police Department. And his point
() 14 of view is that the most effective form of control at TCPs 15 is instituted by the minimum number of guides to do the work 16 rather than a proliferation of guides for the reason I just 17 gave. So it really is problematical whether another guide 18 would be helpful.
19 I would like to point out that the expected 20 traffic volume here is going to be very light, and it's 21 going to servics the hones along River Road, which are 22 reintirely few in number, and we're certainly not going to 23 see what I would consider to be congestion along these 24 roade.
25 Q When you determined this, were you aware that l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
j REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17444 1 there is a day care, child care facility across the river in
(
2 Haverhill that services many or a number of residents in New 3 Newbury?
4 A (Lieberman) No, I was not aware of that 5 explicitly. I was advised by Chief Berkenbush that he would 6 expect parents from Haverhill to come into West Newbury to 7 pick up their children at the regional school, which is why 8 you see that arrow there indicating parents.
9 Nevertheless, I'm still not talking here about a 10 level of traffic volume which would be congested and which 11 would require more than one traffic guide, in my judgment.
12 Q He did not discuss with you parents going in the 13 other direction to another facility for young children?
() 14 A (Lieberman) Well, as a matter of fact, part of 15 our discussion was the advisability of restricting people 16 from West Newbury moving into Haverhill since Haverhill is 17 outside the EPZ. This was at his insistence.
18 I personally don't see a need to restrict West 19 Newbury folk if they want to leave and go into Haverhill.
20 Q And when did you speak with Chief Berkenbush?
21 A (Lieberman) This would go back to early 1986.
l 22 Q Have you spoken to anybody in the West Newbury 23 Police Department since then about traffic control points or 24 tr affic management?
25 A (Lieberman) No, I have not.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17445 1 Q Anyone else on the Panel done so?
2 A (Callendrello) Va , I have not.
3 Q Does anyone on the Panel have any knowledge as to 4 the number of West Newbury police who would be available to 5 respond to an emergency at any particular point in time?
6 A (Lieberman) Again, this was part of the 7 discussion that I had with Chief Berkenbush, and that arose 8 from some other traffic control points that he insisted upon 9 which I thought were unnecessary. But he felt that the 10 traffic control points which he developed and reviewed could 11 be handled.
12 I did not inquire into whether they would be West 13 Newbury police or auxiliary police or whether he expected
() 14 15 state aid.
Do you have any knowledge as to when after (t
16 notiff. cation of an emergency West Newbury police would be 17 availoble to respond to an emergency?
18 A (Lieberman) It would depend on how many people
- 1) were on duty and then on call-up at the time of the 20 accident. It would be situational.
21 Q Do you have any knowledge as to how many people 22 are on duty in any one time in the West Newbury Police 23 Department?
l 24 A (Lieberman) It's not too many, but I can't recall 25 the specific figure.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17446
/\ 1 Q I'm a little confused about the priorities that b'
2 are listed at J-102. Could you tell me what one, two and 3 three mean?
4 A (Lieberman) Well, there are gradations of 5 importance associated with each traffic control point as 6 perceived by the chiefs of police in five of the towns, 7 including West Newbury as far as their need in terms of 8 expediting movements of traffic during an evacuation.
9 I have to point out, I think I mentioned yesterday 10 that one could always argue that additional guides might be 11 helpful in some sense beyond those specified here. But the 12 purpose of a traffic control guide is to expedite traffic 13 flow to the extent of improving upon the ETE, if at all
()
t'%
14 15 possible. That's not to suggest that every TCP has that objective in mind. But for those TCPs whose primary mission 16 is either capacity enhancement or to recommend new routes, 17 not new routes but specific or recommended movements, they 18 are intended to improve the ETE, or lower the ETE consistent 19 with the other constraints of evacuation.
20 There are other functions that are performed by 21 the traffic guides such as surveillance, such as providing 22 assurance to the public that we have a plan which is under 23 control. The absence of a guide for some period of time at 24 a lower priority means that assistance is not given there, 25 but that there would be no effect upon ETE.
l
[\J Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17447 1 Q There are points, there are a few points that are
)
2 listed as No. 3. And where they are clumped or was -- I 3 thought that yesterday you were describing that the police 4 chiefs ranked them in order of importance. In Newbury, I 5 guess, there were only three points, so it went-one, two, 6 three. Here, we've got six, and I see three three's, a 7 couple of two's, and a-one.
8 I am just wondering, was there a clustering or was 9 it a different scenario?
10 MR. TURK: Your Honor, I don't know that the --
11 there is a premise in that question that I don't know has 12 -been established, and that is that for the Town of Newbury 13 simply because there are only three TCPs, they were ranked
() 14 15 in order of one, two and three as opposed to --
JUDGE SMITH: That's how I remembered'the 16 testimony; at least that's the inference I drew from it.
17 MR. TURK: Well, I didn't draw that inference.
18 JUDGE SMITH: Well, then there is all the more 19 need to clarify it.
20 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) I was about to respond 21 to that and to the question.
22 If you go back to volume 6, on pages 8-4 through 23 8-6 there is a copy of a typical letter which I wrote in 24 early 1986 to the various police chiefs. And on page 8-5, I 25 list five reasons why we are requesting the police chiefs' O Heritage Reportir, (202) 628-4888 Corporation
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17448
() 1 2
assistance. Number 5 says the following, and I will quote.
"Please prioritize these control locations 3 indicating which are most important and those which are less 4 important," with the word "prioritized" underlined.
5 We go on to say, "We would greatly appreciate all 6 opinions whether supportive or critical". And you can read 7 the rest for yourself.
8 So these are priorities. Again, Newbury is, as 9 Mr. Turk pointed out, there were three TCPs. They happened 10 to be prioritized as one, two and three, but that's just the 11 point of view of the police chief.
12 BY MS. MIZNER:
13 Q So there were no instructions -- I mean, normally
() 14 if someone gave me a list of five or six places and said 15 prioritize, I would go one through six, normally.
16 Were there any kinds of instructions saying 17 prioritize in groups?
18 A (Lieberman) Yes. If you look on page 0-10 --
19 Q I'm sorry, I don't have that volume.
20 A (Lieberman) Oh, I' m sorry. Well, I can show it 21 to you if you -- I can walk your way or you can walk my way.
22 For the record, it's on page 8-10 of that document.
23 JUDGE SMITH: Volume 6?
24 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) Volume 6 of NHRERP.
25 And there is a second letter a month later, l
A U Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
i REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17449 1 roughly, than the first letter in which at that point.in i
(
2 time I h 1 interviewed all the police chiefs. I had l
3 reviewed with them the TCP diagrams. They had, in fact, in 4 many cases themselves sketched the TCPs. And then I asked 5 them to -- I included this form, Table 8-5, which is 6 entitled " Form to Specify TCP Priorities". And at the 7 bottom of that form is an example in which I show four 8 levels.of priority; indicate that Level 1 is the most 9 important and Level 4 is the least important. And in actual 10 fact, they only went down to three levels in their 11 responses.
12 JUDGE SMITH: All of them?
13 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) Yes.
() 14 15 BY MS. MIZNER:
So that was something that the police chiefs just Q
16 chose to do, to limit it to Priority 1, 2 and 37 17 A (Lieberman) Yes, that's. correct.
18 Q Now at the time that this was being prioritized by 19 Chief Berkenbush, was planning being undertaken on the 20 assumption that communities would be performing their own 21 traffic control? There was no New Hampshire Yankee offsite 22 response organization at the time, was there?
23 A (Lieberman) That's correct. At the time I was 24 working for the Commonwealth and for the State of New 25 Hampshire, and at that time Massachusetts was participating Heritage Reporting Corporation 1 (202) 628-4888 ,
_ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ~
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17450 1 in the planning process. So the input from the police 2 assumed that local police would be participating.
3 Q So the designation of traffic control points or 4 the suggestion of traffic control points would have been 5 done with an understanding of the limitations of local 6 resources, there being asked to establish priority points.
7 A (Lieberman) I guess you are trying to ask me to 8 represent the thinking of the police chiefs.
9 Certainly in all cases we talked about resource 10 limitations. And I think if you look in the letterc, there 11 is some discussion cf the fact that the police chiefs should 12 take resources into consideration. In this testimony I 13 wrote right up front the fact that a traffic control plan
() 14 15 must be responsive to the availability of resources.
cannot be a " blue skies" plan.
It 16 I don't know if that answered your question.
17 Q Does anyone on the Panel have any knowledge as to 18 what the West Newbury police would do in the event of an 19 emergency?
20 A '(Callendrello) I can only talk about the 21 presumption that we discussed yesterday, and that's the best 22 efforts presumption. I would expect that the local police 23 departments would in an actual emergency do everything they 24 could to assist in the protection of the public health and 25 safety.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17451 1 Q You have no knowledge as to any specific plan that 2 the police in West Newbury would have in mind in terms of 3 how they would intend to effectuate the best interest of 4 public safety?
5 A (Lieberman) I can only -- the answer to the 6 specific question is I don't know what they would do today, 7 I could only testify as to what the posture adopted by the 8 chief at that time was and, in fact, by all chiefs, to the 9 effect that they feli spetent that they could affect the 10 kinds of traffic control and management that they approved 11 of helped draw up at the time that I interviewed them.
12 MS. MIZNER: I have no further questions. Thank 13 you.
() 14 15 MS. GREER: I don't really have any questions on this piece of cross-examination, but I would ask for one 16 point of clarification.
17 I'm having a little difficulty hearing Mr.
18 Lieberman, or Dr. Lieberman. And I thought I heard him say 19 that that letter was from 1986, and at that time you were 20 working for the Commonwealth; is that true?
21 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) That's correct.
22 MS. GREER: Thank you.
23 JUDGE SMITH: Didn't you know that?
24 MS. GREER: Well, just wanted to get the dates on 25 the record.
\ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17452 1 JUDGE SMITH: This is one of the. surprises that 2 lawyers coming new to a litigation will find.
3 MS. GREER: Learn something new every day.
4 MR. DIGNAN: He was your top expert until your 5 Governor changed his mind.
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17453
[^N 1 JUDGE SMITH: The NRC Staff, do you have
\
2 questions?
3 MS. CHAN: Your Honor, the Staff has one question 4 it would like to clarify. The Applicants' panel testified 5 that they requested the police chief to prioritize the 6 staffing needs for the various traffic control posts.
7 CROSS-EXAMINATION B BY MS. CHAN:
9 0 I would like to inquire whether or not when you 10 received back the input from the chiefs if you made any 11 modifications or did you just transfer their suggestions 12 into your plan?
13 Did you review these before you put them in the O
14 plan and exercise some of your professional judgment or did (v) 15 you just adopt them?
16 A (Lieberman) Let me answer it from this point of 17 view. As it turned out all their recommendations were 18 adopted. And the answer is, yes, all traffic control point 19 management schemes were tested vigorously by introducing 20 them in the form of inputs into the I-DYNEV model, running 21 the ETE, looking at alternative schemes to find out whether 22 there are better ways to do things so as to reduce the ETE.
I 23 I don't know if this goes beyond the scope of your 24 question, but there is testimony in here to the effect that 25 I changed one of the traffic control management schemes that
\_) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 u___-___________. _ _ _ _ _ _
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17454
[}
~V 1 had been originally reviewed by Chief Olivera because of 2 concerns by the chiefs in Newbury and Newburyport.
3 I then went back and explored an alternative which
- 4. took the final form that it does. And in that exploration 5 naturally I went back through the model and examined whether 6 or not the change in the control at Salisbury Center, that's 7 the intersection of Route 1-A with 1, would in fact 8 influence the ETE for the areas in Salisbury and points l
9 closer to the plant.
10 We found that on that study it had no effect on 11 ETE. And therefore I went ahead and . implemented it. After 12 conferring again with Chief Olivera to make sure that he 13 approved with the second design.
() 14 15 Q As a result of running the model with the management schemes that you just mentioned and consulting 16 back with the chiefs, are you satisfied now that the current 17 management scheme is the most efficient to reduce the ETEs?
18 A (Lieberman) You can't make a statement about, 19 quote, "most efficient" end quote, because that implies that 20 what you have is optimal. There is no way that I can 21 establish that. Doing something a little differently would i 22 give us possibly a small improvement in the ETE.
23 However, I can say that there was an exhaustive l
24 exploration of control alternatives explcred. These are or i 25 the process is detailed in Appendix D of Volume 6 of the New i Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
17455
/~N3 1 Hampshire Plan and you could see upon reading that that it's j
%J 1 2 quite exhaustive iterative trial and design until we feel l l
3 comfortable that what we have is effective.
l 4 MS. CHAN: Thank you. The Staff has no further 1
5 questions. j l
6 EXAMINATION BY JUDGE COLE f 7 JUDGE COLE: Just one or two general questions, 8 gentlemen.
9 Earlier in response to some questions from Ms.
10 Mizner you talked about the use of cones and that they were 11 not used to block access generally but instead to guide 12 traffic; is that correct, sir?
13 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) Yes. They're visual
/ \
51 queues essentially.
()
35 JUDGE COLE: I'm sorry, I didn't hear that.
15 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) They are visual queues.
17 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir.
18 But you indicated that that was a use except in 19 Salisbury, why is that?
20 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) No , I said there was 21 one exception. One location in Salisbury where we 22 physically blocked a movement. And I could identify that 23 for you and explain why that is.
24 JUDGE COLE: No, that's not necessary. I thought 25 maybe the ban applied to all of Salisbury and I was
((- Reporting Corporation Heritage (202) 628-4888
17456 1 wondering what situation existed there. All right, sir.
2 If the use of the cones is not to block access but 3 to use as a traffic guide for a marker, how do you achieve 4 that result? How are they spaced to achieve that result?
5 What are the design parameters?
6 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) Well, generally for --
7 it depends on whether they're being deployed on a freeway or 8 on a local road. So let's take each of those in turn.
9 On the local roads which are generally two lane 10 roads, if we use two cones one would be placed on the 11 shoulder and one would be placed on the center lane or near 12 the center lane. There would be at least eight feet between 13 the cones which would allow passage of vehicles if they so
() 14 15 desire.
If there are three cones then two of the cones 16 would be placed close together and the other cone on the far 17 side of the width of the pavement, again permitting passage 18 by any vehicle who ao chooses.
19 I think it's important to recognize that it's both 20 the cones and the guides movement which together in concert 21 acts to indicate to the approaching evacuating traffic which 22 are the preferred routes and which are the directions to be 23 discouraged.
24 JUDGE COLE: Now are there situations where you 25 have cones and you don't have guides? ,
l O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ = _ _ __ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _____ _ _ _ _ _
. _-__ j
'l 17457 l 1 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) There are a limited 2 number of situations where that's true. In most.of those j 3 situations the guides are within sight. 'Not always, but
'4 most of them the guides are within the line of sight. ]
5 .Again, if in my judgment I' felt that this was y 6 adequate then I so indicated.
7 JUDGE COLE: Is the layout of the cones any 8 different when you have an unmanned cone application?
9 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman). Not on the at grade 10 roads, no. For the freeways, and here again we're talking 11 only about access control points, the cones are in' fact 12 deployed along the width of the roadway at a tapered angle.
13 The purpose being to funnel traffic to a single lane on the 14 right. And these cones are -- and the ACPs are activated 18 only after the period of time when commuters, if the 16 . accident occurs on a weekday, return to the EPZ for the 17 purpose of gathering their family and evacuating with them.
18 The instructions are that the ACPs are to be 19 deployed only after traffic volumes drop down to very low 20 levels. And in that case the cones are deployed across the l
21 outside lanes moving traffic to the inside lane.
22 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir. Thank you.
23 One other question. ,
i 24 Ms. Mizner referred to page J-102 in Appendix J 25 and pointed out that the priority of certain of the TCPs O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
17458
[']
b 1 change from one season to another. And I note in looking at 2 the rest of the information personnel required, cones 3 required and barricades required, and the diagram of the 4 TCP, it's the same for both off season and season.
5 And my question is, is it that change is not 6 necessary for a change in season where, for example, certain 7 of the priorities change from the highest to the lowest 8 priority as the season changes? Was any consideration given 9 to changing the design of the traffic control point? What 10 was the consideration given?
11 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) Well, let me comment 12 specifically on the table you have referred to and then I 13 will give you a more general response, if that's
() 14 15 satisfactory.
For the table you responded to there are two TCPs 16 which have their priorities changed between off season and.
17 summer season.
18 The one that changed from one, for off season 19 which means when school is in session to three, in the 20 summer season means that the school is not in session, and 21 that accounts for the lower priority during the summer.
22 Again, the one that changed from two to one l 23 reflects the fact that in the chief's view there may be 24 tourists in the summer season who might be inclined to use 25 the bridge. And he had a philosophy in which he wanted to j l
(_- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 f
17459 j
[~') 1 restrict movement across town boundaries. For example, he
'a 2 had another one -- the first one the E-WN-01 which is at the 3 town boundary on Route 113 he wanted to restrict traffic to 4 and from, I think it's Salisbury. I'm sorry, I would have 5 to check the map. It's a neighboring town. It would be 6 Newbury I guess.
7 I don't know why. I questioned him closely on 8 that. He felt it important from his perspective and he gave 9 it the lowest priority. I don't see a need for it myself.
10 In terms of a more general response to your 11 question, there are TCPs which are inactivated off season.
12 That is they are considered necessary during the summer 13 season when you have a high influx of tourists. They are r's
( ) 14 not considered necessary in the off season.
15 There are some TCPs which do in fact have their 16 control policy changed. They are very few in number. And 17 the reason they are few in number is because overall the 18 general objective of a TCP does not change with season.
19 It's basically to guide evacuees along paths which move them 20 away from Seabrook towards the EPZ boundary. And so that 21 function, with those few exceptions, does not change with 22 season.
23 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir.
24 You indicated that input from the local police 25' chief was at least in part responsible for a location of 1
O
's- Heritage Reporting Corporation .
(202) 628-4888 (
1 l
l l _ _ . . _ - -
i I
1 17460 traffic control points. And I get the impression that at
] 1 l 2 least in one instance you didn,'t necessarily agree with'what 3 he had recommended. Is that true, sir?
4 THE WITNESS: _ (Lieberman) I didn't agree on the 5 need for traffic control point there. In my judgment I felt 6 it didn't do any damage. And so in the interest of being 7 cooperative with the local police chiefs I included it.
8 JUDGE COLE: Now he recommended a design in 9 routing at that traffic control point. Was this such as to 10 keep. people out of his town?
11 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) Essentially that was-12 the intent with the exception of the regional school. The 13 chief did recognize that parents would be anxious and they
() 14 15 would come in and pick up their children from Haverhill.
JUDGE COLE: Now are there any instances -- in 16 looking at the overall plan, now are there any instances 17 where the adoption of that kind of a recommendation would 18 result in an evacuation plan that would be less than 19 optimal?
20 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) I would not have 21 adopted it if that had been the case. If in fact my 22 analysis indicated that a TCP was counterproductive I would 23 have had that information and gone back to the police chief, 24 explained the situation and explained that I had some very 25 great difficulties in accepting it. Now that occasion never Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
17461 1 did arise.
2 But I would never have adopted a control which I 3 felt was counterproductive.
4 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir, that's really what I 5 was getting at. That's very helpful. Thank you.
6 EXAMINATION BY JUDGE McCOLLOM 7 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Only one briaf comment about the 8 maps.
9 At first I was misled by the fact that cn a 10 traffic control post that it said " light." I thought it was 11 a light that lighted the -- it's light traffic, as I 12 understand it now. Am I correct?
13 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) That is correct.
[)
s_/
14 JUDGE McCOLLOM: The only other question I have j 15 is, in this cross-examination here there was a comment that 16 the West Newbury Chief of Police established his own TCPs 17 that he was going to man with his people. Did I understand 18 that correctly?
19 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) My response is somewhat 20 less explicit. What I said was that, he felt comfortable 21 with the number of traffic control points and personnel that 22 he recommended.
23 Now I cannot tell you whether he represented to me 24 that all his people -- that he had enough people to man them 25 or whether he would request assistance from the state to Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
17462 l' augment his own-force.
2 ' JUDGE McCOLLOM: My point here is, I concluded 3 that these were' traffic control posts that you did not l- 4 establish and that you'did not even have on your maps'and 5 that was what was puzzling me.
6 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) Oh, no. Every traffic 7 control post which is part of the plan is on the map.
8 JUDGE McCOLLOM: And you are manning them 9 notwithstanding whether they are going to be the local 10 policemen occupying or helping or whatever on those posts; 11 is that correct?-
12 THE WITNESS: (Callendrello) We do provide 13 sufficient traffic guides to staff these points 14 independently.
15 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Thank you.
16 JUDGE SMITH: Let's take our mid-morning break, 15 17 minutes.
18 (Whereupon, a 15 minute break was taken.)
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I
o 17463 )
1
(~N. 1 JUDGE SMITH: On the record. l 2 Are you ready?
3 MR.~LEWALD: Your Honor, I had a question I wanted 4 to ask the panel.
5 JUDGE SMITH: Ms. Greer, this cross-examination 6 plan you gave me what does that relate to? This is not for 7 the phase of Ms. Mizner's cross-examination, this is for the 8 next phase? j 9 MS. GREER: That's right.
10 JUDGE SMITH: Got it.
11 All right, Mr. Lewald, 12 MR. LEWALD: And my problem is, I was waiting for 13 Ms. Wardlow to come back with a copy of the exhibit. She
() 14 15 was making copies of it for the reporter.
It was an exhibit that was offered for I
16 identification or admitted for identification in the West 17 Newbury section of the examination which was conducted by 18 Mr. Trout.
I 19 And I would like to have it introduced through 20 this panel who can identify it.
21 JUDGE SMITH: Which one is that?
22 MR. LEWALD: It's Exhibit for identification No.
23 50.
24 25 (Document proffered to witness. )
i Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888
1 i'
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - REDIRECT- 17464 1 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 2- BY MR. LEMALD*
I 3 Q Mr. Lieberman, I have put before you a copy of an 4 ~ exhibit which has been marked Applicants Exhibit 50 for 5 identification and I ask you if you can identify it? It's a ,
6 document in three pages.
]
7 A (Lieberman) Yes. This is material that was 8 either sent to me or handed to me by Chief Berkenbush in 9 connection with the TCPs in West Newbury.
10 Q Can you tell us what the first page represents?
11 A (Lieberman) The first page represents a copy of.
12 TCP E-BN-03 in which the chief puts some identification on 13 the top right hand corner. He wrote down West Newbury
() 14 15 3/23, that's probably March 23rd when he filled this out.
And what he did was to superimpose the town 16 boundary which runs right through the middle of this 17 interchange between Scotland Road and I-95 at a roughly 30 18 degree angle indicating which side was West Newbury and 19 which is Newbury.
20 And he also suggested that I include on the sketch 21 the position of the Mass State Police Barracks which at that 22 time was either brand-new or under construction. It's a 23 fairly new facility.
24 Q And the second page?
25 A (Lieberman) The second page is what he returned O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
= _ _ _ _ ___
-l, J
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - REDIRECT .17465 1 t o . me . . That goes to the survey which we discussed earlier 2 wherein I asked the.various police chiefs by mail to -
3' prioritize the various TCPs as indicated there.
1 4 He listed them in the sequence in.which'they would l
5 be' manned and relative importance one through six, because 1 6 there were at that time six West-Newbury's TCPs. '
7 :Oh, yes, there's a note here,,a new state police 8 barracks is_being built just off Scotland Road, interchange 9 the further set of barricades is in Newbury. That's a note 10 written by the chief and pertained to the sketch on page 11 one.
12 I called him later and indicated that what I 13 really wanted was relative importance as opposed to manning
() 14 15 sequence. I guess the title of the second. column is somewhat ambiguous. And over the phone we identified the 16 rankings of one to three which now appears in the plan.
17 The third sheet is a sketch of the TCP in mid West 18~ Newbury along Route 113. And it's kind of interesting, we 19- did this around a table. Some of the writing on this chart 20 is mine and some is his. And it's just something we worked 21 out together.
22 When I visited the chiefs I brought along blanks l
23 of this form and sitting around the table the chiefs 24 sketched their own or I sketched it with them or sometimes 25 they used their own pads. But the intent of that visit was Os Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 l
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - REDIRECT 17466
~
[' 'l not only to review the first draft of TCPs that I drew up (J
2 without their assistance, but also to invite them to make 3 any changes they felt were appropriate.
4 And what you see here is evidence to that effect 5 in this case.
The arrows I notice on this diagram are both !
6 Q 7 outlined and blocked in, does that indicate that it's by a 8 different author?
9 A (Lieberman) Right. The blocked in arrows are 10 mine and the open arrows are his. .The Route 113 which 11 appears to the right and below Maple Street is my 12 handwriting. All the other handwriting is his. So some of 13 the arrows are his and some are mine.
() 14 15 MR. LEMALD:
the document.
The Applicant would now like to offer i
l 16 MS. MIZNER: I would object on grounds of 17 relevance.
18 JUDGE FMITH: I'm sorry, Ms. Mizner, I was 19 consulting'and I didn't hear the question. I'll have to 20 have it read back.
21 MS. MIZNER: It was an offer of an exhibit.
22 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, all right.
23 She objects on the grounds of relevance. It seems 24 to me it's relevant, but do you want to add to it? i 25 MR. LEMALD: Well, she had examined on the
_- Heritage Rept:f cing Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - REDIRECT 17467 j
['} 1 conversations that were had with the chief and it's kJ 2 respecting a traffic control point which is certainly the l
3 subject of this panel. I would think it had every relevance l s
4 to it. I 5 MS. MIZNER: Your Honor, I cross-examined on the 1
l 6 basis of the direct testimony. I don't believe that the --
7 the issue is not whether drafts of TCPs prepared in 1986 at 8 the latest, and that simply says 3-23 I'm assuming that it's 9 1986, is relevant to a determination of the adequacy of the 10 traffic control points that are in the proposed plan at this 11 time.
12 I just fail to see how that draft is relevant to 13 determining the adequacy of what has been submitted for 14 review.
15 JUDGE SMITH: What aspect of it do you regard as 16 draft as such? Was it a preliminary concept or was.it the 17 actual paper was a draft?
18 MS. MIZNER: I don't have that particular --
19 JUDGE SMITH: Was it a final draft?
20 MS. MIZNER: I don't believe so. I believe that 21 from what Mr. Lieberman has been describing these were 22 discussions, preliminary discussions that he had with Chief 23 Berkenbush in addition to, he has testified, other chiefs of 24 police.
25 And it seems that he -- correct me if I'm wrong --
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - REDIRECT 17468 -
[ 1 but my understanding of what Mr. Lieberman just said was
)
2 that he provided drafts of certain' proposed traffic control 3 points to the chiefs and then met with them to discuss them.
4 JUDGE SMITH: And incorporate their ideas. Which 5 as I understood he said that the ideas of the chief-were 6 incorporated into the document which we haven't seen before.
7 We haven't yet because we don't have it.
8 MS. MIZNER: But there's still -- I mean, this 9 document is still a preliminary discussion document. We 10 have in the SPMC the final versions.
11 JUDGE SMITH: Did the document contain the final 12 views of the chief on the TCPs, whether the document would 13 be recreated in cleaner form or not, did the document
() 14 represent the final views of the chief?
Yes, I believe so.
15 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) I 16 did have discussions with him as to numerically changing the 17 prioritization as I just described. But there were no 18 subsequent exchanges of information between the chief and I.
19 MS. MIZNER: May I have a few?
20 When did you have these conversations with Chief 21 Berkenbush?
22 MR. TURK: Your Honor, may I interject something, 23 if counsel will permit me. There has been some confusion on 24 the record due to my fault, if I can clear that up for a 25 moment.
O- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i l
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - VOIR DIRE 17469
, 1 The witness has in front of him a copy of Exhibit 2 50 which I provided to him and there's a marking on there 4
3 which is mine. The witness may not realize that, i
4 MS. MIZNER: Is there a copy of Exhibit 50? I 5 don't have one at all.
6 MR. TURK: This is something that was offered for 7' identification by the Applicants on March 23rd of last week.
8 All parties who were here that day would have a copy of it, 9 JUDGE SMITH: None of the three of us have 53.
10 JUDGE COLE: I can't find my copy.
11 MR. LENALD: It was marked for identification.
12 JUDGE SMITH: In any event we have it now.
13 MR. TURK: If counsel would permit me to interject
() 14 15 a question to the witness perhaps I can clear up that date in the document.
16 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 17 BY MR. TURK:
l 18 Q If Mr. Lieberman would look at the upper right 19 hand corner of this document, can you tell whether the 20 marking of the date is something that was added to the 21 document? In other words, it's actual ink as opposed to 22 Xerox?
23 If I represent to you that that in fact is the 24 case, would you accept that?
25 A (Lieberman) Certainly I would accept it.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - _
17470 L 1 JUDGE SMITH: Say that again?
(}
2 MR. TURK: That's right, Your Honor, the copy that 3 you have in front of you does not show a date because the 4 witness is using my copy on which I have marked the date.
5' MR. LENALD: Your Honor, one of the purposes of 6 introducing this and showing it to Mr. Lieberman was that 7 Mr. Lieberman was examined by Ms. Mizner as to whether or 8 not the priority list wasn't one through six. And Mr.
9 Lieberman gave certain testimony that priority list was one 10 through three.
11 This is the document in which the chief had 12 indicated a priority list of manning posts at one through 13 six. And this was a matter that we felt necessary to clear
() 14 15 up.
MS. MIZNER: Well, Your Honor, that simply shows 16 the preliminary nature of that particular document. And I 17 would simply like to -- since that date, as Mr. Turk says, 18 is not the date when this document was prepared I think that 19 we should at least find out when it was prepared.
20 (Pause to review document.)
21 JUDGE SMITH: I guess we don't understand. It's 22 clearly relevant. I think your problem is, is it reliable?
23 I think that's your statement, is it reliable evidence? How 24 does it affect your position in this case?
25 MS. MIZNER: I'm not sure what it's evidence of, I O Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4889 Corporation
17471 1 guess is my problem. I don't see -- if the Applicants are
)
2 intending to argue from this that these were plans that were 3 drawn up by the chiefs of police I don't think that's really 4 a fair basis for using these documents because we don't know 5 when that one was prepared. Whether had further 6 conversations occurred there would have been changes.
7 Whether that is indeed the position -- any kind of current 8 position.
9 I don't see how an undated document that may 10 reflect a preliminary view that could have changed had 11 future conversations been -- future planning been undertaken 12 is relevant to determining the adequacy of the traffic l
l 13 control points and traffic management plan that have been
() 14 submitted by the Applicant in the SPMC.
JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Lewald is offering it for what 15 16 seems to be, to me, to be a -- I don't really quite 17 understand. I understood Mr. Lieberman to say that the 13 chiefs collectively were invited to rank their traffic 19 control posts in categories one through four. None of them 20 came back with anything less than threo. Here is one that 21 suggests that the chief came back with six.
22 I see relevance to the document but I don't see 23 any relevance that has been argued other than the chief did 24 participate somehow in the establishment of the TCPs.
25 To me the appropriate question O
f Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
17472 1 is, were these views as represented by the chief his views
)
2 at the time. I mean, were they considered views at the 3 time? The fact that the document may have ended up in a 4 different format is another matter. But is this the chief's 5 considered views at the time he submitted it?
6 MS. MIZNER: I'm not sure that that document 7 nddresses that issue.
8 JUDGE SMITH: I don't want to make your objection 9 for you. You made it on relevance. Now you're raising it 10 on other evidentiary bases like -- I don't want to suggest 11 reasons how you could object to it.
12 MS. MIZNER: I am suggesting that there is a lack 13 of a factual predicate for a finding of relevance. You just
() 14 15 suggested that the issue is whether or not those were the considered views of the chief at that time. And I suggest 16 there is no evidence to support a finding that that was as a 17 basis for admitting that document.
18 JUDGE SMITH: Do you challenge Mr. Lieberman's
, 19 testimony to that effect?
1 L 20 MS. MIZNER: I'm not sure that Mr. Lieberman's l
l 21 testimony establishes that those were Chief Berkenbush's 22 considered thoughts at the time as opposed to whether those 23 were draft thoughts at the time.
24 I don't think that Mr. Lieberman can truly speak 25 to Chief Berkenbush's state of mind.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l 17473 1 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, mr.y I point out, if Chief 2 Berkenbush really doesn't think they're his views or didn't 3 say all that, he's totally in the control of counsel making 4 this objection. He can be brought in and that testimony can 5 be brought out.
6 What I'm hearing is an argument about weight, not l 7 admissibility.
l l 8 MR. LEWALD: Sounds like an argument of integrated 9 document theory.
