ML20140E522

Transcript of 850108 Hearing in Philadelphia,Pa.Pp 17,310- 17,580

ML20140E522
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	01/08/1985
From:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:
References
CON-#185-080, CON-#185-80 OL, NUDOCS 8501110110
Download: ML20140E522 (272)

Text

'

. 1 U311EU STATES l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

O l l

IN THE MATTER OF: DOCKET NO: 50-352-OL i l

50-353-OL PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) l LOCATION: PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA PAGES: 17310 - 17580 t

%s f DATE: TUESDAY, JANUARY 8, 1985

Y- D I O l i

Q- Qit 4. blb k i

~

ACE-FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC. I OfficialReporters 444 North CapitolStreet 1 8501110110 e5010s Washington, D.C. 20001 PDR ADOCK 05000 (202)3C-3700 NATIONWIDE COVERAGE

17,310

. CR2155 2__

'I UNITED STATES OF AMERICA MM/mml. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 2

.1/8/85 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD L(2) ___._____________x 4  :

I

-In the matter of:  :

5  :

PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY  :

6  :

(Limerick Generating Station  : Docket Nos. 50-352-OL 7 Units 1 and 2)  : 50-353-OL 8 ________________x .

9 Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania Ninth and Market, Streets 10 Courtroom No. 6 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, 8 January 1985 13 The hearing in the above-entitled matter convened, 14 pursuant to recess, at 9:00 a.m.

15 BEFORE:

l' HELEN F. HOYT, ESQ., Chairwoman Atomic-Safety.and Licensing Board I7 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

RICHARD F. COLE, Member D Atomic Safety ar.d Licensing Board U.S.1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission 20 Washington, D.C.

- 2I JERRY HARBOUR, Member

'( f 22 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.

24 Ase-Feseres Reporiers, Inc.

25

fdR.21552 17,311

'l/8/85 REE 1 APPEARANCES: j 2 On behalf of Philadelnhia Electric Company:

3 TROY B. CONNER, JR., ESQ.

NILS N. NICHOLS, ESQ.

4 ROBERT N. RADER, ESO.

Conner & Wetterhahn, P.C.

5 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20006 6

On behalf of the Nuclear Regulatorv Commission:

7 HENRY J. MC GURREN, ESQ.

8 NATHENE WRIGHT, ESQ.

Office of the Executive Legal Director 9 U.S.-Nuclear-Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 10 On behalf of the Federal Emergency Management Agency:

MICHAEL HIRSCH, ESO.

12 Associate Gene'al r Counsel Room 850

a() 13 . 500. C Street, S.W. -

Washington, D. C. 20472 -

O_n behalf of the Commonwe_alth of Pennsv_lvania:

MARK L. GOODWIN, ESQ.

16 Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency I'

-B-151 Transportation and Safety Building 17 Commonwealth Avenue

.Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 18 On behalf of the Pennsylvania Emergency Management l' Agencv:

20 RALPH HIPPERT i- B-151 Transportation and Safety Building 21 Commonwealth' Avenue

{) Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105 22

' ~

On behalf of Limerick Ecology Action:

123 PHYLLIS ZITZER, President

'24 DAVID. STONE L -

l " ""' '" -25 Limerick Ecology Action Box 761 l Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464 l

REE 17,311.1 CR 21552 1/8/85 1 APPEARANCES: Continued 2 On behalf of Friends of the Earth and pro se:

~

3 ROBERT ANTHONY 103 Vernon Lane 4 Post Office Box 186 Moylan, Pennsylvania 19065 5

6 7 .

8 9

10

. 11 12 13 .

1.

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 n.

22 23 24 Ase-Fassem nepoewes, inc.

25

CR 21552 17,312 1/8/85 REE

~1 Q Q E T_ E E T_ E VOIR.

2 WITNESS DIRECT DIRE CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS BOARD 3 Robert Bradshaw y)-

( John Cunnington 4 Robert Klimm by Mr. Hirsch 17,316- 17,'390 5 .by Ms. Wright 17,342 by Mr. Rader 17,357 76 by Judge Cole 17,:;80

_y Ronald Wagenmann ,

John Waters 8 .by Mr. Anthony 17,406 by Mr. Rader 17,415

._9 by Mr.~ Anthony 17,417 17,476 by Mr.-Rader 17,'457 10 .'by Mr. McGurren 17,471 by Mr. Stone 17,491 11 Rita C. Banning 12 by Ms. .Zitzer 17,510 by Mr. Conner 17,533

13 ,

I4 . E X,, E ,I,,, E I,,, T_ E 15 EXHIBIT-NO.: IDENTIFIED RECEIVED WITHDRAWN REJECTED 16 LEA E-35 through E-43 17,391 17 Anthony / FOE'E-1 17,400 17,50dl

. Anthony / FOE E-2, 17,400 17,503 13 Anthony / FOE E-3 17,401. 17,50( i

, . - Anthony / FOE E-4 17,402 17,50dl

[ 19 Anthony / FOE E-5 17,403 17,50dl ,

Anthony / FOE E-6 17,403 17,50dl 20 Morning Recess. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Page 17,392 21 Luncheon Recess . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .Page 17,456 CL . Afternoon Recess. . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .Page 17,505 I 22 23 24 Ase Fesoras nosons,e, Inc.

25

l natiens 17,313 CR21552 -

1. 1-mn-1 I P_.R O C_ E_ E_ D_ I N G S 2 JUDGE HOYT: The hearing will come to order. Let 3 the record reflect that all the parties to the hearing who 4 were present when the hearing recessed are again present.

5 The Bench notes that Mr. Anthony has again taken his place 4 at the counsel table.

7 Mr. Anthony, is your witness ready?

8 MR. ANTHONY: As far as I know, my witness is not 9 nere yet. He was served with a subpoena yesterday at 3:30.

10 I have a copy of it.

II JUDGE HOYT: Does the staff have any comment now?

4-I2 MR. ANTHONY: He'said that he would be here.

13 i MR.~McGURREN: Your Honor, the only thing that we I4 could suggest is that we could proceed with the panel that 15 we were dealing with last night.

16 JUDGE HOYT: You mean just wait until Mr. Anthony's I7 witness proceeds'and then any time that he proceeds to come 18 into the' case, you would recommend to the Board that we i

~

'I' stop the proceeding at that point and call him.

20 MR. McGURREN: Your Honor, I believe that in light

'21 of the fact that we do_have an opportunity here to finish the 22 panel that we were dealing with yesterday that we could 23  : pro'ceed with . that -panel.

~24 What would'you propose JUDGE HOYT: That is correct.

Ase-Federal Ressorters, Inc.

25 that we do at the end of that proceeding? I think we should

mni-2 17,314 j have some indication from you, counsel, where you want to go Ewith this. It was your very strong argument yesterday that 2

3 the Board issue this subpoena and again we find that a

- ('s)  :

4 subpoena that the Board has issued has been misused i 5 apparently. Any other comments?

6 MR. McGURREN: Just as I. suggested that we continue 7 with this panel, Your Honor.-

8 JUDGE HOYT: That didn't answer the question. I

,9 . asked -you =if you had any -other recommendations after we 10 completed that. How long do you propose that this Board wait 11 for Mr. Anthony's witness-to appear?

2 MR. McGURREN

Your Honor, I believe at this point

~

13 it becomes within the discretion of the Board.

, If the party 4

14 subpoenaed does not appear then he might lose his opportunity

-15 to_ testify.

JUDGE HOYT:

~

16 All right. Let's have the panel take 17 their-place-back on the stand.. Can you proceed on that basis 18 or will you need a few moments time to discuss this with your 1

19 panel?

p 20 MR. RADER: The Panel is prepared to proceed with the l .

21 cross-examination. May I ask that the Board preliminary

.qq T>.

s

~22 examine the subpoena to determine from the return of' service l

23 whether or not it was, in fact, properly served upon the l 24 witness?

l Ace-Federes nano,sers, inc.

25 JUDGE HOYT: Do you have that here, Mr. Anthony?

mni-3 .

1 MR. ANTHONY: Yes.

2 JUDGE HOYT: Let the record reflect that Mr. Anthony

s .3 is bringing the subpoena to the Bench.

4 (The Board reviewed the previously mentioned 5 document.)

6 JUDGE HOYT: The subpoena and the return of 7 service appears to be in order. All counsel may examine 8 this subpoena if they wish. There may be some incorrect 19 . placement.of entries,.but.it appears to be substantially

~

10 executed properly.

11 . MR. RADER: I will certainly rely upon the Board's 12 examination. We are ready to proceed with the Panel.

13 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. At the conclusion of f

14 last evening, I believe that counsel for the Commonwealth had j 15 . completed their examination. Mr. Hirsch, you are the next 16 counsel and I believe that we-had accorded the Commonwealth's 17 counsel an hour of examination time and will accordingly 18 accommodate you with the same time frame.

19 Whereupon, 20 ROBERT BRADSHAW, 21 JOHN CUNNINGTON, 22 and 23 ROBERT KLIMM,

-24 resumed-the witness stand on behalf of the Applicant, and b rasw i n oo,wr.,ine.

25 naving been previously duly sworn, were further examined and .

mni-4 17,316 I ana testified as follows:

2 CROSS-EXAMINATION

-( 3 (CONTINUED)

XXXXXXXXX 4 BY MR. HIRSCH:

'5 4 Mr. Bradshaw,.I believe you testified yesterday 6 that Collegeville Township, I believe, or maybe a Borough --

7 A (Witness Bradshaw) Yes.

8 G It is a borough?

9 -A- -Yes.

10 4 -- had used the draft radiological emergency 11 response plan which it currently has in response to a flood, 12 is tnat correct?

s Il 'A That is correct.

14 4 Do you know when that flood took place?

15 A I believe Mr. Cunnington could answer that for you. l 16 A (Witness Cunnington) I believe it was in July of

?

17 this past year. I don't have the exact date. I.could find 18 it. I was in Montgomery County that day for a RACES meeting 19 so I was aware of it..

20 4 I don't think it will be necessary for you to find A

21 .it. Were you personally involved either in the response g 22 effort or were you personally observing the response effort?

23 A I. observed the response effort from Montgomery 24 County not from Collegeville. I conducted their RACES we.eere noonm, Inc.

25 meeting so that they could respond to the emergency. I

mni-5 '

I substituted for them at a RACES meeting.

2 O Do you know if there was any evacuation of the fw 3 Collegeville population in that flood?

(J 4 A Yes, there was. There was evacuation of several 5 families along the Perkiomen Creek in the Collegeville and 6 Perkiomen Township area. In fact, the Montgomery County 7 Office of Emergency Preparedness opened up a mass care center 8 at'the Perkiomen Valley School District Senior High School.

9 As it would have it,.there was no need for any mass care.

10 All of the evacuees found shelter with friends or relatives 11 but the center was opened up and available to them.

-END#1 12 d _s -

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 h

. f~I ~

~

~

22 23 I

i 24 Am-Federes neporiers, Inc.

25 L

CR 21552- 17,318 1/8/85-REE Take 2 1 O Were any busses used during the evacuation?

Pr.g3 1 2 A- No, it was not contemplated as necessarv.

D 3 The-people from Collegeville indicated that they could O

4 evacuate with vehicles that were local to Collegeville.

5 g so.the Collegeville response in that flood 6 didn't really indicate anything about bus evacuation 7 feasibility, did it?

8 A They discussed with Montgomery County the 9 need for perhaps using vehicles, but as'the evacuation 10 ~ proceeded it was obvious that-the families along the 11 creek were interested in leaving with their private 12 vehicles because of the rising water, if you can understand, 4

O . 13 that. And they took'almost all of their vehicles

- I4 with them so that they would not be affected with the 15 water, any that they could get to.

16 A ~(Witness Bradshaw) I think it is important I7 . to point out that primary responsibility for the dispatch 18 of busses is_a county' responsibility. But under the I'

provisions of the municipal plan, Collegeville did, in 20 fact,-notify their staff promptly, activate their emergency 21 operations center, and notify members of the general O. 22 public that required protective action in accordance with 23 the provisions of the RERP.

24 Q Can anybody answer my question? Isn't it correct Asafederal Reponers, Inc.

25 that the Collegeville response to the flood indicated nothing

7 3 REEL 2/21 17,'319 1 about the-feasibility of the use of busses for 2 evacuat' ion purposes?

3 A' (Witness,Cunnington) There was no need for 4 Montgomery County to activate any busses. , )

5 Q- Mr. Bradshaw, you made a statement at paragraph l 6 :2 of your testimony on the deferred contentions that 7 I am going to quote from the first sentence: "There has

, 8 never been any intent on the part of the emergency

.9 planners of-the counties,-municipalities, or 10 ~ school districts'to offer the draft plans for formal 11 adoption ~until informal' review of the plans had been l

4 .

12 completed by PEMA and FEMA and the plans have been 13 . tested and exercised." ,

14 What is the basis for that statement?

4 15 A (Witness Bradshaw) Primarily ny discussions with 10 -- my' personal discussions with the counties. In 17 add'ition, my staff discussed this with the mun'icipalities.

18 It is my understanding that that is their general feeling 19 ~a bout'the process.

.20 -Q Is that your understanding of the process from when 21 you worked at PEMA?

i 22

~

A It is consistent with my experience in that, yes.

23 0 Is.this intent on the part-of these emergencv 24 -planners -something that you suggested would be the Asses =w mesen=, ins.

25 appropriate course of action?

. - . . .. . . . . . - . . = . . - . . - . . . - _ - . . . - . . . - - . - . . - - . - . . - . . . _

REE 2/3- 17,320 1 A I wouldn't say it was at our suggestion, although 2 we agreed with that general philosophy and supported it, yes.

, P~ 3 Q Have you had discussions with these emergency planner s 4 as to their intended time frame for submitting the plans 5 for informal review by PEMA and by FEMA?

6 A For informal review?

7 Q Yes.

8 ^ A Yes. We discussed it at the time it was 9 . conducted and it obviously has already been conducted, 10 the informal review process.

11 Q Is it your understanding that these counties, 12 municipalities, and school districts have been submitting

- '13 their" plans to PEMA and FENA for informal review as a 14 matter of course?

~

• 15 A It has already occurred, the informal review 16 .is completed.

17 Q Do you understand that these plans are" 18 submitted directly to FEMA by these counties, 19 municipalities, and school districts for informal review?

20 A No. They were provided to FEMA by PEMA.

21 Q Do you have an understanding of whether every

(~)'

k- 22 . draft of every county, municipality, and' school 23 distri.ct. plan.has been submitted to PEMA and to FEMA for 24 informal review?

Asefauleral 1% sorters, Inc.

25 A Yes. Only the drafts which were available in

REE 2/4 17,321

'I December of 1983 were forwarded to PEMA and FEMA for 2 informal review.

3 Q How many drafts, if you are able to state 4 precisely or,'if not, a ballpark figure, have been 5 revised since December of 1983 with respect to the 6 counties, the municipalities, and the school districts in the 7 Limerick EPZ?

8 A On an average, two drafts have occurred in the 9 . municipalities since December of 1983. In some instances 10 it is three or four. For the school districts there is II one draft that has occurred since December 1983.

12 g- So it is your understanding that none of these 13 new drafts since December of 1983 have been submitted to Id FEMA for informal review; is that correct?

15 A That is correct. To my knowledge, there is only 16 one informal review that is provided for under the 17 regulations.

18 0 Do you understand that FEMA and PEMA have I'

completed their informal review of the draft plans that 20 were submitted to them in December of 1983?

21

_73 A Yes, I do. And the comments of both PEMA 22 and FEMA have been submitted to the counties and 23 -municipalities, and we have assisted them in 24 incorporating those concerns into the existing drafts.

A s.esre menoe anc.

25 0 In light of the fact that informal review has been

IREE 2/5 17,322 1

1

- completed, do you have any understanding of why in the l 2

past 13 months there has been no action to formally r- 3 adopt these-plans except with respect to the Q) '

4 Downingtown and Perkiomen Valley School Districts?

5 MR. RADER: I object to the form of the question.

6 I believe Mr. Hirsch said in the last 13 months. The 7 witness testified that the plans were submitted to 8 PEMA 13 months ago. He certainly didn't testify that 9 FEMA's review ~has been completed 13 months ago.

10 MR. HIRSCH: Your Honor, I asked the witness, Il perhaps he needs to clarify his answer, I asked the witness 12 a couple questions ago about the submissions in December

[h

'\/ 13 of 1983 to FEMA and to PEMA, and he responded indicating 14 that that'is the date when FEMA and PEMA had been given the 15 draft for informal review.

16 MR, RADER: But.had not completed that review, which 17 the question implied, your Honor.

18 JUDGE HOYT: Well, within the context 19 of the clarification that the review had not been 20 completed, Mr. Hirsch, I think'that is the only problem 21 that the counsel for the Applicant seems to have. I will 22 overrule his objection if you will correct the 23 s question accordingly.

24 l- BY MR. HIRSCH:

Aeresarm neieriors. Inc.

l 25 O Mr. Bradshaw, do you have any direct knowledge of

~

REE 2/6 17,323 I why informal adoption has not been completed except 2 wit'h respect to the Downingtown and Perkiomen Valley 3 - School Districts since FEMA and PEMA have completed their 4 . informal. review of the draft radiological 5 emergency' response plans?

6 A Yes, I do. The responses from FEMA on the 7 informal RAC review were not made available to the counties 8 or municipalities-until May of 1984. There was a decision 9 made .on .the part of the counties not to do any plan 4

10 revisions that close to the July 25th exercise in ithat trainiscr

. 11 on such revisions could not occur and have an efficient 12 exercise July 25.

) 13 . For that reason, plus the fact that certain 14 revisions were necessary following'the July 25 15 exercise, municipal plan' revisions to-incorporate those 16 comments and any provisions resulting from the. exercise

. 17 were incorporated into the September and October municipal 18 - plan drafts.- Those~ drafts have only been out in

+

19 circulation _for several weeks now, and I think. h' S 20 it'is an unrealistic time period, given-the holiday-21 season,-for municipalities.to.take action on those plans.

S- 22 Q 'Let me ask you with respect to paragraph 3 23 of your. testimony on.the deferred contentions, I guess this

~ 24 question is ' directed to Mr. Bradshaw, there is a reference ase.cseess nepons,., Inc.

s 25 ' in the.second sentence of paragraph 3 to a recruitment

'y y- -ewe- ee++y-.-gr--y*,,e-c--.w-~+,rw..-wme.-. r= - .+-w ,,---n.----m---.--.-,e---,..,-..-..--.-i+-----eJ

REE 2/7 17,324 1 process by municipalities for their -- to meet their

-2 staffing needs, f, 3 Could you describe that recruitment process, please?

0 '

4 A To the extent I am familiar with it, yes.

5 It is varied-from municipalitytto municipality. I 6 believe some municipalities have even taken out 7 newspaper ads advertising the need for personnel to 8 Participate in their emergency operations center.

9 Others have solicited assist ance at the 10 polls during elections. Other processes have been 11 more informal, simply going to existing anbulance, 12 fire, and other volunteer organizations within their r~s '

() 13 jurisdiction, including social groups such as elderly groups, 14 to solicit assistance.

15 That has been my understanding of the context 16 of the recruitment process at the municipal level.

17 Q Do you know how long the recruitment process 18 has been going on?

19 A I would estimate actively that recruitment 20 process has only been underway since approximately May of 1984.

21 Q Do the plans contemplate two 12-hour shifts at the bd 22 municipal EOCs and county EOCs?

23 A Yes, they do.

24 Q Do the plans state the names of EOC staff Ass. Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 personnel on the municipal and county level?

J RES 2/8 -

17,325

, 1 A They state the names plus a home and work 2 telephone' number.

o 3 O Is it your testimony that -- if I could refer you to 4 table 2A'of your prefiled testimony at pages 5 through 7 5 -wthat the names and home addresses and telephone 6 7numbers of all of the staff persons identified as designated 7 ;fon that table y are listid.in the respective draft plans?

8 A Yes,'the names certainly are. The counties and

.li 9 . municipalities-have< chosen not to publish, obviously, 0h ,,

g 10' - {J.f,the telephone numbers, but those phone numbers are 7

"'3 END>2 4 4, g,

, .11 indicated as being>available in the municipal EOCs.

. ,1.s .

12 -

p .c ,

' \j , 13 14 'E -

, L:s-15 ><

j ,,

4 f

a.

., N

)

, 19, w y ,

v s -!i20 -*

i t- ,,

. 21 t[

n " 4

~ .l L) 22 23 .,

i 1

i

. 4 S, . v. 24 W h, Inc.

v

,s; 25

..;d,.. j l W \

i s ,

z

. > \

17,326 T3 MM/mmi 1 Q Your Table 2A, first column, is entitled " Number 2 Required." I wanted to clarify some misunderstanding I left 23 3 the hearing with yesterday.

(J 4 Was it your testimony yesterday that the Number 5 Required relates to the Number Required per shift, or total-6 24-hour round the clock?

7 A The Number Required reflects the total for 24-hour 8 Operations. It includes two shifts.

9 -Q So.with respect-to, for instance, Amity, under 10 Berks County, Number Required is 24. That indicates they need 11 12 persons staffing the EOC at a time, is that correct?

12 A That's correct.

13 . I would also point out that this is a reflection 14 of their municipal emergency management organization in general, 15 and not.necessarily strictly for radiological emergency response 16 matters. And that is why, in many cases, the. numbers are 17 different for municipalities.

18 Q Maybe you could clarify that last statement for me.

19 Why does -- what is your testimony concerning why 20 the numbers differ per municipality?

21 A Because the number reflects the staffing for the

--s x-) ~ 22 emergency management organization of that municipality for any 23 . emergency. It is not just tha provisions of the Radiological 24 Emergency Response Plan which would be more or less consistent As reesrw nepmers, Inc.

25 between the municipalities. There are additional needs as they

17,327 mm2 I saw fit.

2 O The last sentence of paragraph 3, Mr. Bradshaw, 3 states in pertinent part that the few remaining vacancies can 4 be filled by the municipalities.

5 What is the basis for that statement?

6 A We are in frequent contact with the municipalities, 7 particularly for updating the testimony here today. And in 8 those statements as indicated by the asterisk, we have gotten 9 plan revisions-since the plans-that were entered into evidence 10 were entered into evidence. We have gotten additional informa-

Il tion within the-last week which I have reflected in the asterisk .

12 Information which we have from the municipalities

/ 13 3; indicate either that they have already obtained staffing, or 14 they believe they have ide'ntified a source through which staff 15 would be available. And that within the next few weeks-they 16 will, indeed, be able to satisfy the few' remaining positions.

17 Q At page 6 of your testimony,-under the Warwick

, 18 Township heading, you indicate Warwick Township has no unmet 19 needs, is that correct?

20 A That's correct..

21 Q Are you aware of the November 20th, 1984 supplemental 22 exercise that occurred with respect to the Limerick Generating

,23 Station?

24 Yes, I am.

~A m nese,w inc.

25 Are you familiar with the FEMA determinations that

.O

~17,328 4

\

mm3 .I have been made as a result of that supplemental exercise?

2 A No, I'm not aware that FEMA information has been 3 provided.

4 Q 'So you are not aware of the fact that FEMA 5 -identified unmet needs at Warwick Township, are you?

6 MR.- RADER:- Objection. No foundation.

7 MR. HIR5CH: I am asking the witness if he knows 8 .if FEMA identified unmet needs at Warwick Township, your Honor.

9 -If he doesn't-know, he can say so.. ,

10 JUDGE HOYT: I will overrule the objection.

11 Go ahead. Answer if you know.

12 WITNESS BRADSHAW: I am not aware that FEMA identified 13 any deficiencies at that time. -

14 I would also point out that this information is 15 current, to date. If~there weren't staff available at that 16 time, they are available now.

17 BY MR. HIRSCH:

18 Q -When was' Table 2A prepared?

19 A (Witness Bradshaw) The end of November.

p 20 .Q. Around the same time as the supplemental exercise, 21 isn't that correct?

. .f .

22 A Around the same time, following the exercise.

. 23 -Q Let .me- refer -.you, at page 5 of -your testimony to 24 the' Union Township heading, where you have identified eight m nepen=, inc.

25 unmet needs. Eight persons.

l

17,329

.mm4 1 In light of the fact that there was no asterisk 2 added after that designation yesterday in your oral corrections 3 to your prefiled testimony, I take it that that unmet need 4 still exists. Is that correct?

5 A Yes, it does.

6 Q Have you had any discussions in preparation for 7 today's testimony with Union Township officials to determine 8 what the status of their attempts to meet tlose unmet need is?

-9 -A .I-hawinot had discussions -- neither have my staff --

10 with Union Township since the development of this information II in the testimony. However, as I pointed out in previous 12 testimony, we have trained ten individuals in Union Township 13 for emergen.cy management operations of the municipal EOC.

14 And in addition, at the November 20th exercise, 15 Union Township demonstrated a complete first shift which would 16 indicate that they have at least five people, and indicated 17 that they have additional staff, although not a complete 24-18 hour staff.

19 - You have trained ten people from Union Township,-is Q

20 that correct?

21 A That's correct.

,22 But, according to this chart there are only two

-Q 23 designated.

24 Do you'know what happened to the other eight you m nowm, inc.

.25 trained?

v, - ,,---,e-- ,--w--w w , --,-we-w,n,, -,, ----

- -- .- - = _ . --.. ..

17,330

,3

Jmm5 I

A. They apparently haven't been added to the plan, for whatever reason. I'm not sure what that reason is.

Q You haven't had any discussions with either Berks 4

County or UnionuTownship about that problem?

5 A No.

Q And you have no idea why that problem exists?

7 A No, I do not.

8

-Q Did.you conduct the training of those ten individuals P'

1. 'A Energy' Consultants did, yes.

10 Q You didn't, personally?

5

" A' Personally, no.

12 L- Q Do you know who did?

- 13 A I know it would be oite of my five trainers. One of" N any five individuals?

15 g You don'_t know which of the five, here at the 16 hearing today?

I7 ~

No. I certainly have records that could confirm A_

18 that, in addition to confirming the names of the individuals i who were involved,-if'need be.

20 Let me ask you to look under the South Coventry Q

q-.

21 -

heading.on page'5 of your prefiled testimony.

D 22 I understood you to say yesterday-that it was at >

23 Tim: Campbell's--suggestion-that you inserted the words " Data Unavailable" there, is that correct?

A That's-correct.

4 e- ~4,- --

er,m-- o m e n.n e -- ,- r ,ww w -e- -

--m-- e,..e-,,e- w.,,r-,-e,,,-.eaww, r-.-e-m- -m m- eme.-m-~. _ , - -wve -n,-w-mm.r-.,mee->eme-.w-r--

17,331 am6 I Q' Would you, to the best of your knowledge, describe 2 to'me the history of the South Coventry process of drafting

. 3 or consulting with EC in the process of drafting plans for

'4 South Coventry Townshp, starting with Draft 1 up until the

+

5 current draft, please?

6 A Yes.

7 Beginning with Draft 1, somewhere around the fall of 8 1982, we initiated contacts with all municipalities, established 19 who the ' Emergency -Management Coordinator was,-and who the 10 township wished us to work with at that level.

II In this instance, Mr. Whitlock is both the Supervisor 12 and the Coordinator. And he has beenc our primary contact. We pd -13 worked with Mr. Whitlock on Draft 1, Draft 2 and Draft 3, which-14 would take us-through the period of the end of 1982, through 15 1983, to approximately December 1983. And, to the best of my 16 recollection it is at this point that Philadelphia Electric I7 began installation.of its siren system.

I8 -And, there was a problem between that installation JI' and the zoning ordinance of the Township of South Coventry.

- 20 Mr. Whitlock advised us, upon contacting him with regard to

21 a. planning matter, that his solicitor had advised him to h.O- 22 suspend planning activities until the litigation in this

=23 . regard was resolved.

24 Following the Draft 3, and continuing our worklag

! Assess,s noe,en, i e.

25 . relationships wi.h the other municipalities in plan development

.- . _ _ _ - . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - . , . _ _ _ ._.___.._____ _ -._ _, . . - - _ _ _ ~

17,332

.mm7 1 to incorporate PEMA comments from the informal submission of 2 the RAC-plans, there was.at least one -- I can't recall,

/m. 3 perhaps two additional draf ts of the South Coventry Plan, which V

4 we incorporated changes that were common to all municipalities, 5 and we submitted that plan with a cover letter to South 6 Coventry for their consideration.

7 The last plan was, I believe, Draft 5, dated April 8 1984.

9 g .Have you heard back from South Coventry after you 10 sent them the last draft and the cover letter for their

'II consideration?

-12 A We have not heard:.from them until recently, when s - 13 we initiated a call la'st week to tell him'that we were still 14 here, still available, and to check on the status of his 15 litigation.

16 Mr. Whitlock indicated -- this was last Thursday --

17 that he'had a Township reorganizational meeting Monday or 18 Tuesday.of-this week, and that we should recontact him at that I9 time to. determine the official status or policy of the 20 municipality with regard to pursuing emergency planning.

'21 Q Have you spoken to him yesterday, or so far this

O- .22 -morning?

23 .A .I believe his reorganizational meeting was last 24 night, so we will be in contact with him this morning.

m n corers, Inc.

25 Q Do you have a copy of the exhibit identified as l

)

17,333 mm8 I LEA E-37, which we were discussing yesterday?

2 A Is that the letter to Mr. Whitlock?

3 Q No, that is the August 27, 1984 Municipal EOC Staffing 4 Needs paper, which I understood you to say you put tagether or 5 assisted in the preparation of.

~

6 A Yes, I do.

7 Q Let me ask you to look about halfway through that 8 Eage, there is a column relating to South Coventry where you 9 identify ---or-whoever-prepared this document -- identifies that 10 South Coventry has a need for six EOC staffers.

ll Is that per shift?

- I2 A No, that is total.

. 13 Q So, three per shift? .

• 14 A Correct.

15 And that four including PECO employees, have been Q

16 identified -- three PECO employees were among those four, and 17 there was a'n unmet need for two people.

18 Is that correct?

19 A That's right.

20 .Q This LEA 37 was prepared before you prepared your 21 prefiled testimony on the deferred contentions, wasn't it?

[)'s 22 A Yes.

23 Q Why did you state with respect to South Coventry 24 in your prefiled testimony on the deferred contentions, that Aeres rse noor=., inc.

25 - there was no data available, in light of the data that is

I i 17,334 1

mm9 l

I contained'in LEA 37?

2 A Because that information was not provided through O 3 y) the planning process from Mr. Whitlock. And, as I indicated, 4 in our discussions with Tim Campbell, he requested that we 5 not represent that information since the township had not 6 officially provided it to him.

7 Q Are you aware of any FEMA determinations that so 8 long as South Coventry doesn't participate in the Limerick 9 exercises, that there was a lack of a reasonable assurance that 10 appropriate measures can be taken to protect the health and Il safety of the township population?

I2 A I'm not aware of any specific FEMA reference in that f-13 regard, no.

14 Does that seem like a reasonable position for Q

15 FEMA to take?

16 I feel it is a reasonable position to state where A

17 24-hour capability doesn't exist, or where there is not an 18 adequate reasonable assurance of the capability to exist l'

anywhere in the municipalities, that FEMA might take that 20 position.

21 p

G I can add in this regard, that this has been a 22 common subject at the planning coordination meetings between

-23 PEMA and counties, and that in those discussions it was 24 indicated that Chester County indeed has the capability to wed-m n.conm, Inc.

25 provide coverage for South Coventry Township in the event that

_ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ . . _ - - . . . . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . . . ___ ..__ =. _ _ _ . . _ . . . _ _ _ . . . . _ _ _ _ _ . . . . _

17,335 mml0 I they did not have the capability to do that.

2 However, Mr. Campbell at the present time has not

,g 3

(.] received the request either from South Coventry or from PEMA 4 to cover a planning contingency in that regard, although the 5 capability exists to do so.

0 Does the Chester County Plan current draft, or the Q

7 most up-to-date draft indicate anywhere that there are 8 staffers that the County can provide to fill the South Coventry 9 needs?

10 A Yes.

II Q Where would that be?

I2

(')

LJ ,

A It would be in Annex Q of the Draft 9 Chester County 13 Plan, which indicates that he has seven staff available.

I4 Q Available for South Coventry?

15 or, available throughout the County?

I6 A Available in general.

17 At the time the Draft 9 was prepared, he had an 18 identified need from his municipal plans for seven unmet I'

staffing positions at the municipal level. He applied his 20 county resources, which I believe exceed seven. But he 21 indicated that seven were available in order to eliminate the

)

22 unmet need.

~23 Q Are any of those seven designated to staff the 24 South Coventry EOC?

As F.deres n.oorer , inc.

25 A No. I believe there is a footnote in that

___2._ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . . . . . . _ . . _ . .__ _ _ _ _

17,336 mml1 1 appendix, which indicates that that information does not 2 reflect South Coventry considerations, since that information c

(_) 3 had not been provided to Mr. Campbell.

4 Q What information had not been provided to 5 Mr. Campbell?

6 A On unmet needs from South Coventry.

7 Q Do you have any basis for determining that the seven 8 people you have identified, that you have referred me to in 9 the Chester County Plan, are sufficient to meet all of the 10 unmet needs throughout Chester County?

II A They are sufficient to meet the unmet needs that have 12 thus far been provided or submitted to Chester Codnty.

c'~l,T3 e.

- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 .

20

()

v 21 22 23 24 was neporwri, Inc.

25

17,337 nnti:ns CR21552 I

g _g Q. Knat are those seven unmet needs that you are 2

referring tc?

/~

V' 3 A. It would have been the vacancies in the plans, 4

the municipal plans, as they existed prior to the drafting 5 or immediately prior to'the drafting of draft nine. As I 6 indicated, that would be different than table 2-A which 7 is a more update version of that unmet need. In Chester 8

County, I believe, there is only one or two remaining unmet 9 staffing needs at the present time.

10 4 Let me go on to LEA-3. Mr. Bradshaw, I understood Il you to say yesterday that it is your belief that although g I2 Bucks County has written a letter stating that it does not

\y)

• 13 intend to adopt its radiological emergency response' plan 14 that Bucks County still intends to participate in emergency l

15 planning, is that correct? l 16 A. That is correct.

17 0 What is the basis for that statement?

i 18 A. I believe I addressed that in my testimony yesterday.

19 That same letter, the November 16th letter from Mr. Fonash to 20 PEMA and FEMA, indicated that they would not adopt the plan, 21 the draft plan, that was under consideration before them at

(

22 the present time. It does not indicate that they would not 23 accept or adopt.a revised plan or another plan. In fact, 24 in another sentence on page two of that letter it says that Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 Bucks County will make planning arrangements, will make

17,338 mn4-2 1 realistic emergency -- will provide, I am sorry, realistic 2 planning assistance and maybe I had better quote it just 3 to. clarify it for the record. On page two in the second 4 paragraph it says, " Bucks County will make plans to provide 5 realistic emergency assistance in appropriate cases." In 6 addition to that letter we are informed by Mr. John Patten, y the director of PE. A, and Mr. Patten under Annex E is a not only responsible for coordinating the designation of 9 support counties, he-also has-overall responsibility for 10 planning policy in the state of Pennsylvania. As indicated,

'11 at this time he does not feel it appropriate to seek another 12 support county because he believes in his contact with Bucks

.. .13 County that their concerns can be addressed within the 14 existing plan draft.

15 G Have you discussed that with Mr. Patten directly?

16 A "'No. Mr.'Vince Boyer, a senior vice-president of 17 Philadelphia Electric, has discussed it with'Mr. Patten i 18 directly and informed me of the results of those discussions.

19 4 Was there one discussion or were there more than

" 20 one?

21 A .I believe there were more than one but it is just hs - 22 my. impression.from the discussion.

,23 G Do you know the dates of any of those discussions?

24 :A No, I don't.

Ass-Federal Reporters, Inc.

125 4 Could you explain in as great detail as you are able s

Um

17,339 mn4-3 1 to everything that Mr. Boyer told you about his conversations 2 with Mr. Patten?

3 A. I think I have given as much detail as I have in 4 my previous comments. I would only add that this is current 5 information and my most recent discussion in this regard with 6 Mr. Boyer was January 1st.

7 MR. HIRSCH: Your Honor, at this time I would like 8 'to state fcr the record that contingent on the testimony 9 we receive from-the-Bucks County-Commissioners who have been 10 subpoenaed, FEMA would like to indicate that it may feel a II need to call Mr. Boyer and Mr. Patten to discuss their 12 . conversations about the Bucks County participation.

13 JUDGE HOYT: Yes' . I rather anticipated that you 14 would, Mr. Hirsch, and I think Mr. Conner, you might keep 15 that in mind to have these witnesses available.

16 MR. CONNER: Certainly we will arrange that and i 17 while we are talking on this subject, it is becoming 18 increasingly apparent that we may need to subpoena various 19 people from the other counties and from the state. government 20 because of the apparent lack of action.

21 JUDGE HOYT: Lack of action by what group?

\'"/ 22 MR. CONNER: I am not sure that this is right time 23 .to get into it,,but under Annex.E the primary responsibility 24 for developing a plan vests in PEMA and it appea'rs that As..r.s rm n.porwei, Inc.

25 everybody is sitting around waiting for somebody else to do

.-I

~'

17,340 an4-4 l

l 1 something. -

2 JUDGE.HOYT:~ I would urge you, Mr. Conner and 3 counsel'for the Commonwealth, Mr. Goodwin, to see if we can V

4 make some arrangements for those officials. I would be most 5 reluctant to issue any subpoenas by this Board to state 6 . officials unless it is an absolute necessity but if that

-7 is the only method by which they can be obtained, we will, 8 of course, do that.

9 -Mr.>Hirsch,--I think that meets-your concern.

e 10 MR.^HIRSCH: Yes, Your Honor.

11 BY MR. HIRSCH: (Resuming) 12 G Mr. Bradshaw, you testified with respect to LEA-5 13 yesterday that it is your understanding that based on i

L

-14 conversations with Tim Campbell that four letters of 15 agreement for bus providers have been executed for Chester 16 County since you prepared your table 5-A, is that correct?

17 A. (Witness Bradshaw) That is correct.

18 G Why then yesterday did'you not when you were orally n 19 amending your testimony reflect that under the transportation heading under Chester County.on page 14?

I i 20 21 A, Because my information with regard to those

'h' 22 Chester' County agreements is restricted to the number of 23 agreements that,.in. fact,.had been completed. I don'.t have

(- -24 information on the total number being sought or the number of 4.-resere napenm, ine.

25 total agreements that are verbal at this point in time and L

. . . . ~. . .- . - .. - -.

ian4-5 17,341 1

remain to be developed.

2

, I.believe it would have been misleading for me

-to enter information in-only one column since at the end 4

4 ,of that table, the columns are summed both down and across 5

to get a total. I think it would have been misrepresentative a

to have inserted information in only-one column.

v

, a Is it your understanding these four agreements 8

.are all written agreements and that there may be other 9 -

. verbal agreements for Chester County?

.10 A Yes.

11 4

% .Do you have a copy of the Kraft Bus Company letter 12 of'agreemen~t that you referred to yesterday?

13 My stiaff person at the time'I discussed this

~

A No.

' ~

.14 .

in the. office last week did have a copy of an_ agreement.

-15 .

-I am not sure it was the Kraft agreement and I know we only 16

.had one.of them.

17 . -

0 It would-be one of four?.  ;

18 A Yes.

19 g Do you think you could provide us with a copy of 20 that?

' 21 A Surely, b 22 - -

0 I would appreciate that. When do you think you

.23 .

could provide that?

24 i m %, % .A Tomorrow at the latest.

25 MR. HIRSCH: That would be great. Thank you.

mn4-6 17,342

~

1 I don' t have any other questions , Your Honor.

2 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. Ms. Wright, are you going to conduct this examination?

MS. WRIGHT: Yes, Your Honor.

JUDGE HOYT: Very well. You also have 60 minutes.

MS. WRIGHT: Thank you.

7 XXXXXXXX BY MS. WRIGHT:

8

% Good morning. Mr. Bradshaw, if we could turn back 9

to this topic of South Coventry Township and planning for 10 that township. You stated earlier, did you not, that Energy 11 Consultants was preparing the plans for the township because 2

they were not involved or they were not Willing to be I3 involvea in the planning process?

A (Witness Bradshaw) No. They were involved and 15 participated actively in planned development through the first 16 three drafts. Since December of 1983, they have not been 7

directly involved and.the two drafts.thatahave occurred since 18 that time were issued by Energy Consultants and incorporated 19 changes that were common to all of the municipal plans.

20 ,

G Any unmet needs that you became aware of or your 21 g company became aware of from that planning process are U 22 defined somewhere but they are not available in this table 2-A,.

3

.g,,that correct?