10 JUDGE SMITH: Objection overruled, the exhibit is 11 accepted. Exhibit 50.
12 (The document referred to, 13 having been previously marked
() 14 15 for identification as Applicants Exhibit 50, was 16 received in evidence.)
17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - RECROSS 17474 1 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Lewald?
UT 2 MR. LEWALD: I have no further questions of the 3 Panel at this point.
4 JUDGE SMITH: All right. On this phase?
5 MR. LEWALD: On this phase of the examination, 6 yes, Your Honor.
7 JUDGE SMITH: Well, then we are ready to move on 8 to -- ,
9 MS. MIZNER: Your Honor, I have a few based on the 10 introduction of this document.
11 RECROSS EXAMINATION 12 BY MS. MIZNER:
13 Q Mr. Lieberman, is ny understanding correct that
() 14 you sent some draft or proposed traffic control points to 15 Chief Berkenbush for his review?
16 A (Lieberman) Okay, the sequence of activities as 17 indicated in the two letters in Volume 6 are as follows.
18 I did a road survey, and then I did some 19 preliminary runs with the I-DYNEV model testing out 20 different ideas of traffic controls. Then I came to a point 1
21 where I felt it was necessary to request inputs from the 22 local police, which I did in the January 17th letter, which 23 included preliminary sketches of mine of the nature that you 24 have seen in that submission of those sketches.
1 25 Q January 17th of what year? I don't mean to O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - RECROSS 17475
( 1 interrupt.
2 A (Lieberman) 1983. I'm sorry. It's in Volume 6.
3 Asking, as the letter indicates, for -- well, if 4 you would like, I can read it to you if you don't have the 5 document. But essentially we say, for these reasons, and 6 these reasons are you folks know the roadway system better 7 than we do, and here is the overall plan, because you cannot 8 take a myopic view of planning an emergency evacuation which 9 covers 22 towns by looking at each town independently 10 without considering the effect of the entire system.
11 Nevertheless, the inputs of police are always of 12 value. So this letter was sent to them with my sketches.
13 Subsequent to that, you will notice in the last
() 14 15 paragraph on page 8-5, it says, the following. "To expedite matters, I plan to visit the communities within the EPZ next 16 week to discuss these topics with you if your schedule
~
17 permits. You will be contacted by phone to arrange a 18 meeting at your convenience."
19 And that's what happened. I then met with 19 20 chiefs over a very concerted effort, took about a month, the 21 month of January. And I had the opportunity to visit the 22 EPZ, travel through the snow-filled roads which was very l 23 helpful, and sat down with them with the sketches I had sent 24 them, with blank forms in the event they wanted to introduce 25 more. And it was a technical session whereby we exchanged l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l
l 1
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - RECROSS 17476 1 points of views and he exchanged his point of view.
2 I then took the revised or new sketches back with j 3 me to the office and sent a second letter with these 4 sketches, and that's dated February 4, 1986, u. 'ich I 5 said, "Please review the updated documentation (that is, 6 sketches) of the TCP in your community. If you wish to 7 revise or delete any of these TCP, please indicate the 8 changes on the sketches and return them to me in the 9 enclosed envelope. If you wish to add TCP, please sketch 10 the location on the blank sheets provided for that purpose 11 and return it with the others. Indicate the sequence in 12 which you would order TCP to be manned. This sequence 13 reflects your judgment of the relative 'importance' of each 14 TCP."
15 So that mailing took place, and three of the 16 chiefs in Massachusetts returned written responses; two 17 chiefs did not. I called them up, we discussed it over the 18 phone, and defined the final version of the TCP with them in 19 a telephone call instead of by writing. The sixth chief, as 20 you know by now, refused to participate. That's the Town of 21 Amesbury.
22 And that is the sequence in which this work was 23 done.
24 Q So the exhibit that has just been introduced, was 25 that a product of the January 17th letter and your O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - RECROSS 17477 l
i 1 subsequent meeting where you sat down together and sketched
)
2 out what is on Exhibit 50?
i 3 A (Lieberman) The fact that they are stapled 4 together implies to me that they all came after the February 5 letter. In other words, the second page -- I don't have it 6 in front of me right now -- but the second page is the form 7 that went out with the February letter, so that came 8 subsequent to the February letter.
9 Q But one of those pages -- I also don't have it in 10 front of me -- but one of those pages, as I recall, had some 11 of your handwriting on it as well.
12 A (Lieberman) Right. That was the meeting between 13 the two letters, and that was sent back to the chief along
() 14 15 with the letter of February 4th, for his comments, and I have already cited what I asked the chief to do with it.
16 And what he sent back to me was the list and that form.
17 Q And you had no further communications with Chief 18 Berkenbush or anyone else in the West Newbury Police 19 Department subsequent to receiving back this document?
20 A (Lieberman) Not on the specifics of the traffic 21 control. I was invited by the planning committee in West 22 Newbury, which is made up of a group of volunteer citizens, 23 to explore the evacuation plans for the Seabrook Plant. In 24 the second meeting, I know that Chief Berkenbush was there 25 and we chatted.
[ Heritage Reporting Corporation
\.
(202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - RECROSS 17478 1 Q You are referring to the Emergency Response 2 Committee in West Newbury that --
l l
3 A (Lieberman) I don't know the. exact name, but 4 apparently that's the name of it.
5 And we chatted there but we didn't get into the l 6 specifics, and he didn't raise any issues about the TCPs at 7 that time. So it may have been later in the year that that 8 meeting took place.
9 Q Do you have any knowledge as to Chief Berkenbush's 10 current views about the adequacy of the traffic control 11 points?
12 A (Lieberman) I have not communicated with the 13 chief since then.
() 14 15 MS. MIZNER:
I have no further questions.
Thank you, Mr. Lieberman.
16 JUDGE SMITH: Any follow up on --
17 MR. LEWALD: No, Your Honor..
18 JUDGE SMITH: Ms. Greer?
19 MS. GREER: Good morning, gentlemen.
20 MR. LEMALD: Mr. Chairman, before Ms. Greer 21 starts, could we inquire as to what contentions this.
22 cross-examination is under?
23 JUDGE SMITH: Your cross-examination plan here is 24 not one that is likely to give away any secrets, secret 25 tactics. Why don't you simply provide it to the people.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_ _ - _ _ _ _ = -_ _- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
i 17479 l l
() 1 2
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. DIGNAN: Oh, I like references to my famous 3 documents in the record.
4 Which famous Dignan document are we talking about?
5 Your colleagues have a number of documents that they so 6 denote.
7 MS. GREER: Your joint contentions, Mr. Dignan.
8 MR. DIGNAN: Well, Mr. Traficonte had a lot to do 9 with that one.
10 MS. GREER: All right.
11 MR. DIGNAN: Be sure you include him in.
12 JUDGE SMITH: Well, maybe to save time if you can 13 find it as we --
() 14 15 borrow it.
JUDGE COLE: I have a copy here if you want to 16 JUDGE SMITH: Why don't you just read off your 17 cross-examination plan, or give it to him.
18 (Document proffered to Mr. Dignan.)
19 MR. DIGNAN: Ms. Greer, I don't think we have 20 answered the question.
21 Are you under Contention 7 here or what?
22 MS. GREER: I actually have to look it up.
23 No, I don't think it's under Contention 7.
24 JUDGE SMITH: She can cross-examine on your direct 25 testimony. It might be helpful if she identifies the --
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
17480 1 MR. LEWALD: The direct testimony submitted on 2 certain contentions.
3 MS. GREER: Right. It would be on JI-7.
4 MR. DIGNAN: Well, now, Ms. Greer, before you go 5 too far with that, don't we have a stipulation that the Mass 6 AG is not litigating JI-77 7 MC. GREER: Well, if that's the case, then I will l 8 defer to your judgment on that.
9 MR. LEWALD: This is what I was referring to. I 10 have a stipulation.
11 MR. DIGNAN: Well, my judgment is you shouldn't 12 conduct the cross. And if you want to defer to it, we can 13 move on.
( ) 14 MS. GREER: Let me just look on here.
15 Can you tell me the date of that stipulation?
16 JUDGE SMITH: Why don't you accommodate Ms. Greer, 17 who is clearly having -- do you have a copy of it?
18 MR. DIGNAN: Yes.
19 JUDGE SMITH: Show it to her.
20 MR. LEWALD: The copy of the stipulation.
21 MS. GREER: Right.
l 22 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
l 23 (Document proffered to Ms. Greer.)
24 MS. GREER: Actually, I've seen that stipulation l
25 at one point before, but I have in fact not taken note of O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l
l 17481 1 the Footnote No. 5 which has just been pointed out to me.
)
2 However, I'm not sure that still ends the question here. !
3 MR. DIGNAN: Are we looking for another contention 4 that hopefully we could squeeze this under? Is that the 5 idea?
6 MS. GREER: If you would like to.
7 MR. DIGNAN: No, I would prefer you didn't. I 8 would prefer you drop the cross, because I think that's in 9 violation to stipulation.
10 MS. GREER: Well, if in fact it violates the 11 stipulation, obviously I will not cross on it. I was just 12 told to come in and ask a series of questions here, and I i
13 was not introduced particularly as to which contention I was
() 14 15 looking at. But if it really is a matter of concern to you, I will certainly make every effort to make sure that we are 16 under a proper contention.
17 Is that your concern, Mr. Dignan?
18 MR. DIGNAN: Yes.
19 MS. GREER: Okay.
20 MR. DIGNAN: My concern, ma'am, is that I 21 understood we had made a stipulation that the AG was not 22 litigating JI-7.
23 MS. GREER: Right.
24 MR. DIGNAN: And that the case would be conducted 25 on that basis. .
_e Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
17482
[~') 1 From what I can see this cross-examination,
, (~/
2 although you may now try to search for another contention, 3 was clearly designed to go in under JI-7, and I'm sure, 4 because of a mistake on your side, I'm sure it was not 5 deliberate. And I am suggesting you might reconsider 6 whether to go forward in the face of that stipulation rather 7 than trying to shoe horn it in under something else and 8 continue this since you clearly can't offer proposed 9 findings on the contention under the stipulation.
10 MS. GREER: Right. I understand that, Mr. Dignan.
11 At the same time I do believe that the questions I have are 12 certainly relevant to open contentions, and therefore I 13 would like to have an opportunity to just review your
() 14 15 initial document and Mr. Traficonte's initial document and make sure that we are in fact properly under some 16 contention.
17 (Panse . )
18 MR. DIGNAN: I would like to point out to the 19 Board also that if you look at the direct testimony, _the 20 direct testimony of the witnesses is stated to be directed 21 to JI-4, 5, 7 and 60. Sixty is settled, I think, and it's 22 equipment. And so if it ain't four, and it ain't five, and 23 it ain't seven, it ain't in.
24 MS. GREER: If I may?
25 JUDGE SMITH: Ms. Greer.
\ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
17483
' ['T 1 MS. GREER: The testimony that has been offered
'NJ 2 here purportedly addressing the contentions noted by Mr.
3 Dignan also impacts on JI' Contention 55, which is the 4 transit resources for the populations. And that is because 5 in this plan that's put forth here -- 1 G MR. DIGNAN: There is a whole separate prefiled 7 piece on the transit-dependent.
8 MS. GREER: I realize that you have a separate 9 prefiled piece on that, but the impact of this goes directly 10 to that issue, and I'll tell you why.
11 The resources that are used, 3r terms of 12 transporting both the special populations that are discussed 13 in this piece of testimony that has been offered and the
() 14 resources that will be used to transport the special needs
' 15 population, that is, those people who have special needs and 16 reside in specific facilities in the EPZ, as well as school 17 children, are all the same pool of buses. They have not 18 allocated out under the plan any particular buses to go to 19 any particular locale.
20 And the issue that we raised under JI-55 is 21 whether in fact there are sufficient resources.
22 Now, if, in fact, the resources that have been 23 allocated here are such that there is a greater need for 24 buses tr, transport the transit-dependent population than has 25 been put forth in the SPMC, then that will take away from b
b Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
17484 1
1 buses for the other special' facilities and schools. Because
( }
2 if you only have a limited pool to draw from and more needed 3 for one area than have been counted out ahead of time, then l 1
4 that can, in fact, bleed off the resources available to the 5 schools and to the transit-dependent who live in special l 6 facilities.
7 Also, as this Board is very much aware, the issue 8 of manned vehicles and those facilities is still under 9 contention, and the ETEs are still under contention. And 10 the ETEs'are applicable to the transit-dependent, of course, 11 as well as to the general population as well as to the 12 schools and folks that live in special facilities.
13 Because the bus route testimony goes specifically
() 14 to ETEs for the transit-dependent, I think that if, in fact, 15 you want to bring this Panel back for cross-examination when 16 we reach the ETE contentions, or if, in fact, you want to l 17 bring this panel back for cross-examination when we reach 18 the manned vehicle, that's fine.
19 But it was the lipplicants' choice to put on and 20 package their testimony in rebuttal in the way that they 21 have. It was not necessarily our choice. And, in fact, l
22 their Panel testimony as it has been put on in fact doesn't 23 directly match over to the way we packaged ours.
24 We are to some extent going back to the old 25 problem of apples and oranges that this Board has made O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ l
17485 1 reference to in terms of the New Hampshire litigation. But 2 at the same time since these people are here and their 3 testimony directly impacts upon those open contentions, I 4 think it's appropriate to take cross-examination at this 5 time. If not, then we would have to be in a position to 6 seek subpoena to bring them back to have their testimony 7 when we reach those issues.
8 MR. DIGNAN: Fine. If you can convince tne Board 9 that you can do that, you can do it. I would prefer to go 10 forward, Your Honor.
11 I would remind the Board and review the bidding of 12 something. I have been the one lawyer in this case, I 13 should say my group of lawyers have been the one group of
() 14 15 lawyers in this case who have asked and asked and asked for party-by-party case. We have been constantly opposed in 16 this by the other parties. And the Board, for its own good 17 reasons, has disagreed with that too. t 18 This testimony is offered clearly as stated on the 19 page on certain contentions and no others.
20 Now, who is kidding who? This was going to go in 21 under JI-7, but now they found out they stipulated this 22 away. They are trying to shoe horn it in under 55. This is 23 not the panel that we would put on on 55, on resources and l 24 so forth. Some of the members may be common, but there is 25 separate testimony for that.
i l
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
'l w----_--__.-__._-.._-______
l 17486 l
1 I have been told I've got to try this case segment
/~')
b 2 by segment. I am trying to get a couple of these witnesses 3 out of here this week. We want to get Urbanik out of here 4 this week. Let them try to establish later that they should l t
5 get this Panel back under 55, if they can. I want to go 6 forward and have Mr. Fierce finish the cross-examination so 7 these witnesses can get out. l 8 I think it's admitted now that the testimony has 9 nothing to do with what this Panel, I believe, is up here 10 for. If when we get to 55 she can convince you the Panel 11 should be brought back, we never have any trouble bringing 12 our witnesses back. I want to go forward on what we are l
13 here to try, the issue that the Attorney General want to try
() 14 15 on the basis of a segmented case, which is what the Attorney General wanted.
16 MS. GREER: If I may respond? l l
17 Mr. Dignan to some extent may have misheard me 18 initially. But in any case, I believe it is now at least 19 altered by initial representation. When I first sat here 20 and he asked me what contention I was going forward under ;
21 and he asked me whether I was going forward under JI-7, my 22 initial response was I did not think so, but I would be 23 happy to double check.
24 MR. DIGNAN: And you checked and said you were.
25 MS. GREER: Then I looked at it, and I said, yes, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 w-_ _ _ - _ _ - _ _
q e
17487 I that appears to be the one. And then Mr. Dignan, through
)
2 his colleagues, kindly pointed out that there was a footnote 3 in initial stipulation.
4 JUDGE SMITH: Were you just simply told to.come 5 bece and ask these categories of questions?
6 MS. GREER: I'm sorry. I 7 JUDGE SMITH: Who prepared your scheme of cross-8 examination? Was it you or was it somebody_else?
9 MS. GREER: I had in fact outlined for'Mr.' Fierce, 10 who was in fact going to be doing the cross-examination on 11 this entire panel, some questions that I thought were 12 probably relevant to the testimony that have been offered.
13 When-we were here yesterday, it was decided that,
() 14 15 in terms of allocation of resources within our office, because Mr. Fierce has, as the Board well knows, has been 16 under tremendous time --
17 JUDGE SMITH: Just get to the point.
18 MS. GREER: Okay. The point is, no. In fact,
-19 these questions I put together to be submitted initially 20 through Mr. Fierce. Mr. Fierce asked me to put the 21 questions to the panel myself, and I am prepared to do so.
22 JUDGE SMITH: And your position is they were 23 prepared, as far as you know, to address Contention 55?
24 MS. GREER: To address the transit-dependent 25 testimony that has been put forth starting at page 57 of i
IO Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 l
17488 1 this package of testimony.
}
2 JUDGE SMITH: Just answer my question.
3 Were you examining to cover your position on 4 Contention 557 Was'that your intention?
5 MS. GREER: When I looked at the testimony here, I 6 was not addressing any particular contentions. $hwasin 7 fact merely looking at the testimony and --
8 JUDGE SMITH: Did you know --
9 MS. GREER: Yes?
10 JUDGE SMITH: Did you know which contention you 11 were --
12 MS. GREER: I, in fact, knew that our transit-13 dependent contentions were still in, and those were the ones
() 14 15 I'm concerned about. As Mr. Fierce noted for the Board yesterday, my concern has been, in fact, resource allocation 16 for special populations and special needs populations. And 17 because in fact it's the same pool of people, and the same 18 pool -- not the same pool of people -- the same pool of 19 resources going to --
20 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, I know, you made that argument.
21 MS. GREER: Okay.
22 JUDGE SMITH: I am just trying to find out whether 23 you were, after due diligence, confused about why you are 24 here. Because it seems to me that you undertook to 25 cross-examine on JI Contention 7. And failing that, I'm 1
f Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
17489 1 trying to get a representation from you, and you just don't
)
2 seem to be-willing to make a~ representation.
3 MS. GREER: It's not that I'm unwilling. I am 4 simply telling you exactly what happened. When I was asked 5 to put together some questions, I was not asked, put 6 together contentions on JI-4, or JI-7, or JI-55. I was told 7 to look at the testimony.
8 JUDGE SMITH: I know, but you are a member of the 9 office and we agreed to come forward with segmented 10 presentation, and we agreed to do that, actually as it turns.
11 out for the benefit of the Attorney General. And now I 12 think that you are in violation of the spirit of it.
13 MS. GREER: If I may, I obviously don't mean to be
() 14 15 violating any spirit of any agreement here.
pointing out that the Applicants, in packaging their But I'm simply 16 testimony on transit-dependent in the way that they have 17 under bus routes, they have, in fact, chosen -- their 18 testimony here does not merely talk about whether the bus 19 routes work. That is essentially JI-7.
20 Hare, they have also talked about how they package 21 their transit-dependent and how they have allocated those 22 resources.
23 JUDGE SMITH: I'm looking at your cross-24 examination plan.
25 Point to me the direct testimony that you wish to O Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
17490' )
O V.
1 cross-examine.
Okay.
2 MS. GREER: If you will look starting at
{
3 page 58, up to page 71, we're talking about 12 pages of 1 4 testimony, which is not directly on bus routes per se. .It's 5 on allocation of resources for those bus routes.
6 JUDGE SMITH: Oh, no.
7 MR. DIGNAN: No.
8 JUDGE SMITH: No, it's not. You are not 9 convincing. You are just simply not convincing. I just 10 can't find anything leafing through it -- I want a 11 professional representation from you, Ms. Greer.
12 MS. GREER: Yes.
13 JUDGE SMITH: That you are in good faith telling 14 me that you are here today to examine on resources and not
(
15 on transit-dependent population under Contention 17.
16 MS. GREER: I am here to cross-examine on 17 allocation of resources.
18 MR. DIGNAN: Well, Your Honor, she said, fine, 19 bring the Panel back if she can convince you. I choose to 20 elect that alternative. I want Mr. Fierce to start his 21 cross-examination of this panel now, and I think it is my 22 right under the procedures to have it go that way.
23 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Dignan,,that's another question.
24 Please consider carefully your representation to 25 the Board, because as we sit here right now -- just a Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
1
i 1 ,
17491 l
^
1 moment.
[
U 2 (The Board confers.)
3 JUDGE SMITH: We think you are confused and we 4 don't want you to make a confused representation. .Now I'm 5 asking you again, did you come here with this cross-
.6 examination plan for the purpose of examining on, transit-7 dependent population?
8 MS. GREER: Yes.
9 JUDGE SMITH: Is that your purpoce?
10 MS. GREER: Yes.
11 JUDGE SMITH: And then it was after you learned 12 that the stipulation would prevent that cross-examination 13 that you also observed, well, you could do it under
() 14 15 resources. Is that also the case?
MS. GREER: I will represent --
16 JUDGE SMITH: Well, is it?
17 MS. GREER: No, it is not the case. In fact, I 18 had no idea which of the contentions that were listed in the 19 front of this Panel --
20 JUDGE SMITH: So you just simply didn't know.
21 MS. GREER: I didn't know.
22 JUDGE SMITH: All right. So you don't know. All 23 right, we have looked at the section you are talking about.
24 They are very heavy on bus routes, transit-dependent.
25 Little, with not careful reading, but just casual reading, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 17492
(')
%J 1 little on resources, and so you just can't do it.
2 MS. GREER: If I --
3 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, could I also bring your 4 attention on page 717 There's a Heading 8, and in it, it 5 says, "A detailed description of NHY's bus resources is 6 contained in Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 8 regarding 7 transportation resources." A document which is already on 8 file.
9 JUDGE SMITH: Okay.
10 MR. DIGNAN: It is an entirely different panel 11 except Mr. Callendrello isn't coming back.
12 JUDGE SMITH: We have heard all we need.
13 MS. GREER: Okay.
/
( 14 JUDGE SMITH: That's enough, that's enough.
L 15 MS. GREER: Actually --
16 JUDGE SMITH: You have had every opportunity to 17 argue.
18 MS. GREER: Actually, if I --
19 JUDGE SMITH: That is enough, Ms. Greer.
20 MR. TURK: Your Honor, I would note that about one 21 minute ago somebody from the Mass AG's office left, 22 presumably to call Mr. Fierce.
23 Is that correct?
24 MS. TALBOT: Mr. Fierce is here now.
25 MR. TURK: Pardon?
O (d Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
17493 1 MS. TALBOT: Mr. Fierce is here now?
(
2 MR. TURK: He's here?
3 MS. TALBOT: Yes.
4 MR. TURK: Not in the room?
i 5 MS. TALBOT: No. i 1
6 MS. GREER: Your Honor.
7 JUDGE SMITH: If you are going to persist in 8 arguing after I have admonished you two times now.
9 MS. GREER: I'm not going to --
10 JUDGE SMITH: Is this a different point?
11 MS. GREER: I'm not going to --
12 JUDGE SMITH: Is this a different point?
13 MS. GREER: Actually, I'm going to ask --
() 14 15 JUDGE SMITH:
MS. GREER:
Is it a different point, Ms. Greer?
It is not a different point.
16 JUDGE SMITH: The next word you say shall be an 17 answer to my inquiry.
18 Is it a different point?
19 MS. GREER: It is not.
20 JUDGE SMITH: All right, you may not continue to 21 argue after I have admonished you not to.
22 MS. GREER: I do not plan to argue. I am going to 23 ask the Board's permission to make a submission as of an 24 offer of proof in writing. I'm not going to sit here and 25 argue now and take the Board's time.
N Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 J
17494
~~'T 1 JUDGE SMITH: You file whatever you want to file.
(V 2 We will review it. ;
i 3 MS. GREER: Okay.
4 JUDGE SMITH: I mean, you don't need our 5 permission to file papers.
6 MS. GREER: I simply didn't want to file something 1 7 and then have the Board take offense by that act.
8 JUDGE SMITH: We are used to people filing papers.
9 Don't worry.
10 MS. GREER: Okay.
11 JUDGE SMITH: All right, the next examination.
12 Let's bind this cross-examination plan into the 13 transcript at this point signed by Leslie Greer.
() 14 15 I'll hand it to you right now.
(The Massachusetts Attorney 16 General's Cross-Examination 17 Plan of the Traffic Management 18 Panel on Issue Transit 19 Dependent follows:)
20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l
~
before the !
f ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD L
)
In the Matter of )
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket Nos. 50-443-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, et al. ) 50-444-OL
) Off-site Emergency (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2 ) Planning Issues
)
Mass. Attornry General's Cross-Examination Plan of the Traffice Management Panel On Issue Transit Dependent
() Inquiry will be made into:
Field study on buses; Estimates of Transit Dependent population; Assumptions for ride sharing; Basis for estimates of out of service vehicles; Estimates of bus capacities; Factors effecting ETE's for Transit Population; Respectfully submitted, Leslie B. Greer Assistant Attorney General Nuclear Safety Unit 1428N
17495 l' JUDGE SMITH: Off the record.
2 (Discussion off the record.) '
3 JUDGE SMITH: 'We are on the record now.
4' Mr. Fierce, you gave me a cross-examination plan l 5 which is five pages long, and you-said it was work in 6 progress, and that you will have more.for tomorrow. And I I 7 infer from that that this is rather substantial' cross-8 examination plan, five pages single-spaced, .that you won't 9 be completing this panel today. You plan to extend through 10 tomorrow.
11 MR. FIERCE: I think that's a fair' assumption.
12 It's conceivable that we could go beyond what I have I
13 outlined here, but I have the rest of the cross-examination
() 14 15 prepared. I just don't have the outline.
JUDGE SMITH: My concern is not the preparation of 16 the cross-examination plan. My concern is the scheduling of 17 witness appearances and the timing of the hearing.
18 MR. FIERCE: Right.
19 JUDGE SMITH: And we are having increasing doubts 20 that we will get to Mr. Urbanik.
21 MR. TURK: Are we on the record?
22 JUDGE SMITH: Yes, we are on the record.
23 MR. TURK: Your Honor, I want to note a complaint 24 at this point. And I know it's not of the Board's making by 25 any means. It's a complaint I have with the Mass AG's O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
17496 1 office.
2 In two respects now, we have found that Mass AG's 3 litigation tactics are causing a tremendous burden and 4 additional expense to be expended by the NRC Staff. As I 5 indicated earlier today, Mr. Fierce told me early this week 6 that.he thought we would reach Dr. Urbanik on Wednesday, 7 yesterday. Indeed, early this" week the Mass AG's office 8 passed out a schedule for proposal of reaching witnesses.
9 On their schedule they thought they were going to reach Mr.
10 Donovan today on issues not related to traffic management 11 plans.
12 At Mr. Fierce's suggestion I called Dr. Urbanik 13 and tried to see if he could fly in early Wednesday morning
() 14 15 so he might start his testimony Wednesday afternoon.
couldn't, so he took the first plane he could, which was the He 16 noon flight yesterday, Wednesday. He spent seven hours in 17 transit. He arrived at the hotel at 8:30 Eastern Time last 18 night, and he's prepared to testify this week.
19 Now I'm told that Mr. Fierce has a day and a half, 20 perhaps more, of testimony to elicit from this Panel on 21 cross and he doesn't think he will reach Dr. Urbanik this 22 week. Well, that means Dr. Urbanik has to spend seven hours 23 flying back to Texas at government expense, only to come 24 back again next week.
25 Now, this is the second time something like this
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
r 17497 1 has happened. The Mass AG's office entered into a 2 stipulation with the Applicants concerning ETE issues. As 3 part of that stipulation, they withdrew Contentions 1, 2 and 4 3, which are ETE contentions. For that reason Dr. Urbanik 5 and I have not been working on testimony related to those 6 contentions until now. Dr. Urbanik flew to Washington twice-7 to work on preparation of testimony related to traffic 8 management plans without addressing those other contentions.
9 Because of the unilateral withdrawal by Mass AG of 10 their intended stipulation on ETE issues, I am now going to 11 have to have Dr. Urbanik fly to Washington a couple of more 12 times to prepare testimony on those other issues, and fly 13 out here for another trip to appear at the hearings.
() 14 15 annoyed.
And as you can tell from my tone of voice, I am And I think there has been unfair litigation 16 tactics by the Mass AG office with no regard for the 17 convenience of witnesses or expense incurred by other 18 parties. And if this was a civil suit, I would move for 19 sanctions of costs.
20 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, I think we may all be a 21 little bit frustrated with the pace at which the hearings 22 are progressing. We perhaps did have overly optimistic 23 estimates at the beginning of the week as to where we would 24 be. But I think we each have been adjusting as the week 25 goes on. We all see what's happening. It was just, I i
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l
17498
(~)
%)
1 think, yesterday morning when our proposal, at least from 2 the Interveners' side of the fence, was to bring in the 3 Newbury Panel back. And as part of the discussion over 4 whether that should happen, I was trying to indicate to Mr.
5 Turk that I thought we were going to be doing Dr. Urbanik a 6 favor by bringing that panel back, because I did not know 7 for sure whether we were going to be getting to Dr. Urbanik 8 this week and let's just guarantee that we won't get to him 9 by bringing back the Newbury Panel.
10 MR. TURK: When you said that, he was on route 11 already.
12 MR. FIERCE: May I finish, Mr. Turk?
13 We are trying to accommodate as best we can, Your
/~
( ,
14 Honor, and we are willing to be as flexible as we can. I 15 apologize for the inconvenience.
16 JUDGE SMITH: He's here. Nothing can be done 17 about it, but it can be avoided in the future. The 18 responsibility of all parties, all counsel is the very l 1
19 moment that you learn that your case is going to affect the 20 schedule and the convenience and the cost and the comfort of 21 your adversaries, at that moment you bring it to their 22 attention, and that will be required of all counsel.
23 My observation is that Dr. Adler's needs were 24 recognized and cared for in a very considerate way, and you 25 owe the least to your colleagues. But it's done now. Just
. \_/
l 0 Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 1
i
17499 )
1 for the future everyone that's going to be along here and V[~\ everyone should work to make life easier for all the 2
2 3 participants.
4 Would you proceed, please?
5 MR. TURK: Should I ask Dr. Urbanik to fly back to 6 Texas now, Mr. Fierce? Will you reach him this week?
7 MR. FIERCE: I don't think we are going to reach 8 him this week, Mr. Turk.
9 JUDGE SMITH: I don't think we are going to reach 10 him. If he wants to fly back to wherever he flies back to, 11 Austin.
12 MR. TURK: College Station.
13 JUDGE SMITH: College Station. He can do it
() 14 15 without you being concerned that you didn't meet your requirements.
16 MR. FIERCE: I'm assuming we are breaking at mid-17 day tomorrow.
18 JUDGE SMITH: That's right. Now, I think what we 19 might -- I don't know, we will let you call it.
20 Should we put Mr. Hill-Whilton on notice that we 21 may want his panel back or not? I don't think we are going 22 to get to him.
23 MR. TURK: I have a suggestion, Your Honor.
24 JUDGE SMITH: Here we have a big cross-examination 25 plan, and it's only a partial.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
17500 1 MR. TURK: We're already covered half of the
)
2 direct testimony. So that at this point Mr. Fierce 1 3 presumably will examine only on pages 1 to 57 of this direct 4 testimony. That's not a great amount. I don't know why 5 there are five pages of cross planned.
6 But I would suggest that Mr. Fierce conclude his 7 examination of this panel today, even if it means we go into 8 an extra hour after normal session.
9 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor.
10 MR. TURK: Let him finish today, and we will take 11 Dr. Urbanik tomorrow. There is no inconvenience to the 12 parties. This Panel can be out of here, and M r. Fierce has 13 the rest of the day to do what he wishes with this Panel.
() 14 15 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, I personally can't live with that for two reasons.
16 Number one, I really don't think I have mislead 17 anybody. I told Mr. Turk t*,;c I would have a half a day and 18 a day's worth of cross. That was early in the week. I've 19 had now a little bit more time to prepare, and I think maybe 20 I have a full day's worth of cross. Maybe a half a day 21 today. Maybe I can finish with this Panel by mid-day, if we 22 are lucky.
23 Now, I have a personal prc o)Ac tonight. I have no 24 child care. I have to be home. I have to catch a train 25 right over here at 5:20 or my children are going to be O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
17501
(~') 1 uncared for, so I cannot stay late tonight.
'q) 2 JUDGE SMITH: You put a great burden on this Board 3 beyond our normal responsibilities.
4 MR. TURK: Your Honor, I think Mr. Fierce can i
5 probably tailor his cross-examination plan and conclude it. l 1
6 The fact is, and it's something that I have observed 7 personally all week, he was not prepared early in the week 8 because he has had other responsibilities. Ms. Greer made 9 mention of that herself. And I think his time schedule 10 should not require us to inconvenience witnesses.
11 If the Mass AG's office cares about this case, 12 they could have put more lawyers on those other issues.
13 MR. FIERCE: This is well beyond --
() 14 15 o' clock.
MR. TURK: I think he's got six hours until five He can decide how to use those six hours, and just 16 finish up today. '
17 MR. FIERCE: I don't know why I am the one who has 18 to suffer the consequences. I told Mr. Turk earlier in the 19 week exactly what I was going to do. I had between a half a l
20 day and a full day's worth of cross-examination.
21 MR. TURK: No. Mr. Fierce, you told me you had no 22 more than a few hours of this panel, and that's what you 23 told me.
24 MR. FIERCE: I told you I was working on a 25 cross-examination plan.
m,- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l A_____.-___--_.
17502 1 MR. TURK: No. You said you hadn't had time to l
)
2 prepare a cross-examination plan.
3 MR. FIERCE: All right. And was working on one.
4 E w, I am not the one who engaged in a lengthy l 5 cross-exarofuation of Dr. Adler.
6 JUDGE SMITH: This is becoming self-fulfilling.
7 Our argument about the schedule will assure that we won't 8 meet it. We are all, all of us are consistently over 9 optimistic about the pace of the hearing and how fast things 10 will unfold, and this is a natural thing.
11 But it does seem to me, Mr. Fierce, with this 12 very, very large cross-examination, that you should have 13 known earlier that the schedule we were talking about was A
- 14 not attainable. It's very large.
\ )3 15 ER. FIERCE: Your Honor, I think the length of 1
l 16 that plan may be deceiving. There in more detail there 17 perhaps than there needs to be. The outline that I have I 18 think can move along at a pretty good pace.
i 19 JUDGE SMITH: Let's see how fast we can move i 1
20 along. It's your call.
, 21 There is one other thing I wanted to inquire l
22 about. How about for your Testimony 8, will there be a 23 different panel? ,
24 MR. DIGNAN: Yes.
25 MR. LEWALD: Yes.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i 17503 1 JUDGE SMITH: And Dr. Mileti is not going to be 2 back, and Mr. Lieberman won't be back?
i 3 MR. LEWALD: Not on 55. No, he won't.
]
4 JUDGE SMITH: They won't.
l 5- MR. DIGNAN: No. The only Panel member who is 6 presently sitting before you who will be part of 8 is Mr.
7 Callendrello.
8 9
10 11 12 13 O "
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 C
f,s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I 17504 )
() 1 2 get done.
JUDGE SMITH: Let's go ahead and see what you can You can take your chance in getting Urbanik. I 3 might say this, I don't see his short testimony. It 4 shouldn't be very long to cross-examine him. Let me look at 5 his testimony. I'll look at his testimony at lunch.
6 Go ahead.
7 MR. FIERCE: Thank you, Your Honor.
8 JUDGE SMITH: Maybe some stipulations can be made 9 on this testimony.
10 Who is going to cross-examine Dr. Urbanik?
11 MR. FIERCE: That would be me again, Your Honor.
12 JUDGE SMITH: And you haven't been able to work on 13 his yet.
() 14 15 MR. FIERCE:
JUDGE SMITH:
I haven't even had a chance to --
Well, then maybe you just won't be 16 able to cross-examine Urbanik. I mean, you're just 17 stretching your resources too thin. You're not maintaining 18 your litigation. We have seen signs of it today. Ms. Greer 19 came to the hearing unprepared. And now you're not prepared 20 to meet your obligations that you committed to.
21 You're going to have more cross-examination plan 22 for this panel and you're not even prepared to examine 23 Urbanik yet. We will read Urbanik's testimony at lunch and 24 we'll come back to this issue.
25 And, Mr. Fierce, I'm very much aware of the stress O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 )
.i 17505 1 you're under. I'm not without sympathy to you personally.
2 But I am not with a great deal of sympathy for the Attorney 3 General mounting a huge litigation. Undertaking to call 4 some thousand people on the telephone where they're' arguing 5 that their limited resources and coming to the hearing 6 really unprepared. Institutionally your office is not 7 meeting its litigative responsibilities.
8 Go ahead with your cross-examination and we'll 9 consider the matter at lunch.
10 MR. FIERCE: I would have only one comment which 11 is that the office has responded to the extent that I have 12 been given a fairly narrow focus in this entire litigation 13 which as you know has been primarily with respect to the
() 14 15 evacuation and ETE issues. This is where you're going to see me pretty much throughout this hearing.
16 JUDGE SMITH: As I say, it's not you, Mr. Fierce.
17 I see you're working as hard as you can work. I'm act 18 criticizing you personally. I'm criticizing your office, 19 the party.
l 20 MR. FIERCE: All I'm saying is that this narrow 21 issue that I'm working on is basically this panel, Dr.
22 Urbanik and Dr. Adler. And you're not going to see me at 23 these hearings for quite a while. I'm hoping I can take a 24 vacation. But these are critical witnesses for me. I only 25 have a few of them and I would like an opportunity to D
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L- . _ _ _ _ . _ - - - _ _ _ _ .
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17506 1 prepare a little: bit .for cross of Dr. Urbanik.
l )
l 2 JUDGE SMITH: Well, we'll come back to it after 3 lunch. In the meantime get going with your cross-4 examination.
5 CROSS-EXAMINATION 6 BY MR. FIERCE:
7 Q Good morning, Panel, almost good afternoon. I 8 think you all know me. My name is Allan Fierce and I'm an 9 attorney with the Massachusetts Attorney General's Office.
10 I had an opportunity, as you all know, to cross-11 . examine a very similar panel at the hearings up in Concord, 12 New Hampshire and I don't want to retread a whole lot of.
13 that.
() 14 15 But before I really directly get into the cross-examination plan I did want to check a couple things about 16 the background of some of the members of the panel.
17 To help me though as an initial matter, I wonder 18 if it's possible in your table of contents to your testimony 19 to tell me who it is that is primarily responsible for the 20 authorship of each of these sections. And let me start with 21 part 1, traffic management and ask Mr. Lieberman if,this is 22 primarily the section that he is responsible for?
23 A (Callendrello) Mr. Fierce, you're familiar with 24 the way we have prepared testimony both in the New Hampshire 25 case and I think in this case. We explained yesterday that O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
h I
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17507
/N 1 the situation for the development of this testimony was that 1 \~s) 2 in some cases some of the panel members did in fact put pen 3 to paper and write sections. In other cases sections were 4 drafted by staff members, reviewed by panel members, edited 5 by the panel members and compiled into a single piece of 6 testimony which you see before you now.
7 I know I can speak for myself that my thoughts are 8 incorporated throughout this document. It may not be a fair 9 characterization to say for a specific table of content item 10 that it reflects the single views of any one person or the 11 testimony of any one person. It incorporates, at least in 12 my own case, incorporates my testimony on the subject 13 throughout the document.
() 14 15 Q Your testimony throughout the document, Mr.
Callendrello, is primarily adding what to what Mr. Lieberman 16 and Dr. Mileti have brought to the testimony?
17 A (Ca11endre11o) It adds general expertise on 18 emergency planning. Specific expertise on emergency 19 planning at Seabrook Station. And specific knowledge of New 20 Hampshire Yankee and the SPMC.
21 Q Okay, that's what I thought.
22 If the question pertains to what the SPMC 23 procedure on this particular point is, you would be the 24 primary member of the panel to respond to that question; is 25 that correct?
k_- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l l
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - 9ROSS 17508 l
(' ) 1 A (Callendrello) Not necessari1;. If it's a
'V 2 procedural detail related to a traffic control point it may 3 be Mr. Lieberman or if it's a procedural detail related to a 4 traffic control point about the mapping aspect of it, it may 5 be Mr. Baldacci or if it's a procedural aspect on a traffic 6 control point related to driver behavior, it's Dr. Mileti.
7 It's integrated.
8 Q And, Mr. Baldacci, besides mapping is there any 9 other particular expertise that you brought and added to 1 10 this testimony?
11 A (Baldacci) No , sir. It's limited to mapping and 12 the configuration of the road system in the six towns.
13 0 Were you involved in the actual drafting of any of
() 14 the access control point diagrams or traffic control point 15 diagrams?
16 A (Baldacci) I was not involved in the drafting of 17 any of those access or traffic control point plans.
18 Q Mr. Lieberman, just a couple quick questions about 19 your background. I note that we still don't see a Ph.D. on 20 your resume; is that correct?
21 A (Lieberman) Regrettably, yes.
22 Q And can't we finally drop the pretense that you're 23 still working on your Ph.D.?
24 A (Lieberman) No.
25 Q Is there something that you've done actively in Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17509 t 1 the recent --
2 JUDGE SMITH: All right now --
3 MR. DIGNAN: I object to that insulting line of 4 cross-examination, Your Honor.
5 JUDGE SMITH: That and also it is a waste of time 6 and it is ill-received from someone who is explaining how 7 busy he is and how hard he is going to try to get this 8 cross-examination over. It's out.
9 Continue.
10 MR. FIERCE: I would like to explore a couple of 11 areas with Mr. Lieberman that I think I could put under the 12 category of potential bias.
13 JUDGE SMITH: Well, that may very well be and l
() 14 15 certainly you could explore son.o_ J,'a professional qualifications and expertise, but not in a sneering, l
16 demeaning, insulting manner. Your tone of voice and your 17 words match perfectly.
18 You tre6t all witnesses with respect.
19 MR. TURK: I'll say, Your Honor, Mr. Lieberman has 20 been before the Board already. He has been accepted as an 21 expert. His qualifications are before you. His credibility 22 is before you.
23 JUDGE SMITH: The only party whose stature is 24 injured in that exchange is Mr. Fierce's.
25 ,
l l
\ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
\
l
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17510 1 BY MR. FIERCE:
)
l 2 Q Mr. Lieberman, you' re still the Chief Executive 3 Officer of KLD Associates?
4 A (Lieberman) That is correct.
l 5 Q Is it still likely that KLD Associates is going to 6 be getting any update work with respect to updating the ETEs 7 or the traffic management plan for Seabrook Station in the 8 future?
9 A (Lieberman) I have no way of knowing. It hasn't 10 been discussed.
11 Q Mr. Callendrello, that was the case you admitted 12 last year, perhaps in the fall of '87; is that still the 13 case now that KLD would be the likely choice to receive
() 14 15 update contracts from Seabrook Station?
A (Ca11endre13o) I think I remember I testified at 16 that time that they would be the likely choice because of 17 their knowledge of the evacuation time estimate in the 18 specific traffic management strategies. But as we do with 19 any contract we evaluate it under the specific conditions 20 that exiat at the time.
21 Q Mr. Lieberman does have the I-DYNEV model as a 22 proprietary model; correct?
23 A (Lieberman) No.
24 Q No?
25 A (Lieberman) Not so.
i i
(/ Heritage Repcrting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17511 i
/
^' 1 Q Can you -- i
(_
2 A (Lieberman) Yes. The model, as you well know, I
3 was developed under contract from FEMA. FEMA has that 4 model. They have now established the policy of distributing 5 the model to anyone who wishes it. And they have in fact 6 distributed the model to private contractors. It's my 7 understanding that you have the model.
8 I have been told that Dr. Adler has requested the 9 model.
10 A Dr. Adler has the model that you provided to him; 11 correct?
12 A (Lieberman) I'm sure he still has it, yes.
13 0 If Mr. Lieberman's firm were to get the ETE update 14 work, Mr. Callendrello, let's say a year from now, do you
[/)
\-
15 have any idea roughly what that contract would be worth?
16 MR. LEWALD: Objection.
17 JUDGE SMITH: On what basis?
18 MR. LEWALD: Pursuing this line of inquiry which 19 is really leading nowhere. To the extent that he would have 20 the contract at all I think is probably or speculation that 21 he might is beyond legitimate inquiry on cross-examination.
f 22 JUDGE SMITH: It's a speculative aspect of it as 23 to which I agree with you.
24 MR. LEWALD: It is. It's entirely speculative.
l 25 JUDGE SMITH: All right, sustained.
A
's Heritage Rerorting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17512 1 We already made findings on the I-DYNEV model. I
}
2 think you participated in those.
3 MR. FIERCE: I'm not disputing that, Your Honor.
4 My inquiry here is going to the question of direct financial 5 interest that Mr. Lieberman has in the very outcome of this 6 proceeding.
7 MR. DIGNAN: Mr. Fierce, I will stipulate with you 8 that as the counsel for this company I consider Mr.
9 Lieberman the outstanding expert in the field. You can be 10 assured that at any time we need to litigate ETEs my 11 recommendation to the management of the company which I have 12 every reason to believe will be followed is that Mr.
13 Lieberman will be retained to do that.
() 14 15 I consider him one of the best witnesses I have ever put on. He is a witness that your government, that you 16 represent, retained as an_ expert. And believe me he is 17 fairly compensated, will be, and you can have that as a 18 stipulation and you can take it all the way to the Supreme 19 Court.
20 JUDGE SMITH: Are you going to pay him --
21 MR. DIGNAN: I'm going to pay Mr. Lieberman. Mr.
22 Lieberman will be paid very well for his work and deservedly 23 so.
24 JUDGE SMITH: One last question: up front?
25 (Laughter) n V Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 L______-_________-_______________
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17513 1 MR. DIGNAN: Not until they start paying the
? lawyers up front.
3 JUDGE SMITH: Go ahead, Mr. Fierce. Does that 4 satisfy you? We can move along.
5 MR. FIERCE: I think that does satisfy me and it 6 does indicate that Mr. Lieberman does in fact have a direct 7 interest --
8 MR. DIGNAN: Oh, come on, Allan, get off it.
9 JUDGE SMITH: Just do it in your proposed 10 findings.
11 MR. DIGNAN: We're not in the District Court at 12 West Chelsea here for crying out loud.
13 BY MR. FIERCE:
() 14 15 Q Dr. Mileti, have you done -- since we have last talked, have you done any traffic behavior studies yourself?
16 A (Mileti) Yes, I have. I did two. The last one I 17 did was, it was a generic study that included looking at the 18 behavior of people in evacuation movements as well as 19 relocation movements was last December in the earthquake in 20 Soviet Armenia.
21 And then prior to that the evacuation and movement i 1
22 of people in a propane tank emergency on Long Island in 23 Nassau County.
24 O Have you published those studies?
25 A (Mileti) I haven't published either of them. I'm Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17514
S 1 supposed to be finishing my chapter for the National Academy (G of Science report on Armenia by the end of March, but I'm 2
3 here instead. And the report on the propane tank evacuation 4 is done being typed and is being mailed to my home right 5 now.
6 Q What were the traffic conditions like in the 7 Armenia evacuation?
8 MR. TURK: Your Honor, given the time demande is 9 this really necessary? He's a qualified expert and Mr.
10 Fierce knows it.
11 MR. FIERCE: Not in traffic behavior, 12 JUDGE SMITH: Now, just a moment. I had 13 difficulty following your line here. You elicited on cross-(s" ), 14 examination that he has done further studies.
15 MR. FIERCE: And I am now inquiring --
16 JUDGE SMITH: Wait a minute. But those further 17 studies were not offered in the direct testimony or part of 18 his present professional qualifications in support of the 19 testimony you're cross-examining on. Is that correct?
20 MR. FIERCE: Well, I believe they have him on this 21 panel to support the testimony about traffic management.
22 JUDGE SMITH: No , I mean his Armenia study was not 23 listed as the studies u son which he is asserting expertise.
24 Yes or no?
25 MR. FIERCE: Well, I saw a resume. I also see a 7-s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17515
/'N I witness who purports to be here in some way showing some 1
N- .
2 expertise in the area of traffic management.
3 JUDGE SMITH: Sustained. Move on to your next 4 question.
5 BY MR. FIERCE:
6 Q Dr. Mileti, do you know the difference between 7 level of service E and level of service F traffic?
8 A (Mileti) I haven't the slightest idea and I'm 9 glad I don't know.
10 Q Do you know what the traffic conditions will be 11 like in a Seabrook emergency?
12 A (Mileti) I have the sense as a person who has 13 overheard people who know about the technical aspects of
() 14 15 traffic that there could be heavy traffic.
Will there be traffic jams?
0 16 A (Mileti) I also have the sense that I would 17 conclude traffic jams or stop and go traffic in the concept 18 of heavy traffic. But I do that as a nontechnical expert in 19 reference to the technical aspects of how cars move on 20 roads.
21 Q You did have some opinions in the New Hampshire 22 hearings about voluntary evacuation, did you not?
23 A (Mileti) I recollect having elaborate prefiled 24 testimony on voluntary evacuation as well as answering 25 cross-examination questions on it, yes. I
- i
\ Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17516 1 Q Have you looked at the question before these
}(
2 parties now regarding when there is a beach closing in New 3 Hampshire and not one in Massachusetts what percentage of 4 the Massachusetts beach population might voluntarily 5 evacuate? Have you looked at that question?
6 A (Mileti) I recollect thinking about that and I 7 think I wrote some testimony on that in reference to what 8 could still be another contention. I can't keep track of 9 them all.
10 And I do remember considering something that I 11 hadn't considered in my testimony in New Hampshire and it 12 was how I interpreted what I think may be current 13 contentions about the application of voluntary evacuation as
() 14 15 I handled it and'as it was addressed in New Hampshire versus how it was conceptualized in the last set of contentions 16 that I saw. I thought they were different.
17 In New Hampshire I was addressing voluntary ]
1 18 evacuation in reference to evacuating a keyhole portion of 19 an EPZ in which actual evacuation advisement were issued to 20 some portion of tr public as well as voluntary evacuation 21 outside the EPZ when the entire EPZ is advised to evacuate.
22 In that testimony I don't recollect preparing 23 prefiled testimony, at least, regarding what might happen if 24 a different sort of evacuation were conducted. For example, 25 the evacuation of beaches where people were told they were O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17517
()
\,_)
1 at risk and needed to leave versus nonevacuation closing of 2 beaches.
l 3 Q If my recollection serves me right, please correct ;
4 me if I'm wrong, with respect to the keyhole evacuation I 5 believe it was your view that inside the EPZ but outside the 6 keyhole voluntary evacuation could be as high as 50 percent?
7 A (Mileti) No , I wouldn't agree with that. I 8 believe what I said was that voluntary evacuation for 9 planning purposes I would estimate at about 25 to 50 percent 10 in reference to people that had similar distance to the 11 plant site, inside the EPZ. And that similar distance 12 boundary could or could not be the entire EPZ.
13 Q I agree, that's my recollection. And if the
[ %
14 keyhole was a five mile ring and then a wedge out to 10 15 miles the remainder of the EPZ would be evacuating 16 voluntarily at the rate of 25 to 50 percent?
17 A (Mileti) If some portion of the EPZ out to 10 18 miles was advised to evacuate I would presume that amount.
19 That is 25 to 50 percent shadow evacuation and the rest of 20 the EPZ, yes.
21 Q Outside the ring that would be evacuated so that 22 people would be perceiving themselves at a greater distance 23 I don't recollect what your percentage was, can you remind 24 me?
25 A (Mileti) As I recollect today, if we had a i
\_ l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17518 1 scenario in which the entire EPZ were advised to evacuate my 2 estimate was zero to 25 percent in the 10 to 20 mile ring 3 might voluntarily evacuate.
4 I wanted to apologize for calling it shadow 5 evacuation, I know here we call it voluntary evacuation.
6 But those estimates, again, were specific to 7 scenarios in which members of the public were advised to 8 evacuate.
9 Q If it's only a beach closing within a two mile 10 ring, does the view you just expressed not apply?
11 A (Mileti) I don't believe that what I stated in 12 New Hampshire regarding voluntary evacuation in response to 13 scenarios where other members of the public were advised to (r) 14 actually evacuate can be applied to beach closing, no. I 15 think that's a separate issue that needs to be thought 16 through separately.
17 Q And you haven't done that yet?
18 A (Mileti) No, I have done some thinking on that.
19 I have.
20 Q Would you care to share that with us?
21 A (Mileti) I think I can't share that with you. I l
22 honestly didn't prepare to discuss that sort of thing. I 23 don't recollect what I've said in writing and where that is.
24 Off the top of my head I would have to say, first, how much 25 voluntary evacuation might occur in response to beach O' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
4 I
REBUTTAL PANEL No.'9 - CROSS 17519 l
() 1 2
closing in e. radiological emergency would likely be less than if those beaches were evacuated.
3 I think that it would vary from place to place i
4 depending upon how emergency information was presented to 5 the public and how the closing of beaches was presented to:
6 the public.
7 And I wouldn't conceptually expect it to be as 8 high as with voluntary evacuation associated with actual
- 9. evacuations.
10 Q But you would expect some?
11 A (Mileti) In reference to any human behavior I 12 would expect some. I think that I can say - and I'm 13 willing to say with confidence right now -- that if the
() 14 15 beaches were closed I think some people, in a radiological emergency even at the beginning, that it's possible that 16 somebody might who lives close by also leave.
17 I can't say that I would think it would be a 18 substantial number of people. But as I have said over and 19 over in these hearings, if you can think up a human behavior 20 some time, some place, when you least expect it somebody 21 could in fact engage in it. So I couldn't say that there 22 would be none. But I would expect it to be substantially 23 below the kind of voluntary evacuation we described in New 24 Hampshire.
25 Q It sounds to me like you're thinking about Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
'T
(
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17520 l 1 voluntary evacuation of residents. I'm thinking more in b(\
l 2 terms of voluntary evacuation of other people down the beach 1
3 outside that two nile ring. For example, if the people on 4 the Seabrook beach area were advised of a problem at 5 Seabrook and instructed to leave the beach areas because the 6 beaches were closed, would people further on down the beach 7 in the same sorts of transients react in a voluntary 8 evacuation mode?
9 A (Mileti) In a voluntary beach closing mode I 10 think is what you might mean.
11 Q Right.
12 A (Mileti) I have not considered that. I have not 13 thought about that. I would have to say as I always do
(
) 14 generically, it's possible. But then again it's also 15 possible that some of the beach-goers at the closed beaches 16 might go to the ones that are utill opened. I would have to 17 give that more considered thought.
18 Q Mr. Callendrello, did New Hampshire Yankee have 19 any trouble recruiting traffic guides?
20 JUDGE SMITH: Where are you on your cross-21 examination plan?
22 MR. FIERCE: This is what 1 called my quick intro 23 questions about the role that each of the panel members was 24 -- and it's not on the plan. This is my last question 25 before my plan begins.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17521
[~D 1 BY MR. FIERCE:
\_ / )
2 Q Is this the kind of question that you could j i
3 answer, Mr. Callendrello, you're a member of the panel, 4 recruiting of the ORO traffic guides?
5 A (Callendrello) I guess as far as a type of 6 question I'm prepared to answer questions on the role of New 7 Hampshire Yankee.
8 Q Yes.
9 A (Callendrello) The SPMC; the Offsite Response 10 organization. I don't recall that specific question being 11 within the scope of our direct testimony, at least not in 12 this piece of direct testimony.
13 I may or may not be the most knowledgeable person f(q a
f 14 in the area of recruiting of. traffic guides. But the 15 general questions of New Hampshire Yankee and SPMC are j 16 questions that I would be prepared to answer, yes.
17 Q Can you describe for me a little bit, in reference 18 to the traffic management plan the relationship -- the 19 working relationship between KLD and Mr. Lieberman and New 20 Hampshire Yankee? Did KLD receive instructions on how to 21 design the traffic management plan for New Hampshire Yankee 22 or did KLD do the designing, present it to New Hampshire 23 Yankee and New Hampshire Yankee adopt it?
24 A (Callendrello) The traffic management plan as is 25 contained in the SPMC has had an evolution that started with A
- Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17522 1 1 the development of the evacuation time estimate while Mr.
2 Lieberman was under the technical direction and control of 3 the Commonwealth.
4 I think he has described that he worked with the 5 police chiefs, the local police chiefs developed a traffic 6 management plan, published that in the evacuation time 7 estimate which subsequently became Volume 6 of the New 8 Hampshire plan.
9 Those strategies were in turn adopted by the 10 communities when they developed their own radiological 11 emergency response plans in April of 1986 or completed their 12 development in April of 1986 which were then submitted for 13 technical review to FEMA. Comments received from FEMA.
() 14 15 Those comments were incorporated into a plan revision.
New Hampshire Yankee then took the plan at that 16 point, the revised local plans, and incorporated those 17 strategies into the SPMC.
18 Now Mr. Lieberman continues to serve as a 19 consultant and a contractor to us to evaluate traffic 20 management as an issue and traffic control points 21 specifically.
22 Q So when KLD came and presented a plan that showed 23 a need for, I believe, 95 traffic guides New Hampshire 24 Yankee went out and recruited 95 traffic guides and more; 25 correct?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
u 1
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9'-' CROSS 17523 1 1 A (Callendrello) That's correct.
2 Q In fact, there's approximately a 50 percent 3 additional supply of traffic guides that was recruited; 4 correct?
5 A (Callendrello) That's the approximate number, 6 yes.
7 Q And New Hampshire Yankee didn't say to'Mr.
8 Lieberman, look, we can't get any more than 50 percent more 9 than 95 traffic guides, don't draw up a plan that has any 10 more than that?
11 A (Callendrello) No, absolutely not.
12 Q Now in the testimony -- really at page one there's 13 a description of the objective of traffic management. I'm
() 14 wondering if the panel can tell me where this particular 15 objective comes from?
16 A (Callendrello) Those are my views.
17 Q This is not something that was found in 18 NUREG-0654 or.any other Nuclear Regulatory Commission or 19 FEMA document; is that correct?
20 MR. TURK: Well, I would object to that unless 21 you're going to point the documents to the witness and let 22 them compare their testimony to the document.
23 MR. FIERCE: He said it was his views and I'm 24 asking him now if it was his views alone or did he see these 25 views expressed in a document somewhere.
O Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation i
l REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17524 )
[~'i 1 JUDGE SMITH: Overruled.
V 2 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) I believe these views 3 are entirely consistent with NUREG-0654. It's possible I 4 can go through 654 and find phrases there which I can map on 5 to what I said here or CR-1745 which is another NUREG 6 document. It's going to take me some time to do that but 7 I'm willing to.
8 MR. FIERCE: I don't need to have you do that now.
9 I do understand that these are primarily your views, Mr.
10 Lieberman.
11 MR. TURK: Mr. Fierce, I'm prepared to indicate to 12 you what the objectives are in 0654 and I hope you're not 13 representing that the key language in this piece of
() 14 15 testimony are not almost word for word the objective said in 0654.
f 16 MR. FIERCE: May I proceed?
17 JUDGE SMITH: Please.
l 18 BY MR. FIERCE:
19 Q Mr. Lieberman, you say the primary objective of 20 traffic management is to support emergency evacuation 21 operations to ensure an adequate and efficient evacuation 22 from the area of concern. Now that's a fairly general 23 standard, is it not?
24 A (Lieberman) I think it's a good introductory 25 sentence.
l Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888 1 _. _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17525
/~ 1 Q Having stated that, though, there are a series of (s,h/
2 subsidiary objectives that traffic management plans need to 3 consider. In fact we might discuss it in terms of a 4 planning basis. Subsidiary goals that you would like to 5 achieve that, you know, meet this general requirement of 6 supporting an adequate and efficient evacuation; wouldn't 7 you agree?
8 A (Lieberman) Well, your question brings to mind 9 the use of the phrase " planning basis" as applied by Dr.
10 Adler which is quite different from the use of that phrase 11 in Volume 6 of the New Hampshire plan.
12 If he wants to describe something he should use 13 his own phrase rather than mine. I use the term " planning
() 14 15 basis" to establish a temporal framework for the events that take place over the course of an evacuation. I make that 16 quite clear and I can look up the pages if you would like.
17 But essentially the planning basis involves a 18 description of a rapidly escalating accident at the plant 19 and a sequence of events which -- and how you get comprised 20 what I call mobilization of the population.
21 The other assumptions which are used in connection 22 with the evacuation. That's what I mean by a planning 23 basis.
24 Q All right. I'm really thinking of it in a 25 different way, I'm sorry. I was thinking in terms of more Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17526
/~ ) 1 like a NUREG-0654 where there are certain assumptions made U about the timing of releases, the distance from the plant 2
3 that the plume might travel in certain times. And therein 4 might be a series of planning goals that one would attempt 5 to at least examine when one designed a traffic management 6 plan.
7 MR. TURK: I'm going to object, Your Honor. I 8 would ask Mr. Fierce if he's going to be making an 9 assumption about 0654 I would like him to point to the 10 language and show where that relates to traffic management.
11 MR. FIERCE: I'm not making -- this would be a 12 useful pursuit, Your Honor.
13 JUDGE SMITH: It wasn't even a question.
14 MR. TURK: What I heard was a question, Your (O) 15 Honor. It seemed to have in it an assumption and a 16 statement that the traffic management plans are to be 17 designed to deal with plume arrival.
18 MR. FIERCE: No. I'm using the term " planning 19 basis" in a different way. More like the way it was used in 20 NUREG-0654 than in Volume 6.
21 BY MR. FIERCE:
22 O I'm looking for what I call the subsidiary goals.
23 I mean, it's nice to say that you want to have an adequate 24 and efficient evacuation, but when you're looking at a 10 25 mile EPZ aren't there some things in mind that you're trying t%
'\ss) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17527
[~) 1 to do that are specific and that would help guide the way
- -s/
2 you would design a traffic management plan, Mr. Lieberman?
3 MR. LEWALD: I'm going to object to the guestion, 4 it's so vague.
i 5 JUDGE SMITH: Well, you seem to be drawing a blank 6 on the question. If you've got something in mind why don't 7 you ask him directly about it, because you're not getting a 8 response. Unless, can you answer the question as it was put 9 to you, Mr. Lieberman?
10 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) It is vague. It's 11 unbounded.
12 BY MR. FIERCE:
13 Q Well, how do you define an effective traffic
() 14 15 management plan, M.r Lieberman?
(Witness reviewing document.)
16 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) Well, these are laid 17 out. The activities that would be performed in connection 18 with this plan are laid out in some detail in Section 1 of 19 volume 6. It might be helpful in moving things along for 20 you to, if you have it handy -- !
21 BY MR. FIERCE:
22 O I have it handy and I'm familiar with the steps 23 and the process. I see what was done, I'm still wondering 24 what the objectives were?
25 A (Lieberman) I'm going to refer to page 1-12. I k Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1
/
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17528 1 could read it to you or you could refer to it directly and 2 that could be a starting point for our discussion. /
3 Q Are you referring to that portion of the page that 4 says that: " Evacuation analysis procedures are based upon j l
5 the need to," and then there are series of bullets, the 6 first of which is " route traffic along paths of travel that 7 will expedite the travel," e.nd et cetera?
8 A (Lieberman) Yes.
9 Q So it would be an objective to expedite travel 10 from points of origin to points outside the EPZ, we can 11 agree with that? I think everybody would admit that 12 certainly would be a goal of any traffic management plan.
13 There's another goal here: " Restrict movement 14 toward Seabrook Station to the extent practicable."
lf 15 And second: "Di*;ferse traffic demand so as to 16 avoid focusing demand on a limited number of highways."
17 That's a goal as well?
18 A (Lieberman) That's what it says.
19 A Do you ever encounter situations where the goals 20 like this might conflict in a particular way when you got to 21 a given point in the plan, the practical application of your 22 strategies needed to resolve conflicts among these goals?
23 A (Lieberman) I don't know how to answer that, 24 could you be more specific.
25 Q Well, what if you had a movement -- take the first Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17529 1 two -- that would actually expedite travel out of the EPZ,
[}
2 but it was a movement that was, at least to some extent, 3 toward Seabrook Station; how do you resolve the-conflict 4 between those two goals in the designing of a traffic 5 management plan?
6 A (Lieberman) That is a. fact, an issue that we do 7 address as part of the development of the plan. And we 8 asked such questions of ourselves, to what extent are es 9 moving traffic toward the plant? How far are we from the 10- plant at the time, under the conditions that we're looking 11 at? In other words, if we' re within two miles of the plant 12 and we' re going to move or we're considering moving traffic, 13 say, a mile towards the plant, that's a different matter
() 14 15 than if we are, say, 10 miles from the plant and we're considering moving traffic nine miles from the plant.
16 Another issue is --
17 Q Can I interrupt you and just confirm that that's 18 because the closer to the plant the greater the risk to 19 those particular drivers?