24

, , A In part. Our knowledge of the existing resource 25 status in South Coventry Township is current only to their i

l

t an4-7 17,343 s

-1 last: participation which was December. of 1983. They have not l 2 provided any resource input since that time so the information z 3 is dated and I am not sure reflects the actual situation at

.w .

4 this time. We have not inserted any resource information into 5 the plans. That would come directly from the municipality.

6 MS. WRIGHT: At this time I would like to ask your 17 counsel to provide you with a copy of Applicant's Exhibit 8 E-35 which is draft.five of the South Coventry Township RERP.

F 9 -(Above-referenced document supplied to the witnesses. )-

10 JUDGE HOYT: Let the record reflect that the document

, ~ll requested by counsel has,been handed to the panel.

3 12 BY MS. WRIGHT: (Resuming) *

() -

13 g could you turn to page Dal?

14 L- (Witness complying.)

• 15 .(Witness Bradshaw), Yes, ma'am.

16 .g Under-the heading " post number," there are'three l 17 entries-for South Coventry one, two and three under traffic t

18 control'-- the heading of the table'is traffic control points, 19 let me say.

l You have three post. numbers and I take it these 20 are in South Coventry Township, South Coventry One, .Two and

.21 Three?

_ (( .

[ \~/' 22 A That is correct.

23 .0 You have the responsible. police organization as 24 fire and police. Are those the municipal fire and police g A p.s.w nowen, Inc.

25 stations?

h 17,344 mn4-8 I A It'is fire police which are firemen who have a i l

2 law. enforcement role. They are not employees of the township. l 3

{ They are volunteers who are associated with the fire company I who provides coverage to that municipality.

5 g You said they were volunteers. Are they compensated 0

at all for their time? .

7 A 'No, they are not.

8 G They obviously have responsibilities for traffic

1. control. Are there any letters of agreement that would 10 document that they will indeed act as traffic control II personnel?

I2 MR. RADER: Objection. I believe the Board 13 expressly excluded the consideration of letters of agreement Id with particular individuals'in considering the admission of 15 LEA-5.

I0 MS. WRIGHT: My question is not directed toward ,

I7 any letters of agreement with individuals, simply with the 18 organizations themselves.

MR. RADER: I object then to the form of the question, i

20 as not identifying those organizations.

2I MS. WRIGHT: I will amend my question.

22 JUDGE HOYT: Please amend your question and the 23 question will be permitted as amended.

4 A pesersi n o orers.Inc.

BY MS. WRIGHT: (Resuming)

'25 g Do you understand my amendment to my question, that

17,345 mn4-9 I it is limited to any letters of agreement with organizations?

2 A Yes, I do.

3 4 Will you answer it?

. bS -

4 A Yes. No letters of agreement have been sought with 5 fire companies because they are other emergency organizations 6 which have charters or mutual aid agreements under other 7 provisions of law.

3 g Turning now to page E-1 for route alerting, have 9 any personnel been identified or organizations been identified 10 who will conduct route alertings?

II A~ The fire company of jurisdiction has received 12 training on route alerting and has given verbal agreement o>

e

\/

13 to do that. They have indicated to us, to Energy Consultants, 14 that they have the staffing available but they also indicated 15 that they wouldn't formally commit their resources until 16 South Coventry adopted their plan, b 17 g Is the fire company of jurisdiction the municipal 18 fire company?

19 A No.

f 20 4 Could you turn to page three, paragraph five of your 21 testimony?

) (~') 22 A (Witness complying.)

23 g I- would- like, to ,ask you a few questions about the  !-

24 RACES organization. Can you tell me if that is an organization A=-Feens neoo,w., Inc.

25 with a state mandate or is it a volunteer organization?

17,346

.mn4-10 1 A My knowledge of that organization is that they have 2 a charter. I am not sure whether that is affiliated with

-/s- :3 a government agency or not. The members are volunteers.

.-Q 4 The organizations are created strictly for emergency response 5 purposes.- They generally have liasons or formal membership 6 on the county emergency management agency staffs. They assist 7 the counties in all of their emergency operations and as I 8 indicated in my . testimony they participated in the exercises

-9 -to date.

10 g They did?

11 A Yes.

12 MS. WRIGHT: Excuse me, one moment.

13 , (Counsel for NRIC conferring off the record.)-

~

14 BY MS. WRIGHT: (Resuming)

-15 g You said that the counties interact with RACES 16 organizations in filling unmet needs. How is it then that .

17 as stated in your testimony on page four that PEMA will b j

18 coordinate unmet needs with RACES organizations?

19 A (Witness Bradshaw) Because when a resource exceeds 20 the county's capabilities within its own jurisdiction the 21 formal pathway for reporting an unmet need that would be 1(])-

\ l 22 obtained from sources outside their political jurisdiction 23 .would be to go through the Cowenonwealth of Pennsylvania.

7 24 g Would you turn now to page 17 of your testimony?

a p swei noen m,Inc.

25 A (Witness complying.)

.- ~ . ~ -

17,347 l mn4-11 1 g There you discuss a survey that was sent to 2 transportation dependent individuals. Can you tell me

(-)

A/

3 who prepared the survey form?

4 A Yes. It was prepared by a committee consisting 5 of representatives of Energy Consultants, Philadelphia 6 Electric and the three risk counties, Berks, Montgomery and H7 Chestcr.

8 G Can you tell me to whom this survey was sent?

9 A Yes. The survey was tailored per county so that 10 a letter went out to the residents of the ten-mile emergency 11 planning zone from the county director of the county emergency 12 management agency. It was mailed to residents utilizing .

O) k- 13 utility billing records and supplemented by municipal tax 14 records or school district tax records as need be.

In addition.

15 to the general mailing, additional copies were made available

! 16 to the county's social service organizations which had 17 contact with needy individuals who might fall in the general i

18 categories of the survey and additional copies were provided 19 to the municipal township buildings so that they could be 20 available to the public.

21 g You say that the survey materials were the subject p

'J

'- 22 of a general mailing, was the general mailing to the public 23 at large or .just to .those persons who had been identified j 24 by some method as transportation dependent?

' 4..F.s.rm nosonen, Inc.

l 25 A It was mailed to the public at large and restricted l >

i mn4-12 '

to the ten-mile emergency planning zone.

I G You state in your testimony that the responses were 2

then compiled and needs were listed for each municipality.

/~N 3

( I Was there any attemt to verify the information that was 4

received by the survey forms?

5 A Yes. Verification occurred during the July 25th 4

and November 20th exercises at which time the municipalities 7

contacted the individuals on the list to update their status.

8 g Is there any mechanism available to keep the 9

list of transportation dependent persons current?

10 A There are provisions in the municipal plans which call for annual updating of all information in the plans.

12

,O In addition, as I indicated in my previous testimony

• 13 -

there are currently plans to resurvey the general public 14 of the emergency planning zone. In 1985 a task force 15 has been established to do so which includes again Energy consultants, Pni1adelphia Electric, the three county emergency 17 management agencies and a representative of PEMA.

18 19 END64 20

_ 21 s_-

23 24 w Feesres meierwes,Inc.

25

.REE 17,349 T;ka 5 Page 1 1 Q On page 19 of your testimony, thew is a statement 2

that the needs survey data conducted by the counties provided (q 3 more appropriate data for planning purposes than data s

4 from the U.S. Bureau of' Census.

5 Can you give me the basis for that statement?

6 A Yes. Part of the basis was stated earlier 7 in the testimony. It relates to the difference in auestions.

8 The survey data was directed specifically to 9

the residents of the ten-mile EPZ,~recuesting specific 10 information with regard to their personal needs in an II emergency.

12 It came from the county emergency management O

V 13 agency, and it was clear that this was a public service, 14 the public service type assistance that was being provided

. 15 for them specifically and that their responses would help the le county address their emergency needs.

17 Further, in discussions with personnel from 18 the U.S. Census Bureau, as the second sentence in that l'

indicates, the empirical data of the census results 20 from -- the-questions on transportation result 21 from a sample survey. And a sample surve" would certainly

.() 22 not be as statistically valid, in ny opinion, as a

.23 specific survey catered to the individual with a 24 response from each individual.

a.comsras noe,wri,ine.

25 Do you have available copies of the survey, and O

'REE 5/2 17,350 1 empty survey' form?

2 A Here today?

3 Q You could. bring it later, if you like.

6 A I have a blank form with me.

5 JUDGE HOYT: What is it, Miss Wright, that 4 you want? Is it the. blank form or do you want the 7 completed survey?

8 MS. WRIGHT: I would like a blank form.

9 JUDGE HOYT: Do you have that in the hearing 10 room, Mr. Bradshaw?

II WITNESS BRADSHAW: I have 15 copies.

12 JUDGE HOYT: Your boy scout training is 13 showing. I,f yoh have it available,'can you get it 14 easily right now. -

15 WITNESS ~BRADSHAW: Yes.

16 JUDGE HOYT: May I request that your number three 17 chair distribute that, Mr. Rader?

18 Thank you.

I' (Counsel distributes copies of document.)

, 20 HR. RADER: I am returning the original to 21 the witness. ,

'~') 22 JUDGE HOYT:

Very well, the record will so 23 reflect.

24 MR. ANTHONY: Judge Hoyt, can I announce that Aeressres mesensee,ine.

25 Mr. Wagenmann is in the room?

1 REE 5/3 17,351 I

l 1 ' JUDGE HOYT: Proceed, Miss Wright.

2 MS. WRIGHT: Thank you.

3 BY MS. WRIGHT:

n_,

x .

4 Q Mr. Cunnington, yesterday you testified 5 in regard to table SA with regard to the entry under 4 host schools that there were three verbal agreements 7 with written agreement drafted and awaiting signature; 8 is that correct? -

9 '

.A (Witness.Cunnington) Yes.

10 Q And in clarifying or supplementing your Il testimony, you stated that the superintendents have

. 12 taken or are going before their school boards seeking O

• (,) 13 agreement or ratification of ,these 1e,tters of agreement.

14 My question to you is, are there actual letters 15 of agreement in draft form that these superintendents

-16 are taking to their school boards?

17 A In the case of the Norristown Area School 18 District in Montgomery County, there were two sample I'

letters of agreement provided by the county for use 20 by Norristown Area School District in drafting an 21 . agreement.

q

'22 In the case of Twin Valley School District, 23

. physically located in Berks County but dealing with a 24 Chester County school district, Owen J. Roberts, there were Ase-rese,si n pormes, inc.

25 previously, over a year and a half ago, submitted several

REE 5/4- 17,352 I sample agreeements, but the negotiation of the agreement

.2 has been, since that time, between Twin Valley and 3 Owen J. Roberts. So I am not aware if there is currently 0 4 a draft format being used or whether they will rely 5 on the solicitor of Twin Valley to take the discussion 6 items and reduce them to a written agreement.

7 In the case of the Southern Lehigh School 8 District, which is a Lehigh County School District.

9 hosting a-Montgomery County School District, Pottsgrove, 10 tNat agreement has been reduced to writing.

Again, I II believe, there were two models offered. They chose one 12 of them. Made modidication to it. And it is my 13 understanding that it is now being reviewed between the -

14 solicitor of the Southern Lehigh School District and 15 the solicitor of the Pottsgrove School District. So I'

I could not comment as to any other revisi6ns, whatever, 17 that would have'beenLincluded.

18

, I might also point out that in all three of the I'

cases that.we have described here, there already exist mass

1. care agreements between those school districts and their 21 respective counties of jurisdiction. Those agreements

(. .22

-specifically allow for those schools to be opened to 23 handle..any kind of.evacuase. situation for any emergency 24 Aeseswa neim,=, , Inc.

at the direction of the. respective county emergency 25 management ~ agency.

4 L

TREE 5/5 17,353

<t; i; 1 So these host school agreements a're u2 specifically provided, in addition to the, fact that those

-3' mas care agreements are signed and exist and, in fact,

'4 have existed for years in some cases, p_

5 (Pause.)

N 4 Q Could I ask you to turn to pages 9-10 of your 7 testimony.

8 JUDGEHOYT: 'I'm sorry, Miss Wright.

• 9 MS. WRIGHT: Pages'9-10.of your testimony.

-10 I'm sorry. Page 9 at the bottom of the page, paragraph 9.

II BY MS WRIGHT:

12 Q. ' Mr. Bradshaw, you make th'e statement that there 13 is no additional burden on emergency services in terms of ',

14 perso-nel designated as capable of available on a 24-hour 15 response!because there has been a conservative estimate 16 for mass care space. 50 percent, I guess, of the

~17 evacuating population.

. 'l8 What is your basis for the statement that there I'

is no additional burden on those personnel?

20 A (Witness Bradshaw) My bas'is is the fact that in

.21 the experience of the Red Cross nationally, the

( -:

22 Red Cross in' Pennsylvania, and PEMA in disasters in the g, l2r ;Cerunonwealth and-nationwide, that in'an evacuation, 24 a pensem neo nm inc.

individuals seeking mass care or temporary relocation as 25

.a result of that disaster are generally in terms of 10 to

't -p .-

r, ,,- . ,_.,,..r--- -

, , - , -...-m,,, . . - , . - ,,-- , . . - . ,_ - . - - . .- .. r-,.,-. -m-,,_---, , , - - - . - , , - , ,

e REE 5/6 17,354 i

1 15 percent of population, rather than 50 percent, which is a 2 planning acsumption under Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 3 guidance.

_\_g) 4 Therefore, we expect a great deal of excess 5 . mass care space planned in the radiological emergency 4 response plans for the Limerick Generating Station.

7 The arrangements from Bucks County are the 8 same as the mass care arrangements in the other counties 9 .in terms of providing 50 percent mcss care space for the 10 .evacuatedapopulation.

II

'O Is the data that you are relying on from the 12 Red Cross, is that the subject of a statistical 13 compilation or is that based on something else? '

14 A It is based on my discussions with Red Cross 15 representatives, specifically out of the Philadelphia 16 Area office. However, I believe that is consistent with 17 what Red Cross representatives have told PEMA also.

18 Q Mr. Cunnington,-if you have something to add . . . . {

M A I would also add that at.the time .x 20 I. discussed:it with them, they did indicate that it was a 21 result of their compilations.

22 '

A (Witness Cunnington) Montgomery County 23 discussed-with the Southeastern Pennsylvania chapter 24 officials the estimates of 50. percent.- In fact, the a n sees,e nese,urs.inc.

25 25,000 that is referred to here in the testimony and that l

I

REE 5/7 17,355 1

has been crossed on are actually Montgomery County 2 residents, part of the about 52- or 53,000 Montgomery 3 County residents that equal half of the population 4 of the EPZ.

5 They discussed them directly with Montgomery 6 county's mass care coordinator who is an official 7 of the southerastern Pennsylvania chapter. And at a 8 meeting that I attended, he represented that there was 9 s considerable conservatism, up to double or more, 10 in the 50 percent figure. He indicated that there had Il been discussions between the Red Cross officials in the 12 state and PEMA and felt it was a wise and conservative 13 choice that was made. .

14 It allowed for considu able planning 15 flexibility. So I would have to go along with the 16 representative of the Red Cross that sits on the 17 Montgomery County emergency staff who indicated that he 18 was comfortable with those figures, felt they had I'

tremendous conservatism, double what he would ' expect, 20 and perhaps even more than double.

21

-Q during the course of your answer, you said p's, 22 something about there being somewhere in the testimony 23

-a. number-of150,000,, people-estimated.-to evacuate. Did l 24 you say that? l A seeeres neporiers. Inc.

25 A No. I said that there are, I believe, around a

_ , , . . . _ _ -._. ~- . _ - ._- .--_-.- - - - - - - - - I

REE 5/8 17,356 1 106- to 110,000 Montgonery County residents. Therefore, 2 the total mass care complement for Montgomery County q 3 ould be between 53- and 55,000. I could get that V

4 for you by just consulting the plan. It is in there in 5 both the basic plan and the mass care annex, I believe.

6 And there has been some discussion in a 7 letter from Mr. Fonash regarding 25,000. That is Bucks 8 County's part of that 53- or 55,000.

9 O Thank you for the clarification.

10

. MS. WRIGHT: Staff"has no further cuestions.

II JUDGE HOYT: Very well.

12 Do vou ha"ve any redirect, Mr. Rader?

D ~

^ *'d 13 MR. RADER: Yes, I do, Judge Hovt.

• I4 JUi)GE HOYT: I don't believe that in setting 15 the time limits. yesterday, there was any discussion of 16 a redirect for you, Mr. Rader.

I7 However, I would like for you to keep it as 18 brief as possible.

II

. MR. BADER: Yes, I will.

20 For the convenience of the parties and-the 21 Board, I will advise you that'I have no cuestions based v 22 upon the NRC's examination. I intend to begin with the

)

23 few questions based upon Mr. Hirsch's examination, and 24 then I will return to the examination by - the parties A pees,si nese,w,i, Inc. -

25 ytsterday. I

.-- w e e ~v

REE 5/9 17,357 I JUDGE HOYT: All right. Proceed.

2 .MR. RADER: Preliminarily, I would like to 3

(]) show the witness a copy of yesterday's transcript.

4 (Counsel approaches the panel.)

XXXXXXX 5 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 6 , BY MR. RADER:

7 Q I ask Mr. Bradshaw if he would examine 8 transcript page 17,211 at line 16 where he referred to 9 an exercise on July 20.

10 Is that what you meant?

II A' (Witness Bradshaw) No.

12

,_s O What did you mean?

13 A I was, of' course, referring to the November 20th I4 supplemental exercise held in 1984.

15 JUDGE HOYT: May I have that page you are 16 referring to again?

I7 MR. RADER: Page 17,211, line 16.

18 JUDGE HOYT: May I ask the correction again?

II MR. RADER: Mr. Bradshaw, would you state the 20 correction, please?

2I WITNESS BRADSHAW: Yes. According to the

<3 V

22 transcript, I stated that there were exercises on 23 July'2'Sth and July 20th. I had meant to say that the 24 second supplemental exercise was held November 20th, rather A-sussre neporwes,Inc.

than July 20th.

I

t

'Est 5/10 17,358 1 JUDGE HOYT: Thank you.

2 BY MR. RADER:

~3 You were asked some questions by Mr. Hirsch

} Q

• 4 regarding the FEMA informal review.

5 Do you know when that review was completed?

4 A' I only know that,the FEMA responses on that 7 review were provided to the counties in the first week 8 of May of 1984 and that Energy Consultants was 9 made aware of'thoso comments two or three weeks following 10 that date.

Il

'O Mr. Hirsch also asked you questions regarding 12 the unmet needs for tho' positions in'dicated in your

. (- )- 13 table 2A. I believe you stated that the number required Il reflected in those tables contained certain positions which 15 would be needed for nonradiological emergencies.

16 Do you know whether any of the unmet needs stated 17 in that table refer to positions which would be 18 pertinent to nonradiological emergencies only?

19 A. I know of at least one, yes. .The Phoenixville 20 situation where they reflect a total required of 23,tm-21 - total identified, 22, and unmet need of one.

22 That unmet need in a mass care officer which is not 23

-pertinent to the radiological emergency response plan.

24 Assfeileral Reporters, Inc.

Therefore, for radiological emergency response purposes, ~

25 there is actually no unmet need. But there is a vacancy at e g-w. -- -,- ,,,.,+-e w y- v-,,e-w ,, ,,, - -

W 4

REE 5/11 17,359 1

the current time on that municipalitv's staffing 2 list.

3

} Q Can you make any generlizations as to the 4 number of individuals required in the municipal EOCs to  !

.5 perform the functions necessary in the event of a  !

6 radiological emergency as compared to any emergency or 7 all the other emergencies in combination?

8 A I could make a broad generalization on a one-shift 9

basis, the municipalities have determined that they would need 10 between three ot five individuals on one shift.

Il O'l could you describe the procedures which are n

12 in place for cross training and cross assignments in the U Is- event of an emergency?

Id A Th'e training sessions are provided to the 15 organization as a whole. They get a complete 16 orientation on all. aspects of emergency" planning. Phase 17 one of the training includes a general overview and phase 18 two includes more operationally orientated material, 19 specifically describing the responsibilities and functions i

20 of each staff officer.

i 21 Since all staff positions are available, they

,t 7-)

u 22 obtain an understanding of what each officer is 23 involved in. The implementing procedures are established on a 24 functional basis. Each implemeting procedure is an .

t A eeeerm nooorwrs. Inc.

25 increment, a discrete unit, which could, in fact, be picked l

1 REE 5/12 17,360 l l

I and utilized by any other individual in the emergency 2

operations center.

(} 3 This was demonstrated to be effective in 4

the July 25th exercise in Green Lane Borough where they 3 had volunteers that showed up the day of the emergency 6 who had no previous training and who utilized the implementing 7 procedures to effectively demonstrate that the municipality 8 could implement its plan.

9 Prior to today, did FEMA share with Energy Q -

10 Consultants the results of its review of the November II 20th exercise?

- - I2 A No. In fact, I am not aware that any results Is)

' r.J 13 have been issued at the present time.

Id Q Do you know whether PECO has been advised of 15 the results of that review?

16 A They have not.

I7 Q What is the normal way that those results are 18 provided to you and to PECO, to the best of your knowledge?

I9 A Generally FEMA issues its report and a copy is 20 provided to PEMA and in a more or less informal way 21

(^x 3 that information makes its way to Philadelphia Electric LJ '

22 I either through PEMA or the counties when it is provided 23 to the counties. It is a fairly rapid exchange of information, 24 Q You were asked a question, a series of )

A=+www nowwn. ix. 1 25 questions by Mr. Hirsch regarding table 2A and the

.. . - . . ~ . . . - . - .~. -. - - . . a -. =.-..- = . . - -

REE 5/13 17,361

'l status of~ staffing throughout Chester County municipalities.

2 Could you consult table 2A and edvise us, based I 3 upon that review, what is the current status of unmet needs t( )

4 for municipal EOCs in Chester County?

5 A If we count the Phoenixville position, 6 which I have already indicated is not a vacancy directly 7 related to the RERP, there is one. But since that is 8 not directly related to the RERP, essentially the unmet

, 9 needs 'for staffing in Chester County, in terms of the 10 radiological emergency response plans, would be zero.

II And in the Chester County Annex 0, they have already

,s 12 indicated that they have at least seven people availab'.e

'U' 13 to sati'sfy unmet Ataffing needs at the municipal lovel.

14 This would indicate that those people would i

15 be available for South Coventy township, if they indeed, END 5 16 needed them.

17 18 19 20 21 yS V

22

~23 24 Ase Faseras neporiers ine.

25 l

l 1

17,362 T6MM/nml 1 Q Mr. Hirsch also asked certain questions regarding 2 the capacity of Bucks County to fulfill its support function 3 " in the event of an emergency. And I believe you stated that O('s

~4 based upon the letter of November 16th from Mr. Fonash and 5 Mr. Boyer's discussion with Mr. Patten, that it is your 6 expectation that Bucks County would fulfill that function in 7 some manner.

8 Do you also have reference to Pamphlet Law 1332 i 9 in any way in reaching that conclusion?

10 A Pamphlet law 32 provides information and provisions II on the powers, duties and responsibilities of county and 12 municipal emergency organizations, and within Section 7503, 13 there is a very specific description of the powers and duties 14 which I think are pertinent to Bucks Courty's role in 15 emergency planning process, including a support function for 16 Limerick.

17 Q Do you have Mr. Fonash's letter of November 16th in 18 front of you?

19 A Yes. /

20 Q Turning to page 2, the second paragraph, Mr. Fonash 21 refers -- rather Mr. Fcnash states none of the foregoing is

4-O 22 inconsistent with Bucks County's appropriate discharge of its

.23 . responsibilities under Act 1372, and under Senate Bill 987.

24 Are you aware of any Act 1372 which has any Ase sse s s nes = = s, sac.

25 relationship to emergency planning?

--,- -,e . . - - .,.- - - + . - - - - a . . . ,. - . , - - - . . , - - - - - - - an ,. ,, , - . . , - - - . , - - - -

17,363 Inn 2 I A I am not. I suspect he had meant 1332.

2 Q Is that reference there -- does that reference there 3 provide you with any further guidance as to the intent of 4 Mr. Fonash and Bucks County to fulfill the Bucks County support 5 role?

6 A It would seem to me that Mr. Fonash was indicating 7 that he was supporting his position that under the provisions 8 of'1332 the County would fulfill its obligations.

=9 g- . Yesterday youowere asked certain questions ragarding

.10 the extent of the review of the plans by the County Commissioner s.

II CouH you describe your knowledge as to the status of 12 that review by the Montgomery County Commissioners,and the 13 most current draft which they have, in fact,-reviewed?

I4 A- (Uitn'se e Cunnington) Montgomery County Commissioners 15 would have'been provided copies of Draft 7. My understanding 16 is that there were at least two review meetings conducted with

'I7 the Board of Commissioners prior to the July 25th_ exercise. .

18 Both of those review meetings would have been in reference to

' I' ' Draft No.[6'of_the Montgomery County Plan, which would have 20 been provided'to the Commissioners prior to the meetings, and

~

21 it-is my understanding from a conversatior. with Mr. Bigelow,that f'T

- 22 the. entire Board of Commissioners were present at the two meetings ,

r

~

23 and that one of the two-meetings did include an encapsulized 24 training program.

A=-ressem neporer , inc. .

25 Mr. Bradshaw, I'believe in response to a question by Q

\

. . - - . . - - ,. . . - - . - . _ . . _ _ . . . . . - - - - . . - . ~ _ _ _ , _ . . . _ - - _ _ _ , . , . . . - . . . .,

17,364 I mm3 I Ms. Zitzer, you provided information as to your knowledge of 2 the intent of Montgomery County, and I believe the other-3 counties and municipalities, to adopt their plans.

4 Could you expand on that, please?

5 A (Witness Bradshaw) I believe my reference was to 6 .their intent to adopt the plans in accordance with a set 7 timeframe or deadline. And I indicated that there was no such 8 deadline.

=9 However,~I emphasize -that it was our general 10 impression from these municipalities that they were looking II generally towards February and March for plan adoption.

12 It was evident -- it has been evident to us, and

0

. 13 it is common. discussion with the municipalities in our discussicas l

I4 with them since the baJi nning of the planning process,that the 15 logical. conclusion to the plan developmen't process was plan

r l'

adoption.. There is a promulgation page in the muriicipal E

17 county plans, a signature page for the municipalities'to

• I8 consider. 'And the basic planning principles and procedures

! I' have'been essentiall intact since the beginning of the planning .

20 process.

21 And, to the best of my recollection, only in a

h. .

- 22 very few'instinces have any municipalities objected or revised 23 :those basic procedures-in-those plans.

.24 You'were' asked questions regarding two. letters; a Q

Assesores noperms, one.

25 letter dated' August 23, 1983 from Mr. Deck of your staff to

- I

_ . _ . _ _ .. _. - __.= _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _..;__ . - . . _ .

17,365 mm4 1 Ms. Lowery, who I believe is the Union Township Coordinator; 2 and a letter dated August 31, 1983 from Mr. Deck to Mr. Whitlock ,

3 who is the South Coventry Coordinator, and specifically you 4 were asked questions regarding the statement in that letter 5 that the draft in no way implies that the document under

. 6 review represents official policy of your municipality.

7 Would you please explain whether that statement 8 in that draft is consistent or inconsistent with the statement 9 at page 2, paragraph 2 of your written testimony, as to the 10 current status of preparedness?

II A Yes.

s 12 The tuo statements are consistent, and I don't believe

'(./) 13 directly related. The stat'ement in the cover letters, was a Id statement developed by Energy Consultants and it was part of a 15 common standard format letter that went out to all municipalities.

16 Its intent was simply to assure the municipalities 17 that these plans were still considered draft plans, that they 18 were not being considered adopted plans. And that they would i

19 have additional input, and -- well, additional input to provide 20 revisions as need be.

21 The statement in my testimony is accurate, in that r--)'

w/

22 the plans do currently reflect the status of emergency prepared-23 ness and the status of resources as provided to us by those 24

( municipalities.

! Am-merm R.ponm. inc.

25 Would you explain the extent to which EC -- that is Q

_ . _ . .-.__.m___ . . _ __  ; __ m . __ m 17,366 mm5 I EnergyvConsultants -- monitored the November 20th' exercise?

2 A Yes.

h 3 We monitored it in the say way in which we monitored 4 the July 25th exercise. That is to say, we placed a staff 5 person in each municipal EOC and each emergency action location 6 to do our own assessment and evaluation of those sites.

p 7 Q Based upon that participation and review, did you 8 reach any conclusions as to the adequacy of the performance of

'9 the municipalities at the time of the November 20th drill --

10 exercise?

II A Yes.

12 '

On' November 20th we found that all municipalities

.g n.) 13 .were able to adequately demonstrate their capability io respond.

Id We did indicate that Union Township did not have 24-hour 15 capability.

16 I would point out that'we utilized the FEMA evalua-I7 tion criteria in doing our own evaluation.

18 Based upon that review and conclusions, do you Q

l I'

l have an opin!.on as to whether, and to what extent, the latest-l 20 draft plans in effect would have to be amended in order to 21 accommodate any changes as a result of the November 20th fT A_/

22 exercise?

23 A I believe the additional staffing of Union Township' l

l l

.24 is the only criteria that would have to be added to the plans l As>Felsrel Reporters, Inc.

l 25 which we evaluated, unless a municipality had identified something I

l -

. . . . . . ~ ~ . - . . - - - - . . . . ~ . . . .

. . ~ - ~ . . - . . . . - ~ . - . - . . _ - - . . . .- .-

17,367 mm6 I in its own operation that it felt could be added to a revised 2 plan.

] 3 Q You were shown a list which you prepared, 4

Mr. Bradshaw, regarding municipal EOC staffing needs, which 5 you provided informally, I believe you testified during a 6 settlement conference, and which was marked for identificaiton 7 as LEA Exhibit E-37.

8 Does the listing of the PECO individuals on that 9 . exhibit refer to volunteers for all emergencies, or just the 10 Limerick emergency?

II A It'is my understanding that they include -- those 12 volun,teer s include -- are for the purpose of all emergencies.

b3- 13 The exhibit provided to us by LEA in a sample form, Id shows the categories for which Philadelphia Electric solicited 15 input, and it shows the category checked off for "Are you 16 available for all emergencies in a radiological emergency 17 response?"

18 I had the opportunity to review three or four I'

dozen of these surveys, and every form that I saw had that 20 blank checked off-in it. If that is a representative survey, I

~

21 feel confident in saying that the volunteers are volunteers for q

V' 22 any emergency at the municipal level.

23' In fact,'this is supported by my knowledge of 24 several -- personal knowledge of several dozen of these l A=reseres nes,wr., inc.

25 I Philadelphia employees who are, in effect, volunteer firemen, L

17,368 3

mm7' -l bus drivers, members of local school boards, and members of 2 the municipal boards of authority.

3 Q Are you aware of any distinction in the recruitment 4 process, or any distinction in the manner in which individuals 5 would participate as emergency staffers with regard to whether 4 or not they are or are not a PECO employee?

7 -A No.

! 8 These individuals who volunteered, went to their

~9 municipal coordinator, offered their assistance, discussed 10 their situation with th em, their availability. And those 11 municipal. coordinators determined in.their own discretion f

12 whet.her or not that person was suitable.

.O .13 g.

h:youknowwhetherasageneralrule,themunicipali-I4 ties require, or have required some kind of.. employer consent.or 15 - agreement with regard to the participation of the employees,

-I4 whether PECO or anyone else?

17 A I am not-aware of any municipality that requires 18 that. .

I' Q The panel was asked a question as to its opinion 20 -as to whether or not spontaneous evacuation in Bucks County 21 would occur at the time of a postulated radiological emergency

.j..

22 at Limerick.

23 Mr. Bradshaw, 'coul dyou elaborate on what you 24 expressed as your. professional opinion that such spontaneous Aeresesre neoorwr.,Inc.

'25 evacuation would not occur, and provide us with the basis of

_ _mmm . _ _ . . . . _ . . _ - _ . _ _ . __ . . . . _ _ _ - . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ . . _ _ . .

17,369 mm8 1 your professional opinion?

2 A~ yes. l l

3 I:think I indicated that it was based on historical i

4 record of-disaster response, and the fact that the most 5 common problem in those evacuat' ion scenarios is that people 0 have a' tendency not to want to move, rather than spontaneous 7 evacuation.

8 I would further add that in my discussions with 9 the Bucks County Coordinator who has extensive experience, and 10 has been there, to my knowledge, about 18 years, he at no II time indicated to me that he fel,t that was a problem, or

'12 that he felt that was a consideration that should be added 13 to the Bucks County Plan.' '

Id Q Would the development of emergency planning in 4

~

15 general'by.the NRC and FEMA and changes in their procedures 16 - and_ requirements.since the Three-Mile-Island accident, have

'17 any effect upon your professional judgment?'

.. .g I- 18 A No.

19 These plans have been developed in consonance with o

L< 20 NUREG 0654, and existing Commonwealth policy and guidance.

i 21 .And that is as.it pertains to the plume exposure pathway L

22 emergency planning zone and the ingestion exposure pathway i.

23 -emergency planning zone.

l i

24 The Bucks County plan is in consonance with that l m naimnm,inc.

25 guidance.

. - . . ~ . . . .. . - - . ~--.n--.... -

17,370 mm9 i Q What about the procedures by which Bucks County 2 residents will be made aware of plans for Limerick, if any?

3 Does that affect your judgment?

f) 4 A Well, no. I would also say that is consistent with 3 NUREG 0654. 0654, under Criterion G(2) describes -- under 6 Criterion G in general describes public information programs.

7 Under G(2) it describes the information provided to the 8 residents in the-ten-mile emergency planning zone. l 9 I think previous testimony indicated the scope of 10 that public information. There is certainly common information 11 available through the news media in the area.  !

12 In addition, I would point out that there is a h)

." 13 specific reference in the prewritten emergency broadcast 14 announcement of the Bucks County support program, which says 15 very clearly that the evacuation recommendation does not 16 affect residents of Bucks County, and a request that they avoid i

17 the areas along the evacuatioh routes to the reception centers.

-18 I think tlis, plus the fact that Bucks County is a 19 support county, and henceforce indicates that this is, generallyj 20 speaking, a safe area as opposed to an at-risk area, also 7- 21 lends credence to the idea that people will understand, in fact,

.O 22 Bucks County is not at risk.

-23 O In-your. professional opinion, will the residents of 24 Bucks County understand the considerations to which you have Ase-Feesres noormes. inc.

25 testified, or will they be uninformed as to that and evacuate

17,371 mml0 1 anyway?

)

2 A I think under certain conditions a few people are

()

3 likely to spontaneously evacuate. As I previously indicated, I 4 don't believe, based on historical record, the plans as drafted, 5 and the public information available, that any sort of mass 6 spontaneous evacuation would occur, which would render the 7 existing Bucks County support plan ineffective.

8 The emergency planning has progressed in becoming 9 increasingly sophisticated throughout the United States over 10 the past several years, and the public information program is 11 very elaborate.

- 12 As I indicated, there are public information programs J

13 available, there are emergency broadcast announcements made at 14 the time of the emergency, and I don't think it is reasonable 15 to expect that this is going to be a problem of spontaneous 16 evacuation.

17 Q You were present, were you not, when Mr. Tauss IB gave his testimony on behalf of the transport workers?

II MS. ZITZER: Objection.

20 MR. RADER: I will tie this in as a connecting rm 21 matter,

\N 22 JUDGE.HOYT: I didn' t understand you', Mr. Rader.

23 MR. RADER: I anticipate the objection to be that 24 it was unrelated to cross examination.

Am-Fedem n.cortwo, Inc.

25 I am making a proffer toothe Board that I will tie

. _ ___. ~ .____. . _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . . . _ _ _ ._ _ _. ____. . _ _ . . . .

17,372 mmll I this in properly to this line of questioning.

2 JUDGE HOYT: Subject to it being tied in then, the 3 objection is overruled.

t) 4 BY MR. RADER:

5 Q Were you present when Mr. Tauss testified on j 0 behalf of the transport workers?

7 A (Witness Bradshaw) I-believe we were present for 8 at least part of his testimony, yes.

9 Do you agree or disagree with his statement that Q

10 there would be a spontaneous evacuation by persons beyond the II EPZ, for example, who would be operating buses, or would be 12 performing'any other duties? .

g,/

v 13 A I don't recall that part of his testimony. But if Id he, in fact, stat (d that, I would certainly disagree, based on 15 the information which I have just previously stated here today.

16 0 You were asked questions regarding the November 1, 17 1984 cover letter from:you to Mr. Charles McGill, the coordinator 18 for Bucks County in the Emergency Management Agency. I believe 19

. specifically you were asked questions as to the language in that 20 letter stating that enclosed were copies of the final draft 21 of the Bucks County Plan.

(~')

LJ 22 Could you state whether or not that language appears 23 in the plan itself, the words " final draf t"?

24 A That language does not appear in the plan.

' Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 All references to plan drafts on any pages were i

17,373 mm12 I removed. That terminology was first utilized or outlined by 2 myself in meetings with Mr. McGill in which we discussed the im

( 3 plan status.

) We both agreed the plan was complete. I used 4 the term final plan, he concurred and in dereloping the 5 Applicant's exhibit list, I used the term final plan as it was 6 used in the November 1st letter to Mr. McGill.

7 I would also point out that Mr. McGill has not, since 8 that time, indicated that he objected to- the use of the term.

9 Q The panel was asked certain questions regarding 10 assumptions in the Evacuation Time Estimate Study, in particu-II lar concerning the 30 to 90-minute period for loading the 12

,~

, school buses on to the evacuation network.

L) 13 Would you please state whether'or not in your I4 opinion these school buses would "all arrive, load and depart 15 simultaneously under the plan?

16 A (Witness Klimm) No.

17 The basis for the Evacuation Time Estimate Study 18 was that buses would depart over a 60-minute period from 30 to 19 90 minutes following notification to evacuate.

20 Accordingly, buses would depart during this period 21 a and then bus vehicle departures would be spread over the one-

s. _)

22 hour period.

23 I might add that this particular timeframe was 24 developed and concurred with by both the three county Am-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 emergency preparedness offices, and PEMA, and is considered

- ~.. .. . . . . ----_ - ..- . -.. . _ . - - - - - - . . . ... ~ . .,

17,374 mm13 1 to be the most reasonable and most representative timeframe 2 for use in the evacuation study. j

() 3 Q Mr. Cunnington, based upon your particularized 4 knowledge regarding plans for school districts, could you 5 comment on that question and provide any information that you 6 have regarding the plans for school districts?

7 A .. (Witness Cunnington) Yes.

8 The school district plans simply state that when 9 the vehicles have arrived and the students are loaded, that 10 the complement of buses will depart, and therefore departure 11 from individual schools would be consistent as that just m end T6 12 described by Mr.' Klimm.

1 1 v' 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

~

21

~i 22 23 ,

24 Ace-Faserel Reponers, Inc.

25

17,375 )

l l

mn?-la notions 1 G Mr. Klimm, you were asked a question regarding the CR21552

1. 7-mn-1 2 convoy effect of school buses. Would that result in any

(^)

%)

3 different effect in your simulated model?

4 A No, it would not if in fact it was a convoy 5 during a smaller time period than that representative 6 , time frame used for the evacuation site, that would certainly 7 not significantly affect the evacuation study due to the fact 8 that the vehicle demand associated with the school facilities 9 does not have a significant effect on the overall traffic 10 l flow and the fact that the preparation and mobilization time  !

11 associated with those facilities are significantly less than I 12 that associated with permanent residents within the EPZ.

(3

'~ ~J 13 G Mr. Bradshaw, referring to paragraph 19 of your 14 written testimony, you were asked questions as to whether 15 or not the census data and the transportation needs survey 16 data in fact closely approximate each other. Could you 17 define what you meant in that paragraph with regard to 18 mobility imparied individuals?

19 A (Witness Bradshaw) Yes. Mobility impaired there 20 refers to essentially non-ambulatory individuals, those

.s 21 individuals who would require some form of special assistance (v)-

22 or ambulance assistance. This is distinguished from i 23 -transportation dependent individuals who are addressed 24 later on in that paragraph.

Am.F dwei n ponm, Inc.

25 G Was it your intent to state that the figures for

F

, 17,376

'mn7-2 1 transportation dependent individuals in the 1980 census 2 figures and the transportation survey closely approximate 3 each other?

4 A. No. The transportatici dependent individuals from 5 the census and the survey certainly do not closely approximate

'6 one another. It was not my intent to imply that. I think it 7 is obvious from my review of that information that there is 8 a difference and that difference is addressed in that written 9 testimony.

10 G The panel was asked a number of questions regarding, II I believe by Mr. Stone, regarding the number of cars that would 12 be loaded on the evacuation network based upon the request

(~ ~ .

A 13 for rides from friends. Mr. Klimm, could you respond to

'Id Mr. Stone's concerns regarding the number of individuals 15 who, in fact, would be in each car and explain how that was

. 16 covered in your study assumptions?