20 A (Lieberman) Right.
21 Another issue that we consider is, what is the 22 overall effects of exposure? For example, if you move 23 traffic closer to the plant but in doing so you greatly 24 expedite their movement away from the plant, then that 25 tradeoff has to be evaluated to determine whether or not O Beritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17530
/~) 1 that's the proper thing to do.
(/ So there's also the issue of dwell time, if you 2
3 will, of the evacuees when considering alternative ways of 4 treating them.
5 Q I'm sorry, I didn't catch that phrase, " dwell 6 time?"
7 A (Lieberman) Well, dwell time is the amount of 8 time that evacuees would spend on the route if they do 9 travel closer to the plant. If they can just move very 10 rapidly over that section of roadway which is closer to the 11 plant, then that might be a more attractive way to go then 12 to keep them queued at a slightly longer distance from the 13 plant.
() 14 15 Q And these same kinds of considerations and judgments would arise if you had a situation where you had a 16 traffic demand that you could disperse in a way that would 17 comply with goal number three to avoid focusing demand on a 18 limited number of highways, but to do that, the dispersal of 19 traffic let's say from an area closer to the plant might not 20 expedite travel from the area that you were dispersing this 21 traffic to and how do you resolve a conflict like that?
22 A (Lieberman) Well, once again, the reason you 23 disperse traffic is to establish a relationship between 24 traffic demand and traffic capacity with roadway capacity.
25 What one tries to do is to form an equilibrium O Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
)
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17531 i f ")
~
1 between demand and capacity so that the net effect is to
't) 2 expedite the movement of evacuees from the area.
3 So dispersion is not something that is done 4 independent from the need to move traffic, it is actually a i 5 mechanism whereby the expediting of movement results from 6 the dispersion tactics.
7 Q But you could have a situation where traffic 8 closer to the plant, in order to expedite their movement, 9 would need to be dispersed -- would be a goal as you 10 indicate here -- but that dispersal of the traffic in 11 sending the vehicles into other areas of the EPZ could 12 result in evacuation times for those outlying areas which 13 were not as expedited as they would have been if the traffic I)
't./
14 in closer had not been dispersed into their neighborhoods; 15 isn't that correct?
16 A (Lieberman) I guess what you're talking about is 17 a migration of delay where you would --
18 0 Yes.
19 A (Lieberman) --
serve to expedite traffic that is 20 close to the plant at some expense of those who are farther 21 from the plant. Those tradeoffs were in fact explored. And 22 as it happens here, the situation doesn't arise.
23 But in general, to answtx your question, these ;
24 judgments would have to be made. And in a situation like 25 that where there was such a tradeoff I would consult with a
,a Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
c--_-_____-__,. _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17532 1 health physicist, give them the facts and have them advise 2 me as to which is the better way to go.
3
'4 5
6 7-8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 .
18 19 20 21 22 23 i
24 25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17533
['N 1 Q So you would admit there are a number of judgment 2 calls involved in designing a traffic management plan 3 overall, correct?
4 A (Lieberman) I think there are judgment calls 5 involved in any engineering activity.
6 Q Now, you also want to design an implement &ble 7 plan, isn't that true?
8 A (Lieberman) That's correct.
9 As a matter of fact, the plan is wo,:thless if it 10 can't be implemented.
11 Q And one of the aspects of implementability that 12 you have to always consider when you are designing a traffic 13 management plan is the availability of staffing, correct?
e~
14 A (Lieberman) That's correct.
15 Q Now, I think I see in your testimony, in fact at 16 the bottom of page 1, a statement. The last sentence reads, 17 "Thus, a well designed traffic management plan identifies 18 the most effective control strategies, quantifies the 19 resulting benefits, and balances these benefits with 20 available resources to define the most effective and 21 implementable plan responsive to the stated objective."
22 By the phrase "available resources", can I assume 23 you were referring here to personnel resources as well as 24 others?
25 A (Lieberman) Yes, as well as others.
I
() Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 l
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17534 1 Q Can you imagine a plan, Mr. Lieberman, which,
)
i 2 given the available resources, just does not produce an 3 effective plan or an implementable plan?
4 A (Lieberman) I think the question puts the cart 5 before the horse in the following sense.
6 What it says here is that a well designed plan 7 identifies the most effective control strategies and 8 balances this with the available benefit, available 9 resources.
10 What I am saying ls that the plan itself must take 11 into consideration the availability of resources. That's an 12 integral part of the plan.
13 I think that responds to your question.
[Gl 14 Q Well, I am not sure it does because I'm still not 15 sure whether you would say there is always a response that I 16 can design for any traffic management situation that will be 17 the best response given the resources. I can understand 18 that.
19 But I want to know if you are also saying that 20 that will always lead to an effective and implementable 21 plan.
22 A (Lieberman) Well, I think it's fair to say that 23 if the resources fall below some minimal threshold, then 24 that would compromise -- that could compromise the efficacy 25 of the plan. Th'-;n the effectiveness of the plan suffers O
k s/
m Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17535 ,
'~
1 accordingly.
2 O In designing a traffic management plan, should 3 prudent planners take into consideration the greater risk of 4 those who are closer to the plant?
5 A (Lieberman) Yes, I think that's reasonable.
6 Q And that where tradeoffs have to be made between 7 efficient evacuation of those closer to the plant and those 8 further away from the plant, the judgment call would be 9 generally to favor the call which would protect those closer 10 to the plant.
11 A (Lieberman) In general, that's true providing the 12 tradeoffs are not unbalanced in the sense that the penalties 13 paid by those further from the plant are so pronounced
() 14 15 relative to the benefits gained by those close to the-plant
.that one does something that balances these factors.
16 Q In designing traffic management plans for nuclear 17 plants, should those judgment calls be made by traffic 18 engineers designing them, or by governmental authorities?
19 A (Lieberman) Well, I think I said earlier that if 20 there were such tradeoffs, then the role of the traffic 21 engineer is to consult with health physicists.
l 22 If the health physicists are employed by public 23 agencies, then so much the better. But in this case it 24 didn't apply, so I had no need.
25 JUDGE SMITH: Are you talking about now -- oh, l \ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 m___._______m. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17536
("% 1 excuse me. Finish your answer.
O 2 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) I'm finished, Your 3 Honor.
4 JUDGE SMITH: Are you talking now about the plan 5 or the implementing of the plan during an emergency?
l 6 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) Well, both actually.
7 We were talking earlier about making tradeoffs between 8 favoring the evacuation needs of those close to the plant 9 relative to those farther away. And there may arise cases 10 where such tradeoffs do in fact exist, and would have to try
. I 11 to quantify what these tradeoffs are and see how they feed 12 back into the plan.
13 And since I'm not qualified as a health physicist,
() 14 15 I would have to talk with people who can give me some guidance in that respect.
16 BY MR. FIERCE:
17 Q By consulting with a health physicist, are you 18 obtaining data, numerical data from which you then do a 19 calculation that gives you the right answer?
20 A (Lieberman) Ideally that would be the case. It's 21 not always possible. It's my understanding that you can 22 quantify with a high degree of certainty which way the plume 23 is going to blow and so forth.
24 A (Callendrello) Mr. Fierce, maybe it would be 25 helpful. You asked the question, what would a prudent Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l I
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17537
(T 1 planner do, and I thir e fall into that category.
b) 2 Mr. Lieberman, his exp3rtise is in traffic 3 management and in the development of evacuation time 4 estimates. My expertise is in emergency planning. And I 5 think we may have lost sight of what the use of evacuation 6 time estimates is.
7 It is one of the pieces of data that 8 decisionmakers utilize when they are deciding which 9 protective action to recommend. And my understanding is, to 10 the extent that the information is to be reliable, the 11 evacuation time estimates needs to incorporate the traffic 12 management plan as it exists, as it is modeled, to come up 13 with the time.
i 14 That time is, as I said, one of the pieces of
[/
x, 15 input data that is used in the comparison of evacuation 16 versus sheltering, for example, in reaching a decision.
17 Q I appreciate that, Mr. Callendrello.
18 I think my point is somewhat different. I am 19 trying to draw the distinction between plans which are 20 designed purely mathematically and resolve these conflicts 21 between conflicting priorities through some sort of traffic 22 engineering, radiological health analysis, and a separate 23 system which would permit politicians to make what are 24 really value judgments about who should be protected and 25 where their priorities lie.
[~
'N Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
l' I
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS .17538 1
~
1 And I guess the question is, wouldn't you
)
2 reasonably admit that there are different ways to go about
- 3. resolving some of these conflicts besides mathematical 4 precision through engineering techniques? '
5 A (Callendrello) That's why.I wanted to bring in {
\
l 6 the purpose of an evacuation time estimate. At least as 7 far as I see, these value judgments, if you are talking l
8 about a value judgment to protect public health and safety, 9 would be made at the time of an emergency. It seems to me 10 the road system is a given. The resources that are 11 available to deploy to manage traffic is a given. We have 12 presented a traffic management strategy. The time for 13 variable is at the time that the data is being used to
() 14 15
-perform the analysis.
Q I think I understand that. But at the time we are 16 designing a traffic management plan, L traffic management 17 plan which in this case is.being held out and offered to 18 governmental authorities to use and to follow.
19 JUDGE SMITH: Let's cut it short. Now, as we have 20 ruled many times in this proceeding that the purpose of an 21 emergency plan, including a traffic management plan, is to 22 achieve maximum reasonable dose savings. It's the 23 responsibility of the managers to submit a plan'which 24 achieves that.
25 If you are suggesting that the policymaking O seritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
1 j
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17539' 1 Tovernmentofficialsshouldintercedewiththeplanthat' 2 puts different priorities in for different values, that's 3 outside the scope of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4 emergency planning rules. It is a. decision that they would 5 make in implementation. If they wish.to substitute 6 different values other than dose savings, radiological dose 7 savings, that's a different matter as far as the planning is 8 concerned.
9 As you know, the planners have to achieve 10 radiological dose savings, or dose avoidance.
11 MR. FIERCE: I think I'm trying to be consistent 12 with that. Consistent with that, looking forward in time at 13 the time that the planners are designing a traffic 14 management plan not knowing which way the wind will be 15 blowing or how concentrated the plume is, there are
'16 judgments to be made and plans to be drawn at that time 17 which can go various ways. It's not a mathematically 18 precise process given the roadway networks and the 19 population concentrations.
20 JUDGE SMITH: Are you accepting in your question 21 the premise --
22 MR. FIERCE: Yes.
23 JUDGE SMITH: All right, that'a fine.
24 MR. FIERCE: Yes.
25 JUDGE SMITH: As I was hearing your questions, you Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __= __- __. __ ________ ___ -__ _ __ - ____-_
p REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17540 l
I were saying, well, let's don't worry about dose savings.
)
2 Let's worry about priorities of populations.
3 BY MR. FIERCE:
4 Q Given the road network you have and the population-5 concentrations you do have, which fluctuate over time, and 6 you are only designing one traffic management plan, th>re 7 are some judgment : alls that still need to be made that 8 aren't always resolvable mathematically.
9 Isn't that correct, Mr. Lieberman?
10 JUDGE SMITH: Value judgments.
11 MR. FIERCE: Yes.
12 JUDGE SMITH: Value judgments as to what?
13 MR. FIERCE: If I can put it in a concrete --
14 JUDGE SMITH: Policy value judgments, I think you f( )
15 were talking about. -
16 MR. FIERCE: Well, we're talking about designing a 17 traffic management plan.
18 JUDGE SMITH: Well, then, you are no longer 19 talking about governmental policy judgments?
20 MR. FIERCE: For example, it would be a policy 21 judgment whether you wanted to emphasize the rapid 22 evacuation of say Salisbury Beach as your emphasis versus a 23 perhaps more rapid evacuation of towns in the five-mile 24 range.
25 JUDGE SMITH: But you have just slipped off of the t
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17541 1 requirement that they use as their ultimate standard, their 2 ultimate goal.
3 MR. FIERCE: No,-that's their' ultimate goal.
4 JUDGE SMITH: Dose savings.
5 MR. FIERCE:- In looking forward in time, you don't 6 know how many people are going to be there at any given 7 moment, so you can't calculate it.
8 JUDGE SMITH: Go ahead with your questioning, if 9 that's the tenor of your questioning which I don't 10 understand the relevance of, but if that's the tenor of your 11 questioning, go ahead. I just want you to keep it within 12 the purview of the NRC regulations 13 MR. FIERCE: I'm trying to do.that.
() 14 15 Q BY MR. FIERCE:
Looking forward in time where you don't know when 16 an accident will occur, you don't know what the population-17 of a Salisbury Beach will be, you can't actually do a 18 mathematical calculation of what the dose savings' will be 19 with a given traffic management plan, can you, Mr.
20 Lieberman?
21 MR. TURK: At what point in time? Now 22 prospectively?
23 MR. FIERCE: We are looking now forward. We are !
l 24 planning.
25 MR. TURK: And you are saying you can't know what Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 I :
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 -' CROSS 17542 1 the doses will be now as we sit here today.
2 MR. DIGNAN: I'll stipulate to that.
3 BY MR. FIERCE:
4 Q Therefore, there is no single plan that you can 5 point to that assures that when an accident occurs it will 6 in fact produce the maximum dose eavings, correct?
7 A (Callendrello) Again, that's why I guess I jumped 8 in, because --
9 JUDGE SMITH: The question is now, as far as I 10 hear it, no longer attendant to governmental policy 11 intervention in the plan. It is simply a planning question, 12 is that right?
13 MR. FIERCE: It's a planning question. You get
() 14 15 two people in a room together.
have maximum dose reduction for Seabrook.
They both say we want to 16 JUDGE SMITH: Right.
17 MR. FIERCE: They both say that --
18 JUDGE SMITH: But you seem now to have abandoned 19 the premise of your questions that you have to have policy 20 governmental judgments going into it.
21 MR. FIERCE: I don't think so.
22 JUDGE SMITH: It's just a matter of clarifying the 23 question.
24 MR. FIERCE: I think it's still there. !
25 JUDGE SMITH: All right, is it in the question?
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4d88
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17543
/}
,b 1 MR. FIERCE: Let me rephrase the question and put 2 it perhaps a little better.
3 BY MR. FIERCE:
4 Q You get two people in a room who want to design a 5 traffic management plan for Seabrook, and one of them is a i 6 politician from Massachusetts who is interested in doing 7 everything he can do to maximize dose savings for the 8 citizens. And you get a traffic engineer in the room who is 9 also interested in maximizing dose savings. And they say, 10 well, look, the engineer says, well, we can do this kind of 11 routing, we can do that kind of routing. We have some 12 options here. If the beach population is full, this kind of 13 routing will give you the maximum dose savings. If it's the
() 14 15 wintertime, however, I'll tell you, there's another routing that will give you the maximum dose savings. What do you 16 want to do, Politician?
17 And the politician says, well, I sure want to 18 maximize dose savings, but I have no idea when the accident 19 is going to occur.
20 How do you resolve that kind of a problem, Mr.
21 Lieberman?
22 A (Lieberman) Well, you resolve the problem by 23 creating what we call scenarios which cover the full 24 spectrum of conditions which could occur over the course of 25 a year. And what you give to the politician is a set of O Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation l
l'
( REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17544
(~ 1 solutions. We had a matrix of roughly 13 by 10, 130 numbers C
2 which in aggregate represent just about the full spectrum of 3 conditions.
l 4 In addition to that, we perform sensitivity 5 studies in which we look at variations from the underlying l 6 assumptions which went into those 130 numbers, so that we 1
7 could have a sense to the decisionmaker, in the event the 1
8 accident took place, as to what the actual conditions would 9 be if they in fact departed from the bases used to generate 10 these numbers.
11 Q I understand that you can present that full array 12 of valuable information to that decisionmaker. But that 13 decisionmaker then has to make a judgment on which way to go
() 14 15 with a single traffic management plan that will apply, with some variation. I urderstand that you can evacuate certain 16 fewer regions than all of the regions. But basically there 17 -is one set of diagrams for each intersection in this plan.
18 Isn't that correct, Mr. Lieberman?
19 A (Lieberman) That is correct. Keep in mind the 20 priorities we talked about this morning. The priorities can 21 differ from season to off-season, and some of the TCPs are 22 different in the off-season than during the season. So 23 there is flexibility there.
24 There is a common thread, and that is the 25 discussion on page 1-12. All those objectives, expediting O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 A___m _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _
' REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9.- CROSS 17545
(~N 1 their travel, restrict movement towards Seabrook Station, 2 disperse traffic demand, all those requirements or 3 objectives are common to all the scenarios that you could 4 look for. And they translate into the traffic control or 5 management plan that we have.
6 I don't know in any case where that management 7 plan runs counter to these objectives regardlecs of 8 scenario. I have tested many, many different variations of 9 what we have finally submitted as our management plin. And 10 I have not detected, contrary to Dr. Adler's testimony, the 11 kind of disparities that he claims. I 12 Q Other people have designed different traffic 13 management plans for Seabrook, haven't they, Mr. Lieberman?
() 14 15 A
Q (Lieberman) Yes, they have.
Other companies.
16 A (Lieberman) Quite right.
17 Q They came up with different solutions for some of 18 the problems that were faced in designing an evacuation plan 19 for Seabrook, didn't they?
20 A (Lieberman) Different engineers will do that.
21 Q If my memory serves me right, at least one of 22 those plans contained a plan to evacuate Salisbury Beach 23 which utilized both lanes on Route 1A, Beach Road coming out 24 of Salisbury; isn't that correct?
25 A (Lieberman) No, they utilized three lanes comit.g
\
(~
k) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17546 1 out of Salisbury.
]
2 Q I stand corrected.
3 There have been other plans designed which at the 4 center of Salisbury Square used different routings than you 5 have designed in our plan; isn't that true?
6 A (Lieberman) That is correct. l 7 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Fierce, would this be a good 8 time to break for lunch?
9 MR. FIERCE: Yes. I am moving to the next point, 10 Your Honor.
11 JUDGE SMITH: Return at 10 'until two.
12 (whereupon, at 12:49 p.m., the hearing was 13 recessed, to resume at 1:40 p.m. this same day, Thursday, 14 March 30, 1989.)
(
15 1
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
\ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17547
, 1 AFTERNOON SESSION 2 (1:40 p.m.)
3 JUDGE SMITH: On the record.
,4 Whereupon, 5 STEPHEN M. BALDACCI 6 ANTHONY M. CALLENDRELLO 7 EDWARD B. LIEBERMAN 8 DENNIS S. MILETI 9 having been previously duly sworn, were called as a 10 witnesses herein and were examined and testified further as 11 follows:
12 JUDGE SMITH: We want to rule on SAPL's motion to i
13 compel production of documents. We are denying the motion 1
14 in its entirety and we will now explain the reasons.
-( )
l 15 The motion does not correctly characterize FEMA's 16 reasons for not providing the information. The motion says 17 that -- excuse me.
18 Mr. Fierce and Mr. Turk, we are just ruling on the 19 motion to produce documents while we were waiting for you to 1
20 come. We are not going into your affairs.
21 SAPL's motion attributes to FEMA a refusal based 22 upon the statement that the subject matter was not relevant 23 to any contention or likely to lead to the discovery of 24 admissible evidence.
25 In actuality, FEMA came to the hearing and argued Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17548 1 basically another reason for not producing the information.
L'~} And that is the executive privilege which is recognized in 2
3 NRC proceedings as somewhat the equivalent to Exemption 5 of 4 the Freedom of Information Act. And that is not the 5 standard for deciding whether or not to require the 6 production of documents that meet the executive privilege.
7 The standard that we would apply is not relevancy 8 and not whether it would lead to the discovery of admissible 9 evidence, but whether it is needed for the litigation; 10 whether the litigation would be prejudiced and would the 11 parties be prejudiced without it. It is a much higher 12 standard than just relevance and whether it would load to 13 the discovery of admissible evidence.
() 14 15 Yesterday, we discussed some of the factors that we would consider in looking as to whether this information 16 was necessary to this hearing. And one of the things that 17 we talked about at length was the fact that there are 18 special circumstances here that FEMA presents a report which 19 is very much in summary fashion, and that licensing board, 20 adjudicatory boards are required to give it presumptive 21 weight. And indeed in this case the Applicants are asking 22 to do that.
23 That fact standing alone would tend to indicate 24 that otherwise relevant draft information underlying that 25 report might be produced.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l t
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17549
("T 1 But yesterday, in discussing these various 2 factors, although it was pointed out to the Board, I did not 3 evaluate the effect upon the need by the depositions of Mr.
4 Donovan, and the fact that Mr. Donovan in fact will appear 5 here and defend FEMA's information.
6 So my comparison of contrasting, for example, a 7 NRC Staff enforcement action with FEMA's role in this case 8 was not complete, because indeed FEMA is presenting a 9 witness and made available a lot of information, and made 10 available Mr. Donovan and I understand even others for 11 deposition.
12 Therefore, my characterization of FEMA's position 13 being simply summary in this case was not accurate, or was (n) s_/
14 not complete. Therefore, that goes to whether we should set 15 aside the deliberative process privilege in these documents 16 as a e,uestion of need. And we rule that there is, in fact, 17 no need.
18 Now, we have looked at the documents, and the 19 Board members have read every aspect of them, and they 20 consist largely -- there is one statement in there I regard 21 as a policy statement that would be excluded in any event.
22 The other matters in there appear to be routine efforts to 23 identify errors, inconsistencies, and to be assured that the 24 final report is accurate in that an inconsistency would 25 indicate that one or another matter is incorrect. The draft
\
s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17550 1 suggest that they had better find out which is accurate. We 2 see nothing in there that would indicate that this 3 information is needed.
4 The argument that the information related to Maine 5 is relevant because it shows their process just was not 6 convincing. It does not, in fact, do anything that you 7 don't learn, as far as we can see, from published reports.
8 Finally, we want to point out that the executive 9 privilege, or the deliberative process privilege is 10 sometimes known as, depending upon the level of 11 decisionmaker, the benefit of that is prospective. It is 12 for the future. We thought that we could probably release 13 this information to SAPL without unduly causing them any
() 14 15 distress or any embarrassment or anything.
a matter of no particular moment.
These drafts are But that isn't the test.
16 If FEMA comes in here and asserts its executive 17 privilege, it is doing so so that its agents, its employees 18 and its officials may feel free in the future to give advice 19 to their superiors and advice to each other with assurance 20 that absent extraordinary their advice will remain 21 confidential.
22 So it is to protect FEMA's future decisionmaking 23 process, and finding no countervailing requirement for the 24 needs of this case that we are denying the motion.
25 Let's go ahead with the cross-examination now.
D) ks m Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ 1
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17551 1 We might also state that we will be denying the
)
2 Applicants' motion for sanctions, and we will be denying the 3 Attorney General's contra-motion for relief, and we will 4 explain the reasons when we have a time in the proceeding 5 which does not delay the --
6 MS. MCPHETERS: Your Honor, thank you for the i 7 Board's ruling.
8 May I just add the factual representation that in 9 addition to Mr. Donovan, FEMA made available to SAPL for 10 deposition three exercise evaluators at SAPL's request. We 11 would have endeavored to produce any additional exercise 12 evaluators. These. were the ones that were asked for. And 13 they did have a full opportunity to examine their position
[\ 14 on the process by which FEMA's report and recommendations
% )'
15 was arrived at.
16 JUDGE SMITH: That is also relevant to me.
17 Let the record show that Judge McCollom returned 18 all three copies of the information to you.
19 MS. MCPHETERS: I have them.
20 JUDGE SMITH: To you, to FEMA's counsel.
21 MS. MCPHETERS: Thank you very much, Your Honor.
22 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Fierce.
23 MR. FIERCE: Thank you, Your Honor.
24 25 O\
() 5eritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17552
(^ 1 CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continued)
L 2 BY MR. FIERCE:
3 Q On page 2 of the Panel's testimony there is 4 described a process for the development of the traffic 5 management plan. And if I am correct, this is a process 6 that you designed, Mr. Lieberman, and is described also in 7 Volume 6; is that correct?
8 A (Lieberman) That's correct. This is a briefer 9 summary of what is described in Appendix V of that document.
10 Q And can you tell me when it was that you undertook 11 this process for KLD?
12 A (Lieberman) Well, it has genesis back in 1980-13 1981, when we worked on the Indian Point plant as a
(~) 14 subcontractor. And this is the process that we used there.
15 Q In the interest of time, can I cut you short and 16 ask you when you engaged in this process for Seabrook. Was 17 it in 19867 18 A (Lieberman) Well, I didn't do it for Seabrook. I 19 did it for the Commonwealth. And the process started in l 20 August of 1985.
21 Q And concluded approximately when? When the 22 publication of Volume 6 in August of 1986?
23 A (Lieberman) No. Just about the time of the Nesw i
24 Hampshire hearings, you will recall that an over-flight was 1
25 done over the beach areas by Avis. This necessitated a Heritage Reporting Corporation I (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17553 1 reincarnation of the process, and we did a whole new series
{~))
w 2 of ETE runs at that time.
3 Q I understand that. But the basic process steps 4 were engaged in and completed prior to the publication of 5 Volume 6. You may have now gone back since then and added 6 to that. But when did the process end which resulted in the 7 work product we see as Volume 6?
8 A (Lieberman) I guess it ended with the 9 documentation of that product.
10 I hesitate to use the word "end", because it's a 11 continuing process.
12 Q Okay. But it would be the latter half of 1985, 13 and basically the first half of 1986; is that correct?
() 14 15 A
Q (Lieberman) For this product for MCDA, yes.
On page 3 of the testimony, it's page 2 at the 16 very bottom, the last line, there is a mention of a 17 telephone survey.
18 Is that the telephone survey, Mr. Lieberman, that 19 is contained at Appendix F of Volume 6 of the New Hampshire 20 plans? Is that the survey you are referring to here?
l 21 (Witness Lieberman reviews document.)
22 A (Lieberman) Yes, that's a reproduction of the 23 survey instrument.
24 Q What company did that survey?
25 JUDGE SMITH: What are we looking at right now? I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17554 1 know a survey, but page of what document?
2 MR. FIERCE: Appendix F of Volume 6 is the survey 3 document.
4 JUDGE SMITH: We don't have Volume 6 here.
5 That's all right. Go ahead.
6 BY MR. FIERCE:
7 Q What was the firm that conducted that survey, Mr.
8 Lieberman?
9 A (Lieberman) My recollection, I think maybe the 10 firm is First Market Research.
11 Q Now among the questions asked in that survey on 12 page F-3 of Volume 6 is Question 10 which reads.
13 MR. FIERCE: Perhaps the Applicants can remind me 14
) what the exhibit number of the plans was in the New 15 Hampshire hearing.
16 MR. DIGNAN: Applicant's Exhibit 5 was the NMRERP 17 as a whole.
18 BY MR. FIERCE:
19 Q Applicant's Exhibit 5, volume 6 from the New 20 Hampshire plans at page F-3 contains one of the questions in l
21 that survey, No. 10. "If Commuter 1 were notified of an 22 emergency at the Seabrook Station while at work or college, 23 would that person return home?"
24 Did I read that correctly, Mr. Lieberman?
25 A (Lieberman) Quite right.
/' :
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- - _ _ _ _ _ . - . _ _ - _ 1
l I
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17555
, (N 1 Q Dr. Mileti, is that a behavioral intentions G
i 2 question?
l l
3 (Pause to peruse document )
4 THE WITNESS: (Mileti) Excuse me. I just want to 5 read it.
l 6 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, could I have some insight 7 into the relevance of this to the testimony that is now 8 before the Board?
9 MR. FIERCE: I understand that this is a survey 10 product being relied on by this testimony. And I'm 11 inquiring a little bit about its basis. I'm not spending a 12 lot of time on this, Your Honor.
13 THE WITNESS: (Mileti) Yes, it looks like that.
() 14 15 Q BY MR. FIERCE:
Is it your recollection, Mr. Lieberman, that this 16 was a survey which used a methodology that did not apply 17 what is called a " call back system"?
18 A (Lieberman) That's correct.
19 Q Now on page 3 of your testimony, paragraph 4, 20 there is a reference to evaluation scenarios. But I don't 21 see any reference to the evacuation regions. And in that 22 regard also, the evacuation ERPAs which are, in the New 23 Hampshire plans, an acronym standing for -- remind me --
24 Emergency?
25 A (Lieberman) Emergency response planning areas.
(~~ .
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17556 l' Q Emergency' response planning areas. And as I 2 recall, the entire EPZ was divided into a series of ERPAs, 3 the boundaries of which were town boundaries.- ERPA consists 4 of more than one town in some instances, but never divided 5 through a town; is that correct?
6 A (Liebe : n)
,. That.is correct.
7 Q The.ERPAs are described in Volume 6 on page 10.
8 A (Lieberman) Let me correct that.
9 Hampton Beach was considered distinctly from 10 Hampton, because Hampton Beach is within two miles.
11 I would like to, if I may, correct my earlier.
12 response. You said there were no call backs, and I said, 13 yes, and I answered too hurriedly. f
() 14 15 If there were no answer to a phone call, that number was called repeatedly for some number of times at 16 different times. So in the sense that that constitutes a I i
17 call back, then that practice was followed.
18 Q Does Figure 10-1 on page 10-4 of volume 6 describe 19 the ERPAs currently in use by the State of New Hampshire and 20 also by the SPMC?
21 A (Callendrello) Yes, it does. i 22 Q Now, I don't see a step here in describing your 23 process which tells me how the ERPAs were developed.
l l 24 Can you tell me how they were developed, Mr. j 25 Lieberman?
I' .
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17557
(~'; 1 A (Lieberman) Yes. This is a development which I
()
2 did very early in the process. I can tell you how we 3 developed it if you would like.
4 Q Can you do so briefly, please?
5 A (Lieberman) Sure. The whole idea of a key hole 6 configuration is that a key hole consists of a center area, 7 roughly circular in shape, with a sector extending out to 8 the next radial distance. For example, you would have a key 9 hole that roughly approximated the two-mile radius area 10 centered at the power plant and extending out to five miles 11 in the iorm of a sector. And then you would have as another 12 key hole configuration an area, roughly approximating a 13 five-mile radius, centered at the plant, and extending out
() 14 15 to the EPZ boundary.
What we wanted to do is to develop ERPAs which 16 would form key holes of that description, but which would 17 retain the homogeneity of populations within towns. That 18 is, except for Hampton Beach we did not want to fragment the 19 town in the for:aation cf these ERPA. And essentially this 20 is what took shape.
21 You might see, for example, that ERPA A, which 22 ideally would look like a circle of two miles, really 23 extends in part out beyond five miles because the Town of 24 Hampton Falls falls within two miles but extends out that 25 far and I didn't want to chop it in half.
,n kss Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
{
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17558
- 1. Q' That was your decision?'
)
2 A (Lieberman)- That was my decision. It was 3 reviewed by the folks at MCDA, and again by people at 4 Seabrook and with New Hampshire to see if they concurred, 5 and they did.
6 Q Likewise, ERPA B contains Salisbury and Amesbury; 7 is that correct?
8 A (Lieberman) That's correct.
9 Q And.if I can look at another one of your maps, 10 Figure 1-2, it looks to me like Amesbury extends perhaps 11 seven and a half miles out from the center of the EPZ; is 12 that correct?
13 A (Lieberman) That's correct. The western edge of
() 14 15 Amesbury could be close to eight miles in that corner.
Q Likewise, the southern edge of Newburyport.is 16 approximately the same distance, about seven and a half 17 miles from Seabrook station, isn't it?
18 A (Lieberman) Yes, that's correct.
19 Q But Newburyport was not included in ERPA B. It 20 was included in the ERPA to the south, ERPA E.
21 A (Lieberman) That's correcc. There is no part of l
22 Newburyport which lies within five miles.
23 Q The ERPAs are also divided by north, south, east 24 and west in at least some respects even within rings,-even 25 within five miles and certainly within 10 miles. You could O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17559 1 have taken, for example, an ERPA B which contains Salisbury 2 to the due south and Amesbury really to the south / southwest 3 and drawn a line and created two ERPAs out of them, couldn't l 4 you?
5 A (Lieberman) Yes, you could subdivide this in 6 different ways.
7 Q This was your decision?
8 A (Lieberman) My. decision to what?
9 Q To draw the line in this fashion. i 10 A (Lieberman) Subject to review, yes.
11 A (Callendrello) Well, Mr. Fierce, I would also add 12 that NUREG-0654 in Appendix 4 contains guidance as to which 13 sub areas are to be considered in the development of the
() 14 15 evacuation time estimate.
And can you tell us what that guidance is?
Q 16 A (Callendrello) Radius -- it's on page 4-4.
17 Radius about two miles area, four 90-degree sectors. Radius 18 about five miles, four 90-degree sectors. About 10 miles, 19 four 90-degree sectors. And then about 10 miles again, 20 entire EPZ.
21 22 23 24 25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17560 i
Ii 1 Q It wouldn't have been anything inconsistent with V 2 that if Salisbury to the south, a 190 degree sector was put 3 in a different ERPA than Amesbury to the south southwest, is i
4 there? i 5 A (Lieberman) I think there would, yes. If you 6 draw a line with a straight edge from Seabrook along the 7 boundary between G and F, and another line from Seabrook 8 between the boundary of E and F, you will find that that 9 cuts off a central angle of approximately 90 degrees which 10 is what defines a quadrant.
11 If I had moved the boundary between E and F and 12 between B and C, as you suggest, I would not longer have a 13 central angle of about 90 degrees, it would be something l'
( 14 less than that.
v 15 Q We also have to remember here that we really don't 16 have quadrants at all up to the east; correct?
17 A (Lieberman) That's not true. There's a quadrant 18 out there, it's just a lot of water.
19 Q You could have come up with four quadrants all to 20 the north, south and west to the plant, couldn't you?
21 A (Lieberman) That's not what a quadrant is. A 22 quadrant is a 90 degree sector by definition.
23 Q Is there something inherent that you know of, Mr.
24 Callendrello, inherently advantageous in dividing up your 25 EPZ into 90 degree sectors only?
m Heritage Reporting Corporatir.o (202) 628-4888
i REBUTTAL PANEI. NO. 9 - CROSS 17561
./~} 1 A (Callendrello) It complies with the guidance that 2 FEMA has established in NUREG-0654. Beyond that it would 3 make sense to me based on the concept of emergency planning 4 and that is the keyhole concept to have roughly a 90 degree 5 downwind sector beyond the area of total treatment.
l 6 Q I'm not disagreeing with the generalities, but in 7 a specific application like we have here you have linked the 8 evacuation of Salisbury and Salisbury Beach with the 9 evacuation of Amesbury; correct?
10 A (Callendrello) Correct. They are treated as a 11 single ERPA.
12 Q And a planner who wanted to focus extra concern 13 and attention on evacuating Selisbury Beach might say, I'd
() 14 15 like to have at least the option of evacuating Salisbury Beach without the additional traffic of evacuating Amesbury 16 would add to the system; correct?
17 A (Callendrello) That may be correct. In fact, 18 that's why we have precautionary actions for the beach 19 itself.
20 Q I'm talking evacuation?
21 A (Lieberman) I'm going to attack your premise that 22 the traffic from Amesbury, quote, " interferes" with the 23 evacuation of Salisbury. I don't agree with that.
24 Q It all depends on what happens to the traffic at 25 I-95, doesn't it, Mr. Lieberman?
(./ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17562
[^}
.V 1 A (Lieberman) No, sir. Traffic -- if you want to 2 get into this -- traffic moving westbound on Route 110 moves 3 to the interchange with I-95 and also moves to the 4 interchange of I-495.
5 That interchange at I-495 is not a complete 6 interchange. Its geometric design is meant to service 7 Salisbury, not Amesbury.
8 There is only one on-ramp to southbound I-495 from 9 Route 110 and that is from westbound Route 110.
10 There is only one exit ramp from I-495 on to Route 11 110. And that is a ramp which services eastbound travel on 12 Route 110 towards Salisbury. It is a ramp designed 13 expressly for Salisbury traffic.
14 Q Some evacuees coming out of Amesbury could also
[V}
15 seek to access I-90, couldn't they?
16 A (Lieberman) That's correct. I'm sorry, what was 17 that?
18 Q Seek to access I-957 19 A (Lieberman) Not according to our management plan.
20 Q Not according to your management plan, but they 21 could seek to access I-95?
22 A (Lieberman) Again, you're asking me to probe the 23 intentions of evacuees under emergency conditions. I'm not 24 prepared to do that.
25 Q Likewise with respect to the ERPA labeled E you (3
k_s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17563
-As/
f'} 1 have linked the evacuation of Newburyport, Newbury, West 2 Newbury and Merrimac together; correct? >
3 A (Ca11endre11o) That's correct.
4 Q And again, couldn't a reasonable decision-maker 5 decide that he wanted to have -- he or she -- more options 6 than an evacuation of all four of those towns at once?
7 A (Callendrello) I guess I don't fully understand 8 the question. Would you just repeat it one more time.
9 Q According to the plans - .let's get this clear --
10 both in New Hampshire and both in the SPMC, when an 11 evacuation is declared for any town in an ERPA the entire 12 ERPA evacuates, the evacuation orders go to collections of 13 towns not to specific towns; is that not correct?
() 14 15 A
Q (Callendrello) That's correct.
So for Massachusetts decision-makers a decision to 16 evacuate Newburyport parts of which are just barely outside 17 the five mile ring requires them alco to evacuate Newbury, 18 West Newbury and Merrimac; correct?
19 A (Callendrello) Why I have a problem with the 20 question is the word " requires."
21 Q Because they're linked together by ERPAs?
22 Decision-making is made by ERPA not town by town; correct,
- 23 in your plan?
24 A (Callendrello) That's correct.
25 Q So a decision to evacuate Newburyport would Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17564 ti i require the simultaneous evacuation of those three other b 2 towns?
3 A (Callendrello) The decision to evacuate 4 Newburyport would be based on an evacuation time estimate if 5 we were in that mode where we were deciding -- weighing 6 evacuation dose versus shelter dose. We would be using an 7 evacuation time estimate that considered the evacuation of 8 those four communities that form that ERPA.
9 Q I know that's how you get there, but the upshot is 10 all four have to go?
11 A (Callendrello) The decision would be based on the 12 ERPA and all four would be -- it would be recommended that 13 all four would take the action that was decided on, yes.
14 Q On page -- I guess it's at the bottom of page
[J) u 15 three in paragraph five, Mr. Lieberman, there is a reference 16 to what I understand as your origin destination centroid 17 methodology. And because I think we may be talking about 18 this some more and we have two new Judges on the panel I'm 19 going to ask you to briefly explain for us the origin 20 destination centroid methodology that you applied in this 21 process? $
22 A (Lieberman) Could you give me that reference 23 again, please.
24 Q Reference to the testimony?
25 A (Lieberman) Yes.
[\ Heritage Reporting Corporation (ms/
(202) 628-4888 1
1
_ _ _ _ _ - ~ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17565 1 Q It's page three, paragraph five, " traffic centroid 2 models then executed to assign paths of travel from each 3 specified origin to certain destinations."
4 I thought perhaps you could use figure 1-3 in 5 volume 6 to quickly explain this.
6 Judge McCollom says he understands it, so we don't 7 need to go into it. It's really only for your tenefit.
8 MR. DIGNAN: Are the rules 25 words er less.
9 MR. FIERCE: Oh, I'll give him maybe 30.
10 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Can you tell me where figure 1-3 11 is?
12 MR. FIERCE: It's in chapter one. It's a fold out 13 laminated map.
() 14 (Pause for Board to locate document. )
15 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) Are you ready, sir?
16 BY MR. FIERCE:
17 Q Mr. Liebennan?
18 A (Lieberman) The underlying basis for evacuation 19 routing is briefly the outline on page 8-1. I'll read it to 20 you so you won't have to turn the pages.
21 0 8-1 of Volume 67 22 A (Lieberman) Yes.
23 It says: " Evacuation routes are composed of two l 24 distinct components. The first is routing from a community 25 being evacuated to the boundary of the emergency planning O(ms/ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
l
)
' REBUTTAL' PANEL NO. 9'- CROSS 17566- I
'l zone, v
2 And second, routing of evacuees from the EPZ l
3 boundary to host communities and reception centers."
4 That two phase concept recognizes that the trip 5 purpose of evacuees within the EPZ differs from the trip 6 purpose once they get outside the EPZ.
7 The motivation for making the trip in the first 8 place is to leave an area where they are potentially at 9 risk. The motivation of the second part of their journey is j 10 to go to a destination where they can acquire shelter or 11 monitoring. depending upon their point of view and desire.
12 Two different trip purposes. Two different 13 motivations.
14 Mithin the context of the ETE analysis we deal 15' primarily with first trying to get people to leave the area 16 at risk which is the EPZ or a portion thereof.
17 Incidentally, we talked here about ERPA. We also 18 have something called regions. A region is a collection of 19 ERFAs which takes the form either approximating a circular 20 area of radius two miles or five miles or the EPZ, or it 21 takes the form of a keyhole that we described earlier.
22 Now for each such region we identify as part of 23 the ETE analysis process one or more destination nodes 24 associated with each origin node.
25 Now looking at the diagram which is figure 1-3 in Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 )
r -REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17567 l
l' volume 6 you will notice that around the periphery of the .
2 EPZ there are little circles in orange numbered 8,000 and 3 above. These are the destination nodes of interest for the.
4' first portion of that trip, that is leaving the EPZ.
5 Within the interior of the EPZ you will notice 61 circles which are both blue and-red, The blue circles are 7 what we call nodes which generally represent the boundaries 8 of each section of hig5 ways. In the analysis node we call 9 these links. So we have what's called a link node' analysis 10 network.
11 The red dots represent what we call origin 12 centroids. They represent in the modeling. exercise a kind 1 13 of center of gravity of the surrounding zone, which are used I
-( ) 14 as the mechanism for defining the total number of trips 15 which would be emitted or generated there. And this total 16 number is further subdivided over' time to give us a rate of 17 trip generation over time.
18 And the temporal subdivision of trip generation is-19 treated in Section 4 of Volume 6. This subdivision of time
- 20 takes the form of a statistical distribution of the type 4 21 shown in figure four on page 4-14 of NUREG-0654.
22 Now, with the I-DYNEV-2 having the ability to
- 23. assign traffic, that is to route traffic over the analysis 24 network, we have to provide information to that model. It's 25 called a trip assignment model. Which defines for each O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 E__ _ .
1 REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17568 l
1 l
' (~h 'l origin the one or more destination nodes to which the I
(_
2 evacuees will travel.
3 This relationship or establishing a relationship 4 between generated trips at origin nodes and their respective j l
5 destinations is called trip distribution. I 6 At the time we performed this ntudy we did not )
7 have a model to do that for us; and therefore that had to be l
l 8 done manually.
9 Parenthetically I should say the most recent 10 update to the I-DYNEV model has now added a trip 11 distribution capability to it. i 12 While I think of it, further background could be 13 obtained from a FEMA report called NUREG/CR-1745 which
() 14 15 describes the transportation planning process which I will try to give you in brief form now and you will be able to 16 examine that at your leisure.
17 Therefore the trip distribution process undertaken 18 for this study which links origins to destinations, but not 19 the routing between them, was done manually and was part of 20 the analysis process which is described in Appendix D of 21 Volume 6.
22 Now, the question arises how do we select the 23 destination nodes or how did we select the destination nodes 24 at that time without benefit of model?
25 Well, the selection was based upon certain (D
(ms/ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
9
' REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17569- ,
~"
l principles. First, we knew we wanted to move people away l b-(\_s}(
2 from the Seabrook plant. So that greatly narrows the 3 candidate set of destination nodes for each origin node.
4 For example, if you were to consider an origin 5 node in-North Hampton which is north of the plant you 6 certainly would not consider as a potential candidate j 7 destination node number 8016 Which is to the south of the 8 plant because then you would have to move them southward and j 9 they would move closer to the plant.
10 So the number of viable destination nodes for each !
i 11 such origin is thereby reduced. )
12 And what one does is to examine a map such as i
13 this. Examine the kinds of traffic control policies that
() 14 15 you think are going to be most efficacious and select a destination -- one or more destination nodes for each origin 16 node. And when you do that for all origin nodes you have a j 17 table or matrix, it looks like a spread sheet, which 1
18 identifies one or more destination nodes for each origin 19 node.
20 There is no such thing as a unique trip table in 21 this respect. You could probably generate many different 22 combinations of trip tables, all of which would satisfy the 1
23 basic requirement of moving traffic away from the power ;
24 plant. j 25 And in fact, if you go back to Appendix D of l I
i
( ,/ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
1
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17570 f" f 1 Volume 6 you will find that we did look at different t
&}- 2 combinations. I'm not suggesting we enumerated all l 3 combinations, that would be impossible. But based upon the l
L 4 results of this iterative process we eventually settled down-l l 5 into a' trip table which we felt comfortable with.
l l 6. The next. step in the process at that time was to l
7 exercise the traffic assignment model. What that model does 8 is, consistent with the roadway network and the traffic 9 management schemes which are being evaluated as part of this 10 process. It then computes the routing of the traffic from 11 each origin node to its one or more destination nodes which 12 have already been defined.
13 Q Is that the assignment model or the simulation 14 model?
15 A. (Lieberman) No, that's the assignment model. It 16 is the assignment model which, as one of its outputs, 17 produces the turn movements executed by traffic consistent 18 with the traffic management polices at the TCPs, which is i
19 then used as inputs to a simulation model.
20 Now, the traffic assignment process is not a 21 dynamic one. It is what we call a quasi steady analysis or 22 steady state analysis. It does not adequately represent the 23 dynamics of traffic flow. That's not its intention. It 24 doesn't have that capability.
25 What it does is give a good indication of what the l O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17571
') 2 1 routing patterns are. The traffic simulation is in fact a rather detailed representation of the dynamics of traffic !
3 movements over this evacuation network, throughout the 4 network.
5 Our model has one additional feature which I think 6 is important and that is, that there exists the possibility 7 during the course of time -- what the simulation model does 8 is actually step over time at intervals that are usually 9 specified but generally on the order of three to five 10 minutes.
11 And if during that passage of time a traffic 12 stream approaches a node -- that's one of these blue circles 13 -- where there is a choice of movement along alternative
() 14 15 evacuation routes from that point, if it turns out that one route is congested and the other one is free flowing the 16 internal logic will override the turning movements which are 17 outcome from the traffic assignment model and move the 18 traffic in the direction of least resistance. Which I think 19 one or two or .he police witnesses indicated in their 20 belief, which I agree with, is that evacuees will move in a 21 way which satisfies their self-interest which is to leave 22 the area at risk as quickly as possible.
23 I can give you more details if there's something 24 I've said which is not clear.
25 Q With respect to the origins and destinations, the O
Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17572
(~T 1 table listed on page M-29 of the Volume 6 shows those d 2 origins and the destination centroids that are listed on 3 this figure 1-3; isn't that correct?
4 A (Lieberman) Yes. That's correct.
5 Q Thank you, Mr. Lieberman, 6 A couple paragraphs further on in the testimony in 7 paragraph -- I'll pause.
8 (Pause to allow the Board to review document.)
9 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Mr. Lieberman, do you have that 10 table M-297 11 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) Yes, I do.
12 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Are we seeing right when we say 13 origins are always a four digit number starting with 2 and
[ l 14 that the destination is a tour digit number starting with 8
%.)
15 and the links are the internal nodes, blue?
16 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) You' re correct in the 17 first two observations.
18 The access link is the stretch of roadway which is 19 defined by the upstream and downstream nodes, that is the 20 bounding nodes, which accepts the traffic generated at the 21 red node, which is numbered starting at 2,000.
22 JUDGE McCOLLOM: Do I find these access links on 23 this map which we have been 1 coking at figure 1-3?
24 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) Yes. And I think it 25 might be well to take an example from this table and use it Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l
? _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ - - -
y REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 -' CROSS 17573-
-1 to identify it on the map. Me could take any one of them
~
2 but you may as well start at the top of the list.
~
-3 Origin 2,001 is in Brentwood, it's in ERPA-F and 4 it's access link is 182, 193. ,
1 5 , If you look back at the map --
6 JUDGE COLE: They're identified on the key here as 7 internal nodes?
L L 8 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) The blue ones.
9 JUDGE COLE: Yes.
10 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) Yes.
11 JUDGE COLE: But they're listed in this book as 12 access links, so they're analogous.
13 JUDGE McCOLLOM: It's between the two nodes,
,h 14- right?
\_/
15 THE WITNESS: '(Lieberman) It's between the two 16 nodes, right.
17 JUDGE COLE: ' Fine, I understand. Thank you.
18 BY MR. FIERCE:
19 Q Back to the testimony now. I'm moving ahead, on 20 page four. In paragraph seven the panel mentions that 21 improving service as something distinct from increasing 22 capacity is a goal. Can you define for me what you mean by 23 improving service as distinct from increasing capacity?
24 A (Lieberman) I used the phrase " improve service" 2.5 in the same way I'll use such phrases as "providing Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 i
_ _ _ _ _ . ~ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
l L
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17574 1 assistance" or " expediting traffic."
2 If you place a guide -- well, let's take the 3 intersection at Plum Island that was discussed earlier. We 4 have one guide who is controlling an intersection at which 5 there are three incoming streams of traffic. And all three 6 incoming streams of traffic are going to exit that 7 intersection on one road, namely Plum Island Turnpike.
8 Well, obviously cars can't move through that 9 intersection simultaneously. They have to time share that 10 real estate.
11 And having a guide there is helpful under the 12 conditions of an emergency evacuation and even under the 13 conditions of say a Sunday evening on a summer weekend. To j )- 14 assist the motorist in doing this time sharing activity in 15 much the same way that a traffic signal would if one were 16 installed there, which one is not. And so he is improving 17 service in that sense.
18 He is not increasing the capacity of that 19 intersection, but he is providing a service.
20 Q He's in fact allocating green time between 21 conflicting traffic streams?
22 A (Lieberman) In that example, yes.
23 Q Mr. Lieberman, isn't it true, I don't have my 24 diagram in front of me, that in the model at each of those 25 blue nodes, the intersections that define the links, the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL' PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17575
- 1. model has in it a certain green time allocation or at.least
)
2 turning percentages that reflect how-the traffic will move 3 -at thoseLintersections?
4 A . (Lieberman) . Well, it has both actually.
5 Q It has both?
6 A (Lieberman)- Yes.
7 Q And isn't it further true that not every one of 8 these blue' nodes, by any means, is a traffic control point?
9 A (Lieberman) Oh, yes, that's quite true.
10 Q They're not all traffic control points?
11 -A (Lieberman) No , they are not.
12 Q Now, with respect to the flow of the traffic 13 through the model it is considered to be basically orderly,
() 14 15 compliant, obedient traffic; correct?
All those good things.
A (Lieberman) 16 Q Good.
17 And in designing the traffic management plan and 18 following this process through, Mr. Lieberman, did you-ever 19 consider the possibility that you had to prevent the loss of 20 two-way road flow on some of the roads in and out of the 21 beach areas?
22- A (Lieberman) The traffic control policies identify 23 discouraged directions. And one of the discouraged
. ;24 directions is flow to the beaches.
25 Q Well, that's right. And what that does is Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 t
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17576 1 minimize or perhaps even eliminate inbound traffic on the 2 inbound lanes to the beach areas; correct?
3 A (Lieberman) No, I don't think that's a fair 4 representation.- As we stated in testimony, we do expect 5- that over the first two hours given that it's a weekday or 6 even on a weekend we do expect that there will be people who 7 will be entering the EPZ to participate in the evacuation 8 process, particularly commuters.
9 And again, as I said earlier, there's no 10 prevention except at.that one location of traffic moving in 11 any direction. I expect that there will be some fair volume
'12 of traffic moving in all directions over the first two hours 13 representing returning commuters.
() 14 15 I don't know if that answers your question.
I think I agree with you there.
Q 16 My question is on those beach egress roads you 17 don't seriously expect much inbound traffic to the beach 18 areas once the level of traffic flow on the outbound lanes i 19 becomes level of service EF, do you?
20 A (Lieberman) I don't expect high volumes. I 21 expect some vehicles, yes.
22 Q Some few vehicles? A handful?
23 A (Lieberman) I wouldn't say handful. There are i
24 people who live out there as residents who may have 25 commuters who are returning to their homes. We have some O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17577 1- buses. There's a bus transfer station there. There's going
)
2 to be some traffic. It's going to be small relative to the 3 evacuating traffic certainly.
4 Q Level of service A?
5 A (Lieberman) I think that's true, yes.
6 Q Now in designing the traffic management plan as 7 you proceeded through this process, you didn't assume you 8 had an unlimited number of traffic guides that you could 9 allocated, did you?
10 A (Lieberman) You just don't address the issues 11 that way.
12 Q What limits did you impose in that regard?
13 A (Lieberman) There were no conscious limits
() 14 15 imposed in that regard. What you do is you go through this iterative process, which incidentally extended over a period 16 of six, eight months, it's not something'you do on a
. 17 weekend. You involve the local police. You get the inputs 18 from them. They know what their resource constraints are.
19 You talk to the state police; they have resource 20 constraints.
21 You examine what the needs of the evacuating 22 population are in terms of the functions that are performed 23 by traffic guides. You develop a traffic management plan.
24 And whatever the personnel needs are, they are.
25 Q But you did start with the constraints, the
- k. Heritage Reporting Corporation (292) 628-4888
4 REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17578 1 staffing constraints in mind; correct?
2 A (Lieberman) No.
3 Q Let me go over this again. You didn't start with 4 the assumption that you had unlimited number of traffic 5 guides that you could allocate to the traffic management 6 plant correct?
7 A (Lieberman) I did not start with any.
8 considerations of resource constraints.
9 Q You had a very large number of intersections you 10 were dealing with here outlined by the blue dots on figure 11 1-3; correct?
12 A (Lieberman) That's correct.
13 Q Not all of them are described in the plans as
()
n 14 15 receiving the benefit of a traffic control program; correct?
A (Lieberman) As it turned out, that's correct.
16 There is no need perceived by the police or by myself, chief 1
17 of police or by myself, for the need to assign traffic 18 guides everywhere.
19 Q But those chiefs and yourself had in mind certain 20 constraints, i.e., the staffing levels available through
! 21 those police departments; correct?
22 A (Lieberman) I think it's reasonable to say that 23 the police had that. I, as the planner, did not. That's 24 why I go to the police to find out what their limitations 25 are, why I go to the state police and talk to them. And O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
l
i l
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17579 l
(~' 1 that's why I go and prioritize these traffic control points.
V) 2 And that's why we've developed more recently a manning 3 sequence.
4 Q Now in designing.the traffic control treatments 5 for the TCPs and the ACPs, access control points, designing 6 the actual placements of guides, cones, barricades, were 7 there objective standards that you applied, Mr. Lieberman, 8 in the original designs before you sent them out to the 9 police chiefs?
10 A (Lieberman) Yes. The general standards were that 11 we wanted to control those locations where we felt that such 12 control would assist movement of traffic and expedite the 13 movement of vehiclee out of the EPZ.
f%
() 14 We weren't interested in controlling traffic at j 15 local intersections because such control would not 16 contribute to the expeditious movement of traffic out of the 17 EPZ. It might be helpful, but they don't contribute to 18 reducing the ETE or reducing dosage.
19 And so we focused on those intersections or 20 interchanges where a positive guidance would be helpful.
21 And of course there are also ACPs which have a different 22 function.
23 Q Did you apply MUTCD standards in the design of the 24 original traffic control diagrams?
25 A (Lieberman) There are no MUTCD standards for Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17580
(}
L ,:
1 emergency conditions. There is one section on civil defense 2 which speaks to nuclear warfare which doesn't apply here, 3 although --
4 Q So with respect to where a guide would be placed 5 or where a cone or two or a barricade would be placed the 6 guiding hand was your own personal judgment?
7 MR. TURK: May I note that the witness had not 8 finished his last answer before you asked another question.
9 The last question was on civil defense.
10 BY MR. FIERCE:
11 Q I apologize if I broke you off?
12 A (Lieberman) Well, I was going to say that there 13 are elements in that chapter which are applicable and which ex i ( ) 14 I brought into volume 6. I also brought into Volume 6 somo l L j' t
15 other pages of the MUTCD which I felt were applicable for 16 long-term control.
17 In fact I made the statement in here that the 18 control devices should adhere to the MUTCD standards.
19 Q We're going to get into that in a little bit, Mr.
20 Lieberman. But I'm focusing now at what the product was i
l 21 that you provided to the police chiefs, and it was a 1
22 product, series of traffic control diagrams, as I 23 understand, that you had designed and for which the 24 placements of cones, barricades, locations of traffic guides 25 were of your own design?
/3
'(_,jl Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l
p REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17581 1 A (Lieberman) They were initially of my own design 2 and then --
'3 Q Initially, that's where I am right now.
4 A (Lieberman) Right. Initially of my own design.
5 That's correct.
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 4
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 l
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17582
/N 1 Q Those designs initially contained barricades, 2 correct?
3 A (Lieberman) Some of them, yes.
4 Q In Volume 6, we see references to recommendations 5 for cones with lights and reflectorized cones. We see l
6 reference to staffing by police. We see reference to MUTCD 7 standards being recommended. We see reference to signs.
8 All of those things were basically in your mind when you 9 designed the initial set of diagrams; isn't that correct?
10 A (Lieberman) Well, those standards have been in my 11 mind for many more years than that.
12 Q Did you also have in your mind when you were 13 designing that initial set of control strategies and
() 14 15 diagrams the size of the vehicle population that would be passing through particule.r intersections?
16 A (Lieberman) Yes.
17 Q You had done estimates of the beach population at 18 that point?
19 A (Lieberman) Oh, yes. We had done -- that's 20 described in Appendix E of Volume 6, and that was done very 21 early in the process.
22 Q And your estimates of the beach population at that 23 time that you were doing this designing was that the total 24 size of the beach population in the EPZ was, as I recall, 25 somewhere in the 25,400 range; is that correct?
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17583
/ 1 A- (Lieberman) Vehicles.
2 Q Vehicles?
3 A (Lieberman) That's correct.
4 Q You assumed that the staffing of these traffic 5 control points in your original design diagrams would be by 6 state and local police, correct?
7 A (Lieberman) That's correct.
8 Q Did you have in front of you at that time the 9 numbers of available police for each of the towns?
10 A (Lieberman) At the time I did the preliminary 11 sketches?
12 Q Yes.
13 A (Lieberman) No.
( 14 Q With respect once again to the roads coming off N-15 the beaches, particularly our concern here in the SPMC 16 litigation being Beach Road out of Salisbury Beach and Plum 17 Island Turnpike. If there were a reasonable chance that two-18 way flow could be lost in an evacuation because the beaches 19 were terribly congested, wouldn't it have been important to 20 use personnel in your original drafts, to have assigned 21 personnel along the center line of those roads to prevent 22 that from happening?
23 A (Lieberman) No , that would be a total waste of 24 personnel. I would not even consider that.
25 Q Because you wouldn't be concerned about the loss t
\ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17584 1 of two-way flow?
v 2 A (Lieberman) Well, for several reasons.
3 First, I would not be concerned about the loss of 4 two-way flow.
5 Q You would not?
6 A (Lieberman) No, I would not.
7 And, second, I don't think the placement of 8 policemen along the route will prevent people who want to go 9 in the other lane from doing so. And second of all, they 10 wouldn't want to do so.
11 I think perhaps Dr. Mileti should expand on that 12 since I have discussed this with him.
13 Q No, I'm just positing an assumption here. If
/0 i i 14 there were a reasonable chance that because of the LJ 15 congestion two-way flow could be lost, your view is you 16 still wouldn't want to include traffic control personnel 17 along the center lines in your traffic management plan?
1 18 A (Lieberman) No.
19 Q Any other technique you might employ to try to 20 prevent that from happening assuming the reasonable chance 21 of that happening did exist?
22 A (Lieberman) Yes. What I would do in that case is 23 to, at the westbound end of that road I would exert more 24 preemptive control to entering vehicles if I felt that would 25 be a problem.
( )
\/ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17585 1 Q What would you do about the emergency vehicles, 2 buses?
3 A (Lieberman) Well, they would be allowed to go 4 through.
5 Q. If the loss of two-way flow had occurred, they 6 might not be able to go through; isn't that correct?
7 A (Lieberman) Along Beach Road, no. I think there 8 is enough width there for a third lane. As a matter of 9 fect, if you go out there you will find the remains of 10 stripings of three lanes along Beach Road. So that road is 11 wide enough to accommodate a third lane of slowly moving 12 traffic at the same time as two outbound lanes.
13 Q How about Route 2867 14 A (Lieberman) Route 286 is also a fair width. It's
(
15 not quite as wide as Beach Road, but it would be possible 16 for a limited number of vehicles to make their way. I don't 17 think that in prospect, but it would be physically possible, 18 in my view.
19 There are some narrow bridges, however, where they 20 would have some difficulty. And what would happen is that 21 the outbound flow wer'd just make way for them to stay in 22 one lane.
23 Q So the ipshot is that you would do nothing to try 24 to prevent the loss of both lanes -- strike that.
25 You would do nothing to try to prevent the use of Heritage Reporting Corporation l (202) 628-4888 l
1
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17586
('] 1 both lanes, inbound and outbound, on Route 286 and Route 1A, Q/
2 Beach Road?
3 A (Lieberman) I would not recommend the use of 4 personnel for that purpose, that's correct, because I don't 5 think it's going to be a problem.
6 Q On page 6 of the testimony, the first sentence of 7 the last paragraph you explain how the number of traffic 1
8 guides assigned was determined based on the complexity of 9 the points: traffic strategy, the location's general 10 configuration, type of equipment assigned for use.
11 Was this an objective or a subjective 12 6 determination of the number of guides needed after looking 13 at those factors?
() 14 15 A
Q (Lieberman) Well, a bit of both.
What are the objective elements of that process?
16 A (Lieberman) Well, they are determined here. The 17 location's general configuration, volume of traffic, the 18 movements of traffic through that intersection or 19 interchange.
20 Q Can I take the first one, volumes of traffic, and 21 ask you if you had any rules of thumb, objective rules of 22 thumb that you would use then to decide whether you needed 23 one, two or three guides at a spot?
24 A (Lieberman) Well, the volumes of traffic were 25 related to the spacial configuration of each traffic control I Corporation Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17587 1 point'. For example, if you had the simple intersection such
)
2 as Plum; Island Turnpike'and Rolfe's Lane -- it's not called 3 Rolfe's Lane there because the name changes at the town 4 boundary, but an extension of Rolfe's Lane, so that you 5 understand what I'm talking about. That is a pretty 6 straight forward intersection. It is not spatially 7 expansive. The volume of evacuating traffic from Plum 8 Island, depending again upon time of year, during say during 9 a summer Sunday, could be quite intense. But the volumes of 10 traffic from the other directions would be very light, in my-11- ' view'.
12 So given the fact that the size of the 13 intersection is limited, given the fact that you have heavy
() '14 15 volumes from only one direction, and given my experience and the experience of others who are expert at traffic control, 16 the decision was that a single guide would not only-be 17 adequate but would be preferable there.
18 Q When you say preferable?
l 19 A (Lieberman) Preferable to more.
20 Q That two guides wouldn't be able to do as good a 21 job as one guide?
22 A (Lieberman) I think the risks associated with 23 having two guides coordinating their activi', es so that 24 there is no conflict situations created because one may be 25 indicating something else than the other is a factor that Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l l
I' r
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17588 1 has to be considered.
2 And you weren't here this morning, but I expanded 3 on this and indicated that I had consulted with a policeman, 4 an ex policeman, a retired policeman, who taught traffic 5 control to the policemen in the City of New York and who was 6 retained by LILCO in their licensing procedures. And his 7 point of view, based on 25 years of experience, is that when 8 you apply positive control at an intersection you do so with 9 a minimum number of people because that risk that I have 10 just described is substantial.
11 And again I made mention of the fact that I 12 observed coming here one morning one of Boston's finest 13 controlling traffic at Cengress and State. I may not have
() 14 15 mentioned that. And you've got 10 lanes of incoming traffic from three different directions, and he did a fine job all 16 by himself.
17 So I think that if you wa. . around the city and 18 watch the police control traffic, you will find you 19 generally have one per intersection and they are able to do 20 a good job.
21 Q You have a number of TCPs where there are more 22 than one guide.
23 A (Lieberman) That is correct.
24 Q There are intersections which are more complex 25 that allocated two, three, four and even more guides to, k Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 -
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17589
'l correct'?
2 A (Lieberman) I would not' describe them as an 3 intersection. They are actually more spatially dispersed, 4 spatially large than a single intersection.
5 For example, if you want to focus on Salisbury 6- Center, Salisbury Square,.the -- well, let's take a look.
7 If you want to explore that, I'll be happy to go into it.
8 Q Yes, let's do that. Attachment A to'your 9 testimony.
10 A (Lieberman) I am looking at page J-89'of Appendix 11 J.
12 Q Traffic control post B-SA-06. -
13 A (Lieberman) That's correct.
() 14 15 12 it's also Attachment A to your testimony.