17 A (Witness Klimm) Yes. The evacuation time estimate 18 study used as an assumption that an average of three persons

-19 .per vehicle for permanent residents would evacuate. This is 20 an-assumption which is consistent with the general guidelines

~

21 presented in NUREG-0654, . Rev. l and it is also consistent with

.:' 't .22 planning standards that have been used by PEMA at other sites, 23 most notably Susquehanna within the state.

24 This-does not imply that there obviously would be Ase-Federal Repo,sses, Inc.

25 exactly three persons in every single vehicle but is an average

an7. .

<e 17,377 s -

1 used.to-develop the_ estimates of vehicle demand.

2 It is likely realistically that some vehicles may

.3 have only one or two persons and those vehicles would have 4 excess capacity to transport neighbors or friends out in 5 tnose vehicles. Other vehicles may be at capacity in 6 families were tnere may be five or six total family members 7 in>that particular family.

8 0 -Assuming that the numbers of vehicles had to be 19 -adjusted'somewhat to account-for transportation dependent 10 individuals assuming that they did. require additional 11 vehicles, would those numbers affect the conclusions of your l 12 evacuation time estimate study?

13 A. .No. In my opinion those would not. The total h4 number of people who have been identified as transport 15 dependent within the emergency planning zone is a small 16 -percentage of the total population. That particular category 17 comprises a very small percentage of the total vehicle 18 demand also within the emergency planning zone. So' slight 19 variances in that particular number certainly would not 20 significantly affect the evacuation time estimates for the 1 .

21 emergency planning zone.

'22 4 With regard to the Bucks County plan, you were 23 . asked questions ~.regarding.the-agreement by-the Neshaminy Mall.

24 Could you tell us the status of that agreement -and I believe Am.s ews nosonn., inc.

'25 you. testified that it had been rescinded by Neshaminy Mall.

-. -- ...~ ..-

17,378 mn7-4 1 Can you explain if you know the reasons for Neshaminy Mall's 2 actions?

^

/ t 3 A. (Witness Bradshaw) I didn't testify that it was V

4 rescinded. It was implied by the Commenwealth yesterday' that 5 it nad been. I am informed by my staff who participated in 6 a meeting with PEMA yesterday morning that Bucks County had, 7 in fact, indicated that they received a letter from the 8 Neshaminy Mall resciriding their previous agreement to serve

'9 as a reception center. Mr. McGill at that time also indicated 10 that the reason for that rescinding of the agreement was it pressure put on the mall by anti-Limerick groups. He also 12 indicated that it was his belief that he could quite easily

\/~

13 btain an agreement from another suitable reception center y in that immediate vicinity and incorporate a suitable plan.._-

15 revision without too much difficulty.

16 (L Mr. Bradshaw, you were asked a question regarding the' 17 form that is used by Montgomery County to obtain buses, the 18 standard letter of agreement which has previously been put 19 into evidence. In particular, you were asked to comment upon ,

l I

20 language that either party can cancel the a'greement at will.

21 Could you explain your understanding of that language and

( >

d what effect, if any, it would have upon the procurement of 22 23 . buses.in the event of.an emergency?

24 A. Yes. It was my understanding that that language Ace Federal Reporters. Inc.

25 is peculiar to Montgomery County, that it is a provision

17,379 1

mn7-5 1

inserted by or recommended and inserted by Mr. Bigelow.

2 We checked the plan. We don't have a copy here today

() 3 or we would reference it, but it is my understanding that 4 the language is that the agreement could be cancelled by 5 either party upon written notification to the other party.

6 I don't believe that this statement is inconsistent 7 with the requirements of NUREG-0654 under criteria A-3.

8 I think it is consistent. I don't believe that it affects 9 the availability of buses at all.

10 0 Under NUREG-0654 which you just referred to, 11 is it the intention that the particular county or municipality I2 involved receive a contractual commitment or rather some other 7s k_ .

13 fo'mr of into t?

14 A No. There is no inference under NUREG-0654 that 15 tnis written agreement is a contract or a contractual agreement i

16 or that it is in any way legally binding.

17 G What is the agreement then supposed to express? ,

18 A It generally expresses -- it is a reasonable r

19 statement of intent on the parties entering into the agreement.

20 It provides assurance that that support organization has been 21

(-)

v./

notified and that they have essentially agreed to provide that 22 support function.

)

l

'23 MR. RADER: No further questions. l 24 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. Do you have any questions, Am-Federd Reporters, Inc.

25 Dr. Cole?

w n.

. - - _ ~ . , . , . -. .---.- - .--.a.-.-.--- . - - . - - - - . - -

. - ~. )

17,380 mn7 1 JUDGE COLE: Yes, I have a few.

2 JUDGE HOYT: Very well.

3 BOARD EXAMINATION XXXXXX 4 BY JUDGE COLE:

5 G - On Table 5-A of your testimony which begins on 6 page 13, you are principally respo.nsible for that section, 7 are you not, Mr. Bradshaw?

8 A. ' (Witness Bradshaw) Yes, sir.

9 G. ' Could you tell me how this information in table 5-A 10 was collected?

I 11 A. Yes. It is based ~ on a- revie.w of the 104 radiological!

l 12 emergency response' plans that are under development for the O -

13 Limerick Generating Station. Each one of those pians contains 14 an agreement section and where those agreements are completed 15 - tney are a part of the pl.an and the table reflects a review 16 . and compilation of that material.  !

17  % I have the Charlestown Township plan in front of 18 me, draft six, applicant's exhibit E-27, where would that be 19 in this plan, sir?.

20 A. 'I believe if I recall it would be attachment I.

21 MR. RADER: We are providing the witness with a 0 22 copy of the Charlestown plan.

-23 -(Above-referenced document supplied to the witness.)

24 JUDGE HOYT: That will be noted for the

(- Yes.

l Ase-F esras neporiers. Inc.

25 record.

a

,_,w-

. w. - x2n u:ex.a .- ..- -- _

---.n - . - . . - ~

, l l. I 17,381 l

l

mn7 -

I '

BY JUDGE COLE: (Resuming)

LH

>5 ,

G Attachment I. The one that I have is emergency 3 n ification list. It must be another one.

.s 4 .g A. I was handed " Implementing Procedures." This isn't

'v' ,-

5 the plan.. Try "C."

i

,' 6 (Document supplied to the witness.)

g 7 JUDGE'HOYT: bo you have the proper document now, c g .i iJf b ' ), . 8 Mr.DBradshaw?

Q 1% 9 '

WITNESS BRADSHAW: Yes, I do.

t 10 JUDGE HOYT: All right.

11 WITNESS BRADSHAW: Attachment "C" is the correct

) .

~

12 reference.

a' I? ,BY JUDGE COLE: (Resumirig) 14 All right, sir.

3 (C I got the impression from you s . 3 Kj 15 yestdEday that this is something out of the ordinary to a . :t

.16 J have these . kinds of-specific agreements within a municipality. ';

i-17 Did I gelt the correct impression, sir?  !

18 " 9 A. TWitness Brddshaw)- Yes, you did.

1, e

19

'G What is considered to be the normal situation?

3 20 hl I don't know.that we could characterize a normal 21 , situation because the perameters vary between municipality,

' ]x.s

y y, 22 ,for instance, whether or not they have their EOC in their 23 .own township building, what the conditions of fire coverage

g. v .

9

.. . l24 -are. I--would say -that generally speaking there is not a

Anwederes nepo,wr., Inc.

[? 25 rehlirt$tentforanagreementatthemunicipallevel. Most f

( Ei

17,382 mn7-8~

1 of the other municipal plans don't call for agreements.

2 Support functions and support resources are generally provided 4

} 3 lay the county. I would characterize Charlestown Township 4 as a unique situation.

5 g Each township would have an EOC, would it not?

6 A Yes.

7 g What is different-about the EOC arrangements in 8 Charlestown Township as compared to any one of the other 42

^9 or 43 municipalities?

10 A Most if not all the others have their EOC at the 11 township building which is township property. Charlestown 12 Township utilizes two different sites for their EOC, one of

. 13 which is a grange building and the other is 'a schogi district 14 . building. They don'.t have a township buliding available to 15 them.

16 g- All right, sir. Now what about, for example, the <

17 Kimberton Fire Company? What agreement are they trying to 18 seek with Kimberton Fire Company?

19 A As I understand it, they are seeking agreement with 20 the fire company .to provide route alerting coverage of _their

/

7

\

21 municipality as a back-up function to the siren system and 22 both the East Whiteland Fire Company and the Kimberton Fire 23  : Company ~are~compan~i'es and I can't recall but definitely are not 24 located physically within that township and I believe that Aes-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 :that route alerting responsibility is not normal fire

~

7. - ...- 1 i :-

17,383 an7-9 1 jurisdiction for those entities so the township chose to seek p 2 a specific agreement in that regard. That is a unique 3 situation, also.

.4 G Do they have a fire company that normally serves 5 th'eir area?

6 A. They certainly do. _I couldn't confirm whether

, :7 /'it is one of-those two but in any event, the fire company 3 zis not located in the township.

9 G All right, sir. I understand that situation.

10 On table 2-A and specifically on page three with reference to 1

11 . table 2-A, you indicate that all but one of the 43 municipal-12 .ities-have a complete-first shift. I take it the one that- -

.(~) -

13 does not'have,the complete first shift is acc,ording to table 5

. 14 and making a not unreasonable assumption that that is Union 15 Township?

16 A. Yes, sir, according.to. table 2-A. That is correct.

17 4. You are making the assumption.there when you say

- 18' '"all but one" that' South Coventry is covered with at least 19 a full first shift?

20 A. .No.. That-does not consider South Coventry at all.

21 '4 .How do you get 42 out of,43 then because my numbers

.22 don't work out? You say "all but one."

"23 A. You are correct. I am sorry. They may well but 24 I am-not sure that that is the case so it is not counting m nose , ,Inc.

X 25 South Coventry. That perhaps should read one of 42.

~

17,384

~

I G All right. So it is all but one and possibly another 2 South Coventry?

3 A That is correct.

(3 U

4 O All right, sir. With respect to the coverage in l 1

5 shifts, are there any-guidelines with respect to the coverage 6 for two shifts? Let me tell you why I am co'ncerned about 7 2 that. Are there people assigned in emergency response roles 8 that might be municipal employees that would provide that 9 role 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> per day which would mean that the nwo shifts 10 might not be equal or are the two shifts necessary because II of 24-hour coverage after the emergency begins? People are 12 only going to work 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> at a time. What guidelines are n_-

x 13 provided if any for the two shift coverage?

14 A I don' t think there are any written guidelines.

15 There are reasons for why the choices are made for the 16 municipalities in terms of what personnel they designate to 17 those shifts in accordance with some of the considerations .

18 you have just outlined. The people placed on the first shift 19 are individuals who the municipal coordinator has-deemed.to.

20 be more immediately available than a person who may work

21 outside the township. That sort of person would be placed n

\' 22 on a second shift.

23 .Those kinds of considerations are involved in the

{

24

. Ace-Federsi neporters, Inc.

determinations made by the municipality as to how they set 25 up the assignment for that 24-hour capability but I am not

mn7-11 17,385 I . aware that there are any formal guidelines written in that 2

regard.

.O '

a ota vou su e rr tr e **e= en e the rir e aire 4 would take over regardless of the time of day of the incident?

5 A. ' Yes, sir.

6 g All right. Thank you. Sir, on page four you 7 refer to Chester County passing on a requirement for 8 additional radio operators onto PEMA. You indicated that

the other two risk counties'had met the requirement for 10 radio operators and that being fulfilled principally by II the radio amateur civil emergency services volunteers, RACES, I2 , the a'cronym, R-A-C-E-S. Is that correct, sir?

13 A. ' That is correct.

I4 4 Do you have any knowledge as to why Chester County 15 would have such a large deficiency more than half the 16 requirement, I.believe you testified that the Chester County I7 '

plan indicates a deficiency of 57 radio operators, 37 18 being provided, a total requirement of 98, that large deficiency

! l I'

as compared to the adjoining counties which satisfied their

-20 requirement? What is it about Chester County that would

.)

. - 21 provide them wi~th such a large deficiency when the adjoining 22 counties have met-that requirement? Do you know why, sir?

"23 A. ~ To a certain ~ extent I know why. Chester County has

-24 chosen to make and their organization is referred to as ARES. l wFedersi neporiers, Inc.  ;

25 It is not quite the same:as RACES. It is under a different

mn7-12 17,386 1 charter. Under the provisions of their plan they provide 2 this back-up radio communications to more action locations,

_ 3 so-to-speak, more emergency operation locations than the 4 other counties chose to. In addition, I believe that the 5 ARES organization is not as big essentially as the RACES 6 organization. Other than that, I think it is just a matter 7 of the availability and how active that group is in the 8 county.

-9 G ARES, what letters are involved in that, sir?

10 A Amateur Radio Emergency Services, that is A-R-E-S.

II END47 12 I'/T N- 13

'14 15 16 '

17 18 19 20 21

^[')

"' 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

-25

17,387 REE:

i

Tako 8 Pnga 1 1 Q So there is no such thing as a RACES organization 2 in.Chester County?

3 A Not that I am aware of. It is a different

'd charter and they perform slightly different services on ,

LS .different emergency frequencies.

6 Q Do you happen to know what number of 7 communication -- radio operators are being provided to 8 meet their emergency requirements in Montgomery and --

1

=9 -w ah t other county?

10 A (Witness Cunnington) Berks.

II. I know directly in Montgomery County. The 12 Annex Q of the Montgomery County plan, I think, identifies 1

J - 13 a need of 138 operators. Thatincludes two shifts and

.i -

14 also some backups on first and second shift.  ;

15 And Montgomery County had, at my.last review 1

16 of their files, over 240 RACES amateurs on their roster, 17 and that roster.has-been increased by about five to ten,

- 18 on average, every time they have a regular meeting.

I' In' addition, during the exercise in July,.

- 20 they got several volunteers from outside of the formal 21 RACES organization that are also amataurs but who have r

N 22 not had the time or the inclination to participate

.23 ain the RACES organization..

.24 I am also aware that Berks County's needs-

' m nepoemes,'inc. -

25 far exceed their needs because they had indicated that m ,- --,-y----, . , ,.--y ,-...,e,- w. w---....,.,.,,%,,,

. ,r , , - , - . - ..e,.. -.my-m-.- ,%,-,,-.-.vwy ,w,-,.-w-r--ywm,.y w , -7 e

~1 REE'8/2- 17,388 l

1 during the July 25th exercise they could have provided

~2 . additional operators to some of the northernmost localities 3 in Montgomery County.

4 In addition, during the exercise in Montgomery 5 county, Montgomery County provided four and five 6 operators at several locations because they just had 7 more volunteers, and they did not want to turn anyone 8 away. And so they double and triple and quadruple assigned 9 just to keep interest.

10 so any of those individuals could be assigned 11 to Chester County, if necessary.

12 A, (Witness Bradshaw) Just a point of 9 (

? 13 clarification, I believe Mr..Cunnington meant to say '

14 that'the Berks County requirement is much lower than 15 the amount available which is, in fact, the case. In 16 our discussions with Berks County, they have.

I7 many more radio amateurs available than they need under 18 4

the radiological emergency response plans.

I' Q Do you have any knowledge as to how the 20 requirement for these 57 additional radio operators 21 .is going to be met?

y}

22 A Yes. It is met formally through the planning

- 23 . process by the reporting of the unmet need to PEMA.

4 Amfederal Reporters, Inc.

PEMA would then contact the adjacent counties to determine 25 the availability.of additional volunteers in that regard.

I N'

'REE 8/3 17,389

}

1 As we have indicated, Montgomery and Berks have 2 a known. surplus of radio amateurs. In talking with

.: 3 Mr. Campbell,.he Isaalso.. aware that the counties of 4 Lancaster'and Delaware, which are immediately adjacent

_5 to him, also have such amateurs.

6 . Lancaster County, in fact, has a Three Mile 7 Island Radiological Emergency Response plan which lists 8 those operators.

9 . .Q ..How-.would these operators -- how'would-these 10 operators be used?

--Il A They are ' dispatched by the county which has

~ a representative from that organization on its organization

~

12 11 by radio to. municipal energency. operations center's to provide -

. 14 backup, essentially, communications to the telephone 15 system.

16 Inladdition'to the municipal emergency lY operations centers, they are provided to school district 18 administrative offices. They are provided to reception l'

centers and mass care centers, so that these locations 20 could communicate with the county.

21 Q So they would not have to be within that

. 22 county _in order to provide the same service.

l 23 A That'.s true. They have their own radio, l

- 24 1 Am.pesores mesens, ine.

their own equipment, and they are mobile.

25 JUDGE COLE: Thank you. That is all I have.

1

.- -- . . - , , , _ - . - - - - - , - - - . - - , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ '

LREE 8/4 17,390 1 JUDGE HOYT: Dr. Harbour has no questions. I 2 have no questions.

4

3 MR. HIRSCH

Your Honor, I wonder if I could 4 ask one follow-up question to Mr. Rader's redirect.

5 JUDGE HOYT: On what matter, Mr. Hirsch?

6 MR. HIRSCH: On unmet needs in Chester County?

7 JUDGE HOYT: All right. Very well.

XXXXX 8 RECROSS EXAMINATION 9 .BY MR. HIRSCH: .

10 Q bu . Bradshaw, you testified on redirect by .

11 Mr. Rader that there are. currently no unmet needs in 12 Chester County..

. 13 Isn't it correct that that. statenent doesn't-14 reflect any unmet needs that might exist in South Coventry?

15 A (Witness Bradshaw) That is correct.

16 MR. HIRSCH: .Thank.you.

17 JUDGE HOYT: I believe this.* panel can be

-18 excused now. Thank you, gentlemen.

19 (The witnesses stood down.)

20 MS, ZITZER: Your Honor, at this time

^

21 LEA would request that the Board receive into evidence i.,h

~

/

22 the exhibits which LEA had identified during its l

23 . cross-examination.

24 These'would be LEA Exhibits E-35 through E-43.

wesere nesumers,Inc.

25 JUDGE HOYT: Do we have'any 6bjections?

l 1

REE 8/5 17,391 1 (No response.)

2 very well. LEA Exhibits E-35 for identification e- 3 through LEA E-43 for identification will be received C)/ .

4 into evidence as LEA Exhibits E-35 through E-43.

5 (The documents referred to,

,e 6

marked for identification 7 as LEA Exhibit Nos. E-35, 36, 8 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43,

-XXXXXX -9 were received in evidence.)

10 MS. ZITZER: Your Honor, I would also like Il to request that the copy of the survey form that was 12 provided by the witness be identified as an LEA exhibit s .

7- ,

l- 13 Ko. E-44, and I would request that,that'also --

14 JUDGE HOYT: Is this the exhibit, this blank 15 page?

16 MS. ZITZER: Yes, your Honor. It is dated

' 17 August --

18 JUDGE HOYT: I believe that was offered by 19 some other counsel, was it not?

20 MS. ZITZER: No, it has not been. It wis for 21 that reason that LEA --

(3

\- 22 JUDGE HOYT: I am talking about it was c .23 identified by some other counsel.

I 24 Was it you,.Miss Wright? Did you intend to i m neponers. inc.

25 enter this?

r

4 REE 8/6 17,392 1 MS. WRIGHT: No. The staff did not.

2 JUDGE HOYT: I don't believe it was identified,

gs 3 Miss Zitzer, on the record anymore than a paper was 1.

4 delivered.

5 Ms, ZITZER: The survey has been a considerable --

6 it is part --

7 JUDGE HOYT: Niss Zitzer, you have to put the 8 things in evidence when the people are here.

9 You were not the sponsor ~of the request-in the first place, 10 'and Miss Wright has no desire to put it in.

II Let's move on to other matters now.

12 I think we are going to have to have a very A> s 13 short 'ecess before we take the next witness, who - .

14 wi'll be Mr. Ronald Wagenmann.

15 Let's have a very short recess.

16 XXXXX (Recess.)

I7 JUDGE HOYT: The h' earing will come to order.

18 Let the record reflect that all the parties 19 to the hearing who were present when the hearing 20 recessed are again present.

21 I believe at this time you have yourowitness I')

\ . 22 available, Mr. Anthony, the witness that was due at 23 9:00 o' clock this morning. j i

24 MR. GOOOWIN: Your Honor, before Mr. Anthony calls Ase Federse neporiers, Inc. {

25 his witness, there are two matters I would like to place 1

1

, . , - _ , - . - - _ . . . _ . . ~ . _ . , . _ . . . - _ . - _ . _ - - - . . . _ _ _ - - - . . . _ _ _ . _ , _ _ _ ,

REE;8/7 17,393 1

.on the record or clarify concerning items that came up 2 this morning.

3 JUDGE HOYT: What noise do we hear?

-Q 4 (Pause.)

5 We won't hear it again.

4 Very well. ce ahead.

I 7 MR. GOOD'iIN: The first item concerns the 8 availability'of Mr. Patten to appear before the Board I

9 ~as a possible-witness.

j- '10 During the recess we have called our office

II in Harrisburg and Mr. Patten is available to appear 12 at this hearing, based upon the desires of the Board 13 and depending upon the scheduling that --

I4 -JUDGE HOYT: I would.suggest, Mr. Goodwin, that 15

!during the lunch break today that, given the schedule 16 that we have.already established, that you attempt 17 '

.at some time to work that into that existing schedule.

18 We have Thursday,rFriday, and Monday scheduled, I'

and pretty much for today and tomorrow, unless I misunderstand

1. how long we are going to take.for some of the other. witnesses.

21 LEA yesterday indicated that their witnesses 22 for tomorrow would.be rescheduled for Tuesdav, the 15th.

'23 So there.may-be-some time tomorrow, if you want to try 24 to bring him in tomorrow.

.. Aseressres nes== lae.

25 Would that be possible?

. REE 8/8' 17,394 1 MR. HIRSCH: Your Honor, if I could --

2 JUDGE HOYT: Why don't you take that under 3 consideration and discuss that 'during the break.

4 All right, Mr. Hirsch?

5 MR. HIRSCH: I was going to say that when I 6 had mentioned the possibility of calling Mr. Patten, 7 I qualified it by saying that it may not be 8 'necessary to call him. I would know, from my perspective,

• 9 whether we would desire his testimony'after the Bucks-10 County Commissioners testified, which I understand is 11 going to be later this week or first thing next week, 12 Monday, I am told.

l- } 13 So it may not even be necessary.

~

14 JUDGE HOYT: Tomorrow would not be feasible 15 then? .

16 MR. HIRSCH: Well, it arguably would be 17 feasible,' but it may be totally unnecessary. I would t

18 personally prefer to wait until the Bucks County 19 commissioners testify.

20 JUDGE HOYT: All right. Then how about working.

21 with the- other counsel in determining a better time.

-n -

22 And particularly Mr. Hirsch because I think he is the 23 counsel who-requested that.

24 MR. GOODWIN: Certainly, your Honor.

Ase resores Resorters, ins.

25 Just one other matter that the Commonwealth wishes i

'REE 8/9 17,395

- ,c I to place on the record at this time. That concerns n-

~2 the November 20th exercise..

3 JUDGE HOYT: You will have to do that through 4 your. witness-that you are calling? Is that what you

.5 .are --

6 MR. GOODWIN: No, this is just a matter of 7 clarification concerning some questions that were

'8 raised by Mr. Hirsch on his cross-examination.

9 JUDGE HOYT: All right.

10 MR. GOODWIN: The Commonwealth just wishes 11 to place on the record the fact that PEMA has not 12 received any written FEMA evaluations concersing 13 that. November 20th exercise as of this.date.

14 JUDGE HOYT: Very well.

15 Mr. Hirsch, you are forewarned.

Id. MS '. ZITZER: Your Honor, I just wanted to .

17 add that'if later on in the day it does become 18 apparent that we will be short of witnesses tomorrow, 19 upon the completion of Mr. Wagenmann, and depending upon

. 20 .the length of time that Mrs. Banning does testify, 21 LEA was able to* confirm last evening that it could 22 still .be able to call one of the witnesses tihich was

23. -previously scheduled. And we can-just wait and see if 24 that is necessary, if the Board would desire that.

m nooners, ins.

25 That would be Mr. Whitlock.

s ._, _ _ .. _ _ _ . _ _ -. . . ~ . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ . . . , _ , _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ - , . _ _ . _ _ . . _

l I

REE 8/10 17,396  !

l 1 JUDGE HOYT: You mean this schedule that you had 2 indicated on it that you wanted these witnesses rescheduled 3

(~s for Tuesday is no longer operative?

O 4 MS. ZITZER: Your Honor, yesterday --

5 JUDGE HOYT: Miss Zitzer, I just wonder how 6 much more of this is going to become inoperative.

7 Let's move along. The witness will come 8 forward and be sworn.

9 -MR. ANTHONY: I would like to introduce 10 Mr. Ronald Wagenmann, who is the township manager for the --

11 Whereupon, XXXX 12 RONALD WAGENMANN O( / 13 was called as a witness'and, having been first duly 14 sworn, was examined and testified as follows: -

15 JUDGE HOYT: Please be seated.

16 MR. ANTHONY: If the; Board please, Mr. Wagenmann 17 is accompanied by -- -

18 JUDGE HOYT: I think before we begin the l'

examination, Mr. Anthony, I must warn you, Mr. Anthony, 20 that you will be limited as to time to that time which 21 was accorded to the LEA when their witnesses were called

'- 22 in this same manner; since this was a subpoenaed witness 23 with no prefiled-testimony, you will be accorded 90 24 minutes, starting now, sir.

Ass Federst Regwers, Inc.

25 MR, ANTHONY: Thank you.

1

)

REE 8/11: 17,397 1 I just wanted to say Mr. John Waters, who 2 is the fire marshall and the emergency planning 3 coordinator for the township has, on his free will, 4 accompanied Mr. Wagenmann in order to be here for 5 Mr. Wagenmann to consult with.

, I wonder whether it would 4 be all right for him to sit with Mr. Wagenmann.

7 JUDGE HOYT: If you wish to.present this as a panel, unless we hear any objection, you may present it 8

9 'as a panel. '

10 Do you have any --

II MR. RADER: I have no objection.

12 Whereupon, O

v 13

^* '

JOHN WATERS 14 was called as a witness and, having'been first duly sworn,

~

i

~

15 XXXX was examindd and testified as follows:

I0 MR. RADER: May we please have the name of 17 the witnesses again?

18 JUDGE HOYT: Yes. I would to have your name, l'

sir, and your' address and your position.

20 WITNESS WAGENMANN: I am Ronald Wagenmann.

21 j_, I am the rianager of Upper Marion Township, and I reside

- ('-) ' 22 at 603 Valley Brook Drive, King of Prussia,' Pennsylvania 19046, 23 JUDGE HOYT: 'And'the other witness.

'2d WITNESS WATERS: My name is John Raymond Waters.

Asesessrei nosoners. inc.

25 I am emergency management coordinator, Upper Marion Township.

.REE 8/12 17,398 1 I live at 62 Braeburn Road, Havertown, Pennsylvania.

2 JUDGE HOYT: All'right. Proceed.

3 MR. ANTHONY: I'believe the traffic

(-

4 study for Upper Marion Township has come up in these 5 hearings.

4 I intend to use'some parts of that study, 7 but I don't intend to use the whole thing. And I wonder 8 when the appropriate time is, I would like to present 9 now the parts of the study which I'would like to '

10 introduce into evidence. And I would also like to II provide an opportunity for LEA to submit what parts of 12 the report they would like to have in, or if they want 13 the whole thing, to have that --

I4 JUDGE HOYT: It is your case, Mr. Anthony.

, 15 Proceed.

I0 MR. ANTHONY: In thisifirst place, would you I7 want to have an outline of my auestions?

I8 JUDGE HOYT: No. This is direct examination, I'

Mr. Anthony. I don't want any outline from you.

20 Well, I Will start with the MR. ANTHONY

21 first two exhibits I have.

.O",

22 The first one is a letter of November 14 to 23 Mr.' Ralph Volpe, chairman of'the board of supervisors 24 of Upper Marion, written by myself.

m nopenses, Inc.

25 The second is a letter of October 25th written to

^

1

,,. l REE 8/13 17,399 I me by Mr. Paul Bartle, the President of the Montgomery END 8 2 County commissioners.

5 6 -

7 8

.9 10 11 12 13 i.

15 16 17 18 19 20

~ '

21 22 23 24 m noserwrs,Inc. i_ .

25

17,400 T9MM mal.

1 (Documents being distributed to Board and Parties.)

2 JUDGE HOYT: Are you marking these exhibits, 3 Mr. Anthony?

4 MR. ANTEONY: Would this be 1 and 2 for me?

5 JUDGE HOYT: Which one is which, Mr. Anthony.

6 MR. ANTHONY: The letter to Mr. Ralph P. Volpe is 7 Nor 1.

8 JUDGE HOYT: Very well, the letter to Mr. Ralph P.

4' 9 Volpe, Chairman,-dated November 14th,,1984 and signed by 10 Robert'L. Anthony, will be marked as Anthony / FOE Exhibit No. 1 11 for identification, E-1.

12 (The document referred to was

- () ,

13 marked Anthony / FOE Exhibit No.

xxx 14 E-1 for identification.)

15 JUDGE HOYT: A letter addressed to Mr. Robert L.

16 Anthony by Mr. Paul Baker Bartle, Chairman of Montgomery 17 County Commissioners, will be marked as Anthony / FOE Exhibit 2 18 for identification.

19 (The document referred to was 20 marked Anthony / FOE Exhibit No.

.anac 21 E-2 for identification.)

>i

' 22 JUDGE HOYT: Do the witnesses have copies o5 these 23 exhibits?

24 WITNESS WAGENMANN: Yes, we do.

Ae+med nowan. imt 25 MR. ANTHONY: The next two exhibits from the i

17,401 mm2 1 Township Traffic Study.

2 (Documents distributed to Board and Parties.)

.g 3 MR. RADER: Your Honor, Applicant was provided by my 4 'Mr. Anthony with two documents which were marked Exhibit 4 5 and Exhibit 5. I don't know whether there is an Exhibit 3 6 which we should'have received, or whether;these are simply 7 . misnumbered, or what Mr. Anthony's intentior.s are here. But 8 I think it should be clarified.

9 JUDGE 30YT: Whatever-exhibit numbers are on there, 10 Mr.Rader, are not going to be the exhibits by which this hearing II will accommodate the exhibits.

12 Which do you want to mark which? Which one are I3 you going to mark which, Mr. Anthony, so that the Board may 14 marktheexhibitsandtheymaybeidentifh.edforallcounsel

'15 and for the record.

16 MR. ANTHONY: The diagram that is called Exhibit 5 17 from the Report, will be the next -- that would be No. 3.

18 JUDGE HOYT: All right.

I' That has also been identified with what looks like 20 " Annualized Traffic Growth Rates."

21 That exhibit will be marked Anthony / FOE Exhibit E-3

=

22 for identification.

23 (The docum ett referred to was 24 marked Anthony / FOE Exhibit As>Fesores noseroses,Inc.

25 xxx No. E-3 for identification.)

17,402 11 P

mm3- l 1 JUDGE HOYT: The second exhibit handed to the Board, 2 which appears to have a handwritten identification, " Afternoon

- 3 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes," will be marked Anthony / FOE Exhibit G

4 E-4 for identification.

5 (The document referred to was xxx 4 marked Anthony / FOE Exhibit No.

7 E-4 for identification.) ,,

8 MR. ANTHONY: There are two more. Exhibit 15 from 9 the-study and-Exhibit 16 from the study. Tho 9 will be then 5 10 and 6.

II (Documents distributed to Board and Parties.)

12 MS. WRIGHT: Judge Hoyt, while Mr. Anthony is

( ) 13 distributing his docunent, a point of clarification.

I4 I think you designated the other exhibits with 15 just the number and no "E" designations preceding it.

16 JUDGE HOYT: If I did that, Ms. Wright, I am in 17 error. I misspoke myself by not completing it. All exhibits 18 in this case have been marked with an "E". prefix to the l' numerical designation in order to distinguish these 20 exhibits from the other . portion of this case.

21 MS. WRIGHT: Thank you.

_ (-

'/ 22 JUDGE HOYT: Thank you.

23 All right, Mr. Anthony, which one of these will 24 be marked as Exhibit 5 for identification?

m m n o orme.,inc.

25 MR. ANTHONY: Exhibit 15 is number 5. '

17,403 l

.mm4 1 JUDGE HOYT: I'm sorry, Mr. Anthony, I can't hear 2 you.

3 MR. ANTHONY: I'm sorry.

4 The' Study Exhibit 15 is number 5, and Study Exhibit 5 No.~16 is number 6.

6 JUDGE HOYT: Very well.

7 Page, single sheet Exhibit 15, titled Intersection

, a conditions Summary Table will be marked as Anthony / FOE Exhibit.

9 5 for identification.

10 (The ilocument referred to was

11 marked Anthony / FOE Exhibit xxx '12 No. E-5 for identification.)

l( 13 , JUDGE HOYT: Intersection Traffic Conditions will~be .

! 14 marked as Exhibit -- correction, Anthony / FOE Exhibit E-6 for.

4 15 identification.

xx 16 (The document referred to was 17 marked Anthony / FOE Exhibit

-18 No. E-6 for identification.)

.19 MR. ANTHONY

I would like to submit whatever parts 20 of this report that LEA wants to use,at this time also. They 21 were previously distributed, I believe, and there are two more

~O 22 copies for the .oard.

23 JUDGE HOYT: I have no copy, Mr. Stone.

24 MR. STONE: If I may, your Honor, you returned your Aeressres nesenere,Inc.

25 copy along with Judge Cole's. I have extra copies.

17,404 mm5 I JUDGE HOYT: That's correct, those have been withdrawn .,

2 MR. STONE: I have extra copies here with me this 3 morning.

4 JUDGE HOYT: Very well.

5 (Document handed to the Board.)

0 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Anthony, are these pages that have 7 been marked as Anthony / FOE Exhibits 3 through 6, are they in 8 this Township Report?

9 Is that where these are found?

10 MR. ANTHONY: Yes.

II And I believe Mr. Wagenmann could verify that.

12 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Stone, if you want this exhibit 13 marked,youwib.1havetodoitsomeotherway. We have just I4 gone through the ritual of marking a portion of this.

15 I think we have got housekeeping functions here that we 16 .see anyone reasonably examining this record can anticipate 17 finding any of these exhibits.

18 Now, if you want some of this marked, Mr. Stone, you I'

may do so.

20 I would like to also note that it is very interesting, 21 Mr. Anthony, to find that on this day you are marking for (O

\d

' 22 identification what you had refused to join in on a stipulation.

.23 And by way of.. identification, that is~the Anthony / FOE Exhibits 24 E-3 through E-6. These are the same documents that you refused mm n ,wri, inc.

25 to join in on the stipulation, I believe it was Thursday of

1 17,405 mm6 1 last week.

2 MR. STONE: Your Honor, if I might clarify for the

_. 3 record. The document --

4 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Stone, I believe the question was

, 5 addressed _to Mr. Anthony.

4 MR. STONE: There is a factual matter with respect --

7 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Stone, may I have Mr. Anthony 8 respond.

9 MR. ANTHONY: Was there a question, Judge Hoyt?

10 JUDGE HOYT: Yes. Is it your intention to now Il join in the stipulation, that you have no objection to the 12 introduction of this study?

13 . I'm not quite sure 'what we are doing _ here.

14 MR. ANTHONY: I think the record is clear on my -

15 objection at the time the stipulation was suggested.

16 Is there any objection to these coming in now?

17 JUDGE HOYT: If they are properly identified.

18 But my problem, Mr. Anthony, is thatyycu are l'

excepting from the document, these exhibits. So you now 20 bring them forward to sponsor through these particular 21 witnesses.

22 Do you want to introduce the entire study?.

23 -MR. ANTHONY: I don' t need the entire study. I 24 am introducing the document that you have in your hands on Aes "1sloral Reporters, Inc.

25 behalf of LEA.

17,406 i I JUDGE HOYT: Very well.

2 Mr. Stone, you will have to handle your own matters 3 so far as what other portions of the exhibit. But, I am-not 4 going to have the exhibit come in with duplicate copies of it f

5 in. I think one copy of each exhibit in a massive record of

-4 this type is enough as it is.

7 Go ahead, Mr. Anthony.

8 MR. ANTHONY: Do I understand now the pages you have 9 from the study are now included as exhibits?

10 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Anthony, they have been ma 2ked II for identification. They are not at this point in time, a 12 matter of evidence. They will not be a matter of evidence until 13 they have.been properly identified and admitted into evidence.

14 They are merely exhibits marked for. identification.

. 15 MR. ANTHONY: Very well.

16 I would like to move that they be entered in the 17 record.

I8 JUDGE HOYT: Motion to admit the exhibits without

~

I' any identification, is denied Mr. Anthony.

9 20 DIRECT EXAMINATION XXX 71 .BY MR. ANTHONY: ,

22 I would like to ask Mr. Wagenmann whether he Q

-. 23 recognizes-these-pages from the Study,ed whether they are 24 accurate copies. -

As>senerse noseners,Inc.

. 25 MR. RADER: I must object to the form of the question, ,

i L. -]

17,407 mm8 I What Study? It hasn't even been identified.

2 JUDGE HOYT: That's correct, sir.

3 MR. ANTHONY: This is the Upper Merion Township, 4 Townshipwide Traffic Study, Phase I, Township Overview Interim 5 Report prepared by Simpson & Curtin, July 6th, 1984.

6 .MR. RADER: Judge Hoyt, if it please the Board, 7 now that the document has been identified by Mr. Anthony for 8 the record, I would like to state for the Applicant that pursuan b 9 -to Rule.106.of the Federal Rules of-Evidence, since portions 10 of this report have been marked for identification, Applicant' 11 requests that the entire. report be marked for identification.

12 JUDGE HOYT: Very well.

th 13 That would be Upper Merion Township, Townshipwide 14 Traffic Study, a document prepared by Simpson & Curtin Division, 15 Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc., dated July 6, 1984.

10 Is that correct?

17 MR. RADER: That's correct.

18 JUDGE HOR: Do you want this marked as an Applicant I9 exhibit?

20 MR. RADER: Yes.

21 I believe under the rules, the entire document

,m V 22 would be marked as an exhibit of the profferor of the-evidence.

( - 23 However, if.necessary,it may be marked as an Applicant's

.24 . exhibit.

l Ase-Federal Repo,sers, Inc.

25 However, I would point out that the document provided 4

L _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .. _

17,408 4

mm9: I to the Board by Mr. Stone is not itself the entire document, 2

JUDGE HOYT: Does anyone have copies of the entire l l

3 document?

O 4 lMR. ANTHONY: Mr. Wagenmann has a copy, I have a 5 copy, O JUDGE HOYT: That doesn't get it into evidence, 7 Mr. Anthony.

8 I have no copies for the counsel for Applicant, for

'- -the Staff, for the Commonwealth, nor does the Board have any, 10 and there is no copies for the record.

U 4

It will have to be submitted to the Board. That f

12 has to be done in three copies.

13 MR. RADER: Your Honor,.I should also state for the 14 record that when advised by Mr. Stone of this, and of our intent 15 to ask that the entire document be marked for identification --

16 Mr. Anthony was not here at the time, I couldn't ask him, but 17 I stated to Mr. Stone,'given his responsibility as lead 18 Intervenor on his contention, I assumed copies would be made l'

available today at this time.

20 MR. STONE: LEA has no objection to the entire l .21 document being entered. 'However, LEA, for the sake of 0V 22 compression of the record and avoiding unnecessary pages, we 23 -just ckid the -parts we were interested in. I belive they 24 4 include all the parts Mr. Anthony had marked this morning.

Ase-Federal Repersers, Inc.

25 I might also mention this section was distributed to

W

's u

+ 17,409 5

mml0 1 all parties, both in our written testimony a month and a half

.o 2 ago, and again recently.

4 3

Of s I think it was clear, we thought, to all parties

}' ' 4

, that this was a selection. There is a lot of unnecessary data q].

5 in the original.

t g-

' JUDGE HOYT: But the problem did not come up until 1 . yesterday, apparently, Mr. Stone, that the entire document would e

f 8 have to b~e introduced.

Until we can get copies of this, we can't proceed

.v 10 in having any questions on the document, the entire document.

q I~

4 L 1 h There is an objection from counsel.

12 MR. STONE: 4 May I also note further, LEA has no copy 13 of.the entire document syitab'le for the purpose. We derived our

h. Id g copy frcta Mrj Anthony's complete copy,which I believe was copied 15 from Mr. Wagenmann's single' copy.

6 So, that is the situation.

17 JUDGE HOYT: ,W ell, now, who is going to produce the

'(

18 copies, Mr.J Ston3? '

, , /

I' It will'hAve to be marked. The entire document will a;

20 have to be marked, and we will' have to .have copies of it.

Can you-have that done by the beginning of business 21 ex i U- ' 22 ' tomorrold ,

23, tMR. . STONit: . LEA will undertake that and will do 24 that.

A.rnd'T9 <

.peesem naperwe, Inc.  :,< -

25 t

nntirn3 #

CR21552

-410-mn-1 1 JUDGE HOYT: There will have to be a copy made 2

available to counsel for the applicant at least and I would 3

like to have at least one other copy made available so that 4

the staff, FEMP and the Commonwealth can examine it during the 5 testimony.

6 MR. STONE: What number of copies will that be then 7 for tomorrow?

8 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Stone, we have been talking here 9 about the entire township overview interim report. The 10 objection which I think is a well-founded obj ction of I

4 11 Applicant is that prior to any testimony on the document '

't 12-tney want the entire document marked rather than a selective

()

• 13 grouping of pages which LEA has taken apparently from the 14 entire report.

15 MR. STONE: I would note that our selection has not 16 been marked as an exhibit as of yet. The pages that are I 17 produced --

j 1

18 JUDGE HOYT: I think what you are hearing here,

-19 Mr. Stone, is that the counsel for applicant wants to mark 20 it as an applicant's exhibit which is acceptable and if they p-21 want to bring it in through these witnesses, they may do so.

(-) 22 But we have to have the entire document. Do you have a copy

.23 i of it?

24 MR. STONE: I do not have a copy.

Aemee:: neporters, Inc.

25 JUDGE HOYT: Are there only two copies here and the

._ _.__. _ ,__ _- _ -__ _._._,~

10-mn-2 17,411 1

one that the witnesses have and the one that Mr. Anthony has?

2 MR. STONE: Yes. I would also point out for the 3

record that if LEA attempts to undertake to make copies 4 we would make them from Mr. Wagenmann's copy. I would not 5 make them from Mr. Anthony's since I do not know the 6 completeness of his copy. -

7 JUDGE HOYT: We don't know that Mr. Wagenmann's 8 is either complete.

9 MR. STONE: His is the source for all the copies 10 in existence since he has the only original and I would under-11 take that.

12 JUDGE HOYT: All right. On that representation 1

() 13 'and you will use his copy. I suppose that we will have to 14 permit the examination to go forward on direct and then 15 provide the counsel for the other parties with the one other 16 copy that seems to be in Mr. Anthony's possession at the time 17 that they conduct their cross-examination.

18 Let me inquire first of you, Mr. Rader, have you i

19 ever seen the entire report?

20 MR. RADER: I have not.

21 JUDGE HOYT: Ms. Wright or the staff?

22 MR. McGURREN: The staff has not, Your Honor.

l 23 JUDGE HOYT: FEMA?

24 MR. HIRSCH: FEMA doesn't think it has. Iwonderifl l Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 Mr. Rader could clarify for the record what he understands to

t an10-3 17,412 1 be missing from the Upper Merion Township study which was 2 distributed during_ discovery by LEA?

3 JUDGE HOYT: All right. Let me find out first from 4 Mr. Goodwin if the Commonwealth has ever seen the entire 5 report.

t 6 MR. GOODWIN: No, we haven't, Your Honor.

7 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Rader, what portions in response 8 to Mr. Hirsch's questions?

9 ~ MR. RADER: I base'my statement solely on the 10 . representation by Mr. Stone when he introduced t.he document 11 and subsequently discussed it with me that he had, in fact,-

12 excerpted from the document certain portions and deleted

h. 13- others. Judging from the table of contents and'the pagination 14 within the document, it indicates that pages are missing.

15 For example, pages 10 through-15 are missing from the document.'

' 16 JUDGE HOYT: 'We will_have.to provide each counsel 17 with an opportunity to examine-the document in order that ,

18 they might prepare their cross-examination.

19 Mr. Anthony, on your exhibit E-5 for identification,'

20 is this a two-page document?

21 MR. ANTHONY: No, it is one.

22  ?

JUDGE COLE: In the report, on the interim report,-

23 exhibit 15 is.in fact-a two page-exhibit. Did you mean to 24

~

use only one of the two pages?

Ase-resersi neporwes, Inc.

[ '25 MR. ANTHONY: It is at least two pages and it may be

17,413

.mn10-4 I more. So-I included just the first page.

2 JUDGE HOYT: Just the first table.

3 MR. ANTHONY: Just the first page.

.O '4 JUDGE HOYT: All right. '

5 MR. ANTHONY: Could I ask that maybe in the interest 6 .of good will and interest of the township, could we ask 7 Mr. Wagenmann whether the township would be able to supply 8 copies since they are-the original source and they are 9 primarily interested?

10 WITNESS WAGENMANN: I would more than glad to 11 provide you with a copy or run the copy but it sounds like 12 you are talking about 20 or 30 copies of the document.

I .

13 JUDGE.HOYT: ' Pretty close to it. We have to have 14 three.for the record and the applicant has to have a copy.-

15 The Nuclear' Regulatory Commission staff has to have a copy. ,

16 The representative..of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 17 has to have a copy and the Commonwealth has to have a. copy 18 andLthe Board has to have three.

-19 WITNESS WAGENMANN: 'I will make the document avail-

'20 able but, no, I would not run 30 copies-because of the time 21 -from my staff and.so on and the time of the' year that we are 22 in.

23 JUDGE HOYT: .You.will have to provide'it yourself,

24 Mr. Anthony. -I think that is burdensome on the witness.

- Ase-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 MR. ANTHONY: Could I suggest now that I would like

17,414

" m n 1 0 - 5' I to go ahead with my examination.

l 2 JUDGE HOYT: You can go ahead with your direct l 3 examination, Mr. Anthony, but we are going to have to stop O 4 at the conclusion of your examination in order to provide the 5 counsel for the various parties with an opportunity to 6 view this document and prepare their cross-examination.

7 Proceed.

8 BY MR. ANTHONY:

(Resuming)

-9 0 'How long have-you been manager at Upper Merion, 10 Mr. Wagenmann?

11 A (Witness Wagenmann) I have been manager at 12 Upper Merion Township a little over two years. I was hired

() .

13 September 7, 1982. ,,

14  %- Have you been involved in traffic problems?

15 A Yes. I have been involved in attempting to find 16 solutions to various traffic problems throughout the township.

17 4 .Have you been involved in emergency planning?

18 A- Yes. I have been involved in emergency planning

~

N 19 in the sense that I hired the township's fire marshall-and i 20 then we had him designated as - the township emergency management 21 coordinator and then charged him with the responsibility of

() '22

~

preparing the emergency management plan for the township.

23 .G .Are there environmental hazards in the township?

24 MR. RADER: Objection, irrelevant.

Ase-Feser.2 neporises, Inc.

25 JUDGE HOYT: Sustained.

3.

17.,415 mn10-6 I MR. RADER: Your Honor, if Mr. Anthony has 2 concluded his preliminary questions, I would like to voir

. 3 dire.the witnesses.

4 JUDGE HOYT: All right. Mr. Anthony, counsel is

.5 entitled to conduct a voir dire as are counsel for the other 6 parties. Go. ahead, Mr. Rader.

XXXXXXX -7 VOIR DIRE

~

-8 BY MR. RADER:

'9 4 Mr. Wagenmann, arecyou here today in response to 10 a subpoena issued by this presiding board?

II A. (Witness Wagenmann) Yes, I am.

12 g Do'you have a copy of*that. subpoena with you?

M L' I think I have a copy but it is back in my 14 briefcase.

15 Could you obtain that, please?

16 A Surely.

17 -

(Witness complying.-)

18 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Anthony, your time has be'en tolled 19

~

during the voir dire. examination by counsel for Applicant.

20 MR. ANTHONY: Thank you.

21 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Rader, I have the copy of the 22 subpoena, the original which was returned by Mr. Anthony 3 -23 ~this morning. If you wish to examine this copy, you may.

24 MR. RADER: The purpose of my examination would be r[

Ae-ress,m nemonen, Inc.

25 ~ to see whether anything had been written on the witness' copy

-mn10-7 17,416 1 of the subpoena.

2 JUDGE HOYT: I understand that to be your purpose em 3 and I am giving you the opportunity to compare it with the

-b 4 document that I have placed my signature on.

5 MR. RADER: The only point, Your Honor, being that 6 I have no assurance that the copy which you have is a copy 7 which is, in fact, the same as the witness has with him.

8 JUDGE HOYT: Very well.

9 BY MR. RADER: (Resuming) 10 g Do you have that with you, sir?

II A (Witness Wagenmann) It is not in the briefcase.

12 Mr. Waters will check further.

r~)N

(_ 13 g While Mr. Waters.is checking that, could you tell 14 us where you tendered a check in connection with the subpoena?

15 A Yes, I was.

16 g What was the amount of that check?

17 A Thirty-seven dollars.

18 (Document supplied to counsel for the Applicant.)

19 JUDGE'HOYT: Let the record reflect that the- -

20 subpoena that the witness has received is handed to counsel 21 for the' Applicant.

.A

'- 22 (Counsel for Applicant reviewing previously-mentioned 23 adocument.)

24 WITNESS WAGENMANN: I have the check right here.

Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 I have actually received two checks. There was a previous

17,417 mn10-8 I subpoena for which I received thirty-seven dollars and then 2 this one came yesterday and I received this check for 3 thirty-six dollars.

4 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. Thank you.

5 MR. RADER: I have no further questions on voir dire.

6 JUDGE HOYT: Is there any other voir dire by any 7 other counsel?

8 (No response.)

9 JUDGE -HOYT: I see none indicated. -All right,lgo 10 ' ahead, Mr. Anthony. l 11 BY MR. ANTHONY: (Resuming) l 12 4 Were you a township manager before you came to

() 13 Upper Merion?

14 A (Witness Wagemann) o N. I was an assistant township 15 manager.

16 Where was that?

G 17 A. In Lower Paxton Township, Pennsylvania, Dolphin 18 County.

i 19 4' Could you say what city that is near? I am not  !

-l 20 quite.

21 A It is in the approximate vicinity of Harrisburg, t ;/

22 Pennsylvania.

23 4 How--far from .Harrisburg?

24 A Within about a mile and a half to two miles of l m noormes,Inc...

25 the borders of the city and about five miles to downtown

17,418 mn10-9 1 Harrisburg.

2 4 Is it in the neighborhood of the Three Mile Island

. 3 Nuclear Plant?

4 A Yes, it is.

5  % How far from the Three Mile Island plant?

6 MR. RADER: Objection. .This line of questioning is 7 irrelevant.

8 JUDGE HOYT: Sustained.

9 BY MR.-ANTHONY: (Resuming) 10  % Did you have any experience with emergency 11 planning in that township in your duties as assistant township ,

12 manager?

() 13 A (Witness Wagenmann) Yes, I did. -

14 4 Did they include emergency planning for a nuclear 15 emergency?

16 A They involved working with the Township's emergency 17 l management plan and did not involve preparation for a nuclear 18 emergency.

19 G Was there a nuclear emergency during the time you  !

20 were assistant manager?

21 A Yes, there was.

22 O What emergency was that?

23 .MR. RADER: . Objection. This line of questioning 24 is irrelevant. The witness has stated that none of his l Ass-Federal Reporters, Inc.

! 25 functions or responsibilities concerned emergency planning.

l~

mn10-10 17,419 I JUDGE HOYT: The objection is sustained.

2 BY MR. ANTHONY: (Resuming) 3 4 Did you have occasion to witness any evacuation O,

4 .w hen you were assistant manager?

5 A (Witness Wagenmann) No.

6 g Did you have occasion to witness any spontaneous

'7 evacuation?

8 A Yes.

9 4 ~Can you speculate as to whether this kind of 10 emergency' evacuation could happen in Upper Merion Township?

II MR. RADER: Objection. This is beyond the scope of I2 the contention.

() 13 JUDGE HOYT: The objection is sustained.

I4 BY MR. ANTHONY: (Resuming) 15 g .Can you explain the relationship between the King 1

16 of Prussia and Valley Forge Park to its location and place f 17 in the Upper Merion Township?  !

18 A (Witness Wagenmann) Well, King of Prussia is 19 what most people commonly recognize as being really Upper

-20 Merion. It is the heart of the community and Valley Forge 21 National Park is, in fact, within Upper Merion Township.

f b) 22 About two-thirds of the land area of the park are within the

.23 . .. borders- of .. Upper Merion Township.

24 g- Are there industries and businesses in Upper Merion Am-Federal Reporters, Inc,

. 25 Township?

17,420 l I

, 1 mn10-ll 1 G Any rough idea of how many?

2 A Not numerical numbers, no. There would be several 3 hundreds.

4 G Are there a good many parking spaces?

5 A Yes. There is a good number of. parking spaces 6 because we require that parking be provided for all those 7 establishments.

8 G Have you ever looked down on Upper Merion from the 9 . air?

10 A on numerous occasions I have made aerial flights 11 over the township, yes.

12 0 Would you say that the whole western end up to *

() 13 route 363 is a pave.d area? -

14 A I would indicate that it is an industrial commercial 15 zone that is intensively developed.

16 0 Would you guess that a certain percentage, would 17 it be 50 percent that is paved or 80 percent?  ;

18 A I wouldn't want to venture a percentage that is 19

. paved because of the buildings. But it is a high percentage.

20 0 You said that you appointed Mr. Waters, was that 21 a year ago?

(_) 22 A A little over a year ago. It was in 1983.

23 G What was the . purpose in appointing Mr. Waters for ,

24 emergency planning?

Ass-Federal Reporsors, Inc.

25 A Initially he was hired as township fire marshall and

t 17,421 l

1 mn10-12 1 then we had him designated as the township's emergency 2 management coordinator.

3 G Have there been emergencies since you have had this  !

4 department?

5 A There have been some minor emergencies, yes.

6 G What was the result? Was there an evacuation?

7 A No. There has been no evacuation.

8 4 Are there plans for an evacuation?

9 A There are evacuation plans for emergencies that occur

.10 within the township, yes.

11 Are there. evacuation plans for the two malls?

G 12 A I am sorry.. I could not hear the question.

, ( ) 13 .G Are there evacuation plans for the two malls, 14 the two shopping malls?

15 MR. RADER: Could we have foundation for that 16 question, please, Your-Honor. _

17 1 JUDGE HOYT: Yes. I believe that is an appropriate 18 objection.

19 BY MR. ANTHONY: (Resuming) i 20 G Are there shopping malls in the township?

21 A -Yes. There are shopping malls within the township.

(m) m 22 There is the King-of Prussia Plaza and the King of Prussia 23 . Court.

24  % Are they large malls?

. A Fasers n.porwrs, sne.

25 A Yes. Between the two ma'&ls, there is two and a half l

i

17,422 mn10-13 I million square feet of retail space.

2 Have there been highway spills in the township of 4

3 noxious materials?

4 A Not since I have been with the township and I would 5 not have any knowledge before that.

6 g Are there emergency plans for fires and floods?

7 A We have what is called an all-hazards emergency 8 plan, response plan, for the township.

9 0 Are there emergency plans for bomb-threats?

10 A Again, I would state we have an all-hazards 11 response plan' developed for handling emergencies within the 12 township. 3 l

()* 13 g .

There have been plans made to evacuate the malls -

Id 'in case there were a bomb tihreat there?

15 A That would be the individual shopping malls 16 themselves would be the mall's responsibility in coordination

~

17 with Mr. Waters.-

e

' 18 g So has Mr. Waters. coordinated with the malls on a 19 bomb' threat? l 20 .A No. The bomb threat would be simply just getting 21 people out of the shopping mall area.

22 G What would be the mechanics of that? Who would give i

23 .the orders.to. evacuate the malls? I 24 A In the case of a bomb threat?

j Aes-Federal Reporters, Inc.

L 25 g Yes.

h

-.mn10-14 17,423 -

17,424 1

A. That would be the mall management and Mr. Waters 2

would be involved as well.

(- 4 Wno would make the final decision and are they set 4

up to guide people and to manage the release of the vehicles 5

from the parking areas?

6 A. I can't answer for them. They do have a public 7

address system and mall security. I 8

END#10 9

10 11 12

-O is . .

14 15

'16 17 18 19 20 21

. q.) 22 23 24 Ass-Fe forel Reporters, Inc.

25

REE' 17,425 Take 11 Pcgo 1 g I guess, Mr. Waters would be the one who 2 would know that.

g_

3 A (Witness Waters) I could not hear the question.

4 Q Are there people designated to guide shoppers 5 out of the shopping mall and people designated to regulate 6 the vehicles' release from the parking areas in case of a 7 bomb scare?

8 I ought to ask Mr. Waters specifically about that.

9 A :Both malls employ security officers whose 10 job would be to guide shopers out of the mall, yes.

II Q Would.they be responsible for releasing or 12 directing traffic out of the --

0 13 A no. They.would not. We would employ Id Upper'Marion Township Police Department dor that purpose.

15 And have they been trained for that, in case Q

16 of a bomb scare?

17 A (Witness Wagenmann) Well, it is no different 18 than any other traffic control function that the police I'

- department would do.

20 Would there he any other township officials Q

21 or workers besides the police department?

' ' .22 A The police department does have available 23 what are called auxiliary police, and, of course, off-duty officers as well as those officers that are on 25 duty, and the fire / police of the township available for these

REE.ll/2 17,426

-1 functions.

2 A Has there ever been an evacuation of King of Prussia 3 -- let me ask, is there a King of Prussia Industrial Park?

4 A Yes, there is.

5 Q Has there been any evacuation at any time of 6 . King of Pruss a Industrial Park?

7 A Again, to.the best of my knowledge, no.

8 Q And is there an evacuation -- I guess I

-9 would - ask Mr. - Waters ---for King ~ of Prussia Industrial 10 Park?'

II A (Witness' Waters) Yes, there is. It is in 12 our All Hazards Plan. -

I) 13 Q How many vehicles would be involved in that

• 14 evacuation?

15 A I don't have the data to properly answer that 16 question.

-17 O Mr. Wagenmann, from your experience with your 18 living in Dauphin County, is a plume from a. nuclear 19 plant visible at some dictance?

'5M MR. RADER: Objection. Irrelevant.

'21 JUDGE HOYT: Sustained.

% /. =22 BY MR. ANTHONY:

23 .Q Do you. realize that there is planning to

~

24 m neoeviore,inc.

evecuate a ten-mile area around the Limerick Nuclear Plant 25 and'to protect those people who are in the plume pathway?  ;

~REE.11/3 g 1 A (Witness Wagenmann) I am aware that there is 2 an evacuation for the ten-mile radius of Limerick. I 3 am not aware of the second part of your question concerning 4 the plume pathway.

5 0 You do know what the plume is, don't you?

6 A The plume would be the dispersement of the 7 radioactivity that might be discharged in a 8 nuclear accident and based on prevailing winds, how that would 9 be spread across a geographical area.

10 Do you know what the prevailing wind direction Q

II is at Upper Marion Township?

I2 MR, RADER: Objection. Irrelevant.

13 JUDGE HOYT: I did not hear your objection.

Id MR. RADER: The question to the witness was, 15 whether or not he was aware of the prevailing winds in.

16 the area of Upper Marion. I objected to the question as 17 irrelevant.

18 JUDGE HOYT: I did not hear you.

19 MR. ANTHONY: The witness --

20 JUDGE HOYT: Let's see if he knows. Objection 21 overruled. He may not know.

/ 22 WITNESS WAGENMANN: The prevailing wind direction

.23 .would b.e out-of-the northwest to-the-southeast.

24 BY MR, ANTHONY:

, Am.pesers neponers, inc.

25 Q The prevailing wind from the northwest, is that r

D

REE 11/4 17,428 1 from the direction of the Limerick plant?  !

2 A The plant would be probably northwest or north l s 3 by northwest of tha. township.

-: Os 4 O So that a release of radioactivity in an accident 5 could be carried by northwest wind in the direction of 4

6 Upper Marion?

7 MR. RADER: Objection. This is well beyond the 8 scope of this contention.

9 JUDGE HOYT: I think we are getting much beyond, 10 Mr. Anthony. I think -- I will sustain the objection.

II BY MR. ANTHONY:

12 Q How many times have you and I talked about the 13 impact of a possible $ccident at Limerick on Upper

- II Marion Township?

15 A You and I have personally talked probably about 16

• three or four times.

17 Do you believe my interest includes a sincere Q

p 18 concern for emergency protection for residents, workers, 19 and shoppers in the township?

20 MR. RADER: Objection.

2I JUDGE HOYT: Sustained.

' 22 BY MR. ANTHONY:

. 23 Q -Did I-ask you at one point to meet with the township 24 supervisors?

( Aes-pedere neponers, Inc.

25 A You asked'if I would present a letter that you

. . - e.~s, -, ,,.-.,,,.,-%.-.-_y- - ,., - - - - - - - - - , - . ,-. * - . -.-,c . -- --a--- --

_ REE 11/5 17,429 I had submitted, yes.

2 Did you recommend that I write the letter?

Q 3 A Yes, I did.

4 Q And did you relay the letter to the township 5 supervisors?

6 A .I relayed it to the chairman, yes.

i 7 Q Did the chairman receive it?

8 .

A Yes, he did.

9 Q Did he' discuss it with you?

. 10 A We discussed 'it at a board workshop session.

II Q So all the members of the board discussed it?

- 12 A Yes.

13 0 How many members are there? .

'Id A There are five niembers to the board of stipervisors.

15

0 And can you give a summary of that discusslon?

16 A Generally, the discussion was that they had 17 received copies of the letter. They had read it and it 18 was in regards to township staff. attending the hearings, j

19

and it was generally agreed that if.the township staff 20 were subpoenaed, we would attend and answer cuestions and 21

4. .we would provide you with whatever information you requested.

22 'O Did Mr. Volpe send an answer to ny letter, 23 as far as-you know?

24

. . 'A Not that I am aware of.

AsN Reporters,Inc.

25

Q Did.he ask'you to give me an answer?

i I

< - .- - . - . ~ . , - - , , - . ~ , + . _ , - - . . . - ..._.- . _ .- - -,,-. . ....-.. . - - . --- -....- . ..-.- .~ ...-.. . -

REE 11/6 17,430 1 A I verbally gave you basically the answer which 2 I just put into the record.

3 Q Did any of the members mention contacts with

.O 4 business people or others in the township relevant or 5 related to this letter?

6 A No.

7 O Are you aware of the property manager for the 8 two ma-1s named John McGuire?

o 9 A I an familiar with Mr. McGuire, yes.

10 Q Does he meet with the board at times?

11 A No. He does not meet with the board. I have 12 met him from time to time on traffic issues and so on. .

() ,

• 13 Q Did he say that I had discussed with him this 14 matter of emergency planning for a nuclear emergency?

15 '

A No.

16 Q Do you know Mr. Joseph Palmeri of the Stouffer --

17 manager of the Stouffer Valley Forge Hotel?

18 MR. RADER: I did not get the name.

19 Could we have that again?

20 MR. ANTHONY: It is Mr. Joseph Palmeri.

21 JUDGE HOYT: How does one spell that?

(~)

(/ 22 MR. ANTHONY: P-a-l-m-e-r-i, manager of the 23

.Stouffer Valley Forge Hotel,and until recently he was 24 Aap-Federal Reporters, Inc.

the pres'ident of the King of Prussia Industrial Park

25 Association.

REE 11/7 17,431 I BY MR. ANTHONY:

2 Q You are acquainted with Mr. Palmeri?

,c 3 A Yes, I am.

(

4 Q Did he mention that I talked with him about 5 emergency planning?

6 A No, he did not.

7 O Do you have a copy of the letter that I wrote 8 to Mr. Volpe? It is Exhibit No. 17 9 A Yes, I did.

10

, Q One more question about officials in the II township. Do you know Mr. Wallace Elms, the superintendent 12 of Valley Forge National Park?

13 A Yes, I do.

IN

-Q Has he talked with you about emergency plans 15 for a Limerick emergency?

I0 'A It was not a direct conversation. We were I7 meeting on a traffic related issue, and we just had some

(

18 general discussion along the extent as to how much of the l'

-park was involved within the ten-mile limit. 'That was.it.

20 Nothing to do with an evacuation.

21 Q It was a discussion of traffic?

(,

22 A We were discussing other related traffic 23

-problems-involving' North' Golf Road'which is the main 24 Asensserse neporwr , Inc.

access road to the park.

Q North Golf Road?

REE 11/8 17,432 I

1. A Correct.

2 0 And is there a serious traffic problem?

.- 3 A Yes, there is.

4 Q And would that have some effect on evacuation I 5 plans for the ten-mile area and for evacuation of the a park and King of Prussia?

7 MR..RADER: Objection. No foundation for that 8 question. The witness has not shown any familiarity 9 with the existing plans, the evacuationtine estimate 10 study, or any of the underlying data, nor any

~ll particular expertise in traffic control, traffic engineering, 12 .or evacuation planning.

. 13 MR. ANfHONY: The witness did sa'y that he had

- Id talked with Mr. Elms about traffic problems. And this is 15 relevant to the evacuation plans. Two routes go.through or I0 next to the Valley Forge Park.

II JUDGE HOYT: Let's see where we-can go with this.

18 I will overrule the objection. I am not ouite certain I'

how much information these witnesses may.have, Mr..Rader.

~20 If you wish to renew'the objection, were it to be determined 21 that the witnesses were unable to respond to the-questions,

(

22 -you may-move also to strike.

23 :BY-MR. ANTHONY:

24 Q Did Mr. Elms mention talking with me about as reseres neoeneri, Inc.

25 emergency planning for the park in case of a nuclear

= ---

, REE.11/9 17,433 1 emergency?

2 A' No.

4

. 3 Q Are you acquanited with the extent of the 4 traffic problems, daily traffic problems in Valley Forge 4

5 Park, and could you specify what they are?

6 A I am familiar with the traffic problems within 7 Upper Marion Township, and the problems we have in that area 8 of-the township. We have North Golf Road, which is 9 a-two-lane" straight arterial, and it handles in that 10 vicinity approximately 26- to 29,000 trips a day.

II

' And under- normal engineering staridards of

, i.

12 AASHTO, that would, according to the capacity of that 13 highway, somewhere between 14,000 and 17,000 vehiclas.

I 14 a day.woeld be considered normal capacity. -

15 Q Is that.in Valley Forge Park?

10

,, A Yes. Tha't is North Golf Road.

II l JUDGE HOYT: ~ North what?

18 i

WITNESS WAGENMANN: North Golf Road. It is II also known as Route 363.

20 MR. ANTHONY: It is on these maps. If you 21 need to. refer to it.you can, I think, refer to it on-7 i .- 22 the maps _that have been distributed.

o .

23 -BY-MR, ANTHONY:

L 24 Q Could you describe where it is located on the iAspeeserenesen=,inc.

25

j. map, Mr. Wagenmann?

l l

REE 11/10 17,434 I A It would be, as you are looking at the

'2 exhibits in the upper right portion or -- excuse me, 3

upper left portion of the map, you see a -- there is a

,O 4 white star, which is the intersection of North Golf

-5 Road and the, what they call Outer Line Drive within the 6 park itself.

7 JUDGE HOYT: What exhibit are you testifying from, 8 sir?

9 r

~ WITNESS WAGENMANN: I-am looking specifically )

.10 at what is marked here as Exhibit 16 from the study, II which is a nap of the township.

12 JUDGE HOYT: I have it. Thank you.

- 13 BY MR. ANTHONY:

14 Q You said'that the traffic was 29,000 trips?

15 A Along North Golf Road in the area of the

. 16 Sheraton and so on, it is about 26- to 29,000. And one 17 .of our more recent traffic counts, which was'done after 18 the study, puts it at about 29,1000 trips a day.

I' Q And you said that was twice the capacity of 20 the highway? 14,000 was the capacity?

21

'A What would normally be considered an acceptable

,m 22 level of service, which is 14,000 to 17,000 vehicles.

23 So that that is somewhere near-twice the Q

(; 24 capacity, the normal capacity of the highway? Is that i Aes-Federal Reporters, Inc.

U right?

1

. _ . - , _ -- - - - . - - , , - - , , , - - - ,---,-.-.----e-,.,,-v.., , . . . - - , -,-,y -y. , F -----,-.,1.-.-w- ---

a REE 11/11' 17,435 l A Correct.

2 O I would just like to check on the few of

- 3 the figures I have used in the letter to Mr. Volpe. If (j,s -

4 you have that handy, that is Exhibit No.1.

5 Did I suggest that the township supervisors 4 testify at this hearing?

7 A No . - I believe it was that Mr. Waters would 8 testify and that they would authorize myself to testify.  !

9 g In-the first paragraph, may'I auote, 10 "We hope that the supervisors may be available to II testify also."

I2 A Okay. That sentence is there.

13 Q And were they asked to testify by you?.

Id A I asked them if any of them would like to 15 testify.

16 Q What was the_ response, please?

L 17 -

A That they would go along with the second part

. 18 and have myself testify and Mr. Waters testify.

19 Q I appreciate that they did that. -

20 Did they discuss the last sentence in that 21 first paragraph, " Evacuation planning and the safety- ,

22 ~

of public necessities such as water and food supplies 23 o.

.in case of-a nuclear accident"?

24 MR. RADER: Objection. Irrelevant.

A m.peesras nepore m ,Inc.

25 JUDGE HOYT: Yes. That is irrelevant. The

REE 11/12- 17,436 I objection is sutained.

t 2 Particularly, also, Mr. Anthony, you miscuoted 3 the letter in paragraph 1. But the objection is sustained.

O 4 BY MR. ANTHC'dY:

5 0 In paragraph 2 the township's current population 6 is stated at 27,000. Is that approximately correct? =

7 A That is approximately correct. The 1980

/

8 census figure was 26,138, and we have built several 9 -hundred living units since the 1980 census which have been I

10 '

, occupied. '

i .

' Q And the workers in King of Prussia, 48,000, 12 is that approximately correct? (

( 13 A That,is a little high. We use an estimate Id of app'oximately r 40,000 people based on the occupational i

15 privilege tax thatlisfpaid in the township.

5.

16 Q Do you have a figure on whether this is pretty #

17 closely correct on the total parking spaces in the King s

+

18 of Prussia area -- 226,000?

A I don't have an actual count of the number of

- 20 spaces. I know that the mall itself has approximately 21 50,000 parking spaces at the mall. I would say that 22 that is a realistic figure based. on all the offices 23

.and commercial establishmonth that we have, but we have 24 no record that adds them up.

25 0 It was 236,000 as a realistic figure. And there

REE 11/13 17,437 1 are 50,000 parking spaces for each mall; is that the 2 way I understand it?

3 A No. There is a total of 50,000 parking spaces 4 for the two -- for the totwl 2.5 million square feet.

5 0 At peak times, could there be, if there are 6 226,000~ parking spaces, could there be a driver and a 7 fraction of a passenger -- that is kind of a strange 8 way to put it -- so that at peak times there could 9 be 300,000 individuals who would be shopping or working 10 or visiting in the King of Prussia area?

II A Yes. That figure I have no problem accepting 12 since the shopping malls.themselves, by their own 13 estimate, during the peak shopping periods, each Id mall can get in excess of 100,000 shoppers. So within 15 the mall itself, during a normal heavv shopping day, 16 you could have approximately a quarter of a million 17 shoppers.

I 18 Q And if there were an emergency and that many I9 people, which is, I guess, 300- or 400,000, and the ,

20 automobiles, the vehicles to go with them would be 21 \. another 250- or 300,000, how would they be evacuated 22 from the township in case of an emergency?

(

23 .MR. RADER: -Objection. No foundation on two 24 noints. First of all, with regard to the total Moderal Reporters, Inc.

~

25 evacuation of the EPZ, they certainly wouldn't all go

=

. . ~ . -

9; s

'~REE 11/14 17,438 1

through Upper Marion Township. '

2 And secondly, there is :no testimony or other 3

foundation regarding an evacuation off:the King of O 4 Prussia Mall area or any area of Upper Marion Township 5 which is not part of the EPZ.

.; . 6 JUDGE HOYT: That is clearly outside the 7 EPZ, Mr. Anthony. The objection is sustained, 8 BY MR. ANTHONY:

9 -Q Do shoppers'and workers, visitors, enter 10 by the following routes: 363, route 23, 202 east and II west, Pennsylvania Turnpike east and west, the Schuylkill 12 Expressway, Henderson Avenue, and North an,d South Golf 13 Roads?

14 A I- don't understand the auestion, t.' hat they 15 enter the township and exit the township via these

.END-11_ 16 roadways?

17 18 19 20 21 .

v 22 123 24 AssFees,w nepo,m:3. anc.

. '25

. , . - . . _ _ .- _ _....- ~.-. .._,.,_...-. _. _ __ _ ..._... ,_ .-.-. -

1 17,439 T12 MM/mm1 Q Yes, are those the main --

l 2 A Yes, all except Henderson. Henderson's roadway is l 3 totally located within Upper Merion Township. It is an internal 4 roadway. All the other roadways do serve as access highways 5 into and out of Merion Township.

6 Q Do people. travel on Henderson Road in and out, too?

7 Do vehicles travel to work and to shop along 8 Henderson Road, too?

9 -A .As I. stated, it is an internal roadway. Yes, it 10 handles traffic, but your question was, are these routes that 11 bring traffic into and then take traffic out of the township.

12 And as I stated, it is a completely internal roadway.

()

• 13 It does carry t,raffic, yes.

14 Q The traffic study has figures for intersections and, 15 I believe that is on Exhibit No. 4 -- 4 and 5. And there is

'16 .also indication in the growth in traffic on these exhibits.

17 And Exhibit 6, especially, has stars on it.

18 Could you explain what those stars signify?

19 A' Exhibit -- I need some clarification. By Exhibit 20 No. 4, youyare referring to which exhibit, Mr. Anthony?

21 JUDGGIOYT : Mr. Wagenmann, let me review for you,

/N.,

.((

r

.22 since these exhibits were not marked for;you prior to your 23 ' receiving them.

24- What this Board and this record will reflect as being Ase-reseres noper,.n, Inc.

! 25 ' Exhibit'4, is the aftGrnoon peak hour traffic volume. You i

, - , , ,.,,.,c,- , . . . - ,.,..,n,..,n-~ ..-_.,.,--.,,.,,_ .,,,n w n, -,.,,,-,,,,,.. - .,--,- ,, ,,-- ,,, -

-4. , . - , - , , , , , ,

17,440 mm2 I will find that at the bottom of the map there.

2 WITNESS WAGENMANN: Okay.

3 p JUDGE HOYT: The Exhibit marked E-5, is the page V

4 entitled Exhibit 15, Intersection Conditions, Summary Table.

5 What the Board has marked as Exhibit 6 is another 6 map containing stars, and at the bottom marked Intersection

-7 Traffic Condition.

8

, If you have not had E,xhibit 3 marked, it is the 9 exhibit with a large group of arrows ---that's the one -- and 10 it is entitled at the bottom, Annualized Traffic Growth Rates.

' II

. WITNESS WAGENMANN: Okay.

12 Starting with Exhibit No. 3, entitled Annualized O. 13 Traffic Growth Rates, this is in fact Exhibit No. 5 from.the 14 Townshipwide Traffic Study Interim Report.

15 And what that study is showing through the arrows I'

is the percentage of traffic growth between the period of 1972 I7 through 1984 for various intersections throughout Upper Merion 18 Township. ,

I9 As you can see they range anywhere from' actual --

20 there are some that have reductions in traffic, but the majority 21 of the intersections throughout the township show various

. s)- 22 percentage increases up to in excess of 10 percent of traffic 23 ' capacity.

Exhibit No._4 is from that same Study. It is what

is Exhibit NO. 4 in the Study. It is the Afternoon Peak Hour

. ~ - . - _ _ . _ - - _ . . _ _ . . ~ . . ._ ._ ._ _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ - . _ , _ - _ _ . _ ._ ._.

i 17,441 mm3 I Traffic Volume. Again for selected intersections, it shows 2

the volumes of traffic that these intersections handled during yU - 3 the afternoon peak hours.

4 '

JUDGE HARBOUR: Excuse me, sir.

5 On that Exhibit 4-you were just referring to, there 6 are handwritten numbers.

~

Do you recognize those handwritten 7 numbers and what they mean?

8 MR. ANTHONY: I can explain those.

E " JUDGE'HOYT: Not cin- this record,- Mr. JAnthony. This 10 is tha witness's responsibility.

II MR. ANTHONY: Excuse.me.

I2 WITNESS WAGENMANN: I did not put those items on the 13 exhibit. I am not'sure, really, what they are or where they I4 are from at this point.

15 I would point out also, I know what the purple and 16 the brown line represents, but I did not place them on the r I7 exhibit either.

18 Exhibit No. 5 is, in fact, the first page of what

" is Exhibit 15 within the Study, and as has been previously 20 mentioned this is a three-page exhibit, and this is the first i.

21 page of that exhibit. And it is just giving a summary of the I 'Q'/ 22 intersection condition, taking into consideration-level of 23 -service, accident -history, peak hour volumes, and proj ected growths for those intersections.

25

.And then, prioritize them in the study, which is the

17,442 mm4 I final colurin, Traffic Problem Index Score, as to the conditions 2

of those intersections. l 3

Exhibit No. 6 is in fact Exhibit No. 16 from the 4 Interim Report entitled Intersection Traffic Conditions. And 3 the stars that you see, the dark or the black stars are those 6 intersections, based on the previous exhibit that I discussed, l 7 those intersections'that were found to be unacceptable in their 8 levels of service and their capacities. And the white stars 9 would be those that are considered to be acceptable.

10 And they are all part of the Interim Traffic Report.

II BY MR. ANTHONY:

12 Would the.Llack stars correspond to the circles on Q

II Ex'ibi.t h 3?

• I4 IWitness Wagenmann) No. My Exhibit 3 doesn't have A_

15 circles.

16 My Exhibit 4 has circles.;

I7 Q . Pardon, I'm mixed up. Exhibit 4.

18 Do those stars correspond to those intersections I'

. which, on Exhibit 4 have circles,to represent the volume of

'20 traffic?

2I A' I would state it this way: That the stars that

s- 22 are shown on Exhibit 6 do reflect all of the intersections-on

~

23 Exhibit-4 that have-circles.

24 However,'if you will look closely there are more 4 Aas-Federal Repersers, Inc.

st'ars than there are' circles.

.m.- - -.._._.. _ _.._ -.,_ ..-__,. ,. _ . , _ . _ . _ - , _ . .. _ . . . _ _ - - _ . _ . -

17,443 l

mm5 I Q And the black stars are -- indicate intersections 2 that are a real problem as far as service goes?

3 A That's correct.

O 4 Q And the Township Report says, if you would look at j 5 page 1, the Introduction, I would just like to quote a sentence 6 from that. Do you have where I am looking? That is the third 7 . paragraph on page 1.

8 (Witness referring to document.)

.9 .I am looking-at a sentence that says:

10

" Accessibility, the factor responsible for II "

much of Upper Merion's tremendous growth -

12 That is in your copy, is it?

13 A Yes.

14 0 "--isapproaching)thepointwhereitismorea 15 For more than 20 years, the liability than an asset.

16 Pennsylvania Turnpike, the Schuylkill Expressway, and 17 Route 202 made the Township an excellent location for 18 commercial and retail development, and a convenient I'

spot for residents. Today, all three of these highways E experience greater than capacity volumes on their 21 segments through the Township."

22 I would like to ask you a question,, whether there 23 is a momentum for-growth.in the Township-which worries the 24 Township Supervisors?

W Repormes, Inc.

23 Does that worry the Supervisors?

17,444 mm6 1 I A I would use, that it concerns the Supervisors.

2 Obviously, that is why the transportation plan was done, 3 because the followup to this report are recommendations of 4 actions to be taken-to improve the traffic situation within 5 Upper Merion Township.

6 0 Will there be any way to stop the increase in traffic ,

7 or will that just continue?

8 A It would be very difficult for Upper Merion Township 9 to~ control the' growth of traffic, since-all three of these 10 highways are primary state-- actually federal highways, and they II are primary access routes, actually interstate access routes 12 through the Township.

• I3 Even if Upper Merion Township was to stop growing

• Id today, we would experience increased traffic because of the 15 growth that is taking place in the communities that surround 16 Upper Merion Township.

17 Q Is Upper Merion Township in a sense a victim of.

18 these highways?

MR. RADER: Objection. That is leading the witness.

20 JUDGE HOYT: The objection is sustained.

21 BY MR. ANTHONY:

22 on these intersections which are shown by the circles O

23 -and the stars, at-peak times are there traffic lineups there?

24 A (Witness Wagenmann) What the Exhibit No. 6, by Ase-ressrss nepor m s,Inc. l 25 stating it is an unacceptabl'e -- that these are unacceptable i l

1 l

17,445 !

mm7 I conditions, they are indicating that during the peak hour 2 periods, yes, there are unacceptable traffic conditions at 3 those intersections and long delays.