JUDGE MCCOLLOM: Which is page 110.
16 MR. FIERCE: Yes, it is.
17 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) All right. It's the 18 same sketch, yes.
19 To my mind for the Salisbury Beach evacuation, 20 this is the critical series of intersection, this' northern
, 21 one here, of course. And what we did here is to assign six 22 traffic guides. The one on the left is on Elm Street, which 23 is Route 110, west of the overpass. There was a railroad
.24 there at one time, and there was at the time this was 25 developed kind of a rickety wooden overpass which has since Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
___-_-__--_A
L i 17590 REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 1 since been replaced with a more substantial structure and 2 it's been widened.
3 And at the east end of this area there is another 4 guide whose function I will describe, who is located 5 upstream of the intersection of Beach Road with Route 1.
6 And there is another guide, also a fair distance away, at 7 the intersection of Route 1 and School Street, who has 8 another function. And then there are three guides who are a l
9 fair amount spaced from one another, each of whom has a 10 function which is nonconflict in nature.
11 And if you would like, I will describe the 12 functions to be performed by each of these six guides.
13 BY MR. FIERCE:
() 14 15 Q I don't think we need to go into each of the six, and in fact my concern is not so much with the six that you 16 have, but with why it is that there aren't additional ones.
17 Because we do see places where there are arrows with a 18 little line, which means movement discouraged, where you do 19 not have guides, which would be in a location where they 20 would not be conflicting themselves with their control 21 efforts with any other guide.
22 For example, in the middle of the square which 23 contains the traffic signal, directly to the south there are 24 what appears to be two traffic cones blocking a lane. There 25 is no traffic guide there.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17591 1 A (Lieberman) That's correct.
)
2 Q That guide would not be conflicting.any other L
f 3 guide were he to be standing.there prohibiting traffic.
l 4 JUDGE SMITH: WLil, that's to discourage traffic 5 as I understand it, isn't it?
l 6 MR. FIERCE: That's right.
7 BY MR. FIERCE:
8 Q I see a guide on the opposite side of that traffic 9 signal who appears to be discouraging flow through the 10 intersection, discouraging the flow through the intersection 11 and continuing on Route 1. But it appears that drivers 12 coming'out of Beach Road could very easily turn left through.
13 what looks like very widely spaced traffic cones and attempt
() 14 to proceed down Route 1.
We don't stop anyone from going in 15 A (Lieberman) 16 any direction. That's not the function of the traffic 17 guides. And that seems to be a misunderstanding which is 18 pervasive in Intervenor testimony. They keep using the word 19 " block", and we don't block traffic. It's not the role.
20- And that's why I made the suggestion of describing the 21 functions of each of these six people so you would have a 22 better understanding or what they are there for.
23 Q Isn't the function of the traffic guide just to 24 the northwest of the traffic signal to discourage flow 25 through the intersection?
O V Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9'- CROSS 17592 1 A (Lieberman) That is correct.
b("h - And you could have a guide standing on the other 2 Q 3 side of that intersection discouraging traffic movements 4 down Route 1.
i' 5 A (Lieberman) You could, but in my view it's not 6 necessary.
7 If a vehicle does in fact go down there, he will 8 encounter another guide to the south who would again 9 encourage him to go west and merge with the stream that he 10 shouldn't have left. If that car insisted upon going down 11 Route 1, he would continue down-Route 1.
.12 Q Further to the west down Elm Street, Route 110, 13 Mudnock Road leaves 110. It does a horseshoe loop and comes
() 14 15 back in to this intersection where we see it here, does it not?
16 A (Lieberman) That is correct.
17 Q That is where the traffic heading eastbound on l 18 Route 110 would be routing vehicles coming back into the 19 area, correct? ,
20 A (Liebarman) That is correct.
21 Q Including evacuation buses and others?
22 A (Lieberman) Correct.
23 Q When they get to this intersection in Salisbury 24 Square, if they want to proceed down Beach Road the normal 25 route would be straight across the intersection heading for O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17593 1 the stop light, correct?
2 A (Lieberman) That is correct.
l 3 Q There is no guide placed anywhere along that ,
4 stream to discourage that traffic flow, correct? j S A (Lieberman) That is correct.
~
6 Q And traffic, if it does proceed straight ahead 7 toward the traffic light, will directly conflict with the 8 traffic which has now been split into these two lanes 9 heading westbound for Route 110, correct?
10 A (Lieberman) No, it's not correct.
11 You see, you have to give the motorists some 12
- credit here. They are not robots and they are not blind.
13 Somebody coming here has been diverted to Mudnock Road 14 because there is an evacuation going on, and he knows there 15 is an evacuation going on. He comes out of Mudnock Road 16 onto School Stiteet, and he looks straight ahead, and he see 17 two lanes of heavy traffic moving slowly to the west. And 18 what you are suggesting is that he is going to go back the 19 two cones, which indicate that this is a discouraged 20 direction, and try to barrel his way in a direction opposite 21 to these two moving traffic streams when in fact he has an 22 open road to School Street where he will be guided by 23 another traffic guide.
24 You said earlier that you expect rational behavior 25 on the part of motorists. And I believe that the correct Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 i
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17594 1 decision here will be exercised by such motorist in making
(
2 the right turn, and if he wants to go east, and moving along 3 to the traffic guide who will guide him further.
4 Q Mr. Lieberman, you have got a traffic guide to the 5 north to discourage traffic on Lafayette Road, Route 1, 6 passing through the congested traffic stream.
I 7 A (Lieberman) That's evacuating traffic; yes, sir.
8 Q You have no guide down here on Mudnock Road to 9 discourage the traffic passing through that same traffic 10 stream.
- 11. What's the distinction?
12 A (Lieberman) The distinction is what you brought 13 up earlier. You said that there is apt to be very light
() 14 15 traffic going eastbound on Beach Road. And you will notice that in this diagram we have the word " light" indicating the 16 volume of traffic along Mudnock Road. That's the 17 distinction.
18 Q Is that the only distinction, Mr. Lieberman?
19 A (Lieberman) That is the only distinction, plus 20 the fact that there is a physical separation between the 21 intersection of Mudnock Road and School Street, and the flow 22 of traffic moving westward through that area towards Elm 23 Street. There is no physical separation between southbound 24 traffic finv on Route 1 and its encounter with the westbound 25 movement of traffic flow.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17595 1 Therefore, that traffic guide works to assist the 2 merging process. And if it means that he has to stop the.
3 flow along Route 1 to create a queue so that he gets more 4 productivity out'of it and then merge them as a group, 5 that's fine. That helps move traffic.
'6 Here we are going to have discrete cars, 7 individual cars.who come here. They.are safe in the. sense 8 that the heavy traffic is not bearing down on them, they 9' have room to go elsewhere. In my view, it's not:necessary 10 to provide a guide there.
11 If I did provide a guide there, would he be-12 counterproductive? No, he isn't. He would not be. But-he 13 wouldn't~be necessary either, in my judgment.
() 14 15 Q Don't you have to admit now that there is no access control for the first two. hours when heavy traffic 16 could well be entering the EPZ, coming back through the 17 center of Salisbury, perhaps either going north on Lafayette 18 Road or out Beach Road; that a guide placed at this location 19 to d_scourage the traffic flow off of Mudnock Road would be 20 a productive placement of a guide?
21 A (Lieberman) As I just said, he would assist the 22 traffic. I don't think he's necessary.
23 Q During the first two hours of an evacuation now.
24 A (Lieberman) That's right.
25 You have to ask yourself what the consequences Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17596 1 are.
2 O There is no question pending, Mr. Lieberman.
3 A (Lieberman) Well, that was a follow on to my 4 answer. l 5 Q Now you sent a series of traffic control diagrams 6 to the chiefs, correct?
7 A (Lieberman) That's correct.
8 Q And as I understand it, you sent a letter along 9 with the diagrams that it something like the letter that is 10 contained in Volume 6 in Section 8; is that correct?
11 A (Lieberman) It's identical to that letter except 12 for the heading, of course.
13 Q The letters were actually identical to each chief?
() 14 15 A (Lieberman) Yes.
In the letter on page 2, you request their Q
16 assistance in the followirog respects. And you say --
17 A (Ca11endre11o) Excuse me, are you on page 8-5?
18 Q Excuse me, 8-5.
19 A (Callendrello) Okay.
20 Q It's Table 8-2, page 2.
21 And there are five items listed. The second is, 22 "Please review the recommended traffic management and l
23 control. These are shown as diagrams indicating the i
24 location of all traffic guides, traffic cones and 25 barricades."
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17597
T
[J 1 2
And in No. 4, you say, "We recognize that there are personnel limitations in all communities. Please 3 indicate how such limitations affect your ability to 4 implement traffic controls."
" Mr. Lieberman, it's true that when the chiefs 6 reviewed these diagrams they had very much in mind their own 7 personnel limitations, didn't they?
8 A (Lieberman) Oh, absolutely.
9 Q And you never asked --
10 A .(Lieberman) Now let's be careful. When you s'.y l 11 "their own", you mean their own police force.
12 Q Yes.
13 A (Lieberman) They do not include any assistant
() 14 15 they may request for the state.
O That's correct. !
16 Did you ever suggest anywhere in this letter to 17 them that they could be counting on additional resources 18 provided either by the state or by the utility company for 19 traffic control personnel?
20 A (Lieberman) Not in the letter, but we did not i i
21 discuss utility personnel at that time. But, yes, there 22 were discussions of state police who especially during the 23 summer state police do patrol the beach areas.
24 Q Let's take this process one step at a time. You 25 sent the letter out and you received comments back from the
(' Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17598 1
L 1 chiefs,. correct?
2 A (Lieberman) No.
3 Again, I ask you -- no, I did not get comments 4 back. If.you notice the last paragraph on that page, page 2 )
/
5 of Table 8-2.
6 Q You went out to the communities. )
7 A (Lieberman)' That's correct.
8 Q And you got the comments. i 9 A (Lieberman) Firsthand.
10 Q That's.right.
11 MR. TURK: Your Honor, this is the third time we 12 have had this line of questioning. First, from one of the 13 town, already by Mr. Fierce earlier, and now the third time.
14 JUDGE SMITH: It's for a different purpose.
15 MR. TURK: Well, it's in the record already.
16 JUDGE SMITH: I know.
17 BY MR. FIERCE:
18 Q Did you ever, Mr. Lieberman, say to a chief:
19 forget about staffing; give me your wish list; where would 20 you have traffic control personnel placed?
21 A (Lieberman) Did I ever say that?
22 Q Yes.
23 A (Lieberman) No, sir. Not in that sense, anyway.
24 Q The diagrams you sent to the chiefs contain 25 barricades.
l Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17599 l
l' A (Lieberman)~ That is correct. Not all of them.
2 Q On page 7 of the testimony you say, "All the 3 inputs from the police chiefs were incorporated into the 4 traffic control point diagrams."
5 A -(Lieberman) That's correct.
6 Q Were those the diagrams that then got produced in 7 volume 67 8 A (Lieberman) Essentially. They may have been 9 with -- in fact, a lot of them were redrawn, but the essence 10 of the police chiefs' inputs were retained.
- 17. Q Okay. 7 want to take you back one more time to 12 this particular diagram, B-SA-06, and I think it would-be 13 helpful if you laid side by side the diagram from Volume 6
() 14 15 for that traffic control point and the diagram that you now have in the SPMC, and compare them.
16 MP.. LEMALD: What are you asking?
17 MR. FIERCE: The diagram contained in Volume 6 and 18 the diagram --
19 MR. LEMALD: What page number?
20 MR. FIERCF: I-28.
21 MR. LEMALD: Thank you.
22 MR. FIERCE: And the same diagram contained in 23 Appendix J of the SPMC.
24 BY MR. FIERCE:
25 Q Appendix I of Volume 6 contains the plan, the Of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17600
(~' 1 traffic control diagram essentially approved by the police V} 2 chiefs, correct?
3 A (Lieberman) That is correct.
4 Q Mr. Lieberman, if you take a look, you have to
- 5. turn the diagram's kind of -- one is a vertical and one is a 6 horizontal diagram, so if you line them up.. Let's take a 7 look'for a minute, first of all, at the traffic cones that 8 are placed right by the gas station. We see a gas station 1
9 on your newer diagram. I see three cones.
10 A (Lieberman) Right.
11 Q I look at the old diagrams that have been approved 12 by the chiefs and I see four cones; isn't that correct?
13 A (Lieberman) Right. You will find other 14 differences in detail.
15 Q Mr. Lieberman, I want to continue.
16 Now, straight across that diagram, excuse me, 17 straight across the intersection on the other side of the 18 traffic signal, in the SPMC, I see a placement of two 19 traffic cones. In volume 6, I see three traffic cones; 20 isn't that correct? l 21 A (Lieberman) That's right.
22 Q Further on down Route 1, right by the marking for i
23 Pleasant Street, in the current SPMC, I see three traffic l 24 cones. In Volume 6, I see three barricades, correct?
l 25 A (Lieberman) That's correct.
( '
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17601 1
1 Q Now I understood that you were replacing 2 barricades with traffic cones not on a one-for-one basis but 3 what was it, Mr. Callendrello, three cones for every 4 barricade removed?
5 A (Callendrello) That's correct.
6 Q There are three cones in the SPMC for three 7 barricades that were here in Volume 6. Now I move to moving 8 around the interaction clockwise --
9 MR. DIGNAN: Mr. Fierce, there is no chance the 10 documents speak for themselves. I'll stipulate they are 11 different.
12 MR. FIERCE: I would like this for the record, 13 Your Honor.
() 14 15 Q BY MR. FIERCE:
Mr. Lieberman, there were --
16 MR. DIGNAN: Why don't you just read it into the 17 record then and I'll stipulate to it if you want it in the 18 transcript as' opposed to it, but I think it will go faster 19 than Q/A.
20 BY MR. FIERCE:
21 Q There are two traffic cones shown opposite Mudnock 22 Road as it -- if the traffic lane were to continue across 23 School Street, there are two traffic cones shown in the 24 SPMC. There were three traffic cones shown in Volume 6.
25 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, I trust the Board will k Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) L28-4888 a
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17602 1 recall these offers to stipulate at the time if it becomes 2 relevant as to when this cross-examination should end.
3 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, they always say that when 4 I am in the middle of a critical point in the testimony.
5 But when Mr. Lieberman is rambling on with an extremely long 6 answer to the question that didn't require that, they don't 7 say a word.
8 MR. DIGNAN: Your problem, Mr. Fierce --
9 MR. FIERCE: They only bring this up when I am at 10 a critical point in my cross-examination.
11 JUDGE SMITH: This is important to him, Mr.
12 Dignan. Let him proceed without interruption.
13 MR. DIGNAN: Mr. Fierce, the only time you get --
14 MR. FIERCE: I would like to proceed, Mr. Dignan.
[V) 15 MR. DIGNAN: Mr. Fierce.
16 MR. FIERCE: I would like to proceed, Mr. Dignan.
17 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor.
18 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Dignan.
19 MR. FIERCE: I would like to proceed.
20 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, I'm addressing the Board.
21 The only time Mr. Fierce has been getting long 22 answers is when Mr. Fierce violated the first rule of cross-23 er. amination, and that is he's throwing these great big, fat 24 wide questions up there, and he's getting big, fat wide 25 answers back.
(m, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
i REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17603 1 MR. FIERCE: I only did that when, Your Honor, I 2 thought it would be helpful to the Board to understand the 3 origin and destination --
4 JUDGE SMITH: Proceed with your cross-examination.
5 6 1 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
.24 25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17604 f; 1 BY MR. FIERCE:
'd 2 Proceeding around the intersection there is a Q
3 small triangle that separates the Mudnock Road area from 4 Route 110. And at the tip of that triangle there are two 5 traffic cones in the SPMC and there are three traffic cones 6 in the old volume 6 diagram. I count one, two, three, four, 7 five places and in each instance the Volume 6 diagram has --
8 the cones shown in the Volume 6 diagram have been reduced or >
9 the barricades shown in the Volume 6 diagram have been 10 replaced each with a single cone. ;
11 JUDGE SMITH: Is that a question?
12 MR. FIERCE: Well, Mr. Dignan asked me to read 13 that into the record and I'll ask that as a question.
() 14 15 don't know.
JUDGE SMITH: Is that what you were doing?
I just want to know what you're doing.
No, I 16 BY MR. FIERCE:
17 Q Is that true, Mr. Lieberman?
18 MR. LEWALD: Can we assist Mr. Fierce in pointing 19 out that the manpower equipment legends in the two diagrams 20 are slightly different.
21 BY MR. FIERCE:
22 Q Well, let's take a look at that because that's not 23 really a difference is it, Mr. Lieberman, the fact that the 24 SPMC shows six traffic guides and the Volume 6 diagram only 25 shows five, only occurs because now you have added a traffic Heritage Reporting Corporation
! (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17605 1 guide further out to the west outside the intersection by U(N 2 the overpass; correct?
3 A (Lieberman) That's correct.
4 Q Let me just ask you this since.I'm looking at it 5 right now. What is this thing with three barricades and a 6 square around it that is labeled in the legend block traffic 7 flow, what is it in reality?
8 A (Callendrello) Those are cones.
9 Q The legend that shows three Xs with a rectangle 10 around it are now to be cones; is that correct, Mr.
11 Callendrello?
12 A (Callendrello) The rectangle with the three Xs 13 indicate a function. The function is to block traffic. flow,
( 14 as we indicated in our testimony. And that function will be 15 achieved through the use of traffic cones.
16 Q Do you know how they will be placed?
17 A (Lieberman) They will be placed across the lane, 18 the incoming lane.
19 Q How many cones?
20 A (Lieberman) In this particular case the two on 21 one ratio would apply. There would be six cones.
22 Q It's twc for one, is that the replacement scheme 23 that you understand the barricades for cones?
24 A (Lieberman) At that location, yes.
25 Q And throughout the plan?
C
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17606 1- A (Lieberman) That was a general statement made by
- 2 the planners at Seabrook and we have.not as yet had an l-3 opportunity to discuss that. In some cases two to one ratio 4 would remain. In other cases.it would be reduced. Or I 5 would recommend that it be reduced.
6 JUDGE SMITH: Or increased?
7 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) Possibly.
8 BY MR. FIERCE:
9 Q Mr. Lieberman --
10 JUDGE SMITH: Let me check with the map.
11 (The Board confers.)
12 MR. FIERCE: I'm sorry, Your Honor. Did Your
.13 Honor have a question?
() 14 15 JUDGE SMITH:
reducing? .I think I was correct.
What are you doing, increasing or 16 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) Well, the generic 17 statement was that two cones would replace one barricade.
18 And what I'm suggesting is that they would have to be 19 reviewed on an individual basis to determine whether it's 20 going to be two cones for one barricade or possibly one cone 21 for one barricade or three cones for one barricade.
22 JUDGE SMITH: The ratio was being reduced.
23- THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) Well, I think there was 24 an instance this morning where I indicated that there were
-25 three barricades across one lane and that would translate Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - ___--_____ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .a
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17607
(~' 1 into six cones and I said at that location six cones would C
2 be too many.
3 BY MR. FIERCE:
4 Q Just to clarify because I'm not sure if I 5 understood. At the block traffic flow point there will be 6 six traffic cones across -- straight across the roadway; is 7 that correct?
8 A (Lieberman) It would either be straight across or 9 at a slight angle. At any rate it would serve to block i
10 entrance.
11 Q Now, back to the process that I'm trying to take 12 us through here. The diagrams that the chiefs looked at, 13 Mr. Lieberman, is it fair to say that when the chiefs looked-() 14 15 at them they were not looking at them with the eye of a traffic engineer but with the eye of a police chief or l
16 someone experienced with the roads and the traffic?
17 A (Lieberman) I would think so. Yes.
18 Q And they were applying their own subjective 19 standards and judgments when they looked at your diagrams, 20 weren't they? l 21 A (Lieberman) They were applying their own 22 standards. l 23 0 Would it be fair to say as well that when they I
24 were applying their own standards and judgments and ;
l 25 examining those diagrams they were looking at the diagrams
) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ;
1
_____-_-__-_-___-_______D
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17608 1 with the interest of the citizens of their own towns 2 primarily in mind?
3 MR. TURK: I'm going to object.
4 MR. FIERCE: It's a fair question, M. r Turk.
5 MR. TURK: You're asking him about different 6 police chiefs, what they had in mind as a primary concern.
7 MR. DIGNAN: Again, Mr. Fierce, I will help you 8 out. I will stipulate that the witness is not a mindreader 9 and that the chiefs looked through their own eyes and 10 obviously the chiefs expressed whatever thoughts were in 11 their own minds. And so stipulated.
12 MR. FIERCE: With their own towns primarily in 13 mind.
() 14 15 in terms of --
MR. DIGNAN: I don't know what was in their mind 16 MR. FIERCE: That's the point I would like to 17 establish.
18 MR. DIGNAN: Well, you can't out of this witness 19 because he can't read minds.
20 MR. FIERCE: This witness talked to them.
21 MR. TURK: Ask him what they said.
22 JUDGE SMITH: You're trying to establish just 23 exactly what Mr. Dignan charged you with, the motivation of 24 the chiefs.
25 MR. FIERCE: Mr. Dignan is trying to disregard the l \_, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17609 1 most important point in my question which is --
2 MR. DIGNAN: Mr. Fierce, if this is your most 3 important point --
4 MR. FIERCE: I would like to complete my statement 5 to you without Mr. Dignan interrupting me, Your Honor.
6 I would like to note that my question included an 7 element that Mr. Dignan is trying to have the Board and 8 everyone else slide by. But the point I'm trying to 9 establish is that the primary focus and motivation of the 10 police chiefs in reviewing these diagrams was with the 11 interest of their own citizens at heart.
12 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, my problem with the 13 question is that the witness is not competent to answer it
() 14 15 unless established to be a --
MR. FIERCE: I understand --
16 MR. DIGNAN: Excuse me, Mr. Fierce, let me finish .
17 my objection, sir.
18 The witness in just plain usual evidentiary rules 19 is not competent to read the mind of the police chief. I 20 have no objection if the witness is asked, as is the I 21 customary rule in any proceeding, what did the chief say?
22 And if he remembers he will tell them what he said.
23 But I don't think he can ask this witness to state 24 'what was in the chief's mind in terms of this analysis. And 25 you can't ask that in any courtroom in any proceeding.
(d Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation l
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17610
('] 1 JUDGE SMITH: Right. Well, he doesn't have to put
.O 2 'it in exactly those terms, but he can ask if he had any 3 basis for knowing what the police chiefs had in their mind, 4 words or whatever.
5 MR. DIGNAN: Proceeding with that question would I
6 be fine.
7 JUDGE SMITH: Lay your groundwork for it before 8 you go directly to that mindreading.
9 MR. FIERCE: I'll do that.
10 MR. TURK: Your Honor, may I also interject one 11 other thing. Dr. Cole this morning had asked a series of 12 questions after one of the towns finished their examination 13 about the same sequence of meetings with the town chiefs and
() 14 15 incorporating their views, considering their views and indeed going further by Mr. Lieberman in exercising his own 16 judgment as to TCPs.
17 Now Mr. Fierce chose not to be present during that 18 line of questioning. But we're getting into the same ground 19 again.
20 I think Mr. Fierce ran a risk by not being here 21 and yesterday when I raised this same problem. If we're 22 going to bifurcate the examination we're going to get into a 23 situation where Mr. Fierce tries to cover the same ground.
24 You, yourself, Your Honor, said there could be a 25 problem. Mr. Traficonte assured the Board that Mr. Fierce Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_m. _____.__._____-___._-.__-______-_m.__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
V REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17611 1 -would be apprised to the elements.
l 2 MR. FIERCE: I would be more than happy to recede 3 that this point'has already been established, Your Honor.
4 JUDGE SMITH: What confuses the Board here is, 5 .what is your overall position to be inferred from your 6 cross-examination? Are these TCPs good or bad because the 7 local chiefs have been consulted? Is that too simple?
8 MR. FIERCE: It really is too simple. It might be
- 9. good for that particular intersection for that town. It 10 might. But it might not be good for the overall evacuation.
11 JUDGE SMITH: Are you making an overall criticism 12 that the chiefs were consulted and they should not have 13 been?
() 14 15 MR. FIERCE:
JUDGE SMITH:
No.
Could you explain just what your 16 position is so that we can follow the --
17 MR. FIERCE: I would prefer to do that at the 18 Bench without the witness --
19 JUDGE SMITH: If it would interfere with your 20 cross-examination, okay, you can do that.
21 MR. DIGNAN: But, Your Honor, before he does I 22 would like to reinforce what Mr. Turk said. He just said 23 that what he wants to do is establish'that the chiefs were 24 looking at it from their town's point of view. This is 25 precisely what Dr. Cole put to the witnesses this morning.
Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17612
/T 1 End indeed, at the end of-which Dr. Cole said that's the V And Mr. Lieberman answered quite 2 point I was looking for.
3 clearly, "I never just went along with a chief because," and 4 he said he was conscious of that. He checked and satisfied 5 himself thrt the control point would at least not interfere 6 with an expeditious evacuation. He said he would go along 7 with the chiefs if it was neutral. But if he found that it i 8 would absolutely obstruct evacuation he would have gone back 9 to the chiefs and refused the point.
10 Now this is precisely the line Dr. Cole developed.
11 I might say a lot more efficiently. And precisely the point 12 Dr. Cole reached a resolution of with this witness this 13 morning in Mr. Fierce's absence.
() 14 15 JUDGE SMITH: Indeed the Board discussed Dr.
Cole's questions because he was expressing a concern that 16 the Board had. And we agreed that Mr. Lieberman's response 17 was quite clear and it was unambiguous and he did answer on 28 that.
19 We do have somewhat of a problem there, Mr.
20 Fierce. I don't see that your questioning is the concern 21 that was raised by implication by Dr. Adler, some of the 22 routings here. And then I guese by extension some of the 23 TCPs are modified by the chiefs for their own particular 24 towns or cities. And not for the benefit of the overall 25 evacuation plan, traffic management plan. That was a Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17613 l
1 concern. And that was exactly what Dr. Cole asked this 2 -morning because we were concerned about it and he got a 3 complete answer.
4 Now, I don't know if you have a different purpose.
5 I'm not aware of it.
6 7
8 9
10 11 12
'3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
4 REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17614 1 MR. FIERCE
- No, I really don't.
2 If it was established this morning that the chiefs 3 in fact had that focus, I will recede.
4 ' JUDGE SMITH: No, it wasn't established.
5 MR. DIGNAN: No, it was not established that the 6 chiefs had the focus. It was established that whatever the 7 focus.the chiefs had, the witness stated quite clearly, 8 unless in his judgment it helped the evacuation as a whole 9 or was neutral, he would not go along.
10 MR. FIERCE: Then I guess I would ask to pursue 11 it. I believe for my purposes and the findings I would like 12 to present that's a point I would like to include.
13 MR. DIGNAN: Then I suggest the witness be asked
() 14 15 that preliminary question first as to whether.he has any basis for reading the chiefs' minds.
16 JUDGE SMITH: Ycu have to do that in any event.
17 The objection is withdrawn except for that.
18 MR. FIERCE: I was prepared to go hack and develop 19 it a little more, if I'm permitted to.
20 JUDGE SMITH: Proceed.
21 BY MR. FIERCE:
22 Q Let me take it back to the point, Mr. Lieberman, 23 where you decided to go to the chiefs. Why did you?
24 A (Lieberman) Why did I-DYNEV --
25 Q Why did you go to the chiefs?
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17615
('N 1 MR. DIGNAN: Asked and answered. Asked and 2 answered at least three times.
3 JUDGE SMITH: True.
4 MR. DIGNAN: Objection on that ground.
5 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Lieberman, did you have any.
6 basis to believe that one or more of the chiefs was 7 adjusting the TCPs to the benefit -- the particular benefit 8 of the town as opposed to the evacuation plan overall?
9 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) No, sir.
10 JUDGE SMITH: General plan overall?
11 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) No, sir. As I 12 explained this morning, Chief Berkenbush wanted TCPs at the 13 boundaries of his town. And I explored that with him in
() 14 15 detail. It was a policy issue in his mind.
I then examined whether those TCPs would be 16 counterproductive and found they would not. And in the 17 spirit of cooperation I left them in.
18 JUDGE SMITH: When you talked to the chiefs were 19 you sensitive to the fact that perhaps some of them might 20 try to do that?
21 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) Absolutely, l 22 JUDGE SMITH: Did you have review with that 23 possibility in mind? '
l 24 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) When I talked with the l
25 police -- and the reason I delayed it is because I wanted to d Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
1 L REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17616 l
1 have a preliminary design going into them.
2 I also performed some first -- preliminary runs 3 with the model so that I could get a sense of the volumes of 4 traffic and how they flowed through the network.
5 When I talked with the police I didn't draw an 6 indelible line about their town. I gave them the big 7 picture. And I indicated to them where the flows 8 originated, where they traveled, and how they impacted their 9 town. ,
10 So they had a very keen sense of how the 11 evacuation flows would influence their town. And it was on 12 that basis that we proceeded forward and reviewed these 13 TCPs.
()
' 14 15 populated.
Many of the towns here are very sparsely And the vast majority of the traffic flowing 16 'Through their towns corce from elsewhere and they recognize 17 that. And they developed the TCPs on that basis.
18 So every police chief was made aware of the big 19 picture. And in my view, none of them recommended TCPs 20 which in my judgment and by further testing were in 21 opposition to the big picture.
22 JUDGE SMITH: Let's take our afternoon break, 15 23 minutes.
24 (Whereupon, a 15 minute break was taken.)
25 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, I understand Mr. Turk
_) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
______________-_a
-3 REBUTTAL PANEL.NO. 9 - CROSS 17617 1 l '
1 isn't here but --
2 MR. TURK: Yes.
3 JUDGE SMITH: He's here.. i 4 MR. FIERCE: There he is.
5 Mr. Turk made s request to you earlier in the-6 afternoon regarding my cross-examination and as I proceed 7 from here to 5:18'I would appreciate knowing what the Board 8 intends to do. If the Board is going to completely end my 9 cross-examination at 5:18 and not --
10 JUDGE SMITH: No , that wasn't our plan. No. We 11 have not had a' time limitation put on your cross-examination 12 yet.
13 MR. FIERCE: Thank you. Yet.
() 14 15 MR. TURK: In.the same vein, however, can we ask how far along on the cross-examination plan he is?
16 MR. FIERCE: Page two, about halfway down.
17 JUDGE McCOLLOM: And there's five pages.
18 MR. TURK: Five and more to come tomorrow I assume 19 or is this it?
20 JUDGE SMITH: More pages?
21 MR. TURK: More pages.
22 BY MR. FIERCE:
23 Q Mr. Lieberman, if we can proceed.
24 The Town of Newbury --
25 MR. TURK: Can I ask one other thing, withcat O Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation I
.i l REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 37618
(\ 1 wanting to bring this up too often, are you going to finish
\..,) \
2 this panel this week?
3 MR. FIERCE: That's my intention.
4 JUDGE SMITH: Yes. That, we will put that limit l-5 on.
l l 6 MR. FIERCE: I have every intention of doing that, 7 Your Honor. I have to spend all weekend working on ETE 8 testimony, I don't want to be working on more cross-9 examination.
10 JUDGE SMITH: We're in harmony there.
11 BY MR. FIERCE:
12 Q Mr. Lieberman, the Town of Newbury is one of those 13 lightly populated towns you were referring to, isn't it?
() 14 15 A (Lieberman) Well, it's more likely populated than other towns, although it's more heavily populated than West
~
16 Newbury.
17 Q West Newbury is barely populated at all, isn't 18 that true?
19 A (Lieberman) I'm not sure they would feel good 20 about that. But it's lightly populated as is Merrimac.
21 Q I think they actually feel very good about that.
22 A (Lieberman) They do seem to be proud of their 23 swamps. (Laughter.)
24 Q What we call wetlands around here.
25 MR. TRAFICONTE: Is Mr. Lieberman preparing n O Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17619
/V 1 handbook to certain portions of New England? (Laughter. )
(_) 2 BY MR. FIERCE:
3 Q Mr. Lieberman, the police chiefs in Newbury and 4 Newburyport did make some recommendations about the traffic 5 coming out of Saitsbury Center, didn't they, Salisbury 6 Square?
7 A, (Lieberman) It was more of a concern expressed 8 that the beach traffic from Salisbury would act to preempt 9 entry to Route 1 from within their own towns.