4 And by long delays, would it mean that a person Q

5 could wait in the car in line for half an hour?

6 A I can't state as to the time length. I can just 7 state that there was congestion experienced. And, there is 8 delay ~in free flow of traffic.

Was Mr.-Waters involved-in emergency planning for Q

10 Limerick?

II A No.

12 Q Did he report to you on any meetings he attended 13 with the State or the County?

I4 A After he became Emergency Management Coordinator, 15 he became familiar with the plan.

16 Q Is he acquainted with the County officials?

II A Yes. . He is, because there were certain aspects ,

18 of the plan concerning central staging and transportation, that he would be involved with as an Emergency Management Coordinator

( ,

20 appointed by the State.

21 And the staging and transportation has something to Q

22 do with the Township? -

23 g y,,, .

24 Q What does it have.to do with the Township? This m neponen, Inc.

25 is staging for emergency planning for an evacuation in case of

, . - . - . . - . . . - . . . . . . - . . - . = . . - . . , . - . - . - . . - . - _ - - . - - . . - ~

17,446 mm8 I an emergency at Limerick?

2 A I will let Mr. Waters answer that question, since 3 he is familiar with the details.

4 A (Witness Waters) Upper Merion Township,has been 5 designated as central resource staging area, and as a transporta- -

6 tion staging area in the Limerick Evacuation Plan.

-7 0 What does that mean, your responsibilities are?

8 A Responsibility will be to coordinate the dispatching, 9 receiving of transportation facilities and'what'they are calling 10 cantral res'urce., foodstuffs.and such, which will be staged at II the King of Prussia Plaza.

12 There will be a RACES operator dispatched to that 13 area. And when asked by the EOC to dispatch any goods that may Id have arrived at the staging area, they will be dispatched from 15 there.

16

-Q ~You are saying goods or food would be stored there?

17 A I believe so. -

18 What kind of gyods, and what kind of food?

'Q _

I I'

.MR. RADER: I object to this line of questioning as 20 irrelevant. This has nothing to do with evacuation or Evacuation 21 Time Estimate Studies.

22 JUDGE HOYT: Objection sustained.

23 .BY MR. ANTHONY:

24 Q Who made the decision -- first of all, how many m nepenen, inc.

25 vehicles would be involved at the staging area that would be

i l

I 17,447 mm9 .I part.of the evacuation planning?

2 A (Witness Waters) I don't know at this time.

3 Q Do you have -- how many of your staff do you have 4 trained or assigned to take care of thic operation?

5 MR. RADER: Objection. This is also irrelevant for 0 the same reason.

7 JUDGE HOYT: Sustained.

8 BY MR. ANTHONY:

There was a decision made to make available this

~9 Q

10 area at King of Prussia Plaza for this duty.

II Who made that decision?

12 I - . A (Witness Waters) I don' t know. I was only notified O 13 of the decision.

14 Q Did you know who made that decision, Mr. Wagenmann?

15 l A (Witness Wagenmann) No, I don't.

16 Q Did the Township Supervisors, were they in on the I7 consideration of this?

~

18 A -If they were I don't have any knowledge of that.

I' This all occurred prior to both Mr. Waters' and myself' coming 20 with the Township.

21 Do you know Mr. Bigelow the County Supervisor?

Q s.

10 22 A I don't know him personally, no..

! -23 g 'po you'~know him,' Mr. Waters?

l 24 A (Witness Waters) Yes, I do.

A=-res=m Repomre, anc.

l 25 Q Has he talked with you about these plans?

-.,ae----ee--www -,- - - - - - - - - , - - - - - - - - , - - , - - - , -* <----+_r--------r- a

i 17,448 i mml0 1 A Yes.

2 Q Have you discussed them with the Township Supervisors?

l 3 A No. Only with the Township Manager.

O 4 Q Do you think the Township Supervisors are aware of ,

5 this plan?

6 A' (Witness Wagenmann) They are aware of the fact that 7 we are not within the ten-mile radius.

g They are aware of the fact that there is a staging 9 area.

10 Q They are aware of what? Excuse me?

11 A That there is a staging area at the Mall.

12 Q Have you heard that discussed?

3 ()'

, 13 A No. During discuasion it was brought up as to what 14 our involvement would be, and it was a statement to that 15 effect. There was no ongoing conversation.

16 Q Mr. Waters, have you talked with emergency planning 17 PeoP l e about plans to block off the highways that run through

. 18 the Township? .

19 .A (Witness Waters) No, I have not.

20 Q Have you heard any such plan mentioned?

21 A No, I have not.

. I 22 O Would it be possible to stop all the traffic on 23 Route 202 and the Pennsylvania Turnpike, Mr. Wagenmann?

24 I want either of you to answer that.

m nasoners,Inc.

25 A (Witness Wagenmann) I cannot answer the question k

17,449 l

mmll I for the Pennsylvania Turnpike. It is possible to do anything.

2 But, I can't answer for them.

g 3 In regards to 202 it can be stopped. But I am 4 certain that it would create some major traffic congestion.

5 Have you ever seen it stopped?

Q 6 A For accidents.'

7 Did it. And, what were the results as far as

, Q 8 traffic goes?

9 A Traffic jams that are many miles long.

10 Q Are you aware that the -- one of the evacuation routeis

' comes south on County Line Expressway, turns at an interchange, 12 a 270-degree turn onto Route 202.

13 Are you with me so.far?

Id A The evacuation route comes down what is called the 15 Pottstown or County Line Expressway to the interchange with 16 202 Northbound.

17 It takes 202 Northbound to the Expressway extention.

18 They then pick up the Expressway Westbound to the Pennsylvania I'

Turnpike, which they will enter upon the Turnpike and then 20 end T12 travel in an easterly direction.

21 0 22

= 23 24 w rasnmnoorms,inc.

25

l 17,450 nntiona CR21552

1. 13-mn-1 I g The turn from Pottstown expressway as you call it 2

onto 202, is that a 270-degree turn approximately?

r~N 3

! ) A It is an interchange ramp, yes.

4 4 It has to turn practically all the way around?

5 A Yes. It is a ramp.

6 g It is the same kind of 270-degree turn from 202 7 onto Schuylkill Expressway?

8 A Yes, it is.

9 4 Is there a certain amount of traffic travelling 10 east on 202 that turns or heads across a ramp and into the II Schuylkill Expressway just after the Pottstown Expressway?

12

,m A Yes. Route 202 and the Expressway are very high L]

13 volu[ne traffic roadways at those locations within Upper I4 Merion Township. They handle approximately 60,000 vehicles 15 per day.

16 g So then there would be a considerable a lot of I7 traffic travelling east onto 202 which should take a ramp 18 onto Schuylkill Expressway svuth?

I.9 A Yes.

20 g Does 'any traffic that titrns onto 202 and wants .to

, m, 21 proceed on 202 east have to cross that flow of traffic?

t

)

22 A Let me get my directions in my mind here because

'23 202 is north and nouth and the Philadelphia Expressway is 24 an east and west roadway. You are confusing me.

, Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 g I may have mixed up the points of the compass.

17,451 mn13-2 1 I guess what I would like to do is to visualize traffic 2 heading toward King of Prussia on 202 but not going to  ;

3 King of Prussia but taking the ramp onto Schuylkill 4 Expressway south.

5 A The Schuylkill Expressway ramp is a cloverleaf 6 style ramp so therefore, traffic that would be entering off 7 of 202 northbound to pick up the expressway westbound of 8 the turnpike would be crossing or have to cross the path 9 of -traffic that was exiting-the expressway westbound to 10 pick up the off ramp for 202 southbound.

11 So there would be a cross-over of traffic, yes.

12 g Are there accidents there? Does it happen that

(- 13 there are accidents there? ,

14 A- Yes. .

15 g Is that fairly frequent?

16 A It is a highly congested area and there are i

i 17 frequent accidents.

l i

18 S .Are there accidents on the turn from 202 into 19 the Schuylkill Expressway?

20 A Yes. Again, because it is a highly congested

'21 entrance ramp onto the expressway.

^O

~- 22 O Do cars have to slow down making that cloverleaf 23 circle and does it mean .that there is single file cars?

24 A Yes. They are single lane on and off ramps.

Ace-Federet Reporters, Inc.

25 G Can you picture considerable congestion if there i

l 17,452 mn13-3 l 1 were a nuclear emergency and there were an evacuation route r

2 that made those turns?

3 7-, .

MR. RADER: Objection. The witness has not shown v 4 any knowledge nor has any foundation been laid for his 5 knowledge regarding the routes or the density of traffic 6 over those routes in the event of an emergency.

7 JUDGE HOYT: Yes. I believe on that latter grounds, 8 in particular, Mr. Anthony, that obection is sustainable.

9 -BY MR. ANTHONY: (Resuming) 10 Q Did the supervisors read the third paragraph of 11 my letter to Mr. Volpe which is exhibit number one?

12 A .(Witness Wagenmann). Again, I would state as I

) 13- stated before, they received copies of the letter indtheir -

14 board packets 'for discussion and there was a general 15 discussion and it-was agreed that the manager and the 16 emergency management coordinator could, in fact, be subpoenaed 17 to attend the hearings and to provide wh'atever information is ,

18 requested.

19 Did they agree in paragraph three with the G

20 statement, "The ten-mile radius is an arbitrary NRC limit."

21 MR. RADER: Objection, irrelevant.

22 MR. ANTHONY: A radioactive cloud -- I am asking 23 ..him = about the letter-and - the ~ reaction of the township 24 supervisors.

. Ace-Federal Fle;.1rters, Inc.

25 MR. RADER: Same objection.

l

^

l mn13-4 17,453 I I MR. McGURREN: The staff would join in that 2 objection, Your Honor. It goes beyond the scope of this

, 3 contention.

4 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. The objection is sustained.

5 BY MR. ANTHONY: (Resuming) 6 g The last sentence in paragraph three, "The EPZ..."

7 "

that is the emergency planning zone, ... evacuation also 8 provides for townships with 21,279 population in the 10-11 mile 9 .. ring and 10,349-in the 11-12> mile ring."

10 MR. RADER: I object to that as irrelevant and 11 without foundation.

12 JUDGE HOYT: Sustained.

t'N (f 13 BY MR., ANTHONY: (Resuming) 14 4 Are you aware, Mr. Wagenmann, that there are 15 townships outside the 10-mile circle that have been provided 16 with emergency planning? '

17 MR. RADER: Objection, irrelevant.

18 JUDGE HOYT: I don't see any relevance to that at 19 all, Mr. Anthony. The objection is sustained..

20 BY MR. ANTHONY: (Resuming) 21 O What is the width in miles of the township from its 22 northern border to its southern border?

23 A. (Witness Wagenmann) From its northern border, l

24 again that varies because we are not a uniform shape but

A..Faws n.poran, Inc.

25 it would be probably about four miles.

17,454 an13-5 1 g So its furthest north would be in the Valley Forge 2 Park, would you say?

.g3 3 A Again, your directions -- the furthest north would g

4 be the Schuylkill River in a westerly direction. Our western 5 most boundary is a peninsula created by the park and it is

6 a creek that is located actually at the county line.

4 7 g, Would you say -- you did say that part of the park 8 was within the ten-mile circle, did I understand you to say

. '9 tnat-before?

10 MR. RADER: Objection. That is irrelevant.

11 BY MR.' ANTHONY: (Resuming) 12 4 Is the main section of the park within the 11 mile

?() 13 circle?

14 -

A- No.

15 g Is it 12 miles?

16 MR. RADER: Objection. That is irrelevant.

17 MR. ANTHONY: I think we are.trying to find some 18 basis for why this was not included and that is the basis.

19 JUDGE HOYT: The objection is sustained. '

.20 MR. ANTHONY: Could-I call the Board's and 21 Mr. Wagenmann's attention to the fact that the wording of D

(-) 22 LEA-24/ FOE-1 is 'these areas should either be included in-23 the emergency-planning zone-and the areas mean Marsh Creek 24 State Park, Valley Forge Park, King of Prussia either included Ass-Federal Repo,sers, Inc.

25 in the emergency planning zone or' adequate plans for traffic

+

17,455 mn13-6 1

control and direction should be made to avoid adverse 2 effects on emergency zone evacuation, the EPZ evacuation.

3 BY MR. ANTHONY: (Resuming) 4 G In consideration of that, Mr. Wagenmann, do you

~

5 - think that the traffic situation in the township, in your

-6 township, would impact on emergency planning and the 7 evacuation *.hrough the township?

8 'IR. RADER: Again, the same objection. There is t

9 - no foundation laid that the witness has any-idea regarding 10 the routes that have been used for an evacuation or the 11 density of traffic involved with an evacuation.

Therefore, 12 4 there is no' foundation for 'any answer to that question.

13 MR. ANTHONY

He is aware of the rou'tes through -

14 the township and evacuation that we 'have just been talking 15 about, I have been>questiloning him about the terms from 16 County Line Expressway onto 202 and onto the Schoylkill 1

17 Expressway. So I think'it is entirely relevant.

i 18 JUDGE HOYT: The objection was not as to the 19 relevance, Mr. Anthony. The objection was as to the proper 20 foundation being laid to ask your question. On the basis 21 of the foundation, the objection is sustained. You may say s

i 22 the foundation if you can.

(

.23 -(Time signal sounded.)

24 JUDGE HOYT: However, your 90 minutes, Mr. Anthony, Ase Federal Repo,ters, Inc.

25 have expired.

T- -' we--- c-- T--*-e+--ei9-e-m-m-wwm.e p-ww+v-*wNww--'wwwy*wp~*g,-1,- +w=mw 9---ww=1y- m DMWw-q mm+-Mga-m*e-gy9-ww*t--+w W 1r ^ g+g v$mw>g-f*'- ty-eV9*(y-y--e m = 99 ye

17,456 i an13-7.

1 MR. ANTHONY: Did I understand you to say, Judge 2 -Hoyt, that the time was taken out for the interruptions?

3 JUDGE HOYT: Yes, that is correct, for the

.O 4 -interruption of the matter concerning the voir dire, 5 the time had been taken out.

4-6 MR. ANTHONY: I would like the Board's permission 7 to continue for ten more minutes.

8 JUDGE HOYT: Mr.. Anthony, the request is denied.

. 9- ,You have consistently ~ abused it in the past and I see no 10 reason that it would not be in the future. Let's see. It-is J 11 l

now almost one o' clock and we must adjourn for the luncheon t

12 period. Will one hour be sufficient for everyone today?

() .

13 (Chorus of ayes.)

14 JUDGE-HOYT: Very well. We will reconvene at' 15 two o' clock. We are adjourned.

16 (Whereupon, the hearing was recessed at 12:50 17 o' clock p.m., to reconvene at 2:00 o' clock p.m., the same f 18 day.) ,

19 ---

20 21 3sj 22

.23 l l

24 A m f e n s n o o,a n, w . I 25

17,457 mn13-8 1 gTERNOON SESSION 2 JUDGE HOYT: The hearing will come to order.

3 Let the record reflect that all the garties to the hearing 4 who were present when the hearing recessed are again present, 5 that the witnesses have taken their place on the witness stand.

6 Gentlemen, earlier today you took an oath here with us 7 and I will remind you that you are still under oath.

8 I believe the witnesses are now ready for cross-examination.

-Ie.will. adhere'to the same schedule that we had adhered to 10 earlier in the hearing, Mr. Rader, and you will be accorded 11 60 minutes for cross-examination.

12 Whereupen,

• n.

y/ 13 .

RONALD WAGENMANN

~

14 and 15 JOHN WATERS,

' 16 having been called as witnesses on behalf of Friends of the 17 Earth, and having been previously duly sworn, were further ,

18 examined and continued to testify as follows:

• 19 CROSS-EXAMINATION XXXX 20 BY MR. RADER:

21 G Mr. Wagenmann, do you have any formal education l 22 in the areas of traffic engineering, transportation engineering '

23 .or. traffic flow. simulation modeling?

24 A' (Witness Wagenmann) No.

As -Fasers n corers, sae.

25 Are you familiar with a document published by the G

- 7 e *W-- - " w y- + e y e -+www-e-wrm-w--ww----m -

nv *s ed--yw--a myyee i e-r rT--F-1 -'vr- ---mV--

mn13-9 17,458 I Highway Research Board entitled Highway Capacity Manual?

2 A I am not particularly familiar with that one.

- 3 I am familiar with the AASHTO manual and design manual for 4 'PennDOT.

l 5 g- Are you familiar with a document entitled, " Interim 6 Materials on Highway Capacity" published as Transportation ,

7 Research Circular. Number 212 by the Transportation Research 8 Board?

9 A No.

10 0 Have you ever performed a traffic engineering analysis 11 using any of the documents I just mentioned?

I2 A No, I have not.

. 13 ~G Are you familiar with the contents of a document 14 entitled " Criteria _for Preparation and Evaluation of 15 Radiological Emergency Response Plans.and Preparedness in 16 support of nuclear power plants" published as NUREG-0654 by 17 the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Federal Emergency g 18 Management Agency?

19 A No, I am not.

20 G Would it be accurate'to say then, sir, that you are 21 not familiar with appendix four of that document which-

-22 prescribes methodologies and assumptions for evacuation time 23 estimate studies?

24 A That is correct.

Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 4 Have you ever witnessed a large-scale evacuation,

i l

mn13-10 17,459 1 sir?

l 2 A No, I have not. A formal evacuation, no. '

3 G By that, I mean an evacuation in response to an 4 amergency or disaster event.

5 A In regards to the Three Mile Island accident, it 6 was not a formal evacuation. It was a voluntary evacuation 7 on people that lived within the community where I worked.

8 G The study about which 'Mr. Anthony asked you 9 certain questions,-was the purpose of-that study to develop 10 an existing baseline traffic condition analysis for major 11 highways within Upper Merion Township?

12 A That is correct and the final part of th t report

() 13 is to take it one step further and to make recommendations to 14 help alleviate those problems.

15 g As a - result of that report were there certain*

16 recommendations made?

17 A Yes. The second part of the report, there are a 18 number of recommendations. There are, I believe, 13 projects 19 for the township to undertake and then there are approximately 20 12 or 13 additional projects that the study recommends that 21 we go back to PennDOT to attempt to have them undertake (s - 22 those particular highway projects.

23. .O What plans if any does the township have now 24 to improve traffic conditions during commuter hours which Aos-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 you described as peak hours, I believe?

Emn13 17 460 1 A As a result of the study the final report is now 2 .being drafted and it has those 13 projects in the study

. 3 and we are in the process of attempting to implement those 4 projects. Specifically, the North Cobb Road Project that

5 was recommended in the study, we have received federal 6 funding for that project and it is in the process of being ,

7 designed. We are in the process of doing initial designs 8 on what is called the west end of the parkway project

-9 ' and we. are also involved with the county through their 10 regional planning agency and the Department of Transportation 4

- 11 on the 12-year progran to attempt to have several of the 12 projects which were recommended to be undertaken by the-

) . 13 . state and the federal government also commenced. -

14 0 Has there been any calculation of the overall 15 reduction in traffic load and traffic congestion which would 16 result when each of the recommendations has been implanented?

17 A There would not be a reduction'in traffic flow.

18 There would be an improvement in traffic capacity of the 19

. roadways involved because of the fact that there would~be 20 some shifting around and there would be some increases, 21 .but all told based on all the projects, there would be 22 some 34,000 peak hour trips in improved capacity as a result 23 . of the projects which are recommended as a part of the 24 study.

Ass pesares mese,ws. Ine.

25 4 Was one of the recommendations that a computeriz,ed

mn13-AA 17,461 1 traffic-like control system be installed?

2 A That was mentioned in the study. It has been 3 completed. It is installed. What the study has recommended J 4 is that the computerized system be fine-tuned to become 5 what is called traffic actuated, that being that it can 6 respond to traffic conditions because the computer system 7 is preprogrammed that once certain perameters are mot as 8 far as density and traffic loading on the corridor, then

'9 certain programs would be instituted by the computer to improve 10 traffic flow along the corridor.

11 4 Would the same system have the capacity of evening 12 out traffic flows in the event of unexpected traffic congestion-?

13 A It would if the system is preprogrammed to handle 14 it, yes, or if the loacking happens to fall within some .of the 15 .perameters that are already preprogrammed.

16 4 Is it the township's intention to program the 1 17 computer in such a way?

18 A At the present time it'is not. We are just getting

-19 into programming to respond to our normal traffic conditions 20 and the shopping season and so on. First of all, we don't 21 have the data to really implement that type of program. It O' 22 can be done and it could be done at a later date and we have 23 hired a, traffic engineering consultant who will be retained 24 Ae-reseres noenm,Inc.

on a consulting basis with the township to change the program-25 ming from time to time.

i 17,462

.mn13-13 I

G Throughout your testimony you refer to the 2

terms " road capacity" and " level of service." Would you 3

(~) please define those as you used them in your testimony?

U 4 A All right. The level of service has to do again 5

with AASHTO design manual and I believe they probably are 6

associated with the document but I am familiar with them.

7 They are what they call "A," "B/" "C," "D," "E" and "F" 8

, levels of service. On roadways and intersection capacities 9

what you are targeting for improvement is to try to bring 10 tnat intersection into you would prefer a higher level II but a "C" level of service. Anything above that, a "D," "E" 12 or "F" is considere unacceptable, that the intersection and n\

("_/ 13 the roadway is reaching capacity in regards co the amount of I4 traffic that it can handle.

15 The intersections in the study that are black 16 starred and found to be unacceptable, they are in service I7 at levels "D," "E" and in some cases "F."

18 Highway capacity has to do with what that highway l 19 can . handle in regards to the numbers of vehicles during 20 a peak hour, during the average day in a safe, efficient l 2I l manner without creating undue congestion or accident conditions.

22

1. 13 23 24 he-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25

CR 21552 17,463 1/8/85 REE Take 14 p;gg 1 1 Q So when you refor to road capacity, in fact, 2 you were using that to mean the same thing as 3 level of service?

4 A Well, it is a little different. Levels of 5 service, they mainly address in the study the cases 6 of the intersections themselves because these are the 7 most restrictive aspects of the roadway.

8 The level of service in regards to the road 9 itself is the lane miles or the lanes of traffic capacity.

10 There is a slight difference in the way tn2y were 11 utilized within our study.

12 I think you testified that one of the roads

-Q p'

13 in your township has a capa' city of 14,000 vehicles per Id day.

15 A 14 to 17.

10 Q As opposed to the AASHTO which runs according II to the AASHTO standard, and yet it accommodates 28,000 18 vehicles per day.

I9 A Yes.

20 Did you mean that the 14,000 represents the Q

21 appropriate level of service for that road under the 7

22 AASHTO standards?

23 A Yes. Under the'AASHTO standards. One of 24 the reasons it can handle the 28,000 vehicles a day *is, weswee n conm, Inc.

25 it has a very low truck traffic. Those levels of service

0

.%+ft>9@)TEST IMAGE EVALUATION ((jjg//

f b

p$dk,#

gpf7g,.9/ TARGET (MT-3) 4 Ygf[9 4+/  %,;% 1 l.0 Ela E ilE i,i l2

!. 9'5 llis e l.8 l.25 1.4 g

< 150mm *

< 6" >

,y l%+y//p y 4y%s,fL

!A . . . _ . _J

, V - -

l i

REE 14/2 17,464 i

1 are based on average standards for truck traffic and 2 vehicular traffic.

3 Q So when you referred to the 14- to 17,000 4 vehicles as an appropriate capacity, you were referring 5 to a level of service rather than as to what is 6 technically meant as a roadway capacity; is that correct?

7 A Well, for the acceptable level of service, 8 that is the capacity. 14 would be about a C. 17 would 9 put you up into the E.

10 g .You would acknowledge, sir, would you not, that-II a road that handles 28,000 vehicles per day, in fact, 12 has a capacity for 28,000, even though it may provide 13 a very ).ow ievel of service for that roadway?

Id . A: That is correct. It is handling it.

15 Q Now, Mr. Wagenmann, you also testified that 16 you had some involvement with emergency planning in 17 your township. Did that include the designation of 18 any particular routes utilized in Upper Marion for I9 evacuation in the event of an emergency at Limerick?

20 A No ." I stated that I was not nor was 21 Mr. Waters involved in the planning in the Limerick i

~' 22 response plan. I believe the question in regards to 23 .my experience or involvement in emergency management-24 was really -- had more to do with my involvement in Ase-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 Lower Paxton Township, my previous location of employment.

. _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ . , _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ . . _ , . _ . _ - . ._.,. ~ ._.

REE 14/3 17,465 I Q You also testified regarding what you 2 described as an All Hazards Plan for the King of Prussia 3 Industrial Park.

4 Does that plan include any evacuation time 5 estimates?

6 A No. When we talk about evacuation within that 7 plan, it would be to evacuate within the township.

i 8 For instaitce, we have a Rare Road, and if there is an 9

accident on,the Rare-Road and we must evacuate people 10 that live within the vicinity of the accident', we have 11 within the plan, it is all set up to evacuate people 12 from specific areas into school buildings and other 13 locations as a temporary location, 14 0 Were there any traffic or engineering studies 15 performed in connection with that plan?

16 A No.

17 Q Now, with regard to your testimony 18 concerning the North Golf Road, and I believe that was the 19

, road at which you testified involves a capacity of 14-20 to 17,000 vehicles; is that correct? -

21 A That is correct.

t v; 22 0 With regard to North Golf Road, and your 23

. testimony concerning.the use of that road, is there any 24 relationship you see between the peak conmuter hours

m n ponm. sne.

25 l and the traffic flow at that time and the traffic flow which

, . ~ . . . ~ . - _ . . - - . . .. - - . . . .

f REE 14/4 17,466-I would be associated with a Limerick emergency?

2 Do you have any basis to provide any information 3 on that?

4 A No.

5 Q Would you agree that in that situation, comparing 4 those two situations, the flows and density of traffic 7 would depend upon the destination and' origins of the 8 vehicles in question?

9 A It would depend on the destination.and" origin 10 and I would just add one point: it would depend on II the time of day because of existing traffic conditions.

12 0 You also testified regarding, I think what 13 you called "a momentum" or Mr. Anthony called a " momentum" '

14 for growth in Upper'Marion and I think which you agreed to.

15 Do you know whether the township has any 16 plans to improve traffic conditions related to that I7 momentum of growth?

l 18 A Yes. The whole townshipwide traffic plan or I'

traffic study was done with that purpose-in mind.

20 What you, in the interim report, see is the base'line

;21 information for existing conditions and the growth

^

22 that took place from '.72 to '84.

.23 The second part of the study went on to i

24

! evaluate future growth by taking areas that have assomme nes nw., ins.

25 development potential, creating a set of facts concerning or-l l

JREEJ14/5 17,467-1 projections based on that growth, and then plugging 2 those into the traffic figures in order to come up with 3 the fugure capacities or the ultimate capacities, let's 4 say, in regards to those parameters. And then that is where 5 they projected what improvements needed to be made to the 6 various roadways throughout the township.

7 Q Are you aware, sir, under emergency plans which would.

8 be put in place for the Limerick emergency planning zone, 9 whether the evacuation- time -estimate study for Limerit:k 10 would be updated periodically?

11 A No. I En not aware of that.

12 Q Mr. Waters, do you have any. knowledge --

() 13 A (Witness Waters) Wouid you repeat the 14 question, please?

15 O Do you have any knowledge as to whether or not 16 the evacuation time estimate study prepared forlthe 17 Limerick facility would be updated periodically to 18 include current developments regarding traffic flow

19 patterns?

i 12 20 A I would hope they would.

21 Q Mr. Wagenmann, you also testified, I think, ic 22 regarding a figure of 60,000 vehicles which might be 23 .using.202-north to the=Schuylkill Expressway to the 24 Pennsylvania Turnpike.

Do you recall that?

me.seems noorms, ins.

25 A (Witness Wagenmann) What.I stated was Route 202 '

f

. ~ ,rr- .,-,-,-,,,,m.-r,--v-..,-, r.w..~w.,-,,,,...,,-,e-~,-~-.--. ,_,--.,,-,-,-,,n,,,,n.,-,---.-,,,,nn-a,., , - , . . - , , . . . , , , , -

REE 14/6 17,468 1 handles approximately 60,000 or 60-plus thousand l'

2 vehicles per day. That would be in both directions.

l 3

rS Q Would that be a 24-hour flow as well? I U

4 A Yes. That is the average daily count.

5 Q I ser.. And would you have any basis to 6 relate that to any kind of an evacuation flow 7 which would result in the event of an emergency at Limerick?

8 A No, I don't.

'9 Q You testified regarding certain exhibits which 10 were marked by stars and circles, specifically

' 11 referring to Anthony / FOE Exhibit E-5, which I believe 12 is also exhibit 15 in the Upper Marion , study.

\-) 13 -

A' That is correct.

14 O There is one page here -- I wonder in your 15 copy -- are there three pages in your copy for Exhibit 15?

16 A Yes, there are.

17 I see from here, if I read the legend correctly, Q

18 that the fully-filled in circle represents an unacceptable 19 level of service based on the present time as well as 20 an unacceptable accident level; is that correct?

21 A As you go across the different positions, right,

, /~T 22 a totally blackened circle would indicate, under level

.23 of service, unacceptable. Under accidents,'that l

24 indicates that there were greater than eight accidents besener:3 neoorsm. inc.

25 at that location or more than 3 million vehicles. And under

REE 14/7 17,469' I the peak hour volume in the next column, a totally-2 blackened circle indicates that the volume there was 3 greater than 2800 vehicles during the peak hour.

{)

4 And under projected growth, a blackened circle 5 indicates that there is a very high projection of 6 increased growth for traffic at this particular location.

7 Q Could you explain how the data supporting this 8 chart was collected?

9 A Okay.

10 The levels of service was determined by actual 11 vehicle counts, either counts that had been conducted 12 by the department'of transportation, the Delaware ,

O 13 Valley Regional Planning Commission, or by the township I4 itself, or traffic studies which we had completed as 15 a result of developments that had been submitted to our i

16 planning commission for review.

17 So that the levels- of service were based on 18 actual vehicle counts compared against the standards.

I9 The accident records were the actual accident records 20 from the Upper Marion Township Police Department for the 21 first five months of 1984. The peak hour vehicle 22 counts, again, they used actual counts that were conducted i '

23 at the various intersections. Based on a 24 _ hour count or _

i 24 based on the counts that are taken, a record is taken; mm n.po,ws, Inc.

25 depending on the particular instrument that is used to

- - - - - - - - , . , - - . . - , - - . , - - - , , - , - , - . - - - . - - - . - , ~ - - - . - , - - -

- ~ , - , - - - - - , , , . , , , ,

REE 14/8 17,470 1 conduct the counts they -- for instance, the one the 2 township owns, it breaks it up every 15 minutes the 3 volume of traffic is totalized that has gone through 4 that location, plus it breaks it down by hour of day, 5 so they can actually go in and pull out what the 6 volumes of traffic were during peak hours.

7 ..The projected growth that is talked about 8 in this table has to do with actual land development 9 ~and division plans that had been approved by the township .

10 or were under construction. At a future time the study II took into account, as I have mentioned before, 12 developable lanils where the consultant himself just

\

. .13 . chose a scenario under which those tracts

• would be 14 developed and then implemented.

15 But this is -- to the point that this study 16 was just taking existing conditions and using I7 existing knowledge or existing plans that we knew had 18 been approved.

I' O So none of the data upon which Mr. Anthony's 20 Exhibit E-5 is based pertain to traffic flow or 21 accidents which occurred in the context of an evacuation; O 22 is that correct, sir?

23 A No. They are based on actual traffic.

24 MR. ANTHONY: Objection.

l m n oorwes,Inc.

25 JUDGE HOYT: I didri't understand your objection, Mr. Anthony. You must speak into the microphone.

17,471 l

i I

.T15 MM/mm1 I MR. ANTHONY: I withdraw the. objection. l 2 MR. RADER: No further questions.

3 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Goodwin --

4 MR. STONE: Your Honor --

5 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Stone, I didn' t ask you.

6 Would you mind permitting counsel to answer the 7 question?

8 MR. GOODWIN: Commonwealth has no cross, your Honor.

9 JUDGE HOYT: Mr.Hirsch, do you have any examination?

10 MR. HIRSCH: No.

II JUDGE HOYT: Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff?

I2 MR. MC GURREN: Your Honor, the Staff has just

~

13 one question.

Id If I may, I would like to show the Witness 15 Applicant's Exhibit E-92.

I0 JUDGE HOYT:' Very well.

I7 (Document handed to witnesses.)

18 Let the record reflect that Applicant's JUDGE HOYT:

I' E-92 has been shown to the witnesses. ,

20 BY MR. MC GURREN:

XXX 21 Q Mr. Wagenmann, do yo'u have before you Applicant's 22 Exhibit E-927 23 A -(Witness Wagenmann) Yes, I do.

24 Q In your testimony today, I think you made reference Ass-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 to North Gulph Road.

17,472 mm2 I I would just like to clarify for the record where i 2 North Gulph Road is. If you look at Applicant's Exhibit E-92, 3 I see North Gulph Road. Do you see North Gulph Road designated 4 there?

5 A Yes, it is designated as Route 363 and it has the 0 title North Gulph Road.

7 Q I take it that is accurate?

8 A Yes.

9 g Does-North Gulph Road follow Route 363 up-to the 10 Schuylkill River, or does it end somewhere before that point?

II A 'At.the present time, it crosses -- it actually I2 merges with what is called the County Line or Pottstown I3 Expressway and crosses the river to Trooper Road, which, if you Id look on the exhibit at the very top of the map you can see 15 363 and the words Trooper Road.

16 Q Now the traffic capcity figures that you were 17 giving'of, in the area of 28,000 vehicles -- do you recall 18 those figures?

I9 A Yes.

20 Was the.all along that whole Route 363 corridor?

, 0 2I A No.

t 22 The 28,000 vehicles per day was in the area --

23 would be in-the. area of First Avenue and Route 363 or North 24 r Gulph Road.

. A=-Fesws n ,=. inc.

25

( If you look at your exhibit and you come back down L

?

17,473 mm3 I into.the Township, you will see the 76 logo, and you come just 2 a little bit down into the lower right-hand corner, you can 3 see the little lines that intersect with North Gulph Road.

4 I can see where 76 crosses 363.

Q 5 A Okay, it would be down in that area. That's close 0 enough. It would be in that immediate area.

7 Let me just ask you one other question.

Q 8 Are any of the lines here -- do any of these lines

represent, in your understanding of the road system here, the 10 Schuylkill Expressway?

II A Of the blue lines?

j 12 Q Do any of these lines?

O i3 A Yes. The 76.

Id ' That's the Schuylkill Expressway?

l Q 15 A That is the Schuylkill Expressway the way you are I'

showing it on your print, yes.

I7 MR. MC GURREN: Thank you very much.

18 Your Honor,that is all the Staff has.

JUDGE HOYT: Very well.

20 Now, Mr. Anthony, you have 30 minutes for 21 redirect examination.

22 MR. STONE: Your Honor, I believe LEA does have 23 the right to cross ~ examine this witness.

JUDGE HOYT: No, sir.

MR. STONE: If I may then, state my objection for

F 17,474 mm4 I the record. I feel the witness --

2 JUDGE HOYT: I would like to get Mr. Anthony's 3 redirect, sir.

4 MR. STONE: I'm not allowed to speak on this point, 5 your Honor.

0 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Stone, I just asked Mr. Anthony 7 to conduct his redirect.

8 MR. STONE: May I state argument on this issue?

9 JUDGE HOYT: Please. I think once is going to be 10 enough.

II All right, go ahead, Mr. Anthony.

I2 MR. ANTHONY: I would,like to ask the Board's G

'd 13 permission to sh me part of my 30 minutes with Mr. Stone.

Id JUDGE HOYT: No, sir. This is your witness. You 15 called him.

I' We didn' t give you much time when it was LEA's I7 witnesses, and we are going to give this time to you. If you 18 are not prepared,then you will waive it.

MR. ANTHONY: I was offering to share some of the 20 30 minutes with Mr. Stone.

II JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Anthony, if you want to give 22 Mr. Stone your 30 minutes, then you will not be permitted to 23 -ask any other questions.

24 You don't want your redirect?

MR. ANTHONY: I would offer Mr. Stone 15 minutes.

mm5 I JUDGE HOYT: No, sir, all or none.

]

2 MR. ANTHONY: I don't understand that, Judge Hoyt.

3 And I would like to have-that question go into the record, why 4 this couldn't be divided between me and Mr. Stone, and make 5 an exception to that.

0 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Anthony, your redirect here is 7 limited to only those matters which Mr. Rader, examined on.

8 That is, you may not bring up any new evidence, any new questions.

10 I think the Staff had one or two questions as well.

II But, the redirect is limited only to the scope of 12 the examination by Mr. Rader and by the Staff counsel. Do you b 13 understand that?

I4 MR. ANTHONY: I understand that. 'There are two 15 different things here. Mr. Stone is asking for a chance to I'

cross exami.ne --

I7 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Stone does not have any cross 18 examination, Mr. Anthony, on his own contention. This is the LEA / FOE contention. Mr. Stone does not have any right for 20 cross examination of his own witnesses, the witnesses 21 sponsoring his own contention, or testifying directly on his 22 own contention.

23 MR. ANTHONY: Could I then ask whether he would have the opportunity to make redirect questions, if I shared some of my time with him?

i I

r 17,.476 mm6 I JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Anthony, I don't care how you 2 handle your 30 minutes, but you have got less than 30 minutes 3

now. You have approximately 25 left.

4 MR. ANTHONY: I will start my redirect questions, 5 and the time that I have left I will ask that Mr. Stone be 6 allowed to use it.

XXX 7 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 8 BY MR. ANTHONY:

9 Q .Mr. Wagenmann, is there any indication that there 10 would be fewer people traveling into and out of Upper Merion II Township, no matter what highway improvements are made?

12 (Witness Wagenmann) I don't understand the question.

A

. 13 Your question is, is there any reason - .'

I4 Q Mr. Rader was asking you about the improvement projects 15 and I think you mentioned 13 projects.

I3 A 13 Township, and approximately 13 other projects I7 as well.

I8 Q As I understood, you said that that might make the I'

traffic flow better -- if I am quoting you correctly -- but 20 would not decrease the volume of traffic.

21 A No. The projects would improve the ability for O 22 the highways involved to carry more traffic. It would not 23 reduce traffic on those roadways. It would just improve 24 their ability to handle additional capacity.

t Aspenne n e, , Inc.

25 Q Has it been your experience that improvements on a

17,477 mm7 l

I road then ir. vites new traffic? And, would that happen?.

2 A Yes. You are going to get new traffic. The' 3 improvements themselves make it that people want to develop 4 in an area because there is improved traffic conditions.

) 5 But that growth will -- as I mentioned in my 4

( testimony -- will occur anyway because of the development 7 that is taking place in the municipalities that surround Upper 8 Marion Township and throughout what is commonly referred to in 9 this area as the 202 High' Tech Corridor.

10 So I understand you are saying there will be growth

, Q 11 l anyway in traffic, and that the improved highways will further i

12 encourage more growth?

0 -

I3 A Yes.

I4 Q Or more traffic?

15 A Yes. The original construction of the highways is 16 to encourage the growth to begin with, and when you improve I7 them you encourage more growth.

! 18 Q So would you say then Upper Merion can look forward i

I' l to increasing congestion and increasing traffic?

, 20 MR. RADER: Objection. This is leading.

II JUDGE HOYT: Yes. You have been permitted to lead and O 22 almost testify, Mr. Anthony. ,

23 The objection. is sustained.

24 BY MR. ANTHONY: .

4 renne n mm, m.

25 Mr. Rader was asking you about the North Gulph Road, Q

17,478 mm8 I I believe, which you said accommodates 28,000 vehicles, and 2 has the capacity for 14- to 17,000.

3 Did I understand correctly that the 14,000 level is 8

the C-level of service?

5 A (Witness Wegersnann) Yes, it would be in approximately C level.

8 0 What rating is that? Is that acceptable?

7 A Yes.

8 Is it on the bordline between acceptable and not 0

9 acceptable?

10 A It would be the target of what you are trying to II achieve. It is the middle ground of the capacity of the 12 roadway.

O. , 13 Q And 17,000, is that E level of service?

Id A It is my understanding that would be approaching 15 the E level, yes.

{

30 And Mr. Rader said that it was -- asked you whether Q

I7 there still were vehicles at 28,000 that passed on that highway, 18 and asked you whether then it does have the capacity -- did I'

you mean then it was handling them adequately? ,

20 g yo, i

21 What I was saying was, in regards to the question O 22 the roadway is handling 28,000 -- or, the 28,000 vehicles a 23

. day, they are moving across it. That was the extent of my answer.

24 That is the reason we are undertaking a It is not adequate.

w ,,

25

$4 million highway in.provement project, to improve the roadway.

l 17,479 l

mm9 I Are there times of day when there are lineups of Q

2 traffic on that North Gulph Road?

3 MR. RADER: Objection. This goes beyond the scope 4 of cross examination.

5 JUDGE HOYT: Objection sustained.

l 0 '

BY MR. ANTHONY:

7 Q When you said the highway is handling that amount i

8 of traffic, does that mean there is no consideration of how long 9 it takes for a car to pass along that piece of highway?

10 A (Witness Wagenmann) That's correct.

II Q So it could be travelling a mile in one hour, 12 possibly?

O I.3 A It would take various times. It is a very congested 14

! highway, o

15 Q And it could be as much as an hour to travel one I0 mile?

! I7 MR. RADER: Objection. I don' t believe there's any 18 foundation laid for this witness to provide that information.

I' JUDGE HOYT: Objection is sustained.

20 BY MR. ANTHONY:

21 You were asked about having taken part witnessing Q

,O 22 or being aware of an evacuation, and you mentioned Three Mile 23 Island.

l 24 Was there a plan to evacuate the whole area around m n===. =.

25

___ _ . - - . . . . -.. . . . _ . . - . . . ~ - . - .

17,480 mml0 I Three Mile Island?

2 MR. RADER: Objection. It is beyond the scope of 3 the cross examination.

4 JUDGE HOYT: Sustained.

5 BY MR. ANTHONY:

4 Q You were asked about whether you had experience 7 with an evacuation.

8 Do you visualize a spontaneous evacuation from the 9 Upper Marion Township, from your past experience, if there were 10 a nuclear emergency at Limerick?

II MR. RADER: Objection. No foundation. The witness 12 stated he had very limited emergency planning ocperiencqt and 13 none with regard to the Limerick area.*

Id JUDGE HOYT: I don't believe he has any Limerick 15 emergency planning experience.

I0 He is outside that EPZ, Mr. Anthony.

17 MR. ANTHONY: Judge, I think he mentioned spontaneous 18 evacuation.

II

. JUDGE 30YTt That was in a different context, from 20 my recollection.

21 The objection is sustained.

(

22 BY MR. ANTHONY:

23 In your context, or Mr. Waters', or the Township's, Q

24 would the consultant -- you mentioned that the PennDOT and DVRPC Ass.r ssem neer inc.

25 provided the figures for the study.

, \

17, 481 nuall I Is that correct? .;

2 MR. RADER: Objection. That is clearly beyond the 3

scope of cross examination.

4 MR. ANTHONY: This is one of the questions Mr. Rader 5 asked. That's where I got the material from.

O JUDGE HOYT: I think yhe asked the question from 7 another point of view. There was another question in there. I 8 can't recall it myself, Mr. Anthony. But this was not it.

1 This is beyond the scope.

10 MR. ANTHONY: I thought he asked where the raw U figures came from.

12 JUDGE HOYT: Objection sustained.

.O I3 BY MR. ANTHONY:

Id Q I believe you were, asked a question, Mr. Wagenmann, 15 abouthurknowledgeofevacuationflow.

I' Has this been discussed in relation to emergency

'I7 planning for your Township, as to how evacuation would flow 18 if there were an emergency that called for an evacuation of King of Prussia?

20 MR. RADER: I object on two grounds.

21 First, I don't understand the form the question --

O 22 discussed in your Township by whom or with whom.

23 And secondly, this is again beyond the scope of 2

my examination.

25 MR. ANTHONY: I believe he did ask about evacuation

17,482 mm12 I flow.

I MR. RADER: Your Honor, my only questions regarding O '

co tio= 11o to

• a ** r or =oe r or en a t-4 contained in the Report to that which the witness testi,fied, S

related to evacuation.

O JUDGE HOYT: Objection sustained.

7 MR. ANTHONY: I think that concludes my recross, 8 and I would like the remaining time to be available for 9 Mr. Stone.

10 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Stone, I will caution you as I did U Mr. Anthony, the' basis of your questions, if any, will be 12 limited to the cross examination by counsel for Applicant and O I3 the Staff.

• Id This is a portion of redirect, and you are bound 15 by the ame rules that you would be if this were direct I'

examination.

I7 MR. STONE: Under the circumstances, LEA believes it 18 should have had an opportunity for cross examination, and under I'

the conditions just imposed on this situation here, LEA does 20 not feel it can avail itself of Mr. Anthony's time, redirect 21 time because questions we had were with respect to cross 22 examination of Mr. Anthony's witness, which we did not call.

23 At'this point, I will just give it back --

2 JUDGE HOYT: I will also refresh your recollection, 25 Mr. Stone, that you had, at one time, subpoenaed this very

. . . . . - . . . . . - - - - - . . . -. ~ . - .. .-

17,483 mm13 I witness, and that you had me sign the subpoena, which you have 2 apparently lost, destroyed or in some way altered. I have r~s 3

( ,) never seen the return of it.

4 I can hardly find any substance in your argument.

5 MR. STONE: If I may just explain the situation.

O JUDGE HOYT: No, sir, that srfficies.

7 If you do not wish to examine the witness on a C redirect, then the witness will be excused. The election is 9 yours.

10 end T15 11 12

,c8 13 -

14 15 16 17 18 19 20

-, 21

~

)

22 2.'

24 Acefedersi Reporters, Inc.

25

. - - . . . . . - - . - . . . . - . . ~ . . - - . . . . . . . - - . . - - . - . . - . - - - . .. -

1 1

17,484 nations CR21562

1. 16-mn-1 1 MR. STONE: LEA does not have any questions with 2

~

respect to Mr. Anthony's line of questioning on direct ID 3 52 -

which was not our line of questioning.

4 JUDGE HOYT: That is not what you were told, 5

Mr. Stone, and you will not put error on this record.

6 What I instructed you is that the scope of the redirect 7

would be limited to those matters cross-examined on by 8

counsel for applicant and counsel for the NRC staff. That 9

is what you were told then and that is what I have told you 10 again now.

11 If you wish a redirect, you may take the remaining

'~

') time on redirect examination.

13 Ms. Zitzer, let me see if I can get a response 14 from you.

15 MS. ZITZER: Your Honor, Mr. Stone has been 16 designated as LEA's representative on this issue. I just 17 wanted to clarify he underntood your instructions and I 18 co believe he does. Can you provide an answer to the 19 Judge's question.

20 MR. STONE: I don't believe under the circumstances--

/ '

21

( JUDGE HOYT: How do I look to then as chief counsel 22 or chief representative, Ms. Zitzer? You have asked in the 23 past to be acknowledged as such and when you are extended the 24 A .re s.<w neooner.. lac. Privilogo, I get somewhat of a razzle-dazzle approach here.

25 Now if you wish to reply, very well. If not, we will move

17,485 mn16-2 1

along.

2 MS. ZITZER: That is what LEA wishes to do, I Your Honor.

4 -

JUDGE HOYT: Very well.

5 MR. S TONE : However, we do wish to return the 6

microphone to Mr. Anthony in case he can complete his time.

7 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Anthony has relinquished the 8

time, Mr. Stone. If you don'.t want it, then the time could ,

9 better be spent on something else. Mr. Anthony, did you 10 have any more questions?

11 You have not moved into evidence your exhibits, 12 -

Mr. Anthony.

MR. ANTHONY: Thank you, Judge Hoyt, I certainly 14 intended to and I thought I had but I will move now. I 15 will move these exhibits into evidence, into the record.

16 These are exhibits.taken from the Upper Marion Study and 17 we intend to comply with the court's order to submit the 18 whole of the study as soon as we can get it duplicated, 19 tomorrow morning we trust. I am wondering about the most 20 efficient way to handle this, Judge Hoyt, if the whole study 21

<- is going in then does that mean that --

N' 22 JUDGE HOYT: All exhibits will be admitted at this 23 time, Mr. Anthony, and I having apparently to do your work 24 wpm wm, w, for you but you have marked as Anthony / FOE Exhibit E-1 through 25 E-26 previously described on this record. I comprehend that

i7,486 ,

an16-3 1 you want those exhibits moved into evidence. The Board has l

2 heard no objections to these. Do you have one, Mr. Rader?

3 MR. RADER: Yes, if I may, Your Honor.

4 JUDGE HOYT: Do you have one, also?

5 MR. McGURREN: Yes, Your Honor.

6 JUDGE HOYT: All right. Very well. Let's hear 7 the objections then.

8 MR. RADER: I will take them in order. With regard 9 to i4r. Anthony's exhibit one, this is a letter from him to 10 Mr. Volpe. There are no matters in here of any probative 11 nature given the fact that the witness obviously could not 12 testify as what Mr. Anthony said. ,I have no objection if the 13 letter is received for the limited purpose of showing that 14 this was a letter which Mr. Anthony sent to Mr. Volpe which 15 the witness did identify as having been received by Mr. Volpe 16 but we object to its receipt for the truth of the contents therein given all of the statements by Mr. Anthony as to his

~

17 18 opinion as to the situation in Upper Marion Township.

19 The second exhibit proffered, Anthony / FOE E-2 is 20 a letter dated October 25, 1984 from Commissioner Bartle of 21 the Montgomery County Commissioners to Mr. Anthony. Obviously O 22 this nas not been identified by any of these witnesses and 23 was not even discussed in the testimony and should not be 24 admitted on that basis.

Ass resord meanciere W. -

25 The remaining four exhibits, Anthony / FOE Exhibits

/

mn16-4 17,487 I E-3 through E-6 pertain to a study which was discussed 2

throughout tne testimony. However, I would note that the

(])

3 witnesses at no time stated that they either participated 4

in preparing or assisted in any way in preparing the 5

document and, in fact, the witnesses stated that they 6

had no experience in traffic engineering or transportation 7 engineering or traffic model simulation.

8 Therefore, the witnesses while they could state 9

the contents of the report are unable to support through 10 any expertise or foundation the receipt of these exhibits II into evidence for the truth of their contents.

12

, JUDGE HOYT: Does that finish your argument? ,

i 13 MR. RADER: Yes, Your Honot.-

14 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. The Staff?

15 MR. McGURREN: Your Honor, the staff joins with the 16 applicant's position on each of the stated exhibits.

17 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Goodwin. Do you have anything?

18 MR. GOODWIN: Yes, Your Honor. Commonwealth would 19 also object to exhibit E-1. It is self-serving letter as 20 far as we are concerned and also to exhibit E-3, I don't zm 21 believe that was even discussed by the Panel. So we would

)

22 object to those two exhibits.

23 JUDGE liOYT: Mr. Ilirsch.

24 MR. IIIRSCII: FEMA agrees with the staff position Ace Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 with the proviso that it is my recollection that Mr. Wagenmann

. _ -- ~ ~ _ ___ _ . _ . . _ . . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . .- _ -. . _ _ . _

17,488 an16-5 i- '1 A

i did agree on direct examination by Mr. Anthony that a number

'2 of the figures in FOE Exhibit E-1 were accurate. For that j- O. re oa - -

! 4

} JUDGE HOYT: That doesn't get the letter in though, 1

S does it, Mr. Hirsch? That doesn't go to the letter. That may 4

go to some of the statements that Mr. Anthony made in the 1 7 l 1etter.

I 8 i MR. HIRSCH: If the exhibit is not introduced into

\ ,

i 9 evidence, then I think that it would be difficult to follow 4 10 e

. Mr. Wagenmann's testimony.

11

, JUDGE HOYT: It would be attached'to the record i 12

but the question of it being received into evidence is another i 13 i matter.

Did you have something else?

15 MR. McGURREN: No, ' Your. Honor, just that with regard '

la to the statements.in FOE-1, the. witness was simply-asked 17

,. whether he agreed or disagreed with the particular statements ,

! 18 'l i and I think the witness' testimony on those points is-in the

! 19 record.

I 20 JUDGE HOYT: Yes, that is correct.

MR. STONE: LEA wishes to comment with respect to  ;

I 22

l. the Upper Marion ,

Study which I believe Mr. Anthony was ,  !

4- 23 j attempting to offer as an exhibit at this point or'at least 24

, m %, w, tomorrow morning when copies.would be brought in. Our 2S

! understanding is --

i l I

J

)

l an16-6 17,489 l l

~1 JUDGE.HOYT: From the testimony we have had here 2 this morning, Mr. Stone, these witnesses cannot sponsor that.

3 exhib t. There is no-testimony on this record that these 4 witnesses in any way participated in that study. If you ,

5 can find it, we would be welcome to-see it but I see nothing 4

at this point.

7 MR. STONE: That is the direct testimony that LEA.

8 would have elicited or on cross-examination. However, I 9 don'.t want to get into that again at this point.

10 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Stone, you have been offered 11 the opportunity to make direct examination. You chose 12 to call what you want to do cross-examination and if you O 13 don't want to examine, then you are not going make or perfect 14 your objection any more by labeling it cross-examination.

15 MR. STONE: We were not offered a chance today 16 on direct examination. Mr. Anthony began the process and 17 we attempted to interject and that was not as I understc,nd it, 18 we weren't able to do our examination before the other

-19 parties had done the cross.

• l 20 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Anthony took up the entire time, 21 Mr. Stone. You were lead intervenors and if I recall when O 22 we had another witness in which the LEA and FOE groups

-23 were together on a contention and I believe it was 23 --

24 MR. STONE: We were not offared any time by Am.peone nous,ews, ine.

25 Mr. Anthony. He understood and we understood that he would

17,490 an16-7 I

get the one and a half hours. As we understood the Board's .

2 order with respect to. admitting this witness subsequent to l 1

O '

ar ^=tho v' ==deo , i= 1 ater r == teu eio=-  :

JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Stone, you are just bringing 5 '

up matters that are old hat here. We have been through all i

6 this before.

MR. STONE: I understand your ruling, Your Honor, l 8

and I don't wish to go into it.

JUDGE HOYT: It doesn't seem to get through that  ;

10 if you want to examine these witnesses on direct examination,  ;

11 I still offer you the.same opportunity but you have indicated 12 that you don't want it unless we will call it cross-examination i 13 and Mr. Stone, we will sit here until a well-known warm spot I#

before we will ever call it cross-examination just to please 15 you. _

16 MR. STONE: I am not attempting to call it cross-

'I examination and I apologize if I have made a mistake in that regard. LEA simply requests and I feel there are issues of 19 substance here which require _ me to do this, I don't want to 20 take up any unnecessary time-but in order to fulfill the 21 purposes that LEA had with these witnesses, we need to ask 22 some direct examination questions. We attempted to do it.

JUDGE HOYT: I have offered you that opportunity 24

%, , now and you continue to insist that you don't want it.

25 MR. STONE: Are we entitled to direct examination l

l

• l 17,491 j mn16-8 l l

1 of these witnesses on the document?

2 JUDGE HOYT: Yes.

3 MR. STONE:

(~^)

x_/

Just to understand the ruling, I 4 apologize --

5 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Stone, quit while you are ahead.

6 DIRECT EXAMINATION XXXXXX 7 BY MR. STONE:

8 G May I ask then the witnesses, Mr. Wagenmann, were 9 you involved in the development of this document in any 10 way whatsoever?

II JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Stone, I want to Know what 12 document you are talking about.

p' '

13 -

MR,. STONE: I am s6rry. The Upper Merion traffic 14 study portions of which have been identified as FOE exhibits 15 E-3 through E-6 and the other portion of which LEA served 16 to the parties and so: forth and everyone has a copy but 17 has not been entered yet as an exhibit. It is the Upper 18 Merion Interim Traffic Study. It is the Phase One Township 19 Overview Interim Report dated July 6, 1984 and it is the 20 document which we thought we had a stipulation to are 21 selections from it and that is the document we are talking

' ,)

~

22 about.

23 JUDGE HOYT: Do you understand?

24 WITNESS WAGENMANN: I understand what the report Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 is. Is there a question?

17,492 mn16-9 1 JUDGE HOYT: Can you respond?

2 WITNESS WAGENMANN: Is he asking what involvement

{} 3 did I have?

4 JUDGE HOYT: See if you can take it from there.

5 WITNESS WAGENMANN: It was a long question and 6 I didn't get all of it.

7 JUDGE HOYT: Tell us what you know about this 8 report.

9 WITNESS WAGENMANN: All right. As a township 10 manager I was involved in this regard. I was responsible 11 for preparing the RFP which was a Request for Proposal 12 for the engineering firm to conduct the study which outlined O 13 the scope of the study and what it was to undertake for 14 the township and the selection process. '

15 I was also a member of the task force committee 16 that was organized by :the township that worked with the l 17 consultant in regards to his giving status reponts as he 18 worked on the study and was progressing and we reviewed those

(-

i 19 status reports and then gave feedback as well'as really a l

! 20 day-to-day involvement with the consultant in obtaining 21 various pieces of information and so on that he needed to

(

22 pull together in order to undertake the study and develop it.

j -23 -BY ' MR. ' STONE : (Resuming) 24 G. Based upon your participation in the development l Ass-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 of this study, do you agree with its contents as it presently s

. _ - - , , , , , _ -.-- w_ - . _-

17,493 mn1G-10 1

exists in Phase One Township Overvi~ew Interim Report dated 2 July 6, 19847 3 MR. RADER: Obj ection. There is r.o foundation.

}

4 Tne witness has previously testified that he has no expertise 5 or background in the areas of traffic engineering, transpor-6 tation engineering or traffic flow model simulation.

7 MR. STONE: Your Honor, I believe the witness 8 testified he was involved in the day-to-day basis in the 9 ' development of this document. He is on a task' force and 10 certainly had the opportunity to not only review its contents-11 l

but to go beyond that and develop its contents on a day-to-day 12 basis with the consultants.

l 13 .

• I don t beileve this document involves conclusions l

' ' 14 of the sort that Mr. Rader is attempting to exclude from 15 this record. I believe we had a stipulation to the document 16 for that matter previously and I don't understand the change.

! -17 MR. RADER: For the record, there is no longer any 18 stipulation after what the applicant has been put through on l

l 19 this document. I think I have ever seen a greater imposition 20 upon any party or the Board in any licensing case'in which I 21 have participated.

.() ' 22 JUDGE HOYT: The objection will be sustained.

23 BY -MR. - STONE: (Resuming) 24 4 To be more precise about your involvement in the l

As ressem neuenm,Inc.

25 preparation of this document, did you assist in any way

17,494 i mn16-ll.

1 in the choice of areas to be measured for traffic flow and .

2 so forth?

() 4 A (Witness Wagenmann) In regards to the intersections and the locations?

5 g Yes, for example.

6

, A We were involved to the extent that in reviewing 7

the township's existing traffic situation we made the 8

- traffic consultant aware of areas that we were experiencing 9

problems with traffic and so on and it did involve key 10 intersections and we definitely wanted these areas studied.

11 Then we asked for a township-wide traffic study because we 12 wanted his expertise not only for the areas . that we were

,.O. 13 knowledgeable on traffic problems but so that' he could 14 4

. address those areas where he perceived there were problems-15 as well.

16 i G You mentioned day-to-day" involvement in the 17 l

preparation of this study. What was the nature of that t

18 involvement in particular?

19 A Basically it involved pulling together different i 20

- data and directing people to pull data together or.to answer 21 questions that he had concerning development plans and so L[

on that had been approved by the township'and directing him-23 to various individuals and agencies as sources of information.

l 24 l w n nm, ine.

O Can you tell us approximately how much time the 25 consultant you are referring to spent in preparation of this l

, , . , , , , e..n-. , ,..--n,~,---- , . , , - - .- ~ ,--- -- , .. n .. , , - - . . . . - , - . - - _ - - . . . - - . . - - , - - - - - , . . ~ .

17,495 mn16-12 I document to your knowledge?

2 A. He has been working on it for and as I said it has Q 3 not been completed, the final document is not in my hands 4

yet, but he has been working on it for about eight or nine 5 months.

6 G Approximately how many hours per day would that 7 consultant spend?

8 A. I can't state in the number of hours. It is a "9' $45,000.00 study. So it is not something that he spent 10 a little time on. There has been considerable effort spent II in the study.

12 O With respect to your involvement in the preparation 0 13 of this study, what amount of time have you spent with I4 respect to this study?

15 MR. RADER: I object to the form of the question.

16 I don't know what it means "with respect to this study" and

- 17 in any event, I think it is irrelevant to the witness'-

18 expertise and participation in the preparation of the study II which he said he had none.

20 MR. STONE: I believe, Your Honor, the witness has 21 testified --

O 22 JUDGE HOYT: The objection is overruled.

23

- MR. STONE: May I complete the argument?

24 JUDGE STONE: You just won, Mr. Stone.

Ase4essrsi neooriors, Inc.

25 MR. STONE: I apologize, Your Hon cr.

i

17,496 mn16-13 I BY MR. STONE: (Resuming) 2 g The question was then with respect to the amount Q 3 of time you had spent in preparation of this study and how 4

much time you had spent?

5 A. Over that eight month period I probably spent 0

I would say probably one and a half man-weeks which would 7 be about 60 to 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br /> was my involvement.

8 (Time signal sounded.)

JUDGE HOYT: The time for the redirect has 10 expired, Mr. Stone.

' MR. STONE: Your Honor, I believe this was the

.12 direct examination on the Upper Merion Study and I don't 13 believe I have that many more questions "in attempting. to

• l Id establish whether this document can be offered as an exhibit

,' 15 based upon these witnesses and that was the intent of my 16 questions. I.did not consider this part of Mr. Anthony's I7 redirect.

18 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Stone, youre. time has expired.

I' If you have any more pertinent questions on this time . study, 20 but up to this point I haven't heard any line of it. If you-21 have.something, now is the absolute last opportunity you

(.O.

I 22 are going to have to get it in. That does not mean sitting 23 here'with a whole lot of questions. Get it right this time.

END#16 AsD-Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 I

REE 11,497 CR.21552 1/8/85 Tako 77 1 MR, STONE: What I would like to do, again, Pcgo 1 2 is to offer to stipulate to the admission of this 3 document.

4 JUDGE HOYT: I think the Applicant has 5 indicated that toa.you already, Mr. Stone. He has j 6 no intention of entering into a stipulation with you, 7 Mr. Stone. That time has long past. That was last week.

8 MR. STONE: Again, we would like to base it on 9 the substance'of the answers that we got here this 10 afternoon.

II JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Rader, do you wish to enter 12 into any such stipulation? .

O 13 MR, RADER: No, we do not.

I4 MR. MC GURREN: Your Honor, the Staff would 15 be willing to state that we have no objection to the 16 l

whole document coming in.

17 JUDGE HOYT: On what basis?

18 MR. MC GURREN: On the basis that these II witnesses have identified that this is the document that 20 they --

21 JUDGE HOYT: They have identified a paper that

.O .

22 they have paid $45,000 to get. That doesn't mean they 23 can sponsor the exhibit. You got the study for $45,000, 24 A Fasere nanomes, inc.

but you didn't get the exhibit for $45,000.

25 MR. MC GURREN: Well, just stating our position

. _ _ _ . . . - - - .e

l REE 17/2 17,498 1 that we believe --

2 JUDGE HOYT: All right. Anything from you, 3 Mr. Hirsch?

4 MR. HIRSCH: FEMA's position would be that 5 in light of the identification of the document by 6 the witnesses --

7 JUDGE HOYT: By these witnesses?

8 MR. HIRSCH: Yes. -- that it would be --

9 JUDGE HOYT: Anything from'the Commonwealth?

10 I understand, you are going along with it.

11 MR. GOODWIN: We are not prepared to enter intc 12 any stipulation.

13 MR. STONE: If I might just ask t'wo mor~e 14 follow-up questions, and then I will be done.

15 JUDGE HOYT: Go ahead.

16 BY MR. STONE:

17 Q You referred to a role you played in 18 directing the consultant to various sources of information 19 and documents and so forth, i

20 I Could you be a little more specific about s

r 21 chat role?

} 22 A (Witness Wagenmann) Had in regards to, for j 23 . instance, on accident information, our police department i

24 had it; had to do with actual traffic counts and .other l Assees w neponers,inc.

25 information that we had that we could pass cn1 to him; 1

,[ _ , . , _ _ . _ - _ , . . . - . - _ . , . _ . ._ ., . _ . . . . _ ,,

i IUm 17/3 17,499 1 add the fact that we were aware of traffic studies that  !

2 had been done for us and we supplied, I obtained those l 3 and supplied those to the consultant. We directed k

4 them to the department of transportation because we 5 were aware of counts that they had done throughout the 6 township.

7 We had directed them to the DVRPC because 8 we aware -- Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission 9 for counts and so on that they have conducted as parts of 10 studies that they have done in Upper Marion Township, II as well as a capacity analysis study which they completed 12 for what is called the Sch,uylkill Parkway in Upper (nj 13 Marion Township. ,

14 Q Based upon your involvement in the preparation -

15 of this study, as you have described, and whatever 16 personal qualifications that you have with respect I7 to that role, do you attest to this document as being 18 authentic to the best of your knowledge for the purposes l'

for which it was prepared?

20 MR. RADER: I object to that. Again, there 2I is no foundation for that question.

i 22 s MR. STONE: That-was my last question.

23 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Stone, these witnesses have 24 Ase-Fasers Reporwn, Inc.

testified that they employed the consultants, just as 25 PECO has employed the Energy Consultants here. The i

i

\

REE 17/4 17,500 l l

l I Energy Consultants have testified on this exhibit, not 2

the officials of the PECO Company.

3 Just as in this case these officials of O 4 this township have' employed these consultants, they did 5 not employ these consultants and then go out and do the 6 study and pay $45,000. They paid for a study.

7 In order to get the study in, we must have those 8 persons here who have prepared the study.

9 I don't know how else to explain it to you 10 except to make that comparison.

II MR. STONE: I understand everything that has 12 been said. I maintain that these particular" witnesses 13

- have hadan involvement in the preparation of this Id study which goes beyond mere review and that I don't 15 want to take anymore hearing time doing direct examination 16 on this issue. But I do believe that these witnesses I7 have that kind of direct participation and they were 18 on a task force and so forth.

Again, it was not our witness to bring them 20 here today. We believed we had a stipulation last week.

2I JUtdE HOYT: It is your contention, Mr. Stone, 22 and your organzation has been designated as the lead i

23

-intervenor here. And this Board and this entire

24 l Ae-Federes nemonen, anc.

hearing has been subjected to almost a ridiculous j comedy of errors.

. . ._ . ~ _ . . _ . _ _ . _

REE 17/5 17,'501 1 I I think that anymore is just going to be too  !

2 much. The opportunity to have handled these matters -

c 3 has long since past.

j o 4 If you want to call the witnesses that prepared 5 this examination, which is the -- I should say report, 6 rather, the interim repcrt, then you may do so.

7 MR. STONE: May I take that under advisement 4

8 and provide a copy of the completed study tomorrow at.

9 9:00 o' clock and then at that point make a decision with 10 respect to the possible calling of witnesses, because II we don't want to get involved in that and take up

12 hearing. time that is not necessary.

.. 13 JUDGE HOYT: It is necessarv.if you'want what I4 you are telling me is a piece of evidence that you have 15 not handled perhaps in the most judicious manner.

j 16 Whatever you do, Mr.~ Stone, is your concern 17 and not the concern of the Board. Obviously the Board 18 cannot participate in the preparation of your case anymore l'

than we could for any of the other counsel. Even the 20

, Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is completely 21 separated from this Board. We have nothing to do with 22 what these people do.

.23 We cannot be'both fudge and counsel, too.

24 Whatever you want to do with that is, of course, your

' Ass.pessras neoeners,Inc.

25 matter that you must concern yourself with.

~'m, -- == m--w < -= ve , ,, Srw --c.- ,.-%.m-ee-< -~- -a e ~,m-w--3-w-,..w% -e~w-,vr-~--+-,,-w-,e- - ,, ,, .-r-,---,www e m~ w a -,ve-

-REE 17/6 17,502 I MR. STONE: Okay, then. Again, we -- except

2 for Mr. Anthony's rejection, we had achieved a stipulation 3 .on this document. However, at this point LEA will

. _O 4 take under advisement our options and tomorrow morning we 5 will notify the Board whether or not we have to call another 6 witness.

7 JUDGE HOYT: Very well.

8 MR. ANTHONY: Judge Hoyt, can I say that I i 9 didn't have a chance to answer the objections to the'

10 inclusion of my exhibits?

II JUDGE HOYT: No, you have not had a ruling on it 12 =yet. Is that what you asked me?

13 MR. ANTHONY: I didn't have a chance to I4 respond to the objections.

s 15 JUDGE.HOYT: If you wish to, go ahead.

16 MR. ANTHONY: In respect to my-I7 Exhibit No. 1, the letter that I wrote to.Mr. Volpe 18 was considered by the witnesses and they answered

• I' 4

ouestions on it. We went through it in detail. They 20 verified as fact all of the figures in the letter and they 21

.also verified that it did say and they handed on to 22 the board of supervisors the invitation to be here F '23 .at this -hearing -and to have the consultant here at this '

'24 hearing. i Aas Federal Reporters lac.

25 I think it is an important part of the hearing

REE 17/7 17,503 I record, and I think it should be in.

2 As far as the exhibits from the traffic study, 3 they also have been, as have been stated, identified k

4 by the witnesses, especially Mr. Wagenmann who has

'5 spent a lot of time working on 'it. And I think they 6 should be admitted in conjunction with his testimony.

7 And I ask that the Board admit all of my contentions 8 with the exception of -- all of my exhibits with 9 the exception of No. 2. I am not making a strong plea 10 for that because I think that will come in in another II way.

12 JUDGE HOYT: Do you wish then to withdraw 13 '

that exhibit? .

~I4 MR. ANTHONY: Yes. I will withdraw that.

15 JUDGE HOYT: Very well.

j 16 (The document referred to, 17 marked Anthony / FOE Exhibit E-2 XXXXX 18 for identification,;was II withdrawn.) .

20 JUDGE HOYT:

l The Board has no questions of the 21 witnesses. Are there any other arguments in response 22 to -- Exhibits 1-E for identification and 3 through 6 for 23 identification will not be received into evidence.

24 (The documents referred to, m nepo,wes, Inc.

25 marked Anthony / FOE Exhibit l

REE 17/8 l 17,504 1

Nos. E-1 and E-3 through 6 XXXXX. 2 for identification, were 3 rejected.)

o 4 JUDGE HOYT: Gentlemen, thank you for your 5 - attendance here and for your time and patience with 4 us today. We appreciate your participation.

7 MR. ANTHONY: I would like to thank the witnesses 8 too.

9 (The witnesses stood down.)

10 MR. ANTHONY: Judge Hoyt, I have ano.ther II matter when you have time to hear it.

12 JUDGE HOYT: What is it, Mr. Anthony? ,

-e

(_)r 13 MR. ANTHONY: It is a question about, have I.

g Id missed something, but as far as I know there is an

, 15 outstanding notion that I made on December 8, and I l 14 don't. recall having receive'd any answer ---

t II JUDGE HOYT: After six weeks of these hearings, 18 Mr. Anthony, you better refresh my recollection.

II t

MR. ANTHONY: I will be glad to.-

20 It is a motion Anthony / FOE Motion to Include 21 Valley Forge National Park in Emergency Evacuati'on Planning I 22 for Limerick, supplementing a. verbal motion of December 5.

s

' 23 This is dated December-8.

i 24

I have a copy here if you would like to see it.

- as penn e neoen n , ins.

25 L JUDGE HOYT: I think, Mr. Anthony, I may have it L

REE 17/9 17,505 1 in my brief case. If you would bring it to the bench, 2 I would appreciate it.

3 MR. ANTHONY: The parties have filed responses.

4 JUDGE HARBOUR: Mr. Anthony, what day was 5 the verbal motion made?

6 MR. ANTHONY: That was made on the 5th of I

7 December.

8 JUDGE HARBOUR: I am sorry. I didn't hear you.

9 -MR. ANTHONY: December 5th.

10 I believe I have a couple more copies of this.

11 (Pause.)

12 MR. MC GURREN: Your Honor, to the best of

( 13 my recollection, the Staff has responded in' writi'ng.

14 JUDGE HOYT: Yes. You have responded, and I am 15 sure the Applicant responded as well. I have them, I 16 think, in my brief case, but I don't have them here on the 17 bench.

18 I will have to get these and look at them again.

19 We will take a vary brief recess at this 20 point and reconvene at about 3:20, so please ' don't get 21 too far away.

O O XXX 22 (Recess.)

23 JUDGE HOYT: The hearing will come to order.

24 A Femerm neponen. Inc.

Let the record reflect that almost all counsel 25 for the parties are all here again in the hearing room.

l REE 17/10 17,506 )

^

1 Mr. Anthony, you have recsived copies of the 2 Applicant's answer to your motion, I believe, as well 3 as that of the staff and of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

, ()

4 Is that correct?

5 MR. ANTHONY: I can't be sure about the third.

6 I believe I remember the first two.

7 JUDGE HOYT: The third being the Commonwealth?

8 MR. ANTHONY: Yes.

9 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Goodwin, would you see if 10 you can dig up a copy of that for Mr. Anthony to give Il to him. There are some -- there is some data in there.

12 It would have been served on you anyway by the

(') 13 secretary of this commission because all of these 14 responses would have gone through the docketing room 15 for service.

16 If you don't recall getting it. we will see 17 that you get a copy.

18 I believe all of the responsese Mr. Anthony, I9 clearly have laid out the basis upon which the Board 20 is denying this motion. I think, perhap , because those 21 were so clear, I had simply forgot that ze had not made s

(_) 22 a ruling on this record.

23 However, I will respond verbally on the 24 record to your motion and advise you that the Board has mm noorw., Inc.

25 denied it.

REE 17/11 17,507 1 MR. ANTHONY: Will I have a written order on 2 that, Judge?

3 JUDGE HOYT: If you read the transcript, sir, 4 that's it.

~

5 MR. ANTHONY: Thank you.

6 JUDGE HOYT: While we are digging up matters 7 that have not yet been ruled upon, there is also one 8 additional one that I believe involves the Greaterford 9 Prison ~ motion, but we have not heard from Mr. Love in 10 some-time, and I don't know if he ever intends to come 11 back into the hearing, but when he does, we will 12 make a ruling on that motion as well.

() 13, That has to do with the disclosure of the

. 14 evacuation plans for the Greatford Prison, Mr. Conner.

15 MR. CONNER: Mr. Love has until the 18th, 16 doesn't he, to do something, whatever it was? No, the 17 state. I'm sorry. The state ' asked for additional time.

18 JUDGE HOYT: The 18th, and I think, Mr. Goodwin, l'

you may remind Miss Ferkin that we are due that pleading --

M that response from the Commonwealth on the Cth.

21 MR. GOODWIN: I will pass'that message to her.

22 JUDGE HOYT: By ruling on it I meant, of course, ,

23 would rule on it after we had received that. I didn't 24 anticipate ruling on it prior to receiving the Commonwealth's

' A peens neserm,., inc.

25 motion. I may have been unclear on that. If I am, let me

- . . . . . _ . . _ , , . . - _- . , - . . . _ _ - , - ......_e .._-. . , _ _ ,._ r.- ..-m., _ --., ..--,-_r,.,m..-.., _.

REE 17/12 17,508 1 correct myself.

2 MR. CONNER: Depending on the position the 3 state takes, of course, it may be necessary to seek 4 the exemption that I referred to earlier.

5 JUDGE HOYT: The options are yours, 6 Mr. Conner.

7 MR, CONNER: I just want to keep the Board 8 informed.

9 JUDGE HOYT: Very well.

10 Now, I think you have a witness at this time, 11 do you not?

12 I think that this has completed all the testimony

() 13 of all sorts on the, what had been called the 14 admitted contentions in this case. And this witness 15 this afternoon as well as the panel that we c'ompleted i

16 this morning have all been testifying on the deferred 17 . contentions which are 1, 2, 3, 5, and 23.

18 MS. ZITZER: LEA calls Commissioner Rita I

19 ! Banning. At this time I would like to ask Mr. Anthony 20 to assist me by tending to the reporters copies of 21 her prefiled testimony so that they have them in

('

( 22 front of them.

END 17 23 (Mr. Anthony distributes documents.)

24 m noonen. anc.

25 e-

17,509 P18 MM/mml' I JUDGE HOYT: I can't recall, Mr. Rader,'whether 2 there were any objections to commissioner Banning's testimony.

3 MR. CONNER: We will make a motion to strike three O 4 q

paragraphs of it,and one attachment.

-5 JUDGE HOYT: All right. After we have introduced 6 the witness.

7 Whereupon, 8 COMMISSIONER RITA C. BANNING 9 was called as a witness on behalf of -Intervenor, Limerick 10 Ecology Action, and having been first duly sworn, was examined 11 and testified as follows:

12 MS. ZITZER: I will ask Mr. Anthony to assist me 13 by handing to the witness.a copy of her testimony as profiled 14 in this proceeding.

15 JUDGE HOYT: Very well.

16 MR. CONNER: May we see that first.

17 (Document shown to Mr. Conner, then handed to 18 witness.)

II. JUDGE HOYT: Ms. Zitzer, do you have an extra copy 20 of that.

21 MS. ZITZER: I have five with me today. Could I 22 give you one from the court reporter?

23 JUDGE HOYT: Yes, just let me have one from the 24 Court Reporter.

Assheeres noseners,Inc.

25 (Document handed to Board.)

17,510

$ I , JUDGE HOYT: Proceed.

2 DIRECT EXAMINATION 3 BY MS. ZITZER:

XXXX 4 Commissioner Banning, I have given to you a copy of Q

~5 a document entitled "Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing 0 Board, Limerick Generating Station, Testimony of Rita C,.

7 Banning, County Commissioner, dated November 26th, 1984.

8

, Do you have that document in front o'f you?

A A Yes,'I do. Yes, I have this in front of me.

10

[ Q I would like to ask you to review this document. It II consists of four pages of written testimony, a newspaper

12 clipping with the page 5 indicated on it, and then a number of

~

13 letters are attached.

I4 Do you have those same attachments which I have just 15 referred to on the copy of the testimony which I provided to-16 you?

' II (Witness referring to document.)

18 A Yes, I do.

I U Q And are the letters which I referred to, letters on 20 the letterhead from various school districts within Montgomery 21 county?

22 (Witness referring to document.)

23. _g .These were several copies of letters that I received from these different school districts, yes, on their letterhead.

Q At this time, Commissioner Banning, are there any-t

1 17,511 mm2 corrections, clarifications or deletions that you wish to make to your prefiled written testimony?

2 A Yes.

3 If the Judge has no objection to me referring to --

4 I reviewed this last night and had made some corrections. If s

I may just refer to that. -

6 JUDGE HOYT: Yes, if you wish to use your notes.

7 THE WITNESS: If I may, it would help.

8 9

On page 2, there was a typo in the third paragraph 10 where the sentence should read:

jj "Within the past six months, SEPTA has had a shortage of bus drivers which. led to the curtailing of 12

. 13 some routes and t he elimination of others. . .

j, It sluuld be ". . .on an unscheduled' basis."

15 It says "or."

16 I think it would be clearer on the last paragraph on j7 that page if there were a hyphen between " transport" and jg " dependent." That is, "regarding the number of transport-39 dependent people. . ."

20 Now, on page 3, in the second paragraph, I believe 21 there is an extra comma in the next-to-the-last sentence, or

( 22 next-_to-the-last line of the second paragraph, after " assemble."

23 I think it should go " assemble buses," comma. There is a stray 24 comma in there.

he naso,ws, Inc.

25 MR. CONNER: I'm sorry, could we have that again? On

17,512 mm3 I page 3?

-2 THE WITNESS: Page 3, the second paragraph, the seconi .

3 line from the end, that last sentence, where it would go:

i 0 "The Philadelphia Electric Company evacuation 5 time estimate study for the Limerick Generating Station 0 assumes that 'up to one hour may be required to'. . .

7 I think it should be " assemble buses" not to 8 " assemble" comma,'" buses" and'so on.

9 There is a stray comma in that.

10 Down in the last paragraph on that page, running U over to the top, now here when I reviewed this last night, I 12 became more aware than I had when I first wrote this, of.some 13 inconsistencies of phraseology and other. things between the Id County Draft, which the-Commissioners receive from time t'o time 15 from our emergency operating center. This is now Draft 7, and I6 I think I have received Draft 3 and Draft 6 and now Draft 7, 17 and then the Implementing Procedures.

18 So, in the Implementing Procedures there is a section

" on Public Works which is entitled "The Public Works Group,"and 20 the first paragraph there under purpose, it goes:

21 "The purpose of these procedures is to support 22 Montgomery County's response to an incident at the 23 Limerick Generating Station coordinating that major evacuation routes are maintained in passable condition, 25 mobilizing roadway clearance and fuel resources as  !

17,513 )

L

=mm4 1 keeded, and providing for the timely notification and 2 response of parks and recreation areas located within 3 the Montgomery County portion of the plume exposure

' O 4 pathway, EPZ."