10 Q And this is one of the suggestions you agreed to 11 go along with?
12 MR. TURK: Your Honor, this was Ms. Mizner's 13 examination this morning that Mr. Fierce chose not to be
() 14 15 present for.
MR. FIERCE: I just want to move on, Your Honor.
16 I just want to establish that that's the case and move on.
17 JUDGE SMITH: You do have a big problem that 18 you're going to have to take care of. You have to make some 19 arrangement for continuity of coverage for your office.
20 MR. TURK: Well, they did have two attorneys here 21 at the time, Your Honor, from the Mass AG office.
22 JUDGE SMITH: Well, they're not here now.
23 MR. TURK: But apparently they didn't brief Mr.
24 Fierce.
,25 MR. FIERCE: I'm not trying to rehash this. I Heri; age Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17620 1 .know this was the case.
)
2- ,
JUDGE SMITH: Just move along.
3 MR. FIERCE: .This is a ground laying question.
4 JUDGE' SMITH: Right. When it's pointed out to you 5 that it has already been covered and if that's correct, 6 you're pretty well stuck with it. They might be kind enough 7 to help you as to how it was resolved. But you're not going 8 to be able to.c ner the same ground twice.
9 BY MR. FIERCE:
10 Q Mr. Lieberman, if you 0 2d modeled the evacuation 11 such that a significant portion of the traffic coming out of 12 Beach Road had been encouraged or facilitated to flow down 13 Route 1 into Newburyport, the ETEs for the five mile ring
() 14 15 for Salisbury Beach would have been lower, wouldn't they?
A (Lieberman) Oh, no. Not at all. -I've done that.
16 I've studied both options at Salisbury Center and there's no ,
l 17 change in ETE for Salisbury. As a matter of fact, there's 18 no change for the EPZ.
19 Q Can you explain the logic of that? If you had the 20 same traffic design that you have flowing out Route 110.from 21 that Square, two lanes, and another full lane of traffic l
22 going down south on Route 1 --
23 A (Lieberman) Are you suggesting three outbound 24 lanes now?
25 Q The same two lanes that you have now coming out l
I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
l _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - i
]
i REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17621 1 tow.?rd Route 110 and added another -lane of traffic which.was 2 heading south on Route 17 3 A (L ieberman) That's a total of three lanes? I'm ,
)
4 just trying to clarify this.
5 _Q I mean, they're not three lanes together.
6 Obviously it's two lanes going out Route 10 and one lane of 7 traffic going south on Route 17 8 A. (Lieberman) From Beach Road?
9 Q From Beach Road?
10 A (Lieberman) That's a total of three lanes.
11 Q That's right.
1 12 A (Lieberman) All right, I've established that.
13 Q If that's the way you want to count it there are
() 14 15 three different lanes of traffic.
A (Lieberman) That means closing off the eastbound 16 movement.
17 Q You think that's what it means, closing down the 18 eastbound movement on Route 1-A, Beach Road?
19 A (Lieberman) If you are suggesting as one prior 20 consultant did that you would like to see an evacuation plan 21 which calls for three lanes outbound along Beach Road, and 22 what I'm telling you is that there will be no room for 23 eastbound traffic along Beach Road, yes.
24 Q Oh, I see what you're thinking. You're thinking 25 I've got three Janes coming out Beach Road.
O Beritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS . 17622 1 I'm saying if you have the same two lanes coming 2 into Beach Road -- excuse me, coming into the Square on 3 Beach Road that you have now and you split the traffic into 4 two lanes and you have that traffic then flow out Route 110, 5 which in addition to that you could have a furti.ar split in 6 the traffic such that traffic would also flow out and use 7 the capacity that Route 1 offers to you, couldn't you?
8 A (Lieberman) No.
9 Q You couldn't figure out a way to do that?
10 A (Lieberman) No. You have a false premise here.
11 You can only develop so much throughput from Beach Road into 12 that interchange. And that's why I offered earlier to 13 explain the functions of each of these guides. Because it's
.t pi 14 clear you don't understand how traffic works. And I've got
\s /
15 to tell you that in order to answer your question.
16 You will notice on the right side of B --
17 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, I think this isn't going 18 to be responsive to my question.
19 JUDGE SMITH: Then he said he can't answer your 20 question.
21 BY MR. FIERCE:
22 Q My question is, can you think of a way to route 23 three lanes of traffic the way I have just descr4 bed through 24 that intersection such that one lane heads south on Route 1 25 and two lanes go out Route 110 with the same input that you O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17623
['] 1 have on Beach Road now? l
\._) !
2 A (Lieberman) And what I'm trelling you is that, in l l 3 the event that were to be done you would get --
4 Q You couldn't think of a way to do it?
l 5 MR. LEWALD: Let him answer the question.
]
1 I
6 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) I don't know, I would 7 have to go out and survey from that point of view. I have 8 never considered having two through and one left, because it 9 makes no sense to do it. And the reason it makes no sense 10 to do it is that you uculd not evacuate Salisbury Beach any 11 faster if you did it, and you might slow it down.
12 BY MR4 FIERCE:
13 Q To five miles? To the five mile ring?
O'
> 14 A (Lieberman) You might slow it down. You G Y 15 certainly won't get them out any faster if you did it your 16 way. You can't. Because you can't develop the volume.
17 You see, there's only one lane outbound. And what 18 we have done here is removed the bifurcation point upstream 19 of the intersection in order to develop two streams. Very, 20 very important issue here.
21 And now what you're saying in your own mind, and 22 you're not a traffic engineer so I'm trying to explain to 23 you what you're suggesting. Now you' re saying you've got 24 these two traffic streams and you want to split one of them 25 into two parts: one through and one left.
/~
k%l m Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
A REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17624 1 Mhat I'm telling you, that doesn't produce a 2 higher throughput. You're not gaining a thing by doing
'3 .that. And by making the movements more complicated, adding 4 more cones and more people you run the potential of.
5 decreasing the movement.
6 You see what we have here is a bklanced design 7 with a through movement. You've got two lanes and they're 8 running in parallel all the way through this system and they 9 remain in parallel. That's a balanced system.
10 What you want to do, from a traffic engineering 11 point of view, is nonproductive and possibly 12 counterproductive.
13 Q Now, Mr. Lieberman, if you had two lanes coming
() 14 15 out of Salisbury Beach along Beach Road coming into the intersection before you split it, could you do it?~
16 A (Lieberman) If I had the width and could develop 17 additional throughput through the addition of a left turn 18 bay then, yes, I think you could increase throughput under 19 those conditions.
20 Q What was the change that you made in response to 21 the chiefs from Newbury and Newburyport to assist them to 22 produce the result they were interested in seeing?
23 A (Lieberman) Well, as the testinony said, my first 24 draft approach was to form this bifurcation as is shown 25 here. Create two lanes of traffic flow upstream of the O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17625
(Y 1 entrance to the intersection. And send one of them south on O 2 Route 1 and the other one west on Route 110 without the need 3 to create two lanes of outbound flow.
4 Now it would still be a balanced design. I have 5 two lanes coming in. I have two lanes of traffic going out.
6 And that's why it doesn't make any difference in the ETE, 7 you see, I've got a balanced design in each case.
8 Q When you went to the chiefs with the diagrams 9 there were no staffing sequences in place then, were there?
10 A (Lieberman) That was done in the subsequent 11 letter, one month later. And it ...' at thet month -- it was 12 after that that the chiefs gave me their final comments on 13 the diagram. So the answer is that that is not correct.
() 14 15 Q Are the staffing sequences contained in the SPMC in back of Appendix J, those which were recommended by the 16 chiefs?
17 MR. TURK: Your Honor, we've covered this ground 18 already, also. We've had the discussion on Applicants 19 Exhibit 50 in which there is a listing of traffic control 20 prioritization by the chiefs.
21 JUDGE SMITH: Are you aware of that, Mr. Fierce?
22 MR. FIERCE: I'm not aware if her questions went 23 beyond West Newbury. I'm thinking about the staffing 24 sequence that I see for a Region 1 evacuation summer season.
25 A diagram found on page J-163, which covers the entire Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
a REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9'- CROSS 17626
.1 . Massachusetts portion of the EPZ..
2 JUDGE SMITH: All right.
3' BY MR. FIERCE:
4 Q Mr. Lieberman? {
5 A (Lieberman) Can I have the' question again, 6 please.
7 Q For each town are these the staffing sequences-8 that the chiefs recommended to you?
9 A (Lieberman) No, of course not. This is an O'AO 10 manning sequence. This was done subsequent to the decision 11 of the Commonwealth to withdraw from the process.
12 Q If the local towns were to staff their own traffic 13 control points then you would expect them to use a different
() 14 15 staffing sequence; correct?
A (Lieberman) They.would use the staffing sequence 16 consistent with the priorities that the chiefs laid out.
17 Q Now, this particular staffing sequence, Mr.
18 Lieberman, shows that as the first seven ORO traffic guide 19 assignments those guides will head for access control l 20 points: GT-2; HA-4; RO-2. Is that the case?
21 A (Lieberman) That is correct.
22 Q Do the Applicants intend to change these diagrams 23 along with the intention not to staff access control points 24 immediately?
l 25 A (Callendrello) That certainly is a change that we l
O Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17627-1 will evaluate. We haven't made any decision as to changing 2 staffing sequence. What exists in Amendment 6 is our, 3 current staffing sequence.
4 Q The very first -- after the access control points, 5 the next four traffic guides who would be placed by the ORO 6 service evacuees coming out of Seabrook Beach on Route 286; 7 correct? B-SA-01; B-SA-02 and B-SA-03.
8 A (Lieberman) That's right. That goes to the
- 9. concern you voiced earlier about or the' issue that we 10 discussed earlier about the need to get people sway who are 11 closest to the plant, focus on their needs first and then 12 treat those who are farther from the plant. Seabrook Beach, j 13 as you know, is two to three miles from the plant.
() 14 15 Salisbury is three to five miles.
Q If I'm reading this staffing priority sequence 1
16 correctly, the very first guide that the ORO will send into 17 the Salisbury Beach area is number 18, to be followed into 1
18 the Salisbury Beach area sometime thereafter with guides 25 I l
19 and 26; is that correct?
20 MR. TURK: Is your question, when is the first ;
I 21 guide going to Salisbury Center? !
22 MR. FIERCE: Salisbury Beach, number 18.
23 MR. TURK: You're talking about the State Beach 24 Road.
25 THE (ITNESS: (Callendrello) That's not correct.
I seritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17628 L,-
l 1- The point or number 17 which'is B-SA-09 is a Salisbury Beach
-2 traffic control point..
3 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) It's at the north end.
4 THE WITNESS: (Callendrello) Seabrook/New 5 Hampshire border.
6 BY MR. FIERCE:
7 Q It's up on'the border?
8 A (Lieberman) Right.
9 Q Discouraging Salisbury Beach traffic from heading
~
10 further north. But in the center of Salisbury Beach'which 11 is where North End Boulevard intersects with Beach Road, the 12 very first guide is going to be number 187 13 A (Lieberman) That's right..
14 And the additional guides in that area will come
( Q 15 in later, guides number 25 and 26?
16 A (Callendrello) That's correct.
17 A (Lieberman) That's right. Because they have a 18 lesser effect, if any, on ETE.
19 Remember what I said earlier, the most critical 20 place for TCP for Salisbury Beach is Salisbury Center.
21 Q In your view?
22 Mr. Lieberman, is there a traffic control point 23 for the parking lot area of the Salisbury Beach State Park?.
24 There isn't, is there?
25 MR. TURK: Mr. Fierce, I'm puzzled by something.
O .emee. .e (202) 628-4888 re , c_,_euen
l'
!~
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17629 c
1 Both you and Dr. Adler have indicated that you believe that
)
2 the Salisbury Square traffic control point is the mos+:
3 important one for Salisbury, also.
4 JUDGE SMITH: He's making a different point. But.
5 it seems to me you can go directly to the point. You got 6 answers from Mr. Lieberman which takes you directly to the 7 point you're trying to establish. If I'm following your 8 plan correctly.
9 MR. FIERCE: I'm moving on to the next point now, 10 Ycur Honor.
11 JUDGE SMITH: It's your time. It's your time.
12 We're adjourning tomorrow on time.
13 THE WITNESS: (Callendrello) I think there was a
() 14 15 question as to whether we had a traffic guide at the exit or entrance to Salisbury.
16 BY MR. FIERCE:
17 Q Not at the exit. I see you have one at the exit 18 of State Beach Road. Do you know how far that is from the 19 parking lot for Salisbury Beach State Park?
20 A (Lieberman) It's north of it. It's a fair 21 distance.
22 Q At half a mile or maybe more?
23 A (Lieberman) It might be more, yes. It's a very 24 large lot.
25 Q Not traffic guide stationed anywhere by that lot?
ID h Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17630 i.(}
%J-l A (Lieberman) No need for it.
.2 Q This particular staffing sequence has been derived 3 by New Hampshire Yankee without any input from police chiefs 4 or state officials in Massachusetts; correct?
5 MR. LEMALD: Can we have what "this" is?
6 MR. FIERCE: This staffing sequence that we're 7 looking at for Region 1 on page J-163.
8 MR. LEMALD: Thank you.
9 MR. TURK: With no input.
10 JUDGE SMITH: That's the overall one.
11' MR. TURK: I think that's inconsistent with the 12 testimony,-
13 JUDGE SMITH: He already got that.
14 MR. TURK: He has had testimony about how the
(
15 chiefs assisted in the prioritization.
16 JUDGE SMITH: Well, he's talking about the overall 17 prioritization. And he already received an answer that 18 that's correct, they didn't do that one.
19 MR. TURK: Just so I'm clear, Your Honor. As I 20 understand the testimony the chiefs and state may not have 21 participated in drafting up this listing that the 95 22 individuals listed in order. But they certainly had input 23 into the general order in which these things would be 24 categorized snd the way they would fall in the general list.
25 JUDGE SMITH: It better be clarified then because R:eritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17631 I 1 I heard to the contrary.
2 MR. FIERCE: I think I'm straight with Mr.
3 Lieberman that there was input for each town with respect to 4 staffing priorities.
5 BY MR. FIERCE:
l 6 Q Correct?
7 A (Lieberman) That's correct.
8 Q But when you get to an overall staffing priority 9 list for the entire list of TCPs and ACPs this priority 10 listing was developed by New Hampshire Yankee without input 11 from chiefs of police or state officials; correct?
12 A (Lieberman) That's correct.
13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 O Heritage Reporting (202) 628-4888 Corporation
%___________ j
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17632 1 Q And reasonable state officials might agree, might 2- they not, that Salisbury Beach, the intersection of North 3 End Boulevard and Route-1A, Beach Road, would be an area l 4 that they would like to see addressed at least as quickly, 5 if not. sooner,.than servicing evacuees from New Hampshire's 6 beaches?
t 7 A (Lieberman) The last phrase makes'no sense to me 8 because we are not servicing evacuees from New Hampshire 9 beaches per se, by any of the guides in this list.
10 Q Guides'8, 9, 10 and 11. Service the flow of 11 traffic out of Seabrook Beach along Route 286.
12 A (Lieberman) These locations are in Massachusetts.
13 You are aware of'that?
() 14 15 0 I am aware of that. You are asking Massachusetts to approve a traffic management plan which.the ORO will 16 implement, which suggest that the first guides going to 17 access control points and the next group of guides are going 18 to go service evacuees coming out of New Hampshire's 19 beaches, correct?
20 A (Lieberman) I would be delighted if I got inputs, 21 constructive inputs from Massachusetts officials.
22 MR. FIERCE: I move that be stricken as not 23 responsive to the quastion.
24 THE WITNESS: The question is whether --
25 JUDGE SMITH: That is correct, it is not. It is Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17633
[ 1 argumentative.
2 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) Well, the listing 3 speaks for itself. I'm not sure what more you are asking, 4 BY MR. FIERCE:
5 Q Mr. Lieberman, if you took a look at those traffic 6 control points that service or facilitate traffic flow along 7 Route 286, those three posts being B-SA-01, B-SA-02 and 8 B-SA-03, and you assume no traffic disorderliness. The 9 evacuees are following instructions to proceed along certain 10 evacuation routes to their destinations. Why do you need to 11 staff those control posts first?
12 A (Lieberman) Because they service traffic which 13 originates within two to three miles of the station. And
() 14 15 anything that one can do to expedite the movement of people out of an area close to the plant, which would be the source 16 of any radiological release, is consistent with the overall 17 objective of dose minimization.
18 Q You are not increasing any capacity along any of 19 those three posts, are you? >
20 A (Callendrello) There is one other reason for 21 doing that. And that is, we are talking about a priority I 22 staffing for a summer season. The intention for getting 23 those points staffed first is to assist should we go into a 24 beach closure recommendation, to help limit access.
25 Coincident with beach closure, we want to limit access of O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
)
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17634 1 additional people traveling into the beach, the transients.
)
2 And those'three points, as well as B-SA-06, are the points 3 that would assist in limiting access and assist in the'..
4 implementation of the beach closure.
5 Q .Well, that might be a reasonable goal, Mr.
6 Callendrello, but isn't there a problem here because in fact- )
7 New Hampshire closes its beaches at the alert stage. And in 8 the case of the ORO, they don't even mobilize their traffic 9 control personnel until the site area emergency stage, and 10 therefore couldn't get there perhaps for hours after the New 11 ' Hampshire beaches have been closed?
12 A (Callendrello) I'm sorry, I lost the question in 13 that.
() 14 15 MR. TURK: There is a faulty premise also, because New Hampshire does not close their beach at the alert stage.
I 16 If you will recall the. testimony, they consider closing the
'17 beach as early as the alert stage.
18 MR. FIERCE: That's right.
19 MR. TURK: But they don't necessarily do it.
t
} 20 JUDGE SMITH: In any event, the witness does not 21 understand your question.
22 BY MR. FIERCE:
23 Q If New Hampshire has closed its beaches at the 24 alert stage, isn't it true that the ORO guides won't be 25 there to discourage that traffic from coming into the O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l l
i REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17635 1~ beaches or to facilitate the outbound flow?
2 A (Callendrello) That's correct. The New Hampshire ]
3 state police or l'ocal police would perform that function.
4 Q But not in Massachusetts, they won't.
5 A (Callendrello) That's correct, but you just gave i I
6 me a premise of a New Hampshire beach closing. I'm talking 7 about having these points staffed early on. In the event 8 that a Massachusetts beach closure is ordered, these points 9 would be staffed early on and would assist in the 10 implementation of a Massachusetts beach closure 11 precautionary action.
12 Q These traffic guides along Route 286 are assisting 13 facilitating evacuees coming off of Seabrook, New Hampshire
() 14 15 beaches, correct?
A (Lieberman) That's correct. But who, by the way, 16 are largely people from Massachusetts. We did a license 17 plate survey in the area. We find that three out of four 18 cars in Hampton Beach, for example, are from Massachusetts, 19 so they are your citizens, sir.
20 Q I think that's why we are in the case, and why 21 we --
22 MR. DIGNAN: But your line of questioning is 23 suggesting there is something wrong with that approach 24 because it's assisting the New Hampshire beaches.
25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
w____-_--_-__-_-____----
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17636
[9 '1 BY MR. FIERCE:
(_/
2 Q I just don't understand why three traffic control 3 posts at points where traffic is very likely to do just what 4 those diagrams indicate without any traffic control 5 personnel being there at all if you assume traffic 6 orderliness, that they are going to head for the directions 7 of their evacuation routes as they are instructed.
8 A (Lieberman) Well, you are overlooking something.
9 There is a traffic signal at Route 286 and Route 1. There 10 is another one at SA-02. And one of the roles of guides in 11 facilitating traffic is to override those traffic signals, 12 thereby increasing the rate of flow in the direction of 13 outbound evacuees. Those guides are very important.
14 And let me offer you something else. If you look
(
15 at, I think it's SA -- no, let me find it. If-you look at 16 B-SA-09, what you find is that they are routing traffic from 1
17 Seabrook Beach onto 286 providing the congestion doesn't 18 back up to the beach and threaten to block that flow.
19 If it does, guess where those people go? They go 20 right down at the Salisbury Beach, Mr. Fierce. So the more l 21 facility that we can provide in getting those people out of 22 Seabrook not only in their own best interest, but it also 23 reduces the flow in Salisbury.
24 Q Are you seriously suggesting that in a Seabrook 25 emergency, either a beach closing or an evacuation, the Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
1
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17637
(" 1 level of Service F traffic is going to obey a stop light at V} 2 that intersection because a traffic guide isn't there?
3 A (Lieberman) I believe that's true.
4 A (Mileti) I would like to add that I do, as well, 5 in a beach closing.
6 Q Do you disagree, Mr. Lieberman, that reasonable 7 people might differ on the appropriateness of this staffing 8 sequence?
9 A (Lieberman) Yes, I do.
10 Q And that if the Governor of Massachusetts had 11 explained to him that the ORO's first guides were going to 12 be outside the EPZ somewhere, the first six or so guides, 13 and the next group of guides, the next four or five was (n)
LJ 14 going to be servicing the outbound flow of traffic from the 15 Seabrook Betch area on Route 282, he might not think -- he 16 would prefer some other different staffing sequence.
17 A (Callendrello) I think one premise of that is 18 faulty, Mr. Fierce. And that's the premise that the traffic 19 control points will only be servicing outbound evacuees or
.0 beach closure persons from New Hampshire.
21 As Mr. Lieberman explained and our testimony 22 explained, the purpose of a traffic cont: 1. point is to both 23 encourage traffic in the desired directior, and to discourage 24 traffic in the undesired direction. And Route 286 goes into 25 -- goes towards the ocean, heads eastbound and we are trying O
\_ , Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17638
(~' I to prevent, should a beach closure be ordered, trying to D) 2 prevent individuals piling into Salisbury Beach to 3 facilitate the beach closure.
4 Q I'm not disagreeing with that as an appropriate 5 goal. But what I'm questioning is whether a governor of 6 Massachusetts or local officials might not perceive the 7 biggest problem that they would be facing to be in the 8 Salisbury Beach Center area, the intersection of Beach Road 9 and Route 1A north, North End Boulevard, and seek as their 10 first goal to facilitate the traffic flow out of that area 11 by either placing the first guides in Salisbury Center --
12 MR. LEWALD: Objection to the question.
13 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) All right, let me --
[d \ 14 15 MR. LENALD: I'm going to object to the question, what the governor of Massachusetts thinks.
16 JUDGE SMITH: What do you say?
17 MR. FIERCE: Well, I'm asking him again can't 18 reasonable men differ on this staffing sequence, including 19 the governor among them.
20 JUDGE SMITH: Rephrase your question to satisfy 21 that concern.
22 BY MR. FIERCE:
23 Q It's not just the governor. It includes local 24 officials. Couldn't officials in Massachusetts perceive 25 that their biggest problem in a Seabrook emergency in the l
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
_- --______________U
REBUTTAL PANEL'NO.~9'- CROSS 17639
/~Y 1. ' summertime was dealing with the huge population in the-D -2. Salisbury Beach area and attempt as their first priority,to 3 facilitate the outbound flow of that traffic along the key 4 pathway,' Beach Road, through Salisbury Center?
5 MR. LEMALD:. Objection. Looking'for the 6 perception of a local official in a hypothetical. Now 7 that's pretty far fetched.
8 JUDGE SMITH: It's an awkward question. You can 9 get to your point.
10 MR. FIERCE: Maybe it's too late in the day.for me 11 to think of the easy way to do it, Your Honor.
12 JUDGE SMITH: Well, now you have got-all of the 13- evidentiary basis. Now move in for the kill. And just put
() 14 15 the. question right straight to them, what do you think is wrong with it, and see what they do to you.
16 (Laughter.)
17 JUDGE SMITH: Or for you. You are not going to do 18 it. You have got all the predicates. They understand what 19 you are driving at.
20 MR.-FIERCE: Well, I'm not sure what the question 21 is that is the " kill" question. Is the question something 22 like if Massachusetts officials do perceive their top 23 priority to facilitate flow out of Salisbury, wouldn't this 24 staffing sequence stink?
25 JUDGE SMITH: Well, all right. That's all right.
O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17640
/ 1 I suppose you are going to --
kt ]) MR. DIGNAN: Objection to " stink".
2 3 JUDGE SMITH: I suppose you are later on going to 4 establish an evidentiary hook up to that point, but I don't 5 know. That question is all right. It won't do you much 6 good if you don't follow up on it.
7 MR. FIERCE: Very good.
8 JUDGE SMITH: All right.
9 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) Should I answer?
10 JUDGE SMITH: Yes.
11 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) I think the question 12 reveals that you haven't read Chief Beevers testimony. What 13 he says is that Beach Road is the most congested part of
() 14 that whole area. Took him on one occasion 45 minutes to v
15 travel to Route 1.
16 Now, if you want to move traffic out, you have got 17 to work on the bottlenecks in the system. If there were a 18 bottleneck in Salisbury Beach Center, which controlled the 19 efflux of traffic, you wouldn't have congestion on Beach 20 Road. The congestion would be upstream. It always is 21 upstream of the controlling bottleneck. So the controlling 22 bottleneck is in the beach. It's out there in Salisbury 23 Center, and that's where you address your problems first.
f 24 And I think if I were to tell that to the 1
25 governor, he would understand and would give me a big
( Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l REBUTTAL FANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17641
.)
I 1 handshake and send me home.
2 BY NR. FIERCE:
3 0 Well, he might, and he might say, so that's why we 4 would rather have a staffing sequence that puts the first 5 guides out there into Salisbury Center. Thank you, 16.
6 Lieberman.
7 A (Lieberman) For Salisbury Beach, right.
8 Q For Salisbury Beach. And that's why he might say 9 this staffing sequence here stinks.
10 A (Lieberman) And I would go back and say, look, we 11 have 200 square miles to evacuate. We don't treat the 12 problem on a piece-by piece basis, but on a systemwide 13 basis. And the guides who.we send out first to service the
() 14 15 folks from Seabrook Beach are your people, Mr. Governor.
They are the ones who are close to the plant, and they are 16 the guys we would like to move out faster, given the 17 sequence, faster than a beach that's five miles away.
18 Q And he might say in response, I've looked at the 19 numbers, Mr. Lieberman, and I see the number of people in 20 Salisbury Beach from your beach counts and others, and I see 21 that the population in Salisbury Beach exceeds that in 22 Seabrook Beach by a factor of five or more. The population
, 23 concentration is not in Seabrook Beach. It's in Salisbury.
l 24 I've got so many people exposed without shelter there.
25 Seabrook Beach, by the way, is a much more residential area l* Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17642
(~ 1 and has some sheltering available.
G 2 JUDGE SMITH: So now your question has drifted 3 away from the particular concerns of the Governor of 4 Massachusetts, as Governor of Massachusetts, to a general 5 concern that any official might have about the overall EPZ; 6 is that right?
7 MR. FIERCE: It's officials. It's whoever is 8 making these decisions --
9 JUDGE SMITH: Whoever.
10 MR. FIERCE: -- regarding staff sequencing, yes.
11 JUDGE SMITH: All right. So no longer the thrust 12 of your examination is that the citizens of the Commonwealth 13 are getting shortchanged on the manning sequence.
l /
14 MR. FIERCE: Well, that's still it. I'm just not
( )
15 focusing on the Governor because it could be a variety of l 16 officials who are making these decisions and looking at l 17 staffing sequences and rejecting this one.
18 JUDGE SMITH: But how does it change when the 19 testimony we have right now is that, as far as I know, the 20 population of Massachusetts citizens at Seabrook or 21 Salisbury Beach is pretty high proportion as I understand l
l 22 it. That has been the tenor of the whole case, too.
23 MR. FIERCE: If you looked at the --
24 JUDGE SMITH: You are talking now about difference 25 in population, but you're not talking about -- I mean, if l
I jn l ksl Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17643
)
( [ 1 you are talking about just difference in population, then 2 you are not talking about a concern particular to the 3 citizens of Massachusetts. You are talking about the I
- 4. overall efficacy of the evacuation plan, whatever it may be, 5 aren't you?
6 I don't know. I am trying to understand it.
7 MR. FIERCE: No , I'm trying to establish that it 8 may well be'very rational to focus one's priorities on a 9 more distant beach, i.e., Salisbury Beach, a few miles more 10 distant.
11 JUDGE SMITH: Even if the' state line weren't 12 there.
13 MR. FIERCE: Even if the state line weren't there,
() 14 15 because of the extremely large population in Salisbury Beach versus Seabrook Beach.
16 17 18 19 I l
20 21 22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 ,
.i; O
b REBUTTAL' PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17644 1 JUDGE SMITH: So we've left the concept now that 2 the Governor of Massachusetts is going to look at the plan 3 and say, my people are not being taken care of vis-a-vis the 4 people of New Hampshire. That concept is gone now.
5 MR. FIERCE: Well, I'm moving beyond that now.
6 JUDGE SMITH: All right. Let's not go into the 7 concept is still there.
8 MR. FIERCE: The concept is still there, but 9 beyond that --
10- JUDGE SMITH: We're not going into that anymore 11 right now.
12 BY MR. FIERCE:
13 Q Beyond that it would be rational for someone
() 14 15 looking to protect the interest of Massachusetts citizens
.along the Salisbury -- excuse me, the Salisbury /Seabrook i
16 stretch. Forget about the state line. To focus their 17 attention on facilitating flow out of what I call Salisbury 18 Beach Center.
19 And perhaps by placing the first guides, as you 20 just indicated, in Salisbury Center to do that, wouldn't 21 that be rational?
22 A (Lieberman) No. Because your figures are wrong.
23 If you take a look at the data the Town of Salisbury, 24 because that's the best resolution I have, during the summer 25 roughly 9500 cars.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17645
{']
v 1 Q Whose data are you looking at, Mr. Lieberman?
2 A (Lieberman) I'm looking at data that I used and 3 that Dr. Adler has used, also.
4 Q You're not looking at the data that Dr. Adler, {
5 High and Befort presented at the hearings last year, are 6 you?
7 A (Lieberman) That's correct. The Board seems to 8 have rejected that. Anyway, let me give you the Seabrook 9 figures.
10 Q I don't think that was the case, Mr. Lieberman.
11 A (Lieberman) Seabrook is 8900. They're 12 comparable, Mr. Fierce.
13 MR. TURK: What was the number for Seabrook?
14 THE WITNESS: (Callendrello) 8900.
[)
\/
15 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) These are in vehicles.
l l 16 BY MR. FIERCE:
17 Q The testimony established by Drs. High and Befort, I
l 18 as I recall, indicated that on the busiest weekends of the 19 year the Shlisbury Beach State Park lot fills up. There is l
20 an excess of cars that flow into Salisbury versus Seabrook, 21 extremely high population in Salisbury?
l 22 A (Lieberman) I just gave you town-wide figures.
23 That's the best I have at the moment.
1 24 Now, that parking lot never fills up. I have 25 looked at 15 separate sets of photos and that parking lot i (Om, / Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17646 1 was never more than half full. It does not fil' 'p. .
2 Q Should I bring in a rebuttal witness who is the 3 superintendent of the State Park?
4 A (Lieberman) You can do anything --
5 MR. DIGNAN: Please do, Mr. Fierce, instead of 6 trying to testify yourself, and I'll cross-examine him.
7 BY MR. FIERCE:
8 Q Mr. Lieberman, would you agree that if the 9 population of Salisbury Beach, the stri,p along from the 10 state line down to the State Park and then south contained 11 four to five times the population that exists along Seabrook 12 Beach that a rational planner, governmental decision-maker 13 might believe his first priority ought to be to facilitate-14 traffic flow out of Salisbury Beach?
[v) 15 JUDGE SMITH: Now you can accept that premise 16 whether you disagree with it or not. You can also indicate 17 if you disagree with it.
18 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) Well, the problem is 19 you can't --
20 MR. DIGNAN: Could I ask whether that question is 21 premised solely on traffic with no consideration of what 22 doses we're dealing with and potentials?
23 MR. FIERCE: Yes. It's premised solely on volume 24 of traffic in those two beaches.
25 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) See, the problem is Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
)
i
___j
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17647 i (~'g 1 when you make a hypothetical isolated from context, then 2 it's a false hypothetical.
3 For example, if in fact this ratio existed, then 4 in order for that ratio to exist the loads going in and out 5 of Salisbury Beach would have had to have more capscity 6 otherwise you couldn't get that ratio of people in there.
7 And what's important here is not just gross 8 population figures, but how fast you can get these people 9 out. So if he has five times as many people and there are 10 existing five times as much capacity, then you have 11 comparable situations and then you're back to the problem 12 of, okay, who is closer to the plant? Who is going to be m 13 ore exposed to dosage and so on?