3 5 Then in the following couple of pages there are

! 6 some references to snow removal and so on.

7 Now, in this paragraph that I am speaking of at the ,

8 bottom of page 3, I was talking here about Appendix K of the

, 9 . Montgomery County REP, and was -- well,they do not speak of

10 snow removal in this context. Tne snow removal really was from 11 the other Implementing Procedure. So, I am trying to make my 12 paragraph here be something thatpeople who read it can go back 13 to the references and not be confused.

i( ,

14 -

And so I --

15 JUDGE HOYT: You want to strike --

16 THE WITNESS: I would lika to ' strike the "or snow 17 removal" in the second line, and then down further on the-18 sixt, and snow removal," simply because from the reference 19 there it was from the one and not the other. ,

20 Again, on the top of page 4, there is an "and snow 21 removal."

rh JJ 22 I am concerned about that, and there is definitely--

23 in the Implementing Procedures, it does deal with the snow I 24 removal as a part of the county's responsibility for

, Am-seems mese, inc.

j 25 coordinating. But, I think --

1

, + - ~ . , . .

-m --.-----,--w nwe,,a,,,,,-a.-,-n--------,-m, .,m-n, n-,-v r-,.,n_,w,.en mm_n--,n, ,a,n,-,... . , - , -

l 17,514 1

mm5- 1 JUDGE HOYT: Let's see in the context of what you 2 are_saying, on-page 4, in the fourth line strike the "and snow i 3 removal."

O 4 THE WITNESS: Right.

5 JUDGE HCYT: But leave the word " services."

6 Any other corrections?

7 THE WITNESS: Well, there is a typo in the fourth

! 8 line from the bottom. Deficiencies should be d-e-f, instead

9 of d-i-f.

4 10 And then on the very last, I think it would be ti clearer if instead of saying Page 3, it was Page 1 through 3.

.- 12 And then, "of th'e County RERP, Implementing Procedures, Public Works Group." The page reference is PNG IP-1 through 3.

(f 13

] 14 Because th'e Implementing Procedures is the area where there is

, 15 reference to the Public Works Group, which happens to be a i

! 16 Phrase which makes a lot of sense to me. Because when you talk l 17 about the County, or you talk about the municipality,-the i

18 Public Works Group is the way that you do generally speak about 19 those departments which have to do with roads and maintenance ,

20 and so on. But in the county's -- this draft plan, I think'

, 21 they use the word " field services," which doesn' t really

1() 22 mean too much to me.

23 And so I was thinking in terms of the other. But if 24 you are looking references --

- nes==e, ins.

25 JUDGE HOYT: Somewhere in there, Commissioner Banning, f

4

. . . . - _ _ , , _ . _ , - ~ , . . _ . . . . . , , _ ~ _ _ _ . , , , , , , , .,-e,~..-_..,.m. ..e-,m__,--,.-r.,mm.-e.,.w-,-,,y,--.,,,,-.,.--.m,--+,_.yy.-w.wv-.-

n a 17,515 mm7 is there a correction on this? Just tell me where it is on g 2  !

page 4. l THE WITNESS: On page 4, the corrections there,

.( )

4 remove "and snow removal" on line 4.

JUDGE HOYT: Any others?

THE WITNESS: Change the -- make the typo correction d-e, rather than d-i of deficiency.,

8 And then down at the bottom of that paragraph, where it says "Page 3" put "Page 1 through 3" and then add, after 10 the " County RERP" add " Implementing Procedures, Public Works 11 Group."

12 JUDGE HOYT: Any others.

13 THE WITNESS: No. I will stand by the rest and let 14 the others do their will on it.

15 JUDGE H0YT: Very well. Thank you.

16 Do you have any other questions about this? :Since 17 this is prefiled testimony, I take it you are tendering the 18 witness at this time?

19 MS. ZITZER: I simply want to verify the purpose 20 for which she prepared this testimony.

21 JUDGE HOYT: Fine.

22 BY MS. ZITZER:

23 Q Is that, having been in response to a request from 24 wm nm, w Limerick Ecology Action, for you to submit testimony on LEA's 25 deferred contentions to be presented to the' Atomic Safety

17,516 mm8 I and Licensing Board in this proceeding?

2 -A Yes, I had been asked of concerns that I had, And, 3

of course, one of my primary concerns in the evacuation did

- O,a 0 concern the school districts.

5 JUDGE HOYT: And that is a yes?

]

0 THE WITNESS: Yes.

7 MS. ZITZER: Fine. Thank you.

8 The witness is tendered for cross examination by i 4 9 the parties.

10 JUDGE HOYT: Very well, Mr. Conner, you have one

' hour.

j

. 12 MR. CONNER: If the Board please,-I thought we were O

eiven two hours reseerd v.

4 Id JUDGE HOYT: Yesi we did give you two hours yesterday, 15 didn't we?

I0 MR. CONNER: Just for the record, at 17,197 --

1 II JUDGE HOYT: I take your word for it that that was I8 my word. i 1

I' MR. CONNER: I certainly hope it will not take that.

20 JUDGE HOYT: I had gotten into the habit of the 21 hour before. . I can hope, but if you want to, very well.

f 22 MR. CONNER: As I . told you yesterday, it would ,

23 depend on how the witness answers the questions.

24 1

JUDGE HOYT: Very well. On my little timing device <

25 When you hear a beep, that.is I am going to give you one hour.  ;

+ v.,. , - ve y -y -+,,i,--,*,--w-_v -w.,,..-..-.w.,.~.-,,-,y-. , , - - se y .m,- . , -g.-

17,517 mm9 I the first hour, aid then I will crank in another.

2

. MR. CONNER: I will'stop for breath.

\

3 JUDGE HOYT: We all will. l 4 Go ahead.

1 5 MR. CONNER: I would first point out, before you

.i 6 start the clock, I would like to make my motion to strike, 7 which may shorten things considerably, that I referred to.

8 The motion to strike relates to page 3 and 4, and

'to the. newspaper clipping. ,

10

. JUDGE HOYT: Okay, let's take page 3 first.

II

! Where do you wish to strike?

12 MR. CONNER: Beginning with the third full paragraph 13 and the second full paragraph and the third full paragraph, is e I4 an instance of the witness expressing opinions in the second f

.15 full paragraph about the time factor could be significant

?

16 '

for travel and loading.'

i.

I7 JUDGE HOYT: Can you give me that by the lines, 18

Mr. Conner?

II

, MR. CONNER: Surely. But the motion to strike goes 20 to the entire paragraph,-because I am merely identifying the 21 general context of it.

22 The witness expresses her opinion as, these factors 23 . could be significant. And then she -is convinced - that traffic -

24 patterns in the next-paragraph, would have a considerable impact 25 on the response time of bus transporters and so forth.

I

17,518 l

mml0 1 We submit that both of those paragraphs should be 2 stricken as being without foundation as to any expertise this 3 Particular witness has shown in the prepared testimony on these

~

4 two opinions. And hence, we submit there is no foundation that 5 would support opinion testimony in'this area.

6 JUDGE HOYT: The first paragraph that you are 7 speaking about is starting with "A review of Annex I, Appendix 8 I-2," et cetera through to the last phrase, "and traffic ap conditions. involved." .The entire paragraph. Is that'it?

10 MR. CONNER: Yes.

11 JUDGE HOYT: All right. Fine.

12 So I will know where you are going. That's on

'( ) . 13 page.3.

14 What is it on page 4 now Mr. Conner.

15 MR. CONNER: The next paragraph, after the one you 16 just marked, is the secbnd cbjection, because it also expresses 17 an opinion in the same subject area.

18 JUDGE HOYT: And would you give me the specific 19 lines and references there?

20 MR. CONNER: The entire paragraph, which is only 21 one sentence.

() 22 JUDGE HOYT: "I am also convinced that the 23 traffic problems," down through "is available"?

24 MR. CONNER: Yes.

' Am-Feded Reporters, Inc.

25 JUDGE HOYT: All right.

4 17,519 mmll I MR. CONNER: Then the last paragraph on page 3, which 2 continues over on to page 4. The entire subject matter here i

3 is premised on the assumption that letters of agreement for 4 towing and formerly for snow removal, but the witness deleted 5 that -- that letters of agreement for towing are required.

0 Inasmuch as such letters of agreement are not 7 required for this type of service, we submit that that paragraph 8

should also be stricken.

A JUDGE'HOYT: In its entirety?

10 MR. CONNER: Yes.

' JUDGE HOYT: All right. That goes all the way 12 th ough.into page 4, and down to complete -- well, there are 13 several lines, number of lines of testimony on the fourth Id page, down to.the point, " Implementing Procedures, Public h 15 Works Group."

16 MR. CONNER: Right.

17 JUDGE HOYT: All right, I understand _you.

18 What else?

n MR. CONNER: Finally, the first attachment which -

-20 p is apparently somebody's column from the Mercury Pottstown, 21 Pennsylvania, for September 26th, 1983.

22 There is no nexus between this column and Mrs. Bannirg'(

23

- proposed testimony, and it is, of course,-hearsay, unsworn, 24 not subject to cross examination, and immaterial. So, we

- think it'should be stricken on all of those grounds.-

J r ~,.y ,we ,m, ,,a, -w,- ,r,,g... +

17,520 mm12 I JUDGE HOYT: All right. What else.

2 MR. CONNER: I note parenthetically that these 3

G other letters more or less have found their way into the V

4 record already, so we won't bother to object to them.

5 JUDGE HOYT: They do look familiar.

6 Any objection to the bus transportat ion provider 7 survey?

8 Is that all your objections now?

9 MR. CONNER: Yes.

10 JUDGE HOYT: Do we have any -- Go ahead Ms. Wright.

II MS. WRIGHT: I just wanted some clarification 12 before I say anything.

bd 13 JUDGE HOYT: All right.

Id MS. WRIGHT: Am I to understand that on page 3 15 the Applicant wishes to strike the second full paragraph, 16 third full paragraph and the fourth paragraph continuing on 17 to page 4 in its entirety?

18 JUDGE HOYT: That' a what I underst$ood.

I' MR. CONNER: Yes.

20 MS. WRIGHT: And the newspaper article? And that 2I was it?

- ' 22 MR. CONNER: Yes.

23 MS." WRIGHT: 'Okay.

MS. ZITZER: I wish to comment in response when it is appropriate.

l 17,521 mm13 I JUDGE HOYT: Let me see if we have anything else 2

from the other counsel, then we will get to you last, 3

Ms. Zitzer, as the sponsoring party of this witness.

O MS. ZITZER: Certainly.

5 JUDGE HOYT: How about you, Commonwealth?

0 Mr. Goodwin?

7 MR. GOODWIN: I have no argument for or against it.

8 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Hirsch?

9 MR. HIRSCH: Are you asking~for our arguments now?

10 JUDGE HOYT: Just giving you an opportunity to comment II if you wish. If you want to make an argument for or against, 12 you may.

13 .Why don't I reserve the right until

. MR. .HIRSCH:

I4 LEA's representative has spoken. Unless you prefer for me to 15 go ahead now.

I I0 JUDGE HOYT: I wanted.to give LEA the last argument I7 on it.

18 MR. HIRSCH: It would be FEMA's position that the I9 second. full paragraph on page 3 of Commissioner Banning's 20 And tos.thst extent. FEM &'.S .

testimony, does relate to LEA-23.

21 position is that-that shonld not be exclOded.

s 22 I may not have understood the precise basis for 23 . Mr. Conner's objection to that.

24 mm nepor=rs, Inc.

For the same reason I would feel that the third full paragraph on,page 3 should be admitted, because it appears

, w= .

n . . . . . -. , , - , . . - . - . . , . . , - - ., , . - . . . . ..

17,522

-mml4 1

I to be within the scope of LEA-23.

2 With respect to paragraph beginning at thebottop 3

of page 3 and continuing through the top of page 4, I would 4 agree with Mr. Conner to the extent that those letters of 5 agreement relate to letters of agreement with individuals.

0 However, tcrthe extent that they relate to letters of

< 7 agreement with organizations, or companies as opposed to 8 individuals, I don't feel that the paragraph should be eliminated 9 'from Commissioner Banning's testimony.

10 I would also agree with Mr. Conner that the article from the Mercury Pottstown, the Pottstown Mercury, whatever I2 the name of the newspaper is, needn't be included in Commissioner 13 Banning's testimony.

14 15

.16 17 18 19

, 20 21 22

23 24

' Ass-Fessem neoorms, Inc.

25 1

- , - - - - -.... . - . . . ., --,. -,-,_..... . - , , , _ . - - , - ~ _ , . . _ . , . . , , - . - - - . - - _ . _ , , . . . - , - , - -

l nntions 17,523 ,

CR21552  !

1. 19-mn-1 1 JUDGE HOYT: The Mercury in Pottstown, Pennsylvania.

2 MR. HIRSCH: Yes.

3 JUDGE HOYT: Would the staff care to respond?

O("T 4 MS. WRIGHT: Given that Mrs. Banning is a county 5 commissioner, the staff does not have any objections 6 to admission of the second full paragraph on page three 7 or the fourth full paragraph. We would join in the applicant's 8 motion to strike the third full paragraph and the newspaper 9 article.

10 JUDGE HOYT: Beginning with " Appendix K."

11 MS. WRIGHT: No, the third full paragraph beginning, 12 "I am also convinced that. . . " . There is a portion of the

(-

13 fourth. paragraph -- '

14 JUDGE HOYT: By the fourth paragraph you are refer-!.a 15 ing'" Appendix K."

16 MS. WRIGHT: Right.

17 MR. CONNER: If the Board please, may I be heard 18 only to clarify what I meant on this. I think the staff is 19 taking a different review of the paragraphs that I am and 20 I think it might be well if I clarified that right now.

21 JUDGE HOYT: Let's see wha.t you have there, Mr. Conner.

U 22 MR. CONNER: Again looking at page three the words

'23 ~a t the~ top of the page,~"This information is contained..."

l l 24 are not indented as are the other paragraphs. Therefore, when Aap ders neponm. inc.

25 I referred to the third full paragraph I meantsthe one l

l L

mn19-2 17,524 1 beginning, "I am also convinced" and by my count the fourth 2 full paragraph is the one beginning " Appendix K." I say 3 that only for clarification.

O 4 JUDGE HOYT: That is what I had understood. Is 5 that what you had understood, Ms. Wright?

6 MS. WRIGHT: That is what I understood. That is .

7 what I just said.

8 JUDGE.HOYT: All right. So you have no objection --

'9 MS.' WRIGHT: To striking the third full paragraph.

10 JUDGE HOYT: Beginning with " Appendix K."

11 MS. WRIGHT: Right.

12 JUDGE HOYT: I misspoke it. It is the fourth full 13 paragraph on the page, it is the third one_that the Applicant 14 has moved to strike. That is the paragraph beginning.with 15 the words " Appendix K of the Montgomery County RERP."

16 Now you join the Applicant in wanting to strike that, 17 is that correct?

18 MS. WRIGHT: Now the one beginning " Appendix K. . . ",

19 the one prior to that, "I am also convinced."

20 JUDGE HOYT: I misunderstood you then the second 21 time around. We should have gone with the first one. It is 22 always the right one.

23 MS. WRIGHT: Could I have just 30 seconds?

24 JUDGE HOYT: Sure.

Am-Feews neoo,em, Inc.

25 (Counsel for NRC conferring off the record.)

17,525 mn19-3 l

1 MS. WRIGHT:i As far as the fourth paragraph goes 2 which begins with the words, " Appendix K of...'", the staff 3 would join in the Applicant's motion to strike certain 4 sentences and the first one that the staff would like to 5 move to strike would be, "The importance of letters 6 of agreements is clear. There are many. townships relying 7 on the County to fulfill their towing and snow removal e needs," those two sentences.

.9 The next sentence that the staff' would like to 10 strike is on page four, "The County could also use more 11 assurance and/or better understanding of the resources 12 and personnel PennDOT has available. To the best of my

'( ) ,,

f3 knowledge, at present, none of the townships have a letter

. 14 of agr<3ement for. towing for a radiological emergency."

15 and the next sentence, "This is a particular concern because 16 many of the townships have personnel deficiencies in several '

17 . of the transportation and communication officers categories."

18 That is all.

i 19 JUDGE HOYT: That is what you want to strike?

20 MS. WRIGHT: And the rest of the paragraph. I am i

21 sorry. I should just go on and say the rest of that paragraph.

22 JUDGE HOYT

All right. Starting with the lines 23 -in the fourth -line ~down from- the 4 top of the page, "The County l_ 24 could also. . . " through the entire paragraph.

4.eessem neerms, sac.

25 MS. WRIGHT: Right.

r I. - _ _ _ - . _ _ . . . , . _ . _ - _ . . _ - _ . - , . , . . - ~ . - - _ - . - . _ _ - , . - _ . . . . - . _ . . _ ~ _ - _ , _ . _ -

17,526 mn19 -

1 JUDGE HOYT: Is that it?

2 MS. WRIGHT: Yes.

3 JUDGE COLE: Ms.- Wright, if you strike the sentence 4 in the fourth full paragraph the one beginning, "With the 5 importance of..." and you strike down to " towing needs,"

6 the rest of that is meaningless, is it not, the rest on 7 that page?

3 MS. WRIGHT: That's true. The staff could strike 9 the entire paragraph.

10 JUDGE HOYT: The entire paragraph?

11 MS. WRIGHT: Paragraph four beginning on page three 12 continuing onto page four, all of it.

13 JUDGE HOYT: With the words, " Appendix K."

i' 14 MS. WRIGHT: Yes.

15 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. I understand now. I hope.

.i 16 Anything else from any of the other counsel before we go back 17 to Ms. Zitzer?

! 18 MR. CONNER: I would amplify one point that I thought i

19 was unnecessary. Mr. Hirsch argued that these were within the 20 basic contentions and I didn't raise that objection. I.went;

i. 21 to the expertise and so forth of the witness but I would remind

, tO 22 the Board that in its October 26, 1984 order on page six L

f "23 'it' ruled-that as' towing and snow removal was the subject 24 matter then that letters of agreement with organizations of A peare neswwe, ins.

~25 police, fire personnel, school officials and other workers i

r

-v-r - m -e w -

%_->+w .ey t--.w,. -,-mw- ,- , . .,n3v,-.-.-,--yw.---ww.-n-te-e~m---t*~+-*wnew v9'**m--W -,-w e w-ew m wee m-- on e w - s e -wNem e mw - a '- -+

17,527 an19-5 1 that LEA mentions whom regulations, statute or executive 2 order binds to perform in an emergency are not-necessary.

3 JUDGE HOYT: There is no argument on the first 4 paragraph then. Do I take it that everyone joins in that 5 agreement to strike that portion?

6 MS. ZITZER: I am not sure --

7 JUDGE HOYT: Just a moment, Ms. Zitzer, I am going 8 to give you lask crack. The first paragraph that Applicant's 9 ' counsel moved to strike is the one beginning "A review of 10 Annex I, Appendix I-2."

~

11 MR. HIRSCH: It was FEMA's position that that 12 should not be stricken because --

} 13 JUDGE HOYT: Because that is a par.t of LEA-23.

14 MR. HIRSCH: Yes. Could I also clarify with respect 15 to Mr. Conner's last comment, I had attempted to state when 16 I spoke earlier that my position with respect to that ,

17 paragraph beginning at the bottom of page three with the 18 words, " Appendix K of the Montgomery County Plan" that that 19 paragraph should remain in was qualified by the statement-20 t. hat it should remain in to the extent that it is within j- 21 the scope of the admitted contention there to the extent . -

! (~T k A- 22 that these letters of agreement are not ones called for t

23 within the Board's order as Mr. Conner has just quoted.

i 24 JUDGE HOYT: I understood what you said, Mr. Hirsch.

j m nenwiers,lae.

. 25 Now, Ms. Zitzer, you have the last argument.

n t

17,528 an19-6 4

MS. ZITZER: Thank you. Starting with the 2

. paragraph on page three that begins, "The amount of time

(} required to mobilize," that testimony does specifically refer to contention LEA-23 and a comment I would like to make 5

with regard to everything I am about to say is that 4

Commissioner Banning is present in the hearing room today '-

7 for ' cross-examination by the parties regarding her competence 8

to testify in any of. the matters contained therein and she is available for the examination of the parties and ,

! I think that that manner should allow the parties the 11 opportunity to determine the basis for her opinion as stated 12 anywhere in the sections which we are discussing.

( ).

i3 -

Specifically that . paragraph and the following N

i

-paragraph, a review of Annex I do relate directly to specification one of the admitted contention LEA-23 which the Board did admit for litigation and . frankly, without I7 the supporting paragraph beginning, "A review of Annex I" the previous paragraph beginning "The amount of time," is 19 not properly supported by the opinion that the commissioner 20 intended to provide as testimony and we believe that both 21 paragraphs are necessary to explain the basis for her O.

\' 22 statement and her questions regarding the one hour assumption 4

23 as stated there for mobilization time.

24 g Again, the following paragraph beginning with, "I am 25

' also concerned that traf fic problems," that section f

?

r.- - ..,-._.-.__---_._.--___,,-s..

- - - . . . _ . _ - - ~ , _ ~ _ _ _ , _ _ - . - . . - _ . _ _ . . . , . . _ - . _ - - . . _ . ~ .

17,529 )

mn19-7 1 specifically refers to her opinion with regard to impact on 2 response time for bus transportation providers which again 3 relates directly to-her concerns about specification one 4 of admitted contention LEA-23. For that reason, we believe 5 the information in her testimony should stand and that the 6 parties should have an opportunity to cross-examine Commissioner 7 Banning to determine the degree of knowledge to which she 8 has to offer that opinion but we do believe as a County .

9 Commissioner who will have to vote on whether or not she is 10 going to approve along with the other Commissioners the 11 Montgomery County Plan and whether or not it is an implementable 12 plan as is referred to in contention LEA-1, we believe that

)

• 13 she is entitled to offer her opinion on these matters as 14 it would affect the workability of the plan.

15 The same general comments would relate to the 16 remaining portion of the proposed motion to strike' beginning 17 with " Appendix K" regarding the roadway clearance and fuel 18 resources . continuing through the following page which has 19 been identified ending with the phrase, "added by Commissioner 20 Banning, Public Works Group."

21 Again this information relates to a contention

<]

N - 22 LEA-5 with regard to letters of agreement being required 23 and I would submit to you that the Commissioner is entitled j 24 to have her opinion about what. constitutes a workable plan m nos.,wes, inc.

25 for Montgomery County independent from the . criteria of

mn19 17,530 1 NUREG-0654.

l 2 We believe that the criteria of NUREG-0654 would 3 apply to the provision of letters of agreement regarding 4 towing clearance and roadway clearance arrangements and 5 for that reason we do believe that that section of the 6 testimony should stcnd.

7 The remainder of that information there.is an 8 attempt again by the Commission to express her opinion 9 'regarding the reasons why she has this particular concern 10 and again, with regard to LEA-1, the Board has specifically 11 requested that on item four (d) that competent evidence 12 be placed in the record demonstrating the current status

~

. 13 of adoption and implementability by local bodies of the 14 various plans for Limerick.

15 We believe that the parties will have an opportunity 16 during cross-examination to determine whether or not these 17 statements offered by Commissioner Banning are competent l 18 evidence and certainly they provide the basis for her concerns 19 regarding the implementability of the gian.

20 The Board, I think, and the parties can determine 21 what appropriate weight to give to the opinions expressed by 22 Commissioner Banning based upon the examination that is 23 conducted here in the hearing room today, but we do believe 24 that the Commissioner should be entitled to present her m noenm, ene.

25 concerns as she has submitted in this testimony.

r

an19-9 17,531-i The only other comment I would like to make with 2 regard to the attached editorial'which is numbered page five 3 from the Pottstown Mercury, I believe that this was inserted 4 with reference to the paragraph beginning at the bottom 5 of the second page regarding the identification of transport 6 dependent people continuing on to the first paragraph on 7 page. three which is a concern that the Commissioner has 8 expressed in her testimony.

9 It was my understanding that she had submitted 10 this not necessarily to assert to the truth of the matters 1

11 contained therein, but simply as some indication of 12 the basis for her-concern as well as other matters which O ,

i2 she has direce know1edee of. . .

ja So I would ask the Board to consider allowing the 15 editorial to remain with the testimony simply.to be referred 16 to as information that the Corsnissioner based her opinion j7 on and I frankly ddubt that this is the sole basis for her 13 opinion but we do believe that in that respect that it would 19 be appropriate'for this letter to remain in her testimony.

20 We agree that Mr. Urban is not here for 21 cross-examination and would agree with the parties'. concern l 22 about the truth of the matters contained therein but I -

l 23 believe that Commissioner Banning is able to testify as to 24 her concerns based on this matter as it is described directly m nomme sac.

25 in her testimony.

J

. _ _ _ _ __ . _ ~ . . . _

mn19-10 17,532 1 For that reason, we would request that the Board 2 would consider allowing the editorial to remain but simply 3 asserting that it is to be considered the basis for her 4 testimony and not to assert to the matters directly contained 5 therein.

, 6 I would just like to add that the issue of provisions 7 for road clearance and towing, we believe does fall under 8 LEA contention 5 which relates to letters of agreement. I 9 am sure the Board is well aware that that is another matter 10 that this Board is considering particularly with regard to 11 contention LEA-28 (b) . For that reason, we do believe that 12 the issue is one that this Board is considering.

p t )

13 I would agree that she is not offered at ths time 14 directly on contention LEA-28 but if that is one of the 15 areas of her concern as it affects the implementability of 16 the county plan, we believe that she should be free to offe.

17 her opinion and that the parties should have the opportunity 18 to cross-examine her as to the basis for that.

19 I believe that' concludes LEA's comments and thank 20 you.

- 21 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. Only so much of the i

\~"

/

22 relief requested by Applicant which reaches the third 23 paragraph, full paragraph, on page three beginning with 24 "I am also convinced that traf fic problems. . . " and the next A rederw neponers, inc.

25 paragraph beginning " Appendix K of the Montgomery County RERP"

17,533 mn19-ll I and the newspaper article identified as being on page five 2

entitled, "At the Editor's Desk, Junk Mail Message is

' ,j 3 Unnerving," that portion will be struck. Paragraph two 4 on page three beginning with "A review of Annex I..." down 5 to the bottom of that paragraph ". . . and traffic conditions 6 involved." The motion to strike that is denied.

7 MS. ZITZER: Your Honor, could I ask for one 8 clarification. The paragraph at the bottom of page three 9 continues to the top of page four and ends with the words, 10 "Public Works Group." That section has also been stricken?

II JUDGE HOYT: That is correct, Ms. Zitzer, that 12

, entire paragraph reaching to the end "Public Works Group."

~

13 It spills over on to page four and I think it is as Ms. Wright 14 described in her argument, the entire paragraph.

15 Is there anyone that needs any additional clarifi-16 cation? Are you with me, Mr. Conner?

I7 MR CONNER: Yes, Your Honor.

18 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. Now you have 60 minutes 19 for a cross-examination. I am sorry. Sixty minutes and then 20 I will give you another 60, two hours.

- 2I CROSS-EXAMINATION XX 22 BY MR. CONNER:

23 Mrs. Banning, you state that you are experienced and O

24 I am referring, of course, to your prepared testimony in' Am Federal Reporters, Inc.

25 the questions that I will ask, your testimony states that you

17,534 mn19-12 I were a school teacher and became a lawyer in 1976 and then 2 became a county commissioner in 1979.

3 A Elected in 1979, sworn in in 1980.

{~}

4 G What formal education have you had in emergency 5 planning?

6 A No formal education in emergency planning.

7 G Have you had any particular formal education in 8 the areas of radiation health effects?

9 A I would say very little. You have some physics 10 when you major in math but I don't think I would place too 11 great stress on that.

12 G How about traffic engineering? .

• l3 , A only as'an afflicted lay person caught in the 14 stream, no formal education in that.

15 G. Which stream are you referring to?

16 A The stream of traffic that comes to a halt at 17 various places. I have had some first-hand experience of 18 that sort but no fcrmal education in that regard.

19 G , I assume you mean vehicular traffic?

20 A Yes. I guess I have been caught in a few other

,, 21 things, but yes, that is what I was speaking of.

22 4 Have you ever had any formal training in emergency 23 planning or emergency work as such?

24 A Emergency pertaining to the Limorick and that kind AssJederal Reporters, Inc.

25 of thing, not what I would say formal. I think that thiu is

17,535 an19-13 1 an on-the-job learning kind of thing as opposed to formal 2

preparation.

3 f ) 0 I will ask you the same questions about any 4

special courses which some people will distinguish between 5

formal education or training and special courses in subjects.

6 For example, have you ever had any specialized training 7 short courses if you will in emergency planning?

8 A You are again talking about formal short courses?

9 G I am talking about any specialized briefings or 10 training that might have been provided to you by Mr. Ely or II the emergency coordinator of your county?

12 A m IIere is where it is a little difficult to distinguish.

R~) 13 Obviously as county commissioner you are always getting -- Vou Id are always learning something I would hope about the many 15 things that you are dealing with and certainly from the time 16 of coming on to the Commissioners Board, we did have meetings l

I7 with Mr. Ely about his negotiations on it with Philadelphia f 18 Electric or what he was doing. Now I certainly would not I9 characterize that as a course but you pick up some information 20 as to what they are doing and become a bit more informed 21 than you were before. But I wouldn't characterize that as 7y 22 a course.

END#19 23 2/

Acs Faseres neporim, ts.

26

CR 21552 17,536 1/8/85 REE Tcka 20 1 O You referred to meetings with Philadelphia Pcga 1 2 Electric.

3 A No. I said, he would -- talking -- Mr. Ely

}

4 would be talking about his negotiations with 5 Philadelphia Electric when he would be negotiating for 6 who should pay for what, that sort of thing.

7 0 Are you familiar with the courses in d emergency planning that are given by Energy Consultants?

9 A I have had feedback from that, you know, that 10 it has been alleged that there have been courses given.

II And of course, then people who supposedly have gotten 12 them have said, well, I didn't think that was any training.

4 13 So I have only -- but I haven't attended 14 any of those things. If I have attended them, it certainly 15 didn't present itself as being training.

16 O Did you make any effort, getting this feedback 17 you referred to, to check them out for yourself, these 18 courses?

19 A Well, if somebody has an impression that they 20 were not trained by something, there is not much more 21 I can do about it.

3 22 I mean, if they have said that Marlborough 23 Township, for instance, had received training, and the 24 teachers say, oh, is that what they were supposed to be, As.-Fassem nepo,wes,Inc.

25 I mean what more can I do about it?

l l

REE 20/2 17,537 1 Q Did you ever hear anybody say they had 2 received training?

3 A No.

4 Q Everybody comes to you and says, I didn't 5 receive any training?

6 A We are talking in the context, I think, of 7 meetings which were supposed to be which were described 8 as training in dealing with an emergency.

9 I think that I would have described them as 10 orientation courses or as orientation to what the II emegency preparedness was doing. And I think this is the 12 way people that I have spoken to in these different

- ,] 13 townships or schools have said, Well, if they were giving I4 a runthrough as to what they are doing. But they certainly 15 didn' t count them as training.

16 0 It might save me time if you would tell me I7 what -- how you distinguish in your own mind between what I8 I have been calling training and you are calling orient & tion.

II '

A Well, I suppose that training would be 20 information that would really help you as whether you 21 are a teacher or a bus driver or what act more to the noint O 22 in carrying out an emergency evacuation or whatever.

23 That is, I guess, perhaps something about radiation --

24

,, I am not designing these courses, but it is just that you 25 would have the feeling that -- you would have a sense of

REE 20/3 17,538 1 confidence as being able to handle this. Whereas that 2 was not a sense that I have ever gotten from anybody j

3 who was present at those.

4 Q You don't think you could learn anything 5 from an orientation course that you could learn from a 6 training course?

7 A Of course. It would depend on the context.

8 I am just saying that the impression that I have gotten 9 from those people who attended whatever it was that 10 the PECO people gave to the, I think it was school II boards -- you know, they went around and visited them --

12 it was interestingly informational to a point.

,m But they

( )

13 never felt that they were trained.

14 I mean it is like somebody might give me a 15 general conversation about the inportance of first aid 16 and how they were into giving training on it and their I7 qualifications, but that wouldn't mean that I necessarily 18 would feel that I was competent to go out and do first

" aid.

20 That would be the difference, I think.

, 21 But you made no effort, then, to go to anv Q

22 of these courses and find out for yourself whether they 23 were training, orientation, or something less; is that 24 rig'ht?

Ace-Federst Reporters, Inc.

25 A I was not invited to any of them, that I am

1REE 20/4. 17,539

'I aware of.

L 4

.2 Q As a county commissioner for something that I 3 is going on in your county, wouldn't you have had a 4 right to attend?

l 5 i.

A I certainly would. And I would have to be

) 6 100 people if I attended everything that goes on in-

7 the county. '

i i

8 Q You referred to some meetings, I think you

' said, with Mr. Ely.

l l 10 A Yes.

I 'l C What were those? Was that orientation, J.

l 12 training?

13 I would say that wds just,a routine ongoing i

A 14 sessions with county employees that we have in various

15 departments in which he would be filling us in on what i

14 he was doing. -

17 l ~Q Did you' learn anything from this experience?

[ ,

18 A Oh, I certainly do.

{.

I- I' Q Was it training or orientation? .

. 20 A I would say it was informational.

I wouldn't

[. 21 say it was training.

l' .

22 -Q How ofter did these meetings occur with

23 Mr. Ely?

24 l

Ass. pense mesenne, ins.

A Well, inasmuch as he has been dead for, what, 25 a year, it is going back awhile. I guess we might have --

1 -

e REE 20/5 17,540 I well, see, it is hard to say because we would see him 2 at least once a year on the budget hearings. He would 3 have, generally, a luncheon for his department to which 4 the commissioners were invited where he would make awards 3 and you would have some, you know, give and take then.

4 He would frequently ask me, and I am sure the 7 other =caunissioners, to give awards to some of your 8 medical training courses that were given. And you would 9 go and give then and, you know, express appreciation of 10 the county for their efforts.

II so we would have some ongoing contact.

12 Apart from that, maybe once or twice a year O_. 13 he might' come to the corsaissioners. But I wouldn't Id be able to say more, you know, on a routine basis.

II

. Q I think I understood-you to use the I'

term " regular meeting." I guess --

17 A We regularly have budget hearings every fall.

38

' We would have this, say, the luncheon where the awards :

I' were given. I forget when it was. But that would be once 20 a year on a regular basis.

21 other than that, it would be as needed.

'O 22 Q You wouldn't learn very much from going to 23 an awards luncheon, would you?

24 A oh, I certainly would. Listen, don't underestimate AeSesspel Resorters, ins.

25 the importance of going to all of these chicken dinners.

17,541 REE 20/6 1 I'll tell you, there is where, if it is the 2 firemen or the farmers or so forth, it gives you a 3 chance to talk to people that otherwise you wouldn't see.

(V~}

4 When you are at these dinners, it gives you 5 a chance to talk to the staff. Ordinarily I wouldn't 6 just buzz up to the bunker and sit there and have a cup 7 of coffee, but if we can have some of these functions "

8 where you have a chance to meet them, you talk over some 9 t,hings .

10 So, I mean, it has some value.

11 Q How many of those meetings of that type 12 on emergency planning have you been to this year, the (73 13 year after Mr,. Ely's death?

14 A Well, I remember there was one rather full-dress 15 information thing on the Greaterford plan for the ,

16 evacuation of Greaterford prison.

17 This was to inform the commissioners just what 18 the plan was and all this. And you had quite a number l'

of people there.

20 I think we have had several other meetins s.

21 Now, this is with the commissioners.

O- 22 Now, I would have to go through my book to 23 check precisely how many because, of course, you understand, 24

- no ,= w. sometimes there are things which go on simultaneously 25

, and not every commissioner is at severy meeting.

REE 20/7 17,542 1 Q When you say meeting, do you mean just when 2 a group of people get together and discuss a topic,

,q 3 or does it have some other connotation to vou?

U '

4 A Generally it would mean in the commissioners 5 board room. It would be scheduled in our books.

6 Q I understand that Montgomery County commissioners 7 have regular reetingo everv Thursday.

8 A We have regular public meetings. That is 9 when the official business of the county, so far as 10 the official motions to pass resolutions, whether it II would be CD funds or purchasing eggs , or whatever, and it 12 generally is pretty cut and dried.

O, 13 But it is the public meeting. It is when Id the public has an opportunity to speak. And if'there is 15 an issue that may be a little more complicated or, I'

frankly, a little more interesting, we then may havesome 17 staff member come and speak so that the press and whoever 18 the public is present can understand that.

I' But we have many, many meetings throughout the 20 week.

21 of course, it depends. You have more in the 22 fall when we have the budget hearings. If we are having 23 a crisis, whether on trash or something, then we will have 24 a larger number of meetings on trash. If there is 25 something to be resolved in terms of emergency planning or

RER_20/8 s 17,543 I whatever, then generally the head of the department 2 would ask for a meeting on an as-needed basis.

3 0 Then, as I understand it, for example, if I, 4 for some reason, called you up and said, could I come to 3 you office to discuss X, that would be a meeting in 4 the context that we are talking about now?

7 A Well, no, that would be, if you are calling 8 me as an individual. Sometimes I might meet with 9 people to hear what they had to say, particularly if 10 it was some problem about which I could do something.

II Now, then there .are other meetings where 12 someone calls and says, I would like to have a meeting 13 with the commissioners. In that case, it would be 14 more appropriate to call Mr. Bartle, who is the chairman 15 of, if they want to ask me to set it up. But I would I'

not just commit the others to a nesting.

II I could commit myself to a meeting to you, 18 but I couldn't commit the other two.

I' Q I am seeking only to determine if you 20 mean, when you say meeting, we are using it in the 21 generic context or whether you have some specialized n 22 meaning.

23 A 'Well,' you'have the official meeting which is 2

usually on a Thursday morning. It may be on Wednesday 25 before Thanksgiving, or whatever. But generally it is on

REE 20/9 17,544 1 a Thursday morning.

2 We will have meetings which are scheduled with O 3 all three commissioners, and they are meetings. And then, V

4 of course, you nay have other meetings, both in the courthouse, 5 out of the courthouse,. luncheon meetings, whatever.

6 Q Did you ever ask Mr. Ely to come to your 7 office to discuss emergency planning?

8 A I don't think I had occasion to ask Mr. Ely 9 to come to my office because I saw him from time to time 10 and he always was very cheerful and ready to answer 11 any questions I had at the time.

12 Q Would you call those encounters a meeting?

O 13 A Soine of the encounters took place in te Id context of a meeting, some in the context of these 15 awards dinners or so on. 16 It is just -- it would all go to communication. 17 That's all. 18 Q Going back to your' basic background and I' experience in emergency planning, have you made any 20 personal efforts to familiarize yourself with energency g 21 planning documents? I know your testimony refers to 22 the fact that you have examined -- I think it is revision 23 7, dated October 1984. fly question goes to other than that. 24 A Yes. I think, frankly, for a commissioner, I A penne no== , ine. 25 think I have done a lot. Now, that doesn't mean that I am

REE 20/10 17,545 I any expert in terms of someone from PEMA or FEMA or 2 anything else. But within the context of the time that C's) 3 is possible in the commissioner's office, I have gone v 4 through those documents that I have gotten. 5 I have certainly been free with my advice 6 and criticism as to what was missing from them, which 7 I though was being rather above board. I mean, I haven't 8 tired to sandbag anybody, saying, Look what stupid thing 9 you left in that you could have taken out, or so forth. 10 I have tried to tell everybody, as soon as I II would see some things, that I thought you certainly ought I2 to straighten that out. So I have been working on that. 13 Now, we have to have a. vote at some time -- . Id Q Mrs. Banning, we will get to that in a ninute. 15 My question was, what other studies, documents, 16 did you look at? 17 A All right. What we have -- I could be wrong 18 but I think that plan 3 was the first one that we received 19 a copy of, the draft. There were some of these earlier 20 ones that were a whole lot of TBDs, I think, was what it

 -s 21   was.
           )

22 Now, I would go through them -- 23 Q Mrs. Danning, would you say what these documents 24 Am Federal Reporters, Inc. are? Do you mean revisions of Montgomery County plan,

                                                                      ~

25 emergency plan?

1 REE 20/11 17,546 I I A That was starting, yes. 2 O How about township plans? 3 A I have looked at some briefly, yes. 4 Q How about school district plans? 5 A I am not sure. I may have seen one or two, 6 jut flipped through it. But I don't have a clear picture 7 in my mind of the school districts. 8 I have spoken to members of the school board, 9 individual principals and so forth. 10 Q We will get to that in a minute. 11 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Conner, let me interrupt for 12 just one moment here. 13 ' Both you, Mr. Conner, and you, Commis,sioner 14 Banning, speak very rapidly. 15 _ THE WITNESS: Sorry. 10 JUDGE HOYT: And it is very difficult, sometimes, 17 for the reporter to always make these transitions. This 18 is particularly true when you are stepping on each 19 other's lines. 20 So if you will give each the opportunity -- 21 in your case, Ms. Banning, if you will let Mr. Conner n

     ~

22 finish his question and then you, Mr. Conner, let the 23 answer be finished before we begin. 24 THE WITNESS: Well taken. Thank you. As>seeerse nesene,e,Inc. 25 Where were we?

REE 20/12 17,547 1 BY MR. CONNER: 2 Q To what extent have you familiarized yourself 3 with Annex E, the Disaster Operations Plan for the 4 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for a nuclear plant? 5 A Is that -- I'll tell yo u right now, I am 6 very poor on remembering a lot of numbers and jargon. 7 I really am. What -- , 8 Q I an displaying to the witness --

                  '9
                                   ~

A I don't think that I have gone through that, no. 10 I have primarily been looking at what I was to be 11 passing judgment on, the different plans that we.had, 12 referencing some p,ortions of at least the township plans, 13 when they had some bearing on something'I was looking at. 14 This business, incidental stuff, then the 15 proposed contract with SEPTA, you now, things like that 16 ', that would bear on what I saw as being my responsibility. 17 Q Let's go back to the ' documents again. ' 18 A Okay. 19 Q To what extent have you, as a commissioner with 20 emergency planning responsiblities, familiarized with 21 the document called NUREG 0654 which is the document t i

   ^~          22 for the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the 23  Nuclear Regulatory Commission setting forth the criteria 24 4

mm noe,w, , Inc. for preparation and evaluation of radiological emergency 25 response plans and preparedness in support of nuclear power

REE 20/13 17,548 I plants, the document I am displaying to you? 2 A Absolutely not. As I would view the sequence 3 in which I would have to be looking at something, once 4 we can get a final plan, a draft that we are seriously 5 to eraluate, then I think might be a time when I would 6 go through that, questioning other people who have greater 7 expertise than I, because believe me, it would be impossible 8 to be an expert in all the regulatory documents that we 9 heve to deal with. I mean whether you are talking about 10 ' trash or water or this or what. 11 Now, at that point I would then say , it might 12 be that some of these would be documents that I would want 13 - to refer to some poihts. Id B0t at this point, no, I have not looked at 15 them. I want to wait until there is a document here that I 16 have to okay or turn down and then make a judgment as to 17 what further research I might have to do, if I have time 18 for it. I9 MR. CONNER: I would note parenthetically 20 that I just asked Mr. Nichols to give the Board the cross-21

   .                       examination plan which I neglected to provide at the
     )

22 beginning of Mrs. Banning's testimony. 23 JUDGE HOYT: Yes. Thank you. We acknowledge 24 receipt. AceJederal Reroners, Inc. 20 BY MR. CONNER:

REE 20/14 17,549 1 Q Mrs. Banning, given your last statement that you 2 want the Montgomery County plan before you read 3 anything else, I am at a loss as to what standards you 4 will apply to determine the adequacy of the Montgomery 5 County plan if you don!t read the parent documents 6 which state how the* Montgomery County plan would be

             ..               7           set up.

8 A Well, I think that as a commissioner, first of all, 9 I have to exercise some judgment as to, does the plan 10 make sense just as I read it. Il Now, that has been my problem to date with

 '.                    'I2               the -- what decision I make as to what time I invest O              -

13 in looking through it. l I Id With the early plans, a sort of leaf-through, 15 notiing the TBDs, and noting the general format is one 16 thi'ng. 17 .As these subequent plans come out, then I 18 ~ would go through~it and see what have they done in II a general fashion. It was a phone call from a school board , 20 - member as to just what are .we supposed -tobbe doing here t 21 that led me to start trying to work my way backwards, [ .h - l 22 .as I would put it, in plans 6 and 7 as to what were

                       -23              their' responsibilities.

24 Now, obviously this plan 7 certainly is not A paseras neoerms ene. !. - 25

                                  .in any shape-for us to make a decision.on.
            >e  -- -    , . , , - - - - , ,      . . , - , - - , , . . .       ,.,.,m-.~,ws,.-..-y.          .,-, -.e,---,-mme.~-w.w-,-.-,,-e,_,,ey   w-,. ,,----,.-y,.y.%*7,.,-,.,.-

REE 20/15 17,550 1

• Q Had you finished?

2 A No -- yes, that is based on my reading through 3 plan 7. I an assuming there is going to be something 4 else. If I am told to the contrary, that is something else. 5 0 0 I can never be sure when you are finished. 4 Is your conclusion based upon your discussions 7 with these school teachers and other people like this as 8 distinguished from the parent documents that I referred to? lP A As opposed to those documents there? 10 Well, I haven't read those, so I am not II

  ;END 20           speaking about them.

12

                .13 i,

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 , 24 we neporwn. Inc. 25

17,551 I Have you ever talked with any of your other 31 MM/mm1 Q 2 Commissioners about the status of these plans and the effort 3 G LJ they are making to learn how to judge the adequacy of emergency 4 plans? 5 A Just only in passing. We have not sat down as a 6 board to go over these plans. We will have casual comments;'. 7 Mr. Bartle will say he has little faith in any evacuation plan; 8 I will say whatever it is that I happen to recommend one way or 9 another. But we have not had a meeting where the agenda was 10 devoted to a discussion of the approval of any one of these

          "   as yet.

12 And I anticipate that somewhere along the line we 13 will have a meeting where that is on the agenda, and then Id there will be a lot of homework to be done for that. Additional 15 homework. 16 Q Mrs. Banning, on page 2 of your testimony, in I7 referring to the assumption that the State or other resources 18 could meet unmet needs. identified, you characterized that as being absolutely irresponsible to be so casual about the 20 safety of the citizens of the County. 21 If you have had seven plans before you now, don't yott 22 think the attitude of the Montgomery County Commissioners is 23 ' that somewhat' irresponsible to be so casual about this plan you are obligated to develop under State law? 25 A I don't quite understand what you are saying.

17,552 ) mm2- 1 They keep coming up with these plans, so I am 2 assuming we are going to be getting somewhat better as we 3 go along. 4 What I am saying that would be irresponsible here, 5 -is to just accept that the State will meet unmet needs without 6 any evidence to that effect. 7 Q That is why I asked you if you had read Annex E of 8 the State Plan?

                '9        A     Well, you see, plans -- you can show me a stack of 10  papers that go from here to the ceiling, aid they don' t mean a II thing if you don't really have something behind them.

I2 That is why I was so upset about these letters to

              . 13  the school districts "where, supposedly,ewry:hing is all in

- Id line. But then when I talk to the people at the school districts, 15 no, it is another story. They either haven't heard it or they 16 misunderstood, or something else. I7 So, just simply having a plan, unless you can go 18 through that and really hare a sense that it means something, I' that,it is not just a phonebook sitting there, just a stack of 20 paper doesn't mean anything. So, I am working from what I 21 have to deal with and looking into something, checking that 22 out. 23 Now,1if that checks out and everything is fine, then j 24

7. will be somewhat reassured. But, if I ask a question and I'm

m nesme=s, Inc.

25 not satisfied with the answer then I get, then I am encouraged l' '~ -

17,553 mm3  ; to go on and question more. 2 And so far I haven't been that encouraged by what 3 I've seen,-or been that impress 5d that I am going to accept ' (:) i that much more on faith. 4 5 Q Mrs. Banning, did you grade test papers as a teacher 6 of mathematics before you had had the courses in college, 4 7 yourself? f 8' A Pardon me. Actually just to be strictly -- although 1

                       .I majored in math,.I mostly taught Latin.                                                   So, it would have 9

i 10 been grading Latin papers.

i. ji Well, it is a continuing learning process, of course.

12 Q You wouldn't grade a Latin paper until you had had

() 13 the education yourself, would.you? , 34 A Of course, I wouldn't have beeh in t,he position 15 of. teacher which has a formal requirement. [16 Q Directing your attention back to the meetings that-a j7 you had witt'the Office of the Emergency Planning for Montgomery 18 County, what meetings have you had with-Mr'. Bigelow, be they

        .          19  = formal or informal meetings, other than the one you referred to 20   on Graterford Prison?

A That's the one I remember of having, -you know, 21 really, the most substance that-I can remember. This is what 22 23 it was about. 24 With other meetings,', I don't think there really

  - nope,=,s, Inc.

~ 25 have been too many. There was one.where I just met-with him

i 17,554 l l mm4 l I informally when he was just being hired, and then I think a lot 2 of the time he has just been trying to learn the job. 3 You mean the only meeting you had with Mr. Bigelow 0 4 was the meeting before he was confirmed? 5 A No. I met with him at that point, and he was 6 present for the meeting about the Graterford, and I just don't 7 have a clear impression.. I am sure that we have met several 8 other times at meetings in the Board room, but right now I don't i have a sense of what went on at those meetings.as having, you 10 know, the kind of substance that sticks out in your mind. U We have a lot of meetings that are forgettable, and 12 these must have just come unddr that category. I don' t remember

                   ~~
'                        13  j.eally having some real substance that stick in my mind from it.

Id Do you think the radiological emergency planning for Q 15 Montgomery County is important or unimportant?. 16 A Oh, I think it is very important. I7 In your testimony you say that you corresponded with Q 18 Mr.Bigelow?

                         "        A      Well, you see --

20 0 But you didn't call him in to have any meeting or 21 discuss something directly, is that correct? . 22 His office, of course, is at the A That is correct. 23 Bunker, which is some six or'seven miles away from the courthouse, and I certainly would not want to impose on Ase-Federes Reponers, Inc. 25 You people's time, particularly as a minority Commissioner. 1 m.

17,555 mm5 I don't have a royal court, you know. And I don' t really like to 2 put people out to come to my office, if it is unnecessary. 3 And in this, frankly, I really wanted to have the 4 documentation as to precisely what it was. It was more 5 helpful to me to have a copy. I think I asked for a copy of 6 the letter that he had sent out, and then I certainly have 7 no objection to talking to Mr. Bigelow. But, if you want to 8 be assured just what happened, of course it is always better "9 to have it in writing. 10 0 Is that your practice, any time you discuss any

                         "    matter with anybody.who works for Montgomery County Government 12 is you put it in writing?

k 13 A No, it isn't. Because a lot of times I am not I# trying to document something. It is primarily when I am 15 concerned about something and I do want to be precise. 16 If you just go on the basis of oral conversations, 17 even if you take notes on them, it is always possible to, you 18 know, not be entirely accurate, or, you know, fair to someone. l So I do try, if there is an issue that I think there is'a 20 problem, that I do try to get it in writing as much as possible, 21 I assume that is the reason then, that you never c Q 22 telephoned Mr. Bigelow or a member of his staff to discuss 23

                             ~~anyth~ing, if~that'is-true?

24 l A Well, I don't really know that as yet I have had 25

something that that would have been helpful, a question where l

l _ _ _ _ . - - . . . . _ _. _- . _ _ . _ . . . _ . _ . _ . - . . - _ - _ _ - . - . . _ . - . ~ - -

17,556 mm6 1 that would have been more helpful than getting this in writing, 2 what I wanted. 3 Obviously, when he came in for it -- I guess we must 4 have had something on the budget. You know, you talk about 5 things there and how are things going and all.

                           'O                                                 Doesn't that strike you as a little casual to Q                                                                                                                                                       >

7 discuss things as important as emergency planning? 8 A What do you mean casual? 9 Just to discuss it as a sidebar, side issue at a Q 10 budget meeting?

                          "               A                                  Well, I think to some extent you might say                                                    that in 12 government you do have the priorities as to what is it that-you 13    are going to have a full-dress meeting on, and what is.it that Id    you are going to be leading up to a full-dress meeting?

215 It is my impression at..this point - that we haven' t I6 reached thtpoint yet. There is.no sense in us devoting four I7 hours, say, to going through a plan that still has incomplete l

                        '18    . areas in it, or questions.

I' I am assuming that this is something, and I sympathiz e l 20 with the job - it is a dif ficult thing, I really do - 'I 21 sympathize.with the job of trying to come up with a plan that , hg - 22 is sensible. .And I think it is'something that has to take a 23 -certain" amount of time to" develop. 24 Now, as yet, it simply-is not developed to the point 25 that I think it is anywhere near acceptable. And so I don' t i:

                             ~

f

     - - . 4 . - , -- .        . . _ . . , - . _ - _ . - - _ _ , - - - .               ..,_m...._. ..-, , - , . . , - - - ,, _ , . _ _ . - -.      __...-r,..m,-_

                                                                                                )

17,557 mm7 I know what other hearings we would be supposed to have. 2 Now what else -- I mean, obviously I can only speak 3 for myself, but as yet the Commissioners have not had it on 4 the agenda, which I assume means that therefore, Mr. Bigelow 5 and his staff don't feel.that this is ready to be evaluated 6 by the Commissioners. 7 Q To clarify this point, are you making that statement 8 based upon your position as a minority member? Is that why 9 you personally don't provide leadership to bring this plan 10 forward? II A I think that is probably a fair -- to bring it 12 forward, you mean to bring forward in discussion? p b 13 Q To develop a plan, to meet the requirements of i' I4 Pamphlet Law 1332? 15 A Quite obviously it would be impossible for the 16 Commissioners as individuals to develop the plan. I ~ mean,-we 17 I am assuming that Mr. Bigelow and his staff wouldn't. . 18 are spending quite a bit of their time on this. I' It would be . impossible for t;he Commissioners as i

                       '20   individuals to do it. I mean,'that's why we have a staff to do 21       So we certainly could not individually do it.

it. 22 The best I think that we can do is try to review

                        '23  their work and make judgments on it.                               I 24 As r.s res n ponen, inc.

Q I want to make sure we understand each other and 25 haven't mixed up two points here.

17,558 mm8 , I A All right. 'You asked me about minority Commissioner. 2 Well, yes, there has been a few times when the majority have O ' 1eze = ove=1 9 edoue, e11, 1e vou =e te o 11 ee=1=e, so 4 ahead and do it. And I have, and they have been mortally 5 offended. So, I really do have to work with them as best I 6 can. 7 If you were a majority Commissioner -- Q 8 A Ah, then there would be a whole different story. 9 That is such an iffy question, I don't really think it is worth 10 going into, although I would love to. II Q Would you consider it your duty then to provide 12 leadership to develop an emergency plan to comply with the State Os 13 law? , I4 A Oh, absolutely, would you have heard from me then. 15 Much more so. 16 Q But your answers previously have been based upon I7 the fact that you happen to be the minority Commissioner? 18 And as the minority Commissioner, basically I must A I' deal with what is here, and voicing criticisms -- I mean, I 20 told the press I can't believe where they have been. I mean, !r . 21 there would be some things in there that would be, I would 22 think -- you know, that they would have picked up as newsworthy, 23 even-if it is of a funny sort of a nature or so forth, to go 24 through. .And pointing out things that were, I felt wrong. m n oo,=rs, inc. 25 You know, as an example not to include the Pottstown

                ,u..           ._c-

_ _._._- - .- .. m- .. --.;. ~ m .. 17,559 l- mm9 I Expressway, which is the only four-lane divided highway in 2 4 Western Montgomery County,-nowhere used in the evacuation. 1 O ' 1

• ve voi tea out tai =e 1e e the v erv1=e to 4 stir up public interest in it. I mean, I am afraid that is i

5 part of my role. But, unfortunately, it is generally an uphill 6 fight. You do your best. 7 I'm sorry, I'm going too fast. - 8 You do your best to try to get'the public interested i 9 in these things which affect them. And,_you are successful 10 to some extent, but never as successful as you would like to be. II Sure, if I were the majority, there were many 12 issues that I would have been carrying on much more forcibly.

     .O                   -

I3 But, inasmuch as i cannot speak for the majority, since I am N not the majority, I am very careful to indicate that I am 15 speaking for myself, as minority Commissioner. ,. 16 Q Going back to your familiarization efforts, have l I7 you ever met with any officials.of the Commonwealth, the State 18 Government, PEMA, Mr. Hippert,for example, to discuss the I' Montgomery County Emergency Plan? 20 3 yo, i 21 As I said there were a number of people who were 22 there. I think there was a Mr. Patten was at that meeting.

                         ~23             -At the Graterford meeting?

Q A At the Graterford meeting. And that was an As p m.,as neo ,=., inc. 5

opportunity also to speak informally after their formal l

i l I

17,560-mml0 . I presentation of their plan with, you know, PEMA, FEMA or 2 whatever. 3 But no. And I again think that this has been -- you 4

         ~

have to have a plan that has reached a certain level of 5 competence and, thoroughness before I think it is really worth . t

                    .O spending that kind of time on it.                    ,

7 I mean, if obviously the escape -- the evacuation 8 routes are going to be redrawn, I mean I had made mention of I the Pottstown Expressway last summer. This plan came out 10 subsequent to a general use of a part of it by local people. '- II Well, come within a month or two, the balance of it 12 I believe will be completed. Actually, the part that is not

     ~

13 coinpleted now really is right around the Limerick Plant. ' So , I4 I doubt that it will really be used one way or the other. 15 But, I think all-this will have to be redrawn. I6 Well, there is no point,.in my mind, to going-to I7 PEMA or FEMA and saying, look at the way they have mapped out 18 the evacuation route, if they are going to be changing it in

                  ~

the next document. 20 As I understand your answer, when you said no'in Q 21 your recent answer, it was in the context as I understood it -- _O 22 and correct n.e if I am wrong -- that other than the meeting on

                  '23   Graterford, you'had had no meetings with State officials?

24 g

                                            ~

I don' t think so'. And ~ forgive me if I have met them m nepor=r Inc. and I have forgotten it. I meet a lot of people. Sometimes i

17,561 mmll. I I meet them for-a second and third time and I didn't remember 2 it. But I don't really remember that. It could well be that -- 3 now let's see. I get some of these regulatory agencies -- I

                ~4   think the NRC might have had some hearings in Pottstown on 5  something or other.

8 I have been to some of them. I may have met with 7 some of these people then. While you are waiting your turn, you 8 chitchat. But, I haven't called them and made an appointment to discuss it. No. 10 Q You just referred to NRC hearings in Pottstown. U I don't know whetheer you mean meetings, again, or 12 formal hearings such as this one, which have indeed occurred 13 at Pottstown a couple of years ago. M A No, I don't mean whatever happened in '73. 15 We have had DRVC and we have had ' PUC, and I must say 16 sometimes after a bit exactly which hearing it.was blurs in I7 my. mind. 18 I do n' t know if the NRC had - any hearings up there

that I may have attended or not.

20 0 Is it. fair to say that if you had any meetings with. 2I ' Federal or other State officials than the Graterford Prison 'O 22 meeting, that it didn't particularly give you any great 23 experience-in the knowledge about emergency planning? A It wouldn't have been anything significant, no. 7 25

                          .O     Have you ever met with the fellow Commissioners L

J 17,562 mm12 I from Chester or Berks County to determine the progress that 2 those counties are making in their emergency plans? (} 3 A No, I haven't. I have never had occasion to sit , 4 down with the Berks County Commissioners. 5 We do get together with the Commissioners from 6 Bucks and Chester and Delaware Counties from time to time. 7 So any conversaticn would be of an informal nature. 8 I don't remember this having been on a formal 9 agenda,'although we do meet -- whether'it is.on SEPTA or with 10 I do not the Mayor about other matters of regional interest. II set the agenda. 12 As I understand your meeting though, you do not Q O 13 recall any meetings with those individuals involving emergency - i- ' I4 planning? 15 No, not just on that. A 16 The subject may have come up incidently in I7 conversation. 18 Q How about meeting with Mr. Fonash from Bucks ' l' i County? ! 20 A Well, of course, I have seen him frcm time to time, 21 but we haven't had a formal meeting of the Commissioners of () 22 both counties to discuss this. 23 How many discussions have you had with Mr. Fonash f 0 l. 24 involving emergency planning, if any, say in the last year? 25 l

                                            .A                      I'm sorry, did you say meetings, or conversations?

l l

• e

17,563 mm13 I Q Either. 2 A. I really wouldn't hazard a guess. It would have 3 been an incidental kind of thing. ( }. 4 Q Okay. 5 Mrs. Banning, didn't you join with the Delaware 6 Water Emergency Group, LEA, Mrs. Zitzer and others in 7 appealing a decision of the Del, aware River Basin Commission 8 which granted the authority for Point Pleasant to be constructed

                      '9  and operated, which would provide water, among other things, 10 for Limerick?

II A I think I have been involved in two. suits; one with 12 the -- was that the Delaware Emergency Group, or whatever it nd T21 13 was called. - 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

                    '21 22 23 l

24 , Am-Fasers n pomes, Inc. l 25 i l

     ,    a.  -      _.             .       :            . u.          . :... .:.- -.        :- - - :-.-       ..

nations- l CsR21552 I

  #22-mn-1                                O     I can show you copies of the brief if you want to 2

to see them. A I have them at home. There were two, yes. If that is there, I am sure it is correct. 5 g would you like to see these? 0 A If you want to pass them over. 7 g I am simply trying to refresh your recollection. 8 A There were two different suits as I recall 9 and there have been some appeals. One was appealed and 10 finally was finished and the other one, I think that it 11 has run'its course in its appeal, too. MS. ZITZER: Excuse,me for interrupting. If you 13 are going to have further questions on them, I would like Id to request that you give the witness a copy of them. 15 If you don't have further questions, I don't think it is 16

                              .necessary.

I MR. CONNER: I simply want to clarify that the 18 l witness, in fact, participated in these two proceedings and 19 appeals but I would rather if the witness does not need it 20 I think it will save a lot of time. 21 g THE WITNESS: I am perfectly happy to say that 22 there were several such suits in which I was a party, yes. 3

BY MR. CONNER

(Resuming) 24

( hFederal Reporters, its 0 Opposing Point Pleasant and the Limerick Plant? 25 A Yes. That is putting it in a general fashion. I

17,565 mn22-2 1 think that in some of the earlier ones there were points 2 raised that the Delaware River Basin Commission hadn't -- 3' some of the earlier concerns that I had expressed was that

    /}

4 we should have a better environmental impact study which 5 wasn't done and so forth. But, yes, substantially. 6 0 Those appeals were taken to federal district court 7 in each case to the third circuit court of appeals in each 8 case and to the United States Supreme Court in the one 9 before Judge Giles which was the appeal from the Corps 10 of Engineers and other agencies' actions. Does that 11 refresh your recollection? 12 A Without looking at the documents I couldn't say

   ,/m
   ?    )

13 exactly where they went and before'whom. It was some time 14 ago but I know that appeals were taken, I believe in both 15 cases. 16 G You were a party plaintiff or appellant in all of l 17 those cases? 18 A Yes. 19 G Perhaps to simplify this, in what other cases l 20 if any that you can recall such as before the State PUC 7 21 or anything like that have you actively opposed licensing (#) 22 or permitting action against Limerick? 23 MS'. ZITZER: Objection. That hasn' t been established,. 24 I would prefer that Mr. Conner identify the suits in reference Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 because it is my recollection that they refer to the permittinc

l 17.,566 mn22-3 _ 1 action relating to the Point Pleasant Pumping Station and 2 they do not specifically I believe relate to permitting 3 directly for the Limerick Generati Station for which 4 Philadelphia Electric was the applicant. I would like 5 Mr. Conner to correct me if I am wrong and then I would 6 withdraw my objection, but I do not believe that they were 7 specifically addressed to the Limerick Generating Station 8 as opposed to the Point Pleasant Pumping Station permitting 9 process. 10 MR. CONNER: I submit the witness is intelligent. 11 She understands these cases perhaps better than Ms. Zitzer 12 and I am endeavoring to stay within the short time limits 13 with the possib,le hope that Mrs. Banning could be excused 14 tonight. But if we go through this the' formal way I will ~ 15 have to go 'hrough t numerous agencies and cases and permits 16 and I think in an effort to save time is all I am doing is 17 asking tne lady what particular cases she has opposed 18 Limerick'in.and we have been very successful on the first 19 five cases, two in federal court, two in the third circuit 20 and one in.the Supreme Court. 21 MS. ZITZER: LEA's objection is to the characteriza-(D V _22 tion that that was opposition to Limerick as opposed to the 23 specific. caption,of.the litigation which refers to the 24 permitting actions relating to the Point Pleasant Pumping m noso,im, inc. 25 Station.

                                                                                                                                                                                              - 17,567                            )

l I mn22-4 I 1 My concern is I believe that Mr. Conner is 2 inaccurately characterizing it as litigation directly 3 regarding the Limerick Generating Station and I think 4 tnat he can clarify that rather simply. I belie've he is 5 mischaracterizing that litigation which was related to the 6 permitting process for the water project known as the 7 Point Pleasant Pumping Station. 8 I have no objection to more time if Mr. Conner 9 needs it to clarify this but I object to the characterization 10 that is being made. 11 JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Conner, I guess we had better 12 go the long way around. 13 MR. CONNER: All right.- . 14 BY MR. CONNER: (Resuming) 15 G, Let me do this first. Have you ever made any

                 .16          appearance, complaint, written any' letter, appeared before
                                                       ~

17 the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission opposing any 18 action sought by the Philadelphia Electric Company in 19 relation to the Limerick case? 20 A Well, I have appeared before the PUC and I believe 21 perhaps written some' letters or testimony in the question of 22 the CWIP matter, the payment or allowing to put on the rate 23 base-construction work in progress or whatever the terms 24 for that was. I.did oppose that. m neew w .,Inc. , 25 Now that to the degree that it was opposing putting

            - .       ,-,w-,,     -,ys..y..w-,-,-,,,---w,,...-,-,.-.----c...,...         -,-,,-%,,,.-----.,v-,-           c-.--e , ,   ,a ~ -, ,,w--.-..- . - - - - - - , - - . - - - , . . - . , , , - - . , - . . - - - ,

_ __ . ~ . . . . . m._ ._- _ _ . . _ . - _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ - - _ .- 17,$68 mn22-5 1 the money spent on Limerick in the rate base before Limerick j l 2 was used and useful, whatever the terms are, I was involved 3

   '(])                            in that.

4 G All right. Any others to your memory? 5 A. Before the PUC, that is what sticks out in my mind 6 most clearly. There have been other -- I think that there 7 have been several. I would really have to go and review 9 my book as to exactly where I went but I know that there 9 was that and I think there hasbeen more than one hearing 10 held but I would really have to review the record. But 11 it is generally having to do with at least my testimony

                                                  ~

12 having to do with the economic impact of Limerick and . O- 13 particularly as far as the CWIP matter. 14 G Now directing your attention to the Pennsylvania 15 Department of Environmental Resources, are you aware of i 16 various water permits that have been sought and granted by 17 that state agency for various aspects of Point Pleasant and i 18 the Limerick plant? 19 A I have been aware as we have gone along with the 20 DER's role or at least the role of some of the people from 21 DER who have been on DRBC. 22 g Within the same context I asked the previous 1 23 question, have you made any appearances or filed any papers, 24 et cetera, in opposition to the Limerick and Point Pleasant Aspeds,si meno,w,i, Inc. 25 plants in that connection? - L

17,569 mn22-6 1 A I have opposed the procedures that they were 2 following. I felt really short circuiting some of the 3 proper procedures of granting permits, I felt that they 4 should have had a full EIS rather than whatever procedures 5 DRBC granted earlier and have given testimony before 6 a number of hearings to this effect. 7 The Limerick involvement is there obviously but 8 I think that the main thing has been the impact on 9 Montgomery County of the water. I have been concerned 10 that it would induce excessive growth and be an essentially 11 unreliable source of water. Of course, the consumptive use 12 of water by the Limerick plant has been a concern of mine, ()- 13 also. . 14 G I want to go back to the PUC for just a moment. 15 You were not a member of the Montgomery County Board of 16 Commissioners prior to 1980, is that correct? 17 A That is correct. 18 G Are you aware that the Montgomery County Board of 19 Commissioners in approximately 1933 opposed the granting of . 20 a permit for the Limerick plant before the state PUC7 21 A Did you say 1933 or 19737 22 O Seventy-three. If I said '33, it is only because 23 I - think this case has been going on that long. 24 A Well, you don't look like you have been there since , woe ,w noe,wn, Inc. 25 '33. Yes. b

i 17,570 mn22-7  : 1 g All right. Now what is the connection, I am trying 2 again to save going through a lot of documents, do you

 .( )                   understand that Point Pleasant provides a source of 4

providing supplemental water from the Delaware River to the 5 Limerick plant as well as to provide certain water supplies 6 to Montgomery County.? 7 A Yes. 8' l 0 Was that the subject matter involved in those federal 9 court suits that I discussed earlier? 10 A The diversion -- here is where I should properly 11 look at precisely what it was and so forth and it may take a 12

  'd
     -)               wnile because in at least one of these instances what I 13 confined my concerns to the effect on Montgomery County.

14 So you have a whole lot of things in that. I am not saying 15 what priority anybody else should give to them, but I as a , 16 cnamissioner in Montgomery County was not going to be arguing 17 on the health of the Delaware River necessarily. I was more 18 concerned with what was the impact of this water and how 19 reliable was it a source for Montgomery County and so on. 20 So you have a lot of contentions, a lot of grounds

  ,}

in those cases which were presented by other people. So I Yl 22 would really have to review it in some detail to say precisely 23 waat it was I was arguing on that point. 24 w, ,, w, 0 I will here hand you several documents, the first 25 is captioned and this is only the cover page. I offer it only

17,571 mn22-d 1 for that purpose and all of this is to refresh your recollection. 2 It need not be in the record. This is in the Eastern 3 District of Pennsylvania, United States District Court, 4 Civil Action 80-4372 which shows that the plaintiffs are 5 Delaware Water Emergency Group and others including Rita 6 Banning and Phyllis Zitzer, Plaintiffs, versus Gerald M. 7 Hansler, individually and as executive director of the 8 Delaware River Basin Commission and the Delaware River Basin 9 Commission, Defendants, complaint for injunction and declara-10 tory judgment. 11 (Previously referenced document supplied to the 12 witness.) g) (_ 13 I will next show you the same caption i,n th6 United 14 States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, number 81-2682, 15 which is the brief for appellants, November 10, 1981 and 16 provide this simply to refresh your recollection as to your 17 participation opposing the action of the DRBC in that case. 18 I am offering you only the brief because I think 19 that will refresh your . recollection and the cover page 20 of the complaint only because that identifies the parties. 21 A Yes. [)\ s_ 22 0 I would then offer you in a similar way the 23 caption .for "In the Matter of a case in the United States 24 District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania," Am-F.e.,e neon,w,i, sac. 25 civil action 82-5115 with plaintiffs Del-Aware Unlimited, Inc.

17,572 mn22-9 1 and several other people including the Honorable Rita C. 2 Banning and the Honorable Carl Fonash versus Roger Baldwin (~'), 3 and I am going to characterize this and if there is any w 4 correction make it, Roger Baldwin, individually and as the 5 nead of the Corps of Engineers, Gerald M. Hansler, as the 6 director of the Delaware River Basin Commission, Harold 7 Denton, individually as director of the division of nuclear 8 reactor regulation improperly stated U. S., Secretary Duncan 9 of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources 10 and various other people including the Philadelphia Electric 11 Company. 12 This is a class action complaint for declaratory g , YJ* 13 judgment and injunctive relief. 14 (Previously referenced documents supplied to 15 the witness.) 16 A Yes. 17 G I will then show you the appeal in that same case 18 in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 19 docket number 83-1010 with the same caption and here again 20 is the brief for the appellants which includes the Honorable 21 Rita Banning. (g)

 ' ~ '

22 (Previously referenced document supplied to the 23 witness.) 24 G That is dated March 1, 1983. Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 Finally, I will hand you the petition for writ of

17,573 an22 Writ of Certiorari from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the Supreme Court of the United se t - == ' r 83-74o, octeu r ter 1983

 ~O                                                            a tea         ita r 10/1/83 or November 3, 1983, both dates appearing and stamped 5

in at the top.of the page. I will ask you if these are the proceedings that 7 I referred.to that you participated in and ask you to examine 8 them and state if I properly characterized the relationship

              -9 of that proceeding involving the Point Pleasant source of 10 water for the Limerick Plant?

11 (Previously. referenced document supplied to the 12 witness.) 13 ' A Well, there we're.two separate ones. The focus of 14 the earlier one was as I recall dealing'with really the 15 procedures that were not followed by DRBC and going along with. 16 that in particular. 17 G I am sorry. 18 A Maybe I didn't understand what question you asked. O Mrs. Zitzer objected to make sure that this'was 20 properly characterized. I am going to suggest that since we 21 presumably cannot finish tonight, that you take them home and

 ~ '

22 we will simply drop this until you have had a chance to "3 refresh your' recollection and we will try'to clarify it in 24

        %, ,     the morning.

25 A Are you calling an end here or did you want me to

                                                                      - - - - _ . . . . . _ _ . . ~ . .

17,574 mn22-11 1 respond? 2 4 No. 3 ('N) A I think that her objection which was properly so 4 was that it is not accurate to characterize these as anti-5 Limerick cases. I think the point was that these had to do with primarily the Point Pleasant diversion and, of course, 7 PE is involved in it but that was not to say that this was 8 an anti-Limerick or anti this per se,. That is not entirely 9 correct. IO 4 Are you suggesting that if your concerns expressed 11 in these two court actions we have just talked about 12

       ,s                         were resolved that you would not be opposed to the Limerick 13 plant getting its operating license to operate in Montgomery I#

County? 15 A If these issues with Point' Pleasant were resolved 16

I would then have no objection to the plant on the grounds I7 l of its using water consumptively that is a problem. I would 18 have some problema on the grounds of its economic impact on 19 southeastern Pennsylvania --

4 . 20 G How about emergency -- I am sorry. 21 A

                                                                -- and I do have some questions on emergency
   .(      --            22 planning and I have also expressed some concerns about tne
                       - 23 dealing with the hazardous waste.                                                       But that would be the 24 as.-Fasersi n.porme , inc. issue of th9 water would, of course, disappear.

i 25 4 Mrs. Banning, if the responsible officials of say

17,575 mn22-12 1 the Federal Emergency Management Agency, PEMA and the other 2 state agencies that might be appropriate such as the a

      )                 Bureau of Radiological Protection and the responsible local 4

emergency planners all concluded that the Montgomery County 5 emergency plan met the requirements of Annex E of the 6 Pennsylvania Emergency Planning and the federal document 7 that I referred to called NUREG-0654, would you accept the 8 opinion of these experts and vote for adoption of the plan 9 or would you oppose it? (Time signal sounded.) 11 A. If I may say, I have had some unfortunate 12 experiences along these lines. We had an X-ray machine 13 blow up when it wa5 teste.d by radiological health of I# Pennsylvania and'they promptly sent a letter saying, 15

                        " Congratulations. We find that this meets our standards."

16 I wrote a letter saying, "How can you say this thing that l ' 17 blew up and shorted out meets your standards?" Well, Mr. 18 Whats-his-name said that if it were fixed, he was sure that 19 it would. . 20 Now having had that kind of experience, I can't 21 say that just because these agencies would say yes that I would necessarily take their word for it. JUDGE HOYT: Mr. Conner, we have reached the first 24 nour of your cross-examination. I think you heard the beeper g 25 go off. Is this a good time to adjourn?

mn22-13 17,576 1 MR. CONNER: Yes. I have at least as much as I 2 have now. It depends on the answer to the question tomorrow

    ~                      3  but as I suspected, it is necessary to go into involved (3l v

4 answers here so I will at least need this much tLue. So, yes, s 5 this as good a time as any. 6 JUDGE HOYT: Very well. Commissioner Banning, before 7 we adjourn I have just two things. What is a minority 8 commission? 9 .THE WITNESS: I would be glad to explain. The

                        .10   counties in Pennsylvania except for a few of them who have 11   become home rule and therefore they might have councils 12"  more like a town and draw up their own constitution so-to-f^4

(,_) 13 speak have the form of three commissioners who in effect are l l . L 14 the administrative, the executive of the county. 15 Now no party may nominate for'this officev these 16 offices, more than two. 17 JUDGE HOYT: It is political? 18 THE WITNESS: It is political, yes. So it would l 19 theoretically be possible to have one Republican, one 20 Democrat and one American Socialist of something but in 21 practice in Montgomery County it means that you have two 22 Republicans and one Democrat. 23 JUDGE HOYT: I don' t want to explore that one. 24 - The other thing I wanted to advise you is that you understand ' Aco-Federal Reporters, Inc. 25 that' this is the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

17,577 mn22-14 1 Board that you are testifying before and this is a federal 2 proceeding. You mentioned earlier that you had testified j 3 before so many that you didn't remember which one was which. 4 I,just wanted to tell you who we were. END#22 5 6 7 . 8 9

                    '10                                                  .

11 , 12 (fs 3 ~ i,- ,) . 13 . 14 15 16 17 l 18 l 19 20 21 22

• 23 24 l Moderal Reporters, Inc.

25 l l 4

REE 17,578 Taka 23 Pr_ga 1 CR 21552 1/8/85 1 THE WITNESS: I was aware who you were, 2 your Honor. 3 JUDGE HOYT: (v~') Then I think we can adjourn for 4 this evening and meet tomorrow morning at 9:00 o' clock. 5 You have your witnesses, whatever you want 6 to do with your time tomorrow, Miss Zitzer, 7 MS. ZITZER: Your Honor, Mrs. Banning is the 8 only witness scheduled tomorrow. 9 JUDGE HOYT: We might have a day off then. 10 MS. ZITZEP: I, apologize. I discussed with U the parties, if I could get Mr.,Whitlock here without g_q a subpoena, could we take him up following Commissioner i

    ~'      13 Banning. He was one of the witnesses I brought up I4  yesterday.

15 JUDGE HOYT: You noted on the copy I had, i 16 Miss Zitzer, that you wanted all these witnesses I7 rescheduled for Tuesday, January 15. 18

                  ,       MS. ZITZER:  I apologize to the parties for I9 the lag in hearing time, if that results. There is nothing 20 that I can do at this point.

2I JUDGE HOYT: Do you have any matters to put on 22 aftar we finish with this witness tomorrow? 23 MR,' CONNER: We have completed.on anything 24 g we can do until we reach a phase of rebuttal testimony. 25 And we don't know what that would be yet.

17,579 REE 23/2 I JUDGE HOYT: Very well. See what you can do, 2 Miss Zitzer. 3 MS. ZITZER: [O i Mr. Whitlock is a school teacher 4 and when he didn't get served last night, he didn't 5 take the day off, so I won't be able to call him tomorrow. 6 Can I -- this doesn't have to be on the 7 record, if we still all. 8 JUDGE HOYT: We'll take it all on the record. 9 MS. ZITZER: I just wanted to get the address IU of the hearing location for next Tuesday so I am sure

                        "   that it is properly noted on the subpoena, because it is 12 a change of locat. ion.
     '~>                13 JUDGE HOYT:   Well, it is the Holiday Inn Midtown, 14 Walnut Street, 13th and Walnut.

15 MS. ZITZER: Do we have a particular hearing room? I0 JUDGE HOYT: Yes, we do. ! It is the floor -- 17 I cannot recall. My best recollection is that it is the 18 9th, but I am not certain of that.

                        "              I have asked the hotel to put it on their 20 bulletin board downstsirs so that it will be advertised 21 as to where.
       #               22 MS. ZITZER:   I might be able to call that

23 and get that informat' ion so I can tyne it on.

24

Ace-Federd Reporters, Inc.

Thank you. JUDGE HOYT: Anything else?

17,580 REE 23/3 I (No response.) 12 Miss Banning, we will excuse you for 3 this evening and thank you. 4 We'll expect you tomorrow morning at 9:00 5 o' clock. That will give you time to examine those 6 documents.- 7 (Thereupon, at 5:15 p.m. , the hearing was 8 recessed, to reconvene at 9:00 o' clock a.m., Wednesday, END 23 9 January 9, 1985.) 10 11 12 13 . L 14 L 15 16 17 18 19 20

    -                 21

' \- 22 23 24 Aenderes n porters, Inc. l 25 i L

2 CEltTIFICATE OF OFFICIAL REPORTER This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION in the matter of: NAME OF PROCIEDING: Philadelphia Electric Company f'J '*" "* * " " ""**"" ***** " Units 1 and 2 DOCKET NO.: 50-352-OL and 50-353-OL

• PLACE: '

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania . DAM: January 8, 1935 were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript theraof for the file of the United States Nuclear , Regulatory Commissiog. , i .-

                                                                            }Siirt). fol# m    a   $$L    _ __ m (TYPED) Rebscca g. Eyster, Mimie Meltzer,

' Marilynn Nations Official Reporter . Reporter's Affiliation , Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc. e

                                                                                              =
                                             ~

lV e #

  % v   r.w -

a w+ew----, w = - - emMwww^ +**}}