() 14 15 So there's a rash of considerations that must be addressed and not just isolating one from another.
16 BY MR. FIERCE:
17 Q Mr. Lieberman, I want to ask you -- maybe I have 18 exaggerated it too much -- what if it were only double the 19 population in Salisbury?
20 A (Lieberman) In Salisbury Beach versus Seabrook 21 Beach?
22 O Yes. Do you believe that the roads would allow 23 that many more vehicles to enter and to remain in Salisbury 24 Beach than in Seabrook Beach?
25 A (Lieberman) Yes. We have, as we've been Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17648 1 discussing, we have two lanes coming out of Sa.*6isbury versus 2 one from Seabrook, so you still have a balance l 3 Q If a governor or decision-makers in Massachusetts 4 knew that there were at least twice as many people in 5 Salisbury Beach located where it is in relationship to the 6 plant than there are in Seabrook Beach, wouldn't it be a 7 rational thing to do to focus your traffic guides -- traffic 8 control personnel as the first priority to facilitate the' 9 flow out of the Salisbury Beach area and through Salisbury 10 Center?
11 MR. TURK: Your Honor, I have a problem with the 12 whole question. It seems like Mr. Fierce is trying to have 13 the witness imagine what this decision-maker would be 14 thinking in the EOC at the time of an emergency. And that 15 requires this witness to understand what information is 16 coming to that decision-maker about the accident. About 17 crowds elsewhere in the system. And how the overall public 18 responds would be best to facilitate it.
19 And instead Mr. Fierce is focusing on only one 20 segment of the whole equation.
21 JUDGE SMITH: I know, but Mr. Liebermar is fully 22 capable of assessing the problems of answering the 23 questions. He's doing fine.
24 THE WITNESS: (Lieberman) The rational approach 25 would be to consider all factors and not just the one you Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17649 1 isolated. And I could not predict to you how the governor 2 would react given full information.
3 See, one of the problems --
4 JUDGE SMITH: Mr. Fierce, again I want to point 5 out that this is your time. You're going to end your cross-6 examination tomorrow as scheduled. But how do you intend to 7 establish your point? You're certainly not going to do it 8 through this panel. You' re getting nowhere with them.
9 Are you going to bring Dr. Adler back? Are you 10 going to bring expert testimony in to fact that you should 11 staff Salisbury Beach in a higher priority or what are you 12 going to do?
13 MR. FIERCE: Well, I have a variety of options
() 1/
15 that I'm considering, Your Honor.
JUDGE SMITH:
I haven't decided yet.
Well, it's time. I mean, otherwise 16 you're wasting the time of the parties here asking questions 17 that will lead you nowhere. Dut it's your time.
18 Go ahead.
19 MR. TURK: Let me indicate if I can, Your Honor, 20 with Mr. Fierce's permission. I asked Mr. Fierce at 21 lunchtime today, is his objective to try to get some 22 different traffic management plan in place for Salisbury 23 Beach or Salisbury Center? Just name what he wants and i
24 let's see if the Applicants will do it.
25 His response was, no, I can't do that because O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17650 1
('] 1 we're not allowed to pl?n. So I don't think there's any Q 2 purpose here in trying to develop --
3 MR. FIERCE: Your Honor, this is not relevant to I
4 what we're discussing here now. i I
5 MR. TURK: I think the whole line, Your Honor, is I
6 certainly relevant. >
7 MR. FIERCE: I'm objecting to Mr. Turk's 8 disclosures of when he tries to facilitate settlement 9 between the parties. The discussions he has with those 10 lawyers are not to be presented back to the Board.
11 JUDGE SMITH: We didn't pay any attention to that.
12 That's all right. That doesn't affect us.
13 Where are you on your cross-examination?
() 14 15 two.
MR. FIERCE: I'm moving on to number 12 on page 16 JUDGE SMITH: Well, that's what I thought.
17 MR. FIERCE: And I'm looking for --
18 JUDGE SMITH: See, all your line of questioning 19 was exactly what everyone suspected it was and that is, the 20 beach-goers for Massachusetts were being shortchanged over 21 favoring New Hampshire beach goers. That was your whole 22 line.
23 MR. FIERCE: And this last point which is that --
24 JUDGE SMITH: But that wasn't on your cross-25 examination plan. If we didn't want to be as charitable as
(~\
(m) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
1 REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17651 (j}
/ 1 possible we might call it an afterthought, after you ran out 2 of steam on the other concept.
3 Isn't it your point that the Governor of 4 Massachusetts is going to object to a traffic management 5 plan that favors New Hampshire beach goers over 6 Massachusetts beach goers; isn't that your point? I mean, 7 isn't that the relevance of it?
8 MR. FIERCE: That's the basic point. I might 9 phrase it slightly differently and just say that there's no 10 reasonable assurance that the Governor of Massachusetts will 11 follow this set of plans.
12 JUDGE SMITH: For those rcLsons?
13 MR. FIERCE: For those reasons.
14 JUDGE SMITH: For those reasons, all right.
(A}
15 MR. FIERCE: Because of the shortchanging issue 16 and also because -- I think it's in here.
17 JUDGE SMITH: Because of the rationale.
18 MR. FIERCE: Rationale. The population 19 differences are dramatic.
20 JUDGE SMITH: But I just didn't see the other 21 rationale in your plan.
22 MR. DIGNAN: The distances from the source term 23 differer es are quite dramatic, also.
24 MR. FIERCE: I would love to litigate that, Your 25 Honor.
1
,/ x k_ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
l
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17652 1 At this point, Your Honor, I would ask your 2 pleasure, I wanted as the outline indicates to read --
3 either read into evidence or offer into evidence the entire 4' ' interrogatory answer, response to interrogatory number two, 5 only a very small portion of which is quoted on page eight 6 of the testimony. And I have copies here. I can either 7 read it into the record. To save time I would rather offer 8 it up.
9 JUDGE SMITH: Have you informed your other parties-10 of your plan? Have you informed them what you want to do? I 11 MR. FIERCE: No , not yet.
12 JUDGE SMITH: Well, you better do that and then 13 make your offer. See vkst objections they may'have.
() 14 15 MR. FIERCE:
to have this marked as Mass AG's Exhibit, whatever is the Your Honor, to save time I would like 16 next number. And ask that -- it happens to contain 17- interrogatory number one as wel.. But interrogatory one and 18 interrogatory number two and the answers, the full answers 19 thereto be accepted into evidence and bound into the 20 transcript at this point.
21 MR. DIGNAN: Do you want an exhibit or a binding-22 or both?
23 MR. FIERCE: I would like it bound into the 24 transcript.
25 JUDGE SMITH: Well, let's bind it in as if read.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17653 1 MR. FIERCE: It's only three pages.
2 MR. TURK: Your Honor, I'm going to object to it.
3 (The Board reviewing document. )
l 4 JUDGE SMITH: Let's hear your objection.
5 MR. TURK: Your Honor, you may recall that we had 6 a telephone -- we had a series of telephone conference calls 7 and in fact a prehearing conference in which we discussed 8 the Mass AG's failure to respond to Staff Interrogatory 9 12-G. I believe that was our third set of interrogatories.
10 The same set of interrogatories from which this answer 11 derives.
12 Mr. Traficonte at that time agreed that he would 13 not put on testimony or evidence concerning what the State 14 would do in response to the -- with regard to the 19 15 specified functions in Interrogatory 12-G.
16 And if I may ask your indulgence let me get a copy 17 of that interrogatory out.
18 (Pause) 19 MR. TURK: Unfortunately, I have sent that folder 20 back to Washington. I'm looking to see if I have another 21 copy. Yes, a do have.
22 JUDGE SMITH: Well, that's an entirely different 23 matter. Now here, to make the full context of this cite in 24 the panel's testimony I think you need all of page two and 25 three. I don't know if you need page one. But otherwise Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
I REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS. 17654 1 you got a cite from your interrogatories responses out of.
2 context, incomplete, and tending to mislead. I mean, that's 3 the problem is with the Applicants, not you.'
4 Without the full response to the question I think 5' that is misleading testimony.
6 MR. TURK: Your Honor, my concern is that this --
7 whatever this response be, whether it's out of context or 8 not, even they were to provide the entire document I-think l.
9 they would be precluded from offering this into evidence.
10 .And therefore it's a hypothetical which they will never be 11 able to attach up.
12 JUDGE SMITH: What are we going to do about the 13 finding that is going to be proposed to us that they will in 14 fact file the Massachusetts Radiological Emergency Response 15 Plan. We sit here and we know that there are problems with 16 it, and that they might not. We know that. Are we going to 17 ignore that?
18 MR. TURK: With what, Your Honor, with the SPMC?
19 JUDGE SMITH: No. I'm looking at page eight of 20 .this panel's testimony which says that the Commonwealth has 21 indicated that the State Police would look toward the 22 Massachusetts plan, Radiological Emergency Response Plan to 23 coordinate the implementation of traffic control, period.
24 And yet, I know that the full response was, yes, they looked 25 toward it but they had big Beritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
, l l 1 REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17655
~
1 problems with it.
l ('
? Now, that's not a very complicated evidentiary 3 matter. That's just simple reliability of evidence.
4 MR. TRAFICONTE: Your Honor, there's another point 5 here. First of all, I certainly don't want to take Mr. 1 l
6 Fierc6's time up right now with the representation that Mr.
i 7 Turk has made that somehow we're foreclosed from putting in 8 evidence on what the State response would be. I think it's 1
9 fair to say that's a can of worms. And right now I don't 10 want to get into it.
11 But if we just think for a minute on what we're 1
12 doing, we're cross-examining an Applicants' panel on their 13 testimony, a portion of which is a selection from an answer 14 to an interrogatory which we believe needs to be put in the
(}
15 context of the whole answer.
16 We just want the whole answer in as part of our 17 cross. We're trying to do it expeditiously by having the 18 answer just put in.
19 JUDGE SMITH: That's fine. I couldn't have said 20 it better myself, but that's what I thought I said.
21 MR. TRAFICONTE: I was adding only the can of 22 worms. I was just pointing out that we don't want -- the 23 other matter that is lurking here which I think has more 24 potential import on the proceeding, I just don't think we l 25 want to address right now because we have a much more
,a k ,) s Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17656 .
1 1 limited purpose with the offer.
V('T 2 JUDGE SMITH: The argument doesn't go to this 3 anyway because the worse case is, at least you did respond 4 to this.
5 MR. TURK: So in the first instance then I see 6 that Mass AG agrees that the use of this document or a more 7 complete document would be limited, very limited use only 8 for cross-examination of this panel.
9 JUDGE SMITH: We're not making a ruling any 10 broader than the narrow put before us right now.
11 MR. TURK: Let me just note so that it's in the 12 record at one place. That one of the 19 items listed on 13 that contention which the Mass AG did not respond to in
()
~
14 discovery was item 5 which is directing traffic and blocking 15 roadways.
16 Item 6, performing access control.
17 Item 7, removing obstructions from roadways.
18 JUDGE SMITH: I know.
19 NR. TURK: So all of that type of a response --
20 all of that type of evidence would be barred by Mr.
21 Traficonte's own voluntary statement that he doesn't intend 22 to put on evidence considering these 19 functions as to how 23 the State would respond in an emergency.
24 And at the same time I now see an offer for some 25 purpose as to which I'm still not clear which would violate i
() l
(_) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 1 l
L_ _ _____
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17657
(~ 1 that very statement by Mr. Traficonte and the Board's ruling b} 2 that he would be barred from putting on such evidence.
3 JUDGE SMITH: Your arguments, Mr. Turk, are so far 4 away from my perception of what I see is a very simple 5 evidentiary problem. Well, no, I'm concerned. It's not 6 that you're not persuasive, I'm concerned that I'm missing 7 the-point.
8 MR. TURK: Well, probably it's me. M;y concern is 9 the type of use that this document would be available for in 10 findings and ar an evidentiary matter.
11 JUDGE SMITH: We're looking at the document for 12 relevance and for admission solely in the context of the 13 statement that is included in the Applicants' testimony.
14 Where they say on one hand that the Commonwealth is going to
(
15 look toward the RERP, you, don't have a complete statement 16 you have a misleading statement and you have an unreliable 17 evidence without the full statenent.
18 They say, yes, we're going to lock to it, but we 19 got problems with it. Now, what am I missing here?
20 21 l
22 23 24 25 Heritage Reporting Corporation j (202) 628-4888
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ a
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17658
( 1 < MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, I think if the document N]J 2 is limited to the purpose of the context, I take issue with 3 the Board's idea that the testimony was leading. I think 4 the testimony should be read in context. All we were 5 spotting that for was this. It was to show that the TCPs 6 and ACPs which we had selected were the same ones in the ,
I 7 plan the Commonwealth used. We are not making any 8 allegations in there that they will " follow" the plan or 9 they will execute it easily.
10 We are just making the point that we have chosen 11 the same TCPs and ACPs that they choose in their plan. It's 12 again this business of we think there is evidentiary ~alue 13 in the fact that what we are using is the stuff the
[ 14 Commonwealth, at lease at some point in their best thinking, 15 was using the same thing. We aren't trying to mislead 16 anybody into thinking that they could easily execute this 17 plan.
18 MR. TRAFICONTE: Why is it relevant then?
19 MR. DIGNAN: It is relevant because I think there 20 is evidentiary value, s3nce you people are on the attack on 21 all our TCPs and ACPs, to show that one of the ways we 22 selected them was to use the ones that represented your 23 people's best judgment at one point. I certainly think 24 that's probative of the correctness of the TCPs and ACPs.
25 MR. TRAFICONTE: I see.
Heritage Reporting Corporation
} (202) 628-4888 4~, I
l' l REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17659
.1 JUDGE SMITH: Well, maybe your better judgment 2 would have been to limit this statement then to that portion 3 of the interrogatory which we would infer the state police 4 would coordinate the implementation of traffic and access 5 control. But your statement is quite broad. And'I 6 understand your argument now that in the context of the rest 7 of the testimcry that's all it's in for.
8 MR. DIGNAN: Yes. But my point is I -- forget ,
I 9 that, because whether it's misleading or not -- l 10 JUDGE SMITH: Well, wait a minute.
11 MR. DIGNAN: -- the Board has to decide.
12 JUDGE SMITH: Wait, I see --
13 MR. TRAFICONTE: Isn't the simple solution --
() 14 15 credit.
JUDGE SMITH: Excuse me. I didn't give 'you The part that you did cite there does limit to 16 traffic and access control, and the other part of it, right.
17 Finish your arguments and then the Board will --
18 MR. DIGNAN: Well, my point is simply this. The 19 Board can decide for itself whether the testimony is 20 misleading. But is the solution to the whole problem to 21 limit the purpose of the offer to providing the full context 22 of the statement quoted?
23 Now once that limit is put on it, Mr. Turk's 24 concerns go away, and then it's in. We have no objection to 25 it coming in in terms of the context if anyons feels they i
-* Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17660 1 can make something out of it.
2 MR. TRAFICONTE: Your Honor, just on the testimony 3 itself and as to whether it's misleading, I read the 4 paragraph on page 8, the second sentence begins, "The 5 Commonwealth has indicated that the Mass state police would 6 look toward this plan for guidance."
7 MR. DIGNAN: Yes.
8 MR. TRAFICONTE: That's a different statement than 9 a statement that at some point the TCPs and ACPs that are in 10 their plan were also at some point in an earlier plan of 11 ours. That's a different statement.
12 This is the statement that we would actually look 13 toward the plan for guidance.
14 MR. DIGNAN: Well, that s what you said. That's
(
15 what you said.
16 JUDGE SMITH: That's what is in the interrogatory.
17 bm. DIGNAN: You said in the answer you would look 18 toward the plan for guidance.
19 MR. TRAFICONTE: Right. So that's why it --
20 that's exactly what I expected. That's why he put it in.
21 He thinks it --
22 MR. DIGNAN: No.
23 MR. TRAFICONTE: -- is relevant for that purpose.
24 JUDGE SMITH: Wait a minute.
25 MR. DIGNAN: First of all --
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
{
_________ _ - - -- - - - - - .I
l I
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17661 l
/9 1 MR. TRAFICONTE: Let me --
l \-)
2 JUDGE SMITH: Gentlemen.
3 MR. TRAFICONTE: Let me finish.
4 JUDGE SMITH: Off the record.
5 (Discussion off the record.)
l 6 JUDGE SMITH: On the record now.
7 Having heard the arguments and reread more 8 carefully the testimony in the interrogatories, first, Judge 9 McCollom pointed out to me that I may have stated that the 10 testimony, the relevant testimony on page 8 is read by me to 11 mean the Commonwealth has indicated that the Massachusetts 12 state police would look toward the NHRERP. If I said that, 13 that was a flat out mistake. I didn't mean to sa y that. I 14 always thought that I was saying that the Commonwealth has
[J) 15 indicated that the state police would look toward the 16 Massachusetts RERP. Now that part is clear.
17 And then what I failed to do when I was talking 18 about it before is focus on the specifics that they give, 19 and that's the testimony, as I understand it, as cited and 20 would be accepted only for the proposition that the 21 Commonwealth state police would look toward that plan to 22 coordinate the implementation of traffic and access control.
23 It's a limited offer for a limited purpose. Otherwise, it 24 would be irrelevant.
25 Now given that, there is a part of the O
V Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17662 1 interrogatory which also goes straight to that point, or
())
2 fairly could be thought to address it. And that is the i
3 first sentence of the paragraph that you are arguing.
4 "Because this plan has not been updated, tested or 5 exercised, the state police would not be able to totally 6 rely on it."
7 Now that could also be a reference to traffic and 8 access control. And if you want to offer it for that 9 qualification, and leave out the rest of it with respect to 10 the Topsfield barracks and the rest of the problem, I think 11 that would be the balancing that is required to have an 12 accurate record.
13 It's put in and it should have been limited to
() 14 15 only the state police relying upon the Massachusetts RERP for implementation of traffic and access control, and not 16 the other problem control points. .
17 MR.-TRAFICONTE: The only addition I would make is 18 that I have no problem with the Topsfield barracks 19 sentences, but the very last sentence that reads, "A serious 20 problem exists in the simple fact that the plan itself is 21- not readily available to most of those in the state police 22 command structure and it is not available at all to any of 23 the troopers in their vehicles."
24 I think that would be a point equally opposite 25 to --
{)%
x_ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17663
(}
%/
1 JUDGE SMITH: They don't have these.
2 MR. TRAFICONTE: They don't have it.
3 JUDGE SMITH: I think that would logically 4 pertain.
5 MR. TURK: I have a problem still, Your Honor, 6 unfortunately. l 7 We had many series of conversations and arguments 8 about whether the Mass AG had failed to respond to staff 9 interrogatories. The Board may recall that initially when 10 the Mass AG responded to our interrogatories they objected 11 to saying what they could do or what they might do. And I 12 said, fine. Tell us what you would do.
13 They then answered one interrogatory,
() 14 15 Interrogatory No. 2, with a total of six pages, They failed to identify, however, which aspects of NUREG-0654 they would 16 deal with in their response to an emergency, and they failed 17 to indicate to us, in response to Interrogatory 12-G, what ,
i 18 they would do with respect to 19 specified functions. They l l
19 simply failed. They didn't even object on any pertinent ,
1 20 ground. They didn't claim lack of relevance. They admitted 21 relevance. l 22 They said to you, Your Honor, that the assumption 23 you were making that they would use their best efforts and 24 they would be workmanlike in their response, that you are 25 not entitled to make that assumption. And they flat out
}
-s i V Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
\
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17664 1 failed, given a second chance by this Board. They were 2 given a chance to come back with a factual response and they 3 failed.-
4 JUDGE SMITH: It may very well be.that we may have 5 to address the consequences of that-in that exchange. I 6 think:I misunderstood you on what you think we said. But 7 that is, in my view, a different consideration. Here is an 8 interrogatory response which they did respond to.
9 MR. TURK: That's right. They chose; they picked 10 and chose.
11 JUDGE SMITH: All right.
12 MR. TURK: They said, we'll.give you this. We 13 won't tell you more. To tell you more would mean that we
() 14 15 would have to engage in planning and we are not going to do that.
16 JUDGE SMITH: Well, all right. But doing that, 17 are you going to allow the Board to receive into evidence ,
18 and rely and make a decision affecting the public health and 19 safety on incomplete information, and it would be incomplete 20 if we took this paragraph cited in the testimony without 21 reservation, without modification for the fact that the 22 Commonwealth will look toward the plan when they have stated 23- specific reservations about it?
24 MR. TURK: All right.
25 JUDGE SMITH: It's just a simple matter of Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 u_-__-___-____
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17665
(~ 1 balance, of completeness.
N,)h 2 Your other problems, I'm sure, will come up and 3 you know we have very strong views about that, that you have 4 relied upon and you haven't proceeded toward any relief.
5 MR. TRAFICONTE: I was going to press on that 6 point. This is the can of worms, but I guess it's been 7 pried open.
8 He hasn't, in fact, and I have been a little bit 9 puzzled. Two months have gone by since the last prehearing 10 conference in Boston in this regard, and I don't think it's 11 ever been put publicly on the record, but perhaps this is a 12 good occasion to do that. I understood the Board to direct 13 Mr. Turk to prepare a draft stipulation, to circulate it to 14 me , which he did. There was a short and fairly enthusiastic (ns -)
15 effort at negotiating such a stipulation. It failed 16 miserably. We couldn't come up with the language that we 17 could agree to. This is some time toward the end of 18 January, and nothing as far as I know has happened 19 subsequently to that.
20 I mean, if it has, it hasn't been to my knowledge.
21 I know of no further effort on the part of Mr. Turk to nail 22 down in some --
23 JUDGE SMITH: I read Mr. Turk's trial brief, I 24 believe, and he referred to in that.
25 Didn't you, Mr. Turk?
' .r ~ N k) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
l REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17666
[~}
%J 1 MR. TURK: I indicated that we might be putting on 2 some evidence from their interrogatory responses as to j 3- resources if that would prove necessary.
4 JUDGE SMITH: Didn't you also say that you're 5 going to rest upon the Board's previous rulings? Somebody 6 from over there did.
7 MR. TURK: I believe we did, Your Honor. I don't 8 recall the langauge.
9 MR. TRAFICONTE: My concern is I don't think there 10 is a ruling.
^
11 JUDGE SMITH: Mrs. Chan is indicating that that ;
12 was the case.
13 MR. TURK: We do have the Board's oral rulings. I f
(s 14 have never put that into a written order.
15 JUDGE SMITH: Right, that's correct.
16 MR. TURK: The transcript, of course, does show 17 the oral rulings.
18 JUDGE SMITH: Right.
19 MR. TURK: I have not put together the written 20 order yet. I would be happy to do it this weekend.
21 JUDGE SMITH: I think it will be late.
22 MR. TURK: I didn't think it would be necessary at 23 this point.
24 JUDGE SMITH: It's your call. It's your call.
25 MR. TURK: All right.
(,/ Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17667 8
/~N 1 JUDGE SMITH: There was a lot you could rely upon !
y -
2 in our oral ruling, that's true.
3 MR. TURK: Fine.
4 JUDGE SMITH: But it's your call. You had an 5 opportunity to make it more specific if you felt it was 6 necessary. I think it would be very, very late to do it 7 now, Mr. Turk.
8 MR. TURK: Well, I would rely upon the oral 9 rulings then, Your Honor.
10 JUDGE SMITH: That's exactly right. I think we 11 had some very pointed oral rulings and discourses on the 12 point.
13 However, for NW. Fierce's problem tonight --
'tL 14 MR. FIERCE:- Yes, yes.
15 (The Board confers.)
16 MR. TURK: Your Honor, I would like to offer one 17 thing that might solve your evidentiary problem in terms of 18 what you rely upon in making your decision.
19 We do have a presumption that the state will use 20 Ats best efforts. That's been adopted and approved by the 21 First Circuit.
22 We have a second presumption that the state will 23 follow the utility plan.
24 MR. TRAFICONTE: No, we don't, Your Honor.
I 25 MR. TURK: Excuse me.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
- l REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17668 1 MR. TRAFICONTE: Wo don't.
l .(
2 MR. TURK: Excuse me.
3 We have that presumption that they will follow the 4 SPMC unless the Mass AG can show you the rebuttal that they 5 will do something else.
6 MR. TRAFICONTE: Ain't so, Your Honor. The reason 7 is because FEMA had --
8 JUDGE SMITH: I think you are cutting it too thin.
9 You are over-analyzing. Your remarks, I think, are 10 entirely accurate, bat you are not addressing the point, 11 which is a very, very simple evidentiary point. And that 12 is, these witnesses elected to rely upon an interrogatory to 13 the effect that the Commonwealth is going to follow their
() 14 15 plan with respect to traffic and access control.
what they said.
That's I'm sure that we will be asked to make a 16 iinding that that is the case. And if you ask us to make a 17 finding that that is the case, and your colleague next to f 18 you has the burden of proof and they don't have the whole 1
19 answer, we will wonder is that reliable evidence. And it's 20 got to be in. It's either in or out. I mean, either the 21 statement in the testimony is out, or the full answer is in.
22 That is separate and apart from the presumptions 23 and from the failure to answer other interrogatories.
24 That's a separate consideration. !
25 MR. DIGNAN: Your Honor, I think one thing if I Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l-
I 1
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17669 l
1 could ask you to focus. The language says the TCPs and ACPs
[G~] from Appendix I of the NHRERP were also incorporated into 2
3 the Massachusetts RERP, Appendix 3, Section 3-C, appendix 3.
4 It's Section 3-C of the Area 1 MCDA operations' plans for 5 Seabrook, April 1986. That's the old Massachusetts plan, 6 state plan we're talking about there.
7 Then it says the Commonwealth has indicated that 8 Massachusetts state would look toward this plan, meaning 9 that one, the old Massachusetts plan for guidance, and 10 that's precisely what the interrogatory says. And, "That 11 plan directs the state police to coordinate the 12 implementation of traffic and access control."
13 .That plan in that quote, as I understand it in the 14 interrogatory, refers to the old MCDA plan.
)
15 JUDGE SMITH: That's right.
16 MR. DIGNAN: Yes.
17 JUDGE SMITH: That's how we are reading it.
18 MR. DIGNAN; All right, it is not a piece of 19 testimony that says they will follow the utility plan.
20 MR. TRAFICONTE: No, nor do we understand it to 21 say that. We are not fighting over that. We don't 22 misinterpret the sentence. We understand the import --
23 MR. DIGNAN: And it:3 relevance --
24 JUDGE SMITH: Indeed if that were the 25 interpretation otherwise, we wouldn't be saying what we are
(_,, Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17670 l 1 saying now. i b 2 MR. DIGEAN: Okay. And its relevance, therefore, 3 is not to try to prove or disprove or anything else what the 4 Governor will do. It is, rather, too, as a number of our 5 offers, lend credence to our selection of TCPs and ACPs on 6 the basis that they are the same ones that the Commonwealth 7 itself selected when th?y were planning. That's the point.
8 JUDGE SMITa: Maybe.
9 MR. ".RAFICONTE : That's one of the points.
10 MR. DIGNAN: Now if it be, and I guess it is if 1
1 11 the Chairman at least tentatively be that is misleading, I 12 have no objection.
13 JUDGE SMITH: It's misleading because it's 14 iEaomplete.
15 MR. DIGNAN: I said I have no objection to the 16 completeness fact, and I keep coming back to -- I understand 17 Mr. Turk's concern. And if the Commonwealth does not read 18 it as trying to say they will follow the utility plan, they 19 ought to be happy with it, why isn't the simple solution to 20 put the limit on the receipt of the evidence to the purpose 21 of giving the context, the full context of the statement.
22 And once that is done --
23 JUDGE SMITH: That's what we have been debating.
24 I think that's all they have asked for. And now we have 25 narrowed it down very, very narrowly. The interpretation i.
Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17671 1 that should be put on it is that in the following paragraph,
/~')
tj 2 with the exception of the three sentences in the paragraph 3 that follows. Let me read what our ruling would be.
4 The testimony on page 8, which refers to the 5 Massachusetts state police would look towe.rd this plan, is T
6 read by the Board to be the Massachusetts RERP, Appendix 3.
7 In addition, that statement should be read in the context of 8 a part of the interrogatory referred to in that testimony 9 with the following sentences. "Because this plan," and 10 again we're talking about the Massachusetts RERP, "has not 11 been updated, tested or exercised, the state police would 12 not be able to totally rely on it. A serious problem exists 13 in the simple fact that the plan itself is not readily p) i L-14 available to most of those in the state police command 15 structure and is not available at all to any of the troopers l I
16 in their vehicles." q f
l 17 I take those two sentences to refer to, solely to 18 the part of the testimony which alludes to traffic and 19 a-ccess control. That is the most narrow addition that we 20 can put to it that still preservos the integrity of the 21 testimony that you are offering. And that's what the 22 Attorney General wants, and I really don't think you had 23 much of an argument after all the smoke settled, really. In l
[ 24 any event, that's our ruling. That's our ruling.
I l
25 If you want to, you can leave.
l l rN
{ k ,) Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888
REBUTTAL PANEL NO. 9 - CROSS 17672 1 MR. FIERCE: I am leaving, Your Honor.- I just 2 wanted to note my watch tells me that took 25 minutes from 3 my cross-examination on an item I thought was going to take 4 30 seconds.
5 JUDGE SMITH: Go now. Eight-thirty tomorrow.
6 MR. FIERCE: Eight-thirty?
7 JUDGE SMITH: We want to adjourn at 11:30 8 tomorrow, 8:30 to 11:30, same number of hours.
9 That's our ruling. Is there anything else needed 10 to clean it up?
11 MR. TRAFICONTE: Just a clarification. Are you 12 then by that ruling putting those sentences --
13 JUDGE SMITH: As I read it.
() 14 15 record.
MR. TRAFICONTE: -- as you read it into the We are not going to be binding this document in?
16 JUDGE SMITH: No, as I read it from the 17 interrogatory.
18 Anything further this evening?
19 All right, we will adjourn until 8:30 tomorrow 20 morning.
21 (Whereupon, at 5:15 p.m., the hearing was 1
22 recessed, to resume at 8:30 a.m., Friday, March 31, l 23 1989.)
24 25 O Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888 l
f; i
)
CERTIFICATE.
i This is to certify that the attached proceedings before tho
(
United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the matter of:
Name: Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et al.
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket No: 50-443-OL 50-444-OL (Off-site Emergency Planning)
Place: Boston, Massachusetts Date: March 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/ v . .
' b (Signature typed) : Donna L. Cook Official Reporter Heritage Reporting Corporation O HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION (202)628-4888
r March 30, 1989 O
V UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
) Docket No. 50-443-OL PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF ) Docket No. 50-444-OL NEW HAMPSHIRE, 31 31 ) (Off-site EP)
(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2 )
)
TOWN OF WEST NEWBURY'S CROSS-EXAMINATION PLAN The Town of West.Newbury (TOWN) files the following cross-examination plan concerning Applicants' Rebuttal Testimony No. 9.
TOWN will cross-examine the panel concerning the following:
1.. The scope, basis and accuracy of the panel's knowledge of the streets and roads in West Newbury, knowledge which is s
relied upon in Part II.E.51 of the panel's testimony.
- 2. The basis for and accuracy of the panel's conclusions concerning the frequency and/or severity of flooding in West Newbury and its impact on bus travel. These issues are addressed in Part II.E.51 and 54 and Part II.D.6 of the panel's testimony.
- 3. The nature of the field study described in Part II.E.52 concerning the viability of the Stewart Street Transfer Point, ,
l including, inter alia, the nature of the road and weather conditions during the field study, the type and number of vehicles used in the filed study and what they did, the traffic conditions at the time of the field study, the number of vehicles expected to be in the area (both emergency evacuation vehicles l .
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ )
9
( and private vehicles) should an evacuation be in progress, the impace on traffic of such vehicles. The adequacy of the Stewart Street site in light of the functions of a transfer point as described in Part II.D.1 of the panel's testimony.
- 4. The adequacy of the numbers traffic guides at TCP's if those guides are needed to move cones or barricades and guide buses through TCP's as well as directing other vehicles. The functions of traffic guides. These issues are addressed in Part II.E.53 of the panel's testimony.
- 5. Whether updated bus maps have been prepared as discussed in Part II.C of the panel's testimony.
- 6. The basis for and accuracy of the panel's conclusion ;
l that police in West Newbury will perform certain functions as set !
forth at page 20 of the panel's testimony.
Respectfully submitted, By its attorney,
. r 79 State Street Newburyport MA 01950 (508) 462-0505 l
l I
(~%
d I
. _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____-___a